May 04, 2022

Commerce Clarifies Scope of CSPV Circumvention Inquiry and Provides Opportunity to Comment on Proposed Certification Process

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now

On March 25, 2022, pursuant to allegations made by Auxin Solar Inc., the US Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a circumvention inquiry into whether imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (CSPVs) from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand or Vietnam (collectively, the Target Countries) are circumventing antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders (Orders) on CSPVs from China[1] that could profoundly affect the companies that import or rely on imported CSPVs in the United States.[2] On May 2, 2022, Commerce released a memorandum detailing three important aspects of its ongoing inquiry should it preliminarily or ultimately determine that CSPVs from the Target Countries are circumventing the Orders.[3] In those three aspects, Commerce:

  • Clarified the scope of the circumvention inquiry, noting that CSPVs incorporating wafers produced outside of China from China-sourced polysilicon are outside the scope of the inquiry
  • Stated that, in the event of affirmative circumvention findings, it intends to establish certification procedures that would allow exporters and importers of CSPVs to establish that particular entries do not incorporate key components or processes from China and should therefore be excluded from the Orders altogether
  • Indicated that the certification process could be used to establish the appropriate company-specific rate for those entries that are included in the scope of the circumvention inquiry. Specifically, Commerce proposed that exporters can certify the identity(ies) of the Chinese producer(s) that supplied the inputs.

Commerce also invited interested parties to provide comments and relevant factual information on these potential certification requirements by 5:00 pm EDT on May 19, 2022. We discuss each of the above points in more detail below. For more information on the initiation of the circumvention inquiry and the process in general, check out our prior client alert here.



1. Clarification of the Scope of the Circumvention Inquiry

Commerce acknowledged that this inquiry differs from prior circumvention proceedings as it involves numerous inputs and multiple third countries. In addition, various steps of the production process (e.g., refining polysilicon, forming it into ingots, cutting wafers, doping wafers and assembling modules) can happen in different countries. Importantly, Commerce then clarified that "[w]afers produced outside of China with polysilicon sourced from China are not subject to these circumvention inquiries."[4] While more clarity on the reach of the circumvention inquiry is needed, this is a useful first step. It should be noted, however, that this clarification reinforces Commerce's apparent willingness to move from its prior position that "the essential component of the solar cell is the p/n junction"[5] and that the country in which the p/n junction is formed determines the country of origin of the CSPV for purposes of the Orders.[6]

2. Proposed Certification Procedures That Will Allow for the Application of Company-Specific Rates on Chinese Manufacturers

Typically, after making an affirmative circumvention finding, whether preliminary or final, Commerce establishes certification procedures to allow importers and exports to certify the source of materials used in the allegedly circumventing products and establish that such products are not subject to the underlying AD or CVD orders.[7] Commerce's memorandum indicates that, in the event of an affirmative circumvention determination in this proceeding, it intends to establish a similar certification process but does not provide details as to which specific Chinese inputs or products will be considered key to bringing a product within the scope of the underlying Orders. Where an exporter/importer can provide a certification that specific entries of CSPVs do not include such key Chinese components, they will not be subject to the scope of the circumvention determination and will not be subject to any AD or CVD duties. Where they cannot, they will be subject to the circumvention finding and the importer will be required to post AD and CVD cash deposits on such entries.

Commerce's proposed structure for certifications differs from the structure of certifications in past circumvention cases in that it includes a process to allow "importers and exporters to certify as to the identity(ies) of the Chinese producer(s) that supplied the inputs."[8] The identity(ies) of the Chinese producer(s) would then be used to determine the applicable AD and CVD company-specific cash deposit rates. As Commerce's memo notes:

[I]f Chinese-origin wafers are used in the completion of solar cells or modules in Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and/or Malaysia and were supplied by a Chinese manufacturer with a company-specific rate, for such imports, Commerce intends, in the event of an affirmative preliminary or final determination, that the cash deposit rate for the relevant imports from the third country will be equal to that Chinese manufacturer's and/or exporter's company-specific rate(s).[9]

Thus, where entries are subject to the circumvention finding, this proposed certification process would allow exporters and importers to indicate the appropriate cash deposit rates to apply on such entries. This designation is particularly important in a case such as this where the rates vary widely. Accordingly, the establishment and use of this aspect of the certification process could allow interested parties to lower their tariff exposure risk to more manageable levels based on their choice of manufacturer.

As Commerce's memo notes, however, in prior circumvention inquiries, Commerce has excluded companies from the certification process if it determines that such companies did not cooperate to the best of their ability in the inquiry or if companies were unable to trace the inputs from the subject country to actual merchandise imported into the United States. Companies that are not eligible to participate in the certification process would have no ability to establish that their entries should be excluded from any circumvention finding or to establish the applicable cash deposit rate. Such entries would presumably be entered at the China-wide rates specified in the Orders.[10]


While the initiation of the circumvention investigation introduced numerous material uncertainties as to duty increases and the impact thereof upon suppliers and projects (as noted in our prior client alert), Commerce's May 2 memorandum begins to provide some of the needed clarification. As we noted at the start, interested parties have until 5:00 pm (EDT) on May 19, 2022, to submit comments and factual information to Commerce regarding these proposed certification requirements.


[1] See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 Fed. Reg. 73,018 (Dec. 7, 2012); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 Fed. Reg. 73,017 (Dec. 7, 2012).

[2] See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Circumvention Inquiries, from James Maeder to Lisa Wang, A-570-979, C-570-980 (Mar. 25, 2022); Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Circumvention Inquiry on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, 87 Fed. Reg. 19,071 (Dep't Commerce Apr. 1, 2022).

[3] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China: Circumvention Inquiries With Respect to Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam - Potential Certification Requirements, from Jose Rivera and Peter Shaw to All Interested Parties (May 2, 2022) (Certification Memorandum).

[4] Id. at 2.

[5] Final Scope Ruling on the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells from the People's Republic of China: ET Solar Inc., from Lauren Caserta to James Maeder (June 15, 2021) at 9.

[6] See Commerce Final Scope Ruling on the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells from the People's Republic of China: SunSpark Technology Inc. Scope Ruling, from Daniel Alexander to James Maeder at 5-6 (Oct. 23, 2020) (taking the position that solar cells produced in Vietnam from raw wafers imported from China are not subject to the scope of the order because the raw wafers from China did not include a p/n junction).

[7] Certification Memorandum at 2.

[8] Id. at 3.

[9] Id. at 2.

[10] Id.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From McDermott Will & Emery

Merck Fosters Healthcare Of The Future

By McDermott Will & Emery attorneys McDermott Will & Emery December 02 , 2022

Artificial intelligence and machine learning have led a digital transformation in healthcare, expanding providers’ resources and improving the lives of people around the world.

A Tsunami of Lawsuits Is Expected to Slam Institutions in the Wake of New York Adult Survivors Act

By Greer Griffith McDermott Will & Emery December 01 , 2022

A new revival window opened on Thanksgiving Day for filing sexual assault and abuse lawsuits that would otherwise be time-barred by the New York statute of limitations.

Tax Court Holds That Deficiency Petition 90-Day Time Limit Is Jurisdictional

By Andrew R. Roberson McDermott Will & Emery December 01 , 2022

Last summer, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the 30-day time limit to file a Collection Due Process (CDP) petition is a non-jurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling (Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner).

More From Energy and Natural Resources

EU Criminalizes Violations of EU Sanctions, With a Focus on Russia

By Erik de Bie Greenberg Traurig December 01 , 2022

On Nov. 28, 2022, the Council of the European Union (Council) adopted a decision (Decision) to add the violation of restrictive measures to the list of so-called “EU crimes” set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Treasury Announces Initial Guidance on the Inflation Reduction Act's Labor Requirements for Renewable Energy Tax Credits and Incentives

By John Eliason Greenberg Traurig November 30 , 2022

The U.S. Department of the Treasury announced initial wage and apprenticeship guidance under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) that applies to taxpayers in order to increase available credit amounts for federal tax incentives, including the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and Production Tax Credit (PTC).

IRS Issues Critical Wage and Apprenticeship Guidance under Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

By Carl J. Fleming McDermott Will & Emery November 30 , 2022

The US Department of the Treasury just released its guidance on the labor requirements that must be fulfilled in order to maintain the credit for the full amount for clean energy and infrastructure projects under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Act).

Featured Stories