The U.S. Dept. of Commerce today released its final tariff amounts on solar cells (whether or not assembled into modules) from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. The tariffs would go into effect after and only if the U.S. International Trade Commission makes a final determination (by June 2) that the domestic panel manufacturing industry was harmed by dumped and subsidized imports from the Southeast Asian countries. The ITC already preliminarily decided in the affirmative in this anti-dumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) case, so it is likely the final decision will follow suit.
The final tariff amounts are similar to/slightly higher than the preliminary amounts, except for the CVD rate for Cambodia which jumped from 729% to 3,400%.
The final tariff amounts are below:
Cambodia
| Companies | Final AD rate | Final CVD rate | Total tariff amount |
| Solarspace New Energy | 117.18% | 534.67% | 651.85% |
| Hounen Solar, Jinktek Photovoltaic, ISC Cambodia, Solar Long PV Tech |
117.18% | 3,403.96% | 3,521.14% |
| All others | 117.18% | 534.67% | 651.85% |
Malaysia
| Companies | Final AD rate | Final CVD rate | Total tariff amount |
| Hanwha Q CELLS | 0% | 14.64% | 14.64% |
| JinkoSolar | 1.92% | 38.38% | 40.30% |
| Baojia New Energy | 81.24% | 168.80% | 250.04% |
| CRC, Lynter, Mega PP | 81.24% | 32.49% | 113.73% |
| Pax Union, SunMax Energy | 1.92% | 168.80% | 170.72% |
| All others | 1.92% | 32.49% | 34.41% |
Thailand
| Companies | Final AD rate | Final CVD rate | Total tariff amount |
| Trina Solar | 111.45% | 263.74% | 375.19% |
| Sunshine Electrical, Taihua New Energy | 172.68% | 799.55% | 972.23% |
| All others | 111.45% | 263.74% | 375.19% |
Vietnam
| Companies | Final AD rate | Final CVD rate | Total tariff amount |
| JA Solar | 52.54% | 68.15% | 120.69% |
| JinkoSolar | 120.38% | 124.57% | 244.95% |
| Blue Moon Vina | 77.12% | 124.57% | 201.69% |
| Boviet Solar | 77.12% | 230.66% | 307.78% |
| Elite Solar, Letsolar, Mecen Solar Vina, Nexuns, Trina Solar, Vietnergy, Vietnam Sunergy (VSUN) |
77.12% | 124.57% | 201.69% |
| GEP New Energy, HT Solar, New Energy Vina, Vietnam Green Energy |
271.28% | 542.64% | 813.92% |
| All others | 271.28% | 124.57% | 395.85% |
Commerce has been determining tariff amounts for the last year. A group of U.S. manufacturers, calling themselves the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, first filed the AD/CVD petition in April 2024, claiming that primarily Chinese solar companies were working in Southeast Asia to avoid paying existing tariffs on Chinese goods. The group said the Chinese companies were subsidized by the four countries’ governments (and likely the Chinese government) to work in Southeast Asia and then were dumping products into the U.S. market at prices at which domestic manufacturers could not compete.
The ITC did preliminarily decide that the Southeast Asian solar imports were harming the domestic industry, and Commerce revealed its preliminary CVD amounts in September and its preliminary AD amounts in November. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been collecting duty deposits based on those preliminary amounts and will switch to the final tariff amounts once ordered by Commerce.
Notes from the ITC’s final hearing
The ITC held a nine-hour public hearing last week to gain insights into the potential harm experienced by the domestic industry in this AD/CVD case. Testifying on behalf of the domestic industry, the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee was represented by law firm Wiley Rein LLP; solar cell manufacturers Talon PV and Suniva; and panel manufacturers Mission Solar and Qcells. Witnesses on the opposite side included trade associations American Clean Power Association (ACP) and Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA); manufacturers BYD, Canadian Solar, Runergy and Trina Solar; and investment research group Clean Energy Associates.
The petitioners largely talked about how difficult it still is to manufacture in the United States, even with the incentives offered in the Inflation Reduction Act. Representatives from Qcells stated the industry again feels like 2011 when dumped product from China really started affecting the U.S. industry. Southeast Asian imports are selling at prices cheaper than domestic manufacturers can produce, even with the per-watt incentives from the IRA. Domestic panel assemblers are also not producing near their capacity, they said, which proves they are damaged by the Southeast Asian imports.
“There’s been an unprecedented amount of investment in new cell and module manufacturing here in the United States, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act. You have to have trade enforcement to go along with investment or the chances of success are very unlikely when you’re going against Chinese-owned and -controlled companies that dominate and really monopolize the solar supply chain,” said Timothy Brightbill, partner at Wiley Rein LLP and lead attorney for the Alliance. “We do think the recovery is underway, but the imports from these four countries, when they’re coming in at such low price levels, are injuring those investments, and they are threatening this recovery that we hope to succeed.”
The respondents did not deny that Southeast Asian imports are coming in cheaper. They mostly requested that silicon cells and final panels not be considered “like product” and instead are looked at separately. It would be an important distinction for the testifying respondents (Canadian Solar, Runergy, Trina Solar), which have American module assembly plants and would want to import their own solar cells made in Southeast Asia without tariffs. The ITC has already addressed the “like product” question four times in solar cases over the last 15 years, ultimately deciding that cells and panels would be looked at as the same. Changing that outlook now would be a legal issue. Additionally, today’s decision from Commerce on tariff amounts considered cells and panels to be like-products, and the tariffs will be imposed on both products at the same rates. If the ITC does decide next month to treat the two products separately, Commerce would calculate new tariffs at a later date.
The ITC is expected to reveal its final determination by June 2.
That’s a big move — but tariffs alone won’t fix the core problem.
The numbers are wild. 3,400% tariffs on some Cambodian imports? That’s not small potatoes. I get what the Commerce Department’s trying to do — stop heavily subsidized products from flooding the market and crushing local manufacturers. And yes, we do need a real U.S. solar supply chain if we want to build long-term.
But here’s the thing: I work with homeowners every week who are ready to go solar. When prices jump — whether from tariffs, shipping delays, or whatever — they hit pause. It’s not that they don’t want clean energy, they just can’t justify the higher price. And most U.S. panel makers aren’t yet at a place where they can supply the volume or match the pricing of those imports.
So this move might protect some factories, but it’s going to make installs pricier short-term — which slows adoption.
If we’re serious about building solar here, we need more than just trade walls. We need to scale up local cell production, not just panel assembly. And support for actual manufacturing — not just tax credits and headlines.
The potential is huge. The investments are starting to show up. But if we don’t lower costs and increase supply at the same time, we’re just swapping one bottleneck for another.
Let’s build — but let’s build smart.
Good editorial
I believe that US should eliminate tariffs on solar panel components whose manufacturing involves mineral extraction or technologies that are harnmful to the enviroment. This would help avoid increased mining, habitat destruction, soil erosion and emissions generated throughout the supply chain. In this way, the enviromentally harmful processes would be kept off American soil, while creating jobs for the final assembly and comercialization of the panels.