Risen Energy Co. v. United States

477 F.Supp.3d 1332

RISEN ENERGY CO., LTD., Plaintiff,

SunPower Manufacturing Oregon, LLC, Consolidated Plaintiff,

and

Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors,

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

Slip Op. 20-152

Consol. Court No. 19-00153

United States Court of International Trade.

October 30, 2020

Gregory S. Menegaz, deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff and consolidated defendant-intervenor Risen Energy Co. Ltd. Also on the briefs were Alexandra H. Salzman and J. Kevin Horgan.

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

Craig A. Lewis, 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. Also on the briefs were Jonathan T. Stoel and Michael G. Jacobson.

Neil R. Ellis, Richard L.A. Weiner, Justin R. Becker, Rajib Pal, and Shawn M. Higgins, 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, argued for defendant. Also on the brief was Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel was Ayat Mujais, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

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

OPINION AND ORDER

Kelly, Judge:

This consolidated action is before the court on motions for judgment on the agency record. See Pl. [Risen Energy Co., Ltd.]’s Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 26, 2020, ECF No. 40; [Pl.-Intervenors Canadian Solar, Inc. et al. & Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.’s] Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 26, 2020, ECF No. 42; Pl.-Intervenors Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd. et al.’s Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 26, 2020, ECF No. 41 ("Yingli's Mot."); SunPower Manufacturing Oregon LLC's Mot. J. Agency R., Mar. 26, 2020, ECF No. 43. Plaintiff Risen Energy Co., Ltd. ("Risen"), Plaintiff-Intervenors Canadian Solar, Inc. et al.¹ ("Canadian Solar") and Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. ("Shanghai"), and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd. et al.² ("Yingli"), as well as Consolidated Plaintiff SunPower Manufacturing Oregon, LLC ("SunPower") challenge various aspects of the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Commerce") 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").³ See [Pl. Risen's] Memo. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 1–2, 14–34, Mar. 26, 2020, ECF No. 40-2 ("Risen's Br."); [Pl.-Intervenors Canadian Solar's & Shanghai's] Memo. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 1, 9–18, Mar. 26, 2020, ECF No. 42-1 ("Pl.-Intervenors’ Br."); [SunPower's] Memo. Supp. 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R. Confidential Version at 1–3, 10–32, Mar. 26, 2020, ECF No. 44 ("SunPower's Br."); see also 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"); Initiation of [ADD] & Countervailing Duty Admin. Reviews, 83 Fed. Reg. 8,058 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 23, 2018) ("Initiation of Reviews"); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 77 Fed. Reg. 73,018 (Dep't of Commerce Dec. 7, 2012) (amended final determination of sales at less than fair value, and [ADD] order) ("ADD Order").

Namely, Plaintiff Risen and Plaintiff-Intervenors challenge Commerce's decision to apply partial facts available with an adverse inference ("adverse facts available" or "AFA")⁴ 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 Risen's Br. at 14–34; Pl.-Intervenors’ Br. at 9–18. Consolidated Plaintiff SunPower challenges Commerce's refusal to apply partial AFA to Risen's cooperative unaffiliated suppliers. See SunPower's Br. at 14–20. Moreover, SunPower challenges Commerce's valuation of the nitrogen input, see id. at 20–28, Commerce's selection of Descartes freight rates to value ocean freight expenses, see id. at 29–32, and Commerce's decision to adjust the export price (or constructed export price) ("U.S. Price") by the amount of the countervailing duty ("CVD") imposed to offset the benefit conferred to manufacturers and producers by the Export Import Bank of China's ("Ex-Im Bank") Export Buyer's Credit Program ("Credit Program") in the concurrent administrative review of the companion CVD order ("companion CVD review"). See id. at 10–14.

For the following reasons, the court sustains Commerce's refusal to apply partial AFA to Risen's cooperative unaffiliated suppliers; Commerce's decision to value Risen's nitrogen FOP using Bulgarian import data; Commerce's decision to use Descartes data to value ocean freight expenses; and Commerce's decision to adjust the U.S. Price by the amount of the CVD imposed to offset the benefit conferred to manufacturers and producers by the Credit Program in the companion CVD review. However, the court remands, for further explanation or reconsideration, Commerce's application of partial AFA to Risen's uncooperative unaffiliated suppliers.

BACKGROUND

In 2012, Commerce published the ADD order covering solar cells from China. See generally 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 Reviews. Commerce chose Risen and Chint Solar Zhejiang Co., Ltd. ("Chint")⁵ as mandatory respondents.⁶ See Second Resp't Selection Memo. [for 2016-2017 Admin. Review], PD 147, bar code 3696673-01 (Apr. 19, 2018) ("Second Resp't Selection Memo");⁷ 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 Issues and Decisions Memo. for the [Prelim. Results ] at 2–3, 7–8, A-570-979, PD 497, bar code 3785207-01 (Dec. 20, 2018) ("Prelim. Decision Memo").

On December 28, 2018, Commerce published its preliminary determination. See generally Prelim. Results; Prelim. Decision Memo. Given that Commerce considers the PRC to be a nonmarket economy ("NME"), when calculating Risen's and Chint's dumping margin,⁸ Commerce determined the normal value of Risen's and Chint's entries of subject merchandise by using data from a surrogate market economy country ("surrogate country") to value the factors utilized to produce the subject merchandise ("factors of production" or "FOPs"). See Section 773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4) (2018).⁹ Commerce chose Thailand as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing all FOPs. See Prelim. Decision Memo at 16–19. Commerce resorted to partial AFA to calculate the value of certain FOPs because several of Risen's unaffiliated solar cell and module suppliers refused to cooperate with Commerce's requests for information. See Prelim. Decision Memo at 15–16. Namely, Commerce applied the highest reported consumption rates in place of missing consumption figures for certain inputs used by Risen to produce subject merchandise sold in the U.S. during the period of review ("POR"), but only to the extent that the information on those inputs was missing due to the refusal of Risen's unaffiliated suppliers to cooperate. See Risen Unreported FOPs Memo. at 9–10, PD 508, CD 898, bar codes 3785421-01, 3785419-01 (Dec. 20, 2018) ("Unreported FOPs Memo"). Finally, Commerce used data on ocean freight rates from the Maersk Line and Descartes websites ("Maersk data" and "Descartes data") to value ocean freight expenses. Prelim. Decision Memo at 28. With respect to its calculation of U.S. Price, Commerce declined to increase the U.S. Price by the amount of any CVD imposed to offset the Ex-Im Bank's Credit Program in the companion CVD review. See Prelim. Decision Memo at 32–33; see also Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 83 Fed. Reg. 34,828 (Dep't Commerce July 23, 2018) (final results of CVD admin. review; 2015) ("CVD AR") and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memo. for [CVD AR ] Cmts. at 1–2, C-570-980, (July 12, 2018), available...