Shining a Light on the Solar Trade: Investigation Leads to Tariffs on Solar Energy-Related Imports (Part I)

Shining a Light on the Solar Trade: Investigation Leads to Tariffs on Solar Energy-Related Imports (Part I)

Legal Sidebar

Shining a Light on the Solar Trade:
Investigation Leads to Tariffs on Solar Energy-
Related Imports (Part I)
Updated January 26, 2018
On January 23, 2018, President Trump proclaimed a four-year safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-
rate quota on imports of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) products that enter the United
States after midnight on February 7, 2018. (The President also proclaimed a three-year safeguard tariff-
rate quota on imports of large residential washers the same day). A tariff-rate quota is a combination of
two trade remedies—a tariff and a quota—whereby imports under a certain quota level volume are
subject to one tariff rate, while a higher tariff rate is imposed on imports above that level. The
Proclamation follows a U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) safeguard
investigation (“Solar Investigation”) conducted pursuant to section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. (For
background on safeguard measures imposed under section 201, a type of trade remedy, see this CRS
report). The imposition of these safeguards marks the first time such measures have been imposed since
2002, when President George W. Bush levied safeguard duties on imports of certain steel products; these
were ultimately lifted following an adverse ruling from the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) that
resulted in the European Union’s announcement of $2.2 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports.
Part I of this two-part Sidebar provides background on section 201 safeguard investigations generally,
while Part II specifically discusses the Solar Investigation that led to the new tariff-rate quota on CSPV
products. Part II concludes with options for Congress moving forward.
Investigations under Section 201. The ITC, an independent agency with “broad investigative
responsibilities on matters of trade,” is headed by six Commissioners—three from each political party—
who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. (Currently, and during the pendency of
the Solar Investigation, only four Commissioners are serving on the ITC due to two longstanding
vacancies). Under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, if the Commission determines “that an article is
being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious
injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with
the imported article,” then the President “shall take all appropriate and feasible action within his power
which the President determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive
adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs.”
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10065
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
To arrive at such a determination, the ITC conducts an investigation that ultimately results in a report to
the President. During the first phase of an investigation under section 201—the injury determination—the
ITC must consider whether “increased quantities” of a particular import is “a substantial cause of serious
injury, or the threat thereof,” to the corresponding U.S. domestic industry. (For an overview of the
domestic industry at issue in the Solar Investigation, see this CRS report). To reach an affirmative injury
determination, the ITC must find: (1) a particular article is being imported into the United States in
“increased quantities”; (2) the domestic industry, as defined by the Commission according to statutory
criteria, is seriously injured, or threatened by serious injury; and (3) the surge in imports is a “substantial
cause” of the serious injury or threat thereof. If the ITC reaches an affirmative injury determination, it
must then “recommend the action that would address the serious injury, or threat thereof, to the domestic
industry and be most effective in facilitating the efforts of the domestic industry to make a positive
adjustment to import competition.” The statute “authorize[s] [the Commission] to recommend” any or all
of the following “actions”:
 An increase in, or the imposition of, any duty on the imported article;
 A tariff-rate quota on the article;
 A modification or imposition of any quantitative restriction on the importation of the
article;
 One or more appropriate adjustment measures, including the provision of trade
adjustment assistance.
Further, if the Commission reaches an affirmative injury determination, several statutes that implement
free trade agreements—such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.‐Dominican
Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement—require the
ITC to make a number of additional country-specific findings. These findings may lead to the exemption
of imports from specific countries from any trade action resulting from a safeguard investigation under
section 201.
Upon completion of its investigation, the Trade Act of 1974 directs the Commission to submit a report to
the President specifying its injury determination and, if the injury determination is affirmative, the ITC’s
recommended “action that would address the serious injury, or threat thereof, to the domestic industry.”
After the ITC submits a report with an affirmative injury determination, the statute directs the President to
“take all appropriate and feasible action within his power.” The statute specifies that the President may
proclaim any of the actions the ITC is authorized to recommend, as well as other non-trade remedies,
such as entering trade negotiations with other countries and submitting legislative proposals to Congress.
Cases involving the 2002 safeguard measures on certain steel imports suggest that the President has
“broad latitude to determine the type of action to take.” In Corus Group PLC. v. ITC, for instance, the
Federal Circuit described the Trade Act of 1974 as “provid[ing] an expansive, non-exclusive list of
actions the President may take, including ‘any . . . action which may be taken by the President under the
authority of law and which the President considers appropriate and feasible.’” Regardless of the action he
selects, the President must transmit his decision in writing to Congress on the day of his decision.
For more on the section 201 safeguard investigation of CSPV products in particular, as well as
options for Congress moving forward, proceed to Part II of this post.

Congressional Research Service
3

Author Information

Brandon J. Murrill

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10065 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED