More on the SolarWorld AC/CVD Complaint

Following up on the last post, I was curious about the reference to "WTO-legal subsidies and WTO-illegal subsidies."  So I asked the SolarWorld people the following question:

In what way are the Chinese subsidies "WTO-illegal"? Does that mean that they  violate the SCM Agreement in the sense that they are "prohibited" subsidies  or "actionable" susbsidies that cause "adverse effects"? Or does it mean  that they cause injury, as defined in U.S. CVD law (which follows the  SCM Agreement), and thus the SCM Agreement permits the U.S. to take  action?

I've wondered about this kind of thing before in the context of people talking about "illegal dumping."

Here's the response I got from one of SolarWorld's lawyers, Adam Gordon of Wiley Rein:

Because  this is a CVD petition brought before US federal agencies, we are not claiming  that the subsidies violate the WTO Agreement per se.  However, some of the  subsidies are actionable under the SCM Agreement and have adverse affects, such  as the export restraint on silicon metal -- the primary input in polysilicon  production.  Nevertheless, all of the subsides are actionable under U.S. law  because they cause injury and are therefore actionable pursuant to the SCM  Agreement.

Anyway, this is probably all just semantics.  Here's a more interesting issue:  How will the DOC deal with the issue of properly carrying out a concurrent AD/CVD investigation in light of the Appellate Body's findings in U.S. - Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (China) (DS379)?