Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle llp Almaty Ashgabat Astana Buenos Aires Dubai Frankfurt Houston Istanbul

Kuwait City London Mexico City Milan Muscat New York Paris

Attorneys and Counsellors at Law 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

Telephone 202-452-7373 Facsimile 202-452-7333 www.curtis.com

June 19, 2012 Honorable Jane R. Restani U.S. Court of International Trade One Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278-0001 Re:

GPX’s Response to Court Order dated June 12, 2012 GPX International Tire et al, v. United States, Consol Court No. 08-00285

Dear Judge Restani: This letter provides the response of GPX International Tire Corporation and Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (collectively “GPX”) to the Court’s Order dated June 12, 2012 concerning the remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). At the outset we note that when it ordered a remand “for a determination of the constitutionality of the new legislation” the CAFC did not limit which constitutional issues could be addressed on remand. To the contrary, the CAFC specifically noted that it had only received “cursory” briefing on the constitutional questions and recognized that initial consideration of any constitutional issues resides with this Court. See GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 678 F.3d 1308, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2012). That stated, we note that GPX intends to argue that only one section of the new legislation is unconstitutional; namely, Section 1(b) that makes the effective date of Section 1 retroactive to November 2006. We provide below those arguments that GPX intend to pursue in challenging the constitutionality of Section 1(b) of the new legislation: Section 1(b) of the Application of Countervailing Duty Provisions to Argument 1: Nonmarket Economy Countries, Pub. L. No. 112-99, 126 Stat. 265 (2012) (to be codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1677f-1) is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. Section 1(b) creates

12378774v1

The Honorable Jane A. Restani June 19, 2012 Page 2 a special rule that creates a particular class of parties to whom both antidumping and countervailing duties may retroactively be imposed without the protections Congress recognized as necessary under Section 2 of the same Act to account for potential double counting, protections that only apply prospectively. Section 1(b) of the Application of Countervailing Duty Provisions to Argument 2: Nonmarket Economy Countries, Pub. L. No. 112-99,126 Stat. 265 (2012) (to be codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1677f-1) is also unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The extreme extent of retroactivity (which applies to all proceedings initiated on or after November 20, 2006) and the adverse impact on importers do not serve a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means. Section l(b) of the Application of Countervailing Duty Provisions to Argument 3: Nonmarket Economy Countries, Pub. L. No. 112-99, 126 Stat. 265 (2012) (to be codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1677f-1) is also unconstitutional because it violates Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. The retroactive application of the countervailing duty law to non-market economy countries falls within the constitution prohibition against the passage of an ex post facto law that sanctions conduct only after that conduct has already occurred. Finally, with the Court’s indulgence, we provide our comments on the briefing schedule. Given that the constitutional question appears to be one of “first impression,” we respectfully request that the Court adopt a briefing schedule similar to that for Rule 56.2 motions. Specifically, we suggest that Respondent Plaintiffs submit their initial briefs 60 days from the date of the CAFC mandate (June 4, 2012) and that the Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors file their response 60 days later. Respondent Plaintiffs would then submit their reply 28 days thereafter. We also request that the Court allow the same number of pages permitted for trade cases as set forth in the Standard Chamber Procedures. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Daniel L. Porter Daniel L. Porter James P. Durling Matthew P. McCullough Counsel to GPX

-212378774v1