Shrimp Producer Says Exporter Knew Home Market Sales Headed Abroad
Petitioners led by Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee opposed Jan. 23 the Commerce Department’s continued finding on remand that an Indian frozen shrimp exporter had no reason to think its unbranded home market sales were destined for sale in a third country. Ad Hoc again argued that, based on record evidence, the exporter “knew or should have known” where its products would end up (see 2404160042) (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.
Court of International Trade Judge Thomas Aquilino remanded the review so that Commerce could reconsider the issue, saying the department had an obligation to “diligently examine the circumstances surrounding a transaction” (see 2408210040).
After the remand, Commerce still hadn’t, Ad Hoc argued.
The department “employs a ‘knowledge test’ if there is a question as to whether a particular sale” was meant for a home market, it said. But in this case, Commerce “misstates (and misapplies) the knowledge test,” it claimed.
“Commerce misapplies the knowledge test by conflating knowledge as to whether goods sold were for export with the statutory standard of knowledge as to whether goods sold were for consumption in the home market,” it said.
It also argued that Megaa Moda was aware its customer was an exporter. And it said only the branded packages sold by the exporter should have been included in the review’s normal value calculation, saying that the unbranded packages required further processing and therefore weren’t intended directly “for consumption.”