CUSTOMS LITIGATION | 2026-09-22

A Ministerial Error Rejected as Untimely, Then Revived by the Court: the CIT's Judgment in Catfish Farmers of America v. United States

Commerce refused to consider a calculation error because nobody raised it in a case brief. The Court of International Trade disagreed, and the amended margin moved from $0.18 to $0.20 per kilogram.

On September 22, 2026 Commerce published a Timken notice in A-552-801, certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, announcing that the Court of International Trade's September 4, 2026 final judgment in Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. United States, Court No. 24-00082, is not in harmony with Commerce's final results in the 2021-2022 administrative review. The amended weighted-average dumping margin for Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Company and four separa

On September 22, 2026 the U.S. Department of Commerce published a notice of court decision not in harmony with the final results of an antidumping administrative review, together with amended final results, in case A-552-801 — certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The notice is applicable September 14, 2026.

The underlying dispute concerns a single calculation issue in a single administrative review, and the money at stake per kilogram is two cents. It is nevertheless one of the more instructive decisions of the year for anyone who participates in Commerce proceedings, because it addresses when an error may be raised and what happens when an agency declines to look at one.

The original final results

On March 14, 2024, Commerce published the final results of the 2021-2022 antidumping administrative review of fish fillets from Vietnam at 89 FR 18595. It calculated a margin of $0.18 per kilogram for the mandatory respondent, Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Company, known as CASEAMEX. It assigned that same rate to four companies receiving a separate rate: Cafatex Corporation; Hung Vuong Corporation, which Commerce treats as a single entity with seven affiliated companies; International Development and Investment Corporation; and Loc Kim Chi Seafood Joint Stock Company.

The error, and why Commerce would not look at it

After the final results published, the petitioners — the Catfish Farmers of America together with a group of individual U.S. catfish processors — brought a ministerial error allegation concerning Commerce's treatment of marine insurance in the margin calculation for CASEAMEX.

Commerce rejected the allegation as untimely, and its reasoning was procedural rather than substantive. In an April 2, 2024 letter, Commerce explained that under 19 CFR 351.224(c)(1), comments concerning ministerial errors in the preliminary results of a review should be included in a party's case brief. It pointed to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), which requires that a case brief present all arguments that remain relevant to the final results. Because the aspect of the calculation complained of was present in the preliminary results and no party had commented on it in case briefs, Commerce concluded the error was discoverable earlier and had not been raised within the window its regulations specify.

Having rejected the allegation, Commerce made no changes to its final calculations for CASEAMEX or to the rate assigned to the separate-rate companies.

The Court of International Trade disagreed

The petitioners appealed. On December 15, 2025, in Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1339 (CIT 2025), the Court of International Trade remanded the final results, finding that certain aspects of them were not supported by substantial evidence. The Court held specifically that Commerce had improperly rejected the ministerial error allegation as untimely, and it directed Commerce to accept the allegation and make corrections as necessary on remand.

That is the holding worth noting. The regulatory scheme Commerce relied on is real, and the general principle that arguments belong in case briefs is sound. What the Court would not accept was the application of that principle to foreclose correction of a calculation error of this kind. The result is that a party's failure to spot an arithmetic or methodological error at the preliminary stage did not, on these facts, permanently insulate the error from review.

Commerce complied "under respectful protest"

Commerce issued its remand redetermination on April 15, 2026. It revised the dumping margin calculated for CASEAMEX and applied the revised rate to the four separate-rate companies. It did so, in the notice's words, under respectful protest, citing Viraj Group v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Filing under respectful protest is how an agency preserves its disagreement with a court's instruction while complying with it. It signals that Commerce does not accept the Court's reading of its timeliness regulations and may press the point on appeal in a future case. Parties relying on this decision as a general rule should register that the agency's position has not changed — only its obligation in this proceeding.

On September 4, 2026, the CIT sustained Commerce's final remand redetermination, producing the final judgment that triggered this notice.

What a Timken notice is and why it exists

The notice's formal purpose comes from Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Under those decisions, and pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, Commerce must publish notice of a court decision that is not in harmony with a Commerce determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a conclusive court decision.

The CIT's September 4, 2026 judgment constitutes a final decision not in harmony with the final results, which is what obligates Commerce to publish. For importers, a Timken notice is the signal that entries covered by a proceeding are not yet final and that liquidation instructions may change.

The amended rates, and who actually gets a new cash deposit

The amended weighted-average dumping margin is $0.20 per kilogram, applied to CASEAMEX and to Cafatex, Hung Vuong Corporation, International Development and Investment Corporation, and Loc Kim Chi Seafood Joint Stock Company.

The cash deposit consequences are not uniform, and this distinction is easy to misread. Because CASEAMEX has a superseding cash deposit rate — final results have published in a subsequent administrative review — Commerce will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP for that company, and this notice does not affect CASEAMEX's current cash deposit rate.

For Cafatex, Hung Vuong, International Development and Investment Corporation and Loc Kim, whose rates have not been superseded in a later review, Commerce will apply the revised $0.20 per kilogram rate and will issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP.

The lesson generalizes. An amended margin from litigation changes deposits only where no intervening review has already replaced the rate. Importers reading a Timken notice should check the review history of their specific exporter before assuming their deposits move.

Entries remain enjoined

Commerce states that it remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries exported by CASEAMEX, Cafatex, Hung Vuong, International Development and Investment Corporation or Loc Kim that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period of review. Those entries stay suspended until the injunction is lifted.

For an importer, a liquidation injunction is a double-edged instrument. It preserves the ability to obtain a refund if rates fall, and it equally preserves exposure if they rise. Either way, the entry is not closed, and the accounting treatment of the potential duty liability should reflect that.

What importers should take from this decision

First, read the calculation memoranda at the preliminary stage. The Court gave the petitioners relief here, but Commerce's regulations still say what they say, and the far cheaper path is to catch a marine insurance treatment error before the case brief deadline rather than to litigate for two years about whether you were allowed to raise it late.

Second, understand that participation in a review is the mechanism that preserves rights. Neither the petitioners nor the respondents in this case obtained anything by waiting. The parties that shaped the outcome were the ones in the proceeding.

Third, track the litigation attached to your own entries. An importer whose exporter is party to an appeal is holding entries that cannot liquidate and whose final duty rate is unknown. That is a balance-sheet fact, and it is discoverable from the public docket.

Fourth, treat refund opportunities as procedural rather than automatic. Where a court decision does lower a rate, obtaining the money back depends on entries having been properly suspended and on timely claims. Importers who have been through the tariff refund process know that the entitlement and the recovery are separate problems.

Fifth, keep the entry records that make a claim provable. The reliability of an importer's own documentation is what determines whether a favorable ruling converts into money, and it is the same documentation at issue in a CBP audit or Focused Assessment.

The broader pattern this fits

This is the second Timken notice in recent weeks arising from a September 4, 2026 CIT judgment sustaining a Commerce remand redetermination — the other concerned utility scale wind towers from Korea. Trade remedy litigation is producing a steady stream of amended final results, and each one alters cash deposits for some companies while leaving others untouched depending on their review history.

Importers sourcing through Oakland and the San Pedro Bay ports who rely on rates published in a final results notice should confirm that the notice is still the operative one. For help assessing how an amended determination affects your entries, contact our Oakland port customs practice or a customs defense attorney at Trembach Law Firm, or call (818) 514-7680.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Court of International Trade actually hold?

In Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1339 (CIT 2025), decided December 15, 2025, the Court remanded the final results and held specifically that Commerce had improperly rejected a ministerial error allegation as untimely. It directed Commerce to accept the allegation and make corrections as necessary. A party's failure to spot a calculation error at the preliminary stage did not, on these facts, permanently insulate that error from review.

Why had Commerce refused to look at the error?

On procedural rather than substantive grounds. In an April 2, 2024 letter Commerce explained that under 19 CFR 351.224(c)(1) comments on ministerial errors in preliminary results should be included in a party's case brief, and pointed to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), which requires a case brief to present all arguments relevant to the final results. Because the aspect complained of was present in the preliminary results and no party raised it in case briefs, Commerce treated it as discoverable earlier and out of time.

Does this mean Commerce now accepts late ministerial error allegations?

No, and this is the part to register before relying on the decision. Commerce issued its remand redetermination on April 15, 2026 revising CASEAMEX's margin and applying it to the four separate-rate companies, but it did so **under respectful protest**, citing Viraj Group v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Filing under protest is how an agency preserves its disagreement while complying. Commerce's position has not changed — only its obligation in this proceeding.

What is a Timken notice and why does it matter to me?

It comes from Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Under sections 516A(c) and (e), Commerce must publish notice of a court decision not in harmony with its determination and suspend liquidation pending a conclusive decision. For an importer it is the signal that entries covered by the proceeding are not yet final.

The amount at issue was two cents per kilogram. Why does the case matter?

Because the holding is about when an error may be raised, not about the size of the error. The original 2021-2022 review published March 14, 2024 at 89 FR 18595 set a $0.18 per kilogram margin for CASEAMEX and assigned it to four separate-rate companies. The principle — that an agency may not use a timeliness rule to foreclose correction of a calculation error of this kind — reaches every participant in a Commerce proceeding.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes in trade remedy litigation depend on the specific record, entries and procedural posture of each case, and no particular outcome is guaranteed. Consult a qualified attorney about your own circumstances.

Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.

Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301