CAFC Should Reject Tire Exporters' Bid for Separate Briefs in Case on State Control Analysis
The U.S. said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject requests from exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case or, alternatively, sever the two companies' proceedings. The government said in its Nov. 16 brief that due to the "substantial overlap in the exporters' cases, dividing the record and requiring two briefs would be "inefficient" (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
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 U.S. added that while the companies said that combining their briefs would "jumble" their presentation, they don't explain why it is impossible to present their claims in a single brief. Both companies sought judicial review against the Commerce Department's determination that they both failed to rebut the presumption of state control in the 2014-15 review of the AD order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from China.
In a pair of opening briefs, the companies said that Commerce's analysis of whether a company from a non-market economy has rebutted the presumption of foreign state control was improperly applied to exporters that are minority owned by state-owned enterprises (see 2310310048).
Additionally, while Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre say waiving the briefing requirements is justified due to the business proprietary information for each company; the companies "do not explain why they would be unable to discuss each company’s BPI information effectively in a single brief, however," the U.S. said.