Qingdao Sentury Tire Co., Ltd. v. United States, 539 F.Supp.3d 1278

This action arises from Commerce’s antidumping administrative review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China for the period Jan. 27, 2015–July 31, 2016; Sentury was a mandatory respondent and Pirelli sought a separate rate.
Commerce denied Pirelli a separate rate for the full POR, finding de facto Chinese government control after Chem China’s acquisition (Oct. 20, 2015) and concluding Pirelli failed to provide complete pre-acquisition ownership information.
The Court previously remanded Commerce’s de jure/de facto analysis; on remand Commerce again denied Pirelli a separate rate for the POR post-acquisition, and the Court sustained that determination.
For Sentury, Commerce had applied a downward adjustment to export price for "irrecoverable VAT;" the Court previously held that adjustment unsupported by law and remanded for recalculation without the VAT adjustment.
On second remand Commerce removed the VAT adjustment (under protest), recalculated Sentury’s margin to 1.27% and the all-others separate rate to 1.45%; the Court sustained those recalculated margins.
The Court remanded in part: it ordered Commerce to reconsider whether Pirelli was wholly foreign-owned/located in a market economy during Jan–Oct 2015 and thus whether a separate-rate analysis was necessary for that partial period, while sustaining the denial of a separate rate post-Oct. 20, 2015.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce properly denied Pirelli a separate rate for Jan. 27–Oct. 19, 2015	Pirelli: record shows it was an Italian, publicly listed company prior to Oct. 20, 2015 (Sales & Purchase/Co-investment Agreement); Commerce should have treated it as foreign/market-economy and not applied NME presumption	U.S.: Pirelli bore the burden under the NME rebuttable presumption to show de jure/de facto independence for the period	Court: remanded — Commerce unreasonably failed to first determine whether Pirelli was wholly foreign-owned/located in a market economy pre-acquisition; Commerce must reconsider and, if necessary, apply separate-rate analysis for that period
Whether Commerce’s removal of the irrecoverable VAT adjustment and revised Sentury dumping margin comply with law	Sentury: removal required by Court; recalculated margin appropriate	U.S.: supports removal and recalculation under remand	Court: sustained Commerce’s removal of the VAT adjustment (under protest) and the revised margins (Sentury 1.27%; all-others 1.45%)

Shandong Yongtai Group Co. v. United States, 487 F. Supp. 3d 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (prior remand addressing de facto government control and VAT adjustment)
Shandong Yongtai Group Co. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019) (earlier remand addressing VAT and separate-rate issues)
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (establishing rebuttable presumption of government control in NME proceedings)
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing Commerce’s separate-rate practice and its review)
Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Tech. Co. v. United States, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (noting that a fully foreign-owned or market-economy located company generally does not require a full separate-rate analysis)