Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Notices SUMMARY: On August 10, 2021, the U.S.
Court of International Trade CIT
issued its final judgment in Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 18
00176, sustaining the Department of Commerces Commerce second remand redetermination pertaining to the 20152016 antidumping duty AD
administrative review of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules solar cells, from the Peoples Republic of China China. Commerce is notifying the public that the CITs final judgment in this litigation is not in harmony with the final results reached by Commerce in the 20152016 AD administrative review of solar cells from China, and that Commerce is amending the final results of that review with respect to the dumping margin calculated for Trina and certain separate rate respondents.
DATES: Applicable August 20, 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 4822769.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

On July 27, 2018, Commerce published the Final Results of its 2015
2016 AD administrative review of solar cells from China.1 Trina 2 appealed Commerces Final Results. On May 13, 2020, the CIT remanded to Commerce for further explanation or reconsideration its decision to use Maersk Line Maersk data, rather than Xeneta XS Xeneta data, to value ocean freight expenses.3 The CIT also held that Commerces decision to not adjust Trinas U.S. prices to account for countervailing duties related to the Export Buyers Credit Program EBCP
was contrary to law.4
In its first remand redetermination, Commerce continued to value Trinas 1 See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the Peoples Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 20152016, 83 FR 35616 July 27, 2018 Final Results.
2 In the Final Results, Commerce treated the following seven companies 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./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar Hefei Science and Technology Co., Ltd collectively, Trina.
3 See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al., 450 F. Supp. 3d 1301 CIT 2020.
4 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:28 Aug 18, 2021

Jkt 253001

ocean freight expenses using Maersk data, rather than Xeneta data; however, under protest, Commerce increased Trinas U.S. prices by the amount of countervailing duty imposed to offset the export subsidy provided by the ExIm Bank of Chinas EBCP.5 In its second remand order, the CIT again directed Commerce to reconsider or further explain its valuation of ocean freight expenses, but it sustained Commerces adjustment of Trinas U.S. prices to account for the Ex-Im Bank of Chinas EBCP.6
In its second remand redetermination, Commerce valued Trinas ocean freight expenses using Xeneta data, recalculated Trinas dumping margin based on this change, and assigned Trinas recalculated dumping margin to the separate rate respondents which participated in the litigation that led to the remand redetermination.7 On August 10, 2021, the CIT sustained Commerces second remand redetermination.8
Timken Notice In its decision in Timken,9 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,10 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516Ac 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 a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a conclusive court decision. The CITs August 10, 2021, judgment constitutes a final court decision that is not in harmony with Commerces Final Results. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Results Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Results. The amended weightedaverage dumping margin for the 5 See Final Results of Remand Redetermination, Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v.
United States, Court No. 1800176, Slip Op. 2064
Court of International Trade May 13, 2020 August 6, 2020.
6 See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 492 F. Supp. 3d 1322 CIT 2021.
7 See Final Results of Remand Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al., v. United States Court No.
1800176, Slip Op. 212 CIT January 4, 2021
April 5, 2021.
8 See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 1800176, Slip. Op. 2198 CIT August 10, 2021.
9 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
Fed. Cir. 1990 Timken.
10 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 Fed. Cir.
2010 Diamond Sawblades.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

46679

respondents which participated in the litigation is as follows:

Exporter
Weightedaverage dumping margin percent
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./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar Hefei Science and Technology Co., Ltd
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd
JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd
Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd

5.08
5.08
5.08
5.08

Cash Deposit Requirements Because the cash deposit rates for all of the companies listed above have a superseded by subsequent cash deposit rates i.e., cash deposit rates have been established for these companies in subsequent final results of reviews, this notice does not affect the current cash deposit rates of these companies.
Accordingly, we will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection CBP
for these companies.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries of subject merchandise that was exported by any of the companies listed above and that was entered into the United States, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the CITs 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 unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212b. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by the review when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de
E:FRFM19AUN1.SGM

19AUN1