In August 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) issued a final ruling in the case of Auxin Solar et al. v. Biden Administration, declaring that the “Proclamation 10414” – which suspended tariffs on solar cells and modules imported from Southeast Asia in 2022 – violated U.S. law.
The ruling [2025-ITC-0287], signed by Chief Judge Timothy C. Stanceau, concluded the lawsuit filed by seven domestic manufacturers, including Auxin Solar, against the Biden administration.
The case originated from Proclamation 10414 issued by the White House on June 6, 2022, which granted a 24-month tariff exemption on solar cells and modules manufactured in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam.
The suspension was originally intended to waive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on solar products from these four countries for two years (June 6, 2022, to June 6, 2024). However, the court found that the measure effectively enabled Chinese companies to evade U.S. tariffs by operating factories in Southeast Asia.
While the Biden administration cited Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to justify the suspension on grounds of “energy security,” the court ruled that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally revoke already-enforced tariff laws.
According to a supply chain audit report submitted by the Solar Energy Manufacturing for America Coalition (SEMA), during the suspension period, solar exports from the four Southeast Asian countries surged by 217% year-on-year, exceeding 120 GW. The ruling specifically highlighted the “tariff circumvention practices” of leading Chinese solar module manufacturers in Southeast Asia, noting that 89% of silicon materials used in their Vietnamese factories were sourced from China – far exceeding the WTO’s rules of origin requirement of ≤40%. This became key evidence for the court’s conclusion that “the executive order tacitly acknowledged illegal industrial chain relocation.”
U.S. Customs may immediately begin collecting retroactive tariffs on products imported between June 2022 and June 2024, with rates potentially reaching up to 254.66%. The affected imports are valued at approximately $54 billion, involving utility-scale solar projects (62%), commercial and industrial distributed projects (28%), and residential solar systems (10%).
For companies reliant on low-cost solar products from Southeast Asia, the ruling is a “bolt from the blue,” meaning importers, developers, and even utility companies may face massive additional costs for “already completed projects,” significantly increasing industry uncertainty.
Defendants and relevant stakeholders have begun preparing countermeasures, which mainly focus on three approaches:
- Appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit;
- Applying for a “suspension of tariff collection during the appeal” to alleviate short-term financial pressure;
- Pursuing political channels to promote policy adjustments aimed at canceling or reducing retroactive tariffs.
It is reported that parties involved in the response include industry associations and major companies such as the American Clean Power Association, BYD, Canadian Solar, Risen Energy, and Trina Solar.
As of now, the U.S. Court of International Trade has published a summary of the ruling. The full non-confidential version of the judgment is expected to be officially released this weekend in the “Judgment Announcements” section of the court’s website. The industry widely believes that the details in the full text will further influence subsequent appeals, and this “solar tariff dispute” will continue to reshape the landscape of U.S. domestic manufacturing and the global solar supply chain.
This ruling is also expected to restructure the U.S. solar supply chain. The U.S. Solar Manufacturing Association predicts that the share of domestic manufacturing capacity will rebound to 40% by 2027. For international companies, a dual strategy of “tariff compliance + localized production” will be essential.
