Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 092517 USCIT, 15-00251
|Opinion Judge:||Timothy C. Stanceu Chief Judge.|
|Party Name:||COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, COOPER (KUNSHAN) TIRE CO., LTD., AND COOPER CHENGSHAN (SHANDONG) TIRE CO., LTD., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and THE UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC, Defendant-Intervenor. Slip Op. 17-130|
|Attorney:||Gregory C. Dorris, Pepper Hamilton LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs. John J. Todor, Senior Trial Counsel, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him on the brief were Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E Davidson, Direc...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge.|
|Case Date:||September 25, 2017|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
Sustaining a decision in response to court order in litigation contesting a determination issued in an investigation of sales at less than fair value of certain passenger car and light truck tires from the People's Republic of China
Gregory C. Dorris, Pepper Hamilton LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.
John J. Todor, Senior Trial Counsel, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him on the brief were Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E Davidson, Director, and Franklin E White, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel was Mercedes C. Morno, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Geert De Prest, Stewart and Stewart, of Washington, D.C., for defendant-intervenor. With him on the brief were Terence P. Stewart, Phillip A. Butler, and Nicholas J Birch.
Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge.
Timothy C. Stanceu Chief Judge.
In this action, plaintiffs challenged the antidumping duty cash deposit rate that the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce" or the "Department") applied to imports of passenger car and light truck tires that they produced and exported from the People's Republic of China.
Before the court is the decision (the "Remand Redetermination") Commerce issued in response to the court's opinion and order in Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 41 CIT ___, 217 F.Supp.3d 1373 (2017) ("Cooper Tire"). The Remand Redetermination announces the Department's intention, expressed under protest, to recalculate plaintiffs' antidumping duty cash deposit rate. Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (Apr. 17, 2017), ECF No. 43 ("Remand Redetermination"). For the reasons set forth below, the court sustains the Remand Redetermination.
Background in this case is set forth in Cooper Tire, which is summarized and supplemented, as necessary, herein. See Cooper Tire, 41 CIT at ___, 217 F.Supp.3d 1374-77.
A. The Parties to this Litigation
Plaintiffs Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd. and Cooper Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Co., Ltd. are affiliated Chinese producers and exporters of tires for passenger cars and light trucks. Plaintiff Cooper Tire & Rubber Company is an affiliated exporter of the subject merchandise of these producers. The court refers to plaintiffs collectively as "Cooper."
Cooper was a respondent in parallel antidumping duty ("AD") and countervailing duty ("CVD") investigations. The petitioner in both the AD and CVD investigations was the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"). The USW is the defendant-intervenor in this action.
B. The Contested Determination
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP