The case concerns the United States Department of Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination in the 2015 administrative review of a countervailing duty order on off-the-road tires from China. After a prior remand, Commerce removed the subsidy rate for the Export Buyer’s Credit Program and recalculated the duty rate for Guizhou Tyre Co. and related companies to 29.44 percent. The court sustained this redetermination, finding it compliant with the remand order and supported by substantial evidence on the record, with no party objecting to the outcome.
This case involves a challenge by CP Kelco US, Inc., a domestic manufacturer of xanthan gum, to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping duty investigation on xanthan gum from China. The U.S. Court of International Trade, following a mandate from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sustains Commerce's third redetermination of the dumping margin for the Chinese producers. The court upholds Commerce's treatment of Xanthomonas campestris as an asset rather than a direct material input and its use of Thai Ajinomoto financial statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios, as these decisions were affirmed or reinstated by the appellate court. The resulting dumping margin for the respondents is 8.69%.
This case involved a challenge by Chinese tire manufacturers to the U.S. Department of Commerce's countervailing duty determination on off-the-road tires imported from China. Commerce had initially applied adverse facts available after concluding that it could not verify the companies' claims of non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, but on remand it determined based on customer declarations and other record evidence that the plaintiffs had not used the program. The court sustained Commerce's remand redetermination, finding that the record sufficiently demonstrated non-use and that Commerce had not identified a verifiable gap in the evidence that would justify an adverse inference. The decision rests on the statutory requirements for applying adverse facts available under U.S. trade law and the adequacy of the evidence provided by the respondents.
This case concerns a challenge by Chinese tire producers to the U.S. Department of Commerce's countervailing duty determination on off-the-road tires imported from China during 2015, specifically regarding subsidies under the Export Buyer’s Credit Program and alleged distortion in the domestic synthetic rubber market. The court upheld Commerce’s conclusion that the synthetic rubber market was not distorted, citing evidence of significantly higher import penetration compared to the prior year. However, the court found that Commerce lacked substantial evidence to apply adverse facts available against the plaintiffs for alleged use of the Export Buyer’s Credit Program, because no adequate gap existed in the record after the plaintiffs submitted non-use declarations from U.S. customers. The court therefore remanded the EBCP issue for Commerce to attempt verification of those declarations using available tools while sustaining all other aspects of the agency’s redetermination.
The case concerned a challenge to the Department of Commerce's scope ruling on whether Lyke Industrial Tool's cupwheels fell within the scope of an antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts from China. Commerce had determined the cupwheels were outside the order based on their physical characteristics and uses under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) factors, but the court found this analysis incomplete because it left unanswered questions about segment attachment and thickness relative to the core. The court remanded the matter, holding that the (k)(1) sources did not definitively answer the scope question and requiring Commerce to conduct a full inquiry using the (k)(2) factors. The decision emphasized that Commerce must provide a reasoned explanation connecting facts to its conclusions when proceeding under the regulatory framework.
This case involves a challenge by Chinese tire manufacturers to the Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of countervailing duties on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires from China for 2014. After an initial remand, Commerce adjusted its calculations for ocean freight benchmarks and a VAT program but reaffirmed its use of adverse facts available (AFA) regarding the Export Buyer's Credit Program, claiming gaps in the record due to non-cooperation by the Chinese government. The court holds that Commerce's revised explanation still fails to identify a verifiable gap in the record or demonstrate why verification of non-use declarations is impossible, violating 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. As a result, the court remands the AFA determination for further reconsideration consistent with the statute and prior order.