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."

0 Comments