UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip-Op 25-70

In Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, Court No. 24-00146, Slip Op. 25-70, dated June 5, 2025, Judge Restani addressed whether Commerce’s Final Results concerning the New Shipper Review (NSR) of exporter Co May’s product was valid. Judge Restani sustained in part and remanded in part for reconsideration Commerce’s Final Results.

Plaintiff Catfish Farmers of America is a group of frozen fish fillet producers. While Co May is not the Defendant in the present case, Co May requested the NSR subject to the Plaintiffs’ concerns. Co May, an exporter of frozen fish fillets to the United States from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, did not export its product during the period of Commerce’s initial investigation determining anti-dumping duty orders on frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Following the period of investigation, however, Co May exported its product in a single sale to the United States. On February 14, 2023, Co May requested a NSR. In its preliminary results responding to Co May’s NSR, Commerce “imposed a zero-dollar antidumping duty margin as to Co May.” See Preliminary Results at 5826. On May 17, 2024, Catfish Farmers of America filed a brief with the Court, asking it to find that Co May’s sale was not bona fide. On June 14, 2024, Commerce issued its Final Results, citing its calculations and affirming its finding that Co May’s sale was bona fide. On August 23, 2024, Catfish Farmers of America filed the complaint at issue in Slip Op. 25-70, challenging Commerce’s Final Results.

Judge Restani, in Slip Op. 25-70, deferred largely to Commerce’s findings and calculations concerning Co May’s sales price. However, Judge Restani agreed with Plaintiffs’ contention that a relationship between Co May’s customer (Customer A) and its resale customers would not impact Co May’s qualification of its sale as bona fide. In particular, Judge Restani agreed with Plaintiffs’ argument that “Commerce should have considered Customer A’s affiliation with its downstream customers at evidence that might weigh against Commerce’s finding of profitability of the resale of the subject merchandise in the [United States] market.” Plaintiffs’ Br. at 23.  Judge Restani concluded, “[t]he court struggles to understand how resale profitability for the importer can be determined reliably where the downstream sales are between an importer and related entities.” Accordingly, the court sustained in part and remanded in part Commerce’s Final Results. This opinion addresses potential limits on NSR duty review, Co May’s potential effects on Plaintiffs and additional exporters of the product from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and levels of judicial deference to Commerce’s findings and calculations concerning NSRs.