CIT Decision May Lower AD Rate for 29 China Shrimp Exporters
Antidumping duty rates assigned to 29 exporters of frozen warmwater shrimp from China (A-570-893) in the 2004 original investigation will fall to 6.7%, after the Court of International Trade on Feb. 18 affirmed a remand redetermination from the Commerce Department. Although nearly a decade has passed since the rates were set, the change may apply in a few cases to current AD cash deposit requirements if no rates have been set in recent years.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The 29 companies had in the 2004 original investigation been assigned an average rate derived from several individually investigated companies. CIT in August 2013 ordered Commerce to take another look at the average rate for the 29 companies because the AD rates for the individually investigated companies that served as the basis for the average have since fallen due to other court decisions in intervening years.
Although a decade has passed since Commerce’s original investigation, the new rates may apply to future entries of frozen warmwater shrimp for a few of these 29 companies, said Mark Pardo, a lawyer with Grunfeld Desiderio who represents the 29 Chinese exporters. Any rates set in administrative reviews since the 2004 order would take precedence, he said. But for companies among these 29 whose AD rates have not changed since the original investigation, CIT's decision "would then open up the door" for them to use the new 6.7% AD cash deposit rate, said Pardo. The Justice Department did not return a request for comment.
The 6.7% AD rate only applies to the 29 average rate companies that participated in the legal challenge (only a few of which may be able to use it as the current cash deposit rate), as follows: Beihai Zhengwu Industry Co., Ltd.; Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co Ltd (Shantou City Qiaofeng Group Co Ltd); Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food Allocation Co., Ltd.; Pingyang Xinye Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Shantou Jinhang Aquatic Industry Co., Ltd.; Shantou Longfeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.; Shantou Ocean Freezing Industry And Trade General Corporation; Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Co., Ltd.; Shantou Sez Xu Hao Fastness Freeze Aquatic Factory Co., Ltd.; Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business Co., Ltd.; Shantou Wanya Food Factory Co., Ltd.; Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company; Taizhou Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd.; Yantai Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Cereals, Oils, Foodstuffs Import Export Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Product Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Evemew Seafood Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co.; Zhejiang Zhenglong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Cereals Oils Foodstuffs Import Export Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Diciyuan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Haichang Food Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Juntai Foods Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Lizhou Fishery Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Xifeng Aquatic Co., Ltd.; and Zhoushan Zhenyang Developing Co., Ltd.
(Beihai Zhengwu Indus. Co., Ltd. v. U.S., Slip Op. 14-19, dated 02/19/14, Judge Pogue)