Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 293] NEW DELHI, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2025/ASVINA 7, 1947
CG-DL-E-03102025-266606
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2025
Case No. AD (OI) – 29/2024
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Soda Ash" originating in or exported from Turkey,
Russia, USA and Iran.
F.No. 6/31/2024-DGTR.––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 ‘AD Rules’ or the ‘Anti-dumping Rules’ or the ‘Rules’) thereof.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Whereas, Alkali Manufacturers Association of India (AMAI) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Applicant’ or
‘Applicant Association’) has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
“Authority”), on behalf of the DCW Ltd., Nirma Ltd., RSPL Ltd., Tata Chemicals Limited., and GHCL Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Applicant Companies’), in accordance with the Act and the Rules for initiation of
an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Soda Ash” (hereinafter referred to as “subject goods”)
originating in or exported from Russia, Turkey, USA and Iran (hereinafter referred to as the “subject countries”)
and has requested the imposition of anti-dumping.
2. And whereas, the Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the Applicant, issued a public
notice vide notification no. 06/31/2024- DGTR dated 30th September 2024, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating the anti-dumping investigation in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules to determine the
existence, degree, and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the said
subject countries, and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to
remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry.
B. HISTORY OF INVESTIGATIONS
3. There has been a history of anti-dumping investigations and measures imposed on Soda Ash from various
countries. The first anti-dumping investigation was initiated on 5th July 1999 and was concluded, and duties were
recommended vide final findings No. 12/1/99-DGAD, dated 11th July 2000, against imports of Soda Ash from
China PR. The duties were imposed vide Notification No. 107/2000- Customs, dated 4th August 2000.
4. Thereafter, there was a safeguard duty recommended through final findings No. G.S.R. 725 (E) dated 6th October
2009, which was imposed through Notification No. 122/2009-Customs dated 5th November 2009.
5. An anti-dumping investigation was then initiated on 20th August 2010, which was concluded, and duties were
recommended vide final findings No. 14/17/2010- DGAD dated 17th February 2012, against imports of Soda Ash
from China PR, European Union, Kenya, Pakistan, Iran, Ukraine, and the USA. These duties were imposed vide
Notification No. 34/2012- Customs (ADD) dated 3rd July 2012. The Authority then discontinued these duties vide
the final findings No. 7/5/2017- DGAD dated 14th December 2018 in the sunset review investigation.
6. Separately, an anti-dumping investigation was initiated on 10th February 2012 which was concluded, and duties
were recommended vide final findings No. 14/3/2011- DGAD dated 9th February 2013, against imports of Soda
Ash from Turkey and Russia. These duties were imposed vide Notification No. 8/2013- Customs (ADD) dated
18th April 2013. The Authority then discontinued these duties vide the final findings No. 7/4/2018-DGAD dated
14th March 2019 in the sunset review investigation.
C. PROCEDURE
7. The procedure described hereinbelow has been followed with regard to the investigation:
i. The Authority notified the embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the present application
before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
ii. The Authority issued a notification dated 30th September 2024, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
initiating an investigation concerning the imports of the subject goods from the subject countries.
iii. In accordance with Rule 6(2), the Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the embassy of the subject
countries in India and known producers and exporters from the subject countries.
iv. The Authority also provided a copy of the initiation notification to the known importers/users in India who are
known to be associated with the subject goods, and requested them to make their views known in writing within
the prescribed time limit.
v. The Authority also provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters and to the embassies of the subject countries in India, in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the
Rules. A copy of the nonconfidential version of the application was circulated to the other interested parties.
vi. The embassies of the subject countries in India were also requested to advise the producers/exporters in their
country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and questionnaire
sent to the producers/exporters was also sent to them along with the names and addresses of the known
producers/exporters from the subject countries.
vii. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/ exporters in the subject countries calling
for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
a. Abadan Sulfurin Company
b. Kaveh Soda Chemical Industries Co.
c. Semnan Soda Ash Co.
d. Shiraz Petrochemical Company
e. M/s Trade House Ltd (Bashkirian Chemistry)
f. Open Joint Stock Company “Berezniki Soda Works”
g. JSC Bashkirian Chemistry
h. SASS SODA ASH SALES & SERVICES
i. M/s Public Stock Company, Crimea Soda Plant,
j. Eti Soda
k. Soda Senayii
l. Kazan Soda Electric
m. FMC lndustrial Chemicals
n. Solvay Soda Ash
o. General Chemicals lndustrial Products
p. ANSAC
q. FMC Corporation
r. CINER Resources LP
s. Ciner Wyoming LLC
t. Ciner Resources corporation
viii. In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, following producers/exporters from the
subject countries have responded by filing questionnaire response:
a. Limited Liability Company Trade House “Bashkirian Chemistry” Russia
b. Joint Stock Company “Bashkir Soda Company” Russia
c. Joint Stock Company “Berezniki Soda Factory” Russia
d. Dmc Delta Danismanlik Ve Ticaret A.S.
e. Pacific Waters Dmcc
f. Pontus Trading Dmcc
g. Tutti Dmcc
h. Sisecam DIS Ticaret A.S.
i. Turkiye Sise ve Cam Fabrikalanı AS.,
j. Uniworld Global FZCO
k. Sisecam Wyoming LLC
l. Kempar Energy PTE Ltd
m. Hiranyavarnam Chemicals and Alkalis PTE Ltd
n. ADV International FZCO
o. AG Ciner Ithalat Ihracat ve Ticaret AS
p. ETI Soda Üretim Pazarlama Nakliyat ve Elektrik Üretim Sanayi ve Ticaret A. Ş.
q. Kazan Soda Elektrik Üretim A. Ş
r. Soda World Ltd.
s. U G Impex General Trading LLC, UAE
t. Uniworld Global FZCO
u. WE IC ve DIS Ticaret AS.
v. Aarna International
w. Libra Alkalischemie Pvt Ltd
x. Sisecam Flat Glass India Private Limited
y. PGP Glass Private Limited
z. Agi Greenpac Limited
aa. Hindustan Unilever Limited
ix. The Authority sent questionnaire 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.
a. Gujrat Guardian Ltd
b. Advance Surfactant India Ltd.
c. Float Glass India Ltd.
d. A.R. Stanchem Pvt. Ltd.
e. Alenbic Glass Industries Ltd
f. Hind Silicates Pvt. Ltd.
g. Deepak Nitrite Ltd.
h. Taurus Chemical (P) Ltd
i. Hindustan National Glass & Ind. Ltd.
j. Kishoresons Detergents Pvt. Ltd.
k. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
l. J.J. Patel Industries
m. Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Haealth Care
n. Shriram Bharath Chemical & Detergents (P) Ltd
o. Albright Morarji & Pandit Ltd.
p. Modern Glass Industries
q. Advatech Industries Pvt. Ltd.
r. Adarsh Kanch Udyog (P) Ltd. Wares Pvt. Ltd
s. U.P. Glass Manufacture Syndicate
t. Paragati Galss Pvt. Ltd.
u. Asahi India Glass Limited
v. Gora Mal Hari Ram Ltd.
w. Fena (P) Ltd.
x. Rohit Surfactants (P) Ltd.
y. Shree Unicon Organics P. Ltd.
z. Astral Glass Pvt. Ltd.
aa. Pollachi Chamber Of Commerce & Industry
bb. Bdj Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd
cc. Vasunhara Rasayan Ltd.
dd. Shri Hari Industries,
ee. Power Soap Ltd.
ff. Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd.
gg. Shanti Nath Detegents (P) Ltd.,
hh. Jagatjit Industries Ltd.
ii. Advance Home & Personal Care Ltd.
jj. Advance Surfactants India Ltd.
kk. S. Kumar Detergent P. Ltd.
ll. Mauli Exports
x. The following importers and users have submitted questionnaire responses to the Authority:
a. Aarna International
b. Libra Alkalischemie Pvt Ltd
c. Sisecam Flat Glass India Private Limited
d. PGP Glass Private Limited
e. Agi Greenpac Limited
f. Hindustan Unilever Limited
xi. Other than the aforementioned known importers/users, Saint Gobain India and All India Federation of Soaps,
Detergents and Homecare Products’ Manufacturers did not file their importers questionnaires response but filed
their submissions.
xii. The Authority issued economic interest questionnaire (EIQ) to all interested parties and the concerned ministry.
Response to EIQ was submitted by 04th January, 2025 by the following parties:
a. Limited Liability Company Trade House “Bashkirian Chemistry” Russia
b. Joint Stock Company “Bashkir Soda Company” Russia
c. Joint Stock Company “Berezniki Soda Factory” Russia
d. Dmc Delta Danismanlik Ve Ticaret A.S.
e. Pacific Waters Dmcc
f. Pontus Trading Dmcc
g. Tutti Dmcc
h. Sisecam DIS Ticaret A.S.
i. Turkiye Sise ve Cam Fabrikalanı AS.,
j. Uniworld Global FZCO
k. Sisecam Wyoming LLC
l. Kempar Energy PTE Ltd
m. Hiranyavarnam Chemicals and Alkalis PTE Ltd
n. ADV International FZCO
o. AG Ciner Ithalat Ihracat ve Ticaret AS
p. ETI Soda Üretim Pazarlama Nakliyat ve Elektrik Üretim Sanayi ve Ticaret A. Ş.
q. Kazan Soda Elektrik Üretim A. Ş
r. Soda World Ltd.
s. U G Impex General Trading LLC, UAE
t. Uniworld Global FZCO
u. WE IC ve DIS Ticaret AS.
v. Aarna International
w. Libra Alkalischemie Pvt Ltd
x. Sisecam Flat Glass India Private Limited
y. PGP Glass Private Limited
z. Agi Greenpac Limited
aa. Hindustan Unilever Limited
xiii. The applicant proposed the Period of Investigation (POI) as 1st October 2023 to March 31st 2024 (6 months),
however, the period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation was adopted as 1st October
2023 to 30th June 2024 (9 months). The injury investigation period covers the periods 1st April 2020 – 31st
March 2021, 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022, 1st April 2022 – 30th September 2023 and the period of
investigation.
xiv. Request was made to the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) and DG
Systems to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of the subject goods for the injury period. For the
purpose of the final findings, the Authority has relied upon the transaction wise DGCI&S import data.
xv. The Authority vide para 5 of the initiation notification dated 30th September 2024 granted an opportunity to the
interested parties to present their comments on the scope of the product under consideration within 15 days of
the initiation, which ended on 29th October 2024 post an extension granted by the Authority upon request of an
interested party. All the submissions made by the interested parties with regard to the scope of the product under
consideration or for the construction of PCN which were received within such time period were considered. The
Authority held a discussion on 19th November 2024 with all the interested parties to discuss the product under
consideration and the PCNs. After receiving inputs from the interested parties, the Authority vide notification
dated 4th December 2024 clarified the scope of the PUC.
xvi. Further information was sought from the applicant to the extent deemed necessary. Verification of the data
provided by the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the purpose of the present
investigation.
xvii. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the submissions made by the various interested
parties. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website along with the request therein to
all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties.
xviii. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties for
presenting their views orally regarding the subject investigation through a public hearing on 11th April 2025. The
interested parties who presented their views in the oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of the
views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. The interested parties were further directed to
share the non-confidential version of the written submissions with the other interested parties.
xix. Due to the change of the Designated Authority, a fresh oral hearing was held on 22nd July 2025 wherein all
interested parties were provided the opportunity to present their views. The interested parties were requested to
submit their written submissions by 28th July 2025 and rejoinder submissions by 5th August 2025.
xx. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIP’) has been determined based on the cost of production
and reasonable return on capital employed for the subject goods in India, based on the information furnished by
the domestic industry on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to
the AD Rules, 1995 so as to ascertain whether anti-dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be
sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
xxi. 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.
The Authority will further examine the evidentiary documents submitted by the interested parties subsequent to
final findings, which will form the basis for conclusions at the time of final findings.
xxii. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information during
the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has
considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the final findings on the basis of the facts available.
xxiii. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts in this investigation which have formed the basis of the final
findings was issued to the interested parties on 21st September 2025. The interested parties were allowed time up
to 26th September 2025 to comment on the same. The disclosure on the disclosure statement received from the
interested parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant, in these final findings.
xxiv. ‘***’ in this Notification represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so
considered by the Authority under Rule 7 of AD Rules, 1995.
xxv. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = Rs. 84.14.
D. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
8. The product under consideration (hereinafter also referred to as the “PUC”) as defined at the stage of initiation
was as follows:
“The product under consideration is "Disodium Carbonate", also popularly known as "Soda Ash" having
formula as Na2CO3. Soda Ash is a white, crystalline, water-soluble material. it is produced in two forms by
the Indian Producers - Light Soda Ash and Dense Soda Ash. The difference in the two types is the bulk density.
It can be either natural soda ash or synthetic soda ash. Both products are essentially the same and the
application filed by the applicant includes all types and form of Soda Ash.
The product under consideration is imported under Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under the code
283620. The customs classification is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of the product under
consideration.”
9. Various comments on the scope of the PUC and the PCN methodology were received from the interested parties.
A meeting to discuss the same was held on 19th November 2024. The following are the comments received from
interested parties with regards to scope of PUC, and PCN methodology.
D.1. Submissions by other interested parties
10. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article:
i. Natural Soda Ash is not made in India and in view of the same natural soda ash should be excluded from the scope
of the PUC in the present investigation.
ii. Natural soda ash is produced in a fundamentally different method than synthetic soda ash, requiring mining and
processing of ores. In contrast, synthetic soda ash production uses the Solvay process which uses salt and lime as
raw materials and then undergoes treatment.
iii. There is difference in the cost of the forms of Soda Ash – Light and Dense. The same requires the adoption of a
PCN methodology.
iv. There is a difference in the price of Light and Dense Soda Ash. The same has also been differentiated as per the
cost audit report.
v. All manufacturers of the PUC do not necessarily produce both dense and light soda ash.
vi. Dense soda ash is preferred in sectors like glass while light soda ash is used in sectors like detergent.
vii. There is difference in Natural and Synthetic Soda Ash also. The price difference is on account of the raw material
cost. The same warrants adoption of a PCN methodology.
viii. Natural Soda Ash is environmentally friendly with lower carbon emissions while Synthetic Soda Ash is energy
intensive and having about 3 times more carbon emissions. This makes synthetic soda ash much more expensive.
ix. The denial of PCN approach is likely to distort the comparison of domestic and imported product. Natural soda
ash should be excluded as it is different and not produced by the DI. There ought to be a correct comparison
between dense and light and synthetic and natural soda ash.
x. The cost of production of synthetic soda ash is higher when compared to natural soda ash. Not treating them
separately would result in incorrect determinations of non-injurious price and normal value, thereby leading to
incorrect margin calculations.
D.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
11. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article:
i. The consumers are interchangeably using the natural and synthetic soda ash. While it is admitted that the
sources of the two forms of Soda Ash are different however, the technical and chemical properties and the
interchangeability of Soda Ash derived from either of the sources does not differ.
ii. Natural and synthetic soda ash are identical in terms of physical & chemical properties, functions & uses,
product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. Resultantly, they
are used interchangeably by the consumer industry.
iii. The cost difference between light and dense soda ash is below 5%. The domestic industry has provided its cost
audit report demonstrating the difference in cost of light and dense soda ash. Since the said difference is below
5%, it would be inappropriate to frame separate PCN.
iv. The costs for dense soda ash and light soda ash are reported separately only because they are defined under
different chapter headings in the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA). Dense and light soda ash can be imported
under various codes, however importing of goods under various codes does not make the product different.
v. The Authority in its past investigations such as Final Findings No. 14/17/2020-DGAD dated 17th February
2012, and Final Findings No 14/3/2011-DGAD dated 9th February 2013 has repeatedly held that the difference
in the price and the cost of both forms of Soda Ash is minimal and negligible. There forms no reason for the
Authority to deviate from its past practice of investigation in the subject goods.
vi. The origin of soda ash alone cannot be a factor warranting the adoption of a PCN Methodology when the
subject goods are being used interchangeably irrespective of their source and the pricing of the subject goods
also remains the same irrespective of the source of subject goods.
vii. Difference of lower carbon emissions and being environmentally friendly does not make the product different.
Characteristically, both natural and synthetic soda ash are alike in terms of their physical & chemical properties,
functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification. The AD
Rules are not designed to take measures for addressing environmental concerns. It is not appropriate to use the
mechanism of the Rules to pursue objectives which it was not designed to address.
viii. The synthetic soda ash produced and supplied by the domestic industry constitutes like article to the imported
natural soda ash. The consumers are interchangeably using the natural and synthetic soda ash. While the sources
of the two forms of Soda Ash are different, however, the technical and chemical properties and the
interchangeability of Soda Ash derived from either of the sources does not differ.
D.3. Examination by the Authority
12. The product under consideration in the present investigation is “Disodium Carbonate” originating in or exported
from Russia, Turkey, USA and Iran. It is also popularly known as "Soda Ash" having the chemical formula as
Na2CO3.
13. Soda Ash is a white, crystalline, water-soluble material. It is produced in two forms by the Indian producers -
Light Soda Ash and Dense Soda Ash. The difference in the two types is the bulk density. Light and Dense soda
ash are merely forms of the product under consideration and are the same. Further, it can be either natural soda
ash or synthetic soda ash. The present investigation includes all types and forms of Soda Ash.
14. The product under consideration is imported under Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, under the code
283620. The customs classification is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of the product under
consideration.
15. The Authority considers as follows with regard to issues/ requests raised by the interested parties:
16. Request for exclusion of Natural Soda Ash: The Authority has examined the contention of the other interested
parties that there exists a fundamental distinction between the production processes of natural and synthetic soda
ash, and that Indian producers manufacture only synthetic soda ash. The domestic industry, however, has
submitted that mere origin of soda ash can neither be sufficient to exclude a product, nor sufficient to be treated
as a basis for adopting a PCN, since the subject goods, irrespective of source, are interchangeable in use. There is
sufficient evidence on record to show that the consumers are using natural and synthetic soda ash interchangeably.
Even though the two are sourced from different raw materials, the two contain the same physical and technical
characteristics, are used interchangeably and are technically and commercially substitutable. They perform the
same function. It has been claimed that natural and synthetic soda ash are merely two alternative sources of the
same product. The Authority notes that although the product may be produced through different routes, there is
no distinction in their essential characteristics, composition, or end uses. The Authority also observes that in
previous investigations, no exclusions have been made on the basis of production processes or manufacturing
routes of the PUC. Accordingly, the Authority concludes that the scope of the PUC covers both natural and
synthetic soda ash. The Authority in the past investigation conducted had noted as below in its Final Findings No.
14/17/2020-DGAD dated 17th February 2012:
viii. As regards natural and synthetic soda ash, the Authority notes that there is no difference in natural and
synthetic soda ash in terms of product characteristics, functions and uses, customs classification and pricing
of the product. The only difference is in terms of the routes of manufacturing. However, the Authority further
notes, difference in production process cannot render the two grades of soda ash as dislike articles, particularly
when the resultant products are interchangeably used.
17. Environmental Issues between Natural and Synthetic Soda Ash: The other interested parties have submitted that
natural soda ash is more friendly for the environment emitting lower carbon emissions, while synthetic soda ash
emits 3 times more carbon emissions. The domestic industry has submitted that the allegation of different carbon
emissions and environmentally friendly nature does not make the product different and does not deny the
interchangeability of natural and synthetic soda ash. The Authority notes that the product soda ash is used
interchangeably by the consumer industry. With respect to the submission regarding the environmental impact of
natural soda ash in comparison to synthetic soda ash, the Authority notes that the interested parties have not shown
any regulatory requirements in the Country prohibiting or discouraging use of any particular product or
encouraging any particular product. Trade remedial measures do not distinguish in products based on
environmental concerns. If a product is more environment friendly, it is expected to be less susceptible to
dumping. The concern of the domestic industry is on dumping of the product, and not on preference of any
producer or consumer. Anti-dumping investigations are designed primarily to remedy the practice of unfair trade
and to provide a level playing field to the domestic industry.
18. Separate PCNs for Dense and Light Soda Ash: The other interested parties have submitted that there is a difference
in cost between dense soda ash and light soda ash. The domestic industry has submitted that any difference in cost
is less than 5%. With respect to the submissions that dense and light soda ash does not have a cost differential
requiring separate PCN, the domestic industry has provided its cost audit report. The interested parties have
however not provided verifiable information to show cost difference between light and dense soda ash. The
Authority notes that the cost audit report demonstrates that the cost difference between light and dense soda ash
is less than 5%. The Authority considers a cost difference beyond 5% as mandatory before framing separate PCN
for different product types. Mere existence of different product types is insufficient. Further, mere difference in
prices is also not sufficient. In fact, it is seen from the sales listing of the domestic industry that there is significant
difference in the prices of even light and dense soda ash sold to different customers around the same time. Further,
there are also instances where light soda ash has been sold to some customer at a price higher than dense soda ash.
Thus, adoption of separate PCNs for light and dense soda ash is inappropriate. Further, the Authority also notes
that this issue has already been addressed in the past investigations of Soda Ash wherein the Authority has clearly
held that the price difference between the two is less than 5% and does not warrant separate analysis. The Authority
in the past investigation conducted had noted as below in its Final Findings No. 14/17/2020-DGAD dated 17th
February 2012:
“During the course of the investigation, the interested parties have submitted that Light and Dense Soda Ash
are different products due to different bulk density and not used interchangeably by the customers. They also
submitted that the cost and price of the two grades are different. The Authority notes that the difference of cost
and price between light and dense soda ash is negligible (about Rs 0.23 in price). Further, from the information
available in the public domain it is evident that light soda ash can have usage in manufacture of sodium salts,
glass, sodium silicates, bichromate, bi-carbonates, etc apart from the most common usage in the detergent
sector. Similarly, while dense soda ash is used mainly for manufacturing glass, it can also find usage in
manufacture of detergents, silicates, ultramarine, bi-chromate, etc. The Authority notes that both the grades of
soda ash, having many common usages, are technically and commercially substitutable and therefore form
part of the product under consideration. Moreover, in an earlier Final Finding in respect of imports of Soda
Ash from China PR the Authority had already held light soda ash and dense soda ash as technically and
commercially substitutable.
The Authority further notes that the difference in light & dense soda ash is in bulk density only. The product
characteristics, production process, manufacturing technology, raw materials, manpower, functions & uses,
customs classification and pricing of the light & dense soda ash are however the same, although for
manufacturing dense soda ash, installation of additional equipment is required. The Authority notes that
although some end applications may specifically require light or dense soda ash only, the bulk density or
inability of some of the consumers to interchangeably use light and dense soda ash cannot render the two as
dislike articles. These are merely two different forms of the same product.
As regards the submission for separate comparison of the two grades is concerned, the Authority notes that a
separate comparison of the two grades is required to be undertaken only if the cost or price of the product
varies significantly over the investigation period. However, The Authority observes that there is no consistent
pattern of price difference in Light & Dense Soda Ash and therefore there is no need to determine dumping
margin, non-injurious price, and injury margin etc separately. Nevertheless, the Authority has made the
relevant calculations on weighted average basis.”
19. Further, in its Final Findings in the anti-dumping duty investigation concerning imports of Di-sodium Carbonate
(Soda Ash) originating in or exported from Turkey and Russia-reg dated 9th February 2013 bearing notification
No 14/3/2011-DGAD, Authority held as below with regard to light and dense soda ash:
“8. The interested parties have submitted that Light and Dense Soda Ash are different products due to
different bulk density and not used interchangeably by the customers. They also submitted that the cost and
price of the two grades are different. The Authority had earlier found in the anti dumping investigations
relating to imports of the subject goods from Kenya, USA, etc. that the difference of cost and price between
light and dense soda ash is negligible and the information available in the public domain shows that light
soda ash can be used in manufacture of sodium salts, glass, sodium silicates, bi-chromate, bicarbonates, etc.
apart from the most common usage in the detergent sector. Similarly, while dense soda ash is used mainly for
manufacturing glass, it can also find usage in manufacture of detergents, silicates, ultramarine, bichromate,
etc. The Authority notes that both the grades of soda ash, having many common usages, are technically and
commercially substitutable and, therefore, form part of the product under consideration. The Authority
further notes that the difference in light and dense soda ash is in bulk density only but the product
characteristics, production process, manufacturing technology, raw materials, manpower, functions & uses,
customs classification and pricing of the light and dense soda ash are, however, the same, although for
manufacturing dense soda ash, installation of additional equipment is required. The Authority notes that
although some end applications may specifically require light or dense soda ash only, the bulk density or inability
of some of the consumers to interchangeably use light and dense soda ash cannot render the two as dislike
articles. These are merely two different forms of the same product.”
20. In view of the aforementioned, the Authority holds the product under consideration as below:
“The product under consideration is "Disodium Carbonate", also popularly known as "Soda Ash" having
formula as Na2CO3. Soda Ash is a white, crystalline, water-soluble material. it is produced in two forms by
the Indian Producers - Light Soda Ash and Dense Soda Ash. The difference in the two types is the bulk density.
It can be either natural soda ash or synthetic soda ash. Both products are essentially the same and the
application filed by the applicant includes all types and form of Soda Ash.
The product under consideration is imported under Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under the code
283620. The customs classification is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of the product under
consideration”
21. The Authority notes that the product produced by the Applicant companies and the product under consideration
imported from the subject countries is comparable in terms of physical and chemical characteristics, functions and
uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution and marketing, and tariff classification of the goods. The
Authority holds that the subject goods produced by the Applicant companies is like article to the product under
consideration imported from the subject countries within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Anti-dumping
Rules.
E. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
E.1. Submissions by other interested parties
22. The submissions made by other interested parties with regard to the scope of the domestic industry and its standing
are as follows:
i. Two of the domestic producers, Tata Chemicals Limited and Nirma Ltd. are ineligible to be considered as
domestic industry as they are related to exporters of the subject goods.
ii. Tata Chemicals and Nirma Ltd. both have related exporters in the USA. Since they have related producers,
they are not eligible to be considered as domestic industry as per Rule 2(b).
E.2. Submissions by domestic industry
23. The Applicant has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the domestic industry and its
standing:
i. The application for the present investigation was filed by Alkali Manufacturers’ Association of India (AMAI).
AMAI represents the domestic industry for the product concerned in the country which comprises of the
participating producers namely DCW Ltd., Nirma Ltd. RSPL, TCL and GHCL. There exists one other producer
of the product concerned namely, Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (TFL).
ii. The applicant companies account for a major proportion holding 98% of the total Indian domestic production.
The applicant companies DCW Ltd., RSPL Ltd. and GHCL Ltd. have not imported the subject goods during the
period of investigation nor are they related to either importer or exporter of subject goods.
iii. Tata Chemicals has a related producer in US but has not imported the subject goods in the POI. This related
company in US has exported minimal quantity in the base year only.
iv. Nirma Ltd has a related producer in USA. The related producer of Nirma Ltd. in the USA has exported very
minimal exports to the end consumer in the POI. The exports made by the related party of Nirma Ltd., Searless
Valley Minerals (“SVM”) are insignificant in relation to the production and sales of Nirma and in relation to the
total imports in India. Information is already on record with the Authority. These exports have nothing to do with
the Nirma Ltd. and ADD, if levied, will be equally applicable to these exporters also.
v. The applicant companies thus constitute eligible domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b).
vi. The domestic industry had clarified via separate letter dated 26th September 2024, prior to the initiation of the
investigation that the related party of Nirma has exported subject goods in the POI. The letter was also attached
as an addendum in the NCV application.
vii. There is consistency between the claim of the domestic industry and the findings by the Authority in the initiation
notification. The imports are made by the related party (SVM) in subject country to an independent third party.
viii. The total exports of SVM in relation to Nirma’s production, sales, and total imports is negligible. These imports
were to an independent buyer and not made by Nirma.
ix. Related party of Tata chemicals made nominal exports only in the base year and do not show any imports made
in the POI.
E.3. Examination by the Authority
24. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules defines the domestic industry as under:
"(b) "domestic industry " means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like
article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a
major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the
exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term
'domestic industry ' must be construed as referring to the rest of the producers"
25. The present application has been filed by Alkali Manufacturers Association of India. The participating producers
in the present investigation are DCW, RSPL, Nirma Ltd, TCL and GHCL. There exists one other producer namely
Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (TAC). There are no other domestic producers of subject goods
in the period of investigation.
26. It has been contended by the other interested parties that Tata Chemicals Limited has a related exporter in the
USA. The Applicants have submitted in this regard that there have been no exports from the related producer of
Tata Chemicals Limited in the POI, and only a miniscule amount has been exported in the base year. It has been
further contended by the other interested parties that Nirmal Ltd. has a related exporter in the USA. The Applicants
in this regard have submitted that the related party of Nirma Ltd., Searless Valley Minerals (“SVM”) has minimal
exports in the POI. The Authority notes that such exports have been made by the related party directly to the end
customer. Further, the imports from SVM in the POI are miniscule and insignificant in relation to the production
and sales of Nirma Ltd. as well as in relation the total imports in India. Table below provides the details of exports
made by the affiliated companies of Tata Chemicals and Nirma Ltd:
+--------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+
| Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | Apr22- | Oct23- |
| | | | | Sep23 | Jun24 |
| | | | | | (POI) |
+==========================+=====+=========+=========+==========+=========+
| Export by Tata's related | MT | *** | Nil | Nil | Nil |
| party into India | | | | | |
+--------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+
| In relation to Tata's | % | 0-1 | - | - | - |
| production | | | | | |
+--------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+
| In relation to Total | % | 0-1 | - | - | - |
| import | | | | | |
+--------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+
| Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | Apr22- | Oct23- |
| | | | | Sep23 | Jun24 |
| | | | | | (POI) |
+==========================+=====+=========+=========+==========+=========+
| Export by Nirma's related| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| party into India | | | | | |
+--------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+
| In relation to Nirma's | % | 2-3 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-1% |
| production | | | | | |
+--------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+
| In relation to Total | % | 3-4 | 0-1 | 2-3 | 0-1 |
| import | | | | | |
+--------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------+---------+
27. Considering the volume of exports made, the production volume by the companies in India and the nature of
activities performed by the companies, the Authority considers that the focus of the companies is on production
in India, and not in imports. Thus, the Authority notes that since the imports are negligible, it does not affect the
eligibility of Nirma Ltd and Tata Chemicals. to be treated as domestic industry in terms of the AD Rules. The
Authority notes that the remaining applicant companies have not imported the subject goods and are neither related
to an importer or exporter thereof.
28. As regards the argument raised by the interested party that Tata Chemicals is related to the exporter Tuticorin
USA and in turn related to Tuticorin India, it is seen that such claim has not been substantiated with evidence and
has not been made in written submissions to enable the domestic industry to adequately reply.
29. In view of the information on record and issues examined as above, the Authority holds that the applicant
companies constitute “domestic industry” within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Anti-dumping Rules. It is further
noted that the production by the applicant companies account for a major proportion in total Indian production.
The application thus, satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
F. CONFIDENTIALITY
F.1. Submissions by other interested parties
30. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties with respect to confidentiality:
i. The petitioner has not provided transaction-wise import data in the same format as originally recorded. This
lack of data (and the excessive reliance on claims of confidentiality) significantly hinders meaningful analysis.
The petitioner’s numerous claims of confidentiality (covering production figures, cost components, sales data,
etc.) are