Since the US Department of Commerce formally initiated the "anti-dumping and anti-subsidy" case against China's solar photovoltaic cells (plates) exported to the United States (hereinafter referred to as the "double anti-subsidy"), the case has made further progress. Because in October and December of last year, the number and amount of solar photovoltaic cells exported from Chinese photovoltaic companies to the United States grew too fast, on January 30, the U.S. Department of Commerce made an emergency decision in the case of solar photovoltaic cells (boards) in China. It was decided to retroactively collect countervailing duties, that is, after the initial determination of the countervailing duty rate, the taxation shall start from 90 days in advance.
On February 1st, related photovoltaic companies and lawyers who represented the case said in an interview with reporters that this move does not mean that the US Department of Commerce will surely go back 90 days from the preliminary determination of the countervailing duty rate. The U.S. Department of Commerce decided to adopt this proposal in the final ruling; at the same time, it also needs the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to agree to this proposal in the final ruling. However, it can be predicted that the U.S. Department of Commerce will also take an emergency ruling in the anti-dumping investigation of China PV companies and decide to retroactively impose anti-dumping duties.
Analysts believe that this may indicate a further escalation of "disputes" between China and the United States in the "double reverse" field of photovoltaics. China strongly opposes the efforts of Chinese PV companies to respond to the lawsuit and failed to achieve practical results. This also indicates that the US Department of Commerce The results of the preliminary ruling have already been preset, and the possibility of imposing countervailing duties is very high.
The United States believes that the export growth of Chinese PV products has increased too quickly. Chen Zhuo, director of legal affairs at Yingli Group, said that the reason why the US Department of Commerce made the preliminary decision on emergency affairs was to look only at import data, and only looked at the compulsory respondent companies Trina Solar and Wuxi Suntech. Exports of U.S. product data can be used to make preliminary first-aid cases as long as there is a large increase.
According to media reports, the case filed by the German prosecutor SolarWorld recently provided a material saying that the U.S. Department of Commerce has discovered that the United States imported a large amount of photovoltaic panels in China at the end of 2011, which may provide new measures for the US Department of Commerce’s decision to impose double taxation evidence.
“We are not surprised that the US Department of Commerce initially made anti-subsidy emergency decisions because of the growth of import customs data. This is entirely in our expectation.†Chen Zhuo said, “The next step, the US Department of Commerce is likely to be in photovoltaic products. Anti-dumping duties will be initiated at the beginning of an emergency and will also be taxed 90 days in advance."
Li Lei, a joint respondent attorney of 14 photovoltaic companies in China, said that the reason why the tax recovery started after 90 days was because the US Department of Commerce was concerned that some Chinese PV companies intend to increase their exports to the United States before the preliminary ruling. The possibility.
Whether the retrospective still requires final determination Although the US Department of Commerce made an emergency verdict on the China Solar Photovoltaic Batteries (board) case, it is still necessary to finalize the ruling on whether to levy taxes for 90 days. At the same time, ITC must also agree with this in the final ruling. proposal.
Chen Zhuo said that from the historical experience point of view, ITC in the actual existence of the final decision to determine the possibility of an emergency decision is not great. Because ITC differs from the U.S. Department of Commerce in considering only the customs import and export data, it also depends on other more factors and will also seek the opinions of Chinese PV companies.
According to Chen Zhuo’s analysis, during the short period from October to December 2011, China exported a large amount of solar photovoltaic cells (plates) to the United States because of the growth of the US solar photovoltaic market itself. In addition, due to the solar energy in several US states, The photovoltaic subsidy project is about to expire and the subsidy policy will be cancelled. Some U.S. photovoltaic companies have taken the opportunity to increase their imports from China and the demand for photovoltaic modules has increased.
However, the preliminary determination of anti-subsidy emergency will not have a big impact on Chinese PV companies. Li Lei said that this preliminary case of emergency was part of the “double reverse†process in the United States. It had almost no effect on Chinese PV companies until the US Department of Commerce made a preliminary countervailing measure, but it only required 90 days after the preliminary decision was made. The deposit is not actually collected; in the end, it depends on the outcome of the US Department of Commerce's final ruling to determine whether to collect it. There are many possibilities for the levy or the absence of levy, including what kind of enterprise is levied and what kind of standard levy is not the same.
"Not only is the final decision of the US Department of Commerce to be passed, but it also requires ITC to agree in the final ruling. These two organizations must all be independently identified before they can be collected," Chen Zhuo added.
Anti-subsidy tax is highly levied. Currently, the U.S. Department of Commerce has delayed further anti-subsidy preliminary decisions. The U.S. Department of Commerce originally planned to make a preliminary ruling on anti-subsidy in January 2012. Later, the U.S. Department of Commerce will postpone the release date from January to February 14th. The U.S. Department of Commerce stated that “more time is required for analysisâ€. . Unexpectedly, it postponed the timing of the final verdict. The preliminary decision on sanctions was expected to be announced around mid-March 2012.
Li Shengmao, a senior research fellow at China Investment Consulting Group, believes that according to the previous one-month resolution on the preliminary ruling, the preliminary results of the US Department of Commerce’s countervailing subsidies for Chinese PV products should be on February 14th. The preliminary results are pre-set and the postponed initial decision is only a technical measure.
Li Shengmao said that this also heralded the further escalation of "disputes" between China and the United States in the "double reverse" field of photovoltaics. The strong opposition of the Chinese government and the efforts of China's photovoltaic companies failed to achieve practical results.
"The initial ruling of anti-subsidy emergency has no significant interference with the Chinese PV companies' response to the 'double reversal'. There is no practical significance." Chen Zhuo said, "At present, Yingli's exports are not too large. More uniform."
Li Lei said that in the next step, China's PV companies should adjust their export plans, export speeds, and export prices. The relevant lawyers are also helping companies to take the next step. Li Shengmao believes that on the one hand, China's PV companies, with the strong support of the government, continue to show the opposition of the industry, and can even suggest relevant departments to take targeted retaliatory measures; second is to accelerate the pace of appeal against the results of this preliminary ruling. , Try to change this wrong decision of the U.S. Department of Commerce as soon as possible.
However, Li Shengmao said that the preliminary preliminary findings of the U.S. Department of Commerce showed that under the current backdrop of the coming of the U.S. domestic election and the rise of trade protectionism, the preliminary results laid the foundation for the final adjudication results. The double counter-response work is long way to go. If the anti-subsidy tax is levied according to the preliminary results, the market competitiveness of Chinese enterprises will be weakened.
On February 1st, related photovoltaic companies and lawyers who represented the case said in an interview with reporters that this move does not mean that the US Department of Commerce will surely go back 90 days from the preliminary determination of the countervailing duty rate. The U.S. Department of Commerce decided to adopt this proposal in the final ruling; at the same time, it also needs the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to agree to this proposal in the final ruling. However, it can be predicted that the U.S. Department of Commerce will also take an emergency ruling in the anti-dumping investigation of China PV companies and decide to retroactively impose anti-dumping duties.
Analysts believe that this may indicate a further escalation of "disputes" between China and the United States in the "double reverse" field of photovoltaics. China strongly opposes the efforts of Chinese PV companies to respond to the lawsuit and failed to achieve practical results. This also indicates that the US Department of Commerce The results of the preliminary ruling have already been preset, and the possibility of imposing countervailing duties is very high.
The United States believes that the export growth of Chinese PV products has increased too quickly. Chen Zhuo, director of legal affairs at Yingli Group, said that the reason why the US Department of Commerce made the preliminary decision on emergency affairs was to look only at import data, and only looked at the compulsory respondent companies Trina Solar and Wuxi Suntech. Exports of U.S. product data can be used to make preliminary first-aid cases as long as there is a large increase.
According to media reports, the case filed by the German prosecutor SolarWorld recently provided a material saying that the U.S. Department of Commerce has discovered that the United States imported a large amount of photovoltaic panels in China at the end of 2011, which may provide new measures for the US Department of Commerce’s decision to impose double taxation evidence.
“We are not surprised that the US Department of Commerce initially made anti-subsidy emergency decisions because of the growth of import customs data. This is entirely in our expectation.†Chen Zhuo said, “The next step, the US Department of Commerce is likely to be in photovoltaic products. Anti-dumping duties will be initiated at the beginning of an emergency and will also be taxed 90 days in advance."
Li Lei, a joint respondent attorney of 14 photovoltaic companies in China, said that the reason why the tax recovery started after 90 days was because the US Department of Commerce was concerned that some Chinese PV companies intend to increase their exports to the United States before the preliminary ruling. The possibility.
Whether the retrospective still requires final determination Although the US Department of Commerce made an emergency verdict on the China Solar Photovoltaic Batteries (board) case, it is still necessary to finalize the ruling on whether to levy taxes for 90 days. At the same time, ITC must also agree with this in the final ruling. proposal.
Chen Zhuo said that from the historical experience point of view, ITC in the actual existence of the final decision to determine the possibility of an emergency decision is not great. Because ITC differs from the U.S. Department of Commerce in considering only the customs import and export data, it also depends on other more factors and will also seek the opinions of Chinese PV companies.
According to Chen Zhuo’s analysis, during the short period from October to December 2011, China exported a large amount of solar photovoltaic cells (plates) to the United States because of the growth of the US solar photovoltaic market itself. In addition, due to the solar energy in several US states, The photovoltaic subsidy project is about to expire and the subsidy policy will be cancelled. Some U.S. photovoltaic companies have taken the opportunity to increase their imports from China and the demand for photovoltaic modules has increased.
However, the preliminary determination of anti-subsidy emergency will not have a big impact on Chinese PV companies. Li Lei said that this preliminary case of emergency was part of the “double reverse†process in the United States. It had almost no effect on Chinese PV companies until the US Department of Commerce made a preliminary countervailing measure, but it only required 90 days after the preliminary decision was made. The deposit is not actually collected; in the end, it depends on the outcome of the US Department of Commerce's final ruling to determine whether to collect it. There are many possibilities for the levy or the absence of levy, including what kind of enterprise is levied and what kind of standard levy is not the same.
"Not only is the final decision of the US Department of Commerce to be passed, but it also requires ITC to agree in the final ruling. These two organizations must all be independently identified before they can be collected," Chen Zhuo added.
Anti-subsidy tax is highly levied. Currently, the U.S. Department of Commerce has delayed further anti-subsidy preliminary decisions. The U.S. Department of Commerce originally planned to make a preliminary ruling on anti-subsidy in January 2012. Later, the U.S. Department of Commerce will postpone the release date from January to February 14th. The U.S. Department of Commerce stated that “more time is required for analysisâ€. . Unexpectedly, it postponed the timing of the final verdict. The preliminary decision on sanctions was expected to be announced around mid-March 2012.
Li Shengmao, a senior research fellow at China Investment Consulting Group, believes that according to the previous one-month resolution on the preliminary ruling, the preliminary results of the US Department of Commerce’s countervailing subsidies for Chinese PV products should be on February 14th. The preliminary results are pre-set and the postponed initial decision is only a technical measure.
Li Shengmao said that this also heralded the further escalation of "disputes" between China and the United States in the "double reverse" field of photovoltaics. The strong opposition of the Chinese government and the efforts of China's photovoltaic companies failed to achieve practical results.
"The initial ruling of anti-subsidy emergency has no significant interference with the Chinese PV companies' response to the 'double reversal'. There is no practical significance." Chen Zhuo said, "At present, Yingli's exports are not too large. More uniform."
Li Lei said that in the next step, China's PV companies should adjust their export plans, export speeds, and export prices. The relevant lawyers are also helping companies to take the next step. Li Shengmao believes that on the one hand, China's PV companies, with the strong support of the government, continue to show the opposition of the industry, and can even suggest relevant departments to take targeted retaliatory measures; second is to accelerate the pace of appeal against the results of this preliminary ruling. , Try to change this wrong decision of the U.S. Department of Commerce as soon as possible.
However, Li Shengmao said that the preliminary preliminary findings of the U.S. Department of Commerce showed that under the current backdrop of the coming of the U.S. domestic election and the rise of trade protectionism, the preliminary results laid the foundation for the final adjudication results. The double counter-response work is long way to go. If the anti-subsidy tax is levied according to the preliminary results, the market competitiveness of Chinese enterprises will be weakened.
Fire alarm cable
Rated Voltage: 300V/500V
Conductor: Class 1 or Class 2 copper
Insulation: Fire Retardant PVC
Shield: Aluminum Foil&Tinned Copper or N/A
Sheath: Fire Retardant PVC
Application: Those Fire Cable are used in high rise buildings,schools and educational institutions, hospitals, etc. for the connection with security systems like smoke detectors, emergency lighting, exit signboards and fire command center.
Fire Alarm Cable,Fireproof Cable,Fire Resistant Cable Types,Fireproof Wire
Shenzhen Bendakang Cables Holding Co., Ltd , https://www.bdkcables.com