2019 CIT 92
Ct. Intl. Trade2019Background
- This case reviews Commerce’s remand redetermination recalculating Trina’s U.S. selling prices after this Court ordered Commerce to account for an amount countervailed in a parallel countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding related to the Ex‑Im Bank Export Buyer’s Credit Program.
- The administrative review covered imports from July 31, 2014 to January 31, 2016; Changzhou Trina was the sole mandatory respondent in the antidumping (ADD) review.
- In the parallel CVD investigation, Commerce imposed countervailing duties to offset the Ex‑Im Bank Export Buyer’s Credit Program, treating that program as an export subsidy (contingent on export performance); Commerce relied on adverse facts available (AFA) only to determine respondents’ use of the program, not to characterize the program itself.
- In the ADD Final Results Commerce did not increase Trina’s U.S. selling prices by the CVD amount; the Court in Changzhou Trina I held that refusal was contrary to law and remanded for recalculation.
- On remand, Commerce (under protest) increased Trina’s U.S. selling prices by the countervailed amount, reducing Trina’s weighted‑average dumping margin from 9.61% to 3.42%.
- SolarWorld challenged the remand redetermination as contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence; the Court sustained Commerce’s Remand Results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce must increase U.S. selling price in the ADD review by the amount of any CVD imposed to offset an export subsidy | SolarWorld: Commerce’s remand increase is contrary to law and lacks substantial evidence because the CVD characterization of the program as contingent on export was insufficient | Commerce/Trina: The remand increase complies with the Court’s order and 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(C); CVD finding shows program is an export subsidy and thus must be offset | Court: Sustains remand; statutory “shall” requires increasing price by CVD amount when a CVD was imposed to offset an export subsidy; Commerce reasonably treated program as export subsidy and did not use AFA to find specificity |
| Whether Commerce impermissibly relied on AFA to find the program was an export subsidy | SolarWorld: Commerce lacked necessary verified information; any reliance on AFA undermines finding that program is contingent on export | Commerce: AFA was used only to determine respondents’ use, not to characterize the program’s contingency on export | Court: Commerce did not use AFA to determine the program’s export‑contingency; characterization is reasonably discernible from CVD record and is reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- Xinjiamei Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co. v. United States, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (redetermination pursuant to court remand reviewed for compliance with remand order)
- Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (discusses boundaries of relying on determinations from other proceeding segments)
- Nakornthai Strip Mill Pub. Co. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (remand redetermination review standard)