Canadian Solar International Limited et al v. United States

Slip Op. 21-166
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
CANADIAN SOLAR
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ET
AL.,
Plaintiffs and Consolidated
Plaintiffs,
and
SHANGHAI BYD CO., LTD. ET AL.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors and
Consolidated Plaintiff-
Intervenors,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
SOLARWORLD AMERICAS, INC. ET
AL.,
Defendant-Intervenor and
Consolidated Defendant-
Intervenors.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Consol. Court No. 17-00173
OPINION
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s fourth remand redetermination in
the third 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
Case 1:17-cv-00173-CRK Document 200 Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 6

Consol. Court No. 17-00173 	Page 2
Craig A. Lewis, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs and
consolidated 	plaintiffs 	Canadian 	Solar 	International 	Limited; 	Canadian 	Solar
Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc.; CSI
Solar Power (China) Inc.; CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd.; CSI
Cells Co., Ltd.; Canadian Solar (USA) Inc.; and plaintiff-intervenor and consolidated
plaintiff-intervenor Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.
Richard 	L.A. 	Weiner, 	Sidley 	Austin, 	LLP, 	of 	Washington, 	D.C., 	for 	plaintiff
intervenors Yingli Green Energy Holding 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.;
Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; Yingli Green Energy International
Trading Co., Ltd.; Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc.; and Yingli Energy (China)
Co., Ltd.
Adams C. Lee, Harris Bricken McVay Sliwoski, LLP, of Seattle, Washington, for
plaintiff intervenor Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.
John R. Magnus, Tradewins LLC, of Washington, D.C., for defendant intervenor and
consolidated plaintiff SolarWorld Americas, Inc.
Joshua E. Kurland, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department
of Justice, and of counsel Brendan S. Saslow, Chief Counsel of Trade Enforcement
and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C., for defendant.
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
Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. v. United States, 532 F. Supp. 3d 1273 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021)
(“Canadian Solar V”) in connection with Commerce’s third 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, 2014, through November 30,
2015. Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand in [Canadian Solar
Case 1:17-cv-00173-CRK Document 200 Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 6

Consol. Court No. 17-00173 	Page 3
V], Sept. 27, 2021, ECF No. 196-1 (“Fourth Remand Results”); see [solar cells], from
the [PRC], 82 Fed. Reg. 29,033 (Dep’t Commerce June 27, 2017) (final results of
[ADD] 	administrative 	review 	and 	final 	deter. 	of 	no 	shipments; 	2014-15) 	and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memo., A-570-979 (June 20, 2017), ECF No. 44-5.
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 Canadian Solar V;
see generally Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. v. United States, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 2019) (“Canadian Solar I”); Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. v. United States, 415
F. Supp. 3d 1326 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019) (“Canadian Solar II”); Canadian Solar Int’l
Ltd. v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 3d 1333 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (“Canadian Solar
III”), judgment vacated on reconsideration, Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. v. United
States, 471 F. Supp. 3d 1379 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (“Canadian Solar 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 1:17-cv-00173-CRK Document 200 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 6

Consol. Court No. 17-00173 	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 	Canadian 	Solar 	V, 	the 	court 	remanded 	Commerce’s 	third 	remand
redetermination, due to its continued reliance on Thai import data to value nitrogen
consumed by Canadian Solar, 2 for reconsideration or further explanation consistent
with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (“Court of Appeals”) opinion in
SolarWorld 	Americas, 	Inc. 	v. 	United 	States, 	962 	F.3d 	1351 	(Fed. 	Cir. 	2020)
(“SolarWorld”) and Canadian Solar V. Canadian Solar V, 532 F. Supp. 3d at 1281.
In 	the 	Fourth 	Remand 	Results, 	Commerce, 	under 	respectful 	protest, 3
reconsidered its surrogate country selection and valued nitrogen using Mexican,
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
2 Plaintiffs Canadian Solar International Limited; Canadian Solar (USA), Inc.;
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing
(Luoyang), Inc.; CSI Cells Co., Ltd.; CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (Yancheng) Co.,
Ltd.; and CSI Solar Power (China) Inc. are referred to, collectively, as “Canadian
Solar.”
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 1:17-cv-00173-CRK Document 200 Filed 12/08/21 Page 4 of 6

Consol. Court No. 17-00173 	Page 5
comments. Id. at 4, 9. On September 27, 2021, Commerce issued the Fourth Remand
Results. 	Fourth Remand Results. 	On October 18, 2021, Plaintiffs Canadian Solar
and Consolidated Plaintiff Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. filed an unopposed motion to
amend the scheduling order issued by the court, see Canadian Solar V, 532 F. Supp.
3d 	at 	1281, 	“to 	eliminate 	the 	comment 	period 	and 	forego 	the 	filing 	of 	Joint
Appendices.” 	Pls.’ and Consol. Pl.’s Unopposed Mot. Cancel Schedule for Parties to
File Comments, Replies, and J.A.s on the Remand Redetermination at 2, Oct. 18,
2021, ECF No. 198. 	The court granted this motion. 	Order, Oct. 19, 2021, ECF No.
199. 	For the following reasons, the court sustains Commerce’s decision to use
Mexican import data to value Canadian Solar’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 by the
court in Canadian Solar V. 	Fourth Remand Results at 7–8. 	Therefore, Commerce
examined the Global Trade Atlas data on the record for nitrogen imports for five other
possible surrogate countries. Id. Commerce selected Mexico 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, 9 n.40. The record indicates that Mexico had
the highest import volume for the period of review; therefore, Commerce’s decision to
use Mexican import data is supported by substantial evidence. See SolarWorld’s
Submission of Information to Rebut, Clarify, or Correct Information Pertaining to
Case 1:17-cv-00173-CRK Document 200 Filed 12/08/21 Page 5 of 6

Consol. Court No. 17-00173 	Page 6
Surrogate Values, Ex. 3, PDs 397–98, CDs 482–84, bar codes 3490795-01–02,
3490786-01–03 (July 26, 2016). 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 October 26, 2017, Defendant filed indices to the public (“PD”) and confidential
(“CD”) administrative records underlying Commerce’s final determination, on the
docket, at ECF No. 44-2–4. 	Citations to administrative record documents in this
opinion are to the numbers Commerce assigned to such documents in the indices.
Case 1:17-cv-00173-CRK Document 200 Filed 12/08/21 Page 6 of 6