CIT Sustains Commerce's Selection of More Representative Surrogate Freight Costs in AD Review

The Commerce Department correctly relied on data from Xeneta XS over Maersk Line when calculating the respondent's surrogate ocean freight expenses in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 10 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly sustained the remand results after twice remanding them, finding substantial evidence backing the second redetermination.

The case came from the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China, in which Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. served as a respondent. In the investigation, Commerce relied on Maersk's data to establish its surrogate ocean freight costs.

In two different opinions, Kelly raised several concerns over the Maersk selection. Kelly found unsupported Commerce's supposition that only Maersk offered containers for shipping electronics, while Xeneta's rates did not differentiate among regular, hazardous and refrigerated shipments. The record lacked evidence to back the assumption that electronic goods are shipped in different container types, Kelly said.

The judge also pointed to several factors that “detracted” from Maersk's selection, including that Commerce's pick did not include route specificity -- a major factor in freight costs. Maersk's data comprised 32 price quotes from a few days of the period of review as opposed to Xeneta's, which covered the entire POR and was based on “several hundred thousand rates per month,” the opinion said.

With that data, Commerce flipped its reliance on Maersk to Xeneta, drawing agreement from all parties and Kelly's order (see 2106030059). “The record supports Commerce’s findings that the Xeneta data is more representative than the Maersk data and covered all of Trina’s routes,” the judge said. “Likewise, Commerce’s decision to stop relying on any purported differences in the rates for shipping electronic goods and other nonhazardous and nonrefrigerated goods is reasonable because there is no record evidence that shows any such differences in prices.

(Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al. v. U.S., Slip Op. 21-98, CIT Consol. # 18-00176, dated 08/10/21, Judge Kelly. Attorneys: Robert Gosselink of Trade Pacific for plaintiffs; Tara Hogan for defendant U.S. government)