CIT Rules Commerce Did Not Aid Small Exporters Enough in Antidumping Review

The Commerce Department did not provide enough assistance to three exporters of Indian shrimp as required by law during antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 3 decision. During a review of frozen warmwater shrimp from India, Indian exporters Calcutta Seafoods, Bay Seafood and Elque & Co. were not granted sufficient help after requesting it from the Commerce, CIT said, ordering Commerce to reconsider the antidumping rates it placed on the three companies' shrimp imports, with specific instructions to reopen the administrative review to further help the importers provide adequate information for the review.

Calcutta Seafoods, Bay Seafood and Elque sued Commerce following the final results of the review that imposed a 110.9% penalty antidumping rate on their exports in October 2019 for their lack of cooperation (see 1910280007). The exporters claimed they did not intentionally mislead Commerce by providing false or incomplete information related to the review, and that they requested Commerce's help since the group did not have the means to produce the proper information and were first-time respondents to an antidumping review. Commerce said it provided this help to the exporters by extending due dates for information and sending over additional questionnaires to aid in determining the correct rates.

Under the AD/CVD laws at 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c), Commerce is required to consider notifications from parties that they may have difficulty fulfilling Commerce’s requests for information during an investigation or review. The agency must weigh the party's ability to provide the requested information, particularly in cases of small companies, and modify requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden, CIT noted.

CIT agreed with the shrimp exporters, giving particular attention to the fact that the exporters are small businesses. “Given that Commerce had notice of the Elque Group’s difficulty during the review, the court concludes that Commerce did not adequately assist the Elque Group given its status as a small company,” CIT said in the decision. “The court is unpersuaded by the Government’s and Commerce’s claims that merely treating the Elque Group as it would any other respondent by granting extension requests and providing supplemental questionnaires constitutes any consideration of or provision of additional assistance in light of the Elque Group’s status as a small company.”