SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States

Slip Op. 17-143
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-Intervenor.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Consol. Court No. 16-00134
PUBLIC VERSION
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining in part and remanding in part the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final
determination 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: October 18, 2017
Timothy C. Brightbill, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for SolarWorld
Americas, Inc. With him on the brief was Laura El-Sabaawi.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 2
PUBLIC VERSION
Robert 	George 	Gosselink, 	Trade 	Pacific, 	PLLC, 	of 	Washington, 	DC, 	argued 	for
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. 	With him on the brief was Jonathan Michael
Freed.
Neil R. Ellis, Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for 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. With him on
the brief were Richard L.A. Weiner, Shawn Michael Higgins, and Justin Ross Becker.
Neil R. Ellis, Richard L.A. Weiner, Shawn Michael Higgins, and Justin Ross Becker,
Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, DC, for Canadian Solar Inc.; Canadian Solar (USA)
Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing
(Luoyang), Inc.; and Canadian Solar International Limited.
Craig Anderson Lewis, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, DC, for BYD (Shangluo)
Industrial Co., Ltd. and Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.
Tara Kathleen Hogan, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant. With her on the
brief were Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. 	Of Counsel on the brief was
Mercedes C. Morno, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
Kelly, Judge: 	Before the court for review is the U.S. Department of Commerce’s
(“Department” or “Commerce”) determination in the second administrative review of the
antidumping duty (“ADD”) order covering crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or
not assembled into modules, from the People’s Republic of China (“China” or “the PRC”).
See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From
the [PRC], 81 Fed. Reg. 39,905 (Dep’t Commerce Jun. 20, 2016) (final results of ADD
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 3
PUBLIC VERSION
administrative review and final determination of no shipments; 2013–2014) (“Final
Results”) and accompanying Decision Mem. for the Final Results of the 2013–2014 [ADD]
Administrative 	Review 	of 	Crystalline 	Silicon 	Photovoltaic 	Cells, 	Whether 	or 	Not
Assembled into Modules, From the [PRC], A-570-979, (Jun. 13, 2016), ECF No. 21-5
(“Final Decision Memo”).
For the reasons that follow, the court sustains Commerce’s surrogate value
selections for valuing respondents’ aluminum frames, semi-finished polysilicon ingots and
blocks, solar backsheet, and nitrogen inputs. 	The court also sustains Commerce’s
selection of financial statements for calculating financial ratios for respondents’ overhead,
selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit, and Commerce’s
application of adverse facts available (“AFA”) to respondent’s unreported, purchased
solar cells. The court remands for further explanation or reconsideration consistent with
this opinion Commerce’s surrogate value selection for valuing respondents’ tempered
glass and scrapped solar cells and modules inputs, as well as Commerce’s determination
to include import data with reported quantities of zero in the surrogate value calculations.
BACKGROUND
On February 4, 2015, Commerce initiated the second administrative review of the
ADD order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into
modules, 	from 	China. 	See 	Initiation 	of 	Antidumping 	and 	Countervailing 	Duty
Administrative Reviews, 80 Fed. Reg. 6,041, 6,042–44 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 4, 2015).
Commerce subsequently selected Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (“Trina”) and
Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd. (“Yingli”) as mandatory respondents in this review.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 3 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 4
PUBLIC VERSION
See Decision Mem. for Prelim. Results of the 2013–2014 [ADD] Administrative Review of
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the
[PRC], A-570-979, at 2, PD 520, bar code 3427351-01 (Dec. 18, 2015) (“Prelim. Decision
Memo”) 	(citing 	2013–2014 	[ADD] 	Administrative 	Review 	of 	Crystalline 	Silicon
Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the [PRC]: Respondent
Selection, A-570-979, at 4–5, PD 67, bar code 3264380-01 (Mar. 13, 2015)). 1 	On
December 28, 2015, Commerce published the preliminary determination. See Crystalline
Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or not Assembled into Modules, from the [PRC], 80
Fed. Reg. 80,746 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 28, 2015) (preliminary results of [ADD]
administrative review and preliminary determination of no shipments; 2013–2014), and
accompanying Prelim. Decision Memo.
On June 13, 2016, Commerce published the final determination. 	See Final
Results, 81 Fed. Reg. at 39,905. 	Commerce valued Yingli’s tempered glass input,
respondents’ scrapped cells and modules input, respondents’ aluminum frame inputs,
respondents’ backsheet inputs, and Trina’s nitrogen input using Thai import data. 	See
Final Decision Memo at 20–27, 29–34, 40–43, 46–48, 60–63. 	Commerce valued
respondents’ semi-finished polysilicon ingot and block inputs using the world-market price
for solar-grade polysilicon. 	See id. at 38–39. 	Commerce included in the average unit
surrogate value calculations import data with reported quantities of zero, finding “no basis
1 	On September 	14, 	2016, 	Defendant 	submitted 	indices to the 	public 	and 	confidential
administrative records for this review. These indices are located on the docket at ECF No. 21.
All further references to documents from the administrative records are identified by the numbers
assigned by Commerce in these indices.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 4 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 5
PUBLIC VERSION
in the record to conclude that these entries are unreliable or incorrect because they list
zero for the quantity.” 	Id. at 64. 	Commerce selected the financial statements of Thai
company 	Styromatic 	(Thailand) 	Co., 	Ltd. 	(“Styromatic”) 	to 	calculate 	respondents’
overhead, SG&A expenses and profit. See id. at 35–38. Finally, Commerce applied AFA
to 	value 	Trina’s 	unreported 	factors 	of 	production 	(“FOPs”) 	using 	Trina’s 	highest
consumption rates for FOPs for solar cells sold in the United States. 	See id. at 50–57.
Commerce did not apply AFA to Yingli’s unreported FOPs for purchased solar cells. See
id. at 52.
Plaintiff, 	SolarWorld 	Americas, 	Inc. 	(“SolarWorld”), 	commenced 	this 	action
pursuant 	to 	section 	516A 	of 	the 	Tariff 	Act 	of 	1930, 	as 	amended, 	19 	U.S.C.
§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2012). 2 	See Summons, July 20, 2016, ECF No. 1. 	SolarWorld
moved 	for 	judgment on 	the 	agency 	record, 	challenging five 	aspects 	of 	the final
determination. 	See SolarWorld’s Mot. J. Agency R., Jan. 26, 2017, ECF No. 44;
SolarWorld Americas, Inc.’s Mem. Supp. Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R. Conf. Version, Jan.
26, 	2017, 	ECF 	No. 	44 	(“SolarWorld 	Br.”). 	Specifically, 	SolarWorld 	challenges
Commerce’s: 1) determination to use Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) subheading
7604.29 to value respondents' aluminum frames; 2) determination to value respondents’
processed, semi-finished polysilicon ingots and blocks using the surrogate value for
unprocessed polysilicon; 3) valuation of respondents’ solar module backsheets used in
the production of subject merchandise using Thai HTS subheadings 3920.62.00090 and
2 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 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 5 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 6
PUBLIC VERSION
3920.62.00001; 4) determination to utilize Thai data for imports classified under HTS
subheading 8548.10 as a surrogate to value Trina's scrapped solar cells; and 5) selection
of the financial statements of Styromatic to calculate respondents' overhead, SG&A
expenses and profit. See id. at 12–43.
This action was consolidated with actions filed by Trina et al. 3 and Yingli et al. 4
See Order, Oct. 25, 2016, ECF No. 31. Consolidated Plaintiffs filed motions for judgment
on the agency record, Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., Jan. 25, 2017, ECF No. 40; Mot.
J. Agency R., Jan. 25, 2017, ECF No. 39, each challenging different aspects of
Commerce’s final determination in this review. 	See Mem. Supp. Mot. [Trina et al.] J.
Agency R. Conf. Version, Jan. 25, 2017, ECF No. 40 (“Trina Br.”); Mem. Points and
Authorities Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. Conf. Version, Jan. 25, 2017, ECF No. 39 (“Yingli
Br.”). Specifically, Trina challenges: 1) Commerce’s selection of a surrogate value for its
nitrogen gas input based upon Thai import data; 2) Commerce’s inclusion, in the
calculation of surrogate values, values for Thai import categories with reported quantities
3 The following parties are plaintiffs in the action Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. United
States, Ct. No. 16-00132, which has been consolidated with the present action: 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.
4 The following parties are plaintiffs in the action Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd. v. United
States, Ct. No. 16-00135, which has been consolidated with the present action: Yingli Green
Energy Holding Company Limited; Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc.; Yingli Energy (China) Co.,
Ltd.; Baoding Tianwei 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.; Beijing Tianneng Yingli
New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; and Shenzhen
Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 6 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 7
PUBLIC VERSION
of zero; and 3) Commerce’s application of AFA to value Trina’s unreported, purchased
solar cells. 	See Trina Br. 7–24. Yingli challenges Commerce’s use of Thai import data
to value Yingli’s tempered glass input, contending that the Thai data is aberrational. See
Yingli Br. 9–26.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) 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 duty order. “The court shall
hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found . . . to be unsupported by
substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff and Consolidated Plaintiffs challenge a total of six surrogate value
determinations Commerce made in the final results of this review, and raise three
additional challenges. 	The court first addresses the arguments that Commerce’s
surrogate value selection for tempered glass, aluminum frames, scrapped solar cells and
modules, semi-finished polysilicon ingots and blocks, solar backsheet, and nitrogen are
unsupported by substantial evidence. The court then addresses the arguments regarding
the inclusion of import data with reported quantities of zero, the use of certain financial
statements for calculating financial ratios, and, finally, the application of AFA to Trina’s
unreported, purchased solar cells.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 7 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 8
PUBLIC VERSION
I. 	Surrogate Value Selection
Plaintiff 	and 	Consolidated 	Plaintiffs 	challenge 	Commerce’s 	surrogate 	value
selection for tempered glass, aluminum frames, scrapped solar cells and modules, semi-
finished polysilicon ingots and blocks, solar backsheet, and nitrogen as unsupported by
substantial evidence. The court addresses each of these challenges in turn.
A. Tempered Glass
In this review, Commerce valued Yingli’s tempered glass with Thai import data for
HTS category 7007.19.90. 	See Final Decision Memo at 29–34. 	Yingli argues that the
Thai import data did not constitute the best available information for valuing the tempered
glass because the Thai data is distorted by aberrational imports from Hong Kong. 5 See
Yingli Br. 20–24. 	Yingli also argues that Commerce erred in concluding that the Thai
import data was not aberrational because two of Commerce’s benchmarks—values from
Ecuador and the Ukraine—were not credible since the quantity of tempered glass imports
into these two countries was significantly lower than for other economically comparable
countries with data on the record. 6 See id. at 10–20. Defendant contends that Commerce
5 Yingli suggests that Commerce calculate the surrogate value using the Thai import data from
the period of review (“POR”), excluding the Hong Kong data (USD $1.00 per kg), or instead use
the world market price (USD $0.51 per kg), the Bulgarian value for the POR (USD $0.77 per kg),
the Thai value from the first administrative review, adjusted for inflation (USD $0.87 per kg), price
quotes obtained for tempered glass (USD $0.94 per kg), or an average of two or more of any of
these alternatives. See id. at 22–26.
6 Specifically, Yingli argues that it was unreasonable for Commerce to use import data from
Ecuador and the Ukraine as benchmarks because the quantity of imports of tempered glass into
both countries was significantly lower than the quantities of imports in the other countries found
to be economically comparable with China and the quantity of tempered glass purchased by Yingli
during the POR. Yingli argues that these low quantities render the data from Ecuador and the
Ukraine not credible. See Yingli Br. 10–17.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 8 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 9
PUBLIC VERSION
reasonably concluded that the Thai import data was not aberrational and reasonably used
the Thai data to value the tempered glass input. See Def.’s Resp. Mots. J. Upon Admin.
R. 10–16, Apr. 25, 2017, ECF No. 55 (“Def.’s Resp.”). 	For the reasons that follow, this
issue is remanded to Commerce to reconsider or further explain its determination to use
Thai import data to value Yingli’s tempered glass.
In 	cases 	involving 	imports 	from 	a 	nonmarket 	economy 	(“NME”) 	country, 7
Commerce obtains a normal value by adding the value of the factors of production used
to produce the subject merchandise and “an amount for general expenses and profit plus
the cost of containers, coverings, and other expenses.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1).
Commerce selects a surrogate value by which it values the FOPs, and makes that
selection “based on the best available information regarding the values of such factors in
a market economy country or countries.” Id. Commerce’s methodology for selecting the
best available information evaluates data sources based upon their: (1) specificity to the
input; (2) tax and import duty exclusivity; (3) contemporaneity with the period of review;
(4) representativeness of a broad market average; and (5) public availability. See Import
Admin., U.S. Dep’t Commerce, Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection
Process, 	Policy 	Bulletin 	04.1 	(2004), 	available 	at
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull04-1.html 	(last 	visited 	Oct. 13, 2017) 	(“Policy
7 The term “nonmarket economy country” means any foreign country that Commerce determines
“does not operate on market principles of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchandise
in such country do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A). 	In
such cases, Commerce must “determine the normal value of the subject merchandise on the
basis of the value of the factors of production utilized in producing the merchandise . . . [together
with other costs and expenses].” Id. § 1677b(c)(1).
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 9 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 10
PUBLIC VERSION
Bulletin 04.1”). To the extent possible, Commerce uses “the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more market economy countries that are-- (A) at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country, and (B) significant
producers of comparable merchandise.” 	19 U.S.C. §§ 1677b(c)(4)(A)–(B). 	Commerce
also has a regulatory preference for valuing all factors of production using surrogate value
data from a single surrogate country where practicable. 	19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2)
(2015). 8 Although Commerce has broad discretion in deciding what constitutes the best
available information, see QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (noting the absence of a definition for “best available information” in the ADD
statute), it must ground its selection of the best available information in the overall purpose
of the statute, which is to calculate accurate dumping margins. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc.
v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Parkdale Int’l. v. United
States, 475 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
It is Commerce’s practice not to use aberrational values as surrogate values.
Antidumping 	Duties; 	Countervailing 	Duties, 	62 	Fed. 	Reg. 	27,296, 	27,366 	(Dep’t
Commerce May 19, 1997). 	Commerce considers import data aberrationally high if the
data is “many times higher than the import values from other countries.” 	Final Decision
Memo at 33. 	Commerce’s practice also excludes unit values within import data when
those values themselves are aberrational and distort the import data. See Final Results
of Redetermination Pursuant to Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, Consol.
8 Further citations to Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2015 edition.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 10 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 11
PUBLIC VERSION
Court No. 08-00111, at 4–7, (Sept. 14, 2009), ECF No. 100-1 (“Catfish Farmers Remand
Results”); Issues and Decision Mem. for the Investigation of Steel Wire Rope from the
[PRC], 	A-570-859, 	at 	Comment 	1, 	(Feb. 	28, 	2001), 	available 	at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/01-4895-1.txt (last visited Oct. 13, 2017) (“Steel
Wire Rope from the PRC”).
Here, Commerce valued Trina’s tempered glass input using Thai import data.
Final Decision Memo at 31. 	Commerce explained that, pursuant to its practice for
investigating claims of aberrational data, it compared the average unit value (“AUV”) of
the Thai data for the period of review (“POR”) to contemporaneous data on the record for
potential surrogate countries and also to historical Thai import data on the record. Id. at
31–33. Commerce determined that the Thai import data from the POR does not appear
aberrational according to “the standards typically relied on by the Department,” because
the Thai value was “within the range of AUVs of other economically comparable surrogate
countries” and as compared to the historical Thai data for tempered glass. Id. at 33–34.
Yingli argues that Commerce unreasonably used data from Ecuador and Ukraine as
benchmarks, which were not credible because those countries’ imports of tempered glass
were of low quantity relative to the imports from the other economically comparable
countries and to the quantity of tempered glass purchased by Yingli. 	Yingli Br. 15–16.
Commerce stated that low quantity data does not necessarily indicate aberration and
there is no indication that the data from either Ecuador or Ukraine is aberrational. Final
Decision Memo at 32–33.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 11 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 12
PUBLIC VERSION
Yingli also argues that the Thai surrogate value is distorted by low-quantity, high-
value imports from Hong Kong (with an average value of $191.47 per kilogram, compared
to an average value of imports from all other countries of $1.00 per kilogram). See Yingli
Br. 20–24. Commerce stated that the quantity of Thai imports from Hong Kong was not
low because Hong Kong was the fourth largest importer of tempered glass into Thailand
during the POR. Final Decision Memo at 33. Commerce also stated that the unit value
for the Hong Kong imports “is [not] substantially different from per-unit values of the
Netherlands ($210 per kg) and the United States ($300 per kg).” Id.
Although Commerce has broad discretion to determine what constitutes the best
available information with which to value each FOP, see QVD Food Co., 658 F.3d at
1323, here Commerce did not explain why its selection is reasonable, in light of the
evidence that the Hong Kong data, which makes up 1.6% of the total volume, accounts
for more than 75% of the total value. 	See Yingli Br. 22–23. 	Commerce supported its
determination that the Thai import value is not aberrational by relying upon prior practice,
including Steel Wire Rope from PRC and Catfish Farmers Remand Results. 9 See Final
Decision Memo at 33 (citing Steel Wire Rope from PRC at Comment 1; Catfish Farmers
Remand Results at 4–7). 	Specifically, Commerce invokes these cases to demonstrate
that the agency has previously determined import values to be aberrational “if they [were]
many times higher than the import values from other countries,” or if they “varied between
9 Defendant in its response brief also states that Catfish Farmers Remand Results supports
Commerce’s determination here, noting that, in Catfish Farmers Remand Results, the agency
“found the surrogate values for labels to be aberrational when the AUVs varied between 30 and
79 times greater than the average of other import data.” Def.’s Resp. 14.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 12 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 13
PUBLIC VERSION
30 and 79 times greater than the average of the rest of the import data.” Final Decision
Memo at 33. 	Yet the very examples cited by Commerce are ones in which the agency
chose to extract unit values from within the import value, where unit value distorted the
import value. 10 In Steel Wire Rope from PRC, Commerce excluded Malaysian unit values
from the selected import value for wire rod, because the Malaysian unit values were
“many times higher than the import values from other countries, and are not in line with
numerous other prices for wire rod on the record.” 11 	Steel Wire Rope from PRC at
Comment 1. In Catfish Farmers Remand Results, Commerce excluded unit values from
Japan 	and 	the 	Netherlands 	from 	the 	import 	value 	used 	as 	surrogate 	value 	for
respondent’s labels because the unit value from the Netherlands and Japan were more
than 79 and 30 times greater respectively, than the overall average import values. 12 See
Catfish Farmers Remand Results at 5–6.
10 Commerce also cites a case in which the agency did not exclude certain unit values from within
the surrogate value. See Final Decision Memo at 33. Commerce’s explanation for not excluding
those inputs in that case suggests that the agency would exclude certain inputs if a party
“provide[s] specific evidence and analysis to support their position that selected country-specific
unit values in the [surrogate value] data are aberrational.” 	Issues and Decision Mem. for the
2006–2007 Admin. Review of Certain Cased Pencils from the [PRC], A-570-827, at 50, (July 6,
2009), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/E9-16511-1.pdf (last visited Oct. 13,
2017).
11 In Steel Wire Rope from the PRC, Commerce also referenced prior agency practice to exclude,
“where appropriate - aberrational data that appear to distort the overall value for a specific import
category.” Steel Wire Rope from the PRC at Comment 1 (citing Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From
The [PRC], 63 Fed. Reg. 53,872, 53,873 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 7, 1998) (final results of ADD
administrative review) (excluding German unit value from Indian import data when calculating
surrogate value, because the German unit value was “many times higher than” the values of other
unit values within the Indian import data.).
12 Commerce also noted that these significantly higher values were each based on a volume
significantly smaller than that of other volumes on the record. 	See Catfish Farmers Remand
Results at 6.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 13 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 14
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce cites these cases for the proposition that an import value must be a
multiple of other import values to be aberrational. However, at issue in these cases—as
in the present case—was whether a unit value should be excluded from the import value
(ultimately chosen as a surrogate value) because the unit value itself is a multiple of the
other unit values. 	See Steel Wire Rope from PRC at Comment 1; Catfish Farmers
Remand Results at 4–7. The cases invoked by Commerce to support its determination
seem to demonstrate a practice that would support excluding from the import value any
aberrational inputs within that value, and Commerce has not explained why that apparent
practice should not be followed in this case. 	Here, Yingli points to record evidence
indicating that the Hong Kong unit values within the Thai import data are over 191 times
greater than the average unit values from the remaining countries with data on the
record, 13 see Yingli Br. 22–23, which undermines the reasonableness of the selection of
the Thai data. 14 The Hong Kong import data, which constitutes 1.6% of the total volume
of Thai import data, raises the Thai surrogate value from $1.00 USD to $4.14 USD. 	As
the cases invoked by Commerce suggest an agency practice according to which
13 SolarWorld refutes Yingli’s claim that the Hong Kong imports were of non-commercial quantity.
SolarWorld Resp. 15; Yingli Br. 22. 	Regardless of whether the quantity was commercial, the
basis of Yingli’s claim is that a relatively small proportion of the overall import data had a
disproportionately large effect on the Thai import value, which suggests that the Thai import value
is not reliable.
14 To clarify, the Hong Kong values are from import data that form a part of the overall Thai value.
The Thai value, at $4.14 per kg, is not the highest value on the record. 	The Ukraine value is
$5.89 per kg (for comparison, the Ecuador value is $2.75 per kg and the Bulgarian value is $0.77
per kg). Yingli argues that the Hong Kong import values skew the Thai value unreasonably, as
without the Hong Kong imports the Thai value would decrease from $4.14 to $1.00 per kg. See
Yingli Br. 23. At the same time, Yingli claims that the values from Ecuador and Ukraine are not
credible benchmarks. See id. at 14–17.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 14 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 15
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce would exclude these input values, Commerce must explain why its diversion
from such a practice here is reasonable. In light of Commerce’s practice as explained in
Catfish 	Farmers 	Remand 	Results 	and 	Steel 	Wire 	Rope 	from 	the 	PRC, 	this
disproportionate impact of the Hong Kong values, and the claim that the benchmark
values from Ecuador and the Ukraine are themselves unreliable, 15 see Yingli Br. 10–18,
Commerce must explain why its choice is reasonable or reconsider its determination.
B. Aluminum Frames
SolarWorld challenges Commerce’s valuation of the respondents’ aluminum
frames using Thai HTS subheading 7604.29, covering “Aluminum bars, rods and profiles:
Of aluminum alloys: Other,” contending that the import data under this category does not
reflect the value of the frames. 16 	See SolarWorld Br. 13–23. 	SolarWorld emphasizes
that the frames “have been further manufactured into a finished and final form,” id. at 17,
15 The basis of Yingli’s claim that Ecuador and Ukraine are not credible benchmarks is the low
quantity of tempered glass imports into those two countries:
the quantities of imports of tempered glass in Ecuador and Ukraine are significantly
lower than both the quantities of imports in the other countries found to be
comparable with China and the quantity of tempered glass purchased by Yingli
during the POR. For example, . . . the average quantity of tempered glass imported
by Thailand and Bulgaria during the periods for which data are available was over
8,682% greater than the quantity imported by Ecuador during the POR and over
1,177% greater than the quantity imported by Ukraine during the POR. Even more
significant – and completely overlooked by the Department in the Final Results –
is the fact that during the POR, Yingli itself purchased 	kg of
tempered glass, which was over 	and 	greater than the
tiny quantities imported by Ecuador and Ukraine, respectively, during the same
time period.
Yingli Br. 15–16 (footnotes omitted).
16 In particular, SolarWorld alleges that the
is not reflected in the import
data for Thai HTS subheading 7604.29. See SolarWorld Br. 13–21.
[[ 	]]
[[ 	]]% 	[[ 	]]%
[[
]]
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 15 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 16
PUBLIC VERSION
such that valuation using data from HTS subheading 7604.29 is inappropriate because
HTS subheading 7604.29 is specific to unfinished aluminum products. 	Id. at 20–21.
Defendant responds that Commerce reasonably concluded that import data under HTS
subheading 7604.29 is the best available information to value the frames because it is
the category most specific to respondents’ frames, which the respondents described as
“non-hollow, aluminum profiles.” 	See Def.’s Resp. 16. 	For the reasons that follow,
Commerce’s selection of import data under HTS subheading 7604.29 is supported by
substantial evidence.
As discussed above, Commerce is required to select a surrogate value for each
FOP using “the best available information.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). As the term “best
available information” is not statutorily defined, Commerce has broad discretion in
deciding what constitutes the best available information, see QVD Food Co., 658 F.3d at
1323, but the agency must make a selection that will enable it to ultimately calculate
accurate dumping margins. 	See Rhone Poulenc, Inc., 899 F.2d at 1191. 	Commerce
considers the best available information to be publically available data that is specific to
the input, tax and import duty exclusive, contemporaneous with the period of review, and
representative of a broad market average. See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
Here, Commerce concluded that import data under HTS subheading 7604.29
constituted the best available information to value respondents’ aluminum frames. 	See
Final Decision Memo at 23–27. Commerce emphasized that both respondents described
their frames as “non-hollow, aluminum profiles,” that this description has not been
challenged, and that Commerce has not found anything in the record to contradict this
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 16 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 17
PUBLIC VERSION
description. Id. at 23–24. Commerce concluded that the category is a better fit than the
alternatives on the record, as it is more specific than import data under SolarWorld’s
proposed HTS subheading 7616, an “other” category which includes articles dissimilar to
aluminum frames such as “nails, tacks, staples, screws, bolts, nuts, screw hooks, rivets,
cotters, cotter pins, washers, knitting needles, bodkins, crochet hooks, embroidery
stilettos, safety pins, other pins and chains, and cloth, grill and netting of aluminum wire.”
Id. at 26 (internal quotations omitted). 	In light of these explanations, Commerce
reasonably determined that import data under HTS heading 7604 is more specific than
the other available alternatives on the record and that HTS heading 7604 accordingly
constituted the best available information.
SolarWorld’s claim that specific evidence in this review renders the selection of
HTS subheading 7604.29 unreasonable, see SolarWorld Br. 17–22, is unavailing.
Specifically, SolarWorld highlights evidence that it contends demonstrates that certain of
Yingli’s frames have been processed to include additional “features and adaptations”
beyond those present in “simple aluminum extrusions,” and other evidence that it
contends demonstrates that certain solar frames have been classified within HTS
category 7616. 17 	Id. at 17, 19. 	Commerce emphasized that HTS category 7604 does
not necessarily cover only unfinished aluminum profiles, making the degree of finishing
17 Specifically, SolarWorld argues that certain of Yingli’s frames are further processed to be
compliant with the 	which it contends requires certain “features and
adaptations . . . not found in a simple aluminum extrusion.” SolarWorld Br. 17. SolarWorld also
highlights evidence obtained from
demonstrating that solar frames were classified within HTS category 	in
entries of aluminum frames. Id. at 19.
[[ 	]],
[[
]], 	[[ 	]] 	[[
]]
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 17 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 18
PUBLIC VERSION
the frames have undergone not relevant to a determination that HTS category 7604 is the
best available information for valuing respondents’ frames. 	Final Decision Memo at 24.
Commerce highlighted the HTS Chapter 76 notes, which indicate that profiles include
products that “‘have been subsequently worked after production . . . provided that they
have not thereby assumed the character of articles or products of the other headings.’”
Id. at 25 (emphasis in original, quoting Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology, Co. v.
United States, 38 CIT __, __, 28 F.Supp.3d 1317, 1337 (2014)). 	Commerce also
references the International Trade Commission’s definition of aluminum profiles, defining
profiles as “cast sintered, and worked after production.” 	Id. 	It is reasonably discernible
that Commerce concluded that the additional processing highlighted by SolarWorld is not
sufficient to make the profiles more similar to the articles enumerated in a different
subheading. 	See id. 	SolarWorld points to no evidence detracting from Commerce’s
determination. 18
SolarWorld also argues that Commerce unreasonably concluded that Yingli’s
aluminum frames were “profiles” because profiles must have a uniform cross section.
SolarWorld Br. 22 (citing the Notes to Chapter 76 of the HTS). SolarWorld suggests that
the respondents’ profiles are not uniform along their entire length. Id. In response to this
argument, Commerce indicated its position that the presence of corners in some of the
frames “would [not] necessarily change their classification as aluminum profiles.” 	Final
18 Commerce also concluded that the Customs and Border Protection rulings placed on the record
do not undermine its determination that HTS heading 7604 represents the best available
information for valuing the aluminum frames. See Final Decision Memo at 25–26.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 18 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 19
PUBLIC VERSION
Decision Memo at 25. Further, Commerce’s task is not to classify the solar frame inputs
for customs purposes, but to select the best available data to value the FOPs in question.
See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). 	SolarWorld offers no evidence that calls into question
Commerce’s conclusion that the frames are more similar to the unfinished items included
in HTS heading 7604 than any other HTS category on the record of this review.
Therefore, Commerce’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.
C. Scrapped Solar Cells and Modules
SolarWorld challenges Commerce’s valuation of Trina’s broken and scrapped
polysilicon cells and modules using HTS category 8548.10, claiming that HTS category
8548.10 is specific to scrapped battery products rather than scrapped solar products and
that the surrogate value is unrepresentative as it is more than double the surrogate value
for the primary material input, raw polysilicon. 19 	See SolarWorld Br. 32–36. 	Defendant
responds that Commerce’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, because
19 SolarWorld does not challenge Commerce’s valuation of Yingli’s scrapped solar cells and
modules. In the final determination, Commerce valued Yingli’s scrapped solar cells and modules
using Thai import data classified under HTS subheading 2804.69, covering imports of polysilicon
containing less than 99.99 percent purity. Final Decision Memo at 47. SolarWorld argues that
Commerce should value Trina’s scrapped solar cells and modules using Thai import data from
HTS subheading 2804.69 as well. See SolarWorld Br. 32–36. Commerce emphasizes that the
cells were valued differently because the two respondents reported the process by which the
scrap by-product is generated, with Trina reporting its scrap by-product as broken cells and
modules and Yingli reporting its by-product as polysilicon removed from the broken cells and
modules. 	See Final Decision Memo at 47. 	SolarWorld argues that “the alleged distinction
between Trina’s and Yingli’s cell scrap provides no support for Commerce’s valuation of Trina’s
scrap under HTS 8548” because category HTS 8548 “has nothing at all to do with photovoltaic
products, whether or not the scrap consists of portions of an entire solar cell.” 	Reply Br. Pl.
SolarWorld Americas, Inc. 17, Jun. 5, 2017, ECF No. 73. Although SolarWorld argues that Trina’s
scrap should be valued using the subheading with which Yingli’s scrap is valued, SolarWorld does
not argue that Commerce acted arbitrarily by treating similarly situated respondents differently.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 19 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 20
PUBLIC VERSION
Trina’s questionnaire responses indicated that the scrap cells and modules are comprised
of “every component of the cell and not simply polysilicon,” and that these other
components add value, such that the selection of an HTS category specific to polysilicon
would not be representative. 	See Def.’s Resp. 22–24. For the reasons that follow, this
issue is remanded to Commerce.
As 	discussed, 	pursuant 	to 	the 	statute, 	Commerce 	uses 	the 	best 	available
information to select a surrogate value for each FOP. 	19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1).
Commerce seeks a data source that is publically available, specific to the input, tax and
import duty exclusive, contemporaneous with the period of review, and representative of
a broad market average. 	See Policy Bulletin 04.1. 	In this review, Trina reported
generating cell and module scrap in the cell and module production stages of subject
merchandise production. See Trina Section D Questionnaire and Appendices Response
at D-22–23, CD 153–161, bar codes 3276429-01–10 (May 14, 2015). Trina reported that
the broken cells and modules are sold rather than reintroduced into production, and
accordingly claimed by-product offsets to normal value for the scrapped cells and
modules. Id. at D-22. Commerce sought representative surrogate data by which to value
the scrap generated and sold with which to offset Trina’s normal value. 	See Final
Decision Memo at 47–48. 	Commerce determined that subheading 8548.10, HTS, is
“more similar to the characteristics of Trina’s scrapped and broken solar cells than the
description of the alternative [surrogate values] on the record.” Id. at 48.
Commerce failed to address SolarWorld’s argument that the language of heading
8548, HTS, evidences that the products imported under that heading are specific to
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 20 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 21
PUBLIC VERSION
electrical batteries and “are produced using a significantly different manufacturing
process with completely different raw material inputs than are solar cells.” SolarWorld Br.
33. 	Commerce noted that it found 8548.10 to be the appropriate category for valuing
Trina’s cells because Trina reported that the cell and module scrap was composed of
every aspect of the cell, not just the raw primary silicon, and because the cells and
modules are “apparatus used to generate electricity, like a battery . . .” 	Final Decision
Memo at 47. 	However, Commerce did not explain why the selection of HTS category
8548.10 is reasonable given that the category is not specific to solar cells and given the
concern raised by SolarWorld, regarding selecting a surrogate value for a byproduct that
is higher than the value for the input itself. 	See SolarWorld Br. 34–35. 	Further,
Commerce’s rationale for rejecting HTS subheading 2804.69, for raw polysilicon of less
than 99% purity, undercuts Commerce’s selection of HTS category 8548.10. 	See Final
Decision Memo at 47–48. 	Commerce claims HTS subheading 2804.69 “pertains
specifically to silicon, which is only one component of solar cells and modules waste,” id.
at 47, yet category 8548.10 is not specific to any of the materials in the scrapped cell.
See Subheading 8548.10, HTS (“Waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and
electric storage batteries; spent primary cells, spent primary batteries and spent electric
storage batteries”). 	Although Commerce has considerable discretion in selecting the
appropriate data to calculate surrogate values, see Fujitsu General Ltd. v. United States,
88 F.3d 1034, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (granting Commerce significant deference in
determinations “involv[ing] complex economic and accounting decisions of a technical
nature”), Commerce “must cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 21 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 22
PUBLIC VERSION
manner.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S.
29, 48–49 (1983). 	Because Commerce did not address SolarWorld’s arguments, the
agency has failed to adequately explain how its decision is reasonable in light of the
record as a whole, including the evidence that reasonably detracts from its conclusion.
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 474, 488 (1951) (“The substantiality of
evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”).
On remand Commerce must explain or reconsider its determination to value the scrapped
cells and modules using import data for HTS category 8548.10.
D. Semi-Finished Polysilicon Ingots and Blocks
SolarWorld challenges Commerce’s determination to value respondents’ semi-
finished polysilicon ingots and blocks using the world market price for raw polysilicon,
claiming the surrogate value does not reflect the substantial additional processing and
value added turning raw polysilicon into an ingot or block. 20 	SolarWorld Br. 23–27.
SolarWorld proposes that Commerce instead construct a cost, starting with the world-
market price of raw polysilicon and adding the costs of the further processing and
materials. Id. at 25–26. Defendant responds that, given the available data on the record,
Commerce reasonably chose to value respondents’ ingots and blocks using a surrogate
for the primary raw input. 	See Def.’s Resp. 24–26. 	For the reasons that follow,
20 SolarWorld points to
SolarWorld Br. 23–24.
[[
]].
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 22 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 23
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce’s determination to value respondents’ semi-finished polysilicon ingots and
blocks with the world market price for raw polysilicon is reasonable and is sustained.
Here, Commerce determined that the world market price for raw polysilicon
constitutes 	the 	best 	available 	information 	for 	valuing 	respondents’ 	semi-finished
polysilicon ingots and blocks. 	Final Decision Memo at 38–39. 	In the absence of data
values for ingots and blocks, Commerce used a value for raw polysilicon because
respondents’ ingots and blocks are primarily composed of polysilicon. 	Id. 	Commerce
determined that no reliable record evidence suggests that the world market price for
polysilicon would result in unrepresentative pricing for ingots and blocks, and emphasized
that at least some of the additional processing required to turn raw polysilicon into ingots
and blocks is accounted for in the manufacturing costs, included elsewhere in the
calculations. 	Id. at 39. 	From Commerce’s emphasis on using a value for the main
component, it is reasonably discernible that Commerce recognized that this option is
imperfect, but that it would result in a more accurate surrogate value than would a value
for a component that is not the main component. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc., 899 F.2d at
1191. 	It is also reasonably discernible that Commerce determined, consistent with its
practice, that the world market price for raw polysilicon is as specific as possible to the
input (lacking data for the input itself), is contemporaneous, publically available, and
represents a broad market average. See Final Decision Memo at 39; Policy Bulletin 04.1.
The determination that this value constitutes the best available information is reasonable.
SolarWorld contends that additional materials are consumed in the processing that
are not represented in the surrogate value for the raw material. See SolarWorld Br. 25;
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 23 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 24
PUBLIC VERSION
Reply Br. Pl. SolarWorld Americas, Inc. 10–11, Jun. 5, 2017, ECF No. 73. 	Commerce
noted that the agency “do[es] not believe there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
the processing and additional inputs used at the ingot, and block production stages adds
significant value beyond the original cost of the polysilicon.” Final Decision Memo at 39.
SolarWorld’s claim that not all costs are represented does not undermine Commerce’s
conclusion that the agency accounted for processing costs required to manufacture the
ingots and blocks for most merchandise, and that the surrogate value for the primary input
constituted the best available information. 	Although SolarWorld claims that the record
contained information to allow Commerce to add processing costs onto the value of
polysilicon to build up a price for these inputs, see SolarWorld Br. 23–24, 27, the
availability 	of 	another 	methodology 	does 	not 	make 	Commerce’s 	determination
unreasonable 	given 	the 	record 	evidence. 	Commerce’s 	determination 	to 	value
respondents’ polysilicon ingots and blocks using the world-market price for raw polysilicon
is therefore supported by substantial evidence.
E. Surrogate Value for Backsheets
SolarWorld argues that, in valuing Yingli’s solar backsheet input using Thai HTS
category 3920.62 and Trina’s solar backsheet input using Thai HTS category 3920.10,
Commerce unreasonably undervalued the respondents’ backsheets. See SolarWorld Br.
27–32. SolarWorld contends that respondents’ solar backsheets are “a highly technical
and particularized set of goods,” id. at 28, and that import data for HTS categories 3920.10
and 3920.62, each of which covers only one type of plastic, fails to reflect the complex
nature of the backsheets, resulting in an unrepresentative surrogate value. Id. at 28, 32.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 24 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 25
PUBLIC VERSION
Defendant contends that Commerce’s use of HTS categories 3920.62 and 3920.10 was
supported by substantial evidence because backsheets are “multilayered plastic sheets”
and, 	lacking a 	surrogate 	value 	specifically for 	backsheets, 	it was 	reasonable for
Commerce to value the backsheets using “the import value for the type of plastic sheet
which most closely corresponds to respondents’ backsheets.” Def.’s Resp. 27. For the
reasons that follow, Commerce’s use of Thai import data for HTS categories 3920.10 and
3920.62 to value respondents’ backsheets is supported by substantial evidence.
As discussed, Commerce uses the best available information to select a surrogate
value for each FOP, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). Commerce seeks a data source
that 	is 	publically 	available, 	specific 	to 	the 	input, 	tax 	and 	import 	duty 	exclusive,
contemporaneous with the period of review, and representative of a broad market
average. See Policy Bulletin 04.1. In the final determination, Commerce valued Yingli’s
backsheets using Thai HTS category 3920.62, covering plastic sheets of PET (“plates,
sheets, film, foil and strip of plastics, not self-adhesive, non-cellular, not reinforced etc.,
of PET, other”), and valued Trina’s backsheets using HTS category 3920.10, covering
plastic sheets of EVA (“plates, sheets, film, foil and strip of plastics, not self-adhesive,
non-cellular, not reinforced etc., of polymers of ethylene”). See Final Decision Memo at
41–43. 	Commerce explained that each of these categories was selected because it
corresponds to the primary material used in each respondent’s backsheets. Id. at 41–42.
Commerce determined that HTS category 3920.62, specific to PET, and HTS category
3920.10, 	specific 	to 	EVA, 	constitute 	the 	best 	available 	information 	for 	valuing
respondents’ backsheets because Yingli’s backsheets consist primarily of PET and
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 25 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 26
PUBLIC VERSION
Trina’s backsheets consist primarily of EVA. Id. at 41. Addressing the argument that the
categories did not perfectly reflect the complex nature of the backsheets, Commerce
explained that:
[b]ecause record evidence shows that Yingli and Trina bought whole
backsheets, 	as 	opposed 	to 	assembling 	the 	various 	components
themselves, we selected the best available information on the record for
valuing 	backsheets, 	not 	for 	valuing 	the 	components 	of 	backsheets.
However, there are no [surrogate values] on the record specifically for
backsheets. 	Backsheets 	are 	multilayered 	plastic 	sheets. 	Thus, 	we
determined that the best available information on the record for valuing
backsheets is the import value for the type of plastic sheet which most
closely corresponds to type of backsheets used by the respondents.
Id. at 42. Commerce declined to value the backsheets using SolarWorld’s proposed HTS
category 3920.99, for plastics not otherwise specified, finding that category less specific
than 3920.10 and 3920.62 because each of the latter categories covers the primary
material in each respondent’s backsheets while category 3920.99 covers unspecified
plastics. Id.
Commerce 	reasonably 	selected 	HTS 	categories 	3920.10 	and 	3920.62,
respectively, to value Yingli’s and Trina’s backsheets. 	Acknowledging that the HTS
categories were imperfect, Commerce explained that a perfect fit was not available. Final
Decision Memo at 42. Commerce explained that its selection of the categories was based
on the fact that the primary material in each respondent’s backsheets was reflected in the
specific material of each category. 	See id. at 41–42. 	In the absence of a category
specifically for backsheets, it is reasonable to choose import data for plastic sheeting of
the type of specific plastic that constitutes the primary material in each respondent’s
backsheets. Commerce considered the proposed alternative HTS categories for valuing
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 26 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 27
PUBLIC VERSION
the backsheets, including SolarWorld’s proposed HTS category 3920.99, consisting of
plastics not elsewhere specified under HTS heading 3920, and explained why each did
not constitute a better selection than 3920.62 and 3920.10. See id. at 42.
SolarWorld argues that substantial evidence does not support the selection of
these HTS categories because the surrogate value import data does not compare to the
actual market economy prices that respondents paid for their backsheets. SolarWorld Br.
30–32. 	SolarWorld argues that, where respondents’ actual prices paid for an input are
available and there is no evidence that the prices are unrepresentative, “Commerce
should not ignore the actual price that the Chinese respondents paid for certain goods
when assessing the viability of a surrogate value.” 	Id. at 32. 	However, Commerce
explained that it does not use the actual prices paid as benchmarks, due to its preference
for public information and because such prices may not be representative. 21 	Final
21 Where a respondent sources an input both from market economy suppliers using a market
economy currency and from NME suppliers, and where the volume of the input purchased from
the market economy suppliers amounts to less than 85% of the total volume of the input
purchased, Commerce calculates a value for the input by weight-averaging the market economy
prices paid for the input and a surrogate value. 	See 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1); Trina Prelim.
Calculation Mem. at 2–3, CD 566, bar code 3427993-01 (Dec. 18, 2015); Yingli Prelim. Analysis
Mem. at 2, CD 572, bar code 3428066-01 (Dec. 18, 2015); see also Antidumping Methodologies,
71 	Fed. 	Reg. 	61,716-01 	(Dep’t 	Commerce 	Oct. 	19, 	2016), 	available 	at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/10/19/E6-17376/antidumping-methodologies-
market-economy-inputs-expected-non-market-economy-wages-duty-drawback-and (last visited
Oct. 13, 2017). 	Here, both respondents reported purchasing a small percentage of their
backsheet from market economy suppliers. Accordingly, Commerce weight-averaged the market
economy prices each respondent paid for its backsheet with the Thai surrogate value to achieve
a value for the backsheet input for both respondents. See Trina Prelim. Calculation Mem. at 2–
3, Attach. II, CD 566, bar code 3427993-01 (Dec. 18, 2015); Yingli Prelim. Analysis Mem. at 2,
CD 572, bar code 3428066-01 (Dec. 18, 2015); Yingli Prelim. Analysis Mem. Attach. II, CD 578,
bar code 3428066-07 (Dec. 18, 2015). SolarWorld does not challenge Commerce’s methodology
with regard to market economy prices; rather, SolarWorld argues that the market economy prices
paid by respondents for purchases of backsheets should serve as a benchmark with which to
assess Commerce’s surrogate value. See SolarWorld Br. 30–32.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 27 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 28
PUBLIC VERSION
Decision Memo at 41–42. 	SolarWorld’s argument that Commerce should rely on these
market prices to assess the representativeness of the surrogate values for backsheets is
therefore unpersuasive.
F. Nitrogen
Trina challenges Commerce’s use of Thai import data to value Trina’s nitrogen
input, 	arguing 	that 	the 	Thai 	import 	data 	is 	aberrational 	and 	that 	Commerce’s
determination is unsupported by substantial evidence because the agency did not explain
the discrepancies between the Thai data and all alternative values on the record. 	See
Trina Br. 9–16. Defendant contends that Commerce reasonably determined that the Thai
import data was the best available information for valuing Trina’s nitrogen input, as
Commerce evaluated whether the data was aberrational according to its practice and
lacking specific evidence demonstrating aberration. 	See Def.’s Resp. 30–32. 	For the
reasons that follow, Commerce’s selection of the Thai import data for valuing the nitrogen
input is reasonable.
Where there is a claim that data is aberrational, Commerce must address evidence
of aberration in order to demonstrate that the data is nonetheless the best information
available. See Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. at 488 (noting that “[t]he substantiality
of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”).
Here, Commerce explained its practice for assessing whether data is aberrational, noting
that:
when determining whether data are aberrational, the Department has found
that evidence that an AUV in the country at issue is high compared to
another AUV (such as the Bulgarian import AUV here) does not necessarily
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 28 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 29
PUBLIC VERSION
establish that the GTA data for that country are unreliable, distorted or
misrepresentative. Rather, in analyzing whether an AUV is aberrational or
distortive, the Department typically compares the AUV for the input during
the POR in the country at issue to AUVs for that input during the POR from
all countries found to be at a level of economic development comparable to
the NME or compares AUVs of the input during the POR in the country at
issue to AUVs for that input in the country at issue in prior years.
Final Decision Memo at 62 (internal citations omitted).
Consistent with its practice, Commerce compared the Thai value to values from
economically comparable countries. See id. Although most of these values were lower
than the Thai value, at least one other was significantly higher than the Thai value. 	Id.
(noting the value for Ukraine as $78.75 USD per kg). On this basis, Commerce concluded
that the Thai data was within range of the available values from other economically
comparable countries and therefore was not aberrational. 	Id. 	Commerce determined
that the average unit values on the record from economically comparable countries “do
not demonstrate that the Thai AUV is aberrational.” Id.
Trina placed four alternative values on the record: the average nitrogen prices from
Bulgarian import data during the POR (averaging $0.0964 per kilogram), actual nitrogen
purchases by Thai companies during the POR (averaging $0.1239 per kilogram), a price
quotation to Trina for nitrogen in Thailand (averaging $0.0679 per kilogram), and U.S.
International Trade Commission export data to Thailand during the POR (averaging
$0.1625 per kilogram). 	See Trina Br. 5–6, 9–10. 	Trina argues that these values
demonstrate that the Thai value is aberrational, as the Thai value was between 72 and
173 times greater than each of its four proposed alternate values. Id. at 10. Commerce
declined to assess aberration by comparing three of Trina’s four proposed alternate
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 29 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 30
PUBLIC VERSION
values to the Thai data. 	See Final Decision Memo at 62. 	Commerce explained its
preference to use surrogate value data that is publicly available:
[T]he Department’s preference is to use published prices that are widely
available, rather than prices and price quotes from a limited number of
suppliers 	that 	can 	only be 	obtained 	through 	direct 	inquiry. 	Publicly
available, published prices generally do not suffer from potential biases
compared to: (1) price quotes, such as the Thai price quotes submitted by
Trina, that can be obtained through research by private firms; or (2)
individual prices, such as the three invoice prices submitted by Trina, which
are not representative of a broad market average.
Id. at 61. 	It is reasonably discernible that Commerce declined to use these values to
assess aberration for the same reasons. See id. at 62 (noting, regarding Trina’s argument
that 	the 	Thai 	data 	is 	high 	in 	relation 	to 	the 	proposed 	alternate 	surrogates, 	that
“[Commerce’s] preference is to use published prices that are widely available, rather than
prices and price quotes from a limited number of suppliers that can only be obtained
through direct inquiry due to potential biases.”). If a value that is not publicly available is
considered potentially unreliable for purposes of serving as a surrogate value, it follows
that the value may also not be an appropriate benchmark by which to determine the
reliability of other potential surrogate values. 22
22 Trina argues that Commerce’s conclusion “ignores the massive differences in import quantities
and the actual weighted-average import values of these countries.” Trina Br. 13. Trina calculated
a “weighted-average” for the other five economically comparable countries by dividing the total
value from these countries by the total quantity from these countries, which results in an overall
AUV of $0.1551 USD per kg. Id. Trina compared this figure to the Thai AUV of $ 11.68 USD per
kg, and claimed that the Thai AUV is “more than 75 times higher than the weighted-average import
values from the other five [economically comparable] countries.” 	Id. 	This method is not the
method by which Commerce assesses aberration, and does not demonstrate that Commerce’s
method is unreasonable.
(footnote continued)
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 30 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 31
PUBLIC VERSION
Additionally, Trina argues U.S. export data for the same period contradicts Thai
import data:
According to monthly data obtained from the U.S. International Trade
Commission’s Dataweb, there were 586,305 kilograms of nitrogen exported
from the United States to Thailand during the POR with a value of $95,286.
In contrast, the GTA Thai import data showed only 4,298 kilograms of
nitrogen imports from the United States with a value of $317,480. Thus,
while the reported Thai import value greatly exceeds the reported U.S.
export value by over $220,000, the quantity reported to be imported into
Thailand from the United States during this period is lower than the U.S.
exports to Thailand during the same period by 582,000 kilograms. The
significant and inexplicable disparity between the reported Thai imports of
nitrogen from the United States and the reported U.S. exports to Thailand
calls into serious question the reliability of the GTA Thai import data and the
resulting average Thai import price of $73.87/kg, which is 45,458% higher
that the nitrogen export price to Thailand reported by the U.S. International
Trade Commission of $0.1625/kg (which is much more in line with the other
record pricing information for nitrogen). Trina presented this benchmarking
line of argumentation to Commerce, but it was ignored and was not
addressed at all in the Final Results.
Id. at 11 n.1. Commerce explained its preference for using surrogate value data from a
single surrogate country that is, among other characteristics, “non-export” data. See Final
Decision Memo at 61. 	It is reasonably discernible that Commerce would, then, not
consider export data to be a measure against which to assess the reliability of import
data. 	Further, Defendant emphasized at oral argument that the focus for Commerce is
on import data, not export data, and that the reported U.S. export value does not
demonstrate that the choice to use Thai import data is unsupported by substantial
Trina also emphasizes that, because only the Ukraine value was higher than the Thai
value and the quantity of imports from Ukraine was low, the Thai value is “higher—and
significantly higher—than 99.5% of total nitrogen imports in these countries during the POR.”
Trina Br. 13. 	Both of these arguments ask the court to reweigh the evidence and do not
demonstrate that Commerce’s methodology or conclusions are unreasonable.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 31 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 32
PUBLIC VERSION
evidence. 	Oral Arg. Tr. 49, Sept. 5, 2017, ECF No. 97. 	As Commerce’s practice is to
utilize import data, this export data, without more, does not demonstrate that the selection
of the Thai import data is unsupported by substantial evidence.
II. 	The Use of Import Data with Reported Quantities of Zero
Trina argues that Commerce erred by including values for import data with
reported quantities of zero in the surrogate value calculations, contending that the
inclusion of these zero-quantity values resulted in distorted surrogate values. 	Trina Br.
16–19. Trina argues that Commerce’s conclusion that there is no evidence that the data
is unreliable is unsupported by substantial evidence because the values do not correlate
to other low-quantity values on the record. Id. at 18. Defendant responds that Commerce
reasonably determined that the values were reliable because the agency found no basis
in the record to conclude that the zero quantities were the result of errors. Def.’s Resp.
33. 	For the reasons that follow, the court remands for Commerce to further explain or
reconsider its determination that the inputs with reported quantities of zero are reliable.
Here, Commerce concluded that the values reported with zero quantities are
“attributable to rounding small quantities down to zero” and, because it found no reason
to suspect errors in the data, found that the data was reliable. 	Final Decision Memo at
64. Defendant emphasizes that it is within Commerce’s authority to make the “reasonable
assumption” that the zero quantities were simply the result of rounding. Def.’s Resp. 33
(citing Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. Int’l Union of Electronic Elec., Tech., Salaried, & Mach.
Workers, 6 F.3d 1511, 1520 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). To support its determination, Commerce
referenced its reasoning in the underlying investigation in which the agency determined
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 32 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 33
PUBLIC VERSION
that values with reported quantities of zero were reliable, but acknowledged that the facts
of this review are distinguishable in that the majority of the values with reported quantities
of zero are not within range of other low-quantity values on the record, as they were in
the investigation. 	Final Decision Memo at 64. 	In the investigation, the values reported
with zero quantities were within range of other low-quantity values on the record, such
that the reported zero quantities did not appear to be random error:
If such instances involve aberrational data (e.g., situations caused by data
collection or data input errors), they should occur at random. Instead, all of
the import values where the stated quantity is zero are instances of
relatively low import values that are typically in the range of import values
from other countries where the imported quantity is very small. 	Given the
low import values for the zero quantity imports, the fact that these values
are generally consistent with low volume imports, and given that Thai import
quantities collected by GTA are all rounded to the nearest whole number,
these instances appear to involve rounding import quantities to zero.
Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Determination in the [ADD] Investigation of
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the
[PRC], 	A-570-979, 	40 	(Oct. 	9, 	2012), 	available 	at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2012-25580-1.pdf (last visited Oct. 13, 2017) (“Solar
I PRC Investigation Final Decision Memo”). 	Here, it is uncontested that the majority of
the 	values 	with 	zero 	quantities 	were 	not 	within
range of other low-quantity values. 23 See Final Decision Memo at 64.
23 After acknowledging the differing facts in this review, Commerce referenced its reliance on an
assessment of randomness in the investigation which it used to determine whether the data was
reliable:
(footnote continued)
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 33 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 34
PUBLIC VERSION
In light of the evidence on the record that the values are not within range of other
low-quantity imports and the lack of an alternate reasonable explanation as to why these
values 	are 	reliable, 	Commerce’s 	conclusory 	statement 	that 	it 	finds 	no 	basis 	for
determining the values are unreliable is insufficient. 	See Universal Camera Corp., 340
U.S. at 488 (noting that “[t]he substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever
in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”). There may be a reasonable explanation as
to why the zero-quantity imports have values that are not within range of low-quantity
inputs elsewhere in the database. But Commerce has not provided such an explanation
here. Without further explanation, Commerce’s assumption that the zero quantities were
the result of rounding is not reasonable.
Consistent with the reasoning in the investigation, if the reported information (zero
quantities) were the result of errors, we would expect less consistency and more
randomness with respect to the type of error observed. For example, if the data
were merely erroneous, we would expect errors to also occur with respect to the
reported value in at least some instances; however there are no imports in the data
with a zero value. Since there appear to be no such errors with respect to value,
we conclude that the reported zero quantities are reliable, attributable to rounding
small quantities down to zero.
Final Decision Memo at 64 (emphasis in original). 	However, as discussed above, in the
investigation, Commerce emphasized that if quantities of zero were the result of random error,
the values would generally not be within the range of other low quantity values on the record. See
Solar I PRC Investigation Final Decision Memo at 40. In the investigation, Commerce does not
reason that, if the zero quantities were the result of random error, there would also be instances
of a reported zero value. 	See id. 	Further, Commerce has not explained why it would not be
possible to make random errors in reporting quantities without making corresponding errors in
reporting values. Commerce provides no other reasonable explanation as to why the values with
reported zero quantities are nonetheless reliable in this review.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 34 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 35
PUBLIC VERSION
III. The Use of Styromatic’s Financial Statements To Calculate Financial Ratios
for Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profits
SolarWorld challenges Commerce’s selection of Styromatic’s financial statements
for valuing respondents’ overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit. 	SolarWorld Br. 38–43.
SolarWorld claims that Commerce should have chosen the financial statement on the
record for Thai company Ekarat Engineering (Public) Co., Ltd. (“Ekarat”) because Ekarat
is the only Thai company with a financial statement on the record which produces identical
merchandise. 	Id. 	at 	40–43. 	Defendant 	responds 	that 	Commerce’s 	selection 	of
Styromatic’s financial statements is supported by substantial evidence and consistent
with agency practice, as Styromatic’s financial statements are the only statements on the
record that do not evidence receipt of countervailable subsidies during the POR. 	See
Def.’s Resp. 34–37. 	For the reasons that follow, Commerce’s determination to value
respondents’ 	overhead, 	SG&A 	expenses, 	and 	profit 	using 	Styromatic’s 	financial
statements is reasonable and is sustained.
Commerce uses the best available information to value inputs, including the FOPs
used to produce the merchandise and “an amount for general expenses and profit.” 19
U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). Commerce selects a surrogate value for each of these inputs from
a source in a market economy country that is economically comparable to the NME
country 	and 	a 	significant 	producer 	of 	the 	merchandise 	in 	question. 	Id.
§§ 1677b(c)(4)(A)–(B); 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(b). 	Commerce calculates the amount for
general expenses and profit using publicly available financial data from a producer of
identical 	or 	comparable 	merchandise. 	19 	C.F.R. 	§ 	351.408(c)(4). 	In 	the 	final
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 35 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 36
PUBLIC VERSION
determination, Commerce identified six producers of comparable merchandise while
stating that the record lacked financial statements for a producer of merchandise identical
to the subject merchandise. 24 	Final Decision Memo at 37. 	Of the six producers under
consideration from the primary surrogate country, including Ekarat, Commerce explained
that Styromatic was the only company whose statement did not evidence receipt of a
countervailable 	subsidy. 	Id. 	Therefore, 	Commerce 	determined 	that 	Styromatic’s
statements 	constitute 	the 	best 	available 	information. 	See 	id. 	at 	37–38. 	This
determination is reasonable, as evidence of countervailable subsidies would render the
statements unrepresentative and accordingly would not provide an accurate surrogate
value. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc., 899 F.2d at 1191 (explaining the agency’s duty to make
a selection that will enable it to ultimately calculate accurate dumping margins).
24 At oral argument, Defendant conceded that evidence in the record supports a determination
that Ekarat is a producer of identical merchandise. See Oral Arg. Tr. 69. Defendant argues that
Commerce nonetheless reasonably determined that Styromatic is the best available information
on the record because evidence of receipt of a countervailable subsidy outweighs Commerce’s
preference for identical rather than comparable merchandise. See id. at 69–71. It is reasonably
discernible that Commerce chose Styromatic because it was the only company not to receive
countervailable 	subsidies 	and 	that, 	regardless 	of 	whether 	Ekarat 	produced 	identical 	or
comparable merchandise, Commerce viewed Styromatic as the source of the best available
information because it did not receive a subsidy while Ekarat did. See Final Decision Memo at
37. 	Commerce 	chose 	Styromatic 	as 	the 	best 	available 	information 	in 	the 	preliminary
determination, even though the agency found Ekarat to be “a manufacturer of solar cells and
modules, as well as a distributor and servicer of electrical transformers.” Prelim. Decision Memo
at 27. Further, in the final determination, although Commerce concluded that Ekarat produced
comparable merchandise, the agency reiterated its finding from the preliminary determination
“that Ekarat benefitted from countervailable subsidies.” Final Decision Memo at 37. Given the
conclusion in the preliminary determination that Styromatic constituted the best available
information despite the preliminary finding that Ekarat was a producer of identical merchandise,
it is reasonably discernible that the finding that Styromatic did not benefit from countervailable
subsidies, while Ekarat did, formed the basis of Commerce’s decision.
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 36 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 37
PUBLIC VERSION
SolarWorld argues that Commerce unreasonably concluded that Styromatic did
not receive a countervailable subsidy during the POR because it received a subsidy two
months prior to the POR and there was no evidence of termination of the assistance prior
to the POR. 	See SolarWorld Br. 38–40. 	Commerce assesses the financial statements
on record for the POR. Commerce explained that the petitioner did not demonstrate that
Styromatic received a countervailable subsidy during the POR or that the agency has
found the assistance received prior to the POR to be countervailable. 	Final Decision
Memo at 37. 	SolarWorld presents no evidence that has not been addressed by
Commerce which indicates that Styromatic received a subsidy during the POR or that
such subsidy has been found countervailable. 	Commerce’s determination is supported
by substantial evidence.
IV. The Application of AFA to Trina’s Unreported FOPs
Finally, Trina challenges Commerce’s application of AFA to the unreported FOPs
for Trina’s purchases of solar cells from unaffiliated solar cell suppliers. 	See Trina Br.
19–23. 	Trina argues that Commerce’s application of AFA is not reasonable because
Commerce did not explain what percentage of a respondent’s FOP’s for purchased solar
cells must have been unreported FOPs for Commerce to consider the portion significant
to warrant application of AFA. 	Id. at 22. 	Defendant responds that Commerce properly
applied AFA with regard to incomplete information, having reasonably determined that
Trina failed to act to the best of its ability in providing a complete and accurate response
to requests for production information. 	See Def.’s Resp. 39–46. 	For the reasons that
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 37 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 38
PUBLIC VERSION
follow, Commerce’s determination to apply AFA to value Trina’s unreported FOPs is
reasonable.
In order to calculate accurate dumping margins, Commerce requests information
from respondents. If Commerce determines it cannot accurately calculate a respondent’s
dumping margin based on that information, Commerce shall use “facts otherwise
available” for the missing information. 25 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). 	Commerce may
apply adverse inferences in selecting from among the facts otherwise available where it
“finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability
to comply with [its] request for information . . .” 26 	Id. § 1677e(b). 	Although the statute
does not define the phrase “best of its ability,” compliance with the standard “is
determined by assessing whether [a] respondent has put forth its maximum effort to
provide Commerce with full and complete answers to all inquiries in an investigation.”
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Here, Trina did not report production inputs for a portion 27 of the solar cells it
purchased from unaffiliated solar cell suppliers. 	See Trina Br. 21–22; Final Decision
25 Specifically, Commerce resorts to facts otherwise available when a respondent withholds
requested information, fails to timely provide requested information or fails to provide information
in the requested form and manner, “significantly impedes” an antidumping proceeding, or provides
information that cannot be verified. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2).
26 While the statute provides separately for the use of facts otherwise available and the
subsequent application of an adverse inference regarding those facts, Commerce uses the term
“adverse facts available” or “AFA” to refer to the application of the “facts otherwise available” and
“adverse inferences” provisions of 19 U.S.C. 	§ 1677e. See, e.g., Final Decision Memo at 52–
53 (explaining Commerce’s approach to applying AFA when an interested party fails to cooperate
by not acting to the best of its ability in responding to Commerce’s requests for information).
27 Specifically, Trina did not report production inputs for 	of the solar cells it purchased
from unaffiliated solar cell suppliers. See Trina Br. 21–22.
[[ 	]]
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 38 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 39
PUBLIC VERSION
Memo at 53–54; Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into
Modules, from the [PRC]: Unreported Factors of Production, A-570-979, at 9, PD 524,
bar code 3427858-01 (Dec. 18, 2015) (“Trina Unreported FOP Memo”). Commerce used
information otherwise available with an adverse inference for Trina’s unreported cell
inputs. See Final Decision Memo at 52–53. 	As a result, Commerce “relied on the highest
consumption figures for those same inputs that were reported by other suppliers or by the
respondent.” 	Trina Unreported FOP Memo at 9; see Final Decision Memo at 54.
Commerce emphasized that the methodology “is precisely proportional to the missing
information, to induce the cooperation of Trina’s suppliers in future segments of this
proceeding,” Final Decision Memo at 57, and that this methodology was consistent with
its practice regarding the valuation of unreported FOPs:
The Department has previously excused respondents from reporting FOPs
from some of their smallest suppliers in situations where a respondent has
a large number of suppliers, and also in situations where the unreported
FOP data are of limited quantity. 	This case is distinguishable from
situations where the Department has excused respondents from reporting
FOPs, and distinguishable from the situation of Yingli in this administrative
review, because the percentage of solar cell inputs provided by Trina’s
unaffiliated solar cell suppliers is significant and cannot reasonably be
characterized as being of limited quantity.
Id. at 52.
Commerce explained that its decision to apply AFA turned on the perceived ability
of Trina to induce compliance from the suppliers, due to what Trina acknowledged were
long-standing business relationships between Trina and the suppliers. 	Final Decision
Memo at 56. Commerce reasonably determined that these relationships provided at least
some leverage to induce compliance:
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 39 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 40
PUBLIC VERSION
. . . Based on Trina's acknowledgment of its long-term business relationship
with its largest cell suppliers, we find that it [is] reasonable to conclude that
Trina has some business mechanism to induce its suppliers to cooperate.
By applying AFA with respect to the missing data, [Commerce] is relying on
the statutory means that it has available to induce the cooperation of these
parties because Trina may choose not to do business with them in the future
due to their lack of cooperation and/or select suppliers that are willing to
commit to participation in an antidumping proceeding.
Trina 	Unreported 	FOP 	Memo 	at 	8. 	Commerce’s 	explanation 	for 	valuing 	Trina’s
unreported FOPs using AFA is reasonable. The determination to apply AFA was made
in consideration of the magnitude of inputs not reported and of Trina’s apparent ability to
induce compliance. Final Decision Memo at 55–56.
Trina argues in the alternative that Commerce should apply AFA only to the portion
of Trina’s unreported FOPs that are above Yingli’s percentage of unreported FOPs since
Commerce determined that Yingli had an insignificant percentage of unreported FOPs. 28
See Trina Br. 23. Trina argues that this method would ensure that the respondents were
treated similarly. 	Id. 	However, nothing in the statute requires Commerce to apply AFA
as Trina suggests. 	It is not for the court to say whether Trina’s proposed alternate
methodology for applying AFA to Trina’s unreported FOPs would be reasonable. Trina’s
proposed alternative does not demonstrate that Commerce’s methodology—to apply AFA
to all of Trina’s unreported FOPs, having determined that a significant portion of FOPs
were unreported—was unreasonable.
28 Specifically, Trina argues that Commerce should only apply AFA to the portion of Trina’s
unreported FOPs above 	“because Commerce already had determined that Yingli’s
purchased cell portion of 	was not significant.” Trina Br. 23.
[[ 	]],
[[ 	]]
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 40 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 41
PUBLIC VERSION
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court sustains Commerce’s surrogate value
selections for valuing respondents’ aluminum frames, semi-finished polysilicon ingots and
blocks, solar backsheet, and nitrogen inputs. 	The court also sustains Commerce’s
selection of financial statements for calculating financial ratios for respondents’ overhead,
SG&A expenses, and profit, and Commerce’s application of adverse facts available to
respondent’s unreported, purchased solar cells.
This matter is remanded to Commerce for reconsideration or further explanation
consistent with this opinion Commerce’s surrogate value selection for respondents’
tempered glass and scrapped solar cells and modules inputs, as well as Commerce’s
determination to include import data with reported quantities of zero in the surrogate value
calculations. In accordance with the foregoing, it is
ORDERED 	that 	Commerce’s 	surrogate 	value 	selections 	for 	respondents’
tempered glass and scrapped solar cells and modules inputs, and Commerce’s inclusion
of import data with reported quantities of zero in the surrogate value calculations, are
remanded 	for 	further 	explanation 	or 	reconsideration 	consistent 	with 	this 	opinion.
Commerce shall file its remand determination with the court within 45 days of this date;
and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall have 30 days thereafter to file comments on the
remand determination; and it is further
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 41 of 42

Consol. Court No. 16-00134 	Page 42
PUBLIC VERSION
ORDERED that the parties shall have 15 days thereafter to file a reply to comments
on the remand determination.
/s/ Claire R. Kelly
Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Dated:October 18, 2017
New York, New York
Case 1:16-cv-00134-CRK Document 117 Filed 10/25/17 Page 42 of 42