Risen Energy Co. v. United States

518 F.Supp.3d 1378

RISEN ENERGY CO., LTD., Plaintiff,andSunPower Manufacturing Oregon, LLC, Consolidated Plaintiff,andShanghai BYD Co., Ltd. et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant,andSunPower Manufacturing Oregon, LLC et al., Defendant-Intervenor and Consolidated Defendant-Intervenors.

Consol. Court No. 19-00153

Slip Op. 21-55

United States Court of International Trade.

May 5, 2021

Gregory S. Menegaz, Alexandra H. Salzmanm, and J. Kevin Horgan, deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff.

Timothy C. Brightbill, Laura El-Sabaawi, and Enbar Toledano, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, DC, for consolidated plaintiff and defendant-intervenor SunPower Manufacturing Oregon, LLC.

Craig A. Lewis, Jonathan T. Stoel, Nicholas A. Sparks, Michael G. Jacobson, and Lindsay K. Brown, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff-intervenors Canadian Solar, Inc., Canadian Solar International Limited, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., CSI Cells Co., Ltd., CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd., Canadian Solar (USA), Inc. and Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.

Neil R. Ellis, Richard L.A. Weiner, Rajib Pal, Shawn M. Higgins, and Justin R. Becker, Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff-intervenors Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd., Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Yingli Green Energy International Trading Co., Ltd., and Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd.

Joshua E. Kurland, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. Also on the briefs were Ethan P. Davis and Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorneys General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsels were Ayat Mujais and Leslie M. Lewis, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Ned H. Marshak, Dharmendra N. Choudhary, and Jordan C. Kahn, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, of New York, NY, and Washington, DC, for consolidated defendant-intervenors Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd., Chint Energy (Haining) Co., Ltd., Chint Solar (Jiuquan) Co., Ltd., and Chint Solar (Hong Kong) Company Limited.

OPINION

Kelly, Judge:

Before the court is the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Commerce") remand redetermination filed pursuant to the court's order in Risen Energy Co. v. United States, 44 CIT ––––, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (2020) (" Risen I"). See also Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Order, Jan. 27, 2021, ECF No. 86-1 ("Remand Results"). In Risen I, the court sustained in part and remanded in part Commerce's final determination in the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty ("ADD") order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules ("solar cells") from the People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China"). See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 84 Fed. Reg. 36,886 (Dep't Commerce July 30, 2019) (final results of [ADD] admin. review and final determination of no shipments; 2016–2017) ("Final Results") and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memo for the [Final Results ], A-570-979, (July 24, 2019), ECF No. 33-2 ("Final Decision Memo").

The court ordered Commerce to 1) reconsider or explain application of partial facts otherwise available with an adverse inference ("AFA")¹ to Risen, and 2) incorporate, to the extent required by law, any adjustments to Risen's dumping margin resulting from the remand redetermination into its calculation of the separate rate or separate rates applicable to individual respondents. See Risen I, 44 CIT at ––––, 477 F. Supp. 3d at 1348. In its Remand Results, Commerce, under respectful protest,² decides not to apply an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available in calculating Risen's dumping margin. See Remand Results at 1–2. Commerce instead "average[s] consumption rates reported by Risen for the relevant control numbers in place of the unreported [factors of production ("FOP")] consumption rates." Id. at 4. No party filed comments on the Remand Results with the court. Defendant requests that this court sustain Commerce's remand results. See Defendant's Request to Sustain [Remand Results ] at 1–2, Mar. 26, 2021, ECF No. 88 ("Def.’s Br."). For the reasons that follow, the court sustains Commerce's Remand Results.

BACKGROUND

The court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case as set out in its previous opinion ordering remand to Commerce, and now recounts those relevant to the court's review of the Remand Results. See Risen I, 44 CIT at ––––, 477 F. Supp. 3d at 1337–39. In 2012, Commerce published the ADD order covering solar cells from China. See generally Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 77 Fed. Reg. 73,018 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 7, 2012) (amended final determination of sales at less than fair value, and [ADD] order). On February 23, 2018, in response to timely requests, Commerce initiated its fifth administrative review of the ADD Order. See generally Initiation of [ADD] & Countervailing Duty Admin. Reviews, 83 Fed. Reg. 8,058 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 23, 2018). Commerce chose Risen and Chint Solar Zhejiang Co., Ltd. ("Chint Solar") as mandatory respondents. See Resp't Selection Memo [for 2016-2017 Admin. Review] at 6, A-570-979, PD 79, bar code 3682915-01 (Mar. 15, 2018) (selection of Risen as mandatory respondent);³ Second Resp't Selection Memo [for 2016-2017 Admin. Review] at 1, A-570-979, PD 147, bar code 3696673-01 (Apr. 19, 2018) (selection of Chint Solar as additional mandatory respondent); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 83 Fed. Reg. 67,222 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 28, 2018) (prelim. results of [ADD] admin. review and prelim. determination of no shipments; 2016–2017) ("Prelim. Results") and accompanying Decision Memo for the [Prelim. Results ] at 2–3, 7–9, A-570-979, PD 497, bar code 3785207-01 (Dec. 20, 2018) ("Prelim. Decision Memo").

Plaintiff Risen and Plaintiff-Intervenors challenged Commerce's decision to apply partial AFA when calculating the normal value of Risen's entries of subject merchandise to fill gaps in the record caused by the refusal of certain unaffiliated suppliers to cooperate with Commerce's investigation. See, e.g., Pl. [Risen's] Memo Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 1–2, 14–34, Mar. 26, 2020, ECF No. 40-2; Pl.-Intervenors’ [Canadian Solar & Shanghai] Memo Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 2–3, 9–18, Mar. 26, 2020, ECF No. 42-1. In Risen I, the court remanded on the issue of applying partial AFA to Risen. See Risen I, 44 CIT at ––––, 477 F. Supp. 3d at 1348.

In its Remand Results, Commerce reconsiders its application of partial AFA to Risen, and under respectful protest, Commerce declines to apply partial AFA, and instead relies on consumption rates provided by Risen to fill in the missing FOP consumption rates. See Remand Results at 1–2, 4. No party filed comments to the Remand Results. Defendant requests that this court sustain the Remand Results. See Def.’s Br. at 1–2.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2018)⁴ and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2018),⁵ which grant the court authority to review actions contesting the final determination in an administrative review of an ADD order. The court will uphold Commerce's determination unless it is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). "The results of a redetermination pursuant to court remand are also reviewed ‘for compliance with the court's remand order.’ " Xinjiamei Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co. v. United States, 38 CIT ––––, ––––, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1259 (2014) (quoting Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co. v. United States, 32 C.I.T. 1272, 1274, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1306 (2008) ).

DISCUSSION

On remand, Commerce reconsiders its decision and, under respectful protest, decides not to apply partial AFA to Risen when calculating the normal value of Risen's entries of subject merchandise to fill gaps in the record (missing FOP consumption rates) that exist because of uncooperative, unaffiliated suppliers. See Remand Results at 1–2. Rather, Commerce averages the consumption rates that Risen provided and uses the calculated average to fill in the missing FOP consumption rates. See id. at 4. No party filed comments on the Remand Results, and Defendant requested that the court affirm the remand redetermination. See Def.’s Br. at 1–2.

To determine the normal value of the subject merchandise in NME countries Commerce solicits input data and surrogate values for those inputs from the parties. See e.g., Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 32 C.I.T. 1070, 1075 (2008). Where, despite its solicitations, information necessary to calculate normal value is not available on the record, Commerce uses "facts otherwise available" in place of the missing information. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(1).⁶ 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," Commerce may apply "an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available[.]" Id. § 1677e(b)(1). However, under certain circumstances, Commerce may incorporate an adverse...