{"id":2870,"date":"2026-11-04T16:44:24","date_gmt":"2026-11-04T16:44:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hscodematch.com\/news\/us-keeps-anti-dumping-duties-on-wind-towers-from-india-malaysia-spain\/"},"modified":"2026-11-04T16:44:25","modified_gmt":"2026-11-04T16:44:25","slug":"us-keeps-anti-dumping-duties-on-wind-towers-from-india-malaysia-spain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hscodematch.com\/news\/us-keeps-anti-dumping-duties-on-wind-towers-from-india-malaysia-spain\/","title":{"rendered":"US Keeps Anti-Dumping Duties on Wind Towers from India, Malaysia, Spain"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The United States found on Nov. 4, 2026, that wind tower dumping would resume if its duties ended.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Department of Commerce found on Nov. 4, 2026, that wind tower dumping from India, Malaysia and Spain would resume without duties.<\/p>\n

The decision closes the first five-year review of three anti-dumping duty orders. An anti-dumping duty is an extra import tax on goods sold abroad below their normal price1<\/a><\/sup>. Commerce found that dumping margins of up to 54.03% for India, 3.20% for Malaysia and 73.00% for Spain would likely return if the orders ended1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

In short, nothing changes at the border today. Steel towers for large wind turbines from these three countries still carry anti-dumping duties, and a second agency must now give its own ruling.<\/p>\n

What did Commerce decide on wind towers?<\/h2>\n

The decision appears in a notice from the International Trade Administration (ITA), the part of Commerce that runs trade cases. The notice was published in the Federal Register, the U.S. government’s daily journal, and applies from Nov. 4, 2026<\/strong>1<\/a><\/sup>. It covers utility scale wind towers<\/strong>, the tall steel towers that hold up turbines on wind farms1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The sunset review decision<\/h4>\n
\n \n \n
Item<\/th>Decision<\/th><\/tr>\n <\/thead>\n
Issued by<\/th>U.S. Department of Commerce, ITA<\/td><\/tr>\n
Goods<\/th>Utility scale wind towers<\/td><\/tr>\n
Countries<\/th>India, Malaysia and Spain<\/td><\/tr>\n
Finding<\/th>Dumping would likely continue or return<\/td><\/tr>\n
Applies from<\/th>Nov. 4, 2026<\/td><\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n <\/table><\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Commerce looked at one question. Would dumping start again, or go on, if the orders were revoked? Its answer was yes for all three countries1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

The notice also states how large the dumping would likely be. It gives weighted-average dumping margins, which are the average gap between the U.S. price and the normal price1<\/a><\/sup>. These reach 54.03% for India<\/strong>, 3.20% for Malaysia<\/strong> and 73.00% for Spain<\/strong>1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

How large are the margins for each country?<\/h2>\n

The figures in the notice match the rates Commerce found when it first investigated these towers. In 2021, the ITA’s case page listed a 54.03% dumping rate for every named Indian exporter and for all other Indian makers2<\/a><\/sup>. It listed 3.20% for Malaysia’s CS Wind Corporation and CS Wind Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., and for all other Malaysian makers2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Likely dumping margin if duties end, %<\/h4>\n
\n Spain<\/span>\n <\/span><\/span>\n 73.00%<\/span>\n <\/div>\n
\n India<\/span>\n <\/span><\/span>\n 54.03%<\/span>\n <\/div>\n
\n Malaysia<\/span>\n <\/span><\/span>\n 3.20%<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div><\/figure>\n

The same page also gave lower "adjusted" rates. These subtract an amount for export subsidies already charged through a separate duty2<\/a><\/sup>. The adjusted rate was 51.87% for India<\/strong> and 0.00% for Malaysia<\/strong>2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Spain’s figure of 73.00% is the highest of the three1<\/a><\/sup>. The documents on file do not list the Spanish companies named in that first case.<\/p>\n

The review notice does not set new deposit rates for shipments. It reports the size of the dumping that would likely return if the orders ended.<\/p>\n

Why did Commerce keep the orders in place?<\/h2>\n

The law calls this a sunset review: a check every five years on whether a duty is still needed. Commerce started these reviews on July 2, 20261<\/a><\/sup>. On July 17, 2026, the U.S. industry told Commerce it wanted to take part1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

The U.S. side filed full responses on Aug. 3, 20261<\/a><\/sup>. It took part both as a U.S. maker of wind towers and as an association whose members mostly make them1<\/a><\/sup>. Commerce received no response from any foreign maker or exporter<\/strong>1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Because the foreign side stayed silent, Commerce ran a shorter, expedited review of 120 days1<\/a><\/sup>. It told the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on Aug. 24, 2026, that no foreign party had answered1<\/a><\/sup>. Its full reasons are in a separate decision memo, which covers the likelihood of more dumping and the size of the margins1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Which towers and tariff codes are covered?<\/h2>\n

The notice says the orders cover wind towers from India, Malaysia and Spain1<\/a><\/sup>. It refers readers to the decision memo for the full product description1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

The ITC’s 2021 ruling on Spain names the U.S. tariff codes for these goods. Wind towers enter under subheadings 7308.20.00 and 8502.31.00<\/strong> of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

The ITA’s import figures for India and Malaysia used one narrower code, 7308.20.0020<\/strong>2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

How much trade did the duties reach?<\/h2>\n

Imports of these towers grew fast before the case began. ITA figures, drawn from U.S. Census Bureau data, show the jump2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Imports from India rose from 9 tonnes in 2018 to 18,460 tonnes in 20192<\/a><\/sup>. In 2020 they reached 103,856 tonnes<\/strong>, worth $136,987,4292<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Imports from Malaysia went from 0 in 2018 to 14,875 tonnes in 20192<\/a><\/sup>. In 2020 they reached 67,232 tonnes, worth $114,733,8472<\/a><\/sup>. The documents give no figures for Spain or for the years since the orders.<\/p>\n

Who asked for the duties, and who is affected?<\/h2>\n

The case began with a complaint filed on Sept. 30, 20202<\/a><\/sup>. It came from the Wind Tower Trade Coalition, whose members are Arcosa Wind Towers Inc. of Dallas, Texas, and Broadwind Towers Inc. of Manitowoc, Wisconsin3<\/a><\/sup>. In the current reviews, the ITC accepted a response from the coalition and Ventower Industries LLC4<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

The groups touched by the decision are these:<\/p>\n