Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States
2012 CIT 68
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- Amanda Foods IV remanded to Commerce to reconsider all-others rate in AR3; Record reopened to collect count-size specific Q&V data.
- Commerce determined no dumping by cooperative, non-individually investigated respondents after Q&V data; assigned all-others rate equal to average of zero/de minimis margins of mandatory respondents.
- AR3 Final Results previously used a de minimis-based all-others rate; Pogue affirmed remand results in Amanda Foods III.
- AHSTAC and Domestic Processors challenged the Remand Results on methodology and corroboration grounds.
- Court applies standard: sustain remand if consistent with remand order, supported by substantial evidence, and lawfully sound; grants deference to Commerce’s methodology.
- Court affirmatively holds that averaging zero/de minimis margins is reasonable and corroborated by Q&V data; remand results are AFFIRMED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether averaging zero/de minimis margins is permissible | AHSTAC argues the method contravenes the statute’s prescribed method. | AHSTAC adequately reiterates objections; remand already rejected previous challenges. | Yes; averaging zero/de minimis margins is reasonable. |
| Whether Q&V data corroboration supports no dumping | Domestic Processors contend Q&V data unreliable for confirming no dumping. | Commerce corroborates with count-size data; methodology is reasonable despite data limits. | Yes; corroboration supports the all-others rate. |
| Whether withdrawals of six plaintiffs justify adverse inference | AHSTAC suggests withdrawals indicate dumping by remaining respondents. | No evidence that remaining respondents dumped; withdrawals were voluntary dismissals with cooperation preserved. | No adverse inference required; cooperativeness remains. |
| Whether Domestic Processors’ challenges undermine the Remand Results | Challenge to data do not undermine reasonableness of averaging approach. | Data confirm reasonableness but do not require alternative methodology. | Challenges fail; methodology preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (2009) (remand standards for all-others rate; methodology invalidated then reconsidered)
- Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (2010) (remand—statutory interpretation of 1673d(c)(5))
- Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (2011) (remand—affirming averaging method with corroboration)
- Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (2012) (remand—affirming final remand results)
- Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (2009) (standard of review for remand determinations; substantial evidence)