Changzhou Trina Solar Energy v. United States, 975 F.3d 1318

Trina (Chinese exporter) was the mandatory respondent in the first administrative review of antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders covering certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the PRC; SolarWorld (U.S. petitioner) participated as interested party.
In the companion CVD investigation Commerce found the Ex‑Im Bank Buyer’s Credit Program countervailable and, because Trina’s reported non‑use could not be verified, applied adverse facts available (AFA) to determine Trina had used the program and assigned a subsidy rate.
In the AD review Commerce initially declined to increase Trina’s export price by the amount of any countervailing duty offsetting an export subsidy, reasoning that use of AFA in the CVD meant no affirmative export‑subsidy finding had been made.
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) remanded, holding Commerce’s refusal to apply the offset was contrary to law and directing Commerce to recalculate export prices with the offset; Commerce complied under respectful protest and the CIT sustained the remand redetermination.
SolarWorld appealed; the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT, holding (1) Commerce must offset the export price by the countervailing duty imposed to offset an export subsidy even where the companion CVD finding relied on AFA, and (2) Commerce’s surrogate‑value choice for Trina’s module glass (Thai HTS 7007.19.90000 — tempered glass) was supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce must increase Trina’s export price by the CVD offset where the companion CVD finding was based on AFA	SolarWorld: CIT erred in sustaining the remand that applied the offset; AFA‑based CVD finding should not trigger the statutory offset	Commerce/Gov: Reliance on AFA meant Commerce had not affirmatively determined an export subsidy and thus need not apply the offset	Court: Reversed Commerce’s original refusal; AFA does not negate making a countervailability determination — Commerce must apply the offset per 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(C)
Whether Commerce’s selection of Thai HTS 7007.19.90000 (tempered glass) is supported by substantial evidence as the surrogate value for Trina’s module glass	SolarWorld: Trina’s glass undergoes additional processing/coating (and evidence could indicate laminated characteristics), so Commerce should have used HTS 7007.29.90 (laminated safety glass)	Commerce/Trina: Record shows Trina’s module glass is tempered (coated tempered/float glass); Thai tempered‑glass import data is the best available information	Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports Commerce’s use of Thai tempered‑glass data as the best available surrogate value

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for reviewing agency statutory interpretations)
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) (statutory "shall" imposes non‑discretionary obligation)
Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (agency may adopt a court‑ordered position under respectful protest)
Kyocera Solar, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 844 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (statutory interpretation and Chevron application in trade cases)
Gallant Ocean (Thail.) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Commerce discretion to rely on secondary sources/AFA)
Qingdao Sea–Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (surrogate‑value selection criteria: product‑specific, public, contemporaneous, market average)
Home Meridian Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 772 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (no requirement that surrogate data be perfect; best available standard)
F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (purpose and limits of AFA)
Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (substantial‑evidence standard for Commerce factfinding)