US, Petitioners Oppose Thai Shrimp Exporter's Motion to Amend Reply
After filing a joint motion to strike Thai shrimp exporter Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co.’s reply brief supporting a motion for judgment (see 2512150041), the American Shrimp Processors Association and Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, along with the U.S., each filed separately in opposition to Soc Trang’s request for leave to amend its motion (Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00030).
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.
In its reply, the exporter mentioned two Thai reports that it said petitioners had placed on the record regarding Thai land prices (see 2508250047). The second report, however, had been rejected by the Commerce Department as untimely and removed from the record, the petitioners pointed out in their motion to strike.
The U.S. said Dec. 16 that Soc Trang’s “motion to ‘correct’ uses misleading nomenclature of placing non-record information … onto the ‘record.’” Actually, the Thailand report wasn’t on the record, having been untimely submitted, the government said.
It also said it deferred to the court regarding the merits of the petitioners’ motion to strike.
American Shrimp Processors, meanwhile, argued that Soc Trang’s mistake was more than “excusable neglect.” The exporter tried to use the 1993 Supreme Court case Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. to support its argument to the contrary, the petitioner said, but that case dealt with a late filing amidst highly ambiguous filing dates. But the current case doesn’t involve deadlines at all, American Shrimp Processors said; the “excusable neglect” standard doesn’t apply.
And Ad Hoc claimed that Soc Trang’s offered corrections weren’t adequate. The exporter had acknowledged it erred in stating that the petitioners had placed two Thai reports on the record, Ad Hoc said, but it “maintains other demonstrably incorrect statements of fact.”
Specifically, it said, the exporter was still trying to discuss the second report as if it was on the record.
“The Court should not permit Plaintiff to correct a brief in order to alter the way it discusses information rejected from the record without also requiring Plaintiff to correct its reply brief to remove arguments based on information ‘expunged’ from the record,” it said.