Slip Op. 20-134

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

CANADIAN SOLAR 

INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ET 

AL., 

Plaintiffs and Consolidated 

Plaintiffs, 

and 

SHANGHAI BYD CO., LTD. ET AL., 

Plaintiff-Intervenors and 

Consolidated PlaintiffIntervenors, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant, 

and 

SOLARWORLD AMERICAS, INC. ET 

AL., 

Defendant-Intervenor and 

Consolidated DefendantIntervenors. 

Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge 

Consol. Court No. 17-00173 

OPINION AND ORDER 

[Granting Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.] 

 Dated: September 14, 2020 
Consol. Court No. 17-00173 Page 2 

Craig A. Lewis, Jonathan T. Stoel, and Lindsay K. Brown, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of 

Washington, DC, for Canadian Solar International Limited; Canadian Solar 

Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc.; CSI 

Solar Power (China) Inc.; CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd.; CSI 

Cells Co., Ltd.; Canadian Solar (USA), Inc.; and Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. 

Adams Chi-Peng Lee, Harris Bricken McVay Sliwoski, LLP, of Washington, DC, for 

Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. 

Robert George Gosselink, Jarrod Mark Goldfeder, and Jonathan M. Freed, Trade 

Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Trina 

Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd.; 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.; and Trina Solar (U.S.) 

Inc. 

Richard L.A. Weiner, Rajib Pal, Shawn M. Higgins, and Justin R. Becker, Sidley 

Austin, LLP, of Washington, DC, for Yingli Green Energy Holding, Co., Ltd.; Baoding 

Tianwei Yingli 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.; Yingli 

Green Energy International Trading Co., Ltd.; Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc.; 

and Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd. 

Timothy C. Brightbill Cynthia Cristina Galvez, Laura El-Sabaawi, Maureen 

Elizabeth Thorson, Stephanie Manaker Bell, and Tessa Victoria Capeloto, Wiley Rein 

LLP, of Washington, DC, for SolarWorld Americas, Inc. 

Joshua E. Kurland, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. Also on the brief were 

Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, 

and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Ian 

McInerney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC. 

Kelly, Judge: Plaintiffs Canadian Solar International Limited; Canadian Solar 

(USA), Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc.; Canadian Solar 

Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc.; CSI Cells Co., Ltd.; CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing 
Consol. Court No. 17-00173 Page 3 

(YanCheng) Co., Ltd.; and CSI Solar Power (China) Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or 

“Canadian Solar”) move for reconsideration of Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. v. United 

States, 44 CIT __, Slip Op. 20-83 (June 15, 2020) (“Canadian Solar III”) in light of the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (“Court of Appeals”) intervening decision 

in SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 962 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020) 

(“SolarWorld”). See [Pls.’] Mot. for Reconsideration & Memo. Supp. 59(e) Mot. for 

Reconsideration or 60(b) Mot. for Relief from Judgment, July 14, 2020, ECF No. 160 

(“Pls.’ Mot.” and “Pls.’ Br.”, respectively). Defendant does not object to the motion. 

See Def.’s Resp. [Pls.’ Mot.] at 1, Aug. 14, 2020, ECF No. 166 (“Def.’s Resp. Br.”). For 

the following reasons, the court grants Canadian Solar’s motion for reconsideration. 

BACKGROUND 

The court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case as set out in its 

previous opinions ordering remand to the U.S. Department of Commerce 

(“Commerce”), and recounts those relevant to disposition of this motion. See 

Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. v. United States, 43 CIT __, __, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1292, 1298–

1300 (2019) (“Canadian Solar I”); see also Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. v. United States, 

43 CIT __, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1326, 1329–31 (2019). On June 27, 2017, Commerce 

published its final determination in its third administrative review of the 

antidumping duty (“ADD”) order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products, whether 

or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (“China” or “the 

PRC”). See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into 
Consol. Court No. 17-00173 Page 4 

Modules, From the People’s Republic of China, 82 Fed. Reg. 29,033 (Dep't Commerce 

June 27, 2017) (final results of [ADD] admin. review and final determination of no 

shipments; 2014-2015) (“Final Results”) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2014-2015 [ADD] Administrative Review 

of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, 

From [the PRC], A-570-979, (June 20, 2017), ECF No. 44-5 (“Final Decision Memo”). 

Plaintiffs challenged the Final Results, submitting, inter alia, that Commerce’s 

decision to use Thai import data published by the Global Trade Atlas (“Thai import 

data”) to value Canadian Solar’s nitrogen input was unsupported by substantial 

evidence because the data was aberrational and unreliable. See Canadian Solar I, 43 

CIT at __, 378 F. Supp. 3d at 1310. The court disagreed, sustaining Commerce’s use 

of the Thai import data, but remanding the Final Results on separate grounds. Id. 

at __, 378 F. Supp. 3d at 1325. On June 15, 2020, the court sustained Commerce’s 

second remand redetermination, and judgment entered accordingly. See generally 

Canadian Solar III, 44 CIT __, Slip Op. 20-83; Judgment, June 15, 2020 ECF No. 158. 

On June 24, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued SolarWorld, where it held that 

Commerce failed to sufficiently justify its reliance on Thai import data to value 

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.’s (“Trina”) nitrogen input in the previous 

administrative review of the same ADD order, and vacated in part this Court’s 

judgment sustaining Commerce’s final determination. See SolarWorld, 962 F.3d at 

1356–59. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration ensued. 
Consol. Court No. 17-00173 Page 5 

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2012)1 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant 

the court authority to review actions contesting the final determination in an 

administrative review of an ADD order. 

Under U.S. Court of International Trade Rule 1 and Rule 59, the decision to 

grant a motion for reconsideration rests within the sound discretion of the court. See 

Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 

Grounds for granting such a motion include “an intervening change in the controlling 

law, the availability of new evidence, the need to correct a clear factual or legal error, 

or the need to prevent manifest injustice.” Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 30 CIT 

1587, 1588 (2006); see also Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Am. v. U.S., 37 CIT, 670, 671, 916 

F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378 (2013) (“Nan Ya Plastics”). 

DISCUSSION 

Canadian Solar submits that the Court of Appeals’ decision in SolarWorld 

constitutes binding, intervening authority that clarifies legal principles directly 

relevant to this court’s decision to sustain Commerce’s reliance on Thai import data 

to value its nitrogen inputs as supported by substantial evidence in this review. See 

Pls.’ Br. at 7–14; see also SolarWorld, 962 F.3d at 1356–59; Canadian Solar I, 43 CIT 

 

1 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant 

provisions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2012 edition. 
Consol. Court No. 17-00173 Page 6 

at __, 378 F. Supp. 3d at 1310–13. Defendant does not object to Plaintiffs’ motion, 

see Def.’s Resp. Br. at 1, albeit with two qualifications. First, Defendant urges that 

any remand to Commerce be consistent with the Court of Appeals’ instruction that 

Commerce “either adequately explain why the Thai {Global Trade Atlas} data is not 

aberrational” or “adopt an alternative surrogate value for Trina’s nitrogen input.” 

Def.’s Resp. Br. at 2 (quoting SolarWorld, 962 F.3d at 1358–59). Second, Defendant 

submits that the court “should not require recalculation of rates for parties other than 

those challenging their rates in this litigation.” Id. (citations omitted). Canadian 

Solar concurs with Defendant’s requests. See Pls.’ Reply to [Def.’s Resp. Br.] at 2, 

Aug. 24, 2020, ECF No. 169. 

A party may move the court “‘to correct a significant flaw in the original 

judgment’ by directing the court to review material points of law or fact previously 

overlooked[.]” RHI Refractories Liaoning Co. v. United States, 35 CIT __, __, 752 F. 

Supp. 2d 1377, 1380 (2011) (quoting United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, 

Inc., 34 CIT 745, 748, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1301 (2010)). “An intervening change in 

the controlling law is one of the recognized grounds upon which motions for rehearing 

have been granted.” Nan Ya Plastics, 37 CIT at 671, 916 F. Supp. 2d at 1378. 

Reconsideration is necessary in this instance because SolarWorld constitutes 

an intervening change in controlling law that relates to whether Commerce’s 

determination was supported by substantial evidence. Although the court in 

Canadian Solar I held that Commerce reasonably explained why the Thai import data 
Consol. Court No. 17-00173 Page 7 

was reliable for purposes of valuing Canadian Solar’s nitrogen input, see 43 CIT at 

__, 378 F. Supp. 3d at 1310–13, the Court of Appeals in SolarWorld held that 

Commerce’s reliance on Thai import data in the previous administrative review was 

insufficiently justified, and that it appeared to be contrary to agency practice. See 

962 F.3d at 1357–59. The Court of Appeals’ holding implicates this court’s holding in 

Canadian Solar I, and although it may not necessarily require Canadian Solar’s 

success on the merits, further hearing on the matter is necessary to avoid manifest 

error. See, e.g., Nan Ya Plastics, 37 CIT at 671–73, F. Supp. 2d at 1378–80 (“In 

deciding to vacate the judgment . . . we do not decide that there necessarily is merit 

in plaintiff’s statutory claims.”). Namely, the Court of Appeals questioned 

Commerce’s practice of determining whether the Thai import data was aberrational, 

likening it to a bookend methodology that unreasonably fails to account for 

considerable differences in import volume between surrogate countries. See 

SolarWorld, 962 F.3d at 1357–59 Moreover, the Court of Appeals questioned 

Commerce’s refusal to consider the U.S. International Trade Commission’s export 

data relating to the same imports reported in the Global Trade Atlas data, noting 

significant disparities between the two sources, and holding that Commerce’s cited 

regulatory preference not to rely on export data does not sufficiently address the fact 

that both sources cannot be correct. See id. As such, the court reconsiders its holding 

that Commerce’s reliance on Thai import data is reasonable in light of the law as 
Consol. Court No. 17-00173 Page 8 

clarified by the Court of Appeals and remands the determination for further 

explanation or reconsideration of Commerce’s selection of the Thai import data. 

Regarding calculation of the separate rates, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(C) provides 

that the determination resulting from administrative review of an ADD order “shall 

be the basis for the assessment . . . of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise 

covered by the determination and for deposits of estimated duties.” Notwithstanding 

Defendant and Canadian Solar’s agreement that the court need not instruct 

Commerce to recalculate the rates of parties not subject to this litigation, Commerce 

shall conduct its remand redetermination in accordance with § 1675(a)(2)(C), and 

shall explain the lawfulness of the separate rates resulting from any changes to its 

methodology on remand. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, it is 

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is granted; and it is further 

ORDERED that the court’s Judgment, see ECF No. 158, sustaining 

Commerce’s second remand redetermination with respect to its third administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order covering crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, 

whether or not assembled into modules, from the people's republic of china, see 82 

Fed. Reg. 29,033 (Dep't Commerce June 27, 2017) (final results of [ADD] review and 

final determination of no shipments; 2014-2015) is vacated; and it is further 
Consol. Court No. 17-00173 Page 9 

ORDERED that, consistent with the Court of Appeals’ instruction in 

SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 962 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the case 

is remanded for Commerce to “either adequately explain why the Thai {Global Trade 

Atlas} data is not aberrational” or “adopt an alternative surrogate value for 

[Canadian Solar’s] nitrogen input”; and it is further 

ORDERED that Commerce shall recalculate Canadian Solar’s dumping 

margin to reflect any changes to its selection of a surrogate value for Canadian Solar’s 

nitrogen factor of production and make any other recalculations as required by law; 

and it is further 

ORDERED that Commerce shall recalculate the separate rates to the extent 

required by law and explain its determination; and it is further 

ORDERED that Commerce shall file its third remand redetermination with 

the court within 60 days of this date; and it is further 

ORDERED that the parties shall have 30 days thereafter to file comments; 

and it is further 

ORDERED that the parties shall have 30 days thereafter to file replies to 

comments on the remand redetermination; and it is further 

ORDERED that the parties shall have 14 days thereafter to file the Joint 

Appendix; and it is further 
Consol. Court No. 17-00173 Page 10 

ORDERED that Commerce shall file the administrative record within 14 days 

of the date of filing of its remand redetermination. 

 /s/ Claire R. Kelly 

 Claire R. Kelly, Judge 

Dated: September 14, 2020 

 New York, New York