An Giang Fisheries Import & Export Joint Stock Co. v. United States, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1350

Background

This action reviews Commerce’s remand redetermination after the court’s An Giang opinion remanding two matters from the 10th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (POR: Aug 1, 2012–Jul 31, 2013).
Commerce originally selected Indonesian surrogate data to value fish feed, relying in the final results on an affidavit by Dr. Rukmono rather than an Indonesian trade magazine article; the court remanded that selection for explanation of why the same affidavit was treated differently in the 9th review.
CASEAMEX, a Vietnamese exporter, applied for separate-rate treatment but Commerce denied separate-rate status based on alleged government control (minority government shareholder and influence over management via an individual “Mr. X”); the court remanded because Commerce did not adequately explain reliance on “potential” rather than “actual” control and did not connect the record evidence to its conclusion.
On remand, Commerce explained that the Rukmono Affidavit covers provinces representing 99.8% of Indonesian pangasius production (new record info) and thus is a broad-market average; the court sustained this explanation.
On the separate-rate issue, Commerce maintained that the minority government shareholder retained the ability to control CASEAMEX via Mr. X (beholden theory), citing (a) historic role at company formation and (b) Mr. X’s continued employment/control over staff; the court sustained Commerce’s prospective-beholden inference but rejected reliance on purely retrospective formation events absent linkage to POR control.
The court affirmed the remand results as to both issues: Commerce reasonably explained the surrogate-value choice and reasonably determined CASEAMEX failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control given the record gaps (notably absence of 2006 Articles of Association on the record).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce reasonably selected the Rukmono Affidavit as surrogate fish-feed values	Rukmono was treated as non-representative in prior review; Commerce must justify inconsistent treatment	Commerce uncovered new record data in the 10th review showing the affidavit covered provinces representing 99.8% of Indonesian pangasius production, supporting broad-market average status	Court: Sustained Commerce — remand explanation that new production-coverage data justified the changed position was reasonable
Whether CASEAMEX rebutted the presumption of de facto government control (separate-rate status)	CASEAMEX relied on 2012 Articles of Association and record evidence to show autonomy in management selection; government minority ownership alone cannot preclude rebuttal	Commerce argued minority shareholder retained the potential/ability to control via Mr. X (appointed earlier and beholden during POR); past formation facts inform inference of continued influence	Court: Sustained Commerce in part — rejected reliance on solely retrospective formation acts but found Commerce’s prospective inference (Mr. X beholden to shareholder during POR and controls employees) reasonable given absence of 2006 Articles and incomplete record; CASEAMEX failed to rebut presumption
Standard: Does Commerce require rebuttal of ‘actual’ control or only ‘potential’ control when government is a minority shareholder?	Court in An Giang questioned Commerce’s reliance on potential control absent actual-control evidence	Commerce asserted its practice treats potential control (especially with majority ownership) as dispositive; for minority owners, additional indicia of control are required	Court: Clarified that Commerce’s past practice treats potential = actual control for majority owners, but for minority owners Commerce must show additional indicia; here Commerce relied on such indicia sufficiently for POR inference

Key Cases Cited

Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, 938 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (CIT 2013) (discusses effect of government majority ownership on separate-rate analysis)
Jiasheng Photovoltaic Tech. Co. v. United States, 121 F. Supp. 3d 1263 (CIT 2015) (recognizes Commerce’s revised practice precluding de facto autonomy where government is majority shareholder)
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (placing burden on respondent to rebut presumption of government control)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency changes and reasoned explanation standard under arbitrary-and-capricious review)