Petitioners and Indian Shrimp Exporter File in Opposition to Each Other’s Motions for Judgment

Petitioners and an Indian freshwater shrimp exporter on April 16 both filed briefs opposing each other’s motions for judgment (see 2402080060). The petitioners said that the exporter was attempting to go against the Commerce Department's usual practice regarding interest expenses offsets, while the exporter claimed the petitioners had no evidence its home-market sales were destined for consumption elsewhere (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT # 23-00202).

Both parties moved for judgment Feb. 6. Exporter Megaa Moda argued that the Commerce Department miscalculated its shrimp’s normal value by failing to take short-term interest income offsets into account in the final results of a 2021-2022 antidumping duty review. Petitioners led by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, meanwhile, claimed that that same calculation was flawed because some of the exporter’s home market sales were not actually destined for India.

Commerce was right to reject Megaa Moda’s attempt to offset its pre-export financing interest expenses, because the offsetting income it used was generated from a liability, not a short-term asset, the petitioners said. The department’s calculation of Megaa Moda’s shrimp’s normal value for the 2021-2022 antidumping duty review was flawed, they said.

Megaa Moda initially reported its net interest expense as negative, so Commerce asked it for supporting documents, the petitioners said. These documents, they said, revealed Megaa Moda was receiving interest expense refunds on its pre-shipment financing under the Indian government’s “Interest Equalization Scheme for Pre and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit.” They said the department “is very familiar with the interest subvention program” Megaa Moda used, and has countervailed it in other cases.

In its final results, Commerce correctly rejected Megaa Moda’s argument, the petitioners said, because those refunds it received from the program ultimately came from a liability -- a loan it took out -- and not “as income ‘generated from the company’s current assets and working capital accounts.’” The department has a “clearly established practice” of only allowing interest expense offsets with income earned from short-term assets, they pointed out.

“There is no question that the interest subvention program Megaa Moda received interest refunds under was not a short-term asset of any type,” they said.

On the other hand, Megaa Moda took issue with petitioners’ own opposition to Commerce’s calculation of its products’ normal value. The petitioners were wrong that not all Megaa Moda’s shrimp sold in home markets stayed in India, it said. It said its sales were “negotiated in good faith without Megaa Moda having any knowledge that the merchandise subsequently might be exported or whether the merchandise might be resold after further processing.”