91 FR 44801 · published 2026-07-17
· Commerce Department, International Trade Administration
Mirrored from the Federal Register (retrieved 2026-08-08) —
the official copy is at federalregister.gov
(their site may ask for human verification).
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers/exporters subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), August 1, 2024, through July 31, 2025. In addition, we are rescinding the review with respect to 19 companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44801-44806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-14423]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-016]
Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2024-2025
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily
determines that producers/exporters subject to this review made sales
of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of
review (POR), August 1, 2024, through July 31, 2025. In addition, we
are rescinding the review with respect to 19 companies. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
DATES: Applicable July 17, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Office
IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2860.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 25, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain passenger vehicle and
light truck (PVLT) tires from the People's Republic of China
(China).\1\ On October 15, 2025, Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. (Pirelli Tyre)
timely withdrew its request for review.\2\ On December 22, 2025,
Qingdao Keter International Co., Limited (Keter) timely withdrew its
request for review.\3\ Further, we intend to refer the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial
and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC's (petitioner's)
concerns to CBP.\4\
\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 90 FR 46173 (September 25, 2025) (Initiation
Notice); see also Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires
from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative
Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; and
Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 47902 (August 10, 2015) (Order).
\2\ See Pirelli Tyre's Letter, ``Pirelli's Withdrawal Request
for AD Review,'' dated October 15, 2025.
\3\ See Keter's Letter, ``Withdrawal of Request for
Administrative Review,'' dated December 22, 2025 (Keter Withdrawal).
\4\ See Petitioner's Letters, ``Petitioner's Comments on Customs
Entry Data,'' dated December 18, 2025; and ``Petitioner's Comments
and Rebuttal Information on Customs Entry Documents for Yongsheng,''
dated May 1, 2026.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown,
on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative
proceeding by 47 days.\5\ Additionally, due to a backlog of documents
that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service
System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24,
2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an
additional 21 days.\6\ On July 2, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline
for the preliminary results by three days.\7\ Accordingly, the deadline
for these preliminary results is now July 13, 2026.
\5\ See Memorandum, ``Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the
Federal Government,'' dated November 14, 2025.
\6\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of all Case Deadlines,'' dated
November 24, 2025.
\7\ See Memorandum, ``Extension of Deadline for Preliminary
Results of 2024-2025 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' dated
July 2, 2026.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the scope of this Order is PVLT tires
from China. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see
Appendix I.
Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested a
review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication
of notice of initiation. As noted above, Pirelli Tyre and Keter timely
withdrew their review requests and no other party requested an
administrative review of these companies. Therefore, we are rescinding
this administrative review with respect to these companies, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's
practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty
order where it concludes that there were no suspended entries of
subject merchandise during the POR.\8\ Normally, upon completion of an
administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the
antidumping duty assessment rate for the review period.\9\ Therefore,
for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a
reviewable, suspended entry that Commerce can instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate at the calculated antidumping duty
assessment rate for the review period.\10\
\8\ See, e.g., Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to Length
Plate from the Federal Republic of Germany: Recission of Antidumping
Administrative Review; 2020-2021, 88 FR 4154 (January 24, 2023).
\9\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\10\ See, e.g., Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co. v. United States,
380 F.Supp.3d 1328, 1337 (CIT 2019), at 12 (referring to section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S.
Court of International Trade (CIT) held that ``{w{time} hile the
statute does not explicitly require that an entry be suspended as a
prerequisite for establishing entitlement to a review, it does
explicitly state the determined rate will be used as the liquidation
rate for the reviewed entries. This result can only obtain if the
liquidation of entries has been suspended''; see also Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of
No Shipments; 2018-2019, 86 FR 36102 (July 8, 2021), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; and Solid
Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian Federation:
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77
FR 65532 (October 29, 2012) (noting that ``for an administrative
review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry
to be liquidated at the newly calculated assessment rate'').
We received timely filed no-shipment certifications letter from:
(1) Qingdao Fullrun Tyre Corp., Ltd. (Qingdao Fullrun), (2) Qingdao
Nama Industrial Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Nama), (3) Shandong Haohua Tire Co.,
Ltd. (Shandong Haohua), (4) Shandong Yongsheng Rubber Group Co., Ltd.
(Yongsheng), and (5) Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd (Triangle).\11\ Because the
CBP data we placed on the record indicated that Triangle and Yongsheng
may have had entries during the POR,\12\ in April and May 2026, we
obtained CBP entry documentation for Triangle and Yongsheng, which we
placed on the record.\13\ Because this information indicates that
Triangle and Yongsheng had knowledge that their merchandise was
destined for the United States, we preliminarily determine that
Triangle and Yongsheng had reviewable entries during the POR.\14\
\11\ See Triangle's Letter, ``Notice of No Sales,'' dated
October 13, 2025; see also Yongsheng's Letter, ``Notice of No
Sales,'' dated October 13, 2025; Qingdao Fullrun's Letter, ``No
Sales Certification,'' dated October 28, 2025; Shandong Haohua's
Letter, ``No Sales Certification,'' dated October 28, 2025; and
Qingdao Nama's Letter, ``Submission of Nama's No Shipment
Certification,'' dated November 3, 2025.
\12\ See Memorandum, ``Release of Customs Entry Data,'' dated
December 11, 2025.
\13\ See Memorandum, ``Release of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Entry Documents for Yongsheng,'' dated April 24, 2026;
see also Memorandum, ``Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Entry Documents for Triangle,'' dated May 15, 2026.
\14\ For the details of our analysis of these entries, which
involves business proprietary information, see Memorandum, ``2024-
2025 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Passenger Vehicle and
Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China: Business
Proprietary Information Accompanying the Federal Register Notice for
the Preliminary Results,'' dated concurrently with this notice (BPI
Memorandum) at 1-3.
On May 14, 2026, Commerce notified all interested parties of its
intent to rescind the instant review regarding the companies listed in
Appendix II (including Qingdao Fullrun, Qingdao Nama, and Shandong
Hoahua) because there were no reviewable, suspended entries of subject
merchandise from these companies during the POR and invited interested
parties to comment.\15\ We only received comments on this memorandum
from Yongsheng, which was not listed, arguing that it did not sell or
ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.\16\
Therefore, in the absence of any suspended entries of subject
merchandise from the 17 companies listed in Appendix II during the POR,
we are rescinding this administrative review for these companies, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
\15\ See Memorandum, ``Notice of Intent to Rescind Review, In
Part,'' dated May 14, 2026.
\16\ See Yongsheng's Letter, ``Comments on Notice of Intent to
Rescind Review, In Part,'' dated May 21, 2026.
Methodology
Commerce considers China to be a non-market economy (NME)
country.\17\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in
effect until revoked by the administering authority. Therefore, for
these preliminary results, we treated China as an NME country and
applied our current NME methodology in accordance with section 773(c)
of the Act.
\17\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil
from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value and Postponement of
Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017), and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM) at 7-8 (citing
Memorandum, ``China's Status as a Non-Market Economy,'' dated
October 26, 2017), unchanged in Certain Aluminum Foil from the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 83 FR 9282 (March 5, 2018).
Separate Rate Determinations
In a proceeding involving an NME country, Commerce maintains a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, therefore, should be assessed a
single weighted-average dumping margin.\18\ Commerce notified parties
in the Initiation Notice that ``{t{time} he deadline and requirement
for submitting a Separate Rate Application {(SRA){time} applies
equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign
sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United
States.'' \19\ Also in the Initiation Notice, Commerce notified parties
of the application process by which exporters may obtain separate rate
status in this administrative review.\20\ This process requires
exporters to submit an SRA and to demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto government control over their export activities.\21\
In the Initiation Notice, Commerce required that all firms listed in
the notice ``that wish to qualify for separate rates status in the
administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as
appropriate, either a {SRA{time} or {separate rate certification
(SRC){time} . . .'' \22\
\18\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24,
2008).
\19\ See Initiation Notice, 90 FR at 46174.
\20\ Id.
\21\ For a description of our practice, see Enforcement and
Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, regarding ``Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries,'' (April 5,
2005), available on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/enforcement-and-compliance-policy-bulletins-0.
\22\ See Initiation Notice, 90 FR at 46174.
Commerce's policy is to assign all exporters of merchandise under
consideration that are in an NME country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to
be entitled to a separate rate.\23\ Commerce analyzes whether each
entity exporting the merchandise under consideration is sufficiently
independent under the test established in Sparklers from China \24\ and
further developed in Silicon Carbide from China.\25\ In accordance with
this separate rate test, Commerce will assign a separate rate in an NME
proceeding if a respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto government control over its export activities.\26\ If,
however, Commerce determines that a company is wholly foreign owned,
then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether
that company is independent from government control and eligible for a
separate rate.
\23\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589
(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers from China).
\24\ Id.
\25\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59
FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide from China).
\26\ Id.
Commerce continues to evaluate its practice with regard to the
separate rates analysis in light of the Diamond Sawblades from China
proceedings and its determinations therein.\27\ In particular, in
litigation involving the Diamond Sawblades from China proceeding, the
CIT found Commerce's existing separate rates analysis deficient in the
circumstances of that case, in which a government-owned and controlled
entity exercised control over the respondent exporter.\28\ Following
the CIT's reasoning, in recent proceedings, we have concluded that
where a government entity holds a majority equity ownership, either
directly or indirectly, in the respondent exporter, this interest in
and of itself means that the government exercises or has the potential
to exercise control over the company's operations generally.\29\ This
may include control over, for example, the selection of board members
and management, key factors in determining whether a company has
sufficient independence in its export activities to merit a separate
rate. Consistent with our normal separate rate practice, any ability to
control, or possess an interest in controlling, the operations of the
company including the selection of board members, management, and the
profit distribution of the company by a government entity is subject to
Commerce's rebuttable presumption that all companies within the NME
country are subject to government control.
\27\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, Consol. Court No. 09-00511, Slip Op. 12-147 (CIT
November 30, 2012), dated May 6, 2013, available at https://access.trade.gov/FinalRemandRedetermination, in Advanced Technology
& Materials Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, 885 F.Supp.2d 1343
(CIT 2012) (Advanced Technology I), aff'd Advanced Technology &
Materials Co. v. United States, 938 F.Supp.2d 1342 (CIT 2013), aff'd
Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, Court No.
2014-1154 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 78 FR 77098
(December 20, 2013), and accompanying PDM at 7, unchanged in Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012,
79 FR 35723 (June 24, 2014), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1 (collectively, Diamond Sawblades from
China).
\28\ See, e.g., Advanced Technology I, 885 F.Supp.2d at 1349
(CIT 2012) (``The court remains concerned that Commerce has failed
to consider important aspects of the problem and offered
explanations that run counter to the evidence before it.''); Id.,
885 F.Supp.2d at 1351 (``Further substantial evidence of record does
not support the inference that SASAC's {state-owned assets
supervision and administration commission{time} `management' of its
`state-owned assets' is restricted to the kind of passive-investor
de jure `separation' that Commerce concludes.'') (footnotes
omitted); Id., 885 F.Supp.2d at 1355 (``The point here is that
`government control' in the context of the separate rate test
appears to be a fuzzy concept, at least to this court, since a
`degree' of it can obviously be traced from the controlling
shareholder, to the board, to the general manager, and so on along
the chain to `day-to-day decisions of export operations,' including
terms, financing, and inputs into finished product for export.'');
Id., 885 F.Supp.2d at 1357 (``AT&M itself identifies its
`controlling shareholder' as CISRI {owned by SASAC{time} in its
financial statements and the power to veto nomination does not
equilibrate the power of control over nomination.'') (footnotes
omitted).
\29\ See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Preliminary Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, in Part, 79 FR 53169 (September 8, 2014),
and accompanying PDM at 5-9.
In order to demonstrate eligibility for separate rate status,
Commerce normally requires an exporter for which a review was
requested, and which was assigned a separate rate in a previous
completed segment of the proceeding and which remains active for that
exporter, to submit an SRC stating that it continues to meet the
criteria for obtaining a separate rate.\30\ For an exporter that was
not assigned a separate rate in a previously completed segment of the
proceeding and which remains active for that exporter, to demonstrate
eligibility, Commerce requires an SRA.\31\ A company that submits an
SRA or SRC and which is subsequently selected for examination must
respond to all parts of Commerce's questionnaire in order to be
eligible for a separate rate.\32\
\30\ See Initiation Notice, 90 FR at 46174.
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id.
In the Initiation Notice, Commerce stated that submission of SRAs
and SRCs were due 14 days after publication of the notice, i.e.,
October 9, 2025.\33\ Moreover, Commerce specifically noted that
``{t{time} he deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate
Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned
firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise
to the United States.'' \34\ We timely received an SRC from Keter; \35\
however, as discussed above, Keter subsequently timely withdrew its
request for review.\36\ No other company provided an SRA or SRC,
including the companies remaining under review (i.e., Shandong Zhongyi
Rubber Co., Ltd. (Zhongyi), Triangle, and Yongsheng). As such,
consistent with Commerce's practice for when a party fails to submit an
SRA or SRC, we preliminarily find that Triangle, Yongsheng, and Zhongyi
are ineligible for a separate rate, and, therefore, are part of the
China-wide entity.\37\ Commerce's practice with respect to an exporter
that fails to submit an SRA or SRC has been upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.\38\ Commerce further notes that the
companies remaining under review failed to submit an SRA or SRC,
meaning there are no remaining companies subject to review, including
the China-wide entity.\39\ As a result, Commerce did not need to limit
examination or select respondents. Furthermore, because no company or
the China-wide entity were eligible for examination in this review,
Commerce did not issue a questionnaire.
\33\ Id.
\34\ Id.
\35\ See Keter's Letter, ``Separate Rate Certification,'' dated
October 9, 2025.
\36\ See Keter Withdrawal.
\37\ See e.g., Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether
or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2012-2013, 80 FR 40998 (July 14,
2015) (treating a company as part of the China-wide entity for
failure to submit an SRA, and explaining that ``{t{time} he failure
to provide a separate rate certification is not a ministerial error,
but rather, a failure to comply with {Commerce{time} 's well
established separate rate methodology.''); see also, e.g.,
Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019-2020, 86
FR 49516, 49517 (September 3, 2021) (finding that PureMann, Inc.
(PureMann), the sole company subject to the review, did not file an
SRA and did not demonstrate its eligibility for separate rate status
and that, therefore, PureMann was part of the China-wide entity).
\38\ See Repwire LLC v. United States, 628 F.Supp.3d 1288 (CIT
2023), aff'd 2025 WL 2399398 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2025) (finding that
``Commerce's actions were reasonable and supported by substantial
evidence'' in a case in which Commerce retracted its issuance of the
initial questionnaire and found that Jin Tiong Electrical Materials
Manufacturer PTE. Ltd. was part of the China-wide entity due to its
failure to submit a timely SRA).
\39\ See Initiation Notice, 90 FR at 46180.
The China-Wide Entity
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide
entity applies to this administrative review.\40\ Under this policy,
the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party
specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the
entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity,
the entity is not under review, and the entity's rate (i.e., 76.46
percent) \41\ is not subject to change.
\40\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty
Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity
in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).
\41\ See Order, 80 FR 47902 at 47904.
Preliminary Results of Review
Because Triangle, Yongsheng, and Zhongyi failed to timely file
either an SRA or SRC in this review, we preliminarily find that these
companies are ineligible for a separate rate and, as such, are part of
the China-wide entity. As a result, there is no decision memorandum
accompanying this notice.
Disclosure
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations
performed in preliminary results within five days of any public
announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days
of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the
Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However,
because we preliminarily find that Triangle, Yongsheng, and Zhongyi are
a part of the China-wide entity, there are no calculations to disclose.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties
to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the
date of the publication of this notice.\42\ Rebuttal briefs, limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days
after the date for filing case briefs.\43\ Interested parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit:
(1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of
authorities.\44\
\42\ See 19 CFR 351.309.
\43\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d); see also Administrative Protective
Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29,
2023) (APO and Service Procedures).
\44\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we
request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their
briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their
briefs.\45\ Further, we request that interested parties limit their
public, executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not
including citations. We intend to use the public, executive summaries
as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and
decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this
administrative review. We request that interested parties include
footnotes for relevant citations in the public, executive summary of
each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements
pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\46\
\45\ We use the term ``issue'' here to describe an argument that
Commerce would normally address in a comment of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
\46\ See APO and Service Procedures.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to
request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via
ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and
whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues
to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to
issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made,
Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.\47\
\47\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in
accordance with the final results of this review.
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is
being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed
at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated antidumping
duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce
intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days
after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
For the final results, if we continue to treat Triangle, Yongsheng,
and Zhongyi as part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to
apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 76.46 percent to all entries of
subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported
by those companies.
If a timely summons is filed at the CIT, the assessment
instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until
the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has
expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication).
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by
the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated
duties, where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for
shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for previously
investigated or reviewed China and non-China exporters that received a
separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for
all China exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to
be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the
existing rate for the China-wide entity of 76.46 percent; and (3) for
all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the China exporter that supplied that non-Chinese
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Final Results of Review
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final
results of this administrative review, which will include the results
of its
analysis of issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days
of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal
Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping
duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the
amount of the countervailing duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 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.
Appendix I
Scope of the Order
The scope of the Order 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 the Order may be tube-type, tubeless,
radial, or non-radial, 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 Order
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 is among the numerical size designations listed in
the passenger car section or light truck section of the Tire and Rim
Association Yearbook, as updated annually, 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) new pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a size that is not listed
in the passenger car section or light truck section of the Tire and
Rim Association Yearbook;
(3) pneumatic tires, of rubber, that are not new, including
recycled and retreaded tires;
(4) non-pneumatic tires, such as solid rubber tires;
(5) tires designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use
spare tires for passenger vehicles which, in addition, exhibit each
of the following physical characteristics:
(a) 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) of the Tire and Rim
Association Yearbook,
(b) the designation ``T'' is molded into the tire's sidewall as
part of the size designation, and,
(c) 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 Yearbook, and the rated speed is 81 MPH or
a ``M'' rating;
(6) tires designed and marketed exclusively for specialty tire
(ST) use which, in addition, exhibit each of the following
conditions:
(a) the size designation molded on the tire's sidewall is listed
in the ST sections of the Tire and Rim Association Yearbook,
(b) the designation ``ST'' is molded into the tire's sidewall as
part of the size designation,
(c) the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the
sidewall, that the tire is ``For Trailer Service Only'' or ``For
Trailer Use Only'',
(d) the load index molded on the tire's sidewall meets or
exceeds those load indexes listed in the Tire and Rim Association
Yearbook for the relevant ST tire size, and
(e) 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 Yearbook, 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 Yearbook; 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;
(7) tires designed and marketed exclusively for off-road use and
which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical
characteristics:
(a) 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 Yearbook,
(b) 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'',
(c) 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 Yearbook, and the rated speed does not
exceed 55 MPH or a ``G'' rating, and
(d) the tire features a recognizable off-road tread design.
The products covered by the Order 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: 4011.90.2050, 4011.99.45.10, 4011.99.45.50,
4011.99.85.10, 4011.99.85.50, 8708.70.45.30, 8708.70.45.45,
8708.70.45.46, 8708.70.45.48, 8708.70.45.60, 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.
Appendix II
Companies Rescinded From Administrative Review
Companies With No Suspended Entries:
1. Qingdao Fullrun Tyre Corp., Ltd.
2. Qingdao Lakesea Tyre Co., Ltd.
3. Qingdao Landwinner Tyre Co., Ltd
4. Qingdao Nama Industrial Co., Ltd.
5. Qingdao Nexen Tire Corporation
6. Qingzhou Detai International Trading Co., Ltd
7. Riversun Industry Limited
8. Shandong Changfeng Tyres Co., Ltd.
9. Shandong Guofeng Rubber Plastics Co., Ltd.
10. Shandong Haohua Tire Co., Ltd.
11. Shandong Qilun Rubber Co., Ltd
12. Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd.
13. Shandong Yonking Rubber Co., Ltd.
14. Shengtai Group Co., Ltd.
15. Techking Tires Limited
16. Weihai Zhongwei Rubber Co., Ltd.
17. Windforce Tyre Co., Limited
Companies Withdrawn from Review Request:
1. Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd.
2. Qingdao Keter International Co., Limited
[FR Doc. 2026-14423 Filed 7-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Public-domain US Government work, mirrored verbatim by the Trimtab US Trade Ledger for citation stability. All tariff paper →