“Surprise” Tariff Increase on Solar Panels

Editor’s Note: Today’s post is from Dick Locke, Sourcing Innovation’s resident expert on International Sourcing and Procurement. (His previous guest posts are still archived.)

The October 1 New York Times has an interesting article on a tariff increase on solar panels. While the panels came from China, that’s not the interesting part of the story. The interesting part is that CBP (The US Customs and Border Protection department — successor to the US Customs Service) announced the tariff increase eight months ago and nearly the entire solar panel industry missed it.

To summarize, one US company asked CBP for a classification ruling that would set duty rates for the solar panels they were importing. The company proposed using a semiconductor classification, as the rest of the industry was doing. CBP replied that solar panels were more complex and should be classified as DC generators. CBP published this ruling through normal channels and almost nobody noticed. Here are a few key paragraphs in the article:

“It is somewhat unusual for an industry to take as long as eight months to become aware of a customs ruling that affects it,” said Mel Schwechter, a partner at Dewey & Leboeuf in Washington and a former president of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association.

Customs decisions, even for a single importer, are made public on the agency’s Web site and on commercial Web sites, said Mr. Schwechter, who is not advising any of the participants in the dispute.

Mr. Resch said the growing industry lacked the resources to constantly track tax and regulatory decisions.

Duties will be doubled if customs officials determine that companies have been negligent in not paying them earlier.

Importers might also be liable for duties on all solar panels brought into the United States in the five years before the ruling if customs officials decide that the companies were guilty of “material misstatement or omission” for failing to notice sooner that solar panels had evolved to the point that they no longer met duty-free rules.

The duty on semiconductor devices is zero. The Times said the duties on DC generators is 3.5%. I think it’s 2.5% but my opinion is should not be relied upon for reasons I’ll explain below.

So what went wrong here? Mr. Resch is right, the industry “lacked the resources to constantly track tax and regulatory decisions.” What does that take? In the US, it takes a relationship with a very professional customs brokerage firm who would be under retainer to keep a client informed of regulatory decisions impacting the products a company imports. This is getting more difficult due to structural shifts in the customs brokerage industry. There used to be large, stand alone customs brokerage companies. Many importing companies had different companies doing their freight forwarding and customs brokerage. However, about five years ago two major customs brokers were purchased by UPS and Fed Ex respectively. The remaining customs brokers are much smaller companies. Importers can and should change freight forwarders if there are performance issues, but customs brokers are harder to change. They need detailed knowledge of their clients’ business and the learning curve can be steep.

Why shouldn’t you rely on my opinion on duties on generators? CBP can increase penalties for non-compliance if they determine an importer didn’t use “reasonable care” in their customs decisions. They look for an audit trail back to either a licensed customs broker or a customs attorney. I’m neither, so taking my advice wouldn’t meet the “reasonable care” test. I still think I’m right though.

Dick Locke, Global Procurement Group.

Share This on Linked In