US Says CIT Should Deny Bid to Alter Judgment to Consider Italian Law in AD Review Case
The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s motion to alter or amend the court's judgment so that the court may interpret Italian law since Pirelli cannot show that there were errors or irregularities in the ruling, the U.S. claimed in a reply brief. The government added that even if the trade court were to consider the evidence Pirelli is looking to add to the record, the motion fails "because it is not the role of this Court to make factual determinations with regard to foreign law in Commerce’s stead" (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00115).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The trade court ruled in March that Pirelli did not rebut the presumption of government control in an antidumping duty administrative review on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China since minority ownership by government-controlled entities does not change the presumption (see 2303200038). Pirelli said consideration by the court of the relevant Italian law is "fundamentally a legal question which it was appropriate for this Court to resolve" as it pertains to the ownership structure of Pirelli.
The U.S. argued in response that this motion merely "attempts to relitigate an issue already resolved by this Court: Commerce’s determination that Pirelli China did not rebut the presumption of de facto government control." The government said Pirelli did not make any of the required showings needed to alter a judgment, including showing that there were errors or irregularities in the judgment or a serious evidentiary flaw.
While Pirelli claims that the Italian law relied on by the exporter was a part of the record as an attachment to its motion for judgment, the U.S. said "this late attempt to cure its undisputed failures during the administrative proceeding could have had no bearing on Commerce's decision."