[ad_1]
Credit: Trina Solar
The General Directorate of Trade Remedies (DGTR) recommended the imposition of a safeguard duty on imports of solar cells from from China and Malaysia over a two-year period. at 25% the first year.
The year two of the law, it would be reduced to 20% for the first six months and 15% in the last six-month period. This would also apply to imported cells that are already assembled in modules or panels.
The DGTR stated that the goal was "to prevent complete erosion" of the Indian solar manufacturing base.
A source from one of the petitioners told PV Tech that there are two more steps to make the recommendations a law: "The Standing Committee on Safeguards will meet, where there are several government officials They will then decide on this recommendation and, once they have made their decision, they will send the necessary documents to the Ministry of Finance, which will issue the customs notification for the adoption of the law. "
The DGTR recommends that domestic industry only counts manufacturers outside the Special Economic Zones (SEZs). , which could leave Indian PV manufacturers with facilities that are both in India but also within SEZs subject to safeguarding.
Vinay Rustagi, General Manager of the Bridge to India Consulting Company, told PV Tech that the DGTR is not in a position to recommend the protection of rights for SEZ units due to their legal constitution and various laws in force, but left a window open to other government authorities to deal with this decision.
According to DGTR, excluding three SEZ units (Mundra / Adani, Helios and Websol all have facilities in SEZs), the domestic industry is now limited to Indosolar and Jupiter Solar Power , which accounts for 38% of total national production outside SEZs.
million. Rustagi said the process had been going on for a very long time and that a final decision would be announced very soon, unless someone again decided against the decision. (As was the case when Shapoorji Pallonji recommended to the High Court of Chennai a provisional safeguard recommendation earlier this year.)
In discussing the overall recommendation, Rustagi said: "It's a decision very disappointing and cumbersome.Most domestic manufacturers will not benefit because they are already in the SEZs Technically, the DGTR is right to exclude them from any advantage.
"The service period is not obviously only two years, which is very difficult to understand because it's too short for a new capacity to be created.At the time of commissioning any new manufacturer, it will not be able to obtain benefits under the safeguard rights and I doubt that existing manufacturers have the cash or the means to derive a substantial benefit.
At the same time, it will be very, very harmful for developers to cau It's all about negotiating a pass-through and waiting for Discoms to assume the extra cost. For me, this seems to be a self-destructive exercise, with no significant result. "
Some calls for solar offerings now include a transfer option on the tariff in case of change in statutory laws, such as the imposition of an anti-dumping measure or safeguarding rights on photovoltaic solar modules
ISMA continued to follow the recommendations of the DGTR at the time of writing and was unable to provide comments.
The conclusions of the DGTR were as follows:
- was a significant increase in imports of the subject product (PUC) in absolute terms as well as in relation to total domestic production in India throughout the investigation period
- The domestic industry was seriously injured, overall performance , based on quoted economic parameters such as market share and profitability, which decreased significantly over the period 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 (annualized) increased during the same period. This caused a significant overall deterioration of the domestic industry. The increased imports and consequential serious injury to the domestic industry during the injury period establish a causal link.
- The domestic industry was able to demonstrate that the evolution of the market in case of surge in imports of PUC was unpredictable
- There will be some impact on solar energy proponents and also on the end consumer because of the backup rights on the PUC.
- It is however concluded that the imposition of rights in the public interest, because it will prevent the complete erosion of the solar industry's manufacturing base in the country that is coming up and promises for a stronger manufacturing base in the country in the future, at the same time, it is also in the public interest to prevent undue escalation of the cost of the 39, solar energy, tariff for the end customer and that achieving the goal of 100 GW of solar energy deployment of 2022 by 2015 has not derailed. The examination of two competing interests requires a balanced view.
- Analysis of post-investigation data revealed that the position of the domestic industry still deteriorated due to the still low price of a 75% guarantee was initially recommended by the General Directorate of Customs Guarantees and Central Excise in January, but according to expectations, the last recommendation a much lower duty.
Source link
Tags Fee imports Indian Investigator Recommends Safeguard solar
