Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                          Slip Op. 05- 166
    UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
    BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
    ________________________________________
    CRAWFISH PROCESSORS ALLIANCE;            :
    LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF                  :
    AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY;                :
    BOB ODOM, COMMISSIONER,                  :
    :
    Plaintiffs,                    :
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    UNITED STATES,                           :
    :
    Defendant,                     :
    :
    and                            :    Consol. Court No.
    :         02-00376
    HONTEX ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a          :
    LOUISIANA PACKING COMPANY;               :
    QINGDAO RIRONG FOODSTUFF CO., LTD.       :
    and YANCHENG HAITENG AQUATIC             :
    PRODUCTS & FOODS CO., LTD;               :
    BO ASIA, INC., GRAND NOVA                :
    INTERNATIONAL, INC., PACIFIC             :
    COAST FISHERIES CORP.,                   :
    FUJIAN PELAGIC FISHERY GROUP CO.,        :
    QINGDAO ZHENGRI SEAFOOD CO., LTD.        :
    and YANGCHENG YAOU SEAFOOD CO.,          :
    :
    Defendant-Intervenors          :
    and Plaintiffs.                :
    ________________________________________:
    JUDGMENT
    In Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 29 CIT ___,
    
    395 F. Supp. 2d 1330
     (2005), the Court remanded this matter to the
    United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) with instructions
    to either: (1)(a) explain with specificity how the interactions
    between Jiangsu Hilong International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu”)
    and Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (“Nanlian”) indicate
    that one company has control over the other or both, especially how
    the invoices from Jiangsu to Hontex Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a
    Louisiana Packing Company created a business relationship with
    Nanlian during the September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2000, period of
    review, and (b) explain with specificity how Mr. Wei’s contacts
    Consol. Court No.   02-00376                               Page   2
    with Jiangsu and Nanlian demonstrate control of either company on
    behalf of the other or control over both; and (2) if Commerce is
    unable to provide substantial evidence supporting its collapsing
    decision, then it is to treat Jiangsu and Nanlian as unaffiliated
    entities and assign separate company specific antidumping duty
    margins using verified information on the record. See Crawfish
    Processors Alliance, 29 CIT at ___, 
    395 F. Supp. 2d at 1337
    .
    On December 9, 2005, Commerce filed its Final Results of
    Determination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Final Results”). For its
    Final Results, Commerce determined that without the presumption of
    affiliation between Jiangsu and Nanlian, the invoices and Mr. Wei’s
    contacts between the two companies is insufficient to sustain its
    earlier determination to collapse the two companies. See Final
    Results at 5. Therefore, Commerce is treating Jiangsu and Nanlian
    as unaffiliated entities.      See 
    id.
         Accordingly, Nanlian’s
    antidumping duty margin for the period September 1, 1999, to August
    31, 2000, is 62.51 percent.     See id. at 6.     Commerce did not
    initiate a review of Jiangsu during the period of review, only
    reviewing Jiangsu’s information as part of the collapsed
    Jiangsu/Nanlian entity, thus Jiangsu does not have a separate
    entity margin for the period of review. See id.
    This Court, having received and reviewed Commerce’s Final
    Results, and having received no comments from the parties, holds
    that Commerce duly complied with the Court’s remand order, and it
    is hereby
    ORDERED that Commerce’s Final Results are reasonable,
    supported by substantial evidence, and is otherwise in accordance
    with law; and it is further
    ORDERED that the Final Results filed by Commerce on December
    9, 2005, are affirmed in their entirety; and it is further
    ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this
    case is dismissed.
    /s/ Nicholas Tsoucalas
    NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
    SENIOR JUDGE
    Dated:    December 29, 2005
    New York, New York
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-00376

Filed Date: 12/29/2005

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/25/2018