[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73247-73249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28072]


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

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 the Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results

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

SUMMARY: On December 8, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(CIT) issued its final judgment in SolarWorld Americas, Inc., et al. v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 16-00134, sustaining the Department of 
Commerce (Commerce)'s fourth remand results pertaining to the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on crystalline 
silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules 
(solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the 
period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014. Commerce is 
notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony 
with the final results of the 2013-2014 AD administrative review of the 
solar cells from China and that Commerce is amending those final 
results with respect to the dumping margin assigned to the following 
companies: (1) The collapsed entity comprising 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.; and 
Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (collectively, Trina); (2) Canadian 
Solar International Limited; (3) Canadian Solar Manufacturing 
(Changshu) Inc.; (4) Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc.; (5) 
BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd.; and (6) Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.

DATES: Applicable December 18, 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 June 20, 2016, Commerce published the final results of the 2013-
2014 AD administrative review of solar cells from China. In the Final 
Results, Commerce selected Thailand as the primary surrogate country 
and relied on Thai import data to value nitrogen that was used in 
manufacturing solar cells.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents, Trina, Canadian Solar Inc. et al., BYD (Shangluo) 
Industrial Co., Ltd., Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd., and Yingli,\2\ and 
domestic interested party, SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (SolarWorld), 
challenged Commerce's Final Results (CIT case numbers 16-00132, 16-
00134, and 16-00135). The CIT consolidated case numbers 16-00132, 16-
00134, and 16-00135 into case number 16-00134 in October 2016. On 
October 18, 2017, the CIT sustained Commerce's Final Results with 
respect to: (1) The surrogates that it selected to value aluminum 
frames, semi-finished polysilicon ingots and blocks, solar backsheets, 
nitrogen, and financial ratios; and (2) its application of adverse 
facts available with respect to unreported factors of production. 
However, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce to reconsider, 
or further explain: (1) The surrogates that it selected to value 
tempered glass and scrapped solar cells and modules; and (2) its 
decision to include import values with zero import quantities in its 
surrogate value calculations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We used ``Yingli'' to refer to the following companies that 
we treated as a single entity: Yingli Energy (China) Company 
Limited; Baoding Tianwei 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.; and Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources 
Co., Ltd.
    \3\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc.et al. v. United States, 273 F. 
Supp. 3d 1254 (CIT 2017).

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

[[Page 73248]]

    In its first remand redetermination, issued in January 2018, 
Commerce further explained its surrogate value selections for tempered 
glass and scrapped solar cells and modules and explained why it was 
appropriate to include import values with zero import quantities in its 
surrogate value calculations.\4\ The CIT sustained Commerce's 
redetermination with respect to including imports with zero quantities 
in its surrogate value calculations, but remanded to Commerce for a 
second time its choice of surrogates to value tempered glass and 
scrapped solar cells and modules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Final Results of Remand 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.
    \5\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, 320 
F. Supp. 3d 1341 (CIT 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its second remand redetermination, issued in July 2018, Commerce 
reexamined its selection of the surrogate values at issue and, under 
respectful protest, valued tempered glass using Bulgarian import data 
rather than Thai import data and valued scrapped solar cells and 
modules using a different Thai tariff system classification number.\6\ 
The CIT sustained Commerce's second redetermination.\7\ Commerce 
published a notice of a court decision that was not in harmony with the 
final results of its review on February 1, 2019.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 
16-00134, Slip Op. 18-53 (Court of International Trade June 18, 
2018) Results of Second Remand Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order, dated July 31, 2018.
    \7\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, 355 
F. Supp. 3d 1306 (CIT 2018).
    \8\ See 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, 84 FR 1053 (February 1, 2019) (Timken 
Notice and Amended Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trina and SolarWorld appealed various aspects of the CIT's final 
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). 
On June 24, 2020, the CAFC affirmed the CIT's judgment: (1) Sustaining 
Commerce's inclusion of imports with zero quantities in surrogate value 
calculations; (2) Commerce's valuation of backsheets; and (3) remanding 
to Commerce to further justify, or reconsider, the surrogate that it 
selected to value tempered glass. However, the CAFC vacated the CIT's 
judgment sustaining Commerce's selection of a surrogate to value 
nitrogen and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with 
its opinion.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, 962 
F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its third remand redetermination, issued in January 2021, 
Commerce continued to value nitrogen using Thai import data. 
Specifically, in its third remand redetermination Commerce explained 
why it did not find the average unit value (AUV) of Thai imports of 
nitrogen during the period of review (POR) to be aberrational, 
clarified its practice for evaluating whether an AUV from a surrogate 
country is aberrational, and addressed the discrepancies between U.S. 
POR exports of nitrogen to Thailand and Thai POR imports of nitrogen 
from the United States.\10\ The CIT remanded the case to Commerce for a 
fourth time, ordering Commerce to reconsider, or further explain, its 
use of Thai import data to value nitrogen.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 16-00134 (CIT September 2, 2020), Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated January 14, 2021.
    \11\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, 532 
F. Supp. 3d 1266 (CIT 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its final remand redetermination, issued in September 2021, 
under respectful protest, Commerce used Bulgarian import data, rather 
than Thai import data, to value nitrogen.\12\ The CIT sustained 
Commerce's final redetermination.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc., et al. v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 16-00134 (CIT July 28, 2021), Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated September 27, 2021.
    \13\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 16-00134, Slip Op. 21-165 (CIT December 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\14\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\15\ the CAFC 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 Commerce's 
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's December 8, 2021 judgment 
constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with 
Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment 
of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \15\ 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 and Timken Notice and Amended Final Results with 
respect to Trina, Canadian Solar International Limited; Canadian Solar 
Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) 
Inc.; BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd.; and Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                       Exporters                        average  dumping
                                                        margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Trina Solar                 0.00
 (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......................................
Canadian Solar International Limited..................              0.00
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc...........              0.00
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc............              0.00
BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd....................              0.00
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.................................              0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because Trina, Canadian Solar International Limited; Canadian Solar 
Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) 
Inc.; and Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. all have a superseding cash deposit 
rate, i.e., final results covering these companies have been published 
in a subsequent administrative review of the AD order on solar cells 
from China, we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in connection with

[[Page 73249]]

these companies. Thus, this notice will not affect the current cash 
deposit rate of these companies. However, we will issue revised cash 
deposit instructions to CBP for BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    At this time, Commerce remains enjoined, by orders of the CIT, from 
liquidating entries of subject merchandise that was entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period December 1, 
2013 through November 30, 2014 and exported by any of the following 
companies: (1) Trina; (2) Canadian Solar International Limited; (3) 
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc.; (4) Canadian Solar 
Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc.; (5) BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd.; 
(6) Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.; (7) Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd/Luoyang 
Suntech Power Co., Ltd.; (8) Dongguan Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; 
(9) ERA Solar Co., Ltd.; (10) ET Solar Energy Limited; (11) JA Solar 
Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd.; (12) Jiangsu High Hope Int'l Group; (13) 
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.; (14) Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance 
Co., Ltd.; (15) Shenzhen Glory Industries Co., Ltd.; and (16) Shenzhen 
Topray Solar Co., Ltd. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to 
the terms of the injunctions 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 any unliquidated entries 
described in the preceding paragraph, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review when either the respondent's 
weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis or the 
importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. 
Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero 
or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis 
(i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will instruct CBP to liquidate the 
appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 20, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, Performing the 
Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-28072 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P