Skip to Content

Notice

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to a Final Court Decision

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

On October 1, 2010, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the remand redetermination made by the Department of Commerce (“Department”) pursuant to the CIT's remand of the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (“OTR tires”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). This case arises out of the Department's final determination in the antidumping duty (“AD”) investigation on OTR tires from the PRC. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road-Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008), as amended by Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 51624 (September 4, 2008) (collectively, “Final Determination”).

The Department notified the public that the final CIT judgment (See GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, Slip Op. 10-112 (Ct. Int'l Trade October 1, 2010) (“GPX III”) in this case was not in harmony with the Department's final affirmative determination in the AD investigation of OTR tires from the PRC on October 12, 2010. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony, 75 FR 62504 (October 12, 2010) (“2010 Timken Notice”). As there is now a final and conclusive decision in this case, the Department is amending its final determination with respect to the antidumping duty rate calculated for the separate rate companies.

DATES:

Effective March 23, 2015.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Medley, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4987.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In July 2008, the Department published a final determination in which it found that OTR tires from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”).[1] As part of the Final Determination, the Department calculated a margin for the separate-rate Start Printed Page 47755respondents of 12.91 percent.[2] Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (“Starbright”), its importer GPX International Tire Corporation (“GPX”), petitioners Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied and Industrial Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (collectively, “Titan”), and domestic interested party Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (collectively, “Bridgestone”), each timely challenged various aspects of the Final Determination to the CIT. The antidumping duty case was then consolidated with the companion countervailing duty case at the CIT. With regard to the antidumping duty case, among the issues raised before the Court was the valuation of wire input consumed by two of the respondent companies, Starbright and Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. (“TUTRIC”), under the factors of production methodology to calculate normal value in a non-market economy country pursuant to section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

On August 4, 2010, pursuant to the Department's request for a voluntary remand, the CIT remanded the wire input valuation issue to the Department for reconsideration or further explanation.[3] In a remand redetermination filed on September 3, 2010, the Department determined that record evidence supported using a different surrogate value for the wire input consumed by Starbright and TUTRIC in the production of OTR tires.[4] As a result of this change, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for subject merchandise produced by Starbright and exported by Starbright/GPX changed from 29.93 percent to 31.79 percent, the weighted average dumping margin calculated for subject merchandise produced and exported by TUTRIC changed from 8.44 percent to 10.08 percent, and the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for separate rate companies changed from 12.91 percent to 13.92 percent.[5] The CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination on October 1, 2010.[6] On October 12, 2010, the Department notified the public that the final CIT judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department's final affirmative determination in the AD investigation of OTR tires from the PRC.[7] Subsequently, domestic litigation over issues pertaining to the consolidated countervailing duty case continued.[8] On March 13, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued a final and conclusive decision in this case, which no party appealed.[9] Because there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final determination for the separate rate respondents.

Amended Final Determination

Since the Final Determination, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for TUTRIC and for Starbright.[10] Therefore, this amended final determination does not change TUTRIC's or Starbright's cash deposit rates. Because there is now a final and conclusive court decision with respect to the Final Determination, the revised cash deposit rate for the separate rate companies is 13.92 percent. For those separate-rate companies that do not have a superseding cash deposit rate identified in the table below, the Department will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, adjusting the cash deposit rate for the below separate-rate companies to 13.92 percent, effective March 23, 2015.[11]

ExporterProducerWeighted-average margin (percent)
Aeolus Tyre Co., LtdAeolus Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Double Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., LtdDouble Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd13.92
Jiangsu Feichi Co., LtdJiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd13.92
Oriental Tyre Technology LimitedMidland Off The Road Tire Co., Ltd13.92
Oriental Tyre Technology LimitedMidland Specialty Tire Co., Ltd13.92
Oriental Tyre Technology LimitedXuzhou Hanbang Tyres Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., LtdShandong Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd13.92
Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., LtdShandong Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd13.92
Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., LtdShandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd13.92
Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., LtdQingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., LtdQingdao Shuanghe Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., LtdShandong Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., LtdShifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., LtdWeifang Longtai Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., LtdQingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Sinorient International LtdQingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Sinorient International LtdShifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Sinorient International LtdTengzhou Broncho Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., LtdShandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., LtdShandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., LtdShandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., LtdShandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., LtdShangdong Xingda Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Start Printed Page 47756
Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., LtdXingyuan Tyre Group Co., Ltd13.92
Techking Tires LimitedShandong Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd13.92
Techking Tires LimitedShandong Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd13.92
Techking Tires LimitedShandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd13.92
Triangle Tyre Co., LtdTriangle Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., LtdWendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd13.92
Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd./Kenda GlobalKenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd13.92
Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., LtdQingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd13.92

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Start Signature

Dated: June 28, 2016.

Paul Piquado,

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

Footnotes

1.  See Final Determination.

Back to Citation

2.  Id., 73 FR at 51625.

Back to Citation

3.  See GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, Slip Op. 10-84 at *19-*20, *28 (Ct. Int'l Trade August 4, 2010) (“GPX II”).

Back to Citation

4.  See Second Remand Redetermination, GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, dated September 3, 2010, at 4-9.

Back to Citation

5.  Id. at 9-12.

Back to Citation

6.  See GPX III.

Back to Citation

7.  See 2010 Timken Notice, 75 FR 62504.

Back to Citation

8.  A summary of this litigation can be found in Certain New Pneumatic Off-the Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Corrected Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony and Corrected Notice of Amended Final Determination, 80 FR 31889 (June 4, 2015) (“2015 Timken Notice”).

Back to Citation

9.  See GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 780 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Back to Citation

10.  For Starbright/GPX, see Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 22871 (April 25, 2011). For TUTRIC, see Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 77 FR 14495 (March 12, 2012).

Back to Citation

11.  See 2015 Timken Notice; see also GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, Slip Op. 15-46 (CIT May 18, 2015).

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 2016-17308 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P