Tires from China: Antidumping Review Amended

Content

SUMMARY:

On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in YC Rubber v. United States, CIT Court no. 19-00069, sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s third remand results pertaining to the administrative
review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of
China (China) covering the period August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2017. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final
judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final
results with respect to the dumping margin assigned to Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd (Linglong) and entities belonging to
the China-wide entity.

DATES:

Applicable March 14, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 26, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2016-2017 AD administrative review of passenger tires from China. Commerce calculated a rate of 64.57 percent for Zhaoqing
Junhong Co., Ltd. (Junhong) and relied on that rate to establish the rate for the separate rate respondents. (1)

In its August 29, 2022, opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) remanded the Final Results, concluding that Commerce erred in restricting its examination to a single mandatory respondent and in applying the single
mandatory respondent's rate to the separate rate respondents. (2) Therefore, on remand, Commerce sought to select an additional mandatory respondent to review and selected Kenda as a mandatory
respondent. (3) In March and May 2023, Kenda submitted responses to sections A through D of Commerce's AD questionnaire. (4) In June 2023, Kenda submitted responses to Commerce's supplemental questionnaire. (5) In the first remand redetermination, issued in October 2023, Commerce: (1) recalculated Kenda's estimated weighted-average
dumping margin to be 18.15 percent based on its reported data; (2) recalculated the separate rate and applied it to Shandong
Linglong Tyre Co. (Linglong); and (3) found Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd. (Wanda Boto), Mayrun Tyre (Hong Kong) Limited
(Mayrun), Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (Hengyu), and Winrun Tyre Co., Ltd. (Winrun) to be part of the China-wide
entity. (6) The CIT remanded for a second time, concluding that Commerce: (1) may have erred in the order in which it selected a second
respondent; (2) did not support with substantial evidence its denial of separate rate status for Mayrun, Hengyu, Winrun, and
Wanda Boto; and (3) did not sufficiently explain its denial of the new withdrawal requests submitted during the first remand. (7)

In its second remand redetermination, issued in October 2024, pursuant to the remand order, Commerce reexamined the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) data and determined that the correct order of selection for a second mandatory respondent at the
time of respondent selection during the first remand proceeding was: (1) Wanda Boto; (2) Hengyu; (3) Mayrun; (4) Winrun; (5)
Linglong, and (6) Kenda. Thus, on remand, Commerce selected Linglong as an additional mandatory respondent; however, because
Linglong refused to participate, Commerce continued to rely on Kenda as the second mandatory respondent. In addition, Commerce
found that: (1) Wanda Boto, Mayrun, Hengyu, Winrun, and Linglong failed to establish their entitlement to a separate rate
and thus were part of the China-wide entity; and (2) that it is inappropriate to accept the untimely review withdrawal requests
filed by Mayrun, Hengyu, Winrun, and Linglong. Finally, Commerce recalculated the cash deposit rate applicable to the China-wide
entity to account for combined export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through of 11.13 percent. (8) In response to a motion by Kenda for partial judgement, the CIT issued a partial judgment sustaining Commerce's final redetermination
with respect to Kenda's dumping margin calculation. (9) The CIT remanded for a third time, concluding that Commerce did not properly consider the additional information of Kenda
Rubber's reported sales volume before determining to select Linglong as an additional mandatory respondent before Kenda. In
addition, the CIT remanded for reconsideration or further explanation, Commerce's determination regarding Linglong's separate
rate eligibility.

In its third remand redetermination, issued in August 2025, pursuant to the remand order, Commerce utilized Kenda's aggregated
CBP import data obtained during the first remand proceeding and determined that Linglong should not have been selected as
a mandatory respondent prior to Kenda. (10) Accordingly, Commerce determined that Linglong should not have been issued a questionnaire and that its failure to respond
to that questionnaire is moot. In addition, we determined that Linglong is eligible for a separate rate. The CIT sustained
Commerce's final redetermination. (11)

Timken Notice

In its decision in Timken, (12) as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, (13) the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce
must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation
of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's March 4, 2026, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT
that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Amended Final Results

Because there is now a final court judgment regarding the dumping margin calculation for Linglong and the separate-rate status
of Wanda Boto, Hengyu, Mayrun, and Winrun, Commerce is amending its Final Results with respect to Linglong and the entities included China-wide entity as follows:

| Exporter/producer | Weighted-average dumping margin
(percent) |
| --- | --- |
| Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd | 41.36 |
| China-Wide Entity 14 | 87.99 |

Cash Deposit Requirements

Because Linglong has a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results published in a subsequent administrative review, we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions
to U.S.

  Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that: were produced and exported by Linglong,
and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2017. These
entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.

In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce
intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and exported
by Linglong in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an import-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, (15) we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: March 13, 2026. Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2026-05206 Filed 3-16-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

Footnotes

(1) See Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final 84 FR 17781 (April 26, 2019) (Final Results).

(2) See YC Rubber Co. (North America) LLC., et al. v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14259 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

(3) See Memorandum, “Respondent Selection,” dated March 10, 2023.

(4) See Kenda's Letter, “Kenda's Response to Section A and Double Remedy Questionnaire,” dated April 17, 2023; see also Kenda's Letter, “Kenda Section C Questionnaire Response,” date May 2, 2023; Kenda's Letter, “Kenda Section D Questionnaire
Response,” dated May 9, 2023.

(5) See Kenda's Letters, “Kenda First Supplemental Questionnaire Response: Questions 2, 3, and 5-12,” dated June 22, 2023; and “Kenda
First Supplemental Questionnaire Response: Questions 1, 4, and 13-15,” dated June 27, 2023.

(6) See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, YC Rubber Co. (North America) LLC., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19-000069, Slip Op. 21-1489 (CIT February 2, 2023), dated October 31, 2023 (First Remand Results), available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.

(7) See YC Rubber Co. (North America) LLC, et al. v. United States, 711 F.Supp.3d 1387 (CIT 2024).

(8) See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, YC Rubber Co. (North America) LLC., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19-00069, Slip Op. 24-74 (CIT June 18, 2024), dated October 28, 2024 (Second Remand Results), available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.

(9) See YC Rubber Co. (North America) LLC., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19-00069, ECF Nos. 124 and 125 (CIT November 26, 2024); see also Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony
With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results, 90 FR 11942 (March 13, 2025).

(10) See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, YC Rubber Co. (N. Am.) LLC v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19-00069, Slip Op. 25-64 (CIT May 21, 2025), dated August 18. 2025 (Third Remand Results), available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.

(11) See YC Rubber Co. (North America) LLC., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court NO. 19-00069, Slip Op. 26-24 (CIT March 4, 2026).

(12) See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

(13) See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d. 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

(14) The China-wide entity includes: Mayrun Tyre (Hong Kong) Limited; Shandong Hengyu Science & Technology Co., Ltd.; Shandong
Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd.; and Winrun Tyre Co., Ltd.

(15) See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

Download File

Download