Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
International Agricultural Trade
Defendants Proof of Potential Harm Essential
Not to Stay the Proceedings
Bhargavi MotukuriNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
Summary of Decision
In An Giang Agriculture and Food Import Export Company v. United States, 350 F.Supp.2d 1162 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004), the United States Court of International Trade held that a stay was warranted in an action in which a foreign exporter challenged an antidumping duty determination involving frozen fish fillets from Vietnam.
Background
In June of 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued a determination regarding the importation of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. See id. (citing Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, published as Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances; Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 Fed. Reg. 37,116 (June 23, 2003)). In making this determination, the Department conducted its antidumping duty investigations by directly valuing the intermediate inputs used in non-market economies and not on the factors of production that a foreign producer uses. See id. The plaintiff filed a motion to stay further proceedings. See id.
Arguments
The plaintiff filed for a motion to have the proceedings stayed until Anshan Iron and Steel Co v. United States, No. 02-00088, slip op. 03-83, 2003 WL 22018898 (Ct. Int'l Trade, July 16, 2003) was decided. See id. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the Department "lacks the statutory authority, in calculating normal value in antidumping investigations involving non-market economies (NMEs), to deviate (as it did in this case) from its standard practice of valuing the actual, original factors of production that a foreign producer uses to produce its self-produced intermediate inputs, by instead directly valuing those intermediate inputs themselves." Id. (citation omitted). Because Anshan involved essentially the same of issue of statutory authority, the plaintiff asserted that the action should be stayed until Anshan was resolved.
Analysis and Holding
The court explained that in Anshan it was held that the Department "has discretion under the [antidumping duty] statute to deviate from its standard practice and while exercising its discretion it should adequately explain the reasons for its deviation." Id. at 1166. The court stated the Anshan holding could be read in two ways: that the Department has discretion under the statute and with adequate justification it can deviate from its standard practice at issue, or that the opinion was an exercise in judicial restraint-"that is, as an attempt to divine whether Commerce in that case had an adequate basis for deviating from its standard practice, assuming (without deciding) that the statute accords Commerce the discretion to deviate from that standard practice in an appropriate case." Id. The court held that the outcome of Anshan case may adopt either of these views and therefore a stay in this case was warranted. See id.
The case was decided on October 8, 2004; this summary was posted Mar. 21, 2005.