Commercial Business

USW Appeals the Decision Not to Impose Tariffs on Chinese Truck Tires

Posted on April 17, 2017

The decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC), by a vote of 3-2, not to impose tariffs on truck and bus tires manufactured in China and imported into the U.S. is being appealed.

The United Steelworkers union has filed a lawsuit appealing the International Trade Commission's decision not to impose tariffs on truck and bus tires from China.
The United Steelworkers union has filed a lawsuit appealing the International Trade Commission's decision not to impose tariffs on truck and bus tires from China.
The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW) has filed a civil action challenging the ITC’s decision that the domestic truck tire industry was neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury. As a result of that decision, no antidumping or countervailing duties were assessed.

The USW's lawsuit was filed against the United States.

In its appeal, the USW broke down the ITC's findings and listed its objections to them in the following four counts.

Count one: “The Commission majority made several findings regarding the conditions of competition in the U.S. truck and bus tire market, including findings with respect to branding, tiers in the market, the importance of certain product characteristics, and purchasing factors."

*  In making its findings regarding the conditions of competition, the Commission majority did not address, or otherwise ignored, evidence that contradicted its conclusions.

* The Commission majority’s conditions of competition findings are unsupported by substantial evidence and are otherwise not in accordance with the law.

Count two: “The Commission majority found subject imports did not cause significant adverse price effects despite “pervasive” underselling by subject imports, due to certain factors the Commission determined had mitigated such underselling. The Commission majority also found that there was no price suppression or price depression by subject imports.”

* In making its findings regarding adverse price effects, the Commission majority did not address, or otherwise ignored, evidence that contradicted its conclusions.

* The Commission majority also relied in part on its negative findings regarding price depression and suppression in order to support its determination that underselling was not significant, contrary to law.

* The Commission majority’s determination that subject imports did not cause significant adverse price effects is unsupported by substantial evidence and is otherwise not in accordance with the law.

Count three: “The Commission majority found that subject imports did not have a significant impact on the domestic industry, based on a number of conclusions, including findings regarding the impact of subject imports on prices, trends in the domestic industry’s operations and performance, and the production capacity of the domestic industry.”

* In making its findings regarding material injury, the Commission majority did not address, or otherwise ignored, evidence that contradicted its conclusions.

* In addition, the Commission failed to adequately explain how its conclusions regarding the operations and performance of the domestic industry complied with the statutory prohibition on reaching a negative material injury determination merely because the domestic industry is profitable or because the performance of that industry has recently improved.

* The Commission majority’s determination that the domestic industry was not materially injured by subject imports is unsupported by substantial evidence and is otherwise not in accordance with the law.

Count four: “The Commission majority found that the domestic industry was not threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports, relying heavily on its negative present material injury findings.”

* In making its findings regarding the threat of material injury, the Commission majority did not address, or otherwise ignored, evidence that contradicted its conclusions.

* The Commission majority’s determination that the domestic industry was not threatened with material injury by subject imports is unsupported by substantial evidence and is otherwise not in accordance with the law.

In its brief, the USW wrote it “respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, hold that the Commission’s Final Determination is unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise not in accordance with law, and remand the Final Determination with instructions to issue a new determination that is consistent with the Court’s decision.” The USW further requested the Court promptly provide such other relief as is just and proper.

For more information on the ITC's decision, visit "Update: No Tariffs Will Be Assessed on Truck and Bus Tires from China."

Related Topics: Chinese tire tariffs, DOC, ITC, lawsuit, TBR tariff, USW

Comments ( 1 )
  • charles

     | about 3 months ago

    bunch of babies. you lost the case .. you won on Passenger & LT..... stop protecting the unions and think of the US Consumer for once..

More Stories
Article

Despite Lackluster Results, Dealers Still Speculate Volumes Will Increase Going Forward

According to the results of our survey, demand for passenger and light truck replacement tires declined again in April. Indeed, from a volume standpoint, the dealers reported they sold 0.9% fewer tires in April relative to the previous year’s period. The soft results marked the fourth straight month of lackluster results, including three consecutive months of negative volumes. The weak results come despite weather patterns and the disbursement of tax refunds normalizing.

News

Six Hankook Tire Dealers Will Host Events for Veterans

Six tire dealers will help Hankook Tire America Corp. continue its partnership with the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) organization. Those dealers will host the group's Mobile Service Offices (MSO) at their stores so the DAV can reach out to veterans in those communities.  

Joe Venezia will lead Bridgestone's retail efforts at its 2,200-plus company-owned stores.
News

Bridgestone Retail Stores Have a New Leader

The 2,200-plus retail stores owned and operated by Bridgestone Americas Inc. have a new leader. Joe Venezia is the president of Bridgestone Retail Operations LLC (BSRO) effective June 19, 2017.  

News

Tim Abel Moves From Bridgestone to CMA

Tim Abel is joining China Manufacturers Alliance LLC (CMA) as its southwest regional sales manager. Abel, who spent more than 30 years working for Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC, will be responsible for expanding Double Coin's reach in the southwest.

Be the First to Know

Get the latest news and most popular articles from MTD delivered straight to your inbox. Stay on top of the tire industry and don't miss a thing!