Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

  • Home
  • People
  • Practice Areas
    • International Trade
    • International Investment and Project Development
    • International Disputes/Rights & Obligations of Sovereign States & Autonomous Regions
    • U.S. & International Regulation and Legislation
    • Board Advisory Work
  • Global Experience
  • News/Blog
  • Contact Us

July 30, 2015 by PKR

CIT Affirms 25.76% Dumping Margin for Uncooperative Vietnamese Shrimp Exporter in Case that Prompted Recent Legislative Reform

The U.S. Court of International Trade today ruled in Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. v. United States, affirming the U.S. Department of Commerce’s March 2014 determination in the reconducted fourth administrative review (2008-09) of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Vietnam.  Commerce in 2010 assigned Viet I-Mei’s predecessor-in-interest, Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. a 3.92% dumping margin based on the examination of other companies.  Grobest successfully challenged Commerce’s refusal to individually examine its sales data on a voluntary basis, with the CIT in 2012 ordering the reconduct of the administrative review to encompass the information submitted by Grobest.

On remand, Commerce identified numerous inconsistencies and instances of incomplete responses in the material initially submitted by Grobest.  The agency issued questionnaires seeking clarification regarding the company’s prior submissions.  Yet Grobest thereafter refused to respond to these inquiries, refused to further participate in the review in any respect, and insisted that Commerce terminate the proceeding.  This demand was opposed by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (“AHSTAC”), an association of domestic producers of warmwater shrimp represented by PKR, who argued that the CIT ruling and other applicable legal requirements necessitated the review.  Commerce agreed with AHSTAC and, in response to the exporter’s non-cooperation, applied statutory “adverse facts available” to assign Grobest the 25.76% margin.

The CIT today rejects Viet I-Mei’s arguments that Commerce was compelled to terminate the re-conduct and re-instate the 3.92% rate originally assigned to Grobest.  Judge Pogue ruled that “Commerce was not required by any statutory or regulatory authority to abort its court-ordered individual re-examination of Grobest simply because Grobest changed its mind regarding the benefit of such examination.”  This precedent warns respondents seeking voluntary reviews in AD proceedings that they may not unilaterally cease such participation upon an indication of an unfavorable outcome.

In the wake of Grobest’s challenge, Commerce’s discretion to select or not select voluntary respondents has been significantly strengthened. Legislation enacted last month provides Commerce with express and substantial statutory discretion to decline reviews of those requesting voluntary respondent status.

Thus, by successfully challenging Commerce’s discretion as to whether to accept voluntary respondents in administrative reviews, Grobest set in motion both: (1) a reconducted administrative proceeding wherein the antidumping duty liquidation rate applied to its entries between February 1, 2008 and January 31, 2009 increased from 3.92% to 25.76%; and (2) legislative action to strengthen the agency’s discretion as to when to accept or not accept voluntary respondents in administrative reviews.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: International Trade, News Tagged With: antidumping, CIT, International Trade, seafood trade, Vietnam

Contact

Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP
1750 K Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: +1 202 331 4040
Fax: +1 202 331 4011
info@pkrllp.com

Recent Posts

  • After an Historic Year at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Court’s Work Has Just Begun
  • Zachary J. Walker and Sophia Lin Named Counsel

Sitemap

PKR LLP Sitemap

© Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. If you have a particular problem or issue for which you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.