Trina Solar Co. v. United States
2025 CIT 40
Ct. Intl. Trade2025Background
- The case concerns the administrative review of the antidumping duty (ADD) order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China for the 2021–2022 period.
- In earlier proceedings, the Department of Commerce used adverse facts available (AFA) to find eleven Chinese government subsidy programs countervailable but only identified five as export contingent.
- Trina Solar argued Commerce should offset its U.S. sales prices by countervailing duties (CVDs) imposed for all eleven programs, not just the five found export contingent.
- On remand, prompted by a prior court order (Trina I), Commerce revisited whether more programs should count as export contingent and therefore offsetting in the ADD calculation.
- Commerce ultimately adjusted Trina’s ADD rate to 9.09% (from 10.50%) after finding three more programs were export contingent, and sustained this determination as reasonable and in line with the remand order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce must offset U.S. sales prices by CVDs for all AFA-found programs, not just those previously found export contingent | Trina argued all eleven AFA-found programs should be treated as export subsidies and thus qualify for an ADD offset | Commerce argued only programs it determined as export contingent in prior or current review qualify for the offset; specificity alone does not suffice | The Court held Commerce properly limited offsets to only those programs shown by evidence to be export contingent |
| Adequacy of Commerce’s explanation on which programs were export contigent | Trina asserted Commerce’s refusal to offset for all programs was inadequately explained | Commerce explained its nuanced, record-based reasons for each program, referencing the CVD Initiation Checklist and prior reviews | The Court found Commerce’s remand explanations adequate and compliant with its order |
| Whether Commerce’s remand determination complied with the court’s instructions | Trina did not oppose the remand results after explanations were provided | Commerce contended its approach satisfied the court’s remand instructions | The Court found substantial evidence supported the Remand Results and sustained them |
| Proper calculation of Trina’s cash deposit rate post-remand | Trina argued for further adjustment; at remand, did not oppose the 9.09% rate | Commerce calculated the new rate reflecting three additional program offsets | The Court approved the revised cash deposit rate |
Key Cases Cited
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (defines "substantial evidence" for review of agency determinations)
- Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 961 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explains double-application of ADD and CVD duties is to be avoided)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (agency determination must be reasonable)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) (sets the "substantial evidence" legal standard)