Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corp. v. United States, 2014 WL 904526

Vietnam is treated as a nonmarket economy for antidumping purposes, requiring surrogate data from market-economy countries to value production costs and labor.
Commerce previously used Bangladesh as the primary surrogate for all FOPs under the New Labor Rate Policy, yielding a surrogate wage rate of $0.21 for Vietnam’s shrimping labor.
The court remanded Camau Final Results (and Camau I/II) to address concerns that Bangladesh data likely understate Vietnam’s fair market labor rate due to a GNI disparity.
The court held that Commerce must provide a reasoned explanation weighing conflicting record evidence and explaining why Bangladesh data remains best or why other data should be considered.
In the 2d Remand Results, Commerce asserted a compulsion from the court to average data across countries, which the court rejected as a misreading of Camau I/II and the governing law.
The matter is remanded again for Commerce to reevaluate the labor FOP data consistent with Camau I, Camau II, and this opinion, with a briefing schedule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bangladesh data can serve as best surrogate for labor FOPs	Bangladesh understates Vietnam’s wage due to GNI disparity.	New Labor Rate Policy justifies using Bangladesh data for all FOPs.	Remand required; need explicit weighing of evidence.
Whether the 2d Remand Results provide a proper reasoned explanation tied to the record	Commerce failed to justify reliance on Bangladesh and to address conflicting findings.	2d Remand Results reflect agency judgment within remand scope.	Remand required for fuller, explicit explanation.
Whether the court compelled multi-country averaging for labor data	Court decisions require weighing evidence, not forcing averaging across countries.	Court decisions themselves justify new policy or data averaging.	Not compelled; agency must weigh evidence and explain choices.
Whether Commerce must explicitly weigh Bangladeshi data against other evidence and state value choices	Need explicit, reasoned analysis of how conflicting evidence is weighed.	Agency can weigh evidence but may not be required to disclose every preference.	Remand requires explicit, rational weighing and disclosure of value choices.

Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (statutory data-from-economically comparable requirement invalidates mixed-data approach)
Shandong Rongxin Import & Exp. Co. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (CIT 2011) (limits on data sets for surrogate values in NME cases)
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (substantial evidence requires reasoned explanation of evidence weighing)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency must provide a rational connection between facts found and decision)
Changzhou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (requires rational explanation and reviewable grounds for agency action)
Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Imp. Exp. Corp. v. United States (Camau I), 880 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (remanded Final Results; addressed surrogate data issues for Vietnam)
Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Imp. Exp. Corp. v. United States (Camau II), 929 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (remanded 1st Remand Results; further evaluation of surrogate data)
Legacy Classic Furniture, Inc. v. United States, 867 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (CIT 2012) (requires reasoned analysis weighing conflicting evidence)
GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (CIT 2013) (discusses proper grounds for remand and agency reasoning)