Kyocera Solar, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22245

Kyocera (Kyocera Solar Inc. and Kyocera Mexicana) imports solar modules assembled in Mexico that incorporate crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells manufactured in Taiwan.
Commerce (Department of Commerce) defined the antidumping/countervailing duty investigation scope to include CSPV cells and modules that are "completed or partially manufactured" in third countries using inputs or processes tied to the subject country (e.g., Taiwanese cells assembled in Mexico).
Commerce determined that modules assembled in Mexico from Taiwanese cells are subject merchandise of the Taiwan investigation; Kyocera challenged that scope determination in a separate CIT action (not at issue here).
The USITC (Commission) adopted Commerce’s scope and found domestic injury from imports it considered to be "from Taiwan," and declined Kyocera’s request for a separate negligibility analysis for Mexican-origin modules that incorporate Taiwanese cells.
Kyocera argued the Commission must separately determine negligibility for imports "from a country" (i.e., Mexico) under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) because that provision defines negligible imports as "imports from a country" accounting for less than 3% of volume.
The CIT affirmed the Commission, and the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the statutory text required a separate country-by-country negligibility inquiry or instead centered negligibility on the subject merchandise as defined by Commerce.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission was required to conduct a separate negligibility analysis for Kyocera’s modules assembled in Mexico incorporating Taiwanese cells under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)	Kyocera: §1677(24) refers to "imports from a country," so imports from Mexico must be separately tested for the <3% negligibility threshold	Commission/Commerce: Negligibility centers on "subject merchandise" as defined by Commerce’s scope determination; Commerce already treated those modules as Taiwanese origin, so no separate Mexico analysis is required	Affirmed: Statute’s plain meaning ties negligibility to the subject merchandise within Commerce’s scope; Kyocera’s country-specific reading is inconsistent with the statutory structure and Commerce’s role

Siemens Energy, Inc. v. United States, 806 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for CIT assessment of ITC determination)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to informed opinion of the CIT)
Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 44 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir.) (deference principles)
Heino v. Shinseki, 683 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir.) (Chevron step-one statutory construction tools)
Delverde, SrL v. United States, 202 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir.) (statutory interpretation principles)
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (U.S.) (read statute in context; canons of interpretation)
Davis v. Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (U.S.) (statutory context and construction)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S.) (two-step test for reviewing agency statutory interpretation)