United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CANADIAN SOLAR, INC., CANADIAN SOLAR 

INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, CANADIAN SOLAR 

MANUFACTURING (LUOYANG), INC., CANADIAN 

SOLAR MANUFACTURING (CHANGSHU), INC., 

CSI CELLS CO., LTD., CSI SOLAR POWER (CHINA) 

INC., CSI SOLARTRONICS (CHANGSHU) CO., 

LTD., CSI SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., CSI 

SOLAR MANUFACTURE INC., CSI NEW ENERGY 

HOLDING CO., LTD., CSI-GCL SOLAR 

MANUFACTURING (YANCHENG) CO., LTD., 

CHANGSHU TEGU NEW MATERIALS 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., CHANGSHU TLIAN CO., 

LTD., SUZHOU SANYSOLAR MATERIALS 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., CANADIAN SOLAR 

(USA), INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

SUMEC HARDWARE & TOOLS CO., LTD., 

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., 

CHANGZHOU TRINA PV RIBBON MATERIALS 

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES,

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 01/28/2022
2 CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US

Defendant-Appellee

SOLARWORLD AMERICAS, INC.,

Defendant

______________________ 

2021-1434

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:18-cv-00184-JAR, 1:18-cv-00185-JAR, 

1:18-cv-00186-JAR, 1:18-cv-00187-JAR, Senior Judge Jane 

A. Restani.

______________________ 

Decided: January 28, 2022

______________________ 

SARAH WYSS, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by 

BRYAN CENKO, JILL CRAMER, JEFFREY S. GRIMSON, WENHUI 

JI, KRISTIN HEIM MOWRY. 

 JUSTIN REINHART MILLER, International Trade Field 

Office, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, JEANNE DAVIDSON, TARA K.

HOGAN; PAUL KEITH, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade 

Enforcement & Compliance, United States Department of 

Commerce, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and CHEN,

Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 01/28/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 3

Appellants Canadian Solar, Inc. et al.1 (collectively, Canadian Solar) are producers and exporters of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. These photovoltaic cells 

were imported into the United States from the People’s Republic of China, and the United States Department of Commerce (Commerce), after an investigation, issued an order 

imposing a duty to counteract subsidies Canadian Solar received from the government of China.

During its fourth administrative review of that countervailing duty order, Commerce determined on remand 

that Canadian Solar received regionally specific electricity 

subsidies subject to countervailing duties under 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677(5A)(D)(iv). Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand at 14–19, Canadian Solar Inc. v. 

United States, No. 18-00184 (Ct. Int’l Trade June 26, 2020), 

ECF No. 95-1 (Remand Redetermination). To reach this 

conclusion, Commerce identified electricity price variation 

across the different provinces and applied adverse facts 

available—due to the central government of China’s failure 

to cooperate in Commerce’s investigation—to conclude that 

the central government sets variable electricity pricing 

that is region-specific for development purposes. See id.

at 19. The Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained 

Commerce’s Remand Redetermination. Canadian Solar 

1 In addition to Canadian Solar, Inc., Appellants include Canadian Solar International Ltd., Canadian Solar 

Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., CSI Cells Co., Ltd., CSI Solar 

Power (China) Inc., CSI Solartronics (Changshu) Co., Ltd., 

CSI Solar Technologies Inc., CSI Solar Manufacture Inc., 

CSI New Energy Holding Co., Ltd., CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (Yancheng) Co., Ltd., Changshu Tegu New Materials Technology Co., Ltd., Changshu Tlian Co., Ltd., 

Suzhou Sanysolar Materials Technology Co., Ltd., and Canadian Solar (USA), Inc.

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 01/28/2022
4 CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US

Inc. v. United States, No. 18-00184, slip op. 20-149, 2020 

WL 6129754 (Ct. Int’l Trade Oct. 19, 2020) (Canadian Solar II). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

A 

Commerce is required to impose a countervailing duty 

on imported merchandise when it “determines that the 

government of a country or any public entity within the territory of a country is providing, directly or indirectly, a 

countervailable subsidy.” 19 U.S.C. § 1671(a)(1). A subsidy is countervailable when it is “specific.” Id.

§ 1677(5)(A). One type of specific subsidy is a subsidy “limited to an enterprise or industry located within a designated geographical region within the jurisdiction of the 

authority providing the subsidy.” Id. § 1677(5A)(D)(iv). 

Such a subsidy is referred to as a regionally specific subsidy.

If, during investigation or review of a countervailing 

duty order, Commerce determines that (a) “necessary information is not available on the record” or (b) “an interested party or any other person . . . withholds information 

that has been requested by [Commerce],” “fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines . . . or in the form and 

manner requested,” “significantly impedes a proceeding,” 

or “provides such information but the information cannot 

be verified,” Commerce must use “facts otherwise available.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a); see also Changzhou Trina Solar 

Energy Co. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 

2020). If Commerce further “finds that an interested party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 

to comply with a request for information,” then Commerce 

“may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of 

that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 

available.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). To reach an adverse inference, Commerce can rely on information from the petition, a final determination in the investigation, prior 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 01/28/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 5

administrative reviews, or “any other information placed 

on the record.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(2); see also 19 C.F.R. 

§ 351.308(c); Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co. v. United States, 

602 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

B 

On February 13, 2017, Commerce initiated the fourth 

administrative review of the countervailing duty order at 

issue. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Admin. Revs., 82 Fed. Reg. 10,457, 10,457, 10,462 

(Dep’t Commerce Feb. 13, 2017). The order imposed duties 

on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells manufactured in 

China and imported into the United States. As part of its 

review, Commerce initiated an investigation and selected 

Canadian Solar as one of the mandatory respondents. 

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From China: Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Admin. Rev., and Rescission of Rev., 

in Part; 2015, 83 Fed. Reg. 1235, 1236 (Dep’t Commerce 

Jan. 10, 2018), and accompanying Decision Memorandum 

for Preliminary Results at 2–3 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 2, 

2018) (Preliminary Memo). Of relevance to this case, Commerce sought to determine whether Canadian Solar benefitted from receiving electricity for less than adequate 

remuneration (LTAR). Preliminary Memo, at 25–26. 

To understand whether Canadian Solar received electricity subsidies, Commerce sent questionnaires to the government of China. Among other things, Commerce 

requested provincial price proposals, descriptions of how 

the National Development and Reform Commission 

(NDRC) is involved in electricity price-setting, and an explanation of how electricity pricing is responsive to market 

variables. J.A. 157–65. The parties do not dispute that the 

government of China declined to provide complete responses to Commerce’s inquiries. Because, in Commerce’s 

view, the government of China “failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply” with Commerce’s 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 01/28/2022
6 CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US

request and because the requested information was “key to 

[Commerce’s] understanding of the [government of

China’s] role in establishing electricity prices at the local 

provincial level,” Commerce applied adverse facts available 

to conclude that Canadian Solar received a countervailable 

subsidy through below-market electricity prices. Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled 

Into Modules, From China: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Admin. Rev.; 2015, 83 Fed. Reg. 34,828, 34,829 (Dep’t 

Commerce July 23, 2018) (Final Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum for the Final Results at 14–15 

(Dep’t Commerce July 12, 2018) (Final Memo).2 Commerce 

also applied adverse facts available to calculate the countervailing duty rate.3 Final Memo, at 33–34.

Canadian Solar subsequently filed suit in the CIT challenging various components of the Final Results, including 

Commerce’s finding that Canadian Solar received a 

2 Commerce later amended its Final Results to adjust the overall countervailing duty rate to account for an 

error unrelated to the electricity subsidy. Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into 

Modules, From China: Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Admin. Rev.; 2015, 83 Fed. Reg. 54,566, 

54,567 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 30, 2018).

3 On remand, Commerce assessed Canadian Solar a 

total countervailing duty rate of 5.02 percent. Remand Redetermination, at 59. This accounts for subsidies received 

for solar grade polysilicon, solar glass, electricity, and land, 

as well as export credits, development program benefits, 

preferential lending, and tax benefits. Final Memo, at 8–

9; Remand Redetermination, at 59. The countervailing 

duty rate for subsidized electricity comprised 0.53 percent. 

Remand Redetermination, at 59. Only the electricity subsidy is on appeal and Canadian Solar does not challenge 

the rate calculation.

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 6 Filed: 01/28/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 7

countervailable electricity subsidy. Canadian Solar Inc. v. 

United States, No. 18-00184, slip op. 20-23, 2020 WL 

898557, at *4 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 25, 2020). Commerce 

requested a voluntary remand and the CIT granted the request. Id.

On remand, Commerce provided a revised determination that Canadian Solar received a regionally specific subsidy under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D)(iv). Remand 

Redetermination, at 14. As support for this finding, Commerce noted that the parties did not dispute “that electricity prices vary from province to province in China.” Id. 

Because the government of China declined to provide certain “key information” as to the electricity price variation 

across the provinces, Commerce was unable to “confirm 

that market and commercial principles explain the variation in electricity prices on the record.” Id. at 15–16. 

First, the government of China refused to provide “provincial price proposals for each of the relevant provinces,” 

which would have helped Commerce determine why the 

electricity prices varied by province, including by identifying “market- or cost-based reasons underlying the variation.” Id. at 15. Second, the government of China’s

response lacked “a detailed description of the cost elements 

and price adjustments that were discussed between the 

provinces and the NDRC,” which would have helped Commerce ascertain whether the NDRC was involved in price 

setting as well as why prices varied by province. Id. at 15–

16. Finally, the government of China’s response was devoid of any “province-specific explanations” for price variation, such as how costs inform provincial electricity prices. 

Id. at 16. This would have also helped Commerce determine “whether there is a market- or cost-based explanation 

for variation among provinces.” Id.

After finding that the government of China failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, Commerce applied adverse 

facts available to conclude that “the provision of electricity 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 7 Filed: 01/28/2022
8 CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US

is a countervailable subsidy program whereby the central 

Chinese government, through the NDRC in Beijing, sets 

different prices in different regions under its authority (i.e., 

the provinces) without any commercial or market considerations, but instead for development purposes.” Id. at 19. 

Commerce then used the highest electricity prices from the 

province-by-province price list as its benchmarks for calculating Canadian Solar’s duty rate. Id.

Following the Remand Redetermination, Canadian Solar filed a second suit before the CIT challenging Commerce’s findings that Canadian Solar received 

countervailable electricity subsidies, as well as several 

other findings. Canadian Solar II, at *1. The CIT sustained Commerce’s determination. Id. at *7.

Canadian Solar appeals, arguing that Commerce’s application of adverse facts available to determine that the 

electricity program was a regionally specific subsidy was 

not supported by substantial evidence because Commerce 

allegedly ignored the provincial price schedules and failed 

to identify a single geographic region receiving subsidies. 

See Appellants’ Br. 15–16. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(5).

DISCUSSION

We review Commerce’s determinations under the same 

standard of review as the CIT and uphold those determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence and 

otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i); SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v. United States, 

910 F.3d 1216, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Downhole Pipe 

& Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015)). “Substantial evidence is ‘more than a mere 

scintilla’; rather it is such ‘evidence that a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Changzhou Trina, 975 F.3d at 1326 (quoting Downhole Pipe, 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 8 Filed: 01/28/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 9

776 F.3d at 1374). When assessing whether Commerce’s

factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, 

“[w]e look to ‘the record as a whole, including evidence that 

supports as well as evidence that fairly detracts from the 

substantiality of the evidence.’” SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 

1222 (quoting Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United 

States, 652 F.3d 1333, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Although we 

review the CIT’s decision de novo, “we give great weight” 

to the CIT’s “informed opinion,” which “is nearly always the 

starting point of our analysis.” Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. 

United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Ningbo Dafa Chem. Fiber Co. v. United States, 580 F.3d 

1247, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). 

The record here supports Commerce’s conclusions. In 

its Remand Redetermination, Commerce sufficiently and 

reasonably explained that it lacked key information because the government of China failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 

information. As a result, Commerce was forced to fill informational gaps and properly relied on adverse inferences 

to find that Canadian Solar received a regionally specific 

electricity subsidy that must be countervailed.

A. Electricity Subsidy

Commerce is entitled to apply adverse facts available 

where, as here, an interested party declines to provide requested information and fails to cooperate with an investigation. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b); Changzhou Trina, 

975 F.3d at 1327. This includes “when a government fails 

to respond to Commerce’s questions.” Fine Furniture 

(Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014). This court has specifically upheld the application of adverse facts available where “the government of 

China refused to provide information as to how the electricity process and costs varied among the various provinces 

that supplied electricity to industries within their areas” 

and “did not provide the data sufficient to establish the 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 9 Filed: 01/28/2022
10 CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US

benchmark price for electricity.” Id. at 1372. Commerce 

identified comparable informational gaps in this case. See 

Remand Redetermination, at 14–19 (“[T]he [government of 

China] refused to provide key information that would allow 

Commerce to confirm its claims . . . . Without such information, Commerce cannot confirm that market and commercial principles explain the variation in electricity prices 

. . . .”).

Canadian Solar argues that Commerce improperly ignored the provincial price schedules. Appellants’ Br. 22. 

In its view, these price schedules “demonstrate that no region in China received subsidized electricity prices,” and 

therefore Commerce did not need to fill any informational 

gaps with adverse inferences. Id.; see also id. at 31 (“[T]he 

price schedules clearly demonstrate on their face that no 

geographic region received an alleged electricity subsidy . . . .”). While Canadian Solar is correct that Commerce may not rely on adverse facts available when the 

record is not missing information or otherwise deficient, 

Zhejiang DunAn, 652 F.3d at 1348, in this case Commerce 

expressly considered the price schedules and reached the 

opposite conclusion, Remand Redetermination, at 14. Commerce relied on adverse inferences to fill two critical informational gaps raised (not resolved) by the provincial price 

schedules: “why prices vary from province to province and 

who makes the decision—ultimately—to set or allow distinct prices in each province.” Id.

Commerce could not determine why prices vary because the government of China failed “to demonstrate that 

such variances are in accordance with market principles or 

cost differences.” Id. at 15. The government of China asserted that “[e]lectricity prices in China are based on market principles” but “refused to provide key information that 

would allow Commerce to confirm its claims.” Id. at 15. As 

described above, Commerce requested and the government 

of China declined to provide provincial price proposals, a 

description of cost and price discussions between the 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 10 Filed: 01/28/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 11

provinces and the NDRC, and province-specific cost and 

price considerations. Id. at 15–16. Without this specifically requested information, Commerce could not determine the root cause for the price disparities. Id. at 15–16. 

Commerce therefore inferred that the government of China 

provided electricity subsidies “for development purposes” 

by setting lower electricity prices for enterprises located in 

provinces such as the ones where Canadian Solar operates. 

Id. at 15, 19.

To determine the entity responsible for setting the electricity subsidies, Commerce relied on documents indicating 

that the NDRC set electricity prices at the national level. 

These documents include NDRC Notices indicating that, at 

least in years prior, the NDRC was entitled to, among other 

things, implement coal and electricity price bidding systems, adopt price intervention measures, adjust provincial 

price levels, and reduce electricity prices for industrial and 

commercial users. Id. at 17–18. Commerce credited this 

evidence over the government of China’s uncorroborated 

narrative responses claiming that the provinces set their 

own prices. Id. at 16–19; id. at 17 (“Based on our examination of the additional documentation, as well as the [government of China] questionnaire response, we concluded 

the following demonstrated that the NDRC was still ultimately in control of the price setting system and that the 

2015 changes had not affected how the system operated in 

practice . . . .”). In so finding, Commerce noted that the 

purported delegation of price setting authority to the provinces marked an unsubstantiated shift from the government of China’s position during all three prior 

administrative reviews of the same countervailing duty order. Id. at 16.

This case is distinguishable from Diamond Sawblades

Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, 986 F.3d 1351 

(Fed. Cir. 2021). In Diamond Sawblades, we held that 

Commerce improperly disregarded all product origin information where “Commerce ha[d] not satisfactorily 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 11 Filed: 01/28/2022
12 CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US

explained why substantial evidence supports its determination of unreliability.” Id. at 1366. While Canadian Solar 

considers the provincial price schedules to be similarly disregarded evidence of provincial price-setting, in this case

Commerce expressly considered the record evidence, including the provincial price schedules and NDRC Notices. 

Based on the record, Commerce reasonably determined it 

required additional information regarding the basis for and 

source of the price variation in order to assess whether Canadian Solar had received an electricity subsidy.

At most, Commerce and Canadian Solar reached inconsistent conclusions based on the same evidence. This does 

not, however, render Commerce’s findings unsupported by 

substantial evidence. Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United 

States, 996 F.3d 1283, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Commerce’s 

finding may still be supported by substantial evidence even 

if two inconsistent conclusions can be drawn from the evidence.” (quoting SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 1222)).

We therefore agree with the CIT that Commerce’s adverse inference that the government of China subsidized 

electricity is supported by substantial evidence.

B. Regional Specificity

Canadian Solar also argues that instead of identifying

a particular subsidized region, as it believes is required by 

statute, Commerce improperly “ascrib[ed] the supposedly 

regional subsidy program to every single region and province across China.” Appellants’ Br. 42–43. This, Canadian 

Solar argues, “is the antithesis of a reasonable specificity 

determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D)(iv),” id. at 

49, and, as a result, Commerce’s regional specificity finding 

cannot be supported by substantial evidence, id. at 52. We 

disagree. 

Section 1677(5A)(D)(iv) provides that a subsidy is regionally specific where it is “limited to an enterprise or industry located within a designated geographical region 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 12 Filed: 01/28/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 13

within the jurisdiction of the authority providing the subsidy.” We agree with the CIT that, where documents support the inference that the central government of China 

was involved in provincial electricity pricing that results in

regional price variability, substantial evidence supports 

Commerce’s finding that there is a countervailable regionally specific subsidy. Canadian Solar II, at *3; see also 

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 

466 F. Supp. 3d 1287, 1302 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (holding 

that “Commerce’s determination that the subsidy is regionally specific” was sufficiently supported where “Commerce 

noted two factual bases for a determination of specificity: 

(1) unexplained regional price variability and (2) central 

government action via the NDRC”).

The CIT’s decision in Royal Thai Government v. United 

States is instructive. 441 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

2006). In Royal Thai, the CIT found that Commerce “reasonably determined” that an electricity subsidy provided 

by the Royal Thai Government “satisfied the requirements 

of regional specificity” where “[a]ccess to this relatively 

cheaper electricity was expressly contingent on only one 

factor: a company’s regional location within Thailand.” Id.

at 1358. Accepting Commerce’s adverse inferences in the 

present case, the electricity subsidies provided by the government of China also depend only on a company’s regional 

location since the price of electricity varies by province. Remand Redetermination, at 19, 40. 

This holds true even if, as Canadian Solar contends,

electricity subsidies are available across different provinces. Appellants’ Br. 49. On this ground, we agree with 

the CIT’s reasoning in Samsung Electronics Co. v. United 

States, 973 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014). There, 

the CIT rejected an argument that “regional specificity 

should be limited to ‘administrative jurisdictions such as 

provinces or states,’” id. at 1328 (citation omitted), and upheld Commerce’s finding that a tax credit available anywhere in South Korea “outside the Seoul Metropolitan 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 13 Filed: 01/28/2022
14 CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US

Area” was geographically specific, id. at 1328–29. In other 

words, even if a particular electricity subsidy is provided to 

more than one province, so long as it is provided to less 

than all regions or varies by region, that subsidy can be 

fairly regarded as regionally specific under the statute.

Canadian Solar also argues that the benchmark calculations render Commerce’s regional specificity findings unreasonable. Appellants’ Br. 45. To calculate the 

countervailing duty rate, Commerce compared each of Canadian Solar’s electricity rates to the highest provincial 

rate for the relevant category. Remand Redetermination, 

at 19 (“The amount of the subsidy we infer to be the difference between what the respondent is paying and the highest tariffs set for any province.”). As Commerce explained, 

this issue arises only because the government of China declined to provide information that would have permitted 

Commerce to identify an unsubsidized province or unsubsidized rates. Id. at 40–41. In the absence of that information, it was reasonable for Commerce to infer that the 

highest rate in each category was unsubsidized.

Canadian Solar argues that this approach “signifies 

that users in all regions are subsidized” instead of designating a single subsidized region. Appellants’ Br. 49. But 

Commerce’s rate calculation does not undermine the separate conclusion that the electricity subsidies are geographically specific because the rates depend on the province in 

which an enterprise is located. Remand Redetermination, 

at 19.

Accordingly, we agree with the CIT that Commerce’s 

regional specificity findings are supported by substantial 

evidence. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments 

and do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing 

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 14 Filed: 01/28/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 15

reasons, we affirm the Court of International Trade’s judgment.

AFFIRMED

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 15 Filed: 01/28/2022