CIT Upholds Rejection of Separate Rate Application From Exporter Majority-Owned by Chinese Government
The Court of International Trade affirmed Aug. 11 the Commerce Department’s decision to, in an antidumping duty administrative review, reject Chinese solar cell exporter Yingli China’s separate rate application even though its U.S. sales were conducted through an affiliate, Yingli Green Energy Americas, with separate ownership.
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.
In his opinion, CIT Judge Mark Barnett upheld Commerce’s usual rebuttable presumption that exporters in nonmarket economies are under government control.
He said that courts have consistently agreed with it “[f]or roughly thirty years,” including in the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case Jilin Forest v. U.S. It “is rooted in the antidumping statute, which ‘recognizes a close correlation between a nonmarket economy and government control of prices, output decisions, and the allocation of resources,’” he said.
Addressing the arguments derived from the specific facts of this case, Barnett first explained that Yingli China’s majority owner is the Chinese government, while Yingli Green “is owned by a British Virgin Islands parent company.” During the review period, Yingli China’s vice president of sales was also Yingli Green’s general manager, he observed.
Yingli China argued that it had demonstrated the Chinese government had no de facto control over Yingli Green’s sales (see 2501170076).
In particular, the exporter argued that it would be “irrational and arbitrary to presume” that Yingli Green’s British Virgin Islands parent company would let the Chinese government interfere in its business decisions; and, thus, “because ‘all of Yingli China’s export activities are conducted through [Yingli Green],’ and [Yingli Green] is independent, therefore, Yingli China’s export and sales activities are also independent of government control,” Barnett said.
In turn, the government argued that Yingli China wasn’t eligible for a separate rate because a Chinese government agency held a majority share in it, he said.
Barnett ruled that the exporter’s “emphasis” on the independence of Yingli Green “misses the point.” Commerce wasn’t reviewing Yingli Green, he said -- it was reviewing Yingli China.
The judge also noted that, per the requirements for a finding of de facto independence from government control, Yingli China needed to demonstrate that it could make business decisions and select leadership without government interference.
The exporter hadn’t done so, and, in fact, “the evidence of majority government ownership and Yingli China’s Articles of Association support Commerce’s finding,” he said.
(Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited v. United States, Slip Op. 25-101, CIT # 24-00131, dated 8/11/25; Judge: Mark Barnett; Attorneys: Gregory Menegaz of The Inter-Global Trade Law Group for plaintiff Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited; Kristin Olson for defendant U.S. government; Timothy Brightbill of Wiley Rein for defendant-intervenor American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing)