Indian Glycine Exporter Says It's Not Responsible for Two 'Unrelated Entities'
The Commerce Department wrongly attributed two unrelated entities to an Indian glycine exporter and hit it with adverse facts available for not providing those two companies’ financial information, the exporter said June 3. It also alleged that the department failed to notify it of any deficiencies in its responses (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00263).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Exporter Kumar Industries said that the two unaffiliated entities had refused to participate in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duties on Kumar’s products, but that their information wasn’t necessary anyway because everything the exporter itself had already given Commerce was enough to complete the record.
It also pointed out that it provided evidence that it isn’t related to the two entities. Therefore, there is no missing information in that regard, either.
Kumar also argued that Commerce failed to provide it timely notice of any alleged incomplete submissions until it released its preliminary results, in violation of the laws governing reviews. It said that the department had 135 days between Kumar’s last filing and its release of the results to do so, meaning it had had plenty of time.
“Perfection” is not required for a company to participate in a review to the best of its ability, it said.
“Critically, there is no evidence of any kind that Kumar had any power to ‘force’ Company A and Company B to provide this information,” it said. “Critically, Kumar didn’t even do business with Company A and B, and thus could not even have withheld their business to force compliance, nor is [there] any evidence that Kumar’s business was ‘important’ to Company A and B.”
Kumar also alleged that the department deducted its duties from its invoice price in calculating its U.S. price, a decision that went against common practice.