The department’s announcement on Thursday came after several domestic factory owners in the US alleged that companies from these three countries were dumping cheap goods in the American market.
The latest changes the preliminary duty rates, known as dumping margins, to a whopping 123.04% for imports from India, 35.17% for imports from Indonesia and 22.46% for imports from Laos, according to Reuters calculations based on the fact sheet posted on the Commerce Department’s website.
Notably, India, Indonesia and Laos together accounted for nearly two-thirds of total solar imports to the US, amounting to $4.5 billion. The Alliance for American Solar Manufacturing and Trade, which filed the petition, includes Tempe, Arizona-based First Solar, Qcells, the solar division of Korea’s Hanwha, and private companies Talon PV and Mission Solar.
“The preliminary determinations confirm that producers in these countries are dumping solar cells and modules into the US market at unfairly low prices, undercutting American-made products and distorting market competition at a pivotal moment for the domestic manufacturing sector,” the Alliance said in a statement. This group was previously successful in winning tariffs on imports from countries in Southeast Asia including Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand.
The Commerce Department said it would announce a final decision on or around July 13 for solar cells from India and Indonesia, and a decision for imports from Laos on or around September 9.
Waaree Energies derives a major portion of its revenue from the American market. Hence, the proposal to increase tariffs on US imports from India may have spooked investors today, further fuelled by the overall market downturn. Waaree Energies shares crashed over 5% to hit an intraday low of Rs 3,235.90 apiece today.Premier Energies shares dropped 4% in the morning but erased all losses later, jumping over 1% into the green.
(With inputs from Reuters)
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)