Solar Tariff Evasion: Who Made the Cells?

A solar tariff evasion whistleblower may know that the factory making the cells is different from the producer declared to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A module assembled in one country can contain cells made in another, and the antidumping and countervailing duty orders can follow those cells across the border. The factory name matters again when the importer claims another producer’s duty rate. There is a lot of money behind a factory name.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. In customs fraud, the money at issue is the duty the importer knowingly kept from the government.

Which Solar Goods Does the Written Scope Cover?

The written description controls which goods a solar duty order reaches. The Department of Commerce’s Cambodia solar determination published April 25, 2025 covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules, laminates and panels containing them, including cells assembled into building materials. It also includes qualifying parts imported for later assembly into finished products. Calling the shipment parts or a kit does not remove those goods from that description.

Under that determination’s scope, modules made in a third country from cells produced in a country under investigation remain covered. Modules made in a country under investigation from third-country cells fall outside these investigations. The scope separately excludes products already covered by the earlier Chinese solar-cell orders. Where the cells were made can determine which order we need to examine, even when the module assembler stays the same.

Product technology matters too. The determination excludes thin-film products made from amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride or copper indium gallium selenide. And it says the written scope controls over the listed tariff codes. An insider who knows the cell technology and production history can supply something the customs description leaves out.

The broader AD/CVD scope and circumvention question also reaches minor finishing or assembly in another country. Factory investment, equipment and the actual production work matter to that inquiry. We connect those facts to the particular order and shipments you know about.

Why Can a Solar Duty Rate Be So High?

When companies or governments fail to cooperate with the Department of Commerce, it can fill gaps in their answers with evidence unfavorable to them. That is how an adverse facts rate for solar cells can arise.

The determination assigned Solarspace New Energy (Cambodia) Co., Ltd. and the all-others category a countervailing subsidy rate of 534.67%. It assigned 3,403.96% to Jintek Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd., Hounen Solar Inc Co., Ltd., ISC Cambodia and Solar Long PV-Tech (Cambodia) Co., Ltd., after they failed to cooperate.

A customs fraud case asks the next question: what did the importer declare about the goods, and what did it know about the actual production? At those rates, a different factory name on the entry can change the economics of the sale. The factory records and entry declarations show how someone allegedly escaped them.

Which Solar Producer’s Rate Belongs on the Entry?

The producer’s name and the shipment’s entry date determine which rate instructions we need to examine. Evidence of a false entry declaration involving a Cambodia solar producer’s rate starts with who actually made that shipment. A seller’s invoice gives us a starting point. We still need to connect the seller to the cell maker, module assembler and exporter.

That comparison also matters when the company claims an exclusion. We examine the cells used, the work done and the exclusion’s product requirements. If the approved source and actual source differ, we compare the product behind the company’s exclusion claim with the production that followed. The company may be claiming an exclusion for goods it has stopped buying.

How to Prove Country of Origin?

Production evidence of country of origin fraud comes from the factory: what it made, which inputs it used and what work happened there. For solar modules, we connect cell sourcing and assembly records to the origin declared on the entry. The production behind the origin certificate is the point.

When we examine solar module sourcing for tariff evasion, the inquiry starts at the actual factory. We compare the approved supplier with the actual cell supplier, then connect the production dates and lots to the modules shipped. Bills of materials, production orders, supplier invoices and transport records give us different places to make that connection.

The route through another country tells us where a shipment traveled. Production records tell us what happened there. A warehouse receiving log, an assembly record and a cell supplier invoice answer different questions. For last year’s shipments, we work with you from last year’s output records.

What Evidence Is Needed for Qui Tam?

A solar qui tam case needs evidence connecting the goods, the declaration, the unpaid duty and what the responsible businesses knew. The most useful documents describe the same shipment at different points in its life: the supplier’s sale, the factory’s production, the carrier’s movement and the broker’s entry.

The Importer Security Filing, carrier manifest, bill of lading, commercial invoice and entry summary are created at different times, often by different parties. Finding the same company name in several systems is only the beginning of our comparison. The shipment identifier is what lets us put the documents beside one another.

The 2020 Center for Economic Studies working paper Are Customs Records Consistent Across Countries? Evidence from the U.S. and Colombia found that buyers and sellers could be paired much more readily than individual shipments. Only 25-30 percent of individual transactions matched using its algorithms at reasonable tolerances. Its conclusion puts the scale of that problem plainly:

The paper recommends standardized invoice or manifest numbers to connect customs records across countries. For a solar case, our comparison brings the factory’s cell lots and production dates into that shipment trail. The supplier approval file and the customs entry may tell different stories about the same modules.

Solar Price Evasion and the Competitor’s Bill

A solar price evasion whistleblower may recognize a price that leaves no room for the duty. A competitor paying the full duty has to price against a business that skipped the bill, and taxpayers go unpaid. Product knowledge, public duty orders and commercial prices can give a competitor a useful starting point before it has the importer’s internal invoices.

Value creates another way to shrink the bill. In a double-invoice scheme, accounts payable receives the real invoice while the customs broker receives a lower one. Even a single invoice may leave out separately paid costs that belong in customs value.

In a solar sourcing review, we compare buyer-supplied components, tooling and separately paid royalties with the finished-module invoice to see which costs belong in the declared value. With related-party customs valuation, we also examine how the group set the price and any later adjustments.

The deposit at entry is an estimate. As the Government Accountability Office explains, the final antidumping or countervailing duty bill can substantially exceed that initial amount. We compare the deposit, later assessment and payment for the shipments at issue. A purchasing calculation built around the deposit can leave out money the importer will owe later.

When the Factory Story and the Customs Story Separate

Wrong manufacturer and origin information already appear together in customs whistleblower cases. Evolutions Flooring agreed to an $8.1 million settlement announced in March 2025 over allegations that it supplied false manufacturer and origin information for Chinese multilayered wood flooring. The alleged conduct avoided antidumping and countervailing duties as well as additional tariffs on Chinese goods. Customs’ work included factory visits in Thailand, shipment review, import-record analysis and witness interviews. The investigation followed the claimed manufacturing location back to the plant.

Sham finished-goods claims show another version of the same divide. In the furniture case against Grosfillex, the whistleblower alleged that Chinese aluminum table legs would arrive with a disposable top to make them look like a finished product:

The alleged top had a job at Customs and no job afterward. The Department of Justice announced a $4.9 million settlement in July 2025 covering allegedly false declarations about aluminum furniture components and earlier entries left uncorrected after the company learned they were false.

For solar, the useful parallel is the comparison between the product described to Customs and the production the business actually arranged. We then connect that discrepancy to what the importer knew: a supplier-change notice, a broker’s question, an internal warning or advice based on different goods. Looking away on purpose or recklessly ignoring the truth can also establish knowledge. The next entries and the decision about correcting earlier ones can show what the company did with the information.

That inquiry can extend along the supply chain. The Justice Department’s Trade Fraud Task Force mandate reaches customs brokers, downstream distributors and commercial customers who knowingly profit from unlawfully imported goods. We examine who supplied the false information and who knew what it concealed.

What Is an EAPA Allegation?

An EAPA allegation asks Customs to investigate false information or an important omission that reduces or avoids antidumping or countervailing duties under the Enforce and Protect Act. The process specifically built to investigate duty evasion offers no award while the FCA gives the whistleblower a share.

A customs fraud whistleblower with solar sourcing knowledge may have the evidence for a False Claims Act case. We assess that possibility with you, connecting the production facts to the duty avoided and the company’s knowledge.

Sources

• Department of Commerce: Cambodia crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells final countervailing duty determination, April 25, 2025
• Are Customs Records Consistent Across Countries? Evidence from the U.S. and Colombia, Center for Economic Studies, 2020
• Government Accountability Office: Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, July 14, 2016
• Department of Justice: Evolutions Flooring settlement announcement, March 25, 2025
• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Grosfillex whistleblower complaint, January 29, 2020
• Department of Justice: Grosfillex settlement announcement, July 24, 2025

The Cell Supplier You Know

If you are an energy tariff evasion whistleblower working inside the supply chain who knows which factory supplied the cells, speak with our whistleblower experts about the sourcing behind the entry. We build the connection between that factory history and the unpaid duty with you, then bring in customs fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand solar sourcing and producer-rate disputes. Every strategy call and decision after that, we make alongside you.