The US Department of Commerce (DOC) has concluded that “countervailable subsidies” of as much as 117.41% have been provided to China-based manufacturers of crystalline silicon solar PV cells by the Chinese government, regardless of whether these cells are integrated into modules.
Published yesterday, the ruling follows a preliminary investigation into cell manufacturing practices in China in 2022, which was published in April 2025. The preliminary investigation found that three companies—Changzhou Zhaojing Light Energy, Jiangsu Highhope and Yangzhou Jingua New Energy Technology—had benefited from government subsidies, but the final ruling replaced the first company with what the DOC called its “unaffiliated exporter”, Yingli Energy China.
Try Premium for just $1
- Full premium access for the first month at only $1
- Converts to an annual rate after 30 days unless cancelled
- Cancel anytime during the trial period
Premium Benefits
- Expert industry analysis and interviews
- Digital access to PV Tech Power journal
- Exclusive event discounts
Or get the full Premium subscription right away
Or continue reading this article for free
While the preliminary investigation found that the three companies received subsidy rates of between 118.12-125.34%, the final ruling has determined that each of the three companies benefited from a subsidy rate of 117.41%. The DOC noted that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would now assess countervailing duties for imports of the listed companies “at the applicable ad valorem assessment rates”, meaning that countervailing duties will align with the subsidy rates identified.
The DOC also named six further companies that are to be subjected to manufacturing subsidy reviews, but have not been identified as “mandatory respondents” as the first three companies were.
These companies—including Anji Dasol Solar Energy Science & Technology, BYD Industrial, Shenzhen Sungold, Toenergy Technology Hangzhou and a plethora of Trina Solar subsidiaries—were not assigned individual subsidy rates, but have instead been assigned a single blanket subsidy rate calculated as an average of the subsidy rates known for each company “based entirely on facts available”. This rate stands at 9.07%, the same rate that was calculated for these companies in last year’s preliminary investigation.
AD/CVD uncertainty, Southeast Asia imports cast shadow over US solar supply chain
The ruling is the latest in a series of policy decisions affecting imports of solar components to the US, such as the results of an appeal made into the potential collection of duties on solar imports to the US that are valued at “billions of dollars”. Last August, the US Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that a Biden-era suspension of anti-dumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) tariffs, which encouraged many US-based solar developers to import modules from overseas, was unlawful.
Appeals against this ruling were lodged by many in the US solar industry, but if this ruling is upheld, US developers could have to pay billions in AD/CVD duties on components imported during the Biden administration.
In other policy developments, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) has determined that the import of crystalline silicon PV cells to the US from Southeast Asia, whether or not they are integrated into modules, could leave the US solar industry “materially injured”. Yesterday’s ruling on countervailing subsidies follows this precedent of cracking down on cell imports regardless of their integration into modules.
