US Trade Officials Delay Decision on New Solar Tariffs

The U.S. Commerce Department on Wednesday asked a group of anonymous domestic solar manufacturers for additional information before it would consider a request to impose duties on panels produced in three Southeast Asian countries.

The move delays the department’s decision, which had been expected this week. The case is the latest dispute between the U.S. solar project builders that rely on cheap imports for most of their supplies and the tiny domestic manufacturing sector that says it can’t compete effectively with the flood of low-priced imports from Asia.

U.S. solar project developers have lobbied forcefully against any Commerce investigation into new tariffs, saying the probe alone would spook the foreign solar producers they rely on and cripple a sector that is critical to meeting the nation’s climate change goals.

The anonymous group seeking the tariffs last month asked the Commerce Department to investigate whether imports from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam were unfair. It accuses Chinese producers of shifting manufacturing to those nations to avoid U.S. duties on solar cells and panels made in China.

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department sent the group’s attorney, Timothy Brightbill, a letter that set an Oct. 6 deadline for the so-called American Solar Manufacturers Against Chinese Circumvention to respond to a series of questions.

One question asks members of the group to identify themselves. The group said in filings with Commerce that its members wished to remain anonymous because they feared retribution in the marketplace, a claim the department has also asked it to explain.

The department said it would issue a decision within 45 days of receiving a response.

Brightbill did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Solar Energy Industries Association, the trade group that opposes the tariff request, said that it was disappointed the department did not dismiss the group’s petition outright, but that the additional information would show that the petitioners “have no case.” 

 

wwwcost ads

leave a reply: