Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States
This text of 755 F. Supp. 3d 1357 (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
SlipȱOp.ȱ25Ȭ12ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
SIEMENSȱGAMESAȱRENEWABLEȱENERGY,ȱ
Plaintiff,ȱ
v.ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ ȱBefore:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
Defendant,ȱ ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ
andȱ
WINDȱTOWERȱTRADEȱCOALITION,ȱ
DefendantȬIntervenor.ȱ
OPINIONȱ
[Sustainingȱanȱagencyȱdecisionȱsubmittedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱcourtȱorderȱinȱanȱactionȱ contestingȱaȱfinalȱdeterminationȱconcludingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation]ȱ
Dated:ȱJanuaryȱ28,ȱ2025ȱ
DanielȱJ.ȱCannistra,ȱSimeonȱYerokun,ȱandȱPierceȱJ.ȱLee,ȱCrowellȱ&ȱMoringȱLLP,ȱofȱ Washington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergy.ȱȱ
StephenȱCarlȱTosini,ȱSeniorȱTrialȱCounsel,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱ Division,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱ theȱbriefȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱActingȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱM.ȱ McCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱandȱReginaldȱT.ȱBlades,ȱJr.,ȱAssistantȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱ briefȱwasȱFeeȱPauwels,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱ Compliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ2ȱ ȱ AlanȱH.ȱPrice,ȱWileyȱReinȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬintervenorȱ WindȱTowerȱTradeȱCoalition.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwereȱRobertȱE.ȱDeFrancesco,ȱIII,ȱ LauraȱElȬSabaawi,ȱDerickȱG.ȱHolt,ȱandȱJohnȱAllenȱRiggins.ȱ ȱ Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱPlaintiffȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.ȱ(“Siemensȱ
Gamesa”)ȱbroughtȱthisȱactionȱtoȱcontestȱaȱ“lessȬthanȬfairȬvalue”ȱdeterminationȱ(“Finalȱ
LTFVȱDetermination”)ȱbyȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ
Commerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱconcludingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱ
(“AD”)ȱinvestigationȱofȱcertainȱwindȱtowersȱfromȱSpainȱ(theȱ“subjectȱmerchandise”).ȱȱ
TheȱcourtȱtwiceȱhasȱorderedȱCommerceȱtoȱreconsiderȱitsȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination.ȱȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1337ȱ(2023)ȱ
(“SiemensȱGamesaȱI”);ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ659ȱ
F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1343ȱ(2023)ȱ(“SiemensȱGamesaȱII”).ȱ
BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,”ȱissuedȱ
underȱprotestȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII.ȱȱFinalȱ
ResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱSecondȱCourtȱRemandȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ
Juneȱ21,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ77Ȭ1ȱ(“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱTheȱSecondȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱcalculatesȱanȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ28.55%ȱforȱanȱentityȱ
consistingȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱandȱrelatedȱcompanies.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ56.ȱ
DefendantȬintervenorȱWindȱTowerȱTradeȱCoalitionȱ(theȱ“Coalition”ȱorȱtheȱ
“WTTC”),ȱtheȱpetitionerȱinȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation,ȱopposesȱtheȱSecondȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱonȱvariousȱgrounds.ȱȱDefendantȬIntervenorȱWindȱTowerȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ3ȱ ȱ TradeȱCoalition’sȱCommentsȱonȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Julyȱ22,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱ
Nos.ȱ81ȱ(conf.),ȱ82ȱ(public)ȱ(“Def.ȬInt.’sȱComments”).ȱȱDefendantȱasksȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱ
sustainȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱDefendant’sȱCommentsȱinȱSupportȱofȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Aug.ȱ21,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ85ȱ(“Def.’sȱResp.”).ȱȱPlaintiffȱdidȱnotȱ
submitȱcomments.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ
I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
Backgroundȱforȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpriorȱopinionsȱandȱisȱ
supplementedȱherein.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1339–40;ȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1345–48.ȱ
A.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱDecisionȱ
TheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDeterminationȱwasȱpublishedȱasȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱFromȱ
Spain:ȱFinalȱDeterminationȱofȱSalesȱatȱLessȱThanȱFairȱValue,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ33,656ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Admin.ȱJuneȱ25,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ152,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41ȱ(“FinalȱLTFVȱDetermination”).1ȱȱCommerceȱ
incorporatedȱbyȱreferenceȱanȱaccompanyingȱ“IssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandum.”ȱȱ
IssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱDeterminationȱinȱtheȱLessȬThanȬ
ȱ 1 ȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Mayȱ26,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ41ȱ(public),ȱ42ȱ (conf.),ȱareȱcitedȱasȱ“P.R.ȱ__”ȱ(forȱpublicȱdocuments).ȱȱDocumentsȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱremandȱ proceeding,ȱRemandȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Sept.ȱ8,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ65ȱ(public),ȱ66ȱ(conf.),ȱareȱ citedȱasȱ“P.R.R.ȱ__”ȱ(forȱpublicȱdocuments).ȱȱDocumentsȱfromȱtheȱsecondȱremandȱ proceeding,ȱRemandȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Sept.ȱ6,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ88ȱ(public),ȱ87ȱ(conf.),ȱareȱ citedȱasȱ“2P.R.R.ȱ__”ȱ(forȱpublicȱdocuments).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ4ȱ ȱ FairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpainȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ
Juneȱ14,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ149,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).ȱ
TheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDeterminationȱconcludedȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigationȱofȱ
utilityȱscaleȱwindȱtowersȱfromȱSpainȱcoveringȱaȱperiodȱofȱinvestigationȱ(“POI”)ȱofȱ
Julyȱ1,ȱ2019,ȱthroughȱJuneȱ30,ȱ2020.ȱȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱ88ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ33,656.ȱ
1.ȱȱRespondentȱSelectionȱinȱtheȱInvestigationȱ
Duringȱtheȱinvestigation,ȱCommerceȱissuedȱ“QuantityȱandȱValue”ȱ(“Q&V”)ȱ
questionnairesȱtoȱnineteenȱknownȱexportersȱandȱproducersȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱ
andȱreceivedȱthirteenȱresponses,ȱincludingȱaȱresponseȱfromȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱSiemensȱ
GamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1346;ȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱ
UtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱResponseȱtoȱQuantityȱandȱValueȱQuestionnaireȱ1ȱ&ȱ
Attachmentȱ1ȱ(Dec.ȱ7,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱ84,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41.ȱȱCommerceȱselectedȱVestasȱEolicaȱ
S.A.U.ȱ(“VestasȱEolica”)ȱasȱtheȱsoleȱ“mandatory”ȱrespondent,ȱi.e.,ȱaȱrespondentȱ
Commerceȱwouldȱinvestigateȱindividually,ȱbutȱVestasȱEolicaȱdeclinedȱtoȱparticipateȱinȱ
theȱinvestigation.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1347.ȱȱSiemensȱ
Gamesaȱrequested,ȱonȱbehalfȱofȱitselfȱandȱitsȱaffiliateȱWindarȱRenovablesȱS.A.ȱ
(“Windar”),ȱtoȱbeȱinvestigatedȱindividuallyȱasȱaȱmandatoryȱrespondent,ȱbutȱCommerceȱ
rejectedȱitsȱrequest.ȱȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱ
Spain:ȱRequestȱforȱMandatoryȱRespondentȱSelectionȱ1ȱ(Feb.ȱ17,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ128,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41;ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ5ȱ ȱ UtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱRequestȱtoȱSelectȱReplacementȱMandatoryȱRespondentȱ1ȱ
(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱMar.ȱ5,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ132,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41.ȱ
2.ȱȱAssignmentȱofȱaȱ73.00%ȱRateȱtoȱAllȱRespondentsȱ
InȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱCommerceȱreachedȱaȱdecisionȱbasedȱentirelyȱ
onȱ“factsȱotherwiseȱavailable”ȱunderȱSectionȱ776(a)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ
(“TariffȱAct”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a),ȱandȱanȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱunderȱSectionȱ776(b)ȱofȱ
theȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b),ȱprovisionsȱtoȱwhichȱCommerceȱoftenȱrefersȱinȱtheȱ
aggregateȱasȱ“adverseȱfactsȱavailable”ȱorȱ“AFA.”2ȱȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱ
Reg.ȱatȱ33,656–57.ȱȱUnderȱtheseȱprovisions,ȱCommerceȱassignedȱVestasȱEolica,ȱalongȱ
withȱsixȱotherȱcompanies,ȱincludingȱWindar,ȱaȱ73.00%ȱdumpingȱmargin,ȱ“theȱsoleȱ
dumpingȱmarginȱallegedȱinȱtheȱ[p]etition,”ȱforȱfailingȱtoȱcooperateȱinȱtheȱinvestigationȱ
byȱnotȱrespondingȱtoȱtheȱQ&Vȱquestionnaire.ȱȱId.ȱȱCommerceȱadoptedȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱasȱ
theȱ“allȱothers”ȱrate,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱrateȱtoȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱallȱotherȱexportersȱandȱproducersȱofȱ
theȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱthatȱitȱdidȱnotȱindividuallyȱexamine,ȱincludingȱSiemensȱ
Gamesa.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ33,657.ȱ
B.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱIȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱcontestedȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱclaimingȱthatȱtheȱ
Department’sȱassignmentȱofȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱtoȱitȱwasȱunlawfulȱonȱtwoȱgrounds.ȱȱ
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SlipȱOp.ȱ25Ȭ12ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
SIEMENSȱGAMESAȱRENEWABLEȱENERGY,ȱ
Plaintiff,ȱ
v.ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ ȱBefore:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
Defendant,ȱ ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ
andȱ
WINDȱTOWERȱTRADEȱCOALITION,ȱ
DefendantȬIntervenor.ȱ
OPINIONȱ
[Sustainingȱanȱagencyȱdecisionȱsubmittedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱcourtȱorderȱinȱanȱactionȱ contestingȱaȱfinalȱdeterminationȱconcludingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation]ȱ
Dated:ȱJanuaryȱ28,ȱ2025ȱ
DanielȱJ.ȱCannistra,ȱSimeonȱYerokun,ȱandȱPierceȱJ.ȱLee,ȱCrowellȱ&ȱMoringȱLLP,ȱofȱ Washington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergy.ȱȱ
StephenȱCarlȱTosini,ȱSeniorȱTrialȱCounsel,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱ Division,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱ theȱbriefȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱActingȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱM.ȱ McCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱandȱReginaldȱT.ȱBlades,ȱJr.,ȱAssistantȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱ briefȱwasȱFeeȱPauwels,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱ Compliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ2ȱ ȱ AlanȱH.ȱPrice,ȱWileyȱReinȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬintervenorȱ WindȱTowerȱTradeȱCoalition.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwereȱRobertȱE.ȱDeFrancesco,ȱIII,ȱ LauraȱElȬSabaawi,ȱDerickȱG.ȱHolt,ȱandȱJohnȱAllenȱRiggins.ȱ ȱ Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱPlaintiffȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.ȱ(“Siemensȱ
Gamesa”)ȱbroughtȱthisȱactionȱtoȱcontestȱaȱ“lessȬthanȬfairȬvalue”ȱdeterminationȱ(“Finalȱ
LTFVȱDetermination”)ȱbyȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ
Commerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱconcludingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱ
(“AD”)ȱinvestigationȱofȱcertainȱwindȱtowersȱfromȱSpainȱ(theȱ“subjectȱmerchandise”).ȱȱ
TheȱcourtȱtwiceȱhasȱorderedȱCommerceȱtoȱreconsiderȱitsȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination.ȱȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1337ȱ(2023)ȱ
(“SiemensȱGamesaȱI”);ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ659ȱ
F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1343ȱ(2023)ȱ(“SiemensȱGamesaȱII”).ȱ
BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,”ȱissuedȱ
underȱprotestȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII.ȱȱFinalȱ
ResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱSecondȱCourtȱRemandȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ
Juneȱ21,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ77Ȭ1ȱ(“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱTheȱSecondȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱcalculatesȱanȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ28.55%ȱforȱanȱentityȱ
consistingȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱandȱrelatedȱcompanies.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ56.ȱ
DefendantȬintervenorȱWindȱTowerȱTradeȱCoalitionȱ(theȱ“Coalition”ȱorȱtheȱ
“WTTC”),ȱtheȱpetitionerȱinȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation,ȱopposesȱtheȱSecondȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱonȱvariousȱgrounds.ȱȱDefendantȬIntervenorȱWindȱTowerȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ3ȱ ȱ TradeȱCoalition’sȱCommentsȱonȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Julyȱ22,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱ
Nos.ȱ81ȱ(conf.),ȱ82ȱ(public)ȱ(“Def.ȬInt.’sȱComments”).ȱȱDefendantȱasksȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱ
sustainȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱDefendant’sȱCommentsȱinȱSupportȱofȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Aug.ȱ21,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ85ȱ(“Def.’sȱResp.”).ȱȱPlaintiffȱdidȱnotȱ
submitȱcomments.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ
I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
Backgroundȱforȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpriorȱopinionsȱandȱisȱ
supplementedȱherein.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1339–40;ȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1345–48.ȱ
A.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱDecisionȱ
TheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDeterminationȱwasȱpublishedȱasȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱFromȱ
Spain:ȱFinalȱDeterminationȱofȱSalesȱatȱLessȱThanȱFairȱValue,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ33,656ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Admin.ȱJuneȱ25,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ152,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41ȱ(“FinalȱLTFVȱDetermination”).1ȱȱCommerceȱ
incorporatedȱbyȱreferenceȱanȱaccompanyingȱ“IssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandum.”ȱȱ
IssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱDeterminationȱinȱtheȱLessȬThanȬ
ȱ 1 ȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Mayȱ26,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ41ȱ(public),ȱ42ȱ (conf.),ȱareȱcitedȱasȱ“P.R.ȱ__”ȱ(forȱpublicȱdocuments).ȱȱDocumentsȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱremandȱ proceeding,ȱRemandȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Sept.ȱ8,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ65ȱ(public),ȱ66ȱ(conf.),ȱareȱ citedȱasȱ“P.R.R.ȱ__”ȱ(forȱpublicȱdocuments).ȱȱDocumentsȱfromȱtheȱsecondȱremandȱ proceeding,ȱRemandȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Sept.ȱ6,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ88ȱ(public),ȱ87ȱ(conf.),ȱareȱ citedȱasȱ“2P.R.R.ȱ__”ȱ(forȱpublicȱdocuments).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ4ȱ ȱ FairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpainȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ
Juneȱ14,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ149,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).ȱ
TheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDeterminationȱconcludedȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigationȱofȱ
utilityȱscaleȱwindȱtowersȱfromȱSpainȱcoveringȱaȱperiodȱofȱinvestigationȱ(“POI”)ȱofȱ
Julyȱ1,ȱ2019,ȱthroughȱJuneȱ30,ȱ2020.ȱȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱ88ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ33,656.ȱ
1.ȱȱRespondentȱSelectionȱinȱtheȱInvestigationȱ
Duringȱtheȱinvestigation,ȱCommerceȱissuedȱ“QuantityȱandȱValue”ȱ(“Q&V”)ȱ
questionnairesȱtoȱnineteenȱknownȱexportersȱandȱproducersȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱ
andȱreceivedȱthirteenȱresponses,ȱincludingȱaȱresponseȱfromȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱSiemensȱ
GamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1346;ȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱ
UtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱResponseȱtoȱQuantityȱandȱValueȱQuestionnaireȱ1ȱ&ȱ
Attachmentȱ1ȱ(Dec.ȱ7,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱ84,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41.ȱȱCommerceȱselectedȱVestasȱEolicaȱ
S.A.U.ȱ(“VestasȱEolica”)ȱasȱtheȱsoleȱ“mandatory”ȱrespondent,ȱi.e.,ȱaȱrespondentȱ
Commerceȱwouldȱinvestigateȱindividually,ȱbutȱVestasȱEolicaȱdeclinedȱtoȱparticipateȱinȱ
theȱinvestigation.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1347.ȱȱSiemensȱ
Gamesaȱrequested,ȱonȱbehalfȱofȱitselfȱandȱitsȱaffiliateȱWindarȱRenovablesȱS.A.ȱ
(“Windar”),ȱtoȱbeȱinvestigatedȱindividuallyȱasȱaȱmandatoryȱrespondent,ȱbutȱCommerceȱ
rejectedȱitsȱrequest.ȱȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱ
Spain:ȱRequestȱforȱMandatoryȱRespondentȱSelectionȱ1ȱ(Feb.ȱ17,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ128,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41;ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ5ȱ ȱ UtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱRequestȱtoȱSelectȱReplacementȱMandatoryȱRespondentȱ1ȱ
(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱMar.ȱ5,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ132,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41.ȱ
2.ȱȱAssignmentȱofȱaȱ73.00%ȱRateȱtoȱAllȱRespondentsȱ
InȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱCommerceȱreachedȱaȱdecisionȱbasedȱentirelyȱ
onȱ“factsȱotherwiseȱavailable”ȱunderȱSectionȱ776(a)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ
(“TariffȱAct”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a),ȱandȱanȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱunderȱSectionȱ776(b)ȱofȱ
theȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b),ȱprovisionsȱtoȱwhichȱCommerceȱoftenȱrefersȱinȱtheȱ
aggregateȱasȱ“adverseȱfactsȱavailable”ȱorȱ“AFA.”2ȱȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱ
Reg.ȱatȱ33,656–57.ȱȱUnderȱtheseȱprovisions,ȱCommerceȱassignedȱVestasȱEolica,ȱalongȱ
withȱsixȱotherȱcompanies,ȱincludingȱWindar,ȱaȱ73.00%ȱdumpingȱmargin,ȱ“theȱsoleȱ
dumpingȱmarginȱallegedȱinȱtheȱ[p]etition,”ȱforȱfailingȱtoȱcooperateȱinȱtheȱinvestigationȱ
byȱnotȱrespondingȱtoȱtheȱQ&Vȱquestionnaire.ȱȱId.ȱȱCommerceȱadoptedȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱasȱ
theȱ“allȱothers”ȱrate,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱrateȱtoȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱallȱotherȱexportersȱandȱproducersȱofȱ
theȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱthatȱitȱdidȱnotȱindividuallyȱexamine,ȱincludingȱSiemensȱ
Gamesa.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ33,657.ȱ
B.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱIȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱcontestedȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱclaimingȱthatȱtheȱ
Department’sȱassignmentȱofȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱtoȱitȱwasȱunlawfulȱonȱtwoȱgrounds.ȱȱ
ȱ ȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱU.S.ȱCodeȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱedition.ȱȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱCodeȱ 2
ofȱFederalȱRegulationsȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2021ȱedition.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ6ȱ ȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1344.ȱȱItȱargued,ȱfirst,ȱthatȱCommerceȱ
unlawfullyȱrefusedȱtoȱexamineȱitȱindividuallyȱand,ȱsecond,ȱthatȱCommerceȱunlawfullyȱ
adoptedȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱasȱtheȱ“allȱothers”ȱrate,ȱwhichȱwasȱnotȱbasedȱonȱtheȱactualȱdataȱ
ofȱanyȱexporter.ȱȱId.ȱ(citationsȱomitted).ȱ
InȱSiemensȱGamesaȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱgrantedȱplaintiff’sȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱ
agencyȱrecordȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2ȱandȱremandedȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDeterminationȱtoȱ
Commerce.ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1349.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱheldȱthatȱtheȱ
Department’sȱindividualȱexaminationȱofȱaȱsingleȱrespondent,ȱVestasȱEolica,ȱwasȱ
unlawfulȱunderȱtheȱbindingȱdecisionȱinȱYCȱRubberȱCo.ȱ(N.ȱAm.)ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ
No.ȱ21Ȭ1489,ȱ2022ȱWLȱ3711377ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱAug.ȱ29,ȱ2022),ȱandȱthatȱtheȱassignmentȱofȱtheȱ
73.00%ȱ“allȱothers”ȱrateȱtoȱSiemensȱGamesaȱdidȱnotȱsatisfyȱtheȱ“reasonableȱmethod”ȱ
requiredȱbyȱSectionȱ735(c)(5)(B)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673d(c)(5)(B).ȱȱSiemensȱ
GamesaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1344–47.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdirectedȱCommerceȱtoȱ
conductȱanȱindividualȱinvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa,ȱtheȱsoleȱrespondentȱinȱtheȱ
investigationȱthatȱisȱaȱpartyȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ
1348–49.ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
InȱtheȱremandȱredeterminationȱCommerceȱissuedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱSiemensȱGamesaȱIȱ
(theȱ“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”),ȱCommerceȱreopenedȱtheȱrecordȱandȱ
“individuallyȱinvestigatedȱSGREȱ[referringȱtoȱplaintiffȱSiemensȱGamesa].”ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ7ȱ ȱ ofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ1,ȱ4ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJuneȱ16,ȱ2023),ȱ
ECFȱNo.ȱ53Ȭ1ȱ(“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱDuringȱtheȱfirstȱremandȱproceeding,ȱ
Commerceȱissuedȱaȱ“CollapsingȱMemorandum”ȱinȱwhichȱitȱexplainedȱitsȱpreliminaryȱ
determinationȱtoȱtreatȱSiemensȱGamesa,ȱWindar,ȱandȱfiveȱwhollyȱownedȱWindarȱ
subsidiariesȱ(theȱ“WindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiaries”)ȱasȱaȱsingleȱ“collapsed”ȱentityȱ
(“SGRE/Windar”)ȱpursuantȱtoȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f).3ȱȱId.ȱatȱ1–2,ȱ1ȱn.3,ȱ2ȱn.4,ȱ6;ȱRemandȱ
forȱtheȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowers:ȱPreliminaryȱ
AffiliationȱandȱCollapsingȱMemorandumȱforȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.ȱandȱ
WindarȱRenovablesȱS.A.ȱ1,ȱ8–9ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ25,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.R.ȱ69,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ65Ȭ9ȱ
(“CollapsingȱMemorandum”).ȱȱCommerceȱcollapsedȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱWindarȱandȱ
theȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱ“becauseȱtheirȱoperationsȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱ
saleȱandȱproductionȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱareȱintertwined.”ȱȱFirstȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱ2.ȱȱCommerceȱmaintainedȱitsȱpreliminaryȱcollapsingȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱFirstȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱassignedȱtheȱcollapsedȱentity,ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱtotalȱ
applicationȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinference,ȱanȱestimatedȱ
weightedȱaverageȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ73.00%,ȱaȱrateȱWindarȱdidȱnotȱchallengeȱinȱtheȱ
ȱ 3ȱTheȱfiveȱwhollyȬownedȱWindarȱsubsidiariesȱinȱtheȱcollapsedȱentityȱareȱTadarsaȱ
EolicaȱS.L.,ȱWindarȱOffshoreȱS.L.,ȱWindarȱWindȱServicesȱS.L.,ȱAemsaȱSantanaȱS.A.,ȱandȱ ApoyosȱMetalicosȱS.A.ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ2ȱ n.4ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJuneȱ16,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ53Ȭ1ȱ(“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ8ȱ ȱ underlyingȱinvestigationȱandȱwhichȱCommerceȱdeemedȱfinal.4ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2,ȱ6,ȱ8,ȱ22,ȱ26.ȱȱ
Commerceȱassignedȱaȱ73.00%ȱrateȱasȱtheȱallȬothersȱrate,ȱagainȱbasedȱonȱtheȱrateȱallegedȱ
inȱtheȱpetition.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ9,ȱ36–38.ȱ
D.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱIIȱ
InȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱtheȱcourtȱconcludedȱthatȱ“theȱFirstȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱwasȱcontraryȱtoȱlawȱinȱthreeȱmajorȱrespects.”ȱȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱ
F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1350.ȱ
First,ȱtheȱcourtȱheldȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱunchallengedȱ
73.00%ȱadverseȱinferenceȱrateȱassignedȱtoȱWindarȱinȱtheȱunderlyingȱinvestigationȱwasȱ
finalȱandȱcontrollingȱwasȱincorrect,ȱbecauseȱifȱtheȱcourtȱwereȱtoȱsustainȱaȱrateȱforȱtheȱ
collapsedȱentity,ȱthatȱcollapsedȱentityȱrateȱ“necessarilyȱwouldȱrenderȱnullȱandȱvoid”ȱ
andȱ“wouldȱsupplant”ȱtheȱoriginalȱ73.00%ȱrateȱwhenȱitȱwentȱintoȱeffect.ȱȱId.ȱ
Second,ȱtheȱcourtȱheldȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱnotȱpermittedȱtoȱresortȱtoȱ“factsȱ
otherwiseȱavailable”ȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a)ȱandȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱunderȱ
ȱ 4ȱCommerceȱappliedȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱaccordingȱ toȱtheȱfollowingȱfindings:ȱ(1)ȱWindarȱfailedȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ“Quantityȱ andȱValue”ȱquestionnaireȱinȱtheȱunderlyingȱinvestigation,ȱpermittingȱanȱadverseȱ inference;ȱ(2)ȱWindarȱdidȱnotȱchallengeȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱinȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱ Determination,ȱsuchȱthatȱtheȱrateȱwasȱfinalȱandȱCommerceȱcouldȱapplyȱitȱtoȱSiemensȱ Gamesaȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱcollapsedȱentity;ȱ(3)ȱCommerceȱcouldȱnotȱ“revisit”ȱitsȱ “final/unchallengedȱdecision”ȱapplyingȱtheȱ73.00%ȱAFAȱrateȱtoȱWindarȱonȱremandȱ becauseȱtheȱcourtȱ“didȱnotȱrequireȱ(orȱevenȱpermit)”ȱitȱinȱitsȱpriorȱopinion,ȱSiemensȱ GamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1337ȱ(2023);ȱandȱ(4)ȱ theȱassignmentȱofȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱtoȱtheȱcollapsedȱentityȱwasȱconsistentȱwithȱ“longȬ standing”ȱagencyȱpractice.ȱȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ8,ȱ22,ȱ26–27.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ9ȱ ȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b)ȱinȱassigningȱaȱ73.00%ȱrateȱtoȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱ
F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1350,ȱ1352–54.ȱȱSubstantialȱrecordȱevidenceȱdidȱnotȱ“supportȱtheȱ
Department’sȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱaȱresponseȱbyȱWindarȱtoȱtheȱQ&Vȱ
questionnaireȱinȱtheȱunderlyingȱinvestigationȱimpairedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱabilityȱtoȱ
investigateȱSiemensȱGamesaȱindividuallyȱandȱassignȱitȱanȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱinȱ
theȱremandȱproceeding.”ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1350.ȱ
Theȱcourtȱconcluded,ȱthird,ȱthatȱCommerceȱunlawfullyȱselectedȱaȱ73.00%ȱ“allȬ
othersȱrate”ȱbecauseȱitȱagainȱdidȱnotȱsatisfyȱtheȱ“reasonableȱmethod”ȱrequirementȱofȱtheȱ
TariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673d(c)(5)(B).ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ
1350,ȱ1359.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱrecognized,ȱnevertheless,ȱthatȱplaintiff,ȱhavingȱbeenȱinvestigatedȱ
individuallyȱforȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱlackedȱstandingȱtoȱcontestȱtheȱallȬ
othersȱrateȱassignedȱinȱthatȱdetermination.ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359.ȱ
Inȱorderingȱaȱsecondȱremandȱproceeding,ȱtheȱcourtȱpresentedȱCommerceȱwithȱ
“aȱchoiceȱbetweenȱtwoȱoptions”:ȱCommerceȱcouldȱeitherȱ(i)ȱ“submitȱaȱnewȱ
determinationȱthatȱwouldȱapplyȱtoȱSiemensȱGamesaȱaloneȱandȱallowȱtoȱstandȱasȱ‘final’ȱ
theȱuncontested,ȱ73.00ȱpercentȱrateȱitȱassignedȱtoȱWindarȱinȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱ
Determination,”ȱwhichȱ“wouldȱforecloseȱanyȱcollapsingȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱ
Windar,”ȱorȱ(ii)ȱ“substituteȱforȱWindar’sȱexistingȱrateȱaȱnewȱrateȱthatȱitȱwouldȱapplyȱtoȱaȱ
collapsedȱentity.”ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1351.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ10ȱ ȱ E.ȱȱSubmissionȱofȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱCommentsȱ
Inȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱCommerceȱ
submittedȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱonȱJuneȱ21,ȱ2024.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱ
filedȱcommentsȱonȱJulyȱ22,ȱ2024,ȱandȱtheȱgovernmentȱrespondedȱonȱAugustȱ21,ȱ2024.ȱ
II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ
A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReviewȱ ȱ Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱjurisdictionȱunderȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱCourtsȱActȱofȱ
1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱpursuantȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱreviewsȱactionsȱcommencedȱ
underȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a,ȱincludingȱanȱactionȱcontestingȱaȱ
finalȱdeterminationȱthatȱCommerceȱissuesȱtoȱconcludeȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱ
investigation.ȱ
Inȱreviewingȱanȱagencyȱdetermination,ȱincludingȱoneȱmadeȱuponȱremandȱtoȱtheȱ
agency,ȱtheȱcourtȱ“shallȱholdȱunlawfulȱanyȱdetermination,ȱfinding,ȱorȱconclusionȱfoundȱ
.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtoȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱorȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱ
accordanceȱwithȱlaw.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).ȱȱSubstantialȱevidenceȱrefersȱtoȱ
“‘suchȱrelevantȱevidenceȱasȱaȱreasonableȱmindȱmightȱacceptȱasȱadequateȱtoȱsupportȱaȱ
conclusion.’”ȱȱSKFȱUSA,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ537ȱF.3dȱ1373,ȱ1378ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2008)ȱ
(quotingȱConsol.ȱEdisonȱCo.ȱv.ȱNat’lȱLab.ȱRels.ȱBd.,ȱ305ȱU.S.ȱ197,ȱ229ȱ(1938)).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ11ȱ ȱ B.ȱȱTheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ ȱ InȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱreachedȱitsȱdeterminationȱofȱ
aȱ28.55%ȱestimatedȱweightedȬaverageȱdumpingȱmarginȱbyȱagainȱcollapsingȱSiemensȱ
Gamesa,ȱWindar,ȱandȱtheȱfiveȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱintoȱaȱsingleȱentityȱ
(theȱ“SGRE/Windar”ȱentity),ȱconductingȱanȱindividualȱexaminationȱofȱthatȱentity,ȱandȱ
performingȱaȱverification.ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ1–2,ȱ5,ȱ56.ȱȱCommerceȱ
decided,ȱ“givenȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱaffiliationȱamongȱtheȱpartiesȱandȱtheȱintertwinedȱnatureȱ
ofȱtheirȱoperations,”ȱthatȱcollapsingȱwasȱ“theȱonlyȱviableȱoption.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱ
InȱcalculatingȱnormalȱvalueȱforȱitsȱdeterminationȱofȱanȱestimatedȱweightedȬ
averageȱdumpingȱmargin,ȱCommerceȱappliedȱ“partial”ȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱwithȱ
anȱadverseȱinferenceȱforȱcertainȱinformationȱitȱconsideredȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱmisreported.ȱȱId.ȱ
atȱ10.ȱȱSpecifically,ȱCommerceȱusedȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱwithȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱ
forȱwhatȱitȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱaȱfailureȱtoȱreport,ȱaccordingȱtoȱ“theoreticalȱweights”ȱasȱ
instructedȱbyȱCommerce,ȱcertainȱweightȱinformationȱforȱwindȱtowersȱsoldȱinȱtheȱ
comparisonȱmarketȱofȱSweden.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ7–13.ȱȱCommerceȱalsoȱusedȱfactsȱotherwiseȱ
availableȱwithȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱforȱwhatȱitȱfoundȱtoȱbeȱaȱfailureȱ“toȱaccuratelyȱ
describeȱitsȱpaymentȱprocessȱforȱsalesȱtoȱitsȱcustomersȱinȱbothȱSwedenȱandȱtheȱUnitedȱ
States.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ7,ȱ9–11,ȱ13–14.ȱ
ToȱcalculateȱU.S.ȱprice,ȱCommerceȱresortedȱtoȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱbecauseȱ
theȱforeignȱsellerȱandȱU.S.ȱimporterȱwereȱrelatedȱparties.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ21–22.ȱȱFurther,ȱbecauseȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ12ȱ ȱ individualȱwindȱtowersȱwereȱsoldȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱonlyȱasȱcomponentsȱofȱwindȱ
turbineȱprojects,ȱCommerceȱcalculatedȱconstructedȱexportȱpricesȱforȱtheȱsubjectȱ
merchandiseȱbyȱallocating,ȱaccordingȱtoȱrelativeȱcost,ȱtheȱtotalȱrevenueȱrealizedȱfromȱ
thoseȱprojectsȱbetweenȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱandȱtheȱotherȱelementsȱ(componentsȱ
andȱservices)ȱofȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱprojects.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ21,ȱ44,ȱ46–48.ȱ
Commerceȱassignedȱtheȱ28.55%ȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱtoȱallȱotherȱ
producersȱandȱexportersȱpursuantȱtoȱsectionȱ735(c)(5)(A)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ
§ȱ1673d(c)(5)(A).ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2,ȱ15.ȱ
C.ȱȱDefendantȬIntervenor’sȱObjectionsȱtoȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ ȱ InȱopposingȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱtheȱWindȱTowerȱTradeȱ
CoalitionȱtakesȱtheȱpositionȱthatȱCommerce,ȱinsteadȱofȱassigningȱtheȱ28.55%ȱrateȱtoȱtheȱ
collapsedȱentity,ȱshouldȱhaveȱ“reinstatedȱWindar’sȱoriginalȱ73.00ȱpercentȱmargin.”ȱȱ
Def.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ19.ȱȱTheȱCoalitionȱmaintainsȱthatȱ“Commerce’sȱdecisionȱtoȱ
investigateȱSGREȱS.A.,ȱaȱnonȬproducingȱholdingȱcompany,ȱasȱaȱ‘producer’ȱofȱsubjectȱ
merchandiseȱisȱinconsistentȱwithȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677fȬ1(c)(1)ȱandȱnotȱsupportedȱbyȱ
substantialȱevidence.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱȱȱ
TheȱCoalitionȱargues,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱ“becauseȱSGREȱS.A.ȱisȱnotȱaȱproducerȱorȱ
exporterȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱCommerce’sȱdecisionȱtoȱcontinueȱcollapsingȱSGREȱS.A.ȱ
andȱWindarȱisȱinconsistentȱwithȱCommerce’sȱregulations.”ȱȱId.ȱȱAssertingȱthatȱWindar,ȱ
asȱaȱproducerȱandȱexporterȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱshouldȱbeȱtheȱrespondentȱinȱtheȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ13ȱ ȱ investigation,ȱtheȱCoalitionȱsubmitsȱthatȱWindar’sȱfailureȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱtheȱQ&Vȱ
questionnaireȱinȱtheȱoriginalȱinvestigationȱrequiresȱCommerceȱtoȱreinstateȱtheȱ73.00%ȱ
marginȱitȱoriginallyȱassignedȱtoȱWindar,ȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱ
adverseȱinference.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ19ȱ(“Inȱlightȱofȱtheȱfullyȱdevelopedȱrecordȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ
remand,ȱitȱbecameȱapparentȱthatȱSGREȱS.A.ȱcannotȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱproducerȱforȱtheȱ
purposesȱofȱrespondentȱselectionȱorȱcollapsing.ȱȱAtȱthatȱpoint,ȱCommerceȱshouldȱhaveȱ
reversedȱitsȱdecisionȱtoȱcollapseȱSGREȱS.A.ȱandȱWindar,ȱreinstatedȱWindar’sȱoriginalȱ
73.00ȱpercentȱmargin,ȱandȱfoundȱthatȱitȱcannotȱinvestigateȱSGREȱS.A.”).ȱ
Inȱtheȱalternative,ȱtheȱCoalitionȱcontestsȱtheȱ28.55%ȱmarginȱbyȱopposingȱtheȱ
Department’sȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱforȱindividualȱwindȱtowers,ȱarguingȱthatȱ“[t]oȱ
theȱextentȱthatȱtheȱCourtȱfindsȱCommerce’sȱdecisionȱtoȱcalculateȱaȱmarginȱforȱtheȱSGREȱ
S.A./Windarȱcollapsedȱentityȱisȱappropriate,ȱCommerce’sȱselectionȱofȱtheȱrevenueȱfigureȱ
usedȱtoȱallocateȱtheȱgrossȱunitȱpricesȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱisȱnotȱsupportedȱbyȱ
substantialȱevidence.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱ
RejectingȱeachȱofȱdefendantȬintervenor’sȱarguments,ȱdefendantȱadvocatesȱthatȱ
theȱcourtȱsustainȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱ1,ȱ6–18.ȱ
D.ȱȱRefusalȱtoȱRescindȱtheȱInvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ ȱ DefendantȬintervenorȱarguesȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.ȱ(toȱ
whichȱitȱhasȱreferredȱasȱ“SGREȱS.A”ȱandȱCommerceȱhasȱreferredȱasȱ“SGRE”),ȱwhichȱisȱ
“theȱsoleȱplaintiffȱinȱthisȱinvestigation”ȱandȱ“theȱentityȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱinstructedȱtoȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ14ȱ ȱ investigateȱinȱtheȱsecondȱremand,”ȱwasȱnotȱlawfullyȱinvestigated.ȱȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱ
Commentsȱ6ȱ(“Commerce’sȱdecisionȱtoȱselectȱthisȱcompanyȱasȱaȱrespondentȱisȱbasedȱonȱ
theȱagency’sȱmisreadingȱofȱtheȱrecordȱandȱincorrectȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱstatute’sȱ
requirementȱtoȱinvestigateȱproducersȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandise.”).ȱȱTheȱCoalitionȱ
maintainsȱthatȱthisȱcompanyȱ“isȱaȱholdingȱcompany,ȱsupervisingȱtheȱequityȱofȱotherȱ
entities,”ȱandȱthatȱitȱ“hasȱnoȱproductionȱfacilitiesȱandȱdoesȱnotȱparticipateȱinȱtheȱdayȬtoȬ
dayȱoperationsȱorȱsalesȱdecisionsȱofȱtheȱentitiesȱforȱwhichȱitȱsupervises.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ11.ȱȱ
AccordingȱtoȱdefendantȬintervenor,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ“cannotȱreasonablyȱbeȱconsideredȱ
aȱproducerȱorȱexporter,ȱandȱtherefore,ȱisȱnotȱqualifiedȱtoȱbeȱaȱrespondentȱunderȱ
19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677fȬ1(c)(1).”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ10ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱ
Inȱsupportȱofȱitsȱargument,ȱdefendantȬintervenorȱstatesȱthatȱ“[p]laintiff’sȱextremeȱ
lackȱofȱprecisionȱwhenȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱindividualȱSiemensȱGamesaȱentitiesȱmuddlesȱ
whichȱentityȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱthisȱinvestigation.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ6.ȱȱItȱaddsȱthatȱ“[t]hroughoutȱtheȱ
variousȱremands,ȱplaintiffȱhasȱusedȱtheȱ‘SGRE’ȱinitialismȱtoȱreferȱtoȱvariousȱentitiesȱandȱ
groupsȱofȱentitiesȱrelevantȱtoȱthisȱproceeding,”ȱincludingȱinȱitsȱquestionnaireȱresponses.ȱȱ
Id.ȱatȱ6–7.ȱȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱCoalition,ȱ“SGREȱS.A.’sȱlackȱofȱspecificityȱhasȱmadeȱitȱ
difficultȱtoȱunderstandȱwhichȱentitiesȱwereȱperformingȱeachȱfunction—aȱkeyȱfactȱinȱ
determiningȱwhetherȱtheȱplaintiffȱisȱaȱ‘producer’”ȱand,ȱinȱturn,ȱaȱviableȱmandatoryȱ
respondent.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ6–9.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱsubmitsȱthatȱthisȱ“extremeȱlackȱofȱ
precision”ȱhasȱ“causedȱCommerceȱtoȱfallȱintoȱtheȱsameȱtrap”ȱofȱconflatingȱmultipleȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ15ȱ ȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱaffiliatesȱinȱitsȱinvestigation,ȱcontraryȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱinstructionsȱinȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱIIȱtoȱinvestigateȱSiemensȱGamesaȱindividually.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ8–9.ȱ
InȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱrejectedȱtheȱCoalition’sȱ
argumentȱthatȱitȱmustȱrescindȱtheȱinvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱ32ȱ(“BecauseȱweȱcontinueȱtoȱexamineȱtheȱsingleȱentityȱofȱSGRE/Windarȱ
which,ȱcollectively,ȱproducesȱandȱexportsȱwindȱtowersȱfromȱSpain,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱbasisȱtoȱ
rescindȱtheȱinvestigationȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱSGRE.”).ȱȱInȱsupportȱofȱitsȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱ
rescindȱtheȱinvestigationȱandȱalsoȱtoȱcollapseȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱWindarȱandȱitsȱfiveȱ
whollyȬownedȱmanufacturingȱsubsidiaries,ȱCommerceȱcited,ȱinterȱalia,ȱrecordȱevidenceȱ
ofȱ“SGRE’sȱownershipȱofȱ32ȱpercentȱofȱWindarȱandȱindirectȱownershipȱofȱWindar’sȱ
manufacturingȱsubsidiaries,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱcompanies’ȱoverlappingȱboardsȱofȱdirectorsȱ
andȱmanagersȱandȱtheirȱintertwinedȱoperations.”ȱȱId.ȱȱReferringȱtoȱitsȱearlierȱ“decisionȱtoȱ
considerȱSGRE,ȱWindar,ȱandȱWindar’sȱmanufacturingȱsubsidiariesȱasȱaȱsingleȱentity”ȱ
basedȱonȱtheȱrecordȱasȱitȱexistedȱatȱthatȱtime,ȱCommerceȱconcludedȱthatȱ“noneȱofȱtheȱ
informationȱsubmittedȱsinceȱthatȱdecisionȱunderminesȱthatȱfinding.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ33.ȱ
DefendantȬintervenorȱdoesȱnotȱdisputeȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindings,ȱid.ȱatȱ32,ȱthatȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱownedȱ32%ȱofȱWindarȱand,ȱindirectly,ȱWindar’sȱwhollyȬownedȱ
manufacturingȱsubsidiariesȱandȱthatȱthereȱwereȱoverlappingȱboardsȱofȱdirectors.ȱȱWhileȱ
noȱpartyȱdisputesȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱisȱaȱholdingȱcompany,ȱdefendantȬintervenorȱ
makesȱtheȱblanketȱassertionȱthatȱ“SGREȱS.A.ȱisȱaȱholdingȱcompanyȱthatȱisȱnotȱinvolvedȱinȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ16ȱ ȱ theȱproduction,ȱsales,ȱorȱexportȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandise.”ȱȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ10ȱ(emphasisȱ
added).ȱ
InȱsupportȱofȱitsȱargumentȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwasȱimproperlyȱinvestigated,ȱ
theȱCoalitionȱdirectsȱtheȱcourt’sȱattentionȱtoȱaȱcommonȱdefinitionȱofȱtheȱtermȱ“holdingȱ
company.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ11ȱ(quotingȱBlack’sȱLawȱDictionaryȱ(12thȱed.ȱ2024)ȱ(“Aȱcompanyȱformedȱ
toȱcontrolȱotherȱcompanies,ȱusu.ȱconfiningȱitsȱroleȱtoȱowningȱstockȱandȱsupervisingȱ
management.ȱȱItȱdoesȱnotȱparticipateȱinȱmakingȱdayȬtoȬdayȱbusinessȱdecisionsȱinȱthoseȱ
companies.”)).ȱȱThisȱargumentȱisȱnotȱpersuasive.ȱȱEvenȱwereȱitȱassumed,ȱarguendo,ȱthatȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱdidȱnotȱparticipateȱinȱtheȱ“dayȬtoȬday”ȱproduction,ȱsales,ȱorȱexportȱ
decisionsȱofȱWindarȱandȱtheȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiaries,ȱitȱwouldȱnotȱ
necessarilyȱfollowȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱhadȱnoȱinvolvementȱinȱtheȱproduction,ȱsales,ȱorȱ
exportȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱsuchȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱrequiredȱtoȱrescindȱtheȱ
investigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱByȱbroadlyȱdefiningȱtheȱtermȱ“exporterȱorȱproducer”ȱ
asȱ“theȱexporterȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱtheȱproducerȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱorȱ
both,”ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(28),ȱtheȱTariffȱActȱlargelyȱleftȱitȱupȱtoȱCommerceȱtoȱdecideȱ
whetherȱaȱforeignȱentity’sȱactivitiesȱareȱsufficientȱtoȱqualifyȱitȱasȱanȱexporter,ȱproducer,ȱ
orȱbothȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱconductingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation.ȱȱCommerceȱ
reasonablyȱlookedȱatȱSiemensȱGamesa’sȱrelationshipsȱwithȱtheȱWindarȱcompaniesȱandȱ
theȱrecordȱevidenceȱasȱaȱwholeȱinȱrejectingȱtheȱCoalition’sȱpositionȱthatȱitȱmustȱrescindȱ
theȱinvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱpointsȱtoȱnothingȱinȱtheȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ17ȱ ȱ statuteȱorȱtheȱDepartment’sȱregulationsȱthatȱwouldȱhaveȱcompelledȱCommerceȱtoȱ
accedeȱtoȱtheȱCoalition’sȱpositionȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ
DefendantȬintervenorȱcitesȱaȱdecisionȱofȱthisȱCourt,ȱHyundaiȱSteelȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱ
States,ȱ45ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ518ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1309,ȱ1332ȱ(2021),ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ16,ȱbutȱthatȱ
caseȱlendsȱnoȱsupportȱtoȱitsȱposition.ȱȱTheȱissueȱinȱtheȱcaseȱwasȱwhetherȱCommerceȱ
erredȱinȱdenyingȱanȱuntimelyȱrequestȱofȱtheȱpetitionerȱtoȱrescindȱtheȱreviewȱofȱaȱfreightȱ
companyȱthatȱwasȱaffiliatedȱwithȱaȱmandatoryȱrespondentȱandȱthatȱCommerceȱitselfȱ
found,ȱonȱrecordȱevidence,ȱnotȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱproducerȱorȱexporterȱbutȱinsteadȱtoȱhaveȱ
transportedȱrawȱmaterialsȱtoȱtheȱmandatoryȱrespondent’sȱproductionȱfacilityȱandȱ
finishedȱproductȱtoȱcustomers.ȱȱHyundaiȱSteelȱCo.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ518ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1312,ȱ
1329.ȱȱCommerceȱalsoȱconcludedȱthatȱcollapsingȱtheȱaffiliateȱwithȱtheȱmandatoryȱ
respondentȱwasȱinappropriate.ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ518ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1329–30.ȱȱReasoningȱ
thatȱtheȱuntimelinessȱofȱtheȱpetitioner’sȱrequestȱwasȱnotȱaȱsufficientȱjustificationȱforȱtheȱ
refusalȱtoȱrescindȱtheȱreview,ȱthisȱCourtȱheldȱthatȱCommerce,ȱuponȱdeterminingȱthatȱtheȱ
freightȱcompanyȱwasȱneitherȱanȱexporterȱnorȱaȱproducer,ȱshouldȱhaveȱrescindedȱtheȱ
reviewȱofȱtheȱfreightȱcompanyȱ“onȱitsȱownȱinitiative.”ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ518ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ
atȱ1332.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱCoalitionȱthatȱquestionnaireȱresponsesȱbyȱplaintiffȱinȱ
theȱfirstȱremandȱproceedingȱpresentȱinconsistenciesȱasȱtoȱtheȱintendedȱmeaningȱofȱ
variousȱreferencesȱthereinȱtoȱ“SGRE.”ȱȱCommerceȱsentȱSiemensȱGamesaȱitsȱ“SectionȱAȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ18ȱ ȱ Questionnaire,”ȱdatedȱFebruaryȱ17,ȱ2023,ȱfollowingȱtheȱFebruaryȱ16,ȱ2023ȱissuanceȱofȱ
theȱcourt’sȱdecisionȱinȱSiemensȱGamesaȱI.ȱȱRequestȱforȱInformation,ȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱ
Investigation,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱFeb.ȱ17,ȱ2023),ȱ
P.R.R.ȱ1,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ65Ȭ3.ȱȱPlaintiff’sȱresponse,ȱdatedȱMarchȱ10,ȱ2023,ȱstatesȱasȱfollows:ȱ
Contractually,ȱSGREȱisȱresponsibleȱforȱmanufacturingȱtheȱtowerȱsectionsȱ andȱdeliveringȱtheȱtowerȱsectionsȱtoȱtheȱsite.ȱȱTheȱcustomersȱareȱ responsibleȱforȱinstallation,ȱwhileȱSGREȱprovidesȱonȬsiteȱtechnicalȱ assistance.ȱȱSGREȱnegotiatesȱdirectlyȱwithȱrawȱmaterialȱsuppliersȱinȱSpain,ȱ andȱsubȬcontractsȱitsȱaffiliateȱtowerȱproducerȱWindarȱRenovablesȱ (“Windar”)ȱtoȱmanufactureȱtheȱtowerȱsections,ȱwithȱcoordination,ȱ consultation,ȱandȱsupervisionȱbyȱSGRE.ȱ ȱ AntidumpingȱDutyȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ
RenewableȱEnergyȱSectionȱAȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ2ȱ(Mar.ȱ10,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.R.ȱ8–40,ȱECFȱ
No.ȱ65Ȭ4ȱ(“SectionȱAȱQuestionnaireȱResponse”).ȱȱTheȱ“CertificationȱinȱAccordanceȱwithȱ
19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.303(g)(l),”ȱincludedȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱthatȱquestionnaireȱresponse,ȱ
statesȱasȱfollows:ȱ
I,ȱDomenicoȱBarger,ȱcurrentlyȱemployedȱbyȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱ Energy,ȱInc.ȱ(SGRE),ȱcertifyȱthatȱIȱpreparedȱorȱotherwiseȱsupervised,ȱonȱ behalfȱofȱSGREȱandȱitsȱaffiliatesȱ(collectively,ȱ”SGRE”),ȱtheȱpreparationȱofȱ theȱattachedȱsubmissionȱofȱSGRE’sȱSectionȱAȱresponseȱconcerningȱUtilityȱ WindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain,ȱdatedȱMarchȱ10,ȱ2023,ȱpursuantȱtoȱtheȱ AntidumpingȱOrdersȱonȱUtilityȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpainȱ(AȬ469Ȭ823).ȱ ȱ Id.ȱatȱCertification.ȱȱAsȱshownȱinȱthisȱexcerpt,ȱtheȱcertificationȱusesȱtheȱabbreviationȱ
“SGRE”ȱtoȱreferȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱtheȱU.S.ȱaffiliate,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergy,ȱInc.,ȱ
butȱalsoȱtoȱ“SGREȱandȱitsȱaffiliatesȱ(collectively,ȱ‘SGRE’),”ȱwhichȱwouldȱincludeȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ19ȱ ȱ Theȱquestionnaireȱresponseȱalsoȱusesȱtheȱabbreviationȱ“SGRE”ȱtoȱreferȱsolelyȱtoȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.,ȱsee,ȱe.g.,ȱid.ȱatȱ9ȱ(describingȱ“SGRE”ȱasȱ“aȱ
publiclyȱtradedȱcompany”ȱwithȱsharesȱlistedȱonȱSpanishȱstockȱexchanges),ȱbutȱitȱusesȱ
theȱsameȱabbreviationȱtoȱreferȱmoreȱbroadlyȱtoȱaȱgroupȱofȱcompaniesȱthatȱincludesȱtheȱ
producerȱ“Windar/SGRE”ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱU.S.ȱimporter,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱ
Energy,ȱInc.:ȱ“Duringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱinvestigation,ȱSGREȱimportedȱWindar/SGREȱ
producedȱwindȱtowerȱsectionsȱintoȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱthenȱincorporatedȱthoseȱwindȱ
towersȱintoȱsalesȱofȱwindȱturbines.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱTheȱquestionnaireȱresponseȱstates:ȱ“SGREȱ
isȱpartȱofȱtheȱSiemensȱGamesaȱgroupȱofȱcompaniesȱownedȱbyȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ
RenewableȱEnergy,ȱSA.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ6.ȱȱOnȱtheȱsameȱpage,ȱitȱstatesȱthat:ȱ
Inȱaȱfewȱregions,ȱSGREȱisȱalsoȱengagedȱinȱprojectȱdevelopment.ȱȱSGREȱisȱ presentȱinȱmoreȱthanȱ90ȱcountriesȱaroundȱtheȱworld,ȱandȱitsȱturbinesȱareȱ installedȱinȱmoreȱthanȱ70ȱcountries.ȱȱItȱoperatesȱmoreȱthanȱ15ȱ manufacturingȱplantsȱinȱoverȱ10ȱcountriesȱandȱhasȱapproximatelyȱ40ȱsalesȱ officesȱ(asȱofȱJuneȱ30,ȱ2020).ȱ ȱ Id.5ȱ
Despiteȱtheȱconfusingȱreferencesȱinȱtheȱquestionnaireȱresponse,ȱtheȱcourtȱdoesȱ
notȱviewȱtheȱrecordȱevidence,ȱconsideredȱonȱtheȱwhole,ȱasȱsufficientȱtoȱhaveȱcompelledȱ
ȱ ȱThereȱareȱsimilarlyȱconfusingȱreferencesȱinȱSiemensȱGamesa’sȱquestionnaireȱ 5
responsesȱfromȱtheȱsecondȱremandȱproceeding,ȱfollowingȱtheȱcourt’sȱdecisionȱinȱSiemensȱ GamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1343ȱ(2023).ȱȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱ AntidumpingȱDutyȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ RenewableȱEnergyȱSectionsȱB–EȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱCȬ17ȱ(Oct.ȱ16,ȱ2023),ȱ2P.R.R.ȱ5–6,ȱ ECFȱNo.ȱ88Ȭ3ȱ(referringȱtoȱ“windȱtowerȱsectionsȱexportedȱandȱimportedȱbyȱSGRE”ȱ withoutȱdefiningȱ“SGRE”).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ20ȱ ȱ Commerceȱtoȱreachȱaȱfinding,ȱasȱtheȱCoalitionȱadvocates,ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ10,ȱthatȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱhadȱnoȱroleȱwhatsoeverȱinȱtheȱproduction,ȱsale,ȱorȱexportȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱ
merchandise.ȱȱInȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱevidenceȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa’sȱownershipȱinterestsȱinȱ
theȱWindarȱcompaniesȱandȱtheȱoverlappingȱboardsȱofȱdirectors,ȱCommerceȱnotedȱ
evidenceȱofȱintertwinedȱoperations.ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ32ȱ&ȱn.91ȱ(citingȱ
CollapsingȱMemorandumȱ7);ȱSectionȱAȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ13,ȱ15,ȱ16ȱ&ȱExhibitȱAȬ4S.ȱȱ
Commerceȱfoundȱalsoȱthatȱ“SGREȱperformsȱanȱessentialȱroleȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱtheȱ
windȱtowers”ȱinȱthatȱ“itȱdesignsȱtheȱtowersȱandȱprovidesȱtheȱtechnicalȱdrawingsȱandȱ
specificationsȱtoȱWindarȱandȱitsȱmanufacturingȱsubsidiariesȱtoȱfabricateȱthem.”ȱȱSecondȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱ34ȱ(citingȱSectionȱAȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ28ȱ(“Windarȱgenerallyȱ
fabricatesȱtowersȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱtheȱdesignsȱprovidedȱbyȱtheȱcustomerȱ(OEMs).ȱȱ
Specifically,ȱWindarȱreceivesȱaȱcompleteȱdocumentationȱpackageȱwhichȱincludesȱtheȱ
detailȱdrawingsȱandȱspecificationsȱandȱtheȱfabrication.”)).6ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱ
contestsȱthisȱfinding,ȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱrevealsȱthatȱ“SGREȱS.A.ȱisȱnotȱinvolvedȱinȱ
theȱrelevantȱsalesȱorȱproductionȱdecisions,”ȱandȱthatȱtheseȱfunctionsȱinsteadȱwereȱ
performedȱbyȱaffiliatesȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱthatȱareȱnotȱcompaniesȱinȱSpain.ȱȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱ
Commentsȱ12–13.ȱȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱfoundȱtoȱtheȱcontrary.ȱȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱSecondȱ
ȱ 6ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱisȱaȱcustomerȱofȱWindarȱbecauseȱitȱmakesȱ“purchasesȱfromȱ
WindarȱRenovables.”ȱȱSeeȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱ fromȱSpain:ȱResponseȱtoȱQuantityȱandȱValueȱQuestionnaireȱAttachmentȱ1ȱ(Dec.ȱ7,ȱ2020),ȱ P.R.ȱ84,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ21ȱ ȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱ37ȱn.117ȱ(“Insofarȱasȱtheȱpetitioner’sȱargumentsȱareȱthatȱ
agreementsȱbetweenȱpartiesȱinvolveȱSGREȱaffiliatesȱnotȱlocatedȱinȱSpain,ȱtheȱ
agreementsȱcoverȱSGREȱandȱareȱapplicableȱtoȱit.”).ȱȱTheȱpossibilityȱthatȱtwoȱoppositeȱ
findingsȱcouldȱbeȱdrawnȱfromȱtheȱsameȱrecordȱevidenceȱdoesȱnotȱcompelȱtheȱconclusionȱ
thatȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱwasȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence.ȱȱConsoloȱv.ȱFed.ȱ
Mar.ȱComm’n,ȱ383ȱU.S.ȱ607,ȱ620ȱ(1966).ȱ
Inȱsummary,ȱCommerceȱactedȱonȱtheȱuncontestedȱfindingsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ
ownedȱ32%ȱofȱWindarȱand,ȱindirectly,ȱtheȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱandȱthatȱ
thereȱwereȱoverlappingȱboardsȱofȱdirectors.ȱȱWhileȱdefendantȬintervenorȱcontestsȱtheȱ
Department’sȱfindingsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱhadȱaȱroleȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱwindȱ
towers,ȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱconsideredȱtheȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱwholeȱinȱrejectingȱtheȱ
Coalition’sȱpositionȱthatȱCommerceȱhadȱnoȱalternativeȱtoȱrescindingȱtheȱinvestigationȱasȱ
toȱSiemensȱGamesa.7ȱ
ȱ 7 ȱDefendantȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱCoalitionȱhasȱwaivedȱitsȱobjectionȱtoȱtheȱ Department’sȱinvestigatingȱSiemensȱGamesaȱandȱitsȱrelatedȱobjectionȱtoȱtheȱ Department’sȱincludingȱSiemensȱGamesaȱinȱtheȱcollapsedȱentity.ȱȱDefendant’sȱ CommentsȱinȱSupportȱofȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ6–7ȱ(Aug.ȱ21,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ85ȱ (citingȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱWindȱTowerȱTradeȱCoalition’sȱCommentsȱonȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱ(Julyȱ17,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ59,ȱinȱwhichȱdefendantȬintervenorȱcommentedȱ inȱsupportȱofȱtheȱinvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱandȱtheȱcollapsingȱdetermination).ȱȱ BecauseȱCommerceȱaddressedȱbothȱissuesȱonȱtheȱmeritsȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱ Redetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱdoesȱnotȱdecideȱeitherȱissueȱonȱtheȱgroundȱofȱwaiver.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ22ȱ ȱ E.ȱȱTheȱDecisionȱtoȱCollapseȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱWindarȱandȱtheȱWindarȱ ManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱ ȱ TheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱthatȱcollapsingȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱWindarȱandȱtheȱ
WindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱwasȱimpermissibleȱbecauseȱSiemensȱGamesa,ȱinȱitsȱ
view,ȱdoesȱnotȱqualifyȱasȱaȱ“producer.”ȱȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ16–19.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱrejectsȱ
thisȱargumentȱforȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱpreviously.ȱȱItȱnowȱconsidersȱtheȱCoalition’sȱ
separateȱargumentȱthat,ȱtheȱinvestigationȱissueȱaside,ȱcollapsingȱwasȱimproperȱunderȱ
theȱDepartment’sȱregulation,ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f),ȱbecauseȱSiemensȱGamesaȱdoesȱnotȱ
exerciseȱ“significantȱleverageȱoverȱWindar’sȱoperations,”ȱbecauseȱitȱ“hasȱnoȱfacilitiesȱ
thatȱcouldȱbeȱretooledȱforȱproduction,”ȱandȱbecauseȱitȱ“doesȱnotȱsetȱtheȱpricesȱorȱ
overseeȱdayȬtoȬdayȱoperationsȱofȱtheȱcompaniesȱinȱwhichȱitȱholdsȱequityȱasȱaȱminorityȱ
shareholder.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ17–18.ȱ
Inȱparagraphȱ(1)ȱofȱsectionȱ351.401(f),ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱregulationȱcontainsȱaȱ
“general”ȱprovisionȱasȱfollows:ȱȱȱ
Inȱgeneral.ȱȱInȱanȱantidumpingȱproceedingȱunderȱthisȱpart,ȱtheȱSecretaryȱ[ofȱ Commerce]ȱwillȱtreatȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱaffiliatedȱproducersȱasȱaȱsingleȱentityȱ whereȱthoseȱproducersȱhaveȱproductionȱfacilitiesȱforȱsimilarȱorȱidenticalȱ productsȱthatȱwouldȱnotȱrequireȱsubstantialȱretoolingȱofȱeitherȱfacilityȱinȱ orderȱtoȱrestructureȱmanufacturingȱprioritiesȱandȱtheȱSecretaryȱconcludesȱ thatȱthereȱisȱaȱsignificantȱpotentialȱforȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱpriceȱorȱ production.ȱ ȱ 19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f)(1).ȱȱThisȱ“general”ȱprovisionȱisȱnotableȱforȱwhatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱsay:ȱitȱ
doesȱnotȱprovideȱthatȱtheȱsituationȱdescribedȱinȱparagraphȱ(1)ȱisȱtheȱonlyȱsituationȱinȱ
whichȱtheȱSecretaryȱwillȱcollapseȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱaffiliatedȱproducers.ȱȱCommerceȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ23ȱ ȱ permissiblyȱhasȱinterpretedȱ§ȱ351.401(f)ȱtoȱallowȱforȱcollapsingȱevenȱwhenȱanȱentityȱ
lacksȱproductionȱfacilities,ȱstatingȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱ
“Commerceȱcan,ȱandȱfrequentlyȱdoes,ȱcollapseȱresellersȱandȱotherȱnonȬproducingȱ
entitiesȱ(i.e.,ȱthoseȱwithoutȱproductionȱfacilities)ȱintoȱsingleȱentitiesȱthatȱareȱsubjectȱtoȱ
individualȱexamination.”ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ35ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱȱȱ
Paragraphȱ(2)ȱofȱsectionȱ351.401(f)ȱprovidesȱasȱfollows:ȱ
Significantȱpotentialȱforȱmanipulation.ȱȱInȱidentifyingȱaȱsignificantȱpotentialȱ forȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱpriceȱorȱproduction,ȱtheȱfactorsȱtheȱSecretaryȱmayȱ considerȱinclude:ȱ(i)ȱTheȱlevelȱofȱcommonȱownership;ȱ(ii)ȱTheȱextentȱtoȱ whichȱmanagerialȱemployeesȱorȱboardȱmembersȱofȱoneȱfirmȱsitȱonȱtheȱ boardȱofȱdirectorsȱofȱanȱaffiliatedȱfirm;ȱandȱ(iii)ȱWhetherȱoperationsȱareȱ intertwined,ȱsuchȱasȱthroughȱtheȱsharingȱofȱsalesȱinformation,ȱ involvementȱinȱproductionȱandȱpricingȱdecisions,ȱtheȱsharingȱofȱfacilitiesȱ orȱemployees,ȱorȱsignificantȱtransactionsȱbetweenȱtheȱaffiliatedȱproducers.ȱ ȱ 19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f)(2).ȱ
TheȱCoalitionȱacknowledgesȱthatȱCommerceȱhasȱaȱpracticeȱofȱcollapsingȱ
producersȱwithȱ“nonȬproducers,”ȱbutȱitȱdoesȱnotȱchallengeȱthisȱpracticeȱperȱse.ȱȱSeeȱ
Def.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ16–17.ȱȱInstead,ȱitȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱpractice,ȱasȱtheȱCoalitionȱ
interpretsȱit,ȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱappliedȱinȱtheȱsituationȱpresented.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ17.ȱȱ
AccordingȱtoȱitsȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱDepartment’sȱpractice,ȱ“[t]heȱcircumstancesȱinȱ
whichȱCommerceȱwillȱcollapseȱproducersȱwithȱnonȬproducersȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱinstancesȱ
whereȱtheȱcompaniesȱunquestionablyȱhaveȱsufficientlyȱintertwinedȱoperationsȱ
presentingȱaȱconcernȱthatȱthereȱmayȱbeȱaȱ‘significantȱpotentialȱforȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱ
priceȱorȱproduction’ȱandȱinȱsituationsȱwhereȱ‘theȱnonȬproducerȱcouldȱnonethelessȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ24ȱ ȱ behaveȱlikeȱaȱproducer.’”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ17ȱn.4ȱ(citingȱRebarȱTradeȱActionȱCoal.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ
43ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ398ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3d.ȱ1359,ȱ1369ȱ(2019)ȱ(inȱturnȱcitingȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ
§ȱ351.401(f)(2)(i)–(ii))).ȱȱInȱtheȱCoalition’sȱview,ȱ“[s]uchȱconcernsȱareȱnotȱapparentȱinȱtheȱ
instantȱcaseȱasȱSGREȱS.A.ȱisȱdemonstrablyȱuninvolvedȱinȱtheȱproductionȱandȱsaleȱofȱtheȱ
windȱtowersȱatȱissue,ȱandȱnoȱrecordȱevidenceȱdemonstratesȱaȱdesireȱonȱtheȱbehalfȱofȱ
SGREȱS.A.ȱforȱfutureȱinvolvementȱinȱsuchȱendeavors.”ȱȱId.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱrejectsȱdefendantȬintervenor’sȱargumentȱthatȱCommerceȱexceededȱtheȱ
boundsȱofȱitsȱownȱpractice.ȱȱAsȱtheȱcourtȱexplainedȱpreviously,ȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱdidȱ
notȱcompelȱCommerceȱtoȱfind,ȱasȱtheȱCoalitionȱadvocates,ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ10,ȱthatȱ
SiemensȱGamesaȱhadȱnoȱroleȱwhatsoeverȱinȱtheȱproduction,ȱsaleȱorȱexportȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱ
merchandise.ȱȱCommerceȱdisagreedȱwithȱtheȱCoalition’sȱpositionȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ
wasȱ“demonstrablyȱuninvolvedȱinȱtheȱproductionȱandȱsaleȱofȱtheȱwindȱtowersȱatȱissue,”ȱ
id.ȱatȱ17ȱn.4,ȱandȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱsupportsȱCommerceȱinȱthatȱregard.ȱȱCommerceȱ
foundȱaȱ“significantȱpotentialȱforȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱpriceȱorȱproduction,”ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ
§ȱ351.401(f),ȱbasedȱinȱpartȱonȱtheȱuncontestedȱfindingsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱownedȱ32%ȱ
ofȱWindarȱduringȱtheȱPOI,ȱthatȱ“theȱcompaniesȱhadȱoverlappingȱmanagersȱandȱboardsȱ
ofȱdirectors,”ȱthatȱthereȱwasȱ“significantȱrepresentationȱofȱSGREȱonȱWindar’sȱboard,”ȱ
andȱthatȱtheȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱareȱ“governedȱbyȱtopȱmanagementȱ
withinȱtheȱWindarȱgroup.”ȱȱCollapsingȱMemorandumȱ7–8,ȱ7ȱn.37.ȱȱCommerceȱreachedȱaȱ
generalȱconclusionȱthatȱ“theȱoperationsȱofȱSGREȱandȱWindarȱwereȱintertwined.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ25ȱ ȱ 7,ȱ8.ȱȱWhileȱdefendantȬintervenorȱmaintainsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ“wouldȱhaveȱtoȱ
overcomeȱsignificantȱbarriersȱ(i.e.,ȱsetȱupȱproductionȱfacilities,ȱhireȱaȱworkȱforce,ȱretainȱaȱ
customerȱbase,ȱandȱprocureȱmachinery,ȱrawȱmaterials,ȱandȱotherȱsupplies)ȱtoȱestablishȱ
itselfȱasȱaȱproducer,”ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ17ȱn.4,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱcriteriaȱareȱ
addressedȱtoȱtheȱ“significantȱpotentialȱforȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱpriceȱorȱproduction,”ȱ
19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f)ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱBasedȱonȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱconsideredȱonȱ
theȱwhole,ȱCommerceȱconcludedȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesa,ȱWindar,ȱandȱtheȱWindarȱ
ManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱshouldȱbeȱtreatedȱ“asȱaȱsingleȱentityȱforȱpurposesȱofȱ[its]ȱ
analysisȱinȱthisȱproceeding.”ȱȱCollapsingȱMemorandumȱ9.ȱ
F.ȱȱDeterminationȱofȱConstructedȱExportȱPriceȱ
Underȱsectionȱ731ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673,ȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱisȱ
imposedȱ“inȱanȱamountȱequalȱtoȱtheȱamountȱbyȱwhichȱtheȱnormalȱvalueȱexceedsȱtheȱ
exportȱpriceȱ(orȱtheȱconstructedȱexportȱprice)ȱforȱtheȱmerchandise.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673.ȱȱ
Sectionȱ773(a)ȱrequiresȱthatȱCommerceȱmakeȱaȱ“fairȱcomparison”ȱbetweenȱtheȱU.S.ȱ
price,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱexportȱpriceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱprice,ȱandȱtheȱnormalȱvalueȱofȱtheȱ
subjectȱmerchandise.ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677b(a).ȱ
TheȱTariffȱActȱdefinesȱ“exportȱprice”ȱasȱ“theȱpriceȱatȱwhichȱtheȱsubjectȱ
merchandiseȱisȱfirstȱsoldȱ(orȱagreedȱtoȱbeȱsold)ȱbeforeȱtheȱdateȱofȱimportationȱbyȱtheȱ
producerȱorȱexporterȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱtoȱanȱ
unaffiliatedȱpurchaserȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱorȱtoȱanȱunaffiliatedȱpurchaserȱforȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ26ȱ ȱ exportationȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱasȱadjustedȱunderȱsubsectionȱ(c).”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677a(a).ȱȱ
Constructedȱexportȱpriceȱisȱ“theȱpriceȱatȱwhichȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱisȱfirstȱsoldȱ(orȱ
agreedȱtoȱbeȱsold)ȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱbeforeȱorȱafterȱtheȱdateȱofȱimportationȱbyȱorȱforȱ
theȱaccountȱofȱtheȱproducerȱorȱexporterȱofȱsuchȱmerchandiseȱorȱbyȱaȱsellerȱaffiliatedȱ
withȱtheȱproducerȱorȱexporter,ȱtoȱaȱpurchaserȱnotȱaffiliatedȱwithȱtheȱproducerȱorȱ
exporter,ȱasȱadjustedȱunderȱsubsectionsȱ(c)ȱandȱ(d).”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677a(b).ȱȱStatedȱgenerally,ȱ
subsectionsȱ(c)ȱandȱ(d),ȱreadȱtogether,ȱrequireȱtheȱdeductionȱfromȱtheȱstartingȱpriceȱof,ȱ
interȱalia,ȱfreight,ȱsellingȱexpenses,ȱcostȱofȱfurtherȱmanufactureȱorȱassembly,ȱandȱprofit.ȱȱ
Id.ȱ§ȱ1677a(c)–(d).ȱ
Theȱdecisionȱwhetherȱtoȱuseȱanȱexportȱpriceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱasȱtheȱ
U.S.ȱpriceȱdependsȱonȱwhetherȱtheȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱbyȱorȱforȱtheȱaccountȱofȱtheȱ
foreignȱexporterȱorȱproducer,ȱwasȱaȱsaleȱtoȱanȱunaffiliatedȱpurchaser.ȱȱIfȱitȱwasȱnot,ȱthenȱ
CommerceȱmustȱdetermineȱU.S.ȱpriceȱbyȱtheȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱmethod.ȱȱBecauseȱ
theȱU.S.ȱsalesȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱtoȱunaffiliatedȱpartiesȱwereȱmadeȱbyȱaȱU.S.ȱ
affiliateȱofȱtheȱcombinedȱSGRE/Windarȱentityȱ(SiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergy,ȱ
Inc.),ȱCommerceȱusedȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱ
SecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ21–22,ȱ35.ȱ
ThereȱisȱnoȱdisputeȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱrequiredȱtoȱuseȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱ
inȱtheȱinvestigation.ȱȱTheȱdisputeȱpertainsȱinsteadȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱmethodȱofȱ
determiningȱtheȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowers.ȱȱThisȱdisputeȱaroseȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ27ȱ ȱ becauseȱofȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱindividualȱpricesȱforȱtheȱresaleȱofȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱtoȱ
unaffiliatedȱU.S.ȱpurchasers,ȱtheȱwindȱtowersȱhavingȱbeenȱsuppliedȱonlyȱasȱcomponentsȱ
inȱcompleteȱwindȱturbineȱprojects.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ22.ȱȱToȱaddressȱthisȱproblem,ȱCommerceȱ
performedȱaȱcomplexȱsetȱofȱcalculations,ȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱdescribesȱbelow.ȱ
Duringȱtheȱremandȱproceeding,ȱCommerceȱdirectedȱplaintiff,ȱusingȱwhatȱ
Commerceȱtermedȱ“granularȱprojectȱworksheets”ȱ(theȱ“Worksheets”)ȱtoȱallocateȱtheȱ
totalȱrevenueȱreceivedȱbyȱtheȱU.S.ȱaffiliateȱforȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱprojectsȱ“toȱtheȱ
individualȱcomponentsȱofȱtheȱwindȱturbines”ȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱcost.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ47–48.ȱȱAsȱ
Commerceȱdescribedȱitsȱquestionnaire:ȱ“BecauseȱSGRE/Windarȱsellsȱcompleteȱprojectsȱ
(i.e.,ȱmultipleȱassembledȱwindȱturbines)ȱtoȱunaffiliatedȱU.S.ȱcustomers,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[w]eȱ
instructedȱSGRE/Windarȱtoȱuseȱtheȱgranularȱprojectȱworksheets,ȱwhichȱcontainȱprojectȱ
costsȱbyȱcomponentȱ(someȱofȱwhichȱareȱbasedȱonȱtransferȱprice)ȱandȱprojectȱrevenue”ȱtoȱ
performȱtheȱallocation.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ48.ȱȱCommerceȱinstructedȱthatȱtheȱtotalȱ“projectȱcost”ȱforȱ
eachȱwindȱturbineȱprojectȱshouldȱbeȱallocatedȱ“toȱbothȱ‘theȱrelevantȱcomponentsȱ(e.g.,ȱ
tower,ȱblades,ȱnacelle)ȱandȱservicesȱ(e.g.,ȱdelivery,ȱcommissioning)’”ȱandȱ“didȱnotȱ
instructȱSGRE/Windarȱtoȱspecificallyȱexcludeȱanyȱitemsȱfromȱtheȱallocation.”ȱȱId.ȱ
(quotingȱSecondȱSectionsȱABCȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱ5ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱDec.ȱ29,ȱ
2023)).8ȱ
ȱ 8 ȱTheȱquestionnaireȱisȱmissingȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱtheȱpartiesȱsubmittedȱtoȱtheȱcourt.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ28ȱ ȱ Commerceȱexplainedȱthatȱtoȱavoidȱtheȱuseȱofȱtransferȱpricesȱforȱwindȱtowersȱthatȱ
wereȱsuppliedȱbyȱtheȱSGRE/Windarȱentity,ȱi.e.,ȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱitȱdidȱnotȱuseȱtheȱ
costsȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱasȱreportedȱonȱtheȱWorksheets.ȱȱId.ȱ
atȱ46–47.ȱȱInstead,ȱCommerceȱusedȱcostȱofȱproductionȱ(“COP”)ȱdataȱforȱtheȱindividualȱ
windȱtowerȱ“sections”ȱidentifiedȱbyȱcontrolȱnumberȱ(“CONNUM”),ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱhadȱ
itsȱownȱindividualȱcostȱofȱproduction,ȱstatingȱthatȱitȱ“revisedȱtheȱgrossȱunitȱpriceȱusedȱ
inȱourȱmarginȱcalculationsȱtoȱbeȱbasedȱonȱaȱCONNUMȬspecific,ȱCOPȬbasedȱratio.”ȱȱId.ȱ
atȱ47.ȱȱItȱdidȱsoȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱCoalition’sȱcommentsȱonȱaȱdraftȱversionȱofȱtheȱresultsȱ
ofȱtheȱsecondȱremand.ȱȱId.ȱȱCommerceȱexplained,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱitȱusedȱtransferȱpricesȱforȱ
“windȱtowersȱandȱwindȱtowerȱaccessories”ȱthatȱtheȱU.S.ȱaffiliate,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ
RenewableȱEnergy,ȱInc.ȱ(“SGREȱInc.”),ȱpurchasedȱfromȱ“unaffiliatedȱsuppliers,”ȱwhichȱ
itȱ“combinedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwithȱitsȱpurchasesȱofȱSGRE/Windar’sȱwindȱtowers/accessoriesȱforȱsomeȱ
ofȱtheȱcostȱelementsȱinȱitsȱprojectȱsheets.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ48ȱn.150.ȱȱCommerceȱaddedȱthatȱ“[i]nȱ
suchȱcases,ȱweȱacceptedȱSGREȱInc.’sȱdata,ȱasȱreported.”ȱȱId.ȱȱForȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowerȱ
componentsȱsuppliedȱbyȱtheȱSGRE/Windarȱentity,ȱCommerceȱindicatedȱthatȱitȱusedȱaȱ
“revisedȱCOPȱcalculatedȱinȱtheȱcomparisonȱmarketȱprogram.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ47ȱn.147.ȱȱ
Commerceȱstatedȱthatȱitsȱ“revisedȱmethodologyȱallowsȱCommerceȱtoȱdifferentiateȱtheȱ
pricesȱforȱeachȱwindȱtowerȱsectionȱtype,ȱbyȱassigningȱaȱhigherȱpercentageȱofȱtheȱpriceȱtoȱ
thoseȱproductsȱforȱwhichȱSGRE/Windarȱincursȱgreaterȱcosts.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ47.ȱȱCommerceȱ
describedȱitsȱcalculationȱmethodȱasȱfollows:ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ29ȱ ȱ Toȱdoȱthis,ȱweȱsummedȱtheȱreportedȱtotalȱCOPȱforȱeachȱofȱtheȱsectionȱ typesȱforȱeachȱU.S.ȱprojectȱtoȱobtainȱaȱtotalȱCOPȱforȱtheȱentireȱwindȱtowerȱ (i.e.,ȱtheȱcompleteȱmultiȬsectionȱwindȱtowerȱasȱsoldȱtoȱtheȱunaffiliatedȱU.S.ȱ customer).ȱȱWeȱthenȱdeterminedȱtheȱratioȱthatȱeachȱsectionȱtypeȱwasȱofȱtheȱ totalȱwindȱtowerȱCOP.ȱȱUsingȱtheȱtotalȱrevenueȱattributableȱtoȱtheȱwindȱ towersȱforȱeachȱU.S.ȱprojectȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ,ȱweȱappliedȱtheȱindividualȱCONNUMȱcostȱ ratiosȱforȱtheȱsectionȱtypeȱcategoriesȱtoȱtheȱtotalȱtowerȱrevenue.ȱȱWeȱthenȱ dividedȱtheȱresultingȱvalueȱbyȱtheȱnumberȱofȱsectionsȱofȱthatȱCONNUMȱ soldȱinȱeachȱU.S.ȱprojectȱtoȱarriveȱatȱaȱpriceȱperȱsection.ȱ ȱ Id.ȱatȱ47–48.ȱȱCommerceȱexplained,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱitȱmadeȱpreȬallocationȱdeductionsȱfromȱ
theȱgrossȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱinvoicesȱonlyȱforȱfreightȱandȱ“logistics.”ȱȱ
Id.ȱatȱ49.ȱ
DefendantȬintervenorȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱconstructedȱvalueȱ
determinationȱisȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ20–28,ȱbutȱ
clarifiesȱthatȱitȱisȱnotȱobjectingȱtoȱtheȱgeneralȱcalculationȱmethodȱdescribedȱabove,ȱid.ȱ
atȱ20ȱ(“Asȱanȱinitialȱmatter,ȱWTTCȱsupportsȱtheȱgeneralȱcalculationȱmethodologyȱofȱtheȱ
grossȱunitȱpriceȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise.”).ȱȱȱ
TheȱCoalitionȱobjects,ȱinstead,ȱtoȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱinvoiceȱpricesȱforȱtheȱwindȱ
turbineȱprojectsȱtoȱcalculateȱtheȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowers,ȱ
arguingȱthatȱ“[d]ueȱtoȱ[the]ȱuseȱofȱtheȱtotalȱrevenueȱreceivedȱbyȱSGREȱInc.ȱforȱtheȱwindȱ
turbineȱprojects,ȱtheȱdumpingȱmarginȱcalculatedȱforȱSGREȱS.A./WindarȱforȱtheȱSecondȱ
FinalȱRemandȱResultsȱwasȱarbitrarilyȱdeflated.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ20.ȱȱMaintainingȱthatȱ
“Commerce’sȱcurrentȱcalculationȱcontainsȱrevenueȱnotȱattributableȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱ
merchandise,”ȱid.ȱatȱ23,ȱtheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱthatȱ“Commerce’sȱuseȱofȱtheȱtotalȱinvoiceȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ30ȱ ȱ priceȱ(whichȱincludesȱservicesȱandȱcomponentsȱthatȱdoȱnotȱrelateȱtoȱwindȱtowerȱ
sections)ȱasȱtheȱfigureȱusedȱtoȱallocateȱtheȱCONNUMȬspecificȱgrossȱunitȱpricesȱofȱtheȱ
subjectȱmerchandise”ȱshouldȱbeȱheldȱ“toȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,”ȱid.ȱ
atȱ27–28.ȱȱȱ
TheȱCoalitionȱadvocatesȱthatȱCommerceȱshouldȱhaveȱusedȱanȱalternativeȱmethodȱ
toȱdetermineȱconstructedȱexportȱprice,ȱarguingȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱrequiredȱ“toȱ
considerȱrelevantȱevidenceȱwhichȱdemonstratedȱthatȱtheȱappropriateȱrevenueȱfiguresȱ
couldȱbeȱascertainedȱfromȱspecificȱlineȱitemsȱtoȱtheȱwindȱturbinesȱonȱtheȱgranularȱ
projectȱworksheets.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ21.ȱȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱCoalition’sȱviewȱofȱtheȱrecordȱevidence,ȱ
theȱWorksheetsȱidentifiedȱrevenueȱattributedȱtoȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱandȱtherebyȱ
providedȱ“aȱmoreȱappropriateȱrevenueȱlineȱitemȱforȱcalculatingȱgrossȱunitȱprices,”ȱid.ȱ
atȱ22,ȱthatȱisȱ“theȱonlyȱappropriateȱrevenueȱfigureȱonȱtheȱrecordȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱgrossȱ
unitȱpricesȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,”ȱid.ȱatȱ23.ȱ
TheȱCoalitionȱdoesȱnotȱmakeȱoutȱaȱprimaȱfacieȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ
methodȱofȱdeterminingȱconstructedȱexportȱpricesȱforȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱwasȱ
impermissible.ȱȱTheȱCoalitionȱisȱcorrectȱthatȱtheȱtotalȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱtheȱinvoicesȱforȱ
theȱwindȱturbineȱprojectsȱincludedȱsomeȱrevenueȱrealizedȱfromȱtheȱinclusionȱinȱtheȱ
projectsȱofȱvariousȱcomponentsȱandȱservicesȱthatȱwereȱunrelatedȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱ
towers.ȱȱNevertheless,ȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱinvoicesȱwereȱonlyȱtheȱstartingȱpointȱforȱtheȱ
Department’sȱanalysis.ȱȱDescribedȱinȱgeneralȱterms,ȱtheȱsecondȱstepȱinȱtheȱanalysisȱwasȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ31ȱ ȱ theȱallocation,ȱbasedȱonȱrelativeȱcost,ȱofȱrevenueȱbetweenȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱ(onȱaȱ
“sectionȬtype”ȱbasis)ȱandȱtheȱotherȱindividualȱelementsȱonȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱinvoices.ȱȱ
TheȱCoalitionȱdoesȱnotȱbackȱupȱitsȱclaimȱwithȱaȱdemonstrationȱfromȱrecordȱevidenceȱ
thatȱthisȱsecondȱstepȱwasȱaȱmisallocation.ȱȱAbsentȱsuchȱaȱdemonstration,ȱtheȱcourtȱ
cannotȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱmethodȱresultedȱinȱaȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱ
calculationȱthat,ȱasȱtheȱCoalitionȱargues,ȱid.ȱatȱ23,ȱwasȱunlawfulȱdueȱtoȱ“revenueȱnotȱ
attributableȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise”ȱorȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱmethodȱ“presentsȱaȱ
significantȱproblemȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱdiminishedȱaccuracyȱofȱtheȱcalculation,”ȱid.ȱatȱ23–24.ȱ
InsteadȱofȱmakingȱpreȬallocationȱdeductionsȱforȱcomponentsȱandȱservicesȱ
unrelatedȱtoȱtheȱwindȱtowerȱsections,ȱCommerceȱreliedȱuponȱtheȱWorksheetsȱtoȱallocateȱ
revenueȱtoȱtheȱnonȬsubjectȱcomponents,ȱandȱtoȱtheȱservices,ȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱrelativeȱcost.ȱȱ
Inȱdoingȱso,ȱCommerceȱmadeȱnoȱpreȬallocationȱdeductionsȱfromȱtheȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱ
theȱwindȱturbineȱinvoicesȱotherȱthanȱthoseȱforȱfreightȱandȱotherȱlogisticsȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱ
windȱturbinesȱasȱaȱwholeȱ(whichȱdeductionsȱitȱmadeȱtoȱderiveȱ“theȱequivalentȱofȱanȱexȬ
worksȱprice”).ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ49ȱ(“Givenȱthatȱtheȱfreightȱexpensesȱ
differ,ȱsometimesȱmarkedly,ȱbetweenȱtheȱwindȱtowersȱandȱtheȱotherȱcomponents,ȱweȱ
findȱthatȱitȱisȱmoreȱaccurateȱtoȱremoveȱtheȱfreightȱexpensesȱfromȱtheȱprojectȱpriceȱbeforeȱ
performingȱtheȱallocation.”).ȱȱRatherȱthanȱshowȱthatȱthisȱmethodȱnecessarilyȱ
misallocatedȱtheȱrevenueȱrealizedȱfromȱtheȱwindȱtowerȱprojects,ȱdefendantȬintervenorȱ
arguesȱthatȱitsȱalternativeȱmethodȱnotȱonlyȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱsuperiorȱtoȱtheȱmethodȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ32ȱ ȱ Commerceȱemployedȱbutȱalsoȱwasȱtheȱonlyȱpermissibleȱmethodȱavailable.ȱȱTheȱreasonsȱ
itȱoffersȱareȱnotȱpersuasive.ȱ
TheȱCoalitionȱidentifiesȱvariousȱitemsȱasȱunrelatedȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowers,ȱ
Def.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ21–22,ȱgivingȱasȱexamplesȱ“elevators”ȱandȱcharacterizingȱanotherȱ
itemȱ(theȱ“SCADAȱPowerȱManager”)ȱasȱ“notȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱsaleȱofȱtheȱwindȱtowersȱtoȱtheȱ
unaffiliatedȱcustomer,”ȱid.ȱatȱ22ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱThisȱobjectionȱisȱunconvincingȱnotȱ
onlyȱinȱfailingȱtoȱplaceȱtheȱunrelatedȱitemsȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱsecondȱstepȱinȱtheȱ
Department’sȱanalysisȱbutȱalsoȱinȱoverlookingȱthatȱthereȱwasȱnoȱindividualȱsaleȱofȱtheȱ
windȱtowersȱtoȱtheȱunaffiliatedȱcustomer.ȱȱHadȱthereȱbeenȱsuchȱaȱsale,ȱCommerceȱ
wouldȱnotȱhaveȱhadȱoccasionȱtoȱresortȱtoȱanȱallocationȱmethod.ȱȱLackingȱactualȱresaleȱ
pricesȱtoȱunrelatedȱpurchasersȱforȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱorȱtheȱindividualȱwindȱtowerȱ
sections,ȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱbeganȱitsȱcalculationȱusingȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱtheȱwindȱ
turbineȱprojectȱinvoices.ȱȱUnlikeȱtheȱlineȱitemsȱonȱtheȱWorksheetsȱlistingȱrevenueȱ
associatedȱwithȱsubjectȱwindȱtowers,ȱwhichȱtheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱCommerceȱshouldȱ
haveȱused,ȱtheȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱprojectȱinvoicesȱwasȱfoundȱbyȱ
Commerceȱtoȱbeȱrevenueȱthatȱactuallyȱwasȱrealizedȱinȱsalesȱtoȱunrelatedȱpurchasers.ȱȱSeeȱ
SecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ47ȱn.147ȱ(rejectingȱtheȱCoalition’sȱalternativeȱmethodȱ
becauseȱitȱ“usesȱaȱpriceȱthatȱisȱnotȱtheȱverified,ȱinvoicedȱprojectȱpriceȱtoȱtheȱunaffiliatedȱ
U.S.ȱcustomer”);ȱseeȱalsoȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱ16ȱ(contrastingȱactualȱrevenueȱfromȱpaymentsȱtoȱ
SGREȱInc.ȱwithȱ“anȱinternalȱprofitȱworksheet”).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ33ȱ ȱ DefendantȬintervenor’sȱmethodȱandȱtheȱoneȱusedȱbyȱCommerceȱdifferȱinȱtheȱ
treatmentȱofȱprofit.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenor’sȱalternativeȱmethodȱwouldȱuseȱtheȱrevenueȱ
allocationsȱtoȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱasȱshownȱonȱtheȱWorksheetsȱwhileȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ
methodȱwouldȱuseȱaȱuniformȱprofitȱrate.ȱȱTheȱCoalitionȱdoesȱnotȱdemonstrateȱthatȱitsȱ
methodȱisȱsuperiorȱinȱthatȱrespect.ȱȱByȱbeginningȱwithȱtheȱtotalȱprojectȱrevenueȱandȱ
makingȱallocationsȱofȱthatȱrevenueȱbasedȱonȱrelativeȱcost,ȱCommerceȱmadeȱaȱ
methodologicalȱchoiceȱtoȱassumeȱaȱuniformȱprofit.ȱȱSeeȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ48ȱ
(statingȱthatȱCommerceȱ“didȱnotȱinstructȱSGRE/Windarȱtoȱspecificallyȱexcludeȱanyȱ
itemsȱfromȱtheȱallocation”).ȱȱAsȱdefendantȱdescribesȱthisȱmethod,ȱ“Commerceȱdidȱnotȱ
ascertainȱvaryingȱratesȱofȱprofitȱamongȱtheȱdifferentȱcomponents;ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱallocationȱ
assumedȱaȱconsistentȱrateȱofȱprofitȱacrossȱtheȱturbineȱprojects.”ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱ18.ȱȱ
Commerceȱstatedȱthatȱuseȱofȱtheȱtotalȱinvoiceȱpriceȱasȱtheȱstartingȱpriceȱforȱtheȱ
constructedȱexportȱpriceȱcalculationȱforeclosedȱaȱpossibilityȱthatȱprofitsȱcouldȱbeȱshiftedȱ
fromȱsomeȱitemsȱinȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱprojectsȱtoȱothers.ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
47ȱn.147.ȱ
TheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱthatȱ“[i]nȱtheȱinstantȱsituationȱthereȱisȱnoȱevidenceȱthatȱ
profitsȱwereȱshiftedȱtoȱattributeȱadditionalȱprofitȱtoȱtheȱwindȱtowers,”ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱ
Commentsȱ27,ȱbutȱthisȱobjectionȱmissesȱtheȱpoint.ȱȱInȱtheȱsituationȱpresented,ȱinȱwhichȱ
theȱwindȱtowersȱwereȱnotȱsoldȱindividuallyȱtoȱanȱunrelatedȱpurchaserȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱ
States,ȱCommerceȱmadeȱaȱreasonableȱmethodologicalȱchoiceȱtoȱuseȱaȱuniformȱprofitȱrateȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ34ȱ ȱ thatȱwasȱgroundedȱinȱrecordȱevidenceȱofȱactualȱrevenue,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱinvoices.ȱȱ
ThatȱchoiceȱmadeȱitȱunnecessaryȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱconsiderȱwhetherȱtheȱrevenueȱlineȱ
itemsȱonȱtheȱWorksheets,ȱwhichȱtheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱCommerceȱshouldȱhaveȱused,ȱ
wereȱdistortedȱbyȱmisallocatedȱprofit.ȱȱOnȱaȱrecordȱthatȱdidȱnotȱincludeȱresalesȱofȱ
subjectȱmerchandiseȱtoȱunrelatedȱpurchasersȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱitȱwasȱreasonableȱforȱ
Commerceȱtoȱobtainȱandȱapplyȱaȱuniformȱprofitȱrate.ȱ
Inȱsummary,ȱtheȱCoalitionȱpresentsȱanȱalternativeȱmethodȱofȱdeterminingȱ
constructedȱexportȱpriceȱwithoutȱdemonstratingȱthatȱtheȱmethodȱCommerceȱchoseȱ
insteadȱwasȱunreasonableȱonȱtheȱrecordȱbeforeȱit.ȱȱCourtsȱaffordȱCommerceȱ
considerableȱdeferenceȱinȱdeterminationsȱ“involv[ing]ȱcomplexȱeconomicȱandȱ
accountingȱdecisionsȱofȱaȱtechnicalȱnature,”ȱFujitsuȱGen.ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ88ȱF.3dȱ
1034,ȱ1039ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ1996),ȱalthoughȱtoȱbeȱaffordedȱjudicialȱdeferenceȱCommerceȱstillȱ
mustȱprovideȱanȱadequateȱexplanationȱandȱitsȱultimateȱdeterminationȱmustȱbeȱlawfulȱ
andȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,ȱseeȱVicentinȱS.A.I.C.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ44ȱCITȱ__,ȱ
__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1227,ȱ1235ȱ(2020).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconcludesȱthatȱCommerceȱprovidedȱaȱ
reasonedȱexplanationȱforȱitsȱmethodȱofȱdeterminingȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱforȱtheȱ
subjectȱwindȱtowers.ȱȱInȱcontestingȱthisȱmethod,ȱdefendantȬintervenorȱdoesȱnotȱshowȱ
thatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱofȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱwasȱunsupportedȱbyȱ
substantialȱrecordȱevidenceȱorȱotherwiseȱcontraryȱtoȱlaw.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ35ȱ ȱ III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱ
TheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱassigningȱaȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ28.55%ȱtoȱtheȱentityȱcomprisedȱofȱ
SiemensȱGamesa,ȱWindar,ȱandȱtheȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiaries.ȱ
TheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱremediedȱtheȱdeficienciesȱtheȱcourtȱ
identifiedȱinȱSiemensȱGamesaȱIȱandȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII.ȱȱForȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱ
theȱcourtȱrejectsȱdefendantȬintervenor’sȱclaimsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱ
beenȱinvestigated,ȱthatȱitȱunlawfullyȱwasȱcollapsedȱwithȱWindarȱandȱtheȱWindarȱ
ManufacturingȱSubsidiaries,ȱandȱthatȱCommerceȱunlawfullyȱdeterminedȱtheȱ
constructedȱexportȱpriceȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱwillȱenterȱjudgmentȱsustainingȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ /s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Judgeȱ ȱ Dated:ȱJanuaryȱ28,ȱ2025ȱ ȱ ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
755 F. Supp. 3d 1357, 2025 CIT 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siemens-gamesa-renewable-energy-v-united-states-cit-2025.