UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 26-3

In SOC Trang Seafood Joint stock company (STAPIMEX) v. United States and Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee and American Shrimp Processors Association, Court No. 25-00030, (January 8, 2026), the court considered Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record regarding a countervailing duty (“CVD”) determination by Customs relating to its investigation of frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 89 Fed. Reg., 85,500 (Oct. 28, 2024), PR 514. Plaintiff particularly challenged Custom’s reliance on land rental data from the Thailand Board of Investment’s Cost of Doing Business in Thailand 2023 Report in making its determination. The Court here denied Plaintiff’s motion and sustained Commerce’s final determination.

In a CVD investigation, Customs is tasked with determining if good and services are provided to a respondent for less than adequate remuneration (“LTAR”). 19 U.S.C. §1677(5)(E)(iv); 19 C.F.R. § 351.511. In determining appropriate remuneration, Commerce may compare the company in question’s transactions to domestic or world market prices. 19 C.F.R §351.511(a)(2)(i) & (ii). During the period of investigation, Plaintiff benefited from Vietnam’s “Exemption or Reduction of Rents for Encouraged Industries” program which allowed it to utilize a partially subsidized facility. As the record contained no comparable rent values, Customs turned to official resources from Thailand and the Philippines which outlined the typical cost of doing business, including industrial rent prices in the local economies. Commerce
ultimately decided that the Thailand prices were the best benchmark and rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the Philippines’ rates should be considered because the Thailand data reflected “logistical warehouses” rather than “raw land.” STAPIMEX rented solely raw land for its operations.

The Court here stated that it is within Commerce’s power to establish benchmarks and that “nothing requires Commerce to ‘use prices for merchandise that are identical to a respondent’s purchases.’” Mosaic Co. v. United States, 589 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1314 (2022), aff’d, Court No. 2024-1593, 2025 WL 3493279 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2025)), (quoting Beijing Tianhai
Indus. Co. v. United States, 52 F. Supp. 3d (2015)). While Plaintiff asks the Court to instead apply the Philippine data for raw land because it is more precise, it acknowledges that Customs refused to do so because it was not dated during the period of investigation and had an unclear basis for rental rates. The Court here asserts that “the court’s function is not to reweigh the evidence but rather to ascertain whether the agency’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence on the record.” Canadian Solar Inc. v. United States, 537 F. Supp. 3d 1380, 1391 (2021) (quoting Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 27 CIT 1856, 1859 (2003). The agency determinations were supported by substantial evidence as Customs picked the best data from the limited record provided. Plaintiff even acknowledged in its briefs that the Philippine data was undated.

The Court agreed that Commerce presented a reasonable explanation as to why it failed to use the Philippine data and acknowledged that “[w]hen Commerce is faced with the decision to choose between two alternatives and one alternative is favored over the other in its eyes, then it has the discretion to choose accordingly if its selection is reasonable.” (quoting Timken Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 142, 147, 788 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (1992)). Here, Commerce had the
discretion to choose the industrial rent data from Thailand over the raw land rent data from the Philippines on the basis it provided as benchmark data. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion was denied.