Background
The dispute arose from the Commerce Department’s 2019–2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Because Commerce treats China as a nonmarket economy, it used data from a market-economy surrogate country to value the Chinese producers’ factors of production and calculate normal value.
After three rounds of judicial review, the remaining issues concerned Commerce’s surrogate valuation of solar glass and the separate rates assigned to JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. and BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. In its third remand results, Commerce obtained product-specific conversion factors from mandatory respondents Jinko and Risen, converted glass consumption from kilograms to square meters, and used import values under Malaysian Harmonized System code 7007.19.90. Commerce then calculated a 4.76% dumping margin for Jinko and a de minimis margin for Risen and based JA Solar’s and BYD’s separate rates on those respondent margins.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s third remand results. It held that Commerce’s revised solar-glass valuation complied with the court’s prior remand order and was supported by substantial evidence. The product-specific conversion factors accounted for differences in glass thickness and weight among control numbers, eliminating the accuracy concerns associated with an overall average conversion factor.
The court also sustained Commerce’s revised separate-rate determinations for JA Solar and BYD. The parties either supported the third remand results or acknowledged that they complied with the court’s instructions, and the court concluded that Commerce had adequately reconsidered both the glass valuation and separate-rate issues.
Key Takeaways
- Commerce permissibly used Malaysian import values under HS code 7007.19.90 to value solar glass after converting consumption with product-specific factors.
- The revised methodology accounted for variations in glass thickness and weight that an overall average conversion factor could miss.
- The court sustained the separate rates assigned to JA Solar and BYD based on the recalculated margins for Jinko and Risen.
Why It Matters
The decision closes a multi-remand challenge to Commerce’s 2019–2020 review of the Chinese solar-cell antidumping order. It illustrates how product-specific conversion data can cure deficiencies in surrogate-value calculations when respondents report a factor of production in units different from those used in the selected import data.
The ruling also confirms the revised margins resulting from Commerce’s methodology, including Jinko’s 4.76% margin, Risen’s de minimis margin, and the corresponding separate-rate treatment of JA Solar and BYD.