779 F.Supp.3d 1329
Ct. Int'l Trade2025Background
- Kumar Industries, an Indian producer/exporter of glycine, was selected as a mandatory respondent in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 2021–22 administrative review of antidumping duties on glycine imports from India, China, and Japan.
- Commerce previously found evidence of Kumar’s affiliation with two unnamed companies ("Companies A and B") in prior reviews; affiliation status affects dumping margin calculations.
- In the 2021–22 review, Kumar again claimed non-affiliation with Companies A and B, providing only statements and unsworn letters but no supporting documentation.
- Commerce issued multiple supplemental questionnaires specifically requesting more substantive supporting documents to prove non-affiliation; Kumar did not provide such evidence.
- Commerce found necessary information was missing, that Kumar did not act to the best of its ability, and applied an adverse inference, resulting in the highest calculated margin for Kumar. Kumar challenged this outcome at the Court of International Trade.
Issues
| Issue | Kumar's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Commerce's adverse inference supported by substantial evidence/in accordance with law? | Provided all necessary info; adverse inference not warranted; statements and letters suffice. | Kumar gave only unsupported assertions; failed to act to best of ability and provide requested documentation. | Supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. |
| Did Commerce provide sufficient notice/opportunity to remedy deficiencies? | No notice or more chance given after last response compared to peer respondent. | Issued two supplemental questionnaires clearly stating deficiencies and allowing for remedy/explanation. | Provided adequate notice and opportunity under the law. |
| Was it proper to only exclude ADD/CVD duties from 3 entries when calculating U.S. duties? | All entries’ duties overstated; Commerce should have excluded ADD/CVD duties for all. | Documentation only supported three transactions’ duty exclusion; others were unsupported or mathematically suspect. | Commerce's approach was supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (outlines use of adverse inferences when party fails to cooperate to best of ability)
- Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (defines dumping and Commerce’s responsibilities)
- Sioux Honey Ass’n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 672 F.3d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explains dumping and fair value concepts)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (distinguishes ADD/CVD from normal duties in calculations)
- Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (on sufficiency of supplemental questionnaires and notice)
- QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (addresses party’s responsibility to create an adequate record)
- Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (burden of production in administrative reviews)