Why did the EU impose anti-dumping duties on Chinese solar panels?

On 2 December 2013, the Council imposed anti-dumping duties in respect of imports of solar panels and key components originating in and consigned from China.1 An investigation carried out by the Commission in 2012 and 2013 had revealed that Chinese solar panels were being sold in Europe at well below their normal market value.

What is the anti-dumping duty imposed on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules?

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1).

Does the EU impose a dumping duty on solar panels?

the imposition of measures is not against the Union interest. On the basis of these findings, it has been decided to impose an anti-dumping duty in a two-staged process: for two months, a duty of 11.8% will have to be paid, whereas from 6 August, duties ranging from 37.3% to 67.9% (averaging 47.6%) will be levied on solar panels from China.

How long are anti-dumping duties imposed on solar panels?

Provisional anti-dumping duties are imposed for a six months period. The 11.8% duty enters into force on 6 June at midnight and one minute local time, i.e. the anti-dumping duty is applied on solar panel imports one hour later in Dover than for example at the port of Rotterdam.

How long will solar panels anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures last?

The Commission reached its definitive conclusions on the solar panels anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and, after consulting Member States, made a proposal to the Council to impose definitive anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures for a period of two years.

Why is the solar panel Anti-Dumping case a major trade dispute?

Therefore, the escalation of the solar panel anti-dumping case into a major trade dispute, which highlighted both the possible contradiction between the promotion of strategic industrial interests and the pursuit of common global climate goals, and the inadequacy of trade law to resolve it, attracted unprecedented attention.