Slip O p. 10–42 UNITED STA TES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Grego ry W. Carman, Judge Court No. 10-00102

[Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Re cord is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART; the Final Res ults of the fifth admini strative review are REMANDED to Commerce ; Commerce is in structed to file remand r esults and is sue n ew liquidation instru ctions to Customs no later tha n April 27, 2010. The re mainin g component of Plaintiff’ s Mot ion for a Prelimin ary Injun ction is den ied as moot

. ] Arent Fox LLP (John M. Gurley, Di ana Di mi tr i uc- Quai a, Matt hew L. Kanna, Nan cy Ai leen Noonan), for Plai nti ff. Tony West

, Assi stant Att or ney General, Jeanne E. Davi dson , Di recto r, F ranklin E. Whi te, Jr., A ssi stant Di recto r, Co mmerci al Li tigati on Branch, Ci vil D i vis i on, U.S

. Department o f Ju sti ce (Courtney S . McNamara, Claudi a Burke); David W. Ri chardson, of counsel, Offi ce of the Chi ef Counsel f or Import Admini strat i on, Department o f Commerce, for Defendant. Akin, G ump, Strauss, Hau er & F eld, LLP ( Valerie A. Slater , Jaehong David Park, Jarr od Mar k Goldfeder, Nat alya Daria D obro wolsky, Ni cole Mar i e D'Avanzo), for Defendan tInter venor . April 19, 2010 EAST SEA SEAF OODS LLC,

Plainti ff,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendan t,

and CATFIS H FARM ERS O F AM ERICA,

Defendan t-Inter venor .Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 2

O P I N I O N & O R D E R C A R M A N , J U D G E : Plainti ff Eas t S ea Seafoo ds LLC ( “ESS LLC” or “Plain tiff”) i s an i mport er o f frozen fi sh fi llets from the S oci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam subject t o anti dumping duty o rder A-552-801 (Noti ce of Anti dumping Duty Or der: Cer tain Fr ozen FishFill ets from the S oci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam, 68 Fed. Reg . 47,909 (Aug. 12, 2003) (“AD D uty O rder ”)). ( Doc. No. 6, Compl. ¶ 6.) ESS LLC conte sts the final results of the fi fth admini strat i ve r eview ( “5th AR”) of the A D Du ty O rder . Cert ain Fro zen Fis h Fi llets from the S oci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam: Fin al Results of the Anti dumping Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re viewand New Shi pper Rev i ew, 75 Fed. Reg. 12726 (M ar. 17, 2010) (the “Fi nal Results”)

. Plainti ff fi led sui t on M arch 19, 2010, concu rr ently fil i ng an Appli cati on for a Temporary Restraining Or der (“TRO”) and a Mot i on for Pr eli minary I njuncti on (“PI”). (Doc. No. 8.) The Court deni ed the TRO applic ation the sam e day it was fi led, and sch eduled a heari ng on the PI mot i on for M arch 25, 2010 (“PI Heari ng”). (Doc. N o. 15.) At t he PI Heari ng, the par ties agr eed that Plainti ff’s m otion for pr eli minary i njuncti on was s ever able into t wo components. Defendant and Defendant-Interv enor 1 consented to t he fi rst component, an in juncti on pro hibi tin g the liqui dation of ESS LLC’s Catfi sh Farmers of America ( “CFA”), a part i ci pant i n the ini tial an tidu mping 1 i nvestigati on and each s ubs equent admini strat i ve r eview, whose consent moti on to i nterv ene was granted by or der ente red o n March 24, 2010. (Doc. No. 24.)Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 3

and East Sea Seafo ods Joi nt Venture Co mpany’s [ESS JVC] s ubject entr i es during the pendency of thi s acti on, i nclu di ng all appeals, and the Cour t gr anted that componentof the motion by an order enter ed on Mar ch 25, 2010. ( Doc. No. 30.) Th e second component of Plainti ff’s m otion for pr eli minary injunc tion requested that United Stat es Customs and B or der Pro tection (“CBP ”) be order ed “to r efrainfrom collecti ng anti dumping duty cash deposi ts at the Vietnam- wi de entity rat e of $2.11 per k i logr am on i mport s” of Plainti ff’s p ro duct, “and instead collect a cas h deposi t on such i mport s at the antidu mping duty r ate o f $0.02 per kilogram, dete rmined for [ESS JVC] in thi s proceeding.” (D oc. No. 16 (“Pl.’s P I Mem.”) at 1-2.) ESS LLC clai med a ri ght t o this relief on the gro unds that Co mmerce requi red ES S LLC to pay cash deposi ts at the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e, rat her than at ES S JVC’s rate , after wro ngly det ermin i ng that Plainti ff w as not the succ essor-in-intere st to ES S JVC. (Pl.’s PI Mem. at 6-7.) Defend ant and Defendant-Interv enor o pposed thi s component of Plainti ff’s P I motion. (Doc. N o. 29 (“Def .’s PI Opp.”).) 2 The Court t ook the second component of Plainti ff’s P I Mo tion un der adv i sement and held i ts deci si on i n abeyance. Meanwhi le, i n li ght o f ESS LLC’s clai m of i mminent i rr eparable harm, the Co urt ent ered a scheduling or der o n March 26, 2010 (Doc. No. 33),

Defendan t-Inter venor ’s opposi tion w as presented or ally at t he PI Heari ng. 2 (Doc. No. 36, Confi denti al Transc ript of PI Heari ng.) (As Bu siness Propr i etar y Information was presented at t he hearin g, the t ranscri pt is confi denti al.)Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 4

and an amen ded scheduling or der o n March 29, 2010 (Doc. No. 35), in order to directly reach the merits of the acti on via an expedi ted US CIT R. 56.2 Mo tion for Judgment on the Ag ency Record. Pursuant to t hose order s, the Uni ted S tate s ti mely fi led an index of the admi ni strat i ve r ecord (Doc. No. 37) and P lai nti ff fi led i ts R. 56.2 Mo tion and accompanyin g brief ( Doc. No. 39 (“Pl ’s 56.2 Mem.”)) on Apri l 1, 2010. On April 7, 2010, Commerce fi led the offi ci al admini strat i ve r ecord wi th the Co urt (Doc. No. 45) and Defendan t and Defendan t-Inter venor fi led opposi tion bri efs ( Doc. Nos. 47 (“D ef.’s 56.2 Opp.”) and 48 (“D ef.-Int.’s 56.2 Opp.”), respecti vely ). On April 9, 2010, the Court gr anted Plainti ff leave to file a reply (Doc. No. 51 (“P l.’s 56.2 Reply”), and Defendant leave t o fi le a sur-reply (Doc. No. 52 (“Def .’s 56.2 Sur-Reply”)). The Court has consi dered t he admini strat i ve r ecord, t he posi tions expr essed b y the part i es, and all relevant pr ov i si ons of law. The Court affi rms the deci si on of Commerce that ES S LLC is not a succ essor-i n-intere st to ES S JVC becaus e that deter minati on was b ased upon s ubs tantial evi dence and m ade i n acc or dance w i th law. Plainti ff’s 56.2 m otion i s therefor e deni ed as to the succes sor-i n-intere st i ssu e. The Court, ho wever, find s un lawfu l Commerce’s deci si on to assi gn ESS LLC the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e wi thout first consi dering evi dence on the recor d that speci fi cally addresses the ext ent to whi ch ESS LLC i s de facto and de jure i ndependent from the contr ol of the g ov ernment of Vietnam. The Court also finds that the deci si onCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 5

of Commerce to or der liqu i dation of entriesby ESS JVC at the rat e assi gned to ESS LLC for all entr i es made after the effecti ve dat e of the name change i s not supported by sub stanti al evidenc e i n the recor d or o therwis e in acc or dance w i th law. The Court t herefor e remands thi s cas e to Commerce. On r emand, Commerce

mus t consi der all of the ev i dence in the admini strat i ve r ecord per tain i ng to ESS LLC’s de jure and de facto i ndependenc e from the Vietnames e go ver nment and make a finding as to whether ESS LLC has rebutted the pre sum ption of gove rnment contr ol. Upon a finding that ES S LLC is i ndependent of the contr ol of the Vietnames e go ver nment, Commerce must ass i gn a separate cash deposi t r ate t o ESS LLC that is supp or ted by sub stanti al evidenc e and i s otherwis e i n acc or dance w i th law, and s hall i mmedi ately i ssu e li qui dation instructi ons to CBP adjustin g the cash deposi t r ate for ESS LLC accordi ngly. Any finding by Commerce t hat ESS LLC i s not i ndependent of the contr ol of the Vi etnamese gov ernment must explai n why the presumpti on has not been rebutte d, and why the ev i dence foun d suffi ci ent inthe Prelim i nary R esults to establi sh ESS JVC’s independenc e from the Vietnames e go ver nment i s insu ffi ci ent to establi sh the same f or ESS LLC. Commerce must als o pro vide a reasoned explanation, s upporte d by evidenc e i n the re cord, for why entries s hi pped by ESS JVC but enter ed after t he effec tive date of the name chan ge should be treat ed as entries made by ESS LLC. I f CommerceCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 6

deter mines on remand that all entr i es sh i pped by ESS JVC should be gi ven the r ate assi gned to ESS JVC of $0.02 per kilogram, it sh all amend the li qui dation instructi ons accordi ngly. The results of Commerce’s remand determi nati on shall b e fi led wi th the Co urt no later than April 27, 2010. As the Court has ruled on the merits of P lai nti ff’s c lai m, the remain i ng component of Plainti ff’s Motion for Preli minary I njuncti on i s deni ed as moot. B A C K G R O U N D I. Antidumpi ng Duty Order The AD D uty O rder at is sue in thi s cas e establi shed a Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e of 63.88%. See 68 F ed. Reg. at47,910. The 63.88% dum pi ng margin w as bas ed on Commerce’s findings that Vi etnam was a n on-market economy (“NME”) and the appli cati on of adver se fac ts availab le “consi stent wi th . . . prev i ous cas es in whi ch the respondent is consi dered uncooper ative.” Notic e of Final Anti dumping Duty Determin ation of Sales at Less Than Fai r Value and Affi rmative Criti cal Ci rcums tances: Cert ai n Fro zen Fis h Fi llets from the S oci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam, 68 Fed. Reg . 37,116, 37,119-20 (J une 23, 2003). Nei ther ES S JVC nor ES S LLC were par ties to t he i nvestigati on. See AD Du ty O rder . ESS JVC fi rst began ex port i ng subject merchandi se duri ng the per i od of r eview ( “POR”) cover ed by the third annualrev i ew of the ADCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 7

Duty Or der, atwhi ch ti me Commerce gr anted ESS JVC’s s eparat e rat e appli cati on and calc ulated ESS JVC’s indi vidu al dump i ng margin and c ash deposi t r ate as 0.0%. See Cert ai n Fro zen Fis h Fi llets from the S oci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam: Fin al Results of Antidu mping Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re viewand Parti al Resci ssi on, 73 Fed. Re g. 15,479 (Mar. 24, 2008). The fourth annual review w as rescinded as to ESS JVC bec ause i t made no entr i es of the sub

ject mer chand i se during that POR . See F ro zen Fis h Fi llets from Vi etnam: Notice of Extensi on of Ti me Li mi t for Preli minary R esults of Anti dumping Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re viewand Parti al Resci ssi on of Admi ni strat i ve Re view, 73 Fed. Reg. 11,391 (Mar . 3, 2008). II. Fifth Admini strat ive Review At t he heart o f thi s cas e i s a greatdeal of confus i on about whi ch Eas t S ea Seafoo ds c ompany (ESS JVC or ESS LLC) was fi li ng documents w i th the ag ency, at what ti me, and on wh ose behalf. Thi s portion of the backgr ound desc rib es all the relev ant fi li ngs of ESS JVC and ESS LLC i n the 5th AR, with parti cular attention to t hose details

. A. Notic es of Opportunity to Request an d Initi ation On August 1, 2008, Commerce publi shed a noti ce of the oppor tuni ty t o r equest a fi fth admini strat i ve r eview of AD Duty Or der for the POR cov ering August 1, 2007 thro ugh July 31, 2008. Anti dumping or Counter vailing Duty Or der, F i nding, orCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 8

Suspended Investi gation; Oppor tuni ty t o Request Admin i strat i ve Re view, 73 Fed. Reg

. 44,966 (Aug. 1, 2008) (“5th AR Request Notice”) . (PR 1.) Commerce recei ved seven 3 lette rs requesting admini strat i ve r eview ( PR 2-8), inclu di ng one submi tte d on August 28, 2008 by counsel f or Plainti ff in the current action (P R 3), whi ch requested admini strat i ve r eview “on b ehalf of Eas t S ea Seafoo ds Joint Venture Co ., Ltd.” The August 28, 2008 lette r made no mention of or r eference to ES S LLC. (PR 3.) On Sept ember 30, 2008, Commerce publi shed a noti ce of the i ni tiati on of the 5t h AR of t he AD Du ty O rder . Ini tiati on of Antidum pi ng and Counter vailing Duty Admini strat i ve Re view s and Reques ts for Re vo cati on i n Part, 73 Fed. R eg. 56,795, 56,796 (Sep. 30, 2008) (“Notic e of Initi ation”). ( PR 9, Pl.’s Pub li c 56.2 App. Tab 4.) Under t he 4 heading “So ci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam: Fr ozen FishFill ets, A-552-801,” the i ni tiati on notic e li sts 20 compan i es, inclu di ng “East Sea S eafoods Joi nt Venture Co ., Ltd.” Id. The Notice of Ini tiati on contain s no reference to ESS LLC. Id. A foot note t o the heading for Vi etnamese frozen fi sh fi llets states:

If one of the abov e named compan i es does not quali fy for a separate r ate, all ot her ex port ers of fro zen fi sh fi llets from the So ci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam who have not qualifi ed for

“PR” refers to the publi c version of the offi ci al admini strat i ve r ecord; “CR” 3 refer s to the confi denti al ver si on. The pub li c and c onfi denti al appendi ces ac companying Plainti ff’s 56.2 Motion 4 contai n the same docu ments in the same tabs ( var yin g only as to the r edacti on of bus i ness propr i etar y in formation) and are collecti vely refer red t o as “Pl.’s 56.2 App.”Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 9 a separate r ate ar e deemed to be cov ered by t hi s review as part o f the single Vi etnam entity of whi ch the named expor ter s are a part . Id. at 56,797 n.1. B. Resp ondent Selec tion On Octo ber 17, 2008, counsel f or Plainti ff in the current action submi tte d a respondent selecti on comment letter to C ommerce “on behalf of Eas t S ea Seafoo ds Joint Venture Co ., Ltd. and Pi azza’s Seafoo d World LLC (‘collectively [si c] ‘Eas t S ea’), i ntere sted parties” in the 5th AR, stat i ng that “as the Depart ment i s aware, East Sea sources i ts product fro m one of the larg est, i f not the lar gest, pangasi us process or s in the world” and that “[a]s a man dator y r espondent, East Sea would be prov i di ng the Department wi th factors of pr oducti on based on one of the larg est pro ducti on datasets [si c] f or pangasi us producti on that is avai lable.” (P R 22 at 1-3, CR 2 at1-3; Pl.’s 56.2 App. Tab 5.) ESS JVC requested, i n the alter nati ve, t hat i f i t was not chosen as a mandatory respondent, it be permi tte d to par tic i pate as a vo luntary r espondent. (PR 22 at 3, CR 2 at 3.) The letter di d not mention ESS LLC; the accompanyi ng certifi cati on by Jenni fer Champagne i denti fi ed her as “Vi ce-P resi dent of East Sea S eafoods Joi nt Venture Co ., Ltd.” and Plainti ff’s attor neys si gned the let ter as “[c ]ounsel to East Sea S eafoods Joi nt Venture Co ., Ltd.” (PR 22 at 4-5, CR 2 at 4-5.) CFA also submi tte d a respondent-Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 10

selecti on comment letter to C ommerce on Octo ber 20, 2008, urg i ng that ES S JVC be selected as a m andator y r espondent. (PR 25.) CFA made no menti on of ESS LLC. (Id.) On Octo ber 29, 2008, Commerce is sued i ts respondent selecti on memorandum. (PR 30, CR 7; Pl.’s 56.2 App. Tab 8 ( “Respondent Selection Memo”).) Based u pon CBP data on entr i es of subject merchandi se during the POR (see CR 1, CR 4), Co mmerce chose to li mi t the r espondents to the t wo large st expor ter s of subject im port s, QVD and Vinh Hoan. (Id.) ESS JVC was n ot chosen as a mand ator y r espondent, and there is no

5 menti on of ESS LLC i n the Respondent Se lecti on Memo. (Id.) Commerce li mi ted the mandato ry respondents to QVD and Vinh Hoan 5 pursuant to author i ty pur port edly given by Section 777A of the Tariff Act of 1930. (Respondent Selection Memo at 2-5.) Section 777A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, allows Commerce to li mi t its reviewto e xpor ter s “acc ountin g for the larg est vo lume of the subject merchandi se from the expo rt i ng country that c an reasonably be examined ” only where “ it i s not pract icabl e to mak e i ndi vidu al wei ghted av erag e dumping margin determinati ons [for each known expor ter ] becaus e of the large number of exporters ” i nvolv ed i n the rev i ew. 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c) (2) ( 2006) (emp hasi s added). On at least t wo occasi ons, The Court o f Internat i onal Trade has held i llegal Commerce’s exami nati on i n an admini strat i ve r eview of only the two lar gest ex port ers, holdi ng that circu mstanc es si mi lar to those present her e di d not meet t he statutor y prer equi si te o f a “large number of expo rt ers.” See Carpente r Tech. Corp. v . Uni ted St ates, 33 CIT ___, 662 F. S upp. 2d 1337, 1341- 44 (2009) ( holdi ng that ag ency violated 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)( 2) wh en fai ling to consi der whether number of ex port ers at is sue w as “large ” before det ermin i ng, based on i ts work load, that it would only examin e two o ut of ei ght r espondents); Zheji ang Native Produce & Ani mal By-Products Import & Ex port Cor p. v. United Stat es, 33 CIT ___, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1263-65 (2009) ( holdi ng, i n a case involv i ng four r espondents, that “i n ass essing whether t he number of ex port ers” i s “large ,” Commerce “may notrely upon i ts work load caus ed by ot her antidu mping proceedings” l est i t “r ewri te t he statute based on i ts staffing i ssu es.”). Thi s i ssu e i s not i mpli cated here, as Plainti ff has not challenged Commerce’s selecti on of re spondents.Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 11

C. ESS LL C Separate R ate Certi ficat ion The fi rst t i me ESS LLC is menti oned i n the admini strat i ve r ecord is i n a fi li ng consi sti ng of a lett er and accompanying Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on form, fi led on October 31, 2008 (two days after t he i ssu ance of Commerce’s Respondent Selection Memo). (PR 34, CR 8; Pl.’s 56.2 App. T ab 6.) The letter states that it i s being “fi led on behalf of Eas t S ea Seafoo ds Li mi ted Liab i li ty C ompany” by Plainti ff’s attor neys, who li st themselves as “[ c]ouns el to East S ea Seafoo ds Li mi ted Liab i li ty C ompany.” (Id. at 1, 4.) ESS LLC attached a completed Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on form (“Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on”), whi ch s tate s in i ts heading that it i s intended for “firms prev i ously awarded separate r ate stat us,” an d that “[f]i rms that do no t current ly hold a separate rat e may notuse thi s Certifi cati on and musti nstead submi t an Appli cati on for separ ate rat e status” avail able on the Department’ s web si te. (Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on at 1 (emphas i s in original).) The requester is li sted as “Eas t S ea Seafoo ds Li mi ted Liab i li ty Company” (i d.) and the appli cant’s nam e i s gi ven as “East Sea S eafoods Li mi ted Li abi li ty C ompany (‘East Sea S eafoods’)” (i d. at 3). ESS LLC fi lled out the section of the form headed “ EXPORT CERTIFICAT IONS ( chec k any that appl y) ” as follows :

7. I cert i fy that during the POR, the firm c onducted bus i ness under the followi ng (please inclu de a li st of all trade names):

: the same trade names as i denti fi ed i n the segment of i nvestigati on or rev i ew in whi chCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 12 the fi rm was granted a separat e rat e (“previous Grantin g Period”). 9 the same trade names as i denti fi ed i n the prev i ous Granting Period, as w ell as newtr ade names. 9 new trade names. 8. : I cert i fy the fi rm possess es an offi ci al

gov ernment business li cens e/reg i strat i on documents [ si c] f or each trade name li sted in response to question 7, above, v ali d duri ng the POR. (li st [si c] each trade name, the corr esponding document and i ts expirati on date) . 9. : I cert i fy the fi rm expo rt ed or sold subject

merchandi se to t he Uni ted S tate s during the POR. (Separat e Rate C ert i fi cati on at 4-5. (explanato ry foot notes omitted).) In the secti on of the for m certif

yin g absence of de jure contro l, ESS LLC checked off all of the boxes certifying to facts es tabli shing a lack of go ver nment contro l, except for the box i ndi cati ng that o wnershi p remai ned the same du ring the POR; for t hat box, ES S LLC prov i ded a wri tte n explanation of the sale of a minority ownershi p i ntere st duri ng the POR. (Id. at 5.) In the section of the form certifying absenc e of de facto contro l, ESS LLC chec ked off all of the box es certif yin g to facts es tabli shing a lack of go ver nment contro l. (Id. at 5-6.) In the sales an d affi li ations secti on of the for m, ESS LLC checked off the box certifying that “t he fi rm made at least one ex port or sale to the U ni ted S tate s during theCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 13

POR” to “affi li ated part i es only.” (Id. at 6.) In the section f or addi tional docu mentation, ESS LLC stated:

During the POR, based on a law affecti ng many compani es, the Vi etnamese gov ernment r equi red East S ea Seafoo ds to change i ts name from “East Sea S eafoods Joi nt Venture Co ., Ltd.” to “East Sea S eafoods Li mi ted Liab i li ty C ompany”. [si c] Thi s ch ange had no affect [s i c] on Eas t S ea Seafoo ds oper ations duri ng the POR. (Id. at 7.) Jenni fer Champagne, “Vi ce Presi dent, currently employed by East S ea Seafoo d [si c],” s i gned certifi cati ons as to the accuracy of the re sponses, the appli cabi li ty of the pre vious ly-gr anted separate r ate, and the wi llingness of ESS LLC to cooper ate wi th future document requests from Commerce. (Id., Ex. 1.) The recor d contai ns no i ndi cati on that C ommerce rej ected ESS LLC’s Separat e Rate C ert i fi cati on of Octo ber 31, 2008 from the o ffi ci al admini strat i ve r ecord. 6 D. ESS LL C Sect ion A Quest ionnaire Res ponse On Nov ember 25, 2008, ESS LLC, on i ts own behalf , sub mi tte d “as a voluntary respondent” a r esponse to the Depart ment’s Section A Questi onnai re. (PR 41, CR 10 (“Section A Response”) ; excerpt s at Pl.’s 56.2 App. T ab 3.) Regarding the quanti ty and value of its s ales, ESS LLC att ached a qu anti ty and v alue ch artto t he response. (Id., Ex. Commerce di d, however , refer to t he October 31, 2008 Separ ate Rat e fi li ng as 6 “no longer valid” in the prelim i nary r esults of the 5th AR. Cer tainFr ozen FishFill ets Fr om the S oci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam: Notice of P relim inary R esults of NewShip per Reviews and Fi fth Antid umping Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re view, 74 Fed. Reg . 45,805, 45,807 n.5 (Sept. 4, 2008) (“Preli minary R esults”)

.Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 14

A-1.) Th at chart do es not, however , di sti ngui sh b etween ESS LLC and ESS JVC sales. (Id.) ESS LLC state d that “[a]ll repor ted sales are to the fi rst unaffi li ated customer.” (Id. at 1.) In the ins tr ucti ons for questi on 2, the Depart ment i ndi cated that “ex port ers requestin g a separat e rat e [from the NME] must respond to t he following questi ons i n

or der for the Department t o consi der fully the is sue of s eparat e rat es.” (Id. at 2.) ESS LLC answ ered all part s of ques tion 2, providing the followin g in formation: (a) the i denti ty o f the minority owner o f the company and information regar di ng the tr ansfer o f that mi nority share on O ctober 1, 2007 (id. at 2, Ex. A-2); (b ) the membershi p of the Manag ement Di recto r Boar d and Di recto r Boar d (i d. at 2-3, Ex. A-3); (c) the ownershi p makeup of the compani es wi th ownershi p i ntere sts in ESS LLC (id . at 3, Ex. A-3); ESS LLC’s relat i onshi p wi th ot her pro ducers of the subject merchandi se (i d. at 3); the membershi ps of ESS LLC and i ts owners and affi li ates i n other entiti es, bu siness gr oups, or ind ustry g ro ups d uri ng the POR (id. at 3-4) ; that t he owners of ESS LLC di d not o wn or contr ol ot her ex port ers of subject merchandi se (i d. at 4); that ES S LLC was not o wned or contr olled by a local or prov i nci al gov ernment (i d.); Vi etnamese statutes i ndi cati ng ESS LLC’s legal abi li ty t o conduct bus i ness outsi de of go ver nment contro l (i d. at 4-5, Exs. A-4 thro ugh A-7); and c opies of ESS LLC’s Vi etnamese bus i ness li cens es (i d. at 5-6, Exs. A-8 thro ugh A-14.) ESS LLC explained, in prov i ding i ts bus i ness li cens es, that a Vietnames e statute (pro vided at Ex. A-11) requi red “the re-reg i strat i on of for ei gnCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 15

owned compani es,” and that ESS JVC “had to comply wi th these new lawsand thi s required the new nam e of the company to become Eas t S ea Seafoo ds Li mi ted Liab i li ty Company.” (Id. at 5). ESS LLC ass ert ed that “[t]hi s ch ange had no affect [s i c] on the oper ations of East Sea S eafoods,” as indi cated by i nvestment cert i fi cates attached as Exs. A-12 thro ugh A-14, whi ch dem onstrat ed that ES S JVC and ESS LLC “ar e the same company.” (Id. at 5-6.) ESS LLC pointed out that ES S LLC “r etained i ts tax i denti fi cati on numb er, all assets and li abi li ties, and all the legal rights, pri vileges, and obli gations” un der Vietnames e law. (Id. at 6.) ESS LLC in di cated that “t he name change and i ssu ance of a newi nvestment cert i fi cate was done on Ju ne 17, 2008” i n order to comply with s tatut or y obligati ons. (Id. at 7.) ESS LLC pr ov i ded other detailed i nformation in response to question 2, detai ling ESS LLC’s internal o wnershi p, deci si onmaki ng pro cess, staffing, fi nancing, pro fi t dis tr ibuti on, etc., wi th no r esponses i ndi cati ng contr ol by the Vietnames e go ver nment. (Id. at 7-14.) ESS LLC also pro vided complete answ ers to the re maining questi ons, appli cable to compani es wh ether or not seeki ng a separate r ate. (Id. at 15-26.) Those answ ers pro vided, inter alia , detailed i nformation regar di ng ESS LLC’s corpor ate str ucture, affi li ations, faci li ties, legal structure, o wnershi p, hi stor y, sales process, fi nanci al and acc ountin g practices, and merchandi se. (Id.) Regardin g the dat e of sale for sales to the U ni ted S tate s, ESS LLC i ndi cated that t he “date of sale i s the i nvoice date, as that i s the date on whi ch the finalCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 16

ter ms of s ale are ultimately establi shed, inclu di ng fi nal pri ces an d quanti ties .” (Id. at 18.) Thes e sales w ere all made to the fi rst unaffi li ated United Stat es cu stomer “by t he sales s taff of Pi azza’s Seafoo d World wor kin g closely wi th the pr esi dent and vic epresi dent of East Sea S eafoods.” (Id. at 19.) Sales documents that ESS LLC sub mi tte d wi th the S ecti on A Response i nclu de a single sales invoice b earing a date after June 17, 2008, the date o n whi ch the ch ange inname from ESS JVC to ESS LLC went into effect. (CR 10, Section A Response, Ex. A-16 at 2.) On Decemb er 19, 2008, ES S LLC also subm i tte d, “on behalf of Eas t S ea Seafoo ds Li mi ted Liab i li ty C ompany . . . as a voluntar y r espondent,” copi es of financi al statements for itself an d i ts affi li ates to accompany the S ecti on A Response. (PR 49, CR 13.) The s tate ments contain, among ot her things, fi nanci al data from the begi nning of 2008 thro ugh the end of Sept ember 2008, cover i ng the per i ods before and after t he name change from ESS JVC to ESS LLC on June 17, 2008. ( Id., Ex. 1.) The record contains no i ndi cati on that C ommerce rej ected ESS LLC’s Section A Response or fin anci al statements. E. ESS LL C Amended Separate R ate Certi ficat ion On Mar ch 23, 2009, ESS LLC subm i tte d a letter and attached an amended Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on form. (PR 80; Pl.’s 56.2 App. T ab 7 (“Amend ed Separ ate Rate Ce rt i fi cati on”).) Th e lett er po i nted out t hat the S eparat e Rate C ert i fi cati on fi led byCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 17

ESS LLC on Octo ber 31, 2008 had noted “t hat the name of East Sea S eafoods had sli ghtly changed from East Sea S eafoods Joi nt Venture Co . Ltd. to East Sea S eafoods Li mi ted Liab i li ty C ompany.” (Id. at 1.) ESS LLC attached the Amended Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on form, lis tin g the separat e rat e requester and appli cant as “Eas t S ea Seafoo ds Joint Venture Co ., Ltd., now known as Eas t S ea Seafoo ds Li mi ted Liab i li ty Company.” (Id., Att ach. 1 at 1, 3.) Th e recor d contai ns no indi cati on that C ommerce rej ected ESS LLC’s Amended Separate Rates Cer tifi cati on. F. Preliminary Res ults On Sept ember 4, 2009, Commerce publi shed the preli minary r esults of the 5th AR. (Preli minary R esults; s ee also Pl.’s 56.2 App. T ab 9.) The Preli minary R esults li st seven compani es that “re main in thi s admini strat i ve r eview,” inclu di ng “East Sea Seafoo ds Joint Venture Co ., Ltd. (‘East Sea’).” Id. at 45,806. ESS LLC i s not menti oned i n the Preli minary R esults. See gener ally i d. Regar di ng the separat e rat e status, the Preli minary R esults n ote d ESS JVC as one of the compani es that subm i tte d a separate r ate cert i fi cati on. Id. at 45,807. I n a foot note, Co mmerce stated “East Sea [defi ned earlier in the Preli minary R esults as ESS JVC] add ressed the separate r ates secti on of the Depart ment’s questi onnai re in i ts Nove mber 25, 2008, sub mi ssi on as the certifi cati on i t had sub mi tte d was no longer 7

Thi s refers to the Se cti on A Response, whi ch w as expli ci tly filed b y and on 7 behalf of ESS LLC, as set forth supra at § II .D.Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 18

valid gi ven that there had been a change i n ownershi p and in name.” Id., n.5. Commerce relied upon the submi ssi on of ESS LLC i n finding an absenc e of gov ernmental contr ol ov er ES S JVC. Commerce speci fi cally found that ESS LLC’ s Section A Response “su pport [ed] a fi nding of a de jure absenc e of go ver nment contro l”

ov er ES S JVC based on ‘[a]n absenc e of restr i cti ve stipu lations associ ated wi th [ESS JVC’s] bus i ness li cens e” and legal author i ty “decentr ali zi ng contr ol ov er” ES S JVC. Id. Again b ased on ESS LLC’s S ecti on A Response, Commerce also found an abs ence of de facto gov ernment contr ol ov er ES S JVC, maki ng speci fi c findings that ESS JVC “sets i ts own expor t prices i ndependent of the go ver nment”; “retains the pro ceeds fro m i ts sales” an d contro ls i ts profits or losses; had m anagement “wi th the author i ty t o negot i ate and bi nd the company in an agreement”; “t he general manager s are selected by the boar d of di recto rs or company employees” and “appoi nt the . . . manager of each department”; and t hat “ther e i s no restr i cti on on [ESS JVC’s] use of export rev enues.” Id. Consequently, Co mmerce preli minaril y found that ES S JVC had “establi shed prima facie that [it] qu ali f[i es] f or [a] s eparat e rat e[.]” Id. As to t he separate r ate appli cable to ESS JVC, Commerce noted that i t would

or dinaril y apply a wei ghted-ave rag e of the marg i ns as si gned to the examined compani es (excepti ng zero , de min imis , and adverse facts bas ed margins ); however, becau se both examined compani es recei ved zer o marg ins, Commerce would i nstead us eCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 19

the “re asonable method” of “us[ i ng] the most re cent rate calculated for t he non-selec ted company in questi on unlesswe calculated i n a more r ecent rev i ew a rate for any company that was not zero , de min imis or based enti rely on facts avai lable.” Id. Commerce ther efore applied a m arg i n of $0.02 per kilogr am to ES S JVC, “as i t isthe assi gned rat e from the most r ecently completed segment of t he proceedin g that i s above de min imis and not based on adverse facts avail able.” Id. A margin of $2.11 per kilogram was as si gned as the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e, and was also set as the cas h deposi t r ate for all compani es “wh i ch have not been found to be entitled to a separat e rat e.” Id. at 45,807-08, 45,811. G. Separate Rat e and Succ essor-i n-Interes t Iss ues 1. Case Bri ef and Rebuttal ESS LLC sub mi tte d a cas e brief respondi ng to the Prelim i nary R esults on October 30, 2009, i n whi ch ESS LLC stated t hat “[i ]n the Preli minary R esults . . . [ Commerce]

corr ectly found that ES S LLC was eli gib le for separat e rat e status” due to an absenc e of de jure and de facto gov ernment contr ol. (PR 159, CR 45 (“Case Bri ef”) at 1.) ESS LLC noted t hat Commerce had “fai led to speci fi cally address whether t he Department wi ll tr eat ES S LLC is [si c] the su cces sor-i n-intere st to ES S JVC.” (Id. at 2.) ESS LLC ass ert ed that Co mmerce sh ould find ESS LLC t o be ESS JVC’s s ucc essor-i n-intere st based on the evidenc e i n the recor d showing that ES S LLC ke pt the same supp li er, customer base,Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 20

oper ational m anagement, tax i denti fi cati on numb er, assets, li abi li ties, legal rights, privi leges, and obli gations as ESS JVC, wi th the o nly di fferences c onsi sti ng of “a small change in ownershi p i ntere st and the legally r equi red minor change in the company’s name.” (Id. at 2-4.) In a rebutt al bri ef submi tte d on Nov ember 10, 2009, CFA ar gued that Co mmerce should deny ESS LLC’s su cces sorshi p clai m and as soci ated clai m of enti tlement to ESS JVC’s s eparat e rat e becaus e ESS LLC di d not pursue those clai ms vi a a changedci rcums tances review. ( PR 168 (“CFA Rebuttal Br i ef”) at 38.) CFA urg ed Commerce to collect cas h deposi ts on future entr i es by ESS LLC at the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e, absent a ch anged-ci rcums tances review, an d, furthermor e, to asses s duti es on POR entries b y ESS LLC at the Vietnam- wi de entity rat e as “thi s admini strat i ve r eview

cover s only ESS JVC, and does n ot cov er ES S LLC.” (Id. at 39.) CF A also clai med that “although this admini strat i ve r eview c ov ers only ES S JVC, the company fi led i ts separate-rat e certifi cati on and questi onnai re r esponses on behalf of ESS LLC” and, for that r eason, Commerce would have gr ounds f or finding that ES S JVC di d not demonstrate entitlement to a separat e rat e for cash deposi t and asses sment purposes. (Id. n.110.) Counsel for ESS LLC, by lette r date d December 3, 2009, re quested a meeti ng wi th Commerce offi ci als to di scu ss u nspec i fi ed i ssu es rai sed in the case b riefs and rebuttals.Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 21

(PR 170.) N o r esponse from Commerce or notat i on of the o ccu rr ence of su ch a m eeting appears i n the admini strat i ve r ecord.

2. Request for S ucc essor-i n-Interest I nformation and Resp onses On January 11, 2010, Commerce sent ESS LLC a letter statin g that the 5th ARhad been ini tiated as to ESS JVC, bu t that due to t he name change noted ”in your separat e rat e certifi cati on,” Commerce requested t hat ESS LLC sub mi t comments and 8 supp or tin g documents addressing i ts management, production fac i li ties, supp li er relat i onshi ps, and customer base both before and after the name chan ge and ownershi p change “[i ]n order for t he Department to ensure that the o perat i ons of [ESS LLC] di d not change si gni fi cantly from what they had been pri or to t he chan ge in n ame and ownershi p.” (PR 173.) ESS LLC responded to Commerce’s request on January 20, 2010 (PR 175, CR 47; Pl.’s 56.2 App. Tab 11.) In i ts response, ESS LLC i ndi cated that, when the Vi etnamese law requi ring the name change was pu t inplace in September 2006, ES S JVC was a jo i nt vent ure between “i ts U.S. investor ,” Pi azza’s Seafoo d World, LLC (“PSW”), and V i etnamese company Toan Nhat Co., Ltd (“Toan Nhat”). (Id. at 1.) A change in minority ownershi p of ESS JVC occu rr ed on Octo ber 8, 2007 when Toan Nhat sold i ts i ntere st to ano ther Vietnamese c ompany, Atlant i c Co., Ltd. (“Atlantic,” an affi li ate o f Nam V i et Co rp. by v i rt ue of common ownershi p, management, and the

The letter di d not speci fy whi ch s eparat e rat e certifi cati on. 8Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 22

mari tal re lations hi p of the majo rity shareholders of t he two compani es.) ( Id. at 3-4.) ESS JVC was gov erned by t wo boards: a four-member Management Di recto r Boar d, and a two-memb er Di recto r Boar d. (Id., Ex. SA-3–S A-4.) When Atlanti c acqu i red its minority ownershi p share i n ESS JVC, the o wner of Atlantic replaced one of the four members of the Management Di recto r Boar d of ESS JVC. (Id.) B oth members of the Di recto r Boar d were also replaced at t hat time, one by the owner of At lanti c. (Id. at 4-5, 9 Ex. SA -3–SA-4.) Nei ther ES S JVC nor ES S LLC owned pro ducti on faci li ties before o r after t he ownershi p and nam e changes ( i d. at 2, 5), and both ESS JVC and ESS LLC purchas ed subject mer chand i se for expo rtfrom suppli er At lanti c during the POR (id. at 3, 5). PSW was the sole customer of both ESS JVC and ESS LLC duri ng the POR, and PSW then made the fi rst sales to unaffi li ated United Stat es cu stomers; ther e was n o change in PSW’s cu stomer base duri ng the POR. (Id. at 3, 5, Ex. SA -2.) CFA r esponded to t he Supplemental Separat e Rate C ert i fi cati on on Fe bruary 1, 2010, reiterat i ng the ar guments made in the Nov ember 10, 2009 CFA R ebuttal Brief. ( PR 176 at 2-4.) CFA ar gued, alter nati vely , that t he chan ge in m i nority ownershi p was si gni fi cant becau se i t r esulted in a new c loseness i n relations w i th Atlant i c’s affi li ate Nam Vi et. (Id. at 6.) CF A also contended that ES S LLC’s suppli er base had ch anged One of the members of the Di recto r Boar d had served concurrently on the 9 Management Director Bo ard prior t o the o wnershi p chan ge, and ret ained that positi on after lo sing the spot o n the Di recto r Boar d. (Pl .’s 56.2 App. Tab 11 at 4-5, Exs. SA-3–SA4.)Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 23

si gni fi cantly from that of ESS JVC, wh i ch w as cons i dered a pr oducer of subject merchandi se in the third admini strat i ve r eview ( the last rev i ew condu cted as to ESS JVC) du e to a tolling relationsh i p wi th i ts processor. (Id. at7-8.) CFA also arg ued that the majo rity of ESS JVC’s m anagement structure changed after the shi ft of mi nority ownershi p, maki ng ESS LLC’s su cces sorshi p clai m ques tionabl e. (Id. at 8-9.) Fi nally, CFA ar gued that, if Commerce up held ESS LLC’s succ essorshi p clai m, ESS LLC should only succ eed to ESS JVC’s c ash deposi t r ate for expor ts of whi ch i t was “both the producer and the ex port er,” and should otherwis e be subject t o cash deposi t at t he Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e. (Id. at 10.) On Febr uary 16, 2010, ES S LLC r esponded, arguin g that the percentag e ownershi p of ESS JVC wh i ch changed hands was too small to be si gni fi cant. (P R 180 at 2.) ESS LLC also clai med that its s uppli er base was es senti ally unch anged, despi te abandonment of ESS JVC’s prior to lling relat i onshi p wi th i ts processor, not i ng that t he factors of pro ducti on underlying ESS LLC’s current pr oducti on (had they been collected) would have come from t he same c ompani es from whi ch f actor s of producti on were collected for ES S JVC i n the third admini strat i ve r eview. ( Id.) (However, a fil e memorandum notes that ESS LLC’s couns el confi rmed by phone on F ebruary 18, 2010 that ES S LLC er red in as serting that the fin al results of the third admini strat i ve r eview contai ned “information regar di ng a relat i onshi p between certainVi etnameseCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 24

compani es.” (P R 181.)) As to management, ESS LLC stressed that Salv adore Pi azza remain ed i n contro l of the company, both before and after the o ther changes. (PR 180 at 3.) III. Final R esult s On Mar ch 10, 2010, Commerce i ssu ed a memorandum detai li ng the is sues and deci si ons of the 5th AR. (PR 185, Issues an d Deci si on Memor andumfor t he Fin al Results of 5th Admini strat i ve Re viewand 4th New Shi pper Rev i ew: Certain Froze n Fis h Fi llets from the S oci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam (“I&D Memo”).) Comment 7 of the I&D Memo, headed “Rat e for East S ea Seafoo d [si c] J VC/East Sea S eafood [si c] LL C,” descri bes Commerce’s fi ndings and dec i si ons regar di ng ESS LLC’s su cces sorshi p-ini ntere st to ES S JVC and the appropr i ate cash deposi t and asses sment rates for ES S JVC and ESS LLC. (Id. at 35-40.) Commerce state d that it “grant ed ESS JVC a separate rat e” i n the Preli minary R esults des pi te “not i ng that t he [October 31, 2008 S eparat e Rate Cert i fi cati on] was not v ali d due to the change inownershi p and nam e.” (Id. at 37.) Commerce stated t hat i t did so by “rely i ng on the ES S LLC’s [si c] Secti on A questi onnai re r esponse.” (Id.) The I&D Memo characterized ESS LLC’s succ essorshi p clai m as f ollows:Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 25 Ess ential ly, ESS JVC, through its SR certifi cati on, and i ts 1 0 vo luntary r esponse to Se cti on A of t he Department’s anti dumping duty admi ni strat i ve r eview qu esti onnai re, 1 1 clai med that ESS JVC’s operations remained unaffected su ch that ES S LLC and ESS JVC are the same company. (Id. at 38.) After sum mari zi ng the r ecord, Co mmerce stated i ts finding on the

suc cess or shi p i ssu e:

[W]e find that althoug h ESS JVC/ESS LLC di d not underg o changes in the cus tomer base, the ch anges i n ownershi p, coupled w i th the changes in management and s uppli er base, are so si gni fi cant that we do not find that ESS LLC i s the suc cess or -in-intere st to ES S JVC. (Id. at 39.) Speci fi cally, Commerce found the following changes s i gni fi cant: (a) the ownershi p chan ges, becaus e the new owner’s i nvolv ement i n producti on of subject merchandi se “may potentially affec t how the Depart ment would c ollect factor s of production i f ESS LLC were t o be i ndi vidu ally examin ed”; (b) the management changes, becau se ESS LLC, unli ke ES S JVC, shared board members wi th compani es involv ed i n production or sale of the subject merchandi se; and ( c) the producti on/suppli er changes, becau se the shi ft from pro ducer (ESS JVC) to r eseller (ESS LLC) r esulted in “vastly di fferent” costs of production. (Id. at 39-40.)

Referr i ng to the Octo ber 31, 2008 Se parate Rate Ce rt i fi cati on fi led by ESS LCC 1 0 on i ts own behalf

. Referr i ng to the Nov ember 25, 2008 Section A Response fi led by ESS LLC on i ts 1 1 own behalf

.Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 26

After conclu di ng that ES S LLC was not the succ essor-i n-intere st to ES S JVC, Commerce made findings regar ding the r ates for t he two compani es. Commerce found that, “g i ven the separat e rat es certifi cati on from ES S LLC essenti ally contain ed all the

necess ary i nformation wi th respect to ESS JVC, . . . ESS JVC should b e assi gned a separate r ate for these final results, bu t only to t he effec tive date of the name change, June 17, 2008.” ( Id. at 40.) The Department dete rmi ned that it would “instruct CBP to

asses s $0.02 per kilogram on all appro priate [ESS JVC] entries . . . made during the POR up to June 17, 2008,” and that “[a]ny entries made after June 17, 2008, by ESS JVC wi ll be li qui dated at t he Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e of $2.11 per k i logr am, bec ause thi s company ceas ed to e xis t.” (Id.) As to ES S LLC, Co mmerce determin ed that it “shall i nstruct CBP to assess $2.11 per k i logr am on all appropriate entr i es . . . made du ring the POR as i t is currently not under admi ni strat i ve r eview an d remai ns part of the Vi etnam–wi de entity.” (Id.) The Fi nal Results p ubli shed on March 17, 2010 expli ci tly inc or porat ed the analysi s of all i ssu es di scu ssed in the I&D Memo. S ee Final Res ults, 75 Fed. Reg. at 12,727. The Fi nal Results chart sett i ng out dumping margins contained a footno te speci fying that t he Vi etnam-wi de entity “i nclu des ESS LLC,” r eferenci ng Comment 7 of the I&D Me mo. Id. at 12,728. The Final Resu lts restat ed the I&D Me mo deter minati ons reg ardin g the r ate ins tr ucti ons that Co mmerce would i ssu e to CBP regar di ngCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 27

asses sment of ESS JVC and ESS LLC ent ries, againrefer ring to Co mment 7 of the I&D Memo. I d. As to cash deposi t r ates, the Final Resu lts stated thatexpor ter s not currently

or prev i ously rev i ewed, nor suppli ed by manuf acturers current ly or prev i ously

rev i ewed, would b e the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e of $2.11. Id. ESS JVC’s “c ash deposi t rat e for any future entr i es made u nder the name of ESS JVC wi ll be $2.11 per kilogram” becau se Commerce “deter mined that ESS JVC ceas ed to e xis t as of June 17, 2008.” Id.

J U R I S D I C T I O N , S T A N D I N G & S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W The Court has jur i sdi cti on ov er t hi s cas e pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1581(c) whi ch authorizes the court to hear “any ci vil ac tion c ommenced u nder secti on 516A of t he Tari ff Act of 1930.” 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2006)

. Section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930 1 2 (“the Act”), codi fi ed at 19 U.S .C. § 1516a, permits the c ourt to r eview, am ong o ther thi ngs, “a final determin ation . . . by the admini stering authority . . . under secti on 1675 of this title,” wh i ch inclu des a final determin ation in an admini strat i ve r eview. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(2)(B)(i i i ); see als o 19 U.S .C. § 1675(a). A ch allenge to such a deter minati on may be brought by “an i ntere sted party who i s a party t o the pr oceedi ng i n connec tion w i th whi ch the matter ar i ses.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(2)(A) (i i ). An intere sted party , as defined for the purpo ses of the Act, i nclu des “a foreign m anufac turer , producer, o r ex port er, o r t he Uni ted S tate s i mport er, o f subject merchandi se.” 19 U.S.C.

All ci tations to the United Stat es Code refer to t he 2006 edi tion. 1 2Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 28

§ 1677(9)( A). ESS LLC is anexpor ter of the subject merchandi se, and i s therefor e an i ntere sted party

. The term “part y to the pro ceeding” i s not defined in the statute. Co mmerce has promulgat ed a set of defi ni tions that, among other things, define “ter ms that appear in the Act but are not defin ed i n the Act.” 19 C.F.R . § 351.102(a)( 1) (2009) . In these defini tions, Commerce has determin ed “party to t he proceedin g” to mean “any i ntere sted party that actively part i ci pates, thro ugh wri tte n submi ssi ons of factual i nformation or written arg ument, in a segment of a proceeding.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b) (36). Bec ause ESS LLC part i ci pated actively i n the pro ceeding before t he agency by subm i tting both factual information and w ritten arg ument, ESS LLC is a party to t he proceedin g of the 5th AR, and has standing to bri ng this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2631(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(2)(A)(i i ). In rev i ewing Commerce’s fi nal determin ation in an admini strat i ve r eview, the Court i s requi red t o “hold unlawf ul any determinati on, fi nding, or conclu si on found . . . to be unsupported by substanti al evidenc e on the r ecord, o r o therwis e not in ac cordance wi th law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1) , (B)( i ). Substanti al evidenc e i s “‘su ch relevant evidenc e as a reasonable mind mi ght accept as adequate to support a conclu si on.’” HuaiyinFor ei gn Trade Co rp. (30) v. United Stat es, 322 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Ci r. 2003) (quoti ng Consol. Edi son Co. v. NLRB, 305 U .S. 197, 229 (1938)). “Subs tantial evi denceCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 29

requires m or e than a mere scinti lla, but i s sati sfi ed by something less than the wei ght o f the ev i dence.” Altx, Inc. v. United Stat es, 370 F.3d 1108, 1116 (Fed. Ci r. 2004) (i nternal ci tations and qu otat i on marks omitted). A N A L Y S I S I. Commerce’s Succ essor-i n-Interes t Analysisis In Ac cordance Wit h Law and Supported by Subst antial Evidence on the Rec ord A. Positi ons of the Parties on Succes sorship 1. ESS LLC ESS LLC’s main argument is that t he Department’s suc cess or shi p analysi s i gnor ed evidenc e that t he company’s operations remained unchanged right before and after t he name change, and instead i mproper ly connected the change i n name fro m ESS JVC to ESS LLC wi th (a) alterat i ons in minority ownershi p and man agement that occurred months earlier, and (b ) the supp li er r elations hi ps of ESS JVC at t he tim e of the 3rd AR, despite ESS JVC and ESS LLC hav i ng shared the same su pply arr angements duri ng the entire POR o f the 5th AR. (Pl’s 56.2 Mem. at 7-8.) Alternat i vely , ESS LLC arg ues that, even if

Commerce pro perly compar ed ESS LLC as of the tim e of the name change wi th ESS JVC as i t ex i sted as far bac k as the 3rd A R, those changes were not si gni fi cant enough to support Commerce’s negative suc cess or shi p finding. (Id. at 9-16.) Plainti ff points out that, duri ng the PORs for both the 3r d AR and the 5th AR, PSW owned over 90% of the company, Salv adore Pi azza remain ed presi dent wi th purchasingCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 30

and selling contr ol, and si mi lar patt erns of suppl i er affi li ation and, as a consequen ce, the same fac tor s of producti on, appli ed. (Id.)

2. The Uni ted S tate s and CFA The Uni ted S tate s argues that Co mmerce, in conduc tin g the succes sorshi p analysi s, proper ly consi dered all of the changes occurrin g during the span of ti me since the 3rd A R, culm i nati ng i n the name ch ange to ESS LLC, and correctly deter mined, based on s ubs tantial evi dence in the recor d, that the chan ges were si gni fi cant enough that ES S LLC was not the succ essor-in-intere st to ES S JVC. (Def.’s 56.2 Opp. at 12-17.) Defendan t-Inter venor CFA r ei ter ates these arg uments. ( Def.- Int.’s 56.2 Opp. at6-14.) Defendan t contends that, if anything, ESS JVC benefi tte d from this analysi s, since Commerce could have found from the evidenc e that ES S JVC had become a newentity priorto t he name change, and consequ ently could have appli ed the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e to ESS JVC as of anearlier poin t intim e. (Def.’s 56.2 Opp. at 14.) B. Analysis The fi rst is sue f or the Cour t to resolv e i s wh ether Commerce’s deter minati on that ESS LLC i s not the succ essor-i n-intere st to ES S JVC i s su pport ed by sub stanti al evidenc e i n the recor d and i s otherwis e in acc or dance w i th law. It is

. In an admini strat i ve r eview, Comm erce is required to “r eview, an d deter mine . . . the amount of any antidum pi ng duty” and publi sh noti ce of “any duty to be ass essedCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 31

[and] esti mated duty t o be deposi ted[.]” 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1). Commerce has explain ed that t he purpose of conduc tin g a succ essor-i n-intere st analysi s during an admini strat i ve r eview i s to dete rmi ne “the appro priate rate t o be assi gned to entiti es affec ted by . . . some . . . change whi ch rai ses the ques tions of the company’s status in the pro ceeding.” Brass Sheet and S tr i p from Canada; Fin al Results of Anti dumping Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re view, 57 Fed. Reg . 20,460, 20,461 (May 13, 1992). In this case, the ch ange thatpreci pi tate d the suc cess or -in-intere st deter minati on was the change i n name fro m ESS JVC to ESS LLC. Presum ably, once the name had changed, ESS LLC would no longer be able to obtain the cas h deposi t r ate assi gned to ESS JVC in the third admini strat i ve r eview, u nless explic i tly per mi tte d to do so by virtue of a favor able su cces sor-in-intere st analysi s. Pl ainti ff has urged t hat i n conduc tin g the succes sor-i n-intere st deter minati on, Commerce should have compared the newly formed ESS LLC to ES S JVC as i t ex i sted i mmedi ately pr i or to t he name change on Jun e 17, 2008. Commerce, however , elected to compare ESS LLC wi th ESS JVC as i t ex i sted the last time i t was subject to i ndi vidu al exami nati on by the ag ency—i n the third admini strat i ve r eview. See I&D Memo at 37-40. The dec i si on to compare ESS LLC wi th ESS JVC from the 3rd ARi s i mpli ci tly ev i dent from t he bases upon whi ch Commerce reached a negat i ve det ermin ation in the suc cess or -in-intere st analysi s. In reachi ng a negat i ve succ essorshi p deter minati on on the basi s of the changes inCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 32

ownershi p, management, and su ppli er r elations hi p, whi ch all took place prior t o the name ch ange, but sub sequent to t he 3rd AR, Co mmerce has given a clear indi cati on of the start i ng place for its c omparis on. See i d. at 38-39. The Court sees no re ason why the deci si on to compare the newly named enti ty wi th the entity as i t ex i sted when las t ex amined i s “otherwis e contrar y to law.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)( B)(i ). The s ucc essor-i n-intere st analysi s wasnot ex pli ci tly cre ated by statute o r by r egulation, bu t is an agency practic e desi gned to faci li tate the pro per i mplementati on of the antidum pi ng laws. Bec ause “a c ompany wi ll argue

suc cess or shi p, or lack t hereo f, depending on the par ticular consequenc es of i ts clai m on i ts anti dumping duty depo si t r ate,” Co mmerce needs to have a r easonable method for conduc tin g the analysis that wi ll lead to a fai r r esult in li ght o f “the tot ali ty o f ci rcums tances.” Certain Brass Sheet, 57 Fed. Reg . at 20,461. The questi on i n a

suc cess or -in-intere st deter minati on i s wh ether an alleged suc cess or should qu ali fy for the cash deposi t r ate last calcul ated for the alleged pr edecess or . The Court fin ds that the deci si on to compare ESS LLC wi th the last v ersi on of the alleg ed predecessor that had been s ubject to agency re viewi s patently r easonable. Mor eov er, t hi s Court is obli gate d to ex tend “tr emendous deference to the exper tis e of the S ecretar y of Commerce i n admini stering the anti dumping law,” wh en i t comes to Co mmerce's “i denti fyi ng, selecti ng and applyi ng methodo logies to i mplement the di ctates set fort hCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 33

i n the go ver ning statute.” F ujitsuGeneral Ltd. v. U ni ted S tate s, 88 F.3d 1034, 1039 (Fed. Ci r. 1996) (i nternal quot ations omi tte d). Acc or di ngly, t he Courtfinds thi s deter minati on to be in acc or dance w i th law. In addi tion to fi nding the metho dolog y lawful, the Court also fi nds that Commerce’s particu lar dete rmi nati on i n thi s su cces sor-in-intere st analysi s i s su pport ed by sub stanti al factual evi dence in the recor d. Plainti ff does not di spute the exis tence of the changes i denti fi ed by the age ncy between ESS JVC as i t ex i sted i n the third admini strat i ve r eview an d ESS LLC. To t he contrar y, Plai nti ff voluntarily su ppli ed Commerce wi th i nformation regar di ng each of these chan ges i n i ts Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on, Section A Response, and Amended Separate R ate Cer tifi cati on, and i n i ts responses to the succes sor-i n-intere st query fr om the age ncy. Seeing no fac tual di spute, the Cour t fi nds that evidenc e i n the recor d documen tin g the change inownershi p, the change in management, and the chan ge in s uppli er ar rangement constitutes more than a mere scinti lla of evidenc e i n su pportof the age ncy’s determin ation that ESS LLC i s not

a suc cess or -in-intere st to ES S JVC as i t ex i sted at the t i me of the third admini strat i ve

rev i ew. See Alt x, 370 F.3d at 1116.Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 34

II. Commerce’s Deci sion To Assign Plai ntiff The Vietnam- Wide Entity Rate Is Not In Accordanc e With Law The sec ond i ssu e for t he Court to r esolve is whether the ag ency’s deci si on to assi gn ESS LLC a cas h deposi t r ate equal to the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e of $2.11/kg i n the Final Resu lts was i n acc or dance w i th law. A. Positi ons of the Parties on Proper Dumping Rate for E SS LLC 1. ESS LLC ESS LLC argues that C ommerce’s deter minati on to assi gn i t the Vietnam- wi de entity rat e as a cas h deposi t r ate was not inaccordance w i th law bec ause the Vi etnamwi de entity rat e was b ased on adverse facts avail able (“AFA”); but ESS LCC did not fai l to coo perat e wi th Commerce. (Pl.’s 56.2 Mem. at 17-18.) ESS LLC asserts that pursuant to 19 U .S.C. § 1677e(b), Commerce mus t fi nd that a part y fai led to coo perat e before an AFA r ate may be appli ed to t hat part y. (Id.) ESS LLC also contends that Commerce’s assi gnment of the Vietnam- wi de entity rat e to ESS LLC was not support ed by sub stanti al evidenc e, since Commerce acc epted and relied up on evidenc e sub mi tte d by—and equally appli cable to—ESS LLC when i t found that ES S JVC was n ot under de jure or de facto gov ernment contr ol, but i gnor ed the effect of that ev i dence as to ES S LLC. (Id. at 18-20.) ESS LLC also arg ues that i t was proper ly subject to t he 5th AR, and

was n ot r equi red t o subm i t two r equests for rev i ew (one und er t he name ESS JVC and one under the name ESS LLC) in response to t he Notic e of Initi ation. (P l.’s Reply at 4-5.)Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 35

ESS LLC poi nts out thatCommerce accepted and reli ed upon submi ssi ons from ESS LLC thro ughout the r eview, an d clai ms that Commerce “i s thus estopped fro m arguin g now that all such submi ssi ons were i nvali d or t hat [ESS LLC] was not under rev i ew.” (Id. at 5.) 2. Uni ted S tate s and CFA Defendan t and CFA ar gue that C ommerce’s appli cati on of the Vietnam- wi de entity rat e to ESS LLC upon i ts negative suc cess or shi p deter minati on was not an appli cati on of AF A, but was instead the oper ation of a presum ption of gove rnment contro l that appli es to all NME compani es that do not rebut that presumpti on by requestin g r eview an d prov i ding evidenc e of a lack of go ver nment contro l. (Def .’s 56.2 Opp. at 17-20 (ci tin g Transcom, Inc. v. Uni ted S tate s, 294 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Ci r. 2002) and Sigma Corp. v . Uni ted S tate s, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Ci r. 1997); Def.-Int.’s 56.2 Opp. at 15- 20.) Further more, bot h Defen dant and CFA assert t hat ESS LLC’s fai lure to fi le i ts own request for rev i ew (in addi tion to the r equest fi led by ESS JVC) m eant thatESS LLC was no longer subject t o the r eview onc e Commerce deter mined that it was not t he

suc cess or -in-intere st to ES S JVC. (Def.’s 56.2 Opp. at 18-20; Def.-Int.’s 56.2 Opp. at 15- 19.) The gover nment and CFA both stat e that Co mmerce “had no ch oic e but to apply” the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e to ESS LLC—a company that had not r equested rev i ew and di d not inh erit ESS JVC’s separate r ate t hrough succ essi on. (Def.’s 56.2 Opp. at 19;Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 36

Def.- Int.’s 56.2 Opp. at17.) The gover nment characterizes thi s treat ment as “a deter minati on that t he company has not met its bu rden of demonstrat i ng that it i s separate fro m the gov ernment entity,” and maintai ns that Commerce was not obli gate d to t reat ESS LLC as i f i t had appli ed for a separat e rat e by accepting i ts Section A Response. (D ef.’s 56.2 Opp. at 19-20.) B. Analysis For the re asons s et for th below, the Cour t finds u nlawf ul Commerce’s deci si on to assi gn ESS LLC the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e wi thout first consi dering evi dence on the

recor d that speci fi cally addresses the ext ent to whi ch ESS LLC i s de facto and de jure i ndependent from the contr ol of the g ov ernment of Vietnam. The normal consequ ence of a negative deter minati on i n a su cces sor-i n-intere st analysi s i s that the entity found not t o be the succ essor-in-intere st may not po st cash deposi ts at the r ate calculated for the allege d predecessor. In the case of an anti dumping duty o rder i mposed on goo ds from a marketeconomy, Co mmerce gener ally appli es the “all other s rate” t o the no n-s ucc eedi ng entity by default. In the 1 3 case of a nonm ark et economy , Commerce ty pi cally appli es the country-wi de See, e.g ., Notice of P relim i nary R esults of Anti dumping Duty Changed 1 3 Ci rcums tances Review : Polychloro prene Rubber fro m Japan , 69 Fed. Reg . 61,796, 61,798 (Oct. 21, 2004) (preli minaril y fi nding that S DK was n ot t he suc cess or -in-intere st to SDEM/DDE, and that “SDK should not be given the same anti dumping duty t reat ment as [SDEM/DD E],” and that SDK, as a new enti ty, “should continue to be assi gned as i ts cashdeposi t r ate t he ‘all other s’ rate”).Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 37

anti dumping rat e as a defau lt rat e. In this case, f or example, where Commerce found 1 4 alleged succ essor ESS LLC not t o quali fy for t he rate prev i ously assi gned to alleged predecessor ESS JVC, Defendant arg ues that Commerce had “no choi ce” bu t to apply the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e, as thi s was the “only po ssi ble option” avai lable. (D ef.’s 56.2 Opp. at 19.) The appli cati on of a NME antidum pi ng rat e (su ch as the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e i n the current pr oceedi ng) to a par ticular expo rt er is premi sed on the “rebutt able presumpti on that all compani es wi thi n the NME country are subject to gov ernment contro l and, thus, should b e asses sed a single antidu mping duty r ate.” Preliminary Results, 74 Fed. Reg. at 45,806. The Court o f Appeals f or the Feder al Ci rcui t (“CAFC ”) has, to some ext ent, sancti oned the use of thi s rebuttable presumpti on. Sigma Corp. v

. 1 5 See, e.g ., Fr ozen Warmwater Shrimp From Vi etnam: Notice of P relim inary 1 4 Results of Anti dumping Duty Changed Circum stances Reviews, 74 Fed. Reg . 31,698, 31,700 (Ju ly 2, 2009) (preli minaril y fi nding that C AFI SH was not the succ essor-i ni ntere st to C ATACO, and thus “should not r ecei ve CA TACO’s current separ ate r ate and that t he cas h deposi t r ate for . . . CAFI SH should continue to be the curre nt Vi etnamwi de rat e”) (un changed in final results, s ee 74 Fed. Re g. 42,050, 42,051); Woo den Bedroo m Furni ture fr om the People’s Republi c of China: Preli minary R esults of Antidu mping Duty Changed Circum stances Review, 72 Fed. Reg. 41,492, 41,495 (July 30, 2007) (preli minaril y fi nding that Tr adewinds International i s not the succ essor-i ni ntere st to F or tune Glory , “and, therefor e, should not be gi ven the same antid umping duty tr eatment as Fo rt une Glory”) (unchanged in final results, s ee 72 Fed. Re g. 60,812, 60,813-14.). The Court no tes that in m ost, if not all, cases involv i ng a country -wi de NME 1 5 anti dumping duty r ate, t he country-wi de margin h as been c alcul ated using adver se i nferences. See, e.g., Cer tainFr ozen FishFill ets Fr om the S oci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam:Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 38

Uni ted S tate s, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405 (Fed. Ci r. 1997) (“[I]t was w i thi n Commerce’s authority t o employ a pr esum ption of s tate contro l for ex port ers i n a nonmarket economy, and to place the burden on the expor ter s to demonstrat e an absen ce of central gov ernment contr ol.”) The CAFC later construed i ts holdi ng i n Sigma b y emphasi zi ng the re buttabi li ty o f the presumpti on:

Although i n Sigma we upheld Commerce 's presumpti on of state contro l, whi ch shi fted the burden to the compani es under rev i ew to demonstrate that they were i ndependent from the state-contr olled entity, we recog ni zed that the presumpti on i s rebuttable, and that a party that is subj ect to the presumpti on has a right t o attempt to rebut i t. Transcom, Inc . v. United Stat es, 182 F.3d 876, 883 (Fed. Ci r. 1999) (emphas i s added)

. The i ssu e rais ed i n thi s cas e, ther efore, is whether t he appli cati on of the Vietnam- wi de

Fin al Results of Anti dumping Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re viewand Parti al Resci ssi on, 73 Fed. Reg . 15,479, 15,480 (Mar. 24, 2008) (“the Department assi gned a rat e based on the use of total adv erse facts avai lable (‘AFA’) to the Vi etnam-Wi de Enti ty”). The Court does not believe that either the CA FC o r t he CIT have ev er consi dered the exte nt to whi ch the appli cati on of the r ebuttable presumpti on, described herei n, may confli ct wi th 19 U.S .C. § 1677e(b). Thi s statute states that“i f [Commerce] finds that an i ntere sted party has f ai led to coo perat e by not acting to t he best of i ts abi li ty t o comply wi th a request for i nformation,” Commerce “may use ani nference that is adver se to t he i ntere sts of that part y inselecting from among t he facts otherwi se avai lable.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) ( emphas i s added)

. It seems that the applic ation of an anti dumping duty r ate t hat has been b ased on AFA t o cert ai n compani es by the oper ation of a “rebuttable presumpti on” of gov ernment contr ol, wi thout t he finding of fai lure to cooper ate r equi red by 1677e(b), may be ultra vires . The Court need not reach thi s ques tion in the case b efore it and declines to do so.Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 39

entity rat e to ESS LLC wi thout consi dering ESS LLC’s evidenc e att empting to rebut the presumpti on of state cont ro l was appropr i ate. It was n ot. In Transcom, the CAFC held that par ties not named i n the notice of ini tiati on of an admini strat i ve r eview c ould not be subjected to t he presumpti on that t hey were under state contr ol as a result of the admini strat i ve r eview, b ecaus e those part i es di d not hav e notice that they would be subjected t o the pr esum ption, and there fore, could not hav e att empted to rebut it. Transc om, 182 F.3d at 883-84. In light of Sigma and Transcom, i t would appear thatwhenever a company fro m a non-m ark et economy i s seeki ng a suc cess or -in-intere st analysi s, the alleged suc cess or mus t have an o pport uni ty to r ebut the presumpti on of state cont ro l, becau se the alleged succ essor faces the prospect of bein g subjected to the presumpti on that it i s controlled by t he state entity if i t is found not to be the suc cess or -in-intere st, and recei ves the NME countr y-wi de cash deposi t r ate. Thi s would seem to be the case regar dless of whether the succes sor-i ni ntere st analysi s i s sought i n a chan ged ci rcums tances review or i n an admini strat i ve

rev i ew. Under t he facts of thi s cas e, however , the questi on of whether Co mmerce sh ould give an alleged suc cess or the oppo rt uni ty demo nstrate independen ce from the state entity i s not hypot hetic al. Instead, Commerce refused to consi der t he effec t on ES S LLC of abundan t ev i dence in the admini strat i ve r ecord whi ch w ould tend to supp or t ESSCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 40

LLC’s attempts to rebut that presumpti on. Thi s refusali s inexcusab le. The evi dence appears i n the form of (a) the Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on subm i tte d by ESS LLC on October 31, 2008 (PR 34, CR 8), (b ) the separate r ates por tion of the Section A Response sub mi tte d by ESS LLC on Nov ember 25, 2008 (PR 41, CR 10), (c ) ESS LLC’s fi nanci al statements, sub mi tte d on Decemb er 19, 2008 (PR 49, CR 13), and (d) the Amended Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on subm i tte d on be half of ESS LLC and ESS JVC on M arch 23, 2009 (PR 80), an d i s un questi onably part of the admi ni strat i ve r ecord. M or eov er, t he agency re li ed upon thi s very evidenc e, sub mi tte d by ESS LLC, in finding in the Preli minary R esults that ESS JVC was de jure and de facto i ndependent of the Vi etnamese gov ernment during the 5th POR. Commerce’s appli cati on of the pr esum ption of s tate contro l, wi thout consi dering abu ndant recor d evidenc e rebutt i ng that v ery presumpti on, pushed l egal fi cti on i nto t he realm of legal fantasy. Doin g so was not i n accordance w i th law. Remark ably, Defendan t tak es the posi tion that ther e was nothingESS LLC could have done t o r ebut the presumpti on i n thi s cas e. Defendan t clai ms that ESS LLC could not hav e requested a separat e rat e, presumably vi a a separate r ate appli cati on, “becaus e i t neve r r equested to be r eviewed” in the 5th AR. (Def.’s 56.2 Opp. at 19-20.) Defendant states that it would not consi der the separate r ates por tion of ESS LLC’s Section A Response to ev aluate go ver nment contro l, becau se after r eaching the negat i veCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 41

suc cess or -in-intere st deter minati on, ESS LLC “was no longer proper ly part of the

rev i ew.” (Id. at 20.) Defendant offers no explanation why i t did not consi der the Separ ate Rat e Cert i fi cati on subm i tte d by ESS LLC, or t he Amended Separat e Rate Cert i fi cati on, subm i tte d by both ESS LLC and ESS JVC. Ostensibly, though, Co mmerce wi ll not accept a separate r ate cert i fi cati on from an entity thathas not prev i ously received a separate rat e. Commerce’s obsti nance left Plai nti ff in a si tuation wh ere t he presumpti on was i rr efutable rather than rebuttable. When a su cces sor-i n-intere st analysi s has been sought i n the course of an admini strat i ve r eview, s uch a rev i ew has typical ly, if not uni ver sally, been c onducted when b oth t he alleged predecessor and the allege d suc cess or have been named in the notic e of i ni tiati on for t hat admini strat i ve r eview. When asked by ESS LLC, an alleged 1 6

See Chlo rinated Isocyanurates from Spain: P relim i nary R esults of 1 6 Antidu mping Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re view, 72 Fed. Reg . at 37,191 (July 9, 2007) (fi nding i n preli minary r esults of adm i ni strat i ve r eview that Arag onesas Indus tr i as y Energía S.A. “A rag oneses” was the succ essor-in-intere st to A rag onesas D elsa S.A. (“Delsa”) ), and Ini tiati on of Antidum pi ng And Counter vailing Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re view s and Request for R evo cati on i n Part, 71 Fed. R eg. 42,626, 42,627 (July 27, 2006) (ini tiating sai d admini strat i ve r eview as to bo th Ar agoneses and Dels a); see als o S tain less Steel Bar Fr om Italy : Preli minary R esults of Anti dumping Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re viewand Preli minary R esci ssi on of Rev i ew, 70 Fed. Reg. 17,656, 17,657 (Apr i l 7, 2005) (fi nding UGITECH S.A. (“Ugitech”) the s ucc essor-i n-intere st to U gin e-Savo i e Imphy S.A

. ((Ugi ne-Savo i e”)), and Ini tiati on of Antidum pi ng and Counter vailing Duty Admini strat i ve Re view s and Reques t for Revo cati on i n Part, 69 Fed. R eg. 30,282 (May 27, 2004) (ini tiating sai d admini strat i ve r eview as to bo th Ugine-Savoie and Ugi tech); see also Pu rifi ed Carbox ymethylcellulose from Finlan d; Notic e of Prelim i nary Determin ation of Anti dumping Duty Admini strat i ve Re view, 72 Fed. Reg . 44,106, 44,107-08 (Aug. 7, 2007) ( finding CP Kelco OY the succ essor-i n-intere st to No viant OY),Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 42

suc cess or that was not named i n the notice of ini tiati on, to conduc t a succ essor-i ni ntere st analysi s in thi s admini strat i ve r eview, Comm erce mi ght hav e declined, but i t di d not. Rat her than in formin g ESS LLC that it would n eed to separately request a changed ci rcums tances review b ecaus e i t was not named in the notice of ini tiati on, and there fore no t pro perly under admin i strat i ve r eview, Comm erce agr eed to deter mine whether ESS LLC was the succ essor-i n-intere st to ES S JVC. Commerce accepted i nto the re cord r epeated submi ssi ons from ESS LLC containing both factual information and legal arg ument, conferrin g “part y to the pro ceeding” status to ES S LLC. Co mmerce speci fi cally soli ci ted addi tional information from ESS LLC (and the petiti oners) pert ai ning to the succ essorshi p questi on, and set fort h a reasoned explanation of the results of i ts analysi s in the I&D Memo. A fter per mi tting and soli ci tin g the par tic i pation of ESS LLC i n thi s admini strat i ve pr oceedi ng for mo re t han 15 months, Commerce cannot now act as i f ESS LLC is a tot al stranger

. Furt hermor e, Commerce explic i tly found i n the Preli minary R esults that ESS JVC, as i t ex i sted i n the 5th POR, was not under de jure or de facto contro l of the Vi etnamese gov ernment. Whi le the changes in su ppli er r elations hi p, ownershi p and management affec ted the succes sor-in-intere st deter minati on, these changes w ere

and Ini tiati on of Antidum pi ng and Counter vailing Duty Admi ni strat i ve Re view s and Requests for Rev ocation in Part, 71 Fed. R eg. 51,573, 51,574 (Aug. 30, 2006) (i ni tiating admini strat i ve r eview as to bo th Nov i ant Oy and CP Kelco Oy).Co urt No . 10-00102 Page 43

i rr elevant t o the ag ency’s deci si on to gr ant ESS JVC a separate rat e i n thi s admini strat i ve r eview. The Courthas not seen any eviden ce in the recor d, or hear d any arg ument from the part i es, su gge sti ng that, at tendant wi th the name change on June 17, 2008, ESS LLC fell un der g ov ernment contr ol. To the cont rar y, the ev i dence s uggests that t he name change on June 17, 2008 wasnot, itself, as soci ated wi th any change i n the ext ent of go ver nment contro l ove r ES S JVC’s, or ES S LLC’s, oper ations . For the foreg oin g r easons, then, the Court finds that Commerce’s deci si on not t o dete rmi ne whether ESS LLC had made a s howing that it was enti tled to a separate r ate is not in accordance w i th law. III. Liquidati on of E SS JVC Entries After June 17, 2008 at ESS LL C Rat e Was Unlawful The final i ssu e for t he Court to r esolve is whether Commerce’s deci si on to or der li qui dation of entries by ESS JVC at the rat e assi gned to ESS LLC for entr i es made after the effecti ve dat e of the name change i s su pport ed by sub stanti al evidenc e in the recor d and other wi se in acc or dance w i th law. A. Positi ons of the Parties on ESS JVC L iquid ation Rat e 1. ESS LLC ESS LLC contends that Commerce wrong ly deter mined to ins tr uct CBP to asses s the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e on entr i es made b y ESS JVC retr oactive to t he date of the name ch ange. (Pl.’s 56.2 Mem. at 20.) ESS LLC points out that shi pments export ed byCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 44

ESS JVC up to the date o f the name ch ange would have enter ed the United Stat es weeks later , and contends that ESS JVC’s $0.02 rat e should appl y to all ESS JVC entr i es shi pped from Vi etnam on or before June 17, 2008. (Id.)

2. Uni ted S tate s and CFA Defendan t did not addr ess thi s argument. CFA opposes ESS LLC’ s posi tion on the gr ounds that the arg ument was not r ai sed bef or e the age ncy, and that ESS LLC di d not ci te r ecord ev i dence regar di ng the date s on whi ch ESS LLC expo rt s fi rst ente red t he Uni ted S tate s for consum ption. ( Def.- Int.’s 56.2 Opp. at20.) B. Analysis The Court fin ds that the deci si on of Commerce t o or der liqu i dation of entriesby ESS JVC at the rat e assi gned to ESS LLC for all entr i es made after the effecti ve dat e of the name chan ge is not support ed by sub stanti al evidenc e i n the recor d or o therwis e i n accordance w i th law. In the Final Resu lts, Commerce stated that “[a]ny entries m ade after June 17, 2008, by ESS JVC wi ll be ass essed at the Vi etnam-wi de entity rat e of $2.11 per kilogram.” Final Res ults, 75 Fed. Reg. at 12,728. In the I& D Memo, Commerce ex plains that it reached thi s deci si on becaus e, after t hi s date, ESS JVC “ceas ed to e xis t.” I& D Memo at 40. The Court do es not fi nd any evidenc e i n the recor d to support Commerce’s deci si on to tr eat entr i es made b y ESS JVC, after the dat e of the nameCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 45

change, as s omehow not t he prov i nce of ESS JVC. (See g enerally CR1, 4.) Wi thout a

more r easoned explanation as to why ent ries made by ESS JVC should be treate d as i f made by ESS LLC, t he Court cannot sus tainthi s asp ect of the F i nal Results, as i t isnot supp or ted by subs tantial evi dence and i s not ot herwi se in acc or dance w i th law. IV. Remand On remand, the ag ency need not tamper wi th the succ essor-i n-intere st analysi s, whi ch has been su stained. It must, however , consi der all of the ev i dence in the admini strat i ve r ecord per tain i ng to ESS LLC’s de jure and de facto i ndependenc e from the Vi etnamese gov ernment, as detailed b y the Co urt abov e, and make a finding as to whether ESS LLC has rebutted the pre sum ption of gove rnment contr ol. Upon a fin di ng that ES S LLC is i ndependent of the contr ol of the Vietnames e go ver nment, Commerce

mus t assi gn a separate cash deposi t r ate t o ESS LLC that is supp or ted by subs tantial evidenc e and i s otherwis e i n acc or dance w i th law, and s hall i mmedi ately iss ue li qui dation instructi ons to CBP adjustin g the cash deposi t r ate for ESS LLC acc or di ngly. Any fi nding by Commerce t hat ESS LLC i s not i ndependent of the contr ol of the Vi etnamese gov ernment must explai n why the presumpti on has not been rebutted, and why the evidenc e found su ffi ci ent in the Prelim i nary R esults to establi sh ESS JVC’s i ndependenc e from the Vietnames e go ver nment, whi ch w as submi tte d by ESS LLC, i s i nsu ffi ci ent to establi sh the sam e for ES S LLC. Additi onally, Co mmerce mu st prov i de aCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 46

reasoned ex planati on, supported by ev i dence in the recor d, for why entr i es shi pped by ESS JVC bu t enter ed after t he effec tive date of the name change should b e tr eated as entries m ade by ESS LLC. If Commerce deter mines on remand that all entr i es sh i pped by ESS JVC sh ould be gi ven the r ate assi gned to ESS JVC, i t shall amend the li qui dation i nstructi ons acc or di ngly. Because the unlaw ful Final Results ap pear t o have placed Plainti ff in i mminent danger o f su fferi ng sever e economi c harm, Commerce i s i nstructed to file i ts remand results no later than April 27, 2010. C O N C L U S I O N For the re asons gi ven abov e, upon consi derat i on of Plainti ff’s Motion for Judgment on the Age ncy Record, Defendant’s and D efendant-Interv enor’ s responses there to, Plain tiff’s reply, and Defendan t’s Sur reply, and upon careful consi derat i on of the admi ni strat i ve r ecord, t hi s Court affi rms in part and re mands in part t he Fin al Results. It i s hereby ORDERED that Plai nti ff’s Motion for Judgment on the Ag ency Record is PARTIALLY GRANTED and P ARTIALLY DENIED; and i t is further ORDERED that Co mmerce’s determi nati on in the FinalResults of the fi fth admini strat i ve r eview of the anti dumping duty o rder on Cer tainFr ozen FishFill ets from the S oci ali st Republi c of Vi etnam that ES S LLC is not t he suc cess or -in-intere st to ESS JVC i s AFFI RMED, and i t is furtherCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 47

ORDERED that t he Fin al Results are REMANDED to Co mmerce; and i t is further ORDERED that Co mmerce mu st consi der all ev i dence in the admini strat i ve

recor d pertaining to ESS LLC’s de jure and de facto i ndependenc e from the Vietnames e gov ernment, and make a fi nding as to whether ESS LLC has rebutted the pre sum ption of go ver nment contro l; and i t is further ORDERED that if Comm erce fi nds that ESS LLC is independent of the contr ol of the Vi etnamese gov ernment, it mu st assi gn to ESS LLC a cas h deposi t r ate separat e from the Vietnam- wi de entity rat e that is s upporte d by sub stanti al evidenc e and i s other wi se in acc or dance w i th law; and i t is further ORDERED that if Comm erce fi nds that ESS LLC is n ot independen t of t he contro l of the Vi etnamese gov ernment based on the evidenc e i n the recor d, i t must explainwhy the presumpti on has not been rebutted, and it mu st explainwhy the evidenc e ci ted inthe Prelim i nary R esults that was suffi ci ent to establi sh ESS JVC’s i ndependenc e from the Vietnames e go ver nment i s insu ffi ci ent to establi sh that ESS LLC i s independent of the Vi etnamese gov ernment; and i t is further ORDERED that Co mmerce mu st ei ther pr ov i de a reasoned ex planati on, supp or ted by ev i dence in the recor d, for why it sh ould tre at entr i es made b y ESS JVC, after t he effec tive date of the name change, as entries made by ESS LLC, o r alte rnativelyCo urt No . 10-00102 Page 48

shall fi nd that all entr i es made b y ESS JVC are given the rat e of $0.02 per k i logr am assi gned to ESS JVC in the FinalResults; and i t isfurther ORDERED that Co mmerce sh all fi le wi th this Court the re mand results n o later than Tuesday April 27, 2010 ; and i t is further ORDERED that Co mmerce sh all i ssu e new li qui dation instructi ons to U.S

. Customs and B or der Pro tection in acc or dance w i th the r emand results n o later than Tuesday, April 27, 2010 ; and i t is further ORDERED that Plai nti ff m ay fi le comments w i th thisCourt i ndi cati ng whether they ar e sati sfi ed or di ssati sfi ed wi th the r emand results n o later than Friday, April 30, 2010 ; and that Defendant and D efendant-Interv enor may fi le responses to Plainti ffs ’ comments n o later than Wednesday, May 5, 2010 ; and i t is further ORDERED that t he remai ning component of Plai nti ff’s Motion for Preli minary Injuncti on i s deni ed as moot.

/s/Gregor y W. Car man Grego ry W. Carman, Judge Dated: April 19, 2010

New York , NY