Australia filed a case on May 14, 2014 to investigate the alleged dumping of photovoltaic (PV) products that were imported from China. Vivian Wang was appointed to file “no-damage defense” representing the entire Chinese PV industry. On October 6, 2015, the Australian investigation organ made the final determination, in which it held that the PV products imported from China, despite the fact that they were dumped to Australia, were found to have caused only negligible injury or hindrance to the Australian PV industry. Therefore it decided to terminate the investigation. After nearly 17 months of investigation, the case was concluded in no-damage decision.

After the judgment of the original inspection was announced, the prosecutor applied for reexamination. The Australian investigation organ decided to accept the prosecutor’s application for reexamination after preliminary investigation, and started the reexamination of this case  December 22, 2015. In the reexamination, Vivian Wang was once again appointed to file no-damage defense representing the entire Chinese PV industry. On October 18, 2016, the investigation organ made an announcement of its reexamination decision, in which it claimed, according to the reexamination result, the PV products that were exported fromChinatoAustraliacaused negligible material injury to the Australian PV industry. Therefore, it decided to terminate the reexamination and the reexamination resulted in no-damage decision.

Facing retrial, Vivian Wang cooperated with China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products and its member enterprises to actively collect enterprise data and industrial information before making a well-grounded convincing demur against the charge made by the prosecutor. Via the cooperating lawyer, Li Wang kept close communication with the Australian importers, downstream users and their industrial association. With the efforts of the Chinese side, the Australian downstream users and their industrial association submitted comments in favor of the Chinese opinions in the defense, forcefully supporting the conclusion of the reexamination case in no-damage decision.

This was the only case—among the anti-dumping and countervailing cases of investigation against the Chinese PV industry in several countries including EU, the US, Canada and Australia—to be ended in no-damage decision in both the original inspection and retrial. It was the first and only time thatChinafully won the lawsuit to date (a case that was ended in tax-free decision). The successful defense opinions and strategies in this case are of important reference significance to the Chinese PV industry and other industries in future possible anti-dumping and countervailing investigation.