Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co., Ltd. v. United States
1:23-cv-00228
Ct. Intl. TradeMay 19, 2025Background
- The U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells made in China since 2012.
- Auxin Solar Inc. requested an investigation into whether imports of solar cells from Vietnam (and other Southeast Asian nations) circumvented these duties by using Chinese components.
- Commerce investigated 26 Vietnamese companies, designating Boviet and Vina as mandatory respondents; some companies cooperated while others did not.
- Commerce found that Boviet’s assembly process was not minor or insignificant, while it found Vina and uncooperative companies in circumvention, often based on adverse facts available (AFA) due to non-cooperation.
- Trina Solar and FPL (plaintiffs/intervenors) challenged Commerce’s country-wide affirmative circumvention determination, especially as applied to cooperating (but unexamined) companies.
- The Court reviewed Commerce’s approach for substantial evidence and proper legal reasoning under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce properly found the process of assembly/completion by Vina and uncooperative companies to be “minor or insignificant" | Trina: Commerce ignored the significant nature of the production process and based its finding solely on AFA without proper balancing of statutory factors | United States: Relied on AFA due to lack of cooperation; findings on 3 factors justified affirmative result | Court: Commerce’s treatment was arbitrary; must consider and balance all statutory factors before a determination |
| Whether Commerce unlawfully applied adverse inferences to cooperating, unexamined companies in its country-wide determination | Trina: Statute forbids AFA for cooperating parties; applying findings based on non-cooperation is improper | United States: Used country-wide remedy per regulation; not technically AFA for cooperators, just extension of findings due to volume/export considerations | Court: No statutory violation; Commerce can extend remedy under regulations if justified, but must explain why |
| Whether Commerce must base a country-wide determination on the exoneration of a cooperative respondent (Boviet) or negative findings for noncooperative ones | Trina & FPL: Country-wide negative determination should track Boviet’s exoneration and Commerce should not rely on findings for noncooperators | United States: Reasonable to extend findings from noncooperators due to their export volume; two clear templates for remedy based on record | Court: Commerce reasonably chose the latter given the record, but must better articulate its reasoning on remand |
| Whether Commerce’s process for remedy decisions requires balancing the same statutory factors as circumvention determinations | Trina: Remedy should reflect outcome on statutory factors for assembly process | United States: Statutory balancing is for circumvention determination, not remedy stage; remedy is based on available evidence and regulation | Court: Remedy determination is separate; factors are for circumvention only; Commerce acted within regulatory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (clarifies standard of review for substantial evidence for agency decisions)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (sets forth substantial evidence review principles)
- SSIH Equip. S.A. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 718 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (delineates court deference to agency factual determinations when conflicting evidence exists)