Catfish Farmers of America et al v. United States

Slip Op. 13 - 64
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
:
CATFISH FARMERS OF AMERICA, et al., :
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. : Before: R. Kenton Musgrave, Senior Judge
:
UNITED STATES, : Court No. 11-00110
:
Defendant. :
:
:
OPINION AND ORDER
[Remanding sixth antidumping new shipper review for reconsideration of certain aspects.]
Dated: May 23, 2013
Valerie A. Slater, Jarrod M. Goldfeder, Natalya D. Dobrowolsky, and Nicole M. D’Avanzo,
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, of Washington DC, for the plaintiffs.
Ryan Majerus, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department
of Justice, of Washington DC, argued for the defendant. On the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director,
and Courtney S. McNamara, Attorney. Of Counsel was David W. Richardson, Office of the Chief
Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Musgrave, Senior Judge: This action was brought to contest certain new shipper
review aspects of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results
of the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Sixth New Shipper Review, 76 Fed. Reg.
15941 (Mar. 22, 2011), PDoc 246, as administered by the International Trade Administration of the
United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). This opinion follows slip opinion 13-63,
issued earlier this date, and presumes familiarity with that decision’s discussion of the issues raised
Case 1:11-cv-00110-RKM Document 50 Filed 05/23/13 Page 1 of 2

Court No. 11-00110 Page 2
in the companion matter, Court No. 11-00109. Jurisdiction is here likewise proper pursuant to 19
U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), and, as in Court No. 11-00109, the plaintiffs
have interposed a motion for judgment on the administrative record, which has now been fully
briefed and argued.
The plaintiffs’ respondent-specific challenge, and the papers in support and
opposition, concern Vietnamese respondent CUU Long Fish Joint Stock Company (which has not
intervened here) instead of Vinh Hoan Corporation, but the general claims and arguments raised
herein are identical in substance to those raised in Court No. 11-00109, and the reasoning of slip
opinion 13-63 readily applies; Now, therefore, the matter shall be, and hereby is, remanded to
Commerce for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.
In the interests of judicial economy, commentary on the results of remand for Court
No. 11-00109 filed in that case shall as well be deemed to address the pertinent issues of this Court
No. 11-00110, unless the parties deem it necessary to provide separate commentary on those results
as they specifically concern this Court No. 11-00110, in which case the timeline for such
commentary shall be covered by, due, and consistent with the timeline(s) docketed in Court No. 11-
00109 and any extension(s) thereof.
So ordered.
/s/ R. Kenton Musgrave
R. Kenton Musgrave, Senior Judge
Dated: May 23, 2013
New York, New York
Case 1:11-cv-00110-RKM Document 50 Filed 05/23/13 Page 2 of 2