US banned Chinese solar panel industry over forced labor concerns

The US has banned the Chinese solar panel industry in lieu of the forced labor concerns.

Pakistan ranks at lowest among Economic Growth Rate: ADB
Mini Apple shops to open at 17 Target locations in US
Tesla shares fall prey to bear market

The US has banned the Chinese solar panel industry in lieu of the forced labor concerns.

These industries were five in number in the province of Xinjiang. It banned US imports of a key solar panel material from Chinese-based Hoshine Silicon Industry Co. moreover, it banned all such exports from it accusing that all such companies are accused of forced and child labor. The majority of the population is Muslims from the Uighur province.

Beijing, in response to the accusations, said that there is no such thing happening. The US is just trying to disrupt China’s export market to cause an economic downfall. The three other countries were blacklisted by the US department including Xinjiang Daqo New Energy Co, Xinjiang East Hope Nonferrous Metals Co, and Xinjiang GCL New Energy Material Co.

At least some of the companies are major manufacturers of monocrystalline silicon and polysilicon used in solar panel production.

The White House, in its statement, said the entities’ practices ran counter not only to American values but also tipped the scales against US workers “by exploiting workers and artificially suppressing wages”. It noted the Biden administration’s push to boost the US solar industry.

Having the US Customs and Border Patrol seize imports from Hoshine was “based on information reasonably indicating that Hoshine used forced labor to manufacture silica-based products,” it added.

Hoshine Silicon Industry earlier said on an interactive investor platform that it does not export industrial silicon to the US directly, which would limit the ban’s impact.

Xinjiang Daqo New Energy Co, in an email to Reuters, said it had “zero tolerance” towards forced labor, and does not directly sell or buy from the US so there would be no “significant impact” on its business.

The other companies or their parent firms, including XPCC, did not to requests for comment, or could not be reached.