[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1053-1055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00753]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On December 13, 2018, the United States Court of International 
Trade (the Court) sustained the second remand redetermination 
pertaining to the 2013-2014 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). 
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the 
final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final 
results in the AD administrative review of solar cells from China and 
that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to AD margins 
assigned, as detailed below.

DATES: Applicable December 23, 2018.

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 June 13, 2016, Commerce published its Final Results of the 2013-
2014 AD administrative review of solar cells from China.\1\ On October 
18, 2017, the Court remanded the Final Results to Commerce to further 
explain or reconsider its determination to value

[[Page 1054]]

Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., Ltd.'s \2\ tempered glass inputs with 
import data from Thailand, in light of evidence that Hong Kong import 
data has a disproportionate impact on the Thai surrogate value.\3\ In 
addition, the Court remanded for further explanation or consideration 
Commerce's determination to value Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. 
Ltd.'s \4\ broken and scrapped polysilicon cells and modules using Thai 
import data under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading 
8548.10.\5\ The Court requested Commerce explain why its selection is 
reasonable given that Thai HTS subheading 8549.10 is not specific to 
solar cells or modules and results in a value for the scrapped cell and 
module byproduct that is higher than the value of the input itself.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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; 2013-2014, 81 FR 39905 (June 20, 
2016) and accompanying Issues & Decision Memorandum (IDM) 
(collectively Final Results).
    \2\ In the Final Results Commerce determined to treat the 
mandatory respondent Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited and the 
following eight companies as a single entity: (1) Baoding Tianwei 
Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; (2) Tianjin Yingli New Energy 
Resources Co., Ltd.; (3) Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., 
Ltd.; (4) Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; (5) Baoding 
Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd.; (6) Beijing Tianneng 
Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; (7) Hainan Yingli New Energy 
Resources Co., Ltd.; (8) Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., 
Ltd. (collectively Yingli).
    \3\ SolarWorld Americas, Inc., et al. v. United States, 273 F. 
Supp. 3d 1254, 1261-65 (CIT 2017) (SolarWorld I).
    \4\ In the Final Results Commerce determined to treat the 
mandatory respondent Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. and 
Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd. and the 
following four companies as a single entity: (1) Yancheng Trina 
Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; (2) Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang 
Energy Co., Ltd.; (3) Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; (4) Hubei 
Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (collectively Trina).
    \5\ Id. at 1267-1268.
    \6\ Id. at 1268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its First Remand Redetermination, Commerce continued to value 
Yingli's tempered glass inputs using Thai import data, again 
determining that the import data, in the aggregate, are not 
aberrational.\7\ Commerce also continued to value scrapped solar cells 
and modules using Thai HTS subheading 8528.10 (which covers scrap 
primary cells and batteries), finding that the subheading represents 
the best available information on the record with which to value 
scrapped solar cells and modules, given the similarity in manufacturing 
processes and raw materials.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Final Results of Redetermination: SolarWorld Americas, 
Inc. v. United States, Court No. 16-00134, Slip. Op. 17-143 (Court 
of International Trade October 18, 2017), dated January 18, 2018 
(First Remand Redetermination).
    \8\ See First Remand Redetermination at 53-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 18, 2018, the Court remanded both issues to Commerce a 
second time.\9\ The Court found that Commerce failed to explain why it 
is reasonable to value tempered glass using Thai import data when 
imports of tempered glass from Hong Kong have a disproportionate impact 
on the overall average unit value (AUV) of tempered glass.\10\ With 
regard to Commerce's valuation of Trina's scrapped solar cells and 
modules, the Court held that Commerce's determination remained 
unsupported by substantial evidence, finding that Commerce had not 
provided an adequate explanation as to why the selection of a category 
covering scrapped electrical batteries accurately values the 
respondent's scrapped solar cells and modules byproduct.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 320 F. Supp. 3d 
1341 (CIT 2018) (SolarWorld II).
    \10\ Id. at.1350-55.
    \11\ Id. at 1355-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Second Remand Redetermination, pursuant to the Court's 
holding in SolarWorld II, Commerce determined, under protest, to value 
Yingli's tempered glass inputs using import data from Bulgaria, 
avoiding the data-quality concerns regarding the Thai import data.\12\ 
With regard to valuing scrapped solar cells and modules, under protest, 
Commerce reconsidered its selection and decided to use Thai HTS 
subheading 2804, which covers silicon of less than 99.9 percent 
purity.\13\ On December 13, 2018, the Court sustained the Second Remand 
Redetermination.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Results of Second Remand Redetermination Pursuant to 
Court Order: SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 
16-00134, Slip. Op. 18-53 (Court of International Trade June 18, 
2017), dated July 31, 2018 (Second Remand Redetermination).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, 2018 
WL 6584942, (CIT December 13, 2018) (SolarWorld III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\15\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\16\ 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 Court's December 13, 2018 final judgment sustaining 
Commerce's Second Remand Redetermination constitutes a final decision 
of the Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. This 
notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of 
Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990)
    \16\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending 
its Final Results. Commerce finds that the revised AD dumping margin 
for the respondents are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                       Exporter                          dumping margin
                                                           (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited/Baoding Tianwei               0.00
 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..................................
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar                  6.55
 (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.....................................
BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd...................               3.96
Canadian Solar International Limited.................               3.96
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc..........               3.96
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc...........               3.96
Dongguan Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd..............               3.96
ERA Solar Co., Ltd...................................               3.96
ET Solar Energy Limited..............................               3.96
JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd................               3.96
 

[[Page 1055]]

 
Jiangsu High Hope Int'l Group \17\...................               3.96
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd................................               3.96
Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.....               3.96
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd................................               3.96
Shenzhen Glory Industries Co., Ltd...................               3.96
Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd.......................               3.96
Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd./Luoyang Suntech Power                  3.96
 Co., Ltd............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation 
of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of 
appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. 
In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld 
by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject 
merchandise exported by the respondents using the assessment rates 
calculated by Commerce listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In the fourth administrative review, Commerce determined 
that Jiangsu High Hope Int'l Group failed to demonstrate its 
entitlement to a separate rate. See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic 
Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 
2015-2016, 83 FR 1018 (January 9, 2018), unchanged at final, 
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, 2019). The cash deposit 
rate applicable to this firm was revised accordingly. See cash 
deposit instruction message number 8214308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because cash deposit rate for all of the respondents listed above, 
with the exception of BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd., Dongguan 
Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Glory Industries Co., 
Ltd., have been superseded by cash deposit rates calculated in 
intervening administrative reviews of the AD order on solar cells from 
China, we will not alter the cash deposit rate currently in effect for 
these respondents based on these amended final results. Effective 
December 23, 2018, the cash deposit rate applicable to entries of 
subject merchandise exported by BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd., 
Dongguan Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Glory Industries 
Co., Ltd. is 3.96 percent.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 21, 2018.
P. Lee Smith,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.
[FR Doc. 2019-00753 Filed 1-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P