Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd., Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd., Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD., GUIZHOU TYRE
IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD., AEOLUS TYRE
CO., LTD.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
QINGDAO FREE TRADE ZONE FULL-WORLD
INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD., XUZHOU
XUGONG TYRES CO., LTD., TRELLEBORG WHEEL
SYSTEMS (XINGTAI) CO., LTD., QINGDAO
QIHANG TYRE CO., LTD., WEIHAI ZHONGWEI
RUBBER CO., LTD.,
Plaintiffs
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2163, 2023-2164
______________________
Appeals from the United States Court of International
Trade in Nos. 1:17-cv-00100-TCS, 1:17-cv-00102-TCS,
1:17-cv-00103-TCS, 1:17-cv-00104-TCS, 1:17-cv-00111-
TCS, 1:17-cv-00113-TCS, 1:17-cv-00123-TCS, Senior Judge
Timothy C. Stanceu.
-------------------------------------------------
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 1 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 1 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 2
GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD., GUIZHOU TYRE
IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
CHINA MANUFACTURERS ALLIANCE LLC,
SHANGHAI HUAYI GROUP CORPORATION
LIMITED, FKA DOUBLE COIN HOLDINGS LTD.,
Plaintiffs
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2165
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in Nos. 1:19-cv-00031-TCS, 1:19-cv-00034-TCS, Sen-
ior Judge Timothy C. Stanceu.
______________________
Decided: April 28, 2025
______________________
J ORDAN CHARLES K AHN, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz,
Silverman & Klestadt LLP, Washington, DC, argued for
plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by D HARMENDRA
N ARAIN CHOUDHARY , K AVITA MOHAN; N ED H. MARSHAK,
New York, NY.
STEPHEN CARL T OSINI, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee in appeals 2023-
2163, 2023-2164. Also argued by K ARA WESTERCAMP in ap-
peal 2023-2165. Also represented by EMMA E. BOND, BRIAN
M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 2 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 2 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 3
L OREN MISHA P REHEIM , YAAKOV R OTH ; ELIO G ONZALEZ, Of-
fice of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Com-
pliance, United States Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC.
______________________
Before T ARANTO, CLEVENGER , and HUGHES , Circuit
Judges.
T ARANTO, Circuit Judge.
The appeals before us are materially the same in the
legal and factual issues presented. Each pertains to entries
of merchandise from the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
subject to an antidumping-duty order issued by the United
States Department of Commerce. In each review, Com-
merce concluded that certain exporters from the PRC, of
which the PRC indirectly owned a substantial but minority
share, were not entitled to a separate antidumping-duty
rate for the subject merchandise because they failed to
demonstrate their independence from the PRC govern-
ment’s control. Commerce thus assigned those entities the
PRC-wide antidumping-duty rate, and the United States
Court of International Trade (Trade Court) eventually sus-
tained Commerce’s determinations. Guizhou Tyre Co. v.
United States, 641 F. Supp. 3d 1371, 1374 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2023) (CIT 2023 OTR Decision); Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United
States, 641 F. Supp. 3d 1386, 1388 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023)
(CIT 2023 TBT Decision). The companies appeal to this
court, challenging Commerce’s refusal to assign them their
own separate rates. Because appellants’ assertions of legal
error fail and Commerce’s findings are supported by sub-
stantial evidence, we affirm.
I
A
Two appeals are before us from a Trade Court judg-
ment in an administrative review based on Commerce’s
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 3 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 3 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 4
2008 order subjecting to antidumping duties certain new
pneumatic off-the-road (OTR) tires from the PRC. See Fed.
Cir. Nos. 23-2163 and 23-2164. Specifically, the two ap-
peals involve the seventh administrative review, under 19
U.S.C. § 1675, of subject merchandise that entered the
United States between September 1, 2014, and August 31,
2015. J.A. 3827–28. The entities under investigation in-
cluded companies we call “Guizhou Tyre” collectively—spe-
cifically, Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. (GTC) and its wholly
owned affiliate, Guizhou Tyre Import and Export Co., Ltd.
(GTCIE)—as well as Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd. J.A. 3829. Gui-
zhou Tyre and Aeolus are the appellants in those appeals,
which we consolidated and which we refer to jointly as the
OTR Appeal.
In April 2017, Commerce determined that Guizhou
Tyre and Aeolus were not entitled to their own separate
antidumping-duty rates and would receive the PRC-wide
rate. Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015, 82 Fed. Reg.
18733, 18733–36 (Apr. 21, 2017) (OTR Final Results), as
amended by Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
From the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Re-
sults of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–
2015, 82 Fed. Reg. 27224, 27224–26 (June 14, 2017). Com-
merce explained that it was following its usual practice of
presuming that each company within the PRC’s “non-mar-
ket economy” is subject to the PRC government’s control
and would, unless the company demonstrated the absence
of de jure and de facto government control, be assigned the
shared PRC-wide antidumping-duty rate. Issues and Deci-
sion Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-
Road Tires from the People’s Republic of China; 2014–2015
at 6–8 (Dep’t of Commerce Apr. 12, 2017) (OTR Final
Memo); see also Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, 128 F.4th
1265, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2025); China Manufacturers Alliance,
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 4 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 4 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 5
LLC v. United States, 1 F.4th 1028, 1036–37 (Fed. Cir.
2021); Michaels Stores, Inc. v. United States, 766 F.3d
1388, 1390, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405–06 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Commerce
found that appellants had failed to carry their burden of
persuasion of showing the lack of government control, find-
ing that their largest and controlling shareholders were di-
rectly or indirectly state-owned and “ha[d] the ability to
control, and an interest in controlling, the operations of the
company, including the selection of management and the
profitability of the company.” OTR Final Memo, at 10; see
id. at 13 (similar).
Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus each filed suit against the
United States in the Trade Court, challenging Commerce’s
separate-rate denials, and the cases were consolidated.
Among the challenges presented were Guizhou Tyre’s ar-
gument that Commerce had erroneously found that Gui-
zhou Tyre elected board members through meetings not
available to all shareholders and Aeolus’s argument that
Commerce had failed to consider important evidence, a
“Rectification Report,” that allegedly showed elimination of
previous state control. In May 2019, the Trade Court re-
manded the matter for Commerce to reconsider its sepa-
rate-rate determinations in light of all record evidence,
including the accessibility of shareholder meetings and the
significance of the Rectification Report. Guizhou Tyre Co.
v. United States, 389 F. Supp. 3d 1350, 1356–60, 1370 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 2019) (CIT 2019 OTR Decision).
In the remand proceedings, Commerce again concluded
that Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus failed to show a lack of state
control over management selection, i.e., the third “factor”
bearing on de facto control, and assigned Guizhou Tyre and
Aeolus the PRC-wide rate. J.A. 96–138 (OTR Remand I).
The matter returned to the Trade Court, which, in May
2021, remanded the matter for the second time, requiring
Commerce to make a redetermination of whether Guizhou
Tyre or Aeolus should be assigned its own separate rate.
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 5 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 5 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 6
Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, 519 F. Supp. 3d 1248,
1255–62 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (CIT 2021 OTR Decision).
The court did not disturb Commerce’s finding about man-
agement selection but faulted Commerce for not clearly in-
dicating how it thought that factor related to the other
three “stated factors” and to the bottom-line determination
regarding de facto control over “export activities.” Id. at
1256–57 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In September 2021, Commerce again denied each of
Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus a separate rate. J.A. 139–202
(OTR Remand II). Commerce maintained that a respond-
ent’s failure to make the necessary showing with respect to
a single de facto factor is sufficient for Commerce to deny
that respondent a separate rate. Id. at 4, 15–24. Nonethe-
less, Commerce made findings regarding each factor: that
Guizhou Tyre had carried its burden regarding the first
two factors but not the third or fourth factors (retention of
proceeds of export sales and independent disposition of
profits or financing of losses), and that Aeolus failed to
carry its burden only regarding the third factor. Id. at 4,
24–25; see also id. at 26–64.
On May 18, 2023, the Trade Court sustained the OTR
Remand II determination. CIT 2023 OTR Decision. It ac-
cepted Commerce’s rationale that a state-owned entity’s
“effective control over the selection of company manage-
ment” “signif[ies] the power to influence all of a company’s
business activities, including export functions.” Id. at
1380. The court could not conclude that such an inference
was unreasonable, id., and proceeded to sustain Com-
merce’s findings as supported by substantial evidence, id.
at 1381–85.
Appellants timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 6 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 6 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 7
B
The other appeal we address in this opinion involves
Commerce’s order subjecting to antidumping duties certain
truck and bus tires (TBT) from the PRC, based on an inves-
tigation of entries into the United States between July 1,
2015, and December 31, 2015. Fed. Cir. No. 23-2165 (TBT
Appeal). In January 2017, Commerce concluded that Gui-
zhou Tyre—specifically, GTCIE—was not entitled to a sep-
arate rate because it failed to show that it selected its
management free of the control of its largest shareholder,
a state-owned entity called the Guiyang Industry Invest-
ment Group Co., Ltd. (GIIG). Truck and Bus Tires From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determi-
nations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Cir-
cumstances, 82 Fed. Reg. 8599, 8604 (Jan. 27, 2017) (TBT
Final Results); Truck and Bus Tires from the People’s Re-
public of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Affirmative Determinations of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Critical Circumstances at 24–28 (Dep’t of
Commerce Jan. 19, 2017) (TBT Final Memo); Truck and
Bus Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Antidump-
ing Duty Order, 84 Fed. Reg. 4436, 4440 (Feb. 15, 2019)
(TBT Order).
In March 2019, Guizhou Tyre filed suit against the
United States in the Trade Court, contending (as relevant
here) that Commerce “failed to consider whether the gov-
ernment control it found was, specifically, control over ex-
port activities” and that Commerce’s denial of a separate
rate was unsupported by substantial evidence, in part be-
cause Commerce erroneously found that certain GTCIE
shareholders’ meetings were not made accessible to all
shareholders. Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, 557 F.
Supp. 3d 1302, 1306–07 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (CIT 2022
TBT Decision). In January 2022, the Trade Court re-
manded the matter to Commerce for reconsideration of the
denial of a separate rate. Id. at 1316–20, 1327. The Trade
Court held that Commerce had disregarded evidence of full
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 7 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 7 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 8
shareholder access to GTCIE shareholder meetings, failed
to explain how GIIG had exerted improper influence over
the board-selection process, and failed to explain “whether
its finding of government control extended, specifically, to
GTCIE’s export activities.” Id. at 1317–20.
In April 2022, Commerce again found that Guizhou
Tyre was not entitled to a separate rate. J.A. 117–84 (TBT
Remand). Commerce maintained that a respondent’s fail-
ure to establish autonomy with respect to a single factor is
sufficient for a separate-rate denial but nonetheless ad-
dressed each de facto factor, finding that Guizhou Tyre had
demonstrated its independence under the first two factors
but not under the third or fourth factors. Id. at 8–10, 21;
see also id. at 8–24, 39–61. Commerce found that, although
GTCIE’s shareholder meetings were accessible to all its
shareholders, other record evidence sufficiently showed
that Guizhou Tyre did not operate free of state control. Id.
at 8.
On May 22, 2023, the Trade Court sustained Com-
merce’s Remand Determination. CIT 2023 TBT Decision.
It determined that, based on record evidence demonstrat-
ing “the ability of a single, government-owned shareholder
to control the selection of board members and to control in-
directly the selection of the senior managers who operated
the company,” “Commerce reasonably could find or infer
that GIIG had the power to exert significant control or in-
fluence over the business operations of GTC and its wholly-
owned affiliate, GTCIE, including operations involving ex-
ports.” Id. at 1395. The court sustained Commerce’s find-
ings as supported by substantial evidence, id. at 1395–96,
and entered final judgment accordingly, J.A. 1–2.
Guizhou Tyre timely appealed. In its brief, Guizhou
Tyre stated that, although “each appeal is based on its own
administrative record, there are no material differences be-
tween the underlying records and the factual and legal is-
sues raised in” the OTR Appeal and the TBT Appeal. TBT
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 8 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 8 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 9
Appellants’ Br. at 2. The government did not argue other-
wise. See generally TBT Government’s Br. At oral argu-
ment, appellants again stated that the cases were
materially similar. Oral Arg. at 30:05–44, 34:13–35,
https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=
23-2163_04072025.mp3. Accordingly, we discuss Guizhou
Tyre’s portions of the two appeals together below, though
we cite each administrative record where relevant. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
II
We review decisions of the Trade Court by “apply[ing]
anew the same standard used” by the Trade Court. Pirelli
Tyre, 128 F.4th at 1269 (alteration in original) (quoting Ad
Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States, 802
F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). We will uphold Com-
merce’s determination here unless it is “unsupported by
substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in ac-
cordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
One legal argument advanced (if only briefly) by appel-
lants is that Commerce lacks a statutory basis for its use
of a rebuttable presumption of government control in coun-
tries with non-market economies. OTR Appellants’ Br. at
30–31, 50; TBT Appellants’ Br. at 38–39. But as appellants
acknowledge in the OTR Appeal, they did not present this
contention to the Trade Court, OTR Appellants’ Reply Br.
at 7 n.2, and we see no indication that they raised it in the
TBT Appeal either. We thus hold the argument forfeited,
seeing no good reason to excuse the failure to present the
contention to the trial court. See Full Member Subgroup of
American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC v. United
States, 81 F.4th 1242, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing In re
Google Technology Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed.
Cir. 2020)).
Appellants also argue that, at least where majority
state ownership is not present, Commerce’s treatment of
the third “factor” in its analysis of de facto control was
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 9 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 9 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 10
legally erroneous. Specifically, appellants suggest that
Commerce may not properly deem decisive an exporter’s
failure to establish lack of state control of management se-
lection, without further proof of state control of the export
activities specifically. OTR Appellants’ Br. at 34–49; TBT
Appellants’ Br. at 23–37. This contention cannot prevail in
light of our decision in Pirelli Tyre, issued after the briefing
in the matters before us here was complete. See 128 F.4th
at 1268, 1270. At oral argument in the present matters,
appellants made no meaningful effort to show otherwise.
Oral Arg. at 8:28–10:48.
What remains are more case-specific issues:
(1) whether substantial evidence supports Commerce’s
findings that Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus failed to demon-
strate the lack of de facto government control and
(2) whether Commerce provided no reasonable basis for
changing its separate-rate determination for Guizhou Tyre
between the fifth and seventh administrative reviews of
OTR tire entries, or between the fifth administrative re-
view and the TBT investigation. We are unpersuaded by
appellants’ arguments on both points.
A
1
Commerce’s determination that Guizhou Tyre failed to
rebut the lack of de facto government control is sufficiently
supported by record evidence, including the following:
(1) state-owned GIIG owns 25.2% of outstanding shares
and is the largest and controlling shareholder of GTC
(which owns 100% of GTCIE), OTR Remand I, at 14;1 OTR
1 Because the Trade Court did not reach the merits
of Commerce’s factual findings under the third de facto fac-
tor in CIT 2021 OTR Decision, Commerce incorporated by
reference its findings from OTR Final Results and OTR
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 10 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 10 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 11
Remand II, at 7; TBT Remand, at 6;2 (2) at a 2012 share-
holders’ meeting, GIIG, because of its ownership of the to-
tal shares present, “effectively selected” the GTC board,
which remained in place during the relevant period, OTR
Remand I, at 17–18, 26–27; OTR Remand II, at 45–47; TBT
Remand, at 12–14; (3) GTC’s Articles of Association em-
powered the board to appoint and remove senior manage-
ment, OTR Remand I, at 19–20; OTR Remand II, at 48;
TBT Remand, at 13; (4) GIIG was the only shareholder
that individually held enough shares to convene an interim
shareholders’ meeting, OTR Remand I, at 28; OTR Re-
mand II, at 48–50; TBT Remand, at 11–12, 55–56; (5) in
2015, upon the “first instance of a GIIG-supported proposal
failing to secure majority shareholder support, an interim
shareholder vote was immediately called [by GIIG], and
the prior failed proposals were submitted for re-vote” and
passed, showing that “GIIG can effectively hold re-votes on
GIIG’s favored proposals until such a time where such pro-
posals would prevail,” OTR Remand I, at 28–29; see also
OTR Remand II, at 48–49; TBT Remand, at 54–55; and
(6) confidential information showed that GTC’s chairper-
son “communicate[s] with and receives suggestions regard-
ing nominations and profit distribution from a government
entity,” OTR Remand I, at 29; OTR Remand II, at 51; TBT
Remand, at 13, 56.
Guizhou Tyre argues that the 2012 and 2015 share-
holders’ meetings do not evidence government control, be-
cause GIIG was not involved in nominating any director
Remand I into its final remand decision. See OTR Re-
mand II, at 21 n.71. Accordingly, we cite to the relevant
portions of both remand decisions.
2 In the TBT Appeal, Commerce found that GTC
wholly owned GTCIE and appointed its management, and
thus control of GTC was, by extension, control of GTCIE.
TBT Remand, at 6, 14–16, 18–19.
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 11 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 11 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 12
candidates in 2012; both meetings were open to all share-
holders and conducted transparently and in compliance
with all legal requirements; and other shareholders, if they
had arranged to act jointly, could have convened an interim
shareholders’ meeting. OTR Appellants’ Br. at 62–68; TBT
Appellants’ Br. at 46–57. Commerce could reasonably re-
ject Guizhou Tyre’s view of the evidence and the inference
to be drawn from it. Guizhou Tyre does not dispute that
GIIG—in spite of its minority ownership and any legal pro-
tections—in fact dominated the votes in the 2012 meeting
and selected GTC’s directors, which then selected the man-
agement in place during the period of review. Id. Guizhou
Tyre’s argument that other shareholders could have
banded together to convene an interim meeting or to op-
pose GIIG is unaccompanied by record evidence that such
coordination of shareholders occurred, except possibly for
the 2015 vote that GIIG quickly overturned. Nor does Gui-
zhou Tyre meaningfully challenge Commerce’s other fac-
tual findings. Id. On this record, Commerce could
reasonably infer that GIIG’s control over the selection of
GTC’s board members meant that GIIG, by extension, con-
trolled the selection of senior management in charge of
“day-to-day decisions regarding the company’s export ac-
tivity.” OTR Remand I, at 18–20; see OTR Remand II, at
48; TBT Remand, at 10, 15–16; see SeAH Steel VINA Corp.
v. United States, 950 F.3d 833, 845 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quot-
ing Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. United States, 750
F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984)) (“[S]ubstantial evidence in-
cludes ‘reasonable inferences from the record.’”); see also
Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United
States, 65 F.4th 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citations omit-
ted) (“[T]he burden lies with [the respondent] to develop a
full record and affirmatively rebut the presumption.”).
2
Commerce similarly relied on sufficient evidence for its
finding that Aeolus failed to rebut the lack of de facto gov-
ernment control in the OTR Appeal, including (but not
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 12 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 12 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 13
limited to) the following: (1) Aeolus is 42.58% owned by its
largest shareholder, China National Tire and Rubber Co.,
Ltd. (China National Tire)—a wholly owned subsidiary of
China National Chemical Corporation (ChinaChem),
which is a state-owned entity—and 6.48% owned by other
state-owned entities, OTR Remand I, at 7; see OTR Re-
mand II, at 5; (2) Aeolus’s website “states that it is under
the control . . . of ChinaChem,” which corroborated the
ownership information that Aeolus provided, OTR Re-
mand I, at 5; (3) the board of directors in place during the
period of review was elected at a shareholders’ meeting in
2014 where China National Tire “represented the vast ma-
jority of votes,” OTR Remand II, at 54; see OTR Remand I,
at 34–35; (4) Aeolus’s board in turn selects its senior man-
agement, OTR Remand I, at 5; (5) Aeolus’s chairman, who
“votes at Aeolus’s board meetings,” was also a board mem-
ber, and hence a “fiduciary,” of China National Tire, OTR
Remand I, at 35; see OTR Remand II, at 57; and (6) the
Rectification Report did not provide any constraints on
China National Tire’s control of Aeolus other than an “un-
enforceable promise” by a state-owned entity not to inter-
fere with Aeolus’s independence, and Aeolus’s enterprise
resource planning system remained under ChinaChem’s
management, OTR Remand I, at 10–13; see OTR Re-
mand II, at 56–57.
Aeolus argues that the 2014 board election does not
show state control because the shareholders did not nomi-
nate the board candidates; the election complied with all
legal requirements; non-state-owned shareholders could
have collectively outvoted state-owned shareholders; and
Commerce erroneously relied on shareholder information
from 19 days after the board election to assess which share-
holders had participated in the election. OTR Appellants’
Br. 68–72. The Board could reasonably find these argu-
ments unpersuasive for much the same reasons that Gui-
zhou Tyre’s related arguments were—e.g., Aeolus does not
dispute that China National Tire selected the directors at
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 13 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 13 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 14
the 2014 election, and Aeolus has not pointed to evidence
it introduced to show that other shareholders jointly out-
voted China National Tire, or that shareholder information
changed so meaningfully over the 19 days such that Com-
merce erred in finding that China National Tire repre-
sented the vast majority of votes at that election. See OTR
Remand I, at 34–35; OTR Remand II, at 55; SeAH Steel,
950 F.3d at 845; Zhejiang Machinery, 65 F.4th at 1371.
Finally, Aeolus disagrees with Commerce’s findings
and inferences based on the Rectification Report, website
printouts, and the duty of Aeolus’s chairman toward indi-
rectly state-owned China National Tire. OTR Appellants’
Br. at 73–77. We discern no reversible error in Commerce’s
findings on those points. On the full record, we conclude,
Commerce had substantial evidence to support its denial of
a separate rate for Aeolus.
B
Guizhou Tyre argues that Commerce, which granted a
separate rate to Guizhou Tyre in the fifth administrative
review of OTR tire entries, had no reasonable basis for re-
versing course when later denying a separate rate in the
seventh administrative review (the OTR Appeal) and the
TBT investigation, at issue here. OTR Appellants’ Br. at
82–85; TBT Appellants’ Br. at 57–60. Guizhou Tyre points
out that, between these two reviews, state ownership of
GTC actually declined, and a PRC agency, the Guiyang
SASAC, stopped conducting performance reviews of GTC.
OTR Appellants’ Br. at 82; TBT Appellants’ Br. at 57–58.
We have held that “Commerce may change its conclu-
sions from one review to the next based on new information
and arguments, as long as it does not act arbitrarily and it
articulates a reasonable basis for the change.” Qingdao
Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378, 1387
(Fed. Cir. 2014); see also id. (“Indeed, the Trade Court has
recognized that each administrative review is a separate
exercise of Commerce’s authority that allows for different
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 14 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 14 of 15 --

GUIZHOU TYRE CO., LTD. v. US 15
conclusions based on different facts in the record.”). Here,
Commerce pointed to an “evolution of Commerce’s separate
rate analysis since the fifth administrative review,” where
Commerce began to “examine whether the government
might be able to exercise, or have the potential to exercise,
control of a company’s general operations through minority
government ownership under certain factual scenarios.”
OTR Remand II, at 47–48 & n.144 (citing OTR Remand I,
at 24, 40 (collecting relevant Commerce memoranda and
Trade Court decisions in footnotes)). The facts in the fifth
administrative review also differ from those in the seventh
administrative review and those in the TBT investigation.
See OTR Government’s Br. at 56 (pointing out that the fifth
administrative review predated the July 2015 interim
shareholders’ meeting where GIIG held a revote on pro-
posals that it had supported but failed to pass two months
earlier). We are not persuaded that Commerce’s determi-
nation in the seventh administrative review or the TBT in-
vestigation is unreasonable in light of its explanation and
the different factual records.
III
We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the
decisions of the Trade Court.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-2163 Document: 70 Page: 15 Filed: 04/28/2025

-- 15 of 15 --