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

Heading: Surrogate Value Selection

Text: Where, as here, the exporting country has a non-market economy, see Preliminary Results, 82 Fed. Reg. at 12,795, Commerce calculates the normal value for a respondent’s subject merchandise using surrogate values from a comparable market economy country, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1), (4). In selecting surrogate values, Commerce “attempts to construct a hypothetical market value of [the subject merchandise] in the [NME].” Downhole Pipe, 776 F.3d at 1375 (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). 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.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1); see id. § 1677b(a) (providing that Commerce constructs the “normal value” “to achieve a fair comparison with the export price”). “Commerce has broad discretion to determine” what constitutes “the best available information,” as this term “is not defined by statute.” QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Commerce “generally selects, to the extent practicable, surrogate values that are publicly available, are product-specific, reflect a broad market average, and are contemporaneous with the period of review.” Qingdao Sea–Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (footnote omitted). Case: 20-1004 Document: 64 Page: 21 Filed: 09/03/2020 CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY v. UNITED STATES 21 B. Commerce’s Surrogate Value Selection for Trina’s Module Glass Is Supported by Substantial Evidence In its Final Results, Commerce “value[d] Trina’s module glass using Thai imports of tempered glass classified under HTS [Subheading] 7007.19.90000,” J.A. 141; see J.A. 140 (providing that Thai HTS Subheading 7007.19.90000 “Toughened (Tempered) Safety Glass, Not Suitable For Incorporation In Vehicles, Aircraft, Spacecraft Or Vessels; Other”). Specifically, Commerce found, based on “an examination of record information and Trina’s [submissions]” in the course of administrative review, that “Trina’s module glass” was “tempered.” J.A. 141. Presented with Thai import data for HTS Subhead- ing 7007.19.90000 (“tempered/safety glass”), HTS Subheading 7007.19.90001 (“float glass”), and HTS Subheading 7007.29.90 (“laminated safety glass”), Commerce concluded that “Trina’s module glass [wa]s appropriately valued using Thai HTS [Subheading] 7007.19.90000.” J.A. 141. The CIT sustained this determination as supported by substantial evidence. See Trina I, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1336. SolarWorld argues that “Commerce’s determination to use Thai HTS [Subheading] 7007.19.90000 to value Trina’s solar glass was not supported by substantial evidence.” Appellant’s Br. 31 (capitalization normalized). SolarWorld asserts that “[r]ecord evidence . . . makes clear that[,] in addition to being tempered, Trina’s solar module glass also undergoes additional processing” that “impart[s] extreme durability to the glass,” leaving “Thai HTS [Subheading] 7007.29.90 . . . the only HTS number that reflects” that processing. Id. at 34–35; see J.A. 141 (providing that HTS Subheading 7007.29.90 covers “Laminated safety glass: Other; Other”). We disagree with SolarWorld. Substantial evidence supports Commerce’s decision to value Trina’s module glass using Thai imports of tempered glass classified under HTS Subheading 7007.19.90000. In its submissions to Commerce, Trina described its module glass as “tempered.” J.A. 46–47 (Trina’s Third Case: 20-1004 Document: 64 Page: 22 Filed: 09/03/2020 22 CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY v. UNITED STATES Supplemental Questionnaire Response) (providing that “both [its] coated glass and tempered glass” are “tempered”); see J.A. 5550 (Trina’s Section A Questionnaire Response) (providing Trina advertising material describing Trina’s module glass as “[anti-reflective] coated tempered glass”), 5713 (Trina’s First Supplemental Questionnaire Response) (explaining that Trina’s “tempered glass” is “float glass” rather than “rolled glass”). Further, Commerce, examining Trina’s publicly available data, found that the “only glass referred to there [was] tempered glass.” J.A. 46. Examination of other producers’ publicly available data indicated use of “tempered glass” with “antireflection surface treatment” and “extremely durable” “front glazing,” in some cases “us[ing] a polymer film (plastic) as the front sheet.” J.A. 46–47. Trina confirmed that there was no “significant difference between the glass referred to in” the publicly available information and “the glass Trina consumed during the [period of review] to produce the subject merchandise.” J.A. 47. On this basis, Commerce conclude that “Trina’s module glass [wa]s appropriately valued” using data for “Thai imports of tempered glass classified under HTS [Subheading] 7007.19.90000.” J.A. 141; see Qingdao Sea–Line, 766 F.3d at 1386 (providing that “Commerce generally selects, to the extent practicable, surrogate values that are,” inter alia, “product-specific”). As such, Commerce’s use of Thai tempered glass data to value Trina’s tempered module glass is supported by substantial evidence. See Downhole Pipe, 776 F.3d at 1374 (providing that substantial evidence is such evidence as a “reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” (citing Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). SolarWorld’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, SolarWorld argues that “Commerce failed to use the ‘best available information’ to value Trina’s solar glass,” because “Commerce valued Trina’s coated, tempered glass using Thai imports of standard tempered glass[.]” Case: 20-1004 Document: 64 Page: 23 Filed: 09/03/2020 CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY v. UNITED STATES 23 Appellant’s Br. 31 (emphasis omitted). This argument misapprehends the “best available evidence” standard. “The data on which Commerce relies to value inputs must be the ‘best available information,’ but there is no requirement that the data be perfect.” Home Meridian Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 772 F.3d 1289, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The fact that Trina’s tempered glass has a coating does not preclude the conclusion that Thai import data for tempered glass is the best available information on the record to value it. See Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The ‘best available information’ . . . may constitute information from the surrogate country that is directly analogous to the production experience of the NME producer . . . or it may not.”); see also SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 1223 (explaining that, in selecting surrogate values, “Commerce is not required to engage in a classification analysis but instead is required to determine which of the competing subheadings constituted the best available information” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Second, SolarWorld argues that, “[b]ecause Commerce did not consider evidence that detracts from its conclusion,” specifically, “[record] evidence indicating that Trina’s glass [is laminated glass],” Commerce’s decision is “not supported by substantial evidence.” Appellant’s Br. 35. This argument is premised on a misreading of Commerce’s determination. Commerce “disagree[d] with [SolarWorld’s] suggestion that Trina’s module glass should be valued” as “[l]aminated safety glass” using Thai “HTS [Subheading] 7007.29.90[.]” J.A. 141. Commerce explained that, while “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), SolarWorld could only point to evidence that “Trina’s module glass” had potentially “undergone additional working such as surface treatments and glazing,” not “additional working that would result in . . . laminated glass . . . made of multiple Case: 20-1004 Document: 64 Page: 24 Filed: 09/03/2020 24 CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY v. UNITED STATES layers of plastic and glass,” J.A. 142. On appeal, SolarWorld does not challenge Commerce’s definition of laminated glass or point to missed evidence; rather, SolarWorld proffers the same rejected evidence, compare Appellant’s Br. 33–34 (arguing that a “datasheet for glass on Trina’s website refers to . . . [‘c]oated [t]empered [g]ass’” with “‘a polymer film (plastic) as the front sheet . . . for arrays in high-impact environments’” and “information from other module suppliers, indicating that their glass is ‘high-transparency tempered glass with an antireflection surface treatment’” and “‘front glazing . . . [that] is extremely durable’” (quoting J.A. 46–47 (Trina’s Third Supplemental Questionnaire Response)), with J.A. 140–42 (summarizing SolarWorld’s arguments before Commerce as relying on the same evidence), and “invite[s] [us] to reweigh [it],” Downhole Pipe, 776 F.3d at 1376. We decline to do so. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“That [an appellant] can point to evidence of record which detracts from the evidence which supports the [agency’s] decision and can hypothesize a reasonable basis for a contrary determination is neither surprising nor persuasive.”). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports Commerce’s decision to value Trina’s module glass using Thai imports of tempered glass classified under HTS Subheading 7007.19.90000.