AD/CVD Petitioner Opposes Bid to Release Certain Wheel Types From CIT Injunction in EAPA Suit

AD/CVD petitioner Dexstar Wheel Division of Americana Development on Oct. 15 opposed importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel's motion to amend a preliminary injunction in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case on steel trailer wheels to allow CBP to liquidate some of its entries. Dexstar said Lionshead failed to show that its entries are the specific type of wheels found by the Commerce Department to be excluded from the AD/CVD orders on the steel trailer wheels from China (Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 24-00019).

In its separate scope ruling, Commerce reviewed whether three types of wheels -- Methods A, B and C -- made by Asia Wheel Co. are excluded from the AD/CVD orders, finding that Method B wheels, consisting of Thai-made rims and discs, are excluded from the orders. However, the agency established a certification regime for Model B wheels to ease fears that the orders could be circumvented.

Lionshead moved to amend the PI in the present suit on the grounds that it submitted the appropriate certifications with CBP and that its Model B entries should be liquidated by CBP without the AD/CVD.

Dexstar opposed the motion, claiming that Lionshead failed to account for one "central fact that cannot be overlooked" -- "CBP specifically and repeatedly found that none of the wheels in the entries subject to the EAPA investigation were Method B wheels."

The petitioner noted two CBP decisions -- one from the Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate and the other from the Office of Rulings and Regulations -- which found that none of the importers certified that any of their wheel entries were Method B wheels. As a result, the importers "made no claims to the agency at any point that any of the wheels under investigation were Method B wheels," the brief said.

While Lionshead claims its entries weren't subject to EAPA investigations, "that is only Lionshead’s conclusion that the entries should not have been so subject based on its claims now that these were Method B wheels," Dexstar said. The importer makes no showing its entries weren't covered by the investigations or weren't considered in CBP's decisions, the brief said.

Why Lionshead's motion doesn't tell the court that CBP explicitly said no wheels subject to the EAPA case were Method B wheels "is unclear," Dexstar said. "However, the practical effect of the amendment that Lionshead seeks would be to have the Court direct CBP to reverse that aspect of the agency determination." CIT can't order that Method B wheels be separated from the injunction "without first determining that some of the entries subject to the EAPA investigation were in fact Method B wheels" -- a decision that "would require the Court to overturn the contrary factual determination" from CBP, the brief said.