273 F.Supp.3d 1254
Ct. Intl. Trade2017Background
- Commerce completed the 2013–2014 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from the PRC, issuing final results that set surrogate values and applied AFA in some instances.
- Mandatory respondents included Changzhou Trina Solar (Trina) and Yingli Green Energy (Yingli); SolarWorld challenged multiple surrogate-value and related determinations.
- Commerce selected Thai import data for several inputs (tempered glass, aluminum frames, backsheets, nitrogen, and scrapped cells for Trina) and used the world-market price for raw polysilicon to value semi‑finished ingots/blocks.
- Commerce used Styromatic (Thailand) financial statements to calculate overhead, SG&A, and profit ratios.
- Commerce applied adverse facts available (AFA) to value Trina’s unreported purchased-cell FOPs and included import entries reporting zero quantities in surrogate-value averages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tempered glass surrogate (Thai HTS 7007.19.90) | Yingli: Thai imports distorted by high‑value Hong Kong entries make data aberrational and unreliable | Commerce: Thai AUV falls within range of comparable countries and historical Thai data; no record evidence of error | Remanded — Commerce must explain or reconsider given disproportionate impact of Hong Kong unit values and precedent on excluding aberrational unit values |
| Aluminum frames (Thai HTS 7604.29) | SolarWorld: category covers unfinished profiles; frames are finished and thus misvalued | Commerce: respondents described frames as non‑hollow aluminum profiles; 7604.29 is the most specific available | Sustained — selection supported by substantial evidence |
| Scrapped solar cells/modules (Trina) (HTS 8548.10) | SolarWorld: 8548.10 covers batteries, not PV scrap; surrogate exceeds value of primary input and is unrepresentative | Commerce: Trina’s scrap includes all cell components; 8548.10 better reflects multi‑component scrap | Remanded — Commerce must explain reasoning in light of record and concern that byproduct surrogate > primary input |
| Semi‑finished polysilicon ingots/blocks | SolarWorld: ingots/blocks have additional processing; surrogate should include processing costs | Commerce: no reliable data for ingots; raw polysilicon price is best available and processing costs largely captured elsewhere | Sustained — use of world raw‑polysilicon price supported by substantial evidence |
| Backsheets (Yingli: HTS 3920.62; Trina: HTS 3920.10) | SolarWorld: backsheets are complex multilayer items; single‑plastic HTS categories understate value | Commerce: no backsheets SV on record; chose HTS entries matching primary polymer for each respondent | Sustained — Commerce reasonably selected most specific available HTS categories |
| Nitrogen (Thai import data) | Trina: Thai AUV is aberrational relative to other record values and U.S. export data | Commerce: compared Thai AUV to economically comparable countries and historical Thai data; prefers publicly available import data and single surrogate country approach | Sustained — selection reasonable; Commerce need not rely on non‑public invoices/export data to displace import data |
| Inclusion of import entries with zero reported quantities | Trina: zero‑quantity entries distort averages and are unreliable | Commerce: zero quantities likely result from rounding; no record evidence of error | Remanded — Commerce must further explain or reconsider why zero‑quantity entries are reliable given they fall outside range of other low‑quantity values |
| Financial statements for overhead, SG&A, profit (Styromatic) | SolarWorld: Ekarat produces identical merchandise and should be used | Commerce: Styromatic was the only Thai company on record without evidence of receiving countervailable subsidies | Sustained — Styromatic selection reasonable because subsidy receipt would distort ratios |
| Application of AFA to Trina’s unreported purchased cells | Trina: Commerce failed to define when unreported portion is "significant" and should limit AFA | Commerce: Trina failed to act to best ability for a significant portion; AFA proportional to missing data and intended to induce supplier cooperation | Sustained — Commerce reasonably applied AFA to all unreported purchased‑cell FOPs |
Key Cases Cited
- QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Commerce has broad discretion in selecting "best available information")
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (agency must select data enabling accurate dumping margins)
- Parkdale Int’l v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (statutory purpose guides surrogate selection)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency must "cogently explain" discretionary choices)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantial evidence review must account for record evidence that detracts)
- Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (deference for complex agency economic determinations)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("best of its ability" standard for respondent cooperation)
- Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. Int’l Union, 6 F.3d 1511 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (agency may make reasonable assumptions when record lacks information)