> the US [unsurprisingly] imposed 300% duty as a counter measure to the perceived government subsidies Not to pick on the parent statement, but it brings up wh

> the US [unsurprisingly] imposed 300% duty as a counter measure to the perceived government subsidies Not to pick on the parent statement, but it brings up what I think is an important point: Let's not take these claims by the US government at face value. The US very well may have imposed the duty to help a US company, and used the rest as justification. Economic isolationism/nationalism is an explicit policy of the US government.