Commerce Adds Mandatory Respondent in Chinese AD Review After CAFC Rebuke
The Commerce Department added another respondent to the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the agency couldn't limit the review to one mandatory respondent. Tapping exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in its remand results, Commerce calculated an 18.15% dumping margin for the exporter, also leading to a recalculation of the separate AD rate, which now sits at 41.36%, down from 64.57%. The China-wide rate held steady at 87.99% (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-000069).
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.
In August 2022, the appellate court said Commerce cannot use just one mandatory respondent in AD reviews where multiple exporters have requested a review (see 2208290026). The decision reversed a Court of International Trade decision upholding the use of one respondent and said that the decision to limit respondent selection in this way cuts against the "statute's unambiguous language." It isn't otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent, the opinion added.
As a result of the opinion, the review was sent back to Commerce, where the agency tacked on Kenda as a mandatory respondent. Commerce also reviewed the other companies eligible to be picked as a second respondent -- Mayrun Tyre (Hong Kong) Limited, Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co., Winrun Tyre Co., Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co. and Shandong Linglong Tyre Co. -- and ultimately found that they didn't fit the bill. The agency said all of these exporters "did not respond to any sections of Commerce’s AD questionnaire," precluding Commerce's ability to verify their information.
After picking Kenda, Commerce's remand results detail how the company's rate was calculated. While parties to the case didn't contest the rate calculation, they did argue against the selection of another mandatory respondent and said that Commerce shouldn't have found Wanda Boto, Mayrun, Hengyu and Winrun to be part of the China-wide entity.