Karnataka High Court
M/S Rays Power Infra Limited vs Directorate General Of Trade Remedies on 8 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
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:
1. M/S. RAYS POWER INFRA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
1ST-21 EVERSHINE MALL
NORTH METER CABIN 1,
MALAD WEST MUMBAI-400064
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER
MR. DEEPAK JANGID
2. M/S. SOLARWORLD ENERGY SOLUTIONS LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
501, PADMA PALACE,
Digitally signed 86, NEHRU PLACE, SOUTH DELHI,
by NAGAVENI NEW DELHI - 110019,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER
COURT OF MR. KARTIK TELTIA
KARNATAKA
3. M/S. INSOLATION GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
FLUIDCON HOUSE C-2,
NEW ATISH MARKET EXTENSION,
MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR-302020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER
MR. MANISH GUPTA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1139
WP No. 38444 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. M/S. BVG INDIA LIMITED
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
5. M/S. NADBAI SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
D-43, JANPATH, SHYAM NAGAR,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN - 302019
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER,
MR. YUDHISHTAR JALANDRA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM A HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AJIT P B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN TARA BUILDING,
5, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110001
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
2. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-110001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAYANATARA B.G., ADVOCATE)
-3-
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 ON-
GOING PROJECTS (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING -
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
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 -4- 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 Anti-
Dumping 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."
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri Vikram A. Huilgol, appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Nayanatara B.G., learned counsel representing the respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petition is rendered infructuous. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC:1139 WP No. 38444 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petition is preferred being aggrieved by the final findings as obtaining under Rule 17 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 ('the Rules' for short). Rule 18 of the Rules reads as follows:
"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 anti-
dumping 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:
-6-
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)
5. Rule 18 of the Rules mandates that the Central 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 anti- dumping duty. It is an admitted fact that as on date, no notification is issued as obtaining under Rule 18. In the light of -7- 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.
6. In that light, the petition is rendered infructuous as the Central Government cannot now act upon the findings under Rule 17 of the Rules, and thus stands disposed.
Ordered accordingly.
Consequently, I.A. No.1/2025 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32