The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a Federal Register notice on May 26, 2020, inviting comments from interested parties on BIS’s Section 232 national security investigation on imports of mobile cranes. Comments on the mobile cranes investigation may be submitted on or before July 10, 2020 and rebuttal comments on or before August 10, 2020.  We strongly encourage clients to review the notices to determine whether or not their imports will be affected.  All written comments with respect to the mobile cranes investigation must be filed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov/ under docket number BIS-2020-0009. Parties should anticipate submitting comments in the investigation if their products are associated with imported mobile cranes. Please see our previous post announcing the start of the investigation for more details.

Husch Blackwell continues to monitor the Section 232 investigations and will provide updates as more information becomes available. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the Section 232 investigations, or if you are interested in submitting comments, please contact Husch Blackwell’s International Trade and Supply Chain team.

On May 26, 2020, MTD Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on certain walk-behind lawn mowers from the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam. In addition, the petition alleges that imports of walk-behind lawn mowers from China are unfairly subsidized and requests the imposition of countervailing duties.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The merchandise covered by this investigation consists of certain walk-behind lawn mowers powered by an internal combustion engine which are rotary-powered grass cutting machines. The scope of the investigation covers certain walk-behind lawn mowers, whether self-propelled or non-self-propelled, whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether containing any additional features that provide for functions in addition to mowing.

Walk-behind lawn mowers within the scope of this investigation are only those powered by an internal combustion engine with a power rating of less than 3.7 kilowatts (kw). These internal combustion engines are typically spark ignition, single or multiple cylinder, air cooled, internal combustion engines with vertical power take off shafts with a maximum displacement of 196cc. Walk-behind lawn mowers covered by this scope typically must be certified and comply with the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) Safety Standard For Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers under the 16 CFR Part 1205. However, lawn mowers that meet the physical descriptions above, but are not certified under 16 CFR Part 1205 remain subject to the scope of this proceeding.

The internal combustion engines of the lawn mowers covered by this scope typically must comply with and be certified under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air pollution controls title 40, chapter I, subchapter U, part 1054 of the Code of Federal Regulations standards for small non-road spark-ignition engines and equipment. However, lawn mowers that meet the physical descriptions above but that do not have engines certified under 40 CFR Part 1054 or other parts of subchapter U remain subject to the scope of this proceeding.

For purposes of this investigation, an unfinished and/or unassembled lawn mower means at a minimum, a sub-assembly comprised of the following components: an engine and a cutting deck shell. A cutting deck shell is the portion of the lawn mower—typically of aluminum or steel—that houses and protects a user from a rotating blade. Importation of these components together, whether assembled or unassembled, and whether or not accompanied by additional components such as a handle, blade(s), grass catching bag, or wheel(s) constitute an unfinished lawn mower for purposes of this investigation. The inclusion of any other components not identified as comprising the unfinished lawn mower subassembly in a third-country does not remove the engine from the scope. A lawn mower is within the scope of this investigation regardless of the origin of its engine.

Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are electric-powered walk-behind lawn mowers which are lawn mowers primarily powered by an electric motor. Electric-powered walk-behind lawn mowers are typically classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading: 8433.11.0010.

The lawn mowers subject to this investigation are typically at subheading: 8433.11.0050. Lawn mowers subject to this investigation may also enter under HTSUS 8433.90.10.10, 8433.90.10.90 and 8407.90.1010. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, and the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

 

PETITIONER

MTD Products, Inc.

5903 Grafton Road

Valley City, OH 44280

T: 1-800-269-6215

W: https://www.mtdproducts.com/

 

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

Alexander H. Schaefer

Crowell & Moring, LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

 

NAMED PRODUCERS/EXPORTERS

For a list of foreign products/exporters alleged by Petitioner, please see Attachment I .

 

NAMED IMPORTERS

For a list of importers alleged by Petitioner, please see Attachment II .

 

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE

Event Earliest Date
Petition Filed May 26, 2020
DOC Initiation June 15, 2020
ITC Preliminary Investigation:
Questionnaires Due June 9, 2020
Request to appear at hearing June 15, 2020
Hearing June 17, 2020
Briefs June 22, 2020
ITC Vote July 13, 2020
DOC Investigation Schedule:
DOC Preliminary Antidumping Determination November 2, 2020
DOC Preliminary Countervailing Determination August 19, 2020
DOC Final Antidumping Determination January 18, 2021
DOC Final Countervailing Determination November 2, 2020
ITC Final AD Determination March 2, 2021
ITC Final CVD Determination December 17, 2020

 

ALLEGED DUMPING MARGINS

China: 245.47% – 313.58%

Vietnam: 285.10% – 416.00%

 

ALLEGED SUBSIDIES

For a list of alleged countervailing duty programs, please see Attachment III .

 

IMPORTS OF SUBJECT MERCHANDISE 

2017 2018 2019 Q1 2019 Q1 2020
China
Quantity(Units) 5,236 9,502 214,546 37,638 271,169
Value ($) 1,279,746 2,374,222 24,555,406 4,711,825 32,049,576
AUV ($/Units) 244.41 249.87 114.45 125.19 118.19
Vietnam
Quantity(Units) 0 0 1,711 0 327,782
Value ($) 0 0 135,090 0 78,192,752
AUV ($/Units) – – 78.95 – 238.55

 CONTACT US

For more information concerning this petition and how it may affect your business, please contact Jeffrey Neeley, Nithya Nagarajan, or Stephen Brophy.

U.S. Supply Chain

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that its 33rd Annual Export Controls Conference scheduled to be held in Washington, D.C. from June 29 – July 1, 2020 has been postponed until July 26-28, 2021 due to the COVID-19 outbreak. BIS has indicated that they will contact those who registered with additional information, including on reimbursement of registration fees.

Questions regarding the BIS conference should be directed to UpdateConference@bis.doc.gov. Otherwise, please contact Cortney Morgan or Grant Leach of Husch Blackwell’s Export Controls and Economic Sanctions team.

White HouseThe Trump Administration issued its Executive Order on Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery (the “EO”) on May 19, 2020 (Executive Order). The EO seeks to remedy the economic impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic by removing certain administrative barriers and providing flexibility in the implementation and enforcement of other administrative provisions and requirements. Although certain provisions of the EO are vague, Section 1 states the EO’s policy that “Agencies should address this economic emergency by rescinding, modifying, waiving, or providing exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery, consistent with applicable law and with protection of the public health and safety, with national and homeland security, and with budgetary priorities and operational feasibility.”

Section 4 of the EO asks the heads of all federal government agencies to “temporarily or permanently rescind, modify, waive, or exempt persons or entities” from regulatory standards “that may inhibit economic recovery.”  Significantly, Section 5(b) of the EO gives agency heads the discretion to “decline enforcement against persons and entities that have attempted in reasonable good faith to comply with applicable statutory and regulatory standards, including those persons and entities acting in conformity with a pre-enforcement ruling.”  (Emphasis added.)

Of course, agencies must act within their statutory and regulatory frameworks and must also comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, but the EO potentially has broad implications across sectors and agencies, including for international trade.  As an example of how this EO might affect certain trade issues, consider the following:

  • Importers should not expect to be exempted from exercising reasonable care, paying duties, participating in antidumping or countervailing duty investigations,  or complying with any other CBP, Commerce or ITC statutory or regulatory requirements.  Per Section 5(b) of the EO, Agency heads have enforcement discretion “as permitted by law,” meaning agency heads cannot override a statute, even if they believe that doing so would aid economic recovery. However, for matters that have already been placed within the “enforcement discretion” of an agency, the government has the ability to be more lenient in accordance with the EO. For instance, an agency could seek to enforce minimum penalties within a range of statutory options, although the agency could not ignore statutory requirements altogether.

 

  • Similarly, if CBP discovered that certain imported apparel violated CPSC lead content standards, CBP and the CPSC could extend a more lenient resolution by permitting the shipment to be reconditioned or reexported rather than destroyed.

Another potential question is how evenly any leniency in trade and customs matters will be applied since the Trump administration has made tariffs and restrictions on Chinese imports and exports a pillar of its political platform. Because of the broad nature of the EO and because any action will be at the agency head’s discretion, we reiterate that it is difficult to determine the EO’s exact effects at this time. However, we can expect that affected companies and individuals will seek to use the flexibility and leniency provisions of the EO, effective immediately.

To continue to monitor how this EO will affect your business, our trade lawyers are available to discuss this possibility as it develops and assist with case-by-case requests for relief. Contact Jeff Neeley, Robert Stang, or another member of the International Trade and Supply Chain team at Husch Blackwell.

On May 21, 2020, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) issued new product exclusions pertaining to the 25% Section 301 List 3 Tariffs.  The new list of exclusions includes seventeen 10-digit HTS subheadings and sixty-one specially prepared product descriptions that together cover 103 separate exclusion requests.  The full list of excluded products is available here.  According to the USTR, the product exclusions apply retroactively to entries going back to September 24, 2018 and remain in effect until August 7, 2020.  The products affected include seeds for sowing, children’s paints, and stainless steel components/accessories to ovens, stoves, and grills.

We encourage clients and companies to review the listed exclusions and contact Husch Blackwell’s International Trade and Supply Chain team with any questions or concerns.

On May 15, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) announced two new rules changes directed at Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”).  As we have previously covered, BIS has named Huawei and 114 of its affiliate companies to its Entity List under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (the “EAR”).  These designations generally prohibit anyone, anywhere in the world from exporting, re-exporting or making an in-country transfer of “items subject to the EAR” to the Huawei Entity List designee companies unless authorized by a BIS license.  These most recent rules changes : (i) provide a 90-day extension to BIS’s existing Temporary General License for certain Huawei transactions, and (ii) expand BIS’s existing “foreign-produced direct product rule” in order to prohibit the use of U.S. origin software and technology in producing certain items for the Huawei Entity List designees.

TGL Extension

When BIS first added Huawei to the Entity List, BIS also issued a Temporary General License (“TGL”) to authorize the continued performance of limited transactions with Huawei Entity List designees that were initiated prior to May 16, 2019.  The TGL was originally set to expire on August 19, 2019, but BIS has extended it several times (see here, here, and here).  This most recent extension will extend the TGL through August 13, 2020.  Anyone seeking to utilize the TGL should be aware that it requires any exporter, reexporter or in-country transferor to first obtain a written certification statement from the applicable Huawei Entity List designee in order to qualify for the TGL.  Additionally, BIS previously solicited comments from the public regarding future extensions of the TGL and BIS’s Federal Register notice indicated that BIS is currently reviewing those comments.  Those comments will likely influence whether or how BIS extends the TGL going forward after the current extension expires on August 13, 2020.

Expansion of the Foreign-Produced Direct Product Rule

General Prohibition Three of the EAR has historically imposed a “foreign-produced direct product rule” which extends the EAR’s jurisdiction to cover certain items produced outside of the U.S. through the use of specified U.S.-origin production technology or software (for reference, the EAR broadly defines “technology” as any information necessary for the development, production, use, operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul or refurbishing of an export-controlled item).  If someone outside the U.S. uses these specified types of U.S.-origin production technology or software to produce an item outside the U.S., then that resulting item becomes “subject to the EAR” and is subject to the same export, reexport and transfer restrictions that would apply to a U.S. origin item.  The foreign-produced direct product rule can apply these restrictions even if the foreign-produced item is manufactured entirely from foreign-origin raw materials with foreign-origin production equipment.

BIS is now amending General Prohibition Three and the foreign-produced direct product rule, effective as of May 15, 2020, in order to also capture foreign-produced items that are produced through the use of over thirty (30) different types of U.S. origin technology or software with knowledge that the foreign-produced items are destined for a Huawei Entity List designee.  Once these foreign-produced items become “subject to the EAR”, the EAR prohibits both U.S. and non-U.S. persons from exporting, reexporting or making an in-country transfer of those items to a Huawei Entity List designee.  In a recent press release, BIS stated that these new rules will “[restrict] Huawei’s ability to use U.S. technology and software to design and manufacture its semiconductors abroad” and also “narrowly and strategically target Huawei’s acquisition of semiconductors that are the direct product of certain U.S. software and technology.”  The specific types of U.S. origin production technology and software that will trigger this new rule are identified within this amendment by their Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”).  The ECCNs identified in the interim final rule cover various technology and software classified under Category 3, Category 4 and Category 5 Part 1 of the Commerce Control List (“CCL”) which are used to produce and/or test a wide variety of export-controlled electronics which include (but are not limited to) microprocessors, microcircuits, computers, computer components, telecommunications infrastructure and certain raw materials used in their production.

These new foreign-produced direct rules will capture items produced through the use of the specified technology and software and destined for a Huawei Entity List company when those items are manufactured internally by a Huawei Entity List designee or when those items are manufactured by a third party according to specifications produced or developed by a Huawei Entity List designee.  Although the new rules do include a “knowledge” requirement, persons using the specified technology and software in transactions which may directly or indirectly involve Huawei should be aware that the EAR broadly defines “knowledge” to include not only actual knowledge that an event is going to occur but also the awareness of a high probability that an event will occur.  The EAR will infer that a person has “knowledge” of an event when that person consciously disregards or willfully avoids certain facts which would suggest a violation is likely to occur.

It is also important for persons transacting with any Huawei Entity List designee to also be aware of the EAR’s General Prohibition Ten, which prohibits anyone (whether a U.S. or non-U.S. person) from selling, transferring, exporting, reexporting, financing, ordering, buying, removing, concealing, storing, using, loaning, disposing of, transporting, forwarding or otherwise servicing any item that is “subject to the EAR” with knowledge that an EAR violation has occurred, is about to occur or is intended to occur in connection with the item.  As a result, if foreign-produced items become “subject to the EAR” under these new rules, then non-manufacturers in the supply chain could also violate the EAR if they resell, transport, finance or perform other services in connection with the supply of those foreign-produced items to a Huawei Entity List company.

These new rules do feature a savings clause which exempts inter-company transfers among Huawei Entity List companies that were in transit as of May 15, 2020 as well as items produced by third parties pursuant to Huawei Entity List companies’ specifications that entered production prior to May 15, 2020.  However, anyone relying on the savings clause should be aware that many of the items subject to this new rule are classified under ECCN classifications which will impose additional export and reexport restrictions which are not lifted by the savings clause.  Finally, although the new rules took effect immediately (subject to the savings clause), BIS has indicated that it will accept comments on the impact of these new rules through July 14, 2020.  The Federal Register notice details the process that interested parties should follow when submitting these comments.

Husch Blackwell’s Export Controls & Economic Sanctions team continues to monitor the developing Huawei situation.  Please contact Cortney Morgan or Grant Leach should you have any questions concerning transactions with Huawei and application of the new BIS rule.

The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a Federal Register Notice on May, 19, 2020, inviting comments from interested parties on its investigation regarding the potential expansion of Section 232 tariffs to include imports of steel incorporated into electrical transformers. Comments on the investigation may be submitted on or before June 9, 2020 and rebuttal comments on or before June 19, 2020. All written comments must be addressed to “Section 232 Electrical Steel Investigation” and filed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov/ under docket number BIS-2020-0015. While comments are being solicited, there is no further specificity as to the products that are being investigated and therefore affected parties should anticipate submitting comments if their products are associated with laminated or wound cores for use in transformers. Please see our previous post announcing the start of the investigation for more details.

Husch Blackwell continues to monitor the Section 232 investigation on laminated and wound cores and will provide updates as more information becomes available. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the Section 232 investigation or are interested in submitting comments, please contact Husch Blackwell’s International Trade and Supply Chain team.

On May 8, 2020, the International Trade Commission voted that there was reasonable indication that dumped and illegally subsidized imports of non-refillable steel cylinders from China are injuring U.S. industry, according to the ITC’s press release.  The affirmative injury vote means that the investigations will continue at the Department of Commerce.  Commerce is scheduled to issue its preliminary countervailing duty determination on or about June 22, 2020 and its preliminary antidumping duty determination on or about September 3, 2020.  Both these deadlines are tentative as Commerce has the authority to extend if it feels that it needs the additional time.

Husch Blackwell’s International Trade and Supply Chain team will continue to monitor developments in this case andprovide updates when Commerce issues its preliminary and final determinations as it becomes available.

On May 13, 2020, United Steel, Paper and Foresty, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (“Petitioners”), filed a petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires (“PVLT tires”) from Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. In addition, the petition alleges that imports of PVLT tires from Vietnam are unfairly subsidized and requests the imposition of countervailing duties.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The scope of these investigations is passenger vehicle and light truck tires. Passenger vehicle and light truck tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a passenger vehicle or light truck size designation. Tires covered by these orders may be tube-type, tubeless, radial, or nonradial, and they may be intended for sale to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.

Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have the following prefixes or suffix in their tire size designation, which also appears on the sidewall of the tire:

Prefix designations:

  • P – Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars.
  • LT – Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks.

Suffix letter designations:

  • LT – Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service.

All tires with a “P” or “LT” prefix, and all tires with an “LT” suffix in their sidewall markings are covered by this investigation regardless of their intended use.

In addition, all tires that lack a “P” or “LT” prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, as well as all tires that include any other prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that fits passenger cars or light trucks. Sizes that fit passenger cars and light trucks include, but are not limited to, the numerical size designations listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, as updated annually. The scope includes all tires that are of a size that fits passenger cars or light trucks, unless the tire falls within one of the specific exclusions set out below.

Passenger vehicle and light truck tires, whether or not attached to wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported attached to a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope.

Specifically excluded from the scope are the following types of tires:

(1) Racing car tires; such tires do not bear the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall and may be marked with “ZR” in size designation;

(2) pneumatic tires, of rubber, that are not new, including recycled and retreaded tires;

(3) non-pneumatic tires, such as solid rubber tires;

(4) tires designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for passenger vehicles which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:

  • The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire’s sidewall are listed in Table PCT–1B (“T” Type Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Vehicles) or PCT-1B (“T” Type Diagonal (Bias) Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Vehicles) of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
  • the designation “T” is molded into the tire’s sidewall as part of the size designation, and,
  • the tire’s speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed is 81 MPH or a “M” rating;

(5) tires designed and marketed exclusively for specialty tire (ST) use which, in addition, exhibit each of the following conditions:

  • The size designation molded on the tire’s sidewall is listed in the ST sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
  •  the designation “ST” is molded into the tire’s sidewall as part of the size designation,
  •  the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “For Trailer Service Only” or “For Trailer Use Only”,
  •  the load index molded on the tire’s sidewall meets or exceeds those load indexes listed in the Tire and Rim Association Year Book for the relevant ST tire size, and
  • either

(i) the tire’s speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed does not exceed 81 MPH or an “M” rating; or

(ii) the tire’s speed rating molded on the sidewall is 87 MPH or an “N” rating, and in either case the tire’s maximum pressure and maximum load limit are molded on the sidewall and either

(1) both exceed the maximum pressure and maximum load limit for any tire of the same size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book; or

(2) if the maximum cold inflation pressure molded on the tire is less than any cold inflation pressure listed for that size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, the maximum load limit molded on the tire is higher than the maximum load limit listed at that cold inflation pressure for that size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book;

(6) tires designed and marketed exclusively for off-road use and which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:

  • The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire’s sidewall are listed in the off-the-road, agricultural, industrial or ATV section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
  •  in addition to any size designation markings, the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “Not For Highway Service” or “Not for Highway Use”,
  •  the tire’s speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed does not exceed 55 MPH or a “G” rating, and
  •  the tire features a recognizable off-road tread design.

The products covered by these investigations are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.10.10.10, 4011.10.10.20, 4011.10.10.30, 4011.10.10.40, 4011.10.10.50, 4011.10.10.60, 4011.10.10.70, 4011.10.50.00, 4011.20.10.05, and 4011.20.50.10. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.90.10.10, 4011.90.10.50, 4011.90.20.10, 4011.90.20.50, 4011.90.80.10, 4011.90.80.50, 8708.70.45.30, 8708.70.45.46, 8708.70.45.48, 8708.70.45.80, 8708.70.60.30, 8708.70.60.45, and 8708.70.60.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

 

PETITIONER

United Steelworkers

60 Boulevard of the Allies

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

(412) 562-2400

Kevin Johnsen

kjohnsen@usw.org

 

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

Roger B. Schagrin

SCHAGRIN ASSOCIATES

900 Seventh Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 223-1700

 

NAMED PRODUCERS/EXPORTERS

For a list of foreign products/exporters alleged by Petitioner, please see Attachment I .

 

NAMED IMPORTERS

For a list of importers alleged by Petitioner, please see Attachment II.

 

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE

Event Earliest Date
Petition Filed May 13, 2020
DOC Initiation June 2, 2020
ITC Preliminary Investigation:
Questionnaires Due May 27, 2020
Request to appear at hearing June 1, 2020
Hearing June 3, 2020
Briefs June 8, 2020
ITC Vote June 29, 2020
DOC Investigation Schedule:
DOC Preliminary Antidumping Determination October 20, 2020
DOC Preliminary Countervailing Determination August 6, 2020
DOC Final Antidumping Determination January 3, 2021
DOC Final Countervailing Determination October 20, 2020
ITC Final AD Determination February 17, 2021
ITC Final CVD Determination December 4, 2020

 

ALLEGED DUMPING MARGINS

Korea: 42.95% – 195.20%

Taiwan: 21% – 147%

Thailand: 106.4% – 217.5%

Vietnam: 14.73% – 33.06%

 

ALLEGED SUBSIDIES

For a list of alleged countervailing duty programs, please see Attachment III .

 

IMPORTS OF SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

 

2017 2018 2019 Jan-Mar 2019 Jan-Mar 2020
Korea
Quantity(Tires) 18,571,996 19,376,192 19,129,118 5,248,480 4,307,609
Value ($) 1,248,266,665 1,293,011,196 1,278,041,280 355,065,989 273,703,374
AUV ($/Tires) 67.21 66.73 66.81 67.65 63.54
Taiwan
Quantity(Tires) 8,930,021 8,351,871 8,810,074 2,086,942 2,431,889
Value ($) 387,797,596 375,793,120 410,788,862 94,793,507 112,788,730
AUV ($/Tires) 43.43 45.00 46.63 45.42 46.38
Thailand
Quantity(Tires) 34,905,034 40,637,158 45,244,734 11,040,500 10,912,647
Value ($) 1,562,623,090 1,906,918,331 2,177,046,358 524,338,648 549,486,542
AUV ($/Tires) 44.77 46.93 48.12 47.49 50.35
Vietnam
Quantity(Tires) 8,742,260 10,668,980 12,121,744 2,784,102 3,115,180
Value ($) 397,425,339 463,101,341 525,186,964 122,660,294 135,262,574
AUV ($/Tires) 45.46 43.41 43.33 44.06 43.42

 

CONTACT US

For more information concerning this petition and how it may affect your business, please contact Jeffrey Neeley, Nithya Nagarajan, or Stephen Brophy.

On May 12, 2020, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) announced its affirmative final determination in the CVD investigation of imports of certain glass containers from China.  See the fact sheet for a summary of the final cash deposit rates and margins.

Commerce calculated and assigned subsidy rates of 27.10% and 25.46% to mandatory respondents Guangdong Huaxing Glass Co., Ltd. and Qixia Changyu Glass Co., Ltd, respectively. Thirty-eight companies which failed to respond to Commerce’s requests for information received a rate of 320.53%. Commerce also calculated a China-wide subsidy rate of 26.28% for all other Chinese producers and exporters.

The ITC has yet to announce the date of its final vote, but Husch Blackwell believes the final vote will take place in early June or sooner. If the ITC makes an affirmative final determination of material injury to domestic industry, then Commerce will issue a CVD order instructing Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to collect deposits based on the applicable duty rate.  If the ITC makes a negative determination of injury, then the investigation will be terminated.

Husch Blackwell is monitoring the outcome of the CVD investigation closely and will provide an update on the ITC’s final decision when available.  If you have any questions or concerns regarding Commerce’s final determination pertaining to imports of certain glass containers from China, please contact our International Trade and Supply Chain team.