[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