Commerce Stands by Decisions in Indian Frozen Shrimp AD Review After Remand
After seeking supplemental evidence from both parties, the Commerce Department on remand continued to find that an Indian frozen shrimp exporter had no reason to believe its home market sales of unbranded shrimp were destined for any location other than India. It kept the exporter’s antidumping duty rate at 7.92%, pending the trade court’s approval (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The Court of International Trade remanded the department’s final results for its 2021-22 antidumping duty review on Indian frozen shrimp in August (see 2408210040), saying Commerce had failed to give enough attention to the issue and instead simply relied on a prior CIT decision to find that it couldn’t look to exporter Megaa Moda’s customers’ trade patterns.
For the remand results, the department “reopened the record to address gaps in the record regarding Megaa Moda’s home market sales.” Specifically, it said, it looked into the exporter’s claim that it sold unbranded shrimp because the product is exempt from an Indian goods and services tax, not because it knew the shrimp would be exported overseas.
Commerce said that it had asked about the unbranded shrimp in a supplemental questionnaire to the exporter. In response, Megaa Moda “provided documentation that included correspondence, a tax invoice, an e-way bill, accounting records showing the recording of the sale, and payment documentation” that all indicated the sale was made to a home market customer and not intended for export.
The petitioner, Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, argued that the record showed sales of unbranded shrimp by Megaa Moda were made without incurring a particular sales tax, saying that it demonstrated the sales were made for export. In fact, this was because the tax didn’t apply to unbranded shrimp, Commerce said.
After CIT ordered the remand, Commerce reopened the record and issued another supplemental questionnaire to Megaa Moda “requesting the relevant laws, regulations, or other legal framework” that showed unbranded shrimp wasn’t subject to the sales tax. Megaa Moda complied with sufficient proof of the law and its execution, the department said.
Commerce also was given the option by the trade court to revisit its decision not to offset the exporter’s financial expenses with revenue received from India’s “interest subvention program.” It declined to do so.