Domestic manufacturers have sought 95 per cent safeguard duty on imports of solar cells and modules.
Business Line reported that in representations to the Directorate-General of Trade Remedies, the Indian Solar Manufacturers Association (ISMA) sought an ‘enhanced rate of protection’ above the 70 per cent safeguard duty that was earlier recommended.
Highlighting the reasons for a higher safeguard duty, the ISMA said that according to their preliminary findings, the level of duty recommended is inadequate and therefore the safeguard duty is necessary to cover the injury and to facilitate its adjustment.
ISMA said there has been more injury to the industry since the recommendation of a 70 per cent safeguard duty by the DGTR that was eventually not imposed by the Ministry of Finance. An ISMA official told Business Line, “We had sought a 95 per cent safeguard duty in our original petition too. The DGTR had recommended a 70 per cent duty.”
ISMA said there has been an increase in the volume of solar cell and module product imports. It noted that China has shifted its direction of exports to India. But cell and module exporters to India were not willing to go down without a fight.
In its representation, the Chinese embassy said that India will not be able to meet its clean energy capacity addition targets without solar cell and module imports.
The Chinese representative said, “The safeguard duty is inconsistent with India’s long-term goals. Such over protection is disadvantageous to India’s solar industry. The imports that have not caused any harm or injury and have been made from China are under fair and normal conditions.”
Representatives from the Embassy of Taiwan said their’s is a developing economy and exports to India does not breach levels that merit the triggering of the safe guard duty.
The Taiwanese representatives also said the domestic industry must clearly specify the levels of injury to merit the imposition of the duty, “Under the law, the adjustments for injury due to imports have to be specified company-wise,” they said.
Since the petition does not mention it, the imposition of a safeguard duty is not merited, the Taiwanese officials argued.
