Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States
2017 CIT 76
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Commerce, in the ninth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam, selected Bangladesh as the primary surrogate country and used Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) shrimp-industry wage data to value labor.
- Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee challenged use of the BBS wage data, presenting record evidence of systemic labor abuses in the Bangladeshi shrimp industry and arguing that the wage data is aberrational and unreliable.
- Commerce historically requires a quantitative analysis (cross-country or historical within-country comparisons) to establish that surrogate data are aberrational, and said Ad Hoc Shrimp did not supply such quantitative proof in the administrative record.
- The Court in Ad Hoc Shrimp I remanded, directing Commerce to explain or reconsider its methodology for demonstrating labor-data aberration and to address why Bangladeshi data is not aberrational given evidence of systemic labor abuses.
- On remand Commerce abandoned its strict requirement for a quantitative demonstration where petitioner alleges systemic labor abuses, concluded the Bangladeshi BBS wage data is not the best available information given the record, and instead selected Indian wage-rate data to value labor.
- No party challenged Commerce’s Remand Results; the Court sustained the remand determination as complying with its prior order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce may require a quantitative analysis to prove labor-wage data is aberrational when petitioner alleges systemic labor abuses | Brought qualitative and documentary evidence of systemic labor abuses that render BBS wage data inherently unreliable; quantitative proof is not practicable | Commerce required specific quantitative evidence to show wages were depressed; absence of such data meant petitioner failed to show aberration | Court upheld Commerce’s change: a quantitative test is not required where systemic labor-abuse claims make quantitative proof impracticable; Commerce properly reconsidered its methodology |
| Whether BBS Bangladeshi wage data remained the best available information for valuing labor despite alleged systemic abuses | BBS data is unreliable given labor abuses and thus not best available | Initially defended BBS data as best available absent quantitative aberration showing; on remand Commerce reweighed record | Commerce concluded Bangladeshi data was not best available and selected Indian wage data; Court sustained the remand choice |
| Whether Commerce complied with the court’s remand order | Requested reconsideration and remand relief to exclude BBS data | Argued original practice supported denial absent quantitative showing | Court found Commerce complied with remand and sustained its final remand results |
| Whether the remand methodology and selection are supported by substantial evidence and law | Urged exclusion of BBS data and adoption of alternate data | Defended agency discretion in selecting best available information | Court held Commerce acted within its discretion and the remand results are supported and in accordance with law |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (substantial evidence review must account for record facts that detract from evidence weight)
- Qingdao Sea–Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (discussing Commerce’s surrogate-value selection practice)
- QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Commerce discretion in determining best available information)
- Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (methodology must establish antidumping margins as accurately as possible)