US Defends Inclusion of Exporter's Temporary-Use Tires in Scope of AD Order
The U.S. defended its decision made on remand to include exporter Cheng Shin's temporary-use (T-type) tires within the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. Responding to comments from Cheng Shin on Dec. 22 at the Court of International Trade, the government said Commerce reasonably found that Cheng Shin's tires "are of a size that fits passenger cars and, therefore, are in-scope merchandise," and additionally don't qualify for the exclusion for temporary tires (United Steel Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).
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.
Commerce initially excluded Cheng Shin's T-type tire for not meeting the size or regulatory requirements for regular service on passenger cars or light trucks. The trade court said the order unambiguously covers tires that fit passenger cars or light trucks, adding that there's clear evidence Cheng Shin's tires are of this size, since "spare tires are meant to be used on passenger cars" (see 2506090032).
On remand, the agency characterized the court's decision as ruling that the "plain language of the Order requires that inclusion in the scope hinges on the size of the tire and whether it fits passenger cars or light trucks," including Cheng Shin's tires within the scope of the order (see 2509110013). The exporter contested this result, arguing that its tires meet the temporary tire exclusion criteria.
The exclusion criteria at issue exclude from the order tires exclusively designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for passenger vehicles that have a size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall listed in various tables found in the Tire and Rim Association (TRA) Year Book. Cheng Shing argued that Commerce used the wrong TRA Year Book to assess whether the company's tires satisfied this exclusion criteria, claiming that the agency should have used the "annual updated" book, namely the 2025 TRA Year Book, instead of the 2019 Year Book.
In its response, the U.S. said the scope language doesn't require that the "updated annual TRA Year Book should be used to determine the scope" of the exclusion. Without explicit textual support, Cheng Shin argued that it's clear from context that all references to the TRA Year Book "refer back to the earlier description of the same Year Book in the initial description of what is included within the scope," and that the earlier description mentions tires that fit numerical size designations found in the TRA Year Book, "as updated annually."
The government said it's "not 'clear' that the exclusion's reference to the TRA Yearbook 'refer{s} back' to the earlier scope reference." The earlier reference to the TRA Year Book "is illustrative of in-scope merchandise and specific to sizes that fit passenger cars or light trucks," the brief said. In addition, "the scope explicitly does not require use of the updated annual TRA Year Book in determining whether a product is in-scope," the U.S. argued. The government added that the earlier reference to the TRA Year Book "as updated annually" is "merely illustrative and non-mandatory."
Lastly, the government noted that recent updates of the TRA Year Book no longer include one of the tables found in the temporary tire exclusion language. As a result, reading a requirement to use the annually updated TRA Year Book into the scope exclusion "would render express language referring to" the specific table at issue "superfluous, meaningless or surplusage," the brief said.
Cheng Shin also argued that other (k)(1) factors, namely the petition and investigation and scope rulings from the underlying AD investigation and the "petitioner's intent," confirm that the annually updated TRA Year Book should be used. The U.S. replied that the exporter relies on documents that aren't in either the remand record or the original administrative record and are thus waived.
In addition, the government said Cheng Shin's claims are "without merit." While the exporter said the petition didn't "state anywhere" that the TRA Year Book used for the exclusions should be different than the one used for in-scope merchandise determinations, the fact the petition didn't say this "does not have the effect of contradicting Commerce's determination," the brief said.
In defense of its decision to use the 2019 TRA Year Book, Commerce cited, among other things, "administrability concerns." The agency said that allowing "annual updates" to the scope exclusion language "would result in the scope of the order changing continuously and would improperly give significant authority to third parties." While Cheng Shin said these concerns "strain credulity," since the agency "admits" that the scope of the AD order "contemplates that the universe of in-scope merchandise may change over time," the government said the exporter "overstates Commerce's position."
The U.S. said the "key inquiry is whether the tire is of a size that fits a passenger car or light truck and, therefore, scope coverage is not dependent on year-to-year updates."