Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co. v. United States
815 F. Supp. 2d 1342
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- consolidated action challenging DOC's fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam
- Final Results (Aug. 9, 2010) assign Minh Phu, Nha Trang, separate-rate respondents, and a Vietnam-wide rate of 25.76%
- Issues challenge DOC's use of zeroing in the review but not in investigations, and related methodological choices
- Surrogate value calculations exclude Bangladesh-to-Bangladesh data; wage data derived from multi-country averaging post-Dorbest
- Surrogate financial ratios exclude Fine Foods' data and Gemini's loading/unloading expenses; questions of data adequacy and double-counting
- The court remands for reconsideration of zeroing policy, surrogate data methodology, and Amanda Foods’ SRC/voluntary respondent issues; final remand date set
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zeroing applied in reviews but not investigations | Grobest argues inconsistent interpretation of § 1677(35) | Commerce relies on differing contexts; exhaustion of remedies | Remand for explanation consistent with FC decisions |
| Bangladesh data excluded from surrogate values | Bangladesh data should be used as best available information | Data uncertain; exclusion reasonable | Remand for expression of reasoning and potential reconsideration |
| Multi-country averaging for surrogate labor | Industry-specific data (Bangladesh) preferred | Broad discretion to use multi-country data | Remand; Court finds multi-country averaging reasonable under statute |
| Grobest revocation denial for not reviewing as mandatory | § 1677f-1(c)(2) does not foreclose revocation; Flowers not binding | Statutory construction supports limited review | Remand to reconsider revocation eligibility and procedures |
| Amanda Foods’ separate-rate certification rejection as untimely | Untimely SRC should be accepted given fairness and accuracy | Timeliness controls; burden on agency | Remand; court finds abuse of discretion; accept and review SRC |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (invalidated regression-based labor data methodology; guided best-available-information framework)
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (limitations on surrogate value data per § 1677b(c)(4))
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (inconsistent interpretations of § 1677(35) constitute arbitrariness)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (inconsistency in zeroing vs. offsetting; need for explanation)
- Nation Ford Chemical Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (use of best available information in surrogate valuation)