CVD Petitioner Challenges Lack of Countervailability Finding on Indian Import Duty Exemption
The Commerce Department improperly came to the conclusion that Indian exporter Balkrishna Industries didn't use, or benefit from, India's Advanced Authorization Scheme in the 2021 countervailing duty review on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued in a Nov. 28 complaint. Titan Tire said that Commerce based its finding on a "post hoc, incomplete, and cursory examination" conducted by the Indian government related to the program (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In the original CVD investigation, Commerce said that the Advanced Authorization Scheme is a countervailable export subsidy that gives import duty exemptions to Indian exporters. The agency based this finding on the Indian government's failure to show at verification that the state's Norms Committee, which reviews the "ad hoc norms used by" Balkrishna, uses an adequate procedure to ensure that Balkrishna's norms "reflect an actual consumption." Additionally, the Indian government said that it does not regularly carry out physical audits for the program.
The agency changed its tune regarding this program in the 2021 review after finding that the Indian government conducted an "examination of the inputs involved to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported product, and in what amounts," pursuant to its own regulations. The result was a 0.32% de minimis CVD rate for Balkrishna.
Titan Tire filed its complaint to argue that this finding was rooted on the Indian government's "flawed examination." The petitioner said that Commerce's allowance of the Indian government's "incomplete" examination after the period of review and "solely for the purpose of the review to satisfy the requirement of an adequate procedure to check consumption ratios and wastage rates calculated by" Balkrishna violated the law.