Lady Kim T. Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
Decision Date | 15 December 2006 |
Docket Number | Slip Op. 06-183. Court No. 05-00511. |
Parties | LADY KIM T. INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Neville Peterson, LLP, (Curtis Walter Knauss; Laura Martino), Washington, DC, for Lady Kim T. Inc., Plaintiff.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil. Division, United States Department of Justice (Michael L. Dierberg); of counsel: Jeffrey Kahm, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, for the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on motion for judgment on the agency record brought by Plaintiff, Lady Kim T. Inc. ("Plaintiff' or "Lady Kim") pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.1. Plaintiff challenges the final determination of the Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculture ("Defendant" or "the Department") denying its application for trade adjustment assistance ("TAA") benefits.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court remands this matter for further action in conformity with this opinion.
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2395(c) (2000) amended by 19 U.S.C. § 2395 (Supp. II 2002). The Court will uphold the Department's determination if its factual findings are supported by substantial record evidence. See 19 U.S.C. § 2395; Cabana v. United States Sec'y of Agric., 30 CIT ___, 427 F.Supp.2d 1232 (2006). Substantial evidence is Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). The Court will uphold the. Department's legal determinations if they are otherwise "in accordance with law." See Former Employees of Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. U.S. Sec'y of Labor, 28 CIT ___, ___, 350 F.Supp.2d 1282, 1286 (2004); see also Trinh v. U.S. Sec'y of Agric., 29 CIT ___, ___, 395 F.Supp.2d 1259, 1265 (2005) ().
On December 15, 2004, the Secretary certified a TAA petition filed by the Louisiana Shrimp Association and invited eligible shrimp farmers to apply for benefits. See Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, 69 Fed.Reg. 77,708 (Dep't Agric. Dec. 15, 2004) (notice). Thereafter, Plaintiff, a Subchapter S Corporation, applied for TAA benefits for the 2003 marketing year. See Application for Trade Adjustment Assistance for Lady Kim T. Inc., (February 14, 2005) ("Application"), Administrative Record ("AR") 1. As part of its application, Plaintiff provided various business records, as well as copies of its 2002 and 2003 Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Form 1120S income tax returns ("returns").2 See Pl. Submission, AR at 12-29. On Form 1120S, "Total Income (loss)" is reported on line 6. See Form 1120S, www.irs.gov (last visited December 15, 2006). Line 6 appears in the section of the return entitled "Income." Id. "Ordinary income (loss) from trade or business activities" is reported on line 21, and appears in the section of Form 1120S labeled "Deductions." Id. On its 2002 return, Lady Kim reported a total income of $19,665 in line 6. See Br. Supp. Pl.'s Mot. J. Agency R. ("Pl.'s Br.") at 7. It reported an ordinary income of $-96,356 in line 21. See Def.'s Resp. Pl.'s Mot. J. Agency Rec. ("Def.'s Response") at 3. On its 2003 return, Plaintiff reported a total income of $3,037 on line 6, and an ordinary income of $-59,226 on line 21. See Pl.'s Br. at 8; Def.'s Resp. at 4. Lady Kim also certified that, based upon the documentation provided, its 2003 net fishing income declined from the petition's pre-adjustment year. See Application, AR 1; Form 1120S 2003 return, AR 12; Form 1120S 2002 return, AR 13.
The Department denied Lady Kim's application by letter dated July 6, 2005 ("final determination"). See Letter from Ronald Ford, Deputy Director, Import Policies and Program Division, Foreign Agricultural Services, United States Department of Agriculture, to Lady Kim T. Inc. (July 6, 2005), AR 58. The letter stated, in relevant part, that the USDA See id. Plaintiff filed a timely appeal challenging the final determination with this Court.
Plaintiff sets forth several arguments in support of its appeal. Its primary contention, however, is that the Department's final determination is not supported by substantial record evidence.3 See Pl.'s Br. at 5. Specifically, Plaintiff insists that the Department erred by not omitting depreciation from its calculation of net fishing income. Id. (). It maintains that an examination of line 6 of its proffered tax returns indicates that it experienced a reduction in net income from 2002 to 2003. This, it claims "fulfill[s] the intent of the statute and also make[s] plaintiff eligible for TAA benefits." Id. at 8. Plaintiff further argues that the controlling statute, here, 19 U.S.C. § 2401e(a)(1), directs that the Department make a determination as to net farm income and that nothing on the record "shows whether [the Department] undertook the required analysis[.]" Id. at 11. As a result, Plaintiff seeks remand.
Defendant disagrees, and argues that the denial of TAA benefits was both supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. See Def.'s Resp. at 5. It maintains that a comparison of line 21 of Plaintiff's 2002 and 2003 tax returns reflects that Plaintiff's net income did not decrease from 2002 to 2003. Consequently it contends that Plaintiff was not entitled to TAA benefits. Id. at 7. Defendant further responds that it "appropriately took into account depreciation and other expenses." Id. Along these lines, Defendant argues that because § 2401e(a)(1) does not define the phrase net fishing income, Chevron deference to its regulations is warranted. Id. at 8 () . In response to Plaintiffs argument that the Department make a determination of net income, the Department contends that it is not obligated to perform "some sort of investigation or ad hoc analysis of" an applicant's finances. Id. at 10 (citing Pl.'s Br. at 8). As such, Defendant requests that the final determination be sustained.
Following certification4 by the Department, in order to be eligible for TAA benefits a producer must meet certain criteria. This criteria is set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 2401e(a), and is entitled "Qualifying requirements for agricultural commodity producers." The statute instructs, in relevant part, that, in general:
Payment of a[sic] adjustment assistance under this part shall be made to an adversely affected agricultural commodity producer covered by a certification under this part ... if the following conditions are met: ...
(C) The producer's net farm income (as determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture]) for the most recent year is less than the producer's net farm income for the latest year in which no adjustment assistance was received by the producer under this part.
§ 2401e(a)(1) (Supp. II 2002). The statute, however, does not define the phrase "net farm income." See Cabana, 30 CIT at ___, 427 F.Supp.2d at 1236.
In instances where Congress has "explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill," the agency's regulations are usually "given controlling weight" and afforded considerable discretion. Id. at 1235 (citing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)). The Secretary of Agriculture promulgated formal regulations implementing the statute and clarifying its application. See Trade Assistance for Farmers, 68 Fed.Reg. 50,048 (Dep't Agric. Aug. 20, 2003) (final rule); 7 C.F.R. § 1580.102 (2006). Therein, the Secretary explained that the statute applies not only to farmers but also to certain fisherman. 68 Fed.Reg. at 50,048. In the instant matter, the relevant regulation is 7 C.F.R. § 1580.301 ("regulation"). Paralleling the language of the statute, the regulation requires a producer applying for TAA monetary benefits to certify, inter alia, that his "net farm or fishing income was less than that during the producer's pre-adjustment year." § 1580.301(e)(4). The regulation defines net fishing income as "net profit or loss ... reported to the Internal Revenue Service for the tax year that most closely corresponds with the marketing year under consideration." § 1580.102. In demonstrating its net income, the regulation permits a producer to submit "(i) [s]upporting documentation from a certified public accountant or attorney, or (ii)[r]elevant documentation and other supporting financial data, such as financial statements, balance sheets, and reports prepared for or provided to the Internal Revenue...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whitney Brothers v. U.S. Secretary of Agr., Slip Op. 07-162.
...[and] not merely determine the meaning of `net farm income.'" (Id. (emphasis in original; citing Lady Kim T, Inc. v. U.S. Sec'y of Agriculture, 30 CIT ___, ___, 469 F.Supp.2d 1262, 1266 (2006)).) Plaintiff goes on to assert that the USDA merely compared the "net farm income" lines from Plai......
-
Dus & Derrick v. U.S. Secretary of Agr.
...one line of a producer's tax return when determining net fishing income, see Lady Kim T. Inc. v. U.S. Sec'y of Agric., 30 CIT ___, 469 F.Supp.2d 1262, 1267-68, 2006 WL 3715909, **5-6 (Dec. 15, 2006) (not published in the Federal Supplement) (remanding the Department's denial of a producer's......
-
Lady Kim T v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
...("Defendant" or "Department") and the subsequent remand determination ordered by this Court in Lady Kim T. Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT ___, 469 F.Supp.2d 1262 ("Lady Kim I"), denying its application for trade adjustment assistance ("TAA") benefits.1 See Reconsideration Upon Remand of the ......
-
Hoed v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
...decision as long as it is "reasonable and supported by the record as a whole." Lady Kim T. Inc. v. United States Sec'y of Agric. ("Lady Kim I"), 30 CIT ___, ___, 469 F.Supp.2d 1262, 1266 (2006) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 45......