United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RISEN ENERGY CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant

TRINA SOLAR CO., LTD., ET AL., Plaintiffs

CANADIAN SOLAR INC., CANADIAN SOLAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, CANADIAN SOLAR MANUFACTURING (CHANGSHU), INC., CANADIAN SOLAR MANUFACTURING (LUOYANG), INC., CSI CELLS CO., LTD., CANADIAN SOLAR (USA), INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

UNITED STATES Defendant-Appellee

SUNPOWER MANUFACTURING OREGON, LLC, Defendant ______________________

2023-1550 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:20-cv-03743-CRK, Judge Claire R. Kelly. ______________________

Decided: December 9, 2024 ______________________ Case: 23-1550 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2024

2 RISEN ENERGY CO., LTD. v. US

ALEXANDRA H. SALZMAN, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JAMES KEVIN HORGAN, GREGORY S. MENEGAZ.

ASHLEY AKERS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; BRISHAILAH BROWN, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

JONATHAN STOEL, Hogan Lovells US LLP, for plaintiffs- appellees. Also represented by LINDSAY BROWN, CRAIG A. LEWIS, NICHOLAS SPARKS. ______________________

Before DYK, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge STARK. DYK, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns the Sixth Administrative Review of an antidumping order concerning crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (commonly referred to as “solar cells”) from the People’s Republic of China. Appellant Risen Energy Co., Ltd. (“Risen”) is a Chinese exporter of solar cells, whose products are subject to the antidumping order imposed by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). Risen was selected as a mandatory respondent for such review. Since China is a nonmarket economy to calculate a dumping margin, Case: 23-1550 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2024

RISEN ENERGY CO., LTD. v. US 3

Commerce used surrogate values from Malaysia for computing normal values (home market price) for the Sixth Administrative Review. The Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) sustained Commerce’s surrogate value calculations for Risen’s physical inputs and its surrogate financial ratio calculations. See Risen Energy Co. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1326 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (Risen I); Risen Energy Co. v. United States, 611 F. Supp. 3d 1384, 1389–94 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (Risen II). Risen appeals, challenging Commerce’s surrogate value calculations for its backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate (“EVA”), and Commerce’s overhead ratio calculation. Because Commerce’s selections of surrogate values for Risen’s backsheet and EVA inputs were supported by substantial evidence, but Commerce’s surrogate overhead ratio calculation was not, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. BACKGROUND I The government imposes antidumping duties on foreign merchandise sold “in the United States at less than its fair value.” Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1318, 1