Calcium Glycinate Should Be Covered by AD/CVD on Glycine, Petitioner Says

A domestic producer of glycine brought a motion for judgment against the U.S. on June 6 regarding a negative scope ruling that calcium glycinate was too far removed a precursor of glycine to be covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

Specifically, the Commerce Department found that calcium glycinate is processed into glycine slurry, which itself is processed into glycine, petitioner Deer Park Glycine said. The orders cover glycine and its precursors, including but not limited to glycine slurry, the petitioner claimed.

It said that though calcium glycinate can be processed into glycine slurry, it is also transformable directly into dried crystalline glycine. Calcium glycinate is similar in composition and use to sodium glycinate, another glycine precursor that is considered in-scope, it said.

“Commerce’s analysis also impermissibly changes the scope of the Orders because the only product that can satisfy Commerce’s erroneous interpretation of the term ‘precursor’ is glycine slurry,” it said.

But this wasn’t the intention of the orders’ petitioners, as shown by the investigation history, Deer Park said. It called Commerce’s failure to consult this history and other primary sources when determining the meaning of the term “precursor” a violation of statute, even though the department acknowledged that the language of the orders on its own was not enough, it claimed.

In its investigation report, the International Trade Commission “clearly” considered sodium glycinate to be covered by the orders, the petitioner said. Both calcium glycinate and sodium glycinate can be transformed into glycine in a manufacturing process that first treats the input with sulfuric acid to create glycine slurry, then filters the slurry to obtain dried crystalline glycine, it said.

Also, during its investigation, petitioners answered a supplemental questionnaire issued by Commerce saying that they had intended sodium glycinate and other precursors to be covered by the orders, Deer Park said.

In refusing to consider calcium glycinate a glycine precursor subject to the orders, the scope ruling was illegally limiting those orders, it said.

The relevant antidumping duty orders cover glycine from India, Japan and Thailand, while the relevant countervailing duty orders cover the product from China, India and Thailand.