Luscious Seafood LLC v. United States

SlipȱOp.ȱ25Ȭ153ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
LUSCIOUSȱSEAFOODȱLLC,ȱ
Plaintiff,ȱ
v.ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ
Defendant,ȱ
andȱ
NTSFȱSEAFOODSȱJOINTȱSTOCKȱ
COMPANY,ȱetȱal.,ȱ
DefendantȬIntervenors.ȱ
ȱȱBefore:ȱȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
ȱȱCourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱ
OPINIONȱANDȱORDERȱ
[Remandingȱanȱagencyȱdeterminationȱinȱanȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱanȱ
antidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱcertainȱfrozenȱfishȱfilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱ
Vietnam]ȱ
Dated:ȱDecemberȱ15,ȱ2025ȱ
CameliaȱC.ȱMazard,ȱDoyle,ȱBarlowȱ&ȱMazardȱPLLC,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱ
plaintiffȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱLLC.ȱȱWithȱherȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwasȱAndreȱP.ȱBarlow.ȱ
CollinȱT.ȱMathias,ȱTrialȱAttorney,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱDivision,ȱ
U.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱOnȱtheȱbriefȱwereȱBrettȱ
A. Shumate,ȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱM.ȱMcCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱandȱReginaldȱT.
Blades,ȱJr.,ȱAssistantȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwasȱK.ȱGarrettȱKays,ȱAttorney,
OfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱandȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱof
Commerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ2ȱ
ȱ
JonathanȱM.ȱFreed,ȱTradeȱPacificȱPLLC,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱforȱdefendantȬ
intervenorsȱBienȱDongȱSeafoodȱCompanyȱLimitedȱandȱNTSFȱSeafoodsȱJointȱStockȱ
Company.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwasȱMacKensieȱR.ȱSugama.ȱ
ȱ
NazakȱNikakhtar,ȱWileyȱReinȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬintervenorsȱ
CatfishȱFarmersȱofȱAmerica,ȱAmerica’sȱCatch,ȱInc.,ȱAlabamaȱCatfish,ȱLLCȱd/b/aȱHarvestȱ
SelectȱCatfish,ȱInc.,ȱConsolidatedȱCatfishȱCompanies,ȱLLCȱd/b/aȱCountryȱSelectȱCatfish,ȱ
DeltaȱPrideȱCatfish,ȱInc.,ȱGuidry’sȱCatfish,ȱInc.,ȱHeartlandȱCatfishȱCompany,ȱMagnoliaȱ
Processing,ȱInc.ȱd/b/aȱPrideȱofȱtheȱPond,ȱandȱSimmonsȱFarmȱRaisedȱCatfish,ȱInc.ȱȱWithȱ
herȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwereȱMaureenȱE.ȱThorsonȱandȱStephanieȱM.ȱBell.ȱ
ȱ
Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱȱPlaintiffȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱLLCȱ(“LusciousȱSeafood”ȱorȱ
“Luscious”)ȱcontestsȱaȱdecisionȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱ
DepartmentȱofȱCommerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱdenyingȱitȱstatusȱasȱaȱ
“domesticȱinterestedȱparty”ȱinȱanȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱ
onȱcertainȱfrozenȱfishȱfilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnamȱ(“Vietnam”).ȱȱ
CommerceȱdeniedȱstandingȱuponȱdeterminingȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱdidȱnotȱqualifyȱasȱ
aȱ“bonaȱfideȱwholesaler.”ȱȱBeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱplaintiff’sȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱ
agencyȱrecord.ȱȱConcludingȱthatȱCommerceȱimpermissiblyȱreliedȱonȱcertainȱfindingsȱ
andȱfailedȱtoȱprovideȱanȱadequateȱexplanationȱofȱitsȱreasoning,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandsȱtheȱ
decisionȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱreconsideration.ȱ
I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
Theȱadministrativeȱdeterminationȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱcaseȱ(theȱ“FinalȱResults”)ȱwasȱ
publishedȱasȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱFromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnam:ȱFinalȱResultsȱ
andȱPartialȱRescissionȱofȱAdministrativeȱReview;ȱ2021Ȭ2022,ȱ89ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ18,595ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ3ȱ
ȱ
Admin.ȱMar.ȱ14,ȱ2024),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ561,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ1ȱ(“FinalȱResults”).1ȱȱCommerceȱissuedȱ
theȱFinalȱResultsȱuponȱtheȱcompletionȱofȱtheȱnineteenthȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱtheȱ
antidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱcertainȱfrozenȱfishȱfilletsȱfromȱVietnamȱ(theȱ“Order”),ȱ
whichȱCommerceȱissuedȱinȱ2003.2ȱȱNoticeȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrder:ȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱ
FilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnam,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ47,909ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ
Aug.ȱ12,ȱ2003)ȱ(“Order”).ȱȱCommerceȱincorporatedȱintoȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱbyȱreferenceȱanȱ
explanatoryȱdocument,ȱtheȱ“IssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandum.”ȱȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱ
forȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱtheȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱ
FilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnam;ȱ2021–2022,ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ556,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ1ȱ(Int’lȱ
TradeȱAdmin.ȱMar.ȱ5,ȱ2024)ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).ȱ
ȱ
1ȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Feb.ȱ27,ȱ2025),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ42ȱ(Conf.),ȱ43ȱ
(Public)ȱareȱcitedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__.”ȱȱCitationsȱtoȱJointȱAppendixȱdocumentsȱareȱ
toȱtheȱpublicȱversions.ȱ
ȱ
2ȱTheȱOrderȱappliesȱtoȱtheȱfollowingȱproductsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱ
Vietnamȱ(“Vietnam”):ȱ
ȱ
[F]rozenȱfishȱfillets,ȱincludingȱregular,ȱshank,ȱandȱstripȱfilletsȱandȱportionsȱ
thereof,ȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱbreadedȱorȱmarinated,ȱofȱtheȱspeciesȱPangasiusȱBocourti,ȱ
PangasiusȱHypophthalmusȱ(alsoȱknownȱasȱPangasiusȱPangasius),ȱandȱPangasiusȱ
Micronemus.ȱȱFrozenȱfishȱfilletsȱareȱlengthwiseȱcutsȱofȱwholeȱfish.ȱȱTheȱfilletȱ
productsȱcoveredȱbyȱtheȱscopeȱincludeȱbonelessȱfilletsȱwithȱtheȱbellyȱflapȱintactȱ
(“regular”ȱfillets),ȱbonelessȱfilletsȱwithȱtheȱbellyȱflapȱremovedȱ(“shank”ȱfillets),ȱ
bonelessȱshankȱfilletsȱcutȱintoȱstripsȱ(“filletȱstrips/finger”),ȱwhichȱincludeȱfilletsȱ
cutȱintoȱstrips,ȱchunks,ȱblocks,ȱskewers,ȱorȱanyȱotherȱshape.ȱ
ȱ
NoticeȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrder:ȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱ
Vietnam,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ47,909,ȱ47,909ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱAug.ȱ12,ȱ2003).ȱ
ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ4ȱ
ȱ
A.ȱȱProceedingsȱConductedȱbyȱCommerceȱ
Inȱ2022,ȱCommerceȱpublishedȱaȱnoticeȱinvitingȱrequestsȱforȱanȱadministrativeȱ
reviewȱofȱtheȱOrderȱforȱtheȱperiodȱofȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2021ȱtoȱJulyȱ31,ȱ2022ȱ(theȱ“periodȱofȱ
review”ȱorȱ“POR”).ȱȱAntidumpingȱorȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱFinding,ȱorȱSuspendedȱ
Investigation;ȱOpportunityȱToȱRequestȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱandȱJoinȱAnnualȱInquiryȱServiceȱ
List,ȱ87ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ47,187,ȱ47,188ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱAug.ȱ2,ȱ2022).ȱȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ
identifiedȱitselfȱasȱaȱ“domesticȱU.S.ȱwholesaler”ȱofȱdomesticȱfishȱfilletsȱ(specifically,ȱtheȱ
“domesticȱlikeȱproduct”).ȱȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnamȱ–ȱ
AntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱRequestȱ1ȱ(Aug.ȱ31,ȱ2022),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ2,ȱECFȱ
No.ȱ43Ȭ1.ȱȱItȱrequestedȱthatȱCommerceȱreviewȱallȱknownȱVietnameseȱproducersȱandȱ
exporters,ȱincludingȱtheȱ“VietnamȬwideȱentity,”ȱofȱfrozenȱfishȱfilletsȱthatȱareȱsubjectȱtoȱ
theȱOrderȱ(theȱ“subjectȱmerchandise”)ȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreview.3ȱȱId.ȱatȱ1–2ȱ&ȱ
Attachment.ȱ
Inȱtheȱpreliminaryȱresultsȱofȱtheȱreview,ȱCommerceȱpreliminarilyȱconcludedȱthatȱ
LusciousȱSeafoodȱdidȱnotȱhaveȱstandingȱasȱaȱ“domesticȱinterestedȱparty”ȱbecauseȱitȱ
ȱ
3ȱTheȱtermȱ“VietnamȬwideȱentity”ȱrefersȱcollectivelyȱtoȱVietnameseȱexportersȱandȱ
producersȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱthatȱdidȱnotȱestablishȱindependenceȱfromȱ
governmentȱcontrolȱandȱthereforeȱdidȱnotȱqualifyȱtoȱreceiveȱaȱ“separateȱrate,”ȱi.e.,ȱaȱrateȱ
separateȱfromȱtheȱrateȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱVietnamȬwideȱentity.ȱȱSeeȱNonȬMarketȱEconomyȱ
AntidumpingȱProceedings:ȱAssessmentȱofȱAntidumpingȱDuties,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ65,694,ȱ65,694ȱ
(Oct.ȱ24,ȱ2011);ȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱtheȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱ
AdministrativeȱReview:ȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnam;ȱ
2021–2022ȱ7–8ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱAug.ȱ31,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ498,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ1.ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ5ȱ
ȱ
failedȱtoȱshowȱitȱwasȱaȱ“bonaȱfide”ȱwholesalerȱofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproduct,ȱand,ȱ
accordingly,ȱcouldȱnotȱsubmitȱaȱvalidȱrequestȱforȱreviewȱofȱVietnameseȱproducersȱandȱ
exporters.ȱȱSeeȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱFromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnam:ȱPreliminaryȱ
ResultsȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview,ȱPreliminaryȱDeterminationȱofȱNoȱ
Shipments,ȱandȱNoticeȱofȱIntentȱToȱRescind,ȱinȱPart;ȱ2021Ȭ2022,ȱ88ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ61,525,ȱ61,526ȱ&ȱ
n.10ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ7,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ499,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ1;ȱDecisionȱ
MemorandumȱforȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱtheȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱ
CertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnam;ȱ2021–2022ȱ5–6ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Admin.ȱAug.ȱ31,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ498,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ1.ȱȱForȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱ
madeȱaȱfinalȱdeterminationȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱlackedȱstandingȱasȱaȱdomesticȱ
interestedȱpartyȱandȱrescindedȱtheȱreviewȱofȱthoseȱcompaniesȱforȱwhichȱtheȱonlyȱ
pendingȱrequestȱforȱreviewȱwasȱmadeȱbyȱLusciousȱSeafood.ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱ4–10,ȱ33;ȱ
FinalȱResults,ȱ89ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ18,597.ȱ
Commerceȱselectedȱtwoȱ“mandatory”ȱrespondentsȱforȱindividualȱexaminationȱinȱ
theȱnineteenthȱreview,ȱassigningȱaȱweightedȱaverageȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ$0.00ȱperȱ
kilogramȱtoȱaȱgroupȱofȱcompaniesȱidentifiedȱcollectivelyȱasȱVinhȱHoanȱCorporationȱandȱ
aȱweightedȱaverageȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ$0.18ȱperȱkilogramȱtoȱCanȱThoȱImportȱExportȱ
SeafoodȱJointȱStockȱCompany.ȱȱFinalȱResults,ȱ89ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ18,595,ȱ18,596ȱ&ȱn.12.ȱȱ
Commerceȱchoseȱtheȱ$0.18ȱperȱkilogramȱrateȱasȱtheȱ“separateȱrate”ȱtoȱapplyȱtoȱfourȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ6ȱ
ȱ
otherȱentitiesȱthatȱwereȱnotȱindividuallyȱexaminedȱinȱtheȱreview.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ18,595,ȱ18,596ȱ
&ȱn.13.ȱ
B.ȱȱProceedingsȱBeforeȱtheȱCourtȱofȱInternationalȱTradeȱ
LusciousȱSeafoodȱcommencedȱthisȱactionȱagainstȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱinȱAprilȱ2024.ȱȱ
Summonsȱ(Apr.ȱ1,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ1;ȱCompl.ȱ(Mayȱ1,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ9.ȱ
TheȱdefendantȬintervenorsȱareȱtwoȱVietnameseȱproducersȱ(NTSFȱSeafoodsȱJointȱ
StockȱCompanyȱandȱBienȱDongȱSeafoodȱCompanyȱLimited)ȱandȱvariousȱdomesticȱ
entitiesȱ(CatfishȱFarmersȱofȱAmerica,ȱAmerica’sȱCatch,ȱInc.,ȱAlabamaȱCatfish,ȱLLCȱd/b/aȱ
HarvestȱSelectȱCatfish,ȱInc.,ȱConsolidatedȱCatfishȱCompanies,ȱLLCȱd/b/aȱCountryȱSelectȱ
Catfish,ȱDeltaȱPrideȱCatfish,ȱInc.,ȱGuidry’sȱCatfish,ȱInc.,ȱHeartlandȱCatfishȱCompany,ȱ
MagnoliaȱProcessing,ȱInc.ȱd/b/aȱPrideȱofȱtheȱPond,ȱandȱSimmonsȱFarmȱRaisedȱCatfish,ȱ
Inc.).ȱȱOrderȱonȱInterventionȱ1ȱ(Mayȱ31,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ24.ȱ
PlaintiffȱmovedȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2ȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecordȱinȱ
Septemberȱ2024.ȱȱPl.’sȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱR.ȱ(Sept.ȱ13,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ33ȱ(Conf.),ȱ
34ȱ(Public)ȱ(“Pl.’sȱMot.”).ȱ
Defendantȱopposedȱplaintiff’sȱmotion.ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱtoȱPl.’sȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱ
AgencyȱR.ȱ(Dec.ȱ13,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ35ȱ(Conf.),ȱ36ȱ(Public)ȱ(“Def.’sȱBr.”).ȱȱTheȱdomesticȱ
defendantȬintervenorsȱalsoȱopposedȱtheȱmotion.ȱȱResp.ȱBr.ȱofȱDef.ȬInts.,ȱCatfishȱFarmersȱ
ofȱAm.,ȱetȱal.ȱ(Jan.ȱ17,ȱ2025),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ37ȱ(Conf.),ȱ38ȱ(Public).ȱȱTheȱVietnameseȱ
defendantȬintervenorsȱopposedȱtheȱmotionȱasȱwell.ȱȱResp.ȱofȱBienȱDongȱSeafoodȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 6 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ7ȱ
ȱ
Co.ȱLtd.ȱandȱNTSFȱSeafoodsȱJointȱStockȱCo.ȱinȱOpp’nȱtoȱPl.’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱ
AgencyȱR.ȱ(Jan.ȱ17,ȱ2025),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ39.ȱ
PlaintiffȱrepliedȱinȱFebruaryȱ2025.ȱȱRepl.ȱbyȱPl.ȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱLLCȱtoȱtheȱ
Resps.ȱbyȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱandȱDef.ȬInts.ȱinȱOpp’nȱtoȱPl.’sȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱR.ȱ
(Feb.ȱ13,ȱ2025),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ40ȱ(Conf.),ȱ41ȱ(Public)ȱ(“Pl.’sȱReply”).ȱ
II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ
InȱmovingȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2,ȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱ
areȱ“notȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱtheȱlaw,ȱnorȱreasonable,ȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱdeterminationȱ
thatȱLusciousȱdidȱnotȱqualifyȱasȱaȱbonaȱfideȱwholesalerȱofȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱduringȱ
theȱPOR.”ȱȱPl.’sȱMot.ȱ24.ȱ
A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReviewȱ
Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱjurisdictionȱunderȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱCourtsȱActȱofȱ
1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱpursuantȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱreviewsȱactionsȱcommencedȱ
underȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariěȱActȱofȱ1930ȱ(“TariěȱAct”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a. 4ȱȱ
Sectionȱ516AȱallowsȱaȱpartyȱtoȱcontestȱaȱęnalȱdeterminationȱthatȱCommerceȱissuesȱtoȱ
concludeȱaȱreviewȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorder.ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii).ȱȱInȱreviewingȱ
aȱęnalȱdeterminationȱaccordingȱtoȱSectionȱ516A,ȱtheȱcourtȱ“shallȱholdȱunlawfulȱanyȱ
determination,ȱęnding,ȱorȱconclusionȱfoundȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtoȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ
ȱ
4ȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱCodeȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2024ȱedition.ȱȱAllȱ
citationsȱtoȱtheȱCodeȱofȱFederalȱRegulationsȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2023ȱedition.ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 7 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ8ȱ
ȱ
evidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱorȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ
§ȱ1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).ȱȱSubstantialȱevidenceȱrefersȱtoȱ“‘suchȱrelevantȱevidenceȱasȱaȱ
reasonableȱmindȱmightȱacceptȱasȱadequateȱtoȱsupportȱaȱconclusion.’”ȱȱSKFȱUSA,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱ
UnitedȱStates,ȱ537ȱF.3dȱ1373,ȱ1378ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2008)ȱ(quotingȱConsol.ȱEdisonȱCo.ȱofȱN.Y.ȱv.ȱ
Nat’lȱLab.ȱRels.ȱBd.,ȱ305ȱU.S.ȱ197,ȱ229ȱ(1938)).ȱ
B.ȱȱStatutoryȱandȱRegulatoryȱProvisionsȱGoverningȱRequestsȱSubmiĴedȱbyȱDomesticȱ
InterestedȱPartiesȱforȱReviewsȱofȱForeignȱExportersȱorȱProducersȱ
ȱ
Sectionȱ751(a)(1)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱdirectsȱCommerceȱtoȱconductȱaȱreviewȱ“[a]tȱ
leastȱonceȱduringȱeachȱ12Ȭmonthȱperiodȱbeginningȱonȱtheȱanniversaryȱofȱtheȱdateȱofȱ
publicationȱofȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱifȱaȱrequestȱforȱsuchȱaȱreviewȱhasȱbeenȱ
received.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1675(a)(1)ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱTheȱstatuteȱdirectsȱthatȱCommerce,ȱ
inȱtheȱreview,ȱ“determineȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱamountȱofȱanyȱantidumpingȱduty”ȱbyȱdeterminingȱ
“theȱnormalȱvalueȱandȱexportȱpriceȱ(orȱconstructedȱexportȱprice)ȱofȱeachȱentryȱofȱtheȱ
subjectȱmerchandise.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1675(a)(1)–(2).ȱ
Sectionȱ751(a)(1)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱdoesȱnotȱidentifyȱwhoȱmayȱrequestȱaȱ12Ȭmonthȱ
(“periodic”)ȱreviewȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorder.ȱȱTheȱDepartment’sȱregulationsȱ
provideȱthatȱaȱ“domesticȱinterestedȱparty”ȱmayȱrequestȱreviewȱ“ofȱspecifiedȱindividualȱ
exportersȱorȱproducersȱcoveredȱbyȱanȱorderȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱifȱtheȱrequestingȱpersonȱstatesȱwhyȱtheȱ
personȱdesiresȱtheȱSecretaryȱ[ofȱCommerce]ȱtoȱreviewȱthoseȱparticularȱexportersȱorȱ
producers.”ȱȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.213(b)(1).ȱȱȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 8 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ9ȱ
ȱ
Theȱregulationsȱprovideȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ“‘[d]omesticȱinterestedȱparty’ȱmeansȱanȱ
interestedȱpartyȱdescribedȱinȱsubparagraphȱ(C),ȱ(D),ȱ(E),ȱ(F),ȱorȱ(G)ȱofȱsectionȱ771(9)ȱofȱ
theȱ[Tariff]ȱActȱ[19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(9)].”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ351.102(b)(17).ȱȱSubparagraphȱ(C)ȱofȱ
sectionȱ771(9)ȱdefinesȱ“theȱtermȱ‘interestedȱparty’”ȱtoȱinclude,ȱinterȱalia,ȱ“aȱ
manufacturer,ȱproducer,ȱorȱwholesalerȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱofȱaȱdomesticȱlikeȱproduct.”ȱȱ
19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(9)(C)ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱSectionȱ771(10)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱprovidesȱthatȱ
“[t]heȱtermȱ‘domesticȱlikeȱproduct’ȱmeansȱaȱproductȱwhichȱisȱlike,ȱorȱinȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱ
like,ȱmostȱsimilarȱinȱcharacteristicsȱandȱusesȱwith,ȱtheȱarticleȱsubjectȱtoȱanȱinvestigationȱ
underȱthisȱsubtitle.” 5ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677(10);ȱseeȱalsoȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.102(a).ȱȱNeitherȱtheȱTariffȱActȱ
norȱtheȱregulationsȱdefineȱtheȱtermȱ“wholesaler”ȱasȱusedȱinȱSectionȱ771(9)(C).ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱDecisionȱtoȱDenyȱ“DomesticȱInterestedȱParty”ȱStatusȱtoȱLusciousȱ
Seafoodȱ
ȱ
AfterȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱsubmittedȱitsȱAugustȱ31,ȱ2022ȱrequestȱforȱreviewȱofȱallȱ
Vietnameseȱproducersȱandȱexportersȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱCommerceȱsentȱ
LusciousȱSeafoodȱtwoȱquestionnairesȱdirectedȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱstandingȱasȱaȱdomesticȱ
ȱ
5ȱDuringȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation,ȱtheȱ“domesticȱlikeȱproduct”ȱorȱ
“products”ȱareȱinitiallyȱdeterminedȱbyȱtheȱU.S.ȱInternationalȱTradeȱCommissionȱinȱtheȱ
preliminaryȱinvestigationȱitȱconductsȱaccordingȱtoȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673bȱtoȱmakeȱaȱ
preliminaryȱdeterminationȱofȱreasonableȱlikelihoodȱofȱinjuryȱorȱthreatȱofȱmaterialȱinjuryȱ
toȱaȱdomesticȱindustryȱorȱofȱmaterialȱretardationȱofȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱanȱindustry.ȱȱ
TheȱCommissionȱconductsȱitsȱfinalȱinvestigationȱtoȱdetermineȱinjuryȱorȱthreatȱofȱ
materialȱinjuryȱtoȱaȱdomesticȱindustryȱorȱmaterialȱretardationȱofȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱanȱ
industryȱaccordingȱtoȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673d.ȱ
ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 9 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ10ȱ
ȱ
interestedȱparty.ȱȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnam:ȱ
QuestionnaireȱforȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ1ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱOctȱ14,ȱ2022),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ33,ȱECFȱ
No.ȱ43Ȭ1ȱ(“InitialȱQuestionnaire”);ȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱ
Vietnam:ȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱforȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱDec.ȱ13,ȱ
2022),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ121,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ1ȱ(“Supp.ȱQuestionnaire”).ȱ
OnȱOctoberȱ25,ȱ2022,ȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱsubmittedȱitsȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱOctoberȱ14,ȱ
2022ȱ“InitialȱQuestionnaire,”ȱwithȱaccompanyingȱexhibits.ȱȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱ
fromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnamȱ–ȱWholesalerȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ(Oct.ȱ25,ȱ2022),ȱ
P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ43,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ1ȱ(“InitialȱQuestionnaireȱResp.”).ȱȱTheȱDecemberȱ13,ȱ2022,ȱ
“SupplementalȱWholesalerȱQuestionnaire”ȱrequestedȱ“additionalȱinformationȱregardingȱ
LusciousȱSeafoods’ȱ[sic]ȱoperations”ȱandȱadditionalȱdocumentationȱsuchȱasȱtaxȱreturns,ȱ
financialȱstatements,ȱandȱdocumentsȱrelatingȱtoȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱpurchasesȱandȱsaleȱ
ofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreview.ȱȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱ1–4.ȱȱOnȱ
Januaryȱ3,ȱ2023,ȱLuciousȱSeafoodȱsubmittedȱitsȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱSupplementalȱ
WholesalerȱQuestionnaire.ȱȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱfromȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnamȱ
–ȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ(Jan.ȱ3,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ157,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ1ȱ(“Supp.ȱ
QuestionnaireȱResp.”).ȱ
OnȱJanuaryȱ27,ȱ2023,ȱCommerceȱissuedȱaȱ“StandingȱMemorandum”ȱfindingȱ
preliminarilyȱthatȱ“theȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱdemonstrateȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafood[]ȱwasȱaȱ
bonaȱfideȱwholesalerȱofȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱduringȱtheȱPOR”ȱandȱwasȱthereforeȱnotȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 10 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ11ȱ
ȱ
“aȱdomesticȱinterestedȱpartyȱpursuantȱtoȱsectionȱ771(9)(C)ȱofȱtheȱActȱ[19ȱU.S.C.ȱ
§ȱ1677(9)(C)].”ȱȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱofȱCertainȱFrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱfromȱ
theȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnam,ȱ2021–2022:ȱLusciousȱSeafoods’ȱStandingȱtoȱRequestȱReviewȱ5ȱ
(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJan.ȱ27,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ196,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ1ȱ(“StandingȱMem.”).ȱȱ
Commerceȱstatedȱthatȱitȱwouldȱ“treatȱLusciousȱSeafood[’s]ȱreviewȱrequestȱasȱvoid”ȱandȱ
thatȱitsȱ“reviewȱwillȱbeȱrescindedȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱanyȱcompaniesȱthatȱareȱunderȱreviewȱ
exclusivelyȱdueȱtoȱtheȱLusciousȱSeafood[]ȱrequest.”ȱȱId.ȱȱInȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱ
“continue[d]ȱtoȱfindȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafood[]ȱdidȱnotȱqualifyȱasȱaȱbonaȱfideȱwholesalerȱofȱ
domesticȱlikeȱproductȱduringȱtheȱPORȱand,ȱthus,ȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱ
standingȱtoȱrequestȱaȱreviewȱasȱaȱdomesticȱinterestedȱparty.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱ7.ȱ
Commerceȱgaveȱvariousȱreasonsȱforȱitsȱreachingȱitsȱultimateȱconclusionȱthatȱ
LusciousȱSeafoodȱlackedȱstandingȱasȱaȱdomesticȱinterestedȱparty.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱ
summarizesȱtheseȱreasonsȱbelow.ȱȱȱ
ExplainingȱinȱtheȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱthatȱ“[t]heȱfocusȱofȱtheȱ
analysisȱisȱonȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱbonaȱfideȱwholesalingȱoperations,”ȱid.,ȱCommerceȱfirstȱ
statedȱaȱgeneralȱconclusionȱthatȱ“theȱdetailsȱsurroundingȱLusciousȱSeafood[’s]ȱ
operations,ȱwhenȱtakenȱasȱaȱwhole,ȱwarrantȱaȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱsupportȱ
LusciousȱSeafood[’s]ȱclaimȱthatȱitȱwasȱaȱbonaȱfideȱwholesalerȱofȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱ
duringȱtheȱPOR,”ȱid.ȱatȱ7–8ȱ(citingȱStandingȱMem.ȱ4).ȱȱTheȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 11 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ12ȱ
ȱ
Memorandumȱconcluded,ȱinȱparticular,ȱthatȱ“Commerceȱwasȱnotȱableȱtoȱconfirmȱtheȱ
bonaȱfidesȱofȱLusciousȱSeafood[’s]ȱcommercialȱtransactions.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ10.ȱ
Second,ȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱ“LusciousȱSeafood[]ȱfailedȱtoȱprovide,ȱatȱourȱ
explicitȱrequest,ȱcertainȱinformationȱ(relatingȱtoȱtheȱcompany’sȱbanking)ȱasȱwellȱasȱ
variousȱbusinessȱdocuments,ȱwhichȱweȱdeemedȱrelevantȱtoȱourȱanalysis.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ8ȱ(citingȱ
StandingȱMem.ȱ4).ȱ
Commerceȱfound,ȱthird,ȱthatȱresponsesȱbyȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ
inquiriesȱ“containedȱinconsistenciesȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱtimingȱofȱitsȱinitialȱactivityȱandȱ
theȱpersonnelȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱcompany’sȱoperations.”ȱȱId.ȱ(citingȱStandingȱMem.ȱ4).ȱ
Fourth,ȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ“mischaracterizedȱitsȱ
relationshipȱwithȱanotherȱcompany,ȱleadingȱtoȱanȱinconsistentȱrecordȱinȱthisȱregard.”ȱȱ
Id.ȱatȱ9ȱ(citingȱStandingȱMem.ȱ4).ȱ
D.ȱȱHavingȱFailedȱtoȱDeęneȱWhatȱItȱMeantȱbyȱtheȱTermȱ“BonaȱFide”ȱWholesaler,ȱ
CommerceȱProvidedȱNoȱConvincingȱExplanationȱofȱWhyȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱDidȱNotȱ
QualifyȱasȱOneȱ
ȱ
Commerceȱdidȱnotȱdefineȱwhatȱitȱmeantȱwhenȱitȱusedȱtheȱtermȱ“bonaȱfideȱ
wholesaler.”ȱȱTheȱliteralȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱLatinȱtermȱisȱ“goodȱfaith.”ȱȱSeeȱBonaȱFide,ȱ
Black’sȱLawȱDictionaryȱ(12thȱed.ȱ2024)ȱ(“1.ȱMadeȱinȱgoodȱfaith;ȱwithoutȱfraudȱorȱdeceit.ȱȱ
2.ȱSincere;ȱgenuine.”).ȱ
Commerceȱdidȱnotȱpointȱto,ȱorȱbaseȱitsȱdecisionȱon,ȱrecordȱevidenceȱthatȱLusciousȱ
Seafood’sȱbusinessȱtransactionsȱduringȱtheȱPORȱwereȱfraudulent,ȱdeceitful,ȱorȱotherwiseȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 12 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ13ȱ
ȱ
madeȱonȱaȱfalseȱpretense.ȱȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱlacksȱfindingsȱorȱ
reasoningȱunderȱwhichȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱbusinessȱtransactionsȱduringȱtheȱPORȱwereȱ
notȱmadeȱinȱgoodȱfaith.ȱȱInstead,ȱCommerceȱ“examinedȱinformationȱrelatingȱtoȱvariousȱ
criteriaȱinȱourȱanalysis”ȱandȱexplainedȱthatȱ“[t]heseȱconsiderationsȱincludedȱtheȱ
company’sȱlimitedȱhistoryȱandȱtimingȱofȱitsȱestablishment,ȱtheȱlimitedȱnumberȱofȱ
transactionsȱduringȱtheȱPOR,ȱandȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱthoseȱlimitedȱtransactionsȱ
reflectedȱaȱcommerciallyȱreasonableȱandȱsustainableȱbusinessȱactivity.”ȱȱFinalȱI&Dȱ
Mem.ȱ8ȱ(citingȱStandingȱMem.ȱ3).ȱȱCommerceȱpointedȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ
“madeȱaȱsingleȱsaleȱofȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱtoȱaȱretailerȱduringȱtheȱPOR.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ9.ȱȱ
Commerceȱalsoȱnotedȱthatȱthisȱwasȱnotȱaȱprofitableȱsale.ȱȱStandingȱMem.ȱ3.ȱȱThereȱareȱ
twoȱproblemsȱwithȱthisȱanalysis.ȱ
First,ȱwhatȱCommerceȱdescribedȱasȱitsȱ“considerations”ȱareȱnotȱdirectedȱtoȱ
whetherȱtheȱbusinessȱtransactionsȱwereȱmadeȱinȱgoodȱfaithȱbutȱinsteadȱpertainȱ
generallyȱtoȱhowȱwellȬestablishedȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱwasȱasȱanȱenterpriseȱduringȱtheȱ
POR.ȱȱTheȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionsȱMemorandumȱstates,ȱnevertheless,ȱthatȱ“[i]nȱanyȱcase,ȱ
Commerce’sȱtreatmentȱofȱLusciousȱSeafood[]ȱwasȱclearlyȱnotȱbasedȱsolelyȱonȱitȱ[sic]ȱ
beingȱaȱnewȱcompany.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ8.ȱȱRegardless,ȱtheȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱ
doesȱnotȱexplainȱwhyȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱinexperienceȱasȱaȱgoingȱconcernȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱ
theȱPORȱwasȱaȱconvincingȱreasonȱsupportingȱdisqualificationȱasȱaȱdomesticȱinterestedȱ
party.ȱȱInȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱaȱfinding,ȱorȱrecordȱevidence,ȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱbusinessȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 13 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ14ȱ
ȱ
transactionsȱwereȱnotȱmadeȱinȱgoodȱfaith,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱofferingȱasȱaȱreasonȱforȱitsȱ
decisionȱthatȱ“itȱisȱincumbentȱuponȱCommerceȱtoȱprotectȱtheȱintegrityȱofȱitsȱ
proceedings,”ȱid.ȱatȱ9ȱ(footnoteȱcitationȱomitted), 6ȱringsȱhollow.ȱ
Second,ȱCommerceȱidentifiedȱtheȱsourceȱofȱitsȱconsiderationsȱasȱthoseȱitȱappliesȱ
whenȱdeterminingȱwhetherȱaȱU.S.ȱsaleȱqualifiesȱasȱaȱbonaȱfideȱtransactionȱforȱpurposesȱofȱ
qualifyingȱaȱpartyȱforȱaȱ“newȱshipper”ȱreview.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ8ȱ&ȱn.20ȱ(listing,ȱasȱnonȬexclusiveȱ
“factors,”ȱ“theȱtimingȱofȱtheȱsale;ȱtheȱsaleȱpriceȱandȱquantity;ȱtheȱexpensesȱarisingȱfromȱ
theȱsalesȱtransaction;ȱwhetherȱtheȱsaleȱwasȱsoldȱtoȱtheȱcustomerȱatȱaȱloss;ȱandȱwhetherȱ
theȱsalesȱtransactionȱbetweenȱtheȱexporterȱandȱimporterȱwasȱexecutedȱonȱanȱarm’sȬ
lengthȱbasis”).ȱȱInȱaȱnewȱshipperȱreview,ȱnewȱexportersȱandȱproducersȱmayȱrequestȱaȱ
periodicȱreviewȱtoȱreceiveȱanȱindividualȱdumpingȱmarginȱorȱcountervailingȱdutyȱrate.ȱȱ
19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1675(a)(2)(B)(i).ȱȱAnyȱrateȱassignedȱtoȱaȱnewȱshipperȱ“shallȱbeȱbasedȱsolelyȱ
onȱtheȱbonaȱfideȱUnitedȱStatesȱsales”ȱitȱ“madeȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱcoveredȱbyȱtheȱ
ȱ
6ȱInȱitsȱfootnote,ȱtheȱagencyȱcitedȱNewȱMexicoȱGarlicȱGrowersȱCoalitionȱv.ȱUnitedȱ
States,ȱ953ȱF.3dȱ1358,ȱ1371ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2020)ȱandȱHarmoniȱInternationalȱSpiceȱInc.ȱv.ȱHume,ȱ
914ȱF.3dȱ648ȱ(9thȱCir.ȱ2019).ȱȱNewȱMexicoȱGarlicȱGrowersȱisȱinappositeȱbecauseȱtheȱ
domesticȱproducerȱthereȱdidȱnotȱcontestȱtheȱadministrativeȱdeterminationȱthatȱitsȱ
reviewȱrequestȱcontainedȱmisrepresentations,ȱincludingȱthatȱitȱhadȱnotȱcolludedȱwithȱ
theȱexporterȱforȱwhichȱitȱrequestedȱreview.ȱȱN.M.ȱGarlicȱGrowersȱCoal.,ȱ953ȱF.3dȱatȱ
1365–67,ȱ1370–71.ȱȱOnȱtheȱcurrentȱrecord,ȱCommerceȱhasȱnotȱidentifiedȱanyȱcollusionȱorȱ
evidenceȱnecessitatingȱthatȱitȱdrawȱuponȱitsȱ“inherentȱauthorityȱtoȱdefendȱtheȱintegrityȱ
ofȱitsȱproceedings.”ȱȱSeeȱid.ȱatȱ1371.ȱȱAlsoȱinappositeȱisȱHarmoniȱInt’lȱSpiceȱInc.,ȱaȱdecisionȱ
byȱtheȱU.S.ȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱNinthȱCircuitȱwithȱnoȱbindingȱauthorityȱonȱthisȱ
Court,ȱwhichȱanalyzedȱproximateȱcauseȱunderȱtheȱRacketeerȱInfluencedȱandȱCorruptȱ
OrganizationsȱAct,ȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§§ȱ1961–68.ȱȱHarmoniȱInt’lȱSpice,ȱ914ȱF.3dȱatȱ650.ȱ
ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 14 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ15ȱ
ȱ
review.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1675(a)(2)(B)(iv).ȱȱTheȱstatuteȱlistsȱsevenȱfactorsȱthatȱCommerceȱ“shallȱ
consider”ȱinȱdeterminingȱwhetherȱtheȱU.S.ȱsalesȱwereȱbonaȱfide.7ȱȱId.ȱ
§ȱ1675(a)(2)(B)(iv)(I)–(VII).ȱȱBecauseȱtheȱpricesȱinȱaȱU.S.ȱsaleȱorȱsalesȱformȱtheȱbasisȱforȱ
theȱnewȱshipper’sȱrate,ȱCommerceȱmustȱensureȱthatȱtheȱsalesȱpriceȱorȱpricesȱareȱnotȱ
basedȱonȱartificeȱorȱcollusion.ȱȱHere,ȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱdoesȱnotȱseekȱanȱindividualȱrateȱ
forȱitselfȱasȱaȱforeignȱexporterȱorȱproducerȱbutȱinsteadȱclaimsȱaȱneedȱforȱprotectionȱfromȱ
unfairlyȱtradedȱimports.ȱȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱexplainȱhowȱtheȱ“newȱshipper”ȱfactorsȱ
uponȱwhichȱitȱreliedȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱonȱstandingȱitȱwasȱrequiredȱtoȱmakeȱinȱtheȱ
review.ȱ
E.ȱȱTheȱFindingȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱDidȱNotȱProvideȱRequestedȱInformationȱDidȱ
NotȱSupportȱtheȱDepartment’sȱDecisionȱ
ȱ
CommerceȱdeterminedȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱlackedȱstandingȱbecauseȱitȱ“failedȱ
toȱprovide,ȱatȱourȱexplicitȱrequest,ȱcertainȱinformationȱ(relatingȱtoȱtheȱcompany’sȱ
ȱ
7ȱThoseȱfactorsȱare:ȱ
ȱ
(I)ȱtheȱpricesȱofȱsuchȱsales;ȱ
(II)ȱwhetherȱsuchȱsalesȱwereȱmadeȱinȱcommercialȱquantities;ȱ
(III)ȱtheȱtimingȱofȱsuchȱsales;ȱ
(IV)ȱtheȱexpensesȱarisingȱfromȱsuchȱsales;ȱȱ
(V)ȱwhetherȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱinvolvedȱinȱsuchȱsalesȱwasȱresoldȱinȱ
theȱUnitedȱStatesȱatȱaȱprofit;ȱ
(VI)ȱwhetherȱsuchȱsalesȱwereȱmadeȱonȱanȱarmsȬlengthȱbasis;ȱandȱȱ
(VII)ȱanyȱotherȱfactorȱtheȱadministeringȱauthorityȱdeterminesȱtoȱbeȱ
relevantȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱsuchȱsalesȱare,ȱorȱareȱnot,ȱlikelyȱtoȱbeȱtypicalȱofȱ
thoseȱtheȱexporterȱorȱproducerȱwillȱmakeȱafterȱcompletionȱofȱtheȱreview.ȱ
ȱ
19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1675(a)(2)(B)(iv)(I)–(VII).ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 15 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ16ȱ
ȱ
banking)ȱasȱwellȱasȱvariousȱbusinessȱdocuments,ȱwhichȱweȱdeemedȱrelevantȱtoȱourȱ
analysis.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱ8ȱ(footnoteȱcitationȱomitted).ȱȱThoseȱdocumentsȱincludedȱ
“copiesȱofȱallȱrequestedȱbusinessȱregistrationsȱandȱtaxȱdocuments,”ȱasȱwellȱasȱ
“supportingȱdocumentsȱregardingȱtheȱsource(s)ȱofȱitsȱfunding.”ȱȱStandingȱMem.ȱ3–4.ȱ
TheȱfindingȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ“failedȱtoȱprovide”ȱtheȱrequestedȱbankingȱandȱ
businessȱdocuments,ȱasȱstatedȱinȱtheȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandum,ȱFinalȱI&Dȱ
Mem.ȱ8,ȱdoesȱnotȱsupportȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdenialȱofȱstanding.ȱȱItȱimplies,ȱwithoutȱ
clearlyȱstating,ȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ“failed”ȱtoȱcooperateȱwithȱCommerceȱorȱhinderedȱ
theȱDepartment’sȱstandingȱinquiry.ȱȱTheȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱdoesȱnotȱ
demonstrateȱthatȱCommerceȱadequatelyȱconsideredȱrecordȱevidenceȱconsistingȱofȱtheȱ
explanationsȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱprovidedȱinȱitsȱquestionnaireȱresponses.ȱ
Specifically,ȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱ“businessȱdocuments,”ȱCommerceȱrequested,ȱ“[f]orȱ
eachȱstateȱinȱwhichȱLusciousȱSeafood[]ȱdoesȱbusiness,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcompleteȱcopiesȱofȱallȱstateȱ
filings,ȱincludingȱarticlesȱofȱincorporation,ȱbusinessȱlicenses,ȱandȱtaxȱdocumentsȱfromȱitsȱ
initialȱregistrationȱtoȱpresent.”ȱȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱ2.ȱȱInȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱrequest,ȱ
LusciousȱSeafoodȱprovidedȱstateȱregistrationȱdocumentation,ȱaȱtaxȱreceiptȱpertainingȱtoȱ
thatȱregistration,ȱandȱaȱcopyȱofȱtheȱlatestȱversionȱofȱaȱmunicipalȱbusinessȱlicenseȱthatȱitȱ
statedȱthatȱitȱhadȱinȱitsȱpossession.ȱȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱ1ȱ&ȱEx.ȱ1.ȱȱLusciousȱ
Seafoodȱexplainedȱthatȱitȱhadȱrequestedȱaȱcopyȱofȱtheȱlatestȱbusinessȱlicenseȱbutȱhadȱnotȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 16 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ17ȱ
ȱ
yetȱreceivedȱit.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ1.ȱȱItȱexplained,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱitsȱbusinessȱactivitiesȱdidȱnotȱrequireȱ
itȱtoȱfileȱanȱincomeȱtaxȱreturnȱduringȱtheȱrelevantȱtaxȱyear.ȱȱId.ȱȱ
CommerceȱalsoȱrequestedȱcopiesȱofȱallȱofȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱ“U.S.ȱgovernmentȱ
licensingȱandȱregistrationȱfilings,ȱincludingȱFSISȱFormȱ5020Ȭ1ȱRegistrationȱofȱMeatȱandȱ
PoultryȱHandlers.”ȱȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱ2.ȱȱLusciousȱexplainedȱthatȱtheȱformȱCommerceȱ
requestedȱwasȱinapplicableȱbecauseȱtheȱcompanyȱwasȱnotȱsubjectȱtoȱaȱregistrationȱorȱ
inspectionȱrequirementȱofȱtheȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱAgricultureȱorȱofȱanyȱotherȱU.S.ȱ
governmentȱagency.ȱȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱ2.ȱ
Withȱrespectȱtoȱbankingȱinformation,ȱCommerceȱrequestedȱ“[f]orȱallȱbankȱ
accountsȱusedȱbyȱLusciousȱSeafood[]ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcopiesȱofȱbankȱstatementsȱforȱeachȱmonthȱfromȱ
theȱcompany’sȱinceptionȱtoȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱPOR,”ȱasȱwellȱasȱ“copiesȱofȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱdepositȱslipsȱ
andȱchecksȱwhichȱfundedȱyourȱpurchasesȱofȱtheȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱduringȱtheȱ
POR.”ȱȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱ4.ȱȱInȱresponse,ȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱprovidedȱ“screenshots”ȱofȱ
itsȱbankȱtransactionȱrecords.ȱȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱ5ȱ&ȱEx.ȱ5.ȱȱInȱtheȱStandingȱ
Memorandum,ȱCommerceȱobjectedȱthatȱtheȱscreenshotsȱ“didȱnotȱidentifyȱtheȱownerȱofȱ
theȱaccountsȱorȱtheȱsourceȱofȱtheȱfundsȱtherein.”ȱȱStandingȱMem.ȱ4.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdoesȱnotȱ
findȱinȱtheȱrecordȱaȱfactualȱbasisȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱscreenshotsȱdidȱnotȱ
pertainȱtoȱLusciousȱSeafood.ȱȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱsendȱfurtherȱinquiriesȱrequestingȱ
documentsȱorȱclarifications.ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 17 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ18ȱ
ȱ
F.ȱȱTheȱFindingȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱResponsesȱ“ContainedȱInconsistencies”ȱ
RegardingȱtheȱTimingȱofȱInitialȱActivitiesȱandȱPersonnelȱInvolvedȱinȱitsȱOperationsȱ
DidȱNotȱSupportȱtheȱDepartment’sȱDecisionȱ
ȱ
CommerceȱdeterminedȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱlackedȱstandingȱbecauseȱitsȱ
“variousȱresponsesȱcontainedȱinconsistenciesȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱtimingȱofȱitsȱinitialȱ
activityȱandȱtheȱpersonnelȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱcompany’sȱoperations.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱ8.ȱȱ
Commerceȱfoundȱ“[t]heseȱfactorsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱmeaningful,ȱespeciallyȱgivenȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱ
companyȱasȱaȱfirstȬtimeȱparticipantȱinȱtheȱproceeding.”ȱȱId.ȱ
Theȱ“timingȱofȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinitialȱactivity”ȱpertainsȱtoȱtheȱdateȱwhenȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ
beganȱoperatingȱasȱaȱdomesticȱwholesaler.ȱȱInȱtheȱInitialȱQuestionnaire,ȱCommerceȱ
asked,ȱ“[p]leaseȱprovideȱaȱhistoryȱofȱLusciousȱSeafood[],ȱi.e.,ȱwhenȱyourȱcompanyȱwasȱ
incorporated,ȱfirstȱstartedȱoperatingȱ(buyingȱandȱselling)ȱasȱaȱwholesaler,ȱandȱfirstȱ
startedȱoperatingȱ(buyingȱandȱselling)ȱasȱaȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱwholesaler.”ȱȱInitialȱ
Questionnaireȱ1.ȱȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱrespondedȱthatȱ“Lusciousȱwasȱincorporatedȱasȱaȱ
DelawareȱdomesticȱlimitedȬliabilityȱcompanyȱonȱMayȱ4,ȱ2021.ȱȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱLusciousȱstartedȱ
operatingȱasȱaȱwholesalerȱandȱstartedȱoperatingȱ(buyingȱandȱselling)ȱasȱaȱdomesticȱlikeȱ
productȱwholesalerȱinȱ2021.”ȱȱInitialȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱ1.ȱȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱtheȱ
documentationȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱprovidedȱisȱinconsistentȱwithȱanotherȱresponse,ȱwhichȱ
disclosedȱthatȱtheȱwholesalingȱactivityȱbeganȱinȱ2022,ȱnotȱ2021.ȱȱStandingȱMem.ȱ4.ȱȱTheȱ
courtȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱcontainsȱaȱdiscrepancyȱasȱtoȱ
theȱdateȱonȱwhichȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱbeganȱoperatingȱasȱaȱwholesaler.ȱȱButȱtheȱcourtȱisȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 18 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ19ȱ
ȱ
notȱpersuadedȱthatȱthisȱdiscrepancyȱwasȱsufficientȱtoȱsupportȱaȱdenialȱofȱstanding.ȱȱInȱ
otherȱquestionnaireȱresponses,ȱLusciousȱreportedȱpurchaseȱtransactions,ȱandȱoneȱsalesȱ
transaction,ȱforȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproduct,ȱallȱofȱwhichȱitȱreportedȱasȱtakingȱplaceȱinȱ
2022.ȱȱInitialȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱExs.ȱ2ȱ&ȱ4.ȱȱTheȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱshowȱthatȱtheȱ
discrepancyȱwasȱotherȱthanȱanȱinadvertentȱmisstatement.ȱȱHereȱalso,ȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱ
followȱupȱwithȱaȱrequestȱforȱclarification.ȱ
Theȱinconsistencyȱregardingȱtheȱ“personnel”ȱinvolvedȱinȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱ
operationsȱpertainedȱtoȱtheȱidentitiesȱandȱnumberȱofȱtheȱcompany’sȱownersȱandȱ
employees.ȱȱInȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱrequestȱtoȱ“provideȱaȱdetailedȱlistȱofȱallȱ
yourȱowner(s)ȱandȱemployee(s)ȱfromȱyourȱinceptionȱtoȱpresent,”ȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱ2,ȱ
LusciousȱSeafoodȱidentifiedȱaȱsoleȱownerȱasȱitsȱonlyȱemployee,ȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱ
Resp.ȱ2.ȱȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱtheȱnameȱofȱtheȱsoleȱownerȱwasȱnotȱtheȱpersonȱidentifiedȱ
asȱtheȱbillingȱcontactȱonȱaȱshippingȱinvoiceȱandȱthatȱtheȱphoneȱnumberȱonȱtheȱbusinessȱ
licenseȱwasȱregisteredȱtoȱsomeoneȱotherȱthanȱtheȱsoleȱowner.ȱȱStandingȱMem.ȱ4ȱ(citingȱ
FrozenȱFishȱFilletsȱfromȱVietnamȱ–ȱRebuttalȱFactualȱInformationȱtoȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱ
WholesalerȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ6ȱ&ȱEx.ȱRFIȬ3ȱ(Jan.ȱ13,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.ȱ
Doc.ȱ180–85,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43Ȭ2);ȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱEx.ȱ6.ȱȱHereȱagain,ȱtheȱflawȱinȱtheȱ
Department’sȱanalysisȱisȱthatȱCommerceȱgaveȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱnoȱopportunityȱtoȱ
addressȱtheseȱissuesȱbeforeȱdenyingȱitȱstanding.ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 19 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ20ȱ
ȱ
G.ȱȱTheȱFindingȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ“MischaracterizedȱitsȱRelationshipȱwithȱ
AnotherȱCompany”ȱDidȱNotȱSupportȱtheȱDepartment’sȱDecisionȱ
ȱ
Inȱ“‘determiningȱwhetherȱLusciousȱSeafood[’s]ȱcommercialȱactivitiesȱareȱbonaȱ
fide,’”ȱDef.’sȱBr.ȱ32ȱ(internalȱcitationȱomitted),ȱCommerceȱconsideredȱ“whetherȱtheȱsalesȱ
transactionȱbetweenȱ[LusciousȱSeafood]ȱandȱ[oneȱofȱits]ȱsupplier[s]ȱwasȱexecutedȱonȱanȱ
arm’sȬlengthȱbasis,”ȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱ9.ȱȱInȱtheȱInitialȱQuestionnaire,ȱCommerceȱaskedȱ
LusciousȱSeafoodȱtoȱ“provideȱtheȱtotalȱquantityȱandȱvalueȱofȱLusciousȱSeafood[’s]ȱ
purchasesȱofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱduringȱtheȱPORȱonȱaȱsupplierȬspecificȱbasis”ȱandȱ
toȱ“provideȱadditionalȱdocumentationȱpertainingȱtoȱpurchasesȱofȱdomesticȱlikeȱ
product.”ȱȱInitialȱQuestionnaireȱ2–3.ȱȱInȱresponse,ȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱidentifiedȱtheȱ
quantityȱandȱvalueȱofȱtheȱpurchasesȱofȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱitȱmadeȱduringȱtheȱPORȱ
andȱattachedȱ“allȱrelevantȱcommercialȱdocumentsȱgeneratedȱduringȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱ
purchase,ȱincluding:ȱpurchaseȬnegotiationȱemails;ȱsupplierȱinvoices;ȱproofȱofȱ
payment/receipts,ȱandȱexcerptsȱfromȱtheȱrelevantȱfinancialȱaccounts.”ȱȱInitialȱ
QuestionnaireȱResp.ȱ2–3ȱ&ȱEx.ȱ2.ȱ
InȱtheȱSupplementalȱWholesalerȱQuestionnaire,ȱCommerceȱaskedȱLusciousȱ
Seafoodȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱitsȱownerȱandȱtheȱownerȱofȱoneȱofȱitsȱ
suppliersȱofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproduct.ȱȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱ3.ȱȱItȱalsoȱaskedȱLusciousȱ
Seafoodȱtoȱ“describeȱinȱdetailȱyourȱrelationshipȱwithȱ[theȱsupplier].”ȱȱId.ȱȱInȱresponse,ȱ
LusciousȱSeafoodȱstatedȱthatȱ“[t]hereȱisȱnoȱrelationshipȱwithȱ[theȱsupplier]”ȱbutȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 20 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ21ȱ
ȱ
explainedȱthatȱtheȱsupplierȱwasȱownedȱbyȱtheȱstepfatherȱofȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱowner.ȱȱ
Supp.ȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱ3.ȱ
TheȱfindingȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ“mischaracterized”ȱitsȱrelationshipȱtoȱaȱ
supplierȱisȱunsupportedȱbyȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱdisclosedȱtheȱpersonalȱ
relationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱownerȱofȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱandȱtheȱownerȱofȱoneȱofȱitsȱ
suppliers.ȱȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱstatingȱthatȱthereȱwasȱ“noȱrelationship”ȱwithȱtheȱsupplierȱ
wasȱnotȱaȱmischaracterizationȱwhenȱinterpretedȱinȱlightȱofȱthatȱdisclosureȱandȱtheȱfactȱ
thatȱtheȱrelationshipȱbeingȱdisclosedȱwasȱofȱitsȱowner,ȱnotȱaȱrelationshipȱofȱtheȱ
corporateȱentityȱitself.ȱȱȱ
TheȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱstatedȱthatȱ“Commerceȱwasȱnotȱableȱtoȱ
confirmȱtheȱbonaȱfidesȱofȱLusciousȱSeafood[’s]ȱcommercialȱtransactions,”ȱFinalȱI&Dȱ
Mem.ȱ10,ȱbutȱevenȱwereȱitȱassumedȱthatȱtheȱpurchaseȱfromȱtheȱsupplierȱownedȱbyȱtheȱ
stepfatherȱwasȱmadeȱatȱlessȱthanȱaȱmarketȱprice—andȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱfindȱthatȱitȱ
was—theȱpurchaseȱatȱissueȱdidȱnotȱmakeȱLusciousȱSeafood’sȱsingleȱsaleȱofȱtheȱdomesticȱ
likeȱproductȱaȱprofitableȱsale.ȱȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱdisclosedȱthatȱitsȱsaleȱofȱtheȱdomesticȱ
likeȱproduct,ȱwhichȱwasȱmadeȱtoȱanȱunrelatedȱparty,ȱwasȱnotȱmadeȱatȱaȱprofit,ȱandȱitȱ
identifiedȱasȱtheȱreasonȱlogisticalȱissues,ȱincludingȱstorageȱcosts,ȱaffectingȱthatȱ
transaction.ȱȱSupp.ȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱ5–6.ȱȱTheȱsaleȱwasȱforȱaȱsignificantȱquantityȱandȱ
valueȱofȱaȱdomesticȱseafoodȱproduct.ȱȱConsideredȱonȱtheȱwhole,ȱtheȱdisclosedȱfactsȱ
aboutȱtheȱdomesticȱsaleȱmadeȱbyȱLusciousȱSeafood,ȱincludingȱtheȱfactȱthatȱitȱwasȱnotȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 21 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ22ȱ
ȱ
madeȱatȱaȱprofit,ȱdoȱnotȱsupportȱaȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱsaleȱwasȱotherȱthanȱbonaȱfide.ȱȱNorȱdoȱ
theȱrecordȱfactsȱconstituteȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱtoȱestablishȱaȱlackȱofȱbonaȱfidesȱforȱtheȱ
purchaseȱtransactions.ȱ
H.ȱȱPlaintiě’sȱRequestȱforȱaȱRemandȱ
ȱ
Asȱaȱremedy,ȱplaintiffȱȱ
requestsȱthatȱtheȱCourtȱremandȱthisȱactionȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱ
redeterminationȱwithȱinstructionsȱtoȱfindȱthatȱLusciousȱwasȱaȱdomesticȱ
wholesalerȱinterestedȱpartyȱinȱtheȱnineteenthȱadministrativeȱreviewȱwithȱ
standingȱtoȱrequestȱaȱreview—andȱthatȱCommerceȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱ
rescindedȱitsȱreviewȱregardingȱanyȱcompaniesȱnamedȱinȱLuscious’sȱ
reviewȱrequestȱthatȱmadeȱreviewableȱentriesȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreview.ȱ
ȱ
Pl.’sȱMot.ȱ24.ȱ
CommerceȱdidȱnotȱreviewȱtheȱVietnamȬwideȱentityȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱfindingȱ
asȱaȱfactȱthatȱ“[t]hereȱwereȱnoȱentriesȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱforȱtheȱVietnamȬwideȱ
entity,”ȱFinalȱResults,ȱ89ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ18,595,ȱandȱprovidedȱthatȱ“forȱallȱVietnameseȱ
exportersȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱthatȱhaveȱnotȱbeenȱfoundȱtoȱbeȱentitledȱtoȱaȱseparateȱ
rate,ȱtheȱcashȱdepositȱrateȱwillȱbeȱtheȱrateȱforȱtheȱVietnamȬwideȱentityȱ(i.e.,ȱ$2.39ȱperȱ
kilogram),”ȱid.ȱatȱ18,596.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱreachesȱnoȱdecisionȱonȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱtheȱfindingȱ
thatȱthereȱwereȱnoȱentriesȱforȱVietnamȬwideȱentityȱbecauseȱLusciousȱSeafood,ȱalthoughȱ
havingȱrequestedȱaȱreviewȱofȱtheȱVietnamȬwideȱentityȱatȱtheȱoutsetȱofȱtheȱreview,ȱfailedȱ
toȱcontestȱthatȱfindingȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱSeeȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2(c)ȱ(requiringȱaȱpartyȱ
contestingȱanȱagencyȱdeterminationȱtoȱidentify,ȱwhereȱapplicable,ȱtheȱfindingsȱmadeȱbyȱ
theȱagencyȱthatȱareȱclaimedȱtoȱbeȱ“unsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence”).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 22 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ23ȱ
ȱ
willȱnotȱorderȱCommerceȱtoȱreviewȱtheȱVietnamȬwideȱentityȱinȱanyȱfurtherȱremedyȱtheȱ
courtȱmayȱorderȱinȱthisȱcase.ȱ
Further,ȱinȱchallengingȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱstandingȱdetermination,ȱLusciousȱ
SeafoodȱdidȱnotȱcontestȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱonȱmandatoryȱrespondentȱselectionȱ
andȱdoesȱnotȱidentifyȱmandatoryȱrespondentȱselectionȱinȱitsȱrequestȱforȱaȱremedy.ȱȱ
Therefore,ȱanyȱremedyȱtheȱcourtȱordersȱwillȱnotȱdirectȱCommerceȱtoȱreconsiderȱitsȱ
selectionȱofȱmandatoryȱrespondents.8ȱ
Forȱtheseȱreasons,ȱtheȱcourtȱwillȱorderȱCommerceȱtoȱreconsiderȱitsȱdecisionȱ
denyingȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱstandingȱasȱaȱwholesalerȱofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱand,ȱifȱ
determiningȱonȱremandȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱhasȱsuchȱstanding,ȱtoȱidentifyȱthoseȱ
exportersȱandȱproducersȱthatȱwereȱnotȱindividuallyȱexaminedȱandȱthatȱwouldȱreceiveȱ
theȱseparateȱrateȱshouldȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱbeȱsustained. 9ȱ
ȱ
8ȱDefendantȬintervenorȱCatfishȱFarmersȱofȱAmericaȱarguesȱthatȱ“Luscious’sȱ
requestȱwouldȱhaveȱalteredȱCommerce’sȱmandatoryȱrespondentȱselection,ȱandȱwouldȱ
thusȱhaveȱimpactedȱ(1)ȱtheȱagency’sȱoverallȱworkloadȱandȱmandatoryȱrespondentȱ
calculationsȱbyȱeitherȱaddingȱorȱsubstitutingȱaȱmandatoryȱrespondent,ȱandȱ(2)ȱtheȱ
calculationȱofȱtheȱseparateȱrate.”ȱȱResp.ȱBr.ȱofȱDef.ȬInts.,ȱCatfishȱFarmersȱofȱAm.,ȱetȱal.ȱ9ȱ
(Jan.ȱ17,ȱ2025),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ37ȱ(Conf.),ȱ38ȱ(Public).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdoesȱnotȱaddressȱtheȱ
“mandatoryȱselection”ȱargumentȱbecause,ȱasȱnotedȱabove,ȱplaintiffȱdidȱnotȱcontestȱtheȱ
Department’sȱdecisionȱonȱmandatoryȱrespondentȱselectionȱandȱdidȱnotȱseekȱaȱremedyȱ
asȱtoȱthatȱdecision.ȱ
ȱ
9ȱThisȱCourtȱcontemporaneouslyȱisȱorderingȱaȱremandȱinȱaȱcaseȱcontestingȱ
aspectsȱofȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱunrelatedȱtoȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱCatfishȱFarmersȱofȱAm.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱ
States,ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00082ȱ(Dec.ȱ15,ȱ2025).ȱȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱtheȱ$0.18ȱperȱkilogramȱrateȱ
assignedȱtoȱCanȱThoȱImportȱExportȱSeafoodȱJointȱStockȱCompanyȱandȱtoȱtheȱseparateȱ
(Continued…)ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 23 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ24ȱ
ȱ
III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱ
TheȱcourtȱremandsȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱreconsideration,ȱinȱ
accordanceȱwithȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder,ȱofȱitsȱdeterminationȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱ
lackedȱstandingȱasȱaȱwholesalerȱofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproduct.ȱ
Therefore,ȱuponȱconsiderationȱofȱplaintiff’sȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱ
record,ȱuponȱallȱpapersȱandȱproceedingsȱhadȱherein,ȱandȱuponȱdueȱdeliberation,ȱitȱisȱ
herebyȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱPlaintiff’sȱMotionȱforȱJudgmentȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱRecordȱ(Sept.ȱ13,ȱ
2024),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ33ȱ(Conf.),ȱ34ȱ(Public)ȱbe,ȱandȱherebyȱis,ȱgranted;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerceȱshallȱissueȱaȱnewȱdeterminationȱ(theȱ“Remandȱ
Redetermination”)ȱinȱwhichȱitȱdecidesȱwhetherȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱhadȱstandingȱtoȱ
requestȱanȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱcertainȱVietnameseȱexportersȱandȱproducers,ȱ
ensuringȱthatȱanyȱfactualȱfindingsȱareȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱ
andȱprovidingȱanȱexplanationȱofȱitsȱreasoning;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱifȱCommerceȱfindsȱthatȱLusciousȱSeafoodȱhadȱstandingȱasȱ
describedȱabove,ȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱshallȱidentifyȱthoseȱexportersȱandȱ
producersȱthatȱareȱtoȱreceiveȱtheȱseparateȱrateȱshouldȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱbeȱ
sustained;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱshallȱbeȱfiledȱwithȱthisȱCourtȱ
withinȱ30ȱdaysȱofȱtheȱdateȱofȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱplaintiffȱandȱdefendantȬintervenorȱshallȱhaveȱ30ȱdaysȱfromȱtheȱ
submissionȱofȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱtoȱsubmitȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱcommentsȱthereon;ȱ
andȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
rateȱrespondentsȱwillȱchangeȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱtheȱoutcomeȱofȱthatȱremandȱproceeding.ȱȱ
Shouldȱtheȱagencyȱsoȱchoose,ȱitȱmayȱissueȱaȱsingleȱredeterminationȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱ
court’sȱordersȱinȱbothȱcases.ȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 24 of 25

CourtȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ00069ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 	ȱ 	ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ25ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱdefendantȱshallȱhaveȱ15ȱdaysȱfromȱtheȱfilingȱofȱtheȱlastȱcommentȱ
submissionȱtoȱfileȱitsȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcommentsȱsubmitted.ȱ
ȱ
_/s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu_ȱ
TimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ
ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	Judgeȱ
Dated:ȱDecemberȱ15,ȱ2025ȱ
ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ
Case 1:24-cv-00069-TCS Document 56 Filed 01/06/26 Page 25 of 25