Background
Two Ecuadorian shrimp exporters challenged the U.S. International Trade Commission’s determination that subsidized shrimp imports from Ecuador, India, and Vietnam materially injured the domestic shrimp industry. The ITC defined that industry to include domestic harvesters of fresh warmwater shrimp and processors of frozen warmwater shrimp, and examined imports and industry performance from January 2021 through March 2024.
The exporters argued that rising diesel prices—not imported shrimp—caused the financial harm experienced by U.S. fishermen. They also contended that the ITC abused its discretion by declining their request to require fishermen to report the volume of diesel fuel they purchased during each period examined.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of International Trade sustained the ITC’s affirmative material-injury determination. It held that the agency acted within its investigative discretion when it declined to collect diesel-purchase volumes. The existing record allowed the exporters to present their fuel-cost theory, and the ITC reasonably determined that the additional information would not change its analysis. The court also rejected the exporters’ allegation of bias because they presented no evidence of bad faith.
Substantial evidence supported the ITC’s finding that subject imports materially injured U.S. fishermen. Imports generally undersold domestic shrimp, and buyers who chose imports usually identified lower price as the primary reason. Domestic fishermen’s average sales value fell 42.6% from 2021 to 2023, while lower shrimp prices reduced fishing activity, employment, and output. Although fuel expenses rose in 2022, they fell sharply in 2023 while fishermen still suffered an operating loss and their worst operating ratio of the period. The ITC therefore rationally attributed the injury to import-driven price declines rather than fuel costs.
Key Takeaways
- The ITC need not collect every item of information proposed by a party when it has made reasonable investigative efforts and the existing record supports its determination.
- A material-injury finding may stand without proof that subject imports were the principal cause of harm, but imports must be a substantial factor and the ITC may not attribute injury from other causes to them.
- The court will not overturn an ITC determination merely because the record could support a competing interpretation when substantial evidence supports the agency’s reasoned choice.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves the ITC’s affirmative injury finding underlying countervailing-duty relief involving shrimp imports from Ecuador. It also illustrates the deference the Court of International Trade gives the ITC’s choices about what data to collect, provided the agency reasonably investigates the relevant issues and explains its causal analysis.
For parties contesting an injury determination, evidence of an alternative cause is not enough by itself. They must show that the ITC failed to consider that cause adequately or lacked substantial evidence connecting subject imports to the domestic industry’s harm.