Canadian Solar Inc. v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Consol. Court No. 19-00178,Slip Op. 21-114 |
| Parties | CANADIAN SOLAR INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al., Consolidated Plaintiffs, Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. et al., Intervenor Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Bryan P. Cenko and Sarah Wyss, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, of Washington D.C. argued for Plaintiffs. With them on the brief was Jeffrey S. Grimson.
Robert G. Gosselink, Jonathan M. Freed, and Kenneth N. Hammer, Trade Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs.
Jordan C. Kahn, Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for Intervenor Plaintiffs Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Jinko Solar Import & Export Co., Ltd., Zhejang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. On the brief were Andrew T. Schutz and Kavita Mohan.
Richard L.A. Weiner, Rajib Pal, Shawn M. Higgins, and Justin R. Becker, Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Intervenor Plaintiffs 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., Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd.
Craig A. Lewis, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, of Washington D.C., for Intervenor Plaintiff Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.
Justin R. Miller, International Trade Field Office, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, NY argued for the Defendant. With him on the brief was Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Paul K. Keith, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
This action is a challenge to the final determination made by the United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce") in the Fifth Administrative Review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules from the People's Republic of China ("PRC") covering the period from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016.
Plaintiffs Canadian Solar Inc., Canadian Solar International, Ltd., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar (USA) Inc., CSI Cells Co., Ltd., CSI Solar Power (China) Inc., CSI Solar Power Group Co. Ltd., CSI Solartronics (Changshu) Co., Ltd., CSI Solar Technologies Inc., CSI New Energy Holding Co., Ltd., CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd., Changshu Tegu New Materials Technology Co., Ltd., Changshu Tlian Co., Ltd., Suzhou Sanysolar Materials Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Canadian Solar"), Consolidated Plaintiffs Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Changzhou"), Intervenor Plaintiffs Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Jinko Solar Import & Export Co., Ltd., Zhejang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Jinko"), Intervenor Plaintiffs 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., Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Yingli") and Intervenor Plaintiff Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. request that the court hold aspects of Commerce's final determination unsupported by substantial evidence or otherwise not in accordance with law.
The United States ("Government") asks that the court grant remand for some aspects of Commerce's final determination and sustain other parts of Commerce's Amended Final Results of its Fifth Administrative Review.1
Commerce published a countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules ("solar cells") from the PRC on December 7, 2012. See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 Fed. Reg. 73,017 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 7, 2012). In February, 2018, Commerce began its Fifth Administrative Review of this countervailing duty order, covering the period from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 83 Fed. Reg. 8058 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 23, 2018). On April 17, 2018, the U.S. International Trade Administration selected Canadian Solar, and Jinko as mandatory respondents ("Mandatory Respondents") in this review. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1–2, P.R. 38 (Apr. 17, 2018).2
Commerce published its preliminary results on February 20, 2019, see Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind the Review, in Part; 2016, 84 Fed. Reg. 5051 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 20, 2019), along with the accompanying Preliminary Issues and Decision Memorandum, Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, C-570-980, POR: 01/01/2016-12/31/2016 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 12, 2019) ("PDM").
Commerce published its final determination on August 28, 2019. See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Recession of Review in Part; 2016, 84 Fed. Reg. 45,125 (Dep't Commerce Aug. 28, 2019) ("Final Results"), as amended by Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016, 84 Fed. Reg. 68,102 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 13, 2019) ("Amended Final Results"); see also Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, C-570-980, POR: 01/01/2016-12/31/2016 (Dep't Commerce Aug. 19, 2019) ("I&D Memo"). Commerce calculated a subsidy rate of 9.7% ad valorem for Canadian Solar and of 12.7% ad valorem for Jinko. Amended Final Results at 68,103.
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2021) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i) (2021). The court will uphold Commerce's determinations in a countervailing duty proceeding unless they are "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]" Id. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
Commerce requests a remand on three of the issues before the court that are substantially similar to the issues presented in the Third Administrative Review of the order on the merchandise at issue: 1) reconsidering the benchmark for aluminum extrusions, see Def.’s Resp. in Opp'n. to Pls.’ Mots. for J. Upon the Agency R. at 19–21, ECF No. 79 (confidential), ECF No. 80 (public) (December 4, 2020) ("Gov. Br."), 2) choosing the benchmark for solar grade polysilicon, see id. at 22–24, and 3) its application of adverse facts available in its specificity finding for the provision of electricity for less than adequate renumeration ("LTAR"), see id. at 24–26. Plaintiffs support the Government's requests for remand.3
The court concludes that in view of its opinions covering the Third Administrative Review of certain photovoltaic cells from the PRC, see Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States, 42 CIT ––––, –––– – ––––, –––– – ––––, –––– – ––––, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1332–33, 1336–37, 1341–42 (2018) (" Changzhou Remand I"); Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 19-137, 2019 WL 5856438, at *9–10 (CIT Nov. 8, 2019) (" Changzhou Remand II"); Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States, 45 CIT ––––, –––– – ––––, –––– – ––––, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1287, 1293–95, 1299–1303 (2020), and the Fourth Administrative Review, see Canadian Solar Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 20-23, 2020 WL 898557, at *3 (CIT Feb. 25, 2020) (" Canadian Solar I"); Canadian Solar Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 20-149, 2020 WL 6129754, at *4–5 (CIT Oct. 19, 2020) (" Canadian Solar II"), remand here is appropriate. The administrative records of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Administrative Reviews and the Government's legal rationales are similar and thus the determination at hand suffers from essentially the same deficiencies that the court noted in these prior opinions. The court remands with instructions for Commerce to consult these prior opinions and reevaluate its decisions on these three issues accordingly.
Commerce may assess a countervailing duty if, after investigating a subsidy, Commerce finds that "an authority 1) provides a financial contribution to a person, 2) a benefit is thereby conferred, and 3) the subsidy is specific." Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 C.I.T. 1003, 1009, 223 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 1378, (2002) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)(A)–(B) ); see also Changzhou Remand I, 42...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wind Tower Trade Coal. v. United States
...Even considering that there may be a shift in the way in which Commerce calculates an EVA, see Canadian Solar Inc. v. United States , 45 CIT ––––, ––––, 537 F. Supp. 3d 1380, 1394-99 (2021), Commerce found no mark-up here, see IDM at 30 ("[T]here was no mark-up by an affiliated company, for......
-
Wind Tower Trade Coal. v. United States
... ... Edison Co. of ... N.Y. v. NLRB , 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Altx, Inc ... v. United States , 370 F.3d 1108, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ... (quoting Atlantic ... there may be a shift in the way in which Commerce calculates ... an EVA, see Canadian Solar Inc. v. United States , 45 ... CIT___, ___, 537 F.Supp.3d 1380, 1394-99 (2021), ... ...
-
Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. v. United States
... ... satisfied by 'something less than the weight of the ... evidence.'" Altx, Inc. v. United States , ... 370 F.3d 1108, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Matsushita ... remuneration that is based on a three-tiered hierarchy ... See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United ... States , 42 CIT__,__, 352 F.Supp.3d 1316, 1332 (2018); ... principles." Id. § 351.511(a)(2)(iii); ... see Canadian" Solar Inc. v. United States , 45 ... CIT__,__, 537 F.Supp.3d 1380, 1389-92 (2021) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
The Mosaic Co. v. United States
...Inc. v. United States, 45 CIT,, 537 F.Supp.3d 1380, 1389 n.6 (2021). "It is within Commerce's discretion to weigh the relevant factors." Id. at 1391. goal in setting a benchmark rate is to best approximate the market rate … not to choose the rate respondents were most likely to pay" in a ma......