Commerce 'Effectuated Congress' Intent' by Denying Seafood Seller Wholesaler Status, Petitioner Says
The Commerce Department "effectuated Congress' intent" when it found that U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood is not a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner said that while Congress didn't define the term "wholesaler" in the antidumping laws, the "overall text, structure, and purpose of the law do not reflect any intention to allow parties with merely tangential or fugitive wholesaling activity to force Commerce into action -- particularly for potentially manipulative ends" (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).
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.
Luscious filed a request for review in 2022, asking Commerce to review 136 fish fillet exporters from Vietnam. The agency responded with various questionnaires to find out if the company was able to file such a request under the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), which says only an "interested party" can take part in an AD proceeding. Commerce ultimately said Luscious didn't make bona fide sales of fish fillets in the U.S. to qualify as a wholesaler of the domestic like product.
Luscious filed suit (see 2405020035), arguing, among other things, that reviewing the statute under the standard set in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Congress meant for Commerce to conduct a review as to any parties named in a request filed by a party that resold the domestic like product to another seller during the review period.
"Luscious is wrong," Catfish Farmers said. "Under Loper Bright, federal statutes must be interpreted with a single goal in mind: to 'effectuate the will of Congress.'" Congress' will here was for Commerce "to conduct administrative reviews only where parties with sufficient, and legitimate, 'skin in the game' request that the agency do so," the brief said.
While the AD laws once told the agency to annually review all dumping margins even where no request was filed, Congress later changed the law to require that reviews only happen on request, "to reduce the burden on all parties and ensure that reviews are not conducted where 'circumstances do not warrant it.'"
Beyond this limit, "Commerce has the inherent authority to protect the integrity of its proceedings," the brief said. The agency must consider whether a party invoking domestic party status has supported the status based on "candid and complete" information, the petitioner argued. Only through this process can Commerce prevent the waste of party resources.
As a result of this statutory and regulatory scheme, Luscious' claim that Commerce was limited by law to answering the question of whether the company had resold any domestic catfish "is untenable," the brief said. Instead, "it was incumbent upon Commerce to determine whether Luscious had established a stake in the administration of the antidumping duty order."