Solarworld Ams., Inc. v. United States

• Decision Date: 18 May 2018
• Docket Number: Consol. Court No. 16–00134,Slip Op. 18–53
• Citation: 320 F.Supp.3d 1341
• Parties: 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.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

320 F.Supp.3d 1341

SOLARWORLD AMERICAS, INC. et al., Plaintiff and Consolidated Plaintiffs,andCanadian Solar Inc. et al., Plaintiff–Intervenors and Consolidated Plaintiff–Intervenors,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant,andChangzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al., Defendant–Intervenors and Consolidated Defendant–Intervenor.

Slip Op. 18–53

Consol. Court No. 16–00134

United States Court of International Trade.

Dated: May 18, 2018

Timothy C. Brightbill, Laura El–Sabaawi, and Usha Neelakantan, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, DC, for SolarWorld Americas, Inc.

Robert George Gosselink and Jonathan Michael Freed, Trade Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, DC, 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.

Neil R. Ellis, Richard L.A. Weiner, Shawn Michael Higgins, and Justin Ross Becker, Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, DC, 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.

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, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With her on the brief were Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Jeanne E. Davidson, 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.

OPINION AND ORDER

Kelly, Judge:

Before the court is the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Department" or "Commerce") remand 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"), pursuant to the court's order in SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 41 CIT ––––, ––––, 273 F.Supp.3d 1254, 1278–79 (2017) (" SolarWorld Americas I"). See Final Results of Remand Redetermination, Jan. 18, 2018, ECF No. 123–1 ("Remand Results"); see also Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 81 Fed. Reg. 39,905 (Dep't Commerce June 20, 2016) (final results of ADD administrative review and final determination of no shipments; 2013–2014) and accompanying Decision Mem. for the Final Results of the 2013–2014 [ADD] Admin. Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, From the [PRC], A–570–979, (June 13, 2016), ECF No. 21–5 ("Final Decision Memo").

For the reasons that follow, the court sustains Commerce's determination to include import data with reported quantities of zero in the surrogate value calculations and remands for further explanation or reconsideration consistent with this opinion Commerce's surrogate value selections for respondent Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd.'s tempered glass input and respondent Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.'s scrapped solar cell and module byproduct offset.

BACKGROUND

The court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case as discussed in the previous opinion, see SolarWorld Americas, Inc., 41 CIT at ––––, 273 F.Supp.3d at 1259–60, and here recounts the facts relevant to the court's review of the Remand Results. In this second administrative review of the ADD order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China, Commerce selected Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd. ("Yingli") and Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. ("Trina") as mandatory respondents. See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 80 Fed. Reg. 80,746, 80,746 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 28, 2015) (preliminary results of ADD administrative review and preliminary determination of no shipments; 2013–2014) and accompanying 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) (citing 2013–2014 [ADD] Admin. 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 In the final determination, Commerce valued Yingli's tempered glass input using Thai import data under Harmonized Tariff Schedule ("HTS") subheading 7007.19.9000, see Final Decision Memo at 29–34, and Trina's scrapped solar cell and module byproduct using Thai import data under HTS subheading 8548.10.²

See id. at 46–48. Commerce included in the average unit surrogate value calculations for all factors of production import data with reported quantities of zero, finding no basis in the record to support a determination that the zero-quantity values are unreliable or incorrect, simply because quantity listed is zero. See id. at 63–64.

Plaintiff, SolarWorld Americas, Inc. ("SolarWorld"), moved for judgment on the agency record, challenging certain 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; Summons, July 20, 2016, ECF No. 1 (commencing this action pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2012) ).³ Relevant on remand, SolarWorld challenged Commerce's determination to value Trina's scrapped solar cell and module byproduct using Thai data for imports classified under HTS subheading 8548.10 ("Waste and scrap of primary cells, primary batteries and electric accumulators; spent primary cells, spent primary batteries and spent electric accumulators; electrical parts of machinery or apparatus, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter: Other").

Mandatory respondents Yingli et al.⁴ and Trina et al.⁵ each also commenced litigation challenging certain aspects of the final determination; both actions have been consolidated with the present action. See Mem. Points and Authorities Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Jan. 26, 2017, ECF No. 42 ("Yingli Br."); Mem. Supp. Mot. [Trina et al.] J. Agency R., Jan. 26, 2017, ECF No. 43 ("Trina Br."); Order, Oct. 25, 2016, ECF No. 31 (order consolidating all three actions related to this administrative review). Relevant here, Yingli challenged Commerce's use of Thai import data to value Yingli's tempered glass input, contending that the Thai data is aberrational, see Yingli Br. at 9–26, and Trina challenged Commerce's inclusion, in the calculation of surrogate values, values for Thai import categories with reported quantities of zero, contending that doing so resulted in surrogate values that are not supported by substantial evidence. See Trina Br. at 16–19.

In the prior decision, the court sustained in part and remanded in part Commerce's final determination in this review.⁶ SolarWorld Americas, Inc., 41 CIT at ––––, 273 F.Supp.3d at 1278–79. Specifically, the court remanded three issues. The court remanded Commerce's selection of a surrogate value for Yingli's tempered glass input to explain why the selection is reasonable in light of evidence of the disproportionate impact of Hong Kong input data and the allegation of aberrational benchmarks. See id., 41 CIT at ––––, 273 F.Supp.3d at 1261–65, 1278–79. The court remanded Commerce's determination to value Trina's scrapped solar cells and modules byproduct offset using import data for Thai HTS category 8548.10, determining that Commerce had not sufficiently explained why the selection is reasonable given that the category is not specific to the solar cells and modules and in light of SolarWorld's evidence that the selection results in a surrogate value for the byproduct that is higher than the value of the input itself. See id., 41 CIT at ––––, 273 F.Supp.3d at 1267–68, 1278–79. Finally, the court remanded Commerce's use of surrogate values for factors of production with reported quantities of zero for Commerce to explain why the inputs are reliable in light of the evidence on the record that the values are not within range of the values for other low-quantity imports on the record. See id., 41 CIT at ––––, 273 F.Supp.3d at 1273–75, 1278–79.

Commerce filed the Remand Results on January 18, 2018. Plaintiff SolarWorld continues to challenge Commerce's selection of Thai data for imports classified under HTS subheading 8548.10 as a surrogate to value Trina's scrapped solar cell and module byproduct. See Pl. [SolarWorld]'s Comments on Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand at 5–8, Mar. 7, 2018, ECF No. 133 ("SolarWorld Remand Comments"). SolarWorld contends that Commerce on remand continues to insufficiently explain its selection of an HTS category specific to scrapped battery cells, a product with which the scrapped solar cells and modules share no components, making it an unreasonable surrogate value. Id. C...