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, 73242-73244 [2021-28071]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73242
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 245 / Monday, December 27, 2021 / Notices
timely summons is filed at the U.S.
Court of International Trade, the
assessment instructions will direct CBP
not to liquidate relevant entries until the
time for parties to file a request for a
statutory injunction has expired (i.e.,
within 90 days of publication).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
because the respondent did not report
entered value, we calculated importerspecific per-unit duty assessment rates
based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales to the total quantity of
those sales. Where either the
respondent’s weighted-average dumping
margin is zero or de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.5 percent) within the meaning of
19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importerspecific assessment rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.5 To
determine whether an importer-specific
per-unit duty assessment rate is de
minimis, we calculated an estimated
entered value.
The final results of this review shall
be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of
merchandise covered by the final results
of this review and for future deposits of
estimated duties, where applicable.6
Consistent with Commerce’s
clarification of its assessment practice,
for entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by Bothwell
for which it did not know the
merchandise was destined for the
United States, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction.7
Cash Deposit Requirements
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of forged steel fittings from
Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the date of publication of the final
results as provided by section 751(a)(2)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for
Bothwell will be equal to the weightedaverage dumping margin established in
the final results of this review; (2) for
merchandise exported by producers or
exporters not covered in this review but
5 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of
the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102
(February 14, 2012).
6 See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
7 For a full discussion of this practice, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954
(May 6, 2003).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:11 Dec 23, 2021
Jkt 256001
covered in a prior completed segment of
the proceeding, the cash deposit rate
will continue to be the companyspecific rate published in the completed
segment for the most recent period; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this review or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, but the
producer is, then the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established in the
completed segment for the most recent
period for the producer of the
merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate
for all other producers or exporters will
continue to be 116.17 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV
investigation.8 These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
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.
Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Discussion of the Issue
Comment: Whether Commerce Should
Request Additional Information From
Bothwell
V. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2021–28070 Filed 12–23–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Notification to Importers
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
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 POR. 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.
International Trade Administration
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 return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. 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
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(5).
8 See
PO 00000
Order, 83 FR at 48281.
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[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
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 Canadian
Solar International Limited et al. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 17–
00173, 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, 2014, through
November 30, 2015. Commerce is
notifying the public that the CIT’s final
judgment is not in harmony with the
final results of the 2014–2015 AD
administrative review of 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 Canadian Solar
International Limited; Canadian Solar
Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc.;
Canadian Solar Manufacturing
(Luoyang), Inc.; CSI Cells Co., Ltd.; CSI–
GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng)
Co., Ltd.; and CSI Solar Power (China)
Inc. (collectively, Canadian Solar); (2)
the collapsed entity comprising Yingli
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 245 / Monday, December 27, 2021 / Notices
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. (collectively,
Yingli); and (3) 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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
On June 27, 2017, Commerce
published the final results of the 2014–
2015 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
After correcting a ministerial error in
the Final Results (i.e., Commerce
inadvertently omitted certain U.S.
indirect selling expenses from its
calculations), on August 25, 2017,
Commerce published the Amended
Final Results.2
Respondents, Canadian Solar, Trina,3
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd., and Ningbo
Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co.,
Ltd. (Ningbo Qixin), and domestic
interested party, SolarWorld Americas,
Inc., challenged Commerce’s Amended
Final Results (CIT case numbers 17–
00173, 17–00187, 17–00193, and 17–
00200). Yingli sought to intervene in
CIT case number 17–00197. The CIT
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; 2014–2015,
82 FR 29033 (June 27, 2017) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 13.
2 See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells,
Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the
People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–
2015, 82 FR 40560 (August 25, 2017) (Amended
Final Results).
3 We used ‘‘Trina’’ to refer to the following
companies that we treated 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.; and Hubei
Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:11 Dec 23, 2021
Jkt 256001
consolidated case numbers 17–00173,
17–00187, 17–00193, 17–00197, and 17–
00200 into case number 17–00173 in
September 2017. On April 16, 2019, the
CIT sustained Commerce’s Amended
Final Results with respect to: (1) The
surrogates that it selected to value
aluminum frames, nitrogen, polysilicon
ingots and blocks, and financial ratios;
(2) its decision to include import values
with zero import quantities in its
surrogate value calculations; and (3) its
decision to deny Trina an offset for debt
restructuring income. However, the CIT
remanded the Amended Final Results to
Commerce to reconsider, or further
explain: (1) The surrogate that it
selected to value solar module glass; (2)
its application of an adverse inference
in selecting partial facts available for
use in calculating Canadian Solar’s
dumping margin; and (3) its decision to
reject Ningbo Qixin’s separate rate
application.4
In its first remand redetermination,
issued in July 2019, Commerce: (1)
Under respectful protest, valued solar
module glass using Bulgarian import
data, rather than Thai import data; (2)
further explained its determination to
rely on facts available with an adverse
inference in calculating Canadian
Solar’s dumping margin; and (3)
continued to deny Ningbo Qixin a
separate rate after reopening the record
to permit Ningbo Qixin to establish that
it made a shipment of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR (which it failed to establish).5
The CIT sustained Commerce’s
redetermination with respect to the
value of solar module glass, and its
denial of Ningbo Qixin’s request for a
separate rate, but remanded to
Commerce its partial adverse facts
available determination with respect to
Canadian Solar for a second time.6
In its second remand redetermination,
issued in February 2020, Commerce
reexamined its partial adverse facts
available determination with respect to
Canadian Solar and, under respectful
protest, determined not to apply an
adverse inference when selecting from
among the facts available in calculating
a dumping margin for Canadian Solar.7
4 See Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. et al. v. United
States, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (CIT 2019).
5 See Results of Remand Redetermination,
Canadian Solar International Limited, et al. v.
United States, Court No. 17–00173, Slip Op. 19–47
(Court of International Trade April 16, 2019), dated
July 15, 2019.
6 See Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. et al. v. United
States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (CIT 2019).
7 See Canadian Solar International Limited, et al.
v. United States, Court No. 17–00173, Slip Op. 19–
152 (Court of International Trade December 3, 2019)
Final Results of Second Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order, dated February 10, 2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73243
The CIT sustained Commerce’s second
redetermination.8
In June 2020, in SolarWorld, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CAFC) vacated the CIT’s judgement
sustaining Commerce’s use of Thai
import data to value nitrogen in the
2013–2014 AD administrative review of
solar cells from China and remanded the
case for further proceedings consistent
with the Court’s opinion.9
Subsequently, the CIT held that
SolarWorld constitutes an intervening
change in controlling law, and thus, it
vacated its earlier judgment sustaining
Commerce’s valuation of nitrogen in the
2014–2015 AD administrative review of
solar cells from China.10 The CIT also
remanded the nitrogen issue in the
2014–2015 AD administrative review of
solar cells from China to Commerce for
it to adequately explain why the Thai
surrogate value for nitrogen was not
aberrational or adopt an alternative
surrogate value for nitrogen.
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.11 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.12
In its final remand redetermination,
issued in September 2021, under
respectful protest, Commerce used
Mexican import data, rather than Thai
import data, to value nitrogen.13 The
CIT sustained Commerce’s final
redetermination.14
8 See Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. et al. v. United
States, 448 F. Supp. 3d 1333 (CIT 2020).
9 See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United
States, 962 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (SolarWorld).
10 See Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. et al. v. United
States, 471 F. Supp. 3d 1379 (CIT 2020).
11 See Canadian Solar International Limited, et al.
v. United States, Court No. 17–00173, Slip Op. 20–
134 (CIT September 14, 2020), dated January 12,
2021.
12 See Canadian Solar Int’l Limited et al. v.
United States, 532 F. Supp. 3d 1273 (CIT 2021).
13 See Canadian Solar International Limited, et al.
v. United States, Consol. Court No. 17–00173 (CIT
July 28, 2021), dated September 27, 2021.
14 See Canadian Solar International Limited et al.
v. United States, Consol. Court No. 17–00173, Slip
Op. 21–166 (CIT Dec. 8, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
73244
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 245 / Monday, December 27, 2021 / Notices
Timken Notice
as
In its decision in
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,16 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 Amended
Final Results. Thus, this notice is
published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Timken,15
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 this notice.
Thus, this notice will not affect the
current cash deposit rate of these
companies.
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, 2014, through November
Amended Final Results
30, 2015 and produced and/or exported
Because there is now a final court
by the collapsed entity comprising
judgment, Commerce is amending its
Canadian Solar International Limited;
Final Results and Amended Final
Canadian Solar Manufacturing
Results with respect to Canadian Solar,
(Changshu), Inc.; Canadian Solar
Yingli and Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. as
Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc.; CSI Cells
follows:
Co., Ltd.; CSI–GCL Solar Manufacturing
(YanCheng) Co., Ltd.; and CSI Solar
WeightedPower (China) Inc., or exported by any
average
of the following entities: (1) the
Exporter
dumping
collapsed entity comprising Yingli
margin
(percent)
Energy (China) Company Limited;
Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy
Canadian Solar International
Resources Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yingli New
Limited; Canadian Solar
Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; Hengshui
Manufacturing (Changshu),
Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.;
Inc.; Canadian Solar ManLixian Yingli New Energy Resources
ufacturing (Luoyang), Inc.;
Co., Ltd.; Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic
CSI Cells Co., Ltd.; CSI–
Technology Co., Ltd.; Beijing Tianneng
GCL Solar Manufacturing
(YanCheng) Co., Ltd.; CSI
Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.;
Solar Power (China) Inc ...
0.00 Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources
Yingli Energy (China) ComCo., Ltd.; and Shenzhen Yingli New
pany Limited; Baoding
Energy Resources Co., Ltd.; (2) Shanghai
Tianwei Yingli New Energy
BYD Co., Ltd.; (3) Ningbo Qixin Solar
Resources Co., Ltd.;
Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.; (4) Chint
Tianjin Yingli New Energy
Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; (5) ERA Solar
Resources Co., Ltd.;
Co., Ltd.; (6) ET Solar Energy Limited;
Hengshui Yingli New En(7) Hangzhou Sunny Energy Science &
ergy Resources Co., Ltd.;
Technology Co., Ltd.; (8) Hengdian
Lixian Yingli New Energy
Resources Co., Ltd.;
Group DMEGC Magnetics Co., Ltd.; (9)
Baoding Jiasheng PhotoJA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co.,
voltaic Technology Co.,
Ltd.; (10) Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen)
Ltd.; Beijing Tianneng
Co., Ltd.; (11) Jiawei Solarchina Co.,
Yingli New Energy ReLtd.; (12) JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.; (13)
sources Co., Ltd.; Hainan
Lightway Green New Energy Co., Ltd.;
Yingli New Energy Re(14) Ningbo ETDZ Holdings, Ltd.; (15)
sources Co., Ltd.;
Risen Energy Co., Ltd.; (16) Shanghai JA
Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd ...
0.00 Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; (17)
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd ........
0.00 Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd.; (18)
Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd.; (19)
Star Power International Limited; (20)
Cash Deposit Requirements
Systemes Versilis, Inc.; (21) Taizhou BD
Because Canadian Solar, Yingli, and
Trade Co., Ltd.; (22) tenKsolar
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. all have a
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; (23) Toenergy
superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., final
Technology Hangzhou Co., Ltd.; (24)
Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd.;
15 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(25) Zhejiang Era Solar Technology Co.,
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
Ltd.; and (26) Zhejiang Sunflower Light
16 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers
Energy Science & Technology Limited
Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
Liability Company. These entries will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:11 Dec 23, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
remain enjoined pursuant to the terms
of 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 importerspecific 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.17
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. 2021–28071 Filed 12–23–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–971]
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, and Intent
to Rescind Review, in Part; 2019
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) preliminarily determines
that countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
multilayered wood flooring (wood
flooring) from the People’s Republic of
China (China). The period of review
(POR) is January 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these
preliminary results of review.
DATES: Applicable December 27, 2021.
AGENCY:
17 See
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
27DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73242-73244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28071]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Canadian Solar International Limited
et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 17-00173, 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, 2014, through November 30, 2015.
Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not
in harmony with the final results of the 2014-2015 AD administrative
review of 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 Canadian Solar
International Limited; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc.;
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc.; CSI Cells Co., Ltd.; CSI-
GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd.; and CSI Solar Power
(China) Inc. (collectively, Canadian Solar); (2) the collapsed entity
comprising Yingli
[[Page 73243]]
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. (collectively, Yingli); and (3) 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 27, 2017, Commerce published the final results of the 2014-
2015 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; 2014-2015, 82 FR 29033 (June 27,
2017) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After correcting a ministerial error in the Final Results (i.e.,
Commerce inadvertently omitted certain U.S. indirect selling expenses
from its calculations), on August 25, 2017, Commerce published the
Amended Final Results.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not
Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Amended
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015,
82 FR 40560 (August 25, 2017) (Amended Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents, Canadian Solar, Trina,\3\ Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd., and
Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Qixin), and
domestic interested party, SolarWorld Americas, Inc., challenged
Commerce's Amended Final Results (CIT case numbers 17-00173, 17-00187,
17-00193, and 17-00200). Yingli sought to intervene in CIT case number
17-00197. The CIT consolidated case numbers 17-00173, 17-00187, 17-
00193, 17-00197, and 17-00200 into case number 17-00173 in September
2017. On April 16, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce's Amended Final
Results with respect to: (1) The surrogates that it selected to value
aluminum frames, nitrogen, polysilicon ingots and blocks, and financial
ratios; (2) its decision to include import values with zero import
quantities in its surrogate value calculations; and (3) its decision to
deny Trina an offset for debt restructuring income. However, the CIT
remanded the Amended Final Results to Commerce to reconsider, or
further explain: (1) The surrogate that it selected to value solar
module glass; (2) its application of an adverse inference in selecting
partial facts available for use in calculating Canadian Solar's dumping
margin; and (3) its decision to reject Ningbo Qixin's separate rate
application.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We used ``Trina'' to refer to the following companies that
we treated 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.;
and Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.
\4\ See Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. et al. v. United States, 378
F. Supp. 3d 1292 (CIT 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its first remand redetermination, issued in July 2019, Commerce:
(1) Under respectful protest, valued solar module glass using Bulgarian
import data, rather than Thai import data; (2) further explained its
determination to rely on facts available with an adverse inference in
calculating Canadian Solar's dumping margin; and (3) continued to deny
Ningbo Qixin a separate rate after reopening the record to permit
Ningbo Qixin to establish that it made a shipment of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR (which it failed to
establish).\5\ The CIT sustained Commerce's redetermination with
respect to the value of solar module glass, and its denial of Ningbo
Qixin's request for a separate rate, but remanded to Commerce its
partial adverse facts available determination with respect to Canadian
Solar for a second time.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Results of Remand Redetermination, Canadian Solar
International Limited, et al. v. United States, Court No. 17-00173,
Slip Op. 19-47 (Court of International Trade April 16, 2019), dated
July 15, 2019.
\6\ See Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. et al. v. United States, 415
F. Supp. 3d 1326 (CIT 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its second remand redetermination, issued in February 2020,
Commerce reexamined its partial adverse facts available determination
with respect to Canadian Solar and, under respectful protest,
determined not to apply an adverse inference when selecting from among
the facts available in calculating a dumping margin for Canadian
Solar.\7\ The CIT sustained Commerce's second redetermination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Canadian Solar International Limited, et al. v. United
States, Court No. 17-00173, Slip Op. 19-152 (Court of International
Trade December 3, 2019) Final Results of Second Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Order, dated February 10, 2020.
\8\ See Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. et al. v. United States, 448
F. Supp. 3d 1333 (CIT 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2020, in SolarWorld, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated the CIT's judgement sustaining
Commerce's use of Thai import data to value nitrogen in the 2013-2014
AD administrative review of solar cells from China and remanded the
case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.\9\
Subsequently, the CIT held that SolarWorld constitutes an intervening
change in controlling law, and thus, it vacated its earlier judgment
sustaining Commerce's valuation of nitrogen in the 2014-2015 AD
administrative review of solar cells from China.\10\ The CIT also
remanded the nitrogen issue in the 2014-2015 AD administrative review
of solar cells from China to Commerce for it to adequately explain why
the Thai surrogate value for nitrogen was not aberrational or adopt an
alternative surrogate value for nitrogen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, 962
F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (SolarWorld).
\10\ See Canadian Solar Int'l Ltd. et al. v. United States, 471
F. Supp. 3d 1379 (CIT 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.\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Canadian Solar International Limited, et al. v. United
States, Court No. 17-00173, Slip Op. 20-134 (CIT September 14,
2020), dated January 12, 2021.
\12\ See Canadian Solar Int'l Limited et al. v. United States,
532 F. Supp. 3d 1273 (CIT 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final remand redetermination, issued in September 2021,
under respectful protest, Commerce used Mexican import data, rather
than Thai import data, to value nitrogen.\13\ The CIT sustained
Commerce's final redetermination.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Canadian Solar International Limited, et al. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 17-00173 (CIT July 28, 2021), dated
September 27, 2021.
\14\ See Canadian Solar International Limited et al. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 17-00173, Slip Op. 21-166 (CIT Dec. 8,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73244]]
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\15\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\16\ 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 Amended Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\16\ 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 Amended Final Results with respect to Canadian
Solar, Yingli and Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar International Limited; Canadian Solar 0.00
Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc.; Canadian Solar
Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc.; CSI Cells Co., Ltd.; CSI-
GCL Solar Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd.; CSI Solar
Power (China) Inc......................................
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.....................................
Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because Canadian Solar, Yingli, 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 this notice. Thus, this notice will not affect the
current cash deposit rate of these companies.
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,
2014, through November 30, 2015 and produced and/or exported by the
collapsed entity comprising Canadian Solar International Limited;
Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc.; Canadian Solar
Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc.; CSI Cells Co., Ltd.; CSI-GCL Solar
Manufacturing (YanCheng) Co., Ltd.; and CSI Solar Power (China) Inc.,
or exported by any of the following entities: (1) the collapsed entity
comprising 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.; (2) Shanghai BYD Co.,
Ltd.; (3) Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.; (4) Chint
Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; (5) ERA Solar Co., Ltd.; (6) ET Solar
Energy Limited; (7) Hangzhou Sunny Energy Science & Technology Co.,
Ltd.; (8) Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co., Ltd.; (9) JA Solar
Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd.; (10) Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen) Co.,
Ltd.; (11) Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd.; (12) JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.;
(13) Lightway Green New Energy Co., Ltd.; (14) Ningbo ETDZ Holdings,
Ltd.; (15) Risen Energy Co., Ltd.; (16) Shanghai JA Solar Technology
Co., Ltd.; (17) Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd.; (18) Shenzhen Topray
Solar Co., Ltd.; (19) Star Power International Limited; (20) Systemes
Versilis, Inc.; (21) Taizhou BD Trade Co., Ltd.; (22) tenKsolar
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; (23) Toenergy Technology Hangzhou Co., Ltd.; (24)
Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd.; (25) Zhejiang Era Solar Technology
Co., Ltd.; and (26) Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science &
Technology Limited Liability Company. These entries will remain
enjoined pursuant to the terms of 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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. 2021-28071 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
