Solar importers challenged DGTR final findings on anti-dumping investigation concerning solar cells from China PR, seeking prospective action by the Ministry of Finance. Since no notification was issued under Rule 18 within three months of the findings, the court held the petition infructuous and disposed of it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:1139 WP No. 38444 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 38444 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2026:KHC:1139 WP No. 38444 of 2025
HC-KAR
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BVG HOUSE, PREMIER PLAZA, PUNE-MUMBAI ROAD, CHINCHWAD, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411019 REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER
MR. PANKAJ DHINGRA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM A HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AJIT P B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAYANATARA B.G., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2026:KHC:1139 WP No. 38444 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 I.E., MINISTRY OF FINANCE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE IMPUGNED FINAL FINDINGS DATED 29.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES (DGTR) IN CASE NO.AD (OI)-24/2024, TITLED "ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION CONCERNING IMPORTS OF SOLAR CELLS WHETHER OR NOT ASSEMBLED INTO MODULES OR PANELS ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM CHINA PR", IN A PROSPECTIVE MANNER TO AN EXTENT THAT IT DOES NOT CAUSE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE IMPORTS/ORDERS OF THE SUBJECT GOODS ALREADY UNDERTAKEN/PLACED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR THEIR ONGOING PROJECTS (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following
prayer:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 2 i.e., Ministry of Finance to take appropriate action on the
NC: 2026:KHC:1139 WP No. 38444 of 2025
HC-KAR
impugned Final Findings dated 29.09.2025 issued by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) in Case No. AD (OI)-24/2024, titled "Anti-Dumping Investigation concerning imports of Solar Cells whether or not assembled into Modules or Panels originating in or exported from China PR", in a prospective manner to an extent that it does not cause any adverse impact on the imports/orders of the subject goods already undertaken/placed by the Petitioners for their on-going projects; (vide ANNEXURE-A)
b) Declare that the impugned Final Findings dated 29.09.2025 have been rendered in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 17, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Annexure I, and Annexure II and III of the AntiDumping Rules; (vide ANNEXURE-A)
c) Direct the Respondent No. 1 - the Directorate General of Trade Remedies - to conduct a fresh determination in accordance with law, after affording full opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, by applying a legally valid sampling methodology, undertaking proper market economy evaluation and surrogate selection, ensuring transparency and disclosure under Rule 16 , and conducting a lawful lesser duty and public interest analysis ;
d) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, w.r.t to the Petitioners, in the interest of justice and equity."
Huilgol, appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Nayanatara B.G., learned counsel representing the respondents.
NC: 2026:KHC:1139 WP No. 38444 of 2025
HC-KAR
"18. Levy of duty.-
(1) The Central Government may, within three months of the date of publication of final findings by the designated authority under rule 17, impose by notification in the Official Gazette, upon importation into India of the article covered by the final finding, anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping as determined under rule 17 :
[ * * * *]
(2) In cases where the designated authority has selected percentage of the volume of the exports from a particular country, as referred to sub-rule (3) of rule 17, any antidumping duty applied to imports from exporters or producers not included in the examination shall not exceed -
(i) the weighted average margin of dumping established with respect to the selected exporters or producers or,
(ii) where the liability for payment of anti-dumping duties is calculated on the basis of a prospective normal value, the difference between the weighted average normal value of the selected exporters or producers and the export prices of exporters or producers not individually examined:
NC: 2026:KHC:1139 WP No. 38444 of 2025
HC-KAR
Provided that the Central Government shall disregard for the purpose of this sub-rule any zero margin, margins which are less than 2 per cent expressed as the percentage of export price and margins established in the circumstances detailed in sub-rule (8) of rule 6. The Central Government shall apply individual duties to imports from any exporter or producer not included in the examination who has provided the necessary information during the course of the investigation as referred to in the second proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 17.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), where a domestic industry has been interpreted according to the proviso to sub-clause (b) of rule 2, a duty shall be levied only after the exporters have been given opportunity to cease exporting at dumped prices to the area concerned or otherwise give an undertaking pursuant to rule 15 and such undertaking has not been promptly given and in such cases duty shall not be levied only on the articles of specific producers which supply the area in question.
(4) If the final finding of the designated authority is negative that is contrary to the evidence on whose basis the investigation was initiated, the Central Government shall, within forty-five days of the publication of final findings by the designated authority under rule 17, withdraw the provisional duty imposed, if any.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Government may, within three months of the date of publication of the final findings as obtaining under Rule 17, impose by a notification in the official Gazette upon importation of an article into India covered under the final finding antidumping duty. It is an admitted fact that as on date, no notification is issued as obtaining under Rule 18. In the light of
NC: 2026:KHC:1139 WP No. 38444 of 2025
HC-KAR
the admitted fact that three months have lapsed and the rigour
of the statute has kicked in, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition is indeed rendered infructuous as no action is taken in terms of Rule 18. Therefore, under the rigour of Rule 18, no notification can be issued now under Rule 18 on the final findings as obtaining under Rule 17 as the final findings were rendered on 29.09.2025 and the three months period is long over.
Ordered accordingly.
Consequently, I.A. No.1/2025 also stands disposed.
Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S. Rays Power Infra Limited
M/S. Solarworld Energy Solutions Limited
M/S. Insolation Green Energy Private Limited
M/S. BVG India Limited
M/S. Nadbai Solar Power Private Limited
Directorate General of Trade Remedies, Department of Commerce
M.Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
