from the United States Court of International Trade in No.
1:17-cv-00244-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves.
B. Lehnardt, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC,
argued for plaintiff-appellant.
Reinhart Miller, International Trade Field Office, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department
of Justice, New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee
United States. Also represented by Joseph H. Hunt, Reginald
Thomas Blades, Jr., Jeanne Davidson, Washington, DC; David W.
Campbell, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and
Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington,
Timothy C. Brightbill, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, for
defendant-appellee SolarWorld Americas, Inc. Also represented
by Stephanie Manaker Bell, Tessa V. Capeloto, Laura
El-Sabaawi, Cynthia Cristina Galvez, Usha Neelakantan, Adam
Milan Teslik, Maureen E. Thorson.
Moore, Clevenger, and Wallach, Circuit Judges.
Wallach, Circuit Judge.
Sumecht NA, Inc., dba Sumec North America
("Sumec"), a U.S. importer, sued Appellee the
United States ("Government") in the U.S. Court of
International Trade ("CIT"), challenging the U.S.
Department of Commerce's ("Commerce")
liquidation instructions. Sumec filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction to enjoin the Government from
liquidating certain entries, and the CIT issued an opinion
and order denying Sumec's Motion. Sumecht NA, Inc. v.
United States, 331 F.Supp.3d 1408, 1412 (Ct. Int'l
Trade 2018); see J.A. 8-10 (denying
appeals. We have jurisdiction over this appeal of an
interlocutory order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1)
(2012). We affirm.
duties may be imposed on foreign merchandise sold, or likely
to be sold, "in the United States at less than its fair
value." 19 U.S.C. § 1673(1) (2012). At the
conclusion of an investigation, if Commerce and the U.S.
International Trade Commission have made the requisite
findings, Commerce "shall publish an antidumping duty
order" directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection
("Customs") officers to assess duties on imported
goods covered by the investigation. Id. §
1673e(a). Commerce typically must "determine the
individual weighted average dumping margin for each known
exporter and producer of the subject merchandise."
Id. § 1677f-1(c)(1). "A dumping margin
reflects the amount by which the normal value (the price a
producer charges in its home market) exceeds the export price
(the price of the product in the United States) or
constructed export price." SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v.
United States, 910 F.3d 1216, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(internal quotation marks and footnote omitted); see
19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A).
here, Commerce considers China to be a non-market economy
country. See SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 1220 n.3. A
"nonmarket economy country" is "any foreign
country that [Commerce] determines does not operate on market
principles of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of
merchandise in such country do not reflect the fair value of
the merchandise." 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A). "In
antidumping duty proceedings involving merchandise from a
non-market economy, . . . Commerce presumes that all
respondents are government-controlled and therefore subject
to a single country-wide rate," unless respondents
"rebut this presumption" to demonstrate eligibility
for separate rates, i.e., "individual dumping margins .
. . for each known exporter or producer." Dongtai
Peak Honey Indus. Co. v. United States, 777 F.3d 1343,
1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (footnote omitted) (citing, inter
alia, 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1)).
Factual Background and Procedural History
appeal relates to Commerce's antidumping duty order on
crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not
assembled into modules ("subject merchandise"),
from the People's Republic of China ("China").
See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or
Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of
China, 77 Fed. Reg. 73, 018, 73, 018 (Dep't of
Commerce Dec. 7, 2012) (am. final determination &
antidumping duty order). Based on its investigation, Commerce
published its final determination, in which it concluded that
Sumec's Chinese exporter of subject merchandise, Sumec
Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd. ("Hardware"), was
separate from the China-wide entity. See id. at 73,
019. Therefore, Commerce assigned Hardware a separate rate,
which was an antidumping duty margin of 24.48%. See
id. at 73, 021. In contrast, Commerce assigned the
China-wide entity an antidumping duty margin of 249.96%.
See id. In August 2015, the 24.48% margin assigned
to Hardware was amended to 13.18% pursuant to the U.S. Trade
Representative's decision to implement a related World