Sunpower Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 17-89, Consol. Court No. 15-00067.

253 F.Supp.3d 1275

SUNPOWER CORPORATION et al., Plaintiff and Consolidated Plaintiffs,andCanadian Solar Inc. et al., Plaintiff–Intervenors and Consolidated Plaintiff–Intervenors,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant,andSolarWorld Americas, Inc., Defendant–Intervenor and Consolidated Defendant–Intervenor.

Slip Op. 17-89, Consol. Court No. 15-00067.

United States Court of International Trade.

July 21, 2017

Daniel Joseph Gerkin, Vinson & Elkins, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff SunPower Corporation. With him on the brief was Jerome J. Zaucha, K & L Gates, LLP, of Washington, DC.

Craig Anderson Lewis, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for consolidated plaintiffs Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. and BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. Diana Dimitriuc–Quaia, Arent Fox LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for consolidated plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors Canadian Solar Inc., Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd., China Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd., ET Solar Industry Ltd., Hefei JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd., Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., LDK Solar Hi–Tech (Nanchang) Co., Ltd., Perlight Solar Co., Ltd., ReneSola Jiangsu Ltd., Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Sacred Industry Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd., Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd., Sunny Apex Development Ltd., Wuhan FYY Technology Co., Ltd., Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd., Zhongli Talesun Solar Co., Ltd., Znshine PV–Tech Co., Ltd. With her on the brief were John Marshall Gurley and Julia L. Diaz.

Neil R. Ellis, Richard L.A. Weiner, Brenda A. Jacobs, and Rajib Pal, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff-intervenors Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd., and Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc.

Tara Kathleen Hogan, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant. With her on the brief were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Scott McBride, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance.

Timothy C. Brightbill, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-intervenor SolarWorld Americas, Inc. With him on the brief was Laura El–Sabaawi.

OPINION

Kelly, Judge:

Before the court is the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Commerce" or "Department") remand determination in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China"), filed pursuant to the court's order in SunPower Corp. v. United States, 40 CIT ––––, 179 F.Supp.3d 1286 (2016) (" SunPower").¹ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Oct. 5, 2016, ECF No. 105–1 ("Solar II PRC Remand Results"). For the reasons set forth below, Commerce has complied with the court's order in SunPower, 40 CIT at ––––, 179 F.Supp.3d at 1308, and Commerce's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Commerce's remand determination is therefore sustained.

BACKGROUND

The court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case as discussed in the previous opinion, see SunPower, 40 CIT at ––––, 179 F.Supp.3d at 1289–93, and here recounts the facts relevant to the court's review of the Solar II PRC Remand Results. This case concerns an antidumping duty ("ADD") investigation and a countervailing duty ("CVD") investigation of certain solar products from the People's Republic of China ("China" or "PRC") which is intrinsically related to an ADD investigation and CVD investigation of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells ("solar cells" or "cells") from the PRC and an ADD investigation of certain solar cells from Taiwan. An overview of all three sets of investigations² is warranted to contextualize the current proceeding.

Initially, Commerce investigated the solar industry in China on the basis of a petition from domestic producer SolarWorld Americas, Inc. ("SolarWorld"), Defendant–Intervenor here, alleging dumping activity and countervailable subsidies injurious to the domestic solar industry ("the Solar I PRC investigations"). Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 76 Fed. Reg. 70,960 (Dep't Commerce Nov. 16, 2011) (initiation of ADD investigation); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 76 Fed. Reg. 70,966, 70,967 (Dep't Commerce Nov. 16, 2011) (initiation of CVD investigation). The Solar I PRC investigations resulted in ADD and CVD orders covering solar cells from China, including Chinese cells assembled into modules, laminates, and panels outside of China; these orders did not cover solar modules, laminates, or panels assembled in China using solar cells produced outside of China. SeeCrystalline 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); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the [PRC], 77 Fed. Reg. 73,017 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 7, 2012) (CVD order) ("the Solar I PRC Orders"). Although the Solar I PRC Orders covered both solar cells and modules, laminates, and/or panels containing solar cells, Commerce determined that the solar cell is the origin-conferring component. See Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Determination in the [ADD] Investigation of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the [PRC], A–570–979, 5–9 (Oct. 9, 2012), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2012–25580–1.pdf (last visited July 18, 2017) ("Solar I PRC ADD Final Decision Memo"); Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Determination in the [CVD] Investigation of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the [PRC], C–570–980, 77–81 (Oct. 9, 2012), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2012–25564–1.pdf (last visited July 18, 2017) ("Solar I PRC CVD Final Decision Memo"). Further, using a substantial transformation analysis, Commerce determined that assembly of solar cells into modules, laminates, and/or panels in a third country did not change the country of origin of the merchandise.³ Solar I PRC ADD Final Decision Memo at 5–6; Solar I PRC CVD Final Decision Memo at 77–78. Thus, solar modules, laminates, and panels assembled in a third country using Chinese solar cells are covered by the Solar I PRC Orders, while solar modules, laminates, and panels assembled in the PRC using non-Chinese solar cells are not covered. See Solar I PRC Orders.

Subsequently, SolarWorld petitioned Commerce to initiate additional proceedings related to the Chinese and Taiwanese solar industry. Pet. for Imposition of [ADD] and [CVD] Investigation, Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the [PRC] and Taiwan, ADD PD 1–8, bar codes 3171232–01–08 (Dec. 31, 2013); Pet. for Imposition of [ADD] and [CVD] Investigation, Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the [PRC] and Taiwan, CVD PD 1–8, bar codes 3171278–01–08 (Dec. 31, 2013) ("Solar II PRC and Taiwan Petition").⁴ SolarWorld claimed ongoing injury to the domestic solar industry, alleging that the Chinese solar industry had, in response to the Solar I PRC Orders, shifted from the assembly of modules, laminates, and panels (or "panels") using Chinese cells to the assembly of panels in China using non-Chinese cells. Id. at 3–6 (stating that the Solar I PRC Orders"failed to cover Chinese solar modules assembled from non- Chinese solar cells, allowing Chinese solar producers to begin using cells fully or partially manufactured in Taiwan in the modules they assembled for export to the United States, and to export those modules, duty-free, to the U.S. market."). At the same time, the petition alleges that imports of solar cells and panels from Taiwan increased as well, causing material injury to the domestic industry. See id. at 2–7. On the basis of this petition, Commerce initiated a second ADD and CVD investigation of the Chinese solar industry and an ADD investigation of the Taiwanese solar industry. Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the [PRC] and Taiwan, 79 Fed. Reg. 4,661 (Dep't Commerce Jan. 29, 2014) (initiation of ADD investigations) ("Solar II PRC and Taiwan ADD Initiation Notice"); Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the [PRC], 79 Fed. Reg. 4,667 (Dep't Commerce Jan. 29, 2014) (initiation of CVD investigation) ("Solar II PRC CVD Initiation Notice").

These investigations resulted in two sets of orders. The investigation into the Chinese solar industry resulted in an ADD order and a CVD order covering modules, laminates, and/or panels assembled in China consisting of cells manufactured outside of China, including cells manufactured in Taiwan. Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the [PRC], 80 Fed. Reg. 8,592 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 18, 2015) (ADD order; and amended final affirmative CVD determination and CVD order) ("the Solar II PRC Orders"). The investigation into the Taiwanese solar industry resulted in an ADD order covering solar cells manufactured in Taiwan,⁵ including Taiwanese cells assembled into modules, laminates, and/or panels outside of Taiwan, but excluding Taiwanese cells assembled into modules, laminates, and/or panels in China covered by the Solar II PRC Orders.⁶ Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from Taiwan, 80 Fed. Reg. 8,596 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 18, 2015) (ADD order) ("the Solar II Taiwan Order").⁷

The Solar II PRC Orders are at issue in this case. The Solar II PRC Initiation Notices stated that the

merchandise covered by these investigations is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates

...