Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Commerce International Trade Administration [A-570-979]
 AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
 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] 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] 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] 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.* 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: Exporter
Weighted-
                             average 
                             dumping 
                             margin 
                             (percent)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
5.08JingAo Solar Co., Ltd
5.08JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd
5.08Shanghai 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 
                        ( print page 46680)
                        minimis,*[11]
                    
                     we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 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.


# Footnotes

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*). Back to Citation
 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). Back to Citation
 3.
    
                         
                        *See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al.,*
                         450 F. Supp. 3d 1301 (CIT 2020). Back to Citation
 4.
    
                         
                        *Id.* Back to Citation
 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). Back to Citation
 6.
    
                         
                        *See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co.*
                         v. 
                        *United States,*
                         492 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (CIT 2021). Back to Citation
 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). Back to Citation
 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). Back to Citation
 9.
    
                         
                        *See Timken Co.*
                         v. 
                        *United States,*
                         893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (
                        *Timken*). Back to Citation
 10.
    
                         
                        *See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition*
                         v. 
                        *United States,*
                         626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (
                        *Diamond Sawblades*). Back to Citation
 11.
    
                         
                        *See*19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2021-17792 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P