Opinion ID: 4562709
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The First Administrative Review

Text: In February 2016, Commerce filed notice of the opportunity to request administrative review of the AD and CVD Orders. Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 Fed. Reg. 5,712, 5,713 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 3, 2016); see 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 351.213. Commerce received multiple requests for review. J.A. 6562 (Preliminary I&D Mem.). Commerce initiated the AD Order’s first administrative review, covering the period of review of July 31, 2014, through January 31, 2016. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 Fed. Reg. 20,324, 20,324 (Dep’t of Commerce Apr. 7, 2016). Commerce selected Trina as the sole mandatory respondent. J.A. 6562. Having been the petitioner in the original AD and CVD investigations, SolarWorld participated as an interested party. J.A. 6563. In March 2017, Commerce issued its preliminary results. See Preliminary Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 12,794; see J.A. 6561–87 (Preliminary I&D Mem.). Commerce declined to increase Trina’s export price “by the amount of any countervailing duty imposed to offset an export subsidy.” J.A. 6586. Commerce explained that, “[a]s a result of noncooperation by the Government of China in the companion CVD investigation,” Commerce had relied on AFA to “determine[] that Trina benefited from the Export Buyer’s Credits Program,” and, as such, “did not determine” whether “the program in question was export contingent.” J.A. 6586. “Without a determination in the companion CVD investigation that this program provides an export subsidy,” Commerce concluded it was inappropriate to offset Trina’s export price by the amount of the countervailing duty imposed. J.A. 6586. Further, because “[Commerce] considers the PRC to be an NME country,” J.A. 6567, Commerce selected Thailand as a surrogate market economy country to provide surrogate values to calculate Trina’s normal value, J.A. 6575; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1) (providing for the use of surrogate values to Case: 20-1004 Document: 64 Page: 9 Filed: 09/03/2020 CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY v. UNITED STATES 9 calculate normal value for NME respondents). Commerce valued Trina’s module glass input using Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) Subheading 7007.19.90000 (covering “Toughened (Tempered) Safety Glass, Not Suitable For Incorporation In Vehicles, Aircraft, Spacecraft Or Vessels; Other”). J.A. 140 (Final I&D Mem.). In July 2017, Commerce issued its Final Results. 82 Fed. Reg. at 32,170; see J.A. 113–56 (Final I&D Mem.). Commerce calculated a 9.61 percent weighted average dumping margin for Trina. Final Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 32,171. Consistent with the Preliminary Results, Commerce declined to offset Trina’s export price by any countervailed export subsidy. J.A. 121. Commerce explained that it “did not make a determination in the [companion] CVD investigation . . . that the [Ex-Im Bank] Buyer’s Credit Program was an export subsidy,” because it had relied on AFA to countervail the program. J.A. 121. For Trina’s normal value, Commerce “continued to value Trina’s module glass using Thai imports of tempered glass classified under HTS [Subheading] 7007.19.90000[.]” J.A. 141. Commerce rejected SolarWorld’s argument that “Trina’s module glass should be valued using HTS [Subheading] 7007.29.90 (i.e., Laminated safety glass: Other; Other),” because “laminated glass is ‘made in sandwich form, with one or more interlayers of plastics between two or more sheets of glass,’” J.A. 141 (quoting WCO EN 7007.29.90), and there was “no record evidence of additional working [of Trina’s module glass] that would result in glass comparable to laminated glass,” J.A. 142. Both SolarWorld and Trina filed suit against the Government in the CIT, challenging Commerce’s Final Results as unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law. Trina I, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1331. On the offset issue, the CIT remanded to Commerce, concluding that “Commerce’s decision to not offset the Ex-Im Bank Buyer’s Credit Program [wa]s contrary to law[.]” Id. at 1332. The CIT reasoned that, because AFA “does not obviate the need Case: 20-1004 Document: 64 Page: 10 Filed: 09/03/2020 10 CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY v. UNITED STATES for Commerce to affirmatively find that the elements of the statute have been satisfied,” Commerce must have “necessarily found that the [Ex-Im Bank] [B]uyer’s [C]redit [P]rogram was an export subsidy,” and, therefore, “Commerce’s decision to deny an offset for the countervailing duties imposed” as a result of the Ex-Im Bank Buyer’s Credit Program “is contrary to law[.]” Id. at 1339. The CIT “directed [Commerce] to recalculate Trina’s [export] prices to account for the offset[.]” Id. at 1332. On the valuation of Trina’s inputs, the CIT “sustain[ed] Commerce’s selection of surrogate values for,” inter alia, “module glass” as supported by substantial evidence. Id. The CIT explained that “Commerce [had] reasonably determined that [Thai] import data under HTS [S]ubheading 7007.19.90000 constitute[d] the best available information with which to value [that] input.” Id. at 1336; see 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1) (providing that Commerce’s surrogate value determinations must “be based on the best available information regarding the values of [relevant] factors in a market economy country or countries”). “In accordance with [Trina I],” Commerce, “under respectful protest, increased Trina’s [export] price[] by the amount countervailed” based on the Ex-Im Bank Buyer’s Credit Program subsidy “in the most recently completed segment of the corresponding [CVD] proceeding.” J.A. 6764–65 (citing Final CVD Determination, 79 Fed. Reg. 76,962); see Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that Commerce may “adopt[] under protest a contrary position forced upon it by the [CIT]” and subsequently appeal that position to this court). Commerce maintained that, while it had “properly determined not to grant Trina an offset to its [export] prices for the countervailed . . . Ex-Im Bank Buyer’s Credit Program,” it nonetheless “compl[ied] with the [CIT’s] direction” and “increased Trina’s [export] price[.]” J.A. 6769. As a result, Trina’s weighted average dumping margin was reduced to 3.42 percent. J.A. 6770. The CIT Case: 20-1004 Document: 64 Page: 11 Filed: 09/03/2020 CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY v. UNITED STATES 11 sustained Commerce’s Remand Redetermination. See Trina II, 393 F. Supp. 3d at 1251.