Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-02032026-270628
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 44]
NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2026/PHALGUNA 8, 1947
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES )
FINAL FINDINGS NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2026
Case No AD (SSR – 06/2025)
Subject: Sunset review investigation concerning anti-dumping duty on imports of "Methyl Acetoacetate"
originating in or exported from China PR.
F. No. 07/12/2025-DGTR—
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. The Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred as the "Authority") initiated anti-dumping investigation
concerning imports of "Methyl Acetoacetate" (hereinafter also referred to as the "subject goods" or "product under
consideration" or "MAA") originating in or exported from China PR and USA vide Notification No. 14/7/2014-
DGAD on 7th January 2015. The Authority thereafter notified Final Findings recommending definitive antidumping
duties on imports of the subject goods from China PR and USA vide notification dated 1st April 2016. Definitive
antidumping duty was imposed by the Ministry of Finance vide Customs Notification No. 22/2016-Customs (ADD)
dated 31st May 2016 for 5 years.
2. The Authority initiated first sunset review investigation of the anti-dumping duty vide Notification no.
7/40/2020- DGTR dated 30th September 2020 against China PR. The Authority recommended continuation of
definitive anti-dumping duties on China PR vide Notification No.7/40/2020-DGTR dated 03rd May, 2021. The same
was imposed by the Ministry of Finance vide Notification No. 31/2021-Customs (ADD) dated 29th May, 2021 for a
period of 5 years. The antidumping duties are set to expire on 28th May 2026.
3. Section 9A (5) of the Act, inter alia, provides that anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier,
cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such an imposition and the Authority is required to
review whether the expiry of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. In accordance
with the above, the authority is required to review, on the basis of a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of
the domestic industry, as to whether the expiry of the duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping
and injury.
4. Further, Rule 23(IB) of the Rules provides as follows:
"...any definitive antidumping duty levied under the Act, shall be effective for a period not exceeding five
years from the date of its imposition, unless the designated Authority comes to a conclusion, on a review,
initiated before that period on its own initiative or upon a duty substantiated request made by or on behalf of
the domestic industry, within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of that period, that the expiry of
the said anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the
domestic industry"
5. Based on a duly substantiated application, with prima facie evidence of likelihood of dumping and injury
from imports of subject goods originating in or exported from China PR, filed on behalf of the domestic industry in
accordance with Section 9A(5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Rules, the Authority initiated present sunset
review investigation vide Notification No. 7/12/2025-DGTR dated 26 June 2025 published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, to examine whether the expiry of present anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation of
recurrence of dumping and injury.
B. PROCEDURE
6. The procedure, as described herein below, has been followed with regard to the investigation:
a. The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, vide Notification
No.7/12/2025-DGTR dated 26th June 2025 published a public notice in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
initiating a sunset review investigation of anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject
country.
b. The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice along with the questionnaires to the Embassy of the
subject country in India, all known exporters, importers and users (whose details were made available by the
applicant) and gave them opportunity to make their views known in writing in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the
AD Rules. They were advised to reply within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice.
c. In accordance with Rule 6(3) of the AD Rules, the Authority sent a copy of the non-confidential version of
the application to the Embassy of the subject country in India, the known producers, and exporters from the
subject country, known importers and users in India, and other interested parties.
d. The Authority sent questionnaire to elicit relevant information to the following known exporters/ producers
of the subject goods in the subject country in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules:
i. Changzhou Hjcc New Materials Co.
ii. Changzhou Jiabai Chem-Tech Co., Ltd.
iii. Hong Kong Cleantech Co., Ltd.
iv. Nantong Acetic Acid Chemical Co. Ltd.
v. Nantong Tianhong International Trade Co. Ltd.
vi. Qindo Haaiwan Group Co. Ltd.
e. In response, only Nantong Acetic Acid Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Nantong"), from China
PR filed the exporter's questionnaire response in the prescribed format and made submissions.
f. The Authority also sent importer's questionnaire to the following known importers/users of product under
consideration in India seeking necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Anti-Dumping Rules:
i. Colourtex Industries Ltd.
ii. Deccan Fine Chemicals (India)
iii. K. Uttamlal & Company
iv. Miles Tradexim Pvt. Ltd.
v. Nutan Dye Chem
vi. Paarichem Resources LLP
vii. Prima Chemicals, Polygon Chemicals
viii. R Nandlal & Sons
ix. RR Innovative Pvt. Ltd.
x. Sanjay Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
xi. Shakti Ammonia Supply Co.
xii. Spectrum Dyes & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
g. None of the importers/users have filed a response to questionnaire, nor have they filed any other submissions,
in response to the Initiation notification.
h. The Authority issued an economic interest questionnaire (EIQ) to all interested parties and the concerned
administrative line ministry. Response to economic interest questionnaire was filed only by the domestic
industry. No other interested party filed the economic interest questionnaire response.
i. A list of parties who requested to be registered as interested parties in response to the initiation notification
was uploaded on the DGTR website along with the request therein to all of them to forward the non-confidential
version of their submissions to all the other interested parties not later than the next day from the date of
submission of the confidential version to the Authority.
j. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to the
sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever
warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested
parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide
sufficient nonconfidential version of the information filed on a confidential basis.
k. The Authority considered the period of investigation (POI) as 1st January 2024 to 31st December 2024 (a
period of 12 months). The injury investigation period covers the periods 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022, 1st
April 2022 to 31st March 2023 and 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024 and the POI.
l. A request was 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 analysis in this Final Finding.
m. Verification of the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the purpose of the
present investigation.
n. The Authority determined the non-injurious price (NIP) based on the optimum cost of production and the
cost to produce and sell the domestic like article in India, based on the information furnished by the applicant
and having regard to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules,
to ascertain whether the present anti-dumping duty is sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
o. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to all interested parties to
present their submissions orally in the oral hearing held on 8th October 2025 in hybrid mode. The interested
parties were requested to submit their written submissions by 15th October 2025 and rejoinder submissions by
24th October 2025.
p. Due to change in the Designated Authority, a fresh oral hearing was held on 10th December 2025 in hybrid
mode. The interested parties were provided the opportunity to file written submissions of the views expressed
orally by 17th December 2025, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any, by 24th December 2025.
q. The Authority circulated the disclosure statement containing all essential facts under consideration for
making the final recommendations to the Central Government to all interested parties on 17th February 2026.
The Authority has examined all the post-disclosure comments made by the interested parties in these final
findings to the extent relevant. Any submission which was merely a reproduction of the previous submission,
and which had been adequately examined by the Authority has not been repeated for the sake of brevity.
r. The Authority, during the course of the investigation, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the information
supplied by the interested parties, which forms the basis of this Final Finding, to the extent possible and verified
the data documents submitted by the domestic industry and the interested parties to the extent considered
relevant, practicable and necessary.
s. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information
during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has
considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the Final Finding on the basis of the facts available.
t. '***' in this Final Finding represents the information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis
and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
u. The exchange rate for the POI for conversion of USD to Indian Rupees is 1US$ - Rs. 84.55.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1 Views of the other interested parties
7. No submissions have been made regarding scope of the PUC and like article by the other interested parties.
C.2 Views of the domestic industry
8. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article:
a. The product under consideration is Methyl Acetoacetate (MAA) originating in or exported from China PR, as
defined by the Authority in the original investigation.
b. The PUC is covered under Customs Tariff sub-heading 29183040. As established in the previous
investigation, it is also imported under other codes including 29146990, 29153910, 29153940, 29153990,
29183090, 29331990, 29410090, and 29189900. In the present injury period, subject goods have been imported
under codes 29183040, 29183090 and 29189990. Therefore, the customs classification is only indicative.
c. The Authority is requested to include all the codes considered within the purview of the previous
investigation, while also explicitly specifying codes 29183090 and 29189990 in the duty table.
d. There is no known significant difference in subject goods produced by the domestic industry and exported
from the subject country. Subject goods produced by the Indian industry and imported from the subject country
are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process &
technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing and distribution & marketing.
e. The Designated Authority has determined in all past investigations that the product produced by the domestic
industry is like article to the imported material.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
9. The present investigation is a sunset review investigation, and the scope of the product under consideration
remains the same as defined in the original investigation. No significant developments have taken place in the scope
of the product under consideration over the period. Further, none of the other interested parties have advanced any
argument with regard to the scope of the product under consideration and like article. The product under consideration
as defined in the original investigating is reproduced hereunder: -
"The product under consideration in the represent petition is Methyl Acetoacetate. Methyl Acetoacetate (also
known his MAA/MAAE/AAME) is a Diketene based Ester or aceto-acetate. The chemical Formula of MAA is
C5H803 and at 99% purity, it is a clear liquid with a colourless appearance."
10. The scope of the product under consideration remains the same as defined in the original investigation.
11. The product under consideration is classified in Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act under the subheading
29183040 as "Methyl Acetoacetate”. However, the applicant has submitted that in present injury period, the subject
goods have been imported under the codes 29183040, 29183090 and 29189990. The DG Systems data also shows
imports under these three codes during the injury period. Therefore, the customs classification is indicative only and is
in no way binding on the scope of the investigation.
12. The Authority notes that the product produced by the applicant is comparable to the imported goods from the
subject country in terms of chemical characteristics, product specifications, technical specifications, manufacturing
process, and technology, functions and uses, pricing, distribution and marketing, and tariff classification of the goods.
The two are technically and commercially interchangeable. Accordingly, the Authority notes that the product
produced by the applicant is 'like article' to the product under consideration imported from the subject country in
terms of Rule 2(d) of the Rules.
D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1 Views of the other interested party
13. No submissions have been made regarding the scope of the domestic industry and its standing by the other
interested parties.
D.2 Views of the domestic industry
14. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regards to scope and standing of the
domestic industry:
a. The applicant was the sole producer of the subject goods in India in the previous investigations. However,
considering the improvement in the applicant's performance and the conducive environment created due to the
duties in place, Jubilant Ingrevia Limited established capacity and entered the market as a new manufacturer of
the subject goods in India in February 2022.
b. Jubilant Ingrevia Limited has supported the application and the continuation of duties. The company has
furnished a support letter along with its injury information.
c. Production by the applicant constitutes “a major proportion" of total domestic production.
d. The Applicant has not imported the subject goods, nor is it related to any producer or exporter of the subject
goods in China PR. The applicant is also not related to any importer in India.
e. The Applicant constitutes eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) and the application
satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules supra.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
15. Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules defines domestic industry as under:
"(h) "domestic industry" means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like
article and any activity connected therewith or these whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are refuted 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".
16. The Authority notes that the present application has been filed by M/s Laxmi Organics Industries Limited. The
applicant was the sole producer in past investigations. It is noted that one other producer of the subject goods i.e. Jubilant
Ingrevia Limited (hereinafter referred to also as "Jubilant"), has established capacity and entered the market as a new
manufacturer of the subject goods in India during the injury period i.e., in 2021-2022 (in Feb 2022). Further, Jubilant has
supported the application and the imposition of duties. It has also submitted summary information on its performance during the
injury period. It is seen that the production by the applicant constitutes ***% of total Indian production, thus the production by
the applicant constitutes “a major proportion" of total Indian production.
+-----+-------------------------+------------------+------------+
| SN | Particular | Quantity (MT) | Share (%) |
+=====+=========================+==================+============+
| 1 | Production by Applicant | *** | ***0% |
+-----+-------------------------+------------------+------------+
| 2 | Production by Jubilant | *** | ***0% |
+-----+-------------------------+------------------+------------+
| 3 | Total Indian production | *** | 100% |
+-----+-------------------------+------------------+------------+
17. M/s Laxmi Organics Industries Limited has certified that it has neither imported the subject goods from the subject
country nor is related to any exporter or producer of subject goods in the subject country or an importer of the product under
consideration in India. The Authority has examined DG System's transaction-wise data and found that the applicant has not
imported the product under consideration from the subject country.
18. In view of the above, the Authority holds that the Applicant constitutes eligible “domestic industry" within the
meaning of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the
Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1 Views of the other interested parties
19. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with respect to confidentiality:
a. The applicant has relied on a market report without providing its non-confidential version or a summary of its
contents. No justification has been provided for this omission. Reliance is placed on CESTAT's decision in All
India Laminated Fabrics Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority.
b. The source of the market report remains undisclosed, casting doubt on its credibility.
c. No reliance can be made by the Authority on the applicant's statements on investing 750 crores on the
subject goods without evidence. The same may be sought.
d. The claim of investment lacks credibility as the figures presented are inconsistent. Applicant claimed ₹750
crores during the first oral hearing and ₹710 crores in the second oral hearing.
e. As regards confidentiality over list of shareholders and list of supporting documents provided, the same does
not hamper the investigation.
f. As regards confidentiality over channel of distribution, the specific details are provided in Appendices 3A
and 4A which are completely confidential. However, it is disclosed that Nantong has sold directly to unrelated
customers in India and China.
g. As regards supplementary questionnaire to receive market economy treatment, the same has not been filed by
Nantong.
E.2 Views of the domestic industry
20. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with respect to confidentiality:
a. The exporter has claimed excessive confidentiality over the name of its shareholders and financial statements
even though the company is listed on Shanghai Stock Exchange.
b. Name of primary raw materials and channel of distribution has been claimed confidential without providing
any justification.
с. Questionnaire requires exporter to provide documents pertaining to its sales. While the documents may be
confidential, there can be nothing confidential about the name of documents which have been claimed
confidential.
d. The kind of adjustments made to normal value and export price have been unduly claimed confidential by the
exporter.
e. A meaningful summary of Appendix 1 has not been provided. It does not clearly show trends in properly
indexed format.
f. Response to questions regarding exporter's capacity, production, inventories, exports in Part II of the
questionnaire concerning sunset review have been completely claimed confidential without providing a
reasonable summary.
g. Chinese producers rebutting non-market economy presumption are required to file a supplementary
questionnaire. The exporter has provided details of domestic sales and requested that the same may be used to
determine normal value. The domestic industry has not received a non-confidential version of response to
supplementary questionnaire, if it has been filed.
h. The exporter's objection on confidentiality is time-barred and untenable. The Authority has given specific
time limits to the interested parties to comments on confidentiality. If some parties fail to adhere to such
directions, the Authority should not accept their time barred submissions. made which are already.
i. As regards confidentiality claimed over the market report, the applicant fully complied with Rule 7. The
name of the market report was disclosed in the application; the source of the report was identified in the written
submissions; and all information derived from the report was included in the non-confidential version of the
application. The Applicant claimed confidentiality over the report itself since it has been procured through third
party, and the applicant is not authorized to publicly disclose the document. Due justification for confidentiality
claimed was provided by the applicant.
E.3 Examination by the Authority
21. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by the various parties
to other interested parties as per Rule 6(7). With regard to confidentiality of information submitted by the interested
parties, Rule 7 of the AD Rules provided as follows:
"Confidential Information:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub-
rule (4) of rule 15 and sub- rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule
5, or any Other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the
course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated
as such by it and no such Information shall be disclosed to any other perry without specific authorization of
the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish
non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such
information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of
reasons why summarization is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the
request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the
Information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such
information."
22. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regards to
sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever
warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties.
Wherever possible, the parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-
confidential version of the information filed on a confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all interested parties
have claimed their business-related sensitive information as confidential.
23. The Authority vide para 32 of the initiation notification, directed interested parties to offer their comments on
issues regarding confidentiality claimed within 7 days of receiving the non-confidential version of any submission.
24. The domestic industry contended that the exporter has claimed undue confidentiality over its financial
statements and list of its shareholders despite being a listed entity and such information being available in public
domain. The domestic industry also argued that the exporter has claimed the names of major raw materials
confidential despite such information being available in its annual report which is a published document. It has further
been argued that the exporter claimed undue confidentiality over its channel of distribution even though such
information can be inferred from the exporter's response itself. The Authority notes in response to the domestic
industry's comments on confidentiality, the exporter vide letter dated 5th September 2025, submitted a list of its top 10
shareholders, financial statements, key raw materials viz., diketene and methanol, and channel of distribution.
25. The domestic industry also argued that while the absolute figures may be confidential, but the kind of
adjustment made to normal value and export price claimed per se cannot be claimed as confidential. It is seen that in
response, the exporter has disclosed that it claimed adjustment of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, credit
cost and bank charges in Appendix 3A.
26. It was pointed out by the domestic industry that the exporter did not furnish a meaningful summary of
information on its performance parameters and relevant questions in Part II of the questionnaire concerning sunset
review. However, it is seen that while the response of the exporter did not contain a meaningful summary, the same
was subsequently provided in duly indexed form by the exporter. The domestic industry thereafter submitted its
comments on the performance of the exporter based on such non-confidential summary.
27. As regards the domestic industry's query regarding non-receipt of a non-confidential version of the
exporter's response to supplementary questionnaire requesting market economy treatment, the Authority notes that the
exporter has clarified that it has not filed the supplementary questionnaire and hence, the same was not shared with the
domestic industry. However, the exporter submitted the without prejudice, it claims market economy treatment based
on the response submitted. The details of submissions made in this regard have been recorded by the Authority in the
relevant section of this Final Finding.
28. The exporter raised concerns about the confidentiality claimed by the exporter over the market report relied
on by the domestic industry. It has been submitted that the domestic industry has, without any justification, neither
submitted a non-confidential of the cited market report nor offered a summary of its contents. The domestic industry,
relying on the decisions in US Hot-Rolled Steel, Panel on US Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review and
Appellate Body report on US Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, has submitted that such claim on
confidentiality has been submitted much after the deadline to file confidentiality comment and is thus time barred and
untenable. While the Authority notes that the submission is time-barred, having regard to the significance of the
argument put forth, the Authority has nevertheless addressed the exporter's submissions.
29. It is seen that the domestic industry disclosed the name of the market report i.e., “Methyl Acetoacetate
Market in China: Investment Feasibility Assessment Report 2025-2030" at para 113 of the application. No
confidentiality was claimed over the name of the report in the non-confidential version of the application. Further,
taking note of the objection raised by the exporter, the domestic industry disclosed the source of the report i.e., VynZ
Research, at para 77 of its written submissions dated 15th October 2025. The domestic industry clarified that all
information derived/ extracted or relied upon from the said report was included in the non-confidential version of the
application. Thus, information considered from the market research report has been disclosed. It is noted that the
Authority has also considered reports by VynZ Research in other past investigations including sunset review
investigation of countervailing duty on imports of atrazine from China PR and sunset review investigation of anti-
dumping duty on CPVC – whether or not further processed into compound from China PR and Korea RP.
30. As regards the reliance placed by the exporter on All India Laminated Fabrics Manufacturers Association v.
Designated Authority where the CESTAT ordered for withdrawal of duty, holding that the report could not be taken
into consideration due to its reliability and authenticity being suspicious, the Authority takes note of the domestic
industry's submission that the reference made is misplaced. While in the case referred by the exporter, the domestic
industry had relied on a report but did not disclose the author, source, and data source, the domestic industry in the
present case has identified the name of the report i.e., “Methyl Acetoacetate Market in China: Investment Feasibility
Assessment Report 2025-2030”, its source i.e., “VynZ Research" and has placed on record sufficient general summary
of all data relied on that was derived from the report. Hence, the exporter's right to defense has not been breached.
31. As regards the argument of lack of due justification for claiming confidentiality over the market report, the
Authority notes that since the report has been procured by the domestic industry through third party, it is not
authorized to publicly disclose the document. Due justification has been provided by the domestic industry for
claiming such confidentiality over the report in the application.
32. The exporter has argued that the there is lack of inconsistency between the investment claims of the domestic
industry. With regard to the investment claims, it is noted that the domestic industry has submitted through its written
submissions that it has received an approval of capital expenditure of Rs. 710 Crores and is in the process of seeking
further approvals.
33. It has been submitted by the exporter that no reliance can be made on applicant's statements regarding
investing further on the subject goods and requested the Authority to seek evidence for the same. The domestic
industry, through its subsequent submissions, placed on record a public disclosure made by it regarding approval of a
capital expenditure of Rs. 710 Crores for setting up a new manufacturing site at Dahej, Gujarat where methyl
acetoacetate is one of the products proposed to be manufactured. The domestic industry also provided a copy of the
environment clearance received by it for the said manufacturing site. It is seen from the environment clearance that the
subject goods are one of the products proposed to be manufactured at the said site. Additionally, the domestic industry
clarified that it is in the process of seeking approval from the Board for adding additional investment.
F. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS
F.1 Views of the other interested parties
34. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties:
a. The Applicant's request for sampling of exporters is unnecessary and unreasonable as there is only one
participating exporter.
b. Termination of duty is the norm while continuation is an exception. There do not exist any exceptional
circumstances calling for continuation of duty. The duties have been in force for 9 years, Jubilant has entered the
market, imports from Switzerland have increased.
c. Taking 21-22 as the base year and comparing it with successive years will show manipulated analysis of
injury as demand in base year was high due to Covid.
d. The applicant has claimed bracketing was missing in the non-confidential version of Jubilant's injury
information and the same has been corrected. There is possibility of manipulation of data. The Authority is
requested to call for evidence.
e. The applicant wouldn't commit investment if it was impacted by subject imports. Investment is a strategic
move for extending the duties.
F.2 Views of the domestic industry
35. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties:
a. The applicant inadvertently omitted the negative sign or brackets while presenting Jubilant's performance
parameters indicating profitability. The revised injury information was circulated with the written submissions.
b. As regards, termination of duties being the norm, Rule 23(1B) provides that duty shall cease unless its expiry
is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Information on record sufficiently
demonstrates the existence of such likelihood and establishes that dumping has continued, injuring the domestic
industry.
c. As regards the duration of duties, the WTO Agreement mandates that duty shall remain in force as long and
to the extent necessary. The law only requires the Authority to assess the need for extension of the measures as
required. The duties may remain in force for a period more than or less than five-years. The law does not
mention an upper limit. WTO member countries have kept duties for much longer period than the present
duration.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
36. While the domestic industry requested for sampling keeping in view the large number of producers in the
subject country, since only one exporter has registered itself as an interested party in the present investigation, the
Authority has not resorted to sampling.
37. As regards the contention of the exporter that termination of duty is the norm, the Authority notes that Rule
23(1B) of the AD Rules provides that "... any definitive anti-dumping duty levied under the Act, shall be effective for
a period not exceeding five years from the date of its imposition, unless the designated authority comes to a
conclusion, on a review initiated before that period on its own initiative or upon a duly substantiated request made by
or on behalf of the domestic industry, within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of that period, that the
expiry of the said anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the
domestic industry." Thus, when there is evidence of expiry of the anti-dumping duty likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry, then such duties are required to be extended. Similarly, as
regards the contention regarding the duration of duties, the Authority notes that the AD Rules do not provide an upper
limit on the duration of duties. The very purpose of the present sunset investigation is to examine whether the
cessation of duty would be likely to result in continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Accordingly, the
Authority has noted information relating to dumping and injury under the relevant sections of this Final Finding.
38. The exporter has raised concerns about the appropriateness of considering 2021 – 2022 as the base year on
the ground that demand during this period was impacted by Covid-19. In this regard, the Authority notes that, having
regard to the timelines applicable to a sunset review investigation, the domestic industry filed an application proposing
January 2024 – December 2024 as the POI, which was found appropriate by the Authority. Accordingly, the injury
period considered was 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and the POI. The Authority further notes that Trade Notice 02/2004
requires that an application should invariably contain information and data relating to the proposed POI and previous
three financial years. In view of the said requirement, exclusion of 2021 – 2022 from the injury investigation period
was not feasible. As regards the exporter's contention that comparison with the base year would reflect manipulated
analysis of injury, the Authority has examined the interested parties' submissions on injury under the relevant section
of this Final Finding where due caution has been undertaken to examine the performance of the domestic industry in
the POI.
39. The domestic industry clarified in its written submissions, filed pursuant to the first hearing, that it
inadvertently omitted brackets while presenting the non-confidential version of Jubilant's performance parameters and
consequently indicated profits. It is seen that the domestic industry while giving such clarification, revised the non-
confidential version of Jubilant's injury information and duly circulated the same with the other interested parties. It is
noted that Jubilant while providing its support letter also shared information on its actual performance with the
domestic industry. Confidential version of the same was placed on record by the domestic industry. A perusal of the
confidential version of the injury information that the producer had, in fact, reflected losses. Further, to examine the
veracity of the information placed on record and addressing the alleged inconsistencies in Jubilant's performance, the
Authority sought relevant backup information from Jubilant for verification. The verified information from Jubilant
indicates that, during the injury period, the producer's sales realizations were below its cost of production, resulting in
losses. In light of the foregoing, the Authority holds that there is no basis to conclude that the injury data relating to
Jubilant has been manipulated by the domestic industry.
40. The exporter has argued that further investment by the domestic industry is a strategic move to extend duties.
In this regard, the domestic industry has submitted that the imposition of duties enabled stabilization of the market,
reversal of losses, and reasonable profitability, which in turn also facilitated entry of a new producer and further
investment. The Authority notes that the argument made by the exporter is a mere statement and no evidence has been
submitted to prove that an investment of this scale was merely a strategic move to influence the continuation of duties.
G. ASSESMENT OF DUMPING AND DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE
AND DUMPING MARGIN
G.1. Views of the other interested parties
41. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the normal value,
export price and dumping margin:
a. Nantong Acetic Acid is a listed company in China PR. It makes its production, sales, procurement decisions
based on market principles, determined by demand-supply relationships and is free from any non-market
intervention. The company operates with higher degree of transparency, governance compliance, and openness,
distinguishing it from non-listed companies.
b. The Authority is requested to grant the company market economy status for the purpose of determining
normal value. Denying market economy treatment, despite the fulfilment of the prescribed criteria, would be
unjust and contrary to the interests of Nantong considering major imports from China is made by Nantong itself.
c. To establish a fair ex-factory comparison between normal value and export price, the exporter has claimed
adjustments on account of inland freight and credit costs in case of domestic sales and ocean freight, insurance,
inland freight, credit costs, and bank charges in case of export sales.
d. There is no irrecoverable VAT amount for price adjustment.
e. The applicant has asked to verify contradictory claims made before the Chinese and Indian customs authority
by the exporter. Such requests are too far-fetched. Further, completeness test with respect to all operations of the
company is uncalled for. The exporter has no intention of manipulating data.
f. Given the fact that exporter is the only responding party with majority exports to India, Nantong's data
should be considered for calculation of normal value, export price and dumping margin.
g. The Authority is requested to continue the previous duty if at all there is positive determination of
continuation of the duty.
h. Volume of subject imports should be assessed over the current injury period to determine whether dumping
has occurred.
G.2. Views of the domestic industry
42. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the normal value, export
price and dumping margin:
a. China should be treated as non-market economy. Its domestic prices and cost cannot be considered unless the
exporter demonstrates that costs and domestic prices are appropriate and reasonable reflect the costs and price of
the PUC. Normal value for China PR has to be determined in terms of para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules.
b. To estimate normal value, attempts were made to get evidence of price prevailing in market economy third
countries, however, no published information was found. Attempts were made to construct normal value in
market economy third country but could not be done due to lack of information. Imports from third country to
any other country could not be considered as the product does not have a dedicated customs classification
globally. Further, imports from other countries to India could not be considered as, apart from the China, imports
are from Switzerland, which are also at dumped prices and subject to a parallel investigation. Further, price paid
in India is impacted by dumping. Therefore, normal value has been estimated based on price payable in India
considering the cost of production in India, including selling, general, administrative expenses and a reasonable
profit.
с. Nantong has provided details of domestic sales and requested Authority to use the same for normal value
determination. However, since the exporter has not filed a response to the market economy treatment
questionnaire, Authority should determine normal value as per Para 7 of Annexure I to the Rules.
d. Ex-factory export price has been estimated based on volume and value of imports as per secondary source data.
Adjustment on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, port expenses, bank charges, and inland freight
expenses have been made.
e. Authority is requested to examine if the exporter has reported all the expenses incurred by them in exporting
the product. Price adjustments must be made for all factors which affect price comparability between normal
value and export price.
f. Previously, the Authority adjusted for VAT differences which has not been reported as a price adjustment
recently. The Authority should make necessary price adjustments to ensure comparability between normal value
and export price.
g. The Authority is requested to verify export volumes and values reported by the exporter against data from
DGCI&S and DG Systems, reject questionnaire response and use facts available when claims don't match Indian
customs data, and examine – invoices submitted to Chinese and Indian customs authorities, accounting invoices
used to report income and expense, payment proof, including bank statements and party account records. The
response should be rejected if an exporter reports conflicting prices to Chinese and Indian customs, and if
exporters fail to provide sufficient proof of payment from Indian buyers.
h. Excel files alone are not sufficient evidence of adjustments. To establish accuracy and adequacy, they must
be supported by relevant documents. The Authority should direct exporters to furnish necessary information with
evidence.
i. The Authority is requested to conduct a completeness test of the exporter's EQR, covering all company
operations and those specifically related to the PUC.
j. Being listed does not establish that a company operates under market-economy conditions. Listing on a stock
exchange does not, by itself, remove state influence or control, nor does it demonstrate that prices, costs, and
financial decisions are determined solely by market forces.
k. An analysis of the exporter's annual report indicates that at least 19% of its shareholding is held by state-
owned entities, which further evidence state participation and potential influence in its management and
operations.
l. Nantong had participated in the previous investigations on the subject goods as well but did not seek market-
economy treatment, nor was it ever granted such treatment. It has also not demonstrated any change in
circumstances which now justifies it being granted market-economy treatment.
m. The volume of exports made by the exporter is immaterial to the determination of market economy treatment.
n. As regards Nantong not dumping in India, the margins may be determined by the Authority. As per the
applicant's estimates the margins are significant. Hence, it is not true that the exporter is not indulging in
dumping.
G.3. Examination by the Authority
a. Normal value
43. Under Section 9A (1)(c), 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 like 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, such 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 ds determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or
b. 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 under
sub-section (6);
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 trans-shipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the
country of export or there 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.
44. Article 15 of China's Accession 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 apply in proceedings involving 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 Chinese 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 in the
industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product,
the importing WO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in
determining price comparability;
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with
domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market
economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture,
production and sale of that product.
(iii) 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 that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate
benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should
adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing
outside China.
(iv) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a)
to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with
subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
(v) 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
provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should
China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy
conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of
subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.”
45. The Authority notes that while the provisions of Article 15 (a)(ii) of China PR's Accession Protocol have
expired with effect from 11th December 2016. However, the provision under Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement read with obligation under 15(a)(i) of the Accession Protocol require criterion stipulated in Para 8 of the
Annexure I of Anti-Dumping Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary
questionnaire for claiming market economy status.
46. At the stage of initiation, the Authority constructed the normal value for China PR based on best estimates of
the cost of production of the domestic industry after duly adjusting the selling, general and administrative expenses
and profits. Upon initiation, the Authority advised the producers/ exporters in China PR to respond to the notice of
initiation and provide information relevant to determination of their market economy status. The Authority sent copies
of the supplementary questionnaire to all the known producers/ exporters for rebutting presumption of non-market
economy in accordance with criteria laid down in Para 8(3) of Annexure-I to the Rules and furnish relevant detailed
information.
47. The Authority notes the following provisions under Para 7 and Para 8 of Annexure-I to the Rules with regard
to the determination of normal value for producers in China PR
"7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the
price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other
countries, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually
paid or payable in India for the like product, duty adjusted, if necessary, 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 country concerned and the product in question] and due
account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of the selection. Account shall also
be taken within time limits; there appropriate, of the investigation if any made in a similar matter in respect of
any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable
delay of the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of
time to offer their comments.
"8. (1) The term “non-market 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 respect the fair value of the merchandise, in accordance 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 antidumping investigation by the designated authority 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 concerned firms
from such country may rebut such a 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 consider 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 response 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 and Financial situation of such firms are 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 debts: (c) such firms are
subject to bankruptcy and property laws which guarantee legal certainty and stability for the operation of the
firms, and (d) the exchange rate conversions are carried or at the market rate. Provided, however, that where it is
shown by sufficient evidence in writing on the 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 paragraphs 1 to 6 instead of the principles set 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 latest detailed evaluation of relevant criteria. 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 anti-dumping
investigations, by a country which is a Member of the World Trade Organization.
48. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded with the presumption of treating China PR as a non-market
economy country. Upon initiation, the Authority advised the producers / exporters in China PR to respond to the
notice of initiation and provide information on whether their data/information could be adopted for normal value
determination. The Authority sent copies of the market economy treatment / supplementary questionnaire to all the
known producers/ exporters in China PR to provide relevant information in this regard.
49. Nantong Acetic Acid, a producer in China, registered itself in the present investigation and filed a response to
the exporters' questionnaire. The exporter has submitted that it meets the criteria for market economy treatment as it is
a listed entity, its business decisions are driven by demand-supply dynamics, there is no significant state interference,
and its operations align with international standards of corporate governance. Accordingly, the exporter has requested
that it may be granted market economy treatment for the purposed of this investigation. However, while the exporter
was well aware that it was required to submit a Market Economy Questionnaire, it has admittedly not filed
supplementary questionnaire response to rebut the presumptions as mentioned in para 8 of Annexure – I of the Rules.
Upon domestic industry's submission insisting MET questionnaire, the exporter had simply denied filing of MET
questionnaire response without providing any reasons. In this regard, the Authority also notes the domestic industry's
submissions that the mere fact that the company is listed does not establish that it operates under market-economy
conditions. It has been pointed out by the domestic industry that the exporter's annual report indicates at least 19% of
its shareholding is held by state-owned entities. Further, the exporter also participated in the previous investigations
but did not seek market-economy treatment. It has not demonstrated any change in circumstances that would now
justify it being granted market-economy treatment. In view of the established practice of the Authority, the exporter's
claim of market economy status, in the absence of the required information, is therefore rejected. The Authority
considers it appropriate to treat China PR as non-market economy country in the present investigation and proceed
with para 7 of Annexure – I of the Rules for determination of normal value in case of China PR.
50. Paragraph 7 stipulates multiple plausible methods for calculating the normal value for producers in non-
market economy, including (a) on the basis of price or constructed value in a market economy third country; (b) price
from such a third country to other country, including India; and (c) on any other reasonable basis, including the price
actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin.
The Authority notes that the normal value is required to be determined having regard to various sequential alternatives
provided under Annexure 7.
51. No information has been provided by the parties for the consideration of the normal value on the basis of the
price or constructed value in the market economy third country. Thus, normal value cannot be determined based on
price prevailing in market economy third country. Further, the price of imports into other countries could not be
considered as the product is being transacted under different codes. As regards imports into India, it is seen that the
imports of the subject goods in the POI are entering the country from China PR and Switzerland. While imports from
Switzerland constitute 37% of the total imports into India and such imports are subject to a parallel anti-dumping
investigation. Thus, imports from market economy third country into other countries, including India, could not be
considered for determination of normal value.
52. In the absence of the above information/evidence before the Authority to determine normal value, the
Authority has determined normal value for all exporters/producers from China PR based on "any other reasonable
basis including the price actually paid or payable in India” as stipulated in para 7 of Annexure – I to the AD Rules,
1995. Hence, normal value has been computed based on the cost of production of the domestic industry, with
reasonable addition for selling, general and administrative expenses and profit margin. The normal value so
determined is given below in the dumping margin table.
b. Export Price
53. The response filed by the exporter has been examined hereunder:
Nantong Acetic Acid Chemical Co., Ltd
54. The Authority notes that only Nantong Acetic Acid Chemical Co., Ltd. filed a response to the exporter's
questionnaire in the present investigation. It is a producer/exporter of the subject goods in China and has exported the
product under consideration directly to unrelated customers in India during the POI. It is noted that during the POI, Nantong
Acetic Acid Chemical Co., Ltd, China has exported *** MT of subject goods directly.
55. The Authority has examined the details of the exports given in the questionnaire response filed by the
producer/exporter. While *** MT of the sales to Indian customers are on CIF basis, the remaining *** are on FOB basis.
The exporter has claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, credit cost, bank charges and inland
freight expenses in case of CIF exports and adjustments on account of credit cost, bank charges and inland freight expenses
in case of FOB exports. The Authority has taken into consideration the expenses as claimed by the exporter in estimating its
export price. The net export price worked out by the Authority is as shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.
Other producers/ exporters in China
56. The export price for all other non-cooperative producers/exporters from China PR has been determined based on
facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules and the same is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
c. Dumping Margin
57. The normal value, ex-factory export price and dumping margin determined for the subject country are as follows:
DUMPING MARGIN TABLE
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| Producer | Normal Value | Export Price | Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin (%) | Dumping Margin |
| | (US$/MT) | (US$/MT) | (US$/MT) | | (Range) |
+=====================================+====================+====================+====================+====================+===================+
| Nantong Acetic Acid Chemical Co., | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
| Ltd. | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| Others | *** | *** | *** | *** | 40-50 |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
58. The Authority holds that the dumping margin in the POI is positive, above de-minims and significant.
H. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY
H.1. View of the other interested parties
59. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties the with regard to injury and
causal link:
a. Demand in base year was high due to Covid. With subsequent decline in demand, Applicant's sales declined.
b. There is no volume injury. Volume from subject country has declined. Domestic sales decreased in 20-21 and
increased to the level of base year in the POI. The demand was high in base year due to Covid and decreased
subsequently. At the same time, sales of applicant increased in the last two years, matching the levels in base
year. Further, imports from Switzerland have increased which shows its intention to dump. Even when imports
fell, profits of the applicant have decreased.
c. There is no price injury. Decrease in domestic selling price is in consonance with cost.
d. Price undercutting calculation provided does not include existing duty. Undercutting for Nantong is negative
after inclusion of duty.
e. Since anti-dumping duties are not applicable under the advance license scheme, imposing such duties on the
subject imports would be ineffective. Even if the duties continue, they will not benefit the domestic industry,
given that most imports bypass them through this scheme.
f. Authority is requested to verify the allocated cost to the PUC as the applicant is a multi-product company,
and their cost may overlap with NPUC. Any faulty allocation shall prove extremely detrimental to the interest of
Nantong.
g. The applicant's capacity has remained same and utilization shot up in POI. However, production quantity of
PUC has decreased. Even when utilization increased by 26 points in 23-24, production only increased by 6
points.
h. Applicant's market share increased substantially while that of China declined. Jubilant has also been able to
get good hold of the market. Further, market share of Switzerland has also increased.
i. If the applicant's claim of dumping were true, Jubilant wouldn't have invested and entered the market.
Companies typically assess market conditions and potential profitability before entering any industry. The
Authority must seek projected profits from Jubilant and compare it with actual performance.
j. While profits fell from base year to 23-24, the same increased considerably in the POI. Even when profits
dipped prior to POI, the same did not turn into losses except during 23-24. Further, 21-22 profits cannot be
relied upon due to applicant earning extraordinary profits during Covid.
k. Decline in import prices was not exclusive to the subject imports. The same was a global phenomenon due to
the decreasing demand of the PUC which is majorly used in pharmaceuticals given the end of the COVID-19
pandemic.
l. Increase in inventory is due to decrease in export and not domestic sales.
m. The Applicant has flourished in the market and has received elongated protection.
n. The Authority must examine other factors including dip in profit due to decrease in export, impact of Covid
in the base year, entry of Jubilant, increase of Switzerland's market share.
o. Authority is requested to verify the allocated cost to the PUC as the applicant is a multi-product company,
and their cost may overlap with NPUC. Any faulty allocation shall prove extremely detrimental to the interest of
Nantong.
p. The applicant is selectively using data from the previous investigation to claim volume-related injury, which
is not supported by the data for the current injury period.
q. Applicant has provided no evidence against the claim that the subject country has absorbed their duties.
r. The domestic industry has acknowledged that it did not fully utilize the benefits of the previous ADD,
indicating that any injury it claims to have suffered is largely self-inflicted. Having failed to act when the duty
was in place, the Applicant's current attempt to seek an extension appears opportunistic and unfair to exporters.
H.2 Views of the domestic industry
60. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal link:
a. Dumped imports continue to cause material injury to the domestic industry, despite duties being in place.
b. The demand for subject goods was high in base year, during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to its use in APIs,
before returning to normal levels. However, historical trend shows demand has increased by ***% from the
original investigation's base year to the present POI. Demand has remained stable compared to the POI of the
first sunset review.
с. The volume of subject imports, in absolute and relative terms, declined throughout injury period due to
commencement of production by Jubilant. Imports constitute 57% of the total imports and ***% of demand.
d. Imports constitute a significant portion of total imports. AD Agreement considers a volume of 3% as significant
enough to initiate an investigation. The European Commission, for initiation, considers a market share of 1% or
more also sufficient.
e. Price undercutting was positive throughout the injury period, except in 2022-23. The price gap has widened
significantly over the injury period.
f. The landed value went even below the cost in 2023-24 and the POI.
g. Significant imports are being made under advance authorisation scheme where ADD and basic customs duty is
not payable. Such prices are also benchmarking the prices in the domestic market, thereby impacting the selling
price of the domestic industry.
h. Dumped imports caused price depression in the market. Both costs and domestic selling prices declined, but the
decline in selling price was higher than that in cost. Further, there was an even sharper decline in the landed price
forcing domestic industry to reduce its price.
i. Capacity of domestic industry remained constant, while its production volume showed a decline. Sales volume
has increased in the POI as a result of decline in price.
j. While China's market share declined, it remains highly significant at ***% and is higher than the ***% share in
the last sunset review investigation.
k. The domestic industry was profitable when import prices were above cost of production. As imports price
declined in 2022-23 and further in 2023-24, profits of the domestic industry turned into losses, with only a
marginal recovery in the POI.
l. The average inventory levels increased significantly, barring a minor decline in 2023-24.
m. Level of employment declined till 2023-24 and thereafter it remained constant. Salaries and wages also declined
throughout the period. Productivity per day fell in line with reduced production.
n. Growth of the domestic industry has been adversely impacted by the dumped imports, in reference to volume
and price parameters.
o. Imports from subject country account for a significant portion of market. Consequently, domestic industry could
not increase its market share.
p. Imports from the subject country are not only below the selling price offered by the domestic industry but also
below the cost of sales which has resulted in decline in profitability to the domestic industry.
q. The pattern of consumption with regard to the product under consideration has not undergone any change.
r. The applicant is not suffering injury due to the availability of substitutes.
S. Technology as well as the production process for producing the PUC has not undergone any significant
development.
t. There is no trade-restrictive practice.
u. The injury data reflects only the domestic operations of the industry, with any impact from exports excluded.
v. The price at which duty-free imports are made show the price at which the goods are likely to be imported in the
event of cessation of anti-dumping duty.
W. Duty free imports have an impact on the domestic industry's prices, and its effect has been considered by the
Authority in both the past investigations.
Χ. The DGTR has recommended imposition or extension of ADD even after finding that significant or entirety of
imports were under advance authorization.
y. Mere existence of negative price undercutting does not imply absence of price injury. The Authority has also
recommended duties in several cases where the price undercutting was negative. Between price undercutting and
suppression/depression, one of the parameters may be present.
Z. Jubilant has also been able to achieve volumes and get some market by selling at significant losses. The producer
has not even reached break-even point.
aa. As regards the argument that there is absence of volume injury, the applicant's price parameters have
deteriorated sharply. Sales have increased at the cost of profitability. Despite duties being in place and fresh
capacities coming up in India, subject imports are being dumped and maintain a significant share of the market.
The decline in profitability directly correlates with the decline in import price.
bb. While from the NCV of injury information it may look like there has been a considerable increase in profit in the
POI, the applicant sold at prices marginally above cost. The marginal profits of ***% do not signify recovery.
cc. The exporter's claim that the applicant has "flourished in the market" is contradictory to what the data
demonstrates. It is not denied that the duties were effective, and the domestic industry made reasonable profits in
the last review investigation. However, in the present investigation, there has been a steep decline in import
prices and the domestic industry has started suffering injury.
dd. The applicant's performance continues to be adverse and its position remains vulnerable, justifying continuation
of duties.
H.3. Examination by the Authority
61. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve examination of factors
that may indicate 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 producers of such articles...". In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is
considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as
compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices
to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For
the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on
the state of the industry such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales
realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the
Rules.
62. Rule 23 of the Rules provides that the provisions of Rule 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19 and 20 shall apply mutatis
mutandis in case of a review. In case the performance of the domestic industry shows that it has not suffered injury
during the current injury period, the Authority shall determine whether cessation of the present duty is likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic industry.
63. The domestic industry has alleged that it continues to suffer material injury due to dumped subject imports. The
Authority has taken note of submissions made by all interested parties and has hereunder examined the injury to the
domestic industry in accordance with the Rules.
H.3.1. Volume effect of the dumped imports
a. Assessment of demand/consumption
64. The Authority has defined, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand, or apparent consumption of the
subject goods in India as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry, domestic sales of the other domestic
producer and imports from all sources. The demand for the PUC is as follows.
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI |
+===========================+=========+==========+==========+==========+=====+
| Imports from China PR | MT | 7,228 | 5,569 | 4,022 | 2,045 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Imports from Switzerland | MT | 174 | 0 | 600 | 1,220 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Imports from other countries| MT | 613 | 112 | 0 | 0 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Sales of domestic industry| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 76 | 90 | 100 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Sales of other domestic | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| producer | | | | | |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 581 | 760 | 954 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Demand/Consumption | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 86 | 87 | 85 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
65. It is seen that the demand for the subject goods has declined in 22-23 and largely remained the same in 23-24 and the
POI. The demand has declined by 15% over the injury period. The interested parties have argued that the demand was
significantly high in the base year having the impact of COVID period as the product is used in pharmaceutical sector
also.
b. Imports in absolute and relative terms
66. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a
significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or in relation to production or consumption in
India. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied upon the transaction-wise data procured from
DG Systems. The information on volume of imports in absolute terms and relative terms over the injury period and in
the period of investigation is as below.
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI |
+=======================================+=========+==========+==========+==========+=====+
| Imports from China PR | MT | 7,228 | 5,569 | 4,022 | 2,045 |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Imports from Switzerland | MT | 174 | 0 | 600 | 1,220 |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Imports from other countries | MT | 613 | 112 | 0 | 0 |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Total Imports | MT | 8,015 | 5,681 | 4,622 | 3,265 |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Indian Production | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 90 | 108 | 123 |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Subject imports in relation to Indian | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| production | | | | | |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 85 | 52 | 23 |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Indian Consumption | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 86 | 87 | 85 |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Subject imports in relation to Indian | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| consumption | | | | | |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 89 | 63 | 33 |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Subject imports in relation to total | MT | 90% | 98% | 87% | 63% |
| imports | | | | | |
+---------------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
67. It is seen that the volume of imports from the subject country were at very high level in 2021-22 and have declined
thereafter. While there has been a decline in subject imports in relative terms, the same continue to remain significant.
Imports from Switzerland have increased and are subject to a parallel anti-dumping investigation.
H.3.2 Price effect of dumped imports
68. In terms of Annexure II (ii) of the Rules, with regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, the Authority is
required to consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with
the price of the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a
significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.
a. Price undercutting
69. In order to determine whether the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market, price
undercutting has been determined by comparing the net sales realization of the domestic industry with the landed price
of the subject imports during the injury period. Analysis of the landed value of imports and prices of the domestic
industry shows as follows.
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI |
+=========================+=========+===========+===========+===========+===========+
| Landed value of imports | INR/MT | 1,88,545 | 1,45,317 | 1,12,116 | 1,05,158 |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Net sales realization | INR/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 75 | 65 | 60 |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Price undercutting | INR/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | % Range | 0-10% | 0-10% | 10-20% | 10-20% |
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
70. It is seen that the landed value of imports is lower than the net sales realization of the domestic industry
throughout the injury period. The price undercutting has been positive throughout.
71. It has been submitted by the domestic industry that a significant volume of the subject imports is entering the
country under advance authorization scheme where no anti-dumping duty or basic customs duty is payable. The
exporter has contended that since duties are not applicable under the advance license scheme, even if duties continue,
they will not benefit the domestic industry. The Authority notes the submissions of the domestic industry in this
regard that imports under duty exemption schemes have the effect of benchmarking the prices in the domestic market.
It has also been submitted that the price at which duty-free imports are made during the POI, which are undercutting
the domestic prices, show the price at which the goods are likely to be imported in the event of cessation of anti-
dumping duty.
b. Price suppression or depression
72. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing the domestic prices and 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 below.
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI |
+=========================+=========+===========+===========+===========+===========+
| Cost of production | INR/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 85 | 74 | 68 |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Net sales realization | INR/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 75 | 65 | 60 |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Landed value of imports | INR/MT | 1,88,545 | 1,45,317 | 1,12,116 | 1,05,158 |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 77 | 59 | 56 |
+-------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
73. It is seen that cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry have declined throughout the injury
period. The exporter argued that domestic industry's selling price moved in consonance with cost. It is seen that while
the cost declined by 32% over the injury period, the selling price of the domestic industry declined by 40%. However,
the decline in the landed value of subject imports has been significantly higher than both the decline in cost and price
of the domestic industry. The landed value of subject imports declined by 44% over the injury period. Landed price of
imports declined below the level of cost since 2022-23 forcing the domestic industry to also lower its selling price
significantly, indicating that the selling price has followed the movement of landed price of imports.
74. With respect to the decline in import price, the exporter submitted that such decline was a global
phenomenon due to the decreased demand after COVID-19. However, it is seen that the landed value of imports has
registered a year-on-year decline. Not only has the landed value declined since the base year, the same has also
registered a decline of 28% even in comparison to 22-23. The domestic industry has submitted that it was forced to
reduce its selling price beyond the decline in cost to maintain sales volumes. It has been submitted that due to the
landed price of imports remaining below the selling price and the cost of sales since 2022-23, downward pressure was
exerted on the domestic prices. The domestic industry was forced to decrease its selling price. The Authority holds
that imports have had a depressing and suppressing effect on the domestic industry prices.
H.3.3 Consequent impact on economic parameters of the domestic industry
75. Annexure II to the Anti-Dumping 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 should include an objective and unbiased
evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual
and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of
capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative
effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, the
various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed herein below.
a. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales
76. Information on capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales over injury period is as follows:
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI |
+==============================+=========+==========+==========+==========+=====+
| Installed capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Total Production (PUC + NPUC)| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 81 | 86 | 112 |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Capacity Utilization (PUC + | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| NPUC) | | | | | |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 81 | 86 | 112 |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Production of PUC | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 64 | 71 | 77 |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Domestic sales | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 76 | 90 | 100 |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Export sales | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 51 | 26 | 26 |
+------------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
77. It is seen that the capacity of the domestic industry has remained the same throughout the injury period.
However, the volume of production of the subject goods by the domestic industry has declined over the injury period.
The sales volumes of the domestic industry declined in 22-23 and increased thereafter. However, it is seen that the
increase in sales volumes was achieved at the cost of suffering losses in 23-24 and earning negligible profits in the
POI.
78. It has been argued that while the capacity remained same and utilization increased in the POI, the production
quantity has declined. In this regard, it is seen that the applicant has reported a combined capacity for subject and non-
subject goods. Accordingly, it also reported a combined production volume and the corresponding capacity utilization
reflecting the same trend. However, the information on production of the subject goods followed the movement
reported for domestic sales and has declined over the injury period with some increase in the POI.
b. Market Share in Demand
79. The market share of the subject imports and the domestic industry over the entire injury period was as
follows:
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI |
+===========================+=========+==========+==========+==========+=====+
| Domestic industry | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 89 | 103 | 118 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Other Indian producer | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 676 | 875 | 1,127 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Subject imports | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 90 | 64 | 33 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| Imports from Switzerland | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
| | Indexed | 100 | 0 | 397 | 828 |
+---------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----+
80. It is seen that the domestic industry's market share declined in 2022-23 and increased thereafter. With Jubilant starting
production in the base year, the market share of the Indian industry as a whole has also increased. Imports from the
subject country, although declined, still account for a significant portion of the market.
с. Profitability, Cash profits, and Return on Capital Employed
81. The profit, profitability, cash profits, profit before interest (PBIT), and return on investment of the domestic industry
over the injury period has been analysed as follows:
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI |
+==========================+=========+==========+==========+==========+==========+
| Landed value of imports | INR/MT | 1,88,545 | 1,45,317 | 1,12,116 | 1,05,158 |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Cost of production | INR/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 85 | 74 | 68 |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Net sales realization | INR/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 75 | 65 | 60 |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Profit before tax | INR/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 2 | -5 | 2 |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Profit before tax | INR lacs| *** | *** | *** | *** |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 1 | -5 | 2 |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Cash profit | INR/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 24 | 17 | 20 |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Cash profit | INR lacs| *** | *** | *** | *** |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 18 | 15 | 20 |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Return on Capital Employed| % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | Indexed | 100 | 5 | 3 | 8 |
+--------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
82. It is seen that, as the landed value of imports declined, the domestic industry's profits also declined. Further, as the
landed value of imports declined to levels even below cost, the domestic industry was forced to reduce its prices.
Consequently, the domestic industry incurred losses in 2023-2024 and earned negligible profits in the period of
investigation. Cash profits and the ROI of the domestic industry declined till 23-24 and increased in the POI.
However, the performance of the domestic industry in terms of profitability remained adverse in the POI. It is seen
that the ROCE of domestic industry was merely ***%.
83. The exporter has argued that profits of the domestic industry did not face losses, except in 23-24, and its profits
increased considerably in the POI. While the non-confidential version of the domestic industry's injury information
may reflect a considerable increase in profits in the POI, it is seen from the confidential data that the domestic
industry's profits represented even less than ***% of the cost incurred in the POI.
84. It has further been argued that the profits in the base year cannot be relied upon due to extraordinary profit earning
during Covid. It is seen that in the base year the landed value of imports was much above the cost of production.
Similarly, the selling price of the domestic industry was above cost, and it was earning profits. However, with the
entry of Jubilant in the market, there was a steep and consistent decline in landed value of imports. As the landed
value fell even below cost, the applicant's selling price also declined.
d. Inventory
85. The data relating to inventory position of the domestic industry over the injury period and POI is given in the table
below. It is seen that the average level of inventories with the domestic industry has increased significantly over the
injury period. While the demand in the 23-24 and the POI was largely similar, the level of inventories with the
domestic industry increased by 84%. It has been argued that the increase in inventory is due to decrease in export sale.
However, it is seen that the inventory levels have increased significantly in the POI in comparison to the previous
year, despite the domestic industry's export volumes being largely the same. It is noted that the domestic industry, in
this regard, has submitted that it is not
Login to read full text