Catfish Farmers of America et al v. United States

Slip Op. 26-
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
CATFISH FARMERS OF AMERICA;
AMERICA’S CATCH, INC.; ALABAMA
CATFISH, LLC; CONSOLIDATED
CATFISH COMPANIES, LLC; DELTA
PRIDE CATFISH, INC.; GUIDRY’S
CATFISH, INC.; HEARTLAND CATFISH
COMPANY; MAGNOLIA PROCESSING,
INC.; SIMMONS FARM RAISED
CATFISH, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge
Court No. 24-00126
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following remand, 1 the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) submitted
the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, ECF No. 39-1 (Nov. 17, 2025)
(“Remand Results”). In the Remand Results, Commerce concluded that exporter Co May Import-
Export Company Limited’s (“Co May”) sale of subject merchandise was not bona fide. 	See
Remand Results at 5–16. Plaintiffs Catfish Farmers of America, America’s Catch, Inc., Alabama
Catfish, LLC d/b/a Harvest Select Catfish, Inc., Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC d/b/a
Country Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Guidry’s Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish
Company, Magnolia Processing, Inc. d/b/a Pride of the Pond, and Simmons Farm Raised Catfish,
Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) submitted comments in support of the Remand Results on
1 See Catfish Farmers of Am. v. United States, 788 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (CIT 2025).
Case 1:24-cv-00126-JAR Document 45 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 2

Court No. 24-00126 	Page 2
December 17, 2025. 	See Pls.’ Comments in Support of the Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, ECF No. 43 (Dec. 17, 2025) (“Pls. Cmts.”). On January 2, 2026, the
government submitted its response to Plaintiffs’ comments on Commerce’s Remand Results. See
Def.’s Resp. to Comments on Commerce’s Remand Results, ECF No. 44 (Jan. 2, 2026) (“Def.
Resp.”). Plaintiffs and the government agree that Commerce’s Remand Results comply with this
court’s prior remand order in Catfish Farmers of Am. v. United States, 788 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (CIT
2025) (“Catfish I”). 2 See Pls. Cmts. at 1; Def. Resp. at 1–2.
The court finds the Remand Results comply with the court’s remand order 3 and are
supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
Judgment will enter accordingly.
/s/ Jane A. Restani
Jane A. Restani, Judge
Dated: January 8, 2026
New York, New York
2 In Catfish I, the court sustained in part and remanded in part Commerce’s final determination in
its new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2022-2023, 89 Fed. Reg. 53043 (Dep’t
Commerce June 25, 2024). 788 F. Supp. 3d at 1354. The court remanded to Commerce to explain
whether the antidumping cash deposits submitted by Co May should be included in determining
the profitability of the resale of Co May’s merchandise, and whether the indicia of affiliation
between Co May’s customer (Customer A) and Customer A’s downstream customers should affect
Commerce’s profitability analysis under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(B)(iv). Id. at 1351–54.
3 The court also reviews Commerce’s redetermination for compliance with the court’s prior
remand order. Haixing Jingmei Chem. Prods. Sales Co. v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1337,
1340 (CIT 2018) (quoting SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1317
(CIT 2017)).
Case 1:24-cv-00126-JAR Document 45 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 2