Domestic Shrimp Producers Oppose More Briefing on Amending Ecuadorian Shrimp Record
More domestic producers in an Ecuadorian shrimp case objected Oct. 10 to exporters’ motion to supplement the judicial record. They also brought a challenge to the exporters’ further request for more briefing on the issue (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00025).
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 producers, represented by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, joined the American Shrimp Processors Association in its resistance to the motion (see 2509220047). Exporters Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila and Sociedad Nacional De Galapagos sought judgment in February arguing that the Commerce Department should have accepted certain corrections that the exporters, mandatory respondents in the investigation, provided during verification (see 2508270062), and they asked the court to add those corrections to the record in August.
Like American Shrimp Processors, the ad hoc committee said that the exporters hadn’t shown good cause for their request.
It said Santa Priscila and Songa haven’t demonstrated why the materials they seek to have included are necessary. The trade court can evaluate Commerce’s decision to reject the corrections without them, it said.
The ad hoc committee also opposed the two exporters’ further request for leave to reply to opposition to their motion to amend. Granting that leave would further delay the case, it said, and prejudice it and its allies as they prepare their other responses to the exporters’ Rule 56.2 motion.
And it argued that the 2020 case Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems wasn’t helpful to the exporters’ bid for more briefing. In Hyundai, the party requesting another chance to reply included that reply in its request, the group said. Because of that, “the Court was able to assess whether the proposed reply brief would aid the Court’s understanding of the issue.”
In this case, Santa Priscila and Songa had simply said that their reply would “provide ‘additional context’ without explaining what that additional context is,” it said.