Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. v. United States
36 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1263
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- This ITC case concerns Commerce’s antidumping determination on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from PRC and challenges to its separate-rate and surrogate-value findings.
- Jiasheng challenges Commerce’s rejection of its request for separate-rate status in the PRC context.
- SolarWorld challenges: (i) the decision to value aluminum frames using Thai HTS 7604 instead of 7616; and (ii) Commerce’s grant of separate-rate status to certain respondents.
- Commerce treated PRC exporters as an NME with a countrywide rate unless a respondent demonstrates independence; Jiasheng attempted to file a Separate-Rate Application (SRA) after missing the Q&V deadline and IA ACCESS filing deadline.
- The court sustains most final results but grants a voluntary remand to reevaluate the four respondents’ separate-rate eligibility, and remand results are due by Feb. 18, 2015.
- The standard of review is substantial evidence and in accordance with law; Commerce has discretion over procedures and use of facts otherwise available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce properly rejected Jiasheng’s SRA as untimely | Jiasheng filed timely Q&V data and SRA; timely filing should preserve separate-rate eligibility | Timely Q&V filing was a precondition for separate-rate eligibility; Jiasheng failed to timely file | Yes; Commerce did not abuse discretion but remand granted to reconsider four SRAs. |
| Whether Commerce’s surrogate value for aluminum frames using HTS 7604 is reasonable | HTS 7616.99 is more appropriate for alloyed frames; 7604 is inappropriate | 7616 is too broad; 7604 best matches alloyed aluminum profiles for frames | Upheld; final value remains using 7604 for frames; remand limited to separate-rate issues. |
| Whether Commerce properly granted separate-rate status to certain respondents | Respondents lacked de facto autonomy due to SASAC links; misapplied presumption | Evidence supported de jure and de facto autonomy; responses demonstrated independence | Sustained; remand granted to reconsider four respondents’ separate-rate eligibility. |
| Whether Commerce’s deadlines and use of facts available were proper | Agency abused discretion by misapplying deadlines and timing | Agency has broad discretion and properly applied 1677e(a) and related provisions | Sustained; Commerce reasonably relied on facts available after late submission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (presumption of state control in NME cases and use of AFA)
- Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (CIT 2010) (presumption and its rebuttal in separate-rate determinations)
- Artisan Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 978 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (CIT 2012) (timeliness and adequacy of information in separate-rate process)