The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to continue its investigations of imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from India, Indonesia, and Laos.

Its preliminary antidumping duty (AD) determinations are due on December 24, 2025, and its preliminary countervailing duty (CVD) determinations are due on October 10, 2025.

The USITC concluded there is a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is materially injured due to imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the three countries. The cells are allegedly sold in the U.S. at less than fair value and subsidized by the governments of India, Indonesia, and Laos.

The investigations are in response to AD/CVD petitions filed by the Alliance for American Solar Manufacturing and Trade with the USITC and the Department of Commerce.

The petitions allege that companies based in India and largely Chinese-owned manufacturers operating in Indonesia and Laos are engaging in illegal trade practices by undercutting the U.S. solar manufacturing industry and flooding the market with cheaper imports.

They identify significant dumping margins for each country involved. India faces a margin of 213.96%, Indonesia 89.65%, and Laos between 245.79% and 249.09%.

The petitioners include First Solar, Mission Solar Energy, and Qcells, with support from Talon PV Solar Solutions.

The investigations have come at a time when India has been slapped with 50% trade tariffs by the Trump administration. Indian products, including solar cells and modules, will also be subjected to these tariffs.

The U.S. has been the primary destination for Indian solar exports over the past few years. In the first quarter of 2025, the U.S. accounted for 99.5% of India’s total solar exports. Government data indicated that solar modules and cells worth $1.5 billion were exported to various countries in 2024. Modules made up 97.7% of total shipments, and cells 2.3%.

Indian solar exporters have, however, dismissed the allegation that they are selling below cost or that the government has subsidized them as unfounded.