Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States
2011 WL 6189480
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- This case reviews two Department of Commerce determinations in the third administrative review of the Vietnam shrimp antidumping order.
- Amanda Foods challenges the Department’s calculation of separate rates for cooperative, non-individually investigated respondents and the court remands this issue to Commerce in light of Amanda Foods v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (2011).
- Fish One challenges the Department’s decision not to revoke the antidumping order under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d) and seeks revocation based on three years of de minimis margins.
- The court has jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c).
- Commerce had limited the number of mandatory respondents under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(2) in the third review; Fish One was not among the selected mandatory respondents.
- The court ultimately affirms the Final Results except for the remand on the separate-rate calculation for cooperative non-individually investigated respondents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce’s revocation review under § 1675(d) is reasonable. | Fish One contends § 1675(d) requires a separate revocation review. | Commerce treats revocation as tied to the § 1675(a) review and applies the 1677f-1(c)(2) sampling to revocation. | Yes; Commerce’s interpretation is reasonable. |
| Whether Fish One exhausted administrative remedies to challenge the mandatory respondent selection. | Fish One argues the selection process was flawed and should be reviewable. | Fish One did not raise objections during the administrative process and did not pursue voluntary respondent status. | No; Fish One failed to exhaust administrative remedies. |
| Whether Fish One is entitled to revocation based on three years of de minimis margins. | Fish One argues de minimis margins over three years mandate revocation. | Revocation is discretionary and not automatic based on margins alone. | No; three years of de minimis margins do not mandate revocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sahaviriya Steel Indus. v. United States, 649 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir. 2011) (ambiguous revocation provisions and statutory interpretation)
- Hyundai Elec. Co. v. United States, 23 CIT 302 (1999) (may revoke discretion under § 1675(d))
- Asahi Seiko Co. v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (CIT 2011) (exhaustion of administrative remedies; voluntary respondent status)
- McKart v. United States, 303 U.S. 41 (1952) (exhaustion-of-remedies principle)