SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States

Slip Op. 21-165
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
SOLARWORLD AMERICAS, INC. ET AL.,
Plaintiff and Consolidated
Plaintiffs,
and
CANADIAN SOLAR INC. ET AL.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors and
Consolidated Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
CHANGZHOU 	TRINA 	SOLAR 	ENERGY
CO., LTD. ET AL.,
Defendant-Intervenors and
Consolidated Defendant-
Intervenors.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Consol. Court No. 16-00134
OPINION
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s fourth remand redetermination in
the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering crystalline
silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People’s
Republic of China.]
Dated: December 8, 2021
John R. Magnus, Tradewins LLC, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff SolarWorld
Americas, Inc.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 207 Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 6

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 2
Jonathan M. Freed, Trade Pacific PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for consolidated
plaintiffs Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science
& Technology Co., Ltd.; Trina Solar (U.S.) Inc.; Yancheng Trina Solar Energy
Technology Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd.; Turpan Trina
Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; and Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.
Richard L.A. Weiner, Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, D.C. for consolidated
plaintiffs Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd.; Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc.;
Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd.; Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co.,
Ltd.; Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yingli New
Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; Lixian
Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology
Co., Ltd.; Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; and Shenzhen Yingli New
Energy Resources Co., Ltd.
Craig A. Lewis, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff intervenors
Canadian Solar Inc.; Canadian Solar (USA) Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing
(Changshu), Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc.; Canadian Solar
International Limited; BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd.; and Shanghai BYD Co.,
Ltd.
Tara K. Hogan, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of
Justice, and Brendan S. Saslow, of counsel, Chief Counsel of Trade Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce of Washington, D.C., for defendant
United States.
Kelly, 	Judge: 	Before 	the 	court 	is 	the 	U.S. 	Department 	of Commerce’s
(“Commerce”) fourth remand redetermination filed pursuant to the court’s order in
SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 532 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2021) (“SolarWorld V”) in connection with Commerce’s second administrative review
of the antidumping duty (“ADD”) order covering crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells,
whether or not assembled into modules (“solar cells”), from the People’s Republic of
China (the “PRC”), covering the period of December 1, 2013, through November 30,
2014. Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand in [SolarWorld V],
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 207 Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 6

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 3
Sept. 27, 2021, ECF No. 203-1 (“Fourth Remand Results”); see [solar cells], from the
[PRC], 81 Fed. Reg. 39,905 (Dep’t Commerce June 20, 2016) (final results of [ADD]
administrative review and final deter. of no shipments) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memo., A-570-979, (June 13, 2016), ECF No. 21-5 (“Final Decision Memo”).
The court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case as set out in its previous
opinions ordering remand to Commerce, and now only recounts those facts relevant
to the court’s review of the Fourth Remand Results. See SolarWorld V, 532 F. Supp.
3d 1266; see generally SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 3d
1254 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (“SolarWorld I”); SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United
States, 320 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (Ct. of Int’l Trade 2018) (“SolarWorld II”); SolarWorld
Americas, Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018)
(“SolarWorld III”), aff’d in part, vacated in part, remanded, SolarWorld Americas, Inc.
v. United States, 962 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“SolarWorld IV”).
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2012) 1 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012),
which grant the court authority to review actions contesting the final determination
in 	an 	administrative 	review 	of 	an 	antidumping 	order. 	The 	court 	will 	uphold
Commerce’s determination unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the
1 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant
provisions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2012 edition.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 207 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 6

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 4
record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). “The
results of a redetermination pursuant to court remand are also reviewed ‘for
compliance with the court’s remand order.’” Xinjiamei Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co. v.
United States, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1259 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014) (quoting Nakornthai
Strip Mill Public Co. v. United States, 32 CIT 1272, 1274 (2008).
DISCUSSION
In 	SolarWorld 	V, 	the 	court 	remanded 	Commerce’s 	third 	remand
redetermination, due to Commerce’s continued reliance on Thai import data to value
nitrogen consumed by Trina, 2 for reconsideration or explanation consistent with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (“Court of Appeals”) opinion in SolarWorld
IV and SolarWorld V. SolarWorld V, 532 F. Supp. 3d at 1273.
In 	the 	Fourth 	Remand 	Results, 	Commerce, 	under 	respectful 	protest, 3
reconsidered its surrogate country selection and valued nitrogen using Bulgarian,
rather than Thai import data. Fourth Remand Results at 1–2, 2 n.4. On September
2, 2021, Commerce released a draft of the remand redetermination and provided
interested parties with an opportunity to comment. 	Id. at 4. 	No party provided
comments. Id. at 4, 9. On September 26, 2021, Commerce issued the Fourth Remand
2 Consolidated Plaintiffs Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Trina Solar
(Changzhou) 	Science 	and 	Technology 	Co., 	Ltd.; 	Yancheng 	Trina 	Solar 	Energy
Technology Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd.; Turpan Trina
Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; and Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. are referred to,
collectively, as “Trina.”
3 By adopting a position “under protest,” Commerce preserves its right to appeal. See
Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 207 Filed 12/08/21 Page 4 of 6

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 5
Results. Fourth Remand Results. On October 7, 2021, Trina filed a consent motion
to amend the scheduling order issued by the court, see SolarWorld V, 532 F. Supp. 3d
at 1273, “eliminate the comment period and forego the filing of Joint Appendices.”
Consol. Pls.’ Consent Mot. to Cancel the Schedule for Parties to File Comments,
Replies, and J.A.s on the Remand Redetermination, Oct. 7, 2021, ECF No. 204. The
court granted this motion. 	Order, October 7, 2021, ECF No. 205. 	For the following
reasons, the court sustains Commerce’s decision to use Bulgarian import data to
value Trina’s nitrogen input.
Commerce explains that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to
undertake the analysis to support the use of the Thai import data required in
SolarWorld V. Fourth Remand Results at 7–8. Therefore, Commerce examined the
Global Trade Atlas data on record for nitrogen imports into five other possible
surrogate countries. 	Id. 	Commerce selected Bulgaria from the list of potential
surrogate countries, consistent with its practice of selecting the country with the
highest import volume for the period of review if multiple countries equally satisfy
Commerce’s selection criteria. Id. at 9, n.38. The record indicates that Bulgaria had
the highest import volume for the period of review; therefore, Commerce’s decision to
use Bulgarian import data is supported by substantial evidence. 	See SolarWorld’s
Submission of Publicly Available Factual Information to Rebut, Clarify or Correct,
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 207 Filed 12/08/21 Page 5 of 6

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 6
Ex. 5B, PDs 497-499, bar codes 3411020-1–3 (Oct. 29, 2015). 4 	No party objects to
Commerce’s 	surrogate 	country 	selection, 	the 	surrogate 	country 	selection 	is
reasonable, and complies with the court’s remand order, see Xinjiamei, 968 F. Supp.
2d at 1259.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Fourth Remand Results, are supported by
substantial evidence and comply with the court’s order in Canadian Solar V, and,
therefore, are sustained. Judgment will enter accordingly.
/s/ Claire R, Kelly
Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Dated: 	December 8, 2021
New York, New York
4 On September 13, 2016, Defendant filed an index to the public (“PD”) administrative
record underlying Commerce’s final determination, on the docket, at ECF No. 21-2.
Citations to administrative record documents in this opinion are to the numbers
Commerce assigned to such documents in the index.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 207 Filed 12/08/21 Page 6 of 6