Pakfood Public Co. Ltd. v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 7
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2011Background
- Pakfood and related Thai shrimp respondents challenge Commerce's remand results selecting respondents using CBP data rather than Q&V questionnaires.
- Prior Pakfood I ruling found Commerce's inconsistent use of CBP data and Q&V data without adequate explanation, remanding for justification.
- Commerce on remand defends shift to CBP data as more efficient, and distinguishes cases where CBP data were unusable as not like the instant case.
- AHSTAC contends CBP data are unreliable for exporters and that reliance on prior affiliation data may be inaccurate for the POR.
- Court must evaluate whether Commerce's CBP-based respondent selection on remand complies with the AD statute, is reasonable, and supported by substantial evidence.
- Standard of review requires remand compliance, substantial evidence support, and lawful agency action given the changed practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CBP-based method is an arbitrary departure from prior practice | AHSTAC: change lacks adequate explanation and is inconsistent with like cases. | Commerce: shift is reasonable for efficiency and properly distinguished from exceptions. | Not an arbitrary departure; adequately explained and justified. |
| Whether CBP data provide adequate information under 1677f-1(c)(2)(B) | AHSTAC: CBP data fail to identify exporters sufficiently. | Department: CBP data, with invoicing-party as exporter, satisfy statutory volume requirement. | Data adequate and method lawful. |
| Whether use of affiliation data from prior segments is supported by substantial evidence | AHSTAC: reliance on previously gathered affiliations may be inaccurate for the POR. | Respondent comments corroborated continued accuracy; no contrary evidence found. | Supported by substantial evidence; corroboration adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. Abraham, 314 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (administrative action requires rational basis and clear explanation for changes)
- Consolidated Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (agency policy changes must be reasonable and lawful under statutory mandate)
- United States v. Barzingus, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (arbitrary treatment of similar cases undermines agency action)
- Federal Trade Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (S. Ct. 2009) (agency policy changes must be adequately explained and within statutory authority)