[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79165-79168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27030]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-979]


Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled 
Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction 
to the Final Results of the 2017-2018 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is correcting its notice 
of the final results of the sixth administrative review of the 
antidumping duty (AD) order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, 
whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's 
Republic of China (China). The period of review (POR) is December 1, 
2017 through November 30, 2018.

DATES: Applicable December 9, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2769.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 2, 2020, Commerce published the final results of the 
2017-2018 administrative review of the AD order on solar cells from 
China in the Federal Register.\1\ On September 30, 2020, one company 
claiming that it had no shipments under review contended that in the 
Final Results Commerce incorrectly identified it as ``LERRI Solar 
Technology Co., Ltd'' (LERRI) and that its correct name is ``LONGi 
Solar Technology Co. Ltd. (a.k.a. LERRI Solar Technology Co., Ltd.).'' 
\2\ On October 6, 2020, Trina \3\ and Risen \4\ submitted timely 
ministerial error comments.\5\ Specifically, Trina and Risen allege 
that we applied the incorrect amount in valuing their tempered glass 
inputs. Risen also alleges that we incorrectly valued its junction box 
inputs and incorrectly calculated the surrogate financial ratios. On 
October 12, 2020, SunPower Manufacturing Oregon LLC (the petitioner) 
submitted a timely rebuttal proposing an alternative to Trina and 
Risen's suggest valuation of tempered glass, arguing that there was no 
ministerial error in the valuation of Risen junction boxes, and 
asserting that labor was omitted from the calculation of surrogate 
financial ratios.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not 
Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Determination of No Shipments; 2017-2018, 85 FR 62275 (October 2, 
2020) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ See LERRI's Letter, ``LONGi Request for Correction of 
Clerical Error in the Final Results including Customs 
Instructions,'' dated September 30, 2020.
    \3\ As noted in the Final Results, we are treating Trina Solar 
Co., Ltd.; Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; 
Yancheng Trina Guoneng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd (formerly, 
Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd.); Changzhou Trina 
Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd.; Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; 
Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and 
Technology Co., Ltd.; and Changzhou Trina Hezhong Photoelectric Co., 
Ltd. (collectively Trina) as a single entity.
    \4\ As noted in the Final Results, we are treating Risen Energy 
Co., Ltd.; Risen (Wuhai) New Energy Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Twinsel 
Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.; Risen (Luoyang) New Energy Co., 
Ltd.; Jiujiang Shengchao Xinye Technology Co., Ltd.; Jiujiang 
Shengzhao Xinye Trade Co., Ltd. Ruichang Branch, and Risen Energy 
(HongKong) Co., Ltd. (collectively Risen) as a single entity.
    Barcode.
    \5\ See Risen's Letter, ``Risen Ministerial Error Comments,'' 
dated October 6, 2020; see also Trina's Letter, ``Ministerial Error 
Allegation,'' dated October 6, 2020.
    \6\ See Petitioner's Letter ``Response to Ministerial Error 
Allegations,'' dated October 12, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of 
crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or 
fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, 
modules, laminates, panels and building

[[Page 79166]]

integrated materials.\7\ Merchandise covered by the order is 
classifiable under subheading 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 
8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a complete description of the scope of the order, see 
Final Results IDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ministerial Errors

    Section 351.224(e) of Commerce's regulations provides that Commerce 
will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any 
ministerial error by amending the final determination or the final 
results of the review. Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a ``ministerial error'' 
as an error ``in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, 
clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the 
like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the 
Secretary considers ministerial.''
    We analyzed the ministerial error comments and determined, in 
accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e) and 
(f), that we made the following ministerial errors: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Memorandum, ``Allegations of Ministerial Errors in the 
Final Results,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) In the Final Results, we stated our intention to value tempered 
glass using Romanian imports of HTS 7007.19.80.\9\ However, we 
incorrectly applied a value of 2.19 euros per kilogram (kg). Record 
evidence demonstrates the average unit value of Romanian imports of HTS 
7007.19.80 to be 1.87 euros per kg, and we have corrected for this 
error in our calculation by valuing tempered glass using the 1.87 euros 
per kg amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) As accurately noted by Risen, we determined in the Final 
Results that ``Malaysian HTS 8544.42.9400 and HTS 8544.60.1100 most 
closely correspond with the various junction boxes used by Risen.'' 
\10\ However, we stated that data for Malaysian imports of HTS 
8544.42.9400 were not on the record and so it was not possible to 
average the values under Malaysian HTS 8544.42.9400 with the values 
under Malaysian HTS 8544.60.1100. We thus relied solely on Malaysian 
imports of HTS 8544.60.1100 to value Risen's junction box consumption. 
However, data for Malaysian imports of HTS 8544.42.9400 were in fact on 
the record and so we have corrected this error by relying on an simple 
average of Malaysian imports of HTS 8544.42.9400 and HTS 8544.60.1100 
to value Risen's consumption of junction boxes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) We failed to identify that the Risen collapsed entity included 
Risen Energy (Changzhou) Co., Ltd. in the rate section of the Final 
Results. We have corrected for this by adding Risen Energy (Changzhou) 
Co., Ltd. to the Risen collapsed entity in the rate section.
    (4) We failed to include, in the calculation of Trina's normal 
value, the cost of the silver paste consumed by Trina. We have 
corrected for this error by including this cost in the calculation of 
Trina's normal value.
    We found that we did not commit a ministerial error by not 
including ``LONGi Solar Technology Co. Ltd.'' in the name that we used 
to identify LERRI. Because a review was requested and initiated under 
the name LERRI,\11\ our no shipments determination applies with respect 
to that name and we used that name in the Final Results. Thus, our 
omission of the other company name was correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 84 FR 9297 (March 14, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also disagree with Risen's contention that we committed a 
ministerial error by incorrectly classifying certain expenses in 
calculating the surrogate financial ratios. Risen's argument is 
methodological in nature.

Separate Rates

    In the Final Results we found that Trina, Risen, and 16 other 
companies/company groups were eligible for a separate rate. Commerce 
assigned a dumping margin to the separate rate companies that it did 
not individually examine, but which demonstrated their eligibility for 
a separate rate, based on the mandatory respondents' dumping 
margins.\12\ Because Trina's and Risen's margins have changed due to 
the correction of ministerial errors, we have recalculated the rate 
assigned to the non-individually examined separate rate companies.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Final Results, 85 at 62276.
    \13\ This rate is based on the rates for the respondents that 
were selected for individual review, excluding rates that are zero, 
de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. See section 
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. See Memorandum, ``Amended Calculation of 
the Cash Deposit Rate for Non-Reviewed Companies,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of correcting the four ministerial errors discussed 
above, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the POR:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                     Producers/exporters                        dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trina Solar Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and          92.52
 Technology Co., Ltd./Yancheng Trina Guoneng Photovoltaic
 Technology Co., Ltd./Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy
 Co., Ltd./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina
 Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and
 Technology Co., Ltd./Changzhou Trina Hezhong Photoelectric
 Co., Ltd...................................................
Risen Energy Co. Ltd./Risen (Wuhai) New Energy Co., Ltd./         100.79
 Zhejiang Twinsel Electronic Technology Co., Ltd./Risen
 (Luoyang) New Energy Co., Ltd./Jiujiang Shengchao Xinye
 Technology Co., Ltd./Jiujiang Shengzhao Xinye Trade Co.,
 Ltd./Ruichang Branch, Risen Energy (HongKong) Co., Ltd./
 Risen Energy (Changzhou) Co., Ltd..........................
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following
 Companies:
Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd.......       95.50
Canadian Solar International Limited/Canadian Solar                95.50
 Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc./Canadian Solar Manufacturing
 (Luoyang) Inc./CSI Cells Co., Ltd./CSI-GCL Solar
 Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd./CSI Solar Power (China)
 Inc. (Canadian Solar)......................................
JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd.......................       95.50
Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd..................................       95.50
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.......................................       95.50
Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. (Jinko)...............................       95.50
Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd. (Jinko I&E).........       95.50

[[Page 79167]]

 
Jinko Solar International Limited (Jinko Int'l).............       95.50
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.......................................       95.50
Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.......................       95.50
Shenzhen Portable Electronic Technology Co., Ltd............       95.50
Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd.............................       95.50
Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd..........................       95.50
Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited/Baoding Tianwei Yingli       95.50
 New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Tianjin Yingli New Energy
 Resources Co., Ltd./Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources
 Co., Ltd./Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./
 Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd./Beijing
 Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Hainan
 Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Shenzhen Yingli New
 Energy Resources Co., Ltd..................................
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd...............................       95.50
Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited       95.50
 Liability Company..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide 
entity applies to this administrative review.\14\ Under this policy, 
the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party 
specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the 
entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, 
and we did not self-initiate a review of the entity, the entity is not 
under review, and the entity's dumping margin (i.e., 238.95 percent) is 
not subject to change as a result of this review.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in 
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty 
Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity 
in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November 
4, 2013).
    \15\ See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not 
Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 83 FR 35616 (July 27, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    We will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by 
this review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the publication date of these amended final results of review. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- or 
customer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this 
review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average 
dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), we will 
calculate importer- or customer-specific assessment rates for 
merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent reported 
reliable entered values, we calculated importer- or customer-specific 
ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all 
U.S. sales to the importer or customer and dividing this amount by the 
total entered value of the sales to the importer or customer.\16\ Where 
we calculated an importer- or customer-specific weighted-average 
dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed 
sales to the importer or customer by the total sales quantity 
associated with those transactions, we will direct CBP to assess 
importer- or customer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting 
per-unit rates.\17\ Where an importer- or customer- specific ad valorem 
or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, we will instruct CBP to 
collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation. Where either 
the respondent's weighted average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, 
or an importer or customer-specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero 
or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries 
without regard to antidumping duties.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8103 (February 14, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For merchandise whose sale/entry was not reported in the U.S. sales 
database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this 
review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (i.e., 
at the individually-examined exporter's cash deposit rate), we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate. 
Additionally, if we determine that an exporter under review had no 
shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that 
entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the 
China-wide rate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), for a full 
discussion of this practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the amended final results of this administrative review 
for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of this notice in the Federal Register, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed in the table in 
the ``Amended Final Results of Review'' section above, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate listed for each exporter in the table, except if 
the rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), then the 
cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated Chinese 
and non-Chinese exporters that received a separate rate in a prior 
segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of 
subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate previously 
established for the China-wide entity (i.e., 238.95 percent); and (4) 
for all non-China exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied the non-Chinese 
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these amended 
final results within five days of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement

[[Page 79168]]

of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries 
during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result 
in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties 
occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of 
APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    These corrections to the final results and notice are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 2, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-27030 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P