Solarworld Americas, Inc. v. United States
962 F.3d 1351
Fed. Cir.2020Background
- Commerce conducted the first administrative review (Dec. 1, 2013–Nov. 30, 2014) of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from the PRC; mandatory respondents included Trina, Yingli, and BYD.
- Commerce issued Final Results (June 13, 2016) assigning dumping margins: Trina 6.55%, Yingli 0%, BYD 8.52%.
- SolarWorld (domestic producer) and the foreign respondents challenged aspects of Commerce’s calculations at the Court of International Trade (CIT); the CIT sustained Commerce after remands; appeals followed to the Federal Circuit.
- Key contested valuation methods concerned Commerce’s choice and use of surrogate-country GTA import data (Thailand) to value inputs (nitrogen and tempered glass) and treatment of GTA records with zero recorded quantities.
- SolarWorld also challenged Commerce’s choice of HTS categories to value solar-module backsheets (PET and EVA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Use of Thai GTA data to value Trina’s nitrogen | Trina: Thai GTA AUV was aberrational and not best available info | Government/Commerce: Thai data reasonable and within range of other surrogate countries | Vacated as to Trina’s nitrogen; remanded for Commerce to justify Thai data or adopt alternative surrogate value |
| 2) Inclusion of GTA records with zero quantity in AUV calculations | Trina: including zero-quantity entries is mathematically incorrect and prejudicial | Commerce: inclusion had negligible effect on AUVs and Trina’s margin | Affirmed; Trina failed to show prejudice (harmless-error applied) |
| 3) HTS classification for backsheets (PET and EVA) | SolarWorld: Commerce undervalued backsheets; should use broader HTS 3920.99 to capture technical complexity | Commerce: used more specific HTS subheadings (3920.62 for PET; 3920.10 for EVA); market purchases are proprietary and not industry representative | Affirmed; Commerce reasonably chose the more specific HTS categories and rejected relying on respondents’ proprietary purchase prices |
| 4) Use of Thai GTA data to value Yingli’s tempered glass | SolarWorld: Thai GTA was appropriate; similar to other surrogate countries | Government/Commerce: argued Thai data reliable; CIT found Hong Kong imports distorted Thai AUV | Affirmed remand; Commerce failed to justify inclusion of aberrational Hong Kong imports and must explain or choose alternative surrogate (Commerce used Bulgarian data under protest on remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Prod. Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (defines dumping and normal-value/factors-of-production framework for NME respondents)
- Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Commerce must avoid distorted surrogate prices)
- Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States, 652 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (standard: reasonable mind could conclude Commerce chose best available information)
- Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (accuracy of surrogate valuation methodology judged by best-available-information standard)
- SeAH Steel VINA Corp. v. United States, 950 F.3d 833 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Courts should not incorporate distortions from surrogate market into hypothetical respondent market)
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standard of review for CIT decision sustaining Commerce)
- Suntec Indus. Co. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (challenger must show prejudice from alleged agency error)
- Lifestyle Enter., Inc. v. United States, 751 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Commerce may choose between imperfect datasets after acknowledging flaws)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (agency must adequately explain decisions)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) (burden of showing prejudice from error)