Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States
2017 CIT 130
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. and two affiliated Chinese producers/exporters (Cooper (Kunshan) and Cooper Chengshan) challenged Commerce’s antidumping cash-deposit rate for passenger car and light truck tires from the PRC.
- In the Amended Final Determination Commerce assigned Cooper an estimated dumping margin of 25.84% but reduced the applied cash-deposit rate to 11.12% by subtracting an export-subsidy adjustment (11.13% calculated for Cooper) and a 3.59% domestic pass-through adjustment.
- Other separate-rate respondents received an export-subsidy adjustment of 13.53%, producing a different applied cash-deposit rate for them.
- The Court in Cooper Tire held Commerce acted arbitrarily and capriciously by treating Cooper differently (using 11.13% rather than 13.53%) and ordered a remand to recalculate Cooper’s cash-deposit rate.
- On remand Commerce (under protest) recalculated Cooper’s rate using the 13.53% export-subsidy figure and produced an 8.72% cash-deposit rate, proposing prospective instructions to CBP; Cooper sought retroactive relief and an injunction to prevent liquidation.
- The parties agreed to injunction terms preventing liquidation of entries from Aug. 6, 2015 through the publication date of any Timken Notice and to CBP interest treatment; the Court found the remedial issues resolved and sustained the remand redetermination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce had a rational basis to use a lower export-subsidy adjustment for Cooper (11.13%) than for other separate-rate respondents (13.53%). | Cooper: No — treating Cooper differently was arbitrary and unlawful; Cooper should get the same subsidy adjustment as other separate-rate respondents. | Commerce/US: Defended its calculations in the original determination. | Court: Commerce lacked a rational basis; remand required and recalculation using 13.53% appropriate. |
| Whether the remand redetermination adequately corrected the cash-deposit rate. | Cooper: Agreed with recalculation to 8.72% but argued instructions must apply retroactively to give full relief. | Government: Argued retroactive application is improper absent an injunction preventing liquidation (per 19 U.S.C. §1516a(c)(1)). | Court: Remand redetermination correct on rate; remedial scope addressed via injunction agreed by parties. |
| Whether Commerce’s draft amended cash-deposit instructions could be applied prospectively only. | Cooper: Prospective-only instructions insufficient; Cooper entitled to refunds/retroactive correction for entries since Aug. 6, 2015. | Government: Without injunction, statute requires liquidation consistent with the original determination. | Court: Parties obtained an injunction covering entries from Aug. 6, 2015 through Timken Notice publication; that remedy resolves the concern. |
| Whether the court should sustain the Remand Redetermination. | Cooper: Sought full effect of remand (rate recalculated and refunds). | Government/USW: Supported sustaining remand if procedures adhered to; objected to retroactivity absent injunction. | Court: Sustained the Remand Redetermination as effectuated under the agreed injunction and terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1373 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (held Commerce acted arbitrarily in applying a different export-subsidy adjustment to Cooper and ordered remand).