In one of the most explosive trade developments of the year, the U.S. Department of Commerce has announced its final tariff amounts on solar imports from four Southeast Asian countries—Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. These tariffs, which include anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing duties (CVD), are the result of a year-long investigation into claims that foreign companies were undercutting American solar manufacturers by flooding the market with cheap, government-subsidized solar products.
The numbers are staggering. Cambodia alone faces a combined tariff of up to 3,521.14% for some companies. That’s not a typo—over three thousand percent.
But what triggered this move? And how will it impact the U.S. solar industry, which is already navigating a complex mix of global supply chains, domestic manufacturing goals, and clean energy targets?
Let’s break it down.
What are anti-dumping and countervailing duties?
Before diving into the details, it’s important to understand the terminology.
- Anti-dumping duties (AD) are trade penalties imposed when a foreign company sells a product in the U.S. at less than fair market value, often lower than what it charges in its own country.
- Countervailing duties (CVD) are tariffs used to offset the effect of foreign government subsidies that give imported goods an unfair advantage over domestic products.
These duties are designed to level the playing field for American manufacturers and prevent foreign companies from undermining U.S. industries.
Why these countries were targeted
The American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee, a coalition of U.S.-based solar manufacturers, filed the original AD/CVD petition in April 2024. Their claim? That primarily Chinese solar companies were setting up shop in Southeast Asia to skirt existing tariffs on Chinese imports. By manufacturing in countries like Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, these companies were allegedly dodging trade restrictions and continuing to sell solar products at artificially low prices in the U.S. market.
According to the petition, these foreign manufacturers benefit from direct subsidies from their host countries—and potentially the Chinese government—and are dumping solar goods into the United States, making it nearly impossible for American manufacturers to compete.
The final tariff breakdown
The final tariff rates released by the Department of Commerce are intense. Here’s a look at some of the most notable figures:
Cambodia
- Solarspace New Energy: 117.18% AD + 534.67% CVD = 651.85% total
- Hounen Solar, ISC Cambodia, Jinktek, Solar Long: 117.18% AD + 3,403.96% CVD = 3,521.14% total
- All others: Same as Solarspace, 651.85%
Malaysia
- Hanwha Q CELLS: 0% AD + 14.64% CVD = 14.64% total
- JinkoSolar: 1.92% AD + 38.38% CVD = 40.30% total
- Baojia New Energy: 81.24% AD + 168.80% CVD = 250.04% total
Thailand
- Trina Solar: 111.45% AD + 263.74% CVD = 375.19% total
- Sunshine Electrical and Taihua New Energy: 172.68% AD + 799.55% CVD = 972.23% total
Vietnam
- JA Solar: 52.54% AD + 68.15% CVD = 120.69% total
- JinkoSolar: 120.38% AD + 124.57% CVD = 244.95% total
- GEP New Energy and others: 271.28% AD + 542.64% CVD = 813.92% total
These tariffs are not yet in effect but are expected to go live only if the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) makes a final determination—by June 2, 2025—that U.S. solar manufacturers were harmed by these imports. Given that the ITC has already made a preliminary affirmative decision, a final ruling in favor of the tariffs is likely.
The impact on American solar manufacturers
Domestic manufacturers argue that these tariffs are long overdue. In a recent nine-hour ITC hearing, representatives from U.S. companies like Mission Solar, Qcells, Talon PV, and Suniva explained how dumped and subsidized solar imports have stifled their growth, even with the financial support from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
They pointed out that many U.S. panel makers are operating well below capacity—not because of demand issues, but because foreign imports are selling at prices American companies simply cannot match, even with per-watt subsidies from the IRA.
Trade lawyer Timothy Brightbill, representing the American Alliance, stated:
“There’s been an unprecedented amount of investment in new cell and module manufacturing here in the United States. But unless you pair that investment with trade enforcement, you’re setting up American companies to fail.”
Pushback from the opposition
Opponents of the tariffs—including the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and American Clean Power Association (ACP)—argue that the duties will disrupt solar project timelines, increase costs, and slow clean energy deployment across the country. Several of the Southeast Asian companies also own assembly plants in the U.S., and they claim the tariffs unfairly target their supply chains.
A key argument raised was the distinction between solar cells and final solar panels. The respondents urged the ITC to treat these as different products. If successful, this move could exclude finished panels made in the U.S. using foreign cells from the tariffs. However, the ITC has consistently ruled that cells and panels are “like products”, and Commerce’s final decision follows that same precedent.
If the ITC does reverse its stance in June and separates the products, Commerce may have to revisit and recalculate the tariffs—a move that would further delay enforcement.
What happens next?
All eyes are on the June 2, 2025 final ruling from the ITC. If they confirm injury to the domestic industry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will begin collecting tariffs at the new, higher rates. Until then, preliminary duty deposits continue to be collected.
This decision could shape the future of the American solar market. On one hand, it could protect domestic manufacturers and encourage more companies to produce solar components within U.S. borders. On the other hand, it could increase short-term prices for installers and slow down national solar deployment goals.
Final thoughts
The Commerce Department’s shocking 3,400% tariff announcement is more than just a trade issue—it’s a pivotal moment in the U.S. solar industry’s battle for survival and growth.
As the U.S. pushes toward clean energy independence and grid decarbonization, the balance between domestic manufacturing and affordable imports remains a delicate one. The outcome of this tariff case will help determine how the solar industry evolves—and whether the U.S. can become a true global leader in renewable energy manufacturing.
Stay tuned for updates following the ITC’s final decision in June.