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, 1053-1055 [2019-00753]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Notices
seamless and welded construction
covered by the latest revision of ANSI
B16.9, ANSI B16.11, and ANSI B16.28.
Butt-weld fittings manufactured to
specification ASTM A774, or its foreign
equivalents, are also covered by the
order.
The order does not apply to cast
fittings. Cast austenitic stainless steel
pipe fittings are covered by
specifications A351/A351M, A743/
743M, and A744/A744M.
The butt-weld fittings subject to the
order are currently classifiable under
subheading 7307.23.0000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Final Results of the Administrative
Review
We determine that a weighted-average
dumping margin of 60.10 percent exists
for Superinox for the period of February
1, 2017, through January 31, 2018.
Assessment Rates
In accordance with section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1) and the Final
Modification,2 Commerce will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to liquidate all appropriate entries
for Superinox without regard to
antidumping duties.
For entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by Superinox
for which it did not know its
merchandise was destined for the
United States, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate such entries at the all-others
rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction.3 We intend to issue
instructions to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of this
review.
Cash Deposit Requirement
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of the final
results of administrative review for all
shipments of pipe fittings from Malaysia
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided by
2 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of
the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102
(February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).
3 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 Jan 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The
cash deposit rate for Superinox will be
60.10 percent, the weighted-average
dumping margin established in the final
results of this administrative review; (2)
for merchandise exported by
manufacturers or exporters not covered
in this administrative review but
covered in a prior segment of the
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recently
completed segment of this proceeding in
which the manufacturer or exporter
participated; (3) if the exporter is not a
firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the less-than-fair-value
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recently
completed segment of the proceeding
for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit
rate for all other manufacturers or
exporters will continue to be 7.51
percent ad valorem, the all-others rate
established in the less-than-fair value
investigation.
These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in Commerce’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation subject to sanction.
Notification to Interested Parties
These final results of administrative
review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1053
Dated: December 21, 2018.
P. Lee Smith,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Negotiations.
[FR Doc. 2019–00748 Filed 1–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
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
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.
AGENCY:
Applicable December 23, 2018.
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:
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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
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).
E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM
01FEN1
1054
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Notices
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
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
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
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
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.
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
dumping margin
(percent)
Exporter
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./Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd ....................................................
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 .......................................................................................................................................................
BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd ...............................................................................................................................................
Canadian Solar International Limited ............................................................................................................................................
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc ............................................................................................................................
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc ...............................................................................................................................
Dongguan Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................
ERA Solar Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................................
ET Solar Energy Limited ...............................................................................................................................................................
JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................
.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 Jan 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
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.
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.
9 SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 320
F. Supp. 3d 1341 (CIT 2018) (SolarWorld II).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10 Id.
0.00
6.55
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
at.1350–55.
at 1355–58.
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).
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)
11 Id.
E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM
01FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2019 / Notices
Weighted-average
dumping margin
(percent)
Exporter
Jiangsu High Hope Int’l Group 17 ..................................................................................................................................................
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................................................................
Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd ..........................................................................................................................
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................
Shenzhen Glory Industries Co., Ltd ..............................................................................................................................................
Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................
Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd./Luoyang Suntech Power 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.
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:23 Jan 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–075]
Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) determines that producers
and/or exporters subject to this
investigation made sales of subject
merchandise at less than normal value.
DATES: Applicable February 1, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Decker, Lauren Caserta, or Caitlin
Monks, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0196,
(202) 482–4737, or (202) 482–2670,
respectively.
AGENCY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commerce published the Preliminary
Determination of this investigation in
the Federal Register on August 8, 2018.1
Subsequently, Commerce postponed the
deadline for the final determination to
December 21, 2018.2 A summary of the
events that occurred since Commerce
1 See Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83
FR 39058 (August 8, 2018) (Preliminary
Determination).
2 See Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon from the
People’s Republic of China: Postponement of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83
FR 40226 (August 14, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
1055
Sfmt 4703
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.96
published the Preliminary
Determination, as well as a full
discussion of the issues raised by parties
for this final determination, may be
found in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.3 A list of topics included
in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is included at Appendix
II to this notice.
The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Enforcement
and Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users
at https://access.trade.gov and is
available to all parties in the Central
Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed
Issues and Decision Memorandum and
the electronic version are identical in
content.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is April 1,
2017, through September 30, 2017.
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is certain plastic
decorative ribbon from China. For a
complete description of the scope of this
investigation, see Appendix I.
Scope Comments
We invited parties to comment on
Commerce’s Preliminary Scope Decision
Memorandum.4 Commerce has
reviewed the scope briefs submitted by
interested parties, considered the
arguments therein, and has made
3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Affirmative
Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation of Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon
from China,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby
adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision
Memorandum).
4 See Memorandum, ‘‘Certain Plastic Decorative
Ribbon from the People’s Republic of China: Scope
Comments Preliminary Decision Memorandum’’
(Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum), dated
July 30, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM
01FEN1
]]>Agencies
[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
