Solarworld Americas, Inc. v. United States, Yingli Green Energy Holding Co.

• Citation: 910 F.3d 1216
• Decision Date: 12 December 2018
• Docket Number: 2018-1373
• Parties: SOLARWORLD AMERICAS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant Goal Zero, LLC, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES, 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., Defendants-Appellees Jinko Solar Import & Export Co., Ltd., Jinkosolar International Limited, Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Defendants
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

910 F.3d 1216

SOLARWORLD AMERICAS, INC., Plaintiff-AppellantGoal Zero, LLC, Plaintiff

v. UNITED STATES, 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., Defendants-AppelleesJinko Solar Import & Export Co., Ltd., Jinkosolar International Limited, Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Defendants

2018-1373

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: December 12, 2018

Timothy C. Brightbill, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Stephanie Manaker Bell, Tessa V. Capeloto, Laura El-Sabaawi, Cynthia Cristina Galvez, Usha Neelakantan, Adam Milan Teslik, Maureen E. Thorson.

Tara K. Hogan, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by Reginald Thomas Blades, Jr., Jeanne Davidson, Joseph H. Hunt ; Mercedes Morno, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Shawn Michael Higgins, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees 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. Also represented by Neil R. Ellis.

Before Newman, Wallach, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.

Wallach, Circuit Judge.

Appellant SolarWorld Americas, Inc. ("SolarWorld") sued Appellee United States ("the Government") in the U.S. Court of International Trade ("CIT"), challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce’s ("Commerce") final results of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules ("subject merchandise") from the People’s Republic of China ("China"). See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People’s Republic of China , 80 Fed. Reg. 40,998, 40,998 (July 14, 2015) (final admin. review) ("Final Results "). After largely sustaining the Final Results but remanding for Commerce to reconsider an issue not implicated in this appeal, see SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v. United States (SolarWorld I ), 234 F.Supp.3d 1286, 1292 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017), the CIT ultimately sustained Commerce’s final results of remand redetermination, see SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v. United States (SolarWorld II ), 273 F.Supp.3d 1314, 1315 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) ; see also Final Results of Remand Redetermination, SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v. United States , No. 1:15-cv-00231-CRK (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 11, 2017), ECF No. 144-1; J.A. 56–57 (Judgment).

SolarWorld, a domestic producer of subject merchandise, appeals and argues Commerce erred in its calculation of antidumping duty margins. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5) (2012). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

I. Legal Framework

By statute, antidumping duties may be imposed on foreign merchandise sold, or likely to be sold, "in the United States at less than its fair value." 19 U.S.C. § 1673 (2012).¹ At the conclusion of an investigation, if Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission have made the requisite findings, Commerce "shall publish an antidumping duty order" directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") officers to assess duties on imports of goods covered by the investigation. Id. § 1673e(a). Each year after the order is published, if Commerce receives a request for an administrative review of the order, it shall conduct such a review. Id. § 1675(a)(1).

For every administrative review, Commerce typically must "determine the individual weighted average dumping margin for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise." Id. § 1677f-1(c)(1). A dumping margin reflects the amount by which the " ‘normal value’ (the price a producer charges in its home market) exceeds the ‘export price’ (the price of the product in the United States) or ‘constructed export price.’ "² U.S. Steel Corp. v.United States , 621 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (footnote omitted) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A) ).

The statute explains how "normal value shall be determined" "[i]n order to achieve a fair comparison with the export price or constructed export price." 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a). However, if Commerce determines the exporting country is a "nonmarket economy country"³ and "finds that available information does not permit the normal value of the subject merchandise to be determined under [ § 1677b(a) ]," then Commerce calculates normal value by valuing the "factors of production" used in producing the merchandise in comparable "market economy country or countries." Id. § 1677b(c)(1). Specifically, Commerce must value the factors of production "to the extent possible ... 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." Id . § 1677b(c)(4). Accordingly, in selecting these so-called surrogate values to represent the factors of production, Commerce "attempts to construct a hypothetical market value of that product in the nonmarket economy." Downhole Pipe , 776 F.3d at 1375 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).

II. Procedural History

The present dispute stems from an antidumping duty order that Commerce issued after an investigation and that covers subject merchandise from China. Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People’s Republic of China , 77 Fed. Reg. 73,018, 73,018 (Dec. 7, 2012) (antidumping duty order). In February 2014, following a timely request, Commerce initiated the administrative review at issue, covering a period of review of May 25, 2012, to November 30, 2013. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 79 Fed. Reg. 6147, 6147, 6150 (Feb. 3, 2014). Commerce limited its review to the two largest Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise by volume, Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. and Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd. ("Yingli"). J.A. 103; see 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(2) (explaining when Commerce may limit its review to a "reasonable number of exporters or producers").

In July 2015, Commerce issued the Final Results . 80 Fed. Reg. at 40,998 ; see J.A. 4462–545 (providing excerpts from Commerce’s decision memorandum accompanying the Final Results ). Commerce calculated, inter alia, a weighted-average dumping margin for Yingli of 0.79%. Final Results , 80 Fed. Reg. at 41,001. Commerce’s calculated margin is based in part on its selection of surrogate values for each of Yingli’s factors of production, including aluminum frames, J.A. 4537–45, and semi-finished polysilicon ingots and blocks, J.A. 4536–37. For aluminum frames, Commerce selected a value derived from import data based on Thai Harmonized Tariff Schedule ("HTS") Heading 7604 for "[a]luminum bars, rods[,] and profiles," specifically under Subheading 7604.29, which covers "[a]luminum bars, rods[,] and profiles" "[o]ther" than those specifically provided for in the other subheadings at a comparable level, J.A. 2910; see J.A. 4542, resulting in a surrogate value of 189.16 Thai Bahts per kilogram, see J.A. 4375 (identifying the surrogate value’s price). For semi-finished polysilicon ingots and blocks, Commerce selected the "world market price for polysilicon of $18.19 per kilogram." J.A. 4537.⁴

SolarWorld sued the Government, arguing, inter alia, that Commerce should have calculated a higher antidumping duty margin for Yingli because Commerce erred by undervaluing the surrogate values for each of Yingli’s inputs. SolarWorld I , 234 F.Supp.3d at 1292. The CIT rejected each of SolarWorld’s challenges. Id. at 1303–07. Although SolarWorld argued Commerce should have selected an aluminum frames surrogate value derived from import data for Thai HTS Heading 7616, specifically under Subheading 7616.99, which covers, inter alia, "articles of aluminum [not elsewhere specified or included]," rather than Thai HTS Heading 7604, which covers "[a]luminum bars, rods[,] and profiles," the CIT stated "Commerce reasonably determined that import data under [Thai] HTS [H]eading 7604 is more specific." Id. at 1303–04 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The CIT also determined that Commerce reasonably selected a surrogate value for semi-finished polysilicon ingots and blocks as the best available information on the record for that factor of production, in part because it was the only surrogate value of record. Id. at 1306–07.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review and Legal Standard

We apply the same standard of review as the CIT, see Downhole Pipe , 776 F.3d at 1373, upholding Commerce determinations that are supported "by substantial evidence on the record" and otherwise "in accordance with law," 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). "Although we review the decisions of the CIT de novo, we give great weight to the informed opinion of the CIT and it is nearly always the starting point of our analysis." Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States , 810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis, and citation omitted). "Substantial evidence is...