CIT Says AD Revocation Optional Even After 3 Years of Zero Rates

Vietnamese exporters challenged determinations by the International Trade Administration in the AD administrative review of certain frozen warm water shrimp from Vietnam for the February 2007 - January 2008 period. Notably, Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd., doing business as Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. challenged the ITA’s refusal to revoke the firm’s inclusion in the AD order despite zero dumping margins for three consecutive years. Fish One argued that: 1) the ITA’s regulations obliged it to perform individual reviews of companies requesting revocation based on achieving three years of zero or de minimis dumping margins, 2) the mandatory selection process, which was limited to only three exporters, was flawed and 3) the zero dumping margin it was assigned in the final results entitled it to revocation.

The Court of International Trade ruled that under an ambiguous statutory law, the ITA’s determination that it is not obligated to review all companies requesting revocation was reasonable. Regarding the respondent selection process, the court ruled that Fish One could not contest the selection process for mandatory respondents now, after having failed to do so within the administrative review process.

Finally, noting that “both the statute and regulations clearly make the grant of revocation discretionary,” the court also reasoned that Fish One, because it was not individually reviewed and did not undergo verification, was not eligible for revocation despite having attained de minimis or zero results for three years.

As part of the same suit, Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. challenged the calculation of separate rates for cooperative, non-individually investigated respondents, but this challenge was not adjudicated as it is to be addressed by a voluntary remand pursuant to an earlier court decision involving the same litigants.

(See ITT’s Online Archives 11041819 for summary of earlier CIT decision that ordered the ITA to assign to non-reviewed shrimp exporters covered by this order the zero margin calculated for the mandatory respondents that were selected for review, rather than assigning them rates calculated earlier, in the original investigation.)

(Slip Op. 11-155, dated 12/14/11)