Full Text
xxxGID Hxxx
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 172] NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2026/ASHADHA 2, 1948
CG-DL-E-01072026-273967
जलजमटेड *** *** *** *** 20–30
उत्पादक *** *** *** *** 40–50
उत्पादक *** *** *** *** 120–130
क ं पिी *** *** *** *** 10–20
उत्पादक *** *** *** *** 20–30
ि. सं. जववरण इकाई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
ि. सं. जववरण इकाई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
ङ क ु ल आयात % 94% 95% 94% 94%
ि. सं. जववरण इकाई 2021-22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 आयात मात्रा MT 12,414 11,615 10,691 1,486 36,207
टी *** *** *** *** ***
टी 1,43,206 1,45,544 1,34,946 1,47,265 1,41,684
टी *** *** *** *** ***
ि. सं. जववरण इकाई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
ि. सं. जववरण इकाई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
ि. सं. जववरण इकाई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
ि. सं. जववरण इकाई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
ि. सं. जववरण इकाई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
ि. सं. जववरण इकाई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
4 प्रजत इकाई PBT % 37% -100% -5718%
(HS
1 292121
3 -do- -do- चीि,
6 -do- -do- चीि,
7 -do- -do- सऊदी
8 -do- -do- सऊदी
9 -do- -do- चीि,
11 -do- -do- चीि,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
[DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES]
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2026
FINAL FINDINGS
Case No. AD (OI) - 05/2025
Subject: Anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of “Ethylene Diamine” originating in or exported
from People's Republic of China (“China PR”), European Union, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.
F. No. 6/05/2025 -DGTR .— Having regard to the Cust oms Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time
(hereinafter referred as “Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Antidumping
Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter referred as the “Anti -Dumping Rules” or “Rules”) thereof,
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Balaji Speciality Chemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant” filed an application, before the
Designated Authority (hereinafter a lso referred to as the “Authority”) in accordance with the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975 and the Anti -Dumping Rules for initiation of anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of
‘Ethylene Diamine’ (hereinafter also referred to as the “product under conside ration” or the “subject goods” or
“EDA”) from the People's Republic of China (“China PR”), European Union, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and
Taiwan (hereinafter referred to as the “subject countries”).
2. And whereas, in view of the duly substantiated application f iled by the applicant, the Authority issued a public
notice vide Notification F. No. 6/05/2025 -DGTR, dated 25th March, 2025, published in the Gazette of India,
initiating anti -dumping investigation into imports of the product under consideration from China PR, European
Union, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan in accordance with Rule 5 of the Anti -Dumping Rules to determine the
existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of the product under consideration and to recommend the
amount of anti -dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic
industry.
B. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
3.1 Initiation
i. In accordance with Rule 5(5), the Authority notif ied the embassy of the subject countries in India about
the receipt of the present anti -dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation.
ii. Upon examination of the application, the Authority found prima facie evidence of dumping and
conse quent injury. Therefore, in accordance with Rules 5 and 6, vide Notification F. No. 6/05/2025 -
DGTR dated 25th March, 2025, the Authority initiated the present proceedings.
iii. The period of investigation (POI) was considered as 1st October, 2023 to 30th Septem ber, 2024 (12
months). The injury period was set to cover the period 1st April, 2021 to 31st March, 2022, 1st April,
2022 to 31st March, 2023, 1st April, 2023 to 31st March, 2024 and the period of investigation.
iv. A request was made to the Directorate Genera l for Systems and Data Management (“DG Systems”) for
transaction -wise import data of the product under consideration for the injury period. The Authority
received the data and has relied upon this data for the necessary analysis after due examination of th e
transactions.
3.2 Circulation of non -confidential version of the application
v. In accordance with Rule 6(2), the Authority informed the interested parties of the initiation of
investigation by sharing a copy of th e initiation notification with the embassy of the subject country in
India, known producers and exporters of the product under consideration in the subject country, known
importers of the subject goods in India and other interested parties, as per the info rmation made
available in the application.
vi. In accordance with Rule 6(3), the Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the
application to the government of the subject country through their embassy in India, known exporters of
the subjec t imports and to other interested parties who requested in writing for a copy of the application.
vii. The Authority sent questionnaire to the government of the subject countries through their embassy in
India. The government of the subject country was requeste d to forward the initiation notification and the
questionnaires to the producers of the product under consideration in their country and advise them to
respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit.
viii. The Authority sent exporter questionnaire s to the following known producers/exporters of the subject
goods calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
ix. The Authority sent importer questionnaires to the known importers/users of the subject goods in India
calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
3.3 Participation by exporters of subject countries and importers/users from India
x. The following producers and exporters have registered themselves as interested parties in the present
investigation:
S. No. Name of interested party
a. M/s BASF Antwerpen NV, Belgium
b. M/s BASF EOOD, Bulgaria
c. M/s BASF Espanola SLU, Spain
d. M/s BASF France S.A.S., France
e. M/s BASF Hong Kong Ltd., Hongkong
f. M/s BASF Hungaria Kft., Hu ngary
g. M/s BASF -YPC Company Limited, China PR
h. M/s BASF Ireland DAC, Ireland
i. M/s BASF Italia S.p.A., Italy
j. M/s BASF Nederland B.V., Netherlands
k. M/s BASF SE, Germany
l. M/s BASF spol s.r.o., Czech Republic
m. M/s BASF India Limited
n. M/s Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited, Dubai Branch, UAE
o. M/s Dow Saudi Arabia Product Marketing Arabia B.V. Dubai Branch, UAE
p. M/s Dow Chemical International Private Ltd, Dubai Branch, UAE
q. M/s Sadara Chemical Company, Kingdom of Sa udi Arabia
r. BASF Belgium Coordination Centre, Belgium
s. BASF Oy, Finland
t. BASF SRL, Romania
xi. In response to the initiation of the subject investigation, the following importers/users have registered
themselves as interested parties in the investig ation.
S. No. Name of interested party
a. M/s Cardolite Specialty Chemicals India LLP
b. M/s Coromandel International Limited (CIL)
c. M/s Dow Chemical International Private Limited (DCIPL)
d. M/s Indorama Industries Pvt. Ltd
e. M/s Hyosung India Pv t. Ltd.
f. M/s Indofil Industries Limited
xii. The Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire (EIQ) to assess public interest and impact of
the duties on the wider economy. A copy of the EIQ was sent to the embassy of the subject country, all
the kn own exporters, importers and users and the applicant. The EIQ was also shared with the
administrative line ministry. The following interested parties have filed submissions:
S. No. Name of interested party
a. Balaji Speciality Chemicals Limited
b. Coroma ndel International Limited
c. Cardolite Specialty Chemicals India LLP
xiii. A list of all interested parties that registered themselves within the prescribed timeline was uploaded on
the website. All registered interested parties were directed to circulate th e non -confidential version of all
their submissions in the present proceedings with all other interested parties.
3.4 Further procedures
xiv. In accordance with Rule 6(6), the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present
their views orally in a hearing held on 7th October 2025. Subsequently, due to change in the Designated
Authority, another oral hearing was held on 18th December 2025. The parties presenting their views in
both the oral hearings were directed to make writte n submissions of the views expressed orally,
followed by rejoinder submissions. In accordance with the accepted practice of the Authority, non -
confidential versions of the rejoinder submissions by the parties were not circulated.
xv. In accordance with Rule 6( 8), wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not
provided necessary information in a timely manner during the course of the present proceedings, or has
significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has considered such pa rties as non -cooperative
and recorded the findings based on the facts available.
xvi. In accordance with Rule 7, information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was
examined by the Authority with regard to the sufficiency of the confident iality claimed. On being
satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such
information has been considered as confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever
possible, parties providing info rmation on confidential basis were directed to provide a non -confidential
summary of the information filed on confidential basis.
xvii. In accordance with Rule 8, the Authority conducted verification of the data provided by the applicant
and other interested par ties to the extent considered necessary for the present proceedings. The
Authority has considered the verified data of the interested parties in its analysis in the present case.
xviii. The Authority calculated the non -injurious price (NIP) for the product under consideration so as to
ascertain whether duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remedy the injury being
suffered by the applicant. The NIP has been calculated based on the optimum cost of production and
cost to produce & sell the domes tic like article in India, based on the information furnished by the
applicant and having regard to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
xix. The Authority examined the issues raised, information provided, and submissions made by the
interested parties during the course of the proceedings, to the extent they were supported by evidence
and considered relevant to the present purpose, in making the final finding.
xx. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation which have formed the basis of
the final findings was issued to the interested parties on 16th June 2026 and the interested parties were
asked to provide comments on the disclosure statement. The submissions made by the interested parties,
arguments raised, and the comments to disclosure statement received from the interested parties have
been considered, to the extent found relevant, non -repetitive and supported with evidence in thi s final
finding notification.
xxi. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = ₹ 84.27.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1 Submissions by other interested parties (exporters, importers and users)
4. The other i nterested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the product under
consideration and like article.
i. Indorama Industries Private Limited has submitted that the applicant does not produce Ethylene
Diamine used in the production of spande x yarn and therefore to such an extent warrants a user -based
exemption from the scope of product under consideration.
ii. Indorama requires high -purity ethylene di amine for producing spandex Yarn, where even trace
impurities affect product performance. The et hylene di amine must meet precise purity and water
content specifications.
iii. Despite multiple correspondences and testing, the applicant has been unable to supply EDA meeting
these specifications. In their own test reports submitted, Balaji admitted that whi le they could meet other
parameters, their EDA had a water content of 0.28%, exceeding Indorama’s required level.
iv. Hyosung India Pvt Ltd. has requested exclusion of product under consideration for the manufacture of
Elastomeric Filament Yarn on the ground t hat export price competitiveness of Elastomeric Filament
Yarn producers will be affected.
v. Authority has previously recognized similar specialized raw material requirements for spandex
manufacturers in the Mid -Term Review of Dimethylacetamide (DMAC) from China PR and Turkey
(14.10.2020), where product exclusions were granted based on actual user needs.
vi. DGTR has also routinely allowed exclusions for bona fide users, such as in the initiation notification
dated 29.09.2025 in the case of “Cold Rolled Flat Pr oducts of Stainless Steel 300 and 400 Series,”
where certain widths were excluded for specific applications.
vii. Should the applicant oppose this exclusion, the Authority may require them to provide an undertaking
confirming their ability to supply ethylene di amine of the required specification. If they are unable to
do so, the Authority should waive the one -year cooling -off period under the relevant Trade Notice to
allow imports without restriction.
C.2 Submission by the applicant
5. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to the product under consideration and like
article:
i. The product under consideration is ‘Ethylene Diamine’ and is also known as ‘EDA’.
ii. The product under consideration is a chemical with two reactive amine groups, making it an essential
ingredient in various industrial processes. It is primarily used in the production of chemicals such as
specialty compounds, fungicides, agrochemicals, coatings, and polymers. The product is widely utilized
in industries such as agrochemica ls, pharmaceuticals, and etc.
iii. There is no known difference in the like article produced by the applicant and the imported product.
iv. The reliance of the other interested parties on anti -dumping investigation on imports of
Dimethylacetamide (DMAC) from China PR and Turkey and Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless
Steel are incorrect. In both instances, product exclusions were granted only where users furnished clear,
verifiable, and demonstrable evidence of functional non -substitutability, supported by testin g and
certification. No such evidence exists in the present case.
v. On the submission that the applicant is unable to supply the product based on the specification, the
domestic industry has submitted that the specification sheet relied on by the users ar e outdated. The
domestic industry has undertaken significant research and development efforts, after 2020 -21 to
enhance the product in order to meet the technical requirements, and the high purity ethylene di amine is
now being supplied to other producers of spandex. As regards relying HPLC (High Performance Liquid
Chromatography) test report, the domestic industry has submitted that HPLC test report relied by the
users were never shared with them despite request.
vi. On the request for the user -based exclusio n, it has been submitted that such request is unwarranted as
the domestic industry is capable of producing and supplying EDA meeting the requirements provided
that Indorama places order. The domestic industry is supplying the product to the other Spandex u sers.
vii. A comparison of specifications would show that the domestic industry’s product meets all required
parameters. Moreover, specifications can be customized to meet customer requirements without
additional machinery, using the same plant. If required, t he domestic industry is willing to provide an
undertaking to the Authority.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
6. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration was defined as under:
“3. The product under consideration (PUC) in the present investi gation is 'Ethylene Diamine’,
abbreviated as “EDA”. The product is a clear colour less liquid. It has a freezing point at 11 'C and a
boiling point of 117 'C.
EDA is a chemical with two reactive amine groups, making it an essential ingredient in various
industrial processes. EDA is primarily used in the production of chemicals such as specialty
compounds, fungicides, agrochemicals, coatings, and polymers. Further, the product is widely utilized
in industries such as agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, etc.
EDA is classified under Chapter 29 viz., “Organic chemicals” of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under
sub-heading 2921 21 of the tariff classification. The applicant has stated that EDA is imported under
the HS code 2921 21 00. The customs classification is indi cative only and is not binding on the scope of
the product under consideration.
7. With regards to the exclusion of the ethylene diamine used in production of Spandex Yarn, the domestic
industry has submitted that it has undertaken significant research and d evelopment to enhance the product
quality. The domestic industry has admitted that while it could not meet specifications in past, it can now
supply the product as per the requirements of the downstream industry. The domestic industry has also
submitted th at it has supplied EDA to other spandex producers, and the product meets all the technical
requirements of the user industry. The specifications of the product can be modified based on the customer
requirements. No new machine is required, and the entire p rocess can be undertaken at the same plant. The
domestic industry has also provided technical certificate of analysis which shows that it can provide the
domestic like product with required specifications. Only differences in one of the technical parameter s alone do
not suffice that the two products are non -substitutable when the domestic industry has itself sold the product to
other producers of Spandex. The interested parties claim of exclusion are purely based on the ground of water
absorption. However , the Authority notes that the domestic industry has adduced sufficient evidence that it
produces the product under consideration that can be used in the manufacturing of Spandex Yarn and the
product supplied by the domestic industry is a like article to the imported product. In view of the same, it is not
found appropriate to grant any end user -based exemption as well.
8. In view of the foregoing, the Authority confirms the scope of the product under consideration as defined at the
stage of initiation, which is reproduced below.
The product under consideration in the present investigation is 'Ethylene Diamine' also known as ‘EDA’
9. The manufacturing process of the product under consideration includes the reaction of mono ethanolamine and
ammonia under the hydrogen atmosphere in a catalyst at a pressure of around 150 to 200 Kg/Cm2 and
temperature between 150 to 225 degrees centigrade. This is converted to a mixture of ethylene diamine,
diethylene triamine, piperzine, amino ethyl piperzine, hydroxyl ethyl piperzine a nd amino ethyl ethanolamine.
The reaction occurs in a continuous flow reactor. The reaction mixture obtained from the reactors are then
subjected to a series of distillations for recovery of the products. The excess raw materials are recycled back to
the reaction stage for conversion of desired products.
10. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff, under the heading
“Organic Chemicals”. Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the HS code 2921 21 00. The
Auth ority has considered the customs classification as indicative only and not binding on the scope of the
subject investigation. There are no restrictions on the import of the product under consideration in India as it
falls under open general license. The ba sic customs duty applicable to product under consideration is 7.5%.
The prescribed unit of measurement for the product under consideration is metric tons (MT), and the same has
been adopted for this investigation.
11. Rule 2(d) of the Rules provides the defini tion of like article as under:
“"like article" means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under
investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which although
not alike in all res pects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under
investigation.”
12. The Authority notes that from the definitions cited above, it flows that for two articles to be considered like, it
is not necessary for them to be identical in all r espects. If two articles have closely resembling characteristics,
such resemblance is sufficient for the articles to be considered alike. For determining whether two articles have
closely resembling characteristics, the Authority considers technical and co mmercial substitutability of the
products as the relevant tests. Two products may look different in terms of technology of production, design,
style, quality, etc., yet they could be considered alike for the purpose of investigation as long as they are
functionally substitutable and replaceable in the market, due to similar end use and consumer preference.
13. The Authority notes that there is no known difference between the product under consideration exported from
the subject countries and the like article su pplied by the domestic industry. The product under consideration
produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of
characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics. Consumers are using domestic material and
imported material interchangeably and the exporter and the domestic industry have sold the same product to
same set of customers. The Authority therefore holds that the product produced by the domestic industry is a
like article to the importe d product.
14. The Authority notified the scope of the product under consideration and the PCN methodology in the notice of
initiation. The interested parties were asked to provide their comments on the PUC -PCN methodology, if any,
within 15 days from the date of initiation of this investigation.
15. The Authority considered the comments of the interested parties on the scope of the product under
consideration and the PCN methodology. However, the Authority was of the opinion that there was no
sufficient ground for any exclusions or to make PCN in the present investigation. Accordingly, the scope of the
product under consideration and the PCN methodology for the purpose of filing of response was notified as
same as notified in the initiation notification dated 25th March, 2025.
D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1 Submission by opposing interested parties
16. The opposing interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the domestic
industry and its standing.
i. The applicant ha s claimed the existence of another domestic producer but did not disclose its name or
production details, raising serious doubts about the accuracy of its standing claim.
D.2 Submission by the applicant
17. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the domestic industry and its
standing:
i. The applicant is the sole producer in India of the product under consideration, Ethylene Diamine (EDA).
ii. Other than the applicant, Diamines & Chemicals Limited is another producer of th e like article with the
capacity of 2500 MT. However, it is the applicant’s understanding that the producer is not undertaking
any production.
iii. The applicant has not imported the product under consideration in the period of investigation from any
of the su bject countries.
iv. The applicant is not related to any exporters in the subject countries or importers of the product under
consideration into India.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
18. Rule 2(b) of the Rules defines the term ‘domestic industry’ as under:
“(b) “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the
like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic pr oduction of that article except when such
producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves
importers thereof in such case the term ‘domestic industry’ may be construed as referring to the rest of
the produ cers”.
19. The application has been filed by Balaji Speciality Chemicals Limited. As per the information on record, there
is one other producer of the subject goods in India viz., Diamines & Chemicals Limited. The Authority had
sent communication to Diamines & Chemicals Limited before the initiation of this investigation. However, the
producer did not respond to it. The domestic industry has claimed that the producer was not producing the
product under consideration during the injury period.
20. The Authority has e xamined the DG System transaction wise data, and it is seen that Balaji Speciality
Chemicals Limited has not imported the product under consideration in the period of investigation. It is also
seen that Balaji Speciality Chemicals Limited is not related t o any exporters of the product under consideration
from the subject countries or any importer in India.
21. Based on the information on record, the Authority has determined the Indian production and share of Balaji
Speciality Chemicals Limited in Indian produc tion for the period of investigation as follows:
S. No. Particulars Production
(MT) Share
(%)
1 Production of Applicant *** 100
2 Total/gross Indian production *** 100
22. Balaji Speciality Chemicals Limited is an eligible domestic industry within the meani ng of Rule 2(b) and
satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. Hence, the Authority holds that Balaji
Speciality Chemicals Limited constitutes domestic industry within the meaning of the Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS
E.1 Submission by opposing interested parties
23. The opposing interested parties have made the following miscellaneous submissions:
i. All confidentiality claims made in their responses are consistent with Rule 7 of the Anti -Dumping Rules
and th e Trade Notice No. 10/2018 dated 27th September 2018 issued by the Authority as these have
been made only for proprietary business information, disclosure of which would result in significant
commercial harm and may adversely affect the competitive positio n of the company .
ii. Disclosure of list of products is not a requirement under Annexure II of Trade notice No. 10/2018.
However, the list of products is available at the company website .
iii. The companies have duly disclosed the names of all related parties invo lved in the production of
product under consideration.
iv. The disclosure of information regarding financial and accounting system is not available in the public
domain and the same is not required to be disclosed according to Annexure II of Trade Notice.
v. Sadara Chemical Company submits that the manufacturing process of the product under consideration is
highly proprietary and forms a core component of the producer's know -how and trade secrets. Still the
company provided the non -confidential summary of the p roduction process.
vi. With regard to the claim of non -disclosure of adjustments to the export price, the adjustments claimed
by the opposing parties in calculating the export price are transparently disclosed in the non -confidential
version of Appendix 3A/3B of the questionnaire response. The adjustments pertain to company -specific
commercial data, including financial and transactional details that are confidential in nature. While the
full methodology and quantum of adjustments have been kept confidential, th e type of adjustment have
been adequately summarized in the non -confidential version in the appendices.
vii. Applicant failed to adhere to Trade Notice 10/2018. Failed to disclose NIP and net sales realization.
viii. Reliance placed on Exotic Décor Pvt. Ltd. judgm ent and Trade Notice No. 07/2018, to request access to
import data in the same format used by the Authority to ensure transparency and due process.
E.2 Submission by the applicant
24. The applicant has made the following miscellaneous submissions:
i. Excessi ve confidentiality is claimed by the opposing parties concerning the production process, list of
products produced, list of related companies and the financial and accounting system used by the
companies. Related parties should be disclosed in accordance w ith trade notice.
ii. The exports have not provided the adjustments claimed for the calculation of normal value and net
export price. Information on list of adjustments in the normal value and export price is ultimately
disclosed by the Authority in the final findings. As such, the producers/exporters have submitted
information that will eventually be made public. Therefore, the claim of confidentiality in this regard is
completely baseless.
iii. The distribution channels have been kept completely confidential.
iv. Related importers have claimed entire exhibits and annexures as confidential without even disclosing
trends, thereby preventing the applicant's ability to comment meaningfully.
v. The purchase of the product under consideration, total sales turnover, details o f utilization of PUC, cost
breakup and production has not been disclosed by Cardolite and Indorama. Further, production process
is also claimed confidential by Indorama.
vi. The other interested parties alleged that the domestic industry failed to adhere to th e trade notice
10/2018, however, the domestic industry has disclosed all relevant information, including the NIP (in
range) and net sales realization (in indexed/trend form), in the non -confidential version of the
application.
E.3 Examination by the Auth ority
25. The Authority made available the non -confidential version of the information provided by the various parties to
all the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7). With regard to confidentiality of the information submitted by
the interested parties, Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:
“7. Confidential Information:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub -rule (2) of rule 12,
sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub -rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub -rule
(1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by
any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its
confidentiality, be t reated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party
without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the interested parties providing information on confidentia l
basis to furnish nonconfidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such
information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated
authority a statement of reasons why summarisation is n ot possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the
request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make
the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard
such information. ”
26. It is seen that the domestic industry and interested parties have claimed confidentiality on information, such as
production, capacity, capacity utilization, sa les volumes, market share, stocks, selling price, costs, profits, cash
profits, return on investment, non -injurious price, cost of production related information, normal value, export
price, dumping margin, landed price, injury margin, price adjustments, p rofit related information, sales
channels, sales & purchase documents, customers and suppliers names, etc. It is also seen that wherever
information is for injury period, the same has been provided on indexed basis. Wherever information pertains
to single year, the same has been disclosed in range, if such disclosure does not compromise confidentiality of
information. The interested parties have claimed confidentiality in various supporting documents &
information, wherever such information has not been pub licly disclosed by them. In those cases where an
interested party has not publicly disclosed its annual reports and financial statements, the same has been
claimed confidential. Wherever the interested parties have claimed a document as confidential, it is noted that
these interested parties have claimed that these documents are not susceptible of summary and have given
reasons why summarization is not possible. The interested parties claimed that the domestic industry did not
disclose range of non -injurio us price. It is noted that the same information was subsequently disclosed.
27. The Authority has consistently allowed interested parties to claim confidentiality on such information and
documents provided by domestic industries, foreign producers and other in terested parties in all investigations.
The Authority notes that all the interested parties have claimed their business -related sensitive information as
confidential. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warra nted, and
such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties.
28. As regards disclosure of transaction -wise data by the applicant or DGTR, the Authority notes that the relevant
information prescribed for the app licant is volume and value of imports and the source of the information. The
information relevant to the Authority under the rules is the volume and price of imports. The transaction -wise
data only constitutes information in the nature of supporting inform ation relevant to the adequacy and accuracy
of claims made by the applicant. Similarly, the information collected from the DG System is only for the
purpose of quantifying volume and value of imports, and the same has been appropriately disclosed in the
present disclosure statement. The interested parties have had enough opportunity to defend their interests on the
information relevant to the investigation and determination.
F. ASSESSMENT OF DUMPING AND DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE
AND DUMPING M ARGIN
F.1 Submission by other interested parties
29. The opposing interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to assessment of dumping
and determination of normal value, export price and dumping margin.
i. Sadara Chemical Company is a cooperating producer and exporter of the subject goods from Saudi
Arabia, exporting to India through its related traders. It is claimed that the dumping margin must be
determined based on actual records and information provided by cooperating producers/exp orters.
ii. The alleged dumping margin for Saudi Arabia (75 -85%) is grossly inflated and lacks a credible basis
because it is derived from a flawed Normal Value calculation.
iii. The Normal Value claimed by the domestic industry is artificially high because it is b enchmarked
against its own inefficient and uncompetitive cost structure. The domestic industry's costs are inflated
due to several structural disadvantages: it is a new entrant (commenced production in 2019) without
economies of scale; it is not vertically integrated and depends on imported raw material (MEA); and its
plant's location in Solapur incurs significant inland logistics costs. This cost structure is not
representative of an efficient global producer like Sadara.
iv. The dumping margin must be calcula ted based on the actual, verified data concerning normal value and
export price provided by the Respondents in their questionnaire responses.
F.2 Submission by the applicant
30. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to assessment of dumping and determination of
normal value, export price and dumping margin:
i. China PR should be considered a non -market economy.
ii. Should it be contended that Article 15(a)(ii) of China PR’s Accession Protocol has already ceased and
therefore the same canno t be applied to the present case, Article 15(a)(i) is still applicable and must be
considered for determination of normal value for China PR.
iii. The obligation under 15(a)(i) of China PR’s Accession Protocol require the criterion stipulated in para 8
of Annex ure I of the Rules to be satisfied by the exporter.
iv. Since Chinese producers are not entitled to market economy treatment, the Designated Authority should
follow para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules for the determination of Normal Value.
v. The applicant could not determine normal value based on actual selling price or on cost of production in
a market economy in third country since no verifiable evidence of the actual selling price was publicly
available.
vi. The applicant could not determine normal value based on the price from a third country to another
country, including India since while the subject good has a dedicated code in India, it does not have a
dedicated code globally.
vii. The applicant had determined normal value according to ‘any other reasonable basis’ on the basis of its
export price to other countries since these exports are sufficient in volume and profitable in nature and
on the basis of cost of production of the applicant including addition of reasonable profits. For
determining cost of production, international price of raw materials was considered.
viii. If the Authority considers that all the provisions of Article 15 of China’s Accession Protocol are not
available any longer and the normal value is required to be determined in accordance with the
provis ions of Para 1 -6 of the Rules, the Chinese domestic costs and prices nevertheless cannot be
accepted unless multiple standards are passed by the Chinese exporters, namely (i) the absence of state
interference in the determination of costs and prices, (ii) the prices of major inputs substantially reflect
market values, (iii) the exporters books are audited in line with Chinese Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP) and international accounting standards and (iii) the appropriateness of costs due to
organizational structure of the exporter.
ix. Even after taking due efforts, applicant could not find any evidence with regard to actual transaction
price of producers in European Union.
x. Applicant has considered the intra EU prices, which is the price at wh ich the product is traded for
consumption in European Union to determine the normal value.
xi. There is no evidence publicly available with regard to actual transaction price of producers in Taiwan.
As the product has a dedicated code in the country, the appli cant has determined the normal value on the
basis of Imports into Taiwan.
xii. Even for Saudi Arabia, there is no evidence publicly available with regard to actual transaction price of
producers or actual cost of production in the country. Though the product ha s a dedicated code in the
country, in the absence of any published data the applicant has determined the normal value on the basis
of cost of production of applicant with reasonable additions of margins.
xiii. The dumping margins and injury margins of the subjec t countries are not only above de -minimus but
unprecedented significant in the period of investigation.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
31. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject country, advising them to
provide information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority. The following producers and
exporters from the subject countries, along with their related exporter and importer in India, have filed the
prescribed questionnaire responses.
S. No. Name of int erested party
a. M/s BASF Antwerpen NV, Belgium
b. M/s BASF EOOD, Bulgaria
c. M/s BASF Espanola SLU, Spain
d. M/s BASF France S.A.S., France
e. M/s BASF Hong Kong Ltd., Hongkong
f. M/s BASF Hungaria Kft., Hungary
g. M/s BASF -YPC Company Limited, Chi na PR
h. M/s BASF Ireland DAC, Ireland
i. M/s BASF Italia S.p.A., Italy
j. M/s BASF Nederland B.V., Netherlands
k. M/s BASF SE, Germany
l. M/s BASF spol s.r.o., Czech Republic
m. M/s BASF India Limited
n. M/s Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited, Dubai Branch, UAE
o. M/s Dow Saudi Arabia Product Marketing Arabia B.V. Dubai Branch, UAE
p. M/s Dow Chemical International Private Ltd, Dubai Branch, UAE
q. M/s Sadara Chemical Company, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
32. The normal value and export pri ces for all the producers/exporters from the subject countries have been
determined as below,
F.4 Determination of normal value and export price
a. Normal value and export price from China PR.
• Normal value
33. Article 15 of China’s Accession Protocol in WTO pr ovides as follows:
Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“Anti -Dumping Agreement”) and the SCM Agreement shall apply in
proceedings involving imports of Chinese origi n into a WTO Member consistent with the following:
(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under
investigati on or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in
China based on the following rules:
(i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the
industry producing th e like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product,
the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in
determining price comparability;
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with
domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market
economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufactu re,
production and sale of that product.
(b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies
described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall
apply; however, if th ere are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO member may
then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the
possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate
benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should
adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions
prevailing outside China.
(c) The importi ng WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a)
to the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with
subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a
market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing
Member's national law contains market economy criteria as o f the date of accession. In any event, the
provision of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should
China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO member, that market economy
conditions pr evail in a particular industry or sector, the nonmarket economy provisions of
subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector."
34. The applicant had relied upon Article 15(a)(i) of China’s the Accession Protocol as well as para 7 of the
Anne xure I and claimed that producers in China PR must be asked to demonstrate that market economy
conditions prevail in their industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and
sale of the product under consideration. It has be en stated by the applicants that in case the responding Chinese
producers are not able to demonstrate that their costs and price information are market -driven, the normal value
should be calculated in terms of provisions of Para 7 and 8 of Annexure - I to t he Rules.
35. It is noted that while the provision contained in Article 15 (a)(ii) has expired on 11.12.2016, the provision
under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO Anti -dumping Agreement read with the obligation under Article 15(a)(i) of the
Accession Protocol require cr iterion stipulated in paragraph 8 of Annexure I of the Rules to be satisfied
through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire on claiming market economy
treatment. It is noted that since the responding producers/exporters from China PR have not submitted response
to the supplementary questionnaire the normal value computation is required to be done as per the provisions
of paragraph 7 of Annexure I of the Rules, which reads as under:
“7. In case of imports from non -market econo my countries, normal value shall be determined on the
basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third
country to other countries, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonabl e basis,
including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary, to
include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by
the designated authority in a reasonabl e manner [keeping in view the level of development of the
country concerned and the product in question and due account shall be taken of any reliable
information made available at the time of the selection. Account shall also be taken within time limits;
where appropriate, of the investigation if any made in similar matter in respect of any other market
economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay
the aforesaid selection of the market economy third co untry and shall be given a reasonable period of
time to offer their comments.”
36. Para 7 lays down a hierarchy for the determination of normal value and provides that normal value shall be
determined on the basis of price or constructed value in a market econ omy third country, or the price from such
a third country to any other country, including India, or where it is not possible, on any reasonable basis,
including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like article, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a
reasonable profit margin. Thus, the Authority notes that the normal value is required to be determined having
regard to the various sequential alternatives provided under Para 7.
37. The Authority also notes the existing jurisprudence on construct ing the normal value in the case of a non -
market economy is contained in the various judgements. These judgements provide directions regarding the
implementation of Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules concerning the choice of an appropriate option, and
assoc iated obligations thereof.
38. The Authority notes that none of the interested parties has provided any information regarding the domestic
price or constructed value of the product in an appropriate market -economy third country. The Authority
further notes th at it is required to select an appropriate country on the basis of the information and evidence
placed on record by the interested parties. It has been claimed that the product under consideration does not
have a dedicated code in most countries. Since the product does not have a dedicated code in most countries,
the Authority has not determined the normal value on this basis.
39. The Authority has determined normal value for China PR based on price actually paid or payable in India for
the like article. The no rmal value has been determined considering the cost of production in India, duly
adjusted, after addition for the selling, general & administrative expenses, and the reasonable profits. The
constructed normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table.
• Export price
BASF -YPC Company Limited
40. BASF -YPC Company Limited is a producer of the product under consideration and has reported *** MT as
exports of the product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The producer has
claimed that it has indirectly exported the product to India through related trader to related Indian customer,
which resold the same to unrelated Indian customers. The producer has claimed adjustment on account of
ocean freight, inland transportation etc.
41. The Authority has undertaken desk verification and examined the claims made by the respondent. The
adjustments claimed by the respondent have been allowed after desk verification. The net export price so
determined is given below in the dumping margin table.
Non-cooperative producers of China PR
42. The Authority has determined the net export price for non -cooperative producers/exporters on the facts
available. The ex -factory export price as determined is shown in the dumping margin table below .
b. Normal va lue and export price from European Union
BASF Antwerpen NV and its related traders (called as BASF Group)
• Normal value
43. BASF Antwerpen NV is a producer of the subject goods in European Union. The producer along with its
related exporters and importer have s ubmitted Exporter’s Questionnaire response furnishing the required
information. The Authority notes that the producer/exporter has reported domestic sales of *** MT in the
period of investigation to related customers, which resold the same to unrelated cus tomers or used captively.
44. In order to determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine
profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to cost of production of subject goods. In case profit
making transactions are more than 80% then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic
market for the determination of the normal value. Where the profitable transactions are less than 80%, only
profitable domestic sales are taken into cons ideration for the determination of normal value. Based on the
ordinary course of trade test, it is noted that the subject producer has not been able to qualify the ordinary
course of trade test as *** of the sales are profit making, and therefore, the Auth ority has considered it
appropriate to determine normal value in the present case on the basis of profitable transactions.
45. The Authority has undertaken desk verification and examined the claims made by the respondent including
adjustments related to inland freight, ocean freight etc. The claims made and as verified after desk verification
have been accepted. The normal value so determined is given below in the dumping margin table.
• Export price
46. BASF Antwerpen NV is a producer of the product under considera tion in European Union. BASF Antwerpen
NV has exported the product directly to the related importer and through its related exporters namely BASF
Belgium Coordination Center CommV, BASF EOOD, BASF Espanola SLU, BASF Oy, BASF France S.A.S.,
BASF Hungaria Kf t., BASF Ireland DAC, BASF Italia S.p.A., BASF Nederland B.V., BASF S.R.L., BASF
spol s.r.o., BASF SE, BASF Hong Kong Ltd. The related exporters further resold the product to their related
importer namely BASF India Limited, who in turn sold the subject go ods to unrelated customers in India.
47. BASF Antwerpen NV is a producer of the product under consideration and has filed a questionnaire response.
The producer has reported *** MT as exports of the product under consideration to India during the period of
investigation. The producer has claimed that it has indirectly exported the product to India through related
traders to related Indian customer, which resold the same to unrelated Indian customers. The producer has
claimed adjustment on account of ocean frei ght, inland transportation etc.
48. The Authority has undertaken desk verification and examined the claims made by the respondent. The
adjustments claimed by the respondent have been allowed after desk verification. The net export price so
determined is given below in the dumping margin table.
Non-cooperative producers of European Union.
49. The Authority has determined the net export price for non -cooperative producers/exporters on the facts
available. The ex -factory export price as determined is shown in the dum ping margin table below .
c. Normal value and export price from Saudi Arabia
Sadara Chemical Company, Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited, Dubai Branch, Dow
Saudi Arabia Product Marketing Arabia B.V., Dow Chemical International Private Ltd
• Normal value
50. Sadara Chemical Company (“Sadara”) is the producer of subject goods in Saudi Arabia. Sadara submitted its
response in the prescribed exporter questionnaire format furnishing the requisite information. The Authority
notes that during the POI, Sadara m ade only one domestic sale transaction of the subject goods (off grade) of
*** MT, to an unrelated customer in the domestic market. As this one domestic sale transaction was of off -
grade quality and not in sufficient quantity, the same cannot be considered for the purpose of determination of
the normal value.
51. In view of the above, the Authority has constructed the normal value based on the cost of production of the
product under investigation as reported by Sadara in Appendix -8 and duly verified during the course of
investigation, with an addition of reasonable profit margin. The normal value so determined is mentioned in the
dumping margin table.
• Export price
52. Sadara Chemical Company is a producer of the product under consideration in Saudi Arabia. During t he POI,
Sadara has sold the subject goods to its related exporter, Dow Saudi Arabia Product Marketing Arabia B.V
(“Dow Marketing”). Dow Marketing, in turn, sold the subject goods to another related trader, Dow Chemical
Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited, Dubai Branch (“Dow Singapore”). Dow Singapore subsequently sold the
subject goods to related importer in India, Dow Chemical International Pvt Ltd (“DCIPL India”). DCIPL India
finally sold the subject goods to unrelated customers in India.
53. One export tran saction has also been made by Dow Marketing to Dow Chemical International Pvt Ltd, Dubai
Branch (“DCIPL Dubai”). DCIPL Dubai has subsequently sold this one transaction of the subject goods to
unrelated customer in India. All the 5 entities, Sadara, Dow Mar keting, Dow Singapore, DCIPL Dubai and
DCIPL India have participated in the present investigation and provided the relevant information in the
prescribed questionnaire format.
54. The Authority notes from the responses submitted by Dow Marketing, Dow Singapore , and DCIPL Dubai that
the subject goods manufactured and exported by Sadara were resold at a profit by the Dow Group as a whole
during the POI.
55. Sadara claimed adjustments towards ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port -related expenses,
credit cost and marketing fee. These adjustments have been examined and allowed by the Authority after due
verification.
56. The ex -factory export price so determined has been considered for the purpose of calculating the dumping
margin and is reflected in the Du mping margin table below.
Non-cooperative producers of Saudi Arabia.
57. The Authority has determined the net export price for non -cooperative producers/exporters on the facts
available. The ex -factory export price as determined is shown in the dumping margin table below .
d. Normal value and export price from Taiwan.
58. As none of the producers/exporters have participated in the subject investigation, the normal value and export
price for all producers / exporters from Taiwan have been determined based on the best a vailable in terms of
Rule 6(8) of Anti -Dumping Rules, 1995.
e. Dumping margin
59. The normal value, export price and dumping margin determined in the present investigation are as follows
S. No. Particulars CNV/ NV
USD/MT NEP
USD/MT Dumping
margin
USD/MT Dumping
margin
% Dumping
margin
range
A China
1 BASF -YPC Company
Limited
*** *** *** ***
20-30
2 Any other producer *** *** *** *** 40-50
B European Union
1 BASF Antwerpen NV *** *** *** *** 80-90
2 Any other producer *** *** *** *** 120-130
C Saudi Arabia
1 Sadara Chemical Company *** *** *** *** 10-20
2 Any other producer *** *** *** *** 20-30
D Taiwan
1 Any producer *** *** *** *** 30-40
G. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
G.1 Submission by other interested parties
60. The o pposing interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to assessment of injury and
causal link:
i. Imports have increased only to bridge the demand -supply gap, while the applicant's reduced production
and sales is due to their operation al inefficiencies.
ii. The downstream users rely on imports primarily due to domestic supply shortages and not due to price
preference. The applicant's low -capacity utilization and intermittent production suspensions during the
period of investigation has left users with no choice but to import the product under consideration from
the other countries.
iii. EDA is a standardized commodity whose price movements mirror fluctuations in key feedstocks such as
Ammonia and Monoethanolamine (MEA). The periodic price gaps b etween imported and domestic
products are market -driven and do not constitute undercutting.
iv. The applicant's higher cost structure is due to its own inefficiencies and external raw material
dependence. Lower import prices reflect global producers' backward integration, not injurious pricing.
v. The decline in prices during 2023 -24 and the POI coincided with a fall in the decline in international
prices of product under consideration.
vi. Global supply and demand drive product under consideration prices. Prices in creased in 2021 -22 and
2022 -23 due to plant closures in China and EU and fell in 2023 -24 when production normalized. The
applicant's price decline matches this global trend, not impacted by the imports.
vii. The applicant acknowledged that the increase in prod uction in 2022 -23 was driven by higher exports,
and the subsequent drop in production reflects a strategic choice rather than any structural inability to
produce.
viii. The applicant has also referred to a notional "loss of revenue" at fair prices. This calcula tion is
hypothetical and not supported by detailed workings or verifiable data.
ix. The landed price of imports shows significant variation among countries, with nearly Rs. 17,000 per
MT difference between the highest and lowest prices, indicating that imports do not compete at identical
price levels.
x. The applicant's capacity utilization decreased sharply, which increased per -unit fixed cost.
xi. Raw material prices changed substantially during the period, altering cost margins.
xii. The 2023 -24 Chairman's Address hi ghlighted challenges such as geopolitical tensions, supply chain
disruptions, and climate risks, without mentioning dumping as a major concern.
xiii. The applicant is entirely dependent on imported Monoethanolamine (MEA), which has highly volatile
prices. This dependence and price fluctuation have substantially increased the applicant's input and
inventory costs. Unlike global producers who are backward integrated, the applicant operates a non -
integrated plant, resulting in a significant cost disadvantage.
xiv. The a pplicant's facility in Solapur, Maharashtra, is far from ports and petrochemical hubs, leading to
high logistics and inland freight costs that inflate production costs independent of imports.
xv. The applicant began commercial production only in June 2019. The injury period coincides with its
initial years of operation, marked by start -up inefficiencies such as process stabilization, workforce
training, and supply chain establishment.
xvi. Higher ethylene di amine costs would affect investment and innovation in the agrochemical sector,
weakening India's global competitiveness.
xvii. In the present case, non -subject countries Japan, USA, and Korea RP have individual shares below 3%,
but their combined share is 7.28%, exceeding the threshold. These countries should therefore have been
included in the investigation.
xviii. Excluding these countries constitutes discrimination, contravenes WTO principles, and undermines the
effectiveness of any anti -dumping measures.
xix. The principal source of any alleged injury to the applicant is impor ts from China PR, not from Saudi
Arabia.
xx. The injury analysis must consider all relevant economic factors, including export performance of the
applicant. The applicant export volumes have declined during the period of investigation. The export
prices also declined by 35%, indicating severe pressure in international markets.
xxi. Salaries and wages during the period of investigation are over 2.4 times higher than in 2021 -22.
xxii. Capital employed has increased by 13% over the same period, even though no capacity expan sion has
occurred.
xxiii. The imposing anti -dumping duties on the subject countries will benefit only non -subject countries and
provide no meaningful relief to the applicant. A significant gap exists between domestic demand and
supply, making imports essential.
xxiv. Prices from non -subject countries such as Japan, the USA, Korea RP, Singapore, and the UAE are
comparable or even more competitive, meaning that any restriction on subject -country imports will
simply shift the source of imports without alleviating price pre ssure.
xxv. The applicant will continue to face the same competitive challenges regardless of duties.
xxvi. The domestic industry’s claim of suffering injury is unsubstantiated and based on an exaggerated injury
margin (claimed to be 50 -60% for Saudi Arabia) derived from a flawed premise.
xxvii. The entire injury analysis relies on a Non -Injurious Price (NIP) that is unreasonable and artificially
inflated. The claimed NIP is significantly higher than the landed price of imports from every single
exporting country, includin g all non -subject countries.
xxviii. This proves that the domestic industry's cost of production is inherently unviable and that its financial
strain is a consequence of its own structural inefficiencies, not fair import competition.
xxix. Furthermore, any injury is se lf-inflicted. The DI's expenditure on salaries and wages surged by nearly
2.5 times and its capital employed increased by 13% in the POI compared to 2021 -22, all while its
production capacity remained unchanged and production declined. This disproportionat e and
questionable escalation in costs is a primary cause of its financial strain and must be examined.
xxx. There is no causal link between imports from Saudi Arabia and the alleged injury. The volume of
imports from Saudi Arabia has declined by more than 20% during the injury period, from 13,587 MT in
2021 -22 to 10,773 MT in the POI.
xxxi. The market share of imports from Saudi Arabia in total Indian imports has also sharply declined from
42.01% in 2021 -22 to 25.27% in the POI.
xxxii. The actual cause of injury is the m assive surge in imports from China PR, which grew over seven -fold
during the injury period and now constitutes the largest source of imports (36.50% share). The entire
increase in subject country imports is attributable solely to China PR.
xxxiii. There is a sign ificant and growing demand -supply gap in India for EDA. The domestic industry's
capacity is insufficient to meet even half the demand, making imports essential for downstream
industries.
xxxiv. The significant decline in the domestic industry's own export sales volumes and prices points towards
declining global prices as the reason for price pressure, not dumped imports from Saudi Arabia.
G.2 Submission by the applicant
61. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to assessment of injury and c ausal link:
i. Producers in China have installed capacity exceeding its domestic demand. This excess production
capacity is more than the entire demand of the Indian market, indicating that it has been developed for
export.
ii. The pattern of excessive and aggr essive imports from both China and Taiwan clearly shows that their
business model to run a business is to capture the market of other country by unfair trade practices and
their surplus capacities will be diverted to India in case of non -imposition of anti -dumping duties.
iii. The legal requirements for cumulative assessment are met in the present case. As none of the opposing
parties have disputed the cumulative assessment, Authority is requested to consider the cumulative
assessment of the effects of imports.
iv. There is significant increase in the volume of dumped imports of the product under consideration from
the subject countries. The imports from subject countries have increased more than the increase in
demand over the injury period.
v. The import price has not moved in line with the changes in the cost of production. The exporters have
reduced their prices more than the reduction in cost to capture the Indian market.
vi. The domestic industry is unable to operate optimally inspite of having installed capacity su fficient to
cater 60% of domestic demand due to influx of low -priced imports.
vii. The export price in other countries is higher than the prices in the Indian market. The producers from
the subject countries are engaged in selective dumping and offers low price s in the Indian market when
compared to other export markets.
viii. Ethylene di amine prices in the Indian market are neither reflective of the import price of MEA into
India nor global MEA prices. The domestic industry has also established that the prices are s electively
lower in the Indian market.
ix. There is significant positive price undercutting as well as cost undercutting despite domestic industry
selling at losses.
x. mport price is even below the variable cost of the domestic industry. The dumped imports are
depressing the prices of the domestic industry.
xi. There is significant unutilized capacity with the domestic industry.
xii. Capacity utilization of the domestic industry declined during the period of investigation. The production
and domestic sales of the domest ic industry have declined consistently over the injury period.
xiii. The decline in selling price exceeded the decline in cost of sales leading to severe price suppression and
losses. This is due to dumping and resultant injury and not due to internal injury.
xiv. Significant dumping from the subject countries has prevented domestic industry to break even. With the
contribution being negative, the domestic industry is not even in a position to recover its fixed costs and
therefore, there is no incentive to produce the product.
xv. The domestic industry has been forced to intermittently suspend its production due to low priced
imports from the subject countries.
xvi. The inventories of the domestic industry increased significantly.
xvii. Domestic industry has suffered significant los ses. The cash profits and return on investments declined.
xviii. The profitability of the domestic industry declined with the increasing dumped imports from the subject
countries.
xix. The overall growth is negatively impacted by the dumped imports from the subject c ountries affecting
domestic industry’s ability to raise capital investment.
xx. The export price of the domestic industry is higher than the domestic price and export profitability
establishes the competitiveness of the domestic industry.
xxi. The domestic industry 's cost structure is fully reflective of prevailing market conditions and input prices
in India. While import prices of raw material declined during the injury period, the import price of
ethylene di amine fell more than twice the decline in the cost of in puts.
xxii. The domestic industry was profitable when the import price was high. The abnormal fall in import
prices, far beyond cost, clearly demonstrates injurious pricing by foreign producers rather than any
internal inefficiency of the domestic industry.
xxiii. On the submission that Japan, USA, and Korea RP individually have shares below 3%, their combined
share exceeds the threshold. The imports from Japan and Korea RP are priced higher and account for
only [4.5%] of demand, compared to Saudi Arabia’s [21%], indi cating that injury is attributable to the
subject countries and not the non -subject countries.
xxiv. While downstream industries have claimed they rely on imports due to supply shortages, the domestic
industry has maintained sufficient capacity to meet a major p ortion of demand. Users have
acknowledged that imports were procured primarily due to significantly lower prices offered by foreign
producers. These low -priced imports often used by customers as a negotiation tool to pressure the
domestic industry to reduc e prices below sustainable levels.
xxv. On the submission that the domestic industry’s price movement does not align with global trends, it is
submitted that during the injury period the landed price of imports declined sharply by Rs 1,46,778 per
MT, while MEA import prices fell by only Rs 25,338 per MT, forcing the domestic industry to reduce
its prices and incur losses.
xxvi. It is alleged that the domestic industry’s higher cost structure is due to inefficiencies and lack of
backward integration. However, the cost structure reflects prevailing market conditions and input prices
in India. If the high -cost structure were a cause of injury, the domestic industry would have incurred
losses even before the period of investigation.
xxvii. On the submission that the “loss of reve nue” is hypothetical, under anti -dumping rules, the adverse
impact of dumped imports must be assessed based on actual and potential sales decline, and the law
does not distinguish between sales volume and value.
xxviii. During the period of investigation, the dome stic industry incurred an actual loss of Rs [ ***] crores, as
actual sales were restricted Rs [ ***] crores against potential sales of Rs [ ***] crores at fair prices.
xxix. On the submission that the injury to the domestic industry is due to high logistics and st art-up costs, it is
submitted that these conditions persisted throughout the injury period. These factors existed in earlier
years, during which the domestic industry remained stable and profitable.
xxx. In response to the claim that the annual report highligh ts other challenges affecting the domestic
industry, it is submitted that the 2024 -25 annual report clearly states that the domestic industry’s
performance was impacted due to dumped imports. Thus, the injury cannot be attributed to any other
factor.
xxxi. On th e submission that the salaries and wages have increased and which are a cause of injury, salaries
and wages during the period of investigation were lower than in 2023 -24, when the domestic industry
earned profits, therefore, the losses cannot be attributed solely to salaries and wages.
xxxii. The submission that capacity employed increased despite no expansion is misplaced, as working capital
is not solely dependent on the product under consideration. An increase in net fixed assets does not
necessarily means high er capacity, as it may relate to other essential components that do not enhance
capacity. Both net fixed assets and working capital declined during the period of investigation for the
product under consideration as a whole. Allocation between domestic and export operations is made
based on sales value.
G.3 Examination by the Authority
62. Rule 11 of Antidumping Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve
examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic indust ry, “… taking into account all relevant
facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and
the consequent effect of such imports on the domestic producers of such articles… ”. In considering th e effect of
the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price
undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the
effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which
otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of the dumped
imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearin g on the state of the industry such as
production, capacity utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and
margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the Rules.
63. It has been claimed that the domestic industry is not backward integrated which is leading to high cost and the
losses suffered by the domestic industry are due to absence of backward integration. The authority notes that
the domestic industry was profitable in the ye ar 2020 -21 and 2021 -22. Had the absence of backward
integration been a factor affecting the performance of the domestic industry, the domestic industry would have
suffered losses in past as well. The Authority notes the decision of the Appellate Body in Eu ropean Union –
Biodiesel (Argentina), wherein it was held that an Authority is not required to conduct a non -attribution
analysis with respect to features that are inherent to an industry and have remained unchanged over the injury
period. It has been foun d from the questionnaire response filed by the participating producers that the product
has been exported into India at dumped prices. Similarly, the fact that the applicant's facility in Solapur,
Maharashtra, is far from ports and petrochemical hubs, lead ing to high logistics and inland freight costs that
inflate production costs does not justify losses in the period of investigation and profits in past. Therefore, the
Authority does not consider that the claimed injury is due to the fact that the domestic industry is not backward
integrated or due to the location.
64. With regard to the submission that the domestic industry’s production has declined, leading to an increase in
the cost of production and, consequently, injury, the Authority notes that the decli ne in production is itself a
direct consequence of the dumping of the subject goods in the domestic market. When the domestic industry is
experiencing adverse volume effects due to dumped imports, it would not be appropriate to attribute the
resulting loss es or increased costs to internal inefficiencies or reduced production alone. Such adverse volume
effects are intrinsically linked to the presence of dumped imports, which have displaced domestic production
and suppressed capacity utilisation. The Authorit y further takes note that the import prices of the subject goods
were below the cost of production of the domestic industry, thereby aggravating the injury suffered. In view of
the above, the Authority finds that the decline in production and the consequen t increase in costs cannot be
dissociated from the impact of dumped imports.
65. It has been contended that, in its annual report, the domestic industry attributed the injury suffered primarily to
factors such as geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions , and climate -related risks, without identifying
dumped imports as a significant cause of injury. The Authority observes that the interested parties have made
selective references to the annual reports, upon examination of the domestic industry’s Annual Re port for the
year 2024 –25, it is evident that the domestic industry has also stated that its performance has been adversely
affected due to dumped imports. In view of the above, the Authority finds that the contention of the interested
parties is not subst antiated and, therefore, does not merit acceptance.
66. On the submission that the imports from Japan, Korea and United States of America cumulatively account for
7% share in total imports, the import data has been examined and it is seen that cumulative share of these
imports is less than 6% of total imports.
67. On the submission that the salaries paid have increased which could have caused injury to the domestic
industry, the Authority notes that the domestic industry’s wages have increased till 2023 -24 but has declined in
the period of investigation. The salaries and wages in the period of investigation are lower than the year 2023 -
24 and the domestic industry has recorded higher losses in the period of investigation. The degree of the
financial losses suffered by the domestic industry cannot be attributed to the wages and salaries alone.
68. Para (iii) of Annexure II of the Rules deals with cumulative analysis of imports. It reads as follows:
(iii) In cases where imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to
antidumping investigation, the designated authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, only
when it determines that, -
(a) the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than two per
cent. expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three
per cent. of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than three per
cent., the imports collec tively accounts for more than seven per cent. of the import of like article; and
(b) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of
competition between the imported products and the conditions of competit ion between the imported
products and the like domestic product
69. In order to ascertain whether cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the
conditions of competition between the imported article and the like domestic article s, the following parameters
have been examined: -
a. Products supplied by different parties are like articles and are comparable in properties.
b. Domestically produced products and the imported products are interchangeable.
c. There is direct competition betwee n the domestic product and the imported product and inter -se between
the imported product.
d. Consumers are using domestic material and imported material interchangeably and the exporter and the
domestic industry have sold the same product to same set of cus tomers.
e. Import price from the subject countries have moved in tandem.
70. In view of the above, the Authority considers it appropriate to cumulatively assess the effects of dumped
imports of the product under consideration from the subject countries on the do mestic industry.
G.3.1 Assessment of demand/apparent consumption
71. For the purpose of the present investigation, demand or apparent consumption of the like article in India has
been defined as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry, domestic sales of the other India producer
and imports of product under consideration from all sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table
below.
S. No. Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Sales of domestic industry MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 95 90 66
3 Sale of the other Indian
producer MT - - - -
4 Trend Indexed - - - -
5 Imports from subject countries MT 24,304 19,729 27,583 36,207
6 Trend Indexed 100 81 113 149
7 Imports from other countries MT 1,545 952 1,682 2,302
8 Trend Indexed 100 62 109 149
9 Demand/consumption MT *** *** *** ***
10 Trend Indexed 100 85 106 124
72. It is seen that demand declined in 2022 -23 in comparison to 2021 -22. Demand increased in 2023 -24 and
further increased in the period of investigation. The demand has increased over the injury period.
G.3.2 Volume effect of the dumped imports
73. With regard to the volume of imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant
increase in dumped imports from the subject country, either i n absolute terms or relative to production or
consumption in India. The same is analyzed in the table below.
S. No. Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Subject countries MT 24,304 19,729 27,583 36,207
2 Other countries MT 1,545 952 1,682 2,302
3 Imports from the subject country in relation to:
a India production % *** *** *** ***
b Trend Indexed 100 63 152 236
c Indian demand % *** *** *** ***
d Trend Indexed 100 96 107 120
e Total imports % 94% 95% 94% 94%
74. Imports in relation to Indian production declined in 2022 -23, however, increased in 2023 -24. Imports further
increased in the period of investigation. Similarly, the imports in relation to Indian demand declined in 2022 -
23, but increased in 2023 -24 and thereafter further increased in t he period of investigation. It is seen that the
imports in relation to production and demand have increased over the injury period. The Authority therefore
considers that the increase in the imports was more than the increase in the demand in India.
75. Import s from subject countries in relation to total imports has remained at the same range during the injury
period.
G.3.3 Price effect of the dumped imports
76. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices of the domestic industry, the impact on the pr ices of
the domestic industry on account of the dumped imports from the subject country has been examined with
reference to price undercutting, price suppression and price depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis,
the cost of production, net sa les realization (NSR) and the non -injurious price (NIP) of the domestic industry
have been compared with the landed price of imports of the subject goods from the subject country.
a. Evolution of import price
77. The table below shows the import price and the raw material price movement. The major raw material required
in the production of the product under consideration is Monoethanol Amines and the domestic industry has
provided information on the import prices of these products into India.
S. No. Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Monoethanol Amines Rs/MT 1,23,463 1,48,801 1,00,006 1,02,139
2 Trend Index 100 121 81 83
3 Import price (CIF) Rs/MT 2,22,039 3,49,881 1,69,299 1,30,886
4 Trend Index 100 158 76 59
78. It is seen that the raw material price s increased in 2022 -23 and the import price also increased in this period.
The raw material prices declined in 2023 -24 and remained static in the period of investigation. However, the
import price declined in 2023 -24 and has thereafter declined further in the period of investigation.
79. While the raw material prices declined by 17% over the injury period, the import prices have declined by 41%
in the period of investigation. The Authority considers that the import prices have not moved in line with the
raw ma terial prices, and has declined much more than fall in the raw material prices. Therefore, the submission
that the price movement of the product under consideration mirror fluctuations in key feedstocks such as
Ammonia and Monoethanolamine (MEA) does not h old true.
b. Price undercutting
80. For the purpose of price undercutting analysis, the net selling price of the domestic industry has been compared
with the landed price of imports from the subject countries. Accordingly, the price effects of the dumped
imports from the subject countries are as follows:
S. No. Particulars Unit China PR European
Union Saudi
Arabia Taiwan Weighted
average
1 Import volume MT 12,414 11,615 10,691 1,486 36,207
2 Net sales
realization Rs/MT *** *** *** *** ***
3 Landed price Rs/MT 1,43,206 1,45,544 1,34,946 1,47,265 1,41,684
4 Price undercutting Rs/MT *** *** *** *** ***
5 Price undercutting % 10% 8% 16% 7% 11%
81. The Authority notes that the subject imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry and the price
undercutt ing is positive and significant. The price undercutting is positive despite the domestic industry selling
the product at losses.
c. Price suppression/depression
82. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing the domestic prices and whether th e effect of
such imports is to suppress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases which otherwise would
have occurred in the normal course, the changes in the costs and prices over the injury period are compared as
below:
S. No. Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Selling price Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 125 68 59
3 Change Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
4 Cost of sales Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
5 Trend Indexed 100 121 90 89
6 Change Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
7 Landed price Rs/MT 2,40,358 3,78,746 1,83,266 1,41,684
8 Trend Indexed 100 158 76 59
9 Change Rs/MT - 1,38,388 -1,95,480 -41,582
83. It is seen that,
a. In 2022 -23, while the cost of sales increased by 21 index points and the selling price also increased by
25 index points.
b. In 2023 -24, while the cost of sales declined by 31 index points, the selling price declined by 57 index
points. The domestic industry suffered marginal losses in the year.
c. In the period of investigation, while the cost of sales has declined by 1 index po ints, the selling price has
declined by 9 index points.
d. While the landed price of imports remained above the domestic industry's cost and selling price during
2022 -23 and 2023 -24, it declined drastically during the Period of Investigation (POI). Specifica lly, the
landed price plummeted from ₹2,22,342 per MT in the first half of 2023 -24 to ₹1,37,460 per MT in the
second half of the same year (which serves as the first half of the POI, creating an overlapping period).
Conversely, during the second half of th e POI, the landed price saw a marginal recovery, increasing to
₹1,43,965 per MT.
e. When compared to the immediately preceding year, while the selling price declined in the period of
investigation, the landed price declined at a higher rate. The selling price s of the domestic industry are
depressed.
84. The Authority notes that the landed price of imports has prevented the domestic industry from charging
adequate remunerative prices in the period of investigation. Therefore, the landed price of imports has both
suppressed and depressed the prices of the domestic industry. The Landed price during the first half of 2023 -24
(Apr -Sep) is significantly higher than the second half of 2023 -24 (Oct -Mar), which is part of POI. The selling
price remains below landed price d uring this period, thus aggravating the injury.
G.3.4 Economic parameters of the domestic industry
85. Annexure II to the Rules requires that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of the
consequent impact of dumped imports on domes tic producers of such products. With regard to consequent
impact of dumped imports on domestic producers of such products, the Rules further provide that the
examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry should include an objecti ve and
unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry,
including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments
or utilization of cap acity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and
potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital
investments. The various injury parameters relating to th e domestic industry are discussed below.
a. Production, capacity, capacity utilization and sales volumes.
86. The capacity, production, sales and capacity utilization of the domestic industry over the injury period are
given in the following table:
S. No. Partic ulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 100 100 100
3 Production MT *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 130 75 63
5 Capacity utilization -Plant % *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Indexed 100 129 75 64
7 Domesti c sales MT *** *** *** ***
8 Trend Indexed 100 96 90 66
9 Export sales MT *** *** *** ***
10 Trend Indexed 100 244 12 8
87. It is seen that:
a. The capacity of the domestic industry remained the same throughout the injury period. It is seen that the
capac ity is not dedicated in the product under consideration alone.
b. When operating at full utilisation, the plant of the applicant can produce the product under consideration
to the extent which can cater 60% of the demand in the domestic market. The domestic i ndustry has
provided evidence to show that while it has obtained environmental clearance to set up new plant, the
plan has been put on hold due to the losses suffered.
c. The production and the capacity utilization of the domestic industry increased in 2022 -23 compared to
2021 -22. The production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry declined in 2023 -24 with the
volume of imports from the subject country increasing. Production and capacity utilization have further
declined in the period of investiga tion as compared to 2023 -24.
d. The domestic sales of the domestic industry declined in 2022 -23 in comparison to 2021 -22. Domestic
sales declined further in 2023 -24 and in the period of investigation. While the demand has increased, the
domestic sales have d eclined. It is seen that the domestic industry has suffered decline in the domestic
sales despite operating with significant idle capacities.
e. The production and domestic sales of the domestic industry have declined over the injury period.
f. The export sale s of the domestic industry too have declined but continue to remain profitable. The
Authority notes the domestic industry’s contention that it is not reliant on export sales and that the same
is being done only out of its inability to sell in the domestic market.
b. Market share of all suppliers
88. The market share of the domestic industry, other producers in India and imports of the products into India are
shown in the table below:
S. No. Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Domestic industry % *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 113 85 53
3 Other domestic producer % *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed - - - -
5 Imports from subject countries % *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Indexed 100 96 107 120
7 Imports from other countries % *** *** *** ***
8 Trend Indexed 100 73 102 120
89. Based on the above, the Authority notes that:
a. The market share of the domestic industry increased in 2022 -23, declined in 2023 -24 and has thereafter
declined again in the period of investigation.
b. The market share of subject imports declined marginally in 2022 -23, thereafter increased in 2023 -24
and further increased in the period of investigation.
c. Despite having the capacity to cater [ ***] of demand, the domestic industry is only able to cater [ ***]
% of domestic market.
d. The domest ic industry has submitted that although it has obtained necessary approvals for capacity
expansion, such expansion has not been undertaken, as the existing capacity remains grossly
underutilized.
c. Inventories
90. Information with regard to inventory is given b elow.
S. No. Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Opening inventory MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 92 228 109
3 Closing inventory MT *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 248 254 509
5 Average inventory MT *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Indexed 100 167 240 301
91. It is seen that the average inventory of domestic industry has increased over the injury period. The average
inventory of the domestic industry increased in the period of investigation even when there was increase in
demand of the pro duct under consideration. The domestic industry has submitted that the inventories with the
domestic industry shot up by 200% in the period of investigation as compared to base year.
d. Profitability, cash profits and return on capital employed.
92. Profitability , return on capital employed and cash profits of the domestic industry over the injury period are
given in the table below: -
S. No. Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Profit/(Loss) Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 137 -1 -30
3 Profit/(Loss) Rs Lakhs *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 132 -0 -20
5 PBIT Rs Lakhs *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Indexed 100 123 3 -15
7 Cash profit Rs Lakhs *** *** *** ***
8 Trend Indexed 100 128 11 -7
9 Return on investment % *** *** *** ***
10 Trend Indexed 100 116 2 -14
93. It is seen that,
a. The domestic industry’s profit per unit increased in 2022 -23 when the imports declined. The profits
declined sharply and turned into losses in year 2023 -24 and the losses have further aggravated in the
period of invest igation.
b. The profitability increased in 2022 -23 and thereafter declined till the period of investigation where it
turned into severe losses.
c. The domestic industry’s profit before interest and taxes and cash profit have also increased in 2022 -23
and thereaf ter declined till the period of investigation with the domestic industry recording cash losses
and losses before interest in the period of investigation.
d. The return on investment of the domestic industry increased in 2022 -23, declined steeply and turned
negative in 2023 -24, thereafter further declined in the period of investigation.
e. The current prices of domestic industry are below cost of production resulting in losses.
e. Employment, productivity and wages
94. Employment, productivity and wages of domestic indu stry over the injury period are given in the table below.
S. No. Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 No. of employees No. *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 131 142 144
3 Productivity per day MT/Days *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 113 113 111
5 Productivity per employee MT/Nos *** *** *** ***
6 Trend No. 100 99 42 44
7 Wages Rs Lacs *** *** *** ***
8 Trend Indexed 100 158 312 241
95. It is seen that:
a. The number of employees with the domestic industry increased over the injury period.
b. The productivity per day increased in 2022 -23, but has declined thereafter.
c. The productivity per employee has declined continuously over the injury period.
d. Wages paid by the domestic industry have increased in POI over 2021 -22.
f. Growth
96. The following table s hows the growth parameters of the domestic industry over the injury period.
S. No. Particulars UOM 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Production % 30% -42% -16%
2 Capacity utilization % 29% -42% -14%
3 Domestic sales % -4% -6% -28%
4 PBT per unit % 37% -100% -5718 %
5 Cash Profit per unit % 33% -91% -186%
6 PBIT per unit % 28% -98% -876%
7 ROI % 16% -98% -844%
8 Inventory % 67% 44% 25%
97. In the period of investigation, the volume parameters as well as all the price parameters including profit, cash
profit, profit before interest and taxes and return on capital employed of the domestic industry have shown
significant negative growth. These parameters continued to remain nowhere near the level they should have
been. The domestic industry has experienced negative gro wth both in volume and price parameters first in
2023 -24 which has continued in the period of investigation.
g. Ability to raise capital investment
98. The Authority notes that the domestic industry had recorded losses in the period of investigation. It is also s een
that the return on capital employed by the domestic industry is negative, which would affect its ability to raise
capital investments.
99. Considering the growing demand for the product, the domestic industry had obtained approval of expanding its
total c apacity to [ ***] MT (including non -product under consideration). The domestic industry wants to
increase its capacity by investing huge amount. With such significant financial losses, the ability to raise capital
for working capital needs has also been aff ected.
h. Factors affecting prices
100. The Authority notes that the landed price of subject imports was below the cost of sale and selling price of the
domestic industry in the period of investigation. The landed price of subject imports has depressed the prices of
the domestic industry, leading to the domestic industry suffering significantly on both volume and price
parameters. Therefore, the dumped imports are the predominant factors affecting the prices of the domestic
industry. The domestic industry has prov ided communication with the customers evidence that customers have
quoted import price as a basis to negotiate with the domestic industry, pressuring it to reduce its prices to
match the import levels.
i. Magnitude of dumping
101. The magnitude of dumping is an in dicator of the extent to which the imports are being dumped into India. The
investigation has shown that the dumping margin is positive and significant during the period of investigation.
G.3.5 Conclusions on injury
102. The examination of the imports of the pr oduct under consideration and performance of domestic industry
shows that:
a. The imports from the subject countries have increased from 24,304 MT in the base year to 36,207 MT. The
imports have increased in absolute terms.
b. The imports in relation to product ion increased from ***% in the base year to ***% in the period of
investigation. The imports in relation to consumption increased from ***% in the base year to ***% in the
period of investigation. The imports have increased in relative terms.
c. The landed price is below the selling price of the domestic industry, resulting in positive price undercutting.
d. The landed price has remained below the cost of sales of the domestic industry in the period of investigation.
As a result, the domestic industry has been unable to adjust its prices in line with the changes in the cost. The
prices of the domestic industry were depressed in the period of investigation.
e. The production, domestic sales and capacity utilization of the domestic industry declined in the period of
investigation.
f. The market share of the domestic industry has declined over the injury period.
g. The average inventory increased over injury period.
h. Profitability of the domestic industry has declined in 2022 -23 and turned negative in the period of
investiga tion. The profit per unit has declined from Rs *** per MT to loss of Rs *** per MT.
i. Cash profit and return on capital employed of the domestic industry similarly declined in 2022 -23 and
thereafter turned negative in the period of investigation.
j. The domesti c industry suffered in the growth of both volume and price parameters in the period of
investigation.
k. The domestic industry’s ability to raise capital has been adversely impacted.
l. The dumped imports have affected the prices of the domestic industry.
m. The d umping margin is positive and significant during the period of investigation.
H. NON -ATTRIBUTION AND CAUSAL LINK
103. As per the Rules, it is, inter alia, required to be examined any known factors other than the dumped imports
which at the same time are injuring t he domestic industry, so that the injury caused by these other factors may
not be attributed to the dumped imports. It has been examined below whether factors other than dumped
imports could have contributed to injury to the domestic industry. The Authorit y initially notes neither the Act
nor the Rules require dumping to be the sole cause of injury to the domestic industry for anti -dumping duty to
be applied.
a. Volume and price of imports from third countries
104. The Authority notes that apart from the subject co untries, the imports from Japan, Korea and United States of
America cumulatively account for less than 6% of total imports.
b. Contraction of demand
105. The Authority notes that demand has increased over the injury period and therefore injury to the domestic
industry is not attributed to the contraction of demand.
c. Changes in pattern of consumption
106. The Authority notes that there has been no material change in the pattern of consumption of the product under
consideration, which could have caused injury to the domest ic industry.
d. Trade restrictive practices
107. The Authority notes that sales of the product under consideration are not restricted in any manner and no
restrictive practices have been brought to the notice of the Authority.
e. Developments in technology
108. The Author ity notes that there has been no known material change in the technology for the production of the
product under consideration.
f. Productivity
109. With the decline in production, the per employee production has also declined.
g. Export performance
110. The Authority no tes that the injury information examined hereinabove relates only to the performance of the
domestic industry in terms of the domestic market. Thus, the injury suffered cannot be attributed to the export
performance of the domestic industry. The Authority notes that export sales have declined in the period of
investigation comparison to the previous year. However, the exports continue to remain profitable. Therefore,
the claimed injury in the domestic market cannot be due to export performance.
h. Performance of other products
111. The Authority has only considered data relating to the performance of the subject goods. Therefore, the
performance of other products produced and sold is not a possible cause of injury to the domestic industry.
i. Factors affecting causal l ink between the dumped imports and injury to the domestic industry
a) The dumping margin is above de minimis, and is significant from subject countries.
b) The imports have increased in absolute and relative terms.
c) The imports of subject goods from subject cou ntries have led to adverse price effect, and the
domestic industry has suffered significant price undercutting and price depression.
d) On account of volume and price effect, the operating performance of the domestic industry
deteriorated in terms of sales, p roduction, capacity utilization, market share of the domestic
industry, profits, cash profits and ROCE.
I. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
112. The Authority has determined Non -Injurious Price for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid
down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The non -injurious price of the subject goods has been
determined by adopting the verified information/data relating to the cost of production for the period of
investigation. The non -injurious price has been considered f or comparing the landed price from the subject
countries for calculating the injury margin. For determining the non -injurious price, the best utilization of the
raw materials by the domestic industry over the injury period has been considered. The same tre atment has
been carried out with the utilities. The best utilization of production capacity over the injury period has been
considered. It is ensured that no extraordinary or non -recurring expenses are charged to the cost of production.
A reasonable return @22% on average capital employed (i.e. average net fixed assets plus average working
capital) for the subject goods was followed towards interest, tax and profit to arrive at the non -injurious price
as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules.
113. Landed price for the cooperating exporters has been determined based on the response filed. Applicable
customs duties have been added to determine landed price of imports. For all the non -cooperative
producers/exporters from the subject countries, the Authority has de termined the landed price based on facts
available.
114. Based on the landed price and non -injurious price determined as above, the injury margin for
producers/exporters for the subject countries has been determined by the Authority and the same is provided in
the table below:
S. No. Producer/exporter NIP Landed Injury margin
USD/MT USD/MT USD/MT % Range
A China
1 BASF -YPC Company Limited
*** *** *** *** 20-30
2 Any other producer *** *** *** *** 30-40
B European Union
1 BASF Antwerpen NV *** *** *** *** 20-30
2 Any other producer *** *** *** *** 50-60
C Saudi Arabia
1 Sadara Chemical Company *** *** *** *** 10-20
2 Any other producer *** *** *** *** 20-30
D Taiwan
1 Any producer *** *** *** *** 10-20
J. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTER EST & OTHER ISSUES
J.1 Submission by opposing interested parties
115. The opposing interested parties has made the following submissions with regard to Indian industry’s interest
and other issues:
a. The downstream users rely on imports primarily due to domest ic supply shortages. The applicant's low -
capacity utilization and intermittent production suspensions during the period of investigation left users
with no choice but to source from abroad.
b. Higher EDA costs would affect investment and innovation in the ag rochemical sector, weakening
India's global competitiveness.
c. EDA is a critical input for many industries, including pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, water treatment,
textiles, and adhesives. Imposing anti -dumping duties on EDA would raise input costs for do wnstream
manufacturers, including mancozeb producers, who cannot pass on the increased costs to farmers,
affecting their competitiveness.
d. Quantitative evidence shows that ADD of 20 –30% would significantly harm downstream users, eroding
profitability, prod uction, and export market share.
e. The imposition of anti -dumping duties will lead to trade diversion. Imports from subject countries will
be replaced by imports from non -subject countries like Japan, the USA, and Korea RP, which are
already supplying at com petitive prices.
f. This will provide no benefit to the domestic industry, which will continue to face the same competitive
pressures, rendering the duty ineffective.
g. The opposing parties are of the opinion that the investigation is legally flawed and discr iminatory as it
fails to include Japan, the USA, and Korea RP as subject countries. While individually below the 3%
import share threshold, these countries collectively account for 7.28% of total imports, exceeding the
7% threshold mandated for inclusion u nder Rule 14(d) of the Anti -Dumping Rules.
h. The import prices from these non -subject countries are comparable to subject countries and significantly
below the domestic industry's NIP, indicating they are also a source of dumped and injurious imports.
Their exclusion violates the non -discriminatory principle of the WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement.
J.2 Submission by the applicant
116. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to Indian industry’s interest and other issues:
a. The product is used in agrochemical and pharmaceutical applications such as Mancozeb and Sitagliptin.
EDA consumption in Mancozeb production is very limited, and over 80% of Mancozeb output is
exported and not subject to duty.
b. Sitagliptin is used to treat type 2 diabetes pat ients. The doctor prescribes per dosage of Sitagliptin of
around 25 -50 MG. Since the anti -dumping duty on Sitagliptin is only 0.002%, the anti -dumping duty on
the end consumer would not have any impact.
c. The impact of proposed measures on downstream indust ries is negligible.
d. Prices in the past were higher. Even after inclusion of the proposed anti -dumping duty, the landed
import price would remain below these historical levels. Therefore, the imposition of anti -dumping duty
is unlikely to have any material impact on users.
e. Despite increase in the import price in 2022 -23, the domestic industry refrained from raising prices in
view of public interest.
f. Import prices surged in 2022 -23 due to higher Ammonia and MEA costs, resulting in negative price
undercuttin g of 13%, yet the domestic industry in view of public interest, did not raise its prices
proportionately.
g. The product is primarily used in the agrochemical and pharmaceutical sectors, which operate as pass -
through industries. Any cost increase due to anti -dumping duties is likely to be passed on to end
consumers with minimal impact on demand.
h. Exporters from the subject countries would not have long -term commitment to the Indian market and
may divert supplies to more profitable markets. In contrast, the dom estic industry ensures stable supply,
along with consumer interests, and allows lower inventory and working capital requirements.
i. As the sole Indian producer, the domestic industry is facing serious sustainability concerns, having
already curtailed product ion for a substantial period. In the absence of anti -dumping duties, there is a
real risk of plant shutdown, which would adversely affect employment and livelihoods.
j. The current performance of the domestic industry does not justify fresh investment in the country and
its not financially viable for other Indian producers to enter into this business.
k. The domestic industry has allocated Rs 2.88 Cr. towards CSR in 2023 -24 for benefiting the society by
taking various activities in interest of public.
J.3 Examination by the Authority
117. The Authority examined whether the imposition of the anti -dumping duty would be against public interest.
This determination is based on consideration of information on records and interests of various parties,
including the domest ic industry, foreign producers and consumers.
118. The Authority issued a gazette notification inviting views from all interested parties, including importers,
consumers and other interested parties. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the users to provide
the relevant information with regard to the present investigation, including the possible effect of the anti -
dumping duty on their operation. The Authority sought information on, inter -alia, interchangeability of the
product supplied by the vari ous suppliers from different countries, ability to switch sources, the effect of the
antidumping duty on the consumers, and the factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to the
new situation caused by the imposition of the anti -dumping duty.
119. The Authority notes that the purpose of anti -dumping duty, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the
domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re -establish a situation of open and fair
competition in the Indian marke t.
120. The Authority had prescribed an economic interest questionnaire, which was sent to all interested parties in this
investigation. Coromandel International Limited, Indorama Industries Private Limited, Cardolite Speciality
Chemicals India LLP and domesti c industry have filed economic interest questionnaire. The users have
claimed that anti -dumping duties will adversely affect the operations. The users have quantified the impact of
anti-dumping duty as below.
User Cardolite Coromandel Indorama
Product Epoxy Curing
Agent Mancozeb Elastomeric
Filament Yarn
Cost of PUC in FG Rs/KG *** *** ***
Total Cost of FG Rs/KG *** *** ***
Selling price of FG Rs/KG *** *** ***
Profitability Rs/KG *** *** ***
Share of PUC in price of FG % *** *** ***
Notional pri ce increase in PUC % *** *** ***
Increase in cost of PUC Rs/KG *** *** ***
Impact of increase on price of FG % 5.96% 2.91% 0.18%
121. The Domestic industry has quantified the impact of anti -dumping duty as below.
S. No. Particulars UOM Mancozeb
1 Mancozeb Technical 85% min. Rs/Kg 250
2 EDA for 1 KG of downstream product (estimate) Kg 0.20
3 EDA price for 1 kg Rs/Kg 134
4 ADD on EDA (Notional 20%) Rs/Kg 26.80
5 Cost increase for downstream industry (API producer) Rs/Kg 5.36
6 Impact of ADD for technical producer % 2.14%
7 Mancozeb formulation price for 1 KG Rs 571
8 Mancozeb concentration % 75%
9 Cost increase for formulation producer Rs 4.02
10 Impact of ADD on formulation producer % 0.70%
11 Area which 1 KG of mancozeb can cover Acre 1.25
12 Impact per acre Rs 5
S. No. Particulars UOM Sitagliptin
1 Average price of 1 KG of the product Rs/Kg 7,500
2 EDA for 1 KG of downstream product (estimate) Kg 0.15
3 EDA price for 1 kg Rs/Kg 134
4 ADD on EDA (Notional 20%) Rs/Kg 26.80
5 Cost increase for downstream industry (API producer) Rs/Kg 4.02
6 Impact of ADD for tablet producer % 0.05%
7 Price of 1 strip Rs 85
8 Price of 1 tablet Rs/strip 8.50
9 Sitagliptin dosage per tablet (MG) MG 50
10 Price of 1 MG Rs/MG 0.17
11 Price of 1 KG Rs/KG 1,70,000
12 Cost increase for tablet producer (assuming entire cost increase passed
on) Rs/KG 4.02
13 Impact of ADD for tablet producer % 0.002%
14 Impact per strip Rs 0.002
122. Upon examination of the data filed by the domestic in dustry and the user industry, it is noted that EDA forms
only a small part of the cost of the downstream products, with a correspondingly limited impact on the price of
the end -products.
123. The table below shows the landed price of imports.
S. No. Particular s Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Landed price Rs/MT 2,40,358 3,78,746 1,83,266 1,41,684
124. It is seen that the landed price was higher in past and has only declined in the period of investigation. The
domestic industry has submitted that the landed pri ce of imports including proposed anti -dumping duty will be
lower than the prices in past. Therefore, when these high prices did not impact the user, the imposition of anti -
dumping duty are not likely to have material impact. The Authority notes that though in the event of imposition
of anti -dumping duties the price level of product in India may be affected but fair competition in the Indian
market will not be reduced by such anti -dumping measures. On the contrary, the anti -dumping measures may
mitigate the unfair advantage gained by dumping practices, which would arrest the decline of the domestic
industry both material injury and would help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of subject
goods. Furthermore, the investigation has not shown that the downstream industry has been unable to align its
prices in line with the increase in the cost.
125. As regards the imports necessitated due to the demand and supply gap, the information on record shows that
the domestic industry is operating with signi ficant idle capacity and has obtained necessary approval for
expanding capacity. While there still exists a demand and supply gap, the Authority considers it cannot be
expected that a producer would make significant investments despite suffering huge losse s. The Authority
further notes that the imposition of anti -dumping duty will not lead to scarcity of the subject goods in India. It
is noted that anti -dumping duty does not restrict imports into the country but ensures that imports are available
at fair pr ices. The imposition of duty would, therefore, not affect the availability of the product. The Authority
observes that domestic market investments were made based on fair market principles. The domestic industry
cannot expand when there is significant dump ing and at the time user industry did not set up operations
expecting access to dumped imports.
K. POST -DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
K.1. Submissions by the other interested parties
126. The other interested parties have made the following submissions on the disclosure sta tement:
i. It is submitted that the Authority has not independently verified the standing of the domestic industry by
seeking information from the concerned line ministries, which is the consistent practice followed in past
investigations. This process is es sential to ensure that the information regarding the standing of the
domestic industry is correct and prevents any material risk of distorted data being considered by the
Authority. Reference is invited to the WTO Appellate Body ruling in EC -Fasteners (Chi na), which held that
the competent authority bears the obligation to ensure that the way in which it defines the domestic industry
does not introduce a material risk of skewing the economic data and, consequently, distorting its analysis of
the state of th e industry.
ii. It is submitted that the 'major proportion' test is not a purely mathematical test and has both quantitative and
qualitative connotations. A test that would be purely quantitative would not necessarily ensure that the
domestic industry defined on that basis substantially reflects the total domestic production. The application
fails to satisfy the qualitative aspect of the 'major proportion' test since the existing established producer in
the market has been excluded from the scope of the domesti c industry. The WTO Panel in China – Anti-
Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from United States held that an
investigating authority is not allowed to ignore the situation of other domestic producers in its injury
determination.
iii. It is submitted that imports from Japan, USA, and Korea RP, while individually below the 3% threshold,
collectively exceeded 7.28% of total imports as per the data provided in the application. Under WTO Anti -
Dumping Agreement Article 5.8 and Rule 14(d) of t he Anti -Dumping Rules, such imports ought to have
been cumulatively assessed and included in the scope of this investigation. The exclusion of these countries
from the scope of investigation disregards mandatory legal thresholds, renders the injury analysi s materially
incomplete and defective, and is contrary to the principle of non -discrimination embodied in the Most
Favoured Nation treatment clause.
iv. Imports from non -subject countries such as Japan and the USA are priced competitively, often below the
constructed non -injurious price. By omitting these imports, the injury analysis ascribes the entire injury
burden improperly to the subject countries, leading to an inflated injury margin and an erroneous causal
link. Imposing anti -dumping duties only on subje ct countries will inevitably cause trade diversion to those
excluded countries, nullifying the protective intent of the duty.
v. It is submitted that any injury allegedly suffered by the domestic industry is attributable to factors other
than the subject impo rts. The domestic industry operates with significant structural disadvantages, including
dependence on imported Monoethanolamine (MEA) as its principal raw material, lack of backward
integration, higher logistics costs arising from its location in Solapur, Maharashtra, and the absence of
economies of scale due to its relatively small production capacity. Further, having commenced commercial
production only in June 2019, the domestic industry was still facing initial operational inefficiencies,
process stabi lization issues, and elevated production costs during the injury period. These factors,
individually and collectively, have materially impacted the domestic industry's performance and cannot be
attributed to imports from the subject countries.
vi. It is submit ted that imports from China PR have witnessed an exponential growth of over seven -fold during
the period of investigation as compared to the base year, and China PR has emerged as the single largest
exporter of the product under consideration to India. Wit hout the surge from China PR, aggregate imports
from subject countries would have in fact declined. In contrast, the volume of imports from Saudi Arabia
has declined during the injury period. Accordingly, the injury analysis must carefully distinguish betw een
the individual contributions of subject countries, and cumulation of imports from Saudi Arabia along with
China PR would lead to an erroneous attribution of injury.
vii. It is submitted that the import data of EDA from non -subject countries has been revised downwards in the
disclosure statement to a significantly higher extent than the revision in subject country import data. As a
consequence of this disproportionate downward revision, the share of imports from non -subject countries in
total imports has redu ced from more than 7% to less than 7% in the period of investigation. No explanation
has been provided for this asymmetric revision. The Authority is requested to re -examine the import data
from non -subject countries as this issue directly affects the dete rmination of whether those countries ought
to have been included in the scope of the investigation.
viii. It is submitted that the basic customs duty on imports of EDA under HS Code 29212100 has been
withdrawn vide Customs Notification No. 12/2026 dated 1st Apri l 2026, evidently in view of the prevailing
geopolitical situation and consequential price pressures. In such a situation, recommending anti -dumping
duty on EDA would directly counteract the policy objective underlying these Government measures. The
Author ity ought not to recommend a measure that neutralises the effect of the Government's own tariff
liberalisation steps taken in the public interest.
ix. It is submitted that there exists a significant and growing demand -supply gap in India for EDA. The
domestic industry's capacity is demonstrably insufficient to satisfy even half of the total Indian demand.
Imports from non -subject countries such as Japan, USA, Korea RP, Singapore, and UAE are already
entering the Indian market at prices comparable to or more com petitive than those from the subject
countries. Any restriction on imports from subject countries will simply trigger a shift in the source of
imports, with no discernible benefit to the domestic industry.
x. The true and sustainable remedy for the domestic i ndustry lies not in trade protection but in undertaking
fundamental structural improvements, including vertical integration, capacity expansion, and achieving
economies of scale to bring its cost structure to globally competitive levels.
xi. It is submitted th at EDA serves as a vital intermediate for numerous essential agrochemical products
including Mancozeb. The imposition of anti -dumping duties on EDA imports will inevitably lead to
increased raw material costs cascading through the value chain, raising pric es for downstream agrochemical
formulations. Such increased costs would impose a direct burden on farmers by raising the prices of critical
crop protection chemicals, potentially undermining agricultural yields and farm incomes, and would be
contrary to th e country's broader economic and public interest objectives.
xii. It is further requested that the import data be provided in the same format and manner in which the same
was taken on record for the purpose of investigation, in line with the judgement of the Ho n'ble CESTAT in
Exotic Decor Pvt. Ltd. vs. Designated Authority (Anti -Dumping Appeal No. 52233 of 2018) dated 12th
June 2020.
xiii. If the Authority determines that imposition of anti -dumping duty is warranted, it is submitted that such duty
ought to be recommen ded for a limited period of two (2) years only, so that an unwarranted measure does
not remain in force for an unduly prolonged period.
xiv. It is submitted that the Authority unjustifiably rejected the sole domestic sale transaction of a producer on
the ground s of 'off -grade quality' and 'not in sufficient quantity', without conducting the analysis required
under Article 2.2 of the ADA and Rule 10 of the Rules. The mere characterisation of a product as 'off -
grade' does not, without further inquiry, render it ou tside the ordinary course of trade.
xv. It is further submitted that imports from Saudi Arabia declined by more than 20% during the POI, and the
domestic industry was profitable when Saudi import volumes were higher, negating any causal link. The
DGTR has fail ed to conduct a proper non -attribution analysis under Article 3.5 of the ADA with respect to:
(a) the 92% decline in export performance of the domestic industry; (b) MEA price fluctuations; and (c)
geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and clima te change as acknowledged in the Annual Report
for 2024 -25. Accordingly, the investigation should be terminated insofar as it relates to Saudi Arabia.
xvi. It has been submitted by certain downstream importers/users that cumulative assessment is inappropriate a s
imports from different subject countries compete under different conditions, at different price levels,
through different trade channels.
xvii. The weighted average price undercutting of approximately 10 -11% is nominal and is not evidence of
significant price injury. The price decline coincided with a broad correction in global EDA prices post -
COVID.
xviii. The domestic industry showed positive trends in employment (up 44%), productivity per day (up 11%), and
total wages (up 141%) during the POI, which are inconsisten t with a finding of material injury.
xix. The Authority's impact analysis of ADD on Mancozeb is based on incorrect consumption assumptions.
Verified production records show different actual consumption ratios. An ADD of 20 -30% would erode
profitability in thin -margin industries.
xx. The imposition of ADD would create supply shortages and grant undue pricing power to the sole domestic
producer, risking a monopolistic outcome, with inflationary effects and weakening India's export
competitiveness.
K.2. Submissions by the Domestic industry
127. The domestic industry has made the following submissions on the disclosure statement:
i. That the Authority has rightly proposed in the disclosure statement not to exclude ethylene diamine used for
the production of spandex yarn. The spe cifications relied on by the other interested parties were based on a
sample supplied to them in 2020 -21. After 2020 -21, the domestic industry has undertaken significant
research and development efforts to enhance the product to meet the technical requirem ents, and the
product is now being supplied to other producers of spandex. The domestic industry's product satisfies all
the specified parameters, including appearance, colour, water content, purity and organic impurity, and the
specifications can be modif ied based on customer requirements without any new machinery. They have
also requested the Authority to confirm the scope of the product under consideration as proposed in the
disclosure statement.
ii. That the Authority should confirm that the dumped imports from the subject countries have caused material
injury to the domestic industry in the final findings.
iii. That the customers have increasingly shifted their purchases to imported goods originating from the subject
countries on account of their lower prices. T he evidence on record further demonstrates that import prices
are routinely used by customers as a benchmark during commercial negotiations, exerting significant
downward pressure on the domestic industry's prices in order to retain market share.
iv. That the Authority has rightly noted that imports from Japan, Korea and the United States of America
cumulatively account for less than 6% of total imports and, therefore, cannot be regarded as a contributing
factor to the injury suffered by the domestic industry. The Authority has further found that no other known
factor has caused injury to the domestic industry. In these circumstances, the domestic industry reiterated
that the injury suffered is solely attributable to the dumped imports from the subject countries , and that a
clear and direct causal link exists between the surge in low -priced dumped imports and the deterioration in
the domestic industry's volume, price, and financial performance parameters.
v. That the users were buying imported product at substantial ly higher prices in previous years. Since prices
have declined steeply in the period of investigation, the imposition of anti -dumping duty, restoring level
playing field is not likely to have any material impact on downstream users. It is also submitted th at EDA
forms only a small part of the cost of the downstream products approximately 30% for epoxy curing agents,
15% for Mancozeb, and less than 1% for elastomeric filament yarn with correspondingly limited impact on
the price of end -products. The impact o f a notional 20% duty on the price of the final product ranges from
0.18% to 5.96%, which is negligible.
vi. The imposition of anti -dumping duty will not restrict imports from the subject countries but will ensure that
imports are available at fair prices. It will not lead to scarcity of the subject goods in India. The domestic
industry cannot be expected to expand its capacity in the face of significant dumping, and the user industry
did not establish its operations expecting continued access to dumped imports .
vii. The domestic industry is the sole producer of EDA in India and the dumping of the product has discouraged
other potential producers from setting up capacities. If anti -dumping duty is not imposed, there is a real risk
of plant shutdown, which would adver sely affect employment, livelihoods, and the objectives of the
Government's Atmanirbhar Bharat initiative.
viii. The domestic industry has obtained approval for expansion of capacity to 37,350 MT for the product under
consideration. The imposition of anti -dumpin g duty for a period of five years would provide the necessary
stability and financial support to the domestic industry to recover from its losses, undertake capacity
expansion, and make further investments.
ix. The domestic industry requests the Authority to r ecommend imposition of anti -dumping duty for a period
of five years. Unless the duty is imposed for five years, the domestic industry will not be able to adequately
recover from the significant injury suffered as a result of dumped imports. The domestic in dustry's Board of
Directors has been reluctant to approve the proposed capacity expansion investment owing to the losses
incurred due to dumped imports, and the imposition of anti -dumping duty for five years would provide the
requisite stability for such i nvestment.
K.3. Examination by the Authority
128. The Authority has examined the post -disclosure submissions made by the interested parties. It is observed that
the majority of these submissions are reiterations of arguments and contentions that have already be en
examined and are therefore addressed to the extent deemed necessary in the relevant paragraphs of these final
findings. For the sake of brevity, the Authority has refrained from repeating responses to such issues in this
post disclosure examination. How ever, any new issues raised for the first time in the post disclosure
submissions, as well as those previously addressed but deemed necessary to examine further, are addressed
hereunder.
129. The Authority confirms the scope of the product under consideration a nd eligibility of the applicant as
Domestic Industry as defined in the disclosure statement.
130. The Authority issued confidential copy of disclosure to the various interested parties regarding determinations
of Normal value, Net export price, landed value an d non -injurious price. No comments have been received
from any of the interested parties after the issuance of disclosure statement; hence, the Authority confirms the
dumping margin determined for various producers and exporters from subject countries.
131. On the submission regarding imports from Japan, USA and Korea RP, the Authority has examined the verified
transaction -wise import data from DG Systems and notes that imports from these countries cumulatively
account for less than 6% of total imports during th e period of investigation. The threshold of 7% prescribed
under Rule 14(d) of the Rules for inclusion of low -volume source countries has not been met. There is no legal
basis for inclusion of these countries within the scope of the present investigation.
132. On the contention that the downward revision of non -subject country import data in the disclosure statement
was asymmetric, the Authority clarifies that the revision applies uniformly to data from all source countries and
is a consequence of the verificatio n exercise that removes duplications, mis -coded transactions, and non -EDA
entries. The allegation is not borne out by any specific transaction -level evidence and is rejected.
133. In relation to the submissions on causal link, the Authority has observed that th e conditions now alleged to
have broken the causal nexus between dumped imports and the injury suffered by the domestic industry, such
as dependence on imported raw materials, absence of captive production or backward integration, locational
disadvantages, and other structural characteristics, existed throughout the injury period and remained
unchanged between the years when the domestic industry was earning profits and the period of investigation
when it incurred losses. The domestic industry was profitabl e in 2021 -22 and 2022 -23 despite the existence of
these very same conditions. Accordingly, such factors cannot be regarded as the cause of the deterioration in
the domestic industry's performance. The only material change during the period of investigation was the
substantial increase in dumped imports at injurious prices, resulting in significant price suppression and
depression. Therefore, the injury suffered by the domestic industry is clearly attributable to dumped imports
from the subject countries and not to the structural characteristics cited by the interested parties.
134. The Authority has conducted a cumulative assessment of imports from the subject countries, as all the
conditions prescribed under Annexure II of the Rules are satisfied. The dumping ma rgins and import volumes
from each subject country are above the prescribed thresholds, and the conditions of competition warrant a
cumulative assessment. The mere decline in imports from a particular subject country does not preclude its
inclusion in the cumulative injury analysis.
135. The Authority observes that the withdrawal of Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 12/2026 -Customs
and the imposition of anti -dumping duty serve different purposes and operate under different legal provisions.
Therefore, th e withdrawal of BCD does not prevent the Authority from recommending anti -dumping duty
where dumped imports are causing injury to the domestic industry.
136. In relation to the submission regarding trade diversion, the Authority observes that anti -dumping duty does not
prohibit or restrict imports, it merely ensures level playing field in the Indian market. The possibility of trade
diversion is speculative and is not a ground for declining to address proven dumping and injury.
137. In relation to the impact on the do wnstream industry, the Authority has observed that EDA constitutes only a
small proportion of the cost of downstream products, and even on a notional anti -dumping duty of 20%, the
impact on the prices of finished products would be minimal. The Authority fu rther noted that no downstream
user has demonstrated that such an increase would make its operations unviable. Moreover, the downstream
industry remained profitable during 2022 -23 when EDA import prices were significantly higher than the
current levels. Ac cordingly, the imposition of anti -dumping duty is unlikely to have any material adverse
impact on the downstream industry.
138. In relation to the demand -supply gap, it is noted that anti -dumping duty does not restrict imports but merely
ensures level playing f ield between domestic producers and imports products. Since domestic industry is
presently operating at only 36% of its installed capacity and has the necessary approvals for further expansion,
demand supply gap cannot be a ground for continued dumped impo rts from the subject countries. The
underutilisation of capacity is primarily due to the presence of low -priced dumped imports, and therefore, the
imposition of anti -dumping duty is necessary to restore fair competition and enable the domestic industry to
increase production and expand capacity.
139. The Authority notes the submissions made by the interested parties regarding disclosure of import data and the
reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT in Exotic Decor. The Authority, however, notes tha t
import information obtained from DG Systems is treated in accordance with the confidentiality provisions
contained in Rule 7 of the Rules. However, the Authority has disclosed all essential facts under consideration,
including import volumes, landed valu es, trends, and methodology adopted for the purpose of the present
investigation. The interested parties have been provided adequate opportunity to inspect the public file and
offer comments on the information relied upon by the Authority. The Authority is therefore satisfied that the
requirements of natural justice and the provisions of the Rules have been duly complied with.
140. In relation to the period of anti -dumping duty, the Authority notes that Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975 contemplates imposition of anti -dumping duty for a period not exceeding five years, which is the
standard period followed in anti -dumping investigations. The Authority further notes that none of the interested
parties have provided any cogent reasons or exceptional cir cumstances warranting a departure from the
standard five -year period and limiting the measure to two years. In view of the continued material injury
suffered by the domestic industry and the absence of any justification for a shorter duration, the Authorit y finds
no merit in the submissions seeking a two -year duty period and recommends imposition of anti -dumping duty
for a period of five years.
141. On export performance, the Authority has examined the submission that the 92% decline in the domestic
industry's e xport sales during the POI is itself a consequence of the globally depressed price environment in
which dumped imports have played a central role. When the domestic industry is unable to realise
remunerative prices in the domestic market due to injuriously priced imports, its competitive position in export
markets is simultaneously eroded. Accordingly, the decline in export performance is not an independent cause
of injury it is a symptom of the same injury caused by dumped imports. This factor cannot be at tributed as a
non-dumping cause of injury.
142. Further, the single domestic transaction of 15 MT, considered against the scale of Sadara's production and its
exports to India, does not meet the minimum threshold required to establish a representative domestic market
price. International practice and the text of Article 2.2 both recognise that domestic sales may be disregarded
where the volume is insufficient to permit a proper comparison. Both independent grounds — off-grade quality
and insufficient volume — separately justify construction of normal value. The finding in the Disclosure
Statement is confirmed.
143. On price undercutting and price effects, the Authority confirms its findings on price effects as set out in the
Final Finding. Import prices declined by ap proximately 41% over the injury period, against a raw material
price decline of only 17%. This disproportionate decline establishes that import prices have not merely tracked
feedstock cost movements. Price undercutting ranges from 7% to 16% across subject countries, with a
weighted average of 11%. In the context of an industry with thin margins where import prices during the POI
fell below even the variable cost of production of the domestic industry, this level of undercutting is injurious.
The submission that 10 -11% undercutting is 'nominal' is not accepted.
144. The Authority acknowledges that employment, productivity, and wages showed positive trends during the POI.
However, the injury determination under Rule 11 read with Annexure II of the Rules requires a holistic
examination of all relevant economic indicators. The positive movement in employment and wages is vastly
outweighed by the sharp deterioration in production, domestic sales, capacity utilisation, profitability, cash
profits, and return on capital employed — all of which are key indicators. The domestic industry has expanded
its workforce while absorbing severe financial losses, which evidences resilience despite injury rather than
absence of injury.
145. In relation to the impact on the downstream indu stry, the Authority has observed that EDA constitutes only a
small proportion of the cost of downstream products, and even on a notional anti -dumping duty of 20%, the
impact on the prices of finished products would be minimal. The Authority further noted t hat no downstream
user has demonstrated that such an increase would make its operations unviable. Moreover, the downstream
industry remained profitable during 2022 -23 when EDA import prices were significantly higher than the
current levels. Accordingly, th e imposition of anti -dumping duty is unlikely to have any material adverse
impact on the downstream industry.
146. The Authority notes that the domestic industry's estimate of 250 kg of EDA per 1,000 kg of Mancozeb stands
unverified, and has taken the users' co nsumption data into account to the extent verifiable. Even at the higher
EDA ratio contended by the users, EDA constitutes only a limited proportion of the cost of production of
Mancozeb, and the impact of anti -dumping duty at the recommended level is not material. The downstream
industry having remained profitable during 2022 -23, when landed prices of imported EDA were significantly
higher, the Authority holds that it can absorb a moderate price correction attributable to the duty, and the
apprehension of an adverse downstream impact is not substantiated.
147. On monopolistic risk and supply availability, anti -dumping duty does not prohibit or restrict imports — it
merely ensures imports enter the Indian market at fair, non -injurious prices. The domestic industr y is currently
operating at only 36% of its installed capacity and holds necessary approvals for further capacity expansion to
37,350 MT. Imposition of ADD will create conditions for the domestic industry to increase production, expand
capacity, and serve a larger share of domestic demand. There is no basis for the contention that ADD will result
in supply shortages or monopolistic pricing.
L. CONCLUSION
148. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided, and submissions made by the interested parti es
and facts available before the Authority, as recorded in the above findings, and based on above analysis of the
dumping, injury and causal link to the domestic industry, the Authority concludes as follows:
a. On scope of product under consideration and li ke article
i. The product under consideration (PUC) in the present investigation is 'Ethylene Diamine’, abbreviated
as “EDA”.
ii. The article manufactured by the domestic industry and the subject goods exported from the subject
countries are like article to each other in terms of Rule 2 (d) of the Rules.
b. On domestic industry and standing
i. The applicant is the sole producer who has produced the product in the period of investigation.
ii. Balaji Speciality Chemicals Limited is an eligible domestic industry within the m eaning of Rule 2(b)
and satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
c. On normal value and export price
i. Producers from China PR, European Union and Saudi Arabia have participated in the present
investigation. There is no response f rom Taiwan.
ii. China PR is presumed as a non -market economy country since none of the producers/exporters from
China PR have provided sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption as mentioned in para 8 of
Annexure – I of the Rules.
iii. The response filed by the producers from China PR, European Union and Saudi Arabia shows that the
product has been exported to India at dumped prices.
iv. The dumping margin for the product under consideration from each of the subject countries is seen to
be more than de minimis.
d. On in jury and causal link
i. The imports from the subject countries have increased in absolute and relative terms.
ii. While the raw material prices have declined by 17 index points as compared to the base year, the import
price has declined by 38 index points.
iii. The s ubject imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry, and the price undercutting is
positive and significant.
iv. The landed price of imports is below the cost of sales of the domestic industry in the period of
investigation. The prices of the domestic industry were depressed in the period of investigation.
v. The production, domestic sales and capacity utilization of the domestic industry declined in the period
of investigation. The domestic industry has sold at losses to increase its sales.
vi. The profit per unit has declined from Rs 66,592 per MT to loss of Rs 19,943 per MT. Cash profit and
return on capital employed of the domestic industry similarly declined in 2022 -23 and thereafter
negative in the period of investigation.
vii. The dumped imports hav e affected the prices of the domestic industry.
The investigation did not show any factor other than dumping from the subject countries which could
have caused injury to the domestic industry.
e. On Indian industry interest
i. The domestic industry is suffering material injury, and the imposition of anti -dumping duty will be in
interest of domestic producer.
ii. The imposition of duties will not be against public interest.
M. RECOMMENDATIONS
149. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all in terested parties and adequate
opportunity was given to the domestic industry, exporters, importers, and other interested parties to provide
positive information on the aspect of dumping, injury, causal link and impact of recommended measures.
Having initia ted and conducted the investigation into dumping, injury, and causal link in terms of provisions
laid down under the anti -dumping rules, the Authority is of the view that imposition of anti -dumping duty is
required to offset the dumping and injury. The Aut hority considers it necessary and recommends imposition of
anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject countries.
150. Having regard to the lesser duty rule followed, the Authority recommends imposition of final anti -dumping
duty equal t o the lesser of the margin of dumping and the margin of injury on imports of subject goods
originating in or exported from the subject countries so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry.
Accordingly, the Authority considers it necessary and reco mmends imposition of anti -dumping duty on the
imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries, for a period of five (5) years,
from the date of the notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, equal to the amount
mentioned in Col. 7 of the duty table appended below.
DUTY TABLE
S.
No. Heading Description Country of
origin Country
of export Producer Amount UOM Currency
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 29212100 Ethylene
Diamine China Any
country
including
China BASF -YPC
Company
Limited 350 MT $
2 -do- -do- China Any
country
including
China Any
producer
other than
mentioned in
SN 1 575 MT $
3 -do- -do- Any country
other than
China,
European
Union, Saudi
Arabia and
Taiwan China Any
producer 575 MT $
4 -do- -do- European
Union Any
country
including
European
Union BASF
Antwerpen
NV 464 MT $
5 -do- -do- European
Union Any
country
including
European
Union Any
producer
other than
mentioned in
SN 4 739 MT $
6 -do- -do- Any country
other than
China,
European
Union, Saudi
Arabia and
Taiwan European
Union Any
producer 739 MT $
7 -do- -do- Saudi Arabia Any
country
including
Saudi
Arabia Sadara
Chemical
Company 230 MT $
8 -do- -do- Saudi Arabia Any
country
including
Saudi
Arabia Any
producer
other tha n
mentioned in
SN 7 375 MT $
9 -do- -do- Any country Saudi Any 375 MT $
other than
China,
European
Union, Saudi
Arabia and
Taiwan Arabia producer
10 -do- -do- Taiwan Any
country
including
Taiwan Any
producer 301 MT $
11 -do- -do- Any country
other th an
China,
European
Union, Saudi
Arabia and
Taiwan Taiwan Any
producer 301 MT $
Note 1 – Customs classification mentioned above is only indicative.
Note 2 – The application of the individual duty rates specified for the producers mentioned in the above table shall be
conditional upon presentation to customs authorities of a valid commercial invoice, on which shall appear a
declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her name and function,
drafted as follows:
“I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of Ethylene Diamine, abbreviated as “EDA” sold for export to the India
covered by this invoice was manufactured by (producer name and address) in [country concerned]. I declare that the
information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.”
If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other producers shall apply. This requirement is without
prejudice to the verification procedures independently undertaken by the Customs auth orities under the applicable
customs law and regulations.
N. FURTHER PROCEDURE
An appeal against the order of the Authority arising out of this final finding shall lie before the Customs Excise and
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the rele vant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act.
AMITABH KUMAR, Designated Authority
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text