Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-02042024-253505
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 80]
NEW DELHI, THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2024/CHAITRA 8, 1946
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2024
(Final Findings)
(CASE No. OI-ADD 17/2022)
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Flexible Slabstock Polyol originating in or
exported from the China PR and Thailand.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
F. No.6/17/2024-DGTR.—1. Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as the 'Act') and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-
Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as 'the Rules' or 'AD Rules') thereof;
2. M/s Manali Petrochemicals Ltd. (hereinafter also referred to as the domestic industry or the applicant) have
filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the "Authority") in
accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as
the "Act") and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on
Dumped Articles and for Determination of injury) Rules, 1995 as amended from time to time (hereinafter
also referred to as the "Rules") for imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of "Flexible Slabstock
Polyol" (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject goods” or PUC) from China PR and Thailand
(hereinafter also referred to as the "subject countries").
3. Whereas the Authority on the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant on behalf
of the domestic industry, issued a public notice dated 29.3.2023, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating an anti- dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods,
originating in or exported from the subject countries, in accordance with the Rule 6(1) of the Rules, to
determine the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping and to consider recommendation of the anti-
dumping duty.
B.PAST INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SUBJECT GOODS
4. A list of countries and companies subject to anti-dumping duties of the subject goods is summarized in the
table below.
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Countries Involved| Companies Participated | Current Status |
+===================+===================================================+=======================+
| Australia | No company has participated. However, Dow has | Duties not Applicable.|
| | capacity there. | |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Brazil | Dow Quimica SA | Duties Not Applicable.|
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| China | Jin Hua Chemicals (Group) Corporation. | No Duties at present. |
| | Wanhua Chemical Group Co. Ltd. | |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| EU | Bayer, Repsol Quimica, S.A., | Duties Applicable |
| | Sanyo Chemicals | |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Japan | Duties Not Applicable. However, they have | |
| | started joint venture with PTT Global | |
| | Chemical Public Company Limited (GC), | |
| | Thailand in Thailand. | |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Korea | SKC Co., Ltd | Duties Not Applicable.|
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Singapore | Shell Group, BASF, Bayer | Duties Applicable. |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Taiwan | Bayer Polyurethanes, | Duties Not Applicable.|
| | Dow Chemical Co. | |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| USA | Dow Chemical, | No Duties at present. |
| | IRPC-PCC | |
| | Toyota Tsusho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. | |
| | GC Polyols Company | |
| | Allnex | |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Saudi Arabia | Sadara Chemicals Company (SCC) [Dow + Saudi | Duties applicable |
| | Aramco] | |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| UAE | Shell group | Duties applicable |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
C. PROCEDURE
5. The following procedure has been followed with regard to this investigation:
i. The Authority, under the above Rules, received a written application from the applicant on behalf
of the domestic industry, alleging dumping of 'Flexible Slabstock Polyol' from subject countries
and consequent injury.
ii. The Authority notified the governments of the subject countries, through its embassies in India
about the receipt of the anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in
accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra.
iii. The Authority issued a notification dated 29.3.2023 published in the Gazette of India
Extraordinary, initiating an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods
from subject countries.
iv. A copy of the public notice was forwarded by the Authority to all known exporters of the subject
goods, the governments of the subject countries through their embassies in India, and other
interested parties about the initiation of the subject investigation in accordance with Rule 6(2) of
the Rules.
v. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters, and to the governments of the subject countries, through its embassies and to
other interested parties who made a request in writing in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules
supra. A copy of the non- confidential version of the application was also made available in the
public file and provided to other interested parties, wherever requested.
vi. The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice initiating the anti-dumping investigation to
the known producers / exporters in the subject countries, and other interested parties and provided
them an opportunity to file response to a questionnaire in the form and manner prescribed within
the time limit as prescribed in the initiation notification or extended time limit, and make their
views known in writing in accordance with the Rule 6(4) of the Rules. The Authority sent
exporter's questionnaire to the following known producers/exporters to elicit relevant information
in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
i. M/s Zhejiang Sanhuan Chemical Company Ltd., (China)
ii. M/s Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd., (China)
iii. M/s IRPC Public Company Limited Petrochemical Business (Thailand)
iv. M/s Dow Chemical Ltd. (Thailand)
v. M/s GC Polyols Company Limited (Thailand)
vii. The governments of the subject countries, through their embassies in India were also requested to
advise the exporters/producers from their countries to respond to the questionnaire within the
prescribed time limit.
viii. In response to the notification, following producers/exporters responded by filing exporter's
questionnaire responses.
i. Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd (Producer/Exporter)
ii. Wanhua Chemical (Yantai) Trading Co., Ltd. (Domestic Trader)
iii. Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Singapore (Exporter)
iv. Toyota Tsusho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Producer/Exporter)
v. GC Polyols Company Limited (Producer/Exporter)
vi. ALLNEX (Thailand) Ltd. (Producer/Exporter)
vii. Allnex Resins (China) Co., Ltd. (Producer/Exporter)
viii. Dow Chemical Thailand Ltd (Dow Thailand) (Producer/Exporter)
ix. The Authority sent importer's questionnaires to the following known importers/users of the
subject goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the
Rules:
i. Sheela Foam P Ltd
ii. Prime Comforts
iii. M H Polymers P Ltd
iv. Somany Foam Ltd
v. Tirupati Foam Ltd
vi. Dura Puf
vii. Shree Singhal Foams P Ltd
viii. Multiwyn Foams (P) Ltd
ix. Shree Malani Foams P Ltd
x. Joy Foam Pvt Ltd
x. The Authority issued economic interest questionnaire (EIQ) to all interested parties and the
concerned ministry. Response to EIQ was submitted only by Shree Malani Foams (P) Ltd.
xi. The Authority sent importer's questionnaires to Indian Polyurethane Association the following
known associations of the subject goods in India for circulation & calling necessary information
in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
xii. The following importer of the subject goods has responded by filing an importer questionnaire
response.
i. Wanhua International (India) Pvt. Ltd., India
ii. M/s. Tirupati Foam Ltd
iii. M/s. M.H. Polymers Ltd
iv. Toyota Tsusho India Pvt. Ltd.
xiii. Further submissions were also filed by the Indian Polyurethane Association (IPUA) during the
course of the investigation.
xiv. Exporters, foreigner producers and other interested parties who have not responded to the
Authority, or not supplied the information relevant to this investigation, are treated as non-
cooperating interested parties.
xv. The Authority issued economic interest questionnaire to the embassies, all the known exporters,
importers and the domestic industry.
xvi. Information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to
the sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority accepts the
confidentiality claims wherever warranted and such information has been considered as
confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing
information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version
of the information filed on a confidential basis.
xvii. The interested parties were asked to share the non-confidential version of the responses,
submissions and evidence presented by them with the other interested parties.
xviii. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st January 2022
to 31st December 2023 (12 months). The injury period for the present investigation is 1st April
2019 - 31st March 2020, 1st April 2020 - 31st March 2021, 1st April 2021 - 31st March 2022, and
the POI.
xix. Verification of the data provided by the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered
necessary for the purpose of the investigation. For exporters desk verification was conducted to
verify their data. Only verified data was considered for the purpose of this final findings.
xx. The non-injurious price (NIP) is based on the cost of production and cost to make and sell the
subject goods in India based on the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules. It has
been worked out so as to ascertain whether a duty lower than the dumping margin would be
sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
xxi. Request was made to the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S)
to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of the subject goods for the injury period. The
same has been relied upon for computation of the volume and value of imports to correlate the
quantum of exports from specified exporters and validate responses filed, to the extent feasible.
xxii. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided the opportunity to all interested
parties to present their views orally in the oral hearing held on 18.7.2023 which was attended by
interested parties. All the parties who presented their views in the oral hearing were requested to
file written submissions of these views. Non-confidential versions of the written submissions were
circulated to the interested parties by email on 25.7.2023, and an opportunity was given to them to
submit rejoinder submissions by 01.08.2023, if any.
xxiii. 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 this final
finding on the basis of the facts available.
xxiv. The Authority circulated the disclosure statement containing all essential facts under consideration
for making final recommendations to the Central Government to all interested parties on 14th
February 2024. The interested parties were directed to file their comments on the disclosure
statement by 23rd February 2024. However, on request of interested parties, the Authority has
extended the timeline till 29th February 2024.
xxv. The Authority has examined all post – disclosure comments made by the interested parties in these
final findings to the extent deemed relevant. Any submission which was merely a reproduction of
the previous submission and which had been adequately examined by the Authority have been
repeated for the sake of brevity.
xxvi. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the
interested parties at this stage, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered
relevant to the present investigation.
xxvii. ،***, in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested parties on a
confidential basis, and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xxviii. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority during the POI for the subject investigation is 1 US$=
Rs. 77.54.
D. SCOPE OF PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
6. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Flexible Slabstock Polyol.
D1. VIEWS OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
7. Following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regards to the product under consideration
i. The product under consideration in the present investigation is the Flexible Slabstock Polyol,
a polymer, originating in or exported from subject countries. The subject product is a clear
viscous liquid of molecular weight 3000-4000, manufactured by polymerization of propylene
oxide and ethylene oxide with a triol chain starter. It is a polyether and on reaction with catalysts
and additives, yields polyurethane foams used in upholstery, mattresses, pillows, bolsters, transport
seating and packaging. Flexible Slabstock Polyol is transported in tankers or stored in steel drums.
ii. The subject goods are classified under chapter 39 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the sub-
heading 3907, 390720, 390791 and 390799. The Custom classification is indicative only and
not binding on the scope of investigation.
iii. In relation to request of Allenex, it is submitted that polyester resin does not fall under the product
under consideration and therefore, cannot be excluded from the scope of the product under
consideration.
D2. Views of the other interested parties
8. That the Authority should clarify that products exported by Allenex Thailand i.e., polyester resin is outside
the scope of the product under consideration.
9. No other submission has been made by the producers/exporters with regard to the scope of the product
under consideration and like article.
D3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY:
10. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Flexible Slabstock Polyol. The subject
product is a clear viscous liquid polymer of molecular weight 3000-4000, manufactured by polymerization
of propylene oxide and ethylene oxide with a triol chain starter. It is a polyether and on reaction with
catalysts and additives yields polyurethane foams used in upholstery, mattresses, pillows, bolsters, transport
seating and packaging. Flexible Slabstock Polyol is transported in tankers or stored in steel drums
(hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods").
11. The subject goods are classified under the category "Plastics and articles thereof" in Chapter 39 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and further under 3907 20, 3907 91, 3907 99 as per Indian Trade Classification.
The classification, however, is only indicative and in no way binding on the scope of the present
investigation. The Authority notes that while different ITCHS may be quoted by producers/exporters, the
product description assumes primary over the ITCHS as the same is indicative.
12. With regard to like article, Rule 2(d) of the Anti-Dumping Rules provides as under:
"like article" means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under
investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which
although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under
investigation;
13. After considering the information on record, the Authority is of the view that the subject good produced by the
domestic industry is comparable to the product under consideration in terms of chemical characteristics,
functions & uses, product specifications, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The
two are technically and commercially substitutable. Thus, the Authority is of the view that the subject goods
produced by the applicant domestic industry are like article to the product under consideration which is
imported from subject countries in accordance with the Rules. The two are technically and commercially
substitutable. The consumers are using the two interchangeably.
14. As regards, the submissions of the M/s Allnex, it is noted that polyester resin is not part of the product
under consideration and therefore, the Authority clarifies that polyester resin is outside the scope of the
product under consideration.
15. The product under consideration in the present investigation is "Flexible Slabstock Polyol of molecular
weight 3000-4000”.
16. Thus, the Authority holds that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the
product under consideration imported from the subject countries within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d)
of the Rules.
E.SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
E1. Views of the domestic industry
17. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry in this regard-
i. The application has been filed by M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited for imposition of anti-
dumping duty on the subject goods from the subject countries. The applicant also submitted that
they account for 100% share in the Indian production of the subject goods during the period of
investigation. As per the information available with them there is no other known producer of the
product under consideration in the country. The applicant has neither imported the subject goods
from the subject countries nor are they related to any other producer/exporter of the subject goods in
the subject countries or any importer in India. Further, the applicant accounts for a major proportion
in Indian production of the subject goods.
ii. In view of the above and since none of the interested parties have made any submissions in relation to
standing of the domestic industry and therefore, the Authority is requested to consider the applicant as
domestic industry within the meaning of the Rule 2(b) of the Rules, since the application satisfies
the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules supra.
E2. VIEWS OF THE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
18. None of the interested parties has made any submissions in relation to the standing and eligibility of the
applicant to be considered as eligible domestic industry.
E3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY:
19. The application for the present investigation has been filed by M/s Manali Petrochemicals Limited. It is noted
that apart from applicant, Expanded Polymer Systems Pvt. Ltd., were also producing the subject goods.
However, due to aggressive dumping they have shifted their operations from subject goods to other form of
Polyols. Thus, it is noted that there is no other producer of the subject goods in India as claimed by the
applicant.
20. None of the producers/exporters/other interested parties has made any submissions with regard to scope and
standing of the domestic industry.
21. As per the available information, the applicant, has neither imported the subject goods from the subject
countries nor it is related to any importer or exporters of the subject goods. In view of the above, the
applicant fulfils the criteria of domestic industry and the standing as laid down under the Rules.
22. Information on record shows that the production by the applicant constitutes "a major proportion" of total
Indian production.
23. In view of the above, the Authority has considered the applicant as the domestic industry within the meaning
of the Rule 2(b) of the Rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the
Rules.
F.Confidentiality
F1. VIEWS OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
24. Various submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to confidentiality claims of the
exporters/importers and other interested parties are as follows:
i. Exporters have failed to fulfil their obligations under the Indian law by not providing meaningful
non-confidential version of their response. Moreover, exporters / importers have made mockery of
the system by claiming excessive confidentiality.
ii. The applicant has claimed confidentiality on information provided by them as allowed in Rule 7
of the anti-dumping rules and a meaningful summary of such information was also provided. The
claims of interested parties that the applicant has claimed excessive confidentiality are baseless.
iii. In relation to the confidentiality claimed on costing information, the domestic industry has submitted
that costing is by nature confidential and therefore, the domestic industry has rightly claimed costing
as confidential.
F2. VIEWS OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
25. Various submissions made by the interested parties with regard to confidentiality claims of the domestic
industry are as follows:
i. Domestic industry has claimed excessive and unwarranted confidentiality in the application. further,
their non-confidential version of the application does not comply the guidelines issued by the DGTR
through Trade Notice 10/2018.
ii. Claim of excessive confidentiality by the domestic industry has restricted the ability of the
exporters to comment and also does not permit the proper understanding and appreciation of the
facts by other interested parties.
iii. In relation to the allegation of the domestic industry of excessive claim by exporters, it is submitted that
exporters have claimed confidentiality only on business sensitive information.
F3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY
26. Various submissions made by the applicant as well as other interested parties during the course of the
investigation with regard to confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant by the Authority, are examined
and addressed as follows:
27. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of Anti-dumping Rules provides as under:
Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules and
(7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2), (3) (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 party 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.
28. As regards the contention with regard to confidentiality of information, it is noted that information provided
by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality
claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and
such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever
possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non
confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority made available the non-
confidential version of the evidences submitted by various interested parties in the form of a public
file. The information related to imports, performance parameters and injury parameters of the domestic
industry has been made available in the public file. Business sensitive information has been kept
confidential as per practice. The Authority notes that any information which is available in the public
domain cannot be treated as confidential.
G. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
G1. Views of the domestic industry
29. The domestic industry inter alia submitted as follows:
i. The domestic industry has provided ample evidence to support their claim of normal value and
export price in their petition to best of their ability for the purpose of the initiation.
ii. The Authority should consider the market price of Propylene Oxide (PO), based on prices
published in ICIS LOR or international raw material price for calculating the cost of production
for the subject goods in Thailand and not the prices submitted by the producer in Thailand, due to
their internal arrangement with raw material suppliers.
iii. The domestic industry requested the Authority to kindly consider the domestic sales that is purely
meant for the consumption of local market in Thailand and not those sales which are ultimately
shipped outside Thailand.
iv. The Authority should closely check the transactions between exporter and its related entity in
India, as the domestic industry apprehends that the price between the exporter and its related
importer is not correct and is being done at higher value.
v. The Authority should check the post sales discount given by the producers/exporters from the
subject countries and Indian related importers to the end users. The domestic industry also
requested the Authority to adjust the loss suffered by the importer into the export price as well as
landed value for fair comparison.
vi. That the related importers of the exporters are selling the subject goods at the prices below the
landed value of the imports in India. Further, the prices of the exporter / related importers can be
checked from the responses filed by users / user associations.
vii. That the Authority must ensure that the raw material pricing is at arm's length with respect to
transfer of raw materials among related companies. The domestic industry has further requested
that at-least the method of transfer price should be disclosed to the domestic industry.
G2. VIEWS OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES
30. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties
i. That the applicant has provided no reasonable explanation as to how the costs/conversion costs of
the domestic industry reflect the costs in Thailand. Further, no evidence substantiating the electricity
rates in Thailand has been provided. In view thereof, the normal value claimed by the domestic
industry appears to be incorrect and should not be used for any purpose whatsoever.
ii. The construction of the normal value is based on erroneous and false assertions without adhering to
the standards and evidentiary requirements laid down under the Anti- Dumping Agreement (AD
Agreement) and the AD Rules. Further, it is submitted that exporters are not giving any post sales
discount as alleged by the domestic industry. The exporters have also requested that the dumping
margin, and landed value should be based on their data only.
iii. That the producer has provided all the data to the Authority and they have also requested the
Authority to verify their data for normal value and export price from the data they have filed.
G3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY
Determination of normal value and export price
G.3.1 Normal value computation for Thailand;
31. 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 as 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);
G.3.2 Normal value computation for China
32. Annexure-I to AD rules states as under:
7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis if
the price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from such a third country
to other countries, including India or where it is not possible, or 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. 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 selection. Accounts shall be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the
investigation made in any similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties
to the investigation shall be informed without any unreasonable delay 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 reflect the fair value of the merchandise, in accordance with the criteria specified in
sub-paragraph (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 anti-dumping investigation by the designated authority or by
the competent authority of any WTO member 16country during the three-year period preceding the
investigation is a nonmarket 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 out 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"
33. At the stage of initiation, the applicant proceeded with the constructed methodology for calculating normal
value with appropriate adjustments. However, for the purpose of this final findings, the Authority has used the
duly verified information filed by the exporters.
34. The Authority sent copies of exporters questionnaire to all the known producers/ exporters for providing
relevant information in this regard. The following entities have responded by filing questionnaire response:
Exporters/Producers from China PR
a) M/s Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd., China PR,
b) M/s Wanhua Chemical (Yantai) Trading Co., Ltd., China PR,
c) Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Singapore
d) Wanhua International (India) Pvt. Ltd., India
Exporters/Producers from Thailand
e) M/s GC Polyols Company Limited,
f) Toyota Tsusho (Thailand) Co. Ltd, and
g) Toyota Tsusho India Private Ltd, Importer, India
35. Since the above-mentioned companies have filed the questionnaire responses, the Authority has
examined the request for determination of individual dumping margin for these producers and have
determined dumping margins wherever appropriate.
36. In the absence of cooperation from the other producers/exporters in the subject countries, the Authority
has determined the normal value, on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6 (8) of AD Rules read
with Article 6.8 of the anti-dumping Agreement.
37. Accordingly, the Authority has determined the normal value, export price and dumping margin in respect
of various producers/exporters of the subject countries as follows:
G.3.3 Normal Value for China:
38. It is noted by the Authority that since the producer of the subject goods from China has not claimed market
economy status, the Authority has no option but to resort to paragraph 7 of Annexure I to AD Rules for
constructing the normal value for producers / exporters from China PR. It is further submitted that in terms
of Para 7 neither the domestic industry proposed any surrogate country nor exporters from China suggested
any surrogate country. In addition to the above, it is also noted that the prices or constructed value of the
subject goods in an appropriate market economy third country or the prices from such third country to other
countries, including India, have neither been made available by the applicant nor by any interested parties. It
is also noted that majority of the imports (around 68%) coming from the countries which are already subject
to anti-dumping duties. Therefore, import prices from other countries (4.20%) cannot be relied by the
Authority. Since the alternatives available in Para 7 cannot be adopted for the reasons mentioned above, the
Authority has to take recourse to the only remaining option i.e., to determine the normal value considering
the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, to include a reasonable profit
margin (i.e., constructed normal value). The normal value so determined is given in the dumping margin
table below.
G.3.4 Normal Value for Thailand:
39. Based on the information furnished in the questionnaire response, the Authority notes that M/s G C Polyol
is a producer of the subject goods and has exported the subject goods directly as well as through trader
namely M/s Toyota Tsusho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. and M/s Mitsui Bussan Chemicals Co., Ltd. during the
POI. M/s Toyota Tsusho (Thailand) Co., Ltd., exported the subject goods to both related entity and
unrelated entities in India.
40. The exporter has sold *** MT of the PUC in the domestic market during the POI while, it has exported ***
MT of the subject goods to India directly as well as through unrelated traders during the POI. the details of
exports made to India is as under:
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+
| Producer | | Qty MT | CIF Value USD | CIF USD/MT | Indian | Qty MT | CIF Value USD |
| | | | | | Importers | | |
+===========+===================+=============+================+=================+=============+================+================+
| | Direct | *** | *** | *** | | *** | *** |
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+
| G | Through Traders | | | | | | |
| Polyol | C (3) *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+
| | (4) *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+
| Quantity | Exported to India | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+
41. The Authority has first examined whether the total domestic sales of the subject goods by the
producers/exporters concerned in the subject countries were representative when compared to their total
sales of the subject goods in the exporting country. Thereafter, it was examined whether their sales are
under ordinary course of trade in terms of the Annexure-I to the Anti-dumping Rules. The producer /
exporter has provided transaction wise details of sales made in the home market. The same has been
accepted by the Authority after examination and relied upon to determine the selling price of the subject
goods sold in the home market. For the determination of the ordinary course of trade test, the cost of
production of the product concerned was examined with reference to the records maintained by the
producer/exporter.
42. Further, all the domestic sales transactions were examined with reference to the cost of production
determined by the Authority of the subject goods to determine whether the domestic sales were in the
ordinary course of trade or not. In order to determine the normal value, the Authority conducted the
ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the
cost of production of the subject goods. The Authority considers all transactions in the domestic market for
the determination of the normal value if the profitable transactions are more than 80% of the total domestic
sales. Where the profitable transactions are equal to or less than 80%, then only the profitable domestic
sales are taken into consideration. Based on this ordinary course of trade test, only profitable domestic sales
(***%) have been taken into account for determination of normal value. The producer has claimed inland
freight, and credit cost as post factory expenses, and the same is accepted by the Authority. The normal
value determined as above is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
G.3.5 NORMAL VALUE FOR ALL OTHER PRODUCERS/EXPORTERS FROM THAILAND
43. It is noted that no other producer/exporter from Thailand has cooperated in the present investigation. In
view of non-cooperation, the Authority has determined the normal value for such other
producers/exporters based on facts available which is calculated and mentioned in the dumping margin
table.
G.3.6 Export Price
CHINA
44. The Authority notes that Wanhua Chemical Group has exported *** MT of the subject goods to India of
invoice value *** USD through related trader namely Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. to India.
Wanhua Singapore has sold the subject goods to Wanhua India. It is further noted that both Wanhua
Singapore and Wanhua India has resold the subject goods at losses. The producer/exporter has claimed
adjustment on account of ocean freight, port and other related expenses, insurance, inland transportation,
credit cost, bank charges details of which were examined through remote cross checking/desk verification
to the extent feasible. Accordingly, the net export price for the PUC at ex-factory level for the producer /
exporter is determined accordingly.
G.3.7 Other producers from China
45. The export price for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of China is determined as per facts
available is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
THAILAND
46. The Authority notes that M/s GC Polyols Company Limited directly exported *** MT of the subject goods
to India of invoice value of USD ***. They have also exported *** MT through unrelated traders namely
Toyota Tsusho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. and Mitsui Bussan Chemicals Co., Ltd. While Toyota Tsusho has
participated in the investigation, Mitsui Bussan has not cooperated. The producer/exporter has claimed
adjustment on account of ocean freight, port and other related expenses, insurance, inland transportation,
credit cost, bank charges details of which were examined through remote cross checking/desk verification
to the extent feasible. Accordingly, the net export price for the PUC at ex-factory level for the producer /
exporter is determined accordingly.
G.3.7 Other producers from Thailand
47. The normal value and export price for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of Thailand
determined as per facts available considering the data provided by cooperating producer and is the same as
is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
G.3.8 DUMPING MARGIN TABLE:
48. Based on the above the dumping margin are as under:
+-----------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Country | Producer | Normal Value / CNV | Export Price | Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin % | Dumping Margin Range|
| | | (US$/MT) | (US$/MT) | (US$/MT) | % | |
+===========+=====================+=====================+=====================+=====================+=====================+=====================+
| China PR | Wanhua Chemical | *** | *** | *** | *** | 80-90 |
| | Group | | | | | |
| | Others | *** | *** | *** | *** | 80-90 |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Thailand | G C Polyol | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
| | Other Producers | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
49. It is seen that the dumping margins are more than the de-minimis limits prescribed under the Rules.
H. INJURY ASSESSMENT AND CAUSAL LINK
50. The views on injury and causality are as under:
H1. VIEWS OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
i. That the related importers are reselling the subject goods in India at price lower than that of imported
price and incurring losses. It is further submitted that the related importer is giving post sales discounts
to match the prices of the domestic industry and thus creating price pressure on them. In this context, the
domestic industry requested the Authority to make appropriate adjustments to the net export price as well
as the landed value of imports.
ii. It is also submitted by the domestic industry that despite the landed value of approximately Rs. *** /
KG, coupled with additional direct and indirect cost incurred by the exporters on such imports the
importers are selling the subject goods around Rs. *** / KG in the market. The domestic industry
requested to verify this issue and also to make necessary adjustments while determining the dumping
margin and injury margin. These adjustments are necessary so that the exporters are not allowed to get away
with lower injury margin by adopting the practice of importing at higher CIF prices and subsequently
reselling the same at a lower price in the market.
iii. That when landed value from the subject countries are adjusted appropriately, it would be seen that the
adjusted prices are significantly below the non-injurious price/fair price of the domestic industry. Even the
price undercutting will also show correct position. These low-priced sales by related importers and post
sales discounts are not allowing the domestic industry to fetch a fair price for the subject goods and
this is causing material injury to the domestic industry.
iv. That the contention of the interested parties that domestic industry is unable to fulfil the Indian demand, the
domestic industry has submitted that despite constant capacity and increase in demand, they were unable to
utilize their full capacity. The fact that the domestic industry has idle capacity, clearly establishes that
imports in India are coming due to lower price and not only because of any demand and supply issue, as is
being claimed by the interested parties.
v. With respect to the contention of the interested parties that the domestic industry had not brought any
substantive evidence in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules, the applicant submitted that they had supplied all
the relevant information to Authority and the same has been duly noted in the initiation notification.
vi. With respect to the argument of the interested parties that the domestic industry had not suffered any
injury, as their annual report shows huge profit, it is submitted by the domestic industry that they are a
multiproduct company and overall profit does not mean that the domestic industry has not suffered injury
on the subject goods.
vii. That the finance cost and depreciation expenses are a mere ***% and ***% respectively of the cost and
therefore, does not have any material impact on the injury suffered by the domestic industry. As regards the
increase in capital employed, it is submitted that the same has increased because of increase in working
capital.
viii. That despite clear guidelines by the Authority, IPU association has chosen not to fulfill its obligation by
providing the requested details required under the law. Moreover, they have also not provided minutes of
the meeting wherein the decision was passed to oppose this investigation.
ix. That IPU association has failed to assist the Authority in reaching the correct conclusion by providing relevant
information relating to purchase price of the subject goods from the domestic industry, traders and exporters
from the subject countries.
x. Market share of the domestic industry declined despite increase in demand. However, during the same
period, market share of imports from the subject countries has increased.
xi. That the domestic industry has claimed NIP in accordance to the Annexure III. The Authority has also
verified the data and only such verified data has been used by the Authority.
xii. That the domestic industry is suffering current injury and incurring huge losses on the subject goods. It is
important to highlight that when average landed value for the period of investigation is around *** Rs/ MT,
how importers are selling the subject goods at around *** Rs/MT. This differential price has made the
domestic industry to suffer severe injury.
xiii. That the landed value from the subject countries is continuously declining and quantum of imports is
increasing. Further, the capacity of the subject goods in the subject countries is far beyond the demand in
the subject countries which, shows that exporters from the subject countries have no choice but to export
the subject goods to other countries. If the situation continues like this, there is every possibility that the
injury to domestic industry will intensify. This shows the threat of injury as well.
xiv. In connection with the allegation of the interested party that the domestic industry is habitual user of trade
remedies and that the domestic industry had filed this petition with malafide intention of making super
profit, it is submitted by the domestic industry that they are always under tremendous pressure from a few
multinationals companies who have exported the subject goods at dumped prices from constantly changing
sources of supply and thereby causing injury to the domestic industry. Moreover, anti-dumping duties were
imposed only when it was proved beyond any doubt that certain companies/groups were regularly dumping
the subject goods into India and causing injury to the domestic industry.
xv. In relation to the submissions of the interested parties relating to undercutting, profitability, the domestic
industry has submitted that the price undercutting is the function of comparison between landed value and
domestic sales price, whereas, profitability is the function of comparison between cost and sales price.
Therefore, any attempt of interested parties to compare landed value and selling price to show that
profitability of the domestic industry has no linkage with landed value has no basis. It is further submitted
by the domestic industry that when landed value was higher, the domestic industry earned reasonable
returns. However, when landed value declined the domestic industry again went into losses.
xvi. It is also important to note that only after the duties were imposed against Saudi Arabia and UAE, the
quantum of imports from Thailand and China increased. However, the exporters remain similar despite
change in countries.
H2. VIEWS OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
i. That the alleged injury to the domestic industry is not on account of imports from the subject countries,
particularly, Thailand. It is further submitted that the domestic industry's performance has been unaffected
by the subject imports of the PUC.
ii. That there is no correlation between the losses incurred by the domestic industry, price undercutting and the
volume of the subject goods from the subject countries during the POI, this aspect needs to be checked by
the Authority.
iii. That there is neither volume injury nor price injury to the domestic industry due to the imports from the
subject countries. It was further submitted that the Authority should not only terminate this investigation
but also terminate duties against other subject countries.
iv. That the market share of the domestic industry increased in the POI as compared to the immediately
preceding year i.e., 2020-21. This shows no injury to the domestic industry on this account.
v. That the NIP claimed by the applicant is arbitrary & inflated as applicant's annual report points to high
level of profits and the pricing of the applicant is also slightly higher.
vi. That the substantial increase in the depreciation and finance cost is the main cause of the injury to the
domestic industry. The Authority should check this factor. It was also submitted that since there was no
enhancement in the capacity of the domestic industry, the Authority should examine the reason for increase
in working capital.
vii. That the domestic industry completely failed to make their case of threat of injury. Moreover, there is no
injury to the domestic industry even from the imports from the subject countries. If any injury to the
domestic industry, that is because of other reasons like closure of plants and COVID impact.
viii. The applicant is the sole producer of the subject product in India and has sought and received continued
protection for many years in the form of anti-dumping duties against the subject imports entering India
from one or the other source. This is a classic case of misuse of anti-dumping duties.
ix. The data pertaining to profit / loss and ROCE appears to be misrepresented and contrary to the applicant's
annual report and requires strict verification and scrutiny.
x. It is incumbent for the Authority to examine factors other than dumped imports which are causing injury to
the domestic industry and such other factors must not be attributed to alleged dumped imports, which include
(a) closure of plant; and (c) lack of backward integration.
xi. The domestic industry has limited capacity to meet the Indian demand. The domestic industry in order to
maximize its profit resorts to repeatedly levy of anti-dumping duty.
xii. That the unsubstantiated claims of the domestic industry in relation to post sales discount should be
rejected and the Authority should conclude that the domestic industry is not suffering any injury because of
the imports from the subject countries.
H.3 EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY
51. The various submissions of the interested parties and the domestic industry on injury have been examined
as per the information available on record. All relevant issues concerning the facts and figures are
addressed in the following injury analysis.
i. As regards the argument of the opposing interested parties that the petition is deficient and,
therefore, the investigation needs to be terminated, the Authority notes that the present
investigation was initiated on the basis of prima facie evidence furnished by the domestic
industry showing dumping, injury and causal link to justifying the initiation of the investigation
in accordance with the Act and Rules. The Authority has also called for additional information
wherever required and verified the information furnished by the domestic industry.
ii. As regard the contention that the antidumping duty being in force for more than 17 years and having
served its intended purpose, the Authority has carried out this investigation strictly in accordance
with the anti-dumping Rules the Authority is of the view that the domestic industry has every right
to seek protection under the law, if exporters from the subject countries are proved to be dumping
the subject goods causing material injury to the industry. It is also important to note that no duties
can be levied if specific exporters demonstrate they had not dumped the subject goods during the
period of investigation.
iii. As regards injury analysis, it is the settled position of law that all the mandated parameters need not
show deterioration / injury. Some parameters may show deterioration, while some may show
improvement. The Designated Authority considers all injury parameters and, thereafter, concludes
whether the domestic industry has suffered injury due to dumping or not.
iv. As regards the contention that the demand in the country is more than the supplying ability of
the producer, it is noted that the demand supply gap in the country cannot be a ground to justify the
existence of dumping by the exporters. This reasoning does not find any justification either in law
or in the underlying scheme of anti-dumping mechanism. Moreover, anti-dumping duties does not
intend to restrict the imports in India and, therefore, the argument of there being. Demand-supply
gap in the Indian market, is not sustainable. The purpose of these anti-dumping duties is to protect
the domestic producers from injurious dumping and to provide level playing field in the market to
the domestic industry and other suppliers / users of the subject goods in India.
v. As regards the claim of the interested parties that NIP is inflated and the domestic industry is
not suffering any injury, it is noted that NIP is computed on the basis of the Annexure III of the AD
Rules. Further, only verified information is used for the injury analysis and therefore, all the
concerns of the interested parties about costing information and injury to them is appropriately
taken care off.
vi. As regards the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry, Para (iv) of Annexure-II
of the AD Rules states as follows:
“The examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry concerned,
shall include an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the
state of the Industry, including natural and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market
share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic
prices, the magnitude of margin of dumping actual and potential negative effects on cash
flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments.”
52. For the examination of the impact of imports on the domestic industry in India, the Authority has
considered such indices having a bearing on the state of the industry as production, capacity utilization,
sales quantum, stock, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping etc. in
accordance with AnnexureII (iv) of the Rules supra.
53. Further Rule 11 of Antidumping Rules read with Annexure-II provides that an injury determination shall
involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic 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 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.
54. Article 3.1 of the WTO Agreement and Annexure-II of the AD Rules provide for an objective
examination of both, (a) the volume of dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices, in
the domestic market, for the like products; and (b) the consequent impact of these imports on domestic
producers of such products. With regard to the volume effect of the dumped imports, the Authority is
required to examine whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports, either in absolute
terms or relative to production or consumption in India. With regard to the price effect of the dumped
imports, the Authority is required to examine whether there has been significant price undercutting by the
dumped imports as compared to the price of the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports
is otherwise to depress the prices to a significant degree, or prevent price increases, which would have
otherwise occurred to a significant degree.
I. CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT
55. Para (iii) of Annexure II of the Rules provides that in case where imports of a product from more than one
country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigation, the Authority will
cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that :a) margin of dumping established
in relation to the imports from each country is more than two percent expressed as percentage of export
price and the volume of imports from each country is three percent of the import of like article or where
the import of individual countries is less than three percent, the imports collectively account for more than
seven percent of the import of like article; and b) cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is
appropriate in the light of the conditions of competition between the imported article and the like
domestic articles.
56. The Authority notes that: a) the subject goods are being dumped into India from the subject countries. The
margin of dumping from each of the subject countries is more than the de minimis limits prescribed under
the Rules. b) The volume of imports from each of the subject countries is individually more than 3% of total
volume of imports. c) cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate as the exports from
the subject countries not only directly compete inter se but also with the like articles offered by the
domestic industry in the Indian market.
57. In view of the above, the Authority considers that it is appropriate to assess injury to the domestic industry
cumulatively from imports of the subject goods from the subject countries.
58. Rulell 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 domestic producers of such articles....". While examining
the volume of dumped imports, the Authority shall consider whether there has been a significant
increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in
India. 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.
59. The submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties during the course of the
investigation with regard to injury and causal link, which have been considered relevant by the Authority
are examined and addressed as under:
I.1.1 VOLUME EFFECT OF DUMPED IMPORTS
I.1.2 Assessment of Demand/ Apparent Consumption
60. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to examine the trend of imports,
either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. For the purpose of injury
analysis, the Authority has relied on the import data procured from the DGCI&S.
61. The Authority has considered, demand or apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of the
domestic sales of the Indian producers and imports from all sources as under:
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=====+===================================+=======+==========+==========+==========+=========+
| 1 | Sales of the domestic industry | MT | 19,198 | 21,034 | 18,994 | 17,204 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Imports from China PR | MT | 3,255 | 3,084 | 3,244 | 14,091 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Imports from Thailand | MT | 168 | 3,430 | 15,194 | 12,914 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 4 | Imports from the subject Countries| MT | 3,423 | 6,514 | 18,438 | 27,004 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Import from Other Countries | MT | 85,832 | 57,571 | 72,717 | 72,641 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 6 | Total Imports | MT | 89,255 | 64,085 | 91,155 | 99,645 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 7 | Total Demand | MT | 108,452 | 85,118 | 110,149 | 116,849 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
62. The demand of the subject goods has increased by around 8% i.e., from *** MT in the base year to ***MT
in the POI.
I.1.3 Volume Effect of Dumped Imports
Import volume and Share
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=====+===================================+=======+==========+==========+==========+==========+
| 1 | China PR | MT | 3,255 | 3,084 | 3,244 | 14,091 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2 | Thailand | MT | 168 | 3,430 | 15,194 | 12,914 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 3 | Imports from the Subject Countries| MT | 3,423 | 6,514 | 18,438 | 27,004 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 4 | Countries attracting ADD | MT | 33646 | 24645 | 34413 | 35457 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| a | Singapore | MT | 37493 | 26055 | 32209 | 33004 |
| b | Saudi Arabia | MT | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| c | UAE | MT | 14,622 | 6,872 | 6,095 | 4,181 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 5 | Other Countries | MT | 33646 | 24645 | 34413 | 35457 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 6 | Total | MT | 89,255 | 64,085 | 91,155 | 99,645 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 7 | Share of Imports from | | | | | |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 8 | China PR | % | 3.65% | 4.81% | 3.56% | 14.14% |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 9 | Thailand | % | 0.20% | 5.35% | 16.67% | 12.96% |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 10 | Subject Countries | % | 4% | 10% | 20% | 27% |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
11 Countries attracting ADD | % | 79.78% | 79.11% | 73.09% | 68.70% |
a Singapore | % | 37.70% | 38.46% | 37.75% | 35.58% |
b Saudi Arabia | % | 42.01% | 40.66% | 35.33% | 33.12% |
c UAE | % | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
12 Other Countries | % | 16.38% | 10.72% | 6.69% | 4.20% |
13 Total | % | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
14 Production of the domestic industry | M | 19,816 | 20,876 | 19,401 | 17,783 |
15 Subject Countries import in relation to |
A Indian Production | % | 17% | 31% | 95% | 152% |
B Indian Demand | % | 4% | 10% | 20% | 27% |
63. The volume of imports from the subject countries has shown a significant increase during the period of
investigation in absolute terms as well as in relative terms as compared with overall imports,
production, and demand.
I.1.4 PRICE EFFECT OF THE DUMPED IMPORTS ON THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
64. a. Price Undercutting
In order to determine whether the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market,
the Authority has compared landed price of imports with net sales realization of the domestic industry.
While computing the net selling price of the domestic industry all taxes, rebates, discounts and
commissions have been deducted and sales realization at ex works level has been determined for
comparison with the landed value of the dumped imports.
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=====+=====================================+==========+==========+==========+==========+=========+
| 1 | Landed Price from China PR | Rs/MT | 110559 | 172300 | 188365 | 150131 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Net Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Net Selling Price | Indexed | 100 | 163 | 169 | 126 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 4 | Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | (***) |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Price Undercutting | Indexed | 100 | 584 | 101 | -433 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 6 | Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | (***) |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 7 | Price Undercutting | Indexed | 100 | 375 | 59 | -319 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 8 | Price Undercutting | Range | 0-10 | 0-10 | 0-10 | (0-10) |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 9 | Landed Price from Thailand | Rs/MT | 94445 | 167368 | 188231 | 159046 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 10 | Net Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 11 | Net Selling Price | Indexed | 100 | 163 | 169 | 126 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 12 | Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | (***) |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 13 | Price Undercutting | Indexed | 100 | 89 | 11 | -95 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 14 | Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | (***) |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 15 | Price Undercutting | Indexed | 100 | 50 | 6 | -56 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 16 | Price Undercutting | Range | 10-20 | 10-20 | 0-10 | (0-10) |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 17 | Landed Price from Subject Countries | Rs/MT | 109768 | 169703 | 188254 | 154394 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 18 | Net Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 19 | Net Selling Price | Indexed | 100 | 163 | 169 | 126 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 20 | Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | (***) |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 21 | Price Undercutting | Indexed | 100 | 509 | 75 | -464 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 22 | Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | (***) |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 23 | Price Undercutting | Indexed | 100 | 329 | 44 | -330 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 24 | Price Undercutting | Range | 0-10 | 0-10 | 0-10 | ('0-10) |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
65. The Authority notes that the price undercutting is negative from the subject countries during the POI. It is
further noted from the response filed by the related importer of M/s Toyota Tsusho Thailand Co. Ltd. That
they are reselling the subject goods at Rs. *** / MT to the independent customer. The related importer of
Wanhua group has re-sold the subject goods at losses and their resales net sales realization is around Rs.
***/ MT. These resales prices in the market clearly show that the resales prices of the subject goods from
the subject countries are lower than the landed value and therefore, price undercutting analysis based on the
import data will not reflect the correct situation of the domestic industry. Based on the resales price of the
cooperating exporters the price undercutting is as follows:
+-----+---------------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| SN | Particulars | Unit | Wanhua Group | G C Polyol |
+=====+=====================+==========+===============+===============+
| 1 | Landed Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** |
| | Landed Price | Indexed | 100 | 100 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| 2 | Net Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** |
+-----+---------------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| 3 | Net Selling Price | Indexed | 100 | 100 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| 4 | Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** |
+-----+---------------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| 5 | Price Undercutting | Indexed | 100 | 100 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| 6 | Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** |
+-----+---------------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| 7 | Price Undercutting | Indexed | 100 | 100 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| 8 | Price Undercutting | Range | 10-20 | 0-10 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
66. From the above table, it is clear that the price undercutting during the period of investigation is positive post
factoring the resale prices in the market by the cooperating exporters.
b. Price Suppression/ Depression
67. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are suppressing or 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 to a significant degree, the Authority considered the
changes in the costs and prices over the injury period
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=====+=====================================+==========+==========+==========+==========+=========+
| 1 | Cost of sales | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 92 | 156 | 141 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Selling price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 4 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 163 | 169 | 126 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Landed Price from the subject | Rs/MT | 109768 | 169703 | 188254 | 154394 |
| | countries | | | | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 6 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 155 | 172 | 141 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
68. From the above table, it is also noted that the cost of sales of the domestic industry increased by 41 indexed
points whereas the selling price increased by only 26 indexed points due to the pressure exerted by the
related importers of the exporters by selling the subject goods at the prices below the landed value. Thus, the
domestic industry has no option but to alien their prices with landed value. This further shows that the
prices of the domestic industry are suppressed.
I.1.5 ECONOMIC PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
69. Annexure II to the AD Rules requires that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination
of the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products. With regard to
consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products, the AD 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.
70. Accordingly, various economic parameters of the domestic industry are analyzed herein below:
A. PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND SALES VOLUME
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=====+=====================================+==========+==========+==========+==========+=========+
| 1 | Capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 91 | 91 | 91 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Total Production - Polyol | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 4 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 105 | 101 | 98 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Capacity Utilization– Total Polyol | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Production | | | | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 6 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 117 | 112 | 109 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 7 | Production – FSP | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 8 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 105 | 98 | 90 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 9 | Domestic Sales Volume – PUC | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 10 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 110 | 99 | 90 |
+-----+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
71. From the above table it is noted that the domestic industry is operating at ***% of the capacity utilization in
the POI despite slight reduction in the capacity. It is further noted that the capacity is for all types of polyols
which includes subject goods (FSP) and non-subject goods also. In this context, it is noted that the domestic
industry still has around ***% of the capacity unutilized, which can be utilizes to produce subject goods. The
domestic industry has also submitted that only because of dumped imports they are unable to utilize their
capacity. The production and sales volume of the product under consideration shows decline during the
POI as compared to 2019-20 despite increase in the demand in India.
72. It is also noted that since 2015, domestic industry has reduced its dependency on the imported propylene
oxide (PO), the key raw material used to produce FSP by investing in its manufacturing facilities. During
the POI, they have not used imported PO for the production of FSP which, has helped industry to reduce its
cost. This facility has not only reduced the cost of subject goods but also assured the continuous supply of
the major raw material for the production of the subject goods.
B. MARKET SHARE IN DEMAND
73. The market share of the domestic industry moved as shown below:
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=====+===================================+=======+==========+==========+==========+==========+
| 1 | Total Demand | MT | 108452 | 85118 | 110149 | 116849 |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2 | Share in Demand | | | | | |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 3 | Domestic industry | % | 17.70% | 24.71% | 17.24% | 14.72% |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 4 | China PR | % | 3.00% | 3.62% | 2.94% | 12.06% |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 5 | Thailand | % | 0.15% | 4.03% | 13.79% | 11.05% |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 6 | Subject Countries | % | 3.16% | 7.65% | 16.74% | 23.11% |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 8 | Other Countries | % | 79.14% | 67.64% | 66.02% | 62.17% |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 9 | Total Imports | % | 82.30% | 75.29% | 82.76% | 85.28% |
+-----+-----------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
74. From the above table, it is noted that the market share of the imports from the subject countries in total
demand has increased as compared to the base year, during the same time market share of domestic industry
has declined.
C. PROFITABILITY, RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND CASH PROFITS
75. The profitability, return on investment and cash profit / loss situation of the domestic industry is as shown
below:
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=====+=====================+==========+==========+==========+==========+=========+
| 1 | Cost of sales | Rs./MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 92 | 156 | 141 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Selling price | Rs./MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 4 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 163 | 169 | 126 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Profit/(Loss) | Rs./MT | (***) | *** | (***) | (***) |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 6 | Trend | Indexed | -100 | 166 | -109 | -196 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 7 | Profit/(Loss) | Rs. Lacs | (***) | *** | (***) | (***) |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 8 | Trend | Indexed | -100 | 182 | -107 | -176 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 9 | PBIT | Rs. Lacs | (***) | *** | (***) | (***) |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 10 | Trend | Indexed | -100 | 191 | -107 | -178 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 11 | Cash Profits | Rs. Lacs | (***) | *** | (***) | (***) |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 12 | Trend | Indexed | -100 | 217 | -110 | -186 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 13 | ROCE | % | (***) | *** | (***) | (***) |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 14 | Trend | Indexed | -100 | 82 | -37 | -78 |
+-----+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
76. From the above table it is noted that the domestic industry is selling the subject goods below the cost of
sales. The domestic industry has submitted that related importers of the exporters are selling the goods
below landed value by giving post sales discounts or by incurring losses.
D. INVENTORIES
77. Inventories with the domestic industry are as follows:
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| Particulars | UoM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+===========+===========+==========+==========+==========+=========+
| Opening | MT | 427 | 575 | 305 | 292 |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| Closing | MT | 575 | 305 | 205 | 560 |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| Average | MT | 501 | 440 | 255 | 426 |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 88 | 51 | 85 |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
78. It is noted from the above the average inventory of the domestic industry has reduced in the POI as
compared to the base year. However, the same is increased as compared to the immediately preceding year
i.e., 2021-22.
E. EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
79. Performance of the domestic industry with regard to employment, productivity and wages is as follows:
+-----+---------------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=====+=====================+===========+==========+==========+==========+=========+
| 1 | Productivity per Day| MT/day | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+---------------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 105 | 98 | 90 |
+-----+---------------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Employment (Nos) | Nos. | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+---------------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
| 4 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
+-----+---------------------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
80. While employment indicated a stable trend between 2019-20 and POI, productivity of the domestic industry
remained in the same bend.
F. MAGNITUDE OF DUMPING
81. The Authority has undertaken evaluation of dumping margin for cooperating producers/exporters during
POI as stated in the earlier paras. The dumping during POI from the subject countries for cooperative
producer/exporters are above de-minimis levels and is significant.
G. ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL INVESTMENT:
82. The future investment in the sector is marred by the presence of dumped imports from the subject countries.
Negative profitability and return on investment along with negative cash profit indicates that the ability of
the domestic industry to raise capital investments for the sector is jeopardized due to dumped imports from
the subject countries.
H. GROWTH:
83. The growth of the domestic industry continues to be negative for most of the price parameters. The
domestic industry has submitted that continued pressure from the exporters has made the situation of the
domestic industry very venerable.
I.1.6. FACTORS AFFECTING DOMESTIC PRICES
84. The examination indicates that the demand in India for the subject goods is not a limiting factor for the
growth of the domestic industry. The import prices from the subject countries are directly affecting the prices
of the domestic industry in the domestic market. It is also noted that the landed value of the subject goods
from the subject countries are below non- injurious price of the domestic industry. Further, landed prices of
subject goods from the subject countries have depressed prices of the domestic industry. The imports
of the product under consideration from countries other than the subject countries and countries already
attracting anti-dumping duties are negligible and are not claimed to be injuring the domestic industry. The
Demand for the product in this industry has not declined, and, therefore, could not have been a factor
responsible for price suppression faced by the domestic industry. Thus, main factor affecting the adverse
impact on the domestic industry is the adjusted landed prices of subject goods from subject countries.
I.1.7 ANALYSIS OF MATERIAL INJURY
85. An examination of the various parameters of injury along with the volume and price effects of imports reveals
that there is an increase in the volume of imports of subject goods from the subject countries during the
injury investigation period in absolute terms as well as in relation to the total imports, domestic production
and total demand in the country. With regard to price effect, it is noted that The Authority notes that the
price undercutting is negative from the subject countries due to the fact that resales price from the subject
countries is less than the landed value. Therefore, the import price recorded in import data is not
showcasing the actual prevailing price of the subject goods from the subject countries in the Indian
market, and the price analysis on the basis of the import data has no material bearing on the case, as the
same is not reflective of the true numbers. It is noted that landed price of subject goods from subject countries
have suppressed the selling price of domestic industry, and as a result, the domestic industry is selling the
subject goods at a price below its cost of sales. With regard to impact of volume and price effect on the
domestic industry, it is noted that sales and market share of the domestic industry has been adversely
affected. It is also noted that the sales, production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry has
not increased in line with increase in demand, and the capacity utilization of the domestic industry
remains suboptimal. Further, it is also noted that profitability of the domestic industry has been
adversely affected on account of dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject countries.
I.1.8. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
86. The non-injurious price (NIP) of the domestic industry has been determined and compared with the
landed value of the subject goods (as per DGCI&S) to arrive at the extent of injury margin. The NIP of
the product under consideration has been determined by adopting the verified information/ data relating to
the cost of production for the period of investigation on the basis of principles mentioned in Annexure III of
the Rules. The analysis shows that during the period of investigation, the landed value of the subject imports
was below the non-injurious price of the domestic industry, as can be seen from the table above,
demonstrating positive injury margin.
87. From the aforesaid table, it is noted that injury margin from the subject countries during the POI is
positive. The Authority notes that due to the fact that exporters are selling the subject goods at higher value
and their related importers are reselling the subject goods at lower value, the quantum of injury margin as
shown in the table below:
+-----+----------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
| NIP | Landed Value | Injury Margin | Injury | Injury | |
+=====+================+=============+=============+===============+===============+
| *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
+-----+----------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+
+-----------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Country | Producer | (US$/MT) | (US$/MT) | (US$/MT) | margin % | Margin Range |
| | | | | | % | |
+===========+=====================+=====================+=====================+=====================+=====================+=====================+
| China | Wanhua Chemical | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
| PR | Group | | | | | |
| | Others | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Thailand | G C Polyol | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
| | Other Producers | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
88. It is noted that injury margin determined is positive and significant during POI.
I.1.9 OTHER KNOWN FACTORS & CAUSAL LINK
89. Having examined the existence of material injury, volume and price effects of dumped imports on the
prices of the domestic industry, in terms of its price underselling and price suppression, and depression
effects, other indicative parameters listed under the Indian Rules and Agreement on Anti-dumping
have been examined by the Authority to see whether any other factor, other than the dumped imports
could have contributed to injury to the domestic industry.
A. VOLUME AND PRICES OF IMPORTS FROM THIRD COUNTRIES
90. Apart from countries already attracting anti-dumping duties, imports from other sources are either below
de-minimis levels or already subject to duties or under scrutiny.
B. CONTRACTION OF DEMAND AND CHANGES IN THE PATTERN OF CONSUMPTION.
91. There has been a rise in demand of the product concerned throughout the injury period.
C. TRADE RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES OF AND COMPETITION BETWEEN THE FOREIGN AND
DOMESTIC PRODUCERS
92. There is no trade restrictive practice.
D. EXPORT PERFORMANCE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
93. The injury analysis has been done by the Authority taking into consideration their domestic operations only.
94. No evidence has been brought by any interested parties about existence of significant changes in the
technology.
E. PRODUCTIVITY
95. The Authority notes that the productivity of the domestic industry has remained in the same bend.
96. The Authority, thus, concludes that the domestic industry has suffered injury on account of the dumped
imports from the subject countries.
I.1.10 ANALYSIS BY THE AUTHORITY ON CAUSAL LINK
97. It is thus noted that listed known other factors do not show that the Domestic Industry could have suffered
injury due to these other factors. The Authority examined whether the dumping of the product has caused
injury to the domestic industry.
a. Imports of the subject goods from the subject countries have increased both in absolute terms and in relation
to production and consumption in India over the entire injury period.
b. The dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject countries have taken over a significant market
share of the domestic industry. In fact, the share of domestic industry in total demand has decreased in the
POI due to increase in market share of the dumped imports from the subject countries.
c. The Authority notes that the price undercutting is negative from the subject countries due to the fact that
exporters from the subject countries export the subject goods to India at a high price and their related party
resells the subject goods at a loss. Therefore, the import price recorded in import data is not showcasing the
actual prevailing price of the subject goods from the subject countries in the Indian market. It is noted that
landed price of subject goods from subject countries have suppressed the selling price of domestic industry,
and as a result, the domestic industry is selling the subject goods at a price below its cost of sales.
d. With regard to impact of volume and price effect on the domestic industry, it is noted that it is noted that sales
and market share of the domestic industry has been adversely affected.
e. The price underselling along with significant increase in the volume of dumped imports from subject
countries has, thus, resulted in significant deterioration in profits, cash flow and return on investments of the
domestic industry.
J. INDIAN INDUSTRY'S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
98. The Authority recognizes that the imposition of anti-dumping duties might affect the price levels of the
product in India. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by the imposition of
anti-dumping measures. On the contrary, imposition of anti-dumping measures would remove the unfair
advantages gained by dumping practices, prevent the decline of the domestic producers, and help maintain
availability of wider choice to the consumers of the subject goods. The purpose of anti-dumping duties, in
general, is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping to re-
establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the
country. Further, the Authority notes that the imposition of the anti-dumping measures would not restrict
imports from the subject countries in any way, and therefore, would not affect the availability of the product
to the consumers.
99. The Authority considered whether imposition of anti-dumping duty shall have significant adverse public
interest. For the purpose, the Authority examined the information on record pertaining to the interests of
various parties, including the domestic industry, other domestic producers, importers and consumers of the
product.
100. The Authority issued gazette notification inviting views from all interested parties, including importers,
consumers, and other interested parties. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the consumers to
provide relevant information regarding the present investigations, including possible effect of anti-dumping
duty on their operations. The Authority sought information on, inter-alia interchangeability of the product
supplied by various suppliers from different countries, ability of the domestic industry to switch sources,
effect of anti-dumping duty on the consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to
the new situation caused by imposition of anti-dumping duty.
101. From the data on record, it is submitted that the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would not impact the
user industry as well as the public at large. The domestic industry claimed that the impact of duties on the end
consumers will be negligible and will not impact them, this has not been challenged by any of the interested
parties by providing counter data / evidence. However, imposition of the duties will give legitimate
protection to the domestic producers of the subject goods. According to the calculation provided by the
domestic industry, current anti-dumping duties will have an impact of around 1% on the foam manufactures,
which in insignificant by any standards.
+------------------------------------------+---------------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Particulars | UoM | Ref | Values | |
+==========================================+=====================+=======+=========+========+
| The standard size of double mattress is | Kg | A | 10.6 | |
| 72 x 48 x 6 inches (1.83 x 1.22 x 0.15 | | | | |
| m). For 32 Kg/m3 density foam, mattress | | | | |
| weight will be around | | | | |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Price of above Mattress (A) | Rs./Piece | B | 20,000 | |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Flexible Slabstock Polyol (FSP) used | Kg | C | 6 | |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Current Market price of FSP | Rs/KG | D | 120 | |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Cost of FSP in Mattress | KG | E=C*D | 720 | |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Recommended Anti-Dumping Duty on China | % | F | 32.08% | |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------+-------+---------+--------+
+------------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| Additional quantum of ADD on Foam | Rs/KG | G=E*F | 230.976 |
| Manufacturers | | | |
+------------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| Impact of ADD on Foam Manufacturers | % | H+G/B | 1.15% |
+------------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| Recommended Anti-Dumping Duty on Thailand| % | F | 27.21% |
+------------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| Additional quantum of ADD on Foam | Rs/KG | G=E*F | 195.912 |
| Manufacturers | | | |
+------------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
| Impact of ADD on Foam Manufacturers | % | H+G/B | 0.98% |
+------------------------------------------+----------+---------+----------+
102. From the above, it is clear that the recommended duty of 32% on China PR and 27.21% on Thailand has
insignificant impact on the user industry. However, these duties will give protection to the domestic
industry from dumped and injurious imports from the subject countries.
K. POST DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
103. The Authority issued the disclosure statement on 14.02.2024 disclosing essential facts under consideration
in the investigation and inviting_comments from all the interested parties. Most of the issues in the
disclosure comments have already been raised earlier and addressed appropriately hereinabove. Additional
submissions to the extent relevant have been examined below:
K.1.Submissions of the other interested parties:
104. Following submissions have been made by the other interested parties:
a. That the domestic industry has not provided any evidence to show that exporters are shifting their base to
avoid anti-dumping duties. Secondly, the domestic industry has failed to identify group of exporters who are
indulged in such practice.
b. That the imports are coming because of demand and supply gap issues and not because of exporters shifting
base.
c. Imposition of anti-dumping duty will also strengthen the monopolistic position of the domestic industry as it is
the only domestic producer of the like article in India.
d. There is negative price undercutting when domestic sales are compared with the landed value from the subject
countries. Moreover, undercutting based on exporters data is not permissible under the law as well as
consistent practice of the Authority. Further, examination of data of two exporters does not explain the
position of other exporters.
e. The Authority has kept capacity utilization numbers as confidential whereas the same is available in the public
domain and therefore, the Authority should give the numbers of capacity utilization in the final findings.
f. It is further submitted that the interested parties that due to frequent change in the product mix, domestic
industry cannot achieve 100% in polyol division. Therefore, achieving 100% utilization is myth and not
reality.
g. That decline in performance in the period of investigation is not sufficient to recommend duty, as domestic
industry had robust growth in the immediately preceding financial year.
h. That despite post sales discount offered by the exporters, the domestic industry has recorded significant
growth in 2020-21, this shows that post landed value discounts have no impact on the performance of the
domestic industry.
i. That there is no causal link between the injury suffered by the domestic industry and dumped imports. The
domestic Industry is suffering because of high cost in India.
j. The applicant had acknowledged absence of material injury in its earlier application for sunset review which
they had got terminated by withdrawing and Authority had fallen prey to the mischief of the applicant by
erroneously terminating the said review investigation under Rule 14 of the AD Rules instead of completing the
investigation and returning a finding of no injury and no likelihood of recurrence of injury which was evident
from the facts of that case.
k. The domestic industry's limited production capacity and their location down south at Chennai, forces them to
supply to users in southern part of India only. They are not able to cater to the users in western, northern and
eastern parts of India. That being so, the users of FSP based in other parts of India are largely dependent upon
the imports and are seriously affected by the long imposition of the antidumping duties practically on all
sources of imports.
l. The data used by the Authority in the disclosure statement is different from the data filed by the domestic
industry. In view thereof, the exporters have requested the Authority to double check the same.
m. That the Authority has not provided the transaction-wise import data used by the Authority for reaching the
conclusion.
n. Basic custom duty from Thailand is zero and any imposition of anti-dumping duties would be against the spirit
of zero basic custom duty.
o. That the cost of production and normal value claimed by the exporter and used by the Authority in the
disclosure statement are different. In view thereof, the exporter has requested the Authority to use their
claimed COP and normal value.
p. That the Authority should recheck the costing data provided by the domestic industry. Moreover, exporters
have requested to appropriately adjust the impact of COVID 19, plant closure and compensation paid by them
in 2021-22.
q. That the injury margin of Wanhua group and rest of China cannot be the same, as per Manual, injury margin
for other producers from China should be more.
r. The domestic producer uses old and outdated technology, highly uneconomical in scale, lacks backward
integration, and suffers raw material supply constraints, making it an inefficient producer.
s. 22% return given by the Authority to the domestic industry is unjustified and should not be used in the instant
investigation.
t. The domestic industry is frequent and habitual user of anti-dumping duties.
K.2. Submissions of the domestic industry
105. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
a. That the exporters have not provided critical information even to the Authority and despite that the
Authority, instead of rejecting their responses, proposes to reward them by giving them individual duties.
Further, confidentiality on the essential information has deprived the domestic industry, its right to comment
on the same and assist the Authority in reaching the correct conclusion. The domestic industry further
requested copies of all the correspondence with the exporters regarding completion of their responses.
b. That the domestic industry post getting protection from the dumped and injurious imports reduced its
dependability on the imported propylene oxide and during the period of investigation they have not imported
a single ton of propylene oxide from the market. Consumption of indigenous propylene oxide helped the
domestic industry to reduce its cost and remain competitive in the market.
c. The fact that related importers are selling the subject goods at prices below landed value, clearly indicates
the pressure exerted by the exporters on the domestic industry. It is further submitted that due to this price
pressure only, the only other producer of the subject goods modified its facility to produce other grades of
Polyol, as in the subject goods they were unable to compete with the pricing of the multi-national companies.
d. The domestic Industry is operating at 65% of capacity utilization, this means that still 35% can be used to
produce subject goods. The fact that 35% of the capacity is unutilized, clearly indicates that imports are
coming because of lower pricing and not because of the demand and supply gap. It is further submitted that
they can achieve 100% utilization, while producing subject goods.
e. It is further submitted that the domestic industry has increased their capacity as under-
+-----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Year | 2009-10 | 2010-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 |
+=================+==========+==========+==========+==========+
| Capacity in MT | 36000 | 50000 | 45265 | 45265 |
+-----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
However, post that due to aggressive dumping and price undercutting, and price underselling, the domestic
industry was not able to utilize the capacity to its optimum levels and therefore, they have not added additional
capacity post that.
f. In relation to issues relating to the difference in technology and subsequent quality of the product
produced by the domestic industry and the exporters, it is submitted that none of the exporters have raised
this issue, that there is indeed no material difference in the final product produced out of both the
technologies. It is further submitted that neither the difference in technology nor the alleged quality
differences can per se be a ground for exclusion of any product or for the purposes of either the dumping
margin or the injury analysis. It is further noted that the domestic industry is supplying subject goods to
large numbers of customers and their quality is acceptable to all. In any case, none of the interested parties
has provided any evidence to substantiate their claim that goods produced by the domestic industry with
existing technology cannot be used by them due to quality and other technical issues.
g. It is submitted that the dumping margin and injury margin is not only positive but also substantial. This
shows that the domestic industry is suffering on account of imports from the subject countries.
K.3 Examination by the Authority:
106. The Authority notes that most of the submissions raised by the interested parties are repetitive and has
already been addressed hereinabove. The submissions made by the interested parties, to the extent relevant
and not addressed elsewhere, is examined below:
107. The Authority notes that all the responding exporters from the subject countries have filed the complete
information relating to exports to India.
108. As regards the submission regarding 22% returns allowed to domestic industry being unjustified, the
Authority notes that the return to the domestic industry has been allowed in terms of Annexure-III of the
Rules as well as the consistent practice of the Authority.
109. As per the apprehensions expressed by the interested parties regarding the correctness of the data filed by
the domestic industry, it is noted that the Authority has relied upon the data verified during the course of the
investigation and only such verified data is used for the purpose of this final findings and therefore, no
prejudice is caused to any interested parties.
110. As regards the submission regarding the basic customs duty from Thailand being zero, the Authority notes
that the object and purpose of the anti-dumping legislation is different from the Free Trade Agreements.
Merely because there is an FTA with a country, the same does not condone the practices of dumping.
111. As regards the demand supply gap, it is noted that antidumping duties does not intend to restrict the imports
in India, the sole purpose of anti-dumping duty is to create level playing field in the market for the domestic
industry and other suppliers / users of the subject goods in India. It is further noted that the domestic
industry was under price pressure from the exporters from the subject countries to sell their product.
Further, the domestic industry still has the unutilized capacity, which indicates that the domestic industry
was not able to increase its production and market share because of price pressure created by the exporters.
112. As regards the contentions of the interested parties regarding import data, it is noted that the Authority has
already prescribed the procedure for collecting import data. However, none of the interested parties made
any request for import data in the prescribed format.
113. As regards the submissions relating to the absence of injury, the same has already been dealt with at
appropriate place in this finding.
114. In relation to issues relating to the difference in technology and subsequent quality of the product produced
by the domestic industry, the Authority notes that neither the difference in technology nor the alleged
quality differences can per se be a ground for exclusion of any product or for the purposes of either the
dumping margin or the injury analysis. It is further noted that the domestic industry is supplying subject
goods to large numbers of customers and their quality is acceptable to all. In any case, none of the interested
parties has provided any evidence to substantiate their claim that goods produced by the domestic industry
with existing technology cannot be used by them due to quality and other technical issues. The Authority,
therefore, holds that different technologies cannot form the basis of any conclusion by the Authority as long
as the products are technically and commercially substitutable.
115. The Authority further notes that the analysis of the injury being suffered by the domestic Industry has been
made on the basis of an objective analysis of the injury parameters in terms of the Annexure II of the AD
Rules. Moreover, all the concerns raised by the interested parties are already dealt in detail at the relevant
places of these final findings
116. As regards the submissions relating to the absence of causal link, the same has already been dealt with at
appropriate place in this finding.
L.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
117. Having regard to the contentions raised, submissions made, information provided and facts available before
the Authority as recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis of dumping and consequent injury to
the domestic industry, the Authority concludes that:
a. The product under consideration has been exported to India at a price below the normal value, resulting in
dumping.
b. The dumping of the subject goods has injured the domestic industry. The examination of the subject
imports and the performance of the domestic industry clearly shows that the volume of subject imports in
absolute and relative terms has remained high. The imports are priced below the target prices of the
domestic industry leading to price suppression. At current prices, the domestic industry is suffering injury
and will not be able to cover its variable costs. The domestic industry has not been able to utilize its
capacity utilization to its optimum levels due to aggressive prices offered by the related importers of the
exporters. Further, despite significant demand for the product in the countries, the domestic industry has
not been able to sell even to the limited extent it has produced, and has been faced with significant
inventories. The domestic industry is suffering significant financial losses and negative return on
investment.
c. Injury margin from the subject countries is significantly positive.
d. The information on record shows that the non-imposition of the anti-dumping duty will adversely and
materially impact the indigenous production, while imposition of the anti-dumping duty will not materially
impact the consumers or the downstream industry or the public at large.
e. On the basis of the information provided by the interested party and the investigation conducted, the
Authority is of the view that imposition of the anti-dumping duty will not be against the public interest.
118. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all the interested parties and adequate
opportunity was given to the domestic industry, the exporter, the importers and the other interested parties to
provide positive information on the aspect of dumping, injury and causal link. Having initiated and
conducted the investigation into dumping, injury and causal link in terms of the provisions laid down under
the Anti-Dumping Rules, the Authority is of the view that imposition of the anti-dumping duty is required to
offset the dumping and consequent injury. The Authority considers it necessary to recommend imposition of
the anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject
countries.
119. Having regards to the lesser duty rule followed, the Authority recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty
equal to the lesser of the margin of dumping and the margin of injury so as to remove the injury to the
domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority recommends imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the
imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries, from the date of notification
to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, equal to the amount mentioned in Col. 7 of the duty
table appended below. The landed value of the imports for this purpose shall be the assessable value as
determined by the Customs under Customs Act, 1962 and applicable level of the customs duties except
duties levied under Section 3, 3A, 8B, 9, 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Duty Table
+-----+----------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------+----------+
| Sl. | Heading | Description | Country of origin | Country of Export | Producer | Amount of Duty | Unit | Currency |
| No | | | | | | | | |
+=====+==========+=================================================+=================+=================+=====================+=================+==========+==========+
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) |
+=====+==========+=================================================+=================+=================+=====================+=================+==========+==========+
| 1 | 3907.20 | Flexible Slabstock Polyol of Molecular weight | China PR | China PR | Wanhua Chemical | 534 | MT | USD |
| | 3907.91 | 3000-4000 | | | Group | | | |
| | 3907.99 | | | | | | | |
+-----+----------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------+----------+
| 2 | -do- | -do- | China PR | Any | Any other than at | 608 | MT | USD |
| | | | | | Sl No. 1 above | | | |
+-----+----------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------+----------+
| 3 | -do- | -do- | Any | China PR | Any | 608 | MT | USD |
+-----+----------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------+----------+
| 4 | -do- | -do- | Thailand | Thailand | GC Polyols Company | 470 | MT | USD |
| | | | | | Limited | | | |
+-----+----------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------+----------+
| 5 | -do- | -do- | Thailand | Any | Any other than at | 480 | MT | USD |
| | | | | | Sl No. 4 above | | | |
+-----+----------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------+----------+
| 6 | -do- | -do- | Any o | Thailand | Any | 480 | MT | USD |
+-----+----------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------+----------+
120. The landed value of imports for the purpose of this notification shall be assessable value as determined by
the Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and includes all duties of customs except duties
under Sections 3, 8B, 9, 9A of the said Act.
M. FURTHER PROCEDURE
121. An appeal against this determination/review of the Designated Authority in this final finding shall lie before
the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Act.
ANANT SWARUP, Designated Authority
Login to read full text