Quiero saber acerca de...

48394

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Notices
May 24, 2021, we received timely case briefs and letters in lieu of case briefs from the following interested parties: 1
Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd., Jinko Solar International Limited, Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., and Longi Solar Technology Co. Ltd. f/k/a LERRI Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; 2 2 the Government of China GOC; 3 4 Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd.
Tianran; 4 5 Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.
and BYD Shangluo Industrial Co., Ltd.
collectively, BYD; 5 and 6 Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd., JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd., and JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. collectively, JA
Solar.6 On June 1, 2021, we received a timely rebuttal brief from a domestic interested party, the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing.7
Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are solar cells from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.8

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the interested parties briefs are addressed in the Peoples Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review, in Part; 2018, 86 FR 21691
April 23, 2021 Preliminary Results, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum PDM.
2 See GDLSKs Letter, GDLSK Respondents Letter Brief: 2018 Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the Peoples Republic of China C
570980, dated May 24, 2021.
3 See GOCs Letter, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from the Peoples Republic of ChinaCase Brief, dated May 24, 2021.
4 See Tianrans Letter, Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the Peoples Republic of China: Case Brief Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd., dated May 24, 2021.
5 See BYDs Letter, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether Or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the Peoples Republic of China 2018
Review: See also BYD Letter in Lieu of Case Brief, dated May 24, 2021.
6 See JA Solars Letter, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from the Peoples Republic of China:
Letter in Lieu of Case Brief, dated May 24, 2021.
7 See Alliances Letter, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from the Peoples Republic of China:
Rebuttal Brief, dated June 1, 2021.
8 See Memorandum, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results and Partial Recission of the Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the Peoples Republic of China;
2018, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice Issues and Decision Memorandum.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:40 Aug 27, 2021

Jkt 253001

Issues and Decision Memorandum. A
list of the issues raised by interested parties and to which Commerce responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliances Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System ACCESS.
ACCESS is available to registered users at https access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http enforcement.trade.gov/
frn/.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on comments in the case and rebuttal briefs and record evidence, Commerce made certain changes from the Preliminary Results with regard to the calculation of Tianrans program rates for the Provision of Electricity for Less than Adequate Remuneration LTAR program and the Provision of Solar Glass for LTAR program. As a result of these changes to Tianrans program rates, the final AFA rate also changed. These changes are explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the countervailing duty assessment rate calculated for the review period.11 Therefore, for an administrative review of a company to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry that Commerce can instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection CBP to liquidate at the calculated countervailing duty assessment rate calculated for the review period.12
We continue to find that fifteen companies had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and that twentyfive companies subject to this review did not have reviewable entries of subject merchandise for which liquidation is suspended. Because there is no evidence on the record to indicate that these companies had entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding this review with respect to these companies consistent with 19 CFR 351.213d3.
See Appendix III for a complete list of these companies.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review It is Commerces practice to rescind an administrative review of a countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213d3, when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.10 Normally,
Companies Not Selected for Individual Review The statute and Commerces regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777Ac2 of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 705c5 of the Act, which provides instructions for determining the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 705c5A of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely on the basis of facts available.
In these final results, the only rate that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Tianran.
Consequently, as discussed above, the rate calculated for Tianran is also assigned as the rate for all other
9 See sections 7715B and D of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 7715E
of the Act regarding benefit; and section 7715A of the Act regarding specificity.
10 See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper from the Peoples Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015,
82 FR 14349 March 20, 2017; and Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the Peoples Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2017, 84 FR 14650
April 11, 2019.
11 See 19 CFR 351.212b2.
12 See 19 CFR 351.213d3.

Methodology Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751a1A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended the Act. For each subsidy program found to be countervailable, Commerce finds that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution from a government or public entity that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.9 For a full description of the methodology underlying all of Commerces conclusions, including any determination that relied upon the use of adverse facts available pursuant to section 776a and b of the Act, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:FRFM30AUN1.SGM

30AUN1