Current Issue

Industry reacts guardedly to antidumping duties

Comments Email
Photo by RPN photo by MIles Moore Roy Littlefield, executive vice president of the Tire Industry Association.

WASHINGTON—While the United Steelworkers union was jubilant, tire importers and retailers reacted guardedly at the news that the Commerce Department found preliminary evidence of the dumping of Chinese passenger and light truck tires in U.S. markets.

“This second decision in two months by (Commerce) confirms our belief that Chinese tire producers engage in massive unfair trade practices,” USW International President Leo W. Gerard said in a Jan. 21 news release.

That was the day the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration issued a preliminary determination that Chinese tire importers were underselling the U.S. tire industry at margins ranging from 19 to 88 percent.

Commerce published the document in the Jan. 27 Federal Register. With that publication, importers of Chinese passenger and light truck tires had to begin paying antidumping duties to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, retroactive to 90 days before the publication date.

Two months earlier, on Nov. 24, Commerce found preliminary evidence of the Chinese government subsidizing production of tires for export and levied countervailing duties of 15.69 percent. In December, however, it reduced the countervailing duty rate to 12.03 percent.

Tire companies and associations generally said they were studying the Jan. 21 antidumping ruling to determine their responses.

Roy Littlefield, executive vice president of the Tire Industry Association, said TIA officials would meet with tire manufacturers, Commerce Department officials and the law firms involved in the case to formulate a game plan.

Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. said Commerce would give the company an offset of 6.97 percent from its assessed antidumping duty of 27.72 percent, reducing the figure to 20.75 percent.

“Cooper will make an assessment of the preliminary AD's impact on our business and will communicate with our customers as appropriate going forward,” the tire maker said.

Jenner Powell, global marketing vice president of Triangle Tyre Co. Ltd., said the U.S. remains a strategic market for Triangle's globalization strategy.

“As such, Triangle remains committed in the continuous development of the brand and will pursue its new product introduction program as well as product supply to the market within the context of the new AD constraints,” Powell said.

TBC Corp.'s reaction was similar. “TBC Corp. has always had a global sourcing strategy and will continue to do such,” a corporate executive said. “We have had and will continue to have a dynamic portfolio of North American-sourced product supplemented by sourcing from Europe and Asia.”

Giti Tire (USA) Ltd. said it was disappointed in the antidumping determination. “We are waiting for (Commerce) to release the full detail calculation so we can review it and understand the numbers,” the company said.

Scott Rhodes, vice president of sales-North American for Omni United U.S.A., said Omni would discuss the impact of the ruling on all stakeholders in its supply chain, including the factories and channel partners.

“Omni United is committed to protecting our customers' interests, and we will do whatever we can to ensure their trust in us as partners,” Rhodes said.


United Steelworkers International President Leo Gerard.

The USW filed petitions with the International Trade Commission in June 2014, requesting countervailing and antidumping duties against Chinese passenger and light truck tires based on Sections 701 and 731 of the Trade Act.

The union previously had received high tariffs against Chinese tires between September 2009 and September 2012 under Section 421 of the Trade Act. Since the tariffs lapsed, the USW argued, Chinese tire exports to the U.S. had skyrocketed once again.

In the Jan. 21 Federal Register notice, Commerce said it investigated Chinese tire imports from between Oct. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2014. It found preliminary dumping margins of 19.17 percent against Giti and its subsidiaries, and of 36.26 percent against Sailun Group. Co. Ltd. and its subsidiaries.

Commerce found a 27.72 percent dumping rate against 65 companies and their subsidiaries, including Cooper, Triangle, Bridgestone Corp., Goodyear Dalian Tire Co., Hankook Tire China Co. Ltd., Pirelli Tyre Co. Ltd., Kumho Tire Co. Inc., Toyo Tire (Zhangjiagang) Co. Ltd., and dozens of tire companies based in the prime tire manufacturing areas of Qingdao and Shandong.

Ruling on the “critical circumstances” petition filed by the USW in September 2014, Commerce preliminarily determined Jan. 21 that critical circumstances existed for all companies except Giti and Sailun.

Commerce is requesting comments on this ruling, and interested parties also have 30 days from Jan. 27 to request a public hearing. The agency said it will make its final determination on or about June 12. If that determination is affirmative, the International Trade Commission will make its final determination of material injury by the end of July.

Racing tires, trailer tires, specialty tires, non-pneumatic tires and temporary spares are exempt from this investigation.

The Federal Register notice may be found here.