Glycine Exporter Didn't Impede AD Review Over Affiliations, Exporter Tells Trade Court

The Commerce Department illegally used total adverse facts available on the grounds that antidumping respondent Kumar Industries failed to fully cooperate to the best of its ability, Kumar said in a July 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's position that Kumar failed to hand over all of the information regarding its affiliation status is incorrect since the respondent gave "extensive information" on its affiliation status with two unnamed companies "at every occasion in the form and manner requested by Commerce," the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).

Commerce had saddled Kumar with AFA in the 2018-20 review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from India for its alleged withholding of information about potential affiliation between it and the two companies. The home market buyer accounted for a "substantial portion" of Kumar's home market sales while the supplier was a large chunk of Kumar's purchases of inputs needed to make glycine.

Commerce believed that there was affiliation between Kumar and the two companies since both were owned by former Kumar partners. Kumar said that the partners have since sold their interests in the companies and no longer exert any control over their business operations.

Kumar argues that at no point did Commerce ask that Kumar report the home market buyer's resales of its purchases from Kumar as home market sales or report the input supplier's own input purchases of its sales to Kumar in the AD review responses, the respondent argued in its January complaint and now in its motion for judgment. Kumar said that it gave evidence to back its claim that it wasn't affiliated with either entity and that Commerce illegally ignored such evidence.

"Kumar cooperated in all facets of the review, and responded in full to the initial questionnaire and four supplemental questionnaires," the brief said. "Commerce’s conclusion that Kumar’s lack of cooperation impeded the agency’s ability to calculate an accurate dumping margin for Kumar is not unsupported by substantial evidence on the record. In fact, Kumar provided all information requested in the form and manner requested in the initial questionnaire response and four supplemental questionnaires responses. The vast majority of all information submitted by Kumar was complete, accurate, and timely."