Australia resumes anti-dumping case against Chinese solar producers

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

PV Magazine


Having been found to have caused negligible injury to Australia’s solar sector, Chinese anti-dumping practices are once again being investigated. AGL

Dropped in October last year having found only negligible injury or hindrance to the Australian PV industry, the Anti-Dumping Commission reviewed the decision and has decided to resume the investigation.

The year-long investigation by Australia’s Anti-Dumping Commission into the alleged dumping of crystalline silicon PV modules and panels imported from China, which was dropped in October last year, has been resumed.

On January 8, Australian commissioner of the Anti-Dumping Commission, Dale Seymour, advised that the investigation is to be resumed “after the publication of a new Statement of Essential Facts (SEF)”.

The case was dropped last year after the Commission found that, despite there being evidence of dumped produce making its way from China to Australia, its impact on the Australian solar industry was “negligible” and caused little hindrance.

That decision was welcomed by Australia’s Clean Energy Council (CEC) at the time, meaning the Commission’s reversal of its earlier decision is likely to be met with renewed criticism.

In the notice published by the Commission, Seymour stated that Tindo Manufacturing – the Australian company that originally lodged the dumping complaint – on November 5 requested a review of the termination decision.

The Anti-Dumping Review Panel subsequently revoked the termination decision on January 8, and now interested parties have 20 days with which to make a submission in response to the SEF.

Source: PV Magazine. Reproduced with permission.  

  • john

    The simple fact is it is very hard to make a case against a manufactured product that has a cost of manufacture of $150 an hour against $1500 an hour.
    Yes I know that is terrible however even with that advantage have the companies with that cost advantage then discounted the price to gain even more advantage?
    The case is have the manufactures discounted the price to leverage a greater advantage then is fair and reasonable.
    In simple words have they put a price on the product that is only aimed at making sure no other company can match?
    Marking down the price to do this mind.
    Now the problem is how do you prove they are doing this?

  • Taras Kordas

    Consumers get hurt and the onset to support community uptake of solar is now tainted, quality, quality, quality, compensate and goodwill is ensured by the Australian advocacy and immediate confidence reassuring the solar market