359 F. Supp. 3d 1329
Ct. Intl. Trade2019Background
- Administrative review of antidumping duties on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC covering entries July 31, 2014–Jan 31, 2016; Commerce selected Changzhou Trina as the sole mandatory respondent.
- Commerce issued final results with a weighted-average dumping margin of 9.61% for the respondent.
- SolarWorld challenged Commerce's surrogate-value selections for aluminum frames, module glass, and use of Styromatic (Thailand) 2015 financials for surrogate financial ratios.
- Trina challenged (1) Commerce's refusal to offset export subsidies (Ex-Im Bank Export Buyer's Credit) that were countervailed in a parallel CVD proceeding, (2) inclusion of zero-quantity import records in surrogate-value calculations, and (3) Commerce's refusal to offset U.S. indirect selling expenses by debt-restructuring income reported by Trina Solar (U.S.).
- The court sustained Commerce's surrogate-value selections (frames, module glass, financial ratios), sustained inclusion of zero-quantity import data, sustained denial of the debt-restructuring income offset, but held Commerce erred in refusing to offset the Ex-Im Bank export-buyer's-credit program and remanded for recalculation of Trina's U.S. selling prices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surrogate value for aluminum frames | SolarWorld: HTS 7604.29.90001 is improper because Trina's frames are finished and beyond simple extrusions | Commerce: HTS 7604 covers "profiles" including further-worked items; chosen Thai import data is best available | Sustained: Commerce reasonably concluded HTS 7604 data best available and supported by record notes/definitions |
| Surrogate value for module glass | SolarWorld: HTS 7007.19.90000 undervalues glass that has surface treatments or laminations | Commerce: Record shows tempered glass (covered by 7007.19.90000); no record support that glass was laminated | Sustained: Commerce reasonably selected 7007.19.90000 |
| Surrogate financial ratios (Styromatic 2015 statements) | SolarWorld: Ekarat data (producer of identical merchandise) was superior | Commerce: Ekarat primarily produced distribution transformers; Styromatic is contemporaneous, audited, comparable | Sustained: Commerce reasonably used Styromatic statements |
| Offset for countervailable Ex‑Im Bank Export Buyer's Credit (CVD offset) | Trina: Commerce must offset countervailing duties that were imposed to offset an export subsidy under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(C) | Commerce/Defendant: Denial consistent with practice where CVD specificity was determined using AFA; contends ambiguity and deference | Held for Trina: Commerce's refusal was contrary to law—parallel CVD necessarily found an export subsidy; remand ordered to offset and recalculate U.S. selling prices |
| Inclusion of zero-quantity import data in surrogate-value calculations | Trina: Zero-quantity entries distort surrogate values; many zeros suggest data error | Commerce: Zeros result from rounding of very small quantities; no zero values for price; record lacks proof of error | Sustained: Commerce reasonably included zero-quantity imports |
| Offset for U.S. debt‑restructuring income against indirect selling expenses | Trina: Debt-restructuring income is a period expense and should offset indirect selling expenses for POR | Commerce: Respondent bears burden to show the income ties to POR; Commerce offsets only current portion when documented to avoid distortion | Sustained: Commerce reasonably denied the offset due to lack of POR-specific documentation |
Key Cases Cited
- QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Commerce has broad discretion in selecting best available information)
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (statute’s purpose is accurate dumping margins)
- Parkdale Int'l. v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (surrogate-country selection considerations)
- SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 910 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Commerce's role in choosing best available data and not classifying merchandise for customs)
- Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 3d 1333 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2017) (discussion of Commerce practice regarding offsets and AFA)
- Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2011) (treatment of period-specific adjustments for indirect selling expenses)