CIT Sustains Finding That Fish Exporter Didn't Make Bona Fide Sale
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's finding on remand that exporter Co May Import-Export Company didn't have a bona fide sale of subject merchandise during the review period of a new shipper review. Judge Jane Restani said the decision complies with the court's remand order.
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.
Co May initially requested the new shipper review under the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam for a five-month period in 2022 and 2023, and Commerce granted the company a zero percent dumping margin, finding that the exporter made one bona fide sale to the U.S. The petitioner, the Catfish Farmers of America, challenged this conclusion on multiple grounds, primarily contesting the agency's conclusion that Co May's sale was profitable.
Restani agreed with the petitioner, ruling that Commerce didn't adequately explain why it should or shouldn't deduct AD cash deposits in evaluating profitability (see 2506090005). The court also said the agency should have considered the affiliation between Co May's customer, referred to as "Customer A," and its downstream customers, adding that it's unclear how resale profitability for the importer can be determined reliably where the downstream sales are between an importer and related entities.
On remand, the agency flipped its position and found that Co May didn't make a bona fide sale of subject merchandise during the review period (see 2511180046). The agency said cash deposits "may appropriately be considered in the context of bona fides analysis," concluding that the cash deposits were a "commercially significant consideration for Customer A which should be considered in determining whether the underlying sale was bona fide."
(Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, Slip Op. 26-2, CIT # 24-00126, dated 01/08/26; Judge: Jane Restani)