US Confirms New Import Duties on Chinese Solar Products

The US Commerce Department announced on Tuesday, 3 June that it would be imposing preliminary countervailing duties on imports of certain Chinese crystalline silicon photovoltaic products – including solar cells, modules, laminates, and/or panels. The anti-subsidy duties are significantly higher than those confirmed in a separate probe two years ago and cover an expanded scope of products, including those partly manufactured in Taiwan.

The investigations were launched by the US government agency in January, in response to a complaint filed by SolarWorld Industries America, the US’ largest solar panel manufacturer.

The company had alleged that Chinese producers – following the previous imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties in 2012– had gotten around paying said duties by commissioning part or all of the production of these solar cells in Taiwan, and then using such cells to then assemble solar panels back in China.

The new duties, which take effect immediately, range from 18.56 percent to 35.21 percent. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. would face the lowest of these duties, while Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. and five of its affiliates would face the highest. All other Chinese producers will be subject to a rate of 26.89 percent, Commerce said.

The duties announced on Tuesday exclude those products already affected by the 2012 duties, which had ranged from 14.78 to 15.97 percent for those producers under investigation.

Expanded scope

Furthermore, the US agency said, the merchandise subjected to these duties would also include modules, laminates, and/or panels assembled in China, but using cells completely or partly manufactured within another customs territory – ostensibly

Taiwan - that used Chinese-made ingots or wafers in their production process.

Cells whose production began in China and were then completed in another customs territory were also included in the probe.

Beijing fires back

Beijing trade officials promptly slammed the Commerce Department decision, with the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) issuing a statement in which they claimed that US investigators both ignored the facts and legal basis for conflicting rules of origin on these solar products.

The preliminary duties, MOFCOM added, are an “abuse of trade remedy measures” that is aimed at protecting US industry, and would only serve to reignite bilateral tensions on solar trade.

In addition, the Chinese ministry said, these trade remedies are unlikely to help the US develop its solar sector. Rather, Washington should terminate the investigation in order to “create a good environment” that would promote competitiveness within the photovoltaic industry worldwide.

Help or hindrance?

Imports into the US of these Chinese-made crystalline silicon photovoltaic products were valued at approximately US$1.5 billion in 2013, according to Commerce Department figures. However, whether or not these latest duties are indeed a win for the US solar industry – or could instead cripple its own growth – is a subject that has proven divisive domestically.

SolarWorld, the petitioner in the case, called the decision a “strong win” for the American solar sector, applauding the Commerce Department “for its work that supports fair trade.”

The same company had been the main proponent for the original 2012 case, together with several other US solar panel manufacturers that were known collectively as the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM). According to SolarWorld, many of the founding members of CASM have since had to shut their doors as a result of the intense competition from China, which the US-based solar giant claims is the result of unfair trade practices.

However, US downstream producers that use these same products in their solar projects – such as those companies represented by the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE) – disagree.

Calling the ruling a “major setback” for the American solar industry, the group urged US government officials to continue efforts toward a negotiated settlement with China instead.

Rather than competing with China or Taiwan, he added, US solar companies are really competing against “coal, natural gas, and other forms of electricity generation that solar has only recently been able to beat on cost.”

The spats have not been limited to these two countries alone. The EU and China engaged in a similarly heated row last year, with the disagreement being defused only by an eleventh-hour “price undertaking” deal that committed Chinese manufacturers to exporting a set volume of solar products at a minimum price in order to avoid hefty anti-dumping duties from Europe.

While the US was involved in the early discussions on this price undertaking agreement, it ultimately was not involved in the final pact.

Australia, meanwhile, announced last month that it was launching its own anti-dumping investigation into Chinese solar imports, while India has recently imposed anti-dumping duties on products from the US, China, and various other countries.