Department of Commerce Proposes New Solar Tariff on Chinese Panels

05 January 2015 Renewable Energy Outlook Blog

On January 2, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) announced its preliminary decision regarding crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People’s Republic of China (“Chinese solar cells”). The decision relates to an administrative review by the DOC of Chinese solar cells imported from May 25, 2012 through November 30, 2013. The original antidumping case was brought by SolarWorld Americas Inc., a German-owned, Oregon-based company, as well as various exporters and U.S. importers. This administrative review covers two mandatory respondents, Yingli Energy Company Limited (“Yingli”) and Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. (“Wuxi Suntech”).

In determining what rates would apply to Yingli and Wuxi Suntech, the DOC first preliminarily determined that while Yingli would be eligible for its own separate rate, Wuxi Suntech would not be eligible for its own separate rate, and thus would be given the “China-wide” rate, that is, the rate given to all Chinese companies who were not mandatory respondents and either failed to apply or unsuccessfully applied for a separate rate. The DOC based its Wuxi Suntech decision on its determination that Wuxi Suntech is sufficiently controlled by the Chinese government, such that the Chinese government either controls or has the potential to control Wuxi Suntech.    

 The DOC’s preliminary antidumping margins were drastically different for Yingli and those companies receiving a separate rate, than for those companies receiving the “China-wide” rate. Yingli and the separate rate companies received an antidumping margin of only 1.82%. On the other hand, the “China-wide” rate, given to Wuxi Suntech and those companies who were not mandatory respondents and either failed to apply or unsuccessfully applied for a separate rate, was 238.56%.

On January 2, 2015, the DOC also announced its preliminary countervailing duty decision regarding Chinese solar cells. In this countervailing duty administrative review, the mandatory respondents were Lightway Green New Energy Co., Ltd. (“Lightway”) and Shanghai BYD Co. Ltd. (“Shanghai BYD”) and its cross-owned affiliates. Unlike in the antidumping administrative review, here both mandatory respondents were given their own separate rates, apart from the remaining countries subject to review. Lightway was given a 22.73% margin, Shanghai BYD was given a 8.63% margin, and the remaining companies subject to review were given a 15.68% margin, based on a weighted average of the subsidy rates calculated for Lightway and Shanghai BYD. 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.