Slip Op. 09-69
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION
COMMITTEE, VERSAGGI SHRIMP
CORPORATION, and INDIAN RIDGE
SHRIMP COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge
UNITED STATES,
Consol. Court No. 05-00192
Defendant,
and
EASTERN FISH COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant-Intervenor.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Following decision and remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
remanding the matter to the United States Department of Commerce to redetermine the scope of
less-than-fair-value determinations in an antidumping proceeding.]
Dated: July 1, 2009
Dewey Ballantine LLP (Bradford L. Ward, Linda A. Andros, Rory F. Quirk, and Mayur
R. Patel) for plaintiffs.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Patricia M.
McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice (Stephen C. Tosini); Christine J. Sohar and Peter J. Kaldes, Office of the
Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel,
for defendant.
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (Michael J. Coursey and Mary T. Staley) for defendant-
intervenor.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 2
Stanceu, Judge: On remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (“Court of Appeals”), the court determines that the International Trade Administration
(“ITA”), United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) erred when
it excluded from the scope of its antidumping duty investigations, and resulting “less-than-fair-
value” (“LTFV”) determinations, an imported product known as “dusted shrimp,” which is a
frozen product consisting of shrimp coated with flour. The court remands the matter to
Commerce with instructions to reconsider its decisions to exclude dusted shrimp from the scope
of the amended final LTFV determinations and redetermine the scope of those determinations in
accordance with this Opinion and Order.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (“AHSTAC”), Versaggi Shrimp
Corporation (“Versaggi”), and Indian Ridge Shrimp Company (“Indian Ridge”) (collectively
“plaintiffs” or “petitioners”) brought multiple actions, later consolidated, to contest six amended
final affirmative LTFV antidumping determinations that Commerce issued in 2005 on certain
imported frozen warmwater shrimp (the “subject merchandise”) from each of the following
countries: Brazil, Ecuador, India, the People’s Republic of China (“China” or the “PRC”), the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”), and Thailand (collectively, the “Exporting
Countries”).1 See, e.g., Notice of Am. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
1
The administrative record provided in this case, Consolidated Court No. 05-00192, sets
forth the documents for the Thailand investigation. Accordingly, the court cites to administrative
record documents and Federal Register notices for Thailand. For most citations to Federal
Register notices, the court also provides the citations for parallel determinations made in the
concurrent investigations of Brazil, Ecuador, India, the People’s Republic of China (“China” or
the “PRC”), and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”).
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 3
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 70 Fed. Reg. 5145
(Feb. 1, 2005) (“Thailand Am. Final Determination & Order”).2 Each of the final and amended
final LTFV determinations excluded dusted shrimp from the scope of the investigation, and as a
result dusted shrimp was excluded from the scope of each of the six antidumping duty orders.
A. Initiation of the Antidumping Duty Investigations
On December 31, 2003, plaintiff AHSTAC filed petitions (“Petitions”) with Commerce
and the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “ITC”) seeking the
imposition of antidumping duties on a proposed class or kind of imports consisting of various
frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, China, Vietnam, and Thailand
in accordance with the procedures of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673 and 1673a(b) (2000). See, e.g., Letter
from Dewey Ballantine LLP to Sec’y of Commerce & Sec’y of Int’l Trade Comm’n (Dec. 31,
2003) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 2) (“Thailand Antidumping Petition”). On February 4, 2004,
plaintiffs Versaggi and Indian Ridge joined AHSTAC in the Petitions. Letter from Dewey
Ballantine LLP to Sec’y of Commerce & Sec’y of Int’l Trade Comm’n 2 (Feb. 4, 2004) (Admin.
2
Commerce published, on the same day, five amended final less-than-fair-value
(“LTFV”) determinations and antidumping duty orders for the five other exporting countries.
See Notice of Am. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 70 Fed. Reg. 5143 (Feb. 1, 2005)
(“Brazil Am. Final Determination & Order”); Notice of Am. Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
Ecuador, 70 Fed. Reg. 5156 (Feb. 1, 2005) (“Ecuador Am. Final Determination & Order”);
Notice of Am. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 70 Fed. Reg. 5147 (Feb. 1, 2005) (“India
Am. Final Determination & Order”); Notice of Am. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s
Republic of China, 70 Fed. Reg. 5149 (Feb. 1, 2005) (“China Am. Final Determination &
Order”); Notice of Am. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 Fed.
Reg. 5152 (Feb. 1, 2005) (“Vietnam Am. Final Determination & Order”).
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 4
R. Doc. No. 48); see, e.g., Notice of Prelim. Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 Fed. Reg. 47,100, 47,100
n.1 (Aug. 4, 2004) (“Thailand Prelim. Determination”).3
Following receipt of the Petitions, Commerce initiated antidumping duty investigations
under 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(b)(1). Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People’s
Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 Fed. Reg. 3876, 3877 (Jan. 27,
2004) (“Notice of Initiation”). Commerce published an initiation notice, which preliminarily
defined the scope of its investigations to reflect plaintiffs’ proposal in the Petitions.4 Id. In
3
Notice of Prelim. Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 Fed.
Reg. 47,081, 47,082 n.2 (Aug. 4, 2004) (“Brazil Prelim. Determination”); Notice of Prelim.
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador, 69 Fed. Reg. 47,091, 47,092 n.2
(Aug. 4, 2004) (“Ecuador Prelim. Determination”); Notice of Prelim. Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Prelim.
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
India, 69 Fed. Reg. 47,111, 47,111 n.1 (Aug. 4, 2004) (“India Prelim. Determination”); Notice of
Prelim. Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Prelim.
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed.
Reg. 42,654, 42,654 (July 16, 2004) (“China Prelim. Determination”); Notice of Prelim.
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Prelim. Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 Fed. Reg. 42,672, 42,672
(July 16, 2004) (“Vietnam Prelim. Determination”).
4
The Department’s initiation notice states:
The scope of these investigations include certain warmwater shrimp and prawns,
whether frozen or canned, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced
(continued...)
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 5
March 2004, the Commission issued its preliminary injury determination pursuant to
19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) (2000), finding “a reasonable indication that an industry in the United
States is materially injured by reason of imports from [the Exporting Countries] of certain frozen
or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns” in the same scope of investigation. Certain Frozen or
Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and
Vietnam, 69 Fed. Reg. 9842, 9842 (Mar. 2, 2004). Neither the Department’s initiation notice nor
the Commission’s preliminary determination mentioned the term “dusted shrimp” or specifically
referred to dusted shrimp as a product within the scope of the investigations.
(...continued)
by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,
deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen or
canned form.
The frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the
scope of the investigations . . . are products which are processed from warmwater
shrimp and prawns through either freezing or canning and which are sold in any
count size.
The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater
shrimp and prawns. . . .
Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are
included in the scope of the investigations. In addition, food preparations, which
are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp
or prawn are also included in the scope of the investigations.
Excluded from the scope are (1) breaded shrimp and prawns . . . ; (2) shrimp and
prawns . . . commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing;
(3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled . . . ; (4) shrimp and
prawns in prepared meals . . . ; and (5) dried shrimp and prawns.
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater
Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, 69 Fed. Reg. 3876, 3877 (Jan. 27, 2004) (footnotes omitted).
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 6
B. The Scope Exclusion for Dusted Shrimp
Following the initiation of the antidumping duty investigations, Ocean Duke Corporation
(“Ocean Duke”), an importer and wholesaler of the subject merchandise, with the support of
Rubicon Resources LLP (“Rubicon”), an importer of the subject merchandise, requested that
Commerce exclude “dusted shrimp” from the scope of the concurrent investigations on certain
frozen and canned warmwater shrimp. See, e.g., Thailand Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg.
at 47,101 n.2.5 In rebuttal scope comments, plaintiffs objected to the exclusion of dusted shrimp
and battered shrimp, arguing that because Ocean Duke and Rubicon had not “sufficiently and
publicly defined” the products for which they were requesting exclusion, Commerce should not
address the request. Mem. from Dir., Office 9, Imp. Admin., to Deputy Assistant Sec’y for Imp.
Admin. 7 (July 2, 2004) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 274) (“July Scope Clarification Mem.”).
Thereafter, Ocean Duke, defendant-intervenor Eastern Fish Company, Inc. (“Eastern Fish”), and
Long John Silver’s, Inc. (“LJS”) submitted additional comments arguing that dusted shrimp and
battered shrimp fall within the meaning of the already-excluded “breaded shrimp.” Id. at 12-14.
Plaintiffs argued, however, that they had “constructed the scope definition and scope exclusions
with care such that as a general rule, all warmwater shrimp and prawns were presumptively
within the scope of these investigations, with the exception of a small number of carefully
defined and delimited exceptions.” Id. at 10.
5
Brazil Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,081 n.1; Ecuador Prelim.
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,092 n.1; India Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,111
n.2; China Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,655; Vietnam Prelim. Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 42,673.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 7
After considering the interested parties’ comments, Commerce found that “while
substantial evidence exists to consider battered shrimp to fall within the meaning of the breaded
shrimp exclusion identified in the scope of these proceedings, there is insufficient evidence to
consider that shrimp which has been dusted falls within the meaning of ‘breaded’ shrimp.”6
Thailand Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,102-037; see also July Scope Clarification
Mem. 18. However, Commerce also found that there was “sufficient evidence for the
Department to consider excluding [dusted shrimp] from the scope of these proceedings provided
an appropriate description can be developed.” Thailand Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg.
6
As Commerce explained,
[T]he record presents insufficient evidence that breaded shrimp includes dusted
shrimp. In fact, Customs Ruling HQ 953654 found the opposite in a very similar
situation – dusted shrimp is distinct from battered or breaded shrimp. Although
Ocean Duke asserts that the dusting applied to its shrimp changes flavor and
appearance such that dusted shrimp is properly considered a preparation of shrimp
similar to breaded, it has cited no other evidence to support that claim. Although
[Ocean Duke Corporation, Rubicon Resources LLP, Eastern Fish Company, Inc.,
and Long John Silver’s, Inc.] argue strenuously that [Commerce] should find the
breaded shrimp exclusion includes dusted shrimp for a variety of reasons, they
have not argued that dusted and breaded shrimp are considered the same product,
or essentially the same product, by the industry or any authorities, as a definitional
matter. In fact, they repeatedly argue the opposite – that dusted shrimp is an
input, albeit a necessary one in their description, to breaded or battered shrimp
without presenting evidence to substantiate their assertions. In so doing, they
cannot logically treat these products as definitionally one and the same.
Accordingly, with respect to this consideration, [Commerce] finds that the record
evidence, and lack thereof, weighs against finding dusted shrimp to be included
within the meaning of breaded shrimp.
Mem. from Dir., Office 9, Imp. Admin., to Deputy Assistant Sec’y for Imp. Admin. 20 (July 2,
2004) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 274).
7
Brazil Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,084; Ecuador Prelim. Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 47,094; India Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,113; China Prelim.
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,660; Vietnam Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,676.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 8
at 47,1038; see also July Scope Clarification Mem. 18. Commerce cited concerns, raised by
plaintiffs, that exclusion of dusted shrimp based on “Ocean Duke’s requests, due to their lack of
specificity, could invite circumvention of a subsequent antidumping duty order in that batter (or
dust) added to the shrimp might be removed after entry.” July Scope Clarification Mem. 22.
Accordingly, Commerce solicited further comments from interested parties, in anticipation of its
final LTFV determination, to “enumerate and describe a clear, administrable definition of dusted
shrimp.” Id. at 23. Commerce noted that although there was insufficient evidence to subsume
dusted shrimp under the meaning of breaded shrimp, the evidence before it “strongly suggests
that dusted shrimp may indeed be in the same category as breaded and battered shrimp” but it had
been “unclear where the separation lies between subject merchandise and dusted shrimp.” Id.
at 25.
In August 2004, Commerce issued its preliminary LTFV determinations, which found
that “certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp,” excluding breaded and battered shrimp, but
not excluding dusted shrimp, from the Exporting Countries is being, or is likely to be, sold in the
United States at LTFV and invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary LTFV
determination. See, e.g., Thailand Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,100, 47,102 & n.6,
8
Brazil Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,084; Ecuador Prelim. Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 47,094; India Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,113; China Prelim.
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,660; Vietnam Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,676.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 9
47,102-03.9 Eastern Fish and LJS responded by proposing a definition of dusted shrimp based on
various physical requirements, as well as a testing protocol by which United States Customs and
Border Protection could monitor compliance. Mem. from Senior Enforcement Coordinator,
China/NME Group, to Acting Deputy Assistant Sec’y for Imp. Admin. 4-13 (Nov. 29, 2004)
(Admin. R. Doc. No. 453) (“Nov. Scope Clarification Mem.”). Plaintiffs, on the other hand, did
not propose a definition for dusted shrimp. Rather, plaintiffs continued to argue that there was
no clear, administrable way to define dusted shrimp and repeated their initial concerns that
exclusion of dusted shrimp would facilitate circumvention. Id. at 16 (“Petitioners stress that their
original concerns regarding excluding ‘dusted’ shrimp remain and that a dusted shrimp exclusion
is unadministrable and opens the door to circumvention.”), 22.
Commerce solicited comments to develop a definition of dusted shrimp “to create a
workable and enforceable definition of dusted shrimp . . . , within the context of ‘breaded’
shrimp.” Id. at 22. Commerce adopted Eastern Fish and LJS’s proposed definition of dusted
shrimp, determining that the definition was “adequate to define ‘certain dusted shrimp’ for the
purposes of these investigations,” id. at 22-23, and “does not encourage removal of dusting after
importation as a means to circumvent the order.” Id. at 25. Commerce noted that “no other
interested party besides Eastern Fish and LJS provided an alternative definition of ‘dusting’” and
concluded that “the exclusion of dusted shrimp can be defined and administered effectively.” Id.
at 26. Commerce proceeded to exclude dusted shrimp from the scope of its final LTFV
9
Brazil Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,081, 47,083 n.6, 47,084; Ecuador
Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,091, 47,093 n.5, 47,094; India Prelim. Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 47,111, 47,113 & n.6; China Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,654,
42,659 n.8, 42,660; Vietnam Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,672, 42,676 & n.4,
42,677.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 10
determinations. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 Fed. Reg. 76,918, 76,919-20 (Dec. 23, 2004) (“Thailand
Final Determination”).10
C. The Antidumping Duty Orders
The Department’s final LTFV determinations found that the goods within the scope of the
investigations were being, or likely to be, sold at less than fair value. Id. at 76,918.11 Plaintiffs
filed comments thereafter alleging as a ministerial error the exclusion of dusted shrimp from the
scope of the investigations and arguing that Commerce failed to consider plaintiffs’ submitted
declaration regarding dusted shrimp. Mem. from AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, to Dir., Office 2,
AD/CVD Operations 1-2 (Jan. 24, 2005) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 484). Commerce dismissed
plaintiffs’ ministerial error allegations, stating that “[t]he Department’s decision to exclude
dusted shrimp from the scope of th[ese] investigation[s] was an intentional decision, not a
10
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 Fed. Reg. 76,910, 76,911 (Dec. 23, 2004) (“Brazil
Final Determination”); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador, 69 Fed. Reg. 76,913, 76,915 (Dec. 23,
2004) (“Ecuador Final Determination”); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India, 69 Fed. Reg. 76,916, 76,917 (Dec. 23, 2004) (“India
Final Determination”); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg.
70,997, 71,001 (Dec. 8, 2004) (“China Final Determination”); Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, 69 Fed. Reg. 71,005, 71,008 (Dec. 8, 2004) (“Vietnam Final
Determination”).
11
Brazil Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,910; Ecuador Final Determination, 69
Fed. Reg. at 76,914; India Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,916; China Final
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 70,997; Vietnam Final Determination, , 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,005.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 11
ministerial error.” Id. at 3. On February 1, 2005, Commerce published amended final LTFV
determinations to correct various ministerial errors in its initial final LTFV determinations and
issued the antidumping duty orders. The amended final LTFV determinations and antidumping
duty orders contained the scope exclusion for dusted shrimp. Thailand Am. Final Determination
& Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5147.12
D. Court Proceedings
In this litigation, plaintiffs, who were petitioners in the underlying antidumping
proceedings, sought as relief a remand directing Commerce to amend the antidumping duty
orders to include dusted shrimp. The United States Court of International Trade dismissed the
consolidated action because it concluded that it was unable to grant the relief plaintiffs had
requested. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 31 CIT __, __,
473 F. Supp. 2d. 1336, 1348 (2007). The Court of International Trade reasoned that because the
final affirmative injury determination of the Commission did not include dusted shrimp, and
because the plaintiffs had not contested the final affirmative injury determination, the requested
relief of a remand ordering Commerce to amend the antidumping duty orders to include dusted
shrimp was unavailable. Id. at __, 473 F. Supp. 2d. at 1346-48.
The Court of Appeals, affirming in part and reversing in part, held that the Court of
International Trade, although correctly concluding that the requested relief of a remand to amend
the antidumping duty orders was unavailable because of the absence of a final Commission
12
Brazil Am. Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5145; Ecuador Am. Final
Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5158; India Am. Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed.
Reg. at 5148-49; China Am. Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5152 ; Vietnam Am.
Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5156.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 12
injury determination, erred in dismissing the case. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v.
United States, 515 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Court of Appeals concluded that
plaintiffs had sought, in addition to amendment of the antidumping duty orders, a declaratory
judgment that Commerce acted unlawfully in excluding dusted shrimp from the scope of the
antidumping investigation. Id. at 1381-82. The Court of Appeals held that the Court of
International Trade impermissibly declined to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claim on the merits,
explaining that the Court of International Trade erred in reasoning that its lack of authority to
provide a remedy also precluded the court from adjudicating on the merits plaintiffs’ claim as to
the lawfulness of the final amended LTFV determinations. Id. at 1382-83. The Court of Appeals
vacated the dismissal and remanded the action, directing the Court of International Trade to
“address the merits of AHSTAC’s claim that ‘dusted shrimp’ should be excluded from the scope
of Commerce’s final determination.” Id. at 1385.
II. DISCUSSION
Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion under USCIT Rule 56.2 for judgment upon the
agency record. In support of this motion, plaintiffs argue that the proposed scope of the
investigations as set forth in the Petitions unambiguously included dusted shrimp, the exclusion
of which from the scope of the orders “both ignores the clear intent of the Petitions, and fails to
afford requisite deference to the Petitions.” Pls. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. et al.
Mem. of Law in Support of J. on the Agency R. Pursuant to Rule 56.2 at 10 (“Pls.’ Br.”).
Defendant counters that scope-related terms in the Petitions were ambiguous and ill-defined,
requiring clarification so that the scope could be administrable. Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for J.
on the Agency R. 24 (“Def.’s Br.”). According to defendant, the Department’s decisions to
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 13
exclude dusted shrimp from the scope of its investigations were simply a clarification of the
ambiguously-defined terms of the Petitions, and it is “well within Commerce’s settled discretion
to clarify the scope of an investigation.” Id. at 15. Defendant-intervenors add that “petitioners
are not entitled to any deference to proclaim, after initiation, what products they did and did not
intend [a petition’s] language to cover.” Def.-Intervenor’s Resp. Br. 18 (“Def.-Intervenor’s
Br.”). They also state that courts “have ruled that a petitioner cannot compensate for its failure to
clearly define its requested scope in the petition by including therein a catch-all phrase.” Id.
at 22.
In ruling on plaintiffs’ Rule 56.2 motion, the court considers the Department’s LTFV
determinations, and specifically the Department’s decisions therein to exclude dusted shrimp
from the scope of those determinations, according to the standard of review provided in
19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i), under which the court must set aside a final determination that is
“unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (2000). In addition, the court must review the determinations
based on the reasoning Commerce put forth in those determinations and, in so doing, must
consider whether the determinations are based on “[a] rational connection between the facts
found and the choice made.” Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168
(1962).
Under the statutory scheme, Commerce owes deference to the intent of the proposed
scope of an antidumping investigation as expressed in an antidumping petition. See 19 U.S.C.
§§ 1673, 1673a(b); NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 14 CIT 623, 626, 747 F. Supp.
726, 730 (1990) (“If the petition is deemed sufficient, the ITA is statutorily obliged to insure that
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 14
the proceedings are maintained in a form which corresponds to the petitioner’s clearly evinced
intent and purpose.” (citing Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 12 CIT 1025, 700 F. Supp.
538 (1988), aff’d, 898 F.2d 1577, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1990))). However, Commerce retains authority
to define the scope of the investigation and may depart from the scope as proposed by a petition
if it determines that petition to be “overly broad, or insufficiently specific to allow proper
investigation, or in any other way defective.” NTN Bearing Corp., 14 CIT at 627, 747 F. Supp.
at 731 (citing Torrington Co. v. United States, 14 CIT 507, 745 F. Supp. 718 (1990), aff’d, 938
F.2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
This case presents, first, the question of whether the Petitions that were filed by the
domestic industry proposed to include dusted shrimp within the scope of the sought antidumping
duty investigation or investigations. See Minebea Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 20, 22, 782 F.
Supp. 117, 120 (1992) (“When a question arises as to whether a particular product is within the
scope of an investigation, the ITA first must determine whether the petition covers that product.
If the petition is ambiguous, Commerce then examines additional documentary evidence.”), aff’d
984 F.2d 1178, 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If the Petitions included dusted shrimp within the scope
of the proposed investigations, the issue then arises whether Commerce acted according to law in
effecting, despite the Petitions, the dusted shrimp exclusion that is at issue in this case. For the
reasons discussed below, the court concludes that although dusted shrimp appears to fall within
the proposed scope language in the Petitions, Commerce never made a determination on this
question in the final or amended final LTFV determinations. Because of its failure to do so,
Commerce was not in a position to give the deference that was due the scope of the proposed
investigation as set forth in the Petitions. Accordingly, the court is unable to conclude that
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 15
Commerce acted lawfully in excluding dusted shrimp from the amended final LTFV
determinations.
The court cannot agree with the arguments of defendant and defendant-intervenor that the
Petitions did not propose the inclusion of dusted shrimp, as allegedly illustrated by ambiguous
and ill-defined scope-related terms in the Petitions. See Def.’s Br. 24; Def.-Intervenor’s
Br. 18-23. The Petitions proposed that the scope of the investigations include “certain
warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen or canned, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or
farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,
deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen or canned form,”
Thailand Antidumping Petition, Ex. I-1 at 1, 5 (footnotes omitted), and exclude “breaded shrimp
and shrimp . . . commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp.” Id., Ex. I-1 at 5. The proposed
scope language included food preparations, other than prepared meals, containing more than
twenty percent by weight of shrimp. Id., Ex. I-1 at 2. Although the Petitions did not specifically
mention dusted shrimp, they proposed that “[a]ll products that meet the physical description
[would be] within the scope of th[ese] investigation[s] unless explicitly excluded” and provided
various examples. Id. The Petitions added that, as an illustration, “minor additions to frozen or
canned warmwater shrimp are not sufficient to remove the product from the scope of the
investigation[s].” Id.
Dusted shrimp, when considered according to all descriptions contained in the relevant
submissions made to the record, would appear to be within the proposed scope of the Petitions.
The use in the Petitions of the broad and unqualified term “otherwise processed” speaks to the
inclusion of dusted shrimp, even if the addition of flour were considered to be other than a
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 16
“minor addition,” and even if dusted shrimp were not considered to be a “food preparation.” An
ambiguity conceivably could arise from the proposed scope language in the Petitions over
whether dusted shrimp are a form of “breaded shrimp,” a product that the Petitions proposed for
exclusion from the scope. Id., Ex. I-1 at 2-3, 5. This is a doubtful proposition, however, because
shrimp coated with flour would seem, as a matter of plain meaning, to be physically distinct from
shrimp coated with breading. Regardless, Commerce resolved any potential ambiguity that may
have arisen when, during the administrative proceeding, it decided not to include dusted shrimp
within the meaning it assigned to the term “breaded shrimp.” Thailand Prelim. Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 47,102-03.13 Upon the issuance of the preliminary determinations and throughout
the remainder of the investigations, Commerce considered dusted shrimp not to be described by
the term “breaded shrimp” (although Commerce, at the time it issued the preliminary
determinations, had not yet made final decisions on the separate issue of whether to exclude
dusted shrimp from the scope of the investigations). See id. at 47,103.14
Although Commerce decided not to include dusted shrimp within the meaning it assigned
to the term “breaded shrimp,” Commerce never made a determination of whether dusted shrimp
were within the scope of the investigation proposed by the Petitions. The Department’s decisions
to exclude dusted shrimp occurred only after Commerce received, in response to its solicitation
13
Brazil Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,084; Ecuador Prelim. Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 47,094; India Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,113; China Prelim.
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,660; Vietnam Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,676.
14
Brazil Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,084; Ecuador Prelim. Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 47,094; India Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,113; China Prelim.
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,660; Vietnam Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg.
at 42,676-77.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 17
in the preliminary determinations, comments of Eastern Fish and LJS setting forth a proposed
definition for dusted shrimp. See Letter from Collier Shannon Scott to Sec’y of Commerce
(Aug. 2, 2004) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 354) (submitting comments on behalf of Eastern Fish and
LJS); Letter from Dewey Ballantine LLP to Sec’y of Commerce (Aug. 2, 2004) (Admin. R. Doc.
No. 355) (submitting comments on behalf of petitioners); Letter from Dewey Ballantine LLP to
Sec’y of Commerce (Oct. 26, 2004) (Admin. R. Doc. No. 433) (submitting a case brief in the
Thailand investigation); Letter from Dewey Ballantine LLP to Sec’y of Commerce (Nov. 1, 2004)
(Admin. R. Doc. No. 437) (submitting a rebuttal brief in the Thailand investigation). The
proposed definition described “dusted shrimp” as:
[A] shrimp-based product that (1) is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen)
and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least
95 percent purity has been applied; (3) so that the entire surface of the shrimp
flesh is thoroughly and evenly coated with flour; and (4) the non-shrimp content
of the end product constitutes between 4 to 10 percent of the product’s total
weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) is subjected to IQF
freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer.
Nov. Scope Clarification Mem. 5 (footnotes omitted). The Department’s apparent focus in the
investigation was on development of a definition of dusted shrimp, not the question of whether
dusted shrimp was within the scope of the investigation proposed by the Petitions.
A difficulty the court encounters in reviewing the actual decisions that plaintiffs contest
in this case, i.e., the decisions to exclude dusted shrimp, is that these decisions are not
accompanied by any reasoning or explanation in the amended final LTFV determinations. Each
of the six Federal Register notices setting forth an amended final LTFV determination and an
antidumping duty order announces, without elaboration, that “certain dusted shrimp” are
excluded from the scope of the order, defining the excluded product as follows:
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 18
Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) that is produced from fresh (or
thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to which a “dusting” layer of rice or
wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; 3) with the entire
surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with
the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and
10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being
frozen; and 5) that is subjected to individually quick frozen (“IQF”) freezing
immediately after application of the dusting layer.
Thailand Am. Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5147.15 Nor do the Federal Register
notices of the six final LTFV determinations, which were published on December 8, 2004 for
China and Vietnam and on December 23, 2004 for the other four Exporting Countries, set forth
any reasoning, either in the text or in the incorporated Issues and Decisions Memoranda, upon
which Commerce decided to exclude dusted shrimp from the scope of a final investigation and
determination. Instead, Commerce announced in the final LTFV determinations, without
elaboration, that “[e]xcluded from the scope are . . . dusted shrimp.” Thailand Final
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,919.16
Each notice of a final LTFV determination contains a reference to an internal,
unpublished Commerce memorandum (“Scope Clarification Memorandum”) dated
November 29, 2004. Thailand Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,919 (citing Nov. Scope
15
Brazil Am. Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5145; Ecuador Am. Final
Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5158; India Am. Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed.
Reg. at 5148-49; China Am. Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5152; Vietnam Am.
Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5156.
16
Brazil Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,911; Ecuador Final Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 76,915; India Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,917; China Final
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,001; Vietnam Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,008.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 19
Clarification Mem.).17 The Department’s failure to incorporate explicitly the Scope Clarification
Memorandum by reference into the final or amended final LTFV notices raises the question of
whether any reasoning set forth in that memorandum is properly before the court as part of the
contested determinations. Nevertheless, the court need not decide this question, because the
court, upon examining the Scope Clarification Memorandum, finds that the reasoning set forth
therein is inadequate, in any event, to support the Department’s decisions to exclude dusted
shrimp. The Scope Clarification Memorandum does not contain an analysis of the question of
whether dusted shrimp fall within the scope of the proposed investigation as set forth in the
Petitions. For instance, Commerce does not conclude therein that dusted shrimp are other than
frozen shrimp that have been “processed.” Nor does the memorandum conclude that the dusting
layer on the product is other than a “minor addition” or that dusted shrimp is not a food
preparation containing more than twenty percent by weight of shrimp.
The Scope Clarification Memorandum does, however, state several findings and
conclusions in support of the Department’s decisions to exclude dusted shrimp from the scope of
the investigations. First, it addresses the matter of an adequate definition for dusted shrimp,
stating that “[b]ased upon the submissions of interested parties, we determine that the definition
proposed by Eastern Fish and LJS is adequate to define ‘certain dusted shrimp’ for purposes of
these investigations.” Nov. Scope Clarification Mem. 22-23. The memorandum states that
Commerce considers the definition proposed by Eastern Fish and LJS to be clear and
administrable. Id. at 26. Second, the memorandum states that “[s]pecifically, the Department
17
Brazil Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,911; Ecuador Final Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 76,914; India Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,917; China Final
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,001; Vietnam Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,007.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 20
concludes that the proposed definition of dusted shrimp is comprised of components that create
clear physical characteristics that separate dusted shrimp from subject merchandise.” Id. at 23.
Citing the criteria set forth in Diversified Products Corp. v. United States, 6 CIT 155, 572 F.
Supp. 883 (1983), the memorandum concludes that “dusted shrimp is a separate class or kind of
merchandise more similar to battered and breaded shrimp, which are outside the scope of these
investigations, than the subject merchandise” and that “the addition of dusting material to shrimp
physically changes the product significantly enough that it differs from otherwise-subject
merchandise.” Id. at 24 & n.31. With respect to several of the Diversified Products criteria,
Commerce found that dusted shrimp is an intermediate product used for the purpose of making
breaded and battered shrimp. Id. Third, with respect to concerns raised by petitioners about
circumvention, Commerce relied on evidence placed on the record by Eastern Fish and LJS that
removal of the dusting layer would be costly, time consuming and fatal to product quality;
according to this evidence, Commerce concluded that circumvention accomplished by removing
the flour from the product would be unlikely to occur. Id. at 25.
The court is unpersuaded by the three reasons that Commerce put forth in support of its
decisions to exclude dusted shrimp from the scope of the investigations. First, although a clear
and administrable definition is a requirement for an exclusion of dusted shrimp, it is not a
rationale for such an exclusion. The general scope language already appeared to encompass all
forms of processed shrimp, and of food preparations containing twenty percent by weight of
shrimp, that were not specifically excluded. See Thailand Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 21
76,91918 (“The scope of this investigation includes certain warmwater shrimp and prawns,
whether frozen or canned,19 . . . head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,
deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw or otherwise processed . . . .” (emphasis added;
footnote omitted)). Therefore, a precise definition of dusted shrimp was needed only to make a
dusted shrimp exclusion, rather than the scope generally, administrable. The court, for this
reason, rejects defendant’s argument, Def.’s Br. 24, that the scope-related terms in the Petitions
were ambiguous and ill-defined, requiring clarification so that the scope could be administrable.
For the same reason, the court disagrees with the assessment of defendant-intervenors, see Def.-
Intervenor’s Br. 18-40, that Commerce acted properly in excluding dusted shrimp in response to
plaintiffs’ failure to define the requested scope clearly.
The second rationale offered in the Scope Clarification Memorandum is also
unconvincing. The memorandum states that “dusted shrimp is a separate class or kind of
merchandise more similar to battered and breaded shrimp, which are outside the scope of these
investigations, than the subject merchandise” and that “the addition of dusting material to shrimp
physically changes the product significantly enough that it differs from otherwise-subject
18
Brazil Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,911; Ecuador Final Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 76,914-15; India Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,916-17; China Final
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,000; Vietnam Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,007.
19
Commerce excluded imported canned shrimp from the scope of the antidumping duty
orders because the Commission found canned shrimp to be a separate like product, on which it
issued a negative final determination. See Notice of Am. Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
Thailand, 70 Fed. Reg. 5145, 5145 n.1 (Feb. 1, 2005); Brazil Am. Final Determination & Order,
70 Fed. Reg. at 5143 n.1; Ecuador Am. Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5156 n.1;
India Am. Final Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5147 n.1; China Am. Final
Determination & Order, 70 Fed. Reg. at 5149 n.1; Vietnam Am. Final Determination & Order,
70 Fed. Reg. at 5152 n.1.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 22
merchandise.” Nov. Scope Clarification Mem. 24. In concluding that dusting creates a physical
characteristic separating dusted shrimp from “subject merchandise,” the memorandum assumes,
without justification and contrary to general scope language that appears to include dusted
shrimp, that dusted shrimp is not subject merchandise. Again, according to the general scope
language, “subject merchandise” appeared to include not only all forms of “processed” frozen
warmwater shrimp that were not specifically excluded, but also food preparations containing
more than twenty percent by weight of warmwater shrimp, so long as the finished product was
not a prepared meal. See, e.g., Thailand Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,919.20 The
scope was not limited to frozen shrimp that lacked any form of a coating, seasoning, marinade or
sauce. See, e.g., id.21 Commerce specifically decided, for example, that the scope included
frozen shrimp scampi. See, e.g., id.22 Battered and breaded shrimp also appear to fall within the
general scope language–because they would appear to be forms of processed shrimp, if not food
preparations–and are placed outside the scope only as a result of a specific exclusion. Therefore,
the finding that dusted shrimp is a separate class or kind of merchandise from the “subject
merchandise” is illogical and unsupported by the record. Additionally, the Department’s finding
that dusted shrimp is an intermediate product used in making breaded and battered shrimp lends
20
Brazil Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,911; Ecuador Final Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 76,914-15; India Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,917; China Final
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,000; Vietnam Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,007.
21
Brazil Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,911; Ecuador Final Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 76,914; India Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,917; China Final
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,000; Vietnam Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,007.
22
China Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 71,000; Vietnam Final Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 71,007; Brazil Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,911; Ecuador Final
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,914; India Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76,916.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 23
no support to the Department’s decisions to exclude dusted shrimp from the scope of the
investigations and instead supports the Department’s position that dusted shrimp are not breaded
shrimp and, therefore, do not fall within the breaded/battered shrimp exclusion.
The third rationale set forth in the Scope Clarification Memorandum, that imports of
dusted shrimp are not likely to result in circumvention of an antidumping duty order, is
inadequate because it is irrelevant to the question Commerce was deciding at the time.
Analyzing the possibility of circumvention is relevant when Commerce is considering whether to
include in the scope a product that resulted from the alteration of subject merchandise because
inclusion of the product within the scope would prevent circumvention of the resulting order.
See 19 U.S.C. § 1677j (2000). In this case, however, dusted shrimp appeared to be within the
scope as defined by Commerce in the notice of initiation and the preliminary LTFV
determinations. Notice of Initiation, 69 Fed. Reg. at 3877; see, e.g., Thailand Prelim.
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,102-03.23 Commerce found, essentially, that due to cost
considerations and the deleterious effects on the product, it was unlikely that anyone would
attempt to remove the dusting layer of flour after importation. Nov. Scope Clarification
Mem. 25. Although there was record evidence supporting such a finding, the finding itself does
not bear on the question Commerce was required to decide in resolving the dusted shrimp issue
in the final LTFV determinations. As discussed above, that question was whether to define the
scope of the final LTFV determinations such that dusted shrimp, for the first time, would be
23
Brazil Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,083-84; Ecuador Prelim.
Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,093-94; India Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 47,113;
China Prelim. Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 42,659-60; Vietnam Prelim. Determination,
69 Fed. Reg. at 42,676-77.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 24
expressly excluded. The question properly related to such matters as whether dusted shrimp
were included in the proposed scope of the investigations as stated in the Petitions and whether
the scope could be administered adequately without an exclusion for dusted shrimp.
A conclusion that excluding a product from the scope would not likely lead to circumvention of
the order as applied to a type of subject merchandise other than dusted shrimp (in this instance,
frozen shrimp without a coating of flour) was not a valid rationale for the decisions Commerce
ultimately made.
Defendant relies on three decisions of the Court of Appeals to support its argument that
Commerce had ample discretion to exclude dusted shrimp from the scope of the LTFV
determinations, arguing that these three precedents are controlling authority on the issue
presented in this case. Def.’s Br. 21. Defendant relies on Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v. United
States, 898 F.2d 1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1990), for the principle that Commerce has inherent
discretion to ascertain the scope of its orders, the exercise of which “‘must reflect [Commerce’s]
judgment regarding the scope and form of an order that will best effectuate the purpose of the
antidumping laws and the violation found.’” Id. at 22 (quoting Mitsubishi Elec. Corp., 898 F.2d
at 1583). Defendant-intevenor also relies on Mitsubishi Electric Corp., pointing to language in
the opinion stating that “[t]he responsibility to determine the proper scope of the investigation
and of the antidumping order . . . is that of the Administration, not of the complainant before the
agency.’” Mitsubishi Elec. Corp., 898 F.2d at 1582; Def.-Intervenor’s Br. 2. Mitsubishi Electric
Corp. did not involve an issue analogous to the issue presented by this case and instead involved
the Department’s broad formulation of scope to encompass certain subassemblies in an
antidumping duty investigation on cellular mobile telephones. See Mitsubishi Elec. Corp.,
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 25
898 F.2d at 1581. The case did not address the extent of the Department’s authority to narrow
the scope from that which a petitioner claims to have proposed, and the holding therein does not
signify that Commerce may exercise that authority unreasonably. Defendant also relies on
Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) and Tak Fat Trading Co. v.
United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Def.’s Br. 14, 21. Defendant focuses the court’s
attention on language in the Duferco opinion that “[i]t is the responsibility of the agency, not
those who initiated the proceedings, to determine the scope of the final orders.” Duferco, 296
F.3d at 1097; Def.’s Br. 14. Neither this language, which does not address the specific issue
presented by this case, nor the holding in Duferco supports defendant’s argument. Duferco
involved a challenge to a scope ruling construing an already-issued antidumping duty order, not a
challenge to the Department’s scope language as set forth in a final LTFV determination and the
resulting antidumping duty order. See Duferco, 296 F.3d at 1089-94. Duferco stands for the
principle that Commerce, in making a scope ruling after the issuance of an antidumping duty
order, lacks the authority to construe scope language in the order to cover certain merchandise if
there is no language in the order that includes or can reasonably be interpreted to include that
merchandise. See id. at 1096-98. Tak Fat Trading Co., like Duferco, involved a scope ruling
construing an antidumping duty order and therefore is also inapposite. See Tak Fat Trading Co.
396 F.3d at 1380-82. The case turned on the Department’s construction of language in an order
on certain preserved mushrooms that specifically excluded from the scope of the order
mushrooms that had been marinated, acidified, or pickled. Id. at 1386. The Court of Appeals
concluded that Commerce had construed permissibly the language by which the order excluded
marinated, acidified, or pickled mushrooms. Id. Although Tak Fat Trading Co. involved an
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 26
antidumping duty order that contained scope language different from that which had been
proposed in the petition, 396 F.3d at 1383-84, the Department’s authority to adopt scope
language different from that proposed in the petition was not at issue in the case. Contrary to
defendant’s arguments, none of the three cited precedents of the Court of Appeals is controlling
authority under which the court must affirm the exclusion of dusted shrimp from the scope of the
LTFV investigations.
III. CONCLUSION
In summary, the court concludes that the Department’s decisions to exclude dusted
shrimp from the scope of the final LTFV determinations were contrary to law because they were
unsupported by any valid reason. Commerce failed to consider, and failed to resolve, the
question of whether dusted shrimp is within the proposed scope of the antidumping investigation
or investigations sought by the Petitions. Although Commerce has discretion to make exclusions
from the scope, even when doing so appears to be contrary to the proposed scope as set forth in a
petition, it must exercise this authority reasonably. The three reasons set forth in the Scope
Clarification Memorandum in support of the exclusion, for the reasons discussed in this Opinion
and Order, do not suffice. Accordingly, the court is directing that Commerce reconsider and
redetermine, in accordance with this Opinion and Order, the scope of the final and amended final
LTFV determinations with respect to the issue of the inclusion of dusted shrimp.
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 27
ORDER
Pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued in Ad Hoc
Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. United States, 515 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and in
consideration of all papers and proceedings herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for judgment upon the agency record is hereby
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; it is further
ORDERED that the amended final less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) determinations that
were contested in this case, Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 70 Fed.
Reg. 5145 (Feb. 1, 2005), Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 70 Fed.
Reg. 5143 (Feb. 1, 2005), Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, 70 Fed.
Reg. 5156 (Feb. 1, 2005), Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 70 Fed.
Reg. 5147 (Feb. 1, 2005), Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s
Republic of China, 70 Fed. Reg. 5149 (Feb. 1, 2005), and Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 Fed. Reg. 5152 (Feb. 1, 2005),
be, and hereby are, declared to be contrary to law because the decisions therein by Commerce to
exclude certain dusted shrimp, as defined in the final LTFV determinations, from the scope of the
final and amended final LTFV determinations were unsupported by adequate reasoning and
therefore were contrary to law; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request for a remand to Commerce of the amended final less-
than-fair-value (“LTFV”) determinations that were contested in this case is hereby GRANTED; it
is further
ORDERED that the amended final LTFV determinations that were contested in this case
be, and hereby are, remanded to Commerce for reconsideration and redetermination, consistent
with this Opinion and Order, of the scope of those determinations with respect to the issue of
dusted shrimp; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request for a remand directing Commerce to amend the
antidumping duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the exporting countries be,
and hereby is, DENIED without prejudice; and it is further
Consol. Court No. 05-00192 Page 28
ORDERED that Commerce shall have ninety (90) days from the date of this Order and
Opinion to complete and file its remand redetermination; plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days
from that filing to file comments; and defendant and defendant-intervenors shall have fifteen (15)
days after plaintiffs’ comments are filed to file any reply.
/s/ Timothy C. Stanceu
Timothy C. Stanceu
Judge
Dated: July 1, 2009
New York, New York