Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. v. United States, 2015 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 81

Background

Grobest (successor Viet I‑Mei) sought individual review as a voluntary respondent in the fourth administrative review of the antidumping order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam; Commerce initially denied and assigned Grobest the all‑others rate.
The Court (Grobest I & II) held Commerce abused its discretion by refusing to consider Grobest’s voluntary submissions and remanded, ordering Commerce to re‑conduct the review and individually examine Grobest.
Commerce initiated the reconducted review; after initiation Grobest sought to withdraw from the individual examination citing management/accounting changes and cost; domestic petitioners opposed withdrawal.
Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire, found Grobest failed to respond and withheld information, concluded Grobest did not act to the best of its ability, and invoked adverse facts available (AFA) to assign a 25.76% dumping rate.
Grobest challenged Commerce’s refusal to terminate the court‑ordered re‑examination and characterized the AFA rate as punitive; the court deferred to Commerce and affirmed the reconducted final results.

Issues

Issue	Grobest's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Whether judicial estoppel bars the Government from enforcing the court‑ordered re‑examination because Grobest previously prevailed seeking that review but later sought withdrawal	Grobest argued its changed circumstances justified withdrawal; not estopped from new position	U.S. argued Grobest should be estopped because it successfully obtained the remedy and later reversed course for tactical advantage	Judicial estoppel not applied: prior and current positions are not clearly inconsistent and accepting both does not produce contradictory court outcomes
Whether Commerce was required to terminate the reconducted, court‑ordered individual examination upon Grobest’s unilateral withdrawal request	Grobest argued Commerce must permit withdrawal (analogizing to 90‑day rescission rule)	U.S. argued Commerce reasonably declined: voluntary respondents are subject to same obligations as mandatory respondents; petitioners’ review request remained; Commerce had begun substantive work	Commerce reasonably declined to terminate the re‑examination; regulations and record support continuing the court‑ordered individual review
Whether Commerce permissibly used adverse facts available after Grobest withheld information and failed to cooperate	Grobest contended the resulting rate was punitive and improper	U.S. defended AFA based on Commerce’s findings that Grobest withheld information, impeded the proceeding, and failed to act to the best of its ability	Court affirmed use of AFA: uncontested factual findings satisfy 19 U.S.C. §1677e; adverse inference and selected petition‑derived rate were lawful and corroborated
Whether the AFA rate selected (25.76%) was impermissibly punitive or inadequately corroborated	Grobest broadly labeled the rate punitive but did not challenge the underlying factual findings or corroboration	U.S. explained Commerce selected the highest on‑record rate (from the petition) and corroborated it consistent with statute	Court held the rate was not punitive when lawfully applied and properly corroborated; affirmed the rate

Key Cases Cited

Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (court defers to reasonable agency interpretations under Chevron)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference framework)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (substantial‑evidence standard explained)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (judicial estoppel factors and application)
KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (AFA is not inherently punitive when applied under §1677e)
D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (AFA and adverse inferences discussed)