[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 158 (Thursday, August 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46678-46680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17792]


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

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 Court 
Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results

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


[[Page 46679]]


SUMMARY: On August 10, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., 
Ltd. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 18-00176, sustaining 
the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) second remand redetermination 
pertaining to the 2015-2016 antidumping duty (AD) administrative review 
of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled 
into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China 
(China). Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment 
in this litigation is not in harmony with the final results reached by 
Commerce in the 2015-2016 AD administrative review of solar cells from 
China, and that Commerce is amending the final results of that review 
with respect to the dumping margin calculated for Trina and certain 
separate rate respondents.

DATES: Applicable August 20, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 27, 2018, Commerce published the Final Results of its 2015-
2016 AD administrative review of solar cells from China.\1\ Trina \2\ 
appealed Commerce's Final Results. On May 13, 2020, the CIT remanded to 
Commerce for further explanation or reconsideration its decision to use 
Maersk Line (Maersk) data, rather than Xeneta XS (Xeneta) data, to 
value ocean freight expenses.\3\ The CIT also held that Commerce's 
decision to not adjust Trina's U.S. prices to account for 
countervailing duties related to the Export Buyer's Credit Program 
(EBCP) was contrary to law.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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; 2015-2016, 83 FR 35616 (July 27, 
2018) (Final Results).
    \2\ In the Final Results, Commerce treated the following seven 
companies as a single entity: Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., 
Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and 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./Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and 
Technology Co., Ltd (collectively, Trina).
    \3\ See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al., 450 F. 
Supp. 3d 1301 (CIT 2020).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its first remand redetermination, Commerce continued to value 
Trina's ocean freight expenses using Maersk data, rather than Xeneta 
data; however, under protest, Commerce increased Trina's U.S. prices by 
the amount of countervailing duty imposed to offset the export subsidy 
provided by the Ex-Im Bank of China's EBCP.\5\ In its second remand 
order, the CIT again directed Commerce to reconsider or further explain 
its valuation of ocean freight expenses, but it sustained Commerce's 
adjustment of Trina's U.S. prices to account for the Ex-Im Bank of 
China's EBCP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Final Results of Remand Redetermination, Changzhou Trina 
Solar Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Court No. 18-00176, 
Slip Op. 20-64 (Court of International Trade May 13, 2020) (August 
6, 2020).
    \6\ See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 492 
F. Supp. 3d 1322 (CIT 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its second remand redetermination, Commerce valued Trina's ocean 
freight expenses using Xeneta data, recalculated Trina's dumping margin 
based on this change, and assigned Trina's recalculated dumping margin 
to the separate rate respondents which participated in the litigation 
that led to the remand redetermination.\7\ On August 10, 2021, the CIT 
sustained Commerce's second remand redetermination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Final Results of Remand Redetermination Pursuant to 
Court Remand, Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al., v. 
United States Court No. 18-00176, Slip Op. 21-2 (CIT January 4, 
2021) (April 5, 2021).
    \8\ See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al. v. United 
States, Consol. Court No. 18-00176, Slip. Op. 21-98 (CIT August 10, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\9\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\10\ the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a 
court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce determination 
and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court 
decision. The CIT's August 10, 2021, judgment constitutes a final court 
decision that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, 
this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements 
of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \10\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending 
its Final Results. The amended weighted-average dumping margin for the 
respondents which participated in the litigation is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                          Exporter                              dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar                  5.08
 (Changzhou) Science and 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./Trina Solar (Hefei)
 Science and Technology Co., Ltd............................
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.......................................        5.08
JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd.......................        5.08
Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.......................        5.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because the cash deposit rates for all of the companies listed 
above have a superseded by subsequent cash deposit rates (i.e., cash 
deposit rates have been established for these companies in subsequent 
final results of reviews), this notice does not affect the current cash 
deposit rates of these companies. Accordingly, we will not issue 
revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) for these companies.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from 
liquidating entries of subject merchandise that was exported by any of 
the companies listed above and that was entered into the United States, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period December 
1, 2015, through November 30, 2016. These entries will remain enjoined 
pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any 
appeals process.
    In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, 
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of 
subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by the review 
when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de 
minimis. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero 
or de

[[Page 46680]]

minimis,\11\ we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries 
without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(c) and (e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 13, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-17792 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P