Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, 021919 USCIT, 16-00205

Docket Nº:16-00205, Slip Op. 19-23
Opinion Judge:Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Party Name:SOC TRANG SEAFOOD JOINT STOCK COMPANY ET AL., Plaintiffs and Consolidated Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and CA MAU SEAFOOD JOINT STOCK COMPANY, Plaintiff-Intervenor, and AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMMITTEE, Defendant-Intervenor and Consolidated Defendant-Intervenor.
Attorney:Matthew Robert Nicely, Daniel Martin Witkowski, and Julia K. Eppard, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs, Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company a/k/a Stapimex; Trong Nhan Seafood Company Limited; Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company a/k/a Fimex VN a/k/a Saota Seafood Factory;...
Judge Panel:Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Case Date:February 19, 2019
Court:Court of International Trade
 
FREE EXCERPT

SOC TRANG SEAFOOD JOINT STOCK COMPANY ET AL., Plaintiffs and Consolidated Plaintiff,

and

CA MAU SEAFOOD JOINT STOCK COMPANY, Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant,

and

AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMMITTEE, Defendant-Intervenor and Consolidated Defendant-Intervenor.

No. 16-00205

Slip Op. 19-23

Court of Appeals of International Trade

February 19, 2019

Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's remand redetermination in the tenth administrative review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Matthew Robert Nicely, Daniel Martin Witkowski, and Julia K. Eppard, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs, Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company a/k/a Stapimex; Trong Nhan Seafood Company Limited; Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company a/k/a Fimex VN a/k/a Saota Seafood Factory; Nha Trang Seafoods Group: Nha Trang Seaproduct Company a/k/a NT Seafoods Corporation a/k/a Nha Trang Seafoods -F.89 Joint Stock Company a/k/a NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company; Viet Foods Co., Ltd.; UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation a/k/a Hoang Phuong Seafood Factory a/k/a Hoang Phong Seafood Factory; Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation a/k/a Camau Seafood Factory No. 4; Ngoc Tri Seafood Joint Stock Company; Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation; Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd.; Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp.; Minh Cuong Seafood Import Export Frozen Processing Joint Stock Company; Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company; Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company; Can Tho Import Export Fishery Limited Company; Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation a/k/a Danang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation a/k/a Seaprodex Danang a/k/a Tho Quang Co. a/k/a Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company a/k/a Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32; Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation; Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.; Kim Anh Company Limited a/k/a Kim Anh Co., Ltd.; Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. a/k/a Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd.; Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation; Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company; Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company; Thong Thuan Company Limited a/k/a T&T Co., Ltd.; Cuulong Seaproducts Company; Camau Seafood Processing and Service Joint Stock Company; Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd.; C.P. Vietnam Corporation; and Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company, and for plaintiff-intervenor, Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company a/k/a Seaprimexco Vietnam.

Robert George Gosselink, Jonathan Michael Freed, and Jarrod Mark Goldfeder, Trade Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for consolidated plaintiff, Mazzetta Company LLC.

Kara Marie Westercamp, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With her on the brief were Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General. Of Counsel on the brief was James Henry Ahrens, II, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Nathaniel Jude Maandig Rickard and Sophia J.C. Lin, Picard, Kentz & Rowe, LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor and consolidated defendant-intervenor, Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.

Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

Claire R. Kelly, Judge

Before the court is the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Department" or "Commerce") remand redetermination filed pursuant to the court's order in Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, 42 CIT__, __, 321 F.Supp.3d 1329, 1353-54 (2018) ("Soc Trang"). See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand in [Soc Trang], Sept. 19, 2018, ECF No. 74-1 ("Remand Results").

In Soc Trang, the court addressed challenges to Commerce's final determination in the tenth administrative review of the antidumping duty ("ADD") order covering certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam ("Vietnam"). See Soc Trang, 42 CIT at__, 321 F.Supp.3d at 1335-53; see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From [Vietnam], 81 Fed. Reg. 62, 717 (Dep't Commerce Sept. 12, 2016) (final results of [ADD] admin. review, 2014-2015) ("Final Results") and accompanying Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from [Vietnam]: Issues & Decision Mem. for the Final Results, A-552-802, (Sept. 6, 2016), ECF No. 19-2 ("Final Decision Memo"); see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From [Vietnam], 70 Fed. Reg. 5, 152 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 1, 2005) (notice of am. final determination of sales at less than fair value & [ADD] order). The court remanded to Commerce for further explanation or reconsideration: (i) its decision to value frozen shrimp using Bangladeshi UN Comtrade data for Harmonized Tariff Schedule ("HTS") 0306.13, see Soc Trang, 42 CIT at__, 321 F.Supp.3d at 1350- 51, 1353-54, and (ii) its decision to deny an offset for excess/scrap packaging. See id. at__, 321 F.Supp.3d at 1352-54. For the following reasons, Commerce complied with the court's remand order in Soc Trang and its remand redetermination is in accordance with law and is supported by substantial evidence.

BACKGROUND

The court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case as discussed in the prior opinion, see Soc Trang, 42 CIT at__, 321 F.Supp.3d at 1334-35, and here restates the facts relevant to the court's review of the Remand Results. At the time of Commerce's final determination in the tenth administrative review, Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company ("Stapimex") was the sole mandatory respondent under review.[1] See Final Decision Memo at 2-3; see also [ADD] Admin. Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP