An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company et al v. United States

Slip Op. 17-4
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
AN GIANG FISHERIES IMPORT AND EXPORT
JOINT STOCK COMPANY ET AL.,
Plaintiffs and Consolidated Plaintiffs,
and
ANVIFISH JOINT STOCK COMPANY ET AL.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors and Consolidated
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
CATFISH FARMERS OF AMERICA ET AL.,
Defendant-Intervenors and
Consolidated Defendant-Intervenors.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Consol. Court No. 15-00044
PUBLIC VERSION
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining in part and remanding in part the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final
determination in the tenth antidumping duty administrative review of certain frozen fish
fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.]
Dated: January 23, 2017
Matthew Jon McConkey, Mayer Brown LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs An
Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company et al.
Ned 	Herman 	Marshak 	and 	Andrew Thomas 	Schutz, 	Grunfeld Desiderio 	Lebowitz
Silverman 	& 	Klestadt, 	LLP, 	of 	New 	York, 	NY 	and 	Washington, 	DC, 	argued 	for
consolidated plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenors and consolidated plaintiff-intervenors Anvifish
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 2
PUBLIC VERSION
Joint Stock Company et al. and Can Tho Import-Export Joint Stock Company. With them
on the briefs were Andrew Brehm Schroth and Dharmendra Narain Choudhary.
Kara Marie Westercamp, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant. 	With her on the brief
were Ryan Michael Majerus, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director. Of
Counsel on the brief were Nanda Srikantaiah and Mercedes C. Morno, Office of Chief
Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of
Washington, DC.
Nazakhtar Nikakhtar and Jonathan Mario Zielinski, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of
Washington, 	DC, 	argued 	for 	defendant-intervenors 	and 	consolidated 	defendant-
intervenors Catfish Farmers of America et al.
Kelly, Judge: 	This consolidated action is before the court on USCIT Rule 56.2
motions for judgment on the agency record challenging various aspects of the U.S.
Department of Commerce’s (“Department” or “Commerce”) final determination in the
tenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering certain frozen fish
fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 80 Fed. Reg. 2,394 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 16,
2015) (final results of antidumping duty administrative review; 	2012–2013) (“Final
Results”), and accompanying Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: 	Issues 	and 	Decision 	Memorandum 	for 	the 	Final 	Results 	of 	the 	Tenth
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012–2013, Apr. 6, 2015, ECF No. 20 (“Final
Decision Memo”); see also Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 68 Fed. Reg. 47,909 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 12, 2003) (notice of antidumping
duty order).
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 3
PUBLIC VERSION
Plaintiffs An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company, Asia
Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company, Cuu Long Fish Joint Stock Company, Hiep
Thanh 	Seafood 	Joint 	Stock 	Company, 	International 	Development 	and 	Investment
Corporation, NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company, Thuan An Production Trading and
Services Co., Ltd., and Vinh Quang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (collectively “Agifish”)
commenced this action pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
19 U.S.C. § 1516a (2012). 1 	See Summons, Feb. 13, 2015, ECF No. 1. 	The court
consolidated Agifish’s case with actions filed by: (1) Anvifish Joint Stock Company, Asia
Commerce Fisheries Joint Stock Company, Cadovimex II Seafood Import-Export and
Processing Joint Stock Company, Dai Thanh Seafoods Company Limited, Fatifish
Company Limited, 	Hoang Long Seafood Processing Company Limited, 	Nam 	Viet
Corporation, East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company, QVD Food Company Ltd.,
Saigon-Mekong Fishery Co., Ltd., and Can Tho Import-Export Joint Stock Company
(collectively 	“Anvifish”); 	and 	(2) 	Can 	Tho 	Import-Export 	Joint 	Stock 	Company
(“CASEAMEX”). See Scheduling Order and Order on Consolidation, May 6, 2015, ECF
No. 29.
Agifish and Anvifish challenge Commerce’s selection of Indonesia as the primary
surrogate country to obtain surrogate values (“SV”) for respondents’ factors of production
(“FOP”) in this administrative review. 	Mem. Law Supp. Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Upon
Agency R. 8–11, Oct. 2, 2015, ECF No. 46 (“Agifish Br.”); Mem. Law Supp. Pl.’s Rule
1 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant provisions of Title 19
of the U.S. Code, 2012 edition.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 4
PUBLIC VERSION
56.2 Mot. J. Upon Agency R. 8–40, Oct. 2, 2015, ECF No. 47 (“Anvifish Br.”). 	Agifish
challenges Commerce’s selection of SV data sources to value various FOPs used to
produce the subject merchandise, including medicines and antibiotics, nutrition, fish feed,
packing tape, and packing strap, various fish waste byproducts, truck freight, and
brokerage and handling. Agifish Br. 11–16; 25–50, 52–55. In addition, Agifish challenges
Commerce’s use of a conversion ratio to obtain size-specific values for respondent’s
fingerlings as well as Commerce’s rejection of fingerling length data submitted on the
record as untimely new factual information. 	Agifish Br. 16–25; 50–52. 	CASEAMEX
challenges Commerce’s determination that it is not entitled to a separate rate. See Mem.
Law Supp. Consolidated Plaintiff CASEAMEX’s Rule 56.1 Mot. J. Agency R. 11–41, Oct.
2, 2015, ECF No. 44 (“CASEAMEX Br.”). 	Finally, Anvifish argues that, if Commerce
revises HVG’s rate as a result of any of the challenges raised in this action, Commerce
must revise the dumping margin assigned to the separate rate respondents. Anvifish Br.
38–40.
The court sustains Commerce’s selection of Indonesia as the primary surrogate
country in this review. 	The court also sustains Commerce’s SV data selections for
medicines and antibiotics, nutrition, packing tape, packing strap, various fish waste
byproducts, truck freight, brokerage and handling, and the SV for fingerlings. 	However,
the court remands Commerce’s SV data selection for fish feed. 	Since Anvifish’s claim
that 	Commerce 	must 	revise 	the 	dumping 	margin 	assigned 	to 	the 	separate 	rate
respondents depends on whether Commerce’s SV data selection for fish feed is revised,
the court defers consideration on this issue. 	The court remands Commerce’s decision
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 4 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 5
PUBLIC VERSION
not to grant CASEAMEX’s separate rate status in this administrative review for further
consideration and explanation.
BACKGROUND
Commerce initiated this tenth antidumping duty (“AD”) administrative review
covering subject imports entered during the period of review (“POR”), August 1, 2012
through July 31, 2013. 	See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 78 Fed. Reg. 60,834, 60,836 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 2, 2013) (initiation of
antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews and request for revocation in
part). 	In this review, Commerce examined Hung Vuong Group (“HVG”), which includes
An Giang Fisheries Import & Export Joint Stock Company and other exporters of subject
merchandise, as the sole mandatory respondent. 	See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of
the 2012-2013 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review at 1 n.2, 2–3, PD 236, bar code
3213671-01 (July 2, 2014) (“Prelim. Decision Memo”). Commerce preliminarily assigned
HVG as well as all of the separate rate respondents not individually examined a weighted-
average dumping margin of $0.58 per kilogram. 	Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 79 Fed. Reg. 40,059, 40,061 (Dep’t Commerce July 11,
2014) (preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review; 2012-2013).
Commerce preliminarily assigned a weighted-average dumping margin of $2.39 per
kilogram to those exporters subject to the order who did not rebut the presumption of
government control. 	Id. 	Commerce also preliminarily determined that CASEAMEX is
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 5 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 6
PUBLIC VERSION
entitled to a separate rate because it demonstrated the absence of both a de jure and de
facto government control. Prelim. Decision Memo at 8.
In its final determination, Commerce calculated final weighted-average dumping
margins of $0.97 per kilogram for HVG and the separate rate respondents. Final Results,
80 Fed. Reg at 2,395. The rate assigned to exporters who did not rebut the presumption
of government control remained unchanged. 	Id. 	Commerce reconsidered its separate
rate determination with respect to CASEAMEX and concluded that CASEAMEX failed to
demonstrate independence in the selection of management. 	See Final Decision Memo
at 5; Memorandum re: Proprietary Analysis of Comment XXI: CASEAMEX – Separate
Rate Status at 6, CD 184, bar code 3251356-01 (Jan. 7, 2015) (“Separate Rate Memo”).
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1581(c) (2012), which grant the Court authority to review actions contesting the final
determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order. “The court shall
hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found . . . to be unsupported by
substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Primary Surrogate Country Selection
Agifish and Anvifish challenge Commerce’s selection of Indonesia as the primary
surrogate country for valuing respondent’s FOPs on the grounds that Indonesia is not
economically comparable to Vietnam. Anvifish Br. 13–24; Agifish Br. 8–11. Additionally,
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 6 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 7
PUBLIC VERSION
Anvifish argues that Commerce acted contrary to law in failing to weigh the relative
economic comparability of the potential surrogate countries, see Anvifish Br. 21–24, and
that Commerce’s reasons for rejecting Bangladeshi data sources as the best available
information for valuing respondent’s FOPs were unsupported by the record. Anvifish Br.
28–38. Lastly, Agifish argues Commerce did not provide sufficiently compelling reasons
to justify relying upon data considerations to select Indonesia over Bangladesh. Agifish
Br. 10–11.
In antidumping proceedings involving non-market economies (“NME”), Commerce
generally calculates normal value (“NV”) using the best available information to value
respondents’ FOPs and other costs and expenses “in a market economy country or
countries considered to be appropriate by [Commerce].” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). To the
extent possible, Commerce uses FOPs from market economy countries that are—“(A) at
a level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country,
and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4).
Where merchandise is exported from a NME and Commerce determines available
information does not permit the NV of subject merchandise to be determined using sales
in the home market, Commerce determines NV on the basis of the value of the FOPs
utilized in the production of the merchandise. 	19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). 	The statute
provides that Commerce shall value FOPs based on the best available information from
a surrogate market economy country or countries. Id. Commerce’s regulatory preference
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 7 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 8
PUBLIC VERSION
is to “value all factors in a single surrogate country.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2) (2014). 2
For the reasons that follow, Commerce’s selection of Indonesia as the primary surrogate
country is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
A. Economic Comparability
Agifish and Anvifish argue that Commerce’s primary surrogate country selection,
Indonesia, is not economically comparable to Vietnam. See Agifish Br. 8–11; Anvifish Br.
8–40. 	Defendant argues Commerce reasonably concluded Indonesia is economically
comparable to Vietnam because 2011 GNI data reveals that Indonesia falls within a GNI
range that places it at a comparable level of development. 	Def.’s Resp. Pls.’ Mots. J.
Upon Agency R. Confidential Version 10, June 21, 2016, ECF No. 78 (“Def.’s Resp. Br.”)
(citing Final Decision Memo at 9–10). 	The court concludes Commerce’s economic
comparability determination is reasonable.
The statute does not define economic comparability, nor does it provide a
methodology or criteria for evaluating what countries are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4). 	In AD administrative reviews
involving NMEs, Commerce has developed a methodology for selecting economically
comparable countries. According to Commerce’s practice, Commerce’s Office of Policy
(“OP”) assembles “a list of potential surrogate countries that are at a comparable level of
economic development to the NME country,” whose per capita GNIs fall within a range of
2 Further citations to Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2014 edition.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 8 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 9
PUBLIC VERSION
comparability to the GNI of the NME country (“OP List”). 3 See Import Admin., U.S. Dep’t
Commerce, Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process, Policy Bulletin
04.1 	(2004) 	at 	2, available 	at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull04-1.html 	(last
visited Jan. 18, 2017) (“Policy Bulletin 04.1”). The surrogate countries on the list “are not
ranked and should be considered equivalent in terms of economic comparability.” 	Id.
Commerce’s methodology does not limit its consideration of potential surrogate countries
to those selected on its initial list. See id. Commerce’s policy recognizes the importance
of data quality, and poor or limited data sometimes is a reason Commerce “will ‘go off’
the OP list in search of a viable primary surrogate country.” 4 Id. at 4.
3 Although Commerce’s regulations provide that it uses per capita gross domestic product
(“GDP”)as the measure of economic comparability, Commerce began relying on per capita GNI
as opposed to per capita GDP in 2007. 	Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving
Non-Market Economy Countries: Surrogate Country Selection and Separate Rates, 72 Fed. Reg.
13,246, 13,246 n.2 (Dep’t Commerce Mar. 21, 2007) (request for comment); see also 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.408(b). No party has challenged the use of GNI to determine economic comparability as
contrary to Commerce’s regulation. Commerce’s use of GNI to determine economic comparability
has been considered reasonable. See, e.g., Clearon Corp. v. United States, 38 CIT __, Slip Op.
14-88, at *9–10 (July 24, 2014) (finding Commerce’s reliance on GNI reasonable and in
accordance with law).
4 Although the Policy Bulletin indicates that Commerce’s practice is to request a second list of
surrogate countries, see Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 4, Commerce’s surrogate country list put all parties
on notice that Commerce’s current practice is to consider “other countries on the case record that
are significant producers of comparable merchandise if the record provides you adequate
information to evaluate them.” See Letter to All Interested Parties re: 10th Administrative Review
of Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Country List at Att. I, PD
58, bar code 3169015-01 (Dec. 22, 2013). Commerce advised the parties that its practice is also
to consider countries “that are not at the same level of economic development as Vietnam’s, but
still at a level of economic development comparable to Vietnam . . . only to the extent that data
considerations outweigh the difference in levels of economic development.” Id.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 9 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 10
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce reasonably concluded that Indonesia, despite its absence from the
OP List, is economically comparable to Vietnam. 5 	Commerce acknowledged that
Indonesia is less economically developed than Vietnam. 6 Prelim. Decision Memo at 14–
15; Final Decision Memo at 9; see also Letter to All Interested Parties re: 10 th
Administrative Review of Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Surrogate Country List at Att. I, PD 58, bar code 3169015-01 (Dec. 22, 2013) (“OP List”).
Nonetheless, after considering Indonesia’s GNI in relation to Vietnam’s and the six
countries 	on 	the 	OP 	List, 	Commerce 	reasonably 	determined 	that 	Indonesia 	is
economically comparable to Vietnam. 7 Prelim. Decision Memo at 14–15; Final Decision
5 Petitioners below, arguing that the countries on the OP List contained inadequate SV data for
several significant FOPs, placed Indonesia’s GNI and other information concerning Indonesia’s
economic comparability to Vietnam as well as Indonesian SV data on the record. See Petitioner’s
Surrogate Country Comments and Submission of Proposed Factor Values, PD 176-182, bar
codes 3200753-01–07 (May 12, 2014); see also Final Decision Memo at 7–9 (citing Case Brief
on Behalf of CFA, CD 170, bar code 3230459-01 (Sept. 19, 2014)).
6 Although Commerce did not cite Indonesia’s GNI specifically, Indonesia’s 2011 GNI is $2,940
based on record evidence submitted by petitioners. 	See Petitioners’ Surrogate Country
Comments and Submission of Proposed Factor Values at Ex. 2-B, PD 176–183, bar codes
3200753-01–07 (May 12, 2014). The countries on the OP List included Bangladesh, Pakistan,
Nicaragua, India, Bolivia, and the Philippines. 	See OP List at 2. 	According to the OP List,
Vietnam’s 2011 per capita gross national income (“GNI”), based upon figures from the World
Bank’s World Development Indicators database as of April 15, 2013, is $1,270. Id. The per capita
GNIs of the other potential surrogate countries on the OP List ranged from $780 for Bangladesh
to $2,210 for the Philippines. Id.
7 Anvifish argues that for Commerce’s surrogate country selection to be supported by substantial
evidence, Commerce is required to evaluate the relative economic comparability of the potential
surrogate countries to that of Vietnam. 	Anvifish Br. 21–24 (citing Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action
Comm. v. United States, 36 CIT __, 882 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (2012) (“Ad Hoc Shrimp I”); Ad Hoc
Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 38 CIT __, 986 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (2014) (“Ad Hoc
Shrimp II”); Vinh Hoan Corp. v. United States, 39 CIT __, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1285 (2015)). The court
is mindful that Vinh Hoan required Commerce to compare the relative economic comparability of
countries on its OP List based on the record of that case. Vinh Hoan, 39 CIT at __, 49 F. Supp.
3d at 1302–03. In Vinh Hoan, the court found that the record did not demonstrate that Indonesian
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 10 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 11
PUBLIC VERSION
Memo at 9. 	Commerce notes “[w]ithin a given range, differences in per-capita GNI
between countries do not imply any difference in level of economic development.” Final
Decision Memo at 11. Commerce explains that Indonesia and Vietnam are economically
comparable “from the standpoint of their level of economic development based on GNI
as compared to Vietnam’s level of economic development, and recognition of the fact that
the concept of ‘level’ in an economic development context necessarily implies a range of
GNIs, not a specific GNI.” Final Decision Memo 10. From this statement, it is reasonably
discernible that Commerce views levels of economic comparability within the context of
worldwide GNI. The court cannot say Commerce unreasonably determined Indonesia’s
GNI is comparable to that of Vietnam in the context of world GNIs on the record in this
review. 8
whole fish data was so superior to Bangladeshi whole fish data that weighing relative GNIs “would
not improve Commerce’s selection of the best available information.” 	Id., 39 CIT at __, 49 F.
Supp. 3d at 1304–05 (citing Ad Hoc Shrimp I, 36 CIT at __–__, 882 F. Supp. 2d at 1374–75).
Anvifish’s argument that Vinh Hoan and Ad Hoc Shrimp control here is misplaced. Here,
Commerce found that Indonesian data is vastly superior to other potential surrogate countries
because Indonesian data is the only data source that satisfies the breadth of SV selection criteria
for whole live fish and that Indonesian data provides significantly more specific fingerling SV data.
Final Decision Memo at 18–19. 	Therefore, here Commerce did not need to engage in a
comparison of relative GNI proximity for its surrogate country selection to be reasonable.
8 Anvifish argues that Commerce’s rationale for considering Indonesia and Vietnam economically
comparable 	would 	enable 	Commerce 	to 	consider 	“any 	and 	all 	countries” 	economically
comparable, which would essentially eviscerate the economic comparability requirement in the
statute. See Anvifish Br. 14. Agifish echoes these concerns, arguing that Commerce “relied on
nothing except its discretion” in concluding Vietnam and Indonesia are economically comparable.
Agifish Br. 10. 	Considering the GNI of the potential surrogate countries on the OP List in the
context of the worldwide range of GNIs, which Commerce acknowledges, see Final Decision
Memo at 11, Commerce’s determination that Indonesia is economically comparable to Vietnam
is reasonable.
Nonetheless, the court is concerned by Commerce’s reluctance to set guidelines for
evaluating economic comparability even if it does not use the GNI range of the countries OP List
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 11 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 12
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce has authority to consider countries proposed by interested parties that
are not at the same level of economic development but that it reasonably concludes are
nonetheless economically comparable. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4). 	Commerce
reasonably concluded that the poor data quality of the small set of countries that are
producers of frozen fish fillets, both on the OP List and more generally, permitted it to
consider potential surrogate countries not at the same level of economic development,
albeit still economically comparable. Final Decision Memo at 10.
Agifish and Anvifish argue that Commerce’s selection of a potential surrogate
country that had been removed from the OP List amounts to an impermissible expansion
of the statutory economic comparability requirement. See Agifish Br. 10–11; Anvifish Br.
13–17. 	Specifically, 	Anvifish 	argues 	that 	Commerce’s 	OP 	consciously 	removed
Indonesia from the list of potential surrogate countries because its “galloping GNI that
catapulted Indonesia outside of the GNI bookends established by the Department’s OP
memoranda.” 	Anvifish Br. 15. 	Anvifish’s speculation that Indonesia’s removal from the
OP List since previous reviews resulted from a determination that Indonesia is not
to do so. 	The opacity and brevity of Commerce’s economic comparability analysis makes it
difficult for parties to predict what potential surrogate countries may be considered for SV
purposes. The court asked Defendant to clarify Commerce’s approach to defining the bounds of
economic comparability. 	See Confidential Letter from Court Concerning Questions for Oral
Argument at 3–4, Nov. 7, 2016, ECF No. 112. In response, Defendant explained that Commerce
looks at each review on a case-by-case basis, and uses “no set formula” for determining when a
potential surrogate country will be deemed economically comparable. See Conf. Oral Argument
at 00:06:21–00:06:55, Dec. 8, 2016, ECF No. 120. 	Even if the record here does not render
Commerce’s economic comparability determination unreasonable or unsupported by the record
because Commerce cited specific reasons for the superiority of Indonesian data, the court is
troubled that Commerce’s approach to determining economic comparability generally makes it
difficult for the court to review the reasonableness of that determination.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 12 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 13
PUBLIC VERSION
economically comparable is unsupported by the record. It does not follow that Commerce
deliberately removed Indonesia because it is no longer economically comparable simply
from the fact that Indonesia was included on OP Lists in prior reviews. 	Further, neither
Agifish nor Anvifish cites authority preventing Commerce from selecting off-list potential
surrogate countries whose GNI fall outside the range of GNIs established by the OP List
or supporting the notion that the OP List sets the outer limits of economic comparability. 9
Anvifish ignores the notion that the size of the OP List and its range of per capita GNIs
may vary from review to review and that the range of GNIs on the list is largely a function
of how many countries Commerce opts to place its initial list. See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at
2. 	Anvifish points to nothing in the statute or in Commerce’s practice that requires
economic comparability to be defined by the GNI range of the potential surrogate
9 That Commerce has elected to implement a practice of initially considering five or six potential
surrogate countries does not necessarily set the limits of economic comparability. See OP List at
Att. I. The OP generates the list of potential surrogate countries based upon their per capita GNI
in relation to the NME country under consideration. Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. 	Although the OP
List instructs that countries at the same level of economic development are given equal weight in
surrogate country selection, it provides that countries at a comparable level of economic
development may be selected “to the extent that data considerations outweigh the difference in
levels of economic development.” Id. Anvifish points to nothing in Commerce’s practice indicating
that Commerce intends to set the bounds of economic comparability by the upper and lower limits
of the OP List.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 13 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 14
PUBLIC VERSION
countries on the OP List. 10 Nor do any cases cited by Anvifish support the notion that the
range of GNIs on Commerce’s OP List sets the outer limits of economic comparability. 11
10 Anvifish argues that Commerce’s economic comparability analysis is contrary to law because
it 	reversed 	the 	order 	of 	its 	surrogate 	country 	selection 	practice 	by 	emphasizing 	data
considerations at the expense of economic comparability considerations. Anvifish Br. 16. This
argument relies on Anvifish’s unsupported premise that the OP List sets the limits of economic
comparability. Here, Commerce reasonably determined that all the data for both whole live fish
and non-fish FOPs from the countries on the OP List suffered from deficiencies rendering them
inadequate for SV purposes. 	Final Decision Memo at 10–15. 	Therefore, Commerce acted
consistently with its practice by only considering countries that are at the same level of economic
development or at a comparable level, after determining data from countries at the same level of
economic development were inadequate. See id. at 10.
11 Anvifish argues several cases limit Commerce’s selection of a country outside the range of
GNIs on its OP List. See Anvifish Br. 17–21. None of the holdings of these cases support any
such premise. 	See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(holding Commerce must select data to value FOPs from economically comparable countries
“except where such data were not available or were irretrievably tainted by some statistical flaw”);
Dupont Teijin Films v. United States, 38 CIT __, 997 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 1345 (2014) (upholding
Commerce’s revised surrogate country selection of South Africa, which was among the countries
on the OP List from the same review, after consideration of all data placed on the record); Jiaxing
Brother Fastener Co. v. United States, 38 CIT __, __, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1331–32 (2014)
(holding it reasonable for Commerce to decline to select potential surrogate country not included
on the OP List); Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardwares Co. v. United States, 37 CIT
__, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (2013) (holding Commerce’s selection of Indonesia was reasonable
because Commerce reasonably concluded Indonesia met all the requirements for surrogate
country selection and that Commerce reasonably declined to include India on the OP List because
it had a lower GNI than any country on the list and was therefore “the least economically
comparable to China”); Dupont Teijin Films v. United States, 37 CIT __, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1302,
1307–08 (2013) (holding Commerce had not supported its conclusion that India was economically
comparable to the NME in question because it failed to explain its refusal to consider 2009 GNI
data and a surrogate country list from another review placed on the record by a party); Vinh Hoan
Corp. v. United States, 39 CIT __, __, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1285, 1296 (holding that Commerce’s
selection of a surrogate country without considering all GNI data on the record was contrary to
law and requiring Commerce to consider all record data in its economic comparability analysis).
Anvifish also implies that Commerce’s recent decisions in other proceedings confirm a
practice of identifying countries within a GNI band between the lowest and highest country
identified on the OP List as being economically comparable. GDLSK Respondents’ Reply Br. 13–
14, Sept. 9, 2016, ECF No. 101 (citing Pure Magnesium From the People’s Republic of China, 79
Fed. Reg. 94 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 2, 2014) (final results of antidumping duty administrative
review; 2011-2012) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 14 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 15
PUBLIC VERSION
B. Significant Producer of Comparable Merchandise
Commerce reasonably concluded that Indonesia is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise because export information from Fisheries Statistics, an online
data source published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
indicates that Indonesia, along with Bangladesh, India, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and the
Philippines, are exporters of fish fillets. Final Decision Memo at 15. In the second step
of Commerce’s primary surrogate country selection methodology, Commerce identifies
of the 2011-2012 Administrative Review at 5, 8–9, A-570-832, (Dec. 26, 2013), available at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2013-31412-1.pdf 	(last 	visited 	Jan. 	18, 	2017)
(“Magnesium from the PRC I&D”); Certain Activated Carbon From the People’s Republic of China,
80 Fed. Reg. 61,172 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 9, 2015) (final results of antidumping duty
administrative review; 2013–2014) and accompanying Certain Activated Carbon from the
People’s Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the
Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review at 5–7, A-570-904, (Oct. 2, 2015), available at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2015-25810-1.pdf 	(last 	visited 	Jan. 	18, 	2017)
(“Activated Carbon from the PRC I&D”)). Neither proceeding cited by Anvifish provides that the
OP List sets the outer bounds of economic comparability.
In Magnesium from the PRC I&D, Commerce does not state that it considers potential
surrogate countries whose GNIs fall outside the GNI range established by the OP List not
economically comparable. See Magnesium from the PRC I&D at 18. Rather, Commerce explains
that it considers a country with a GNI “several times” that of the potential surrogate country on the
OP List with the highest GNI not to be economically comparable. Magnesium from the PRC I&D
at 18 n.71. As an initial matter, even had Commerce said what Anvifish implies, that would not
make 	Commerce’s practice reasonable. 	Nonetheless, 	here Indonesia’s 	GNI 	is 	$2,940.
Petitioners’ Surrogate Country Comments and Submission of Proposed Factor Values at Ex. 2-
B, PD 176–183, bar codes 3200753-01–07 (May 12, 2014). The GNI of the Philippines, which is
the country on the OP List with the highest GNI on the OP List, is $2,210. OP List at Att. I.
In Activated Carbon from the PRC I&D, Commerce acted consistently with its practice, as
applied here, because it declined to consider a potential surrogate country that is at a less
comparable level of economic development. 	Activated Carbon from the PRC I&D at 6–7. 	In
Activated Carbon from the PRC I&D, Commerce concluded Thailand is at the same level of
economic development and fulfills its other surrogate country selection criteria, so Commerce
concluded there was no need to consider countries at a comparable level of economic
development. 	Id. 	Nothing in this statement of practice precludes Commerce from considering
countries at a comparable level of development where it reasonably concludes the potential
surrogate countries at the same level of economic development do not fulfill the other selection
criteria.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 15 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 16
PUBLIC VERSION
countries from the OP List that produce comparable merchandise. Policy Bulletin 04.1 at
2–3. 	Commerce 	also 	“determines 	whether 	any 	of 	the 	countries 	which 	produce
comparable merchandise are ‘significant’ producers of that comparable merchandise.”
Id. at 3–4. 	No party challenges Commerce’s finding that Bangladesh, India, Indonesia,
Nicaragua, and Pakistan are significant producers of comparable merchandise, and this
determination is reasonable in light of the evidence on the record.
C. Data Quality
Agifish and Anvifish argue that Commerce’s finding that Indonesian data is the
best available data for valuing respondents’ FOPs is not supported by substantial
evidence. See Agifish Br. 10–11, Anvifish Br. 30–38. Commerce reasonably determined
that Indonesian data for valuing respondents’ FOPs is sufficiently superior to the other
SV data alternatives to warrant selecting a primary surrogate country at a comparable,
but not the same, level of economic development.
Under Commerce’s primary surrogate country selection methodology for NME
proceedings, if more than one country is economically comparable and a significant
producer of comparable merchandise, Commerce will select the country with the best
factors data. Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 4. Commerce selects the country with the best factors
data based upon the data’s: (1) specificity to the input; (2) tax and import duty exclusivity;
(3) contemporaneity with the period of review; (4) representativeness of a broad market
average; and (5) public availability. Id.
Commerce reasonably determined that, based on the totality of the circumstances,
Indonesian SV data is “vastly superior” to Philippine and Bangladeshi data for valuing
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 16 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 17
PUBLIC VERSION
respondents’ whole live fish and non-fish FOPs. Final Decision Memo at 17. Commerce
determined that Bangladeshi and Philippine data is inadequate for valuing respondent’s
whole 	live 	fish 	FOP 	because 	of 	deficiencies 	regarding 	the 	specificity 	and
representativeness of a broad market average of both sources as well as reliability
concerns with the Bangladeshi data source. Id. at 18–19. Given the vertical integration 12
of HVG and many separate rate respondents, Commerce also reasonably concluded that
the availability of quality SV data for significant nonfish FOPs should factor considerably
in surrogate country selection. Id. at 18.
Commerce reasonably supported its conclusion that Indonesian SV data to value
respondents’ whole live fish FOP is superior to both Philippine and Bangladeshi data by
specifically highlighting extensive record evidence to support its conclusion. 13 	First,
Commerce 	reasonably 	supported 	its 	conclusion 	that 	Bangladeshi 	Department 	of
Agriculture Marketing (“DAM”) data is significantly less representative of a broad market
average than Indonesian data because: (1) the DAM data represents a significantly less
robust 	volume 	of 	production 	versus 	the 	alternative 	sources; 14 	(2) 	the 	Indonesian
12 Commerce uses the term “integrated” to describe respondent HVG’s production here because
it purchases pangasius fingerlings, i.e. juvenile fingerlings, “which grow in ponds until they are
ready to be harvested and processed, rather than purchasing all of the whole live pangasius they
consume from suppliers.” Final Decision Memo at 18.
13 It is unclear from Anvifish’s brief whether it challenges Commerce’s SV data selection for the
whole live fish FOP independently from its challenge to Commerce’s surrogate country selection.
See Anvifish Br. 24–37. To the extent Anvifish asserts a freestanding challenge to Commerce’s
determination that Indonesian whole fish data represents the best available information to value
respondent’s whole live fish FOP, Commerce’s determination is reasonable for the reasons
discussed below.
14 Commerce noted that 2012 Indonesian Aquaculture Statistics data represents 293,000 metric
tons (“mt”), whereas Philippine Fisheries Statistics represents only 72 mt and Bangladeshi DAM
data represents 39,000 mt of production. Final Decision Memo at 23–24.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 17 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 18
PUBLIC VERSION
Aquaculture Statistics (“IAS”) data represents superior coverage of the market relative to
that of the DAM data; and (3) the coverage of DAM data has inexplicably declined
dramatically while Bangladeshi production of pangasius rose dramatically. 15 	Final
Decision Memo at 23–25. 16
Second, Commerce reasonably concluded that DAM data is unreliable because of
its poor data quality vetting procedures, technical difficulties with its software, and
15 Commerce deemed significant that IAS data covers 29 of 33 pangasius producing districts in
Indonesia, including the largest Indonesian pangasius producing district, whereas DAM data
represents 25 of 68 districts and is missing information from Mymensingh, the largest pangasius
producing district in Bangladesh. Final Decision Memo at 24.
16 Anvifish argues DAM prices do represent a broad market average because the DAM data
represents actual spot prices, segregated by size for most major pangasius producing districts in
Bangladesh. Anvifish Br. 33–36. The fact that the DAM data may represent actual prices does
not ameliorate the fact that the DAM database does not include data from Mymensingh, the
largest pangasius producing region in Bangladesh.
Anvifish also argues the record contains price data from Mymensingh in the form of
hardcopy official DAM pricing circulars. Id. at 34. Anvifish argues that the fact that this data has
not been posted online does not detract from the expansive coverage of the DAM online data. Id.
Commerce considered these arguments and did not find those explanations persuasive, see Final
Decision Memo 24–25. Commerce also reasonably dismissed speculation that pangasius data
from Mymensingh may be included with other districts to explain the lack of Mymensingh data
because “there is no affirmative evidence that Mymensingh-sourced pangasius sales are
included” in sales of other districts and there is evidence that DAM may be unable to publish price
data from all districts in a given year because of technical difficulties and logistical limitations. Id.
at 25. 	It is reasonably discernible that Commerce declined to consider hardcopy DAM pricing
circulars to satisfy its broad market coverage concerns because these unvetted worksheets, not
yet submitted as part of the DAM online database, are unreliable because Commerce considered
DAM online data itself not to be reliably vetted. See id. at 26. The court declines to reweigh the
evidence.
Anvifish also argues that other official data sources corroborate the DAM data, which
undermines Commerce’s negative reliability and broad market average findings. Anvifish Br. 36–
37. 	Anvifish argues these sources corroborate the DAM price surveys and fill the gaps in the
DAM data. Id. As for the DAM hardcopy pricing circulars, Commerce considered this evidence,
and found that other record evidence, including an affidavit from a DAM official indicating that
DAM pricing contains anomalous data and contains errors, to outweigh this and other data
Anvifish argues indicate its reliability. 	See Final Decision Memo at 27. 	Moreover, Commerce
also noted Indonesian data suffers from no similar reliability concerns, which Anvifish does not
dispute. See id.; Anvifish Br. 36–37. The court considers Commerce’s determinations reasonable
and will not reweigh the evidence.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 18 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 19
PUBLIC VERSION
statistical anomalies in the data that were left uncorrected. 17 Id. at 27–28. Commerce’s
conclusion as to the superiority of Indonesian data is further supported by the fact it found
no such reliability concerns with Indonesian data. Id. at 28.
Third, the record reasonably supports Commerce’s conclusion that Indonesian
data is the most specific data on the record because Commerce credited record evidence
indicating that the DAM data contained dead fish over other record evidence that it did
not. 18 Id. at 25–26. Commerce weighed the record evidence and reasonably concluded
that the inclusion of dead fish in the DAM data distorts the SV for this FOP. Id. at 27. In
contrast, Commerce reasonably determined that IAS data suffered from fewer such
17 Anvifish argues that any reliability concerns should have been alleviated by the presence of
other corroborating studies on the record reflecting farmgate prices for pangasius based on
surveys from the Mymensingh district in Bangladesh. 	Anvifish Br. 36 (citing Respondent’s
Surrogate Comments at Exs. 15A, 15B, 16, 16A, 16B, 17A, PD 156–157, bar codes 3200754-
01–02 (May 12, 2014)). Commerce’s conclusion that DAM data is not reliable is based in part
upon affidavits describing DAM’s data vetting procedures. 	Final Decision Memo at 27. 	Other
sources on the record containing prices from Mymensingh do not fill gaps for online DAM data
that lacks data from Mymensingh. Nor is it unreasonable for Commerce to consider DAM data
unreliable where independent record evidence indicates DAM has inadequate vetting procedures
despite the presence of another data source corroborating DAM’s prices. Anvifish points to no
record evidence undermining Commerce’s conclusions regarding deficiencies in DAM’s data
vetting procedures, and the court declines to reweigh the evidence.
18 Anvifish attempts to undermine the affidavits Commerce credited as supporting its finding that
DAM data included dead fish, arguing that they were based on secondhand hearsay evidence.
Anvifish Br. 31–32. Commerce considered the credibility of the competing affidavits on the record
concerning the possible inclusion of dead fish in the DAM data, including affidavits detailing
interviews with DAM officials, affidavits detailing interviews with pangasius traders in Bangladesh,
a pangasius market survey indicating a significant proportion of fish are dead or sluggish upon
arrival in Bangladeshi markets, an affidavit indicating both live and dead fish are sold in
Bangladeshi markets, and an article published by the U.S Agency for International Development
indicating up to 29 percent of pangasius sold in Bangladeshi wholesale markets are dead. Final
Decision Memo at 26. 	Commerce found inaccuracies in the information placed on the record
indicating that dead fish are excluded from the DAM data. 	Id. 	For this reason, Commerce
discounted the probative value of such information. 	Final Decision Memo at 26. 	Commerce’s
conclusion is reasonable and the court declines to reweigh the evidence.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 19 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 20
PUBLIC VERSION
specificity concerns because Commerce credited an affidavit submitted from the director
of IAS from 2011 detailing specific steps taken to ensure the IAS data does not include
dead fish based. 19 Final Decision Memo at 25. Commerce’s determination that Philippine
FS data is less specific relative to Indonesian IAS data is also supported by the record.
Commerce found Philippine FS data may include prices for further processed fish, not
just whole live fish, while Indonesian IAS data suffered from no such concerns. Id.
Lastly, Commerce’s determination as to the superiority of Indonesian IAS data is
supported by Commerce’s finding that Indonesian IAS and Philippine FS data are
contemporaneous because they overlap the POR to varying degrees, 20 while DAM data
is not contemporaneous. 21 	Final Decision Memo at 23. 	The record also supports
19 Anvifish does not point to record evidence detracting from Commerce’s finding that IAS data is
specific or that it is more specific than DAM data. Rather, Anvifish argues that the Bangladeshi
pangasius industry is homogenous and substantially similar to the pangasius industry in Vietnam
because nearly its entire production is the same species as that produced by respondents
produced by substantially similar cultivation methods. 	Anvifish Br. 29. 	Anvifish argues that
Commerce failed to consider these similarities in making its specificity finding. 	Id. 	However,
Commerce did not find that Bangladeshi DAM data is not specific to respondents’ whole live fish
FOP, but rather that it is less specific than Indonesian data because of the inclusion of dead fish.
Final Decision Memo at 27. 	Even if the similarities between the Bangladeshi and Vietnamese
pangasius industries are taken as true, they do not undermine the reasonableness of Commerce’s
selection of Indonesian data in light of the particular specificity, representativeness, and reliability
concerns Commerce highlighted in the DAM data.
20 Anvifish argues that Commerce erred in concluding the IAS data is contemporaneous because
the data on the record provides non-POR data for 2010 and 2011, and Anvifish argues the 2012
IAS data only includes data for five months within the POR. Anvifish Br. 30. In light of the IAS’s
overlap with the POR, Commerce reasonably concluded the IAS data is contemporaneous.
21 Anvifish argues that Commerce erroneously concluded that DAM data on the record covers the
immediately preceding POR. Anvifish Br. 30. In support of its argument, Anvifish submitted DAM
whole fish weekly wholesale pangasius pricing data for each month from August 2012 through
July 2013. See App. Pl.’s Mem. Law Supp. Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Upon Agency R. at Doc. 9, Oct. 9,
2015, ECF Nos. 50-9–12.
On June 6, 2016, Defendant-Intervenors Catfish Farmers of America, an association of
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 20 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 21
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce’s conclusion that Indonesian SV data sources are significantly superior to
Bangladeshi SV data sources on the record for valuing respondents’ non-fish FOPs.
Commerce reasonably concluded that the fingerling FOP had a significant impact on
HVG’s normal value because it is significantly integrated. 	Final Decision Memo at 18.
Commerce also reasonably determined that the Indonesian SV data to value fingerlings
was significantly more specific because Bangladeshi data does not provide size-specific
fingerling pricing. 22 Id. at 18–19. Further, Commerce found that Indonesian SV data for
U.S. catfish processors and growers, and individual U.S. catfish processors, America’s Catch,
Alabama Catfish Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, Pride of the Pond, and Simmons Farm Raised
Catfish, Inc. (collectively “CFA”) filed a motion to strike this material along with all references to
such material in Anvifish’s memorandum of law because this data had been submitted in support
of Anvifish’s motion despite the fact that it was not part of the administrative record in the
underlying proceeding. 	Def.-Intervenors’ Mot. Strike, June 6, 2016, ECF No. 71. 	Anvifish
responded that it “intended to submit, and . . . believe[s] that [it], in fact, did submit the DAM online
data in Document 9 to the Department in Exhibit 11 of [its] May 12, 2014, Surrogate Value
Submission.” Pls.’ Resp. Opp’n Def.-Intervenor’s Mot. Strike 2, June 20, 2016, ECF No. 72. After
reviewing 	the 	parties’ 	submissions 	and 	a 	teleconference 	held 	with 	the 	parties, 	see
Teleconference, June 23, 2016, ECF No. 84, the court denied CFA’s motion to strike. Mem. and
Order, June 23, 2016, ECF No. 85. The court deferred consideration of whether the DAM pricing
submitted by Anvifish in its appendix to its memorandum of law should be considered in evaluating
Commerce’s surrogate country selection. Id. at 3.
Even assuming that DAM data on the record is contemporaneous, the court finds
Commerce’s determination that IAS data is superior to DAM data to be supported by substantial
evidence. 	Commerce minimized 	the 	importance 	of 	its finding 	that 	DAM data 	is 	non-
contemporaneous in concluding that DAM data is not the best available information. See Final
Decision Memo at 23. Commerce focused on the DAM data’s “serious shortcomings regarding
representation of a broad market average, its specificity and reliability.” 	Id. 	Commerce’s
assessment of the relative superiority of IAS data over DAM data would be reasonable even if
Commerce’s finding that the IAS data is more contemporaneous is not supported by substantial
evidence. 	See id. 	Therefore, the court need not determine whether the record evidence
submitted by Anvifish here was on the record before Commerce to conclude that Commerce’s
determination is reasonable.
22 Anvifish asserts that the Bangladeshi Aquaculture Study is specific to pangasius fingerlings.
Anvifish Br. 37. 	However, Anvifish does not argue that this data source contains size-specific
values. Id. Nor does Anvifish undermine Commerce’s determination that the size of fingerlings
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 21 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 22
PUBLIC VERSION
most non-fish FOPs are not representative of a broad market average because they do
not reflect country-wide data whereas Indonesian import data on the record does
represent country-wide data. 23 	Id. at 19. 	Commerce reasonably concluded that
Indonesian SV data sources are generally more contemporaneous because it found that
no party submitted contemporaneous import statistics from Bangladesh for respondents’
non-fish FOPs, whereas contemporaneous import statistics were on the record for
Indonesia and the Philippines. 24 Id. at 14.
purchased would impact the pricing of this input. Therefore, even if the fingerling data is species-
specific, Commerce still reasonably determined that Indonesian fingerling data is more specific
because it includes size-specific values.
Anvifish does not address Commerce’s remaining SV criteria for any of these non-fish
FOPs. 	See Anvifish Br. 37. 	Commerce’s practice for selecting the best available information
favors selecting a data source that satisfies the breadth of its criteria, not just one. 	See Final
Decision Memo at 17 (citing Fifth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from the People’s Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results at
10, A-570-893, (Aug. 12, 2011), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2011-21259-
1.pdf (last visited Jan. 18, 2017)).
23 Commerce cited the example of salt, where the Bangladeshi data source on the record is a
newspaper article reflecting a single company’s experience from 2008 versus contemporaneous
country-wide Indonesian import data. Final Decision Memo at 19.
24 Anvifish implies that Commerce relied upon contemporaneity and broad market average
concerns to the exclusion of specificity in concluding Indonesian data was the best available for
valuing non-fish FOPs. 	Anvifish Br. 37. 	Commerce did examine product specificity of the
contested non-fish FOPs, and it reasonably concluded Indonesian data is product specific for
most significant non-fish FOPs, including farming factors. 	See Final Decision Memo at 39–40
(fish feed); id. at 41–42 (lime); id. at 44–45 (antibiotics); id. at 46 (farming nutrition). Anvifish does
not contest these findings. 	Therefore, Anvifish’s implication that Commerce failed to consider
specificity in making its determination is unfounded.
Moreover, Anvifish does not cite record evidence undermining Commerce’s findings that
Bangladeshi non-fish SV data is non-contemporaneous or not representative of a broad market
average. 	See id. 	Commerce’s practice for selecting the best available information favors
selecting a data source that satisfies the breadth of its criteria, not just one. See Final Decision
Memo at 17 (citing Fifth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
People’s Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results at 10, A-570-
893, (Aug. 12, 2011), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2011-21259-1.pdf (last
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 22 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 23
PUBLIC VERSION
D. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, Commerce’s selection of Indonesia as the primary
surrogate 	country 	is 	reasonable. 	Commerce 	reasonably 	found 	that 	Indonesia 	is
economically comparable to Vietnam, a significant producer of comparable merchandise,
and offers the best available information for valuing respondents’ fish and non-fish FOPs.
Final Decision Memo at 9, 15. 	While Commerce acknowledged that Indonesia is less
economically comparable to Vietnam as compared to the countries on the OP List,
Commerce reasonably concluded that data considerations, particularly those relating to
the primary input for the subject merchandise whole live fish and the fingerling FOP
outweigh the fact that Indonesia is not at the same level of economic development as
Vietnam. Final Decision Memo at 10. Therefore, the court sustains Commerce’s primary
surrogate country selection.
II. 	Commerce’s Analysis of Specific Surrogate Values
Agifish 	challenges 	Commerce’s 	SV 	data selections for 	antibiotics, 	nutrition,
packing tape, packing strap, fish feed, fish waste byproducts, trucking expenses, and
brokerage and handing expenses. 	See Agifish Br. 8–16; 25–50. 	Agifish accepts
Commerce’s selection of a SV data source to value respondent’s fingerling FOP, but it
objects to various determinations Commerce made in calculating the SV of fingerlings in
this review. Id. at 16–25. Defendant refutes all these challenges and argues Commerce’s
final determination should be sustained in all respects. See Def.’s Resp. Br. 38–59. The
visited January 18, 2017)). Even if Bangladeshi data offered specific data for respondents’ non-
fish FOPs, Anvifish cites no authority suggesting that finding a data source is specific is sufficient
for SV data selection purposes.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 23 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 24
PUBLIC VERSION
court sustains Commerce’s SV of fingerlings as well as Commerce’s SV data selections
for antibiotics, nutrition, packing tape, packing strap, fish waste byproducts, trucking
expenses, 	and 	brokerage 	and 	handling 	expenses. 	However, 	the 	court 	remands
Commerce’s SV data selection for fish feed for further explanation and consideration.
In NME cases, Commerce obtains a normal value by adding the value of the FOPs
used to produce the subject merchandise and “an amount for general expenses and profit
plus the cost of containers, coverings, and other expenses.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1).
Commerce values the FOPs “based on the best available information regarding the
values of such factors in a market economy country or countries.” 	Id. 	Commerce’s
methodology for selecting the best available information evaluates data sources based
upon 	their: 	(1) 	specificity 	to 	the 	input; 	(2) 	tax 	and 	import 	duty 	exclusivity; 	(3)
contemporaneity with the period of review; (3) representativeness of a broad market
average; and (5) public availability. Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 4. Commerce uses the same
methodology to calculate SV of byproducts, which offset production costs incurred by a
respondent, generated during the production process. See Final Decision Memo at 80–
82 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c); see also Guangdong Chems. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United
States, 30 CIT 1412, 1422, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1373 (2006)); Tianjin Magnesium Int’l
Co., v. United States, 34 CIT 980, 993, 722 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1336 (2010) (explaining
that “[t]he antidumping statute does not prescribe a method for calculating byproduct
offsets instead leaving the decision to the technical expertise of the Department.”).
Commerce’s practice for selecting the best available information to value individual FOPs
favors selecting a data source that satisfies the breadth of its selection criteria where
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 24 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 25
PUBLIC VERSION
possible. 	See Final Decision Memo at 17 (citing Fifth Administrative Review of Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China: Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results at 10, A-570-893, (Aug. 12, 2011), available at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2011-21259-1.pdf (last visited Jan. 18, 2017)).
A. Antibiotics
Agifish challenges Commerce’s selection of Indonesian import data under HTS
2941.90, which covers “Antibiotics, Nesoi,” as not specific to the inputs used by
respondents because the HTS category covers only the antibiotic penicillin and the record
demonstrates respondents used other medicines. Agifish Br. 11–14. Defendant counters
that Commerce reasonably used HTS 2941.90, which covers amoxicillin, ampicillin, and
penicillin because HVG did not identify which specific antibiotics it uses. Def.’s Resp. Br.
39. Commerce’s selection of Indonesian import data to value this FOP is reasonable in
light of the record evidence.
Commerce found that the HTS category is specific to respondents’ antibiotics FOP
because HVG only described this input as “antibiotics” and the HTS subcategory covers
amoxicillin, ampicillin as well as penicillin. 	Final Decision Memo at 44. Given that HTS
2941.90 covers “Antibiotics, Nesoi,” it is not unreasonable for Commerce to conclude that
this description matches the general description of “antibiotics” given by HVG. 	Nothing
in HTS 2941.90 refers specifically to penicillin. Commerce also found Indonesian import
data contemporaneous, publicly available, representative of a broad market average and
tax and duty free. Id. at 43–44.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 25 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 26
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce found Foreign Trade Statistics of Bangladesh not to be specific to
respondents’ medicines and antibiotics because this source does not include data for
medicines/antibiotics. 	Id. at 44. 	Commerce found this source non-contemporaneous
because it covers July 2009 to June 2010, which is outside the POR. 	Id. at 44.
Commerce 	deemed 	the 	Bangladeshi 	Foreign 	Trade 	Statistics 	unreliable 	because
respondents included only an excerpt that is insufficient to confirm the source’s reliability.
Id. at 45. 	Therefore, Commerce reasonably determined Indonesian import data under
HTS 2941.90 is the best available information for valuing respondents’ antibiotics FOP.
Agifish argues that Indonesian HTS 3004.20 is more specific to the inputs used by
HVG. Agifish Br. 13. However, HTS 3004.20, covers “Medicaments (excluding goods of
heading 30.02, 30.05 or 30.06) consisting of mixed or unmixed products for therapeutic
or prophylactic uses, put up in measured doses (including those in the form of transdermal
administration 	systems) 	or 	in 	forms 	or 	packing 	for 	retail 	sale): 	Containing 	other
antibiotics.” See id. Agifish points to no record evidence indicating respondent purchased
its antibiotics in measured doses, nor does Agifish cite any record evidence undermining
the reasonableness of Commerce’s conclusion that HTS 2941.90 is specific to the
antibiotics HVG described in its questionnaire response. 	Therefore, Commerce’s
conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.
B. Nutrition
Agifish argues Commerce’s selection of Indonesian HTS 2936.90, which covers
“Vitamins, [Including] Natural Concentrates Etc., Nesoi,” is less specific to respondents’
nutrition FOP because this HTS subheading is limited to vitamins, whereas HTS
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 26 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 27
PUBLIC VERSION
2309.90.20 includes other feed supplements an additives. Agifish Br. 14–15. Defendant
responds that Commerce reasonably concluded this HTS subcategory is specific to
respondents’ nutrition FOP because HVG described this input as “mostly vitamins.” Def.’s
Resp. Br. 39. Commerce’s SV data selection for nutrition is reasonable.
Commerce reasonably found Indonesian import data under HTS 2936.90 to be
specific because HVG describes its nutrition FOP as “mostly vitamins (E, A, C, B),
ascorbic acid and minerals to provide healthy supplements to fish.” Final Decision Memo
at 46 (quoting Section D Questionnaire Response – An Giang Fisheries Import and Export
Joint Stock Company at 18, CD 65, bar code 3182100-01 (Feb. 19, 2014)). Commerce
concluded 	that 	Indonesian 	import 	data 	is 	contemporaneous, 	publicly 	available,
representative of a broad market average, and tax and duty exclusive. Id.
In contrast, Commerce found Foreign Trade Statistics of Bangladesh not to be
specific to respondents’ medicines and antibiotics because these statistics do not include
data for nutrition. 	Id. at 47. 	Commerce also found this Bangladeshi data source not to
be contemporaneous because it covers July 2009 to June 2010, which is outside the POR
and unreliable because respondents failed to include a sufficient excerpt from this data
source to confirm its reliability. 	Id. 	Therefore, Commerce reasonably determined
Indonesian import data under HTS 2936.90 is the best available information for valuing
respondents’ antibiotics FOP.
Agifish cites no record evidence making it unreasonable for Commerce to value
HVG’s nutrition FOP using import data covering vitamins in light of HVG’s brief response
describing this input as mostly vitamins. 	Even though HVG did not indicate in its
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 27 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 28
PUBLIC VERSION
questionnaire responses that its nutrition consisted exclusively of vitamins, Agifish points
to no record evidence indicating that import data covering only vitamins and not including
other food additives would not accurately reflect the value of respondents’ nutrition FOP.
Therefore, Commerce’s reasonably determined that HTS 2936.90 is specific to the
nutrition used by respondents.
C. Fingerlings
1. 	Commerce’s Use of a Conversion Factor
Agifish challenges Commerce’s use of a conversion factor drawn from an affidavit
from Dr. Djumbuh Rukmono, an official from the Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and
Fisheries (“Rukmono Affidavit”), to obtain a size-specific SV data for HVG’s fingerlings on
a per-kilogram basis because Agifish argues the piece-per-kilogram conversion factor
contained in the affidavit is unreliable. 25 	Agifish Br. 16–23. 	Defendant counters that
Commerce reasonably used the Rukmono Affidavit’s conversion factor because it is
reliable and using the conversion factor is necessary to capture the decline in number of
fingerlings per kilogram when fingerlings increase in size. Def.’s Resp. Br. 42 (citing Final
Decision Memo at 32).
Commerce’s determination to use a conversion factor to obtain size-specific values
is reasonable because HVG reported the number of fingerlings purchased on a per
25 Agifish does not challenge Commerce’s determination that the Rukmono Affidavit represents
the best available information to value respondents’ fingerling FOP. Agifish Br. 17. Therefore,
the court does not review the reasonableness of Commerce’s selection of the Rukmono Affidavit
to value respondents’ fingerlings.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 28 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 29
PUBLIC VERSION
kilogram basis, but it did not report specific lengths of fingerlings purchased. 26 	See
Supplemental Section D Questionnaire Response – An Giang Fisheries Import and
Export Joint Stock Company at Ex. 2, PD 143, bar code 3199492-01 (May 2, 2014)
(“Agifish Suppl. Sec. D. Questionnaire Resp.”). Commerce concluded that the number of
fingerlings per kilogram declines exponentially as fingerlings grow larger (i.e., longer as
measured from snout to tail fin). Final Decision Memo at 31. It is reasonably discernible
that 	Commerce 	concluded 	that 	fingerling 	size 	affects 	the 	price 	of 	a 	kilogram 	of
fingerlings. 27 	See id. 	Therefore, because HVG did not report the lengths of fingerlings
purchased, Commerce reasonably used data on the record to obtain size-specific pricing.
Agifish speculates that something must be wrong with the conversion factor used
to calculate the number of fingerlings of a given size are in a kilogram of fingerlings
contained in the Rukmono Affidavit because the ranges of prices stated on a per-kilogram
basis are too wide to be accurate. Agifish Br. 18, Ex.1. However, Agifish cites no record
26 Agifish argues that HVG did report fingerling lengths in its supplemental questionnaire
response. See Agifish Br. 50–51. However, Commerce rejected the size data reported by Agifish
as untimely new factual information. 	See Letter to HVG Rejection of New Factual Information,
PD 226, bar code 3208247-01 (June 11, 2014). Separately, Agifish argues Commerce’s rejection
of this data was an abuse of discretion. 	See id. 50–52. 	The court addresses this challenge
separately.
27 Lacking fingerling length information from HVG, Commerce used the Rukmono Affidavit to
convert the number of fingerlings per kilogram HVG reported purchasing to a specific length. See
Memorandum re: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results at 3, PD 238, bar code 3213863-
01 (July 2, 2014) (“Prelim. SV Memo”); see also Memorandum re: Surrogate Values for the Final
Results at Ex. 4, PD 298, bar code 3251319-01 (Jan. 7, 2015) (“Final SV Memo”). Commerce
then obtained a size-specific price for HVG’s fingerlings on a per piece basis from a chart included
in the Rukmono Affidavit. See Prelim. SV Memo at 3; see also Final SV Memo at Ex. 4. Lastly,
because HVG reported its fingerling purchases in price per kilogram, Commerce converted the
size-specific per-piece price to a per-kilogram price using the pieces per kilogram conversion
factor contained in the Rukmono Affidavit. See Prelim. SV Memo at 3; see also Final SV Memo
at Ex. 4.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 29 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 30
PUBLIC VERSION
evidence indicating that the fingerling pricing contained in the Rukmono Affidavit is
aberrational compared to other SV data on the record. In fact, Commerce noted that the
conversion ratio in the Rukmono Affidavit is nearly identical to that in another affidavit
from Mr. Coco Soetrisno, an official in the same Indonesian ministry. 	Final Decision
Memo at 32. Commerce further noted that the conversion ratio used in both affidavits is
promulgated by an official government entity, the National Standardization Agency of
Indonesia. 28 Id. The mere fact that the Rukmono Affidavit contains a wide range of prices
of fingerlings, without some other reliable record data that is at odds with such a wide
range of prices for fingerlings, is insufficient to render Commerce’s determination
unreasonable. Therefore, Commerce reasonably determined that the fingerling pricing in
the Rukmono Affidavit is reliable and non-aberrational.
Agifish also argues that Commerce’s conversion from a per-piece price to a per-
kilogram price is unnecessary. Agifish Br. 22–23. Agifish argues Commerce could have
avoided the piece-per-kilogram conversion altogether had it simply used HVG’s fingerling
FOP consumption data to determine the number of pieces HVG used and then used per
piece pricing data on the record. Id. at 22; see also Agifish Suppl. Sec. D. Questionnaire
28 Agifish argues that there must be an error in the conversion factor used in the Rukmono Affidavit
because the Rukmono Affidavit generates a per kilogram price for 4.0–5.0 inch fingerlings that is
412% larger than the price range for the same size fingerlings in the Soetrisno affidavit. Agifish
Br. 19. 	Agifish presents no other benchmark data to measure the per-kilogram prices against.
Moreover, Agifish presents no evidence that this inconsistency in per kilogram pricing affects the
5.0–6.0 inch fingerling size range of the Rukmono Affidavit that Commerce actually used to
calculate a SV for HVG’s fingerlings. See Memorandum re: Surrogate Values for the Final Results
at Ex. 4, PD 298, bar code 3251319-01 (Jan. 7, 2015). Since the conversion ratio is otherwise
corroborated between the Rukmono and Soetrisno affidavits and the ratio is promulgated by an
official Indonesian agency, the court cannot say Commerce unreasonably concluded that the
fingerling pricing in the Rukmono Affidavit is not aberrational.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 30 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 31
PUBLIC VERSION
Resp. at Ex. 2. Even if Agifish were proposing a reasonable alternative methodology, it
would not render Commerce’s conversion of the per-piece pricing in the Rukmono
Affidavit to per-kilogram pricing to match Respondent’s reported consumption data
unreasonable or unsupported by the record. Agifish points to no alternative benchmark
indicating that the conversion factor used by Commerce resulted in aberrational fingerling
values. 	Moreover, Commerce reasonably determined that it could not use HVG’s
reported data to obtain a per-piece to per-kilogram conversion because Commerce found
HVG’s conversion factor to be unreliable. 29 	Final Decision Memo at 31. 	Therefore,
Commerce reasonably determined the conversion factor used in the Rukmono Affidavit
is necessary and also the best available information for obtaining size-specific fingerling
SV data.
Lastly, Agifish argues that Commerce lacked substantial evidence to use the 5.0–
6.0 inch size band for HVG’s fingerlings because the record is devoid of fingerling length
information. 	Agifish Br. 21. 	However, Defendant points out that Commerce derived
fingerling length information from HVG’s reported number of pieces per kilogram. 30 Def.’s
29 Commerce highlighted that HVG ‘s reported fingerling consumption was internally contradictory
because it reported that it consumed varying amounts of fingerlings per kilogram, but that the size
of its fish did not vary. Final Decision Memo at 32. Commerce found that this data conflicted with
other record evidence indicating that as fingerlings increase in size the number of fingerlings per
kilogram declines exponentially. Id. at 31.
30 Defendant explains that Commerce matched respondent’s reported “pieces per kilogram”
purchases, see Agifish Suppl. Sec. D. Questionnaire Resp. at Ex. 2, to the information in the
Rukmono Affidavit listing the number of pieces-per-kilogram for each size band. Def.’s Resp. Br.
42. 	It is reasonably discernible that this cross-referencing of sources allowed Commerce to
convert pieces-per-kilogram to a corresponding size band in the Rukmono Affidavit for its final
results, just as Commerce had done in its preliminary results. 	Def.’s Resp. Br. 42–43 (citing
Memorandum re: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results at 3, PD 238, bar code 3213863-
01 (July 2, 2014)).
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 31 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 32
PUBLIC VERSION
Resp. Br. 42. 	Therefore, the 5.0-6.0 inch length derived by Commerce is based upon
information in the record even though respondent did not report fingerling length directly.
Agifish points to no evidence that this methodology results in aberrational fingerling SVs.
2. 	Commerce’s Application of a Yield Loss Ratio
Agifish argues Commerce’s application of a yield loss ratio to HVG’s fingerling
consumption is not supported by substantial evidence because the record demonstrates
respondent’s reported FOP consumption already reflects yield losses captured during an
18–25 day warranty period. Agifish Br. 24. Defendant responds Commerce reasonably
adjusted the ratio of fingerlings consumed by HVG to ensure an accurate fingerling usage
by ensuring that the usage ratio was calculated on a consistent basis. 	Def.’s Resp. Br.
43.
Commerce reasonably applied a yield loss ratio to convert HVG’s fingerling
consumption ratio because substantial evidence indicates that HVG reported its fingerling
usage net of yield losses (i.e., fingerlings that died during the warranty period), but nothing
indicates the pricing on the record reflects pricing net of yield losses. 31 See Final Decision
31 Although Commerce did not fully explain why adjusting HVG’s usage ratio upward was
necessary to ensure a consistent ratio, its rationale is reasonably discernible from Commerce’s
statement that the adjustment was necessary “[i]n order to capture the actual amount of
fingerlings consumed by HVG.” See Final Decision Memo at 34. Commerce cited its practice of
adjusting the margin calculation for yield losses in order to accurately capture FOPs consumed
throughout the production of subject merchandise. Final Decision Memo at 34 (citing Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China at 85–90, A-570-
831, (May 4, 2006), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/E6-6759-1.pdf (last visited
Jan. 18, 2017). It is reasonably discernible that ensuring that both the numerator and denominator
of the usage ratio is stated on a consistent basis is necessary to ensure accuracy. It follows that
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 32 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 33
PUBLIC VERSION
Memo at 34; see also Petitioners Surrogate Value Data at Ex. 16-B, PD 176–182, bar
codes 3200753-01–07 (May 12, 2014) (containing the Rukmono Affidavit). 	Commerce
found that HVG subtracted the number of fingerlings that died during an 18-25 day
warranty period from its reported FOP consumption. 	Final Decision Memo at 33.
Therefore, 	Commerce 	reasonably 	concluded 	that 	both 	the 	numerator 	and 	the
denominator of HVG’s usage ratio needed to reflect gross quantities so that the SV of this
input could be calculated accurately and on the same basis. 	Agifish contends that this
adjustment was unnecessary because HVG reported the quantity of fingerlings for which
the company paid its supplier. 	Agifish Br. 24. 	Whether or not HVG properly reported
merchandise it did not pay for in the relatively short warranty stage, see Agifish Case Brief
at Ex. 2, PD 265, bar code 3229990-01 (Sept. 19, 2016) (“Agifish Case Br.”), is irrelevant
to whether Commerce may reasonably adjust fingerling consumption to ensure an
accurate usage ratio. Agifish offers no record evidence indicating that the SV data in the
Rukmono Affidavit is net of yield loss, as HVG reported its FOP consumption. Therefore,
Commerce reasonably adjusted HVG’s fingerling consumption to ensure the ratio is
calculated on a consistent basis.
D. Packing Tape
Agifish challenges Commerce’s decision to value respondents’ packing tape input
using Indonesian import data under HTS subcategory 3919.10 as not specific and
Commerce implicitly concluded that the pricing data on the record did not reflect prices net of yield
losses, and Agifish does not suggest otherwise. Commerce reasonably adjusted the numerator
of the usage ratio to include all fingerlings purchased because the denominator of the usage ratio
contained pricing that is not net of yield losses.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 33 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 34
PUBLIC VERSION
aberrational. 	Agifish Br. 25–27. 	The court finds Commerce’s selection of Indonesian
import data to value respondents’ packing tape FOP is supported by substantial evidence.
Commerce found that Indonesian import data under HTS 3919.10, which covers
“Plates, Sheets, Film, Foil, Tape and Other Flat Shapes of Plastics, Self-adhesive, In
Rolls Not Over 20 cm (8 In.) Wide,” satisfies the full breath of its SV data selection criteria.
Final Decision Memo at 54. Commerce concluded that the import data does not contain
aberrational data because the SVs derived from other economically comparable countries
on the record is approximately half that of the SV based upon Indonesian data. 	Id.
Commerce concluded this difference is “not so large as to demonstrate a strong flaw with
current POR’s data for HTS 3919.10 consistent with aberrational data.” 32 Id. The court
cannot say that Commerce’s conclusion is unreasonable.
Commerce reasonably concluded that Indonesian import data is better relative to
Foreign Trade Statistics of Bangladesh because the latter source is not contemporaneous
because it covers the period from July 2009 to June 2010. 	Id. 	Moreover, Commerce
concluded that the Bangladeshi Foreign Trade Statistics are not reliable because
respondents only placed a portion of this publication on the record and Commerce was
unable to determine from that excerpt that the data is reliable. 	Id. 	Commerce likewise
concluded that Indonesian price quotes are not representative of a broad market average,
not contemporaneous, and do not indicate that they are exclusive of taxes and duties. Id.
32 Commerce did acknowledge that it removed 2,365 kilograms of Swiss imports for which the
average unit value is $1,802.62 per kilogram as aberrational relative to the SV of $20.59 per
kilogram otherwise calculated from import data for respondent’s packing tape. 	Final Decision
Memo at 54; see also Memorandum re: Surrogate Values for the Final Results at 2, PD 287, bar
code 3251319-01 (Jan. 7, 2015).
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 34 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 35
PUBLIC VERSION
at 55. Commerce also concluded that it could not consider the Indonesian price quotes
as SV data sources because they were submitted in respondents’ SV rebuttal submission
and its regulations do not allow using information from rebuttal submissions to be used
as SV data. Id. (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(3)(iv)). Lastly, Commerce determined that
it would not consider the import data from other economically comparable countries
because the record contains suitable import data from the primary surrogate country. Id.
Commerce reasonably determined that Indonesian data satisfied the full breadth of its SV
data selection criteria and is non-aberrational. 	Therefore, Commerce’s selection of
Indonesian data as the best available information is supported by substantial evidence.
Agifish argues that the SV data from Indonesian imports is not specific and must
be aberrational because the average unit values (“AUVs”) in the import data range from
$0.56 per kilogram from Myanmar up to $52 per kilogram from Pakistan and Iceland.
Agifish Br. 25–26. Agifish speculates that such a wide range of prices could only result if
the category contains products other than packing tape that were imported into Indonesia
under HTS 3919.10 during the POR. Id. at 26. The wide range of AUVs referenced by
Agifish does not undermine Commerce’s conclusion that Indonesian import data is
specific and non-aberrational because the high-value imports reflect small volumes
relative to the total volume of imports. See Agifish Br. at Ex. 2. Based on the record here,
Commerce reasonably determined the volume of high priced imports is insufficient to
demonstrate 	that 	Indonesian 	import 	data 	significantly 	consisted 	of 	non-specific
merchandise 	whose 	prices 	differed 	significantly 	from 	the 	packing 	tape 	used 	by
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 35 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 36
PUBLIC VERSION
respondents. 33 Therefore, Commerce reasonably determined the Indonesian import data
is specific and non-aberrational.
E. Packing Strap
Agifish argues Commerce lacked substantial evidence to conclude that Indonesian
import data under HTS 3920.30 is specific to packing strap and does not result in an
aberrationally high value for this input. 	Agifish Br. 27–28. 	For similar reasons as for
packing tape, the court concludes Commerce reasonably determined Indonesian import
data is the best available information on the record to value respondent’s packing strap.
Commerce found that Indonesian import data under HTS 3920.30, which covers
“Other plates, sheets, film, foil, and strips of plastic, non-cellular and not reinforced,
laminated, supported or combined with other materials or Polymers of Styrene,” satisfies
the full breath of its SV data selection criteria, and it noted no party disputes these
findings. Final Decision Memo at 56–57. Commerce concluded that the import data does
not 	contain 	aberrational 	data 	because 	the 	SVs 	derived 	from 	other 	economically
comparable countries on the record are approximately one third that of the SV based
upon Indonesian import data. 	Id. 	Commerce concluded this difference is not large
enough to demonstrate the data is aberrational. 	Id. 	The court will not reweigh the
33 As evidence detracting from Commerce’s finding that Indonesian imports under HTS 3919.10
are specific, Agifish cites imports from Pakistan and Iceland into Indonesia, which it argues had
AUVs of $61.75 per kilogram and $62.00, respectively. Agifish Br. 26 (citing id. at Ex. 2). The
imports highlighted by Agifish together represent a mere 13 kilograms of 3,657,560 kilograms of
total imports into Indonesia during the POR. See Agifish Br. at Ex. 2. It is, therefore, reasonably
discernible that Commerce concluded that it could not conclude data is non-specific or
aberrational where such a small proportion of imports were likely too expensive to be packing
tape.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 36 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 37
PUBLIC VERSION
evidence, and on this record the court cannot say that Commerce’s conclusion is
unreasonable.
Commerce reasonably concluded that Indonesian import data is the best available
information relative to Foreign Trade Statistics of Bangladesh and the Indonesian price
quotes on the record for the same reasons it did so for packing tape. 	Id. at 57–58.
Commerce also declined to consider import data on the record from other economically
comparable countries because the record contains suitable import data from the primary
surrogate country. Id. at 58. Commerce reasonably determined that Indonesian data to
value packing strap satisfies the full breadth of its SV data selection criteria and is non-
aberrational. 	Therefore, Commerce’s selection of Indonesian import data to value
packing strap is supported by substantial evidence.
Agifish argues that the SV data from Indonesian imports under HTS 3920.30
cannot be representative of packing strap because the AUV range from $0.86 per
kilogram from Turkey up to $42.61 per kilogram from the United States is too wide and
must contain other higher value-added merchandise. Agifish Br. 28. Just as for packing
tape, it is reasonably discernible that Commerce concluded the volume of high priced
Indonesian imports under this HTS subcategory is insufficient to conclude the import data
significantly consisted of non-specific merchandise whose prices differed significantly
from the packing strap used by respondents. 34
34 Agifish cites imports to Indonesia from the United States under HTS 3920.30 with AUVs of
$42.61 per kilogram as detracting from Commerce’s finding that the imports are specific to
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 37 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 38
PUBLIC VERSION
F. Fish Waste Byproducts
Agifish challenges Commerce’s selection of an average of price quotes from two
Philippine 	pangasius 	processors, 	Vitarich 	Corporation 	(“Vitarich”) 	and 	Bluebay
Aquaculture Inc. (“Bluebay”) to value respondent’s fish waste byproducts, including fish
waste, fish belly, fish stomach, fish head, fish fat, and fish skin, as unreliable, not publicly
available, not tax and duty exclusive, and not representative of a broad market average.
Agifish Br. 29–39. Defendant argues that Commerce reasonably found the Vitarich and
Bluebay price quotes are more reliable and specific than Indonesian import data for
various categories of respondent’s fish waste byproducts. Def.’s Resp. Br. 50. Agifish’s
arguments are unpersuasive, and Commerce’s selection of Philippine price quotes to
value various fish waste byproducts is reasonable.
Commerce concluded that the Vitarich and Bluebay price quotes are specific
because, together, they cover the full range of byproducts sold by respondents. 35 	Final
Decision Memo at 80. Commerce found the superior specificity of the price quotes render
packing tape. Agifish Br. 28 (citing id. at Ex. 3). These imports represent 1,908 kilograms out of
896,405 kilograms of total imports into Indonesia during the POR. See Agifish Br. at Ex. 3. It is,
therefore, reasonably discernible that Commerce concluded the import data is not aberrational
where a relatively small proportion of imports were likely too expensive to be packing strap.
35 Commerce noted the Vitarich price quote contains prices for head and belly waste, bone and
tails waste, skin, and trimmings, which are sold by HVG. 	Final Decision Memo at 80 (citing
Petitioners’ Surrogate Country Comments and Submission of Proposed Factor Values at Ex. 38,
PD 176–182, bar codes 3200753-01–07 (May 12, 2014)); see also Section D Questionnaire
Response – An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company at 31–34, CD 65, bar
code 3182100-01 (Feb. 18, 2014). According to Commerce, the Bluebay price quote covers fish
trimmings, head and tail bones, and pangasius skin. Final Decision Memo at 80 (citing Petitioners’
Surrogate Country Comments and Submission of Proposed Factor Values at Ex. 38, PD 176–
182, bar codes 3200753-01–07 (May 12, 2014)); see also Section D Questionnaire Response –
An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company at 31–34, CD 65, bar code 3182100-
01 (Feb. 18, 2014).
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 38 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 39
PUBLIC VERSION
them the best available information to value respondent’s fish waste byproducts because
the Indonesian import data is overly broad and contains products other than the fish waste
products sold by HVG. Id. at 81. Commerce considered the record evidence indicating
respondents were unable to reproduce the price quotes despite several attempts to
contact Vitarich and Bluebay directly and acknowledges that it undermines the public
availability of the price quote. 	Id. 	Nonetheless, Commerce reasonably considered the
price 	quotes 	reliable 	because 	the 	affidavits 	accompanying 	them 	indicate 	the
circumstances of how the price quotes were obtained. Id. Commerce also noted that the
price quotes are not representative of a broad market average and that the Vitarich price
quote is not contemporaneous, but reasonably concluded both sources are tax and duty
free because the quotes contain all the information to demonstrate they are ex-factory
and tax exclusive. 36 Id.
Commerce concluded that Indonesian import data under HTS 0511.91.0090 is not
specific because the subcategory, which includes “Animal products not elsewhere
specified or included; dead animals of Chapter 1 or 3, unfit for human [c]onsumption;
36 Agifish argues that it is not clear from the record whether the 2013 Vitarich price quote is
exclusive of transportation costs. Agifish Br. 37–38. Specifically, Agifish argues that the absence
of this information undermines its reliability because a company would not be willing to sell
byproducts for the same price with or without transportation. Id. at 37. However, Agifish cites no
record evidence to support its suspicion that a fish processor would not sell such byproducts at
the same price regardless of whether it is delivered or an ex-factory price. Commerce notes that
initially the price quote was silent on delivery terms and a later affidavit indicated that the
“delivered” and “pick-up” prices were identical. Final Decision Memo at 76 n. 584. Commerce
also notes that “[a] revised price quote states the prices were delivered prices.” 	Id. 	It is
reasonably discernible that Commerce weighed this record evidence and determined that it did
not undermine the fact that the price quote is tax and duty exclusive. 	The court declines to
reweigh the evidence. On this record, Commerce’s determination is reasonable.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 39 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 40
PUBLIC VERSION
[p]roducts of fish or crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates; dead animals
of Chapter 3; other,” by its terms is overly broad in that it contains items other than the
fish waste byproducts consumed by respondents. 37 Id. at 81–82. Likewise, Commerce
concluded Indonesian import data under HTS 0511.9140 is not the best available
information to value respondent’s fish skin byproduct because no such import data is on
the record in this review. 38 	Id. 	Finally, Commerce determined Indonesian import data
under HTS 0304.32 is not specific to value fish belly/meat because the HTS subcategory,
which includes “Fish fillets and other fish meat (whether or not minced), fresh, chilled or
frozen; Catfish (Pangasius spp., Silurus spp., Clarias spp., Ietalurus spp.)),” by its terms
includes whole, unbroken frozen and fresh fish fillets. 	Id. 	Commerce noted that HVG
reported producing and selling fish belly/meat as a waste by-product “derived from the
37 Agifish argues that Commerce’s finding that the Indonesian import data is not specific is belied
by its finding in the seventh administrative review. Agifish Br. 40–43. However, in that review,
Commerce did not find the Indonesian import data to be perfectly specific, but rather, found it
more specific relative to other data on the record and import data better satisfied its data selection
criteria. 	See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 77 Fed. Reg.
15,039 (Dep’t Commerce Mar. 14, 2012) (final results and partial rescission of the seventh AD
administrative review) and accompanying Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam (“Vietnam”): Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Seventh
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review at 18, A-552-801, (Mar. 7, 2012), available at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/vietnam/2012-6201-1.pdf 	(last 	visited 	Jan. 	18, 	2017).
Commerce’s determination that the price quotes is the best available information to value waste
byproducts is supported by substantial evidence even if Indonesian import data is somewhat
specific.
38 Commerce referenced that HVG “purported to place data for HTS 0511.91.0040 on the record
to value fish skin,” but concluded the data is absent. Final Decision Memo at 82 (citing An Giang
Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company – Direct Surrogate Values at Ex. 30, PD 158–
160, bar codes 3201162-01–05 (May 12, 2014)). Agifish does not contradict Commerce’s finding
as to the absence of this data on the record nor does it provide a citation to the record to
demonstrate where on the record this import data appears.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 40 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 41
PUBLIC VERSION
trimmings stage,” which Commerce reasonably concluded does not include whole fish
fillets. Id.
Commerce reasonably concluded that the Philippine price quotes are superior to
other price quotes on the record because of their superior specificity. 	Commerce
concluded that the price quote from Bangladeshi company Asian Seafoods, Inc. (“Asian
Seafoods”) is not as specific as those from Vitarich and Bluebay because the former does
not contain individualized prices for specific fish waste byproducts whereas those of
Vitarich and Bluebay quotes do. Id. at 82. In addition, Commerce noted that the record
does not indicate whether the Asian Seafoods quote contains prices on a tax and duty-
exclusive basis. Id. The record reasonably supports Commerce’s determination.
Agifish argues that Commerce lacked substantial evidence to conclude the Vitarich
and Bluebay price quotes are reliable market prices generated in the normal course of
business and publicly available because the quotes could not be replicated despite
respondents’ repeated efforts to contact the companies. 39 Agifish Br. 31. Agifish’s claims
that the record lacks evidence supporting the reliability of Philippine price quotes are
unfounded because its objections are based upon speculation as to the circumstances in
which the price quotes were given. 40 	Here, Commerce had competing affidavits on the
39 Agifish supports its claims by citing numerous affidavits detailing unsuccessful efforts
undertaken by various parties engaged by respondents to replicate the Vitarich and Bluebay price
quotes. See Agifish Br. 31–35.
40 Commerce notes that the Vitarich and Bluebay price quotes are accompanied by affidavits
detailing the circumstances of how they were obtained, the terms of the pricing, and specifically
what products are included in the quote. Final Decision Memo at 81. Commerce did not ignore
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 41 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 42
PUBLIC VERSION
record. 	An assessment of credibility and reliability of data cannot be reduced to simple
arithmetic. Although several affidavits claim the Philippine companies did not respond to
price 	inquiries 	weighs 	against 	their 	reliability, 	the 	court 	cannot 	say 	Commerce
unreasonably determined the Philippine price quote is reliable where the quotes are
accompanied by an affidavit attesting to its reliability.
Moreover, Commerce reasonably determined that any doubts as to the reliability
of the Vitarich and Bluebay price quotes are outweighed by their superior specificity
relative to other data sources as well as their public availability and tax and duty
exclusivity. Final Decision Memo at 81. None of the affidavits submitted by respondent
detailing efforts to reproduce the price quotes actually questions the accuracy of the
pricing information in the Vitarich or Bluebay affidavits or offers pricing that differs from
the 	Philippine 	price 	quotes. 	See 	Petitioners’ 	Surrogate 	Country 	Comments 	and
Submission of Proposed Factor Values at Ex. 38, PD 176–182, bar codes 3200753-01–
07 (May 12, 2014) (“CFA Surrogate Country Comments”). Agifish’s arguments appear to
call into question the public availability of the Philippine price quotes more than their
the affidavits, but reasonably credited other record information indicating the Philippine quotes
are reliable. 	Id. 	Commerce preferred the Philippine price quotes despite evidence that
respondents could not replicate them because of their superior specificity. Id. The court cannot
say that Commerce unreasonably discounted the fact that the price quotes were obtained by a
lawyer. Nor is it unreasonable for Commerce to conclude that an affidavit obtained by a lawyer
is reflective of pricing available in the ordinary course of business where the affidavit indicates it
is. Although the number of efforts undertaken by the persons retained by respondents to replicate
the quote should factor in assessing the reliability of the price quotes, Commerce did consider
this record evidence, and it reasonably determined that the weight of this evidence is insufficient
to render the price quotes unreliable.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 42 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 43
PUBLIC VERSION
reliability. 	The court cannot say that Commerce unreasonably considered the superior
specificity of these price quotes to outweigh their lack of public availability.
Agifish also argues that Commerce lacked substantial evidence to conclude that
the Vitarich and Bluebay price quotes are the best available information to value
respondents’ fish waste byproducts because they are not from the primary surrogate
country. 	Agifish Br. 36. 	However, Commerce’s reasonably concluded that Indonesian
data is not specific because the HTS subcategories are overly broad to the byproducts
produced by respondents. 	Nothing in the statute or in Commerce’s practice requires
Commerce to select data from a primary surrogate country where it concludes such data
is not the best available information to value respondent’s FOPs. 	See 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(c)(1). 	Agifish points to no record evidence showing it is unreasonable for
Commerce to conclude that more specific data from the Philippines is superior to
Indonesian data where the record lacks specific pricing data from Indonesia.
G. Brokerage and Handling Expenses
Agifish challenges Commerce’s selection of the World Bank’s “Doing Business
2014: Indonesia” report to value respondent’s brokerage and handling because the report
is not specific to prices for brokerage and handling of pangasius fillets. 	See Agifish Br.
46–48. Defendant responds that Commerce’s selection is reasonable. See Def.’s Resp.
Br. 56–57. The court agrees with Defendant.
Commerce found that the “Doing Business 2014: Indonesia” satisfies the full
breadth of its SV data selection criteria. 	Final Decision Memo at 69. 	Commerce found
Doing Business Indonesia is specific because the report “lists all charges associated with
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 43 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 44
PUBLIC VERSION
exporting a product overseas – document preparation, customs clearance, and port and
terminal handling – charges that would be included in brokerage handling. 	Id. at 69.
Commerce acknowledged that the price quote issued by Indonesian company PT
Jayantara Setia Sejahtera (“Jayantara”) is arguably more specific, but it found the price
quote does not meet any of the other SV criteria. Id. at 70. Commerce also noted that it
does not choose price quotes where a broad market average source is available that
meets its SV data selection criteria. Id. Commerce reasonably preferred the Indonesian
“Doing Business” report to the same report from Bangladesh because it is from the
primary surrogate country. Id. at 70.
Agifish questions the specificity of the Doing Business report because it does not
reflect brokerage and handling prices specific to the pangasius industry. 	Agifish Br. 47.
However, Agifish points to no record evidence that brokerage and handling expenses in
the pangasius industry differ significantly from general brokerage and handling. 	In light
of the fact the Doing Business report satisfies the balance of Commerce’s SV data
selection 	criteria, 	Final 	Decision 	Memo 	at 	64, 	Commerce’s 	SV 	data 	selection 	is
reasonable despite the fact it may not reflect data specific to the pangasius industry.
H. Truck Freight
Agifish raises precisely the same specificity objections with regard to Commerce’s
selection of the World Bank’s “Doing Business 2014: Indonesia” source to value
respondents’ truck freight FOP as it raises regarding the use of the same source to value
brokerage and handling. 	See Agifish Br. 43–44. 	For the same reasons, Commerce
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 44 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 45
PUBLIC VERSION
reasonably selected the Doing Business Report as the best available information to value
truck freight.
Commerce reasonably selected the Indonesia Doing Business Report as the best
available information to value respondents’ truck freight because the Doing Business
Indonesia report satisfies the breadth of its SV data selection criteria, including specificity.
Final Decision Memo at 67. 	Commerce acknowledged that the Doing Business report
reflects inland freight whereas the Jayantara price quote covers prices specific to the
exportation of pangasius fillets. 	Id. 	Commerce noted that the Doing Business source
contains prices for inland freight incurred in the consumption of FOPs but lacks data for
freight used in the exportation of pangasius fillets whereas the Jayantara price quote had
data for exportation of pangasius but lacked inland freight for consumption of FOPs. Id.
As neither quote contained freight pricing for all relevant freight used by respondent,
Commerce reasonably concluded that neither data source is more specific than the other.
Id.
Commerce concluded that the Jayantara price quote is not the best available
information because it is from a secondary source and not representative of a broad
market average. Id. Finally, Commerce found that the Bangladeshi Statistics Yearbook
data on the record is not contemporaneous and no more specific than Doing Business
Indonesia because it covers general freight whereas Doing Business Indonesia covers
inland freight. Id. Therefore, Commerce reasonably determined that the Doing Business
Report best satisfied its SV data selection criteria.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 45 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 46
PUBLIC VERSION
Agifish 	argues 	Commerce 	unreasonably 	determined 	the 	Indonesia 	Doing
Business report is specific because the report does not cover the key inputs used in the
pangasius industry. 	Agifish Br. 44. 	The court disagrees. 	Agifish points to no record
evidence that transporting the inputs used in the pangasius industry significantly differ
from those used in transporting inputs used in other industries. 	Therefore, Commerce
reasonably concluded that the Doing Business report contains specific pricing for
respondent’s freight FOP.
I. 	Fish Feed
Agifish challenges Commerce’s determination to value respondents’ fish feed
using prices in the Rukmono Affidavit because the prices are not representative of a broad
market average and not contemporaneous. 	Agifish Br. 54. 	Defendant argues that
Commerce reasonably concluded the Rukmono Affidavit is the best available information
to value respondents’ fish feed because it is the most specific source in that it specifies
the protein content of the feed and the size of the feed pellets. 	Def.’s Resp. Br. 58–59.
The court remands Commerce’s determination because Commerce has failed to explain
why its selection of different SV data in this review versus the ninth administrative review
is reasonable despite identical data on the record. 	Here, Commerce favored the
Rukmono Affidavit primarily because it is the most specific data on the record in that it
specifies the protein content and size of pangasius feed pellets whereas the article from
the Trobos Aqua publication does not. 	Final Decision Memo at 40. Although it may be
reasonable for Commerce to decide that the most specific data on the record is the best
available information to value fish feed, Commerce has not explained why it is reasonable
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 46 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 47
PUBLIC VERSION
to 	reach 	opposite 	conclusions 	on 	whether 	the 	same 	Rukmono 	Affidavit 	was
representative of a broad market average in this review versus those reached in the ninth
administrative review. On remand, Commerce must address this issue or reconsider its
determination.
Pursuant to Section 2641 of the Customs Court Act of 1980, as amended, 28
U.S.C. § 2641(a), and Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court takes judicial
notice of Commerce’s final determination in its ninth administrative review under the order
concerning certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 	See 28
U.S.C. § 2641(a) (providing that the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to all civil
actions before the Court); Fed. R. Evid 201. 41 	In the ninth administrative review,
Commerce determined the very same article from Trobos Aqua was the best available
information over the Rukmono Affidavit despite the fact that the Rukmono Affidavit was
more specific in that it specified protein content of pangasius feed. See Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Results of the Ninth Administrative Review and Aligned New Shipper Review at
34, 	A-552-801, 	(Mar. 	28, 	2014), 	available 	at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/vietnam/2014-07714-1.pdf (last visited Jan. 18, 2017)
(“Ninth AR Final Decision Memo”). 	In reaching its determination in the ninth review,
41 Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court, on its own and at any stage of the
proceeding, to take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it
can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned. 	Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)–(d). 	The court takes judicial notice only of the contents of
Commerce’s final determination, not its substance, the accuracy of which cannot reasonably be
questioned because the determination is published and publicly available.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 47 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 48
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce 	relied 	in 	part 	on 	its 	conclusion 	that 	the 	Rukmono 	Affidavit 	was 	not
representative of a broad market average because it contained only pricing data from one
month (i.e., January 2014). See id.
In this review, Commerce determined that the same Rukmono Affidavit, which was
also placed on the record in this review, is representative of a broad market average, see
Final Decision Memo at 39, because it determined that the fact that the Rukmono Affidavit
is from only one month (i.e., January 2014) is offset by the fact that the data covers
regions producing the vast majority of Indonesia’s pangasius. 42 	Id. 	However, the fact
that pricing data represents a wide range of regions accounting for the vast majority of
pangasius production cannot explain why the lack of temporal coverage is insignificant.
This gap in logic is particularly glaring where Commerce determined that the same
source, with identical regional and temporal coverage, was not representative of a broad
market average in the immediately preceding review. See Ninth AR Final Decision Memo
at 34. 	Commerce did not explain what about the record evidence in this review, which
42 At oral argument, Defendant noted that, based upon the data presented by Commerce in its
preliminary surrogate value memorandum reflecting total pangasius production in Indonesia, the
largest three pangasius producing districts in Indonesia account for approximately 99.8% of the
total pangasius production in Indonesia. Oral Argument at 00:50:36–00:50:43, Dec. 8, 2016, ECF
No. 120 (citing Tenth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results at Ex. 3, PD 238 (bar code
3213863-01 (July 2, 2014)). 	However, there is no indication that Commerce relied upon this
specific figure to make its determination, nor does the document referenced by Defendant list the
percentage of total production represented by pangasius production in these districts. See Final
Decision Memo at 39; Memorandum re: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results at Ex. 3,
PD 238 (bar code 3213863-01 (July 2, 2014). Moreover, because the same SV documents were
being considered in the ninth review, see Ninth AR Final Decision Memo at 34–35, Defendant
pointed to nothing on the record indicating that the share of production covered by the Rukmono
Affidavit changed since that review.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 48 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 49
PUBLIC VERSION
was the same as in the last review, justified its change of course. On remand it must do
so.
III. 	Commerce’s Rejection of Fingerling Length Information
Agifish argues that Commerce abused its discretion by rejecting fingerling length
data submitted on May 22, 2014 supplementing Agifish’s May 2, 2016 submission as
“unrequested” new factual information because Commerce’s original April 14, 2014
questionnaire requested fingerling size data. 	Agifish Br. 52; see also Commerce Letter
to HVG re: Rejection of New Factual Information at 1, PD 226, bar code 3208247-01
(June 11, 2014) (“Rejection of New Factual Info.”). In the alternative, Agifish argues that
Commerce abused its discretion by rejecting fingerling length information because that
information would have enhanced its margin calculations. Id. Defendant responds that
Commerce 	acted 	in 	accordance 	with 	law 	because 	Commerce’s 	supplemental
questionnaire did not request length information. 	Def.’s Resp. Br. 60 (citing Letter from
Commerce to HVG re: Supplemental Section D Questionnaire at Att. 1, PD 147, bar code
3200447-01 (May 8, 2014) (“Suppl. Sec. D. Quest.”)). 	Defendant also counters that
Commerce 	reasonably 	rejected 	the 	length 	information 	in 	Agifish’s 	May 	22, 	2014
submission questionnaire response because it was not timely filed in response to
Commerce’s original questionnaire requesting size information. Id.
“Absent constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances the
administrative agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to
pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous
duties.” 	Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519,
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 49 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 50
PUBLIC VERSION
543–44 (1978) (internal quotations omitted). Normally, courts will defer to the judgement
of an agency regarding the development of the agency record. 	See PSC VSMPO-
AVISMA Corp. v. United States, 688 F.3d 751, 760 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. Power
Comm’n v. Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Corp., 423 U.S. 326, 333 (1976) (a reviewing court
may not dictate to the agency the methods, procedure and time dimensions of a
necessary inquiry without substantial justification)). “In addition, ‘[i]n order for Commerce
to fulfill its mandate to administer the antidumping duty law, including its obligation to
calculate accurate dumping margins, it must be permitted to enforce the time frame
provided in its regulations.’” Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v. United States, 777 F.3d
1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Yantai Timken Co. v. United States, 31 CIT 1741,
1755, 521 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1371 (2007)).
Commerce’s 	regulations 	specify 	deadlines 	for 	the 	submission 	of 	factual
information. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.301. Initial questionnaire responses “are due 30 days
from the date of receipt of such questionnaire.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(1)(i). Generally,
a questionnaire is considered received “seven days from the date on which the initial
questionnaire was transmitted.” Id. Unless Commerce has extended the time to submit
factual information, Commerce will not consider in the official record of the proceeding
untimely filed factual information. 19 C.F.R. § 351.302(d)(1)(i). When Commerce rejects
factual information as untimely, it will not use such factual information in making any
determination, nor will the official record include the filed document containing such
factual information except for the sole purpose of “documenting the basis for rejecting the
document.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.104(a)(2)(i).
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 50 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 51
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce 	adequately 	supported 	its 	decision 	to 	reject 	HVG’s 	new 	factual
information submitted on May 22, 2014 as untimely by underscoring that “HVG had an
opportunity to submit additional information regarding fingerling length in response to [its]
April 15 supplemental questionnaire.” 43 	Final Decision Memo at 35 (citing 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.302(d)(1)(i)). Commerce explained that, rather than doing so, HVG submitted the
information on May 22, 2014, in response to a subsequent questionnaire that requested
only clarification of limited information. 44 See Final Decision Memo at 35 (citing 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.302(d)(1)(i)).
43 On April 14, 2014, Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire to respondent HVG asking
that it “provide the size of fingerlings purchased at each of HVG’s farms and provide invoices
which support [its] answer.” See Letter from Commerce to HVG re: Supplemental Section A, C,
D Questionnaire, PD 135, bar code 3195672-01 (Apr. 14, 2014). On May 2, 2014, HVG submitted
a response consisting of a fingerling purchase chart, invoices, and contracts. See Supplemental
Section D Questionnaire Response – An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company
at Exs. 1–2, PD 143, bar code 3199492-01 (May 2, 2014). 	Agifish argues that this response
provided size information for HVG’s fingerling purchases in terms of number of pieces per
kilogram. 	See Agifish Br. 51. 	Agifish does not argue that this chart provided the length of
fingerlings purchased in any of HVG’s orders.
44 On May 8, 2014, Commerce issued another supplemental questionnaire requesting: (1) “an
electronic copy in Excel of Exhibit 2, found in [HVG’s] response; (2) “translations of the invoices
found in Exhibit 1”; (3) “translation of the last document found in Exhibit 2”; and (4) “an explanation
of how HVG determines the differences between different quantities of fingerlings (i.e. columns
three, four and five) reported in Exhibit 2.” 	Letter from Commerce to HVG re: Supplemental
Section D Questionnaire at Att. 1, PD 147, bar code 3200447-01 (May 8, 2014). Agifish avers
that HVG responded on May 22, 2014 and June 6, 2014, supplementing the information it
submitted on May 2, 2014, with fingerling lengths along with sample contracts demonstrating
those lengths. 	See Agifish Br. 51; (citing Agifish Supplemental Section D Questionnaire
Response at 2, PD 212, bar code 3203959-01 (May 22, 2014)).
On June 11, 2014, Commerce acknowledged receiving supplemental responses from
HVG, but it rejected those portions of HVG’s May 22, 2014 supplemental Section D questionnaire
response 	because 	they 	“contain 	new, 	unrequested 	factual 	information, 	and 	this 	factual
information is untimely pursuant to [19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(2)(ii)].” Rejection of New Factual Info.
at 1; see also Final Decision Memo at 35. 	In response, HVG resubmitted its May 22, 2014,
submission on June 16, 2014 after removing the fingerling length data rejected by Commerce.
See Resubmission of Agifish Supplemental Section D Questionnaire Response, PD 232–233, bar
codes 3209242-01–02 (June 16, 2014).
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 51 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 52
PUBLIC VERSION
Agifish 	argues 	that 	Commerce 	requested 	length 	data 	in 	its 	May 	8, 	2014
supplemental questionnaire because its April 14, 2014 questionnaire asked for fingerling
“size data.” Agifish Br. 52. Agifish contends that, although its original response provided
size data in pieces per kilogram, length data is also responsive to Commerce’s original
April 14, 2014 questionnaire because length data is “size data.” 	See id. 	However, just
because Commerce’s initial questionnaire asked for fingerling size data does not mean
that Commerce’s supplemental questionnaires implicitly invited any further response to
Commerce’s initial questionnaire other than those items for which Commerce specifically
requested clarification. 	Commerce reasonably determined that no portion of its May 8,
2014 supplemental request sought additional length information from respondent. 	See
Final Decision Memo at 35 (citing Letter from Commerce to HVG re: Supplemental
Section D Questionnaire at Att. 1, PD 147, bar code 3200447-01 (May 8, 2014)). Agifish
points to no language in Commerce’s May 8, 2014 supplemental questionnaire that
indicates Commerce requested additional size data or otherwise requested length
information. Commerce also reasonably determined the length information submitted on
May 22, 2014, was untimely in response to its initial questionnaire, which did request size
data, because it was submitted beyond 30 days from the date of receipt of Commerce’s
initial questionnaire (i.e., beyond May 14, 2014). 	See Final Decision Memo at 35; 19
C.F.R. § 351.301(d)(1)(i); see also Agifish Supplemental Section D Questionnaire
Response, PD 212, bar code 3203959-01 (May 22, 2014).
Agifish also argues that, even if the length information submitted by HVG was
untimely, Commerce abused its discretion by refusing to accept it because the length
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 52 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 53
PUBLIC VERSION
information submitted results in more accurate margins. 	Agifish Br. 52. 	Indeed, an
interested party could nearly always claim that consideration of untimely new factual
information might result in more accurate margins. 	Therefore, in evaluating whether
Commerce’s rejection of untimely factual information is an abuse of discretion, the court
reviews Commerce’s decision to see if its decision is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or
fanciful, is based on an erroneous conclusion of law, rests on clearly erroneous fact
findings, or follows from a record that contains no evidence on which Commerce could
rationally base its decision. See Gerritsen v. Shirai, 979 F.2d 1524, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Commerce’s exercise of its discretion was made with a rational explanation and followed
its established regulations concerning the timely submission of factual information. See
Final Decision Memo at 52; see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.302(c)(1). Moreover, Agifish points
to no reasonable excuse as to why the length information could not have been timely
filed, nor did it raise any such reasonable excuse before Commerce. 	The court will not
disturb Commerce’s justifiable enforcement of the time frames provided in its regulations.
Under these circumstances, Commerce had a legitimate interest in promoting timely
responses to its questionnaires in order to complete its review within tight statutorily
prescribed deadlines, see 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(B)(iii), and Commerce reasonably
determined that HVG’s length information was not timely filed.
IV. 	CASEAMEX’s Separate Rate Application
CASEAMEX argues that Commerce’s determination that CASEAMEX was not
entitled to a separate rate is unsupported by substantial evidence. See CASEAMEX Br.
15–41. Defendant responds that CASEAMEX failed to demonstrate that it is free from de
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 53 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 54
PUBLIC VERSION
facto government control, specifically that it has autonomy from the government in
selecting management. 	See Def.’s Resp. Br. 67–73. 	The record facts relied on by
Commerce cannot support its determination. 	Therefore, Commerce’s decision is not
supported by substantial evidence.
In an administrative review of an AD order, Commerce is generally required to
determine individual antidumping duty rates for each known exporter or producer of
subject 	merchandise 	covered 	by 	the 	review 	based 	on 	its 	own 	sales 	of 	subject
merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1). However, Commerce may limit its examination
to exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from
the exporting country that can be reasonably examined if the number of exporters or
producers involved in the proceeding make it impracticable to calculate individual rates. 45
See 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(2)(B).
Through practice, Commerce has implemented a presumption that all respondents
within an NME country are subject to government control and should be assigned a single
“NME-wide” AD rate “unless the exporter demonstrates the absence of both de jure and
45 Although the statute permits Commerce to alternatively limit its examination to a statistically
valid sample of exporters, producers, or types of products, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(2)(A),
Commerce typically limits the individual examination in reviews to “exporters and producers
accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country”
according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection import data. See Proposed Methodology for
Respondent Selection in Antidumping Proceedings, 75 Fed. Reg. 78,678, 78,678 (Dep’t
Commerce Dec. 16, 2010) (request for comment) (stating that Commerce has used this option in
“virtually every one of its proceedings”). CASEAMEX does not challenge Commerce’s authority
to limit the number of exporters individually examined.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 54 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 55
PUBLIC VERSION
de facto governmental control over its export activities.” 46 	Import Admin., U.S. Dep’t
Commerce, 	Separate-Rates 	Practice 	and 	Application 	of 	Combination 	Rates 	in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, Policy Bulletin
05.1 (2005) at 1, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (last visited
Jan. 	18, 	2017) 	(“Policy 	Bulletin 	05.1”); 	see 	also 	Antidumping 	Methodologies 	in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economy Countries: Surrogate Country Selection and
Separate Rates, 72 Fed. Reg. 13,246, 13,247 (Dep’t Commerce Mar. 21, 2007) (request
for 	comment). 	If 	an 	NME 	respondent 	demonstrates 	both 	de 	jure 	and 	de 	facto
independence from governmental control in its export activities, Commerce’s practice is
to consider that respondent eligible for a rate that is separate from the NME-wide rate. 47
See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 1. 48
According to Commerce’s practice, a respondent may rebut the presumption of de
facto government control by showing that: 1) export prices are not set by, or subject to
the approval of, a governmental authority; 2) the respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other agreements; 3) the respondent has autonomy from the
central, provincial and local governments in making decisions regarding the selection of
46 The statute itself does not contain a presumption that respondents applying for separate rate
status in NME AD reviews are under government control. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1. However,
no party challenges Commerce’s authority to apply this presumption.
47 Separate rate respondents are ordinarily assigned an antidumping duty rate based on a
weighted average of the rates calculated for the individually examined respondents rather than
the NME country-wide rate, excluding zero or de minimis rates and rates based entirely on the
application of facts otherwise available. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(A).
48 Otherwise, that respondent’s exports are attributed to the NME country, and it is assigned the
NME country-wide rate. See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 1; Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings
Involving Non-Market Economy Countries: Surrogate Country Selection and Separate Rates, 72
Fed. Reg. at 13,247.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 55 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 56
PUBLIC VERSION
its management; and 4) the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.
Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 2; see also Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China,
59 Fed. Reg. 22,585, 22,587 (Dep’t Commerce May 2, 1994). 49
Commerce’s practice does not require a respondent to rebut the potential for
government control, but rather actual control by the government entity. See Final Results
of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand Order for Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China at 7,14 (May 6, 2013) available at
http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/12-147.pdf (last visited Jan. 18, 2017) (“Diamond
Sawblades Remand”). 	To do so, a respondent must show that the government neither
actually selects management nor directly or indirectly involves itself in the day-to-day
management of the company. 50 	See 1, 1, 1, 2-Tetrafluoroethane From the People’s
Republic of 	China, 79 	Fed. Reg. 62,597 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 20, 2014) (final
determination 	of 	sales 	at 	less 	than 	fair 	value) 	and 	accompanying 	1,1,1,2-
49 To determine whether a company is independent from governmental control in its export
activities to qualify for a separate rate, Commerce analyzes the information provided by
respondent relating to the absence of de jure and de facto control. Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 2–3;
see also Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 Fed. Reg. 22,585, 22,587 (Dep’t
Commerce May 2, 1994) (notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value). The court
does not analyze any findings on the absence of de jure control over CASEAMEX because
Commerce denied CASEAMEX’s separate rate application on the grounds that it failed to rebut
the presumption of de facto government control. See Final Decision Memo at 5, 87.
50 Neither party contests that it is within Commerce authority to presume governmental control of
an exporter operating in an NME or that the burden is on exporters to demonstrate an absence
of central government control in NME cases. CASEAMEX Br. 12; Def.’s Resp. Br. 62; see also
Sigma Corp.v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 	However, CASEAMEX
argues that the presumption operates only where a respondent does not put forth detracting
evidence. Oral Argument 01:24:05–01:24:28, Dec. 8, 2016, ECF No. 120. CASEAMEX argues
that once a respondent puts forth evidence, Commerce may not ignore that detracting evidence.
Id.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 56 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 57
PUBLIC VERSION
Tetrafluoroethane 	from 	the 	People’s 	Republic 	of 	China: 	Issues 	and 	Decision
Memorandum for the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Antidumping
Duty 	Investigation 	at 	10–11, 	A-570-998, 	(Oct. 	14, 	2014), 	available 	at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2014-24903-1.pdf (last visited Jan. 18, 2017) (“Tetra
from PRC I&D”); Diamond Sawblades Remand at 8–9.
Commerce’s conclusion that CASEAMEX failed to demonstrate a lack of direct or
indirect government influence over the actual selection of CASEAMEX’s management is
not supported by substantial evidence. 	CASEAMEX provided record evidence that
neither 	CASEAMEX’s 	largest 	shareholder, 51 	who 	was 	also 	appointed 	the 	sole
representative with authority to vote the shares owned by a government entity, 52 nor the
government owned entity itself alone had the authority to appoint Directors without the
approval of 65% of the General Meeting of Shareholders. 53 See Can Tho Import-Export
Joint Stock Company (CASEAMEX) Separate Rate Application at Ex. 10 at Art. 25.2, CD
46–51, bar codes 3168607-01–06 (Dec. 17, 2013) (“CASEAMEX SRA”). This evidence
offered by CASEAMEX rebutted the presumption of government control because nothing
51 Commerce found that CASEAMEX’s largest shareholder, [[
]], is the [[
]]’s representative. See Separate Rate Memo at 6; see also id. at 2
n.9.
52 Commerce found the [[ 	]] is the local
government authority and acts as the executive committee of the administrative body of the
central government in the Can Tho City Area, which reports directly to the [[ 	]].
See Separate Rate Memo at 5.
53 Commerce inferred the [[ 	]]’s involvement in the day-to-day operations of
CASEAMEX from the fact that the government’s representative had the sole ability to nominate
members to the [[ 	]] coupled with the independent fact that the [[
]] controlled CASEAMEX’s independent operations. See Separate Rate Memo at 6.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 57 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 58
PUBLIC VERSION
about such an arrangement supports a reasonable inference that the government directly
or indirectly selected management where the government’s representative did not control
sufficient shares to approve management and directors. 	Commerce relies upon the
Diamond Sawblades Remand for the proposition that an organization owned by a
government entity exerts influence over the selection of management by placing officials
on its board. 	Separate Rate Memo at 7 (citing Diamond Sawblades Remand at 8–9).
However, although Commerce’s found that CASEAMEX’s largest shareholder was
appointed as the government entity’s [[
]], this evidence does not support a reasonable inference that
CASEAMEX’s largest shareholder is controlled directly or indirectly by the government. 54
Moreover, no record evidence supports the notion that CASEAMEX’s largest shareholder
had 	any 	such 	authority 	prior 	to 	the 	selection 	of 	CASEAMEX’s 	directors 	and
54 Defendant also argues that Commerce meant to ground its inference that the government
retained control over [[ 	]] shares in its finding that [[ 	]] is the representative of the
People’s Committee. See Def.’s Resp. Br. 65 n. 12; Oral Argument at 00:59:09–01:00:08, Dec.
8, 2016, ECF No. 120 (citing CASEAMEX Second Suppl. Resp. at Ex. S2-3); see also Separate
Rate Memo at 5 (citing CASEAMEX Second Suppl. Resp. at Ex. S2-3). Defendant argues that
this inference is further supported by an affidavit on the record from [[ 	]] stating that he was
appointed as the [[ 	]] sole and exclusive representative “to make all
decisions on their behalf, including the appointment, replacement and removal of any directors
and management.” Def.’s Resp. Br. 65 (citing CASEAMEX Second Suppl. Resp. at Ex. S2-2);
see also Separate Rate Memo at 6 (citing CASEAMEX Second Suppl. Resp. at Ex. S2-2).
However, Commerce does not explain how either document evidencing [[ 	]] appointment
as the [[ 	]] sole representative “making favorable conditions for monitoring
and running the business” supports an inference that the government retained control over its
shares or had influence over [[ 	]] voting of their shares. See CASEAMEX Second Suppl.
Resp. at Ex. S2-3. On remand it must do so or reconsider its determination.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 58 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 59
PUBLIC VERSION
management. 55 	Therefore, Commerce’s determination is unsupported by substantial
evidence.
In 	finding 	CASEAMEX 	failed 	to 	demonstrate 	autonomy 	in 	its 	selection 	of
management, 	it 	is 	unclear 	whether 	Commerce 	relied 	upon 	the 	potential 	for 	the
government to nominate an individual to CASEAMEX’s board or to management based
on its ownership in the company alone, or whether Commerce found that the government
indirectly 	nominated 	all 	of 	its 	board 	members 	and 	managers 	by 	nominating 	a
representative who appointed [[ 	]] board members and managers. 56 This lack
55 CASEAMEX highlights record evidence that the [[ 	]] did not
assign its shareholder rights to [[ 	]] until September 12, 2012, well after the selection of
directors in 2006 referenced by Commerce to connect the government’s control of [[ 	]] to
[[ 	]] selection of managers and directors of CASEAMEX. 	See CASEAMEX Reply Br.
Confidential Version 11, Sept. 9, 2016, ECF No. 102 (citing Can Tho Import-Export Joint Stock
Company (CASEAMEX) Second Separate Rate Supplemental Questionnaire at Ex. S2-3, CD
117, bar code 3192727-01 (Apr. 2, 2014)); see also CASEAMEX SRA at Exs. 13A, 13B, and 14.
Defendant responds that even though most of the directors were appointed before the [[
]] appointed [[ 	]] as its sole representative, [[ 	]] was appointed as [[
]] with a letter signed by [[ 	]] after being appointed as the
[[ 	]] representative. Oral Argument at 01:05:20–01:06:23, Dec. 8, 2016, ECF
No. 120 (citing CASEAMEXSRA at Ex. 13B). 	However, this evidence alone does not address
Commerce’s failure to explain what supported its inference that [[ 	]]
controlled the day to day operations of the company despite the fact that it could not have
appointed any of the members of the [[ 	]] without the approval of other
shareholders.
56 Defendant conceded at oral argument that Commerce must find actual control by the [[
]] in order to determine that an exporter is under de facto government control. 	Oral
Argument at 01:14:26–01:14:28, Dec. 8, 2016, ECF No. 120. Defendant argues that Commerce
grounded that finding of actual control in its finding that [[ 	]] appointed a [[
]] effective [[ 	]] as well as, through [[ 	]] capacity to vote a block
of over [[ 	]] percent and thereby block the nomination of any other member being nominated at
the general shareholders meeting. Oral Argument at 01:14:38–01:14:57, Dec. 8, 2016, ECF No.
120 (citing CASEAMEX SRA Ex. 13B). 	CASEAMEX concedes that [[ 	]] may block
candidates from being nominated to the board. 	Oral Argument at 00:57:22–00:57:30, Dec. 8,
2016, ECF No. 120. 	However, as discussed in more detail below, the record documents
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 59 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 60
PUBLIC VERSION
of clarity is significant because, if Commerce relied solely upon the government’s potential
to nominate a manager or a board member with control over day-to-day company
operations, it would be deviating from its practice of requiring that the government either
actually appoint management or be directly or indirectly involved in the management of
the company. See Tetra from PRC I&D at 10–11; Diamond Sawblades Remand at 8–9.
If Commerce intended to deviate from its practice, on remand it must explain the
reasonableness of that deviation. 	See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State
Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983).
If, on the other hand, Commerce inferred day-to-day control by the government
entity over CASEAMEX because the government in fact nominated a representative,
[[ 	]], this determination is not supported by
substantial evidence. Record evidence clearly establishes that all of the directors whose
appointment letters Commerce references were selected and appointed prior to the
government entity’s nomination of its representative. 	See Can Tho Import-Export Joint
Stock Company (CASEAMEX) Second Separate Rate Supplemental Questionnaire at
Ex. S2-3, CD 117, bar code 3192727-01 (Apr. 2, 2014); CASEAMEX SRA at Exs. 13A,
demonstrate that the government did not, and indeed could not itself appoint members of either
[[ 	]] without the approval of the shareholders. Moreover the
record documents relied upon by Commerce do not demonstrate that [[ 	]]
was directly involved in the appointment of management and directors. See CASEAMEX SRA at
Exs. 13, 14, and 15. The evidence relied upon by Commerce does not demonstrate that [[
]] capacity to block nominations of management or to the board was actualized or that [[
]] continued to exercise control over their own shares after they were
transferred to [[ 	]]. Moreover, Commerce does not point to any record evidence that the
[[ 	]] itself actually controlled [[ 	]] shares. On remand, it must do so or
reconsider its determination.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 60 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 61
PUBLIC VERSION
13B, and 14. On remand, Commerce must explain what record evidence demonstrates
direct or indirect government involvement in selecting members of CASEAMEX’s board
or reconsider its determination.
To the extent Commerce determined that the government indirectly controls the
selection of management because its representative has the sole capacity to appoint
board members and that the government, through its representative, has the capacity to
block 	nominations to the 	board, those 	determinations 	are also 	not 	supported 	by
substantial evidence. See Separate rate Memo at 6 (citing CASEAMEX SRA at Exs. 13A,
13B, and 14. 57 	Commerce concludes that [[ 	]] must have appointed all of the
members of the [[ 	]] because only [[ 	]] and the government entity
surpass the ownership threshold required by CASEAMEX’s Articles of Association to
57 Since Commerce found [[ 	]] held [[ 	]] of the shares of CASEAMEX, Separate Rate
Memo at 5, even if [[ 	]] voted all his shares together with those of [[
]], he could nominate up to [[ 	]] members of the board. See CASEAMEX SRA at
Ex. 10 at Art. 25.2. However, since the board is comprised of at minimum [[ 	]] members, see
CASEAMEX SRA at Ex. 10 at Art. 25.1, at no point could [[ 	]] have had the sole ability to
nominate all board members. 	Moreover, all of documents reflecting the appointment of board
members on the record show that all board members were appointed prior to the [[
]] assignment of its share to [[ 	]]. See CASEAMEX SRA at Exs. 13, 14, and
15; CASEAMEX Second Suppl. Resp. at Ex. S2-3.
Commerce relies upon the Diamond Sawblades Remand to infer that the [[
]] exerted influence over the selection of management. See Separate Rate Memo at
7 (Diamond Sawblades Remand at 8–9). In the Diamond Sawblades Remand, Commerce found
that the respondent failed to demonstrate an absence of de facto control because a 100 percent
government-owned entity was the largest shareholder of the respondent and was the only
shareholder able to nominate candidates to the board of directors. Diamond Sawblades Remand
at 8. 	Here, Commerce did not find the [[ 	]] to be CASEAMEX’s largest
shareholder. 	Since Commerce’s finding that [[ 	]] is not the only shareholder capable of
nominating board members is not supported by substantial evidence, on remand, Commerce
must explain why it is reasonable to conclude that the [[ 	]] exerts actual control
over CASEAMEX’s selection of management in circumstances where it is neither the largest
shareholder nor the only shareholder capable of nominating board members or reconsider its
determination.
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 61 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 62
PUBLIC VERSION
appoint board members. 58 See Separate Rate Memo at 6. However, this finding is not
supported by the record because Commerce does not explain why shareholders with
smaller shareholdings could not band together to surpass this ownership threshold. See
id. This finding is critical to Commerce’s determination because Commerce relies upon
it to connect the government entity to [[ 	]] selection of board members. See id.
Commerce appears to infer that the government entity must have actually appointed
management because no other shareholder had the capacity to do so. See id. If other
shareholders 	could 	have 	put 	forward 	candidates 	to 	the 	Board 	of 	Directors, 	then
Commerce’s inference of indirect control is unreasonable. If other shareholders could not
put forward candidates to [[ 	]], Commerce must explain what record
evidence supports such a finding. 59
58 CASEAMEX’s Articles of Association indicate [[
]] 	CASEAMEX SRA at Ex. 10 at 25.2. 	The Articles of Association
specifically provide that [[
]]. Id. at Ex. 10 at Arts. 12.3, 25.2.
59 Defendant argues that Commerce reasonably concluded that Article 25.2 of CASEAMEX’s
Articles of Association means that only individual shareholders who themselves hold at least
[[ ]]% of voting shares may band together with other shareholders. Oral Argument at 01:08:18–
01:08:26, Dec. 8, 2016, ECF No. 120. Defendant also argues that CASEAMEX’s questionnaire
response corroborates this reading, stating that
[t]he Department correctly notes that [[
]] 	Further, the Department also correctly
notes that [[
]]
Oral Argument at 01:08:28–01:09:03:, Dec. 8, 2016, ECF No. 120 (quoting CASEAMEX Second
Suppl. Resp. 4). 	However, the fact that CASEAMEX’s Articles of Association and its
questionnaire response indicate that “[[ 	]]” does not preclude
(footnote continued)
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 62 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 63
PUBLIC VERSION
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that [[ 	]] is controlled by [[
]], Commerce does not explain why the government’s involvement in the
selection of CASEAMEX’s management is actual and not just potential. 60 Defendant also
highlights the fact that [[ 	]], voting his shares together with those of [[
]] has the effect of denying the 65% approval required for a board member.
Def.’s Resp. Br. 71 (citing CASEAMEX SRA at Ex. 10 Art. 25.2). 	Although it may be
reasonable to infer that the [[ 	]] could withhold its support at any time,
Commerce has not explained why it is reasonable to infer that [[ 	]]
actually influenced the appointment of board members when this arrangement only came
into 	effect 	after 	the 	appointment 	of 	[[ 	]] 	as 	the 	[[ 	]]
representative.
Defendant argues that “[a] company operating in an NME-designated country is
not autonomous from government control when the government maintains a significant
individual shareholders each holding less than [[ ]]% from banding together to reach the [[ ]]%
threshold for nominating board members. On remand, Commerce must explain why interpreting
CASEAMEX’s Articles of Association to permit only an individual shareholder on its own holding
[[ ]]% or more of CASEAMEX’s shares to nominate a director or board member rather than
collectively with other shareholders is reasonable or reconsider its determination.
60 Commerce found that [[ 	]] owns [[ 	]] of CASEAMEX and [[
]] owns [[ 	]] of CASEAMEX. 	Separate Rate Memo at 5. 	According to Article
25.2 of CASEAMEX’s Articles of Association, since each holds between [[ 	]]% and [[ 	]]% of
voting shares in CASEAMEX, [[ 	]] and [[ 	]] each can appoint two
members of the [[ 	]]. 	See CASEAMEX SRA at Ex. 10 at Art. 25.2.
CASEAMEX acknowledges that the Board of Directors/Management consists of five individuals.
CASEAMEX Br. 24 (citing CASEAMEX SRA at Ex. 14). 	Even if [[ 	]] depends upon his
ability to control the [[ 	]] shares to appoint a controlling share of the board
because without his right to vote the [[ 	]] shares he could only nominate [[ ]]
of the [[ ]] directors, Commerce does not explain why it is reasonable to infer that [[ 	]] is
controlled by [[ 	]] or that [[ 	]] shares inure to the benefit of the
[[ 	]].
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 63 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 64
PUBLIC VERSION
ownership interest in that company.” 	Def.’s Resp. Br. 63 (citing Tetra from PRC I&D at
10–11). 	Commerce cites a discussion from Tetra from PRC I&D at 10–11 for the
proposition that government ownership is significant when the government ownership
passes the threshold to nominate a board member. See Separate Rate Memo at 6 (citing
Tetra from PRC I&D at 4–13). 	Defendant implies that the capacity to nominate board
members 	together 	with 	independent 	evidence 	that 	the 	board 	controls 	day-to-day
operations of the company is sufficient to support a finding of de facto control. See Def.’s
Resp. Br. 63 (citing Tetra from PRC I&D at 4–13). However, in Tetra from the PRC I&D,
Commerce inferred government control over an individual because that individual sat on
the board of a 100 percent government-owned entity. 	See Tetra from the PRC I&D at
10–11. 	Commerce did not find that [[ 	]] sat on the board of a 100 percent
government owned entity. 	To the extent Commerce continues to rely upon Tetra from
the PRC I&D, on remand Commerce must explain why it is reasonable to infer that the
government has actual control over CASEAMEX’s largest shareholder or explain why it
is reasonable to infer government control over CASEAMEX without such evidence.
V. 	Recalculation of Dumping Margin Assigned to Separate Rate Companies
Anvifish argues that the margin assigned to separate rate respondents should be
revised in the event the dumping margin for mandatory respondent, HVG, is reduced.
Anvifish Br. 38–40. Since the court remanded the issue of Commerce’s SV data selection
for fish feed for further consideration, it is unclear whether the margin calculations for
mandatory respondent HVG will change in Commerce’s remand redetermination until
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 64 of 65

Consol. Court No. 15-00044 	Page 65
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce’s reconsiders this issue. 	The court defers consideration of Anvifish’s
challenge until its review of Commerce’s remand redetermination.
CONCLUSION
The court remands Commerce’s SV data selection for fish feed and Commerce’s
decision not to grant CASEAMEX separate rate status in this administrative review for
further consideration and explanation. 	The court sustains the Final Results in all other
respects. In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Commerce’s determination is remanded for further consideration
consistent with this opinion; and it is further
ORDERED that Commerce shall file its remand determination with the court within
45 days of this date; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Consolidated Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors shall
have 30 days thereafter to file comments; and it is further
ORDERED 	that 	Defendant 	and 	Defendant-Intervenor 	shall 	have 	15 	days
thereafter to file their replies to comments on the remand determination
/s/ Claire R. Kelly
Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Dated: January 23, 2017
New York, New York
Case 1:15-cv-00044-CRK Document 127 Filed 01/31/17 Page 65 of 65