Refund of Overpaid Interest Should Have Been Part of Costs Calculation, Exporter Says

An Indian frozen shrimp exporter responded May 14 to opposition (see 2404160042) against its motion for judgment (see 2402080060) in a case regarding the results of an antidumping duty review, saying that the Commerce Department and petitioners had focused on the wrong arguments and failed to address key evidence (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).

Exporter Megaa Moda argued in its motion for judgment that Commerce was wrong to not include a refund of overpaid pre-export financing interest in its calculation of the exporter’s normal value, saying the refund was income that should have offset some of its expenses.

It said the primary question of the case is whether Commerce correctly identified and calculated Megaa Moda’s financial expenses. But Commerce, in its opposition, focused instead on whether the income the exporter received from its refund had derived from short-term assets, it said.

The refund the exporter received for overpayment of interest represented “an amount that Megaa Moda never should have paid in the first place,” so Commerce shouldn’t have included that excess in its calculation of Megaa Moda’s costs, it said.

“Megaa Moda reasonably offset the overpaid interest expense against the company’s interest expenses, treating the excess amount paid that was refunded as interest income from short-term assets to report the net interest expenses accurately,” it said.

However, Commerce also could have chosen to simply subtract the refund directly from interest expenses, it said. It said the department’s decision to do neither was against the law. And Commerce’s focus on whether or not that refund was income from short-term assets was misguided, it said.

The exporter also argued that it had provided sufficient evidence to use interest income generated from bank deposits as another offset against its financial expenses, despite Commerce’s and petitioners’ claims to the contrary.