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 ( 2 )
  • Bob

     | about 4 months ago

    Pull your head out Charles. Over 70,000 tax paying NON-UNION jobs in the truck and bus tire retreading industry are in jeopardy... and the US CONSUMER is a loser. The biggest loser in this whole decision is retread manufacturers. Retreads have been taking a hit for the last 3 years. If the commission looked at the impact it had on the retread market, they would change their minds. The DOC research found large amounts of countervailing and dumping by China, but the ITC ignored it. There are hundreds of retread plants running at less than full capacity that could easily offset any shortage of tires we may have, if fair tariffs are on Chinese truck and bus tires. FYI: Retreading utilizes millions of perfectly good re-usable casings that would otherwise be filling up our landfills, and would give back to the trucking industry a competitive alternative to cheap non-retreadable Chinese tires. China is the winner here Charles. Not you, and certainly not the consumer.

  • See all comments
More Stories
Camso says the new Solideal PON 775 is designed for high-intensity applications and provides 90% better resistance to internal heat build-up than the Solideal Magnum SM ERP.
News Camso Designs New Press-On Forklift Tires to Withstand More Heat

Camso Inc.’s new press-on (PON) tire lineup is designed for forklifts operating in high- and medium-intensity applications.

Steve Postel will lead retail efforts for Continental's commercial truck products.
News Continental Builds Up Commercial Team for the Americas

Continental Tire the Americas LLC has added several key members to the team responsible for the company's commercial tire business in the Americas, including those directing retail, marketing and original equipment truck tire sales.  

News Michelin Buys Lehigh Technologies and Advances Its Sustainable Mission

Michelin North America Inc. has acquired Lehigh Technologies Inc., a company that transforms rubber from end-of-life tires and industrial goods into materials for new tires and other products.  

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!