Full Text
4690 GI/202 6 (1)
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
.: (ओआई)-10/2025
: ( आ ), , ई
“ -(1,3 )- - - - ( -13 )”
आ -
. . 6/10/2025 - आ .— - , 1975 ( आ
“ ” ) - (
- , ) , 1995 ( आ “ -
” “ ” ) , —
No. 177] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2026/ASHADHA 3, 1948 ss24, 1947
CG-DL-E-01072026-273977
1. ओ आई ( आ “आ ” ) , 1975 -
( आ “ ” ) “ -(1,3-
)- ’ - -p- ( -13 )” (
आ “ ” “ ” ) आ -
आ आ (“ आ ”), (“
”), (“ आ ”) ई (“ ई ”) आ
, “ ”
2. औ आ ( ) आ आ ,
28 , 2025 . . 6/10/2025 - आ ,
ई , आ , , आ ई आ
- 5 ,
, -
ई, ई
3. ई ई :
3.1
क. 5(5) ,
- आ
ख. आ , ई
, 5 6 , 28 2025 . .
6/10/2025 - आ ,
ग. (POI) 1 2023 30 2024 1
2021 31 2022, 1 2022 31 2023, 1 2023 31 2024
(POI)
घ. - - आ आ (
) ( ) आ -
आ आ
3.2 आ -
क. 6(2) ,
, ,
आ आ ई ई
ख. 6(3) ,
, आ ,
आ , आ -
औ -
घ. - 7
3.3 आ /
क. 6(4) , /
क. आ
i. आ
ii.
iii.
iv. -
v.
vi. ई
vii. ई
viii. आ
ix.
x.
xi. आ
xii.
xiii. ई
xiv.
xv. ई
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
xix. ई
xx.
xxi. ओ
xxii.
xxiii.
xxiv. आ ई
xxv.
xxvi. आ
xxvii.
xxviii. ई
xxix.
xxx.
xxxi. आ
xxxii.
xxxiii.
i. . .
ii. . .
iii. आ
i.
ii.
iii.
i. ( ई )
ii. ( ई )
iii.
ख. / :
क. आ
i.
ii. , ईआ
iii. ,
iv. , आ ई
v.
i.
ii.
i. ( ई )
ग. 6(4)
आ / आ आ
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi. ई
vii.
viii. . .
ix. . . ( )
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii. आ
xiv.
घ. , आ /
: -
i.
ii. ई
iii. . .
iv. आ
v.
vi.
च. , ,
छ. आ आ
(ईआई ) ईआई ,
, आ ई ईआई
आ , , / , आ /
: ( / )
. .
I. आ
II. /
III. आ /
. .
3.4 आ
क. -
-
ख. 6(6) , 4 2025 आ ई
, ( ) ,
19 2025 ई आ ई
ई ,
,
- ( )
ग. 6(8) , आ
ई , ,
( ) आ
घ. 7 , आ ई
,
,
आ, आ
ई -
ङ. 8 , आ ई
आ आ
र. ( आ “ आई ” )
( ) - , 1995 -III
आ , आ
- ई
छ. , ई
,
,
ि. / ई
आ ई
झ. *** आ ई
ञ. ई ई 1 = ₹ 84.27
ग. ( )
.1
4. औ ई
.2 आ
5. आ :
i. “ -(1,3- )- ’ - -p- ” ,
“ -13” “6 ”
ii. 6 औ -
6 , 13, 6 , 6 ,
4020, 4020, 6 , 6 , -1,3- - )-
- - - , आ आ
iii. - - - ,
औ -
iv. , 1975 38 3812 39
, 2921 51 20, 2921 51 30, 2921 51 90, 3812 10 00, 3812 20
90, 3812 31 00, 3812 39 10, 3812 39 20, 3812 39 30 3812 39 90
v. आ ई
.3
6. (PUC)
7. , :
“3. आ ( ) “ -(1,3- )- - - -
” , “ -13” “6 ” ”
4. -13 6PPD औ ई ,
6 , 13, 6 , 6 , 4020,
4020, 6 , 6 , -1,3- )- - - -
,
5. -13 - - - , -
-13 ओ ( ),
- , , -आ , ( )
, ( आ , , , )
-आ ,
-
6. -13 , 197 5 38, “ ”
- 3812 39 आ -13
आ आई - 29215120, 29215130, 29215190, 38121000, 38122090, 38123100,
38123910, 38123920, 381239 30 38123990 ”
8.
( ) ( )
ई ,
“3. आ ( ) “ -1,3- )- - - -
” , “ -13” “6 ” ”
4. -13 6 औ ई ,
6 , 13, 6 , 6 , 4020,
4020, 6 , 6 , -1,3- )- - - -
,
9. -13 , 1975 38, “ ”
- 3812 39 आ -13
आ आई - 29215120, 29215130, 29215190, 38121000, 38122090,
38123100, 38123910, 38123920, 38123930 38123990
आ , ,
10. आ ई , ओ (ओ )
11. ( ) 7.5% आ -
( आई ) आ ( ई ) ई
आ आ
- - आ आ
आ , ई
आ आ
12. ई , ( ) ( )
आ ( ) ई
13. - 2(d) ' ' (like article) :
" "
; , ई ,
-
14. ,
आ ,
, , ,
- ,
आ ( )
,
- 2( )
.1
15.
i. आ ( ) आ
ii. 2021 -22 आ 15% आई
iii.
iv. ( 13/2018 14/2018)
,
.2 आ
16. आ :
i. आ ,
आ आ
( )
ii. आ आ
iii. आ आ
iv. आ ,
.3
17. 2(b) :
“( ) ‘ ’ आ (आ )
,
,
आ आ ,
‘ ’ ”
18. आ ओ आई ,
,
आ ई, ई ई
ओ ई ई
19. - , औ
20. ओ आई
21. आ , औ
ओ आई :
(%)
1 ओ आई *** 60–70
2(i) *** 10–20
2(ii) *** 10–20
3 / *** 100
22. ओ आई , 50%
23. , औ ई-
आ ,
ई- आ ,
ई ई
आ , ओ आई
( ) 50
ओ आई आ आ ( )
24. आ ओ आई
ओ आई , 2( ) [ 2( )]
5(3) ( )
, ओ आई
( )
25. :
i. आ 10/2018 , (आ )
औ ,
ii. ii. आ 10/2018 आ (आ
) , ई ई ई ( ) आ
( )
iii. आ 10/2018 आ - ( -
) आ ( )
iv. आ आ
ई ( )
v. ( ई ) , आ ई ,
आ ई
, , ,
vi.
ई ,
vii. आ , . . ,
- , ,
,
viii. आ - ( - ) ( )
ix. -
आ औ आ
- आ
x. आ आ
आई ( आई & ) आ
xi. आ ( ) आ ,
र. 2 आ
26. आ : -
i. आ (आ ) , ई ई , ई ( )
ई , -
आ ( 04/2021 )
आ आ
ii. - ( - )
, - ( )
iii. 10/2018 आ आ
( ) आ
iv. ( ई ) , आ ई , आ
,
, ,
, 10/2018
v.
,
vi. आ , . . ,
,
vii. आ -आ ( ) आ आ
आ आ आ
viii. आ
ix. ई
- आ
x. आ ( ) -
, आ
ङ. 3
27. 6(7) - ( )
, 7 :
“7. :
(1) 6 - (2), (3) औ (7), 12 - (2), 15 - (4)
17 - (4) , 5 - (1)
आ ,
आ ई ई , ,
(2) आ -
( - ) औ
,
(3) - (2) ,
,
, ( )
28. ,
, ई
आ ई
, ,
आ, आ
-
-
29. आ आ
, - - ( ) आ
आ आ आ औ आ ,
30. ( )
/आ , ,
- ई - ई
, ,
आ ई ,
औ आ आ
,
आ औ ( - ) , औ 9A
31.
-आ ,
छ. ,
.1
32. , औ :
i. आ - ई ( )
आ , 11
2016 ई , ( )
आ , औ 2016
( )
ii. , ,
, , औ
iii.
( ई )
ई आ - , ,
, ई
, आ
iv. औ आ ( ) आ औ
, ,
v. औ ( ) ,
आ ई , औ “ ”
vi. , औ
vii. (4- )
viii. आ “ ” आ ; आ
- 2.2
ix. - 2.2.1.1
( – ) ,
आ , औ
x. ओआई 4- ,
xi. /
आ , 9 (6 )
. 2 आ
33. आ , औ :
i. आ -
ii. आ 15( )(ii)
औ , 15( )(i)
औ आ
iii. आ 15( )(i)
I ( I) 8
iv. ,
I 7
v. ( ई )
vi. औ , ( आ)
, 4- ,
,
vii. , “ - :
, , , आई औ ( ) -13
(6 ) ( आ )” ( . .14/5/2007 - 1 2008)
, ई
viii. , ई ,
, औ — — ,
ix. आ आ 4- ई आ
x. औ ,
xi.
,
xii. ( ) ओ
आ ( )
आ औ ;
( ) ई
xiii. ( ई )
ई 4- , -13
xiv. आ ई 4- ई आ
xv. औ ( ई )
आ ,
( I )
xvi.
xvii. ओ – – ओ ( )
, - आ ई ,
xviii. औ / “ ” ,
xix. ओ - 2.2.1.1 “आ ”
, –
II ( )
xx. औ ( ई )
“ ” (particular market situation)
xxi. 9 ( )(2) “ ” ओ -
2.2 ( )
xxii. – - ओ “
”
xxiii. “ ”
xxiv. आ , औ आ
( ) आ
xxv. 4- आ आ औ , औ
- , आ ( ) औ
. 3
34. 9 (1)(c) , :
(i) , ( )
, औ - (6)
(ii) ,
“ ( )”
, ( ) आ :
(क) ,
, , - (6)
;
( ) आ ( )
, औ ई ( ),
, ई ,
( )
. 3( ) आ औ
35. ओ आ 15 :
आ 1994
VI, 1994 VI (“ - ”)
:
(क) 1994 VI - ,
आ ओ
,
आ , :
(i)
, औ ,
आ ओ ( )
(ii)
, औ
, आ ओ
(ख) II, III औ V , 14( ), 14( ),
14( ) औ 14( ) ,
; , , आ
ओ औ
, , आ
ओ औ
( ) आ ओ - ( ) ई ई
- - ( ) ई ई
( ) , आ ओ
, - ( ) , आ
- ( )(ii) 15
, , आ ओ
, ,
- ( ) -
36. 15( )(ii) 11.12.2016 ,
2.2.1.1 , 15( )(i)
I 8
37.
, I 7
, :
“7. - आ
आ ,
, , आ , ,
आ , ई
, आ
, औ
, ,
8.(1) “ - ” ,
,
, औ - (3)
(2) ई ,
ओ - -
,
- , -
-
(3) आ -
(3) : ( )
, औ ( , औ , ,
औ ) आ औ
,
; ( ) औ -
,
, - , - ; ( )
; ( )
, आ
- ,
7 1 6
(4) - (2) ,
, आ , -
(3) , , ,
-
38. 7 औ
, , , आ
, , आ ,
ई , आ
,
-I आ
39. औ आ
ई / /
आ आ
, आ ,
ई ई
, आ , ,
40. , आ ई , /
( ओआई ) , , आ ई / ,
*** ,
*** आ ,
41. , , /
( ओआई ) , , / ,
32 ,
*** आ ,
42. , आ , /
( ओआई ) , , आ / ,
***
, *** आ ,
43. / ई आ , ई
- आ ई
44. ( ) औ
45. - ई
- /
46. - /
6(8) आ ई
.3( ) औ
47.
6(8) आ
48.
6(8) आ
.3( ) ई औ
( ई )
49. ( ई ) ई / ( ई )
( ओआई ) ***
, *** ई , ( ई )
आ ई
50. ( ई ) 4- ई
, ,
( ई ) ,
4- -13
, औ ( ई ) ई ई 4-
( ई )
ई -13
-13
51. , -13 4-
, ( ओआई) 4- आ ,
, ( ई )
ई -13
-13
52. आ
- 80 , -
- 80 ,
आ ,
80 ,
53. ( ई ) - आ ,
, ( ई ) ,
( ई )
54. ( ओआई ) ( ई ) *** ,
*** , ई
*** ***
/ , ( ) ,
( ) ,
( ई ) औ ई
ई ई , ( ई )
, ( ई )
( ई )
( ) , आ
55. / - , , आ ,
,
56.
, ( ई )
, ई
- / औ
57. ई - /
6(8) आ
.3( ) औ
58. /
( ओआई ) ***
, *** ई ,
आ ई
59. 4-
4- ,
-13 4-
,
4- आ
4-
60.
- ( - ) ई
ई 4- ई
ई आ
ई ,
,
, ई ई 4-
61. , , 2015 (322) ई. . .
514 ( . - ) , :–
( ) ,
ई ,
, ई (
) , ,
ई 9 (1)( )(i)
,
/ ,
, ई
- आ ,
आ , -
आ ,
- ,
,
औ -
, औ
4-
, 4- आ आ
, 4-
आ ”**
62. 08.05.2015
, आ . / /54808 -54810/2014 - . .
( ) 26.12.2014, 2015 (322) ई. . . 514 ( .- )
, ( ) .
12086 -12087/2015 ( ) . . . 8088/2015
आ : –
( ) . 12086 -12087/2015
“ , आ ,
, ,
, - , आ
, ,
”
63. ( ) ,
( ) आ / /53452 -
53453/2016 - . . ( ), 09.09.2016, 2016 (342) ई. . . 573 ( .- )
, :–
, ,
6` ( ) ,
( ) -
4-
6- 4- आ ,
4- 4-
आ ,
ई ”**
64. 13.02.2017
, आ . / /53452 -
53453/2016 - . . ( ), 09.09.2016, 2016 (342) ई. . . 573 ( .- )
,
( ) . 3079/2017
आ : –
“ ”
65. ,
, ( )
,
66. 4- -
,
ई ई
ई आ
67. 4-
,
ई आ
68. ई 4- ,
,
- 4-
-13 (6 )
, ई ई 4-
69. , -13 4-
, ( ओआई) 4- आ आ ,
, आ -13
, ,
-13 (
)
70. आ (
) - 80 ,
- - 80 ,
आ , 80 ,
71. आ ,
( )
,
, ई
72. ( ओआई ) 1,325
, ***
*** ***
/ , ,
,
ई ई , ,
, आ ई ,
, ( )
,
,
, आ
73. / ( - ) ,
, आ ,
74.
,
, ई
/
75. /
6(8) आ
.3(ङ)
76.
. .
/
(CNV)
$/ $/ $/ %
a , *** *** *** *** 40-50
, ;
,
b *** *** *** *** 60-70
2 ई
a ( ई )
*** *** *** *** 10-20
b *** *** *** *** 20-30
a
*** *** *** *** 20-30
b *** *** *** *** 30-40
a / *** *** *** *** 20-30
ि. आ
.1
77. आ :
i. आ 2020 -21 2023 -24 ,
/ ई , आ
ii. आ 2021 -22 10,267 10,245 ई,
ई आ आ
iii. आ
आ आ आ ,
आ आ आ
iv. आ आ ,
आ औ ई
v. आ ,
vi. आ ई , औ
आ आ
vii. ई ( ) ( ) , आ
viii. औ आई , आ औ
- , आ आ
औ , आ
ix. 2023 -24 औ आ ,
x. “ , - ( )” आ
- ई - , औ
xi. 2020 -21 2023 -24 2021 -22 100
151 ई , 4-
xii. 2021 -22 21%
45% , 4- आ
xiii. ई ई (2022 -23 आ 6
ई ),
xiv. , आ ई ई , आ
औ आ
xv. , औ
26 2018 औ
, ई
xvi. आ ई आ आई
xvii. आ - ,
-13 आ आ
xviii. ( ) ,
2023 -24 /
xix. आ 100 155 ई ,
2022 -23 212 19
xx. आ , ,
xxi. 22% ( )
आ आ
xxii. आ , आ -
.2 आ
78. आ आ :
i. , ,
, , ई
ii. , ई
iii. ,
, ई
iv. 2023 -24 आ
ई आ
v. आई,
vi. आ 2022 -23 , 2023 -24 ई
vii. आ 2022 -23 2023 -24 औ
viii. आ आ
ix. आ ( ) ई
x. 2020 -21 2023 -24 आ ,
2022 -23 ( ), आ
xi. 2023 -24 आ ई,
xii. 2022 -23 आई 2023 -24 औ ई
xiii. आ ई
xiv. 2022 -23 , 2023 -24 औ
,
xv. आ ,
xvi.
आ , आ
xvii. , आ
xviii. आ
xix. 2022 -23 आ आ , 2023 -24
आई, औ ई ई ,
xx. 2023 -24 औ
67% 70% ई
xxi. आ ई 2022 -23 औ
ई ई औ
xxii. आ आ
-आ आ आ
xxiii. आ आ आ
xxiv. 2023 -24 , ई
आ आ
xxv. 4- 2022 -23 औ आ,
xxvi. ई आई आ आई ,
आ , आ
xxvii. 2025 आ - ई
, आ आई
xxviii. ई आ - ,
xxix. आ , ,
xxx. ऊ
xxxi. ओ - ‘ ’
, ‘ ’ आ
xxxii. - ,
आ ई
xxxiii. ओ ( – ) -
आ आ औ
ई आ
xxxiv. आ आ
xxxv. औ 0.14% 2.9%
xxxvi. , 22%
xxxvii. 22% ई
xxxviii. आ
xxxix.
xl. ई आ ,
xli. ओ आई आ आ
.3
79. - 11 II (Injury)
ओ ,
“… , आ ,
…” आ ,
, , , , ,
, आ , -
II
80. आ ,
, , , , , ,
आ , II
81.
,
,
82.
ई , आ
, ,
83.
[0.14] , [2.9]
, ई
, ,
आई ई
84.
आ ( 4- )
- ई -
,
85. ,
ई ( ओ आई
) आ आ 29 2025 4-
आ - ई , आ 4-
आ 4-
- ( ) 4- - ( ) ,
आ आ ( PX-13) 26%
31% ई, (34% 30%) ई,
39%
आ औ
ई ,
86. 22% ( )
आ ई आ आ
/
III
( - ) - ( -
) 22% आ
,
ई /
, /
22%
आ ओ ई ,
22%
87. ई
22%
88. आ औ ई
आई औ ई ,
ई आ
89. आ आई ,
ई आ , आ
( ओ ) 3.3
II (iii) , आ
- , आ ( ) आ
आ ई , आ
, ई
90. (
) , - II
ई आ
ई II
ई औ ( )
,
91. - ई
आ , आ
, आ
-
.3.1 आ
92. आ ( )
( ओ ) 3.3 II (iii) ,
आ - ,
आ आ , :
क . आ
आ आ
( ) ; ,
आ आ ; औ
ख . आ आ
93. :
क . (dumping)
ख . आ , आ
ग. आ आ , आ -
,
94. आ , , ,
ई आ आ
95. आ ( ) ई
,
.3.2 / आ
96. ( )
, आ
आ ई
ई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24
1 *** *** *** ***
2 100 102 91 90
*** *** *** ***
4 100 164 172 151
5 आ 8,390 7,139 7,926 9,211
6 100 85 94 110
7 आ 15.00 20.00 0.00 0.00
8 100 133 0 0
9 / *** *** *** ***
10 100 111 110 109
97. 2021 -22 *** ( ओआई ) *** ई
आ 4- -13 , - (
) 4- -13
4- आ , ,
आ 4- आ -
.3.3 आ
98. आ , आ
आ , , ई ई
ई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24
1 आ 8,390 7,139 7,926 9,211
2 100 85 94 110
3 आ 15 20 0 0
4 100 133 0 0
5 आ
% *** *** *** ***
7 100 76 92 110
% *** *** *** ***
9 100 77 86 100
10 आ % 100% 100% 100% 100%
11 100 100 100 100
99. आ 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24
आ ई ( ओआई ) ई
100. आ 2021 -22 33% 2022 -23 25%
, 2023 -24 30% 36% ,
आ 2021 -22 30% 2022 -23 23% ,
2023-24 26% 31% आ आ
100%
101. आ 2022 -23 औ ,
.3.4 आ
102. आ आ
आ (
) ई , आ ( )
( ) ,
आ , (
) ( ), ई ,
, ( ) - ( - )
आ ई
103. ( ) ,
आ ई , आ
:
ई PR
1 आ 2,927 1,795 1,333 3,156 9,211
(NSR) ₹/ *** *** *** *** ***
3 ₹/ 2,59,368 2,50,507 2,61,361 2,60,695 2,58,384
4 ₹/ *** *** *** *** ***
5 % 14% 18% 13% 13% 14%
( ) — 10–20% 10–20% 10–20% 10–20% 10–20%
104. आ
( )
ख. /
105. आ ( ) ,
आ ( )
,
ई :
ई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24
1 ₹/ *** *** *** ***
2 100 115 94 86
3 ₹/ *** *** *** ***
4 ( ) ₹/ *** *** *** ***
5 100 104 99 94
6 ₹/ *** *** *** ***
7 ₹/ 3,19,504 4,09,105 2,74,496 2,58,384
8 100 128 86 81
9 ₹/ — 89,600 -1,34,609 -16,112
106. :
क . 2022 -23 , 2021 -22 ( ) ₹*** ई,
( ) ₹*** ई
आ आई औ आ ई
ख . 2023 -24 , 2022-23 ₹*** ई,
₹*** ई आ ई औ
आ आई
ग. ( ओआई ) , 2023 -24 ₹*** ई,
₹*** ई आ औ ई
आ औ आई
घ. 2022 -23 आ ,
2023 -24 ( ओआई ) , 2023 -24
₹*** ( ओआई
, ओ ) ₹*** , ओआई
आ औ ₹***
107. ( ओआई ) ( ) ई
आई , आई
108. ( ओआई ) आ
( - )
.3.5 आ
109. -II ( II) ( )
आ आ
, आ
, , , , , ,
( ) ;
; ; , (आ ), , ,
( )
क. , , औ
110. , , ई
:
ई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 ( ओआई )
1 *** *** *** ***
2 100 100 103 108
3 *** *** *** ***
4 100 97 82 85
5 % *** *** *** ***
6 100 97 79 79
7 *** *** *** ***
8 100 102 91 90
111. :
क . 2021 -22 औ 2022 -23 2023 -24
आ ( ओआई ) ई
- ( )
,
ख . औ 2023 -24 , 2023 -24
ई ई
आई , औ ई
ग. 2021 -22 2022 -23 , 2023 -24 ई
2023 -24 आई
घ. , आई
112. , आ ई
ई ई :
ई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24
1 % *** *** *** ***
2 100 93 83 83
3 % *** *** *** ***
4 100 148 156 138
5 % *** *** *** ***
6 100 77 86 100
7 % *** *** *** ***
8 100 121 0 0
113. आ , :
क . 2022 -23 , 2023 -24 औ
ख . आ 2022 -23 , 2023 -24
ग. 2021 -22 2023 -24 ,
आ , 2023 -24
घ. 4- ( ) आ ,
औ 4-
ङ . 2023 -24 , 2021 -22
9% 2022 -23 5% , ई औ
114. ई
ई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24
1 *** *** *** ***
2 100 459 614 645
3 *** *** *** ***
4 100 134 109 132
5 औ *** *** *** ***
6 100 192 199 223
115. औ (औ )
औ ई , ई , औ
( ) आ
घ. ,
116. , ( )
ई :-
ई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24
1 /( ) ₹ *** *** *** ***
2 100 212 48 19
3 ₹ *** *** *** ***
4 100 212 48 20
5 ₹ *** *** *** ***
6 100 193 56 33
7 % *** *** *** ***
8 100 220 54 25
117. :
क . 2022 -23 , 2023 -24 ( ओआई )
ख . ( आई ) ( )
, 2022-23 2023 -24 आई
ग. ( ) 2022 -23 , 2023 -24
( ओआई ) ई
ङ. ,
118. , ई
ई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24
1 *** *** *** ***
2 100 109 98 98
/ *** *** *** ***
4 100 89 84 87
5 / *** *** *** ***
6 100 97 82 85
7 ₹ *** *** *** ***
8 100 114 119 120
119. :
क . 2021 -22 2022 -23 , 2023 -24
आई ( ओआई ) 2023 -24
ख . आई
आ आ
,
ग. ई ई
120. ( ) ई
ई 2022 -23 2023 -24 ( ओआई )
1 % 0% 3% 5%
2 % -3% -16% 4%
3 % 2% -11% -1%
4 /( ) % 108% -75% -59%
5 PBIT ( ) % 112% -78% -60%
6 % 112% -77% -59%
7 % 93% -71% -41%
121. आ , 2022 -23 ई
, ( ओआई ) ई
आई औ ,
, , ,
( आई ) ( ) ,
122. ( ओआई )
( ) ,
123. 2023 -24 ( ओआई ) आ
( ) ,
ई आ /
124. ( ) आ
( ) ( ओआई )
( )
झ. -आ -
127. आ ई
, ई आ
,
क. आ
128. आ
ई आ
129. आ
ई , आई ( )
130. ई आ ,
131.
ई ई ई
132. ई
133. आई
आ आ
,
134. ई
135. ( - ) आ
138. - आ , -III
, , -
/आ -
ई - ,
, 4- ,
, -III ,
औ ( औ औ ) 22%
, - , -III
139. / आ
आ (customs duties)
/ , आ
140. - आ ,
/ , ई
:
NIP ( -
) )
($/ ) ($/ ) ($/ ) %
,
,
ई *** *** *** *** 10–20
,
*** *** *** *** 10–20
,
आ *** *** *** *** 10–20
ई *** *** *** *** 30–40
2 ई
( ई )
*** *** *** *** 10–20
ई *** *** *** *** 20–30
*** *** *** *** 10–20
ई *** *** *** *** 20–30
ई *** *** *** *** 20–30
141. :
i. आ
-13
ii. -13 औ
iii. -13 ,
iv. ई
v. -13 आ आ
आ , आ
vi. -13 आ ‘ ’ औ
vii. -13 आ , ,
( आई )
viii. ई आ
ix. आ 0.10–0.30% ,
, आ , 0.10%
, ,
-
142. आ : -
i. ई
1 ₹ 862
2 ₹ 60,170
3 ₹ 92,272
4 ₹ 1,04,444
5 ( )
6 % 1.43%
7 % 0.93%
8 % 0.83%
ii.
iii. -
, -
iv.
v. ,
, 0.7%
vi. - , आ आ आई
vii. आ ₹***
आ ₹*** , ₹*** आ
आ -आ आ , ई
viii. आ 4- , आ
4- ( )
ix. आ ,
,
x. आ आ
143. आ
144. , आ ,
, आ , आ
, ,
, , - ,
आ आ ( ), आ ,
, ई
,
145. ( - )
( ) ,
( औ ) ,
,
आ आ ,
आ आ आई
146. , , ,
आ , औ आ /आ
,
आ /
ई ई , -
, -
,
147.
, 1.43%, 0.93% 0.83%
, , , -13,
आईआईआ , ,
( ) आ
0.7%
148. ,
(
) , आ
/
149. आ ( )
आ ,
आ आ
, ,
आ , ,
, आ
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 29215120,
29215130,
29215190,
38121000,
38122090,
3812310 0,
38123910,
38123920,
38123930
38123990
3 -do- -do- रीे,
5 -do- -do- रीे,
8 -do- -do- रीे,
11 -do- -do- रीे,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce )
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
FINAL FINDING
New Delhi, the 24th June, 2026
Case No. AD (OI) -10/202 5
Subject: Anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of “N -(1,3 dimethylbutyl) -N'-phenyl -p-
phenylenediamine (also known as PX -13)” originating in or exported from China PR,
European Union, Korea RP and Kingdom of Thailand.
F. No. 6/10/2025 -DGTR.—Havin g regard to the Customs 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 there of, as amended
from time to time (hereinafter referred as the “Anti -Dumping Rules” or “Rules”) thereof,
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. NOCIL Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) filed an application, before the
Designated Authority (hereina fter 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 “N -(1,3-dimethylbutyl) -N'-phenyl -p-phenylenediamine (also known as PX -
13)” (he reinafter also referred to as the “product under considerat ion” or the “subject goods”) from
People's Republic of China (“China PR”), European Union (“EU”), Republic of Korea (“Korea RP”)
and Kingdom of Thailand (“Thailand”) (hereinafter jointly refe rred t o as the “subject countries”).
2. And whereas, in view of the sufficient prima facie application filed by the applicant, the Authority
issued a public notice vide Notification F. No. 6/10/2025 -DGTR, dated 28th March, 2025, published
in the Gazette of I ndia, initiating anti -dumping investigation into imports of the p roduct under
consideration from China PR, EU, Korea RP and Thailand, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules to
determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of the subject goods 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 Initiat ion
a. In accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Rules, the Authority notified the embassies of subject
countries in India about the receipt of the present anti -dumping application before proceeding
to initiate the investigation.
b. Upon examination of the app lication, t he Authority found prima facie evidence of dumping
and consequent injury. Therefore, in accordance with Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, vide
Notification F. No. 6/10/2025 -DGTR dated 28th March 2025, the Authority initiated the
present proceedings.
c. The period o f investigation (POI) was considered as 1st October 2023 to 30th September 2024.
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 POI.
d. A request wa s made to the Directorate General for Systems and Data Management (DG
Systems) for transaction -wise import data of the subject goods for the injury period. The
Authority received the data and has relied upon this data for the necessary an alysis after due
examination of transactions.
3.2 Circulation of non -confidential version of the application
a. In accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules, the Authority informed interested parties of the
initiation of the investigation by sharing a c opy of the initiation notif ication with the embassies
of subject countries in India, known producers and exporters of the product under
consideration in the subject countries, known importers of the subject goods in India and other
interested parties, as p er the info rmation made ava ilable in the application.
b. In accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules, the Authority provided a copy of the non -
confidential version of the application to the governments of subject countries through their
embassies in India, know n exporters of the subject imports and to other interested parties who
requested in writing for a copy of the application.
c. The Authority sent questionnaires to the governments of subject countries through their
embassies in India. The governments of the subject count ries were reques ted to forward the
initiation notification and the questionnaires to the producers of the subject goods in their
country and advise them to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit.
d. The interested part ies were granted a n opportunity to present their comments on the issues of
confidentiality claimed by the other interested parties within 7 days of the circulation of the
non-confidential version of the document filed before the Authority.
3.3 Participat ion by exporters of the subject co untries and importers/users from India
a. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters in the subject countries in
accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
A. China PR
i. Changde Dingyuan Chemical Indu strial Limited
ii. China Sunsine Chemical Hol dings Ltd.
iii. Dalian Richon Chem Co., Ltd
iv. Dongying Bo -Chen Chemical Co., Ltd.
v. Dongying Wantong Rubber Auxiliary Co., Ltd.
vi. Hebei Hanxing Chemical Co., Ltd.
vii. Hebei Haufeng Chemical Group
viii. Hebi Huaxia Auxiliary Co., Ltd.
ix. Hebi Uhoo Rubber Chemicals Co., Ltd.
x. Henan Kailun Chemical Co., Ltd.
xi. Jiangsu Donglong Industry Co., Ltd.
xii. Jinan Runquan Chemical Co., Ltd.
xiii. Jincheng Sky Success Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.
xiv. Jingcheng Tiancheng Chemical Co., Ltd.
xv. Kemai Chemical Co Ltd.
xvi. Linkwell Rubber C hemicals Co., Ltd.
xvii. Lion Industrie s Ltd.
xviii. Nanjing Chemical Plant
xix. Northeast Auxiliary Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.
xx. Puyang Willing Chemicals Co., Ltd.
xxi. Qingdao Zhongjian Rubber Chemicals Co., Ltd.
xxii. Rongcheng Chemical General Factory Co., Ltd.
xxiii. Sennics Co. , Ltd .
xxiv. Shandong Yanggu Huatai Chemical Co ., Ltd.
xxv. Shangyu Lixing Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxvi. Shenzhen Huaren Industrial Co., Ltd.
xxvii. The Organic Chemical Industry Limited
xxviii. Tianjin East Richon Rubber Additives Co., Ltd.
xxix. United Rubber Chemical Corp
xxx. Yixing Dongfang Chemica l Co
xxxi. Zhejiang Huangyan Zhedong Rubber Aux iliary Co., Ltd.
xxxii. Zhejiang Yongjia Chemical Plant
xxxiii. Zhejina Yueqing Ultrafine Powders & Chemicals Co Ltd.
B. EU
i. Flexsys Netherlands B. V
ii. SGS Belgium N.V
iii. Solutia Europe SPRUBVBA
C. Korea RP
i. Daewoo International Corporation
ii. Kumho Petrochemical Co ., Ltd.
iii. Posco Interna tional Corporation
D. Thailand
i. Nittsu Shoji ( Thailand ) Co., Ltd.
ii. Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd .
iii. Vee Rubber Corporation Ltd.
b. The following producers/exporters have registered themselves as interested parties in the
prese nt investigation:
A. China PR
i. Sennics Co., Ltd.
ii. Sennics Co., Ltd. Tai’an
iii. Sennics Co., Ltd. Shandong
iv. Sennics Co., Ltd. Anhui
v. Sennics Singapore Pte. Ltd .
B. Korea RP
i. Kumho Petrochemical Co ., Ltd.
ii. POSCO International Corporation
C. Thailand
i. Sennics (Thailand) Co., L td.
c. The Authority sent importer’s questio nnaire to the following known importers/users of the
subject goods in India calling for necessary information in accord ance with Rule 6(4) of the
Rules.
i. Apollo Tyres Limited
ii. ATC Tires Private Limited
iii. Balakri shna Industries Limited
iv. Birla Tyres Limited
v. Bridg estone India Private Limited
vi. CEAT Limited
vii. Goodyear India Limited
viii. J K Tyre & Industries Limited
ix. J.K. Fenner (India) Limi ted
x. Lanxess India Private Limited
xi. Malhotra Rubbers Limited
xii. Metro Tyres Limited
xiii. MRF Limit ed
xiv. PMC Rubber Chemicals India Private Limited
d. In response to the initiation of the subject investigation notification, the following
importers/users have registered themselves as interested parties in the investigation: -
i. Apollo Tyres Limited
ii. CEAT Limite d
iii. J K Tyres & Industries Limited
iv. MRF Limited
v. Rishiroop Limited
vi. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Limited
e. Finorchem Limited has registered themselves as the other domestic producer in the present
investigation.
f. In addition to the above, two associations, namely, Aut omotive Tyre Manufacturers
Association and All India Rubber Industries Association have also registered themselves as
interested parties in the present investigation.
g. The Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire (EIQ) to assess public interest a nd
impact of the duties on the wider economy. A copy of the EIQ was sent to the embassy of each
subject country, all the known exporters, importers and users and the domestic industry. The
EIQ was also shared with the administrative line ministry. Of the a pplicant, other domestic
producer, producers/ex porters, importers/users and user associations registered as interested
party, a response to the economic interest questionnaire was filed by the following:
SN Name of interested party
I Applicant
a. NOCIL Limited
II Producers/exporters
a. Kumho Petroche mical Co., Ltd.
b. POSCO International Corporation
III Importers/users
a. MRF Limited
b. J K Tyres & Industries Limited
c. CEAT Limited
d. Apollo Tyres Ltd.
3.4 Further procedures
a.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 the non -
confidential version of all their submissions in the present proceedings with all other interested
parties
b. In accordance with Rule 6(6 ) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the
interested parties to present their views orally in a hearing held on 4th September 2025. The
parties presenting their views in the oral heari ng w ere directed to make written submissions of
the v iews expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions. Subsequently, another oral
hearing was held on 19th December 2025 on account of change of the Designated Authority.
All the parties who had atten ded the second oral hearing were provided an opportun ity to file
written submissions, followed by rejoinder submissions. The interested parties were further
directed to share the NCV of the written submissions with the other interested parties.
c. In acco rdance with Rule 6(8) of the Rules, wherever an inter ested 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 Auth ority has
considered such parties as non -cooperat ive and recorded the findings based on the facts
available.
d. In accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules , information provided by the interested parties on a
confidential basis was examined by the Authority wi th regard to the sufficiency of the
confidentiality c laimed. 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 parti es. Wherever possible, parties providing information on
confidential basis were directed to provide a non -confidential summary of the information
filed on confidential basis.
e. In accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules, the Authority conducted verification o f the data
provided by the applicant and other intereste d parties 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.
f. The non -injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the “NIP”) has been determined based on the
cost of production and reasonable return on capital employed for the subject goods in India,
based on the information furnished by the domestic industry on the ba sis of G enerally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure II I to the AD Rules, 1995 so as to
ascertain whether anti -dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to
remove injury to the domestic industry.
g. The Authority exami ned the issues raised, information provided, and submissions made by t he
interested parties during the course of the proceedings, to the extent they were supported by
evidence and considered relevant to the present purposes, in making the final finding.
h. The examin ation and verification of the information submitted by the coo perating
producers/exporters from the subject countries were also carried out to the extent deemed
necessary and the same has been relied upon for the purpose of the present final findin gs.
i. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the inves tigation which have formed
the basis of the final findings was issued to the interested parties on 17th June 2026 and the
interested parties were asked to provide comments on the disclos ure statement. The
submissions made by the interested parties, argumen ts 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 this final finding notification.
j. *** represents information furnished by a party on confidential basis and so considered by the
Authority under the Rules.
k. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = ₹ 84.27.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION (PUC) AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1 Submission by opposing interested party
4. The opposing interested party has not made any submission with regard to the product under
consideration and like article.
C.2 Submission by the ap plicant
5. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to the product under consideration:
i. The product under consideration is “N -(1,3-dimethylbutyl) -N'-phenyl -p-phenylenediamine”
or also known as “PX -13” or “6 PPD”.
ii. The product under consider ation is also known as 6PPD and is imported with various
descriptions such as Antioxidant 6PPD, Kumanox 13, Santoflex 6PPD, Sirantox 6PPD,
Vulkanox 4020, Antioxidant4020, Dussantox 6PPD, Antage 6C, N -1,3-Dimethylbutyl) -N'-
Phenyl -P-Phenylenediamine, etc.
iii. The produ ct under consideration is an alkyl -aryl-PPD anti -degradant most widely used in the
tyre and non -tyre sector of the rubber industry.
iv. The product under consideration is classifiable under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Act,
1975 under the subheadin g 3812 3 9. The product under consideration has been imported
under the following HS codes, namely 2921 51 20, 2921 51 30, 2921 51 90, 3812 10 00, 3812
20 90, 3812 31 00, 3812 39 10, 3812 39 20, 3812 39 30 and 3812 39 90.
v. There is no known difference in the like ar ticle produced by the applicant and the product
under consideration exported from the subject countries.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
6. The Authority has examined the submissions regarding the PUC made by the interested parties
herein as under:
7. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration was defined as under:
“3. The product under consideration (PUC) in the present application is “N -(1,3
dimethylbutyl) -N'-phenyl -p-phenylenediamine” or also known as “PX -13” or “6 PPD”.
4. PX -13 is also known as 6PPD and is imported with various descriptions such as
Antioxidant 6PPD, Kumanox 13, Santoflex 6PPD, Sirantox 6PPD, Vulkanox 4020,
Antioxidant4020, Dussantox 6PPD, Antage 6C, N -1,3-Dimethylbutyl) -N'-Phenyl -P
Phenylenediamine, etc.
5. PX-13 is an alkyl -aryl-PPD anti -degradant most widely used in the tyre and non tyre sector
of the rubber industry. PX -13 offers excellent resistance to rubber vulcanizates against
degradative forces such as ozone (static as well as dynamic), flex -cracking and fatigue,
oxidative heat ageing, metal -ion catalysed oxidative ageing, UV light and weathering. It is
used as antioxidants in treating natural rubber, synthetic rubber (SBR, Butadiene Rubber,
Nitrile Rubber, Carboxylated Rubber) and other synthetic rubb er-based compounds used for
manufacture of various rubber products to achieve the desired life cycle of the rubber product.
6. PX -13 is classified under Chapter 38 viz., 'Miscellaneous chemicals products’ of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under sub -heading 3812 39 of the tariff classification. The applicant
has stated that PX -13 is imported under the ITC -HS codes 29215120, 29215130. 29215190,
38121000, 38122090, 38123100, 38123910, 38123920, 38123930 and 38123990.”
8. The Authority notified the scope of the produ ct under consideration in the notice of initiation.
Whereby, the interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the scope
of the PUC, and product control numbers (PCNs) methodology. Apart from domestic industry, none
of th e int erested parties have filed any comments on the scope of the PUC and proposed PCNs
methodology. Accordingly, the Authority confirms the scope of the product under consideration as
below.
“3. The product under consideration (PUC) in the present applica tion is “N -(1,3
dimethylbutyl) -N'-phenyl -p-phenylenediamine” or also known as “PX -13” or “6 PPD”.
4. PX -13 is also known as 6PPD and is imported with various descriptions such as
Antioxidant 6PPD, Kumanox 13, Santoflex 6PPD, Sirantox 6PPD, Vulkanox 4020,
Antioxidant4020, Dussantox 6PPD, Antage 6C, N -1,3-Dimethylbutyl) -N'-Phenyl -P
Phenylenediamine, etc.”
9. PX-13 is classified under Chapter 38 viz., 'Miscellaneous chemicals products’ of the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975 under sub -heading 3812 39 of the tariff cl assification. The applicant has stated that PX -13
is imported under the ITC -HS codes 29215120, 29215130. 29215190, 38121000, 38122090,
38123100, 38123910, 38123920, 38123930 and 38123990. The Authority notes that the aforesaid
customs classification is onl y ind icative and not binding on the scope of the product under
consideration. Imports of the product under consideration, wherever reported, have been considered
for the purpose of present determination.
10. There are no restrictions on the import of the prod uct u nder consideration in India as it falls under
Open General License.
11. The basic customs duty applicable to product under consideration is 7.5%. The imports of the
product under consideration enjoy basic customs duty concession when imported from Thaila nd
under the ASEAN –India Free Trade Area (AIFTA) and the Comprehensive Economic Partnership
Agreement (CEPA) between India and Korea. Examination of the DG System Transaction wise data
and the questionnaire responses shows that the imports of the product h ave b een cleared after
payment of customs duty from Korea RP. However, the imports of the product under consideration
have been cleared without payment of customs duty when imported from Thailand.
12. The prescribed unit of measurement for the product under consi deration is weight, expressed in
kilogram (KG) or MT. The information in the application has been presented in the form of MT.
13. Rule 2(d) of the Anti -Dumping Rules provides the definition of like article as under:
"like article" means an artic le 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 respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the art icles
under investigation.
14. After considering the information on record, the Authority concludes that the product under
consideration produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject countries are
comparable in terms of physical characteristics, functi ons & uses, product specifications, pricing,
distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The goods produced by the domestic
industry and imported from the subject countries are like articles in terms of the provi sions of Anti -
Dumping R ules. The two are technically and commercially, substitutable. Thus, the Authority
concludes that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the product
under consideration imported from the subject count ries within the scope a nd meaning of Rule 2(d)
of Anti -Dumping Rules.
D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1 Submission by opposing interested party
15. The opposing interested party has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the
domestic industry or it s standing.
i. The standing of the applicant is unclear because the applicant has not disclosed the range of
shares of the applicant in total Indian production.
ii. The share of the applicant in total production has declined by 15% in the period of
investigation as compared to 2021 -22.
iii. Support letter of Finorchem Limited has not been shared with the other interested parties.
iv. The Authority’s reliance on the alleged support of Finorchem Limited without disclosing it in
terms of the prescr ibed Trade Notices (Trade N otice No. 13/2018 and Trade Notice No
14/2018) is inconsistent with the Authority’s procedural framework.
D.2 Submission by the applicant
16. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the domestic industry
and its standing:
i. Other than the applicant, there are two other producers of the subject goods in India, namely
Finorchem Limited and Lanxess India Private Limited. The applicant has adequate standing
to file the present application.
ii. The applicant has not imported the prod uct under consideration in the period of investigation
from the subject countries.
iii. The applicant is not related to any exporters in the subject countries or importers of the
product under consideration into India.
iv. The dom estic industry had sent communicati on to Finorchem Limited seeking their views on
the application, but it did not respond to the communication sent. Finorchem had directly filed
a support letter with the Authority.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
17. Rule 2(b) of the Rules defines 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 production 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 producers ”.
18. The application has been filed by NOCIL Limited. As per the information on record, there are two
other producers of the subject goods in India viz., Finorchem Limited and Lanx ess India Private
Limited. The Authority had sent c ommunication to the other two domestic producers before
initiation of investigation. While response was received from Finorchem Limited supporting the
application, no response was received from Lanxess Ind ia Private Limited. There was no response
from thes e other domestic producers post initiation of investigations.
19. The Authority has examined the DG System transaction wise data, and it is seen that none of these
producers have imported the product under c onsideration in the period of investigation.
20. It is seen that NOCIL Limited is not related to any exporters of the product under consideration from
the subject countries or any importer in India.
21. Based on information on record, the Authority has determined the Indian production and share of
NOCIL Limited in Indian production as follows:
SN Particulars Production Share (%)
1 Production of NOCIL Limited *** 60-70
2 Production of other producers
i Finorchem Limited *** 10-20
ii Lanxess India Private Limited *** 10-20
3 Total/gross Indian production *** 100
22. The Authority notes that the production of NOCIL Limited accounts for more than 50% share in the
Indian production.
23. Prior to the initiation of the investigation, the Authority sent emails to both Lanxess India Private
Limited and Finorchem Limi ted seeking their views on whether they supported or opposed the
application. In response, Finorchem Limited conveyed its suppor t for the application through email.
However, post -initiation, Finorchem Limited has not provided its information on production or sales.
Based on the information on record, the Authority notes that the production of NOCIL Limited
accounts for more than 50 % of the gross Indian production. The Authority further notes that, even
without considering the support of the other domestic p roducer, NOCIL Limited satisfies the criteria
of standing.
24. Considering the information available on record, it is seen that NOC IL Limited accounts for a major
proportion of Indian production in terms of the Rules. NOCIL Limited is an eligible domestic
industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) and satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of
the Rules. Hence, the Auth ority holds that NOCIL Limited constitutes domestic industry within the
meaning of the Rules.
E. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS
E.1 Submission by opposing interested party
25. The opposing interested party has made the following misc. submission:
i. The applicant has not provided the best information available on the volume and value of
production by all other producers (except the applicant) as per the requirement of Trade
Notice No. 10/2018. Rather, the applicant has only provided trend of volume of production of
all other producers.
ii. The applicant has not disclosed data in trend with regard to the applicant’s research and
development expense, funds raised and cost of sales per unit (exports) as per the requirement
of Trade Notice No. 10/2018.
iii. The applicant has not dis closed its aggregate actual data of non -injurious price calculation in
range as per the requirement of Trade Notice No. 10/2018.
iv. The applicant has not disclosed its actual share or provided a range of the applicant’s share in
total Indian production within the application.
v. On the comments by the domestic industry on excessive confidentiality claimed by Sennics
(Thailand) Co., Ltd., Sennics Co., Ltd. Anhui, Sennics Co., Ltd. Tai’an and Sennics Co., Ltd.,
the information such as manufacturing process, raw mat erial names, adjustments, channel of
marketing and other details are business sensitive information.
vi. On the comments by the dome stic industry on excessive confidentiality claimed by Kumho
Petrochemical Co., Ltd. and POSCO International Corporation, the information such as
manufacturing process, raw material names and other details are business sensitive
information and cannot be di sclosed.
vii. On the comments by the domestic industry on excessive confidentiality claimed by MRF
Limited, J K Tyres & Industries Limited, CEAT Limited and Apollo Tyres Ltd., the
information on production process and flow chart, actual information on details o f utilisation
of product in the downstream product, share in the domestic market and other det ails are
commercially sensitive details not available in public domain.
viii. The applicant has not disclosed the range of non -injurious price.
ix. In the most recently con cluded anti -dumping investigation on the product under
consideration, the Ministry of Finance has concluded that the domestic industry has obtained
sufficient protection from import competition and there is no need for recommending
imposition of anti -dumpi ng duty for further period.
x. The data sourced from the private source is not authentic and reli able. The Authority should
have called for DGCI&S data for the examination of imports in the present investigation at
the time of initiation.
xi. The applicant is a h abitual initiator of trade remedy investigations, indicating a pattern of
abuse of the process .
E.2 Submission by the applicant
26. The applicant has made the following misc. submissions: -
i. Research and development expense, funds raised and cost of sales pe r unit (exports) of the
applicant, and the value of production of other domestic producers are not being provided as
the anti -dumping application proforma (notified vide Trade Notice No. 04/2021) does not
require these details to be provided within the app lication.
ii. On the submission of the interested parties that the non -injurious price has not been disclosed,
the range of non -injurious price has been disclosed.
iii. The applicant is not required to disclose the range of its share in total Indian production as per
the re quirement of Trade Notice No. 10/2018
iv. Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Sennics Co., Ltd. Anhui, Sennics Co., Ltd. Tai’an and Sennics
Co., Ltd. Shandong have not provided actual information on write -up of broad stage wise
manufacturing, adjustment in normal va lue and export price, raw material, channel of
marketing and other information which are required to be disclosed as per Trade Notice
10/2018.
v. Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. and POSCO International Corporation have claimed the list
of adjustments used in no rmal value and export price calculation, raw material names, and
manufacturing process as confidential.
vi. MRF Limited, J K Tyres & Industries Limited, CEAT Limited and Apollo Tyres Ltd. have
claimed information regarding manufacturing process, shar e of the p roduct under
consideration in their downstream product and their share in the demand as completely
confidential.
vii. The applicant had relied on the import data as per its market intelligence. There is no
sufficient evidence brought forward by the in terested p arty showing how the import data of
the applicant is unreliable.
viii. The applicant categorically refutes the assertion of interested parties that recommendations of
the Authority to impose measures were not accepted as Ministry of Finance had conclud ed
that th e domestic industry has obtained sufficient protection from import competition.
ix. There is nothing on public record that would even indicate that the Ministry of Finance
considered that anti -dumping duties were not required.
x. The applicant has been forced to become habitual user of trade remedies because the
producers in the subject cou ntries are habitual of dumping the product in the Indian market.
E.3 Examination by the Authority
27. The Authority made available the non -confidential version of the i nformation provided by the
various parties to all the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7) of the Rules. 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 info rmation provid ed 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 treated as such by it and no such information shall be disc losed
to any o ther party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the interested parties providing information on
confidential basis to furnish nonconfidential summary thereof and if, in the opinio n 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 not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in su b-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 disre gard such information. ”
28. Submissions made by the domestic industry and other opposing interested parties with regard to
confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed
accordingly. The Authorit y notes that t he information provided by the interested parties on
confidential basis was duly examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On
being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted a nd such
inform ation has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever
possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient
nonconfidential version of the information filed on confidentia l basis. The Authority also notes that
all interested parties have claimed their business -related sensitive information
as confidential.
29. On the submissions made by the interested parties concerning the reliability of the data used by the
domestic industr y for the examination of imports, the Authority examined the import data based on
the DG System Transaction Wise data and found that the import volume and price were comparable.
Accordingly, the Authority has relied upon the same for the purp ose of the pre sent investigation.
30. On the submission of the interested parties of the domestic industry being a habitual initiator of trade
remedy investigations, thereby indicating a pattern of abuse of the process, the Authority notes that
while multiple anti-dumping investigations have been conducted in the past on the product under
consideration both from subject as well as non -subject countries, these investigations have been
initiated, and recommendations for imposition of duty made (wherever warrante d), pursuant to the
requirements as per the Act and the Rules. Similarly, in the present case, the Authority had initiated
this investigation on the basis of duly substantiated written application submitted by the domestic
industry and having reached satis faction based on the prima facie evidence submitted by the
domestic industry concerning the dumping of the product under consideration originating in or
exported from the subject countries, the consequential injury to the domestic industry as a result of
the alleged dumping of the product under consideration and the causal link between such injury and
the dumped imports, and in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules.
31. The Authority also notes the contention of the interested par ties regarding non -imposition of duties
by Ministry of Finance despite recommendations in the last two investigations concerning this
product. The interested parties have made definitive submissions regarding the reasons for such non -
imposition. However, t he Authority notes that the interested parties have not advanced any evidence
in support of this submission.
F. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE & DUMPING MARGIN FOR THE SUBJECT
COUNTRIES
F.1 Submission by opposing interested party
32. The opposing interested part y has made the following submissions with regard to normal value,
export price and dumping margin:
i. The presumption of China PR as a non -market economy and the requirement to file MET
ceased on 11th December 2016 with the expiry of China’s Ac cession Protoco l provisions.
Accordingly, normal value must be determined on the basis of actual domestic prices and
costs of participating Chinese producers, and reliance on surrogate country methodology post -
2016 is inconsistent with WTO obligations.
ii. Claims regarding S ennics’ alleged global dominance, control over demand or raw materials,
surrogate relationships with other producers, and impact on closures or capacity decisions of
unrelated companies are speculative, factually incorrect, and unsupported b y any credible
evidence, and should therefore be rejected in entirety.
iii. The domestic industry has failed to establish any legal or factual basis to reject the verified
costs and domestic selling prices of Kumho Petrochemical s Co. Ltd. and Sennics (Thailand)
Co., Ltd. Sole -producer status, raw material sourcing, or unsubstantiated claims of cost
distortion do not justify discarding domestic prices or substituting exporters’ costs with the
applicant’s costs in the absence of evidence of sales below cost or a p articular marke t
situation.
iv. Allegations of market allocation or collusion between Sennics and Kumho are speculative and
unsupported by evidence, and that the absence of bilateral exports is driven by legitimate
commercial considerations, with both exporters actively comp eting in the Indian market.
v. Claims seeking to treat Sennics and Kumho as related parties are legally untenable, as none of
the criteria under applicable DGTR guidelines are met, and speculative notions of
“operational control” cannot replace objective lega l standards.
vi. Generalized references to global demand slowdown do not establish dumping or injury in
India, and no evidence or causal link has been demonstrated between international market
conditions and export pricing to India.
vii. The cost of raw material (4 -ADPA) for the Respondent must be determined on an actual basis
as per the records maintained by the company.
viii. The allegation of a 'particular market situation' in Korea RP is unfounded; procurement of raw
materials from an unrelated party in China PR does not constitute such a situation under
Article 2.2 of the WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement.
ix. As per Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement and multiple WTO Appellate
Body rulings (e.g., EU – Biodiesel ), an investigating authorit y is obligated to use a n exporter's
actual costs if its records comply with GAAP and reasonably reflect the costs. Rejecting
actual costs in favour of a benchmark price is inconsistent with this legal standard.
x. The Respondent has commenced its own product ion of 4 -ADPA post -POI, making any
rejection of historical procurement costs unreasonable for the purpose of future duties.
xi. The dumping margin must be calculated based on the actual normal value and export price
information provided by the cooperating prod ucer/exporter, in accor dance with Section
9A(6A) of the Customs Tariff Act.
F.2 Submission by the applicant
33. The following submissions have been made by the applicant with regard to normal value, export
price and dumping margin:
i. China PR should be considered a non -market econo my.
ii. Should it be contended that Article 15(a)(ii) of China PR’s Accession Protocol has already
ceased and therefore the same cannot be applied to the present case, Article 15(a)(i) is still
applicable and must be considered for determination of normal valu e for China PR.
iii. The obligation under 15(a)(i) of China PR’s Accession Protocol require the criterion stipulated
in para 8 of Annexure I of the Rules to be satisfied by the exporter.
iv. Since Chinese producers are not entitled to m arket economy treatment, the Designated
Authority should follow para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules for the determination of Normal
Value.
v. The cost of Kumho Petrochemical s Co. Ltd. and Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd., should not be
accepted for the purpose of n ormal value.
vi. There exists a t acit agreement between Kumho Petrochemical s Co. Ltd. and Sennics, China
wherein 4 -ADPA is exclusively sourced by Kumho Petrochemical s from Sennics, China at
lower prices than at which Sennics, China sells the same to other producers and other markets.
vii. The fact that it has been exported at low prices it has also been observed by the Authority in
the ‘Anti -Dumping investigation concernin g the imports of Rubber Chemicals viz. MBT,
CBS, TDQ, PVI, and TMT from China and PX -13(6PPD) from China and Korea RP’ (F. No.
14/5/2007 - DGAD dated 1st October 2008), which was further upheld by the Hon’ble
CESTAT Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
viii. There is no export by Sennics, China to Korea despite holding so significant capacities, far
exceeding domestic demand, and despite the fact that both Kumho and Sennics are
undertaking significant exports. Similarly, Kumho Petrochemical s Co. Ltd. has not exported
the product to China.
ix. Import price per unit from China PR to Korea RP of 4 -ADPA shows that 4 -ADPA is being
exported at significantly low prices to Korea RP in comparison to exports prices to other
countries.
x. Kumho and Sennics sho uld be deemed to be related parties for the purpose of present
investigations and because of their actions and inactions.
xi. A producer should be deemed to control another producer when the former is legally or
operationally in a position to exercise restrain t or direction over the latter. Thus, control is not
limited to legal control and extends to operational control.
xii. In Stainless Steel Wire Rod f rom Korea , USDOC found that POSCO had a close supplier
relationship with the respondent Dongbang Special Steel Co ., Ltd. since POSCO was the
major supplier of black coil (black coil was the major raw material used to produce wire rod)
to Dongbang and Dongb ang did not have an alternative source of black coil. A similar position
was also observed by USDOC in Certain Oi l Country Tubular Goods from Republic of Korea.
xiii. The cost of production of Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd., should not be accepted for the purpose
of normal value since Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. procures 4 -ADPA from its related entity
Sennics, China for the production of PX -13.
xiv. Import price per unit from China PR to Thailand of 4 -ADPA shows that 4 -ADPA is being
exported at significantly low prices to Thailand in comparison to exports prices to other
countries.
xv. Cost of production for the purpose of calculatio n of normal value for Kumho Petrochemical s
Co. Ltd. and Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd., should not be based on records kept by the exporter
as pe r Annexure I of the Anti -Dumping Rules since the records do not reasonably reflect the
cost associated with produ ction and sale of the article under consideration
xvi. The records do not reasonably reflect the cost associated with production and sale of the art icle
under consideration since the records did not suitably and sufficiently correspond to or
reproduce those cos ts incurred by the investigated exporter or producer that have a genuine
relationship with the production and sale of the specific product unde r consideration.
xvii. In any event, records may be found not to reasonably reflect the costs associated with the
produ ction and sale of the product under consideration where transaction involving inputs are
not at arm’s length as held by the WTO Panel and Appel late Body in EU – Biodiesel and
WTO Panel Body in US – OCTG (Korea) .
xviii. In any event, the tacit agreement and action s and inactions between Kumho Petrochemical s
Co. Ltd. and Sennics, China constitute an ‘abnormal’ circumstance that justifies the rejection
of the Kumho’s cost.
xix. The use of the term ‘normally,’ read together with the phrase ‘for the purpose of paragraph 2,’
under Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement indicates that the provision for
cost rejection does not exhaust the circumstances in which the costs reflected in the records of
the producer or exporter under investigation may be rejected, as held by WTO Panel Body in
EU – Cost Adjustment Methodologies II (Russia).
xx. In any event, Kumho Petrochemical s Co. Ltd. and Sennics (Thailand) Co., L td. are faced with
a ‘particular market situation’.
xxi. Section 9A(c)(2) of the Customs Tariff Act detailing ‘particu lar market situation’ is pari
materia to Article 2.2. of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.
xxii. The WTO Panel body in Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on Paper has held that
‘particular market situation’ is relevant as long as the situation has the effect of renderi ng
domestic sales unfit to permit a proper comparison.
xxiii. The WTO Panel body in Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on Paper had held low -priced
inputs used for the production of subject merchandise to constitute a ‘particular market
situation’.
xxiv. In view of the distorted cost of production of Kumho Petrochemical s Co. Ltd. and Sennics
(Thailand) Co., Ltd., the Authority should determine their cost of pr oduction on the basis of
the cost of production of the applicant.
xxv. Since 4 -ADPA is imported into India from China PR and the European Union, both of which
are the subject countries currently undergoing anti -dumping investigation pursuant to prima
facie evid ence of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry, such import prices
are themselves distorted and c annot be considered a reliable benchmark.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
34. Under section 9A(1)(c), the normal value in relation to an article means:
i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when meant for
consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules
made under sub -section (6), or
ii) when there are no sales of the l ike article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic
market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market
situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or
territory, s uch sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either:
(a)comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting
country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with
the rules made under sub -section (6); or the cost of production of the said article in the
country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general
costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made unde r sub -
section (6).
(b)Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the
country of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the
country of export or such article is not produced in the country of expo rt or the re is no
comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with
reference to its price in the country of origin.
F.3 (a) Normal value and Export Price for China PR
Normal Value for China PR
35. Article 15 of China’s Acc ession Protocol in WTO provides 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 appl y in proceedings involvin g imports of Chinese origin 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 Chine se prices or costs for
the industry under investigation 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 i n the industry producing the 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 impo rting 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
produc t with regard to manufacture, 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 there 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 t hat 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 term s and conditions before considering the u se of terms and conditions prevailing
outside China.
(c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with
subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices and shall notify metho dologies
used in accordance with subparag raph (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 of 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 nationa l law of the
importing WTO member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or
sector, the nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that
industry or sector."
36. It is noted that while the provision cont ained in Article 15 (a) (ii) have expired on 11.12.2016, the
provision under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO, read with obligation under 15 (a) (i) of the Accession
Protocol require the criterion stipulated in Para 8 of the Annexure I of the Rules to be satisfied
through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire on claiming the
market economy status.
37. As none of the producers from China PR have filed a supplementary questionnaire on market
economy conditions questionnaire response, the n ormal value has been determined in accordance
with para 7 of Annexure I to the Rules which read as under:
“7. In case of imports from non -market economy countries, normal value shall be determined
on the basis of t he 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 reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India f or the like
product, duly adjusted, if ne cessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate
market economy third country shall be selected by the designated Authority in a reasonable
manner keeping in view the level of development of the count ry 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 eco nomy third
country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay the
aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable
period of time to offer t heir comments.
8. (1) The term "non -mark et economy country" means any country which the designated
Authority determines as not operating on market principles of cost or pricing structures, so
that sales of merchandise in such country do not reflect the fa ir value of the merchandise, in
accordanc e with the criteria specified in subparagraph (3).
(2) There shall be a presumption that any country that has been determined to be, or has been
treated as, a non -market economy country for purposes of an antidumpi ng investigation by the
designated Author ity or by the competent Authority of any WTO member country during the
three -year period preceding the investigation is a non - market economy country. Provided,
however, that the non - market economy country or the c oncerned firms from such country may
rebut such presumption by providing information and evidence to the designated Authority
that establishes that such country is not a non -market economy country on the basis of the
criteria specified in sub - paragraph (3 ).
(3) The designated Authority shall co nsider in each case the following criteria as to whether:
(a) the decisions of the concerned firms in such country regarding prices, costs and inputs,
including raw materials, cost of technology and labour, output, sales and investment, are
made in respons e to market signals reflecting supply and demand and without significant State
interference in this regard, and whether costs of major inputs substantially reflect market
values; (b) the production costs an d financial situation of such firms a re subject to
significant distortions carried over from the former non -market economy system, in particular
in relation to depreciation of assets, other write -offs, barter trade and payment via
compensation of de bts; (c) such firms are subject to bankru ptcy and property laws which
guarantee legal certainty and stability for the operation of the firms, and (d) the exchange rate
conversions are carried out at the market rate. Provided, however, that where it is show n by
sufficient evidence in writing on th e basis of the criteria specified in this paragraph that
market conditions prevail for one or more such firms subject to anti -dumping investigations,
the designated Authority may apply the principles set out in para graphs 1 to 6 instead of the
principles s et out in paragraph 7 and in this paragraph.
(4) Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub -paragraph (2), the designated Authority may
treat such country as market economy country which, on the basis of the late st detailed
evaluation of relevant criter ia, which includes the criteria specified in sub paragraph (3), has
been, by publication of such evaluation in a public document, treated or determined to be
treated as a market economy country for the purposes of a nti- dumping investigations, by a
country which is a Member of the World Trade Organization.
38. Para 7 lays down hierarchy for determination of normal value and provides that normal value shall
be determined on the basis of price or constructed value in a market economy 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 m argin. Thus, the Authority notes that the
normal value is required to be determined having regard to the various sequential alternatives
provided under Annexure -I.
39. It is to be noted that no information/evidence h as been provided by the interested parties for the
construction of the normal value on the basis of the first and second method s. In the absence of the
above information/evidence, the Authority is unable to determine normal value on the basis of the
first or second method. Therefore, the Authority has decided to construct normal value based on the
third method, i.e., on any other reasonable basis including the price actually paid or payable in India
during the period of investigation. The Authority has con structed the normal value on the basis of t he
price paid or payable in India. The normal value has been determined considering the cost of
production in India, as adjusted, after addition of the selling, general & administrative expenses, and
the reasonabl e profits. The normal value as determined i s mentioned at dumping margin table.
Export Price for China PR
Export price for Sennics Co., Ltd.
40. Sennics Co., Ltd. Anhui, is a producer/exporter of the subject goods from China PR. During the POI,
Sennics Co., Ltd. Anhui, has sold *** MT subject goods of invoice value *** CNY to India
indirectly through a related exporter/trader namely Sennics Co., Ltd.
41. Sennics Co., Ltd. Shandong is a producer/exporter of the subject goods from China PR. During the
POI, Sennics Co., Ltd. Shandong, has sold ***MT subje ct goods of invoice value *** CNY to India
indirectly through a related exporter/trader namely Sennics Co. , Ltd.
42. Sennics Co., Ltd. Tai’an is a producer/exporter of the subject goods from China PR. During the POI,
Sennics Co., Ltd. Tai’an, has sold *** MT subject goods of invoice value *** CNY to India
indirectly through related exporters/traders, namely Senn ics Co., Ltd. and Sennics Singapore Pte.
Ltd.
43. The producers/exporters have claimed no adjustments as subject goods sold to India are on ex -works
basis.
44. All three producers form part of the same group (jointly referred to as Sennics Group) and therefore,
the dumping margin and injury margin have been first determined for the individual producer and
then determined for the group.
45. The export price at ex-factory lev el so determined is as shown in the dumping margin table below.
Export price for non -cooperative exporters/producers.
46. The export price for non -cooperative producers/exporters from China PR has been determined based
on facts available in ter ms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net export price so determined is mentioned
in the dumping margin table below.
F.3 (b) Normal value and Export Price for EU
Normal value for EU
47. None of the interested parties cooperated from EU. The normal value for EU has been det ermined
based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value so determined is
mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export Price for EU
48. None of the interested parties cooperated from EU. The export price for EU has been determined
based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net export price so determined is
mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.3 (c) Normal value and Export Price for Thailand
Normal value for Sennics (Thailand) Co ., Ltd.
49. Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. is a producer/exporter of the subject goods from Thailand. Sennics
(Thailand) Co., Ltd.has sold ***MT of the subject goods having invoice value *** THB to unrelated
customers in the domestic market during the POI, base d on response of Sennics (Thailan d) Co., Ltd.,
it is noted that the domestic sales are in sufficient quantity in the domestic market.
50. It is seen that Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. has sourced 4 -ADPA from its related entity, Sennics Co.,
Ltd., China PR, wh ich has not claimed any market ec onomy treatment. It is therefore considered that
the use of actual purchase price of 4 -ADPA by Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. from Sennics Co., Ltd.,
China PR would not reasonably reflect the cost associated with production of PX -13, and therefore,
the cons umption price of 4 -ADPA reported by Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. cannot be adopted for
the purpose of determination of cost of production. Rest of the cost of production of PX -13 as
claimed by Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. has been accepted. The revised co st of sales of PX -13 so
constructed has been taken into account for the ordinary course of trade test.
51. In view of the above, the Authority has taken international price of 4 -ADPA i.e., import price of 4 -
ADPA from EU in th e POI, after adjusting as ocean f reight, insurance and port expenses, for the
purpose of working out the cost of production of PX -13. Rest of the cost of production of PX -13 as
claimed by Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. has been accepted. The revised cost of sales of PX -13 so
constructed has been taken into account for ordinary course of trade test.
52. On the basis of the cost of sales determined as above, the Authority has carried out the ordinary
course of trade test. In case profit making transactions are mo re than 80%, then the Authority h as
considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value.
Where profitable transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken into
consideration for the deter mination of normal value. Based o n the ordinary course of trade test, only
profitable domestic sales have been taken for determination of normal value, since the profitable
sales were less than 80%.
53. Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. has claimed adjustments on account of inland transportation, credit cost
and bank charges to arrive at export price at ex -factory level. The Authority has undertaken desk
verification and examined the claims made by the interested party. The adjustments claimed by the
respondent interested party have been allowed. Accordingly, the normal value for Sennics (Thailand)
Co., Ltd. has been determined and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export price for Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd.
54. During the POI, Sennics (Thaila nd) Co., Ltd. has sold *** MT subject goods of invoice value ***
US$ to India. Out of the subject goods sold to India in the POI, the company has exported *** MT
directly and *** MT indirectly through an unrelated exporter/tr ader, namely Apollo Tyres Holdi ngs
(Singapore) Pte Ltd., Singapore. It is noted that Apollo Tyres Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd.,
Singapore has not participated in this investigation and therefore not cooperated before the
Authority. In this regard, it is n oted that the complete channel of information of subject goods
produced by Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. and exported to India has not been made available to the
Authority. However, taking into account direct exports of subject goods produced and exported by
Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. to India, the Authority has decided to work out an individual export
price for Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. For working out the export price, the Authority has considered
the actual export price for the chain comprising Senn ics (Thailand) Co., Ltd’s direc t exports to India
and export price based on the best available information for Apollo Tyres Holdings (Singapore) Pte
Ltd., Singapore.
55. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean freight, insurance, inland
transportation, port and o ther related expenses, credit cost and bank charges to arrive at export price
at ex -factory level .
56. The Authority has undertaken desk verification and examined the claims made by the interested
party. The adjustm ents claimed by the interested party have be en allowed. Accordingly, the export
price for Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. has been determined and the same is mentioned in the
dumping margin table below.
Normal value and export price for non -cooperative expor ters/producers
57. The normal value and export p rice for all other non -cooperative producers/exporters from Thailand
have been determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value
and export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.3 (d) Normal value and Export Price for Korea RP
Normal value for Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd.
58. Kumho Petrochemical Co ., Ltd. is a producer/exporter of the subject goods from Korea RP. During
the POI, Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. has sold ***KG of the subjec t goods having invoice value
*** KRW to unrelated customers in the domestic market. Based on the response of Kumho
Petrochemical Co., Ltd., it is noted that the domestic sales are in sufficient quantity in the domestic
market.
59. The Authority notes that 4 -ADPA is a major raw material in production of the product under
consideration. The information provided by the domestic industry and Kumho Petrochemical Co.,
Ltd. show that 4 -ADPA constitutes a signific ant part of the total cost of production of PX -13. As per
information available on record, 4 -ADPA is being largely produced only by Chinese and Indian
producer, with some quantity being produced in EU. Information provided by responding producers
show that Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. has entirely sourced 4 -ADPA from China PR.
Questionnaire response filed by Chinese producers show that they produce their own 4 -ADPA. The
responding producers from China PR have not claimed market economy treatment.
60. With reg ard to determination of normal value for Kumho Petroch emical Co., Ltd. in the present
investigation, it is noted that the Authority has consistently rejected 4 -ADPA cost of Kumho
Petrochemical Co., Ltd. in the past anti -dumping investigations for determina tion of normal value.
No evidence or argument has been provided that the situation in the present investigation has
undergone any major change from the previous investigations on the product under consideration
from the same country where the same cooperat ing producer and exporter had participated. It is
further noted that the very issue has also been upheld by Hon'ble CESTAT, and the supreme court
and now attained finality with regard to treatment of 4 -ADPA cost reported by the Kumho. Relevant
extract of t he decision of Hon'ble CESTAT is reproduced below.
61. The Hon'ble CESTAT in its judgment reported as 2015 (322) E.L.T. 514 (Tri. - Del.) held as under:
“19. In dumping investigations, the Authority routinely requests both price and cost
information in order to check whether domestic sales are made below cost. In determining
normal value, sales of the like product in the domestic market of the exporting country at
prices below per unit (fixed and variable) costs of production plus SGA cost s will be treated as
not being in ordinary course of trade by reason of p rice. In order to ascertain the comparable
price for the like article when meant for consumption in ordinary course of trade in the
exporting country under Section 9A(1)(c)(i) ibid, t he sales reflected in the accounts/record for
the relevant period at the price shown therein will normally be accepted when the record
reasonably reflects the cost associated with the production and sale of such article. However,
when a major input is impo rted from a non -market economy country, the sale price reflected
in the r ecord will have to be scrutinized to detect and correct the distortion resulting from the
non-market economy price of the input used, the cost of which is required to be worked out in
order to correct the distorted cost of production of the article. The Au thority is justified in
rejecting the domestic sales price shown as the record when the input in question was
produced within a non -market economy country, because the price for such input would be
distorted, as they do not reflect the normal market econom y purchase price. The prices or
costs in non -market economies are not accepted as an appropriate basis for the calculation of
normal value on the ground that prices and costs are cont rolled and regulated by the
government and therefore not subject to marke t forces. Export price of 4 ADPA from China to
India, would also suffer from the same distortions. Thus, in our view, the international price,
as evidenced by the import data for 4 AD PA from a market economy country to India, is a fair
basis for ascertaini ng the actual value of 4 ADPA…… ”
62. The Hon'ble Supreme Bench on 8 -5-2015 disposed of the Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal (Civil) No. 12086 -12087 of 2015 with S.L.P. (C) CC No. 8088 of 2015 filed by
Kumho Petrochemicals Co., Ltd. against the CESTAT Fina l Order Nos. AD/A/54808 -54810/2014 -
CU(DB), dated 26 -12-2014 as reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 514 (Tri. -Del.) (Kumho Petrochemicals
Co. Ltd. v. Designated Authority). While disposin g of the petitions, the Supreme Court passed the
following order:
SLP (C) No s. 12086 -12087 12015
“Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission of this Court to
withdraw these special leave petitions with liberty to the petitioner s, if they so desire, to
question the correctness or otherwise of the order that may be passed by the designated
authority, Director General of Anti -Dumping and allied duties, before an appropriate forum
by taking up all such contentions which are availabl e to them including the contentions raised
in these special leave petitions. ”
63. Kumho again challenged the remand finding before the Hon'ble CESTAT.The Hon'ble CESTAT
rejected the appeal vide its Final Order Nos. AD/N53452 -53453/2016 -CU(DB), dated 9 -9-2016
reported as 2016 (342) E.L.T. 573 (Tri. - Del.) and held as follows;
“6. We have heard all the interested parties and perused the appeal records including the
written submissions. We note that in the first round of appeal, the Tribunal examined two
issues for decision. The first one being the correctness of cost construction for production of 6`
PPD (one of the subject goods) for arriving at normal value and consequently, the dumping
margin and injury decision on the said goods. After elaborate discussion, the Tribunal
recorded that the DA rightly rejected the price of 4 ADPA from Sinorgchem and after for
construction of normal value based on the international price of 4 ADPA which is a main raw
material for 6 PPD. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of 4 ADP A price from China and
arriving of normal value based on international price of 4 ADPA. Hence, the issue relating to
methodology adopted by the DA in constructing the normal value for the appellants has
reached finality. The conclusion of the Tribunal has not been challenged before any higher
judicial forum. ”
64. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Bench on 13 -2-2017 dismissed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No. 3079 of20l7 filed by Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. against the CESTAT Final Order Nos.
AD/A/53452 -53453/2016 -CU(DB), dated 9 -9-2016 as reported in 20l6 (342) E.L.T. 573 (Tri. -Del.)
(Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India). While dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court
passed the following order:
“The special leave petition is dismissed.”
65. In view of the above, the very issue has been settled by the Designated Authorit y and further upheld
by Hon'ble CESTAT and Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the Designated Authority has not accepted
consumption price of 4 -ADPA reported by Kumho Petrochemical Co., Lt d.
66. In the present investigation, Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. continues to source majority of 4 -ADPA
from the same non -market economy company with whom Kumho Petrochemical had earlier reported
to have special relationship and no facts or evidence have be en brought before the Authority in the
present investigation that either sta tus of the said company or business activities of the two
companies has undergone any change since the previous determination by the Authority
67. It is seen that Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. has completely sourced 4 -ADPA from Sennics Co.,
Ltd., China PR. Fur ther, while Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. had earlier reported to have special
relationship with Sennics in the previous investigations on the product under considerat ion, no facts
or evidence have been brought before the Authority in the present investigat ion that have shown any
change in either the status of the said company or the business activities of the two companies since
the previous determination by the Author ity.
68. The domestic industry has provided information showing that the export price of 4 AD PA from
China to Korea is lower than the export price from China to rest of the world. It is therefore
considered that considering the facts of the present case, the use of actual purchase price of 4 -ADPA
by Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. from the said non -market economy company would not
reasonably reflect the cost associated with production of PX -13 (6 PPD), and therefore, the
consumption price of 4 -ADPA reported by Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. cannot be adopted for the
purpose of determination of cost of production.
69. In view of the above, the Authority has taken international price of 4 -ADPA i.e ., import price of 4 -
ADPA from EU in the POI, after adding adjustments as ocean freight, insurance and inland freight,
for the purpose of working out the cost of pr oduction of PX -13. Rest of the cost of production of PX -
13 as claimed by Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. has been accepted. The revised cost of sales of PX -
13 so co nstructed has been taken into account for ordinary course of trade test.
70. On the basis of the cost of sales determined as above, the Authority has carried out the ordinary
course of trade test. 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 profitable transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken into
consideration for the determination of normal va lue. Based on the ordinary course of trade test, only
profitable domestic sales have been take n for determination of normal value, since the profitable
sales were less than 80%.
71. Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. has claimed adjustments on account of inland tra nsportation, credit
cost and packing charges. The Authority has undertaken desk verification a nd examined the claims
made by the interested party. The adjustments claimed by the interested party have been allowed.
Accordingly, normal value for Kumho Petroc hemical Co., Ltd. has been determined, and the same is
mentioned in dumping margin table below .
Export price for Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd.
72. During the POI, Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. has sold ***MT subject goods of invoice value ***
US$ to India. Of the subject goods sold to India in the POI, the company has exported ***MT
directly and *** MT indirectly through unrelated exporters/traders namely, Apollo Tyres Holdings
Pte Ltd., Singapore and Posco International Corporation. It is noted that Posco International
Corporation has submitted the questionnaire response and has given information reg arding chain of
exports to India. However, Apollo Tyres Holdings Pte Ltd. has not cooperated before the Authority.
In this regard, it is noted that comple te channel of information of subject goods produced by Kumho
Petrochemical Co., Ltd. and exported to I ndia for the subject goods has not been made available to
the Authority as some of the information by the unrelated exporter who had sourced the subject
goods from Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. has not been submitted. However, taking into account
direct ex ports of subject goods produced and exported by Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd.to India,
and through its cooperating exporter Posco International Corporatio n, it has been decided to work out
an individual export price for Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. For wo rking out net export price, the
Authority has considered the actual export price for the chain comprising Kumho Petrochemical Co.,
Ltd. direct exports to India along with indirect exports made by Posco International Corporation, and
export price based on t he best available information for Apollo Tyres Holdings Pte Ltd., Singapore.
73. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean freight, insurance, inland
transportation, port expenses and other charges to arrive at export price at ex -factory level.
74. The Authority has undertaken desk verification and examined the claims made by the respondent.
The adjustments claimed by the respondent have been allowed. Accordingly, export price for Kumho
Petrochemical Co., Ltd. has been determined, and the same is mentioned in dumping margin table
below.
Normal value and export price for non -cooperative exporters/producers
75. The normal value and export price for all other non -cooperative producers/exporters from Korea RP
has been determined based on facts av ailable in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value so
determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.3 (e) Dumping margin
76. The dumping margin has been determined as below.
SN Particular Normal
value/
CNV Export
price Dumping Marg in
$/MT $/MT $/MT % Range
1 China PR
a Sennics Co., Ltd. Anhui, Sennics
Co., Ltd. Shandong and Sennics
Co., Ltd. Tai’an *** *** *** ***
40-50
b Any other *** *** *** *** 60-70
2 Thailand
a Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 10-20
b Any other *** *** *** *** 20-30
3 Korea
a Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 20-30
b Any other *** *** *** *** 30-40
4 European Union
a All producers/exporters *** *** *** *** 20-30
G. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
G.1 Submission by opposing interested party
77. The opposing interested party has made the following submissions with regard to assessment of
injury and causal link:
i. Imports from China PR have consistently declined from 2020 -21 to 2023 -24 despite an
increas e in demand/consumption over the same period. Aroun d the same time, sales of the
applicant have remained broadly stable.
ii. Total volume of imports declined only marginally from *** (in 2021 -22) to *** MT (in the
period of investigation). This near -static tr end in import volumes cannot reasonably be linked
to the sharp deterioration in the applicant’s performance.
iii. The import price from China PR is lower than import price from Korea RP and the import
volume from China PR is the highest during the period of inv estigation. Therefore, imports
from Korea should no t be clubbed with the imports from China. As it would wrongly impute
injury to the applicant due to imports from Korea RP.
iv. The volume of the imports of subject goods from Korea RP cannot be a cause of inju ry to the
applicant since the imports have declined over the injury period, and during the period of
investigation, imports from Korea RP were substantially lower than imports from China PR
and Thailand.
v. While the landed price of imports from China PR decl ined, the price undercutting remained
low or even n egative in some years.
vi. The profitability of the applicant shows that there is no price underselling, since both the
domestic selling price and the landed price of subject imports are above the applicant’s cost of
production.
vii. There is no price suppression or depression as the selling price of the applicant has closely
followed the trend in its cost of sales throughout the injury period and the period of
investigation.
viii. There has been a pronounced slowdown in global demand for the tyre and rubber industry,
caused by weak economic conditions and reduced consumption in key end -use sectors as
acknowledged by the applicant. The applicant’s prices and profits have moved in parallel with
international price trends, which reflects wider market forces rath er than any effect of subject
imports to have caused injury to the applicant.
ix. The fall in capacity utilization and production in 2023 -24 and the period of investigation is not
because of subject imports but is rather linked to the applicant’s own capacity expansion
decisions.
x. In the anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of “N, N’ - Dicyclohexyl Carbodiimide
(DCC)” from China PR, the Authority had held that start -up costs, inefficiencies and low -
capacity utilizat ion associated with new industries is a relevant factor in determining causality
of the injury.
xi. From 2020 -21 to 2023 -24, the sales of two other Indian producers have increased from 100
indexed points in 2021 -22 to 151 indexed points in the period of invest igation. This growth
has been largely driven by their ability to procure 4 -ADPA, a key intermediate chemical, from
China PR at competitive prices.
xii. From 2021 -22 to the period of investigation, the two other Indian producers increased their
production by 21% and expanded their mark et share by 45%. This growth has been largely
driven by their ability to procure 4 -ADPA, a key intermediate chemical, from China PR at
competitive prices.
xiii. Demand has not increased at all considering 2022 -23 as the base year, and dem and has only
increased b y 6 indexed points in the period of investigation in comparison to 2021 -22 as the
base year. In these circumstances, significant increase in production and sales reported by
other domestic producers cannot be attributed to any expan sion in demand but rathe r inter -se
competition amongst domestic producers.
xiv. In a flat demand scenario, while imports from the subject countries have not exhibited any
sustained or significant increase, the applicant’s domestic sales declining marginally dur ing
the period of invest igation represents a normal commercial adjustment within the market and
does not establish displacement by imports.
xv. In the anti -dumping investigation concerning Coated Paper from China PR, the EU, and the
USA, the Authority, in its Final Findings dated 26th December 2018, terminated the
investigation without recommending the imposition of anti -dumping duty based on the
conclusion that the injury was confined to a single producer while other domestic producers
had shown improvement.
xvi. The profitability of the applicant declined significantly even though there has been no increase
in imports from the subject countries over the injury period.
xvii. Increase in the cost of sales and consequent decline in profitability of the applicant is due to
anti-dumping duty on impo rts of Aniline from China PR and cannot be attributed to imports of
PX-13 from Korea RP. The applicant had also filed an application seeking initiation of mid -
term review and withdrawal of anti -dumping duty on imports of Aniline, th ough the Authority
recom mended continuation of duty.
xviii. The decline in profitability of the applicant coincides with increase in depreciation cost and
interest cost, which is due to recent increase in capacity/capital investment in 2023 -24.
xix. Interest costs hav e continuously increased from an indexed level of 100 indexed points in the
base year to 155 in the period of investigation. This sharp rise in financial expenses has
directly reduced profit before tax from 212 indexed points in 2022 -23 to only 19 indexed
points in the period of investigation.
xx. The applicant’s export sales prices, which are unaffected by domestic competition from
subject imports, exhibit a parallel decline to the applicant’s domestic selling price. Therefore,
decline in both import and domes tic prices during the pe riod of investigation is reflective of
wider market dynamics and the applicant’s own business decisions.
xxi. The Authority should reconsider the fixed 22% return on capital employed methodology and
adopt the actual return on capital emp loyed earned by the dome stic industry during periods
free from dumping allegations as the benchmark for a reasonable return.
xxii. The fall in import prices is reflective of international market conditions and not import -driven
pressure on the domestic industry .
G.2 Submission by t he applicant
78. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to assessment of injury and causal
link:
i. Rubber Chemicals are produced in various countries with major producing countries being
China PR, Europe, India, Kore a RP and Thailand.
ii. The capacities in China PR, Korea RP and Thailand far exceed the demand in their respective
countries.
iii. Sennics Co., Ltd. already having a huge rubber chemical plant in China PR has now also set
up a plant in Thailand. Producers have set up capacities in different parts of the world to take
geographical advantage.
iv. The period 2023 -24 had seen a sluggish demand for rubber chemical (outside India) due to
sharp government spending cuts in the United States of America and the latest struggles o f
recession -stricken Europe. The subdued demand in international markets had resulted in surge
in supply from various markets thereby exerting pressure on volume and price dynamics in the
domestic and export market.
v. The demand for the product under conside ration had consistently increased over the injury
period. While the global demand declined, the Indian demand increased and imports into India
increased.
vi. Imports fromthe subject countries declined in 2022 -23, increased in 2023 -24 and then
increased again i n the period of investigation.
vii. Imports in relation to Indian production and consumption declined in 2022 -23 and thereafter
increased in 2023 -24 and the period of investigation.
viii. The landed price of imports in the period of investigation was below the sellin g price of the
applicant. The price undercutting was positive and significant.
ix. The applicant’s prices were depressed in the period of investigation.
x. While there was a marginal decline in imports from China PR from 2020 -21 to 2023 -24, the
landed price of im ports has consistently remained below the selling price of the applicant,
except in 2022 -23 because of China’s zero Covid policy and its impact on global prices.
xi. The capacity of the applicant marginally increased in 2023 -24 and the period of investigation
as the applicant had undertaken debottlenecking
xii. The production and capacity utilization declined in 2022 -23 and further declined in 2023 -24.
While there was a marginal increase in production in the period of investigation in comparison
to the immediately preceding year, the applicant was unable to increase its domestic sales.
xiii. The capacity utilization of the applicant declined over the injury period.
xiv. The domestic sales volume and value increased in 2022 -23, declined thereafter in 2023 -24 and
further decli ned in the period of investigation. The decline in sales in values terms was higher
than the decline in sales in volume terms.
xv. The applicant was operating with significant unutilized production capacity over the injury
period. This was despite significant demand for the product being available in the country.
xvi. The installed capacity in India is more than enough to meet entire demand in India as on the
period of investigation. In the absence of dumped imports, the applicant could have produced
and sold more in the domestic market.
xvii. Despite having sufficient capacity to cater the entire demand in India, the applicant’s market
share has seen a consistent decline over the injury period.
xviii. The applicant’s inventory has consistently increased over the injury period .
xix. The applicant’s profitability increased in 2022 -23 when the import prices increased. As
dumping resumed in 2023 -24, the applicant again suffered steep decline in the profits which
have further declined in the period of investigation. The profit per unit earned by the applicant
is less than the adequate profit considered by the Authority for normal value.
xx. The cash profit declined sharply in 2023 -24 and further declined in the period of investigation.
When seen over the injury period, the cash profits have declined by 67% and the profit before
interest has declined by 70%.
xxi. The wages paid by the applicant have increased over the injury period. The number of
employees and productivity per day of the applicant increased in 2022 -23 and declined
thereafter. These parameters are dependent on several other parameters and not reflective of
the impact of dumping on the applicant
xxii. Dumped imports have impacted both growth and the ability of the applicant to raise capital
investment. The applicant is suffering in both vol ume and price parameters despite no demand
supply gap in India.
xxiii. The import price has directly affected the prices of the applicant in the domestic market. The
landed price of the product from the subject countries was below the cost and selling price of
the applicant.
xxiv. Both the domestic sales and market share of the other Indian producers increased till 2023 -24
but declined in the period of investigation when the dumped imports increased. As the
domestic sales of other domestic producers increased in 2022 -23, the sales of the applicant did
not decline.
xxv. 4-ADPA is being dumped in India with the dumping intensifying in 2022 -23, resulting in the
other domestic producer’s sales to also increase.
xxvi. The dumping of the product had intensified in the post period of in vestigation. The CIF import
price had continuously declined post the period of investigation. While the cost of sales of the
applicant had also declined, this decline in cost was far lower than the decline in CIF import
price.
xxvii. The imports from Korea with effect from April 2025 are cleared without customs duty
because of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Between India and Republic
of Korea. The import price has steeply declined.
xxviii. Since the imports of the product under consideration from Korea RP and Thailand are now
being cleared without payment of anti -dumping duty, the Authority is requested to not
consider basic customs duty in the calculation of injury margin.
xxix. While the applicant was profitable in the period of investigation, the applicant operates with
significant losses, cash losses and a negative return on capital employed post the period of
investigation.
xxx. The dumping margin is above de minimis and significant.
xxxi. The legal requirement for causal link as per the WTO Anti -dumping Agreement is the
existence of ‘a’ causal relationship between dumped imports and injury to the domestic
industry rather than ‘the’ causal relationship between dumped imports and injury to the
domestic industry.
xxxii. While the anti -dumping duty on Aniline is adding to the c ost of the applicant, duty on Aniline
has been in force over the entire injury period and the applicant has not suffered injury over
the entire injury period, thereby showing that duty on imports of Aniline cannot be the sole
cause of injury.
xxxiii. The WTO Appel late Body in European Union – Biodiesel (Argentina) had observed that the
authority is not required to conduct a non -attribution analysis with respect to features that
are inherent to the domestic industry and have remained unchanged over the injury period .
xxxiv. The Hon’ble CESTAT Tribunal in Nippon Zeon Co. Ltd. V. Designated Authority etc. had
held that the question of injury to the domestic industry cannot be decided by assuming ideal
conditions but has to be decided on prevailing conditions though giving rea sonable
adjustments.
xxxv. The share of interest cost and depreciation is only [ 0.14] % and [ 2.9] % respectively of the
total cost of the applicant. The applicant’s profit before interest has declined followed by a
steep decline in cash profits.
xxxvi. The Authority an d the Hon’ble CESTAT Tribunal has taken a unanimous view that unless
the interested parties demonstrate the need for consideration of a different return, a return of
22% shall be allowed for determination of non -injurious price.
xxxvii. In Tangshan San you Group Ho ng Kong International Trade Co. Limited Vs. Union of India ,
the Hon’ble CESTAT Tribunal had held that since the interested parties did not produce any
evidence to substantiate that the return of 22% was unreasonable, the consistent practice
followed by the Authority could not be questioned.
xxxviii. The claims made by the applicant regarding global market disruptions in 2023 -24 allegedly
encouraging dumping in India are purely speculative and unsupported by credible evidence.
xxxix. The claims made by the appli cant regardi ng alleged overcapacity in China and an intention
to dump are baseless and unsupported by any verifiable evidence.
xl. The present investigation is a fresh investigation with no allegation of threat of material
injury; therefore, there is no basis for examinin g post-period of investigation data.
xli. The statements of senior management of NOCIL Limited in investor earnings calls clearly
demonstrate that the applicant has not suffered any adverse impact from imports and, in fact,
has reported resilience a nd strengthe ning of its economic parameters in the post - period of
investigation period.
G.3 Examination by the Authority.
79. Rule 11 of Anti -Dumping Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall
involve examination of factors tha t may indica te injury to the domestic industry, “… 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 pro ducers
of su ch articles… ”. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic
industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as production, capacity
utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, ne t sales real ization, the magnitude and margin of
dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the Anti -Dumping Rules.
80. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices
having a bearing on the st ate 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 to the Rules.
81. The Authority has take n note of the various submissions made by the domestic industry and the other
interested parties on injury and causal link. The submissions made by interested parties with regard
to injury and causal link, which have been considered relev ant by the Authori ty are examined and
addressed as under.
82. On the submissions of the interested parties that the decline in global demand has caused injury to
the domestic industry, the Authority has considered the data for domestic operations only. The
Authority also notes that the import from the subject countries have been found to be at dumped
prices. If the decline in global demand was to cause injury, the export volume of the domestic
industry too would have declined. However, the information on recor d shows that the e xport volume
has increased in the period of investigation. Therefore, the global decline in demand for the tyre and
rubber industry is not a cause of injury to the domestic industry.
83. Interested parties have claimed that decline in profit ability of the dom estic industry coincides with
increase in depreciation cost and interest cost. The Authority notes that the share of interest cost is
only ** % in the period of investigation. Similarly, depreciation is only ** % of the total cost in the
period of investig ation. With such low share in the overall cost of production, these factors could not
have been a cause of injury to the domestic industry. It is also seen that the cash profits, profit before
interest, profit before interest & depreciati on and return on i nvestment of the domestic industry have
also declined. Therefore, depreciation and interest cost cannot be the sole reason for injury caused to
the domestic industry.
84. Interested parties have claimed that the increase in cost of sales and consequent declin e in the
profitability of the domestic industry is due to anti -dumping duty on imports of Aniline (raw material
for the production of 4 -ADPA) from China PR. The Authority notes that the anti -dumping duties
have been in force over the enti re injury period. Had these factors been a cause of injury, the
domestic industry would have suffered injury over the entire injury period, and its profits would not
have declined over the injury period.
85. The interested parties have claimed that production , sales and market share of the other domestic
producers have improved over the injury period the Authority notes that based on an application filed
by the domestic industry (NOCIL Limited), an anti -dumping investigation has been initiated on
imports of 4 -ADPA from China PR on 29th September 2025 based on prima facie evidence that
imports of 4 -ADPA from China PR constitutes dumped imports and the same are causing injury to
the domestic industry. 4 ADPA is the penultimate raw material for the product under c onsideration.
The domestic industry is captively producing 4 ADPA, other producers are importing them. In the
period of investigation, the market share of the subject imports (i.e. PX -13) increased from 26% to
31%, this increase being largely at the expens e of the other dom estic producers, whose share
declined from 34% to 30%, while the market share of the domestic industry was broadly maintained
at 39%. It is thus not borne out that the position of the domestic industry was displaced by the other
domestic producers. The Aut hority also notes that the movement in the market share as between the
domestic industry and the other domestic producers is a matter of inter -se competition in terms of
volume and does not negate the injury suffered by the domestic indus try, which has bee n established
principally on its price and profitability parameters.
86. The interested parties have disputed consideration of 22% return on capital employed and adopt
actual return on capital employed earned by the domestic industry during periods free from dumping
allegations. For the same, the interested parties have placed reliance on the Hon’ble CESTAT
Tribunal’s decision in Bridge Stone Tyre Manufacturing & Others vs. Designated Authority and M/s
Hyosung Corporation vs. Designated Autho rity. The Authorit y notes that Annexure III of the Rules
refers to reasonable return (pre -tax) on the capital employed and it is a consistent practice of the
Authority to determine the non -injurious price of the domestic industry based on reasonable return
on capital employ ed, which is 22%. With regard to the interested parties reference to Bridge Stone
Tyre Manufacturing & Others vs. Designated Authority , it is seen that the interested parties in this
case had produced specific evidence before the Hon’ble CESTAT justifying a departure from the
Authority’s consistent practice in this particular case. However, interested parties in the present case
have not placed any evidence on record to justify such departure. With regards to the interested
parties’ refere nce to M/s Hyosung Corporation vs. Designated Authority , it is seen that post this
decision by the Hon’ble CESTAT in 2011, there have been multiple cases including Tangshan
Sanyou Group Hong Kong International Trade Co. Limited v. Union of India , Merino Pa nel
Products v. De signated Authority and M /s Perstorp Chemicals GmbH & Anr. v. Designated
Authority & Ors. wherein the Hon’ble CESTAT Tribunal has consistently upheld the Authority’s
practice of adopting a 22% ROCE for injury analysis. Therefore, the Autho rity finds conside ring a
22% return on capital employed as appropriate in the present investigation.
87. In the present case, no evidence has been provided by other interested parties that a return of less
than 22% would be appropriate for the product under c onsideration.
88. On the submission of the domestic industry that the post period of investigation has seen a further
increase in the imports with a decline in the price and as a result the domestic industry has suffered
losses, the Authority notes that the present investig ation is a fresh investigation and the data for the
POI itself is sufficient to make a determination.
89. Certain interested parties have submitted that imports from certain sources have declined, or that any
injury caused is attributable to imports from other countries. The Authority, however, notes that
import volumes cannot be evaluated in isolation. Under Article 3.3 of the WTO Agreement and
paragraph (iii) of Annexure II of the Rules, where imports of a product from more than one country
are simultane ously subject to anti -dumping investigations, the Authority is required to assess the
effects of such imports on a cumulative basis. As discussed below, the circumstances of the present
case warrant a cumulative assessment of imports. Moreover, the interes ted p arties have failed to
furnish any evidence demonstrating why such a cumulative assessment would be inappropriate.
90. On the submission of the interested parties that price underselling has not been determined in the
present investigation, the Authority notes that Annexure II to the anti -dumping rules contains list of
factors which are required to be examined to see if a domestic industry has suffered material injury.
Price underselling is not a factor listed under the Annexure II. Therefore, there is no reaso n to
examine price underselling. The Authority has examined injury margin for the participating
producers which is found to be positive.
91. On the submission of the interested parties that the injury due to start -up costs and inefficiencies is
required to be removed, the Authority notes that the applicant has not commenced commercial
production in the injury period but the applicant’s plant has been under operation over the entire
injury period. Therefore, any injury cannot be due to such startup costs o r inefficiencies.
G.3.1 Cumulative assessment of injury
92. Interested parties have made various submissions on cumulative assessment. Article 3.3 of the WTO
Agreement and para (iii) of the Annexure II of the Rules provides that in case where imports of a
product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti -dumping
investigations, the Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it
determined that:
a. The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than
two percent expressed as a percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from
each country is three percent (or more) of the import of the like article or where the export of
individual countries is less than thre e per cent, the imports collectively account for more than
seven percent of the imports of the like article, and
b. Cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of
competition between the imported article and the lik e dom estic article.
93. The Authority notes that:
a. The subject goods are being dumped into India from the subject countries. The margin of
dumping from each of the subject counties is more than de minimis limits prescribed under
the Rules.
b. The volume of imports f rom each of the subject counties is individ ually more than 3% of the
total volume of imports.
c. Cumulative assessment of the effects of import is appropriate as the imports from the subject
countries not only directly compete with the like articles offered by each of them but also the
like articles offered by the domestic industry in the Indian market.
94. In view of the above, the Authority considers that it is appropriate to assess the effect of dumped
imports of the subject goods from China PR, EU, Korea RP and Thailand on the domestic industry.
95. The Authority notes that it is not necessary that all parameters of injury show deterioration. Some
parameters may show deterioration, while some others may not. The Authority considers all injury
parameters and, the reafter, determines whether the domestic in dustry has suffered injury or is likely
to suffer injury due to dumping. The Authority has examined the injury parameters objectively
considering the facts and arguments submitted by the domestic industry and othe r interested parties.
G.3.2 Assessment of demand/apparent consumption
96. For the purpose of the present investigation, demand or apparent consumption of the product in India
has been defined as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry, domestic sal es of other India
producers and imports from all sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table below.
SN Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Sales of domestic industry MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 102 91 90
3 Sale of other Indian
producers MT *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 164 172 151
5 Imports from subject
countries MT 8,390 7,139 7,926 9,211
6 Trend Indexed 100 85 94 110
7 Imports from other countries MT 15.00 20.00 0.00 0.00
8 Trend Indexed 100 133 0 0
9 Demand /consumption MT *** *** *** ***
10 Trend Indexed 100 111 110 109
97. It is seen that the demand has grown from **** MT in 2021 -22 to **** MT in the POI. It is also
seen that sales of the domestic industry have declined over the injury period. The other dome stic
producers manufacture PX -13 majorly from imported 4 ADPA, whereas the domestic industry
manufacture it from captively produced 4 ADPA. The increase in sales of other Indian producer of
PX-13 is allegedly due to increase in imports of 4 ADPA, which is investigated separately. The
decline in sales volume of domestic industry is in tandem with the increase in import in the POI. The
Authority has already initiated an anti -dumping investigation on imports of 4 ADPA.
G.3.3 Volume effect of the dumped import s
98. With regard to the volume of imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a
significant increase in the dumped imports from the subject countries, either in absolute terms or
relative to production or consumption in India. The sa me is analysed in the table below.
SN Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Subject countries MT 8,390 7,139 7,926 9,211
2 Trend Indexed 100 85 94 110
3 Other countries MT 15 20 0 0
4 Trend Indexed 100 133 0 0
5 Imports from subject countrie s in relation to
6 India production % *** *** *** ***
7 Trend Indexed 100 76 92 110
8 Indian demand % *** *** *** ***
9 Trend Indexed 100 77 86 100
10 Total imports % 100% 100% 100% 100%
11 Trend Indexed 100 100 100 100
99. It is seen that imports fro m the subject countries declined in 2022 -23, as compared to 2021 -22. The
imports from the subject countries thereafter increased in 2023 -24 and again increased in the period
of investigation.
100. Imports from the subject countries in relation to Indian produ ction decreased from 33% in 2021 -22 to
25% in 2022 -23, increased to 30% in 2023 -24 and to 36% in the period of investigation. Similarly,
imports from the subject countries in relation to Indian demand decreased from 30% in 2021 -22 to
23% in 2022 -23, increa sed to 26% in 2023 -24 and to 31% in the period of investigation. Imports
from the subject countries in relation to total imports remained almost 100% throughout the injury
period.
101. It is thus seen that the imports first declined in 2022 -23 and thereafter i ncreased significantly till the
period of investigation both in absolute terms and in relation to production and consumption in India.
G.3.4 Price effect of the dumped imports
102. With regards to the effect of the dumped i mports on prices of the domestic ind ustry, it is required to
be analysed whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as
compared to the price of the like products in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise
to depress prices or preve nt price increases, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal
course. The impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of the dumped imports from the
subject countries has been examined with reference to price undercutting, price suppre ssion and price
depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis, the cost of production, net sales realization (NSR)
and the non -injurious price (NIP) of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed pric e
of imports of the subject goods fr om the subject countries.
a. Price undercutting
103. For the purpose of price undercutting analysis, the selling price of the domestic industry has been
compared with the landed price of imports from the subject countries. Accordingly, the effects of the
dumped i mports from the subject countries are as follows:
SN Particulars Unit China
PR EU Korea
RP Thailand Average
1 Import volume MT 2,927 1,795 1,333 3,156 9,211
2 Net sales realization Rs/MT *** *** *** *** ***
3 Landed price Rs/MT 2,59,368 2,50,507 2,61,3 61 2,60,695 2,58,384
4 Price undercutting Rs/MT *** *** *** *** ***
5 Price undercutting % *** *** *** *** ***
6 Price undercutting Range 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% 10-20%
104. The Authority notes that the subject imports are undercutting the prices of t he domestic industry and
the price undercutting is positive and significant.
b. Price suppression/depression
105. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing the dom estic prices or whether the
effect of such imports is to suppress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases which
otherwise would have occurred in normal course, the changes in the costs and prices over the injury
period are compared as bel ow:
SN Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Selling price Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 115 94 86
3 Change Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
4 Cost of sales Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
5 Trend Indexed 100 104 99 94
6 Change Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
7 Landed price Rs/MT 3,19,504 4,09,105 2,74,496 2,58,384
8 Trend Indexed 100 128 86 81
9 Change Rs/MT 89,600 -1,34,609 -16,112
106. It is seen that
a. In 2022 -23, while the cost of sales increased by Rs *** per MT in comparison to 2021 -22, the
selling price increased at a greater rate of Rs ***per MT. This was the period when the import
volume declined, and the import price had increased.
b. In 2023 -24, whi le the cost of sales declined by Rs ***per MT in comparison to 2022 -23, the
selling price declined at a greater rate of Rs ***per MT. This was the period when the import
volumes in creased, and the import price declined.
c. In the period of investigation, whil e the cost of sales declined by Rs ***per MT in comparison
to 2023 -24, the selling price declined at a greater rate of Rs ***per MT. The import volumes
had increased further in thi s period, and the import price had further declined.
d. While the landed price of imports remained above the domestic industry's selling price during
2022 -23, it declined drastically during the FY 2023 -24 and the Period of Investigation (POI).
Specifically, t he landed price plummeted from ₹*** per MT in the first half of 2023 -24 to
₹***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 the POI, the landed price
saw a marginal recovery, increasing to ₹***per MT.
107. It is therefore seen that the prices of the domestic industry are depressed in the period of
investigation. The decline in the selling price is significantly higher than the decline in the cost of
sales.
108. It is also seen that the landed price of imports is below the cost of sales and the selling price of the
domestic industry in the period of investigation. The Authority holds that the landed price of imports
has prevented the domestic industry from charging adequate remunerative prices in the period of
investiga tion.
G.3.5 Economic parameters of the domestic industry
109. Annexure II to the Rules requires that the determination of injury shall involve an objective
examination of the consequent impact of dumped imports on domestic 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 s hould include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all rel evant 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 investmen ts or utilization of capacity; factors
affecting domestic pri ces, 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 p arameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed bel ow.
a. Production, capacity, capacity utilization and sales volumes
110. The capacity, production, sales and capacity utilization of the domestic industry over the injury
period is given in the followin g table:
SN Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 100 103 108
3 Production MT *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 97 82 85
5 Capacity utilization % *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Indexed 100 97 79 79
7 Domestic sales MT *** *** *** ***
8 Trend Indexed 100 102 91 90
111. It is seen that:
a. The capacity of the domestic industry remained the same in 2021 -22 and 2022 -23 and then
increased in 2023 -24 and further in the period of investigation. The domestic industry has
submitted that it had undertaken de -bottlenecking in its plant. It is seen th at the capacity with
the domestic industry alone was sufficient to cater the demand for the product under
consideration in the period of investigation. If capacity wi th other domestic producers is
considered, the combined production capacities in the Count ry are sufficient to cater to the
present and potential demand for the product in the Country.
b. The production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry decli ned till 2023 -24, despite
increase in capacity of the domestic industry in 2023 -24. Produc tion marginally increased in
the period of investigation. When seen over the injury period, production has declined despite
increase in demand and capacities with the domestic industry.
c. The domestic sales of the domestic industry increased in 2022 -23 in co mparison to 2021 -22.
The domestic sales thereafter declined in 2023 -24 and further declined again in the period of
investigation in comparison to 2023 -24. The domesti c sales have declined over the injury
period.
d. The demand for the product under considerat ion has seen an increase over the injury period.
While the demand increased over the injury period, the domestic sales of the domestic industry
declined.
b. Market sha re
112. The market share of the domestic industry, other producers in India and imports of the products into
India is shown in the table below:
SN Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Domestic industry % *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 93 83 83
3 Other domestic producers % *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 148 156 138
5 Subject countries % *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Indexed 100 77 86 100
7 Other countries % *** *** *** ***
8 Trend Indexed 100 121 0 0
113. Based on the above, the Authority note s that:
a. The market share of the domestic industry declined in 2022 -23, further declined in 2023 -24
and has thereafter remained the same in the period of investigation. The market share of the
domestic industry has declined over the injury period.
b. The marke t share of subject imports declined in 2022 -23, then increased in 2023 -24 and then
further increased in the period of investigation.
c. The market share of other domestic producers increased from 2021 -22 to 2023 -24. However,
once imports from the subject coun tries in tensified in the period of investigation, the market
share of the domestic producers also declined in comparison to 2023 -24.
d. The other domestic producers import 4 -ADPA (penultimate stage intermediate used for
producing the product under considerati on) from other countries in comparison to the
domestic industry which is backward integrated and produces its own 4 -ADPA. The domestic
industry has claimed that these producers have access to low priced raw materials.
e. The market share of the domestic indus try in t he period of investigation has remained the
same as 2023 -24 and declined by 9% in comparison to 2021 -22 and 5% in comparison to
2022 -23 despite increasing capacity and the domestic industry having sufficient capacity to
cater the entire demand in I ndia.
c. Inventories
114. Information with regard to inventory is given below.
SN Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Opening inventory MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 459 614 645
3 Closing inventory MT *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 134 109 132
5 Average inventory MT *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Indexed 100 192 199 223
115. It is seen that the average inventory with domestic industry has consistently increased over the injury
period. The average inventory has increased in the period of investigation, despite increase in
demand and has remained at an all -time high.
d. Profitability, cash profits and return on capital employed
116. Profitability, return on capital employed and cash profits of the domestic industry over the injury
period are given in the table below: -
SN Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Profit/(Loss) Rs Lakhs *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 212 48 19
3 PBIT Rs Lakhs *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 212 48 20
5 Cash profit Rs Lakhs *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Indexed 100 193 56 33
7 Return on investment % *** *** *** ***
8 Trend Indexed 100 220 54 25
117. It is seen that
a. The domestic industry’s profitability increased in 2022 -23 and thereafter declined steeply till
the period of investigation.
b. The domestic indust ry’s profit before interest and taxes and cash profit have followed a
similar trend and have increased in 2022 -23 and thereafter declined steeply till the period of
investigation.
c. The return on investment of the domestic i ndustry increased in 2022 -23 and t hereafter
declined steeply in 2023 -24 and the POI.
e. Employment, productivity and wages
118. Employment, productivity and wages of domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table
below.
SN Particulars Unit 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 No. of emp loyees No. *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 109 98 98
3 Productivity per employee MT/No. *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 89 84 87
5 Productivity per day MT/
Days *** *** *** ***
6 Trend No. 100 97 82 85
7 Wages Rs Lacs *** *** *** ***
8 Trend Indexed 100 114 119 120
119. It is seen that:
a. Number of employees of the domestic industry increased in 2022 -23 in comparison to 2021 -
22. Number of employees declined in 2023 -24 and thereafter remained the same as 2023 -24
in the period of investigation.
b. The decline in productivity per employee and productivity per day during the injury period
reflects the adverse effects of dumped imports on the operations of the domestic industry.
Dumped imports adversely impact production levels and resource utilisation res ulting in
domestic industry not able to utilise its production capabilities.
c. Wages paid by the domestic industry have increased over the injury period.
f. Growth
120. The following table shows the growth parameters of the domestic industry over the injury period .
SN Particulars Unit 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Capacity % 0% 3% 5%
2 Production % -3% -16% 4%
3 Domestic sales % 2% -11% -1%
4 Profit/(Loss) % 108% -75% -59%
5 PBIT % 112% -78% -60%
6 Cash profit % 112% -77% -59%
7 Profit before interest % 93% -71% -41%
121. Based on the above, the Authority notes that a number of parameters showed a positive growth in
2022 -23 but has thereafter shown a negative growth in both volume and price parameters till the
period of investigation. Production and domestic sales of the domestic industry have declined in the
period of investigation and are nowhere near the level these should have been. Price parameters,
including profit, cash profit, profit before interest and taxes and return on capital employed of the
domestic indus try have also recorded a significant decline in the period of investigation.
g. Ability to raise capital investment
122. The Authority notes that the profitability in the period of inve stigation is very low. It is also seen that
the return on capital employed by the domestic industry is significantly low, which would affect its
ability to raise capital investments . The Authority also notes the contention of the domestic industry
that no producer of the subject goods would want to invest in the market in the presen t situation.
h. Factors affecting prices
123. The Authority notes that the landed price of subject imports is below the selling price and cost of
sales of the domestic industry in 2023 -24 and the period of investigation. The landed price of subject
imports has d epressed the prices of domestic industry, leading to the domestic industry suffering
significantly on both volume and price parameters. Therefore, the dumped imports are the only
factors affecting the prices of the domestic industry.
i. Magnitude of dumping .
124. The magnitude of dumping is an indicator of the extent to which the imports are being dumped into
India. The investigation has shown that the dumping margin is positive and sig nificant during the
period of investigation.
G.3.6 Conclusions on injury.
125. The examination of the imports of the product under consideration and performance of domestic
industry shows that:
a. The imports of the product under consideration have increased.
b. The imports have increased in absolute terms and relative terms.
c. The landed pri ce of imports is below the cost of sales and the selling price of the domestic
industry in the period of investigation. The dumped imports are the only factors affecting the
prices of the domestic industry
d. The price undercutting is positive.
e. While the cost of sales declined by Rs [ ***] per MT in the period of investigation in
comparison to 2023 -24, the sellin g price declined at a greater rate of Rs [ ***] per MT. The
import volumes also increased in this period, and the import price had declined. This has le d
to price depression.
f. The production and capacity utilization has declined over the injury period, despi te increase in
demand and capacities with the domestic industry.
g. The domestic sales have declined over the injury period.
h. The market share of subject i mports declined in 2022 -23, then increased in 2023 -24 and then
further increased in the period of investi gation.
i. The market share of the domestic industry has declined over the injury period.
j. The average inventory has increased in the period of investigati on, despite increase in demand
and has remained at an all -time high.
k. The domestic industry’s profitabilit y has declined steeply in the period of investigation. Profit
before interest and tax and cash profit have followed a similar trend. The domestic indus try
has provided information that it has suffered losses in the post period of investigation.
l. All the par ameters have shown a negative growth in the period of investigation.
m. The investigation has shown that the dumping margin is positive and significant du ring the
period of investigation.
126. Therefore , the Authority concludes that the domestic industry has suff ered injury.
H. NON -ATTRIBUTION AND CAUSAL LINK
127. The Authority examined whether any known factors other than the dumped imports have at the same
time bee n injuring the domestic industry, and injury caused by these other factors should not be
attributed to the dumped imports. It has been examined whether factors other than dumped imports
could have contributed to injury to the domestic industry. The Authori ty 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
128. The Authority notes that apart from the subject countries, imports have not been reported in
significant quantities from any other country. Therefore, the injury is not attributable to imports from
any country other than the subject countries.
b. Contraction of demand
129. The Authority notes that demand for the product under consideration has increased over the injury
period. While the imports from the subject countries have increased, the domestic sales of the
domestic industry have declined. Therefore, the contraction of demand is not a possible cause of
injury to the domestic industry.
c. Changes in pattern of consumption
130. The Authority notes that th ere has been no material change in the pattern of consumption of the
product under consideration, which could have caused injury to the domestic industry.
d. Trade restrictive practices
131. The Authority notes that sales of the product under consideration are no t restricted in any manner
and no restrictive practices have been brought to the notice of the Authority.
e. Developments in technology
132. The Authority notes that there has been no known material change in the technology for production
of the product under con sideration.
f. Productivity
133. The decline in productivity per employee and productivity per day during the injury period reflects
the adverse effects of dumped imports on the ope rations of the domestic industry. Dumped imports
adversely impact production level s and resource utilisation resulting in domestic industry not able to
utilise its production capabilities. The Authority notes that injury to the domestic industry cannot be
because of decline in production capabilities.
g. Export performance
134. The Authority notes that the injury information examined hereinabove relates only to the
performance of the domestic industry in terms of the domestic market.
h. Performance of other product s.
135. The Authority has only considered data relating only to the perf ormance 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. Causal link between dumping and inj ury.
136. The Authority notes that other known factors which could have caused injury to the domestic
industry have been duly examined in the non -attribution analysis above and do not appear to have
caused injury to the domestic industry. The following factors establish that the injury to the domestic
industry has been caused by dumped imports.
a. The imports in the domestic market have been found to be at dumped prices. Because the
imports are at dumped prices, the landed price of imports in the period of investig ation has
been below the selling price and cost of sales of the dom estic industry resulting in positive
price undercutting.
b. As a result of the low -priced imports, the domestic industry has been forced to reduce its
prices and has suffered price depression. Profitability of the domestic industry has declined in
the period of investigation.
c. As a result of low prices, the dumped imports have also taken away the market share of the
domestic industry. The market share of the imports has increased and that of the domestic
industry has declined.
d. The production and domestic sales of the domestic industry have declined in the period of
investigation while the imports have increased.
137. In view of the foregoing, the domestic industry respectfully requests the Authority to conclude that a
causal link exists between the dumped imports f rom the subject countries and the injury suffered by
the domestic industry.
I. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
138. The Authority has determined Non -Injurious Price for the domestic industry on the ba sis 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 for
comparing the la nded 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 treatment has been car ried 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 th e cost of production. The
penultimate product, which is capt ively consumed in the subject goods, i.e. 4 -ADPA has been
optimized as per Annexure III of the Rules. A reasonable return @22% on average capital employed
(i.e. average net fixed assets plus avera ge working capital) for the subject goods and 4 -ADPA was
followed towards interest, tax and profit to arrive at the non -injurious price as prescribed in
Annexure III of the Rules.
139. Landed price for the cooperating exporters has been determined based on the response filed.
Applicable customs duties have been added t o determine landed price of imports. For all the non -
cooperative producers/exporters from the subject countries, the Authority has determined the landed
price based on facts available.
140. Based on t he 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:
SN Particular NIP Landed
Value Injury Mar gin
($/MT) ($/MT) ($/MT) % Range
1 China PR
Sennics Group, China
a Sennics Co., Ltd. Anhui *** *** *** *** 10-20
b Sennics Co., Ltd. Shandong *** *** *** *** 10-20
c Sennics Co., Ltd. Taian *** *** *** *** 10-20
d Any other *** *** *** *** 30-40
2 Thailand
a Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 10-20
b Any other *** *** *** *** 20-30
3 Korea
A Kumho Petrochemical Co.
Ltd. *** *** *** *** 10-20
b Any other *** *** *** *** 20-30
4 European Union
a Any other *** *** *** *** 20-30
J. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
J.1 Submission by opposing interested party
141. The opposing interested party has made the following submissions with regard to Indian industry’s
interest and other issues:
i. Imposition of duty will not be in public interest since PX -13 is a critical raw material used by
various downstream industries.
ii. The domestic production of PX -13 is limited and insufficient to meet national demand.
iii. Anti-dumping duties on PX -13 have been in place continuously for almost twenty year s,
causing the Indian tyre industry to bear significant and sustained burdens in terms of higher
raw material costs and reduced competitiveness.
iv. The tyre sector is simultaneously facing multiple ongoing investigations concerning its critical
raw materials. Each of these proceedings carries the risk of additional duties. The combined
impact of such measures will severely constrain the industry’s ability to remain competitive in
the domestic market.
v. The imposition of anti -dumping duty w ould impact the busines s of domestic importers of PX -
13. Existing contracts of importers with exporters may be terminated or reduced because of the
duty imposed, moreover, business relationships between Indian importers and suppliers (i.e.
exporter) may be disrupted.
vi. Anti-dumpin g duty on imposition on PX -13 is counterproductive to India’s key policies such
as ‘Make in India’.
vii. Anti-dumping duty on imposition on PX -13 will offset the benefit granted through Production
Linked Incentive Scheme to downstream sec tors in supply chain su ch as the automotive
industry.
viii. There is no legal basis pursuant to which an anti -dumping duty to be recommended is
presumed to be in public interest if the overall impact on the user industry is minimal.
ix. The applicant’s conclusion th at the impact of anti -dumping duty would be limited to 0.10 –
0.30% of total cost is misleading since it ignores the absolute size of the Indian tyre industry,
where even an alleged 0.10% increase amounts to thousands of crores in additional burden,
and it o verlooks the fragile co ndition of the industry, which is already under pressure from
global demand slowdown, volatility in raw material prices, and currency fluctuations.
J.2 Submission by the applicant
142. The applicant has made the following submissions wi th regard to Indian industry’s interest and other
issues: -
i. The product under consideration does not form a critical part of the cost of the operations of
the tyre producers and other rubber compound manu facturers. The table below shows the
share of the p roduct under consideration.
SN Particulars UOM Value
1 Total purchase value of the product Rs cr 862
2 Total raw material cost of tyre producers Rs cr 60,170
3 Total cost of tyre producers Rs cr 92,272
4 Total sales value of tyre producers Rs cr 1,04,4 44
5 Share of product under consideration in
6 Raw material cost % 1.43%
7 Cost of production % 0.93%
8 Sales % 0.83%
ii. The Authority in previously conducted investigations on the product under consideration have
continuously shown the inability of o ther interested parties to substantiate the impact of anti -
dumping duty on the user industry and consumers.
iii. The very fact that none of the consumers from the non -tyre segment have regist ered
themselves as interested parties in the present anti -dumping inve stigation demonstrates that the
imposition of duty on the product under consideration has a negligible or insignificant impact
on non -tyre segment consumers.
iv. The installed capacity in India is more than enough to meet entire demand in India.
v. The cumulative impact of anti -dumping duty on all products (various raw materials used by
the user industry) on which either an investigation is ongoing, or measures are in force is a
mere 0.7%.
vi. The tyre industry is protected through existing anti -subsidy duty, import r estriction and
requirement of BIS license for imports.
vii. The import value of the product under consideration over the injury period has been more than
Rs ***Lakhs. In the per iod of investigation alone, the import value of the product under
consideration amou nted to Rs ***Lakhs. out of which Rs ***Lakhs was imported from the
subject countries. This import is without the demand and supply gap in the country, thereby
adding to th e unnecessary trade deficit.
viii. The imposition of anti -dumping duty would benefit the p roduction of 4 -ADPA in India. At
present, the applicant’s 4 -ADPA plant (applicant being the sole producer of 4 -ADPA in India)
is operating at abysmally low-capacity utilization because of dumping of the product in the
Indian market.
ix. Imposition of anti -dump ing duty will not create any situation of monopoly since there are two
other producers of the subject goods in Indian, namely Lanxess India Private Limi ted and
Finorchem Limited.
x. In case of procurement from the applicant, the consumers have the option of m aintaining
lower inventory levels in comparison to relying on imports for the same. Therefore, imposition
of anti -dumping duty would be in the interest of consumers.
J.3 Examination by the Authority
143. The Authority considered whether imposition of anti -dumping duty will be against public interest.
This determination is based on consideration of information on records and interests of the
participating int erested parties.
144. The Authority issued gazette notification inviting views from all the interested part ies, including
importers, consumers and other interested parties. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for
the producers, users, importers to p rovide relevant information with regard to the present
investigation, including possible effect of the a nti-dumping duty on their operation. The Authority
sought information on, inter -alia, interchangeability of the product supplied by the various supplier s
from different countries, ability to switch sources, the effect of the anti - dumping duty on the
consu mers, the factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to the new situation
caused by the anti -dumping duty.
145. It is noted that the purp ose of anti -dumping measures, 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 market, which is in the general interest of the country. The
Authority recognizes that the imposition of the anti -dumping duties might affect the price levels of
the product under consideration as well as other downstream products manufactured by using the
subject goods in India. However, fair co mpetition in the Indian market will not be reduced by the
imposition of anti -dumping measures. On the co ntrary, the imposition of anti -dumping measures
would prevent the decline in the performance parameters of the domestic industry caused as a
consequence of low -priced imports from the subject countries and help maintain the wider
availability of choices to the consumers of the product under consideration.
146. Four users, namely Apollo Tyres Limited, CEAT Limited, JK Tyre &Industries Limited, MRF
Limited and Rishiroop Ltd. have filed the prescribed user/importer questionnaire response. The
Authority had also pr escribed an economic interest questionnaire which was sent to all interested
parties in this investigation. The Authority notes that four users, namely Apollo Tyres Limited,
CEAT Limited, JK Tyre & Industries Limited and MRF Limited have filed the prescrib ed economic
questionnaire response. The users have claimed that anti -dumping duties will adversely affect the
operations. However, none of these importe rs/users have provided any verifiable information in
order to demonstrate the effect of anti -dumping dut y on the consumers. This is in addition to the fact
that none of the consumers from the non -tyre segment have registered themselves as interested
partie s in the present anti -dumping. This lack of evidence and silence of the stakeholders reinforces
the nece ssity of anti -dumping measures to ensure fair trade practices.
147. The domestic industry has quantified the share of the product under consideration in the overall raw
material cost, total cost and sales value of the tyre producers to be 1.43%, 0.93% and 0.8 3%
respectively. The domestic industry has quantified the cumulative impact of anti -dumping duty on all
products (various raw materia ls used by the user industry, namely TDQ, sulphenamides accelerators,
PX-13, IIR, soluble sulphur) on which either an inves tigation is ongoing, or measures are in force.
The domestic industry has shown that the cumulative effect of ADD on all these raw mat erials is a
mere 0.7% on tyres costs .
148. Since the product under consideration forms a critical part of the tyre industry an d other rubber
compound manufacturers operations and since the impact of duty on the all products (various raw
materials used by the user industry) on which either an investigation is ongoing is negligible, the
Authority holds that there will be negligible impact of imposition of anti -dumping duty on the prices
of the downstream industry.
149. 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 but ensures that
imports are available at fair prices. The imposition of duty would, therefore, not affect the
avail ability of the product. In any case, the capacity of the domestic industry is more than the
demand in India, thereby ensuri ng that there remains sufficient supply in the country. There are two
other domestic producers, namely Lanxess India Private Limited and Finorchem Limited as well
supplying the product under consideration in the Indian market.
K. POST -DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
K.1. Submissions by the other interested parties
150. The following submissions have been made by the opposing interested parties on the disclosure
statement:
a. The domestic industry has enjoyed trade remedial protection on PX -13 and other rubber
chemicals for nearly two decades through anti -dumping duties, safeguard measures and sunset
reviews.
b. In the anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of PX -13 from C hina PR, Korea RP and
the USA initiated in 2020, although the Authority recommended anti -dumping dut ies, the
Central Government did not impose the recommended measures. This indicates that the broader
economic and public interest considerations associated with such duties have been recognized
previously.
c. The Authority has erred in rejecting the actual pr ocurement cost of 4 -ADPA reported by Sennics
Thailand and substituting the same with import prices prevailing in the European Union. The
Authority has not i dentified any defect in the books and records maintained by Sennics Thailand.
d. Article 2.2.1.1 of th e WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement requires that costs normally be calculated
on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer, provided such records reas onably
reflect the costs.
e. The Authority has not disclosed why the European Union was considered the appropriate
reference market, whether alternative benchmarks were examined, or how such benchmark
reasonably reflects the cost that would have been incurre d by Sennics Thailand under normal
market conditions.
f. Imposing anti -dumping duty on PX -13 is not in the public interest. PX -13 is a critical input for
tyre and rubber manufacturing, sectors vital to automotive, transport, infrastructure, and exports.
g. The domestic industry is backward integrated and captively produces 4 -ADPA. In contrast, the
other domes tic producers in India, namely Finorchem Limited and Lanxess India Private
Limited, procure 4 -ADPA from China PR and other countries at significantly lower prices. This
structural cost advantage has enabled the other domestic producers to expand their prod uction
and sales substantially over the injury period. The competitive pressure faced by NOCIL
Limited is therefore not attributable to imports of PUC, but rather to the structural cost
disadvantage arising from its own captive production model vis -à-vis o ther domestic producers
who benefit from cheaper imported 4 -ADPA.
h. Injury to the domestic industry caused due to cheap imports of 4 -ADPA into India and inter -se
competition from other domestic producers who have access to low -cost raw material is not
attrib uted to imports of subject goods from Korea RP.
i. There is no special relationship between Korea Kumho and Sennics China is also an exporter of
6PPD to India and is participating in the present investigation, which shows that the Respondent
and Sennics are c ompeting in the Indian market for subject goods.
j. During the POI, imports from Korea RP are substantially lower than imports from other subject
countri es. Furthermore, the import price from Korea RP at INR 2,61,361/MT is the highest
among all subject countr ies.
k. The characterization of Rishiroop Limited as a "related importer" of the Respondent in
Disclosure Statement is factually incorrect.
l. The INR/USD exchange rate has depreciated significantly from the rate of ₹84.27 per US
prevailing during the POI to th e current rate of approximately ₹94.47 per US prevailing during
the POI to the current rate of approximately ₹94.47 per US, representing a depreciatio n of
approximately 12%.
m. Anti-dumping duty on 4 -ADPA will remedy the injury caused to NOCIL Ltd and anti -dumping
duty on imports of PUC is unwarranted.
n. Should the Authority nonetheless determine that recommendation of anti -dumping duty is
warranted, such duty ought to be recommended on a reference price basis for a limited period of
two (2) years only.
o. The d isclosure statement has been issued at the far end of the extended statutory timeline and
interested parties have been afforded no reasonable opportun ity to provide comments. Assuming
that interested parties are able to submit detailed comments within the prescribed period, it is
impossible for the Authority to meaningfully address comments before issuance of the final
findings on or before 28 June 2026 . Reasons were sought from the Hon’ble Authority for the
extension of the timeline of investigation by thr ee months. No reasons have been provided.
p. 22% return on capital employed has been considered without considering the historical return on
capital empl oyed.
q. Disclosure Statement rather than disclosing essential facts under consideration for the purpose of
inviting comments has already rendered final and conclusive factual findings on the very issues.
r. The Authority has made contradictory statements as at one place in the disclosure statement it
has been claimed that had anti -dumping duty on Aniline been the c ause of injury, the domestic
industry would have suffered injury over the entire injury period and on the other hand in the
initiation notification of anti-dumping duty on 4 ADPA, the Authority has stated that the
domestic industry has claimed material inj ury over the entire injury period. Even in the present
case, the Authority has at various places held that the domestic industry has suffered declined in
various parameters over the injury period.
s. The non -disclosure of the support extended by Finorchem Lim ited prevents interested parties
from examining the nature of such support and assessing whether the supporting producer has in
fact suffered injury.
t. The disclosure statement does not establish that the market share lost by the domestic industry
was captu red by subject imports but the data demonstrates that the most significant gain in
market share during the injury period accrued to other domestic producers.
u. The entire computation concerning impact analysis is factually incorrect. The source of such
data should be disclosed to the interested parties and without such verification should not be
accepted.
K.2. Submissions by the Domestic indu stry
151. The following submissions have been made by the opposing interested parties on the disclosure
statement:
a. Domesti c industry supports the Authority's determination regarding the normal value
calculation for Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd and Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. The
Authority may further clarify in its final findings that the reported costs were considere d not
to reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under
consideration because the purchases from the related supplier were found not to be at arm's
length .
b. Raw material cost of production cannot be relied upon fo r Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd.
Company sourced 4 -ADPA from Sennics Co., Ltd., China PR, with which it has a special
relationship, thereby rendering the reported cost of production to not reasonably reflect the
cost associated with the production and sale of PX -13.
c. While the Authority has examined all the factors listed under the rules, the Authority is
requested to additionally examine the market opportunity lost by the applicant due to dumped
imports considering the capacities available. The applicant co uld hav e produced and sold
more in the domestic market.
d. Both the domestic sales and market share of the other producers increased till 2022 -23 but has
declined in the period of investigation when the dumped imports increased. The increase in
the other dome stic pr oducers sales in 22 -23 is the result of dumping of 4 -ADPA. 4 -ADPA is
the penultimate stage intermediate in the production process of PX -13.
e. With continued dumping of PX -13, the domestic industry will not be able to increase its sales
of PX -13 or its sellin g price of PX -13. Dumping of both 4 ADPA and PX -13 needs to be
remedied. If only dumping of 4 ADPA is remedied, the marginal reduction in cost of
production will not allow the industry to recover from the current situation of material injury
in PX -13.
f. It is not even a situation where the domestic industry is seeking complete remedy against
dumped imports. Injury margin determined for all the participating producers except Sennics
Thailand, is lower than the dumping margin which demonstrates the comp etitive ness in the
market.
g. The import price has continuously declined in the post the period of investigation. While the
cost has also declined, the decline in the cost is far lower than decline in import price. The
domestic industry was profitable in the period of investigation but has turned into losses.
h. Lack of effective participation and demonstration of impact of anti -dumping duty by
importers/users, no demand supply gap and existence of other domestic producers show that
the duties will not adversel y affec t the downstream industry.
i. The viability of the consumers cannot be dependent on access to raw material at unfair and
dumped prices.
j. Anti-dumping measures benefit consumers as vibrant domestic industry ensures competitive
pricing, shorter lead time s, redu ced forex risk, and strategic resilience against global
disruptions, supply chain efficiency and foreign supplier dependence.
k. Domestic industry requests the Authority to consider that the anti -dumping duty is required to
be extended for a period of 5 years .
l. The domestic industry has reported certain expenses in Format VI -2 [such as consumables
stores and spares, salaries & wage s and other manufacturing overheads] which are
apportioned between different products on the basis of relative production. The com pany has
reported optimisation of these expenses by considering production capacities and capacity
utilisation at the location cumulatively for all the products.
m. Since the expense is fixed qua plant and variable qua product, the applicant has optimised th e
fixed expenses by considering best achieved capacity utilisation for the plant. Since it has
been apportioned to the product in the ratio of production, it follows that these expenses are
no longer fixed but variable for the product under consideration a nd therefore, it is
inappropriate to consider capacity utilisation of the product under consideration.
K.3. Examination by the Authority
152. 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 been examined and are therefo re addressed to the extent deemed necessary in the
relevant paragraphs of these final findings. For the sake of brevity, the Authori ty has refrained from
repeating responses to such issues in this post disclosure examination. However, any new issues
raised for the first time in the post - disclosure submissions, as well as those previously addressed but
deemed necessary to examine furth er, are addressed hereunder
153. The opposing interested parties have submitted that the domestic industry has availed of trade
remedial protection for nearly two decades and the Ministry of Finance did not impose measures in
the previous investigation. The Au thority notes that each anti -dumping investigation is an
independent proceeding and is required to be decided on the basis o f the facts, evidence and
circumstances prevailing during the relevant period of investigation. The existence of prior anti -
dumping investigations and duties does not, by itself, constitute grounds for denying protection in a
present investigation where du mping and consequent material injury are independently established.
The recommendations for the imposition of the anti -dumping duty are made only after investigation
by the Authority and when the requisite legal requirements are met. It is seen that the p ast measures
leading to level playing field has led to the growth of the Indian industry as the domestic industry has
expanded its c apacity and the other producers have entered the domestic market. The fact that the
Central Government may not have imposed duties following a prior recommendation does not negate
the findings of dumping or injury in the present investigation. The Authorit y, therefore, does not find
merit in this submission.
154. Sennics Thailand and Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. have submitted that the Authority has
erroneously rejected their actual procurement cost of 4 -ADPA and substituted the same with EU
import prices, with out identifying any defect in their books and records and without establishing that
the transactions were not at arm's lengt h. The Authority has examined these submissions in the
context of the facts on record. It is noted that 4 -ADPA is the principal raw material used in the
production of PX -13, accounting for the major share of the total cost of production. It is further note d
that Sennics Thailand has procured 4 -ADPA from its related entity Sennics Co., Ltd., China PR
during the period of investigation. Similarly, Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. has sourced 4 -ADPA
predominantly from the same non -market economy company (Sennics G roup, China) with which it
has been found to have a special relationship in earlier investigations. No evidence has been placed
before the Authority in the present investigation to demonstrate that the status of the said company or
the nature of the busine ss relationship has undergone any change since the previous determination.
The Authority finds that since the transactions between S ennics Thailand and Sennics Co., Ltd.,
China PR are between related entities within the same group, the procurement prices o f 4-ADPA do
not reflect arm's length market prices. The fact that 4 -ADPA is procured from a related entity in a
non-market economy c ountry further compounds the non -market character of the procurement price.
155. The Authority observes that Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement requires that
costs shall ordinarily be computed on the basis of records maintained by the exporter or producer,
provided such records reasonably reflect the costs associated with production and sale of the product
under con sideration. The Anti -Dumping Rules do not render the cost of production, as derived from
the records maintained by the exporter, to be accepted sacrosanct. Annexure -I prescribes two
cumulative conditions in this regard: first, that the records shall be mai ntained in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and second, that such records shall reasonably reflect the
costs associated with the production and sale of the article under investigation. Both conditions are of
equal legal significanc e and must be satisfied. the Authority has found that the actual transfer price of
4-ADPA paid by Sennics Thailand from its related entity Sennics China and by Kumho
Petrochemicals, Korea from Sennics China is not at arm’s length basis and does not reasona bly
reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of PX -13. Accordingly, the mere fact that
cost of production is premis ed upon records maintained by the Sennics Thailand or Kumho
Petrochemicals does not, ipso facto, require the Authority to ad opt such costs without independently
satisfying itself that the same reasonably reflect the costs associated with production and sal e of the
product under consideration.
156. It is also seen that this position finds support in WTO jurisprudence as well as the both the Panel
and the Appellate Body in EU – Biodiesel (Argentina) held that where the prices recorded in an
exporter's or produce r's records do not reflect arm's length transactions, the investigating authority is
entitled to conclude that such records do not reasonably reflect the costs associated with production
and sale of the product under consideration.
157. With respect to the co mments concerning the adoption of import prices from the European Union
as a benchmark without adequate disclosure, the Authority notes that throughout the course of the
present investigation, no interested party proposed any benchmark for the purposes of determining 4 -
ADPA prices. The Authority observes that 4 -ADPA is primarily produced in China, European
Union, and India. In the circumstances, the Authority had the option of relying either upon the
domestic industry's cost of production or upon export pri ces from China or the European Union.
However, since China has been treated as a non -market economy for the purposes of the present
investigation, the costs and prices prevailing in China cannot be relied upon as a valid benchmark.
Furthermore, the cost of production of the domestic industry is not available in the public domain
and therefore, had it been adopted, interested parties would not have had the option to any comments.
In view of the foregoing, the Authority has deemed it appropriate to adopt the export price of 4 -
ADPA from the European Union as the benchmark for the purposes of the present determination.
Therefore, the Authority has concluded to use European Union as a benchmark. The interested
parties are provided an opportunity to make comments on why export price form European Union is
not an appropriate benchmark, however, no such comments have been filed.
158. The Authority has examined the submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested
parties with respect to the performance of o ther domestic producers and the causal l ink between
dumped imports and injury to the Indian industry as a whole and the structural disadvantages
deployed by the domestic industry. The Authority notes that the domestic sales and market share of
both the dom estic industry and other domestic produc ers increased upto 2022 -23 but witnessed a
decline in the period of investigation. While the rate of increase of other domestic producers was
higher, their domestic sales too have declined. The decline in the period of investigation coincides
with the incr ease in dumped imports from the subject countries. The Authority, therefore, considers
that the decline in performance is not confined to the domestic industry alone but is seen on the other
producers as well.
159. It is further noted that the increase in the domestic sales of other producers in 2022 -23 is
attributable to their access to imported 4 -ADPA, which is the penultimate stage intermediate in the
production of PX -13 and has been prima facie found to be at dumped prices. Since other domestic
producers h ave been able to source 4 -ADPA at dumped prices, they have been better positioned to
withstand pressure from dumped imports of PX -13 as compared to the domestic industry. The
domestic industry, despite being backward integrated and possessing the capacity to cater to the
entire domestic requirement of 4 -ADPA at competitive prices, continues to suffer injury, as the other
producers of PX -13 have been sourcing 4 -ADPA from China rather than from the domestic industry.
In view of the above, the Authority concl udes that the contention that the domestic industry’s
performance has been affected by the other producers or the injury is due to internal inefficiency is
without merit. The evidence on record establishes that the I ndian industry as a whole has suffered
material injury on account of the dumped imports of the subject goods.
160. On the comments of the interested parties contending that the imposition of anti -dumping duty on
imports of 4 -Amino Diphenylamine would be suffi cient to remedy the injury suffered by t he
domestic industry, the Authority has, in the course of the present investigation, found that imports of
PX-13 are entering the Indian market at dumped prices and that such dumped imports have caused
material injur y to the domestic industry. While it is acknowledged that a separate anti -dumping
investigation on imports of 4 -ADPA is already underway, the existence of such a parallel
investigation does not in any manner dilute or displace the findings of injury establ ished in the
present investigation conce rning PX -13. The Authority recognises that the imposition of anti -
dumping duty on 4 -ADPA would benefit the domestic industry as it would be better positioned to
increase its domestic sales of 4 -ADPA, which in turn co uld enable it to achieve a more optimum
level of capacity utilisation in its 4 -ADPA operations. Any such improvement in the utilisation of 4 -
ADPA manufacturing capacities could marginally reduce the per unit cost of production of PX -13,
given the integrate d nature of operations. However, the Aut hority notes that this indirect does not
constitute an adequate remedy for the injury suffered in the PX -13. The domestic industry has
provided information showing how only remedy of dumping on 4 ADPA will not addres s the injury
suffered in PX -13. Therefor e, the Authority considers that the adverse effect of dumped imports of
PX-13 cannot be mitigated merely through a reduction in the cost of production of PX -13 arising
from better utilisation of 4 -ADPA capacities. Th e Authority, therefore, concludes that t he anti -
dumping duty on 4 -ADPA, whether existing or proposed, does not render the levy of anti -dumping
duty on PX -13 unnecessary or unjustified.
161. The opposing interested parties have submitted that the imposition of anti-dumping duty on PX -13
is not in pub lic interest as it would adversely impact the tyre and rubber manufacturing industry. The
Authority notes that it has examined the public interest question extensively in Section J.3 of the
disclosure statement. As d etermined therein, the share of the prod uct under consideration in the
overall raw material cost, total cost and sales value of the tyre producers is 1.43%, 0.93% and 0.83%
respectively, and the cumulative impact of anti -dumping duty on all raw materials o n the tyre
industry is a mere 0.7%. The impact of duty on the downstream industry is, therefore, found to be
negligible. The installed capacity of the domestic industry is more than sufficient to cater to the
entire demand in the country. There are two oth er domestic producers, namely Lanxess In dia Private
Limited and Finorchem Limited, who also supply the product in the Indian market, thereby ensuring
adequate availability and competition. The Authority therefore holds that the imposition of anti -
dumping d uty is in the public interest and does n ot find merit in the submission of the opposing
interested parties on this count.
162. Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. has submitted that the characterization of Rishiroop Limited as its
"related importer" in the Disclosure Statement is factually incorrect. The A uthority has examined this
submission. The Authority notes that the reference to Rishiroop Limited as a "related importer" in the
Disclosure Statement was a typographical error and the same is accepted.
163. The Authorit y has examined the comments made by inte rested parties claiming that the
recommended duty quantum should be adjusted on account of the depreciation of the Indian Rupee
against the US Dollar subsequent to the period of investigation. The Authority does not find merit in
these submissions. The ant i-dumping investigations are conducted with reference to the period of
investigation, and the exchange rate prevailing during the said period are relevant. This exchange
rate has been considered for determination of the non -injurious price and the normal v alue. The
participating producers from the subject countries have invoiced their product in US dollar.
Furthermore, the entire determination in the present investigation of normal value, export price,
dumping margin and the injury margin has been made in U S Dollars. It would, therefore, be neither
appropriate to express the resultant duty in any other currency. Post -period of investigation
fluctuations in exchange rates do not constitute a relevant consideration for t he purposes of the
present determination , as the duty is intended to offset the margin of dumping as established during
the period of investigation and not to compensate for subsequent macroeconomic developments.
Since the subject goods are imported and in voiced in US Dollars, any depreciation o f the Indian
Rupee against the US Dollar would correspondingly increase the landed value of the imported goods
in INR terms. The USD denomination, therefore, serves the remedial intent of the measure more
faithfully than an INR -denominated equivalent.
164. In respect of submission on NIP determination, it is noted that optimisation of production capacity
and determination of NIP is as per the principles for determination of NIP contained in Annexure III
of ADD Rules.
165. The investigation was conducted transpa rently and as prescribed, with adequate opportunity
afforded to all interested parties to file questionnaire responses, participate in two oral hearings,
make post -hearing submissions and rejoinders, and comment on the Disclosure Statement. The
Authority a nd interested parties were aware of the contested issues well in advance and therefore
interested parties cannot plead lack of awareness. Having considered other interested parties post -
disclosure comments, and having r egard to the totality of opportunitie s afforded and the time -bound
nature of these proceedings, the Authority finds that no prejudice has been occasioned by the
timeline for Disclosure Statement comments, and the request for extension of time is not accept ed.
166. It has been argued by certain in terested parties that for the determination of the non -injurious price,
the Authority has considered return on capital employed at the rate of 22%, without providing
reasons therefore and without disclosing the historic al rate of return on capital employed earned by
the domestic industry. The Authority considers that it has been consistent practice to consider 22%
return on capital employed. CESTAT in various investigations has held 22% return is appropriate
specially in the absence of any evidence to the c ontrary. The Authority notes that in the present
investigation, no evidence/submissions have been made by interested parties substantiating why 22%
return on capital employed is not justified while determining the non -injurious price.
167. It has been argued by certain interested parties that the Authority has used conclusive and
determinative language in the Disclosure Statement in contravention of the mandate under Rule 16,
which does not allow the Authority to conclude co ntentious issues at the stage of the Disclosure
Statement. The Authority considers that the contention is misplaced. The Authority notes that under
Rule 16, the Authority is required to disclose the essential facts under consideration, including
conclusion s on such facts, which would cumulatively form the basis for the Authority’s decision to
recommend or not recommend imposition of definitive measures in the final finding. The Authority
notes that in line with the above, in the Disclosure Statement issued in the present case, it has
examined the material on record, stated its views and conclusions resulting from such examination,
and provided its reasoning therefor. It has been stated in the disclosure statement that
notwithstanding the facts given (includi ng facts given on a confident ial basis), the Designated
Authority would consider all replies given on merit, in order to arrive at a final determination. Thus,
it was communicated that the disclosure statement is only a disclosure of essential facts under
consideration by the Designat ed Authority and does not amount to final determination by the
Designated Authority. The Authority draws reference to the findings of the High Court of Gujarat in
Nirma Limited v Union of India (2017), wherein the Court held:
31.5 Thus, while Article 6.9 does not prescribe a particular form for the disclosure of the
essential facts, it does require in all cases that the investigating authority disclose those facts
in such a manner that an interested party can understand clearly what data the investigating
authority has used, and how those data were used to determine the margin of dumping. The
disclosure statement, therefore, contains the intermediate findings and conclusions of the
designated authority on the essential facts whi ch would form the basis for t he decision whether
or not to apply definitive measures and not final conclusions on whether or not definite
measures are required to be applied. In the opinion of this court, as rightly submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the disclosure statement should contain the conclusions of
the designated authority on those essential facts which would form the basis for its decision as
to whether or not to apply definitive measures and not its conclusions on the basis of those
essential facts. The c onclusions on the basis of the essential facts are to be recorded in the
final findings, viz., whether or not on the basis of such facts definitive measures are required
to be applied. The contention that the disclosure stateme nt is in the nature of a draf t order,
therefore, does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, a draft order would also contain
conclusions on whether or not definitive measures are required to be applied.
168. On the comments that the Authority has made contradicto ry statements, the usage of t he term "over
the injury period" used are distinct. The "over the injury period" used with regarding attribution of
injury due to the anti -dumping duty imposed on Aniline has been used to imply that had the anti -
dumping duty on Aniline been the cause for t he injury suffered by the domestic industry, such injury
would have persisted throughout the entirety of the injury period. The absence of such injury
throughout the injury period therefore shows that anti -dumping duty on Anili ne is not the cause of
injury . The "over the injury period" employed in the context of trend analysis for production, sales,
and market share has been used to imply that these parameters have shown a declining trend when
assessed over the said period.
169. On the reasons sought for seekin g extension of the timeline of investigation by three months, The
Authority notes that the extension of the period of investigation beyond one year is granted by the
Central Government under the proviso to Rule 17(1) of the AD Rules in exercise of its disc retion in
special circumstances. The decision on whether to seek and grant an extension is a matter between
the investigating authority and the Central Government. The extension in the present case was duly
notified to all inte rested parties through the re levant gazette notification. The AD Rules and the
DGTR Manual do not contemplate disclosure of the internal reasons for seeking or granting an
extension as an obligation upon the Designated Authority under Rule 16, which is con fined to
disclosure of essent ial facts bearing on the determination of dumping, injury and causal link. It is
however clarified the Authority is also conducting an anti -dumping investigation on the imports of 4
ADPA, which is the raw material for the produ ct under consideration. The i nterested parties have
filed large number of comments stating that the injury suffered by the domestic industry is due to the
other producers having access to low -cost raw material. It was therefore considered appropriate to
examine the information of the domestic industry and the participating exporters in both the cases
simultaneously.
170. As regards the contention of the interested parties regarding the alleged procedural infirmity in
reliance on support from Finorchem Limited a nd the injury suffered by Fin orchem Limited. The
Authority notes that the injury is required to be examined with regard to the defined domestic
industry. It is noted that, even in the absence of such support, the applicant constitutes a major
proportion of the domestic production. In the present case, no evidence has been made available by
any interested party that Finorchem Limited is not suffering injury. Therefore, there is no reason for
the Authority to examine the data of Finorchem Limited.
171. The Author ity considers that statements in the disclosure statement are the views which are formed
upon the examination of the material on record, on the various issues under consideration and these
do not amount to “pre -judgement” or “final adjudication”, as expres sed by some interested partie s.
The interested parties are free to offer comments and the Authority in past various investigations has
taken a different view in the final finding as compared to the disclosure statement. The observations
in the disclosure s tatement do not amount to fin al determination by the Authority. In the present
investigation, the Authority has duly considered the comments received from the interested parties
and has duly taken them into account in arriving at its final determination.
172. The Authority notes that the form and quantum of duty to be recommended are matters within the
Authority's determination based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and subject to the lesser
duty rule as prescribed under the Anti -Dumping Rules.
L. CONCLUSION
173. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided, and submissions made by the
interested parties and facts available before the Authority, as recorded in the above findings, and
based on above analysis of the dumping, injury and causa l link to the domestic ind ustry, the
Authority concludes as follows:
a. The product under consideration (PUC) in the present application is “N -(1,3 dimethylbutyl) -N'-
phenyl -p-phenylenediamine” or also known as “PX -13” or “6 PPD”.
b. On domestic industry and stand ing
i. The applicant is the major producer of the product and accounts for 65% share in total
Indian production.
ii. NOCIL Limited is an eligible domestic industry within the meaning 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, Korea RP and Thailand have participated in the present
investigation. There is no response from European Union.
ii. China PR is presumed as a non -market economy country since none of the
produc ers/exporters from China PR have provided sufficient evidence to rebut this
presumption as mentioned in para 8 of Annexure – I of the Rules.
iii. Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. has purchased 4 -ADPA (raw material) from its subsidiary
Sennics Co., Ltd., China PR in the POI. Since the use o f actual purchase price of 4 -ADPA
by Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. from Sennics Co., Ltd., China PR would not reasonably
reflect the cost associated with production of PX -13, the consumption price of 4 -ADPA
reported by S ennics (Tha iland) Co., Ltd. has not been adopted for the purpose of
determination of cost of production. Rest of the cost of production of PX -13 as claimed by
Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. has been accepted.
iv. Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. has largely source d 4-ADPA fr om a non -market economy
company with whom Kumho Petrochemical had earlier reported in previous investigations
to have special relationship. Since the use of actual purchase price of 4 -ADPA by Kumho
Petrochemical Co., Ltd. from the non -market eco nomy compan y not reasonably reflect the
cost associated with production of PX -13, the consumption price of 4 -ADPA reported by
Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. has not been adopted for the purpose of determination of
cost of production. Rest of the cost of pro duction of PX-13 as claimed by Kumho
Petrochemical Co., Ltd. has been accepted.
v. The response filed by the producers from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand shows that the
product has been exported to India at dumped prices.
vi. The dumping margin for the product under consi deration from each of the subject countries
is seen to be more than de minimis.
d. On injury and causal link
i. The imports from the subject countries have increased in absolute and relative terms when
compared to the immediately preceding year.
ii. The price under cutting is positive.
iii. In the period of investigation, the landed price of imports is below the cost of sales and
selling price of the domestic industry. Therefore, while the cost has declined by 5 index
points, the selling price has declined by 8 index poi nts. The prices of the domestic industry
were depressed.
iv. The production, domestic sales and capacity utilization of the domestic industry declined in
the period of investigation when seen over the injury period.
v. The profitability of the do mest ic industry improved in 2022 -23; however, it declined
significantly thereafter and remained at a substantially lower level during the period of
investigation.
vi. The dumped imports have affected the prices of the domestic industry.
vii. The investigation did n ot show any oth er factor other than dumping from the subject
countries which could have caused injury to the domestic industry.
e. On Indian industry interest
i. There is no demand and supply gap in the country and the capacity with the country is
sufficient t o cater the ent ire demand in the country.
ii. The domestic industry is suffering material injury, and the imposition of anti -dumping duty
will be in interest of domestic producer.
iii. A domestic industry is in overall public interest ensures competitive pricing, shorter lead
times, reduced forex risk, and strategic resilience against global disruptions, supply chain
efficiency and foreign supplier dependence.
iv. The impact of duty on the end consumers is found to be insignificant as the product under
consideration fo rms very low sh are in the overall raw material cost of the downstream
industry.
v. The imposition of duties will not be against public interest.
M. RECOMMENDATIONS
174. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and
adequate op portunity 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 init iated and conducted the investigat ion 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
Authority considers it n ecessary an d recommends imposition of anti -dumping duty on imports of the
subject goods from the subject countries.
175. Having regards to the lesser duty rule followed, the Authority recommends imposition of anti -
dumping duty equal to the lesser of the margin of dumpin g and the margin of injury on imports of
subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country so as to remove the injury to the
domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority considers it necessary and recommen ds imposition of
anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject
country, 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 am ount mentioned in Col. 7 of the du ty table appended below.
DUTY TABLE
SN Heading Description Country
of
origin Country
of export Producer Amount UOM
Currency
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 29215120,
29215130.
29215190, N-(1,3
dimethylbutyl) -N'-
phenyl -p-China Any
country
including Sennics Co.,
Ltd. Anhui,
511 MT $
38121000,
38122090,
38123100,
38123910,
38123920 ,
38123930
and
38123990.
(Note 1) phenylenediamine
(also known as
PX-13)”
(Note 2) China Sennics Co.,
Ltd. Shandong
and
Sennics Co.,
Ltd. Taian
2 -do- -do- China Any
country
including
China Any producer
other than
mentioned in
SN 1 930 MT $
3 -do- -do- Any
country
other than
China,
European
Union,
Korea,
and
Thailand China Any producer 930 MT $
4 -do- -do- European
Union Any
country
including
European
Union Any pro ducer 576 MT $
5 -do- -do- Any
country
other than
China,
European
Union,
Korea,
and
Thailand European
Union Any producer 576 MT
$
6 -do- -do- Korea Any
country
including
Korea Kumho
Petrochemical
Co. Ltd. 551 MT $
7 -do- -do- Korea Any
countr y
includin g
Korea Any producer
other than
mentioned in
SN 7 768 MT $
8 -do- -do- Any
country
other than
China,
European
Union,
Korea,
and
Thailand Korea Any producer 768 MT $
9 -do- -do- Thailand Any
country
including
Thailand Sennics
(Thailand)
Co., Ltd 307 MT $
10 -do- -do- Thailand Any
country
including
Thailand Any producer
other than
mentioned in
SN 9 541 MT $
11 -do- -do- Any
country
other than
China,
European
Union,
Korea,
and
Thailand Thailand Any producer 541 MT $
Note 1 – Customs classificat ion mentio ned above is only indicative.
Note 2 – The application of the individual duty rates specified for the producers mentioned in the above
shall be conditional upon presentation to customs authorities of a valid commercial invoice, on which shall
appear a dec laration 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 N -(1,3 dimethylbutyl) -N'-phenyl -p-phenylenediamine (also
known as PX-13) sold for export to the I ndia 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 presente d, the dut y applicable to all other produ cers shall apply. This requirement is
without prejudice to the verification procedures independently undertaken by the Customs authorities under
the applicable customs law and regulations.
N. FURTHER PROCEDURE.
176. An ap peal again st 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 relevant provisions of
the Customs Tariff Act.
AMITABH KUMAR , Designated A uthority
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Pres s, Ring Roa d, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publicati ons, Delhi -11005 4.
Login to read full text