Sunpreme Inc. v. United States

Decision Date07 January 2020
Docket Number2018-1116,2018-1117,2018-1118
Citation946 F.3d 1300
Parties SUNPREME INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, SolarWorld Americas, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellants
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

John M. Gurley, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Diana Dimitriuc Quaia, Nancy Noonan.

Justin Reinhart Miller, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, New York, NY, for defendant-cross-appellant United States. Also represented by Reginald Thomas Blades, Jr., Jeanne Davidson, Joseph H. Hunt, Washington, DC; Mercedes Morno, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Timothy C. Brightbill, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendant-cross-appellant SolarWorld Americas, Inc. Also represented by Tessa V. Capeloto, Laura El-Sabaawi, Usha Neelakantan, Maureen E. Thorson.

Before Prost, Chief Judge, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.*

Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge Prost, in which Circuit Judges Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, join.

Prost, Chief Judge.

Sunpreme Inc. appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of International Trade in favor of the United States and SolarWorld Americas, Inc., concluding that Sunpreme’s solar modules are covered by the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on U.S. imports of certain solar cells from the People’s Republic of China. The United States and SolarWorld cross-appeal from the same decision, which also concluded that the United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce") could not instruct United States Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") to continue suspending liquidation of Sunpreme’s solar modules entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption before the scope inquiry was initiated.

A unanimous panel of this court previously affirmed the portion of the Court of International Trade’s decision upholding Commerce’s scope ruling. Sunpreme Inc. v. United States , 924 F.3d 1198, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (" Panel Opinion "). A majority of that panel, addressing the cross-appeal brought by the United States and SolarWorld, also affirmed the Court of International Trade’s conclusion that Commerce’s instructions to continue suspending liquidation of goods entered or withdrawn prior to the scope inquiry were unlawful. Id. at 1215.

The United States petitioned for en banc rehearing of its cross-appeal. We now grant that petition to resolve whether it is within Customs’s authority to preliminarily suspend liquidation of goods based on an ambiguous antidumping or countervailing duty order, such that the suspension may be continued following a scope inquiry by Commerce. We conclude that it is.

Because we find that Commerce’s instructions regarding continued suspension of liquidation were lawful and not reliant on ultra vires acts of Customs, we grant rehearing en banc limited to that issue, vacate the original panel opinion, and reverse that portion of the Court of International Trade’s decision. Commerce’s instructions are reinstated in full.

Although the original panel opinion is vacated due to our en banc consideration of the United States’s cross-appeal, we reinstate the remaining portions of the panel opinion, including the affirmance of the Court of International Trade’s conclusion that Commerce’s final scope ruling is supported by substantial evidence. For the sake of completeness, the undisturbed portions of the panel opinion are reproduced below.1

BACKGROUND
I

Solar modules convert sunlight into electricity. Many solar modules are composed of crystalline silicon photovoltaic ("CSPV") cells. Those modules contain crystalline silicon wafers that are processed in the presence of other chemicals so that one portion of the wafer has a negative charge (i.e., an n-type layer with excess electrons) and another portion has a positive charge (i.e., a p-type layer with excess electron holes). The existence of the positive and negative layers in a single wafer creates what is known in the industry as a "p/n junction." J.A. 325, 466, 546, 2719. A built-in electric field is created at and around the site of the p/n junction due to the electric charge differential. When sunlight strikes a CSPV cell, the light energy is absorbed, free electrons in the n-type layer attempt to unite with holes in the p-type layer at and around the p/n junction, and the resulting energy generated by the mobilized electrons is translated into usable electricity.

Other solar modules are composed of thin films. Those modules contain very slim layers of semiconductor material, such as amorphous silicon, deposited on a substrate of some sort, such as glass, stainless steel, or plastic. Some of the layers are doped with chemicals that create an excess of electron-donating impurities (i.e., n-type layers), while other layers are doped with chemicals that create an excess of hole-donating impurities (i.e., p-type layers). When the n-type and p-type layers are put in contact, they form a p/n junction, and a built-in electric field is created. The imposition of an additional semiconductor substrate (i.e., intrinsic layer) between the doped thin film layers forms what is known as a "p/i/n junction." J.A. 531, 546. With respect to p/i/n junctions, the electric field extends across the entire intrinsic region.

In 2011, SolarWorld filed a petition with Commerce and the United States International Trade Commission ("ITC") seeking the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on CSPV cells imported from the People’s Republic of China, pursuant to §§ 701 and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930. In 2012, following an investigation, Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering those imports. Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order ("CVD Order"), 77 Fed. Reg. 73,017 (Dec. 7, 2012) ; Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Anti-dumping Duty Order ("AD Order"), 77 Fed. Reg. 73,018 (Dec. 7, 2012). Both orders recite the same scope, which reads in relevant part as follows:

The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
This order covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
....
Excluded from the scope of this order are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).

CVD Order, 77 Fed. Reg. at 73,017 ; AD Order, 77 Fed. Reg. at 73,018 –19. Commerce notified Customs of the AD and CVD Orders ("the Orders") and required cash deposits or posting of a bond equal to the appropriate rate in effect at the time of entry for covered imports.

Sunpreme manufactures solar modules in China. Those modules contain bifacial solar cells that are composed of thin films, which are several layers of amorphous silicon less than one micron thick, deposited on both sides of a crystalline silicon wafer. Following publication of the Orders on December 2, 2012, Sunpreme entered its merchandise as entry type "01," meaning not subject to the Orders, and continued to do so without question from Customs until early 2015, when, for unknown reasons, Customs began to question whether Sunpreme’s entries were covered by the Orders. Initially unsure whether the Orders covered Sunpreme’s entries, Customs sought advice from one of its laboratories. On April 20, 2015, Customs notified Sunpreme that it had decided that Sunpreme’s entries are covered by the Orders, thus resulting in the suspension of liquidation of Sunpreme’s entries and the requirement that Sunpreme pay cash deposits in order for its shipments to be released from the port’s warehouse. Although it objected to Customs’ determination, Sunpreme complied.

Meanwhile, Customs continued to question whether Sunpreme’s solar modules unambiguously fell within the scope of the Orders. On June 3, 2015, Customs contacted Commerce seeking guidance on whether Sunpreme’s products were covered by the Orders. Commerce answered that

a determination as to whether this product is covered by antidumping duty order A–570–979 and countervailing duty order C–570–980 [i.e., the Orders] would need to be made by the Department of Commerce in a scope ruling which can be requested by the importer or exporter.

Sunpreme Inc. v. United States ("Sunpreme I CIT "), 190 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1191–92, 1199 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2016).

In a separate proceeding, Sunpreme filed a complaint with the United States Court of International Trade ("CIT") under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), directly challenging Customs’ determination that Sunpreme’s solar modules are subject to the Orders. Sunpreme Inc. v. United States ("Sunpreme I PI "), 145 F. Supp. 3d 1271, 1282 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2016) (opinion granting preliminary injunction). In its final decision, the CIT found it undisputed that Sunpreme’s solar modules contain layers of thin film, but that Customs’ laboratory tests confirmed those modules also contain crystalline silicon. Sunpreme I CIT , 190 F. Supp. 3d at 1191, 1195–96. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • ARP Materials, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 11 Junio 2021
    ...26–27 (citing Xerox Corp. v. United States , 289 F.3d 792, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds by Sunpreme Inc. v. United States , 946 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ; Belgium v. United States , 551 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ).Plaintiffs do not dispute the principle that Cus......
  • Jilin Forest Indus. Jinqiao Flooring Grp. Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 29 Abril 2021
    ...F.3d at 1032 ). The long history of U.S. unfair trade law has repeatedly emphasized its remedial intent. See Sunpreme Inc. v. United States , 946 F.3d 1300, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted) (describing repeated congressional iteration of the "curative purpose" and "remedial intent"......
  • TR Int'l Trading Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 16 Marzo 2020
    ...Federal Circuit granted that petition and issued an en banc opinion on January 7, 2020. See generally Sunpreme Inc. v. United States ("Sunpreme III "), 946 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2020).7 Plaintiff, Defendant, and Proposed Intervenors filed supplemental opening and response briefs discussing t......
  • Viet. Finewood Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 20 Abril 2023
    ...product, whether the product falls within the scope of an antidumping or countervailing duty order." Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 946 F.3d 1300, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (en banc). In recognizing CBP's authority to do so when an order is ambiguous, the Federal Circuit also recognized that C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT