Pirelli Fights Voluntary Remand Motion in AD Case, Challenges CIT's Authority
The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s motion for remand in an antidumping case since it is unclear whether the court has the authority, plaintiff Pirelli Tyre Co. said in an Aug. 9 brief. Since the proposed reasoning for the voluntary remand revolves around the conduct of a company not party to the case, the court may not have the legal authority to issue such a remand, Pirelli said. Even with such authority, the remand should not be permitted since it is not necessary to achieve the U.S.'s objective and would harm Pirelli's interests, the plaintiff said (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-00115).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The remand dispute comes in a case over the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In the review, the Commerce Department tapped Shandong New Continent as the mandatory respondent, finding a zero percent dumping margin for the exporter. Following the review, CBP alerted Commerce to certain inaccuracies in SNC's reported sales prices on imports of the covered tires, prompting the Department of Justice's attempt at a voluntary remand and lift of the stay order on the case (see 2107260023).
Pirelli does, however, back the lifting of the stay, particularly after the resolution in the \U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of a related case. In China Manufacturers Alliance v. U.S., the Federal Circuit held that an adverse facts available country-wide rate can apply to cooperative respondents (see 2106100044). But, since DOJ moved for the remand to discuss the misconduct by SNC, Pirelli raised the issue of the court's authority to actually order the remand. "Given that Defendant’s Motion for Voluntary Remand has nothing to do with Pirelli, but rather a separate different company for which import entries made during the third administrative review period have already been liquidated, it is far from certain that this Court has the legal authority to grant Defendant’s Motion for Voluntary Remand," Pirelli said.
"Vigorously" opposing the remand order, the tire company also said that the remand is not needed to achieve DOJ's goals, as they can be handled through a "changed circumstances review." In fact, Commerce has used it in the past to address "alleged malfeasance by a producer-exporter subject to an antidumping duty order," and it was upheld by the Federal Circuit, Pirelli laid out. Also, since such a remand could take a "substantial amount of time," it is "simply unfair" to put the company through such a delay, especially as it is the only company to have challenged the review, Pirelli argued.