Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. v. United States

• Decision Date: 16 April 2019
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 19-47,Consol. Court No. 17-00173
• Citation: 378 F.Supp.3d 1292
• Parties: 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.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

378 F.Supp.3d 1292

CANADIAN SOLAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED et al., Plaintiffs and Consolidated Plaintiffs,andShanghai BYD Co., Ltd. et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors and Consolidated Plaintiff-Intervenors,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant,andSolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al., Defendant-Intervenor and Consolidated Defendant-Intervenors.

Slip Op. 19-47

Consol. Court No. 17-00173

United States Court of International Trade.

Dated: April 16, 2019

Craig Anderson Lewis and Jonathan T. Stoel, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, DC, for 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.; and Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. With them on the brief was Michael G. Jacobson.

David John Craven, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, PA, of Washington, DC, for Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.

Craig Anderson Lewis, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, DC, for Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.

Jonathan M. Freed, Trade Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, DC, argued for 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.; Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; and Trina Solar (U.S.) Inc. With him on the brief was Robert George Gosselink.

Timothy C. Brightbill, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, DC, for SolarWorld Americas, Inc. With him on the brief were Laura El-Sabaawi and Usha Neelakantan.

Neil R. Ellis, Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, DC, for 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. With him on the brief were Richard L.A. Weiner, Rajib Pal, David P. Lyons, Shawn M. Higgins, and Justin R. Becker.

Tara Kathleen Hogan, Assistant Director, 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, 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.

OPINION AND ORDER

Kelly, Judge:

Before the court are several motions for judgment on the agency record challenging various aspects of the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Commerce" or "the Department") determination in the third administrative review of the antidumping duty ("ADD") order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China ("the PRC"). See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China, 82 Fed. Reg. 29,033 (Dep't Commerce June 27, 2017) (final results of [ADD] administrative review and final determination of no shipments; 2014–2015) ("Final Results") and accompanying Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Results of the 2014–2015 [ADD] Administrative Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, From [the PRC], A-570-979, (June 20, 2017), ECF No. 44-5 ("Final Decision Memo").

For the reasons that follow, the court sustains Commerce's selection of surrogate values for aluminum frames, nitrogen, polysilicon ingots and blocks, and financial ratios. The court also sustains Commerce's decision to include import data with reported zero quantities in its calculation of surrogate values and its decision to exclude Trina U.S.'s debt restructuring income as an offset to its indirect selling expenses. The court remands Commerce's selection of surrogate value for module glass, Commerce's application of an adverse inference in calculating Canadian Solar's dumping rate, and Commerce's rejection of Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.'s ("Qixin") separate rate application.

BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2016, Commerce initiated the third administrative review of the ADD order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the PRC, for which the period of review would be December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2015. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 Fed. Reg. 6,832, 6,835 (Dep't Commerce, February 9, 2016). On March 28, 2016, after determining that it would not be practicable to examine individually each company for which a review was initiated, Commerce selected Canadian Solar International Limited¹ and the collapsed entity of Trina Solar, comprised of Changzhou Trina Energy Co., Ltd. and Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd.² as mandatory respondents. See Respondent Selection Mem. at 6, PD 155, CD 104, bar code 3452853-01 (Mar. 28, 2016).³

On December 22, 2016, Commerce published the preliminary results of the third administrative review. See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From [the PRC], 81 Fed. Reg. 93,888 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 22, 2016) (preliminary results of [ADD] administrative review and preliminary determination of no shipments; 2014–2015) ("Preliminary Results") and accompanying Decision Mem. for Prelim. Results of the 2014–2015 [ADD] Administrative Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or not Assembled into Modules, From [the PRC], A-570-979, PD 499, bar code 3530538-01 (Dec. 16, 2016) ("Prelim. Decision Memo").

On June 27, 2017, Commerce published the final determination. See Final Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 29,033. Commerce selected Thailand as the primary surrogate country for valuing the mandatory respondents' factors of production ("FOP"), see generally Final Decision Memo, and adopted surrogate values for, inter alia, semi-finished polysilicon ingots and blocks, aluminum frames, module glass, nitrogen, and overhead and financial expenses. Final Decision Memo at 21–22, 35–38, 45–50, 52–55, 66–71. Commerce applied partial AFA in calculating Canadian Solar International Limited's antidumping margin due to the failure of unaffiliated solar cell and solar module suppliers to provide FOP information. Final Decision Memo at 15–18. Commerce excluded Trina U.S.'s debt restructuring income from its calculation of Trina's U.S. indirect selling expense ratio. Id. at 84–85. Commerce included in the average unit surrogate value calculations import data with reported quantities of zero, finding "no basis to conclude that the zero quantity import data ... are errors or that these zero quantity imports result in unreliable and distortive [surrogate values]." Final Decision Memo at 86–87. Finally, Commerce rejected Qixin's separate rate application and assigned it the China-wide rate. Final Decision Memo at 90–92.

On July 7, 2017, 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. (collectively, "Canadian Solar") 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).⁴ Summons, July 7, 2017, ECF No. 1 ; Compl., July 7, 2017, ECF No. 8. Canadian Solar moves for judgment on the agency record, challenging three aspects of the Final Results. Specifically, Canadian Solar challenges: 1) Commerce's application of partial AFA with respect to missing supplier information; 2) Commerce's use of import data under Thai Harmonized Tariff Schedule ("HTS") 7007.19.90000 to value Canadian Solar's module glass consumption; and 3) Commerce's use of import data under Thai HTS 2804.30.00000 to value its nitrogen consumption. See Mem. Points & Authorities Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 10–41, Mar. 7, 2018, ECF No. 54-1 ("Canadian Solar's Br.").

This action was consolidated with actions brought by Qixin, Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. ("BYD"), Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al. ("Trina"),⁵ SolarWorld Americas, Inc. ("SolarWorld"),⁶ and Sunpreme Inc. See Order, Sept. 26, 2017, ECF No. 41.⁷ Consolidated Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors filed motions for judgment on the agency record, Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 7, 2018, ECF No. 52 ; Pls.' R. 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 7, 2018, ECF No. 55 ; Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 7, 2018, ECF No. 56 ; [SolarWorld's] Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 7, 2018, ECF No. 57 ; Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 7, 2018, ECF No. 60, each challenging various aspects of Commerce's Final Results. See Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. Submitted by Pl. Pursuant to R. 56.2 R. U.S. Ct. Int'l Trade, Mar. 7, 2018, ECF No. 52-1 ("Qixin's Br.") ; Mem. Supp. Mot. [Trina] J. Agency R., Mar. 7, 2018, ECF 55-1 ("Trina's Br."); [SolarWorld's] Mem. Supp. R. 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 8, 2018, ECF No. 63 ("SolarWorld's Br."). Specifically, Qixin challenges Commerce's denial of its separate rate application in the Final Results after omitting any reference to Qixin in the Preliminary Results. Qixin's Br. at 6–15. Trina challenges: 1) Commerce's use of Thai import data to value nitrogen; 2) Commerce's use of Thai import data to value module glass; 3) Commerce's decision to include in its calculation of surrogate values import data with no corresponding quantities; and 4) Commerce's exclusion of Trina U.S.'s debt restructuring income in its...