Glycine & More, Inc. v. United States
2015 WL 6685561
Ct. Intl. Trade2015Background
- Commerce initiated the 2011–2012 administrative review of the antidumping order on glycine from the PRC after timely requests by GEO and Baoding (through affiliate Glycine & More).
- Regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(d)(1) allows withdrawal of a review request within 90 days of initiation and permits Commerce to extend that period if "reasonable."
- GEO withdrew its review request on July 30, 2012; Baoding sent its withdrawal on August 7, 2012 — nine days after the 90-day window closed.
- In 2011 Commerce announced it would not extend the 90-day deadline except for "extraordinary circumstances." Applying that standard, Commerce denied Baoding’s untimely withdrawal, continued the review, and preliminarily (and finally) assigned Baoding a 453.79% margin based on facts available with an adverse inference.
- Glycine & More challenged Commerce’s refusal to give effect to Baoding’s withdrawal and also contested the large margin; the Court remanded on the withdrawal issue and did not reach the margin claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce lawfully denied Baoding’s untimely withdrawal under 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(d)(1) | The regulation’s discretionary-extension clause allows reasonable, short extensions to let requestors await final results of the prior review; Commerce’s post‑2011 "extraordinary circumstances" rule defeats the regulation’s purpose | Commerce’s 2011 interpretation is its fair and considered exercise of discretion and entitled to Auer deference; the extraordinary‑circumstances test is reasonable | Remanded: Commerce’s 2011 interpretation is inconsistent with the intent of the regulation and unreasonable as applied here; Commerce must reconsider extension request on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (deference to agency interpretations of its own regulations unless plainly erroneous)
- Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham, 567 U.S. 142 (2012) (agency interpretation not entitled to deference when it conflicts with agency’s prior position or lacks fair and considered judgment)
- Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (1994) (agency intent at promulgation may constrain later interpretations)
- Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v. United States, 777 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of an untimely extension request — court found it not on point here)