2020 CIT 20
Ct. Intl. Trade2020Background
- In Jan. 2016 the United Steelworkers (USW) petitioned for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on truck and bus tires (TBTs) from China; the ITC instituted investigations and issued preliminary affirmative findings.
- In the original final ITC vote (Feb. 2017) the Commission split 3-2 and found no material injury; USW challenged the price-effects and threat analyses and secured a remand from this Court.
- On remand (Jan. 2019) the ITC (3-2) issued an affirmative material-injury determination, finding subject imports were significant in volume, materially undersold the domestic like product, and depressed domestic prices.
- The ITC excluded retreaded tires from the domestic like product, relied on quarterly pricing comparisons showing widespread underselling, and found domestic producers had available capacity but suffered adverse impact despite some positive performance indicators.
- Respondents (Chinese industry groups) challenged the remand results as unsupported by substantial evidence on volume, price effects, and impact; USW and the U.S. argued the ITC’s methodologies and conclusions were reasonable.
- The Court reviewed the remand redetermination for substantial-evidence support and remand compliance and ultimately sustained the ITC’s remand findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (USW) | Defendant's/Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volume: significance of subject imports | ITC properly measured import volume and market-share gains excluding retreads because retreads are not part of the domestic like product | ITC erred by failing to include retreaded TBTs in aftermarket when assessing volume and market share | Court: affirmed ITC; substantial evidence supports exclusion of retreads and finding of significant/import-increasing volume |
| Price effects: use of quarterly pricing data | Quarterly comparisons are a reasonable, consistent methodology showing pervasive underselling and price depression | Quarterly data are invalid; should be annualized before analysis | Court: affirmed ITC; methodology was reasonable and supported underselling and price-depression findings |
| Impact: causal link between imports and domestic injury | Subject imports at increasing underselling margins depressed prices and prevented commensurate revenue gains despite rising demand | Imports are not the substantial cause; domestic profitability, capacity utilization, retreading and leasing explain performance | Court: affirmed ITC; substantial evidence shows imports substantially contributed to adverse impact |
| Compliance with remand order | Remand complied by addressing court’s directions on price effects and threat; de novo review by a new commissioner sufficed | ITC ignored the Court’s remand and merely adopted original dissent | Court: remand complied with order; courts have upheld remands that adopt prior dissent when record supports it |
Key Cases Cited
- Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (court may not reweigh evidence on ITC factual findings)
- Trent Tube Div., Crucible Materials Corp. v. Avesta Sandvik Tube AB, 975 F.2d 807 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (same principle against reweighing)
- Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (agency has discretion in injury methodology)
- United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (statute does not mandate a specific methodology)
- JMC Steel Group v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1309 (CIT 2015) (ITC methodology upheld if reasonable)
- Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (imports must be a substantial factor in injury)
- Siemens Energy, Inc. v. United States, 806 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (court defers where agency considered detracting evidence)
- ABB Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (CIT 2018) (remand compliance review standard)