Commerce Finds SolarCity 'Hybrid' Cells Subject to AD/CV Duties on Solar Cells From China
Hybrid solar cells imported by SolarCity that include both traditional crystalline silicon cells and amorphous silicon “thin film” are likely subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China (A-570-979/C-570-980), said the Commerce Department in a preliminary scope ruling issued April 4. Though SolarCity argued that, among other things, the cells qualified for a duty exemption for thin film cells, Commerce found the cells are more similar to traditional crystalline silicon cells, but asked for comments on the “issue of significant difficulty.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
SolarCity had requested the scope ruling on its “Triex” solar cells, which consist of a “crystalline silicon substrate” sandwiched between layers of thin-film amorphous silicon. Rather than the typical “p/n” junction normally used to generate electricity in solar cells, the Triex cells contain a “p/i/n” junction that includes an additional layer of “intrinsic silicon.” Both the amorphous thin film layers and the crystalline silicon substrate generate electricity.
The scope of AD/CV duties on solar cells from China covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells that have “a p/n junction formed by any means.” It also includes an exemption for “thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon.” SolarCity argued a “p/I/n junction” is not a p/n junction, so the Triex solar cells do not meet the requirement that they have “a p/n junction formed by any means.” The company also said the cells are covered by the thin film exemption, and not subject to duties.
Commerce found the record of its 2012 investigations equivocal on how to define the p/n junction requirement and the thin film exemption. Per its practice when the original record is ambiguous, Commerce examined five factors to determine whether the Triex cells should be covered by the scope: physical characteristics, ultimate use, consumer expectations, channels of trade and manner of advertising and display. Finding the Triex cells mostly identical to traditional solar cells on the latter four criteria, Commerce hinged its decision on its physical characteristics.
Off the bat, Commerce noted that the Triex cells are similar in thickness to traditional solar cells covered by duties, and substantially thicker than thin film cells, which it said generally have a thickness of 1 to 10 micrometers. It also found the scope’s language requiring “a p/n junction by any means” to broadly cover all forms of p/n junctions, including the “p/i/n” junctions in the Triex cells that include an additional layer of intrinsic silicon.
The agency also determined that the Triex cells are physically more similar to covered crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells than exempt thin film cells. The crystalline silicon portion of the Triex cells generates electricity, and is not a “mere substrate” like the glass substrates normally found in thin films. Thin film products are also usually more flexible and lightweight, able to be used s rooftop shingles and tiles or building facades and, in contrast with the Triex cells, are usually less efficient than traditional crystalline silicon cells. Finding the Triex cells exempt would allow any crystalline silicon cell to qualify for the exemption simply by adding a layer of thin film, said Commerce. “Such an interpretation would result in a physical description that would easily permit circumvention of the scope,” it said.
However, noting the issues involved in the scope ruling are complex, Commerce declined to issue its final decision until after it receives further comment. Initial comments are due April 25, with rebuttals due May 5. Commerce said it intends to issue its final scope ruling on June 23.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of this scope ruling.