[SOLVED] Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v.

Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States International Trade Commission
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 879 F.3d 1377 (2018).
Background and Facts; Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Company, a Chinese firm, makes crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells and related products. Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc., imported Changzhou’s CSPV products into the United States. The U.S. Department of Commerce found that the imports were subsidized by the Chinese government and sold in the United States at less than fair value. The International Trade Commission (ITC) determined that the domestic CSPV industry was materially injured by the imports from China. Changzhou and Trina challenged this determination in the U.S. Court of International Trade. The court rejected the challenge and sustained the ITC’s determination. Changzhou and Trina appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In the Language of the Court
TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
In this case, [Changzhou and Trina] argue that the Commission failed to make findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the domestic industry would have been materially better off if the subject imports had not been introduced into the market. [Changzhou and Trina] argue that the domestic industry would have been materially as badly off even had there been no unfairly priced and subsidized subject imports. The question is whether the Commission found, with adequate reasons and substantial-evidence support, that the difference between the state of the domestic industry as it actually was and the state of the domestic industry as it would have been without the subject imports was more than inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant. [Emphasis added.] The Commission’s summary rested on detailed findings about demand conditions and the business cycle in the domestic market, the roles of conventional and renewable sources of electricity, government incentives and regulations at federal, state, and local levels, domestic consumption trends, market segments, who was supplying the domestic market, what happened to prices and market shares, and the ways in which the domestic industry’s financial performance was very poor and deteriorating. The findings rested on various types of evidence, including the answers to questionnaires addressed to market participants such as purchasers. The Commission recognized “there may have been additional factors exerting downward pricing pressure on CSPV products,” but it found “that subject imports were a significant cause of the decline in prices. “In sum, the significant and growing volume of low-priced subject imports from China competed directly with the domestic like product, was sold in the same channels of distribution to the same segments of the U.S. market, and undersold the domestic like product at significant margins, causing domestic producers to lose revenue and market share and leading to significant depression and suppression of the domestic industry’s prices.”
Decision and Remedy; The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court. The ITC’s explanation for the determination that the imported products unfairly impacted the domestic industry relied on concrete evidence that the reviewing court concluded was sufficient to support the imposition of antidumping duties under the substantial-evidence test.
Critical Thinking
• Economic: How does the Changzhou case illustrate that dumping is an unfair international trade practice? Discuss.
• What If the Facts Were Different? Suppose that the ITC had not issued detailed findings supported by a variety of evidence, but had only released a statement that the subject imports seemed to have a negative effect on the domestic industry. Would the result have been different? Explain.

Question: Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v.