Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States
2013 WL 3970168
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- This ITA/Commerce review concerns the 2010-2011 antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand, consolidated with Marine Gold Prods. Ltd. v. United States.
- Respondents include Marine Gold and several Thai producers; AHSTAC challenges related issues in the final results of the review.
- Commerce refused to calculate an individual dumping margin for Marine Gold as a voluntary respondent.
- Commerce also declined to reduce export prices by antidumping deposits paid on subject entries, sustaining Commerce’s interpretation as not a cost or import duty for EP adjustment.
- The court reviews for accordance with law and substantial evidence; remand and sustaining aspects are discussed.
- The court remands for Marine Gold’s voluntary respondent determination and sustains the export price adjustment ruling regarding deposits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marine Gold may be treated as a voluntary respondent | Marine Gold contends denial was improper and should be voluntary examination. | Commerce argues undue burden and exhaustion concerns preclude automatic voluntary treatment. | Remanded for reconsideration; must show undue burden or treat Marine Gold as voluntary respondent. |
| Whether antidumping deposits paid on entries must reduce export price | AHSTAC argues deposits are costs to be deducted from EP to correct fair value comparison. | Commerce relies on longstanding practice that deposits are not expenses to deduct, avoiding double-counting. | Sustained; deposits are not deducted from export price absent reimbursement, avoiding double-counting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (deference to agency reasonable interpretations under Chevron framework)
- Grobest & I-Mei Indus. (Viet.) Co. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (CIT 2012) (voluntary respondent burden must be more than routine; 1677m(a) meaningful)
- Hoogovens Staal BV v. United States, 22 CIT 139, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (CIT 1998) (non-reimbursement regulation and export-price adjustments; double-counting concerns)
- AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 21 CIT 1265, 988 F. Supp. 594 (CIT 1997) (upholding long-standing interpretation of export price adjustments and deposits)
- Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 672 F.3d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (retroactive duty assessment system; deposits as estimates pending final duties)