Slip Op. 11-64

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Pogue, Chief Judge

Consol. Court No. 10-002381

OPINION AND ORDER

[Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted is denied.]

Dated: June 7, 2011

Thompson Hine LLP (Matthew R. Nicely and David S. Christy, Jr.)

and Trade Pacific PLLC (Robert G. Gosselink and Jonathan M. Freed) for

Plaintiff and Consolidated Defendant-Intervenor Grobest & I-Mei

Industrial Co. Ltd.; Consolidated Plaintiffs Nha Trang Fisheries Joint

Stock Co., Bac Liu Fisheries Joint Stock Co., Camau Frozen Seafood

Processing Import Export Corp., Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Co.,

Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Co.,

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Co., Cantho Import Export Fishery Ltd.

Co., C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corp., Cuulong Seaproducts Co., Danang

Seaproducts Import Export Corp., Investment Commerce Fisheries Corp.,

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Co., Minh Hai

Join Stock Seafood Processing Co., Ngoc Sing Private Enterprise, Phu

Cuong Seafood Processing & Import-Export Co. Ltd., Phuong Nam Co.

Ltd., Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Co., Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co.,

Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corp., UTXI Aquatic Products

Processing Corp., and Viet Foods Co. Ltd.; and Consolidated Plaintiffs

and Consolidated Defendant-Intervenors Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing

Enterprise Co., Contessa Premium Foods Inc., H&N Foods International,

Minh Phu Seafood Corp., Minh Phat Seafood Co. Ltd., Minh Qui Seafood

GROBEST & I-MEI INDUSTRIAL (VIETNAM)

CO., LTD.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES,

 Defendant,

- and -

AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMMITTEE

and AMERICAN SHRIMP PROCESSORS

ASSOCIATION,

 Defendant-Intervenors.

1

 This action is consolidated with Court Nos. 10-00253, 10-

00257, 10-00265, 10-00272, and 10-00273.
Consol. Court No. 10-000238 Page 2

Co. Ltd., and Nha Trang Seaproduct Co. 

DeKieffer & Horgan (John J. Kenkel and James K. Horgan), Thompson

Hine LLP (Matthew R. Nicely), and Trade Pacific PLLC (Jonathan M.

Freed) for Consolidated Plaintiff Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd.

White & Case LLP (Walter C. Spak, Adams C. Lee and Jay C.

Campbell), Thompson Hine LLP (Matthew R. Nicely), and Trade Pacific

PLLC (Jonathan M. Freed) for Consolidated Plaintiff Amanda Foods

(Vietnam) Ltd. 

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson,

Director; Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice

(Joshua E. Kurland), and, of counsel, Jonathan M. Zielinski, Attorney,

Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Department of

Commerce, for the Defendant. 

Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP (Andrew W. Kentz, Jordan C. Kahn,

Nathaniel M. Rickard, and Kevin M. O’Connor) for Defendant-Intervenor

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.

Stewart and Stewart (Geert M. De Prest and Elizabeth J. Drake)

and Leake & Andersson LLP (Edward T. Hayes) for Defendant-Intervenor

American Shrimp Processors Association.

Pogue, Chief Judge: The complaint in this consolidated action

challenges certain determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“the Department”) during the fourth administrative review of the

antidumping duty order covering frozen warmwater shrimp from the

Socialist Republic of Vietnam.2 Before the court is Defendant’s motion

to dismiss, in part, for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. 

Specifically, Defendant moves for dismissal of all counts

challenging the Department’s practice of setting to zero any negative

2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist

Republic of Vietnam, 75 Fed. Reg. 61,122 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 4,

2010) (amended final results of the antidumping duty

administrative review). The period of review was February 1,

2006 through January 31, 2007. 
Consol. Court No. 10-000238 Page 3

dumping margins for sales for which the U.S. price exceeded the price

of like merchandise in the exporter’s home market (the “zeroing” of

all margins for non-dumped sales). The Department used “zeroing” in

this proceeding when calculating weighted average dumping margins.3 

Contrary to Defendant’s motion, however, the challenged counts

raise legal claims. See Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d

1363, 1369-74 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SKF USA Inc. v. United States,

630 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). These claims will be

adjudicated on the basis of the relevant authority when the court

rules on Plaintiffs’ pending motion for judgment on the agency record.

 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss in part for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted is DENIED.

It is SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Donald C. Pogue 

Donald C. Pogue, Chief Judge

Dated: June 7, 2011

New York, N.Y. 

3 Mem. Supp. Def.’s Partial Mot. to Dismiss 1 (seeking

dismissal of Count Four of the complaint in Court No. 10-00238,

Count Three of the complaint in Court No. 10-00253, and Count

Three of the complaint in Court No. 10-00272).