SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States
273 F. Supp. 3d 1314
Ct. Intl. Trade2017Background
- Commerce selected Yingli Energy and Wuxi Suntech (Suntech) as mandatory respondents in the antidumping review of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from the PRC and treated certain U.S. sales by Suntech America as constructed export price (CEP) sales.
- In its final determination, Commerce used the shipment date (rather than invoice/contract date) as the date of sale for Suntech America’s CEP sales, reasoning that solar-industry contracts and Suntech’s contracts were regularly changed prior to shipment.
- SolarWorld sued, challenging Commerce’s use of shipment date and arguing Commerce relied on contracts not related to the CEP sales to conclude key terms were changeable.
- The Court remanded, directing Commerce to identify record evidence showing that the material terms of the specific Suntech America–unaffiliated purchaser contracts were subject to change after contract date or to reconsider using shipment date.
- On remand, Commerce compared the actual original and revised Suntech America contract(s), delivery schedules, and ultimate U.S. sales data, finding meaningful, repeated changes in key terms (including price and delivery timing) up to delivery and thus concluding the shipment date best reflected when material terms were established.
- No party challenged the Remand Results; the Court found Commerce’s explanation supported by substantial evidence and sustained the Remand Results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce permissibly used shipment date (not invoice/contract date) as date of sale for Suntech America CEP sales | SolarWorld: Commerce must use contract/invoice date; Commerce relied on unrelated contracts to show terms were changeable | U.S./Commerce: Record shows Suntech America contracts’ material terms changed through delivery; shipments reflect when terms were fixed | Court: Sustains Commerce — remand explanation showed substantial evidence that key terms changed until shipment, so shipment date is proper |
Key Cases Cited
- SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 234 F. Supp. 3d 1286 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017) (original opinion remanding date-of-sale issue)
- Xinjiamei Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co. v. United States, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (standard for reviewing remand compliance)
- Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008) (remand-review precedent)