Vinh Quang Fisheries Corporation v. United States, 1:18-cv-00069

Thirteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen Pangasius fish fillets from Vietnam (period 2015–2016). Commerce originally assigned GODACO an AFA rate of $3.87/kg.
Commerce applied GODACO’s AFA rate to cooperating separate-rate companies in its Remand Results; the Court in GODACO II found that application unreasonable and remanded for Commerce to reevaluate the separate-rate (all-others) margin.
On second remand, Commerce (under protest) abandoned the SAA "expected method" application and instead calculated the all-others separate rate as the simple average of the four prior administrative-review separate rates, resulting in $0.89/kg (down from $3.87/kg).
Defendant-Intervenors opposed the Second Remand Results; Separate Rate Plaintiffs and the United States supported sustaining Commerce’s revised rate.
The Court reviewed whether Commerce’s all-others separate rate was supported by substantial evidence and whether Commerce lawfully departed from the "expected method." The Court sustained Commerce’s Second Remand Results.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of departing from the SAA "expected method" under 19 U.S.C. §1673d(c)(5)(B)	Commerce unlawfully deviated; the expected method was feasible and reflective	Departure was justified because the Court previously held applying the AFA to cooperating separate-rate firms was unreasonable	Court sustained the departure because GODACO II made application of the expected method unreasonable
Whether Commerce’s use of “any reasonable method” (simple average of four prior separate rates) was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence	Averaging prior rates is arbitrary and not reasonably reflective of potential margins	Averaging four contemporaneous prior separate rates is reasonable, more contemporaneous than the AFA, and accounts for variation	Court held the revised $0.89/kg rate was supported by substantial evidence and reasonable
Status of GODACO’s AFA and its prior application to separate-rate respondents	Applying GODACO’s AFA to cooperating separate-rate firms was improper	Commerce correctly assigned AFA to GODACO but applied it under the expected method in Remand Results	Court previously sustained the AFA for GODACO but found its application to cooperating separate-rate firms unreasonable, prompting remand

Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (upheld use of §1673d(c)(5) framework for all-others rate)
Navneet Publ’ns (India) Ltd. v. United States, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (discussing hierarchy for calculating all-others rates and when Commerce may use any reasonable method)
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (review-of-remand compliance principle)
GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States (GODACO II), 494 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (CIT remand decision sustaining GODACO’s AFA but rejecting its application to cooperating separate-rate firms)