U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4255 August 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Glycine from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-718 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Stefania Pozzi Porter, Investigator 

Philip Stone, Industry Analyst 

Aimee Larsen, Economist 

Charles Yost, Accountant 

Charles St. Charles, Attorney 

Lita David-Harris, Statistician 

Jim McClure, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4255 August 2011

Glycine from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-718 (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

Determination .................................................................. 1

Views of the Commission ......................................................... 3

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

 The original Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

 Commerce new shipper reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

 Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

 Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

 Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Statutory Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

 Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

 Commerce’s Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

 Five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

 The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

 The Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

 Domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

 U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

 Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................ II-1

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Geographic distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

Supply ................................................................... II-2

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Demand characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-8

Purchaser characteristics ..................................................... II-8

Knowledge of country source ................................................. II-8

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

Comparison of domestic product, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ................ II-13

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-16

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-16

i
CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ............................................ III-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Changes experienced in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-1

Alternative products ........................................................ III-2

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-2

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-3

Financial experience of U.S. Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

Background ............................................................... III-3

Operations on glycine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-6

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-6

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Imports from subject and nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers’ imports subsequent to December 31, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Chinese producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Information on nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw Material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Contract vs. spot sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

ii
CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and adequacy statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding the effects

 of the antidumping order and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Quarterly Domestic and Nonsubject Country Price Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been deleted. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

iii
 
1 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

 Investigation No. 731-TA-718 (Third Review) 

 GLYCINE FROM CHINA 

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States 

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on glycine from China would 

be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. 

BACKGROUND 

The Commission instituted this review on October 7, 2010 (75 F.R. 62141) and determined on 

January 4, 2011 that it would conduct a full review (76 F.R. 8771, February 15, 2011). Notice of the 

scheduling of the Commission=s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was 

given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on February 15, 2011 (76 F.R. 

8771). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2011, and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. 

 

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission=s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR ' 207.2(f)). 

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order covering glycine from

China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

In March 1995, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was threatened

with material injury by reason of imports of glycine from China sold at less than fair value.1

 On March

29, 1995, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published an antidumping duty order

covering glycine from China.2

 

In the first (March 1999) and second (October 2005) five-year reviews, both of which were

conducted on an expedited basis, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty

order on glycine from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

The Commission instituted the current review on October 7, 2010.4

 The Commission received

one submission in response to its notice of institution, filed on behalf of Chattem Chemicals, Inc.

(“Chattem”) and GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“GEO”), which together accounted for all domestic

production of glycine in 2010. On January 4, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic

interested party group response was adequate but that the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate. Notwithstanding the inadequacy of the respondent interested party group response, the

Commission determined that it would conduct a full review, pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act, as

amended, in light of information regarding possible changes in conditions of competition.5 6 7

Domestic producers Chattem and GEO appeared at the hearing and filed joint prehearing and

posthearing briefs and responses to Commissioner questions. Summit Research Labs (“Summit”), a U.S.

purchaser of glycine, appeared at the hearing and filed a posthearing statement. 

The Commission received questionnaire responses from both domestic producers, Chattem and

GEO, and those responses are estimated to account for all domestic glycine production in 2010.8

 The

Commission also received questionnaire responses from 15 U.S. importers of glycine,9

 accounting for

51.2 percent of total subject imports from China and 30.7 percent of glycine imports from all sources

 1 Glycine from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-718 (Final), USITC Pub. 2863 (Mar. 1995)

(“Original Determination”) at 1. 

 2

 60 Fed. Reg. 16116 (Mar. 29, 1995).

 3

 Glycine from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-718 (Review), USITC Pub. 3315 (June 2000) (“First Review

Determination”); Glycine from China, Inv. No 731-TA-718 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3810 (Oct. 2005)

(“second review determination”). 

 4

 75 Fed. Reg. 62141 (Oct. 7, 2010).

 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5).

 6

 Explanation of Determination on Adequacy, Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at Appendix A.

 7

 Vice Chairman Williamson and Commissioners Lane and Pinkert voted to conduct an expedited review. Id.

 8 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) and Public Staff Report (“PR”) at III-1. 

 9

 CR at I-18, PR at I-10.

3
during 2005-10.10 The Commission received 33 purchaser questionnaire responses.11 The Commission

did not receive a questionnaire response from any Chinese producers/exporters.12

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”13 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which

is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an

investigation under this subtitle.”14 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like

product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.15

1. Product Description

In this third five-year review determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as

follows:

The product covered by the order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline

material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is

used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid,

chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This order covers glycine

of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading

2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS).16

Commerce’s definition of the subject merchandise has not changed since its original 

determination.17

Glycine is a nonessential amino acid that is produced naturally by humans and other

 10 CR/PR at IV-1. 

 11 CR at II-14, PR at II-8.

 12 CR at IV-6, PR at IV-5.

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp.

v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19

CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979). 

 15 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (December 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3577 at 4 (February 2003).

 16 Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine From the Peoples

Republic of China, 76 Fed. Reg. 7150 (Feb. 9, 2011).

 17 In a separate scope ruling, the Department determined that D(-) Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is outside the

scope of the order. See 76 Fed. Reg. 7150 (Feb. 9, 2011).

4
organisms as a building block for proteins. It is odorless and sweet to the taste. Commercial production

of glycine uses traditional chemical synthesis. In its dried form, in which it is most often sold, glycine is

a white, free-flowing powder.18

Glycine is typically sold in two main grades: United States Pharmacopeia (“USP”) grade and

technical grade. Glycine meeting USP purity standards is typically used as an additive to enhance or

mask flavors or reduce acidity in food, beverages, animal feed, nutraceuticals, personal care products, and

cosmetics. Technical grade glycine is used in industrial applications. The large majority of glycine

consumed in the United States is USP grade. Glycine with even greater purity than is mandated by USP

standards can be produced to meet specific customer requirements. Such high-purity glycine is often

referred to as pharmaceutical grade.19

2. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

The starting point of the Commission’s like product analysis in a five-year review is the like

product definition in the Commission’s original determination and the prior reviews.20 In the original

investigation, the Commission defined a single domestic like product, encompassing all grades of glycine,

that was coextensive with Commerce’s scope.21 In defining a single domestic like product, the

Commission found that all glycine, regardless of form, had the same chemical structure; there was

significant interchangeability between glycine of differing purity levels; channels of distribution were

similar for all domestically produced glycine; producers and end users perceived glycine to be a single

product regardless of grade; and common production processes, facilities, and employees were used to

produce the different grades.22

The Commission adopted the same like product definition in the first and second (both expedited)

five-year reviews: glycine of all purity levels, coextensive with Commerce’s scope.23 

3. Analysis and Conclusion

No new facts are present on this record to warrant a conclusion different from that reached by the

Commission in the original investigation and two prior reviews.24 We therefore find one domestic like

product that is co-extensive with the scope and that includes glycine of all purity levels. 

 18 CR at I-14, PR at I-8.

 19 CR at I-14, PR at I-8; see also CR/PR at Table II-3.

 20 In the like product analysis for an investigation, the Commission generally considers a number of factors,

including (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) common

manufacturing facilities, production processes and production employees; (5) customer and producer perceptions;

and, where appropriate, (6) price. See The Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (CIT 1996). No

single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors relevant to a particular investigation. 

The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products, and disregards minor variations. See,

e.g., S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49. 

 21 Original Determination at I-6.

 22 Id.

 23 First Review Determination at 4, Second Review Determination at 4.

 24 The parties did not argue for any changes to the domestic like product definition.

5
B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “producers as a whole

of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”25 In defining the domestic

industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic

production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic

merchant market. Section 771(4)(B) of the Act, the related parties provision, allows the Commission to

exclude certain domestic producers from the domestic industry that import subject merchandise or have a

corporate affiliation with importers or exporters of subject merchandise, if the Commission finds that

appropriate circumstances exist.26

In the Commission’s original determination and first two five-year reviews, the Commission

defined the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of the domestic like product, which at the time

included Chattem and Hampshire Chemical Corp. (“Hampshire”).27 GEO is the successor to Hampshire. 

There is no new evidence in the current review to warrant a change in the definition of the domestic

industry.28 Therefore, based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic

industry to include all U.S. producers of the domestic like product, Chattem and GEO.29

III. WHETHER REVOCATION OF THE ORDER IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO

CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME

A. Legal Standard in a Five-year Review

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping or countervailing duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation

of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”30 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”31 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.32 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

 25 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (4)(B).

 27 Original Determination at I-6, First Review Determination at 5, Second Review Determination at 5.

 28 The parties did not argue for any changes to the definition of the domestic industry.

 29 There are no related party issues in this investigation as neither Chattem nor GEO is related to a producer or

importer of the subject merchandise and neither imported the subject merchandise during the period examined.

 30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 31 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the

Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

 32 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

(continued...)

6
“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.33 34 35

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”36 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ time frame applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”37

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”38 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.§

1675(a)(4).39 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission

 32 (...continued)

shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 33 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 34 For a complete statement of Chairman Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views of

Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and

731-TA-707 to 710 (Review)(Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 35 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue.

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 37 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce.

7
is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s

determination.40

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review is

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.41 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.42

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the order under review is revoked, the

Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports relative to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the United

States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of

the domestic like product.43

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review is

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: 

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of

the domestic like product.44 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the

statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order were

revoked.45

When appropriate in this review, we have relied on the facts otherwise available, which consist of

information from the original investigation and prior reviews, and information submitted in this review,

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 43 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely

on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” 

SAA at 886.

 44 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 45 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

8
including information provided by the domestic industry, questionnaire responses, and information

available from published sources.46 47

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”48

In the original investigation, the Commission identified several relevant conditions of

competition. First, the Commission found that changes in glycine prices are unlikely to affect the

quantity demanded because glycine is an intermediate product, has no substitutes, and accounts for a

relatively small proportion of the cost of producing downstream products, such as pharmaceuticals, food

products, pet food, and antiperspirants.49 Additionally, the Commission found that glycine purchases for

each end use are concentrated among relatively few purchasers, and that intense competitive pressures

had motivated these purchasers to use their purchasing power to extract price concessions from glycine

producers.50 The Commission found that domestic producer market share had declined throughout the

period of investigation (“POI”) because domestic shipments had increased less than apparent U.S.

consumption.51

 In the first five-year review, the Commission found that the conditions of competition in the

original investigation largely continued.52 The Commission also observed that apparent U.S.

consumption of glycine had increased since the original investigation and that, although domestic

producers continued to supply a dominant share of the U.S. market, the volume of non-subject imports

had increased and captured a larger share of the U.S. market since the original investigation.53 

In the second five-year review, the Commission found that the general conditions of competition

noted in the original investigation had continued and that apparent U.S. consumption of glycine had

 46 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or any other

person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time or in the form or

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).

 47 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 49 Original Determination at I-6-7. 

 50 Original Determination at I-7.

 51 Original Determination at I-7.

 52 First Review Determination at 7.

 53 First Review Determination at 7-8.

9
increased slightly since the first five-year review, and substantially since the original investigation.54 The

domestic industry’s market share, however, had declined significantly from the levels in the original

investigation and the first five-year review, largely because non-subject import market share had more

than *** since 1994.55

a. Demand

Demand for glycine depends upon the demand for its end use applications.56 Most glycine – 61.7

percent of U.S. sales in 2010 – is used as an intermediate material in products intended for human or

animal consumption, such as vitamins and other nutraceuticals, pet food, and animal feed. Glycine is also

used to a lesser extent – 29.4 percent of U.S. sales in 2010 – as an additive to cosmetics and personal care

products, most notably deodorants and antiperspirants.57

In the current five-year review, demand conditions appear to be largely unchanged from the

original investigation. For instance, changes in glycine prices are still unlikely to affect the quantity

demanded given that glycine is an intermediate product with few substitutes that constitutes a small

proportion of the cost of downstream products. Glycine purchases remain concentrated among relatively

few high-volume end users. The three largest purchasers of glycine, ***, accounted for approximately 70

percent of the market.58 As measured by apparent U.S. consumption, demand increased irregularly from

*** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2008, before decreasing irregularly to *** pounds in 2010.59 60

b. Supply

There are two domestic producers of glycine, Chattem and GEO.61 The domestic industry’s

annual capacity was *** from 2005 to 2010 at *** pounds.62 Domestic producers’ market share declined

irregularly over the current review period from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010.63 Although

GEO acknowledges that there were various problems as recently as *** with its product quality and

delivery performance, the record indicates that the company has substantially improved its performance

since that time through implementation of performance tracking and customer communication measures.64

 In the current review period, the volume of subject imports from China increased from 1.9

million pounds in 2005 to 3.6 million pounds in 2008, then was lower in 2009 and 2010, at 126 thousand

 54 CR/PR at Table I-1 (apparent U.S. consumption was *** pounds in 2004, *** percent higher than in 1999 and

*** percent higher than in 1994).

 55 CR/PR at Table I-9 (domestic market share declined from *** percent in 1994 and *** percent in 1999 to ***

percent in 2004, while non-subject import market share increased from *** percent in 1994 to *** percent in 1999,

and to *** percent in 2004).

 56 CR at II-12, PR at II-7.

 57 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 58 CR at II-14, PR at II-8.

 59 CR/PR at Table C-1. The domestic producers reported that demand fluctuated over the period examined. 

Importers’ and purchasers’ responses were mixed regarding whether demand had increased, decreased, fluctuated, or

been unchanged, with a majority reporting an increase or no change. CR/PR at Table II-4.

 60 Chattem and GEO argue that the figure in the staff report for apparent U.S. consumption in 2008 is *** and

appears to be inaccurate given the absence of any business developments that would account for that level of

consumption. Chattem/GEO Prehearing Brief at 6. 

 61 CR I-17, PR at I-10. 

 62 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 63 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 64 Chattem/GEO Posthearing Brief, Annex at 2-4, and Exhibits 2, 3.

10
pounds and 1.2 million pounds, respectively. The reduced volume of subject imports in 2009 may be

attributable in part to a reduction in Chinese production for part of 2008 and a tightening of global supply

extending into 2009, when Chinese glycine producers curtailed production to reduce air pollution prior to

the Beijing Olympics.65 The market share of subject imports increased from *** percent in 2005 to ***

percent in 2008, before declining to *** percent in 2009 and *** percent in 2010.66 The volume of

nonsubject imports was higher in the first review period than in the original investigation and higher

again in the second review period.67

Nonsubject imports increased irregularly over the current period of review from 5.4 million

pounds in 2005 to 7.8 million pounds in 2010.68 Nonsubject imports’ market share increased irregularly

from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010.69

Chattem and GEO contend that many of the reported nonsubject imports, especially a share of

those reported to have been from India, were actually transshipped China-origin glycine for which the

country of origin was inaccurately represented at importation.70 Such alleged transshipments are the

subject of an ongoing anti-circumvention investigation before the Department of Commerce. That

investigation is not scheduled to conclude before October 2011.71 We decline to speculate regarding the

outcome of Commerce’s anti-circumvention inquiry.72 Accordingly, we find that official import statistics

remain a reliable source for subject and nonsubject import volumes and values.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In its determination of threat of material injury in the original investigation, the Commission

found that substantial underutilized Chinese glycine capacity would likely be directed to the U.S. market,

given the substantial increase in subject import volume and market share over the POI, and the fact that

the U.S. market for products made of glycine was the world’s largest market for glycine at that time.73

The Commission concluded that subject import market share would likely increase to injurious levels in

the imminent future.74 

 65 Chattem/GEO Posthearing Brief, Response to Commissioner Questions at 10-11. The reduced volume of

subject imports in 2009 may also be explained in part by the timing of individual importers’ exit from and entry into

the market. See CR/PR at II-1 n.3. 

 66 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 67 Nonsubject imports were *** pounds in 1994, *** pounds in 1999, and *** pounds in 2004. CR/PR at Table I1.

 68 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 69 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 70 Chattem/GEO Prehearing Brief at 9-11, 20-21 and Exhibit 15. 

 71 75 Fed. Reg. 66352 (Oct. 28, 2010). 

 72 Chattem and GEO rely on the Commission’s determination in Tissue Paper Products from China, Inv. No 731-

TA-1070B (Review), USITC Pub. 4165 (July 2010) for the proposition that the Commission should find that the

alleged circumvention of the order has occurred and to take account of such circumvention in its determination. In

Tissue Paper Products, however, unlike here, Commerce had made an affirmative circumvention determination. 

E.g., id. at 17. 

 73 Original Determination at I-10.

 74 Original Determination at I-10.

11
In the first five-year review, the Commission found that the antidumping order had significantly

reduced the presence of subject imports in the U.S. market.75 The Commission also found that Chinese

glycine capacity had likely increased since the original investigation, given the increased number of

Chinese glycine producers.76 Because the United States remained the world’s largest market for products

containing glycine, and Chinese producers had demonstrated their ability to increase subject imports

sharply during the period examined in the original investigation, the Commission concluded that subject

imports would likely increase to a significant level were the order to be revoked.77

In the second five-year review, the Commission noted that underutilized glycine capacity in

China had increased substantially since the original investigation, when representatives of foreign

producers and importers testified that capacity was between 22 million and 33 million pounds, and the

first five-year review, in which new Chinese glycine producers were identified.78 The Commission noted

that domestic interested parties had provided market research indicating that Chinese glycine capacity

was over *** million pounds in 2004, and observed that an independent market research source indicated

that four main Chinese glycine producers alone possessed a capacity of 50 million pounds in 2002. The

Commission also found that a significant portion of that capacity was not utilized. The Commission

concluded, therefore, that Chinese producers possessed the capacity to substantially increase glycine

exports to the United States if the order were to be revoked.79

The Commission also found in the second five-year review that Chinese producers considered the

U.S. market to be attractive and were likely to use their underutilized capacity to increase exports of

glycine to the United States significantly in the event of revocation. The Commission noted in that regard

that subject imports had increased significantly since the prior review notwithstanding the restraining

effect of the antidumping duty order. Chinese glycine producers had developed the ability to serve all

segments of the U.S. glycine market since 1999, including the market for pharmaceutical grade glycine,

and substantial administrative and judicial efforts, albeit unsuccessful, were exerted by a leading Chinese

producer to have Commerce issue an individual duty deposit rate lower than the “all others” rate of

155.89 percent. The Commission consequently concluded that Chinese producers had the capacity to

produce additional glycine for export to the United States and an interest in doing so and that, subject

import volume would likely increase significantly if the order were revoked.80

2. The Current Review

As noted above, the volume of subject imports from China increased from 1.9 million pounds in

2005 to 3.6 million pounds in 2008, then was lower in 2009 and 2010, at 126,000 pounds and 1.2 million

pounds, respectively.81 These volumes contrast with subject import volumes of *** pounds in 1999, the

end of the first review period, and *** pounds in 2004, the end of the second review period.82

 75 First Review Determination at 8.

 76 First Review Determination at 8-9.

 77 First Review Determination at 9.

 78 Second Review Determination at 9-10.

 79 Second Review Determination at 10. The Commission also found the Chinese producers demonstrated their

ability to increase glycine exports rapidly when they increased their exports of glycine to the EU substantially after

the European Council declined to impose antidumping measures on Chinese glycine imports in 2000. Second

Review Determination at 10 n.58.

 80 Second Review Determination at 10-11.

 81 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 82 CR/PR at Table I-1.

12
 The Commission did not receive information directly from Chinese producers in this review. 

Accordingly, the Commission has relied on facts otherwise available in its analysis of the industry in

China.

The domestic producers ***,83 a steep increase from the *** million pound capacity estimated for

2004 in a similar report submitted in the second five-year review. *** estimates the Chinese industry was

using *** percent of its capacity in 2010, meaning they had unused capacity of *** pounds.84

Chinese capacity for production of non-technical grades (e.g., USP) alone, which accounts for the

vast majority of apparent U.S. consumption, is estimated to be *** pounds. Although we lack capacity

utilization numbers specific to production of non-technical grade glycine due to the lack of cooperation

with our data requests from the Chinese industry, the overall utilization rate of *** percent for the

Chinese industry suggests significant excess capacity for these grades of glycine.85

Although the bulk of Chinese glycine is used to make glyphosate,86 Chinese exports have been

substantial over the review period – approximately *** pounds of glycine annually from 2007 to 200987

– which far exceeded U.S. production of approximately *** pounds in that period.88 The large majority

of its exports are of USP grade glycine, the grade that accounts for about 90 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption.89 The Chinese producers continue to consider the U.S. market attractive; this is reflected in

the fact that, notwithstanding the outstanding antidumping duty order, subject imports from China

reached their highest levels since issuance of the order during the current review period.90 We note

moreover that several importers and purchasers indicate that they would intend to increase imports or

purchases of glycine from China in the event of revocation.91

Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of Chinese glycine producers to increase the level

of imports in the U.S. market rapidly, their substantial production capacity and likely unused capacity,

their export orientation, particularly with respect to USP grade glycine, and the attractiveness of the U.S.

market, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and as a share of the U.S.

market, would be significant if the order were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the subject imports would likely enter

the U.S. market at prices that would depress or suppress prices for the domestic like product.92 The

Commission observed that subject import prices had declined over the POI, and had undersold the

domestic like product in the “vast majority” of pricing comparisons.93 Because subject imports were

largely substitutable for the domestic like product, and lower prices would not result in increased demand,

 83 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 84 Chattem/GEO Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 5.

 85 CR/PR at Tables I-1, IV-3. 

 86 CR at IV-7; PR at IV-6.

 87 Chattem/GEO Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 5; see also CR at II-8 (Figure), PR at Figure II-2. 

 88 CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 89 CR/PR at II-1.

 90 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 91 See, e.g., CR/PR at Appendix D.

 92 Original Determination at I-11.

 93 Original Determination at I-11.

13
the Commission concluded that increased supplies of lower-priced subject imports would likely depress

or suppress prices for the domestic like product, particularly given the bargaining power of the relatively

concentrated glycine purchasers.94 

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that subject import average unit values had

declined since the original investigation, and were lower than the average unit values (“AUVs”) for the

domestic like product in 1999, notwithstanding the antidumping duty order.95 Given this trend, the

underselling observed during the original investigation, and the aforementioned conditions of

competition, the Commission concluded that subject imports would likely have significant price

depressing and suppressing effects in the event of revocation.96

In the second five-year review, the Commission found that, as was the case in 1999, the AUVs of

subject imports remained well below the AUVs of shipments of the domestic like product in 2004.97

Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the underselling found in the original investigation would

likely recur in the event of revocation. The Commission also noted that the substitutability of subject

imports and the domestic like product, and the fact that changes in the price of glycine are unlikely to

affect the quantity demanded, meant that a significant increase in low-priced subject imports would likely

depress and suppress prices for the domestic like product. The Commission therefore concluded that

revocation of the orders would likely result in significant adverse price effects.98

2. The Current Review

The record in this review indicates that there is a moderately high degree of substitution between

glycine produced in the United States and glycine produced in China.99 Price remains an important factor

in the purchase of glycine, with purchasers citing “price” most frequently among the top three factors

upon which they relied in their purchasing decisions and most purchasers reporting that price is “very

important” in those decisions.100

*** reported selling glycine on a transaction-by-transaction, or spot, basis and through contracts. 

*** reported that domestic producers generally negotiate contract prices with their contract customers in

the third quarter of each year for delivery the following year. Prices in the contract negotiations are based

on prevailing market prices, which are influenced by existing contract prices for that year and spot prices

at that time. *** reported using a price list.101 

In this review, the Commission gathered quarterly pricing data for three products. The Chinese

product *** the domestic product in a *** of comparisons despite the existence of the antidumping duty

order. Imports from China *** the domestic product in 10 of 19 quarterly comparisons, with *** margins

ranging from *** to *** percent. The Chinese product oversold the domestic product in nine quarterly

 94 Original Determination at I-11.

 95 First Review Determination at 9-10. The Commission acknowledged that AUV comparisons can be influenced

by product mix, but used AUV data as the facts available. Id.

 96 First Review Determination at 10.

 97 Second Review Determination at 12 (again acknowledging that AUV comparisons can be influenced by

product mix, but using AUV data as the facts available).

 98 Second Review Determination at 12. 

 99 CR at II-14, PR at II-8. The majority of domestic producers, importers, and purchasers reported that glycine

produced in the United States and glycine produced in China are always or frequently interchangeable. CR/PR at

Table II-9. 

 100 CR/PR at Tables II-6, II-7. 

 101 CR at V-3, PR at V-2.

14
comparisons, with overselling margins ranging from *** to *** percent.102 Most of the overselling

occurred in 2008, which was an atypical year, in which the highest level of U.S. demand during the

period of review coincided with a global glycine shortage, and the U.S. industry ***.103 Thus, the

instances of overselling in 2008 are not necessarily a reliable indicator of the relative level of China's

glycine prices that would result if the antidumping order were revoked.

Overall, prices for U.S.-produced glycine products increased between the first quarter of 2005

and the last quarter of 2010. Prices of glycine imported from China generally followed the trends

displayed by domestically produced glycine, although with greater variability.104 This increased volatility

is likely due to the smaller and less consistent volume of shipments of Chinese-produced glycine

compared with the volume of glycine produced domestically.

It appears that ***, and ***, have been willing to change suppliers annually and that price is an

important part of their sourcing decisions.105 We note, moreover, that Summit does not dispute GEO’s

claim that Summit breached its past contractual obligation to purchase from GEO when it was able to

obtain lower-priced glycine from other sources.106

As discussed above, if the order were revoked, it is likely that subject imports from China would

increase significantly, given Chinese producers’ substantial unused capacity, export orientation, and the

attractiveness of the U.S. market. It is also likely that Chinese producers would resume their aggressive

underselling practices, which have persisted to some extent even with the order in place, so as to increase

their U.S. market share. Given the high degree of interchangeability between subject and domestic

glycine, the importance of price in purchasing decisions, and the fact that importers and purchasers have

admittedly sought out lower prices, underselling is likely to result in significant adverse price effects. 

Thus, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order were revoked, significant volumes of subject

imports from China likely would undersell the domestic like product to a significant degree in order to

gain market share and likely would have significant depressing and/or suppressing effects on the prices of

the domestic like product.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports107

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original determination, the Commission concluded that subject imports threatened material

injury to the domestic industry in the imminent future, based on the likely substantial increase in subject

 102 CR at V-15, CR /PR at Table V-6. 

 103 CR at V-14 n.15, PR at V-6 n.15; CR/PR at Table III-1; CR/PR at Figure II-1.

 104 CR/PR at Table V-5.

 105 *** purchaser questionnaire response at 18 (section III-22), *** purchaser questionnaire response at 17

(section III-23); see also Chattem/GEO Prehearing Brief at 4-5 and Posthearing Brief at 8-11.

 106 Hearing Transcript at 146-48 (Mahoney).

 107 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. 

Commerce has determined that were the antidumping duty order to be revoked, dumping would likely recur at the

rate of 155.89 percent for all producers. Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the

Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Order, Case No. A-570-836, 76 Fed. Reg. 7150 (Feb. 9, 2011). 

15
import volume and the likely adverse price effects.108 The Commission also based its conclusion on the

increase in raw material costs, the domestic industry’s declining production, shipments, employment, and

operating income between 1993 and 1994, and one producer’s reliance on a production process that was

particularly sensitive to changes in capacity utilization.109

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that the order had benefitted the domestic

industry such that the industry was no longer in a vulnerable condition. However, the Commission

concluded that revocation of the order would likely result in the continuation or recurrence of material

injury given that the adverse price effects resulting from the likely increase in subject import volume

would not spur additional glycine demand, but only inflict material injury on domestic producers.110

In the second five-year review, the Commission noted that certain indicators of domestic industry

performance had declined since 1999, but concluded that the record information was not sufficient for the

Commission to make a finding on whether the domestic industry is vulnerable. The Commission found

that revocation of the order would result in a significant increase in the volume of subject imports at

prices significantly lower than those of the domestic like product, and that such increased volumes of

subject imports would likely depress or suppress the domestic industry’s prices significantly. The

resultant reduction in the industry’s production, sales, and revenue levels, the Commission found, would

have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s employment, profitability, and ability to raise capital and

make and maintain necessary capital investments. Accordingly, based on the limited record in that 

review, the Commission concluded that, if the order were to be revoked, subject imports would be likely

to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.111

2. The Current Review

U.S. production of glycine increased irregularly from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2008,

before declining to *** pounds in 2009 and *** pounds in 2010.112 The domestic industry’s production

capacity remained constant from 2005 to 2010 at *** pounds. Capacity utilization increased irregularly

from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2008, before decreasing to *** percent in 2009 and ***

percent in 2010.113

U.S. shipments increased irregularly from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2008, before

decreasing to *** pounds in 2009 and to *** pounds in 2010. Net sales, which include exports, increased

irregularly from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2008, before decreasing to *** pounds in 2009 and

*** pounds in 2010.114

Domestic producers’ inventories increased from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2006, then

declined to *** pounds in 2007, before increasing irregularly to *** pounds in 2010.115

 108 Original Determination at I-12.

 109 Original Determination at I-12.

 110 First Review Determination at 11.

 111 Second Review Determination at 13. 

 112 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 113 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 114 CR/PR at Tables III-2a, III-6. 

 115 CR/PR at Table III-3. The ratio of domestic producers’ inventories to U.S. shipments decreased from ***

percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006, then declined to *** percent in 2007, before increasing to *** percent in

2008, and *** percent in 2009, and *** percent in 2010. Id.

16
The domestic industry’s production and related workers declined irregularly from *** in 2005 to

*** in 2010. The number of hours worked declined irregularly from *** in 2005 to *** in 2010.116

The domestic industry’s financial performance declined from 2005 to 2007, improved

substantially in 2008 and 2009, then declined in 2010.117 The industry’s operating income declined from

*** in 2005 to *** in 2007, then increased to *** in 2008 and to *** in 2009, before declining to *** in

2010.118 The industry’s operating income margin decreased from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in

2006, then increased substantially to *** percent in 2008 and to *** percent in 2009, before declining to

*** percent in 2010.119

We do not find that the domestic industry is vulnerable to material injury if the antidumping duty

order were revoked.120 We note that, notwithstanding the recent economic downturn, demand for glycine,

as reflected by apparent U.S. consumption, declined overall by only *** percent between 2005 and

2010.121 The industry has weathered the recession profitably and is currently performing comparably to

or considerably better than in nearly all prior years of the period examined except, most notably, 2009,

when the industry enjoyed record operating income and an operating income margin of *** percent.122

Chattem and GEO explain that the *** in 2009 were a product of their having negotiated contracts with

their customers for 2009 during the third quarter of 2008, at which time market prices were high as a

result of tightened global supply, as discussed above.123

We find that revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry. As discussed above, revocation would likely lead to significant increases in the

volume of subject imports that would aggressively undersell the domestic like product in order to regain

market share and significantly depress and/or suppress U.S. prices. In addition, the volume and price

effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant negative impact on the production,

shipments, sales, market share, employment, and revenues of the domestic industry. Declines in these

indicators of industry performance would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability, as

well as its ability to raise capital and to make and maintain capital investments. 

We have also considered the role of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market. Nonsubject imports

increased their market share from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010.124 There is no indication

on this record that the increased presence of nonsubject imports would prevent subject imports from

 116 CR/PR at Table III-5. Productivity (pounds/hour) increased irregularly from *** in 2005 to *** in 2008,

before decreasing to *** in 2008 and *** in 2009. Id. 

 117 In addition to other indicators discussed, we note that the domestic industry’s SG&A expenses per unit

increased from $*** per unit in 2005 to $*** In 2010; the unit COGS increased irregularly from $*** in 2005 to

$*** in 2010. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 118 CR/PR at Table III-6. The industry’s capital expenditures were $*** in 2005, $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007,

$*** in 2008, $*** in 2009, and $*** in 2010. CR/PR at Table III-12.

 119 CR/PR at Table III-6.

 120 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert find the evidence on vulnerability to be mixed. Although the domestic

industry was profitable in 2010 and its unit values increased over the period of review, its production and capacity

utilization were at their lowest levels of the period in 2010. In addition, although apparent U.S. consumption

increased from 2009 to 2010, it remained below the levels seen earlier in the period. Finally, it does not appear that

the industry has benefitted from the recent increase in consumption. It lost market share in 2010, at a time when the

level of U.S. shipments was at a period low and the ratio of inventories to shipments was at a period high. CR/PR at

Table C-1 and Table III-3. 

 121 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 122 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 123 CR/PR at Figure II-1; CR at V-14 n.15, PR at V-6 n.15; Chattem/GEO Posthearing Brief, Response to

Commissioner Questions at 10-11.

 124 CR/PR at Table C-1.

17
aggressively re-entering the U.S. market in significant quantities. We note in this regard that the limited

quarterly pricing data on the record for nonsubject imports show that glycine from China undersold the

nonsubject merchandise in the ***, ***, of comparisons.125 Similarly, the AUVs of nonsubject imports

were generally higher than the AUVs of subject imports over the period examined.126 Thus, record data

indicate that subject imports likely would be priced more aggressively than both domestic glycine and

nonsubject imports if the order were revoked. Consequently, we find that, notwithstanding the increased

presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market, revocation of the order would likely have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on glycine

from China would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

 125 CR/PR at E-3.

 126 CR/PR at Table C-1. We acknowledge that AUV comparisons can be influenced by variations in product mix. 

Nevertheless, these data are consistent with the limited product-specific quarterly pricing data on the record and are

reasonably considered additional facts available on relative prices of subject and nonsubject imports in the U.S.

market. 

18
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On October 7, 2010, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave

notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1

 that it had instituted

a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on glycine from China would

likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 3

 On January 4,

2011, the Commission determined that it would conduct a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the

Act.4

 The tabulation on the following page presents information relating to the schedule of this

proceeding:5

Effective date Action

March 29, 1995 Commerce’s antidumping duty order on glycine from China (60 FR 16116)

October 1, 2010 Commerce’s initiation of 3rd five-year review (75 FR 60731)

October 7, 2010 Commission’s institution of 3rd five-year review (75 FR 62141)

January 4, 2011 Commission’s determination to conduct full five-year review and scheduling of

the review (76 FR 8771, February 15, 2011)

February 9, 2011 Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year review of the antidumping duty

order on glycine from China (76 FR 7150)

February 14, 2011 Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year review of the antidumping duty

order on glycine from China (76 FR 8345 corrected)

June 30, 2011 Commission’s hearing

August 15, 2011 Commission’s vote

August 30, 2011 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Glycine from China, 75 FR 62141, October 7, 2010. All interested parties were requested to respond to this

notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of five-year review of the subject countervailing duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, Glycine from China, 75 FR 60731, October 1, 2010. 

 4 Glycine from China, 76 FR 8771, February 15, 2011. On January 4, 2011, the Commission determined that

responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year review were such that a full review pursuant to section

751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed. The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its

notice of institution was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.

Specifically, Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Daniel R. Pearson and Shara L. Aranoff concluded

that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate

and voted for a full review. Vice Chairman Irving R. Williamson and Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Dean

A. Pinkert concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group

response was inadequate and voted for an expedited review.

 5

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in appendix A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address

www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the

web site. Appendix B presents the list of the witnesses appearing at the Commission’s hearing.

I-1
The Original Investigation

The original investigation resulted from a petition filed by counsel on behalf of Hampshire

Chemical Corp. (“Hampshire”), Lexington, MA, and Chattem, Inc. (“Chattem”), Chattanooga, TN, on

July 1, 1994, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with

material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of glycine from China. Following

notification of a final determination by Commerce that imports of glycine from China were being sold at

LTFV, the Commission determined on March 15, 1995 that a domestic industry was threatened with

material injury by reason of LTFV imports of glycine from China.6

 Consequently, on March 29, 1995,

Commerce issued an antidumping duty order instructing the U.S. Customs Service to impose a

155.89 percent ad valorem “all companies” duty on imports of glycine from China.7

Subsequent Five-Year Reviews

On February 3, 2000, the Commission instituted the first five-year review on glycine from

China.8

 On June 30, 2000, the Commission completed an expedited five-year review of the subject order

and determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on glycine from China would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.9

 Consequently, Commerce published a notice of continuation of the

antidumping duty order on glycine from China, with an “all companies” rate of 155.89 percent.10

On June 1, 2005, the Commission instituted the second five-year review on glycine from China.11

On November 3, 2005, the Commission completed an expedited five-year review of the subject order and

determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on glycine from China would be likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.12 Consequently, Commerce published a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty

order on glycine from China, with an “all companies” rate of 155.89 percent.13

 6 60 FR 14962, March 21, 1995. 

 7 Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine from the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 16116, March 29, 1995.

 8

 65 FR 5371, February 3, 2000.

 9

 65 FR 43037, July 12, 2000.

 10 65 FR 45752, July 25, 2000.

 11 70 FR 31534, June 1, 2005.

 12 70 FR 66850, November 3, 2005.

 13 70 FR 69316, November 15, 2005.

I-2
Commerce New Shipper Reviews14

On November 15, 1999, Commerce initiated a new shipper review of Nantong Dongchang

Chemical Industry Corp. (“Nantong Dongchang”).15 On January 31, 2001, Commerce determined that

Nantong Dongchang was a new shipper within the meaning of the Act and assigned a firm-specific

weighted-average margin of 17.99 percent to imports of glycine into the United States produced by that

firm.16 On March 5, 2001, Commerce amended its firm-specific margin on Nantong Dongchang to

18.60 percent.17 Subsequent to the aforementioned review, three other new shipper reviews were filed. In

each instance, no company-specific rates were given.18

SUMMARY DATA 

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigation, the first review, the second

review, and the current full five-year review.

Table I-1

Glycine: Comparative data from the original investigation, first review, second review and current

review

* * * * * * *

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Glycine has been the subject of prior antidumping duty investigations in the United States. In

1968, Chattem Drug and Chemical Co., the forerunner of today’s Chattem, filed an antidumping petition

against imports of glycine from Japan, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Netherlands. 

The Department of Treasury found no sales at LTFV from the Federal Republic of Germany or the

Netherlands and issued a negative determination concerning Japan on the basis of the Japanese exporter’s

agreement to discontinue LTFV sales. Antidumping duties were imposed on imports of glycine from

France following an affirmative injury determination by the Commission. That finding was revoked in

1979.19

On March 30, 2007, GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“GEO”) of Lafayette, IN, filed antidumping

duty petitions alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with

 14 New shipper reviews are conducted upon a written request submitted to Commerce from a firm that claims not

to have exported product subject to an antidumping duty order during the order’s original period of investigation. 

The “new shipper” can request that Commerce conduct a separate investigation to determine a firm-specific margin

so that firm’s exports to the United States are not subject to the “all others” rate. In the case of a non-market

economy such as China, firms requesting a separate rate through a new shipper review also have to demonstrate that

they are not controlled by the central government. Commerce’s authority to conduct new shipper reviews is

provided under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and its regulations pertaining to new shipper reviews are provided

for under 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.214. 

 15 64 FR 61834, November 15, 1999. 

 16 66 FR 8383, January 31, 2001.

 17 66 FR 13284, March 5, 2001.

 18 Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. in 2002; Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. in 2003; and

Jiangxi Ansun Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. in 2008.

 19 Aminoacetic Acid (G1ycine) from France, Inv. No. AA1921-61, Pub. 313 (Feb. 1970), 34 FR 18559 (1969); 35

FR 4676 (1970); 35 FR 5009 (1970); 44 FR 12417 (1979). 

I-3
material injury by reason of LTFV imports of glycine from India, Japan, and Korea.20 The Commission

issued final negative determinations on Japan, Korea,21 and India.22

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of material injury–

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of an order, or

termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission shall consider the likely volume,

price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or

the suspended investigation is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price effect, and impact

of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry before the order was issued or the

suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or

the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked

or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings) regarding duty

absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject merchandise if the order

is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider whether the likely

volume of imports of the subject merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors, including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production

capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in

inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such merchandise into

countries other than the United States, and 

 20 72 FR 17580, April 9, 2007.

 21 73 FR 3484, January 18, 2008.

 22 73 FR 26413, May 9, 2008.

I-4
(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign

country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used

to produce other products.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject merchandise if the

order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports of the subject

merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the United States at

prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the

price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors which are likely to have a bearing on the state of

the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to–

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on

investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of

the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the

domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context of the business

cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”

Organization of the Report

Information obtained during the course of the review that relates to the statutory criteria is

presented throughout this report. A summary of trade and financial data for glycine collected in the

review is presented in appendix C. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of two

U.S. producers of glycine that are believed to have accounted for 100 percent of domestic production of

glycine in 2010. U.S. import data are based on Commerce’s official import statistics. Related

information on imports during the current review is from the questionnaire responses of 15 U.S. 

I-5
importers23 of glycine that are believed to have accounted for virtually all of the total subject U.S. imports

during 2010 and for 17.9 percent of total U.S. imports of glycine from nonsubject sources. 

No questionnaires were received from producers of glycine in China or nonsubject countries. 

Responses by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers of glycine to a series of questions concerning the

significance of the existing antidumping order and the likely effects of revocation of the order are

presented in appendix D.

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews24

Commerce has completed administrative reviews of the outstanding antidumping duty order on

glycine from China. The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table I-2.

Table I-2 

Glycine: Antidumping duty margins for imports of glycine from China

Applicable Federal 

Register notice Firm

Rate

(in percent)

65 FR 36405, June 8, 20001 All companies rate 155.89

70 FR 54012, September 13, 20052 Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. 2.95

70 FR 58185, October 5, 2005

PRC-Wide Rate, including Nantong Dongchang

Chemical Industry Corp. 155.89

72 FR 58809, October 17, 20073 Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry Corp. 38.67

74 FR 41122, August 14, 20094 PRC-Wide Rate, including Nantong Dongchang

Chemical Industry Corp. 155.89

74 FR 41122, August 14, 20095 Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. 33.67

74 FR 48223, September 22, 20096 Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. 37.18

 1 Continuation of the duty that was effective since the original investigation.

 2

 Effective retroactively to the period of review beginning on March 1, 2003.

 3

 Effective retroactively to the period of review beginning on March 1, 2005.

 4

 Effective retroactively to the period of review beginning on March 1, 2007.

 5

 Effective retroactively to the period of review beginning on March 1, 2007.

 6

 Effective retroactively to the period of review beginning on March 1, 2007.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 23 The importer’s questionnaire received from ***, an importer of Chinese and Indian glycine, contained data that

were unusable; the questionnaire received from ***, an importer of Chinese glycine in 2008 and 2009, provided data

which have been excluded because of the altering/overbalancing effect that its high-end product would have on

overall trends.

 24 No scope rulings and no duty absorption findings have been made with respect to the antidumping duty order. 

I-6
Five-Year Review

Commerce has issued the final results of its expedited review with respect to the subject country. 

In its most recent five-year review, Commerce has continued the order upholding a PRC-wide -all

companies rate of 155.89 percent.25

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported product subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders under review is

as follows:

The product covered by the order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material,

like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a

sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical

intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This order covers glycine of all purity levels.

Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). In a separate scope ruling, the Department

determined that D(-) Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is outside the scope of the order. See

Notice of Scope Rulings, 62 FR 62288 (November 21, 1997). Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of

the merchandise under the order is dispositive.26

Tariff Treatment

Glycine is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

subheading 2922.49.40 and reported for statistical purposes under statistical reporting number

2922.49.4020. The current rate of duty for glycine is 4.2 percent ad valorem. At the time of the original

investigation, general U.S. tariffs on glycine, applicable to U.S. imports that are products of China and

classified under these headings, were also 4.2 percent.

 25 Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine From the

People’s Republic of China, 76 FR 7150, February 9, 2011 (duty rate 155.89 percent).

 26 Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine From the

People’s Republic of China, 76 FR 7150, February 9, 2011.

I-7
THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications27

Glycine, also know as aminoacetic acid, is an organic chemical with the chemical formula

NH2CH2COOH.28 Glycine is a nonessential amino acid that is produced naturally by humans and other

organisms as a building block for proteins. Commercial production of glycine uses traditional chemical

synthesis. In its dried form, the form in which it is most often sold, glycine is a white, free-flowing

powder. Glycine is odorless and sweet to the taste.

Glycine is typically sold in two main grades: United States Pharmacopeia (“USP”) grade and

technical grade.29 The glycine in these grades is chemically identical; the grades differ by the kind and

amounts of impurities in the product. The USP-grade standard is stricter than technical-grade standard. 

The standard sets maximum allowable concentrations for impurities, such as arsenic, heavy metals, and

chlorides. For technical-grade glycine, these maximum allowable concentrations for impurities are either

less strict or not specified. USP-grade glycine is typically used for pharmaceutical and food applications,

while technical grade-glycine is used for industrial applications. Some customers have even stricter

requirements for the purity of glycine than those included in the USP standard. These higher purity

products are often referred to as “pharmaceutical grade” glycine, but the purity standards for these

products are set by individual customers, not by government or industry organizations.

Because of the sweetness of glycine, it is used as a sweetener and flavor enhancer in food,

beverage, and pharmaceutical products. Glycine is used to sweeten soft drinks, juice concentrates, and

other beverages. Manufacture of medicaments and personal care products, such as mouthwash and

toothpaste, use glycine to mask the bitter taste of some active ingredients. Glycine is used to enhance the

flavor of animal feeds, both those for household pets and those for livestock. Pharmaceutical

manufacturers use USP-grade glycine to promote the gastric absorption of certain drugs such as aspirin

and to treat diarrhea in humans and animals. USP-grade glycine is required for products made for human

or animal consumption. 

Glycine is used as a buffering agent in certain products and manufacturing processes to maintain a

stable pH. In antacids and analgesics, glycine helps to reduce the acidity of the digestive tract. In

personal care products such as antiperspirants and cosmetics, glycine is used to reduce the acidity of other

ingredients. USP-grade glycine is used in antacids and personal care products. Technical-grade glycine is

used as buffer in the production of foam rubber sponges.

Glycine can also be used as a starting material for producing other organic chemicals or in metal

finishing. USP-grade glycine is typically used in the production of other amino acids and

 27 Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this section is from Glycine from China, Inv. 731-TA-718

(Second Review), USITC Publication 3810, October 2005, p. I-5 or Glycine from Japan and Korea, Invs.

731-TA-1112-1113 (Final), USITC Publication 3980, January 2008, pp. I-8 through I-11. 

 28 The Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number for glycine is 56-40-6. A structural representation of the glycine

molecule is given below.

 29 The United States Pharmacopeia is the official public standards-setting authority for all prescription and

over-the-counter medicines, dietary supplements, and other healthcare products manufactured and sold in the United

States. USP grade glycine conforms to the standards set by USP. See http://www.usp.org/aboutUSP/ (accessed May

18, 2011).

I-8
pharmaceuticals. Technical-grade glycine is used in metal finishing to brighten metal surfaces or to

enhance the adhesion of rubber to a surface.

Glycine is typically packaged and sold in plastic bags weighing from 50 to 200 pounds or in super

sacks weighing up to 2,000 pounds. These bags and super sacks are placed on pallets and shipped by

truck. Each package of glycine is accompanied by a certificate of analysis that gives the levels of

moisture and impurities in the product.

Manufacturing Processes

There are two known processes for the commercial production of glycine: the hydrogen cyanide

(HCN) process and the monochloroacetic acid (MCA) process. Both of these processes can be used to

produce both technical and USP grades of glycine. GEO uses the HCN process and Chattem uses the

MCA process. Most glycine producers in China use the MCA process.30

The HCN process uses hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde (H2CO) as the primary starting

materials. These chemicals are mixed with aqueous ammonia (NH4OH) in the first reaction step of the

process. The reaction product from this first step is then reacted with caustic soda (NaOH) to produce

sodium glycinate. Glycine is produced when an acid, such as sulfuric acid, is mixed with sodium

glycinate. The glycine solution then goes through one or more crystallization and filtration steps to

produce a pure white, glycine powder.

For the MCA process, the primary feedstocks are monochloroacetic acid (ClCH2COOH) and

ammonia. These feedstocks are mixed together in the presence of a catalyst to produce glycine.31 The

MCA process is the less economical process in terms of operating cost due to higher raw material and

energy costs.32

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

In its original determination, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all glycine of

all purity levels.33 In its first and second expedited determinations, the Commission continued to define

the domestic like product as all glycine regardless of grade, coextensive with Commerce’s scope. 34 In its

notice of institution in this current five-year review, the Commission solicited comments from interested

parties regarding the appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry.35 The two domestic

producers commented on the Commission’s definitions of domestic like product stating, “The GPOTUS

agree with the definitions of domestic like product and domestic industry.”36 No party requested that the

Commission collect data concerning other possible domestic like products in their comments on the

Commission’s draft questionnaires.

 30 Glycine from Japan and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1112 and 1113 (Final), Publication 3980 (January 2008), p.

I-10.

 31 Ibid., p. 8.

 32 Ibid., pp. 8–9.

 33 Glycine from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-718 (Final), USITC Publication 2863 (March

1995).

 34 Glycine from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-718 (Review), USITC Publication 3315 (June 2000); Glycine from

China, Inv. No. 731-718 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3810 (October 2005).

 35 Glycine from China, Investigation No. 731- TA-718 (Third Review), 75 FR 62141, October 7, 2010.

 36 Substantive Response of Thompson Hine, LLP, on behalf of Chattem and GEO (collectively, the “Glycine

Producers of the United States” or “GPOTUS”), p. 16.

I-9
U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

During the original investigation, two firms supplied the Commission with information on their

U.S. operations with respect to glycine. These firms accounted for 100 percent of U.S. production of

glycine in 1994.37 In this current proceeding, the Commission issued producers’ questionnaires to two

firms, which provided the Commission with information on their glycine operations. These firms are

believed to account for 100 percent of U.S. production of glycine in 2010. Presented in table I-3 is a list

of current domestic producers of glycine and each company’s position on continuation of the order,

production locations, related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported production of glycine in 2010.

Table I-3

Glycine: U.S. producers, positions on the orders, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2010 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

continuation

of the orders

U.S. production

location(s) Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of

production

(percent)

Chattem Support Chattanooga, TN Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, India1 ***

GEO Support Deer Park, TX not applicable ***

 1 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. Importers

In the original investigation, 12 U.S. importing firms supplied the Commission with usable

information on their operations involving the importation of glycine, accounting for 94 percent of U.S.

imports of glycine during 1994.38 The first and second reviews were both expedited and did not utilize

importer questionnaires.

In this current proceeding, the Commission issued importer questionnaires to 39 firms believed to

be importers of subject glycine, as well as to all U.S. producers of glycine. Usable questionnaire

responses were received from 15 companies, that are believed to have accounted for virtually all of total

imports from China in 2010.39 Table I-4 lists all responding U.S. importers of glycine from China and

other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports in 2010. Of the 15 importers providing

usable data, nine imported from China.

 37 The two U.S. producers that supplied the Commission with usable questionnaire information during the original

investigation were: Chattem and Hampshire (today’s GEO).

 38 Glycine from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-718 (Final), USITC Publication 2863 (March

1995), p. II-27.

 39 As noted earlier, the importer’s questionnaire received from ***, an importer of Chinese and Indian glycine,

contained data that were unusable; the questionnaire received from ***, an importer of Chinese glycine in 2008 and

2009, provided data which have been excluded because of the altering/overbalancing effect that its high-end product

would have on overall trends.

I-10
Table I-4

Glycine: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports in 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. Purchasers

The Commission sent purchasers’ questionnaires to approximately 55 firms believed to have

purchased glycine during the period 2005-10. Thirty-three purchasers, accounting for 91.1 percent of

U.S. apparent consumption of glycine in 2010, provided purchaser questionnaire responses. Based on

questionnaire responses, the three largest reporting U.S. purchasers of glycine in 2010 were ***. ***

reported glycine purchases of $*** in 2010. ***, characterized itself as an end-user of glycine, producing

pet food. The next largest responding purchaser of glycine, ***, reported glycine purchases of $*** in

2010. ***, characterized itself as an end user of glycine, producing chelating agents and animal feed. The

third largest responding purchaser of glycine, ***, reported glycine purchases of $*** in 2010, and

characterized itself as an end-user of glycine producing deodorants/antiperspirants.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND U.S. MARKET SHARES

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of glycine during the period for which data were

collected in this proceeding (2005-10) are shown in table I-5. The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption

fluctuated, but decreased overall by 13.4 percent from 2005 to 2010. The U.S. producers’ share of

apparent consumption fluctuated over the period examined, being at its highest (*** percent) at the

beginning of the period in 2005 and at its lowest (*** percent) in 2010. The share held by imports from

China fluctuated from 2005 to 2007, and reached a peak in 2008, then decreased to a period low in 2009

before increasing again in 2010. From 2005 to 2007, India, Japan, and Korea accounted for in excess of

*** percent of nonsubject imports. For the remainder of the period of review, India and Japan accounted

for *** to *** percent of nonsubject imports as imports from Korea dropped to zero from 2008 to 2010.

Table I-5

Glycine: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by source, apparent U.S. consumption,

and market shares, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

I-11
 
PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Glycine is a nonessential amino acid that is most typically sold as a dry free-flowing powder. 

Glycine has many varied uses and characteristics which depend on the level of purity required.1

 USPgrade glycine is used in food, cosmetic or some medical uses, and accounts for approximately 89 percent

of the U.S. glycine market. Pharmaceutical-grade glycine is a subset of the USP grade, but must meet

additional specifications and testing. Pharmaceutical-grade glycine has the strictest purity standards and

is used in intravenous injections. Pharmaceutical-grade glycine has the smallest share of the U.S. market,

accounting for approximately 8 percent of the U.S. glycine market. The lower purity form, technical

grade, accounts for approximately 10 percent of the U.S. market, and is used in the production of

sponges, and in metallurgical and chemical applications.2

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION 

As seen in table II-1, the vast majority of glycine is generally sold directly to end users. This

distribution pattern was consistent from 2005 to 2010 for both domestic producers and U.S. imports of

nonsubject glycine. The shifts between distributors and end users of U.S. shipments from China is

primarily a result of the limited number of importers and sporadic participation in each year.3

Table II-1

Glycine: Channels of distribution for commercial shipments of domestic product and

subject imports sold in the U.S. market (as a percentage of total shipments), by year and by

country, 2005-2010

* * * * * * *

Geographic Distribution

*** responding U.S. producers reported selling to all regions within the contiguous United States. 

 Two of eight responding importers of glycine from China reported selling glycine to all regions within

the contiguous United States, one of which additionally sold product to all “other” regions.4

 The

remaining responding importers’ sales were distributed throughout the various U.S. regions.5

 Details

regarding the geographic presence of U.S. producers and importers of glycine appear in table II-2.

 1 Staff notes from ***.

 2

 The lowest purity firm, industrial grade, accounts for less than one percent of the U.S. market, and is used as a

cleaning agent. Staff notes from ***, and hearing transcript, p. 80 (Mahoney).

 3

 ***, the largest importer of glycine from China during period of review *** from 2006 to 2008 but sold only a

small quantity in 2009 and did not report any U.S. shipments for 2010. *** was the only other importer that reported

U.S. shipments of glycine from China in 2009, all of which was sold to distributors. Importer *** was the largest

importer of glycine from China in 2010, and had not imported glycine from any source previously. *** of *** U.S.

shipments of subject glycine was sold directly to ***. 

 4

 “Other” includes all other markets not in the contiguous United States, including AK, HI, PR, VI, among others.

 5

 Of the remaining six importers of glycine from China, one importer only sells to the Mountains region; one

importer only sells to the Midwest; and four importers supply three or more regions, including to the Northeast (3),

the Midwest (3), the Pacific Coast (3), the Southeast (2), the Central Southwest (1), and the Mountains (1). 

II-1
Table II-2

Glycine: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and

importers

Region

Producers Importers

United States China Other

Northeast1 *** 5 3

Midwest2 *** 6 6

Southeast3 *** 4 2

Central Southwest4 *** 3 2

Mountains5 *** 4 3

Pacific Coast6 *** 5 1

Other7 *** 1 0

 1 Includes CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT.

 2

 Includes IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI.

 3

 Includes AL, DE, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV.

 4

 Includes AR, LA, OK, and TX.

 5

 Includes AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, and WY.

 6

 Includes CA, OR, and WA.

 7

 Includes all other markets in the United States not previously listed, including AK, HI, PR, VI, among others.

 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

Domestic Production

Based on available information, staff believes that U.S. glycine producers are likely to respond to

changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced glycine to the

U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the small degree of responsiveness of supply are discussed

below.

Industry capacity

Capacity for U.S. producers of glycine remained constant at *** pounds during the period of

review. As seen in figure II-1, capacity utilization for U.S. producers of glycine decreased irregularly

from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010, with capacity utilization reaching a peak during 2008 at

*** percent. In 2008, demand for glycine outpaced global supply, and U.S. purchasers 

II-2
were placed on allocation. By 2010, *** U.S. shipments in 2009.6

 These levels of capacity utilization

indicate that the U.S. producers of glycine have a *** amount of unused capacity with which they could

increase production of glycine in the event of a price change.

Figure II-1

Glycine: U.S. producers’ capacity utilization, January 2005-December 2010

* * * * * * *

Both U.S. producers, a majority of importers (8 of 12), and a majority of purchasers (18 of 27)

noted that U.S. supply conditions have not changed since 2005. Of those that noted changes, two

importers reported a global shortage of glycine during 2008, with one importer indicating that the

shortage was due to the increased production of glyphosate.7 8

 Also noted by at least one importer were: 

previous antidumping investigations, the price of oil, and the decreasing price of domestic product. Nine

of 27 responding purchasers reported that supply conditions in the glycine market had changed since

2005. Several purchasers reported that domestic demand has exceeded domestic supply, particularly

during 2008. Several purchasers reported increases of raw material costs, glycine prices, and global

energy costs as factors that have affected the availability of U.S.-produced glycine in the United States. 

Supply constraints

***.9 10 During 2007, *** were delivered late.11

In 2008, China temporarily closed its glycine-producing facilities to reduce pollution ahead of the

2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. The unforseen shutdown led to a temporary tightness in the global

glycine market.12 ***. Six U.S. purchasers (***) reported that their primary supplier, ***, placed them

on allocation during 2008.13 ***.

For the first half of 2011, *** produced ***. Two non-contract spot purchasers, ***, reported

that *** refused to accept new orders for glycine during 2011, and will service existing contract

customers only.14 Another non-contract spot purchaser, ***, reported that ***. *** reported that, as of

April 2011, distributors selling domestic material have been unable to ship material for up to six to eight

weeks.15

Alternative markets

Domestic producers’ export share has increased since 2005, but still accounted for *** percent or

less of total shipments in each year throughout 2005-10, indicating that domestic glycine producers are

 6 ***. GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, response to Commissioner Aranoff and Commissioner Pearson, p. 1.

 7

 ***. ***’s producer questionnaire response, Attachment E. 

 8

 ***. U.S. producer questionnaire response, attachment A CI Plan Document 2011, October 18, 2010, p. 6.

 9

 ***’s producer questionnaire response, section IV-28.

 10 GEO’s next required maintenance shutdown is scheduled in 2012. According to GEO, ***. GPOTUS’

posthearing brief, p. 2.

 11 Since 2007, ***. GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, exhibit 4.

 12 Hearing transcript, p. 27 (Button) and pp. 42, 70 (Eckman).

 13 U.S. purchaser *** also reported that it was placed on allocation by GEO in 2005 as well.

 14 According to both ***. ***, pp. 5-6. ***.

 15 Spot and contract sales are discussed further in Part V.

II-3
constrained in their ability to shift shipments between the United States and other markets in response to

price changes. In its questionnaire response, *** reported that it cannot easily shift from shipping

domestically to exporting, stating that the company’s sales and marketing are focused primarily on the

U.S. market because of the large-scale production of pet food and antiperspirants, which are the primary

end uses of glycine in the United States.

Inventory levels

U.S. producer *** reported shipping *** percent of its sales in 2010 from inventory and ***

reported shipping *** percent of its sales from inventory. U.S. producers’ glycine inventories as a ratio

to their total glycine shipments increased irregularly from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2010. 

Glycine tends to absorb moisture; this causes it to harden if stored for several months, making it

unusable.16 Reported inventory data suggest that U.S. producers of glycine may *** ability to use

inventories as a means of increasing shipments of glycine to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Both producers stated that they were unable to switch production from glycine to other products 

using the same equipment and machinery.

Supply of Subject Imports from China

The Commission received no questionnaire responses from Chinese producers in this review. 

***.17 ***.18

Figure II-2

Glycine: Supply of glycine in China, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

The majority of importers (10 of 13) reported that they do not anticipate any changes in term of

the availability of glycine imported from China in the U.S. market.

Nonsubject Imports

According to official Commerce statistics, nonsubject imports accounted for 73.9 percent of all

imports of glycine in 2005, which increased irregularly to 86.8 percent in 2010. From 2005 through

2008, Japan was the largest nonsubject source of glycine; India was the largest nonsubject source during

2009 and 2010. In 2008, imports of glycine from India and Japan accounted for 53.9 percent of all

imports, increasing to 94.2 percent in 2009 and 82.2 percent in 2010.

Both U.S. producers reported that the availability of nonsubject glycine has changed since 2005. 

*** reported that the Europe’s sole producer of glycine (Tessenderlo) closed its production facility

because it no longer could compete with imports from China. *** reported that one of two major

manufacturers of glycine in Japan is temporarily offline due to radiation-related safety concerns and the 

 16 Staff notes from ***.

 17 ***’s producer questionnaire response, Attachment E. ***’s producer questionnaire response, Attachment D.

 18 ***. ***’s producer questionnaire response, Attachment E. 

II-4
discontinuation of the water supply caused by the earthquake/tsunami in March of 2011. It is still unclear

when operations will restart19. *** reported that imports of glycine from India have doubled since 2005. 

GEO and Chattem alleged that much of the glycine identified as Indian-origin glycine upon entry into the

United States is actually Chinese-origin glycine subject to the antidumping duty order.20

Five purchasers (***) reported supply constraints from nonsubject suppliers since 2005. Two

purchasers reported that their Indian supplier (***) was unable to supply glycine due to availability issues

between 2007 and 2009; another purchaser reported that the tsunami in India interrupted glycine supply

temporarily, but did not report the particular year. ***, a purchaser of non-domestic glycine, reported

experiencing supply shortages from March to May of 2008. 

U.S. Demand

Based on available information, staff believes that glycine purchasers are likely to respond to

changes in the price of glycine with relatively small changes in their purchases of glycine. The main

contributing factors to the low responsiveness of demand are the low cost share and the lack of

commercially viable substitute products.

Demand Characteristics

Apparent Consumption

Demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, increased irregularly from *** pounds in

2005 to *** pounds in 2008 and then decreased to *** pounds in 2010. 

End Uses

U.S. demand for glycine depends on its end-use markets. Glycine is used as a sweetener in foods,

pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and animal feed; as a buffering agent in antacids, analgesics,

antiperspirants, cosmetics, toiletries, and in production of rubber sponge products and fertilizers; as a

chemical intermediate in a variety of chemical products; as a metal complexing and finishing agent; as a

dietary supplement; as an agent which improves gastric absorption of certain drugs; and has some

intravenous uses. The grade of glycine required by purchasers varies across end uses. 

Purchasers were asked to estimate their firm’s purchases of glycine in 2010 for specified end

uses. As seen in table II-3, glycine was used principally in pet food and deodorant/antiperspirant

applications.

 19 GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, response to Commissioner Williamson and Commissioner Pearson, p. 28 and

exhibit 15.

 20 On December 18, 2009, GEO and Chattem filed a request for initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry. In

response to this request, the Department of Commerce is examining whether the activities of three Indian companies,

Salvi Chemical Industries, Paras Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd., and AICO Laboratories are circumventing the antidumping

duty order on glycine from China. In their Circumvention Allegation, GEO and Chattem allege that all three Indian

companies are importing technical-grade glycine from companies in China, processing and/or repackaging the

Chinese-origin glycine then exporting the finished product to the United States, marked as Indian-origin glycine. 

See Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Anti-circumvention Inquiry, 75 FR

66352, October 28, 2010.

II-5
Table II-3

Glycine: Share of glycine purchases in end-use markets, 2010

End-use product Share of glycine purchases in 2010 (percent)

Pet food 53.4

Cosmetic additive (deodorant/antiperspirant) 29.4

Chemical processing 3.9

Vitamins, mineral supplements, nutraceuticals 3.5

Food additive for human consumption 2.7

Animal feed 2.1

Fertilizer 1.8

Research/molecular biology diagnostics 1.2

Pharmaceutical additive 1.2

Metal complexing or finishing agent 0.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The majority of U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers reported no changes

in the end uses of glycine since 2005. *** reported there has been an increase of glycine used in

nutraceuticals, such as health bars. One importer and three purchasers reported that less glycine is being

used in the manufacture of their products. The overwhelming majority of firms did not anticipate any

changes in the end uses of glycine in the future.

Business Cycles

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if the glycine market was subject to

business cycles other than changes in the overall economy or conditions of competition distinctive to the

glycine market. The majority of importers and purchasers reported that glycine was not subject to

business cycles or distinctive conditions of competition. However, both U.S. producers, 4 of 12

responding importers, and 4 of 25 purchasers responded “yes.” *** reported that the glycine market is

driven by the volatile raw material costs and competitors’ price.21 Importer *** reported that the supply

conditions in Japan, India, and Korea have an effect on the glycine market. Importer and purchaser ***

reported that Japanese currency changes have had an effect as well. Purchaser *** reported that the

fluctuating capacity of Chinese manufacturers affects the glycine markets. 

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if the business cycles or conditions of

competition for glycine have changed since 2005. Both U.S. producers, half of the importers, and the

majority of purchasers reported that the business cycles or conditions of competition have not changed

since 2005. However, 6 of 12 responding importers and 7 of 22 responding purchasers reported various

changes in business cycles and conditions of competition since 2005. Firms most frequently noted the

recession during 2008 and limited availability of glycine as conditions affecting the glycine market. 

Firms described changes in availability attributable to the antidumping orders as affecting the market

 21 Raw material costs affect supply and should not affect demand.

II-6
structure, the cessation of glycine production in Europe, the increased number of antiperspirant

manufacturers outside the United States, and limited availability of domestic supply.

Demand Perceptions

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how demand has changed within the

United States for glycine since 2005, as well as how they anticipate demand to change. Their responses

are summarized in table II-4 and are discussed below.

Table II-4

Glycine: U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser perceptions regarding the demand for glycine in

the United States

Item Increase No Change Decrease Fluctuate

Demand

since 2005

U.S. producers *** *** *** ***

Importers 3 4 1 4

Purchasers 10 11 1 7

Anticipated

demand

changes

U.S. producers *** *** *** ***

Importers 3 5 0 3

Purchasers 11 10 1 5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Overall, a plurality of firms reported that demand for glycine has not changed since 2005, and a

majority reported that demand had either increased or not changed. *** reported that demand decreased

during the recession but has since recovered. Despite indicating that demand has fluctuated, *** stated

that the primary end uses of glycine (pet food and antiperspirant) do not experience significant

fluctuations in demand, and therefore demand for glycine usually remains constant. 

U.S. demand for glycine depends on the level of demand for downstream products using glycine. 

Purchasers that were end users of glycine were asked to describe how demand for their final products

incorporating glycine has changed since 2005. Seven of 19 responding end users reported that demand

for their final products had increased,22 four end users reported that demand for their final product had

decreased,23 four end users reported that demand for their final products had fluctuated, and four end users

reported that demand for their final products had remained unchanged.

When asked about anticipated changes in glycine demand in the United States, perceptions were

split between an increase and no change in future demand. *** anticipate an increase in new end uses

which would increase the demand for glycine. Purchasers *** reported that they anticipated an increase

in demand for downstream products including antiperspirants and new drug development. Purchaser ***

reported that the principal factor in anticipating glycine demand is the demand for glyphosate and other

pesticides/fertilizers.

 22 The final products or services provided by these end users included pet food, cosmetic additives,

pharmaceutical additives, metal finishing, chemical processing, and animal feed.

 23 All four of these end users produced food additive products.

II-7
Cost Share

Purchasers were asked to estimate the percentage of glycine in the total cost of the end product.

Since glycine is used in many different applications with relevant cost shares varying greatly, purchaser

cost-share estimates ranged from 5 percent or less (cold lozenges, animal feeds, mineral supplements, and

pet food flavor), to 25 percent for cosmetic additives, to 70-80 percent (chelating agents, and glycinate).

Substitute Products

When asked if there are any products that may be substituted for glycine, only 1 of 13 responding

importers and 1 of 28 purchasers reported any substitute products for glycine. Importer *** identified

other amino acids as a substitute for glycine, and reported that the change in price of other amino acids

does not affect the price of glycine. Purchaser *** identified lysine as a substitute for glycine as a

chelating agent. *** reported that it is conducting research to identify additional substitutes for glycine. 

No other producer, importer, or purchaser reported any changes in the number or types of products that

can be substituted for glycine since 2005, nor do they anticipate any new substitutes in the future. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestically produced and imported glycine depends

upon such factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, etc.), and

conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment

terms, product services, etc.). Based on the available information, staff believes that, on the whole, there

is likely to be a moderately high degree of substitution between glycine produced in the United States and

that produced in China.

Purchaser Characteristics

The Commission received questionnaire responses from 33 purchasers.24 Seventeen purchasers

described themselves as end users, 15 purchasers described themselves as distributors, 1 purchaser

described itself as a manufacture of various agricultural products and animal supplements, and

1 purchaser described itself as a vitamin and mineral pre-mixer.25

The market for glycine is concentrated among few high-volume end users. The three largest U.S.

purchasers of glycine *** represented approximately 70 percent of the total U.S. glycine purchases during

the period of review. These firms consume glycine that is USP grade and produce products intended for

consumption (pet food, animal feed, or nutraceuticals), or cosmetic applications (antiperspirant actives).

Knowledge of Country Source

Purchasers were asked to indicate the countries of origin for which they have actual glycine

marketing/pricing knowledge. Twenty-six of 28 responding purchasers were familiar with U.S.-produced

glycine, 13 were familiar with product from China, and 11 were familiar with those from other countries

including India (6), Japan (5), Korea (2), Belgium (1), the EU/Germany (1).

Purchasers were also asked how frequently they and their customers made purchasing decisions

based on the country of origin, or the manufacturer, of glycine (table II-5). The majority of purchasers

reported that both their firms and their customers “sometimes” or “never” make purchase decisions based

 24 Not every purchaser responded to every question in the questionnaire.

 25 U.S. purchaser *** described itself as both a end user and a distributor.

II-8
on the country of origin or the manufacturer, although the manufacturer is relatively more important for

purchasers in their purchase decisions than it is for their customers. Three purchasers noted that they

consider quality as the principal factor in purchase decisions, not the country of origin. Four purchasers

reported that their customers request domestically produced glycine. Twelve purchasers reported that

their purchases of glycine must come from an approved manufacturer that meets quality and certification

standards.

Table II-5

Glycine: Purchaser responses to questions regarding the origin of their purchases

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser makes purchase decision based

on country of origin 6 7 8 11

Purchaser makes purchase decision based

on the manufacturer 12 4 6 11

Purchaser’s customer makes purchase

decision based on country of origin 4 4 11 12

Purchaser’s customer makes purchase

decision based on the manufacturer 6 3 12 11

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Available information indicates that a variety of factors are considered important in the 

purchasing decision for glycine. While quality and price were mentioned as being important factors in

the purcahse of the product, other factors such as availability are also important considerations. 

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered in deciding from which firm to buy

glycine. As indicated in table II-6, quality was most frequently cited as the most important factor,

availability was most frequently cited as the second most important factor, and price was most frequently

cited as the third most important factor. Price was cited most frequently as one of the top three factors

purchasers consider when choosing a supplier of glycine.

II-9
Table II-6

Glycine: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

First Second Third Total

Price 4 9 12 23

Quality 14 3 5 20

Availability 6 10 2 17

Meet customer 2013

Reliability of supply 1223

Payment terms 0033

Other1 3 6 3 12

 1 Other factors include USP grade, product source, and pre-approved vendor for the first factor; delivery time,

lead time, qualified supplier, consistency, and meet Good Manufacturing Practice standards for the second factor;

and extension of credit, purity, and technical support for the third factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Of the 33 purchasers that responded when asked how often they purchase the glycine that is

offered at the lowest price, 12 firms indicated “never,” 10 firms indicated “sometimes,” 9 firms indicated

“usually,” and 2 firms indicated “always.” Eighteen purchasers also reported that they purchased higherpriced glycine from one source although a comparable product was available at a lower price from

another source. Reasons provided by purchasers for doing so include: quality, reliability, shorter lead

times, minimum order size, poor customer service, customer preference, meeting Good Manufacturing

Practices (“GMP”) standards set by the FDA, and contractual obligations. Most firms did not specify the

country of origin of the higher-priced glycine that they purchased.

Purchasing Patterns

Purchasers were asked how frequently they purchased glycine. Of the 33 responding purchasers,

10 purchased glycine monthly, 9 purchased quarterly, 4 purchased weekly, 3 purchased annually,

2 purchased bimonthly, 1 purchased daily, and 4 purchased on an as-needed basis. When asked if

purchasers expected their purchasing pattern to change in the next two years, 30 of 33 purchasers

responded “no.” The remaining three purchasers indicated no consistent change, with one anticipating an

increase in purchasing frequency, one anticipating a reduced frequency in purchasing, and one

anticipating a fluctuating purchasing pattern. 

The majority of purchasers (17 of 27) contact more than one supplier before making a purchase. 

Fourteen purchasers reported contacting between 2-3 suppliers, two purchasers reported contacting

4 suppliers, and one purchaser reported contacting 5 suppliers before making a purchase. The remaining

ten responding purchasers reported contacting only 1 supplier before making a purchase. Seventeen of

32 responding purchasers reported negotiations between the supplier and the purchaser when purchasing

glycine. Five purchasers, ***, reported that competitive prices are not quoted during the negotiation

process. 

Purchasers were asked a number of questions about whether their purchasing patterns for glycine

from subject and nonsubject sources had changed since 1995. Nine of 32 responding purchasers reported

that they had purchased glycine from China before 1995, but only two of these reported no changes in

their purchasing patterns since 1995. One firm indicated that it had discontinued its purchases from

China, and three purchasers reported decreasing their purchases since the order. *** reported an initial

II-10
reduction of purchases from China, but between 2005 and 2010 its purchases of glycine from China

fluctuated as U.S. prices increased and U.S. manufacturers could not meet supply needs. *** reported

having to change its purchasing patterns due tight supply, particularly during the antidumping

investigations involving India and Japan during 2006-07. *** reported a reduction of purchases from

China because its customers have began to request that all raw materials come from countries other than

China.

Fourteen purchasers reported that their purchases from nonsubject countries were essentially

unchanged; three increased their purchases from nonsubject countries because of the order; and four

changed their purchases from nonsubject countries for reasons other than the order (e.g., supply, higher

prices, NAFTA requirements). Six purchasers reported that they did not purchase from nonsubject

countries before or after the order. 

As shown in figure II-3, purchase shares of domestically produced glycine, as reported by U.S.

purchasers, decreased since 2005. Although nonsubject shares fluctuated from 2005 to 2008 (remaining

between 20 and 30 percent), beginning in 2009, purchase shares of nonsubject glycine increased to over

40 percent in 2009 and more than 50 percent in 2010. Purchase shares of Chinese-produced glycine

increased from 2005 to 2008, but then fell during 2009-10. The total quantity of glycine purchased on a

yearly basis increased by 8 percent from 2005 to 2010. In 2007, the quantity of glycine purchased

decreased by 10 percent from 2005 levels. This decrease is attributed to a reduction in both domestic and

nonsubject purchases, and correlates with the domestic and Indian supply constraints in 2007 reported by

purchasers.26

Figure II-3

Glycine: Shares of purchased quantities of glycine by source, 2005-2010

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 26 U.S. imports from India decreased by 63 percent in 2007 to 828 thousand pounds, but then increased to 2,588

thousand pounds in 2008. See Part IV for further details. 

II-11
Importance of Specified Purchase Factors

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors when making their purchasing

decisions (table II-7). The factors listed as “very important” by at least two-thirds of the responding firms

were product consistency (all 33 purchasers); quality meets industry standards (29); reliability of

supply (29); availability (27); price (27); and delivery time (22).

Table II-7

Glycine: Importance of purchase factors, reported by U.S. purchasers 

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 27 1 0

Delivery terms 13 11 1

Delivery time 22 8 2

Discounts offered 8 15 8

Extension of credit 7 17 7

Minimum quantity requirements 5 17 10

Packaging 6 24 2

Price 27 5 0

Product consistency 33 0 0

Product range 5 14 12

Quality exceeds industry standards 29 2 1

Quality meets industry standards 19 9 4

Reliability of supply 29 4 0

Technical support/service 15 10 7

U.S. transportation costs 11 18 3

Other1 3 00

 1 One purchaser reported meeting specification as a very important factor, one purchaser reported taste, texture,

and dissolution as a very important factor, and one purchaser reported impurity/metal as a very important factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Determining Quality

Purchasers were asked to identify the factors that determine the quality of glycine. Purchasers

reported numerous factors. These factors include the following: purity (10); meets specifications (8);

clumping/solubility issues (8); meets USP27 specifications (7); meets testing parameters (4); customerapproved manufacturer (4); free of heavy metals and melamine contamination (4); an approved and

verified current GMP facility (1); personnel (1); crystalline appearance (1); and on-sight audit (1).

 27 Glycine that is tested against and certified according to the specific requirements of the United States

Pharmacopeia (USP).

II-12
Three of 27 responding purchasers reported that certain grades/types/sizes of glycine were

available from only one source (either domestic or foreign). *** reported that the material purchased is

from its parent company, and is certified as USP/EP/JP28 material and packaged in accordance with clean

room standards. *** reported problems in the past with quality and reliability, and therefore it purchases

from a single source to ensure a smooth production process.

Supplier Certification

U.S. purchasers were asked whether or not they required their glycine suppliers to become

certified or pre-qualified. Twenty-seven of 33 responding purchasers reported that they require suppliers

to become certified for all of their purchases. Fifteen purchasers reported conducting quality audits, trial

delivery periods, packaging requirements, and financial qualification analysis when qualifying a new

supplier. Two purchasers reported that the product must be verified as Kosher. Twenty-five purchasers

provided information on the time necessary to qualify a supplier, ranging from one day to one year, with

7 purchasers reporting ranges from 30 to 45 days and 7 purchasers reporting ranges from 90 to 180 days. 

When asked if any domestic or foreign suppliers had failed to obtain certification, five29 of 33

purchasers reported “yes.” *** reported that *** and *** were both dropped as suppliers because of

quality concerns. Purchaser *** reported that *** had failed to meet its quality standards. *** reported

that it currently does not purchase any glycine manufactured in India because Indian producers have not

passed its pre-shipping screening tests in the past. One purchaser, ***, did not provide any further

explanation.

Lead Times

U.S. producer *** reported that *** of its sales came from inventory, whereas *** reported that

*** of its sales were produced to order. Importers reported that approximately 78 percent of their sales in

2010 came from foreign inventory; 13 percent came from U.S. inventory; and 9 percent was produced to

order. Lead times for the U.S. producers averaged about 5 days for sales from inventories; lead times for

produced-to-order glycine shipments ranged from 14 to 20 days. Importers reported lead times that

ranged from 2 to 5 days for shipments coming from U.S. inventories, 30 to 50 days for sales from foreign

inventories, and 40 to 60 days for glycine that is produced to order.

Comparisons of Domestic Product, Subject Imports and Nonsubject Imports

Purchasers were asked a number of questions comparing glycine produced in the United States,

China, and nonsubject countries. First, purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on

15 factors for which they were asked to rate the importance of various purchasing factors (table II-8). 

When comparing U.S. product to the Chinese product, most responding purchasers reported that U.S.

product was superior to the Chinese product in terms of delivery times, product consistency, and technical

support. U.S. product and Chinese product were comparable for all other characteristics except for price

for which the Chinese product was rated as superior. The majority of purchasers reported that the U.S.

product was comparable to the Japanese product for all characteristics. At least half of responding

purchasers reported that the U.S. product was superior to the Indian product with respect to delivery

terms, delivery times, product consistency, technical support, and U.S. transportation costs; U.S.

 28 Glycine that is tested against and certified according to the specific requirements of the European

Pharmacopeia (“EP”) and Japanese Pharmacopeia (“JP”).

 29 While *** reported “yes,” it stated in its explanation that it only purchases material from *** and does not have

any interest in purchasing material from other sources.

II-13
purchasers reported that U.S. product and Indian product was comparable for all other characteristics

except price. At least half of responding purchasers reported that the U.S. product was superior to Korean

product with respect to delivery terms, delivery times, quality exceeds industry standards, reliability of

supply, and technical support; a majority of U.S. purchasers reported that U.S. product and Korean

product were comparable for all other characteristics.30

Table II-8

Glycine: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor U.S. vs China U.S. vs Japan U.S. vs. India U.S. vs. Korea

SC I SC I SC I SC I

Availability 6 10 3281152231

Delivery terms 6 12 1 2 9 0 3 5 0 3 3 0

Delivery time 9 9 1 4 7 0 4 4 0 3 3 0

Discounts offered 1 13 4 1 10 0162231

Extension of credit 2 12 2 2 8 0 1 7 0 2 2 0

Minimum quantity requirements 491190160230

Packaging 5 13 1 0 11 0 1 7 0 1 5 0

Price1 1 5 11 1 7 4 0 3 5 2 1 2

Product consistency 9 10 0191350240

Product range 3 13 1182170240

Quality exceeds industry standards 8 11 0190350330

Quality meets industry standards 3 15 0191260230

Reliability of supply 6 12 1 1 10 0350330

Technical support/service 10 70371440330

U.S. transportation costs1

 6 12 1 3 6 2 3 5 0 2 3 1

 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported

“U.S. superior”, it meant that the price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced glycine can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from China, U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether

glycine can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. Both U.S.

producers reported that domestic and imported product are *** interchangeable. U.S. producer 

 30 Purchasers were split when comparing the price of U.S.-produced glycine and glycine produced in Korea with

two purchasers reporting that U.S.-produced product was superior in terms of price, and two purchasers reporting

that it was inferior.

II-14
*** and U.S. purchaser *** stated that any glycine that meets particular grade specifications (e.g.,

pharmaceutical, USP, or technical) is interchangeable from any country source; USP- and technical-grade

glycine are sold based upon widely known standards. The majority of importers and purchasers reported

that domestic and imported glycine are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable (table II-9). None of the

importers or purchasers reported reasons why product was only “sometimes” or “never” interchangeable.

Table II-9

Glycine: Perceived interchangeability of products produced in the United States and in other

countries by country pairs

Country pair

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSNAFSNAFSN

 U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 7 2 2 0 8 11 1 4

 U.S. vs. nonsubject *** *** *** *** 72106941

 China vs. nonsubject *** *** *** *** 62205741

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In addition, producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how often differences

other than price were significant in sales of glycine from the United States, China, or nonsubject countries

(table II-10). Both U.S. producers reported that differences other than price were *** important for any

country combination. Responses from importers and purchasers were mixed, with slightly more than half

of responding firms reporting that differences other than price between U.S.-produced glycine and

Chinese imports are “always” or “frequently” a significant factor. When comparing the United States to

nonsubject countries, responses from importers and purchasers were also mixed, with more than half of

the responding firms reporting that differences other than price are “sometimes” or “never” a significant

factor.

Table II-10

Glycine: Perceived significance of differences other than price between products produced in the

United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSNAFSNAFSN

 U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 5 0 2 2 10 4 6 4

 U.S. vs. nonsubject *** *** *** *** 20245375

 China vs. nonsubject *** *** *** *** 30324174

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-15
ELASTICITY ESTIMATES31

This section discusses the elasticity estimates; party comments are noted below.

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for glycine measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price for glycine. The elasticity of domestic supply depends

on several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the existence of inventories, and the availability

of alternate markets for U.S.-produced glycine. Analysis of these factors indicate that the U.S. industry

has a moderate ability to increase domestic shipments in response to price increases. The supply

elasticity is likely to be in the range of 2.0 to 4.0. GPOTUS reported that it agrees with the staff’s

estimate of U.S. supply elasticity.32

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for glycine measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded

to a change in the U.S. market price of glycine. This sensitivity depends on the availability and viability

of substitute products as well as on the component share of glycine in the production of downstream

products. There are almost no products that can be successfully substituted for glycine. Glycine is

typically used to produce a wide range of products including food, animal feed, deodorant, cosmetics, and

a wide range of other products. Demand elasticity is likely to be in the -0.3 to -0.6 range. GPOTUS

reported that it agrees with the staff’s estimate of U.S. demand elasticity.33

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported glycine. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as the grade of

product, quality, and conditions of sale (availability, delivery, etc.). Based on factors presented earlier,

the elasticity of substitution is likely to be in the range of 4.0 to 6.0. GPOTUS reported that the elasticity

of substitution likely is at the high end of staff’s estimates of 4 to 6.34

 31 The elasticity responses in this section refer to changes that could occur within 12 months, unless otherwise

indicated.

 32 GPOTUS’ prehearing brief, p. 13.

 33 GPOTUS’ prehearing brief, p. 3.

 34 GPOTUS’ prehearing brief, p. 4.

II-16
PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Information in this section is based on the questionnaire responses of the two producers, Chattem

and GEO, that are believed to have accounted for all U.S. production of glycine during 2010. The

domestic producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant openings, plant

closings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, prolonged shutdowns or production

curtailments, revised labor agreements, or any other changes in their glycine operations since January 1,

2005.1

Changes Experienced in Operations

Chattem stated that “***.” Changes in operations experienced by GEO regard “***.”

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

The Commission asked domestic producers to report anticipated changes in the character of their

operations relating to the production of glycine2

 and in the event the order is revoked.3 Their responses

are presented below.

Chattem stated that it “***.” Chattem anticipates growth in glycine production if the order stays

in place. In its answer to the U.S. producer questionnaire, Chattem further stated that “***.”

GEO stated that it “***.” In regard to anticipated changes in operations in the event that the

order is revoked, GEO “***.”

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization for glycine are presented in

table III-1. For 2010, GEO reported capacity of *** pounds and Chattem reported capacity of ***

pounds. The production capacity was stable and constant for both producers throughout the period of

review (2005-10). Production decreased irregularly over the period of review, reaching a high of ***

pounds in 2008 before dropping to a low of *** pounds in 2010. Capacity utilization followed a similar

trend over the period of review, reaching a high of *** in 2008 and a low of *** in 2010.4

 

***. *** in 2008 during the global shortage caused by the temporary shutdown of Chinese

producers ahead of the Beijing Olympics. The unforseen shutdown led to a temporary tightness in the

global glycine market.5

 Chattem had a capacity utilization of ***. 

Table III-1

Glycine: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

 1 U.S. producer questionnaire, section II-2.

 2

 U.S. producer questionnaire, section II-3.

 3

 U.S. producer questionnaire, section II-4.

 4

 “***” GPOTUS’ Posthearing Brief, Annex, p. 1. 

 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 27 (Button).

III-1
Alternative Products

The Commission asked domestic producers to report production or whether they anticipate

production of other products on the same equipment and machinery and/or using the same production and

related workers employed to produce glycine. Both the domestic producers responded in the negative.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of glycine, by types, are presented in table III-2a. U.S.

producers’ shipments of glycine, by grade, are presented in table III-2b. The domestic producers reported

***. The quantity of U.S. shipments fluctuated from 2005 to 2007, increased to a peak in 2008, and

decreased in 2009 and 2010. Overall, shipments were *** percent lower in 2010 compared with 2005. 

As a share of total shipments, commercial shipments fluctuated less than ***. Overall, the share of

commercial shipments declined by *** percentage points while the share of export shipments increased

by the same amount.

Table III-2a

Glycine: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Table III-2b

Glycine: Share of U.S. producers’ shipment, by grade, 2010

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked domestic producers to identify their principal export markets. Chattem

reported no export markets, and GEO identified *** as principal export markets. GEO also reported that

***.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-3, which presents end-of-period inventories for glycine, shows that inventories as a

share of production and U.S. and total shipments increased over the period of review.

Table III-3

Glycine: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of glycine are presented in table III-4.6

 ***. In its

importer questionnaire, ***.”7

 6 ***.

 7

 U.S. importer questionnaire response, section II-6.

III-2
Table III-4

Glycine: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for glycine are presented in table III-5. The

number of production-related workers (“PRWs”), hours worked by PRWs, and wages paid to PRWs

decreased slowly from 2005 to 2009 before increasing slightly in 2010. Productivity fluctuated and was

at its lowest rate in 2010, while unit labor costs fluctuated over the period of the review and were at their

highest in 2010.

Table III-5

Glycine: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

The same two firms that provided trade data, Chattem and GEO, also provided usable financial

data on their operations on glycine. The two are believed to account for all production of glycine in the

United States during the period for which data were gathered. Both reported only commercial sales;

neither reported that they transferred glycine nor did either internally consume it.8

Operations on Glycine

Results of U.S. firms’ operations on glycine are briefly summarized here. 

• Total net commercial sales rose irregularly by about *** percent, by quantity, between 2005 and

2008, but increased by value by about *** percent in the same time period due to increasing unit

values of sales. Both sales quantity and value peaked in 2008, and fell from 2008 to 2010. The

average unit value of sales increased in 2009 from 2008, but declined in 2010 to a level that was

still greater than in 2008.9

 The changes in net sales values were attributable primarily to the

changes in average unit sales values as well as to lower quantity in 2009 and 2010. 

 8 ***. GEO purchased the Deer Park facility from Hampshire Chemical Corporation (“Hampshire”), a subsidiary

of Dow Chemicals, Inc. (“Dow”), on November 1, 2005. Prior to November 2005, DOW/ Hampshire was a U.S.

producer of glycine. However, officials at GEO provided consolidated data for the Deer Park facility under both

ownership entities into a single questionnaire response. GEO’s data for 2006 ***. EDIS document 451603. Staff

verified the questionnaire response of GEO (Glycine Verification Report, EDIS document 451825); changes to the

financial data are incorporated herein. GEO stated that its purchase of Hampshire was to obtain the napthalene

sulfonate (“DAXAD”) production, which is used in the production of wallboard. Hearing transcript, pp. 76-77

(Eckman). However, the DAXAD production unit *** because of the impact of the U.S. recession on construction,

and, consequently, glycine accounts for *** production at Deer Park. Verification report, p. 3.

 9

 The decline in the AUV of sales from 2009 to 2010 was primarily attributed to competition from Chinese

glycine alleged to be transhipped through India. GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, Annex, pp. 10-11.

III-3
• Changes in raw material costs generally led to overall changes in the industry’s cost of goods sold

(“COGS”). From 2005 to 2007 increases in raw material costs and direct labor offset decreased

other factory costs; the absolute value and per-unit value of these two components increased, as

did their ratios to sales, and the two firms together recorded gross losses in both 2006 and 2007. 

Thereafter, sales increased to a greater extent compared with COGS and the two firms together

recorded a positive gross profit from 2008 through 2010.

• The firms together recorded operating losses during 2005, 2006, and 2007, equivalent to a

negative *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent of sales, respectively (selling, general and

administrative expenses were greater in 2005 than the gross profit and led to an operating loss). 

They were profitable in each of the last three years examined, with the greatest level of

profitability in 2009 (a ***), which was the year in which the unit value of sales was highest. 

Operating profitability fell from 2009 to 2010–sales quantity, the unit value of sales, and sales

value were lower; direct labor, other factory costs, and SG&A expenses were higher. The

operating margin was *** percent in 2010.10

• Net income or loss before taxes and cash flow followed the same pattern as operating income or

loss–negative during 2005-07 and positive during 2008-10. 

These data for the industry are shown in table III-6, while table III-7 provides operating data on a

firm-by-firm basis.

Table III-6

Glycine: Results of operations of U.S. firms, fiscal years 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Table III-7

Glycine: Results of operations of U.S. firms, by firm, fiscal years 2005-10

* * * * * * *

According to GEO, prices rose in 2008 because of shortages caused by the shutdown of Chinese

producers ahead of the Beijing Olympics and rose in 2009 because contracts for 2009 were established at

high 2008 levels.11 GEO indicated that ***.12

Because GEO accounts *** in every period.13 Hence, *** ***. A comparison of AUVs for

pricing products numbers 2 and 3 is provided in table III-8:

 10 Changes in the industry’s operating performance are discussed in the GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, Annex, pp.

12-14.

 11 Hearing transcript, pp. 42-43 (Ekman) and GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, Annex, pp. 10-11.

 12 GEO’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, Attachment A (***), p.6. GEO notes that it has filed

allegations of circumvention and Commerce has begun an investigation. GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, Annex, pp. 5-

9. Sales are projected ***.

 13 ***. 

III-4
Table III-8

Glycine: Comparison of sales AUVs for pricing products 2 and 3, by firm, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Differences in AUVs between GEO and Chattem have been ascribed to: (1) ***; (2) ***; and

(3) ***.14 GEO sells to ***.15 As noted in the 2007 investigations, as a part of its marketing strategy

Chattem ceased in 2006 to compete in the high volume USP- and technical-grade markets for glycine

based on price, but chose to ship U.S.-produced glycine to USP-grade and technical-grade end users

willing to pay higher unit values than are available for similar product through importers or other U.S.

producers.16 

GEO uses the HCN process and Chattem uses the MCA process to produce glycine, as described

in Part I of this report. The HCN process yields some by-product recovery but the MCA process does

not.17 Reportedly, the capital costs for the HCN process are higher than for the MCA process, while the

MCA process is more costly from an operating standpoint due to its higher raw material cost. These

differences are seen in the ***. Both GEO and Chattem stated that raw material price volatility has

increased as have prices of inputs.18 During 2005-10, the ratio of raw materials to sales varied from ***

percent to *** percent and was *** percent in 2010. From 2005 to 2008, the average unit value of raw

materials rose from $*** per pound to $*** per pound, thereafter declining to $*** per pound in 2010. 

These changes are shown in table III-9. The ratio of raw material costs to total COGS also rose during

2005-08, from *** percent to *** percent, but was only *** percent in 2010. 

Table III-9

Glycine: Raw material costs of U.S. firms, by firm, fiscal years 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Variance Analysis

The variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on U.S. producers’ total net sales

of glycine, and of costs and volume on their total expenses, is presented in table III-10. The information

for this variance analysis is derived from table III-6. The variance analysis provides an assessment of

changes in profitability as related to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. The variance analysis is

summarized at the bottom of the table and shows that the increase in operating income from 2005 to 2010 

(of ***–from an operating loss of $*** to an operating profit of $***) is attributable to the favorable

price variance (higher unit prices) that was much higher than the unfavorable net cost/expense variance

 14 E-mail from David Schwartz, Thompson Hine, to USITC staff, May 11, 2011. Item (1) was cited in the 2007

report. See Glycine from Japan and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1112 and 1113 (Final), Publication 3980 (January

2008), p. III-4, citing Hearing transcript, p. 29 (Avraamides), p. 79 (Kedrowski), and p. 80 (Eckman).

 15 Discussion between USITC staff and ***.

 16 Cited in the 2007 investigations as staff telephone interview with *** and hearing transcript, pp. 86

(Kedrowski). See Glycine from Japan and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1112 and 1113, Publication 3980 (January

2008), footnote 16 on page III-4. Also, Chattem stated that it ***. Chattem’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire

response, section IV-9.

 17 While ***.

 18 U.S. producers’ questionnaire responses of GEO and Chattem, section IV-18. The primary raw materials to

make glycine are hydrogen cyanide, sulfuric acid, and formaldehyde; caustic soda also is used, as a neutralizer in the

reaction processes. Glycine from Japan and Korea, Ibid., p. I-10. GEO projects that ***. GEO’s U.S. producers’

questionnaire response, Attachment A (C&I Division Plan 2011-2013), p. 16. However, GEO also estimated ***. 

Ibid., p. 18.

III-5
(higher unit costs) and small favorable volume variance.19 The mix of favorable and unfavorable

variances changed during the period. The price variance was unfavorable 

between 2005 and 2006, 2006 and 2007, and between 2009 and 2010 (unit prices fell); the net

cost/expense variance was unfavorable (unit costs increased) between most periods. 

Table III-10

Glycine: Variance analysis on U.S. firms’ operations, fiscal years 2005-10

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of glycine to compute return on investment (“ROI”) for 2005 to 2010 (table III-11). The data for

operating income or loss are from table III-6. Total operating income or loss was divided by total assets,

resulting in ROI.

Table III-11

Glycine: Value of assets used in production, warehousing, and sales, and return on investment,

fiscal years 2005-10

* * * * * * *

ROI generally followed operating income. Overall, the data show increasing values of assets, due

in part to ***.

 Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

U.S. producers’ data on their capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses for their operations on Glycine are shown in table III-12. 

Table III-12

Glycine: U.S. firms’ capital expenditures and research and development expenses, fiscal years

2005-10

* * * * * * *

GEO stated that its capital expenditures have been mostly related to ***.20

 19 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost or expense (cost/expense)

variance (in the case of the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance), and a volume variance. The sales or

cost/expense variance is calculated as the change in unit price or per-unit cost/expense times the new volume, while

the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times the old unit price or per-unit cost/expense. 

Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance is the sum of those

items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively, and the volume variance is the sum of the volume components

of the net sales, COGS, and SG&A expense variances. The overall volume component of the variance analysis is

generally small.

 20 GEO’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, Attachment A (C&I Division Plan 2011-13), p. 19. This

indicates that the major projects in 2010 at Deer Park, TX, were related to the ***.

III-6
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRY

U.S. IMPORTS

Overview

The Commission issued questionnaires to 39 firms believed to have imported glycine between

2005 and 2010. Fifteen firms provided data and information in response to the questionnaires, while five

firms indicated that they had not imported glycine during the period for which data were collected. Based

on official Commerce statistics for imports of glycine, importers’ questionnaire data accounted for

30.7 percent of total U.S. imports during the period of this investigation (2005-10) and 51.2 percent of

total subject imports during 2005-10. In light of the data coverage by the Commission’s questionnaires

and the fact that glycine is imported under a clean (non-basket) HTS number, import data in this report

are based on official Commerce statistics.1

Imports from Subject and Nonsubject Countries

Table IV-1 presents data for U.S. imports of glycine from China and all other sources. Initially,

imports from China fluctuated within a narrow range before reaching their period high in 2008 at ***

pounds. The quantity of subject imports declined sharply to *** pounds in 2009, then increased to ***

pounds in 2010. From 2005 to 2007, India, Japan, and Korea accounted for in excess of *** percent of

nonsubject imports. For the remainder of the period of review, India and Japan accounted for *** to ***

percent of nonsubject imports as imports from Korea dropped to zero from 2008 to 2010.2

 The share of

total U.S. imports by quantity held by subject imports decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2005 to

*** percent in 2010, with a high of *** percent in 2008 and low of *** percent in 2009. The share of

total U.S. imports by quantity held by nonsubject imports increased from *** percent in 2005 to

*** percent in 2010, with a period high at *** percent in 2009.

1

 Glycine is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under subheading

2922.49.40 and reported for statistical purposes under statistical reporting number 2922.49.4020. 

2

 As noted earlier, on December 18, 2009, GEO and Chattem filed a request for initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry. In response to this request, the Department of Commerce is examining whether the activities

of three Indian companies, Salvi Chemical Industries, Paras Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd., and AICO Laboratories are

circumventing the antidumping duty order on glycine from China. In their Circumvention Allegation, GEO and

Chattem allege that all three Indian companies are importing technical-grade glycine from companies in China,

processing and/or repackaging the Chinese-origin glycine then exporting the finished product to the United States,

marked as Indian-origin glycine. See Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Anticircumvention Inquiry, 75 FR 66352, October 28, 2010.

IV-1
Table IV-1

Glycine: U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-10

Source

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 1,915 2,177 2,184 3,630 126 1,190

India (nonsubject) 2,030 2,233 828 2,588 2,944 4,048

Japan (nonsubject) 2,047 2,610 3,726 2,596 2,628 3,382

Korea (nonsubject) 992 1,124 444000

All other sources 359 392 225 807 215 415

Total (nonsubject) 5,428 6,359 5,224 5,991 5,787 7,844

Total 7,343 8,537 7,408 9,621 5,913 9,034

Value ($1,000)

1

China 2,397 2,598 2,866 11,535 222 1,724

India (nonsubject) 2,798 2,882 1,119 7,124 6,529 8,236

Japan (nonsubject) 2,808 3,310 4,438 9,494 6,865 8,402

Korea (nonsubject) 1,278 1,300 570000

All other sources 837 936 558 2,581 449 971

Total (nonsubject) 7,721 8,429 6,685 19,198 13,843 17,608

Total 10,118 11,026 9,550 30,733 14,066 19,333

Unit value (dollars per pound)

China $1.25 $1.19 $1.31 $3.18 $1.77 $1.45

India (nonsubject) 1.38 1.29 1.35 2.75 2.22 2.03

Japan (nonsubject) 1.37 1.27 1.19 3.66 2.61 2.48

Korea (nonsubject) 1.29 1.16 1.28 (2

) (2) (2)

All other sources 2.33 2.39 2.47 3.20 2.09 2.34

Total (nonsubject) 1.42 1.33 1.28 3.20 2.39 2.24

Total 1.38 1.29 1.29 3.19 2.38 2.14

Table continued on next page.

IV-2
Table IV-1--Continued

Glycine: U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-10

Source

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Share of quantity (percent)

China 26.1 25.5 29.5 37.7 2.1 13.2

India (nonsubject) 27.6 26.2 11.2 26.9 49.8 44.8

Japan (nonsubject) 27.9 30.6 50.3 27.0 44.4 37.4

Korea (nonsubject) 13.5 13.2 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All other sources 4.9 4.6 3.0 8.4 3.6 4.6

Total (nonsubject) 73.9 74.5 70.5 62.3 97.9 86.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 23.7 23.6 30.0 37.5 1.6 8.9

India (nonsubject) 27.7 26.1 11.7 23.2 46.4 42.6

Japan (nonsubject) 27.8 30.0 46.5 30.9 48.8 43.5

Korea (nonsubject) 12.6 11.8 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All other sources 8.3 8.5 5.8 8.4 3.2 5.0

Total (nonsubject) 76.3 76.4 70.0 62.5 98.4 91.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2010

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they had imported or arranged for the

importation of glycine from China for delivery after December 31, 2010. *** reported that it arranged for

*** pounds of glycine to be delivered during January-March 2011.3

 No other responding importers

indicated such arrangements.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Table IV-2 presents data for inventories of U.S. imports of glycine from China and all other

sources held in the United States. Inventories of subject imports increased sharply in 2006, then

decreased irregularly from 2007 to 2010. The ratio of subject inventories to imports and to U.S.

shipments was greatest in 2006. Inventories of nonsubject imports were initially high, then decreased

3

 *** U.S. importer questionnaire, section II-5.

IV-3
sharply from 2005 to 2007 and increased irregularly from 2008 to 2010. The ratio of nonsubject

inventories to imports and to U.S. shipments was greatest in 2005.

Table IV-2

Glycine: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2005-10

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked importers whether their firms entered glycine into, or withdrew glycine

from, foreign trade zones or bonded warehouses. *** reported entering glycine into, or withdrawing

glycine from, foreign trade zones or bonded warehouses.4

 The Commission also asked importers whether

their firms had imported glycine under the temporary importation bond (“TIB”) program. *** from which

usable data were received reported using the TIB program.5

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Chinese Producers

The original investigation identified five major producers of glycine in China: Suzhou

Comtech, Dong Fang Mancheng, Baoding Zhongyuan, Tiancheng, and Ba Fen Shen.6

 Estimates of

China’s annual production capacity in the original staff report ranged from 22 million to 33 million

pounds for 1994.7

 ***.8

In the first review, the Commission did not receive any information from Chinese producers. The

staff report for the first review does list companies producing glycine in China that were not part of the

list of major Chinese producers in the original investigation.9

 The increase in the number of producers in

China as well as an increase in demand for glycine to produce the herbicide glyphosate seemed to indicate

an increase in production capacity for glycine in China since the original investigation.

In the second review, the Commission did not directly receive any addition information on

production capacity or shipments for the industry in China. However, a domestic interested party

identified 14 producers of glycine in China. The domestic interested party also submitted ***.10 Another

source reported a lower production capacity of approximately 50 million in 2002.11 A possible reason for

the different estimates of production could be differences in reporting for production of glycine that is

further processed into glyphosate and glycine that is produced for commercial sale. However, even the

lower estimate of production capacity indicated a large increase in Chinese capacity since the original

investigation.12

4

 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section I-9.

5

 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section I-10.

6

 Staff Report from Original Investigations, Memorandum INV-S-020 (February 27,1995), p. I-54.

7

 Ibid., p. I-54, fn. 86 and p. I-57.

8

 Ibid, p. I-55.

9

 Staff Report from Review, Memorandum INV-X- 120 (June 2, 2000), pp. I-20 and I-21. 

10 Staff Report from Second Review, Memorandum INV-CC- 165 (September 29, 2005), table I-11.

11 Ibid., p. I-36.

12 “Outside the United States there was a temporary reduction in global supply in 2008, when the Chinese

Government forced Chinese glycine producers to shut down for part of the year to reduce air pollution in advance of

the 2008 Beijing Olympics.” Hearing transcript. p. 27 (Button).

IV-4
For this (third) review, the Commission did not receive information directly from Chinese

producers. ***.13

Table IV-3

Glycine: Chinese producers’ annual capacity (1,000,000 pounds), 2009

* * * * * * *

The data on Chinese production ***. The ***.14 ***.15 ***.16 ***.17 This estimate of the

production of glyphosate from glycine in China is much larger than the reported production capacity

from another industry source. ***18 In the 2010 USITC preliminary antidumping investigation on

glyphosate from China, the petition (public version) gives the Chinese production capacity of glyphosate

as 700,000 metric tons in 2009, increasing to 900,000 metric tons in 2010.19 The petition did not break

down Chinese glyphosate production capacity by raw material used; hence, these production capacity

data cannot be used to determine the amount of glycine that could be used in production of glyphosate.

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including

nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”20

During this (third) review, the Commission sought pricing data from U.S. importers of glycine

from China and all other countries. Those data are presented in Part V and Appendix E of this report. 

With respect to foreign nonsubject industry data, the Commission staff sought publicly available

information regarding international producers of glycine in India, Japan, and Korea. As noted earlier,

from 2005 to 2007, India, Japan, and Korea accounted for in excess of *** percent of nonsubject imports. 

For the remainder of the period of review, India and Japan accounted for *** to *** percent of nonsubject

imports as imports from Korea dropped to zero from 2008 to 2010.

13 GEO’s producer questionnaire response, Attachment E., and Chattem’s producer questionnaire response,

Attachment D.

14 GEO’s producer questionnaire response, Attachment E., and Chattem’s producer questionnaire response,

Attachment D.

15 GEO’s producer questionnaire response, Attachment E, table III-1.1.

16 GEO’s producer questionnaire response, Attachment E, p. 23.

17 GEO's producer questionnaire, Attachment E, table III-1.1. ***.

18 ***.

19 Petition (public version), Certain Glyphosate from the People's Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-1178, p.

36. The petition was withdrawn and the investigation was discontinued on May 6, 2010. 75 FR 24969.

20 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008),

quoting from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at

851-52; see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

IV-5
India

The public report on the Commission’s investigation on glycine from Japan and Korea lists the

following 13 producers of glycine in India, all of whom are believed to still be in operation:21

Aditya Chemicals (“Aditya”)

Amishi Drugs & Chemicals, Ltd. (“Amishi”)

Ashok Alco-Chem, Ltd. (“Ashok:”)

Bimal Pharma, Pvt. Ltd. (“Bimal”)

Euro Asian Industrial Co. (“EA Industrial”)

EPIC Enzymes Pharmaceuticals & Industrial Chemicals, Ltd. (“EPIC”)

Indian Chemical Industries (“IC Industries”)

Frezco Corporation (“Frezco”)

Salvi Chemical Industries (“Salvi”)

Kumar Industries (“Kumar”)

Paras Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (“Paras”)

Sisco Research Laboratories Pvt., Ltd. (“Sisco”)

Suru Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals, Pvt. Ltd. (“Suru”)

The United States is the largest export market for glycine produced in India (see table IV-4). 

During 2005-09, 93 percent of India’s glycine exports by volume went to the United States. India’s

exports of glycine to the United States increased for 2005-09 with the exception of a decrease in 2007. 

In the Japan/Korea investigation, Commission staff reported that most of India’s exports to the United

States were USP grade glycine; India did not export pharmaceutical grade glycine.22 India does not have

a large domestic market for glycine so most of its production is exported.23 Table IV-4 presents exports

from India from 2005-09.

Table IV-4

Glycine: India’s exports by volume (1,000 pounds), 2005–09

Export Market 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

United States 1,679 2,385 902 2,647 3,744

Other Countries 70 139 238 297 112

 Total 1,749 2,524 1,140 2,944 3,856

Source: GTIS, Global Trade Atlas.

21 Glycine from Japan and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1112-1113 (Final), USITC Publication 3980, January

2008, pp. VII-2 and VII-3.

22 Ibid., p. II-4.

23 Ibid., p. VII-3.

IV-6
Japan

The public report on the Commission's investigation on glycine from Japan and Korea lists the

following five producers of glycine in Japan, all of whom are believed to still be in operation:24

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. (“Ajinomoto”)

Hayashi Pure Chemical Industries Co., Ltd. (“Hayashi Pure”)

Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co., Ltd. (“Kyowa Hakko”)

Showa Denko K.K. (“Showa Denko”)

Yuki Gosei Kogyo Co., Ltd. (“Yuki Gosei”)

In the Japan/Korea investigation, the Commission found that all U.S. imports from Japan from

2004 to June 2007 came from just two firms, Showa Denko and Yuki Gosei.25 U.S. imports from Japan

fluctuated during 2006-10, reaching a peak of 3.7 million pounds in 2007 (table IV-1).26 In 2010, the

United States imported 3.4 million pounds of glycine from Japan.27 Japan exports both technical and USP

grades of glycine to the United States 28 (Table IV-5). Japan has a large domestic market for glycine, and

most shipments from Japanese producers are sold in the domestic market.29 According to a representative

of purchaser Summit Research, Japan’s ability to export glycine in the future has been impacted by the

March 2011 tsunami that stuck Japan. Linda Kozak of Summit Research testified:

 

“Things went from bad to worse in early 2011 when the tsunami struck in March

and Japan endured its nuclear crisis. The nuclear crisis caused a virtual panic amongst

many of our personal care customers who began to demand that we provide written

certification that we did not utilize Japanese glycine in our manufacturing process and

that if we did, we were to provide written certification that the glycine was free from

radiation on a batch by batch basis. Such a requirement basically took the Japanese out

of the antiperspirant market, certainly as far as we were concerned.”30

Table IV-5

Glycine: Japan’s exports by volume (1,000 pounds), 2006–10

Export Market 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

China 1,582 1,338 2,666 2,651 7,174

France 5,342 5,333 5,672 4,418 5,760

United States 3,322 3,709 4,618 3,870 5,436

Other Countries 20,852 22,255 27,280 15,693 19,620

 Total 31,097 32,635 40,236 26,631 37,990

Note: Data for Japan is for a basket category (HS 2922.49) that includes glycine as well as other amino acids.

Source: GTIS, Global Trade Atlas.

24 Ibid., p. VII-4.

25 Ibid.

26 USITC, Dataweb.

27 Ibid.

28 Glycine from Japan and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1112-1113 (Final), USITC Publication 3980, January

2008, p. II-4.

29 Ibid., p. VII-4.

30 Hearing transcript, p. 104 (Kozak).

IV-7
Korea

The public report on the Commission's investigation on glycine from Japan and Korea lists the

following three producers of glycine in Korea, all of whom are believed to still be in operation:31

Korea Bio-Gen Co., Ltd. (“Bio-Gen”)

DHOW International (“DHOW”)

Haerim Industrial Co. Ltd. (“Haerim”)

Since 2006, Korea’s exports of glycine to the United States have decreased, both in absolute

terms and as a percentage of Korea’s total exports of glycine (see table IV-6). Official statistics of the

U.S. Department of Commerce show no imports of glycine from Korea for 2008-10. At the hearing,

counsel for GPOTUS speculated that the cessation of imports from Korea in 2008-10 may have been 

attributable to a combination of the 2007 Japan/Korea investigation and transshipment allegations by

GPOTUS to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) that imports from Korea were

really imports of Chinese merchandise.32 In the 2007 Japan/Korea investigation, however, the

Commission noted a 2002 U.S. Customs determination that glycine production facilities exist in Korea,

and treated the merchandise from Korea as being produced in that country.33

Table IV-6

Glycine: Korea’s exports by volume (1,000 pounds), 2006–10

Export market 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Vietnam 20 35 77 139 838

United States 1,118 436 185 22 35

Other Countries 2 0 0 70

 Total 1,140 471 262 167 873

Source: GTIS, Global Trade Atlas.

31 Glycine from Japan and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1112-1113 (Final), USITC Publication 3980, January

2008, p. VII-4.

32 Hearing transcript, p. 69 (Schwartz). 

33 Glycine from Japan and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1112-1113 (Final), USITC Publication 3980, January

2008, p. 31, fn. 37, p. IV-2, and p. VII-5.

IV-8
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

 Raw Material Costs

The cost of glycine depends largely on the costs of chemicals and energy. Glycine is produced

using two basic methods, the HCN method which is used by GEO, and the MCA method which is used

by Chattem.1

 The primary raw materials used in the HCN process are hydrogen cyanide and

formaldehyde. For the MCA process, the primary raw materials are monochloroacetic acid and ammonia. 

As discussed in greater detail in Part III of this report, raw materials as a percentage of COGS sold

fluctuated, accounting for *** percent of COGS in 2005, peaking at *** percent of COGS in 2007, and

falling to *** percent of COGS in 2010.

When asked about the effect of raw material prices on the selling price for glycine, both U.S.

producers reported volatile raw material prices, which have affected the sales price of glycine, and both

producers also anticipate continual increases in energy costs and oil prices in the foreseeable future. 

Chattem reported that ***. GEO reported that ***.2

 GEO projects that ***;3 ***.4

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

*** U.S. producers, five of seven responding importers of glycine from China, and the two

responding importers of glycine from nonsubject countries indicated that their firms generally arrange for

transportation to customers’ locations. U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs for

glycine ranged from 3 to 6 percent of the delivered price. Five responding importers of glycine from

China reported that U.S. inland transportation costs of glycine ranged from 1 to 10 percent. *** U.S.

producers’ and seven of nine importers’ weighted-average U.S. shipment shares of domestic and subject

imported glycine by specified distance categories from their U.S. shipping locations are shown in the

following tabulation.

Distance shipped

Shares of U.S. shipments (percent)

U.S.-produced Imported from China

Within 100 miles *** 95.6

101 to 1,000 miles *** 0.7

Over 1,000 miles *** 3.7

 Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 1 Chattem reports that production using the hydrogen cyanide method is less expensive but requires a larger

investment. Glycine from Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1112-1113 (Final), Publication 3980 January 2008),

p. I-1-, citing hearing transcript, p. 80 (Eckman) and conference transcript, p. 60 (Kedrowski).

 2

 ***. GEO’s producer questionnaire response, Attachment C.

 3

 ***. Ibid.

 4

 GEO’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, Attachment A CI Plan Document 2011, p. 16. 

V-1
PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Prices of glycine are quoted by producers and importers on both an f.o.b. basis and on a delivered

basis. U.S. producer ***, five importers of glycine from China, and four importers of glycine from

nonsubject countries sell on an f.o.b. basis, whereas U.S. producer ***, four importers of glycine from

China, and two importers of glycine from nonsubject countries quote prices of glycine on a delivered

basis.

*** reported selling glycine on a transaction-by-transaction basis and through contracts. ***

reported that domestic producers generally negotiate contract prices with their contract customers in the

third quarter of each year for delivery the following year. Prices used in the contract negotiations are

based on prevailing market pricing, which is influenced by existing contract prices for that year and spot

prices at that time5

. *** reported using a price list that lists two prices for USP-grade glycine.6 Nine of

ten responding importers reported transaction-by-transaction negotiations, and four importers reported

using contracts.

Sales Terms and Discounts

*** reported *** with customers. *** reported ***. Five of seven responding importers of

glycine from China reported quantity discounts; of these importers, two reported offering annual total

volume discounts as well. Two importers of glycine from China and all six importers of glycine from

nonsubject countries reported that they did not offer any type of discount.

Price Leaders

Purchasers were asked which firms in the industry they consider to be price leaders.7

 Six

purchasers reported that *** pricing drives the U.S. market. Purchasers also identified ***, ***, ***, and

***.

 5 GPOTUS’s posthearing brief, response to Commissioner Pinkert, p. 10.

 6

 ***. U.S. producer questionnaire response, section IV-3.

 7

 A price leader is defined as: (1) a firm that initiates a price change, either upward or downward, that is followed

by other firms, or (2) a firm that has a significant impact on prices. 

V-2
Contract vs. Spot Sales

*** U.S. producers, three importers of glycine from China, and four importers of glycine from

nonsubject countries reported their 2010 U.S. commercial shipments of glycine by type of sale; their

shipment shares, based on quantity, are shown in table V-1. U.S.-produced glycine and glycine from

nonsubject countries is most commonly sold via ***, and on a *** for importers of Chinese glycine.8 9

Table V-1

Glycine: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments by type of sale, 2010

Type of sale

Shares of 2010 U.S. commercial shipments (percent)

U.S.- produced

Imported from

China1

Imported from

nonsubject countries

Spot *** *** 10.0

Short-term contracts *** *** 90.0

Long-term contracts *** *** 0.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

 

 1

 Three other importers of Chinese glycine (***) provided information on their sales but did not import Chinese

product during 2010, such that they were not able to provide data for this tabulation. *** reported selling on a spot

basis, and *** reported selling primarily on a short-term sales basis.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

*** reported that its long-term contracts were typically for ***, and reported that its short-term

contracts were typically for ***. *** reported that both its long-term and short-term contracts ***.10

U.S. producer *** reported that it ***.

Three U.S. importers of glycine from China (***) reported that their short-term contracts

typically range from three months to one year. *** reported that prices could not be renegotiated during

the contract while contracts with *** allowed for price renegotiations. *** reported that their contracts

fixed both quantity and price, and *** reported that its contracts fixed only price. Only *** reported a

meet-or-release provision in its contracts.

 

PRICE DATA

The Commission asked U.S. producers and importers of glycine to provide quarterly data for the

total quantity and f.o.b. value of glycine that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market

during the period January 2005 to December 2010. The products for which pricing data were requested

are as follows:

 8 U.S. producer GEO reported that its commercial goal is to sell as much of its capacity as possible to contract

customers. Hearing transcript, p. 7 (Mahoney). During the first half of 2011 when ***. GPOTUS’ posthearing

brief, response to Commissioner Okun, p. 5.

 9

 Spot sales are usually for one-time delivery; short-term sales are for multiple deliveries for up to 12 months after

the purchase agreement; and long-term sales are for multiple deliveries for more than 12 months after the purchase

agreement. Short-term and long-term sales may be arranged by contracts or oral agreements.

 10 U.S. producer ***. U.S. producer questionnaire response, Attachment A CI Plan Document 2011, October 18,

2010, p. 6. GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, exhibit 5.

V-3
Product 1.–Glycine sold to pharmaceutical-grade end users–A white, odorless, crystalline powder

with a sweet taste, having an assay (glycine content) of 98.5 percent to 101.5 percent (dry basis),

and with no more than 70 ppm chloride, no more than 65 ppm sulfate, and no more than 10 ppm

heavy metals.

Product 2.–Glycine sold to USP-grade end users–A white, odorless, crystalline powder with a

sweet taste, having an assay (glycine content) of 98.5 percent to 101.5 percent (dry basis), and

with no more than 70 ppm chloride, no more than 65 ppm sulfate, no more than 20 ppm heavy

metals, and not otherwise qualifying as pharmaceutical-grade glycine.

Product 3.–Glycine sold to technical-grade users–A white, off-white, or slightly yellow

crystalline powder, having an assay (glycine content) of 98.5 percent to 101.5 percent (dry basis),

with no more than 200 ppm sulfates, and not otherwise qualifying as USP-grade glycine.

Two U.S. producers and eleven importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products, although not all firms reported pricing data for all products for all quarters11. *** provided

price data for product 1, and ***.12 Six importers reported data for China: one importer provided price

data for product 1; four importers provided price data for product 2; and three importers reported prices

for product 3. Seven importers provided price data for imports from the nonsubject countries Japan,

India, and Thailand. By quantity, pricing data reported by responding firms in 2005-10 accounted for

approximately 99.1 percent of U.S. producers’ commercial shipments of glycine, 92.9 percent of reported

U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from China, and 77.7 percent of reported U.S. commercial

shipments of imports of glycine from nonsubject countries.

Price Trends

As shown in tables V-2 through V-4 and in figures V-1 through V-3, weighted-average f.o.b. sale

prices of all U.S.-produced glycine products fluctuated but *** from their 2005 levels. Prices for glycine

products 1 and 2 declined from the fourth quarter of 2005 to the fourth quarter of 2007, before increasing

through the fourth quarter of 2009. Prices then declined irregularly through the end of 2010. Weightedaverage U.S. quarterly f.o.b prices for product 3 frequently fluctuated and did not follow the same pattern

as the other two products. Prices for product 3 declined in the third quarter of 2005 and then irregularly

increased until the third quarter of 2009. Prices then declined irregularly through the third quarter of

2010. Prices of all U.S.-produced glycine products increased by 80 to 144 percent from the last quarter of

2007 to the third quarter of 2009.13 Overall, prices for all U.S.-produced glycine products increased

between the first quarter of 2005 and the last quarter of 2010.14 More detailed information is presented in

table V-5.

 11 In addition, ***, an importer of Chinese glycine, provided pricing data for ***.

 12 ***. 

 13 ***. GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, response to Commissioner Pinkert, p. 10. See Appendix E for further

discussion.

 14 Prices for glycine products produced by *** have continued to *** through the first half of 2011. In 2010, the

weighted-average f.o.b. price for glycine (products 1-3) produced by *** was $*** per pound. During the first half

of 2011, ***’s weighted-average f.o.b. price for glycine was $***, with the weighted-average contract price at $***

per pound. GPOTUS’ posthearing brief, exhibit 5.

V-4
Table V-2

Glycine: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, and

margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2005-December 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

Glycine: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2005-December 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

Glycine: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, and

margins of (overselling), by quarters, January 2005-December 2010

* * * * * * *

Figure V-1

Glycine: Weighted-average quarterly f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 1, January 2005-December 2010

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Glycine: Weighted-average quarterly f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 2, January 2005-December 2010

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

Glycine: Weighted-average quarterly f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 3, January 2005-December 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

Glycine: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-3 from the United States and 

China

* * * * * * *

The weighted-average f.o.b. sale prices of glycine imported from China generally followed the

trends displayed by domestically produced glycine, although with greater variability. This increased

volatility is likely due to the smaller and less consistent volume of shipments of Chinese-produced

glycine compared with the volume of glycine produced domestically. Prices for product 2 from China

increased from the first to the third quarter of 2006, before decreasing through the first quarter of 2007. 

Prices increased slightly from the second quarter of 2007 through the end of 2007, then increased by ***

V-5
percent between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2008.15 For product 1 imported from

China, only one quarter of data is available, so trends are not available. For product 3 imported from

China, the three quarters of data available indicated that prices increased in each quarter of 2008 as did

prices of U.S.-produced product. 

In addition to the pricing data supplied by U.S. producers and importers, U.S. purchasers were

asked if there has been a change in the relative prices of domestically produced and Chinese-produced

glycine since 2005. Thirteen of 23 responding purchasers reported that the price of U.S.-produced

glycine had increased relative to the price of glycine from China, six purchasers reported that the prices

have changed by the same amount, two purchasers reported no change in relative prices, and two

purchasers reported that the price of U.S.-produced glycine had decreased relative to the price of glycine

from China.

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented by pricing product in table

V-6 below. The data show that prices of imports from China were *** than the U.S. producers’ prices in

10 of 19 quarterly comparisons, with *** margins ranging from *** percent, and an average margin of

*** percent. Underselling occurred during 2006 through 2007, and in the first three quarters of 2010. 

The prices of imports from China were higher than U.S. producers’ prices in nine quarterly comparisons,

with overselling margins ranging from *** percent, and an average margin of *** percent. Overselling

occurred during the supply shortage period in 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, after which there is no

data until mid-2010.

Table V-6

Glycine: Summary of underselling/(overselling) by product and by year from China, January 2005-

December 2010

* * * * * * *

 15 During 2008, China temporarily closed its glycine-producing facilities to reduce pollution ahead of the 2008

Summer Olympics. This led to a global shortage of glycine and prices for Chinese glycine *** from 2008 to 2009.

V-6
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND ADEQUACY STATEMENT

A-1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 62141 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–225, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

business days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. There will be further 

opportunities for comment on the 

public interest after the issuance of any 

final initial determination in this 

investigation. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Submissions should 

refer to the docket number (‘‘Docket No. 

2757’’) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. The 

Commission’s rules authorize filing 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means only to the 

extent permitted by section 201.8 of the 

rules (see Handbook for Electronic 

Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/ 

documents/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. All nonconfidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 

210.50(a)(4)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 1, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25244 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–678] 

In the Matter of Certain Energy Drink 

Products; Notice of Issuance of a 

Corrected General Exclusion Order 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to revise 

the general exclusion order issued in the 

subject investigation on September 8, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia 

Chen, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 

708–3747. Copies of all nonconfidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. General information 

concerning the Commission may also be 

obtained by accessing its Internet server 

(http://www.usitc.gov). The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

trademark and copyright-based 

investigation was instituted by the 

Commission on June 17, 2009, based on 

a complaint filed by Red Bull GmbH of 

Fuschl am See, Austria, and Red Bull 

North America, Inc. of Santa Monica, 

California (collectively, ‘‘Red Bull’’). 74 

FR 28725 (Jun. 17, 2009). The 

respondents named in the notice of 

investigation were: Chicago Import Inc. 

of Chicago, Illinois; Lamont Distr., Inc., 

a/k/a Lamont Distributors Inc., of 

Brooklyn, New York; India Imports, 

Inc., a/k/a International Wholesale Club, 

of Metairie, Louisiana; Washington 

Food and Supply of DC, Inc., a/k/a 

Washington Cash & Carry, of 

Washington, DC; Vending Plus, Inc. 

d/b/a Baltimore Beverage Co., of Glen 

Burnie, Maryland; Posh Nosh Imports 

(USA), Inc. of South Kearny, New Jersey 

(‘‘Posh Nosh’’); Greenwich, Inc. of 

Florham Park, New Jersey; Advantage 

Food Distributors Ltd. of Suffolk, UK; 

Wheeler Trading, Inc. of Miramar, 

Florida; Avalon International General 

Trading, LLC of Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates; and Central Supply, Inc. of 

Brooklyn, New York. The asserted 

trademarks are U.S. Trademark Reg. 

Nos. 3,092,197; 2,946,045; 2,994,429; 

and 3,479,607. The asserted copyright is 

U.S. Copyright Registration No. 

VA0001410959. 

On September 8, 2010, the 

Commission issued a general exclusion 

order directed to U.S. Trademark 

Registration Nos. 3,092,197; 2,946,045; 

2,994,429; and 3,479,607 and U.S. 

Copyright Registration No. 

VA0001410959. The Commission has 

determined to issue a corrected general 

exclusion order to more closely conform 

to the Commission’s determination. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in 

sections 210.49–50 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 

210.49–50. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 1, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25242 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–718 (Third 

Review)] 

Glycine From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on glycine from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on glycine from 

China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is November 1, 2010. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

December 14, 2010. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
62142 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On March 29, 1995, the 

Department of Commerce (Commerce) 

issued an antidumping duty order on 

imports of glycine from China (60 FR 

16116). Following first five-year reviews 

by Commerce and the Commission, 

effective July 25, 2000, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

glycine from China (65 FR 45752). 

Following second five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective November 15, 2005, Commerce 

issued a second continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

glycine from China (70 FR 69316). The 

Commission is now conducting a third 

review to determine whether revocation 

of the order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct a full 

review or an expedited review. The 

Commission’s determination in any 

expedited review will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Like Product as all glycine, 

regardless of grade. In its first and 

second expedited five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

continued to define the Domestic Like 

Product as all glycine, coextensively 

with Commerce’s scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination 

and its first and second expedited fiveyear review determinations, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers of 

glycine. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR § 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is November 1, 2010. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is December 

14, 2010. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 62143 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information To Be Provided In 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2004. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2009 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
62144 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–227 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 4, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25287 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–298 and 299 

(Third Review); (Investigation Nos. 701–TA– 

267 and 731–TA–304 (Third Review))] 

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From 

China and Taiwan; Top-of-the-Stove 

Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From 

Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from 

China and Taiwan and the antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders on topof-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware 

from Korea. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on porcelainon-steel cooking ware from China and 

Taiwan and the countervailing and 

antidumping duty orders on top-of-thestove stainless steel cooking ware from 

Korea would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is November 1, 2010. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

December 14, 2010. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On December 2, 1986, 

the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) issued antidumping duty 

orders on imports of porcelain-on-steel 

cooking ware from China and Taiwan 

(51 FR 43414). On January 20, 1987, 

Commerce issued antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders on imports of 

top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking 

ware from Korea (52 FR 2138). 

Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective April 14, 2000, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty orders on porcelainon-steel cooking ware from China and 

Taiwan (65 FR 20136 and 21504) and, 

effective April 18, 2000, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

countervailing and antidumping duty 

orders on top-of-the-stove stainless steel 

cooking ware from Korea (65 FR 20801). 

Following second five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective November 17, 2005, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking 

ware from Korea (70 FR 69739). 

Effective November 22, 2005, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

countervailing duty order on top-of-thestove stainless steel cooking ware from 

Korea (70 FR 70585) and the 

antidumping duty orders on porcelainon-steel cooking ware from China and 

Taiwan (70 FR 70581). The Commission 

is now conducting third reviews to 

determine whether revocation of the 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct full 

reviews or expedited reviews. The 

Commission’s determinations in any 

expedited reviews will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60731 

2See also ‘‘Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, ‘‘Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Placing CBP data on the record,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

3See ‘‘Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. 

Fullerton, Program Manager, ‘‘Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: New Shipper Initiation Checklist,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

4See section 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

5See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. 

certified that it did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). In 

addition, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and section 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A) of the Department’s 

regulations, Quoc Viet certified that, 

since the initiation of the investigation, 

it has never been affiliated with any 

Vietnamese exporter or producer who 

exported subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI, including 

those respondents not individually 

examined during the investigation. As 

required by section 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) 

of the Department’s regulations, Quoc 

Viet also certified that its export 

activities were not controlled by the 

central government of Vietnam. 

In addition to the certifications 

described above, pursuant to section 

351.214(b)(2)(iv) of the Department’s 

regulations, Quoc Viet submitted 

documentation establishing the 

following: (1) The date on which Quoc 

Viet first shipped subject merchandise 

for export to the United States and; (2) 

the volume of its first shipment; and (3) 

the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated 

customer in the United States.2

Initiation of New Shipper Review 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 

Act and section 351.214(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, we find that 

the request submitted by Quoc Viet 

meets the threshold requirements for 

initiation of a NSR for shipments of 

shrimp from Vietnam produced and 

exported by Quoc Viet.3 The POR is 

February 1, 2010–July 31, 2010.4 The 

Department intends to issue the 

preliminary results of this NSR no later 

than 180 days from the date of 

initiation, and the final results no later 

than 270 days from the date of 

initiation.5

It is the Department’s usual practice, 

in cases involving non-market 

economies, to require that a company 

seeking to establish eligibility for an 

antidumping duty rate separate from the 

NME entity-wide rate provide evidence 

of de jure and de facto absence of 

government control over the company’s 

export activities. Accordingly, we will 

issue questionnaires to Quoc Viet, 

which will include a section requesting 

information with regard to Quoc Viet’s 

export activities for separate rate 

purposes. The NSR will proceed if the 

response provides sufficient indication 

that Quoc Viet is not subject to either de 

jure or de facto government control with 

respect to its export of subject 

merchandise. 

We will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to allow, at the option 

of the importer, the posting, until the 

completion of the review, of a bond or 

security in lieu of a cash deposit for 

each entry of the subject merchandise 

from Quoc Viet in accordance with 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 

section 351.214(e) of the Department’s 

regulations. Because Quoc Viet certified 

that it both produced and exported the 

subject merchandise, the sale of which 

is the basis for this new shipper review 

request, we will apply the bonding 

privilege to Quoc Viet only for subject 

merchandise which Quoc Viet both 

produced and exported. 

Interested parties requiring access to 

proprietary information in this NSR 

should submit applications for 

disclosure under administrative 

protective order in accordance with 

sections 351.305 and 351.306 of the 

Department’s regulations. 

This initiation and notice are in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act and sections 351.214 and 

351.221(c)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24729 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

Review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of FiveYear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 

13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 

62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3— 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–351–602 ........ 731–TA–308 ..... Brazil .............................. Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Merrmelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–588–602 ........ 731–TA–309 ..... Japan .............................. Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–583–605 ........ 731–TA–310 ..... Taiwan ............................ Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–549–807 ........ 731–TA–521 ..... Thailand .......................... Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–580–601 ........ 731–TA–304 ..... South Korea ................... Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel 

Cooking Ware (3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–570–836 ........ 731–TA–718 ..... PRC ................................ Glycine (3rd Review) .......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–583–508 ........ 731–TA–299 ..... Taiwan ............................ Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware (3rd 

Review).

Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–855 ........ 731–TA–841 ..... PRC ................................ Apple Juice Concentrate Non-Frozen 

(2nd Review).

Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–814 ........ 731–TA–520 ..... PRC ................................ Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–570–506 ........ 731–TA–298 ..... PRC ................................ Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Cooking 

Ware (3rd Review).

Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047. 

C–580–602 ........ 701–TA–267 ..... South Korea ................... Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel 

Cooking Ware (3rd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The 

required contents of the notice of intent 

to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the 

Department’s regulations, if we do not 

receive a notice of intent to participate 

from at least one domestic interested 

party by the 15-day deadline, the 

Department will automatically revoke 

the order without further review. See 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24736 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ30 

Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee; 

Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of open public meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a 

meeting of the Marine Fisheries 

Advisory Committee (MAFAC). This 

will be the second meeting to be held in 

the calendar year 2010. Agenda topics 

are provided under the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice. All 

full Committee sessions will be open to 

the public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

October 19–21, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 

5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Maryland Inn, Historic Inns of 

Annapolis, 16 Church Circle in 

Annapolis, MD 21401; 410–263–2641. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Holliday, MAFAC Executive 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
7150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Notices 

Any party having a substantial 

interest in these proceedings may 

request a public hearing on the matter. 

A written request for a hearing must 

be submitted to the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance for Firms Division, Room 

7106, Economic Development 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no 

later than ten (10) calendar days 

following publication of this notice. 

Please follow the requirements set 

forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR 

315.9 for procedures to request a public 

hearing. The Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance official number 

and title for the program under which 

these petitions are submitted is 11.313, 

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. 

Dated: February 3, 2011. 

Miriam Kearse, 

Eligibility Certifier. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2838 Filed 2–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–24–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–836] 

Notice of Final Results of Expedited 

Sunset Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order: Glycine From the People’s 

Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 1, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 60731 (October 

1, 2010) (‘‘Initiation’’). Based on filings 

by domestic interested parties and 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) of 

the Department’s regulations, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order. As a result of this sunset review, 

the Department finds that revocation of 

the antidumping duty order would 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of dumping at the level indicated in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 9, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Angelica Mendoza, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–8029 or 202–482– 

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 1, 2010, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on glycine from 

the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Initiation. On October 5, 

2010, the Department received a notice 

of intent to participate from the 

following domestic interested parties: 

GEO Specialty Chemicals (‘‘GEO’’) and 

Chattem Chemicals, Inc. (‘‘Chattem’’) 

(collectively the Glycine Producers of 

the United States or ‘‘the domestic 

interested parties’’), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(I). See 

Letter from David M. Schwartz, to 

Secretary Gary Locke, titled ‘‘Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Order on 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China—Notification of Intent to 

Participate by Domestic Interested 

Parties,’’ dated October 5, 2010. In this 

letter, the domestic interested parties 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. 

manufacturers of glycine. On October 

29, 2010, the Department received a 

complete substantive response from the 

domestic interested parties within the 

30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). See Letter from David 

M. Schwartz, to Secretary Gary Locke, 

titled ‘‘Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Order on Glycine from the 

People’s Republic of China— 

Substantive Response to Notice of 

Initiation,’’ dated October 29, 2010. The 

Department did not receive any 

comments from producers or exporters 

of glycine from the PRC. 

Based on the submissions of the 

domestic interested parties and 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department has conducted the 

sunset review on an expedited basis. 

Scope of Order 

The product covered by the order is 

glycine, which is a free-flowing 

crystalline material, like salt or sugar. 

Glycine is produced at varying levels of 

purity and is used as a sweetener/taste 

enhancer, a buffering agent, 

reabsorbable amino acid, chemical 

intermediate, and a metal complexing 

agent. This order covers glycine of all 

purity levels. Glycine is currently 

classified under subheading 

2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). In a separate scope ruling, 

the Department determined that D(-) 

Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is outside 

the scope of the order. See Notice of 

Scope Rulings, 62 FR 62288 (November 

21, 1997). Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and Customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise under 

the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated January 31, 2011, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the 

accompanying Decision Memorandum 

address the likelihood of a continuation 

or recurrence of dumping were the order 

to be revoked and also the magnitude of 

the margin likely to prevail upon 

revocation. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of the issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the 

main Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on glycine from the PRC would be 

likely to lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

weighted-average percentage margin: 

Manufacturers/producers/ 

exporters 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

PRC-Wide Entity (all manufacturers/producers/exporters) ... 155.89% 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing these results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 31, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2883 Filed 2–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2011 / Notices 8771 

1Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and 

Commissioners Daniel R. Pearson and Shara L. 

Aranoff concluded that the domestic group 

response for this review was adequate and the 

respondent group response was inadequate and 

voted for a full review. Vice Chairman Irving R. 

Williamson and Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane 

and Dean A. Pinkert concluded that the domestic 

group response for this review was adequate and 

the respondent group response was inadequate and 

voted for an expedited review. 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 8, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3327 Filed 2–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–718 (Third 

Review)] 

Glycine From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review and scheduling of a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on glycine from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on glycine from China would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. The 

Commission also hereby gives notice of 

the scheduling of the full review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on glycine from China. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 9, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stefania Pozzi Porter (202–205–3177), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On January 4, 2011, the 

Commission determined that responses 

to its notice of institution of the subject 

five-year review were such that a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act should proceed. The 

Commission found that the domestic 

interested party group response to its 

notice of institution (75 FR 62141, 

October 7, 2010) was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate.1 A record of 

the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in this review as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not file 

an additional notice of appearance. The 

Secretary will maintain a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the review. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on June 7, 2011, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the review 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on June 30, 2011, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before June 23, 2011. 

A nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on June 27, 2011, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the review may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is June 16, 

2011. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is July 11, 2011; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
8772 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2011 / Notices 

review may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the review on or before July 11, 2011. 

On August 4, 2011, the Commission will 

make available to parties all information 

on which they have not had an 

opportunity to comment. Parties may 

submit final comments on this 

information on or before August 8, 2011, 

but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 9, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3326 Filed 2–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–388–391 and 

731–TA–817–821 (Second Review)] 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and 

Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the countervailing 

duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from India, Indonesia, Italy, and 

Korea and the antidumping duty orders 

on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from 

India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

orders on cut-to-length carbon steel 

plate from India, Indonesia, Italy, and 

Korea and the antidumping duty orders 

on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from 

India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. A 

schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews and rules 

of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 4, 2011, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 67108, November 1, 2010) was 

adequate, and that the respondent 

interested party group responses with 

respect to Italy, Japan, and Korea were 

adequate and decided to conduct full 

reviews with respect to the antidumping 

duty orders concerning cut-to-length 

carbon steel plate from Italy, Japan, and 

Korea, and the countervailing duty 

orders concerning cut-to-length carbon 

steel plate from Italy and Korea. The 

Commission found that the respondent 

interested party group responses with 

respect to India and Indonesia were 

inadequate. However, the Commission 

determined to conduct full reviews 

concerning subject imports from India 

and Indonesia to promote 

administrative efficiency in light of its 

decision to conduct full reviews with 

respect to subject imports from Italy, 

Japan, and Korea. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 10, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3337 Filed 2–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–11–004] 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: February 16, 2011 at 11 

a.m. 

PLACE: Room 110, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Agenda 

for future meetings: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Vote in Inv. No. 731–TA–298 

(Third Review) (Porcelain-on-Steel 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Glycine from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-718 (Third Review)

On January 4, 2011, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the

subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1675(c)(5)).

The Commission received a joint response with company specific data from two domestic

producers of glycine: Chattem Chemicals, Inc. and GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc.. The Commission

found the individual response of each of these domestic producers to be adequate. Because these

producers collectively account for all known domestic production of glycine, the Commission determined

that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission did not receive a response to the notice of institution from any respondent

interested party, and therefore determined that the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate.

Notwithstanding the Commission’s determination that the respondent interested party group

response was inadequate, the Commission determined to conduct a full review in light of information

regarding possible changes in conditions of competition. These include trends in U.S. demand; the

1

nature of U.S. supply, particularly concerning the presence in the U.S. market of nonsubject imports; and

the structure and market orientation of the Chinese glycine industry.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (www.usitc.gov).

Vice Chairman Williamson and Commissioners Lane and Pinkert voted to conduct an expedited

1

review due to the lack of respondent participation. They did not find that the record in this adequacy

phase indicated sufficient changes in the conditions of competition since the original investigation and the

first and second five-year reviews to warrant conducting a full review.
APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-1

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Glycine from China

Inv. No.: 731-TA-718 (Third Review)

Date and Time: June 30, 2011 - 9:30 a.m.

The hearing was held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room, 500

E Street (room 101), S.W., Washington, D.C.

In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Order:

Thompson Hine LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc.

Chattem Chemicals, Inc.

William P. Eckman, Executive Vice President and Chief 

Financial Officer, GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc.

James H. Kedrowski, Executive Vice President, Chattem

Chemicals, Inc.

William F. Mahoney III, Marketing Manager, GEO Specialty

Chemicals, Inc.

Kenneth R. Button, Senior Vice President, Economic

Consulting Services LLC

James P. Dougan, Senior Economist, Economic 

Consulting Services LLC

William L. Matthews, Senior Manager, International

Trade, Thompson Hine LLP

David M. Schwartz ) – OF COUNSEL David S. Christy, Jr.

B-3
PUBLIC WITNESS:

Winston & Strawn LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Summit Research Labs, Inc.

Linda Kozak, Director of Administration, Summit Research 

Daniel L. Porter ) – OF COUNSEL Ross Bidlingmaier

B-4
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1
Table C-1

Glycine: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-10

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-10 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries:

 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries:

 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,915 2,177 2,184 3,630 126 1,190 -37.9 13.7 0.3 66.2 -96.5 846.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,397 2,598 2,866 11,535 222 1,724 -28.1 8.4 10.3 302.5 -98.1 675.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.25 $1.19 $1.31 $3.18 $1.77 $1.45 15.7 -4.7 9.9 142.2 -44.3 -18.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries:

 India:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,030 2,233 828 2,588 2,944 4,048 99.4 10.0 -62.9 212.5 13.8 37.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,798 2,882 1,119 7,124 6,529 8,236 194.4 3.0 -61.2 536.9 -8.4 26.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.38 $1.29 $1.35 $2.75 $2.22 $2.03 47.6 -6.3 4.7 103.8 -19.4 -8.3

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,047 2,610 3,726 2,596 2,628 3,382 65.2 27.5 42.8 -30.3 1.2 28.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,808 3,310 4,438 9,494 6,865 8,402 199.2 17.9 34.1 113.9 -27.7 22.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.37 $1.27 $1.19 $3.66 $2.61 $2.48 81.1 -7.5 -6.1 207.0 -28.6 -4.9

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992 1,124 444 0 0 0-100.0 13.3 -60.5 -100.0 (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,278 1,300 570 0 0 0 -100.0 1.7 -56.1 -100.0 (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.29 $1.16 $1.28 (2) (2) (2) (2) -10.3 11.0 -100.0 (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 392 225 807 215 415 15.5 9.3 -42.5 257.9 -73.3 92.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 936 558 2,581 449 971 16.0 11.9 -40.4 362.7 -82.6 116.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,343 8,537 7,408 9,621 5,913 9,034 23.0 16.3 -13.2 29.9 -38.5 52.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,343 8,537 7,408 9,621 5,913 9,034 23.0 16.3 -13.2 29.9 -38.5 52.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,118 11,026 9,550 30,733 14,066 19,333 91.1 9.0 -13.4 221.8 -54.2 37.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.38 $1.29 $1.29 $3.19 $2.38 $2.14 55.3 -6.3 -0.2 147.8 -25.5 -10.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 683 714 209 236 120 211 -69.1 4.5 -70.7 12.9 -49.2 75.8

C-3
Table C--1--Continued

Glycine: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-10

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-10 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable or not meaningful.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-4

APPENDIX D

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, AND PURCHASERS

REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ANTIDUMPING ORDER AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

 D-1

U.S. PRODUCERS COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTIDUMPING

DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Question II-3

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in the character of

their operations or organization relating to the importation of glycine in the future (question II-3). 

The following are quotations from the responses of producers:

***

“***.”

***

“***

.”

Question II-4

The Commission requested producers to describe any anticipated changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the importation of glycine in the future if the antidumping

duty order on glycine from China is revoked (question II-4). The following are quotations from the

responses of producers: 

***

“***.”

***

“***.”

 D-3
Question II-17

The Commission requested producers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping duty

order covering imports of glycine from China in terms of its effect on their firm’s production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits,

cash flow, capital, expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values.

(question II-17). The following are quotations from the responses of producers: 

***

“***.”

***

“***.”

Question II-18

The Commission requested producers to describe any anticipated changes in their production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits,

cash flow, capital, expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values relating

to the production of glycine in the future if the antidumping order on glycine from China is

revoked. (question II-18). The following are quotations from the responses of producers: 

***

“***.”

***

“***.”

 D-4
U.S. IMPORTERS COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTIDUMPING

DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Question II-3

The Commission requested importers to describe any anticipated changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the importation of glycine in the future (question II-3). The

following are quotations from the responses of importers:

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. The business has filed the final tax return as of July 2010. It has ceased operation since July 15,

2010.”

***

“No.”

***

“None.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“***.”

***

“No.”

 D-5
***

“***.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. We have discontinued buying glycine from China as of May, 2010.”

Question II-4

The Commission requested importers to describe any anticipated changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the importation of glycine in the future if the antidumping

duty order on glycine from China is revoked (question II-4). The following are quotations from the

responses of importers: 

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. Introduction of glycine from China would cause our sales to drop due to increased competition

from other suppliers/distributors.”

***

“Yes. In case of order is revoked, there is possibility the pricing of glycine from China will become more

competitive.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. Due to the antidumping order, we lost most of our international sales to foreign competitors. If the

order is revoked, it would increase our competitiveness internationally.”

***

“No.”

 D-6
***

“No.”

***

“Yes. Logic dictates if the anti dumping duty is revoked a company would be importing more Glycine

due to cost benefits as a historical pattern for goods coming out of China. This pattern bears out proof 

per one example I experienced, as what happened with Sodium Saccharin from Shanghai Fortune located

in China, where their imports increased dramatically when they received a dumping duty benefit by the

ITC.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“***.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. We would probably start purchasing glycine from China again.”

 D-7
Question II-10

The Commission requested importers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping duty

order covering imports of glycine from China in terms of its effect on their firms’ imports, U.S.

shipments of imports, and inventories (question II-10). The following are quotations from the

responses of importers: 

***

“We have not imported Glycine before the existence of the anti-dumping duty, and only imported Glycine

once in 2010 and not since then.”

***

“N/A”

***

“We currently buy from the US producer because of the anti-dumping duty. Before the duty we were an

importer now we buy from the US. If the duties are removed, we will go back to the Chinese producers.”

***

“No significance. Material is only imported from ONE Indian producer.”

***

“There is no enough data to compare.”

***

“Not enough data to compare.”

***

“The order has no significance to ***. We never imported from China and have no intention to import

from China in the near future.”

***

“The existing antidumping order rises the glycine price from China, and our firm has been purchasing

glycine from the U.S. suppliers since April 2008.”

***

“N/A.”

 D-8
***

“We are a small player in glycine but we do note and observe the market conditions from imports to

offers by traders handling Chinese glycine. We noticed in Q4 2009 through 2010 that offers of Chinese

glycine continued to decrease from $2.25/lb duty cleared to below $1.80/lb duty cleared. This included at

least 3 trading companies bringing in glycine from China. These traders also show up on import records

in 2009 and 2010.”

***

“None.”

***

“Glycine was not an important product and volumes were small. Overall, did not have any material

effect.”

***

“***.”

***

“As glycine was in the past a temporary portion of our business, the existing anti-dumping order has

minimal impact on our firm’s operations.”

***

“It causes us to be uncompetitive with other players in the world markets.”

Question II-11

The Commission requested importers to describe any anticipated changes in their imports, U.S.

shipments of imports, or inventories of glycine in the future if the antidumping duty order on

glycine from China is revoked (question II-11). The following are quotations from the responses of

importers: 

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. As a distributor, we would probably shift our buying from the US producer to the Chinese

producers because their cost would be better.”

***

“Yes. Sales would drop due to large volumes of Chinese glycine imported into the US.”

 D-9
***

“Yes. *** is a whole saler/importer. Should the antidumping duty order be revoked, it is likely to get

more orders from end users, since overall pricing is more favorable, hence has more sales. The pricing

will be more favorable to the end users.”

***

“No. Business ceased to operate July 15, 2010.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. *** will lose price competitivity due to the increase of low priced Glycine supply from China and

increased domestic competition from the US importers.”

***

“Yes. Considering the offers we received from Chinese traders for Glycine, duty cleared, in 2010 this

translates in our estimation to a non-subsidized cost (VAT rebates to the Chinese exporters) of about

$.80/lb. We do not know how this is possible and logic would dictate that Chinese manufacturers would

do this to generate through put capacity at any cost to generate cash. Thus we think that if the dumping

duties were lifted pricing would erode even further and most likely in our estimation to around $1.40/lb

duty cleared USA.”

***

“No.”

***

“***.”

***

“No.”

***

“Yes. We would start buying from China again and then be able to reduce the cost of our blended

products.”

 D-10
U.S. PURCHASERS COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe the likely effects of any revocation of the

subject antidumping orders on the future activities of their firm and the entire U.S. market

(questions III-34 (1) and III-34 (2)). The following are quotations from the responses of purchasers:

(1) Effects on the activities of the firm

***

“We will probably buy more Chinese material because they will be lower in price (2010-2014).”

***

“None.”

***

“If the anti-dumping order is revoked for Chinese imports, we will immediately begin importing material

directly from China. We are already a major importer for Chinese food, feed, and nutrition ingredients

and stay away from glycine to avoid risk. If the risk is gone, we will have to convert our business to

China.”

***

“None.”

***

“Glycine purchases for our company have a minimal effect on our overall business.”

***

“No change for the *** purchases from domestic or from parent company purchases.”

***

“We would re-visit landed costs of Chinese glycine, possibly bringing in sample lots for validation.”

***

“With revocation of antidumping duties, it would give our firm more purchasing options to meet our everincreasing demand. This would allow us to immediately improve our profit margins, and/or reduce our

costs, thus allowing us to improve our sales, and grow our business faster than would otherwise happen. 

This would lead to additional demand for glycine.”

***

“We only purchase *** domestically produced material.”

***

“We are a small player. We would probably lose the customers we have if the ADD is taken out.”

***

“It will increase our products competitiveness in the international market and hence increase our exports.”

 D-11
***

“None.”

***

“We won’t be purchasing it most likely.”

***

“Expect our customers to question the origin of our material possibly wanting to avoid material from

China.”

***

“It will improve our gross margins by reducing the cost.”

***

“Revocation of the order would likely result in *** customers switching from a U.S. domestic source to

Chinese suppliers.”

***

“None. Our customers have not qualified glycine from any source in China, and the glycine we use in the

United States is specially made for ***, and is not standard grade glycine.”

***

“Reconsider Chinese sources.”

***

“Revocation of the antidumping order may adversely affect the U.S. glycine market. *** will continue to

purchase from our current supplier/source. We do not plan nor anticipate changing our current glycine

purchasing patterns.”

***

“One would assume that revocation of the antidumping duty order for imports of glycine from China

should make purchase of Chinese glycine less costly. *** currently uses Chinese glycine, but at a high

cost that we are typically unable to pass along to customers of our products, since they also purchase from

our competition who produce outside the U.S., and thus they are not required to include antidumping

duties in their raw material costing. ***.” 

***

“We do not have this specific data; glycine is one of thousands of items that we sell.”

***

“We would expect our product cost to decrease.”

 D-12
***

“Probably the same -- as our purchasing trend depends on the demand of our customers.”

***

“Decreased costs for glycine can have a dramatic impact on the domestic producers who we depend on

for specific quality standards. We prefer not to source products used in injectable pharmaceuticals from

China due to the lack of quality standards.”

***

“We will continue to purchase from Domestic suppliers as long as their material is available and at a fair

market price.”

***

“Depends on our customers’ response.”

***

“Not sure of all elements and if any effects.”

***

“It may increase our international sales.”

(2) Effects on the entire U.S. market

***

“If the price is better on Chinese material more companies will by Chinese to save money and less US

material will be sold.”

***

“Unable to comment.”

***

“The U.S. market will follow the same path as our firm. In addition, there are several small traders who

import from China now and pay the duty. These companies accept the risk associated with importing an

"anti-dumping" product to compete in the market. Their business will suffer if the larger distributors

begin importing directly from China..”

***

“None.”

***

“Do not know.”

***

“The U.S. market as a whole, I would expect price reduction due to increase availability of Chinese

material in the U.S. market.”

 D-13
***

“It is believed other large consumers of glycine would do the same.”

***

“This would lead to adequate supply to meet demand in the marketplace.”

***

“Price may increase a bit and availability may become a problem.”

***

“Unknown.”

***

“None.”

***

“Most companies will not be buying it anymore.”

***

“Unsure what would happen to the US market.”

***

“Do not know.”

***

“U.S. market will be flooded with low-priced Chinese product.”

***

“Significant pricing changes for standard grade glycine.”

***

“Uncertain.”

***

“None.”

***

“The antidumping duty order puts a substantial burden on U.S. purchasers of glycine from China. The

fact that the single viable U.S. manufacturer of glycine, ***, has insufficient capacity to supply all U.S.

purchasers of glycine, and thus allocates their supply as they see fit, while at the same time being the

prime force petitioning to keep the antidumping duty order in place for glycine from China (and from

every other country that produces glycine) puts a true hardship on U.S. purchasers of glycine.” 

***

“We do not have this specific data; glycine is one of thousands of items that we sell.”

***

“We would expect the cost of the material to decrease.”

 D-14
***

“Probably the same -- as our purchasing trend depends on the demand of our customers.”

***

“We will continue to purchase from Domestic suppliers as long as their material is available and at a fair

market price.”

***

“Price pressure, as always, when Chinese manufacturers enter the market. As it has occurred in the past

with other products, American manufacturers could be forced to exit the market. This is a fairly common

Chinese strategy.”

***

“Not sure of all elements and if any effects.”

***

“No effect.”

 D-15

APPENDIX E

QUARTERLY DOMESTIC AND 

NONSUBJECT COUNTRY PRICE DATA

E-1

Figures E-1 through E-2 present quarterly pricing and quantity data for glycine from the United

States, China, and nonsubject countries. Nonsubject-country pricing data were received from India,

Japan, and Thailand for USP-grade glycine (product 2) and technical-grade glycine (product 3).

When comparing domestic producers’ pricing data to pricing data from all nonsubject sources,

there were *** possible pricing comparisons, in which domestically produced glycine was priced higher

in ***. Domestically produced USP-grade glycine (product 2) was priced higher than nonsubject USP

grade glycine in *** possible comparisons, with an average overselling margin of *** percent. 

Nonsubject imports of USP-grade glycine (particularly imports from India) began to undersell

domestically produced USP-grade glycine during the first quarter of 2009 through the first quarter of

2010.1

 Domestically produced technical-grade glycine (product 3) was priced higher than nonsubject

product in *** possible comparisons, with an average overselling margin of *** percent. 

When comparing Chinese pricing data to pricing data for all nonsubject sources, there were ***

possible comparisons for USP-grade glycine (product 2) only. Glycine imported from China was priced

lower than nonsubject-country glycine in *** comparisons, with an average margin of *** percent. A

summary of margins of underselling and overselling is presented in table E-1.

Figure E-1

Glycine: Weighted-average quarterly prices and quantities for product 2, January 2005-December

2010

* * * * * * *

Figure E-2

Glycine: Weighted-average quarterly prices and quantities for product 3, January 2005-December

2010

* * * * * * *

Table E-1

Glycine: Summary of underselling/(overselling) by product and by year from nonsubject countries,

January 2005-December 2010

* * * * * * *

 1 ***. Based on staff calculations from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-3