Solar Cell Exporter Argues Against US Defense of Surrogate Values for EVA, Backsheet
The government "completely" misinterpreted industry abstracts it relied on justify the Commerce Department's classification of backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs as "sheets" and not "film" for Risen Energy's surrogate values in an antidumping duty review on solar cells from China, Risen argued in a Sept. 7 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The U.S. said that the ASTM abstracts include technical definitions of film compared with sheet and that, as a result, Commerce's classification of these inputs is supported as part of the 2017-18 solar cells review. The government argued that the abstracts give a "clear technical definition of film" that distinguishes it from sheet based on thickness.
Risen argued that the abstracts "are not about defining sheet compared to film" since one is a guide for "measuring plastic and the other defines the specifications of a particular type of plastic." Risen said that the U.S. argues that the abstracts are technical definitions when they don't even "pretend to define the difference between the term sheet and film."
The government rejected Risen's claims that both inputs are flexible films, not sheets, arguing that Commerce's definition is not about rigidity but about thickness. "Nonetheless, the information Risen submitted on the record also addresses the thickness of solar EVA film and solar backsheet film -- namely the use of the term film for the precise inputs Risen used and in the solar industry generally," the brief said.
Risen went on to argue that Commerce's surrogate financial ratio calculation was also not supported by substantial evidence. In the review, the agency allocated the remaining cost of sales -- taken from the cost of sales line item from the profit and loss statement minus various detailed costs that would be included in a cost of sales item -- to the overhead costs. The agency said the "Materials Labor Energy" costs had already been accounted for in the inventories line item note.
The exporter claimed that the inventories line item "does not allow Commerce to segregate out [Materials Labor Energy] expenses from overhead expenses in the [cost of goods sold] for Hanwha’s financial ratios. Commerce has calculated inaccurate ratios not based on substantial evidence, resulting in an inaccurate margin."