The U.S. Court of International Trade recently ruled on a case involving Kumar Industries and Bajaj Healthcare Limited regarding the antidumping duty order on glycine imports from India. The court's decision, dated September 14, 2026, affects how the U.S. Department of Commerce calculated the dumping margins for these companies during the 2022-2023 review period. The ruling is significant as it addresses the use of adverse facts available and the standards for determining dumping margins in international trade.
The case, identified as Court No. 25-00081, arose from an administrative review initiated by the Department of Commerce in August 2023. The review focused on the antidumping duty order for glycine, a common amino acid used in various industries. Kumar Industries and Bajaj Healthcare were among the companies involved in the review, with Kumar being selected for individual examination while Bajaj was not. The outcome of this case has implications for how companies report their affiliations and the information they provide during such reviews.
Kumar Industries and Bajaj Healthcare Limited, both based in India, were the plaintiffs in this case. The U.S. Department of Commerce had previously conducted administrative reviews of the antidumping order involving Kumar, which had raised concerns about the accuracy of the information provided by the company regarding its affiliations with other entities. The Department of Commerce initiated the 2022-2023 review to reassess the dumping margins applicable to these companies.
During the review, Commerce determined that Kumar Industries had failed to provide complete and accurate information regarding its affiliations with other companies, which led to the application of adverse facts available (AFA) in calculating its dumping margin. The court noted that Kumar's responses to Commerce's inquiries were often contradictory and that the company had not cooperated to the best of its ability. As a result, Commerce assigned a dumping margin to Bajaj Healthcare based on the average of the margins assigned to Kumar and another company, Avid Organics, which was also under review.
The court ruled that the Department of Commerce's application of AFA to Kumar was justified, stating, "Commerce determined that Kumar's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with [Commerce's] requests for information undermined the validity of the company's submissions overall." This ruling means that Kumar's submissions were deemed unreliable, leading to a higher dumping margin being assigned to Bajaj as a non-selected respondent.
However, the court also found issues with how Commerce calculated the all-others rate assigned to Bajaj. The court stated that Commerce's choice to assign Bajaj an antidumping rate equal to the simple average of the rates obtained by the two mandatory respondents resulted in a high rate of 28.59%. The court emphasized that this rate did not reflect the commercial reality of Bajaj's situation and remanded the decision back to Commerce for further explanation.
The impact of this ruling is significant for companies involved in international trade, particularly those subject to antidumping duties. The decision underscores the importance of providing accurate and complete information during administrative reviews. Companies must be diligent in reporting their affiliations and ensuring that their submissions are consistent to avoid adverse consequences. The ruling also sets a precedent regarding the standards for using adverse facts available and the expectations for cooperation from companies undergoing such reviews.
Moving forward, the Department of Commerce is required to provide further explanation for its determination to deviate from the expected method in calculating the all-others rate assigned to Bajaj. The court has set deadlines for Commerce to file its remand redetermination and the administrative record related to this case. The parties involved will have the opportunity to submit comments in response to the remand, which will further shape the outcome of this case.
This ruling highlights the complexities of international trade regulations and the rigorous standards that companies must meet to ensure compliance with U.S. trade laws. As the case progresses, it will be essential for Kumar Industries and Bajaj Healthcare to navigate the remand process carefully and address the concerns raised by the court.