| Category | |
|---|---|
| Author | InfoLink |
| Updated | October 13, 2025 |
India’s Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), on September 29, 2025, issued its Final Findings in Case No. AD (OI)-24/2024, covering imports of “solar cells whether or not assembled in modules or made up into panels” from China, a key step in the country’s trade actions on solar cells and other critical module inputs such as glass and encapsulants.
The move adds to a broader industrial policy suite—including production-linked incentives (PLI), the Approved List of Models and Manufacturers (ALMM), and a mandate requiring locally made solar cells from June 2026.
What DGTR’s Final Findings change—and what they don’t
DGTR’s Final Findings are recommendatory; the Ministry of Finance decides whether to levy anti-dumping duties through a customs notification that sets the duty form, rate, and duration. Currently, the market sees high probability of imposition. DGTR has recommended duties of up to 30% for three years; the finance ministry may adjust scope and rates in its final notification.
In the near term, any duty on solar cells would lift module input costs, tightening margins for assemblers that still rely on imported cells. Over the medium term, it could encourage backward integration, building sustainable competitiveness on the premise that credible technology acquisition and process control upgrades are involved.
Though tariffs alter the “buy vs. make” math; they don’t, by themselves, fix the structural challenges currently facing the Indian module supply chain.
Table 1
India's anti-dumping measures on solar-related materials, 2023-2025
*The 2023–2025 timeframe is based on the initiation dates of the investigations.
When ambition collides with market realities
According to the latest update of the ALMM, India now encompasses over 100 GW of local module production capacity.
However, policy scaffolding has yet to deliver sustained utilization in India. “There is a significant gap between the nominal capacity of over 100 GW and the actual output,” shared Alan Tu, senior solar analyst of InfoLink Consulting, “Part of this discrepancy arises because many module production lines are outdated and no longer competitive in manufacturing; another part stems from a mismatch between India’s fast-growing demand and its even faster capacity expansion. Oversupply and price competition have already emerged, constraining manufacturers’ real production and sales.””
Chart 1
Module production capacity and market demand in India, 2024-2028
Capacity vs. output. The gap is not merely a short-term result of ramp-up, certification, or project bidding schedules. It also reflects deeper structural issues such as fragmented supplier landscapes and inconsistent product performance.
Even within the same brand, power ratings and efficiency can vary significantly. Inconsistencies in BOM materials—such as glass thickness, encapsulant type, and backsheet selection—as well as variations in process control, often lead to discrepancies revealed through EL (electroluminescence), PID (potential-induced degradation), and LeTID (light and elevated temperature induced degradation) tests. These issues expose yield and reliability risks, prompting developers and financing institutions to narrow their bankability lists toward a smaller set of proven suppliers.
Meanwhile, domestic demand isn’t absorbing new capacity. Module orders land only after PSAs/PPAs are signed and financing closes; when those slip, procurement is deferred. Tier-1 backlogs cushion the hit, but smaller vendors see utilization fall first.
Benchmarking China remains unavoidable
China’s migrates rapidly from PERC to TOPCon, and even BC, with its scale-driven learning curves that continue to compress cell and module cost floors. For Indian manufacturers, the question isn’t whether to protect the home market—it’s how quickly to close the technology and yield gap while building credible QA/traceability that financiers trust, and in parallel, how to cultivate export demand beyond India to absorb idle capacity.
Chart 2
Efficiency rates of modules made by Indian and Chinese Tier-1 manufacturers
A pragmatic path forward for India’s manufacturers
- Buy or partner for technology. Licensing/JVs to accelerate TOPCon yield learning and equipment recipes; prioritize metrology and process control over nameplate.
- Cost and margin benchmarking. Use independent cost curves and price trackers to quantify the delta vs. Chinese peers; focus on OEE, scrap, and line-utilization improvements that actually move unit economics.
- Data-led market selection. Leverage customs data to identify export corridors (MENA, Africa, SE Asia) where spec-in requirements, financing standards, and logistics favor your BOM and certs; avoid speculative inventory.
- Quality and bankability. Tighten supplier qualification for glass/encapsulants/backsheet; align with developer and lender test protocols (EL, TC, PID, LeTID), not just nameplate.
Conclusion
India has taken a decisive step closer to imposing tariffs on Chinese solar cells. Yet, tariffs only change prices and rules of international trade and do not intrinsically foster a more resilent local supply chain. The gap between India’s 100 GW+ nameplate capacity and its markedly lower actual utilization stems from disparities in technology adoption speed, quality management discipline, sourcing strategies, and the pace of domestic demand. Bridging this divide will require stronger yield governance, greater bankability confidence, and more stable export markets.
Sources / Further reading
- Solar cell and module price tracking — InfoLink Consulting “Price Forecast Report”
- Technology and cost analysis — InfoLink Consulting “New Technology Market Report,” “Supply Chain Cost Structure Report”
- Customs data analysis — InfoLink Consulting “Global PV Customs Data Analysis Report”
(For non-subscribers, please contact: https://www.infolink-group.com/contact/)