721 F.Supp.3d 1347
Ct. Intl. Trade2024Background
- The case involves Trina Solar Co., Ltd. (“Trina”) challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in an administrative review of antidumping duties (ADD) on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China.
- Commerce conducted companion ADD and countervailing duty (CVD) reviews for products imported during February 2021–January 2022.
- Commerce imposed CVDs on eleven subsidy programs but adjusted Trina’s ADD-calculated U.S. price for only five programs, arguing only those were export contingent.
- Trina argued Commerce should have adjusted for all eleven, since CVDs were imposed on them in the earlier CVD review.
- The court reviewed whether Commerce’s refusal to adjust for the remaining six programs was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
- The court remanded Commerce’s determination for further explanation or reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce must offset ADDs by the CVD amount imposed on all eleven programs found countervailable in the CVD review | All eleven programs found countervailable, so ADDs must be offset accordingly | Only five programs were determined export contingent, so only those must be offset | Remanded: Commerce’s refusal unsupported by substantial evidence; must explain basis for not offsetting all 11 |
| Whether Commerce's use of facts otherwise available and adverse inferences satisfies legal requirements for specifying subsidy types | Use of facts otherwise available still resulted in findings of export contingent subsidies for all programs | No record evidence that the six disputed programs are export contingent; only five were found export contingent | Remanded: Commerce must clarify whether, in applying adverse facts, it determined any programs as export contingent |
| Whether the record supports Commerce's rationale for not offsetting ADDs by the CVDs on the six "Subject Programs" | Record shows Commerce relied on descriptions suggesting export contingency | Record does not show specific export-contingent finding for the remaining six programs | Remanded: Commerce must explain its determination on the record or reconsider |
| Proper application of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(C) in light of previous precedent | Offset required to prevent double counting when CVD imposed to counter export subsidies | Offset not required absent explicit export contingency determination | Remanded: Commerce required to clarify its prior findings and apply offset if appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (discussing Commerce's obligations in using adverse facts available and application of offsets for export subsidies)
- Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 961 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (addressing the purpose and application of antidumping/CVD offsets to avoid double duties)
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (describing substantial evidence standard in Commerce reviews)