AD Petitioner Says Commerce Should Have Used AFA in Investigation on Indonesian Shrimp
The Commerce Department failed to use adverse facts available against antidumping duty review respondent PT Bahari Makmur Sejati in the AD investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Indonesia, petitioner American Shrimp Processors Association argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner also challenged the agency's surrogate company pick for valuing home market profit and expense ratios and "allocation of the entire sales price for shrimp sold with sauce to the shrimp alone" (American Shrimp Processors Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00027).
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.
In the investigation, Commerce initially selected the financial statements of Indian company PT Central Proteina Prima TBK to calculate profit and expense ratios for use with constructed values for respondents Bahari Makmur Sejati and First Marine. The agency ultimately used the financial statements of Indonesian firm PT Panca Mitra Multiperdana on the suggestion of First Marine.
The agency also modified the cost reported by Bahari Makmur Sejati "for its shrimp sold with sauce to be sauce exclusive by removing the portion of the price attributable to the sale of the sauce, as the sauce was not subject merchandise," the petitioner said.
The association argued during the investigation that Commerce should use AFA to value Bahari Makmur Sejati's domestic brokerage costs, since the respondent reported "incomplete, inaccurate, and contradictory cost information." The petitioner added that if the agency were to use the respondent's reported cost, it should use "quarterly costs," since there were "significant changes in shrimp costs" during the investigation period.
The petitioner argued that the reliance on the respondent's costs was "not supported." The complaint added that Commerce's use of surrogate company PT Panca Mitra Multiperdana was improper.
The complaint additionally contested "Commerce’s allocation of the entire sales price for shrimp sold with sauce to the shrimp alone," arguing that the move "inaccurately increased the sale price of the shrimp and so reduced the dumping margin calculated for" Bahari Makmur Sejati.