Only 5 of 79 CV Programs for Chinese Solar Panel Sellers Are Export-Contingent, US Says
The U.S. opposed solar panel exporters’ motion for judgment in a case on an antidumping duty review on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China, saying that the Commerce Department had been right to only adjust a mandatory respondent’s antidumping duty by countervailing subsidy duties on the export-contingent programs used by the respondent (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Plaintiffs led by Chinese exporter Trina Solar are contesting their 10.5% AD rate, saying that a double remedy was applied to Trina, the sole mandatory respondent (see 2311070018).
Before the AD review’s preliminary decision, Commerce said that it would add to Trina’s U.S. price the amount of countervailing duty imposed on the exporter’s products. The department adjusted Trina’s U.S. price upward by “the sum of export subsidy rates calculated for … five programs (i.e. 3.06%)” out of 79 that a 2017 CVD review had found countervailable. Trina, however, argues that Commerce also should have added the duties calculated for six other programs countervailed in the 2017 review to its U.S. price.
But Commerce correctly didn’t include those other six programs because nothing indicated that they were export-contingent, the government said. Out of the 79 total programs countervailed after the 2017 review, only the five that were added to Trina’s U.S. price were export-contingent, it said.
And Trina was wrong that Commerce had not explained why it excluded those six programs from the exporter’s U.S. price, the U.S. said; on the contrary, the department did so “clearly,” it said, as Commerce specifically explained why it found that those programs weren’t export-contingent.
Trina also fails to point to any record evidence that would show the six other programs it wants considered were export-contingent, it said. It called the exporter’s claim an “unsubstantiated assumption.”
And, it said, the applicable statute only requires that Commerce adjust a respondent’s U.S. price by any export subsidies it receives.
“Trina’s argument, by extension, would have Commerce include in the export subsidy adjustment all programs from the CVD Final Results 2017 that Commerce did not previously find specific on a basis other than being export contingent,” it said.