Solarworld Americas, Inc. v. United States

962 F.3d 1351

SOLARWORLD AMERICAS, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

Department of Commerce, Defendant

v.Trina Solar (U.S.) Inc., Defendant

Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd., Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Beijing Tianneng 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., Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Canadian Solar, Inc., Canadian Solar (USA), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Canadian Solar International Limited, BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd., Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellees

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & 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., Defendants-Appellants

2019-1591, 2019-1593

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: June 24, 2020

Timothy C. Brightbill, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-cross-appellant. Also represented by Tessa V. Capeloto, Douglas C. Dreier, Laura El-Sabaawi, Usha Neelakantan, Stephen Joseph Obermeier, John Allen Riggins, Adam Milan Teslik, Maureen E. Thorson, Enbar Toledano.

Neil R. Ellis, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd., Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Beijing Tianneng 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., Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd., Canadian Solar, Inc., Canadian Solar (USA), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Canadian Solar International Limited. Also represented by Shawn Michael Higgins.

Craig A. Lewis, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd., Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.

Tara K. Hogan, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by Joseph H. Hunt, Reginald Thomas Blades, Jr., Jeanne Davidson; Brendan Saslow, Mercedes Morno, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Jonathan Freed, Trade Pacific PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Robert Gosselink.

Before Prost, Chief Judge, Dyk and O'Malley, Circuit Judges.

Dyk, Circuit Judge.

Defendants Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al. ("Trina") appeal decisions of the United States Court of International Trade ("CIT") regarding the first administrative review of an antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from the People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China"). Plaintiff SolarWorld Americas, Inc. ("SolarWorld") cross-appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

BACKGROUND

"Dumping occurs when a foreign firm sells a product in the United States at a price lower than the product's normal value." Home Prod. Int'l, Inc. v. United States , 633 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Tariff Act of 1930, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1202 et seq., authorizes the government to impose on dumped products "an antidumping duty ... in an amount equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price" of the products. 19 U.S.C. § 1673. "For exporters based in market economy ... countries, [the normal value] is generally the price at which the firm sells the product in its home market." Home Prod. , 633 F.3d at 1372 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i) ). Where the exporter is located in a non-market economy, "the default rule is that [the normal value] is calculated based on a factors-of-production analysis whereby each input is valued based on data from a surrogate [market economy] country." Id. (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(ii) ). The government is required to separately determine a weighted average dumping margin for "each known exporter and producer," unless "not practicable." See 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c).

On December 7, 2012, the Department of Commerce ("Commerce") issued an antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. On February 4, 2015, Commerce initiated the first administrative review of this antidumping duty order, covering the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014 ("Period of Review"). Included as mandatory respondents in this review were Trina, Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited et al. ("Yingli"), and BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. et al. ("BYD"). Commerce published its final determination ("Final Results") on June 13, 2016.

SolarWorld, Trina, Yingli, and BYD brought suit against the government in the CIT, each challenging aspects of Commerce's Final Results under 19 U.S.C § 1516a(a)(2). SolarWorld, a domestic producer, argued that the antidumping duty rates were too low. Trina, Yingli, and BYD, foreign producers, argued that their antidumping duty rate was too high. After remands on October 18, 2017, and May 18, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's determinations on December 13, 2018. Commerce calculated a dumping margin of 6.55% for Trina, 0% for Yingli, and 8.52% for BYD.

SolarWorld, Trina, and BYD appeal. We describe the particular challenges to the antidumping determinations and the CIT's rulings below. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

DISCUSSION

We review the CIT's decision to sustain Commerce's final results and its remand redeterminations de novo. See U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States , 621 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We will affirm Commerce unless its decision is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

I

We first address Trina's argument that Commerce overstated its dumping duty by using Thai import data to value Trina's nitrogen input.

Where an exporter is from a non-market economy (here, China), 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1) directs Commerce to determine the "normal price" of merchandise subject to an antidumping duty "on the basis of the value of the factors of production utilized in producing the merchandise." "The evaluation of the factors of production shall be based on the best available information regarding the values of such factors in a market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by [Commerce]." Id. (emphasis added). This statutory directive reflects "the intent of Congress ... that Commerce should avoid the use of distorted surrogate prices." Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States , 166 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Section 1677b is implemented by 19 C.F.R. § 351.408, which provides, in relevant part, that "[Commerce] normally will use publicly available information to value factors," and that Commerce "normally will value all factors in a single surrogate country." Commerce has a practice of "resort[ing] to a secondary surrogate country ... if data from the primary surrogate country [is] unavailable or unreliable." J.A. 746.

"In determining the valuation of the factors of production, ‘the critical question is whether the methodology used by Commerce is based on the best available information and establishes the antidumping margins as accurately as possible.’ " Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States , 652 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States , 268 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ). Thus, a "surrogate value must be as representative of the situation in the [non-market economy] country as is feasible." SeAH Steel VINA Corp. v. United States , 950 F.3d 833, 845 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Nation Ford , 166 F.3d at 1377 ). "This court's duty is ‘not to evaluate whether the information Commerce used was the best available, but rather whether a reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose the best available information.’ " Zhejiang , 652 F.3d at 1341 (quoting Goldlink Indus. Co. v. United States , 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1327 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006) ).

Commerce here selected Thailand as "the primary surrogate country" under 19 C.F.R. § 351.408 and calculated a surrogate value for Trina's nitrogen input using Thai import data published by the Global Trade Atlas ("GTA"). J.A. 704. The GTA records the quantity and value of imports into countries by Harmonized Tariff Schedule ("HTS") classification. Commerce found the Thai GTA nitrogen data to be "reliable." J.A. 707. The GTA data indicated an overall average unit value ("AUV") of $11.68 per kilogram for nitrogen during the period of review, which Commerce adopted as the surrogate value for Trina's nitrogen input. The CIT sustained that determination, concluding that Trina had failed to show that the Thai GTA data were aberrational.

Trina asserts that Commerce erred in using the Thai GTA data because it was not the best available information to value Trina's nitrogen gas input. Trina asserts that the Thai GTA data was "exceedingly aberrational" when compared to alternative surrogate values. Appellant's Br. 12. We agree with Trina that Commerce has not provided a persuasive reason for using the Thai GTA data in light of unrebutted evidence of its unreliability.

A table showing GTA nitrogen data for each of the six "potential surrogate...