Indian Exporter Contests AFA Rate in AD Review Related to Affiliation Analysis
Indian exporter Kumar Industries took to the Court of International Trade to contest the adverse facts available rate it received for purportedly failing to cooperate to the best of its ability in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from India. Filing a complaint on Jan. 1, Kumar said Commerce erred in using AFA due to the noncooperation of two entities which the agency said were related to Kumar (Kumar Industries v. United States, 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.
The exporter said that it obtained information from the two "unrelated entities" which shows that the entities were not involved in the production or export process of glycine. As a result, the failure to provide these companies' financial information "is harmless error" since Kumar's books and records completed the record in the AD review.
Kumar also challenged Commerce's alleged failure to tell the company of the deficiencies in its questionnaire response. The exporter said it told the agency of its inability to get the unrelated entities to submit further information, telling the trade court that Commerce "never identified this as a deficiency and did not provide an opportunity to address such deficiencies."
The trade court recently sustained an AFA rate against Kumar in a separate case on a previous review of the AD order due to the respodent's "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners' ownership interest in two unnamed companies (see 2311270005). In that case, the court said that Kumar "raised more questions than it answered" regarding the company's affiliation with the two companies, barring a proper affiliate analysis. Kumar has appealed the decision.