Short answer: Vietnamese-made solar products entering the United States now face stacked layers of trade remedy duties. Following the US Department of Commerce (DOC) final determinations of April 21, 2025, the Vietnam-wide anti-dumping rate reached 271.28% and countervailing duties ran as high as 542.64%. An earlier circumvention inquiry (2022–2023) had already found that solar cells from Vietnam — along with Cambodia, Malaysia and Thailand — using Chinese inputs circumvented the standing AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar products. For exporters, the question is no longer whether duties apply, but how to calculate the true landed cost and build a multi-year compliance strategy.
The trade backdrop: MFN treatment without a bilateral FTA
Vietnam–US trade operates under the 2001 Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA), which grants Vietnamese goods most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment. There is no bilateral free trade agreement, so Vietnamese solar panels enter the US at MFN rates plus every applicable US trade remedy: anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, Section 232 and Section 301 measures, and the reciprocal tariff layer the US rolled out in 2025.
Vietnam’s solar industry is largely foreign-invested — factories owned by Chinese and Korean groups — so each US investigation strikes directly at this supply chain. That is why the duty spiral keeps repeating: every case closed seems to open a new one.
The first loop: the 2022–2023 circumvention inquiry
In 2022, following a petition by Auxin Solar, DOC opened a circumvention inquiry into solar cells and modules imported from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, alleging that Chinese producers had shifted assembly to Southeast Asia to dodge the AD/CVD orders the US had imposed on Chinese solar products since 2012.
The inquiry concluded that circumvention had occurred: solar products from the four Southeast Asian countries incorporating Chinese wafers and components were treated as circumventing the orders and became subject to the corresponding AD/CVD duties. The US granted a two-year duty moratorium (until June 2024) for companies to adjust their supply chains; once it expired, the full duty pressure returned.
The second loop: the “Solar III” AD/CVD case and the April 2025 finals
In April 2024, the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee — comprising Hanwha Qcells, First Solar and other US producers — filed new AD/CVD petitions covering crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.
On April 21, 2025, DOC issued affirmative final determinations: imports from all four countries were being dumped and were receiving countervailable subsidies. Notably, these were among the first CVD cases in which DOC found that companies received transnational subsidies from the Government of China. The final rates for Vietnam:
- Anti-dumping duty: 271.28% (the Vietnam-wide entity rate — applied to non-cooperating exporters and those not individually examined);
- Countervailing duty: up to 542.64%, with an all-others rate of 124.57%.
AD/CVD orders were formally issued in June 2025. At these levels, exporting solar products from Vietnam to the US is commercially unviable for companies stuck with the high rates.
Why it is a spiral: supply-chain fixes invite the next petition
What exhausts exporters is the repetitiveness. After the circumvention finding, many producers switched to non-Chinese wafers and cells or increased Vietnamese value-added. But US petitioners argued that cross-border subsidization persisted in other forms — financing, land, incentives linked to China — and a fresh case followed.
For Vietnamese exporters this means a “clean” supply chain today is no guarantee against tomorrow’s petition. Compliance strategy must be planned in three-to-five-year cycles, not shipment by shipment.
What Vietnamese companies should do now
- Recalculate true landed cost: stack MFN duty, AD, CVD, Section 232/301 duties and the current reciprocal tariff — many exporters still quote on outdated rates and lose money on arrival.
- Participate fully in every DOC proceeding: non-cooperation triggers “adverse facts available” — invariably the highest rate in the case. Retaining US trade counsel to track investigation schedules is a mandatory cost, not an option.
- Audit component origin against circumvention standards: DOC examines the share of Chinese inputs and the extent of processing in Vietnam. Origin documentation must be detailed down to each production step.
- Diversify markets: the EU, the Middle East, Africa and the domestic market reduce dependence on the US while cases cool down.
- Monitor ongoing proceedings: AD/CVD rates are revisited in annual administrative reviews — rates can move in either direction each review cycle.
Frequently asked questions
What is the current US anti-dumping duty on Vietnamese solar panels?
Under DOC’s final determinations of April 21, 2025, the Vietnam-wide AD rate is 271.28% and CVD reaches 542.64% (all-others 124.57%). The orders were issued in June 2025. Individual companies may face different rates depending on their cooperation in the investigation.
What was the solar circumvention investigation about?
The 2022 inquiry, prompted by Auxin Solar, found that solar products from Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia and Thailand using Chinese components circumvented the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar goods in place since 2012, making them subject to the same duties.
What happens if an exporter ignores a DOC investigation?
DOC applies “adverse facts available” — in practice the highest rate in the proceeding. That is how the 271.28% AD and 542.64% CVD rates came to apply.
Beyond AD/CVD, what other US duties hit Vietnamese solar products?
MFN duty under the 2001 BTA, Section 232 duties (relevant to steel and aluminium mounting structures), Section 301 measures and the US reciprocal tariffs introduced in 2025. Reciprocal tariff levels shift with bilateral negotiations, so check the current CBP tariff schedule before every shipment.
Is there any lawful way to keep exporting to the US free of AD/CVD?
There is no lawful way to “avoid” duties on merchandise covered by an order. The only routes are proving the goods fall outside the investigation’s scope, or participating in annual administrative reviews to earn a lower company-specific rate on the evidence.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council