Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States
18-2194
Fed. Cir.Jun 15, 2020Background
- SolarWorld filed an antidumping petition challenging imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules from the PRC; Commerce issued preliminary and final determinations and companion CVD proceedings.
- Commerce valued aluminum-frame inputs using South African HTS subheading 7604.29.65 as the best available surrogate for PRC non-market-economy input valuation.
- SolarWorld challenged that classification (arguing HTS 7616 was correct), contending HTS 7604 undervalued frames and ignored additional processing.
- Commerce offset antidumping (AD) cash-deposit rates by countervailing-duty (CVD) cash-deposit rates for export subsidies determined in the companion CVD, where those subsidy rates were based on adverse facts available (AFA).
- SolarWorld argued that offsetting the AD rate by an AFA-based CVD rate nullifies the deterrent effect of AFA and rewards non-cooperation.
- The Court of International Trade upheld Commerce on both issues; the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT, deferring to Commerce under Chevron where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | SolarWorld's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper HTS classification for aluminum-frame surrogate value | HTS 7604 misclassifies frames; HTS 7616 better captures processed frames and yields higher value | Commerce reasonably selected HTS 7604 as best available information for surrogate valuation | Affirmed: HTS 7604.29.65 supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether AD cash-deposit rates must incorporate AFA-based CVD rates without offset | Offsetting AD by AFA-based CVD rate neutralizes AFA deterrence and may reward non-cooperation | Statute is silent; Commerce reasonably offsets to avoid double-counting export subsidies and balance accuracy/deterrence | Affirmed: Commerce reasonably offsets AD cash-deposit by CVD cash-deposit rate |
Key Cases Cited
- SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 910 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (affirmed HTS 7604 as best surrogate for aluminum-frame valuation)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretation)
- F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AFA rate must be reasonably accurate and corroborated)
- SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 537 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (peak deference to Commerce’s interpretation of antidumping laws)
- Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (AFA standards when parties fail to cooperate)
- Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (courts give great weight to the CIT’s informed opinion)