Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States
774 F. Supp. 2d 1286
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- This consolidated action challenges the Department of Commerce's AD dumping margins for frozen Vietnamese shrimp after a second remand.
- All individually investigated mandatory respondents had zero or de minimis margins in the second review.
- Commerce assigned the Plaintiffs the average of the zero and de minimis margins of the mandatory respondents.
- Amanda II remanded to require a reasonable method for calculating rates for non-individually investigated respondents.
- Commerce reopened the record to gather count-size–specific quantity and value data and compared it to the mandatory respondents' normal values.
- The court affirms Commerce’s Second Remand Results as reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Second Remand Results合理 assign rates to non-individually investigated companies | Amanda II favored averaging zero/de minimis | AHSTAC argues the method is contrary to law | Yes; reasonable method under statute |
| Whether averaging the mandatory respondents' zero and de minimis rates is permissible | Amanda II supports averaging as reasonable | Commerce previously rejected this approach | Permissible under the AD statute |
| Whether supplementary Q&V data corroborate the chosen method | Records show no dumping | Data supports comparability to mandatory respondents | Corroborative evidence supports the method |
| Whether Commerce complied with remand order and statutory framework | Department did not follow statute | Department acted within authority | Complied with remand order and law |
| Whether the court should defer to agency interpretation under Chevron | Statutory interpretation favored by court | Agency interpretation reasonable | Agency interpretation upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) (administrative law principles; substantial evidence standard)
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001) (statutory construction; avoid superfluous language)