Qingdao Sentury Tire Co., Ltd. v. United States, 577 F.Supp.3d 1343

Background:

This case arises from Commerce’s administrative review of antidumping duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China covering the 2015–2016 POR; Pirelli entities sought separate-rate treatment.
Commerce initially denied Pirelli Tyre Co. a separate rate, finding de facto Chinese government control after Chem China’s acquisition and assigned the China-wide rate.
The Court remanded, directing Commerce to determine whether Pirelli Tyre Co. was wholly foreign‑owned or in a market economy before Chem China’s acquisition (Jan–Oct 2015), whether a separate-rate analysis was required for that pre-acquisition period, and whether de jure or de facto government control existed then.
On third remand Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire; Pirelli responded that it was located in China and not wholly foreign‑owned during Jan 27–Oct 19, 2015 but provided ownership and corporate records showing no Chinese government ownership or control prior to Chem China’s investment in August/October 2015.
Commerce concluded Pirelli was subject to a separate-rate analysis (because it was located in China) but that the record showed no de jure or de facto government control for the relevant pre-acquisition period (including Aug 11–Oct 19, 2015 despite minority government-linked holdings in an ultimate parent), and assigned a revised dumping margin of 1.45%.
The Court sustained Commerce’s Third Remand Results as supported by substantial evidence and compliant with the remand order.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a separate-rate analysis should be conducted for Pirelli Tyre Co. for Jan–Oct 2015	Pirelli: yes; it provided documents showing foreign ownership/market-economy status pre-acquisition	U.S.: Commerce correctly treated Pirelli as subject to separate-rate analysis because it was located in China and not wholly foreign-owned	Held: Yes — separate-rate analysis required because Pirelli was located in China and not wholly foreign-owned during the period
Whether the presumption of Chinese government control applies to Pirelli Tyre Co. prior to Chem China’s acquisition	Pirelli: presumption should not apply if ownership and control show independence	U.S.: presumption applies to Chinese companies; Pirelli must rebut it	Held: Presumption applies (company located in China), but it can be rebutted on the record
If presumption applies, whether there was de jure or de facto Chinese government control prior to acquisition	Pirelli: record shows no government ownership or control over management, pricing, contracts, or proceeds before and during Aug–Oct 2015	U.S.: maintained Commerce’s position that prior findings could support government control or that record was incomplete	Held: Commerce reasonably found no de jure or de facto government control in the relevant pre-acquisition period and that Pirelli rebutted the presumption; separate rate granted and 1.45% margin assigned

Key Cases Cited

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (establishes rebuttable presumption of government control in nonmarket-economy proceedings and separate-rate framework)
Qingdao Sentury Tire Co. v. United States, 539 F. Supp. 3d 1278 (CIT 2021) (prior remand opinion directing further Commerce analysis)
Shandong Yongtai Grp. Co. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (CIT 2019) (discusses de facto control and separate-rate denial in related consolidated matters)
Shandong Yongtai Grp. Co. v. United States, 487 F. Supp. 3d 1335 (CIT 2020) (sustaining Commerce’s remand results regarding de facto government control)
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (CIT 2014) (standard for reviewing remand compliance and substantial evidence review)