US Opposes Consolidation of Cases Contesting Exporter’s Scope Ruling Proceedings
The U.S. on March 18 opposed a motion to consolidate an exporter’s two Court of International Trade cases contesting two Commerce Department scope rulings. Those rulings found the exporter’s calcium glycinate was covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00238, 24-00016).
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.
Deer Park, a domestic producer of glycine, recently took over exporter GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and now operates its glycine business as well (see 2401260069). It filed complaints on Dec. 7 (see 2312070036) and Jan. 26 challenging, respectively, Commerce’s finding in August 2023 that its calcium glycinate was covered under the glycine orders and the department’s subsequent refusal to consider Deer Park’s second, more comprehensive scope application filed in November because it was “duplicative.”
The government said that consolidation would be "improper" because Deer Park’s two cases contest different administrative processes, have different facts and require different standards of review.
For instance, Deer Park’s Jan. 26 complaint doesn’t require discussion about whether calcium glycinate is covered by the scope orders on glycine, it said. The court has previously chosen not to consolidate cases, even those that involve “related antidumping proceedings,” when they don't consider issues common to them all.
The government also said combining the cases could “lead to confusion” because they involve “different, though somewhat related, administrative records.”
“Consolidation of cases involving distinct records risks the improper conflation of record facts that would contravene the Court’s review of a determination based solely upon the evidence in the underlying record,” it said.