Canadian Solar, Inc. v. United States

23 F.4th 1372

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: January 28, 2022
• Docket: 21-1434
• Status: Published

Opinion

Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 01/28/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CANADIAN SOLAR, INC., CANADIAN SOLAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, CANADIAN SOLAR MANUFACTURING (LUOYANG), INC., CANADIAN SOLAR MANUFACTURING (CHANGSHU), INC., CSI CELLS CO., LTD., CSI SOLAR POWER (CHINA) INC., CSI SOLARTRONICS (CHANGSHU) CO., LTD., CSI SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., CSI SOLAR MANUFACTURE INC., CSI NEW ENERGY HOLDING CO., LTD., CSI-GCL SOLAR MANUFACTURING (YANCHENG) CO., LTD., CHANGSHU TEGU NEW MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., CHANGSHU TLIAN CO., LTD., SUZHOU SANYSOLAR MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., CANADIAN SOLAR (USA), INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants

SUMEC HARDWARE & TOOLS CO., LTD., CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY CO., LTD., TRINA SOLAR (CHANGZHOU) SCIENCE & 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., CHANGZHOU TRINA PV RIBBON MATERIALS CO., LTD., Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES, Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 01/28/2022

Defendant-Appellee

SOLARWORLD AMERICAS, INC., Defendant ______________________

2021-1434 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in Nos. 1:18-cv-00184-JAR, 1:18-cv-00185-JAR, 1:18-cv-00186-JAR, 1:18-cv-00187-JAR, Senior Judge Jane A. Restani. ______________________

Decided: January 28, 2022 ______________________

SARAH WYSS, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by BRYAN CENKO, JILL CRAMER, JEFFREY S. GRIMSON, WENHUI JI, KRISTIN HEIM MOWRY.

JUSTIN REINHART MILLER, International Trade Field Office, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, JEANNE DAVIDSON, TARA K. HOGAN; PAUL KEITH, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. ______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and CHEN, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge. Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 01/28/2022

CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 3

Appellants Canadian Solar, Inc. et al. 1 (collectively, Ca- nadian Solar) are producers and exporters of certain crys- talline silicon photovoltaic cells. These photovoltaic cells were imported into the United States from the People’s Re- public of China, and the United States Department of Com- merce (Commerce), after an investigation, issued an order imposing a duty to counteract subsidies Canadian Solar re- ceived from the government of China. During its fourth administrative review of that coun- tervailing duty order, Commerce determined on remand that Canadian Solar received regionally specific electricity subsidies subject to countervailing duties under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D)(iv). Final Results of Redetermination Pur- suant to Court Remand at 14–19, Canadian Solar Inc. v. United States, No. 18-00184 (Ct. Int’l Trade June 26, 2020), ECF No. 95-1 (Remand Redetermination). To reach this conclusion, Commerce identified electricity price variation across the different provinces and applied adverse facts available—due to the central government of China’s failure to cooperate in Commerce’s investigation—to conclude that the central government sets variable electricity pricing that is region-specific for development purposes. See id. at 19. The Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained Commerce’s Remand Redetermination. Canadian Solar

1 In addition to Canadian Solar, Inc., Appellants in- clude Canadian Solar International Ltd., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufac- turing (Changshu), Inc., CSI Cells Co., Ltd., CSI Solar Power (China) Inc., CSI Solartronics (Changshu) Co., Ltd., CSI Solar Technologies Inc., CSI Solar Manufacture Inc., CSI New Energy Holding Co., Ltd., CSI-GCL Solar Manu- facturing (Yancheng) Co., Ltd., Changshu Tegu New Mate- rials Technology Co., Ltd., Changshu Tlian Co., Ltd., Suzhou Sanysolar Materials Technology Co., Ltd., and Ca- nadian Solar (USA), Inc. Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 01/28/2022

Inc. v. United States, No. 18-00184, slip op. 20-149, 2020 WL 6129754 (Ct. Int’l Trade Oct. 19, 2020) (Canadian So- lar II). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. BACKGROUND A Commerce is required to impose a countervailing duty on imported merchandise when it “determines that the government of a country or any public entity within the ter- ritory of a country is providing, directly or indirectly, a countervailable subsidy.” 19 U.S.C. § 1671(a)(1). A sub- sidy is countervailable when it is “specific.” Id. § 1677(5)(A). One type of specific subsidy is a subsidy “lim- ited to an enterprise or industry located within a desig- nated geographical region within the jurisdiction of the authority providing the subsidy.” Id. § 1677(5A)(D)(iv). Such a subsidy is referred to as a regionally specific sub- sidy. If, during investigation or review of a countervailing duty order, Commerce determines that (a) “necessary in- formation is not available on the record” or (b) “an inter- ested party or any other person . . . withholds information that has been requested by [Commerce],” “fails to provide such information by the deadlines . . . or in the form and manner requested,” “significantly impedes a proceeding,” or “provides such information but the information cannot be verified,” Commerce must use “facts otherwise availa- ble.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a); see also Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2020). If Commerce further “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” then Commerce “may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). To reach an adverse in- ference, Commerce can rely on information from the peti- tion, a final determination in the investigation, prior Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 01/28/2022

CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 5

administrative reviews, or “any other information placed on the record.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(2); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.308(c); Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010). B On February 13, 2017, Commerce initiated the fourth administrative review of the countervailing duty order at issue. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Admin. Revs., 82 Fed. Reg. 10,457, 10,457, 10,462 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 13, 2017). The order imposed duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells manufactured in China and imported into the United States. As part of its review, Commerce initiated an investigation and selected Canadian Solar as one of the mandatory respondents. Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not As- sembled Into Modules, From China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Admin. Rev., and Rescission of Rev., in Part; 2015, 83 Fed. Reg. 1235, 1236 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 10, 2018), and accompanying Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results at 2–3 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 2, 2018) (Preliminary Memo). Of relevance to this case, Com- merce sought to determine whether Canadian Solar bene- fitted from receiving electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR). Preliminary Memo, at 25–26. To understand whether Canadian Solar received elec- tricity subsidies, Commerce sent questionnaires to the gov- ernment of China. Among other things, Commerce requested provincial price proposals, descriptions of how the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) is involved in electricity price-setting, and an ex- planation of how electricity pricing is responsive to market variables. J.A. 157–65. The parties do not dispute that the government of China declined to provide complete re- sponses to Commerce’s inquiries. Because, in Commerce’s view, the government of China “failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply” with Commerce’s Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 6 Filed: 01/28/2022

request and because the requested information was “key to [Commerce’s] understanding of the [government of China’s] role in establishing electricity prices at the local provincial level,” Commerce applied adverse facts available to conclude that Canadian Solar received a countervailable subsidy through below-market electricity prices. Crystal- line Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Admin. Rev.; 2015, 83 Fed. Reg. 34,828, 34,829 (Dep’t Commerce July 23, 2018) (Final Results), and accompany- ing Decision Memorandum for the Final Results at 14–15 (Dep’t Commerce July 12, 2018) (Final Memo). 2 Commerce also applied adverse facts available to calculate the coun- tervailing duty rate. 3 Final Memo, at 33–34. Canadian Solar subsequently filed suit in the CIT chal- lenging various components of the Final Results, including Commerce’s finding that Canadian Solar received a

2 Commerce later amended its Final Results to ad- just the overall countervailing duty rate to account for an error unrelated to the electricity subsidy. Crystalline Sili- con Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From China: Amended Final Results of Counter- vailing Duty Admin. Rev.; 2015, 83 Fed. Reg. 54,566, 54,567 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 30, 2018). 3 On remand, Commerce assessed Canadian Solar a total countervailing duty rate of 5.02 percent. Remand Re- determination, at 59. This accounts for subsidies received for solar grade polysilicon, solar glass, electricity, and land, as well as export credits, development program benefits, preferential lending, and tax benefits. Final Memo, at 8– 9; Remand Redetermination, at 59. The countervailing duty rate for subsidized electricity comprised 0.53 percent. Remand Redetermination, at 59. Only the electricity sub- sidy is on appeal and Canadian Solar does not challenge the rate calculation. Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 7 Filed: 01/28/2022

CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 7

countervailable electricity subsidy. Canadian Solar Inc. v. United States, No. 18-00184, slip op. 20-23, 2020 WL 898557, at *4 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 25, 2020). Commerce requested a voluntary remand and the CIT granted the re- quest. Id. On remand, Commerce provided a revised determina- tion that Canadian Solar received a regionally specific sub- sidy under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D)(iv). Remand Redetermination, at 14. As support for this finding, Com- merce noted that the parties did not dispute “that electric- ity prices vary from province to province in China.” Id. Because the government of China declined to provide cer- tain “key information” as to the electricity price variation across the provinces, Commerce was unable to “confirm that market and commercial principles explain the varia- tion in electricity prices on the record.” Id. at 15–16. First, the government of China refused to provide “pro- vincial price proposals for each of the relevant provinces,” which would have helped Commerce determine why the electricity prices varied by province, including by identify- ing “market- or cost-based reasons underlying the varia- tion.” Id. at 15. Second, the government of China’s response lacked “a detailed description of the cost elements and price adjustments that were discussed between the provinces and the NDRC,” which would have helped Com- merce ascertain whether the NDRC was involved in price setting as well as why prices varied by province. Id. at 15– 16. Finally, the government of China’s response was de- void of any “province-specific explanations” for price varia- tion, such as how costs inform provincial electricity prices. Id. at 16. This would have also helped Commerce deter- mine “whether there is a market- or cost-based explanation for variation among provinces.” Id. After finding that the government of China failed to co- operate to the best of its ability, Commerce applied adverse facts available to conclude that “the provision of electricity Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 8 Filed: 01/28/2022

is a countervailable subsidy program whereby the central Chinese government, through the NDRC in Beijing, sets different prices in different regions under its authority (i.e., the provinces) without any commercial or market consider- ations, but instead for development purposes.” Id. at 19. Commerce then used the highest electricity prices from the province-by-province price list as its benchmarks for calcu- lating Canadian Solar’s duty rate. Id. Following the Remand Redetermination, Canadian So- lar filed a second suit before the CIT challenging Com- merce’s findings that Canadian Solar received countervailable electricity subsidies, as well as several other findings. Canadian Solar II, at *1. The CIT sus- tained Commerce’s determination. Id. at *7. Canadian Solar appeals, arguing that Commerce’s ap- plication of adverse facts available to determine that the electricity program was a regionally specific subsidy was not supported by substantial evidence because Commerce allegedly ignored the provincial price schedules and failed to identify a single geographic region receiving subsidies. See Appellants’ Br. 15–16. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). DISCUSSION We review Commerce’s determinations under the same standard of review as the CIT and uphold those determi- nations if they are supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i); SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v. United States, 910 F.3d 1216, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). “Substantial evidence is ‘more than a mere scintilla’; rather it is such ‘evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Chang- zhou Trina, 975 F.3d at 1326 (quoting Downhole Pipe, Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 9 Filed: 01/28/2022

CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 9

776 F.3d at 1374). When assessing whether Commerce’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, “[w]e look to ‘the record as a whole, including evidence that supports as well as evidence that fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.’” SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 1222 (quoting Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States, 652 F.3d 1333, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Although we review the CIT’s decision de novo, “we give great weight” to the CIT’s “informed opinion,” which “is nearly always the starting point of our analysis.” Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quot- ing Ningbo Dafa Chem. Fiber Co. v. United States, 580 F.3d 1247, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). The record here supports Commerce’s conclusions. In its Remand Redetermination, Commerce sufficiently and reasonably explained that it lacked key information be- cause the government of China failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. As a result, Commerce was forced to fill in- formational gaps and properly relied on adverse inferences to find that Canadian Solar received a regionally specific electricity subsidy that must be countervailed. A. Electricity Subsidy Commerce is entitled to apply adverse facts available where, as here, an interested party declines to provide re- quested information and fails to cooperate with an investi- gation. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b); Changzhou Trina, 975 F.3d at 1327. This includes “when a government fails to respond to Commerce’s questions.” Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This court has specifically upheld the applica- tion of adverse facts available where “the government of China refused to provide information as to how the electric- ity process and costs varied among the various provinces that supplied electricity to industries within their areas” and “did not provide the data sufficient to establish the Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 10 Filed: 01/28/2022

benchmark price for electricity.” Id. at 1372. Commerce identified comparable informational gaps in this case. See Remand Redetermination, at 14–19 (“[T]he [government of China] refused to provide key information that would allow Commerce to confirm its claims . . . . Without such infor- mation, Commerce cannot confirm that market and com- mercial principles explain the variation in electricity prices . . . .”). Canadian Solar argues that Commerce improperly ig- nored the provincial price schedules. Appellants’ Br. 22. In its view, these price schedules “demonstrate that no re- gion in China received subsidized electricity prices,” and therefore Commerce did not need to fill any informational gaps with adverse inferences. Id.; see also id. at 31 (“[T]he price schedules clearly demonstrate on their face that no geographic region received an alleged electricity sub- sidy . . . .”). While Canadian Solar is correct that Com- merce may not rely on adverse facts available when the record is not missing information or otherwise deficient, Zhejiang DunAn, 652 F.3d at 1348, in this case Commerce expressly considered the price schedules and reached the opposite conclusion, Remand Redetermination, at 14. Com- merce relied on adverse inferences to fill two critical infor- mational gaps raised (not resolved) by the provincial price schedules: “why prices vary from province to province and who makes the decision—ultimately—to set or allow dis- tinct prices in each province.” Id. Commerce could not determine why prices vary be- cause the government of China failed “to demonstrate that such variances are in accordance with market principles or cost differences.” Id. at 15. The government of China as- serted that “[e]lectricity prices in China are based on mar- ket principles” but “refused to provide key information that would allow Commerce to confirm its claims.” Id. at 15. As described above, Commerce requested and the government of China declined to provide provincial price proposals, a description of cost and price discussions between the Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 11 Filed: 01/28/2022

CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 11

provinces and the NDRC, and province-specific cost and price considerations. Id. at 15–16. Without this specifi- cally requested information, Commerce could not deter- mine the root cause for the price disparities. Id. at 15–16. Commerce therefore inferred that the government of China provided electricity subsidies “for development purposes” by setting lower electricity prices for enterprises located in provinces such as the ones where Canadian Solar operates. Id. at 15, 19. To determine the entity responsible for setting the elec- tricity subsidies, Commerce relied on documents indicating that the NDRC set electricity prices at the national level. These documents include NDRC Notices indicating that, at least in years prior, the NDRC was entitled to, among other things, implement coal and electricity price bidding sys- tems, adopt price intervention measures, adjust provincial price levels, and reduce electricity prices for industrial and commercial users. Id. at 17–18. Commerce credited this evidence over the government of China’s uncorroborated narrative responses claiming that the provinces set their own prices. Id. at 16–19; id. at 17 (“Based on our examina- tion of the additional documentation, as well as the [gov- ernment of China] questionnaire response, we concluded the following demonstrated that the NDRC was still ulti- mately in control of the price setting system and that the 2015 changes had not affected how the system operated in practice . . . .”). In so finding, Commerce noted that the purported delegation of price setting authority to the prov- inces marked an unsubstantiated shift from the govern- ment of China’s position during all three prior administrative reviews of the same countervailing duty or- der. Id. at 16. This case is distinguishable from Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. United States, 986 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In Diamond Sawblades, we held that Commerce improperly disregarded all product origin infor- mation where “Commerce ha[d] not satisfactorily Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 12 Filed: 01/28/2022

explained why substantial evidence supports its determi- nation of unreliability.” Id. at 1366. While Canadian Solar considers the provincial price schedules to be similarly dis- regarded evidence of provincial price-setting, in this case Commerce expressly considered the record evidence, in- cluding the provincial price schedules and NDRC Notices. Based on the record, Commerce reasonably determined it required additional information regarding the basis for and source of the price variation in order to assess whether Ca- nadian Solar had received an electricity subsidy. At most, Commerce and Canadian Solar reached incon- sistent conclusions based on the same evidence. This does not, however, render Commerce’s findings unsupported by substantial evidence. Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, 996 F.3d 1283, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Commerce’s finding may still be supported by substantial evidence even if two inconsistent conclusions can be drawn from the evi- dence.” (quoting SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 1222)). We therefore agree with the CIT that Commerce’s ad- verse inference that the government of China subsidized electricity is supported by substantial evidence. B. Regional Specificity Canadian Solar also argues that instead of identifying a particular subsidized region, as it believes is required by statute, Commerce improperly “ascrib[ed] the supposedly regional subsidy program to every single region and prov- ince across China.” Appellants’ Br. 42–43. This, Canadian Solar argues, “is the antithesis of a reasonable specificity determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5A)(D)(iv),” id. at 49, and, as a result, Commerce’s regional specificity finding cannot be supported by substantial evidence, id. at 52. We disagree. Section 1677(5A)(D)(iv) provides that a subsidy is re- gionally specific where it is “limited to an enterprise or in- dustry located within a designated geographical region Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 13 Filed: 01/28/2022

CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 13

within the jurisdiction of the authority providing the sub- sidy.” We agree with the CIT that, where documents sup- port the inference that the central government of China was involved in provincial electricity pricing that results in regional price variability, substantial evidence supports Commerce’s finding that there is a countervailable region- ally specific subsidy. Canadian Solar II, at *3; see also Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1287, 1302 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020) (holding that “Commerce’s determination that the subsidy is region- ally specific” was sufficiently supported where “Commerce noted two factual bases for a determination of specificity: (1) unexplained regional price variability and (2) central government action via the NDRC”). The CIT’s decision in Royal Thai Government v. United States is instructive. 441 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006). In Royal Thai, the CIT found that Commerce “rea- sonably determined” that an electricity subsidy provided by the Royal Thai Government “satisfied the requirements of regional specificity” where “[a]ccess to this relatively cheaper electricity was expressly contingent on only one factor: a company’s regional location within Thailand.” Id. at 1358. Accepting Commerce’s adverse inferences in the present case, the electricity subsidies provided by the gov- ernment of China also depend only on a company’s regional location since the price of electricity varies by province. Re- mand Redetermination, at 19, 40. This holds true even if, as Canadian Solar contends, electricity subsidies are available across different prov- inces. Appellants’ Br. 49. On this ground, we agree with the CIT’s reasoning in Samsung Electronics Co. v. United States, 973 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014). There, the CIT rejected an argument that “regional specificity should be limited to ‘administrative jurisdictions such as provinces or states,’” id. at 1328 (citation omitted), and up- held Commerce’s finding that a tax credit available any- where in South Korea “outside the Seoul Metropolitan Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 14 Filed: 01/28/2022

Area” was geographically specific, id. at 1328–29. In other words, even if a particular electricity subsidy is provided to more than one province, so long as it is provided to less than all regions or varies by region, that subsidy can be fairly regarded as regionally specific under the statute. Canadian Solar also argues that the benchmark calcu- lations render Commerce’s regional specificity findings un- reasonable. Appellants’ Br. 45. To calculate the countervailing duty rate, Commerce compared each of Ca- nadian Solar’s electricity rates to the highest provincial rate for the relevant category. Remand Redetermination, at 19 (“The amount of the subsidy we infer to be the differ- ence between what the respondent is paying and the high- est tariffs set for any province.”). As Commerce explained, this issue arises only because the government of China de- clined to provide information that would have permitted Commerce to identify an unsubsidized province or unsub- sidized rates. Id. at 40–41. In the absence of that infor- mation, it was reasonable for Commerce to infer that the highest rate in each category was unsubsidized. Canadian Solar argues that this approach “signifies that users in all regions are subsidized” instead of desig- nating a single subsidized region. Appellants’ Br. 49. But Commerce’s rate calculation does not undermine the sepa- rate conclusion that the electricity subsidies are geograph- ically specific because the rates depend on the province in which an enterprise is located. Remand Redetermination, at 19. Accordingly, we agree with the CIT that Commerce’s regional specificity findings are supported by substantial evidence. CONCLUSION We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments and do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing Case: 21-1434 Document: 42 Page: 15 Filed: 01/28/2022

CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. US 15

reasons, we affirm the Court of International Trade’s judg- ment. AFFIRMED