Trina Solar (Changzhou) Sci. & Tech. Co. v. United States

                                          Slip Op. 23-

                UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE


 TRINA SOLAR (CHANGZHOU) SCIENCE
 & TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., ET AL.,

        Plaintiff,

 v.
                                                  Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge
 UNITED STATES,
                                                  Court No. 23-00219
        Defendant,

         and

 AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR
 SOLAR MANUFACTURING,

       Defendant-Intervenor.

                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

[Defendant’s Motion for Remand is granted.]
                                                                      Dated: December 12, 2023

Kenneth Neal Hammer, Trade Pacific PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. With him on the
complaint were Jonathan M. Freed and MacKensie R. Sugama.

Joshua E. Kurland, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of
Justice, of Washington, DC, for the Defendant. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Reginald T.
Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Ashlande Gelin, Office of Chief
Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington,
DC.

Laura El-Sabaawi, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenor.

       Before the court is a consent motion to remand to the United States Department of

Commerce (“Commerce”) in Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., LTD v. United

States. Defendant’s Affirmative Motion for Remand, ECF No. 23 (Dec. 11, 2023). All parties in

this case consent to this motion. See Def.’s Affirmative Mot. for Remand at 2. Upon consideration
of the motion the court remands, with additional guidance as welcomed by the Government. Id.

at 8.

        The sole issue raised in this case is the ocean freight benchmark for calculation of a

subsidy based on less than adequate remuneration (“LTAR”). On remand, Commerce should

consider the court’s ruling in Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 23-48, 

 (CIT Apr. 11, 2023), as well the court’s other rulings on the ocean freight issue. See

e.g., Risen Energy Co. v. United States, 

, 1372 (CIT 2022). Commerce

should additionally consider the statutory preference for a broadly based ocean freight rate for an

LTAR benchmark. If other factors outweigh that interest here and compel the use of a single rate

source, Commerce should explain with as much numerical evidence as possible why that is

appropriate. In the absence of the ability to concretely explain a strong reason for a single rate

source, Commerce should use a multiple route data base with such adjustments as are necessary

and possible.

        For the forgoing reasons, the court GRANTS the motion to remand.



                                                                     /s/ Jane A. Restani
                                                                      Jane A. Restani. Judge

Dated: December 12, 2023
       New York, New York




                                                 2