Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States
2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 97
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2013Background
- This action arises from the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from China; remand was ordered to reconsider aspects of the agency’s decision.
- Commerce opened remand to consider new evidence suggesting Hilltop’s information may have been false or incomplete, due to Hilltop’s misrepresentations and later admissions of undisclosed affiliations.
- New evidence showed Hilltop affiliated with Ocean King (Cambodia), which impeached Hilltop’s credibility and undermined its separate-rate analysis, leading Commerce to determine Hilltop was not independent from the PRC-wide entity.
- Consequently, Commerce assigned Hilltop the PRC-wide antidumping rate (112.81%), and Hilltop challenged this remand redetermination in this court.
- The court reviews for substantial evidence and conformity with law, sustaining the denial of Hilltop’s separate-rate status but remanding for further corroboration of the PRC-wide rate under 19 U.S.C. 1677e(c).
- The court orders remand to provide adequate corroboration or selection of a new countrywide rate reflecting commercial reality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hilltop’s separate-rate status was properly denied | Hilltop argues it is independent from government control. | Commerce found Hilltop’s representations unreliable due to undisclosed affiliations and misrepresentations. | Affirmed: Hilltop denied separate-rate status; treated as PRC-wide. |
| Whether the PRC-wide rate applied to Hilltop is properly corroborated | The rate is corroborated by earlier investigation data and remains valid. | The corroboration is outdated because the comparison rate was later changed by judicial review. | Remanded: require adequate corroboration of the 112.81% rate or a different, more reliable rate. |
| Whether the remand determination is supported by substantial evidence | Remand results should be sustained based on new evidence. | The remand results are supported by substantial evidence despite credibility concerns. | Sustained on the denial of Hilltop’s separate-rate status; remand on corroboration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allied Pac. Food (Dalian) Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (CIT 2006) (reduction of a statutory rate on appeal can occur; corroboration concepts cited)
- Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co. v. United States, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (CIT 2012) (separate-rate determinations require substantial evidence when theory of independence is used)
- Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (CIT 2005) (conduct that undermines credibility can lead to disregard of submitted information)
- Peer Bearing Co. - Changshan v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (CIT 2008) (PRC-wide rate corroboration must reflect reliability and relevance to countrywide entity)
- Shandong Red Garden Foodstuff Co. v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (CIT 2012) (illustrates corroboration and reliance standards in antidumping reviews)