128 F.4th 1265
Fed. Cir.2025Background
- In 2015, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an antidumping-duty order covering certain passenger vehicle and light-truck tires imported from China, treating China as a non-market economy.
- Commerce conducted an administrative review of tire imports entered between August 1, 2017 and July 31, 2018 to determine applicable dumping duties.
- Under Commerce’s practice, Chinese exporters are presumed subject to government control and receive a PRC-wide antidumping duty unless they sufficiently show independence (per Sigma Corp. precedent).
- Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. (Pirelli China) sought a separate rate by attempting to prove autonomy from Chinese government control over management and exports, highlighting indirect state ownership through ChemChina and the Silk Road Fund.
- Commerce denied the separate rate, finding Pirelli China failed to demonstrate autonomy, especially over management selection, and discounted arguments based on Italian law for lack of record support.
- The Court of International Trade upheld Commerce’s decision, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding substantial evidence supported Commerce’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Separate rate eligibility | Pirelli China demonstrated lack of PRC gov't control | Pirelli China did not show sufficient independence | Pirelli failed to meet burden, PRC rate applies |
| Legal standard for analysis | Test requires link between management selection and export control | Broad factor: control of management affects exports | Commerce need not limit to export-specific link |
| Burden to rebut presumption | Commerce misapplied the rebuttable presumption standard | Burden on applicant to prove entitlement to separate rate | Burden was correctly placed on applicant |
| Use of foreign law as evidence | Italian law proves independence and should have been considered | Record lacked relevant provisions or translations | Commerce reasonably disregarded unsupported law |
Key Cases Cited
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (establishing the rebuttable presumption of PRC government control and the applicant’s burden to show independence for separate rate eligibility)
- China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. United States, 1 F.4th 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (affirming Commerce’s authority to apply NME countrywide rates and burden on exporters)
- Michaels Stores, Inc. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (upholding Commerce’s separate-rate practice for NME countries)
- Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 866 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (discussing burden of proof for separate rate eligibility in antidumping proceedings)