SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States
2017 CIT 67
Ct. Intl. Trade2017Background
- Commerce found China’s Export-Import Bank provided countervailable Export Buyer’s Credit loans in the underlying CVD investigation of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells.
- In the investigation Commerce applied AFA and used a 10.54% rate drawn from another proceeding; in the first administrative review Commerce applied AFA and assigned a 5.46% rate derived from a similar program in the same review.
- SolarWorld challenged Commerce’s AFA-rate selection in the first review, arguing the agency’s review methodology unreasonably departed from its investigation methodology and was unsupported by substantial evidence.
- The Court remanded for Commerce to explain or reconsider its different AFA source-selection hierarchies for investigations versus reviews.
- On remand Commerce explained the different hierarchies as a policy choice balancing three variables—program relevancy, industry relevancy, and inducement—because investigations often have fewer industry-specific rates on the record than reviews.
- The Court reviewed the Remand Results for compliance with its prior order and for substantial-evidence support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce’s different AFA hierarchies for investigations and reviews are reasonable | SolarWorld: Commerce failed to justify why investigation and review hierarchies differ and why review could yield a lower AFA rate; methodology is arbitrary as applied in first review | U.S./Commerce: Methodologies reasonably reflect different evidentiary contexts; investigations prioritize program relevancy/inducement because industry rates are sparse; reviews prioritize industry relevancy when more rates exist | Held: Commerce’s explanation is reasonable and in accordance with law; remand results sustained |
| Whether Commerce adequately explained selecting 5.46% AFA in the review | SolarWorld: Remand fails to support the 5.46% rate and its selection process | Commerce: Rate follows its review hierarchy favoring similar-program/in-industry rates and balances inducement and relevancy | Held: Court finds Commerce’s selection and explanation supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Commerce must favor any particular statutory source when applying AFA | SolarWorld: (implicit) agency shouldn’t apply inconsistent preferences across stages | Commerce: Statute/regulations permit discretion; no single source mandated; agency can develop methodologies | Held: Court affirms Commerce’s broad discretion in selecting AFA sources |
| Whether hierarchy usage is impermissibly rigid versus case-by-case adjustment | SolarWorld: Hierarchy produced an ‘‘absurd’’ lowering of AFA rate; agency should adapt case-by-case | Commerce: Uniform hierarchy is reasonable policy choice; may yield different results as record develops | Held: Court accepts Commerce’s structured approach as reasonable though alternatives could be plausible |
Key Cases Cited
- F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AFA selection must balance inducement and accuracy)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 263 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (agency discretion in antidumping/countervailing methodology reviewed for reasonableness)