2012年3月19日，美国商务部对原产于中国的光伏产品做出反补贴初裁决定，决定对中国企业出口到美国的光伏产品采取临时反补贴措施。中国企业的反补贴税率为2.9%-4.73%。虽然美国商务部在裁决中接受了部分中国企业提交的抗辩材料，但中国光伏产业认为该裁决没有正视中国光伏产业及光伏产品的生产及出口销售的事实情况，是不公正的。为此，中国光伏企业再次通过中国机电产品进出口商会作出以下声明：
一、 美国商务部对中国光伏产品发起反补贴调查，其政治目的超越法律授权，违反了法律基本原则。
中国光伏企业注意到，最近美国对华贸易保护主义出现抬头趋势。为了使得美国对中国等非市场经济国家进行反补贴调查“合法化”，美国领导人日前签署了反补贴修正法案，规定可以对非市场经济国家进行反补贴调查，同时又规定可以追溯到2006年。对于这种不符合国际规则的做法，中国的光伏企业表示遗憾。中国光伏企业希望美国政府、美国商务部秉持审慎态度，遵守国际规则行事。
二、 征收反补贴税的裁决结果损害全球福祉，对美国而言亦是弊远大于利。
如中国光伏企业之前所指出的，中国光伏产业为全球光伏能源市场的发展做出了巨大贡献。中国光伏生产企业所使用的原材料和设备大部分由美国和欧洲等地进口。为生产光伏产品，中国每年从美国进口20多亿美元的多晶硅、EVA、浆料等原材料。中国光伏电池和组件对美出口也为美国下游产业（尤其是光伏发电安装业）的发展做出了重要贡献。这些活动都为美国创造了大量就业岗位。并且，中国的光伏产品性价比高、技术先进、优质可靠，在美国市场很受美国的大型用户及普通消费者喜爱。
因此，如果美国政府最终对中国的光伏产品实施贸易限制措施，对于全球光伏能源市场的发展都是不利的，对于美国尤其如此。美国光伏能源的成本将大幅增长，光伏能源市场将会萎缩，美国政府通过光伏能源市场的增长扩大就业的目标将会落空；由于缺乏竞争产品，美国光伏能源开发商的利益将大大受损。其结果只会是满足申请人SolarWorld一家暂时之利，但却损害了整个产业的长远利益。上述裁决（如经终裁确认）将使美国太阳能产业规模化发展至少延后五年，并且势必会对美国的光伏产业上下游的工作、光伏系统需求和光伏项目方面造成不利的影响，对美国而言是弊大于利的。
三、 中国政府对光伏产业的扶持措施远远小于欧美国家，并且相关措施符合世贸组织规则
由于光伏产品属于绿色清洁能源，光伏产业为新兴战略产业，世界上很多国家均对光伏产业给予各种形式的支持，包括美国和欧洲。申请人SolarWorld也是此类支持的受益者。SolarWorld仅在2007年美国俄勒冈州新厂建设项目中就接受了约4,300万美元的税收减免和公共补贴，并在2010和2011年分别在欧洲获得了1,875万欧元和4,500万欧元的政府资助。
相比欧美国家，中国政府对于光伏产业的扶持措施的力度和广度要小的多。而且，即使存在政府扶持，相关扶持措施也是符合世贸组织规定的，并不构成禁止性补贴或专向性补贴。
四、 中国光伏产品具有市场竞争优势，根本原因不在于政府补贴
近年来，中国光伏产品对美出口不断扩大，中国光伏产品在美国市场具有竞争优势，根本原因在于近年来光伏产业链在中国的集聚发展、中国光伏企业较高的管理水平、先进的生产技术、生产规模优势及具有前瞻性的商业策略，而不是由于政府的补贴。例如，中国光伏企业近十年来致力于光伏技术的研发，在降低硅制造成本方面积累了丰富的经验，包括采用冶金级多晶硅技术来节约生产过程中的能源和水的消耗，以及通过SE、MWT等技术提高电池片效率，从而实现了规模生产效益。再比如，中国光伏企业在硅锭制造技术、冶金级多晶硅；高效能电池片、SE、ESE、MWT等方面的技术已达国际先进水平。
五、 希望美国政府在后续的调查程序中能纠正对中国光伏企业的不公平、不公正的做法。
中国光伏企业希望美国政府在后续的调查程序中纠正其对中国光伏企业的不公平做法，裁定中国光伏产品对美出口不存在倾销及补贴，以及未对美国相关产业造成损害。因为事实情况是，申诉方SolarWorld公司并未受到损害，并不断扩大产能、产量和出货量。退一步来看，即使以SolarWorld公司为代表的部分欧美企业在某些方面业绩不佳，也与中国进口无关，根本原因在于其对市场发展机会做出了误判。优胜劣汰本来就是市场竞争中的正常现象。美国政府不应当为了保护某些企业的私利，而违反美国政府在《补贴与反补贴协议》项下的义务，对中国的光伏产品设置不合理的贸易限制措施，从而影响中美两国绿色能源产业的健康、可持续发展。
六、 中国光伏企业将更加紧密合作应对“双反调查”。
中国光伏企业坚信其商业成功来源于公平竞争，而非不公平贸易做法或者是政府违反世贸组织的规定。因此，中国光伏企业会更加团结一致，积极应对“双反”的后续调查，为中国光伏企业争取公平公正的待遇而继续努力，并将继续致力于为促进中国、美国和全球光伏能源市场的长期可持续发展做出贡献。
七、 中国光伏企业将利用法律武器坚决捍卫其合法权益
对于中国光伏企业海外竞争对手通过歪曲事实、滥用法律手段试图打击中国光伏产业的不公平竞争行为，中国光伏企业保留通过多边和双边争端解决机制寻求保护其自身权益的权利，并呼吁中国政府积极寻求公平对话机会的权利。中国光伏企业将密切关注美国政府和美国相关竞争对手的态度和动向，并积极采取行动，捍卫其海外权益。
On March 19, 2012, U.S. Department of Commerce announced its preliminary determination to impose provisional
countervailing duties of 2.9%-4.73% on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. U.S. Department of Commerce adopted defense materials submitted by some Chinese companies in the preliminary determination; however, China-based photovoltaic companies believe that decision unjust for not confronting the factual circumstances of photovoltaic industry in China and related production and exports. Therefore, CCCME declares as follows on behalf of China-based photovoltaic companies:
1. The countervailing investigation initiated by U.S. Department of Commerce is politically, instead of legally motivated, and violates fundamental legal principles.
Recent months have seen the rising of trade protectionism against China in the U.S. According to an amendment signed a few days ago, countervailing investigations against non-market economies including China could be “legally” launched, which could be retroactive to 2006. Chinese photovoltaic companies believe that the amendment is inconsistent with international rules and they are very disappointed. They hope that the U.S. government and Department of Commerce can be cautious in taking such action and comply with international rules.
2. The preliminary decision is injurious to global welfare and causes more harm than good for Americans as well.
According to
views given earlier, Chinese photovoltaic companies have made great contribution to the development of global
photovoltaic market. Most of their raw materials and equipments are imported from the U.S. and European countries. For example, China will purchase raw materials of value of more than two billion US dollars such as polycrystalline silicon, EVA and pulp every year. At the same time, the export of Chinese photovoltaic cells and components to the U.S. has created large number of job opportunities for Americans, contributing a lot to the development of downstream industries especially photovoltaic power generation installation industry in the U.S. Furthermore, the
photovoltaic products of Chinese companies are very popular among large industrial users and household consumers in the U.S. market due to their high cost-price efficiency, advanced technology and reliable quality.
Therefore, the market could see growing cost and shrinking demand of photovoltaic energy with the trade restrictions on Chinese photovoltaic products. What’s worse, the U.S. government will fail to achieve the goal of job enlargement by expanding photovoltaic energy market. In this sense, trade restrictions are detrimental to the development of global photovoltaic energy market, especially the U.S. market. The interests of photovoltaic energy developers in the U.S. will also be severely damaged due to lack of competitive products. Accordingly, the restrictions temporarily benefit the petitioner SolarWorld at the expense of long-term interest of the industry. The large-scale development of solar energy in the U.S. would be delayed for at least five years because of the above-mentioned decision and the decision will certainly have adverse impact on the upstream and downstream of photovoltaic industry, needs of photovoltaic system and photovoltaic projects in the United States. To sum up, the restrictions will cause more harm than good for the U.S.
3. Compared with western countries, supports from Chinese government are much less and consistent with WTO rules.
Since
photovoltaic product is a kind of green and clear energy, many countries including the United States and European countries treat the photovoltaic industry as an emerging strategic one and give various forms of support to the photovoltaic producers including SolarWorld, petitioner in this case. In 2007, SolarWorld received tax deduction and public subsidies of more than 43 million US dollars in a project to build its new plant in Oregon. Moreover, SolarWorld received government funding of 18.75 million Euros and 45 million Euros in the year of 2010 and 2011 respectively.
The support given by Chinese government is relatively weak and insufficient in comparison with that in Europe and the United States. Besides, Chinese government offers supportive measures in line with relevant regulations of the WTO. In this way, the support is not a sufficient ground for prohibited subsidies or specific subsidies.
4. It is market competitive advantage not government subsidies that makes Chinese photovoltaic companies stand out from competitors.
The export of Chinese photovoltaic products to the U.S. has been growing in recent years. In our view, rather than government subsidies, the strong competitiveness of Chinese photovoltaic products lies in the agglomeration development of photovoltaic industry chain, scientific management, advanced technology, economic scale and prospective business strategy in recent years in China. Chinese photovoltaic companies are experienced in lowering the manufacturing cost of Silicon after research and development of photovoltaic technology of more than ten years. For example, Chinese companies are able to reduce energy and water consumption in the production by use of metallurgical polycrystalline silicon, and they have improved scale production efficiency through improving the efficiency of battery plate by use of SE and MWT. Additionally, Chinese photovoltaic companies have pioneered the production of silicon ingot, metallurgical polycrystalline silicon and highly efficient battery plate, as well as the technology of SE, ESE and MWT.
5. China-based photovoltaic industry hopes the U.S. government take fair and impartial steps in the subsequent investigations.
As we suggested, the U.S. authorities shall complete the subsequent investigations in justice and fairness and determine that the dumping, subsidizing, or the material injury does not exist. Based on facts, the petitioner have been expanding its capacity, production and export, rather than being injured. Besides, it is unfair for some western companies such as SolarWorld to simply blame poor business performance on China’s import. Misreading the market development tendency could be a better explanation in this respect. Survival of the fittest is the basic principle of market competition. The U.S. government shall not violate its obligations under Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in the interests of minority companies, and the unreasonable restrictions on Chinese photovoltaic products will eventually affect the healthy and sustainable development of green energy industry both in China and the United States.
6. China-based photovoltaic industry will cooperate closer in response to AD/CVD investigations.
It is fair competition that leads to business success, rather than unfair trade practice or infringement of WTO rules. Chinese companies will join hands in the face of AD subsequent investigations and continue their efforts to fight for fair and impartial treatment, so as to promote long-term and sustainable development of
photovoltaic energy market around the world.
7. China-based photovoltaic industry will protect its legitimate rights and interests through legal ways.
China-based photovoltaic industry reserves rights to protect its own interests through bilateral and multilateral dispute settlement mechanism since overseas competitors tend to fight against the “unfair competition” of Chinese companies through distortion of fact and abuse of law. Additionally, Chinese companies will ask Chinese government to exchange views with US through fair talk. Chinese companies will keep a close eye on the attitude and movements of the U.S. government and American competitors and will take active actions to protect their rights and interests in overseas market.