On October 31st, the United States International Trade Commission proposed a trade remedy measure to President Trump on importing photovoltaic cells and components to restrict the import of related products. The U.S. solar industry generally believes that restricting the import of PV products is likely to result in a "double-lose" outcome.
The US International Trade Commission had ruled in September that a large number of cheap imported photovoltaic cells and components had caused serious damage to the U.S. domestic industry. This ruling is based on Article 201 of the U.S. Trade Law of 1974, also known as the "201 Survey" or the "Global Safeguards Survey." This clause stipulates that when the import volume of a certain commodity increases sharply, causing serious damage to the U.S. industry or threat of serious damage, the U.S. president can restrict imports through measures such as tariffs and quotas to protect the domestic industry.
It is reported that four members of the U.S. International Trade Commission proposed three different trade remedy measures to Trump, including limiting imports of photovoltaic products through quotas, tariffs, and permits.
Among them, the chairman of the United States International Trade Commission, Lunda Schmidtler, suggested that quotas and tariffs be used at the same time to limit imports. She suggested that quotas be imposed on imported photovoltaic cells and a 10% tariff on imported products within the quota should be imposed. The tax rate will be decremented to 8.5% for the next three years; the 30% tariff will be levied on additional imported goods, and the tax rate will be declining year after year within three years. 27%. In addition, a tariff of 35% is imposed on imported PV modules, and the tax rate gradually decrements to 32% within the next three years.
David Johnsson, vice chairman of the US International Trade Commission, and Owen Williamson, a member of the US International Trade Commission, jointly submitted the proposal. They also recommended the use of quotas and tariffs as relief measures. However, the figures were different from the above plans. Commissioner Meredith & Dot Broadbent suggested setting an import quota, and at the same time adopting an open auction to sell import licenses and using this revenue to support the development of related domestic companies.
Trump will ultimately decide whether to take trade remedy measures and what kind of trade remedy measures to adopt.
Because the US solar energy downstream industry relies heavily on imported cheap solar cell products, analysts believe that this verdict may lead to rising prices of solar power in the United States, a large number of workers unemployed, and the development of the solar energy industry being hindered.
Market research company GTM said that limiting the import of photovoltaic cells and components may cause a "destructive" blow to the US solar market, which may result in the cancellation of two-thirds of solar panel installation plans in the next five years.
Abigail Hopper, chairman of the American Solar Energy Industry Association, issued a statement after the verdict was announced: "The US International Trade Commission’s ruling has disappointed nearly 9,000 solar companies and 260,000 employees."
According to research conducted by SPV Market Research Corporation, solar cell production in the United States once accounted for a quarter of global production before 2001, but since then, solar cell prices in Asia have been lower, and U.S. domestic production has gradually declined and imports have increased. Last year, 95% of solar cell products sold on the U.S. market came from imports.
According to the statistics of the United States International Trade Commission, the largest source of imported solar cell products in the United States is Malaysia, followed by South Korea, Vietnam, and Thailand. Solar cell products from China account for about 8% of U.S. imports.
The litigation filed with the US International Trade Commission was a photovoltaic company, Suniva, located in Georgia in the southern United States. The company filed for bankruptcy in April this year. Another company involved in the prosecution is the Solar-World USA subsidiary of the German PV company that has also gone bankrupt.
include DM-211(1+1 pockets)
DM-610(6+1 pockets)
DM-910(9+1 pockets)
coin deposit module,Coin Deposit,Cash deposit module
Suzhou Ribao Technology Co. Ltd. , https://www.ribaoeurope.com