The China solar cells antidumping review now carries sharply lower amended margins for the 2019-2020 period following final CIT judgment in the Jinko Solar litigation. For importers, brokers, and sureties, the practical consequences depend on exporter identity, entry status, liquidation injunctions, and whether a later review established a superseding cash deposit rate.
What Changed in the 2019-2020 Solar Review
The U.S. Court of International Trade issued its final judgment on October 29, 2026, sustaining Commerce's third remand results for the antidumping administrative review covering crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. The period of review ran from December 1, 2019, through November 30, 2020, and included subject cells whether or not assembled into modules.
Commerce treated the judgment as not in harmony with its prior results and amended the weighted-average dumping margins effective November 8, 2026. The litigation addressed several consequential calculation issues, including the surrogate values used for solar glass and air freight, the application of adverse facts available, and the rate assigned to qualifying separate-rate companies.
Amended Antidumping Margins
The revised results substantially reduce the margins assigned to the affected exporter groups:
| Exporter or Entity | Prior Margin | Amended Margin |
|---|---|---|
| Jinko collapsed entity | 20.99% | 4.76% |
| Risen collapsed entity | 12.24% | 0.00% |
| BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. | 14.79% | 4.76% |
| JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. | 14.79% | 4.76% |
| Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. | 14.79% | 4.76% |
The Jinko margin fell by more than 16 percentage points, while Risen's margin was reduced to zero. The three listed separate-rate companies now receive the same 4.76 percent margin as Jinko rather than the previous 14.79 percent separate rate.
These amended margins apply to the completed 2019-2020 review period. They do not necessarily establish the deposit rate currently applied to new imports. Importers must distinguish historical assessment liability from the prospective cash deposit requirements governing entries made after later administrative reviews.
Cash Deposits and Liquidation Require Separate Analysis
An amended review result can affect assessment and deposit activity, but those consequences do not occur in the same manner or on the same timeline. Cash deposits are security for potential antidumping liability on current entries. Liquidation establishes the final duty treatment of historical entries, subject to applicable instructions, court orders, and appeal rights.
Why Only Risen Receives a Revised Deposit Instruction
Jinko, BYD, JA Solar Technology Yangzhou, and Shanghai JA Solar have received superseding cash deposit rates through later administrative reviews. Their current deposit rates therefore remain unchanged despite the lower margins calculated for the 2019-2020 period.
Risen does not have a superseding rate. Commerce will consequently issue revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection reflecting Risen's amended 0.00 percent margin. Importers of Risen merchandise should monitor when CBP implements that instruction and verify that subsequent entries use the appropriate deposit treatment.
A zero margin generally means no antidumping cash deposit is required under that specific rate. It does not remove the merchandise from the scope of the order, eliminate entry reporting obligations, or guarantee the same result in a later review.
Historical Entries Remain Enjoined
Liquidation remains enjoined for covered period-of-review entries associated with Jinko, Risen, BYD, JA Solar Technology Yangzhou, Shanghai JA Solar, and Trina while appeal rights remain unresolved. CBP generally cannot liquidate those entries until the injunction is lifted and valid liquidation instructions are issued.
Importers should not treat the amended margins as an immediate refund event. The final financial effect depends on entry-specific facts, exporter and producer combinations, the eventual conclusion of litigation, and the assessment instructions transmitted to CBP. Premature liquidation, incorrect exporter identification, or mismatched entry data can complicate recovery even when an amended margin is materially lower.
Compliance Priorities for Importers and Brokers
The amended solar cells antidumping margins create an immediate need for disciplined entry-level review. Importers of record, customs brokers, sureties, and trade counsel should coordinate around a common population of affected entries rather than relying only on supplier summaries or aggregate duty reports.
Build an Entry Population by Exporter and Review Period
The first step is to identify unliquidated entries of subject Chinese solar cells and modules entered between December 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020. The review should capture the exporter, producer, importer of record, entry number, entry date, deposited antidumping amount, liquidation status, and any suspension or injunction indicators.
Exporter names require particular attention. Antidumping proceedings may assign rates to collapsed entities or recognize companies under legal names that differ from commercial abbreviations. A supplier name that appears similar to Jinko, Risen, JA Solar, BYD, or Trina does not by itself establish the applicable rate.
Monitor Instructions and Reconcile Financial Exposure
Importers should compare deposited amounts against the potential assessment outcome under the amended margin while recognizing that liquidation remains blocked. Surety exposure, accounting reserves, protests involving unrelated issues, and acquisition-related liabilities may also depend on the eventual disposition of these entries.
Brokers should monitor Risen's revised cash deposit instruction and confirm that their entry systems apply it only when the exporter and producer facts support that treatment. Existing entries should not be modified solely because a historical review margin changed unless authorized procedures and instructions permit the adjustment.
Antidumping and countervailing duties generally cannot be recovered through duty drawback. Importers should therefore separate AD and CVD amounts from ordinary customs duties, taxes, and fees when evaluating refund opportunities. Eligible ordinary duties on imported components or merchandise may still support a drawback claim if the statutory and documentary requirements are satisfied, but the amended solar antidumping liability itself should not be included as recoverable drawback.
- Commerce published a Timken notice on November 13, 2026 (91 FR 73200, applicable November 8, 2026), amending the 2019-2020 antidumping administrative review of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China after the CIT's October 29, 2026 final judgment in Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd. v. United States (Consol. Court No. 22-00219).* The CIT sustained Commerce's third remand results, which used Malaysian HS 7007.19.90 data as the surrogate value for solar glass.
- Amended weighted-average dumping margins for the December 1, 2019-November 30, 2020 period are now 4.76 percent for the Jinko collapsed entity, 0.00 percent for the Risen collapsed entity, and 4.76 percent for BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd., JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd., and Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.* This compares to the prior August 10, 2022 amended final results of 20.99 percent (Jinko), 12.24 percent (Risen), and 14.79 percent (separate rate).
- Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP only for Risen, which lacks a superseding rate from later reviews; Jinko, BYD, JA Solar Yangzhou, and Shanghai JA Solar retain their current rates.* Entries of subject merchandise from Jinko, Risen, JA Solar Yangzhou, Shanghai JA Solar, BYD, or Trina during the POR remain enjoined from liquidation pending any appeals.
- Related solar trade developments in the same period include Commerce's November 9, 2026 issuance of AD and CVD orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from India, Indonesia, and Laos, with cash deposit rates ranging from about 65 percent to over 123 percent (adjusted).* No prominent practitioner discussions of the specific Jinko 2019-2020 amendment appeared in recent X posts, which instead focused on the new third-country orders, China export controls on PV technologies, and U.S. domestic manufacturing waivers.
Frequently Asked Questions
What period does the amended China solar review cover?
The amended results cover entries of subject crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, whether or not assembled into modules, during December 1, 2019, through November 30, 2020. Entry date, exporter identity, producer identity, and scope status must all be evaluated before applying the amended result to a particular transaction.
Does Risen's 0.00 percent margin remove its products from the order?
No. A zero margin for a specific administrative review generally does not revoke the antidumping order or exclude the company's merchandise from scope. Risen entries remain subject to applicable reporting requirements, future reviews, and any cash deposit treatment established by subsequent administrative action.
Will importers automatically receive refunds on affected entries?
Not immediately. Covered entries remain enjoined from liquidation while appeal rights are pending. Any refund typically depends on the final outcome of litigation, the lifting of the injunction, Commerce's assessment instructions, CBP liquidation, and the deposited amount associated with each eligible entry.
Why do most current cash deposit rates remain unchanged?
Later administrative reviews established superseding rates for Jinko, BYD, JA Solar Technology Yangzhou, and Shanghai JA Solar. A revised historical margin does not replace a newer rate already governing current entries. Risen is different because it lacks a superseding rate, so Commerce will issue a revised deposit instruction for that entity.
Can the amended antidumping duties be claimed through drawback?
Antidumping and countervailing duties generally are not eligible for duty drawback. Importers may still evaluate ordinary customs duties paid on qualifying merchandise, but those amounts must be separated from AD and CVD deposits. Any drawback analysis should also confirm export, destruction, substitution, timing, and recordkeeping requirements.
How Stable Software Can Help
Support Broker-Led Drawback Programs
The solar review illustrates why customs brokers and importers must distinguish recoverable ordinary duties from antidumping and countervailing duties that generally cannot be claimed through drawback. Accurate duty classification and disciplined transaction records are essential when both categories appear in an importer's entry history.
DrawbackAI gives U.S. customs brokers flat-license duty drawback software that they can white-label for importer clients. Brokers file claims under their own filer codes, retain control of the client relationship, and pay a flat software license rather than surrendering a percentage of the refund. Brokers evaluating drawback opportunities for solar industry clients can use this model to build a controlled, broker-led service while keeping AD and CVD amounts outside the recoverable claim value.
Resources
| Type | Resource |
|---|---|
| Source | Primary source |
