Pakfood Public Co. v. United States
190 F. Supp. 3d 1156
Ct. Intl. Trade2016Background
- Commerce conducted an administrative review of antidumping duties on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand and selected Pakfood and Thai Union for individual review.
- Midway through the review Commerce collapsed Pakfood and Thai Union into a single entity effective April 23, 2012 (the "Collapsing Date").
- Commerce computed separate dumping margins for each company for sales before the Collapsing Date and a single margin for the collapsed entity for sales on/after that date.
- On the Collapsing Date Commerce truncated its normal 90/60-day sales comparison window (19 C.F.R. § 351.414(f)), preventing pre-collapse sales from being matched with post-collapse sales.
- Plaintiffs challenged that truncation, arguing collapsing should eliminate manipulation risks and therefore pre- and post-collapse sales comparisons should be permitted; Commerce defended the truncation as necessary to prevent manipulation and because a mid-review collapse is an unusual circumstance.
- The Court remanded the Final Results for Commerce to reconsider its decision to truncate the comparison window and to file remand results by December 1, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce reasonably truncated the 90/60-day sales-comparison window at the mid-review collapsing date, preventing pre-collapse sales from matching with post-collapse sales | Truncation is unreasonable: collapsing eliminates manipulation risk, so pre- and post-collapse sales should be comparable; truncation arbitrarily inflates margins | Mid-review collapsing is unusual; tailoring the comparison window to separate pre- and post-collapse periods is reasonable to guard against manipulation | Court remanded: Commerce must reconsider its truncation decision and explain the rationale for treating pre- and post-collapse sales separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (2006) (articulates substantial-evidence review standard for agency findings)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (2005) (defines substantial evidence as what a reasonable mind might accept)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (1966) (recognizes that two inconsistent conclusions do not preclude substantial-evidence support)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) (classic formulation of the substantial-evidence concept)