JinkoSolar (JKS) Risk Analysis

Political tensions between the United States and China have escalated. The U.S. government has taken a range of action relating to U.S-China relations, including imposing several rounds of tariffs affecting certain products manufactured in China, imposing sanctions, export controls and investment restrictions against Chinese companies, imposing sanctions on certain officials of the PRC and Hong Kong governments, enacting legislation such as the UFLP Act and the HFCA Act, and implementing enhanced reviews of companies with significant China-based operations. Partially in response to these actions, the PRC government has also taken steps affecting U.S.-China relations, including the issuance of the Unreliable Entity List in 2019 and the enactment of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law in 2021. Economic conditions in China are sensitive to global economic conditions. Rising political tensions between China and the U.S. could reduce levels of trade, investment, technological exchanges and other economic activities between the two major economies, which would have a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets. The measures taken by the U.S. and Chinese governments may also restrict our ability to do business with entities both within and outside of China and may cause investors to lose confidence in Chinese companies and counterparties, including us. In addition, new legislation, executive orders, tariffs, laws or regulations may be adopted that negatively affect companies with significant connections to the U.S. or to China, our industry or on us. Any unfavorable government policies on cross-border relations or international trade, including increased scrutiny on companies with significant China-based operations may affect the competitive position of our products, the hiring of research and development personnel, our ability to sell our polysilicon products in the U.S. and possible certain other markets, the demand for our products or the products of companies that use our products as raw materials, our ability to raise capital, and the market price of our ADSs. The SEC has issued statements focused on companies with significant China-based operations. For example, on July 30, 2021, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler , issued a Statement on Investor Protection Related to Recent Developments in China, in which he reported that he has directed the SEC staff to engage in targeted additional reviews of filings for companies with significant China-based operations. Consistent with that directive, on December 20, 2021, the SEC posted an illustrative letter containing sample comments to companies with the majority of their operations in the PRC or Hong Kong. The statement and sample comment letter also addressed risks inherent in companies with a variable interest entity, or a VIE, structure, which are used by some companies in China that operate in sectors that are subject to foreign ownership limitations. We do not have a VIE structure and are not in an industry that is subject to foreign ownership limitations. Further, we have reviewed the letter and believe that we have full and complete applicable disclosures as suggested in that letter. However, our periodic reports and other filings with the SEC may be subject to enhanced review by the SEC, and this additional scrutiny could affect our ability to effectively raise capital in the United States. In response to the SEC's July 30 statement, the CSRC announced on August 1, 2021, that the CSRC will continue to collaborate "closely with different stakeholders including investors, companies, and relevant authorities to further promote transparency and certainty of policies and implementing measures." There is no assurance that the tension between the two nations will ease soon. If any new legislation, executive orders, tariffs, laws and/or regulations are implemented, if existing trade agreements are renegotiated or if the U.S. or Chinese governments take retaliatory actions due to the U.S.-China tension, such changes could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to raise capital and the price of our ADSs.

Our direct sales to the U.S. market accounted for 25.4%, 28.7% and 15.7% of our total revenues in 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. In 2011, SolarWorld Industries America Inc., a solar panel manufacturing company in the United States, filed anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions with the United States Department of Commerce (the "U.S. Department of Commerce") and United States International Trade Commission (the "U.S. International Trade Commission") against the Chinese solar industry, accusing Chinese producers of crystalline silicon photovoltaic ("CSPV") cells, whether or not assembled into modules, of selling their products (i.e., CSPV cells or modules incorporating these cells) in the United States at less than fair value, and of receiving financial assistance from the Chinese governments that benefited the production, manufacture, or exportation of such products. JinkoSolar was on the list of the solar companies subject to such investigations by the U.S. Department of Commerce. On November 9, 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it launched the anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty investigation into the accusations. On December 7, 2012, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order. As a result, cash deposits were required to pay on import into the United States of the CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules from China. The announced cash deposit rates applicable to us were 13.94% (for anti-dumping) and 15.24% (for countervailing). The actual anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty rates at which entries of covered merchandise are finally assessed may differ from the announced deposit rates because they are subject to the subsequent administrative reviews by U.S. Department of Commerce. In January 2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the first administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. In July 2015, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued the final results of this first administrative review, according to which the anti-dumping and countervailing rates applicable to us were 9.67% and 20.94%, respectively. Such rates apply as the final rates on the import into the United States of the CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules from China, from May 25, 2012 to November 30, 2013 for dumping, and from March 26, 2012 to December 31, 2012 for countervailing, respectively. Such rates were the cash deposit rates applicable to us from July 14, 2015. In February 2015 and February 2016, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the second administrative and the third administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China, respectively. The U.S. Department of Commerce issued the final results of the second administrative review in June and July of 2016 and the final results of the third administrative review in July 2017. As we were not included in the second and the third administrative review, the rates applicable to us remained at 9.67% (for anti-dumping) and 20.94% (for countervailing) after this review. In February 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the fourth administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. In July 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce published the final results of the fourth administrative review. As we were not included in this anti-dumping administrative review, the anti-dumping deposit rates applicable to us remained at 9.67%. The countervailing deposit rates applicable to us were 13.20% after this review. On October 30, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce amended the final results of the fourth countervailing administrative review. As a result, the countervailing deposit rates applicable to us were 10.64% after this amendment. On October 29, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce amended the final results of the fourth countervailing administrative review pursuant to the final judgement of the United States Court of International Trade; the final subsidy rate applicable to us for the entries made during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 was changed to 4.22%. In November 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission initiated five-year reviews to determine whether revocation of the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders with respect to CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules from China, would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. In March 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce determined that revocation of the countervailing order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a net countervailable subsidy. In March 2019, the U.S. International Trade Commission determined that revocation of the countervailing order would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies. In February 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the fifth administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. In July and August 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued the final results of the fifth administrative review, according to which the anti-dumping and countervailing deposit rates applicable to us were 4.06% and 12.76%, respectively. In December 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce amended the final results of the fifth countervailing administrative review. As a result, the countervailing deposit rate applicable to us was 12.7% after this amendment. In March 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the sixth administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued the final result of the sixth anti-dumping administrative review, according to which the anti-dumping deposit rate applicable to us was 68.93%. In December 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce amended the final result of the sixth anti-dumping administrative review, according to which the anti-dumping deposit rate applicable to us was 95.5% after such amendment. In December 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued the final result of the sixth countervailing administrative review, according to which the countervailing deposit rate applicable to us was 12.67%. In April 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce amended the final result of the sixth countervailing administrative review, according to which the countervailing deposit rate applicable to us was 11.97% after such amendment. In February 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the seventh administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. In August and October 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued the final results of the seventh administrative review, according to which the anti-dumping and countervailing deposit rate applicable to us was 0% and 19.28%, respectively. In February 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the eighth administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. The eighth administrative review is pending as of the date of this annual report. In February 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the ninth administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. The ninth administrative review is pending as of the date of this annual report, and therefore, the final anti-dumping and countervailing rates applicable to us are subject to change. On February 8, 2022, Auxin Solar Inc. ("Auxin"), a U.S. manufacturer of solar modules, requested that the U.S. Department of Commerce to open nationwide inquiries as to whether crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules containing such cells (solar cells and modules) that are produced and/or assembled in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand or Vietnam using parts and components from China and exported to the United States, are circumventing the anti-dumping and countervailing orders on solar cells and modules from China. On March 25, 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce determined to initiate the circumvention inquiries (the "Anti-Circumvention Case"). The Anti-Circumvention Case is pending as of the date of this annual report. In 2013, SolarWorld Industries America Inc. filed a separate petition with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission resulting in the institution of new anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations against import of certain CSPV products from China. The petitions accused Chinese producers of such certain CSPV modules of dumping their products in the United States and receiving countervailable subsidies from the Chinese government. This action excluded from its scope the CSPV cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. In February 2015, following the affirmative injury determination made by U.S. International Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order. As a result, the final cash deposits were required to pay on import into the United States of the CSPV modules assembled in China consisting of CSPV cells produced in a customs territory other than China. The announced cash deposit rates applicable to us were 65.36% (for anti-dumping) and 38.43% (for countervailing). The actual anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty rates at which entries of covered merchandise are finally assessed may differ from the announced deposit rates because they are subject to the administrative reviews by the U.S. Department of Commerce. In April 2016 and April 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the first and the second administrative reviews of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV modules assembled in China consisting of CSPV cells produced in a customs territory other than China, respectively. In July and September 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued the final results of this first administrative review. The second administrative reviews of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order were rescinded by the U.S. Department of Commerce in August 2017 and November 2017, respectively. In April 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the third administrative reviews of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV modules assembled in China consisting of CSPV cells produced in a customs territory other than China. The final results of the third administrative reviews were 165.04% (for anti-dumping) and 94.83% (for countervailing). We were not included in this third administrative reviews, therefore, the cash deposit rates applicable to us remained at 65.36% (for anti-dumping) and 38.43% (for countervailing). In May 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the fourth administrative reviews of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV modules assembled in China consisting of CSPV cells produced in a customs territory other than China. The fourth administrative reviews of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order were rescinded by the U.S. Department of Commerce in September and October 2019, respectively. In April 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated the fifth administrative reviews of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order with respect to CSPV modules assembled in China consisting of CSPV cells produced in a customs territory other than China. The fifth administrative reviews of the anti-dumping duty order and countervailing duty order were rescinded by the U.S. Department of Commerce in August 2020. In January 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission initiated five-year reviews to determine whether revocation of the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders with respect to CSPV modules assembled in China, consisting of CSPV cells produced in a customs territory other than China, would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. In May 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailing subsidies. In September 2020, the U.S. International Trade Commission determined that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. In May 2017, U.S. International Trade Commission initiated global safeguard investigation to determine whether CSPV cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles ("Section 201 Investigation"). The Section 201 Investigation was not country specific. They involved imports of the products under investigation from all sources, including China. In September 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission voted affirmatively in respect of whether imports of CSPV cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) were causing serious injury to domestic producers of CSPV products. On January 22, 2018, the U.S. President made the final decision to provide a remedy to the U.S. industry, and the CSPV cells/modules concerned were subject to the safeguard measures established in the U.S. President's final result, which included that the CSPV cells and modules imported would be subject to additional duties of 30%, 25%, 20% and 15% from the first year to the fourth year, respectively, except for the first 2.5 GW of all imported CSPV cells concerned in each of those four years, which are excluded from the additional tariff. On October 10, 2020, the U.S. President issued a proclamation and determined that the section 201 duty of the fourth year beginning in February 2021 would be 18%, instead of 15%. In August 2021, a joint petition seeking an extension of the safeguard measure was filed. On December 8, 2021, in response to petitions by representatives of the domestic industry, U.S. International Trade Commission issued its determination and report, finding that safeguard action on CSPV cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products)continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy the serious injury to the domestic industry, and that there is evidence that the domestic industry is making a positive adjustment to import competition ("Section 201 Extension Investigation"). On February 4, 2022, the U.S. President determined an extension of this safeguard measure for another four year and made the final decision, which included that the CSPV cells and modules imported would be subject to additional duties of 14.75%, 14.5%, 14.25% and 14% through the first year to the fourth year, respectively, except for bifacial modules and the first 5 GW of all imported CSPV cells concerned in each of those four years, which are excluded from the additional tariff. It is believed that the costs of solar power projects in the United States may increase and the demand for solar PV products in the United States may be adversely impacted due to the decision of the White House under the Section 201 Investigation. Although we opened our manufacturing facility in the United States, and the products manufactured in such facility will not be subject to tariffs, we will still be subject to tariffs if we ship our products from our manufacturing facilities overseas into the United States. Our imports of solar cells and modules into the United States were subject to the duties imposed by Section 201 Investigation starting from February 2018. Accordingly, our business and profitability of these products may be materially and adversely impacted by the decision of the U.S. President under the Section 201 Investigation. In August 2017, the United States Trade Representative initiated an investigation pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the "Trade Act"), to determine whether acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation were actionable under the Trade Act ("Section 301 Investigation"). The findings from the United States Trade Representative with the assistance of the interagency Section 301 committee showed that the acts, policies, and practices of the Chinese government related to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation were unreasonable or discriminatory and burdened or restricted the U.S. commerce. On March 22, 2018, the U.S. President directed his administration to take a range of actions responding to China's acts, policies, and practices involving the unfair and harmful acquisition of U.S. technology. These actions included imposing an additional duty of 25% on products from China in aerospace, information and communication technology, and machinery. On April 3, 2018, the United States Trade Representative proposed a list of products from China which would be subject to the additional duty. In June and July 2018, the United States Trade Representative proposed three lists of products from China which were worth approximately US$250 billion (US$34 billion for List 1, US$16 billion for List 2 and US$200 billion for List 3), among which, products on List 1 and List 2 would be imposed a 25% additional duty and products on List 3 would be imposed a 10% additional duty. Certain of our production equipment and raw materials exported from China to be used in our new manufacturing facility in the United States and our solar PV products exported from China were covered by these three lists. In July, August and September 2018, the United States Trade Representative published that the Customs and Border Protection would begin to collect additional duties on the products exported from China on List 1 on July 6, 2018, those on List 2 on August 23, 2018 and those on List 3 on September 24, 2018, respectively. On March 5, 2019, the United States Trade Representative determined that the rates of additional duty for the products on List 3 would remained at 10% until further notice. On May 9, 2019, the United States Trade Representative determined to increase the rates of additional duty for the products on List 3 from 10% to 25% with an effective date on May 10, 2019. In August 2019, the United States Trade Representative determined to impose an additional 10% duty on the fourth list of products of Chinese origin with an annual aggregate trade value of approximately US$300 billion ("List 4"). Certain of our production equipment and raw materials of Chinese origin to be used in our new manufacturing facility in the United States were covered by List 4. The tariff subheadings under List 4 were separated into two lists with different effective dates: the list set forth in annex A of the notice issued by the United States Trade Representative became effective on September 1, 2019; and the list set forth in annex C of the notice became effective on December 15, 2019. On August 30, 2019, the United States Trade Representative determined to increase the rate of additional duty for the products covered by List 4 from 10% to 15%. On December 18, 2019, the United States Trade Representative determined to suspend indefinitely the imposition of additional 15% duty on products covered by annex C of List 4. On January 15, 2020, the United States Trade Representative determined to reduce the rate of the additional duty on products covered by annex A of List 4 from 15% to 7.5%, which became effective on February 14, 2020. The lists of products, which the United States Trade Representative may further revise, may affect the solar industry and the operation of our new manufacturing facility in the United States. In December 2014, Canada initiated the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations on imports of CSPV modules from China. In June 2015, the Canada Border Services Agency ("CBSA") found that the CSPV modules under investigation had been dumped and subsidized. In July 2015, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal found that the dumping and subsidizing of the above-mentioned goods had not caused injury, but were threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry. As a result, import into Canada of our CSPV modules under investigation from China was subject to the anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The countervailing duty rate (RMB per Watt) applicable to Jiangxi Jinko and Zhejiang Jinko are 0.028 and 0.046, respectively. For anti-dumping duties, CBSA had set normal value for the imported CSPV modules and the anti-dumping duty would be the difference between the export price and normal value if the export price is lower the normal value. No anti-dumping duties would apply if the export price is equal or more than the normal value. In May 2020, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal ("CITT") and CBSA initiated an expiry review investigation to determine whether the expiry of their above findings made in June and July 2015 respectively are likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping and/or subsidizing of the CSPV modules originating in or exported from China. In October 2020, the CBSA has determined that the expiry of its finding is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping and subsidizing of CSPV modules originating in or exported from China. In March 2021, CITT had determined to continue its abovementioned finding made in July 2015 concerning the dumping and subsidizing of CSPV modules originating in or exported from China. The CBSA will therefore continue to impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties on the CSPV modules originating in or exported from China. In July 2016, Turkish Ministry of Economy initiated anti-dumping investigation against photovoltaic panels and modules classified in Turkish Customs Tariff Code 8541.40.90.00.14, from China. In July 2017, Turkish Ministry of Economy made the final affirmative result of this investigation, pursuant to which import into Turkey of our CSPV panels and modules under investigation from China would be subject to the anti-dumping duty. The anti-dumping duty applicable to us was US$20 per m2. In July 2017, the Department of Commerce of India initiated anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of solar cells whether or not assembled partially or fully in modules or panels or on glass or some other suitable substrates originating in or exported from mainland China, Taiwan and Malaysia. Such investigation was terminated in March 2018 by the Department of Commerce of India as requested by Indian Solar Manufacturers Association, representing applicants of the domestic industry. In December 2017, the Directorate General of Safeguards of India initiated a safeguard investigations concerning imports of "solar cells whether or not assembled in modules or panels" ("PUC") into India to protect the domestic producers of like and directly competitive articles (to the solar cells whether or not assembled in modules or panels) from serious injury/threat of serious injury caused by such increased imports (the "India Safeguard Investigations"). The India Safeguard Investigations were not country specific and involved imports for the products under investigation from all sources, including China. In January 2018, the Directorate General of Safeguards Customs and Central Excise recommended a provisional safeguard duty to be imposed at the rate of 70% ad valorem on the imports of PUC falling under Customs Tariff Item 85414011 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 from all countries, including PRC and Malaysia, except some developing countries. In May 2018, Indian central government overruled the Directorate General of Safeguards Customs and Central Excise's recommendation of provisional safeguard duty at the rate of 70% ad valorem on the imports of PUC. On July 16, 2018, Directorate General of Trade Remedies published the final findings of Safeguard Investigations and recommended to impose the safeguard duty for a period of two years. As of July 30, 2018, Ministry of Finance of India issued a Notification No. 01/2018-Customs (SG) to impose safeguard duty at the following rate effective from July 30, 2018: - 25% ad valorem minus anti-dumping duty payable, if any, when imported during the period from July 30, 2018 to July 29, 2019 (both days inclusive);- 20% ad valorem minus anti-dumping duty payable, if any, when imported during the period from July 30, 2019 to January 29, 2020 (both days inclusive); and - 15% ad valorem minus anti-dumping duty payable, if any, when imported during the period from January 30, 2020 to July 29, 2020 (both days inclusive). Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to imports of PUC from countries notified as developing countries vide notification no.19/2016-custom (NT) dated February 5, 2016 except PRC and Malaysia. In March 2020, the Directorate General of Trade Remedies of India initiated a review examining the need for continued imposition of safeguards duty on imports of solar cells whether or not assembled in modules or panels into India. On July 18, 2020, the Directorate General of Trade Remedies of India issued the final findings of review investigation for continued imposition of safeguards duty and recommended extension of safeguards duty for a period of another one year. On July 29, 2020, Ministry of Finance of India issued a Notification No.02/2020-Customs (SG) to impose safeguard duty at the following rate effective from July 30, 2020: - 14.9% ad valorem minus anti-dumping duty payable, if any, when imported during the period from July 30, 2020 to January 29, 2021 (both days inclusive); and - 14.5% ad valorem minus anti-dumping duty payable, if any, when imported during the period from January 30, 2021 to July 29, 2021 (both days inclusive). Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to imports of PUC from countries notified as developing countries vide notification No. 19/2016-Customs (N.T.) dated the February 5, 2016, except the PRC, Thailand and Vietnam. Such safeguard duty was terminated on July 29, 2021 by the Department of Commerce of India. In May 2021, the Department of Commerce of India initiated anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of solar cells whether or not assembled partially or fully in modules or panels or on glass or some other suitable substrates originating in or exported from mainland China, Thailand and Vietnam. Such investigation is pending as of the date of this annual report. Imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing orders in one or more markets may result in additional costs to us, our customers or both, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

In June 2021, the United States Senate passed a bill that would amend the HFCA Act to accelerate the imposition of trading prohibitions once an issuer is identified from three years to two years, and a companion bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on December 14, 2021. In February, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the America Competes Act of 2022, which includes the same amendments as the bill passed by the Senate. However, the America Competes Act includes a broader range of legislation not related to the HFCA Act in response to the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act passed by the Senate in 2021. The U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate needs to agree on amendments to these respective bills to align the legislation and pass their amended bills before the President can sign into law. It is unclear when the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives will resolve the differences in the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act and the America Competes Act of 2022 bills currently passed. If the bill amending the HFCA Act is approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, our securities could be subject to a trading prohibition following our filing of our annual report on Form 20-F for 2022, which will be due on May 1, 2023.

A significant part of our business operations in China are conducted in China, we are exposed to legal and other risks associated with our operations in China. The PRC government has significant authority to exert influence on the ability of a company with operations in China, including us, to conduct its business, and may exert substantial intervention and influence over the manner our operations. Any actions by the PRC government to exert more oversight and control over offerings that are conducted overseas or foreign investment in companies having operations in China, including us, could significantly limit or completely hinder our ability to offer or continue to offer securities to investors, and cause the value of our securities to significantly decline or become worthless. Recently, the PRC government initiated a series of regulatory actions and statements to regulate business operations in China with little advance notice, including cracking down on illegal activities in the securities market, enhancing supervision over China-based companies listed overseas, adopting new measures to extend the scope of cybersecurity reviews and new laws and regulations related to data security, and expanding the efforts in anti-monopoly enforcement. While we do not believe that these regulatory changes would have any material impact on us, we cannot guarantee that the authorities will agree with us or will not promulgate new regulations that restrict our business operations or access to capital.On July 6, 2021, the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council jointly issued the Opinions on Severe and Lawful Crackdown on Illegal Securities Activities. These opinions emphasized the need to strengthen the administration over illegal securities activities and the supervision on overseas listings by China-based companies. These opinions proposed to take effective measures, such as promoting the construction of relevant regulatory systems, to deal with the risks and incidents facing China-based overseas-listed companies and the demand for cybersecurity and data privacy protection. These opinions and any related implementation rules to be enacted may subject us to additional compliance requirement in the future. As these opinions were recently issued, official guidance and interpretation of the opinions remain unclear in several respects at this time. Therefore, we cannot assure you that we will remain fully compliant with all new regulatory requirements of these opinions or any future implementation rules on a timely basis, or at all. With the trend of strengthening anti-monopoly supervision around the world, the PRC government has issued a series of anti-monopoly laws and regulations in 2021, paying more attention to corporate compliance. On February 7, 2021, the Antimonopoly Commission of the State Council of the PRC promulgated the Guidelines for Anti-monopoly in the field of Platform Economy. On November 15, 2021, the State Administration for Market Regulation of the PRC promulgated the Guidelines for the Overseas Anti-monopoly Compliance of Enterprises. We believe that these regulations have little impact on us, but we cannot guarantee that regulators will agree with us or that these regulations will not affect our business operations in the future. Cybersecurity and data privacy and security issues are subject to increasing legislative and regulatory focus in China. On July 30, 2021, the State Council of the PRC promulgated the Regulation on the Protection of the Security of Critical Information Infrastructure, which took effect on September 1, 2021. This regulation require, among others, certain competent authorities to identify critical information infrastructures. If any critical information infrastructure is identified, the relevant authorities shall promptly notify the relevant operator and the Ministry of Public Security. The CAC and a number of other departments under the State Council promulgated the Measures for Cybersecurity Review on December 28, 2021, which became effective on February 15, 2022. According to this regulation, critical information infrastructure operators purchasing network products and services and data processors carrying out data processing activities, which affect or may affect national security, are required to conduct cybersecurity review. We believe that these regulations are not applicable to us, because we are neither a critical information infrastructure operator nor a data processor within the meanings of these regulation. However, we cannot guarantee that the regulators will agree with us. As of the date hereof, we have not been involved in any investigations on cybersecurity review made by the CAC,and we have not received any inquiry, notice, warning, or sanctions in such respect. However, as these are new regulations, there remains uncertainties as to how they will be interpreted or implemented in the context of an overseas offering. We may be subject to PRC laws relating to the collection, use, sharing, retention security, and transfer of confidential and private information, such as personal information and other data. These PRC laws apply not only to third-party transactions, but also to transfers of information between us and our wholly foreign-owned enterprises in China, and other parties with which we have commercial relations. For example, on September 1, 2021, the PRC Data Security Law became effective, which imposes data security and privacy obligations on entities and individuals conducting data-related activities, and introduces a data classification and hierarchical protection system based on the importance of data in economic and social development, as well as the degree of harm it will cause to national security, public interests, or legitimate rights and interests of individuals or organizations when such data is tampered with, destroyed, leaked, or illegally acquired or used. In addition, the Standing Committee of PRC National People's Congress promulgated the Personal Information Protection Law (the "PIPL") on August 20, 2021, which took effect on November 1, 2021. The PIPL further emphasizes processors' obligations and responsibilities for personal information protection and sets out the basic rules for processing personal information and the rules for cross-border transfer of personal information. As of the date hereof, we have not been involved in any investigations on data security or privacy compliance issues in connection with the PRC Data Security Law or the PIPL, and we have not received any inquiry, notice, warning, or sanctions in such respect. In addition, we do not expect to have significant data security or privacy issues given that the nature of our business does not involving collecting and use of vast personal data. However, we cannot guarantee that the regulators will agree with us or will not in the future adopt new regulations that restrict our business operations. Since these statements and regulatory actions are new, it is highly uncertain how soon legislative or administrative regulation making bodies will respond and what existing or new laws or regulations or detailed implementations and interpretations will be modified or promulgated, if any, or the potential impact such modified or new laws and regulations will have on our daily business operation, our ability to accept foreign investments and listing on a U.S. or other foreign exchanges. PRC laws and their interpretations and enforcement continue to develop and are subject to change, and the PRC government may adopt other rules and restrictions in the future.

The Provisions Regarding Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Projects by Foreign Investors (the "M&A Rules") require an overseas special purpose vehicle that is controlled by PRC companies or individuals formed for the purpose of seeking a public listing on an overseas stock exchange through acquisitions of PRC domestic companies using shares of such special purpose vehicle or held by its shareholders as considerations to obtain the approval of the CSRC prior to the listing and trading of such special purpose vehicles securities on an overseas stock exchange. However, the application of the M&A Rules remains unclear. If CSRC approval is required, it is uncertain whether it would be possible for us to obtain the approval. Any failure to obtain or delay in obtaining CSRC approval would subject us to sanctions imposed by the CSRC and other PRC regulatory agencies. On December 24, 2021, the State Council issued a draft of the Provisions of the State Council on the Administration of Overseas Securities Offering and Listing by Domestic Companies, or the Draft Provisions, and the CSRC issued a draft of Administration Measures for the Filing of Overseas Securities Offering and Listing by Domestic Companies, or the Draft Administration Measures, for public comments. The Draft Provisions and the Draft Administration Measures propose to establish a new filing-based regime to regulate overseas offerings and listings by domestic companies. According to the Draft Provisions and the Draft Administration Measures, an overseas offering and listing by a domestic company, whether directly or indirectly, shall be filed with the CSRC. Specifically, the examination and determination of an indirect offering and listing will be conducted on a substance-over-form basis, and an offering and listing shall be considered as an indirect overseas offering and listing by a domestic company if the issuer meets the following conditions: (i) the operating income, gross profit, total assets, or net assets of the domestic enterprise in the most recent fiscal year was more than 50% of the relevant line item in the issuer's audited consolidated financial statement for that year; and (ii) senior management personnel responsible for business operations and management are mostly PRC citizens or are ordinarily resident in the PRC, and the main place of business is in the PRC or carried out in the PRC. According to the Draft Administration Measures, the issuer or its affiliated domestic company, as the case may be, shall file with the CSRC for its initial public offering, follow-on offering and other equivalent offing activities. Particularly, the issuer shall submit the filing with respect to its initial public offering and listing within three business days after its initial filing of the listing application, and submit the filing with respect to its follow-on offering within three business days after completion of the follow-on offering. Failure to comply with the filing requirements may result in fines to the relevant domestic companies, suspension of their businesses, revocation of their business licenses and operation permits, and fines on the controlling shareholder as well as other responsible persons. The Draft Administration Measures also sets forth certain regulatory red lines for overseas offerings and listings by domestic enterprises. As of the date of this annual report, the Draft Provisions and the Draft Administration Measures were released for public comments only. There are uncertainties as to whether the Draft Provisions and the Draft Administration Measures would be further amended, revised or updated. Substantial uncertainties exist with respect to the enactment timetable and final content of the Draft Provisions and the Draft Administration Measures. As the CSRC may formulate and publish guidelines for filings in the future, the Draft Administration Measures does not provide detailed requirements of the substance and form of the filing documents. In a Q&A released on its official website, the respondent CSRC official indicated that the proposed new filing requirement will start with new companies and the existing companies seeking to carry out activities like follow-on financing. As for the filings for the existing companies, the regulator will grant adequate transition period and apply separate arrangements. Given the substantial uncertainties surrounding the latest CSRC filing requirements at this stage, we cannot assure you that we will be able to complete the filings and fully comply with the relevant new rules on a timely basis, if at all. If it is determined that CSRC approval is required for any of our securities offerings, we may face sanctions by the CSRC or other PRC regulatory agencies for failure to obtain or delay in obtaining CSRC approval for our offerings. These sanctions may include fines and penalties on our operations in China, limitations on our operating privileges in China, delays in or restrictions on the repatriation of the proceeds from our offerings into the PRC, restrictions on or prohibition of the payments or remittance of dividends by our subsidiaries in China, or other actions that could have a material and adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition, results of operations, prospects, as well as the trading price of our ADSs.

We are incorporated in Cayman Islands and are subject to laws and regulations applicable to foreign investment in China and, in particular, laws applicable to wholly foreign owned companies. The PRC legal system is based on written statutes. Prior court decisions have limited precedential value. Since 1979, PRC legislation and regulations have significantly enhanced the protections afforded to various forms of foreign investments in China. However, since these laws and regulations are relatively new and the PRC legal system continues to rapidly evolve, the interpretations of many laws, regulations and rules are not always uniform and enforcement of these laws, regulations and rules involve uncertainties and inconsistencies, which may limit legal protections available to us. For example, we may have to resort to administrative and court proceedings to enforce the legal protection that we enjoy either by law or contract. However, since PRC administrative authorities and courts have significant discretion in interpreting and implementing statutory and contractual terms, it may be more difficult than in more developed legal systems to evaluate the outcome of administrative and court proceedings and the level of legal protection we enjoy. These uncertainties may impede our ability to obtain or maintain licenses and permits or enforce the contracts we have entered into with our business partners, clients and suppliers. In addition, such uncertainties, including the inability to obtain or maintain licenses and permits and enforce our contracts, could materially adversely affect our business and operations. Rules and regulations in China can change quickly with little advance notice. Recently, Chinese regulators have announced regulatory actions aimed at providing the Chinese government with greater oversight over certain sectors of China's economy, including the for-profit education sector and technology platforms that have a quantitatively significant number of users located in China. Although the solar energy industry does not appear to be the focus of these regulatory actions, we cannot guarantee that the Chinese government will not in the future take regulatory actions that materially adversely affect the business environment and financial markets in China as they relate to us, our ability to operate our business, our liquidity and our access to capital. Furthermore, intellectual property rights and confidentiality protections in China may not be as effective as in the United States or other countries. Accordingly, we cannot predict the effect of future developments in the PRC legal system, including the promulgation of new laws, changes to existing laws or the interpretation or enforcement thereof, or the preemption of national laws by local regulations. In addition, due to jurisdictional limitations, matters of comity and various other factors, the SEC, U.S. Department of Justice and other U.S. authorities may be limited in their ability to pursue bad actors, including in instances of fraud, in the PRC. For example, there are significant legal and other obstacles to obtaining information needed for investigations or litigation in the PRC. Similar limitations apply to the pursuit of actions against individuals, including officers, directors and individual gatekeepers, who may have engaged in fraud or other wrongdoing. See "-It may be difficult to effect service of process on, or to enforce any judgments obtained outside the PRC against, us, our directors, or our senior management members who live inside the PRC." Moreover, local authorities in the PRC may be constrained in their ability to assist U.S. authorities and overseas investors. In addition, according to Article 177 of the PRC Securities Law, which became effective in March 2020, no overseas securities regulator, including the SEC, PCAOB, and the Department of Justice, can directly conduct investigations or evidence collection activities within the PRC and no entity or individual in China may provide documents and information relating to securities business activities to overseas regulators without Chinese government approval. Furthermore, shareholder claims that are common in the U.S., including class action under securities laws and fraud claims, generally are difficult or impossible to pursue as a matter of law or practicality in the PRC. Investors in the PRC may not have the ability to pursue or seek certain legal claims and remedies against China-based Issuers, or their officers, directors, and gatekeepers in U.S. courts as private plaintiffs, and may have to rely on domestic legal claims and remedies that are available in the PRC, which can be significantly different from those available in the United States and difficult to pursue. These uncertainties and limitations could limit the legal protections available to us and other foreign investors, including you. In addition, any litigation in China may be protracted and result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention.

The U.S. Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, was enacted into law on December 18, 2020. Under the HFCA Act, if the SEC determines that we have filed audit reports issued by a registered public accounting firm that has not been subject to inspection by the PCAOB for three consecutive years beginning in 2021 for filings made in 2022, the SEC will prohibit our securities, including our ADSs, from being traded on a U.S. national securities exchange, including the NYSE, or in the over-the-counter trading market in the U.S. On December 2, 2021, the SEC adopted final amendments implementing the disclosure and submission requirements of the HFCAA, pursuant to which the SEC will identify an issuer as a "Commission Identified Issuer" if the issuer has filed an annual report containing an audit report issued by a registered public accounting firm that the PCAOB has determined it is unable to inspect or investigate completely, and will then impose a trading prohibition on an issuer after it is identified as a Commission-Identified Issuer for three consecutive years. On December 16, 2021, the PCAOB issued a report to notify the SEC of its determination that the PCAOB is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong. The PCAOB identified our auditor as one of the registered public accounting firms that the PCAOB in unable to inspect of investigate completely. In March 2022, the SEC issued its first "Conclusive list of issuers identified under the HFCA Act" indicating that those companies are now formally subject to the delisting provision if they remain on the list for three consecutive years. We anticipate being added to the list shortly after the filing of this annual report on Form 20-F and will be a Commission Identified Issuer. If an issuer is a Commission Identified Issuer for three consecutive years (which will be determined after the third such annual report), the SEC will issue an order that will implement the trading prohibitions described above. Whether the PCAOB will be able to conduct inspections of our auditor before the issuance of our financial statements on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2023 which is due by April 30, 2024, or at all, is subject to substantial uncertainty and depends on a number of factors out of our, and our auditor's, control. If our shares and ADSs are prohibited from trading in the United States, there is no certainty that we will be able to list on a non-U.S. exchange or that a market for our shares will develop outside of the United States. Such a prohibition would substantially impair your ability to sell or purchase our ADSs when you wish to do so, and the risk and uncertainty associated with delisting would have a negative impact on the price of our ADSs. Also, such a prohibition would significantly affect our ability to raise capital on terms acceptable to us, or at all, which would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and prospects.

On January 15, 2018, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China (the "MIIT") promulgated the Standard Conditions of Photovoltaic Production Industry, or the Photovoltaic Production Rule, in place of its old version, which establishes a basic regulatory framework for PV production industry. The Photovoltaic Production Rule provides, among other matters, requirements in relation to the production layout, project establishment filing and enterprise qualification, requirements with regard to the production scale, product quality, cell efficiency, energy consumption and operational life span of various PV products, and requirements related to quality management and obtaining the pollution discharge permits and other environmental requirements. On February 23, 2021, the MIIT published the Standard Conditions of Photovoltaic Production Industry (2021 version), which took effect as of March 15, 2021. The 2021 version is enacted in substantially the form published for public comment, which among other things, strengthens requirements with regard to the investment standard, product quality and cell efficiency, and sets forth encouragement in intelligent manufacturing. Such tightened requirements may increase our compliance and production costs. Our failure to comply with these rules and the laws and regulations related thereto, if and when effective, could result in fines, sanctions, suspension, revocation or non-renewal of approvals, permits or licenses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We cannot assure you that we will be able to promptly and adequately respond to changes of laws and regulations, or that our employees and contractors will act in accordance with our internal policies and procedures. Failure to comply with such laws and regulations relating to PV production may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

On August 8, 2006, six PRC governmental and regulatory agencies, including the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (the "MOFCOM"), and the CSRC promulgated a rule entitled "Provisions Regarding Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors", or Circular 10, which became effective on September 8, 2006 and was amended in June 2009. Article 11 of Circular 10 requires PRC domestic enterprises or domestic natural persons to obtain the prior approval of MOFCOM when an offshore company established or controlled by them proposes to merge with or acquire a PRC domestic company with which such enterprises or persons have a connected relationship. On January 1, 2020, the Foreign Investment Law of the People's Republic of China (the "Foreign Investment Law") came into effect. On February 5, 2020, the MOFCOM stated in a reply to the public that the provisions in Circular 10 do not conflict with the Foreign Investment Law and its implementing regulations should continue to apply. The MOFCOM will, in conjunction with the implementation of the Foreign Investment Law and its implementing regulations, study relevant issues related to Circular 10 and start relevant work at appropriate time to further improve the foreign mergers and acquisitions system under the framework of the Foreign Investment Law. We undertook a restructuring in 2007, or the 2007 Restructuring, and our founders and JinkoSolar Investment Limited ("JinkoSolar Investment") (previously known as JinkoSolar Technology Limited and Paker Technology Limited), obtained the approval of Jiangxi MOFCOM, for the acquisition of certain equity interest in Jiangxi Desun and the pledge by our founders of their equity interest in Jiangxi Desun to JinkoSolar Investment, or the 2007 acquisition and pledge. However, because our founders are PRC natural persons and they controlled both JinkoSolar Investment and Jiangxi Desun, the 2007 acquisition and pledge would be subject to Article 11 of Circular 10 and therefore subject to approval by MOFCOM at the central government level. To remedy this past non-compliance, we undertook another corporate restructuring in 2008, or the 2008 Restructuring, under which the share pledge was terminated on July 28, 2008 and JinkoSolar Investment transferred all of its equity interest in Jiangxi Desun to Long Faith Creation Limited ("Long Faith"), an unrelated Hong Kong company, on July 31, 2008. In addition, on November 11, 2008, we received written confirmation from Jiangxi MOFCOM in its reply to our inquiry that there had been no modification to the former approvals for the 2007 acquisition and pledge and JinkoSolar Investment's transfer of its equity interest in Jiangxi Desun to Long Faith, and we might continue to rely on those approvals for further transactions. Nevertheless, we cannot assure you that MOFCOM will not revoke such approval and subject us to regulatory actions, penalties or other sanctions because of such past non-compliance. If the approval of Jiangxi MOFCOM for the 2007 acquisition and pledge were revoked and we were not able to obtain MOFCOM's retrospective approval for the 2007 acquisition and pledge, Jiangxi Desun may be required to return the tax benefits to which only a foreign-invested enterprise was entitled and which were recognized by us during the period from April 10, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and the profit distribution to JinkoSolar Investment in December 2008 may be required to be unwound. Under an indemnification letter issued by our founders to us, our founders have agreed to indemnify us for any monetary losses we may incur as a result of any violation of Circular 10 in connection with the restructuring we undertook in 2007. We cannot assure you, however, that this indemnification letter will be enforceable under the PRC law, our founders will have sufficient resources to fully indemnify us for such losses, or that we will not otherwise suffer damages to our business and reputation as a result of any sanctions for such non-compliance. Meanwhile, given the uncertainty with respect to what constitutes a merger with or acquisition of a PRC domestic enterprise and what constitutes circumvention of its approval requirements under the Circular 10, we cannot assure you that the 2008 Restructuring is in all respects compliance with Circular 10. If MOFCOM subsequently determines that its approval of the 2008 Restructuring was required, we may face regulatory actions or other sanctions by MOFCOM or other PRC regulatory agencies. Such actions may include compelling us to terminate the contracts between Jiangxi Desun and us, the limitation of our operating privileges in China, the imposition of fines and penalties on our operations in China, restrictions or prohibition on the payment or remittance of dividends by Jiangxi Jinko or others that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, reputation and prospects, as well as the trading price of our ADSs.

Certain portions of our revenue and expenses are denominated in Renminbi. If our revenue denominated in Renminbi increases or expenses denominated in Renminbi decrease in the future, we may need to convert a portion of our revenue into other currencies to meet our foreign currency obligations, including, among others, payment of dividends declared, if any, in respect of our ADSs. Under China's existing foreign exchange regulations, foreign currency under current account transactions, such as dividend payments and trade-related transactions are generally convertible. Accordingly, our operating subsidiaries in China are able to pay dividends in foreign currencies without prior approval from the SAFE, by complying with certain procedural requirements. On January 1, 2020, the Foreign Investment Law and its implementing regulations came into effect. According to the Foreign Investment Law, a foreign investor may, in accordance with the law, freely transfer into or out of the PRC its contributions, profits, capital earnings, income from asset disposal, intellectual property rights royalties acquired, compensation or indemnity legally obtained, income from liquidation, etc., made or derived within the territory of the PRC in RMB or any foreign currency, subject to no illegal restriction by any entity or individual in terms of the currency, amount, frequency of such transfer into or out of the PRC, etc. The foreign exchange control in the field of foreign investment has been continuously relaxed. However, in practice, laws and regulations regarding the legality of foreign exchange projects still need to be followed. The SAFE issued the Circular on Further Promoting the Reform of Foreign Exchange Administration and Improving Examination of Authenticity and Compliance on January 26, 2017, pursuant to which the SAFE restated the procedures and reemphasized the bona-fide principle for banks to follow during their review of certain cross-border profit remittance. We cannot assure you that the PRC government would not take further measures in the future to restrict access to foreign currencies for current account transactions. Foreign exchange transactions by our operating subsidiaries in China under capital accounts continue to be subject to significant foreign exchange controls and require the approval of, or registration with, PRC governmental authorities. In particular, if one of our operating subsidiaries in China borrows foreign currency loans from us or other foreign lenders, these loans must be registered with the SAFE. If we finance our subsidiaries in China by means of additional capital contributions, these capital contributions must be filed or approved by certain government authorities, including the MOFCOM or its local counterparts. On August 29, 2008, the SAFE promulgated Circular 142, which used to regulate the conversion by a foreign-invested company of foreign currency into Renminbi by restricting how the converted Renminbi may be used. On March 30, 2015, the SAFE issued the Circular on Reforming the Administration Approach Regarding the Foreign Exchange Capital Settlement of Foreign-invested Enterprises ("Circular 19"), which became effective on June 1, 2015 and replaced Circular 142. Circular 19 provides that the conversion from foreign currency registered capital of foreign-invested enterprises into the Renminbi capital may be at foreign-invested enterprises' discretion, which means that the foreign currency registered capital of foreign-invested enterprises for which the rights and interests of monetary contribution has been confirmed by the local foreign exchange bureau (or the book-entry of monetary contribution has been registered) can be settled at the banks based on the actual operational needs of the enterprises. However, Circular 19 does not materially change the restrictions on the use of foreign currency registered capital of foreign-invested enterprises that Circular 142 has set forth. On June 9, 2016, the SAFE promulgated the Circular on Reforming and Standardizing the Administrative Provisions on Capital Account Foreign Exchange ("Circular 16"), which applies to all domestic enterprises in China. Circular 19 and Circular 16 continue to prohibit foreign-invested enterprises from, among other things, spending Renminbi capital converted from its foreign currency registered capital on expenditures beyond its business scope. Therefore, Circular 19 and Circular 16 may significantly limit the ability of our operating subsidiaries in China to transfer and use Renminbi funds from its foreign currency denominated capital, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In February 2011, the General Office of the State Council of China (the "State Council") promulgated Circular 6, a notice on the establishment of a security review system for mergers and acquisitions of domestic enterprises by foreign investors. Circular 6 became effective on March 4, 2011. To implement Circular 6, MOFCOM promulgated the MOFCOM Security Review Rules on August 25, 2011, which became effective on September 1, 2011. According to Circular 6 and the MOFCOM Security Review Rules, national security review is required to be undertaken to complete mergers and acquisitions (i) by foreign investors of enterprises relating to national defense and (ii) through which foreign investors may acquire de facto control of a domestic enterprise that could raise national security concerns. When determining whether to subject a specific merger or acquisition to national security review, the MOFCOM will look at the substance and actual impact of the transaction. Bypassing national security review by structuring transactions through proxies, trusts, indirect investments, leases, loans, control through contractual arrangements or offshore transactions by foreign investors is prohibited. Under the framework of the Foreign Investment Law that came into effect on January 1, 2020, the scope of national security review expands from mergers and acquisitions to all foreign investment activities. According to Article 35 of the Foreign Investment Law, a security review system for foreign investment will be established in the country, under which the security review shall be conducted for any foreign investment affecting or having the possibility to affect national security. According to Article 40 of the Foreign Investment Law, where any country or region takes any discriminatory prohibitive or restrictive measures, or other similar measures against China in terms of investment, China may take corresponding measures against the said country or region in light of the actual conditions. In addition, even if a merger or acquisition by foreign investors is not currently subject to national security review, or is determined to have no impact on national security after such review, it may still be subject to future review. A change in conditions (such as change of business activities, or amendments to relevant documents or agreements) may trigger the national security review requirement, then the foreign investor to the merger or acquisition must apply for the relevant approval with the MOFCOM. Currently, there are no public provisions or official interpretations specifically providing that our current businesses fall within the scope of national security review and there is no requirement that foreign investors to those merger and acquisition transactions completed prior to the promulgation of Circular 6 take initiatives to submit such transactions to MOFCOM for national security review. However, as there is no clear statutory interpretation on the implementation of the security review system, there is no assurance that the relevant PRC regulatory authorities will have the same view as us when applying them. If our future merger and acquisition transactions and other indirect investments are subject to the national security review, the application of the national security review may further complicate our future merger and acquisition and investment activities, and our expansion strategy may be adversely affected as a result.

On July 4, 2014, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange of China (the "SAFE") issued the Circular on the Administration of Foreign Exchange Issues Related to Overseas Investment, Financing and Roundtrip Investment by Domestic Residents through Offshore Special Purpose Vehicles (the "SAFE Circular 37"), which replaced the former circular commonly known as "SAFE Circular 75" promulgated on October 21, 2005. The SAFE Circular 37 requires PRC residents to register with the competent local SAFE branch in connection with their direct establishment or indirect control of an offshore special purpose vehicle, for the purpose of overseas investment and financing, with such PRC residents' legally owned assets or equity interests in domestic enterprises or offshore assets or interests. The SAFE Circular 37 further requires amendment to the registration in the event of any significant changes with respect to the special purpose vehicle, such as increase or decrease of capital contribution by PRC individuals, share transfer or exchange, merger, division or other material event. In the event that a PRC shareholder holding interests in a special purpose vehicle fails to fulfill the required SAFE registration, the PRC subsidiaries of that special purpose vehicle may be prohibited from making profit distributions to the offshore parent and from carrying out subsequent cross-border foreign exchange activities, and the special purpose vehicle may be restricted in its ability to contribute additional capital into its PRC subsidiary. Moreover, failure to comply with the various SAFE registration requirements described above could result in liability under PRC law for evasion of foreign exchange controls. We believe that all of our beneficial owners who are PRC citizens or residents have completed their registrations with the competent local SAFE branch in accordance with the SAFE Circular 75 before the promulgation of SAFE Circular 37. However, we may not at all times be fully aware or informed of the identities of all of our beneficial owners who are PRC citizens or residents, and we may have little control over either our present or prospective direct or indirect PRC resident beneficial owners or the outcome of such registration procedures. We cannot assure you that the SAFE registrations of our present beneficial owners or future beneficial owners who are PRC citizens or residents have been or will be amended to reflect, among others, the shareholding information or equity investment as required by the SAFE Circular 37 and subsequent implementation rules at all times. The failure of these beneficial owners to comply with the registration procedures set forth in the SAFE Circular 37 may subject such beneficial owners and our PRC subsidiaries to fines and legal sanctions. Such failure may also result in restrictions on our PRC subsidiaries' ability to distribute profits to us or our ability to inject capital into our PRC subsidiaries or otherwise materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, it is unclear how the SAFE Circular 37 and any future regulation concerning offshore or cross-border transactions will be interpreted and implemented by the relevant PRC government authorities. We cannot predict how these regulations will affect our business operations or future strategy. On December 25, 2006, the People's Bank of China promulgated the Measures for Administration of Individual Foreign Exchange, and on January 5, 2007, the SAFE promulgated relevant Implementation Rules. On February 15, 2012, the SAFE promulgated the Notice on Various Issues Concerning Foreign Exchange Administration for Domestic Individuals Participating in Equity Incentive Plans of Overseas Listed Companies (the "Stock Option Notice"). The Stock Option Notice terminated the Application Procedures of Foreign Exchange Administration of Domestic Individuals' Participating in an Employee Stock Holding Plan or Stock Option Plan of an Overseas Listed Company issued by the SAFE on March 28, 2007. According to the Stock Option Notice, PRC citizens who are granted shares or share options by a company listed on an overseas stock market according to its employee stock holding plan or stock incentive plan are required to register with the SAFE or its local counterparts by following certain procedures. We and our employees who are PRC citizens and individual beneficiary owners, or have been granted restricted shares or share options, are subject to the Individual Foreign Exchange Rules and its relevant implementation regulations. The failure of our PRC individual beneficiary owners and the restricted holders to complete their SAFE registrations pursuant to the SAFE's requirement or the Individual Foreign Exchange Rules may subject these PRC citizens to fines and legal sanctions. It may also limit our ability to contribute additional capital into our PRC subsidiaries, and limit our PRC subsidiaries' ability to distribute dividends to us, or otherwise materially adversely affect our business. On December 26, 2017, the NDRC promulgated the Administrative Measures for the Outbound Investment of Enterprises (the "new ODI Measure"), which took effect from March 1, 2018, and replaced the Administrative Measures for Approval and Record-filing on Overseas Investment Projects promulgated by the NDRC on April 8, 2014. The new ODI Measure will further enhance supervision of overseas investments through reports of seriously unfavorable events, inquiry letters and related supervision systems. Where PRC citizens make investments abroad through overseas enterprises under their control, the new ODI Measure will apply mutatis mutandis. Besides overseas investments of PRC subsidiaries, all of our overseas investments may subject to supervision and inspection under the new ODI Measure, which may materially increase the complexity of regulatory compliance aspect of our overseas investments. However, the implementation and interpretation of the new ODI Measure are uncertain and will subject to the practice of the NDRC.

We are a Cayman Islands holding company with a substantial part of our operations conducted through our operating subsidiaries in China. Under the Corporate Income Tax Law of the PRC (the "CIT Law") which became effective on January 1, 2008 and was amended on February 24, 2017 and December 29, 2018, and the Regulation on the Implementation of the CIT Law (the "Implementation Rules of the CIT Law") which became effective on January 1, 2008 and was amended on April 23, 2019, China-sourced passive income of non-PRC tax resident enterprises, such as dividends paid by a PRC subsidiary to its overseas parent and gains on sales of securities, is generally subject to a 10% withholding tax. Under an arrangement between China and Hong Kong, such dividend withholding tax rate is reduced to 5% if the beneficial owner of the dividends is a Hong Kong tax resident enterprise which directly owns at least 25% of the PRC company distributing the dividends and has owned such equity for at least 12 consecutive months before receiving such dividends. For example, as JinkoSolar Investment is a Hong Kong company and has owned 73.3% of the equity interest in Jiangxi Jinko directly for more than 12 consecutive months to date, any dividends paid by Jiangxi Jinko to JinkoSolar Investment will be entitled to a withholding tax at the reduced rate of 5% after obtaining approval from the competent PRC tax authority, provided that JinkoSolar Investment is deemed the beneficial owner of such dividends and that JinkoSolar Investment is not deemed to be a PRC tax resident enterprise as described below. However, according to the Circular of the State Taxation Administration on How to Understand and Identify a "Beneficial Owner" under Tax Treaties ("STA Circular 601"), effective on October 27, 2009, and the Announcement of the State Taxation Administration on the Determination of "Beneficial Owners" in the Tax Treaties ("STA Announcement 30"), effective on June 29, 2012, an applicant for treaty benefits, including benefits under the arrangement between China and Hong Kong on dividend withholding tax, that does not carry out substantial business activities or is an agent or a conduit company may not be deemed a "beneficial owner" of the PRC subsidiary and therefore, may not enjoy such treaty benefits. If JinkoSolar Investment is determined to be ineligible for such treaty benefits, any dividends paid by Jiangxi Jinko to JinkoSolar Investment will be subject to the PRC withholding tax at a 10% rate instead of a reduced rate of 5%. On February 3, 2018, the State Taxation Administration of China (the "STA") released Announcement of the State Taxation Administration on Issues concerning the "Beneficial Owner" in Tax Treaties (the "STA Announcement 9") which replaced STA Circular 601 and STA Announcement 30. The STA Announcement 9 comprehensively updates the assessment principles for the determination of beneficial ownership under agreements between China and other jurisdictions for the avoidance of double taxation. The STA Announcement 9 has also tightened the first two unfavorable factors of STA Circular 601. This will be challenging for some non-resident taxpayers as their treaty benefits may be denied for the lack of beneficial ownership status. The CIT Law, however, also provides that enterprises established outside China whose "de facto management bodies" are located in China are considered "PRC tax resident enterprises" and will generally be subject to the uniform 25% PRC corporate income tax rate as to their global income. Under the Implementation Rules of the CIT Law, "de facto management bodies" is defined as the bodies that have, in substance, overall management control over such aspects as the production and operation, personnel, accounts and properties of an enterprise. On April 22, 2009, the STA promulgated the Notice Regarding the Determination of Chinese-Controlled Offshore Incorporated Enterprises as PRC Tax Resident Enterprises on the Basis of De Facto Management Bodies ("STA Circular 82"). According to STA Circular 82, an offshore-incorporated enterprise controlled by a PRC enterprise or a PRC enterprise group will be regarded as a PRC tax resident by virtue of having its "de facto management body" in China only if certain conditions are met. Despite of those conditions, as STA Circular 82 only applies to enterprises incorporated outside China controlled by PRC enterprises or a PRC enterprise, it remains unclear how the PRC tax authorities will determine the location of "de facto management bodies" for offshore enterprises that are controlled by individual PRC tax residents or non-PRC enterprises, as our company and JinkoSolar Investment. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the PRC tax authorities would regard our company or JinkoSolar Investment as PRC tax resident enterprises. If our company and JinkoSolar Investment are regarded by PRC tax authorities as PRC tax resident enterprises for PRC corporate income tax purposes, any dividends distributed from Jiangxi Jinko to JinkoSolar Investment and ultimately to our company could be exempt from the PRC withholding tax, while our company and JinkoSolar Investment will be subject to the uniform 25% corporate income tax rate on our global income at the same time.

The CIT Law imposes a uniform tax rate of 25% on all PRC enterprises, including foreign-invested enterprises, and eliminates or modifies most of the tax exemptions, reductions and preferential treatments available under the previous tax laws and regulations. Under the CIT Law, enterprises that were established before March 16, 2007 and already enjoyed preferential tax treatments have (i) in the case of preferential tax rates, continued to enjoy such tax rates that were gradually increased to the new tax rates within five years from January 1, 2008 or, (ii) in the case of preferential tax exemptions or reductions for a specified term, continued to enjoy the preferential tax holiday until the expiration of such term. Jiangxi Jinko, Zhejiang Jinko, Yuhuan Jinko, Haining Jinko and Yiwu Jinko were designated by the relevant local governmental authorities as "High and New Technology Enterprises" under the CIT Law. Jiangxi Jinko, Yuhuan Jinko and Haining Jinko were subject to a preferential tax rate of 15% for 2019, 2020 and 2021. Yiwu Jinko has obtained this qualification to enjoy the preferential tax rate of 15% for 2021, 2022 and 2023. Zhejiang Jinko has renewed its qualification to enjoy the preferential tax rate of 15% in 2021, 2022 and 2023. Jiangxi Jinko and Haining Jinko plans to renew this qualification in 2022. Xinjiang Jinko was designated by the relevant local authorities as an "Enterprise in the Encouraged Industry" and was subject to a preferential tax rate of 15% for 2018, 2019 and 2020. It was also designated by the relevant local authorities as a "High and New Technology Enterprise" in 2020, and can enjoy the preferential tax rate of 15% in 2021 and 2022. Sichuan Jinko was designated by the relevant local governmental authorities as an "Enterprise in the Encouraged Industry" and was subject to a preferential tax rate of 15% for 2020 and 2021, and will continue to enjoy such rate in 2022. Leshan Jinko was designated by the relevant local authorities as an "Enterprise in the Encouraged Industry" and was subject to a preferential tax rate of 15% for 2021, 2022 and 2023. However, we cannot assure you that Jiangxi Jinko, Yiwu Jinko, Zhejiang Jinko, Leshan Jinko,Yuhuan Jinko, Haining Jinko, Xinjiang Jinko and Sichuan Jinko will continue to qualify as "High and New Technology Enterprises" or "Enterprise in the Encouraged Industries" as they are subject to reevaluation in the near future. In addition, there are uncertainties on how the CIT Law and the Implementation Rules of the CIT Law will be enforced, and whether the future implementation of these rules will be consistent with the current interpretation. If the corporate income tax rates of some of our PRC subsidiaries increase, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. According to the Provisional Regulation of the PRC on Value-Added Tax as amended on November 19, 2017 and its implementing rules, and the Announcement on Relevant Policies for Deepening Value-Added Tax Reform promulgated on March 20, 2019, effective from the date of April 1, 2019, gross proceeds from sales and importation of goods and provision of services are generally subject to a value-added tax ("VAT") at 13%, instead of 16%, with exceptions for certain categories of goods that are taxed at a rate at 9%, instead of 10%. The State Council promulgated the Circular of the State Council on Cleaning up and Standardizing Preferential Policies on Tax and Other Aspects ("Circular 62"), on November 27, 2014 in an effort to render the preferential policies on tax, non-tax income, fiscal expenditure, and other aspects of the local government consistent with the PRC central laws and regulations. According to the Circular 62, the local tax authorities shall conduct the special clean-up action, which leads to preferential policies violating PRC central laws and regulations being declared ineffective and repealed and preferential policies not violating PRC central laws and regulations being retained. In addition, the special clean-up action requires that all provincial governments and relevant authorities shall, prior to the end of March 2015, report the outcome of the special clean-up action in respect of preferential policies on tax and other aspects to the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Finance shall then forward the outcome to the State Council for final determination. On May 10, 2015, the State Council issued the Circular on Matters Relating to Preferential Policies for Tax and Other Aspects ("Circular 25"), which suspended the implementation of special clean-up action of Circular 62. Circular 25 provides that in respect of existing local preferential policies with specified time limit, such time limit shall still apply; if there is no specified time limit, the local governments shall have the discretion to set up a transitional period to adjust the policies. Furthermore, it provides that preferential tax policies stipulated in the agreements between local governments and enterprises remain valid and the implemented part of the policies shall not be retrospectively affected. However, it is not clear whether or not and when the special clean-up action will resume. The repeal of any preferential policy on tax and other aspects may materially adversely affect our financial condition and business operations.

The production of silicon wafers, solar cells, solar modules and recovered silicon materials involves complex processes. Deviations in the manufacturing process can cause a substantial decrease in output and, in some cases, disrupt production significantly or result in no output. From time to time, we have experienced lower-than-anticipated manufacturing output during the ramp-up of production lines. This often occurs during the introduction of new products, the installation of new equipment or the implementation of new process technologies. As we bring additional lines or facilities into production, we may operate at less than intended capacity during the ramp-up period. In addition, the demand in global solar power product market may decrease, including the demand for solar modules, which may also cause us to operate at less than intended capacity. This would result in higher marginal production costs and lower output, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Labor costs in China have risen in recent years as a result of the enactment of new labor laws and social development. In addition, inflation in China has increased. According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China, consumer price inflation in China was 2.9%, 2.5% and 0.9% in 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. Because we purchase raw materials from suppliers in China, higher labor cost and inflation in China increases the costs of labor and raw materials we must purchase for manufacturing. As we expect our production staff to increase and our manufacturing operations to become more labor intensive when we commence silicon wafer and solar module production, rising labor costs may increase our operating costs and therefore negatively impact our profitability. Because we source contractors and purchase raw materials in China, higher labor cost and inflation in China increases the costs of labor and raw materials we procure for production. In addition, our suppliers may also be affected by higher labor costs and inflation. Rising labor costs may increase our operating costs and partially erode the cost advantage of our China-based operations and therefore negatively impact our profitability.

According to the relevant PRC laws and regulations, we are required to pay certain statutory social security benefits, including medical care, injury insurance, unemployment insurance, maternity insurance and pension benefits, and housing funds, for our employees. Our failure to comply with these requirements may subject us to monetary penalties imposed by the relevant PRC authorities and proceedings initiated by our employees, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In line with local customary practices, we have not made full contribution to the social insurance funds, and the contributions we made to the social insurance funds met the requirement of the local minimum wage standard, instead of the employees' actual salaries as required, and have not made full contribution to the housing funds. We estimate the aggregate amount of unpaid social security benefits and housing funds in China to be RMB740.5 million (US$116.2 million) as of December 31, 2021. We may be required by the relevant PRC authorities to pay these statutory social security benefits and housing funds within a designated time period. In addition, an employee is entitled to seek compensation by resorting to labor arbitration at the labor arbitration center or filing a labor complaint with the labor administration bureau within a designated time period. We have made provisions for such unpaid social security benefits and housing funds of our former and current PRC subsidiaries. All employee participants in our share incentive plans who are domestic individual participants may be required to register with SAFE. We may also face regulatory uncertainties that could restrict our ability to adopt additional option plans for our directors and employees under PRC law.

We typically plan our production and inventory levels based on our forecasts of customer demand, which may be unpredictable and can fluctuate materially. Recent market volatility has made it increasingly difficult for us to accurately forecast future product demand trends and the prices of solar power products. We recorded inventory provisions of RMB135.9 million, RMB270.9 million and RMB701.7 million (US$110.1 million) in 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. If the prices of solar power products continue to decrease, the carrying value of our existing inventory may exceed its market price in future periods, thus requiring us to make additional provisions for inventory valuation, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

We consume a significant amount of electricity in our operations. With the rapid development of the PRC economy, demand for electricity has continued to increase. There have been shortages or disruptions in electricity supply in various regions across China, especially during peak seasons, such as the summer, or when there are severe weather conditions. We cannot assure you that there will not be disruptions or shortages in our electricity supply or that there will be sufficient electricity available to us to meet our future requirements. Shortages or disruptions in electricity supply and any increases in electricity costs may significantly disrupt our normal operations, cause us to incur additional costs and adversely affect our profitability.

The markets for solar power products are intensely competitive. We compete with manufacturers of solar power products such as Longi Green Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Trina Solar Ltd., Canadian Solar Inc. and JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd., in a continuously evolving market. Certain downstream manufacturers, some of which are also our customers and suppliers, have also built out or expanded their silicon wafer, solar cell, or solar module production operations. Some of our current and potential competitors have a longer operating history, stronger brand recognition, more established relationships with customers, greater financial and other resources, a larger customer base, better access to raw materials and greater economies of scale than we do. Furthermore, some of our competitors are integrated players in the solar industry that engage in the production of virgin polysilicon. Their business models may give them competitive advantages as these integrated players place less reliance on the upstream suppliers, downstream customers or both.

Our supply contracts generally include prepayment obligations for the procurement of silicon raw materials. As of December 31, 2021, we had RMB1.83 billion (US$287.6 million) of advances to our suppliers. We generally do not receive collateral to secure such payments for these contracts, and even if we do, the collateral we received is deeply subordinated and shared with all other customers and other senior lenders of the suppliers. Our prepayments, secured or unsecured, expose us to the credit risks of our suppliers, and reduce our chances of obtaining the return of such prepayments in the event that our suppliers become insolvent or bankrupt. Moreover, we may have difficulty recovering such prepayments if any of our suppliers fails to fulfill its contractual delivery obligations to us. Accordingly, a default by our suppliers to whom we have made substantial prepayment may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

To accommodate and retain customers in the negative market environment, many solar module manufacturers, including us, make credit sales and extend credit terms to customers, and this trend is expected to continue in the industry. Most of our sales are made on credit terms and we allow our customers to make payments after a certain period of time subsequent to the delivery of our products. Our accounts receivable turnover were 85 days, 68 days and 69 days in 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. Correspondingly, we recorded provisions for accounts receivable from third parties of RMB318.2 million, RMB293.4 million and RMB323.1 million (US$50.7 million) as of December 31, 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. Based on our ongoing assessment of the recoverability of our outstanding accounts receivable, and the consideration of the historical credit loss experience, current economic conditions, supportable forecasts of future economic conditions, and any recoveries in assessing the lifetime expected credit losses, we may need to continue to provide for doubtful accounts and write off overdue accounts receivable we determine as not collectible. Selling our products on credit terms has increased, and may continue to increase our working capital requirements, which may negatively affect our liquidity. We may not be able to maintain adequate working capital primarily through cash generated from our operating activities and may need to secure additional financing for our working capital requirements, which may not be available to us on commercially acceptable terms or at all. In addition, we are exposed to the credit risk of customers to which we have made credit sales in the event that any of such customers becomes insolvent or bankrupt or otherwise does not make timely payments. For example, we sell our products on credit to certain customers in emerging or promising markets in order to gain early access to such markets, increase our market share in existing key markets or enhance the prospects of future sales with rapidly growing customers. There are high credit risks in doing business with these customers because they are often small, young and high-growth companies with significant unfunded working capital, inadequate balance sheets and credit metrics and limited operating histories. If these customers are not able to obtain satisfactory working capital, maintain adequate cash flow, or obtain construction financing for the projects where our solar products are used, they may be unable to pay for products they have ordered from us or for which they have taken delivery. Our legal recourse under such circumstances may be limited if the customers' financial resources are already constrained or if we wish to continue to do business with these customers.

Our success depends on our ability to use and develop our technology and know-how, and to manufacture and sell our recovered silicon materials, silicon wafers, solar cells and solar modules, develop solar power projects or otherwise operate our business in the solar industry without infringing the intellectual property or other rights of third parties. We may be subject to litigation involving claims of patent infringement or violation of intellectual property rights of third parties. The validity and scope of claims relating to solar power technology patents involve complex scientific, legal and factual questions and analyses and, therefore, may be highly uncertain. The defense and prosecution of intellectual property suits, patent opposition proceedings, trademark disputes and related legal and administrative proceedings can be both costly and time-consuming and may significantly divert our resources and the attention of our technical and management personnel. An adverse ruling in any such litigation or proceedings could subject us to significant liability to third parties, require us to seek licenses from third parties, to pay ongoing royalties, or to redesign our products or subject us to injunctions prohibiting the manufacture and sale of our products or the use of our technologies. Protracted litigation could also result in our customers or potential customers deferring or limiting their purchase or use of our products until resolution of such litigation.