News
Tesla’s ‘challenges’ with India gov’t halt potential rescue of $27B manufacturing initiative
In 2014 when Narendra Modi officially became Prime Minister of India, his first message to people around the world was that, under his leadership, Indian manufacturing operations would become one of the world’s most robust. In September of the same year, Modi officially launched “Make In India,” a government initiative that encouraged companies from all corners of the globe to develop, produce, and assemble products in India with sizeable investments into manufacturing.
Five years after the initiative began, India’s manufacturing GDP was the lowest it had been in twenty years. It dropped 1.2% in the first five years following the launch of Make In India, although the growth rate of manufacturing globally increased 6.9% from 2014-15 to 2019-20.
Seven-and-a-half years later, Make In India is still a work in progress.
It was a disappointing start to the still active program, which has not been a complete failure. General Motors brought a $1 billion investment to a manufacturing facility in Maharashtra, the city where Tesla has been rumored to land with a potential factory of its own. Kia invested $1.1 billion in 2017 and has been producing vehicles at its factory in the Anantapur District since January 2019. Electrification, where the global automotive industry is heading, is still a weak point in India. Less than 1% of the country’s cars are electric.
Because of the extensive and massive $27 billion budget that has been set aside for these programs, India has tried to persuade companies to bring manufacturing to the country directly. With a sky-bound budget and thirst for local manufacturing, the confusion begins to set in: Why is Tesla, a company with a reputation for building the world’s best electric vehicles, that could likely build a manufacturing facility anywhere in the world, having so much trouble landing a deal in India to manufacture its vehicles?
A Tesla Model 3 testing in India (Credit: pune_exotics | Instagram)
The disconnect seems to be between Tesla’s requests and India’s needs. When Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO, tweeted last night that there were still “challenges” when working with the Indian government, which had put the plans on hold once again, it seemed that the automaker’s requests for import duty reductions went to the wayside. An issue that seems to be Tesla’s most integral wish, import duty reduction has received support from some Indian politicians, noting that demand testing, which has been one key factor in the company’s attempts to enter India, cannot happen if duties are too high. “If they have to manufacture here, they need the numbers, and no one can test the market when you impose such high import duty on the vehicles,” Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari said in August.
If import taxation was not an issue, Tesla could use data already available to them to determine whether a Gigafactory would make sense in India. Spoiler alert: Tesla would never build a factory in India based on sales figures from the past ten years as very few people can afford them when import duties are involved. Any vehicle below $40,000 is subjected to 40% tax. Any vehicle more expensive than $40,000 receives a 100% tax, effectively doubling the price of the vehicle. Currently, Tesla has no vehicles in its lineup that are under the $40,000 price threshold.
The problem is those import duties are a huge issue. India seems to be against doing it, at least for now, even though the massive $27 billion budget would not be directly affected by an import tax rollback. In fact, that budget could still factor in tax losses from duty reductions. Perhaps the reasons linked to Tesla’s delayed entrance into India could be linked to the automaker’s lack of need for other companies due to its vertical integration. While this sounds far-fetched, the President of the Automotive Component Manufacturers Association (ACMA) said that localization is always a priority, and companies entering the market need to promote local manufacturing across the board, not just with the final product.
This would include everything from complex factors like semiconductors to other elements that are as simple as car seats. Tesla makes many of its parts in-house, including some microcontrollers and its automotive seats. “Tesla is absurdly vertically integrated compared to other auto companies or basically almost any company. We have a massive amount of internal manufacturing technology that we built ourselves,” Musk said in late 2020. “This makes it quite difficult to copy Tesla, which we’re not actually all that opposed to people copying us because you can’t do catalog engineering. You can’t just [say] I’ll pick up the supplier catalog, I’ll get one of those.”
This leaves India at a crossroads because, while Tesla would be a great benefit to the economy, manufacturing efforts, and employment, the company would not have as much to offer other sectors and companies as an automaker that is less vertically integrated. Reports have indicated that Tesla was planning to source components from local suppliers, but details regarding these rumors were slim.
India Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits the Tesla Fremont Factory in 2015.
But Tesla is far from a liability for any region. After launching Gigafactory Shanghai in China in early 2020, the factory has become Tesla’s biggest producer of EVs and accounted for nearly 52% of the automaker’s total deliveries for 2021. Despite the company’s vertical integration, which has increased gross margin on some Made-in-China Tesla vehicles to nearly 40%, the company has provided China with many economic benefits. The site will soon employ 9,000 people on the Model Y line alone after a confirmed expansion found in Tesla’s Environmental Impact Assessment for 2021. Gigafactory Shanghai will have 18,000 employees by the time the line expansion is completed. Additionally, it has helped encourage the adoption of EVs in Europe through exports, making the Model 3 the best-selling EV on the continent in 2021, with over 109,670 units sold. The next closest was the Renault Zoe, with 58,242 sales.
Whether Tesla will ever enter India seems to be a question that has no definitive answer currently. However, Tesla has been teasing a potential entrance for seven years, ever since Modi visited the Fremont factory in 2015. The long saga of Tesla and India will continue for now. With Tesla’s attractive status as an EV powerhouse, other countries might come knocking on the door, stealing an opportunity to increase India’s slumping reputation as a manufacturing hub. Considering the Made In India initiative’s backtrack in manufacturing GDP, perhaps new strategies should be tested.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
