Pakfood Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, 121911 FEDFED, 2011-1282
|Opinion Judge:||Linn, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||PAKFOOD PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED, THAI UNION FROZEN PRODUCTSPUBLIC CO., LTD., AND THAI UNION SEAFOOD CO., LTD., Plaintiffs, ANDANDAMAN SEAFOOD CO., LTD., CHANTHABURI FROZEN FOOD CO., LTD., CHANTHABURI SEAFOODS CO., LTD., PHATTHANA SEAFOOD CO., LTD., PHATTHANA FROZEN FOOD CO., LTD., THAILAND FISHERY COLD STORAGE PUBLIC CO., LTD., THAI INTERNATIONAL SE|
|Attorney:||Walter J. Spak, White & Case LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was Jay C. Campbell. Stephen C. Tosini, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart|
|Judge Panel:||Before Linn, Prost, and Moore, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 19, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|
This disposition is nonprecedential
Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in consolidated case nos. 09-CV-0430, 09-CV-0443, 09-CV-0445, and 09-CV-0447, Chief Judge Donald C. Pogue.
Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd. ("Chanthaburi"), Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd. ("Phatthana"), Phatthana Frozen Food Co., Ltd., Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd., Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd., Sea Wealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd., and Rubicon Resources, LLC (collectively, "Rubicon" or "Rubicon Group") appeal from the Court of International Trade's affirmance of the United States Department of Commerce's ("Commerce") refusal to grant Chanthaburi and Phatthana an offset for certain interest income when calculating dumping margins during its administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand. See Pakfood Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, 724 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1353-57 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011), made final by Consol. Court No. 09-00430 (Jan. 18, 2011) ("Judgment"). Because the Court of International Trade correctly found that Rubicon failed to establish that Commerce unreasonably departed from settled practice, and because Rubicon fails to support any other basis for error, this court affirms.
This appeal arises from Commerce's administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Thailand for the period of February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Equador, India and Thailand, 73 Fed. Reg. 18754 (Dep't Commerce Apr. 7, 2008). The members of the Rubicon Group participated in the review as mandatory respondents....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP