Notice2021-17792
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 19, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On August 10, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 18-00176, sustaining the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) second remand redetermination pertaining to the 2015-2016 antidumping duty (AD) administrative review of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment in this litigation is not in harmony with the final results reached by Commerce in the 2015-2016 AD administrative review of solar cells from China, and that Commerce is amending the final results of that review with respect to the dumping margin calculated for Trina and certain separate rate respondents.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 158 (Thursday, August 19, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 158 (Thursday, August 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46678-46680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17792]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-979]
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled
Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 46679]]
SUMMARY: On August 10, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co.,
Ltd. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 18-00176, sustaining
the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) second remand redetermination
pertaining to the 2015-2016 antidumping duty (AD) administrative review
of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled
into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China
(China). Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment
in this litigation is not in harmony with the final results reached by
Commerce in the 2015-2016 AD administrative review of solar cells from
China, and that Commerce is amending the final results of that review
with respect to the dumping margin calculated for Trina and certain
separate rate respondents.
DATES: Applicable August 20, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations,
Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2769.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 27, 2018, Commerce published the Final Results of its 2015-
2016 AD administrative review of solar cells from China.\1\ Trina \2\
appealed Commerce's Final Results. On May 13, 2020, the CIT remanded to
Commerce for further explanation or reconsideration its decision to use
Maersk Line (Maersk) data, rather than Xeneta XS (Xeneta) data, to
value ocean freight expenses.\3\ The CIT also held that Commerce's
decision to not adjust Trina's U.S. prices to account for
countervailing duties related to the Export Buyer's Credit Program
(EBCP) was contrary to law.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not
Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 83 FR 35616 (July 27,
2018) (Final Results).
\2\ In the Final Results, Commerce treated the following seven
companies as a single entity: Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co.,
Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and 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./Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and
Technology Co., Ltd (collectively, Trina).
\3\ See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al., 450 F.
Supp. 3d 1301 (CIT 2020).
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its first remand redetermination, Commerce continued to value
Trina's ocean freight expenses using Maersk data, rather than Xeneta
data; however, under protest, Commerce increased Trina's U.S. prices by
the amount of countervailing duty imposed to offset the export subsidy
provided by the Ex-Im Bank of China's EBCP.\5\ In its second remand
order, the CIT again directed Commerce to reconsider or further explain
its valuation of ocean freight expenses, but it sustained Commerce's
adjustment of Trina's U.S. prices to account for the Ex-Im Bank of
China's EBCP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results of Remand Redetermination, Changzhou Trina
Solar Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Court No. 18-00176,
Slip Op. 20-64 (Court of International Trade May 13, 2020) (August
6, 2020).
\6\ See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 492
F. Supp. 3d 1322 (CIT 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its second remand redetermination, Commerce valued Trina's ocean
freight expenses using Xeneta data, recalculated Trina's dumping margin
based on this change, and assigned Trina's recalculated dumping margin
to the separate rate respondents which participated in the litigation
that led to the remand redetermination.\7\ On August 10, 2021, the CIT
sustained Commerce's second remand redetermination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Final Results of Remand Redetermination Pursuant to
Court Remand, Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al., v.
United States Court No. 18-00176, Slip Op. 21-2 (CIT January 4,
2021) (April 5, 2021).
\8\ See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 18-00176, Slip. Op. 21-98 (CIT August 10,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\9\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\10\ the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a
court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce determination
and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court
decision. The CIT's August 10, 2021, judgment constitutes a final court
decision that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus,
this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements
of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\10\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending
its Final Results. The amended weighted-average dumping margin for the
respondents which participated in the litigation is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar 5.08
(Changzhou) Science and 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./Trina Solar (Hefei)
Science and Technology Co., Ltd............................
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd....................................... 5.08
JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd....................... 5.08
Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd....................... 5.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because the cash deposit rates for all of the companies listed
above have a superseded by subsequent cash deposit rates (i.e., cash
deposit rates have been established for these companies in subsequent
final results of reviews), this notice does not affect the current cash
deposit rates of these companies. Accordingly, we will not issue
revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) for these companies.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries of subject merchandise that was exported by any of
the companies listed above and that was entered into the United States,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period December
1, 2015, through November 30, 2016. These entries will remain enjoined
pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any
appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed,
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of
subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by the review
when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de
minimis. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero
or de
[[Page 46680]]
minimis,\11\ we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries
without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c) and (e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 13, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-17792 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 19, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.