Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-04112024-258429
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 306] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2024/KARTIKA 8, 1946
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
NOTIFICATION
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 30th.October, 2024
CASE NO. AD(OI) – 30/2023
Subject: Preliminary Findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Polyvinyl Chloride
Suspension Resins" originating in or exported from China PR, Indonesia, Japan, Korea RP, Taiwan,
Thailand and United States of America.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
F. No. 6/33/2023-DGTR.—
1. Chemplast Cuddalore Private Limited, DCM Shriram Limited and DCW Limited (hereinafter also referred to
as the “Applicants”) 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 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 referred to as the “Rules” or “Anti-Dumping Rules”), for initiation of an anti-dumping
investigation concerning imports of "Polyvinyl Chloride Suspension Resins" (hereinafter also referred to as
the “product under consideration” or the “subject goods”), originating in or exported from China PR,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea RP, Taiwan, Thailand and United States of America (hereinafter also referred to as
the “subject countries”).
2. The Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicants, issued a public notice vide
Notification No. 6/33/2023-DGTR dated 26th March 2024, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary,
initiating the subject investigation in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules to
determine existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported
from the 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. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described herein below has been followed with regard to the subject investigation:
i. The Authority notified the Embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the present
anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5)
of the Anti-Dumping Rules and the Free Trade Agreements with various members of the WTO.
ii. The Authority issued a public notice dated 26th March 2024 published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the
subject countries.
iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification along with questionnaires to the Embassies of
the subject countries in India, known producers/exporters from the subject countries, known
importers/users and the domestic industry as well as other domestic producers as per the email
addresses made available by the applicants and requested them to make their views known, in writing,
within the prescribed time limit.
iv. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the Embassies of
the subject countries in India, the known producers/exporters, importers and users in accordance with
Rule 6(3) of the Rules.
v. The Embassies of the subject countries in India were also requested to advise the exporters/producers
from their countries 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 details of
the known producers/exporters from the subject countries.
vi. The Authority sent exporter's questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in the subject
countries in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
1. China Haohua Chemical (Group) Corporation
2. Chipping Xinfa PVC Company Limited
3. Hubein Yinhua Group Company Limited
4. Inner Mongolia Sanlian Chemical Corporation Limited
5. Inner Mongolia Junzheng Chemical Industry Company Limited
6. Kingfa Sci. & Technology Company Limited
7. LG Dagu Chemical Company Limited
8. Mega Compound Company Limited
9. Ningxia Yinglite Chemicals Company Limited
10. Ningxia Jinyuyuan Energy Chemistry Company Limited
11. Ordos Zunzheng Energy & Chemical Industry Company Limited
12. SAR Overseas Limited
13. Shandong Haihua Chlor-Alkali Resin Company Limited
14. Shandong Xinfa Import & Export Company
15. Shanghai Chlor-Alkali Chemical Company Limited
16. Sinopec Group
17. Sinopec Qilu Company
18. Suzhou Huasu Plastics Company Limited
19. Qingdao Haijing Chemcial (Group) Company Limited
20. Qingdoa Haiwan Chemical Company Limited
21. Tianjin Dagu Chemical Company Limited
22. Tianjin LG Bohai Chemical Company
23. Xinjiang Shihezi Zhongfa Chemcial Company Limited
24. Xinjiang Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Company Limited
25. Xinjiang Zhongtai Chemical Company Limited
26. Yibin Tianyuan Group Limited
27. Yichang Yihua Pacific Cogen Company Limited
28. Zhong Tai International Development (HK) Limited
29. Oxy Vinyl LLP
30. Visolit
31. Farmosa Plastics Corporation
32. JM Eagle Corporation
33. Oxychem
34. Shintech Inc.
35. Westlake USA Inc.
36. Ocean Plastics Company Limited
37. JNC Corporation
38. Kaneka Corporation
39. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd
40. SCG Chemicals Company Limited
41. Viynthai Public Co., Ltd.
vii. The following producers / exporters filed response to the exporters’ questionnaire issued by the
Authority.
1. Inner Mongolia Chemical Industry Company Ltd.
2. Inner Mongolia Erdos Electric Power and Metallurgy Group Co., Ltd.
3. Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co., Ltd.
4. Formosa Plastics Corporation
5. Simosa International Co. Ltd.
6. Itochu Plastics Pte., Ltd.
7. ITOCHU Corporation
8. ITOCHU (Thailand) Ltd.
9. China General Plastics Corporation
10. CGPC Polymer Corporation
11. Grand Dignity Industrial Co. Ltd.
12. Wanhua Chemical (Fujian) Co., Ltd.
13. Wanhua Petrochemical (Yantai) Co., Ltd.
14. Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
15. Grand Dignity For Wanhua
16. Chiping Xinfa Polyvinyl Chloride Co., Ltd
17. Chiping Xinfa Huaxing Chemical Co., Ltd
18. Shandong Xinfa Import & Export Co., Ltd
19. Jiali Bio Group (Qingdao) Limited
20. Yue Xiu Textiles Co., Ltd
21. Xinjiang Zhongtai Import & Export Co., Ltd
22. Zhong Tai International Development (Hk) Limited
23. Xinjiang Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Co., Ltd
24. Guangxi Huayi Chlor-Alkali Chemical Co., Ltd.
25. Shanghai Chlor-Alkali Chemical Co., Ltd.
26. Joc International Technical Engineering Co., Ltd.
27. Tianjin Lg Bohai Chemical. Co. Ltd
28. LG Chem, Ltd.
29. Canko Marketing
30. TS Corporation
31. Ordos Junzheng Energy & Chemical Industry Co., Ltd
32. Inner Mongolia Junzheng Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.
33. Shaanxi Beiyuan Chemical Industry Group Co
34. Henan Pulite Import And Export Trade Co.,Limited
35. Chemdo Group Company Limited
36. United Raw Material Pte. Ltd.
37. Cosmoss Vu Limited
38. Tun Wa Industrial Co. Ltd.
39. SAR Overseas Limited
40. Kaneka Corporation
41. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd
42. Taiyo Vinyl Corporation
43. Tokuyama Corporation
44. Tokuyama Sekisui Co. Ltd
45. Tosoh Nikkemi Corporation
46. Mitsui & Co., Ltd
47. Mitsubishi Corporation
48. IVICT (Singapore) Pte. Ltd
49. Kanematsu Corporation
50. Marubeni Corporation
51. Sojitz Asia Pte Limited
52. PT Asahimas Chemical
53. AGC Vinythai Public Limited Company
54. GCM Polymer Trading DMCC Company Limited
55. PTT Global Chemical Public Company Limited
56. Thai Polyethylene Co. Ltd
57. Thai Plastics and Chemicals Plc.
58. Qingdao Haiwan Chemical Co. Ltd.
59. CNSIG Jiltani Chlor – Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd.
60. China Salt Chemical International Trading Co. Ltd.
61. Yibin Haifeng Herui Co. Ltd.
62. Yibin Tianyuan Materials Industry Group Ltd.
63. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co. Ltd.
64. Tianjin Bohua Chemical Developments
65. Cheongfuli (Hongkong) Company Limited
66. Hanwa Corporation
67. Stavian Chemical JSC
68. Sunshine International Pvt Ltd
69. Texpo International Limited
viii. Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co., Ltd. has filed a response to supplementary questionnaire issued by
the Authority and has claimed that it should be treated as operating in market economy conditions. No
other producer from China has claimed market economy treatment.
ix. The Authority sent importers and users’ 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:
1. Aasu Chemplast Private Limited
2. ABM International Limited
3. Aditya Industries
4. Amisha Vinyls Private Limited
5. Apollo Pipes Limited
6. Associated Capsules Limited
7. AVI Global Plast Private Limited
8. Avon Plastics Group
9. Caprihans India Limited
10. Chaitanya Impex Private Limited
11. Cooldeck Aqua Solutions Private Limited
12. Cosmos Corporation
13. D.R. Polymers Private Limited
14. Deluxe Kaaran Import Private Limited
15. Dhabriya Agglomerates Private Limited
16. Diamond Pipes & Tubes Private Limited
17. Dutron Plastics Private Limited
18. Fine Flow Plastic Industries Limited
19. Golden Group
20. Havells India
21. INCOM Cables Private Limited
22. Jain Irrigation Systems
23. Jewel Polymers Private Limited
24. JP Group
25. Kalpana Industries
26. Kisan Group Tex
27. KLJ Group
28. Krishna Vinyls Group
29. Kriti Industries (India) Ltd.
30. KS Plastics
31. Manish Packaging Private Limited
32. Maxx Impex Private Limited
33. Megha Industries
34. MM Plastics
35. Nouvelle Credits Private Limited
36. Omega Plasto Limited
37. Oriplast Limited
38. Oswal Cable Products Limited
39. Oxyde Chemicals & Polymers India Private Limited
40. Par Petrochem Limited
41. Poly Extrusions Private Limited
42. Polycab Cables Private Limited
43. Prakash Industries
44. Premier Polyfilm Limited
45. Prfint Crafts
46. Prince Pipes and Fittings Limited
47. R.S. Overseas Private Limited
48. Royal Cushion Vinyl Product Limited
49. Sam Polymers
50. Sandeep Organics Private Limited
51. Sankhla Industries
52. Shalimar Rexine India Limited
53. Shantilal Mahendra Kumar
54. Signet Overseas Limited
55. Sintex Industries Limited
56. Sudhakar Group
57. Supreme Industries
58. Surender Commercial
59. Tirupati Group
60. Varsha Corporation Private Limited
61. Veekay Polycoats Limited
x. The following importers/users have participated in the present investigation by filing a response to the
importers’ / users’ questionnaires issued by the Authority.
1. Alstone Green India Pvt Ltd
2. Asma Traexim Pvt. Ltd.
3. Atalantic Polymers Unit-II Pvt. Ltd.
4. Caprihans India Ltd
5. Prabitha Polymers
6. Purbanchal Composite Panel (I) Pvt. Ltd.
7. Shiv Industries
8. Sushila Parmar International Private Limited
9. Terra Polyplast PVT LTD
10. Wanhua International (India) Pvt. Ltd.
11. Yamuna Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
xi. The Plastics Export Promotion Council (PLEXCONCIL) has filed injury submission.
xii. The Authority issued economic interest questionnaire to all interested parties and concerned ministry.
The following parties have filed a response to the economic interest questionnaire.
1. Domestic industry
2. AGC Vinythai Public Limited Company
3. Alstone Green India Pvt Ltd
4. Asma Traexim Pvt. Ltd
5. Atalantic Polymers Unit-II Pvt. Ltd.
6. Cheongfuli (Hongkong) Company Limited
7. China Salt Chemical International Trading Co. Ltd.
8. CNSIG Jiltani Chlor – Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd.
9. GCM Polymer Trading DMCC Company Limited
10. Hanwha Corporation
11. IVICT (Singapore) Pte. Ltd
12. Kaneka Corporation
13. Kanematsu Corporation
14. Marubeni Corporation
15. Mitsubishi Corporation
16. Mitsui & Co., Ltd
17. Prabitha Polymers
18. PT Asahimas Chemical
19. PTT Global Chemical Public Company Limited
20. Purbanchal Composite Panel (I) Pvt. Ltd.
21. Qingdao Haiwan Chemical Co. Ltd.
22. SAR Overseas Limited
23. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd
24. Shiv Industries
25. Sojitz Asia Pte Limited
26. Stavian Chemical JSC
27. Sunshine International Pvt Ltd
28. Sushila Parmar International Private Limited
29. Taiyo Vinyl Corporation
30. Terra Polyplast PVT LTD
31. Texpo International Limited
32. Thai Plastics and Chemicals Plc.
33. Thai Polyethylene Co. Ltd
34. Tianjin Bohua Chemical Developments
35. Tokuyama Corporation
36. Tokuyama Sekisui Co. Ltd
37. Tosoh Nikkemi Corporation
38. Yamuna Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
39. Yibin Haifeng Herui Co. Ltd.
40. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co. Ltd.
41. Yibin Tianyuan Materials Industry Group Ltd.
xiii. Information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to
sufficiency of the confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the
confidentiality claims wherever warranted and such information has been considered as confidential
and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on
confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed
on confidential basis.
xiv. The interested parties were asked vide notification dated 25th June, 2024 and 30th July, 2024 to share
the non-confidential version of the responses, submissions and evidence presented by them with the
other interested parties.
xv. The Authority conducted a meeting dated 30th April, 2024 where all the interested parties were invited
to give their comments on the scope of the product under consideration and PCN methodology. Based
on the submissions made by the interested parties, the Authority finalized the scope of the product
under consideration and the PCN methodology vide notification dated 13th May, 2024.
xvi. Request was made to the DG Systems to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of the subject
goods for the past three years, and the period of investigation, which was received by the Authority.
The Authority has relied upon the DG Systems data for computation of the volume of imports and its
analysis after due examination of the transactions.
xvii. The Non-Injurious Price (NIP) has been determined based on the cost of production and cost to make
& sell the subject goods in India based on the information furnished by the domestic industry,
maintained as per Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), has been worked out so as to
ascertain whether the present interim anti-dumping duty would be sufficient to remove injury to the
domestic industry.
xviii. The period of investigation for the purpose of the present anti-dumping investigation is from
1st October, 2022 to 30th September, 2023 (12 Months). The injury investigation period has been
considered as the period from 1st April, 2020 - 31st March, 2021, 1st April, 2021 – 31st March, 2022, 1st
April, 2022 – 31st March, 2023 and the period of investigation.
xix. The information/data submitted by the applicants has been examined during desk study and relied upon
for the purpose of preliminary findings, which will be verified at the appropriate stage from the
original records of the applicants.
xx. '***' in this preliminary finding represents information furnished on confidential basis and so
considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xxi. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1USD = ₹ 83.21
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1 Submissions by the other interested parties
4. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the product under
consideration and like article.
i. While the domestic industry has claimed that K-Value is the most important parameter, no PCN has
been proposed on the basis of K-Value. The cost and price of various grades of PVC ranges between
15-20%.
ii. There is a need to devise PCN based on production process. However, other interested parties stated
that the PCN-Wise assessment is not warranted in the present investigation.
iii. The product excluded from the scope of the product under consideration should be specifically
mentioned in the duty table.
iv. Only the grades commercially produced and sold by the domestic industry during the period of
investigation should be included within the scope of the product under consideration.
v. Grade HRTP4000, LS070, LS170 and LS300 produced by LG Chem should be excluded from the
scope of the product under consideration as it is ultra-high molecular weight PVC.
vi. Grades SG840, SM760, SM76E and SM84E produced by TPE should be excluded from the scope of
the product under consideration as they contain higher K-value compared to grades produced by the
domestic industry. The price of such grades is higher than the grades supplied by the domestic
industry. These grades are not produced by the domestic industry and are not commercially
substitutable with the grades produced by the domestic industry.
vii. Grades S-400 : KV51, S1007 : KV58, S1008 : KV61, S1004 : KV73, KS-1700 : KV77, KS-2500 :
KV85 and KS-3000 : KV88 produced by Kaneka Corporation should be excluded from the scope of
the product under consideration as like article for such grades is not produced by the domestic
industry.
viii. Grades TK-2500HE, GR-600S, GR-700S, TK-800, TK-500, TK-600, TK-1700E, TK-2000E, TK 2500LS, TK-2500HS, TK-2500PE, GR-800T, GR-1300T, GR-1300S, and GR-2500S produced by
Shin-Etsu should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as the domestic
industry does not produce a like article to these grades.
ix. Grades ZEST 700Z, ZEST 1000Z and ZEST 1300SI produced by Tokuyama should be excluded from
the scope of the product under consideration as the domestic industry does not produce a like article to
these grades.
x. Taiyo produces Ethylene and PVC Copolymer, EVA PVC Graft Copolymer and Modified High
Polymerization PVC Resin which are copolymer PVC and cross-linked PVC, such products should be
considered outside the scope of the product under consideration.
xi. Grades TH-800, TH-1700, TH-2500, TH-2800, TH-3000 and TH-3800 produced by Taiyo should be
excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as the domestic industry does not produce
a like article to these grades.
xii. Grade TL700 should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as it has a very
low-K value which is not produced by the domestic industry.
xiii. Grade WH800 produced by Wanhua should be excluded from the scope of the product under
consideration as the same falls in the range of K-Value 60-64 which is not produced by the domestic
industry.
xiv. PVC resin off grade, PVC resin floor sweep, PVC resin pond resin (PVC off grade) should be
excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as these are mixed with prime grades in
order to produce flooring. Such product is imported in smaller quantities and is priced much lower than
the prime grade.
xv. PVC Suspension Resins with K value 57 should be excluded from the scope of the product under
consideration since the same is not produced by the domestic industry.
xvi. The domestic industry is not supplying K value 55 and 60 and such product should be excluded from
the scope of the product under consideration.
xvii. The scope of the product under consideration may be revised as the domestic industry has the capacity
to manufacture PVC Suspension Resins with K-Value from 57 to 72 only.
xviii. The reason for excluding mass polymerization from the scope of the product under consideration must
be clarified since both are used to produce CPVC and have similar specifications and applications.
xix. The user industry is using specialty grade of PVC Suspension Resins which are similar to
characteristics of mass PVC for manufacturing C-PVC. Since the domestic industry is not supplying
the same or technically and commercially substitutable grade, it should be excluded from the scope of
the product under consideration.
xx. The grades imported by Epigral are of higher porosity and higher apparent density. Such grades are not
supplied by the domestic industry.
xxi. The domestic industry also imports specialty grades for manufacturing C-PVC and does not use PVC
manufactured by it captively. This is evident from the transcript of investors call of DCW Limited.
Thus, such grades are not produced by the domestic industry.
C.2 Submissions made by the Domestic Industry
5. The submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to product under consideration and like article
are as follows:
i. The product under consideration is Homopolymer of Vinyl Chloride Monomer (suspension grade) also
known as PVC Suspension Resins.
ii. PVC Resins produced through emulsion polymerization process, bulk mass polymerization process
and micro suspension polymerization process are excluded from the scope of the product under
consideration.
iii. The scope of the product under consideration excludes cross-linked PVC, CPVC, VC-Vac, PVC Paste
Resins, Mass Polymerization PVC and PVC Blending Resin.
iv. The subject goods are manufactured using vinyl chloride monomer which is polymerized through
suspension process. Vinyl chloride monomer can be obtained through either EDC (ethylene) route or
carbide route. In either case, the final product is the same.
v. The product under consideration has a dedicated HS code 39041020. However, 17% of the imports of
the product under consideration have been made under other HS Codes during the period of
investigation.
vi. There is no need for PCN wise analysis in the present investigation. Contrary submissions have been
made by the other interested parties with regard to need for PCNs. Most of the interested parties have
submitted that PCNs are not required.
vii. As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, PCN based on production process is not
required since the production process does not lead to change in price of the product and the difference
is less than 5%.
viii. As opposed to the submissions made by Hanwha, the price of product does not vary significantly
between various K-values.
ix. The domestic industry produces PVC Suspension Resins with K-Value between 57 and 75.5 and there
is a + / - 1 K-value tolerance. The Authority may exclude product with K value below 56 and above 76
from the scope of the product under consideration.
x. A product type can be excluded only if it is imported into India and a like article is not offered by the
domestic industry. No exclusion is warranted for the product types not imported into India.
xi. As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, there is nothing called a specialty grade
of PVC Suspension resins. In case, an exclusion is given for “specialty grades”, the exporters may
classify everything as specialty grade and circumvent the duty.
xii. In case there were some “specialty grades” of PVC, the cost of production of such grades should have
been different, but Epigral Limited has not filed any submission regarding different PCN for such
grades.
xiii. As analysed from import data, Epigral Limited has imported regular grade of the product under
consideration which has also been imported by other consumers in India.
xiv. Since DCW Limited commenced production of CPVC in the new plant, it is using its own PVC
suspension resins for making CPVC. Further, the company used SPVC produced by other producers to
test suitability of different SPVC for making CPVC. It is not regularly importing any foreign
producer’s material for manufacturing of CPVC. DCW plans to use its own PVC suspension resins for
production of CPVC.
xv. DCW purchased SPVC from a number of traders during the period of investigation for testing the same
in its CPVC plant. At this time, the domestic industry was testing use of SPVC for manufacturing
CPVC.
xvi. DCW Limited has used PVC suspension resins manufactured by various suppliers for manufacturing
CPVC.
xvii. Reliance Industries Limited is also setting up a new plant for C-PVC and plans to use captively
produced PVC Suspension Resins.
xviii. IS 17988 related to C-PVC does not mention any specialty grade for manufacturing C-PVC but only
mentions PVC Suspension Resins. Further, even the investor call for Epigral Limited does not mention
any specialty grade for C-PVC.
xix. All domestic producers of the subject goods hold BIS licenses for manufacturing PVC Suspension
resins and adhere to the standards specified.
xx. BIS standards do not mention porosity or heat stability as one of the essential characteristics of PVC
suspension resins.
xxi. While DCW Limited holds BIS license to manufacture CPVC, Epigral Limited does not even hold a
BIS license in this regard.
xxii. Epigral Limited produces only 2 grades of CPVC, namely, MM67K and MM57K and has imported
mass PVC as well as suspension PVC from various manufacturers. This establishes the
interchangeability of different suspension resins for manufacturing CPVC.
xxiii. Since PVC suspension resins are manufactured in batches, no two batches have exact same
specifications which is evident from the range specified in BIS as well as TDS. Thus, Epigral has used
PVC of different specifications to manufacture CPVC.
xxiv. SPVC supplied by the Indian industry has porosity and apparent viscosity both lower and higher than
grades imported by Epigral.
xxv. Epigral cannot claim its viability based on dumped prices of PVC. Since it uses Mass PVC as well
which is higher priced, its viability will not be impacted due to fair prices of PVC suspension resins.
xxvi. Epigral has not shown that it has approached domestic producers of the product and tested their
product for manufacturing CPVC and hence, found that the grades manufactured by the domestic
industry are not appropriate for manufacturing CPVC.
xxvii. The product manufactured by the domestic industry is commercially and technically substitutable and
is being used by the consumers interchangeably. Thus, product produced by the domestic industry is
like article to the product imported from the subject countries.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
6. At the time of initiation of the present investigation, the Authority considered the product under consideration
as “Homopolymer of Vinyl Chloride Monomer (suspension grade)” also known as PVC Suspension Resin.
This type of resin has various polymer chains that are not linked to each other. The product under consideration
has also been referred to as “Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) Resin”, “Suspension Grade” or “PVC Suspension
Resin”.
7. The Authority conducted a meeting dated 30th April, 2024 regarding scope of the product under consideration
and PCN. Post receiving comments from all the interested parties, and after examining them, the scope of the
product under consideration was modified vide notification dated 13th May 2024 to exclude certain product
types. The Authority has considered the product under consideration as following for the purpose of the
present investigation.
“Homopolymer of Vinyl Chloride Monomer (suspension grade) also known as PVC Suspension Resin
manufactured through suspension polymerisation process with K-value above 55 and upto 77.”
8. The Authority notes that the other interested parties have requested exclusion for specialty grade of PVC
Suspension Resins used for manufacturing C-PVC. The domestic industry has submitted that there is nothing
called “specialty grade” of PVC Suspension Resins. As per the analysis of import data, and information made
available by interested parties, Epigral has imported the grades of PVC Suspension Resins which have also
been imported by other importers (non-manufacturers of C-PVC) in India, as well as by DCW Ltd during the
post POI.
9. The Authority notes that the Bureau of Indian Standards has issued “IS 17988:2022” related to C-PVC. The
relevant extract of the said standard is as below.
“5.1 Basic Resin: CPVC resin is manufactured by chlorination of PVC Homopolymer confirming to IS
17658”
The Authority notes that the standard does not refer to any specialty grade of PVC Suspension Resins for
manufacturing C-PVC.
10. The Authority notes that as per the evidence on record, the domestic industry holds the BIS license for
manufacturing PVC suspension resins and it produces the subject goods as per the specifications listed in the
BIS standards. Further, the domestic industry has provided evidence of grade wise comparison of imported
product with the product manufactured by the domestic producers. It is noted that the domestic producers of
subject goods have produced like article to the product imported from the subject countries.
11. As per the evidence on record only DCW Limited holds license for manufacturing of CPVC. DCW Limited
has provided evidence that it has used captively produced subject goods for manufacturing CPVC as well as
used grades supplied by multiple producers. Thus, it is provisionally noted that there is no requirement for a
specific grade of subject goods for manufacturing C-PVC.
12. With regard to the submissions that the domestic industry does not manufacture and supply like article to
grades used for manufacturing C-PVC, the Authority notes the following as per the press release of DCW
Limited:
“DCW Limited's competitive edge lies in its ability to use its own S-PVC (Suspension PVC) as a raw material
when market conditions are favourable. This capability guarantees a consistent quality and supply of inputs
for CPVC production, further strengthening the company’s position in the market.”
Hence, it is provisionally concluded that the domestic industry has the capacity to manufacture and supply
grades used for manufacturing of C-PVC.
13. Further, the Authority notes that prior to issuance of the present preliminary findings, Epigral Limited had
approached Hon’ble Gujarat High Court against the ongoing investigation for consideration of the exclusion
request. The Hon’ble Court held that the petition filed was pre-mature, and was accordingly dismissed.
14. The Authority notes that Epigral Limited has requested exclusion of few grades of PVC Suspension Resins
terming the same as “specialty grades”. Epigral has claim confidentiality with regard to its additional
submissions on exclusion of specialised grades imported for manufacture of C-PVC. Such confidentiality
claimed is excessive and thus, does not allow other interested parties including the domestic industry to rebut
the claims made by Epigral. The Authority is advising to Epigral to share a proper non-confidential version of
the submissions which allow reasonable understanding of the same. The Authority intends to examine the
issue of exclusions requested by Epigral post circulation of such submissions and receiving comments from
the domestic industry, thereafter.
15. The interested parties may provide further information and evidence with regard to the possible
need for exclusion of any grade. The authority would consider all the submissions made by Epigral, domestic
industry and interested parties for the purpose of final determination, after providing opportunity of
submissions by the interested parties and an opportunity of being heard orally.
16. The product under consideration in the present investigation excludes the following
i. Ultra-Low K-Value PVC Suspension Resins (K-value upto 55)
ii. Ultra-High K-Value PVC Suspension Resins (K-value above 77)
iii. Cross-linked PVC
iv. Chlorinated PVC (CPVC),
v. Vinyl chloride – vinyl acetate copolymer (VC-VAC),
vi. PVC paste resin/emulsion resins
vii. Mass Polymerisation PVC
viii. Polyvinyl Chloride Blending Resins.
Further, PVC resins manufactured through emulsion polymerisation, PVC resins manufactured through bulk
mass polymerization, and PVC resins manufactured through micro suspension polymerization process are
also excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.
17. PVC Suspension Resins is produced using suspension polymerization technology. In order to produce the
subject goods, Vinyl Chloride Monomer (“VCM”) is converted into Vinyl Polymer through polymerization
process. VCM is either produced using ethylene dichloride (“EDC”) or by using Calcium Carbide
(“Carbide”). PVC produced vide ethylene route as well as carbide route is included within the scope of the
product under consideration.
18. The Authority notes that a number of interested parties have filed comments on requirement of PCN in the
present investigation. Most of the interested parties have submitted that there is no requirement of PCN in the
present investigation. The Authority notes that there have been a number of investigations into imports of the
product under consideration from various countries in the past, and the Authority has not adopted any PCN in
any of the past investigations.
19. The interested parties, which have requested for adoption of a PCN methodology, have based the same on K Value and the production process. However, the foreign producers have not provided any information to
show that there is a substantial difference in the costs of the products produced having different K-values. As
per the data available on record, the cost and price of the product does not vary significantly between
different K-Values. Further, the price of the product under consideration does not vary based on the
production process as the final product manufactured using both the routes is the same and is used by the
users interchangeably. Accordingly, there is no requirement of PCN in the present investigation.
20. With regard to the contention that certain grades produced by certain foreign producers must be excluded
from the scope of the product under consideration, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has
provided evidence that it produces PVC Suspension Resins with K-value 57 and 75.5. The Authority has
excluded ultra-low and ultra-high k-value which has not been manufactured by the domestic industry. The
grades specified by the other interested parties with ultra-low K value and ultra-high K value have been
automatically excluded with the said exclusions.
21. With regard to the grades which fall within the range of K-value included in the product under consideration,
the Authority notes that the like article for such grade has been supplied by the domestic industry and hence,
there is no need for exclusion of such product from the scope of the product under consideration.
22. With regard to exclusion of off-grade PVC, the Authority notes that off-grade product cannot be excluded
from the scope of the product under consideration. Off-grade product is not produced specifically by any
manufacturer but is a result of the normal production process of any article. Merely because a product has
been sold as off-grade product, the same does not imply that it does not constitute product under
consideration. It is also noted in this regard that the Authority has consistently held that the mere difference in
quality is immaterial to decide the scope of the product under consideration. Further, exclusion of off-grade
PVC is likely to lead to circumvention of anti-dumping duty. In any case, the interested parties have not
provided any evidence to demonstrate that these lower quality grades are not competing with the like article
manufactured by the domestic industry.
23. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 39 of Schedule I to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the
Customs classification 3904 10 20. However, the product under consideration is also being imported under
HS Codes 3904 10 90, 3904 21 00, 3904 10 10, 3904 22 00, 3904 90 10, 3904 90 90, 3904 30 00 and 3904 21
10. The Customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on the scope of the product under
consideration.
24. The product produced by the domestic industry is like article to the goods imported from the subject
countries. The product produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject countries are
comparable in terms of physical & chemical properties, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing,
distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. Even though there are different manufacturing
process/technologies involved for production of the subject goods, the end product has comparable
specifications and is used interchangeably. The product produced by the domestic industry and imported into
India from the subject country is technically and commercially substitutable, and the consumers are using the
two interchangeably. In view of the same, the product manufactured by the domestic industry has been
considered as like article to the product imported into India, in accordance with Rule 2(d) of the Rules.
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1 Submission of other interested parties
25. No submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the scope of the domestic
industry and standing.
D.2 Submissions made by the Domestic Industry
26. The submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to scope of the domestic industry and standing
are as follows:
i. The application has been filed by Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited, DCM Shriram Limited and
DCW Limited.
ii. There are two other domestic producers in India, namely, Finolex Industries Limited and Reliance
Industries Limited. The other domestic producers have imported the product under consideration from
the subject countries during the period of investigation. Thus, such producers should be considered
ineligible for constituting the domestic industry in the present investigation.
iii. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and DCW Limited produce the subject goods using the EDC
Route, while DCM Shriram Limited produces the subject goods using the carbide route.
iv. The applicants have not imported the product under consideration from the subject countries and are
not related to any importer in India or any exporter from the subject countries.
v. In case, the other domestic producers are considered ineligible, the applicants account for 100%
production of like article in India.
vi. In case, the other domestic producers are not considered ineligible, the applicants still account for a
major proportion of domestic production in India and thus, satisfy the requirement as per Rule 2(b) and
Rule 5 of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
27. Rule 2(b) of the Rules defines domestic industry as follows:
“(b) "domestic industry" means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the
like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such
producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves
importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry' may be construed as referring to the rest of
the producers.”
28. The application for initiation of the present investigation has been filed by Chemplast Cuddalore Private
Limited, DCM Shriram Limited and DCW Limited. The applicants have submitted that there are two other
producers of the subject goods in India, that is Finolex Industries Limited and Reliance Industries Limited. It
is noted that the applicants have not imported the product under consideration and are not related to any
importer in India or any exporter from the subject countries.
29. The applicants have submitted that the other domestic producers have imported the product under
consideration from the subject countries during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the other
domestic producers have not made any submissions in this regard. Accordingly, the Authority has relied upon
the data received from DG Systems and the submissions made by the applicants. Since Finolex Industries
Limited and Reliance Industries Limited are involved in importing the product under consideration, the
Authority has, provisionally, considered them ineligible for the purpose of determining standing of domestic
industry.
30. Accordingly, the Authority, provisionally, holds that for the purpose of this investigation, the applicants
account for 100% of the domestic production in India and satisfy the standing requirement of Rule 2(b) read
with Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
31. The Authority further notes that, in case, the production of Finolex Industries Limited and Reliance Industries
Limited are considered for the purpose of determining standing, the applicants still account for major
proportion of domestic production in India and thus, satisfy the requirement of Rule 2(b) read with Rule 5(3)
of the Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1 Submission of other interested parties
32. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to confidentiality.
i. The applicants have claimed excessive confidentiality as they have failed to share aggregate data for sales
value, sales value and price for captive consumption, PBIT, interest and finance cost, depreciation and
amortization expenses and calculation of non-injurious price and normal value.
ii. The applicants have not provided sales quantity, price and value under two separate headings, that is,
domestic sales – SSI and domestic sales – other than SSI.
iii. The domestic industry has not disclosed the name of the producer whose information has been used to
calculate the normal value for countries other than China PR.
iv. The domestic industry has claimed the details of plant shutdown confidential when the information for
DCW Limited is already in the public domain.
v. While the applicants have claimed that they have not imported the product under consideration during
the period of investigation, imports have been reported in Proforma IV-A which have been claimed
confidential.
vi. Quantum of anti-dumping duty considered for calculation of impact has not been disclosed.
vii. The applicants have claimed the entire sentences confidential in the petition due to which the other
interested parties are unable to comprehend the information submitted.
viii. The domestic industry has not provided details of funds raised in the application.
E.2 Submissions made by the Domestic Industry
33. The submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to confidentiality are as follows:
i. A number of foreign producers have claimed the names of traders and exporters which have exported
their product to India confidential.
ii. A number of producers / exporters have claimed excessive confidentiality as they have not disclosed
the distribution and marketing channel as well as details about related companies, nature of expenses
claimed as adjustment, production process and names of raw material.
iii. Product catalogue and brochure as well as list of products sold which is routinely shared with the
customers have been claimed confidential.
iv. A number of parties have not provided justification for confidentiality in accordance with Trade Notice
01/2013.
v. A number of producers and exporters have claimed company affiliations, shareholding and names of
producers of the product exported by them as confidential.
vi. Details and nature of post invoicing discount given has been claimed confidential.
vii. The other interested parties have not adhered to the requirement of Trade Notice 10/2018.
viii. Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co., Ltd. has not provided the organization chart and structure to enable
the domestic industry to comment upon the involvement of Government of China in the functioning of
the entity. List of shareholders, details of whether raw material and utilities have been purchased from
related or unrelated entity situated in China, selection procedure for recruitment of personnels and
governing laws have been claimed confidential.
E.3 Examination by the Authority
34. Rule 7 of the Anti-Dumping Rules provides as follows:
“7. Confidential Information:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12,
sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule
(1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by
any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its
confidentiality, be 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 interested 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 summarisation 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.”
35. The information provided by all the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to
sufficiency of the confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality
claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the
other interested parties. Wherever possible, the parties providing information on confidential basis were
directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.
36. A list of all registered interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR’s 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.
37. With regard to the submissions that the domestic industry has not shared certain parameters, the Authority
notes that certain parameters do not form part of the requirements notified vide Trade Notice No. 05/2021.
With regard to the pricing information not disclosed by the domestic industry, the Authority notes that the
domestic industry has submitted that such information is business proprietary in nature and disclosure of
same will adversely impact its interest in the market and provide an estimate of prices being charged and
margins being retained by the applicants to other domestic producers, exporters as well as the consumers of
the product. Disclosure of such average pricing would also allow the customers to benchmark the prices
being paid by them, versus the average price in the market. The Authority has hence, accepted the
confidentiality claim of the domestic industry in this regard.
F. MISCELLENEOUS SUBMISSIONS
F.1 Submission by the other interested parties
38. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties.
i. The import data filed by the applicants in the form and manner that it was taken on record must be
shared with the other interested parties.
ii. The applicants must submit and circulate updated petition for the period of investigation considered by
the Authority in the initiation notification.
iii. Initiation of the present investigation is without any basis as the applicants have not presented
substantive evidence to prove condition of initiation of anti-dumping investigations.
iv. The applicants are taking undue advantage of anti-dumping duty as the product has been subject to
anti-dumping duty for a long period of time.
v. There is a need to select a longer period of investigation as the PVC prices were low during the base
year and increased significantly due to COVID-19. The prices have stabilized only in 2023.
vi. The domestic producers in India have increased their prices after initiation of the present investigation.
F.2 Submissions made by the Domestic Industry
39. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry.
i. PLEXCONCIL does not have locus standi as an interested party in the present investigation since it is
an association of exporters and not importers or users and the submissions made by such association
should not be considered.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
40. The other interested parties have submitted that the domestic industry must share the import data. The
Authority notes that the domestic industry has relied upon its market intelligence at the time of filing the
application and the summary of the import data has been shared will all the interested parties. A non confidential summary of the same was shared with all interested parties. None of the interested parties have
provided any cogent evidence to refute the information contained in the non-confidential version of the
import data.
41. With regard to the contention that the domestic industry is required to file updated petition based on the
period of investigation decided by the Authority in the initiation notification, the Authority notes that the
domestic industry has submitted and circulated updated data based on the period of investigation considered
by the Authority. There is no requirement for the domestic industry to file an updated petition post initiation
of investigation. A petition is filed under Rule 5 of the Anti-Dumping Rules for the purpose of initiation of
anti-dumping investigation. However, once the investigation is initiated, Rule 6 becomes applicable, which
does not require the domestic industry to file a petition. In any case, the updated data has been circulated to
all the interested parties and hence, no prejudice has been caused to the interest of any party.
42. The Authority does not find merit in contention of the other interested parties that the present investigation is
initiated without any basis. The Authority notes that the domestic industry had submitted the prima facie
evidence of dumping, injury and causal link in their application. Only after examining the prima facie
evidence, the Authority proceeded to initiate the present investigation.
43. With regard to the contention that the applicants are taking undue advantage of trade remedial measures, the
Authority notes that the subject goods have been subject to anti-dumping duty in various investigations. The
anti-dumping duty has been recommended by the Authority on being satisfied with regard to evidence of
dumping, injury and causal link. In each of the findings, the Authority has examined the relevant parameters
and have come to a conclusion that the exporters have engaged in unfair trade practice of dumping.
Accordingly, the anti-dumping duty has been recommended.
44. With regard to selection of longer period of investigation, the Authority has selected the period of
investigation as per the Rules and trade notices. Since the Authority has examined the performance of the
domestic industry as well as imports in the period of investigation compared to base year as well as year on
year performance, no prejudice has been caused to the interest of any interested party for selecting a one year
long period of investigation.
45. The Authority notes that the increase in selling price of the subject goods by the domestic producers have to
be seen in light of the changes in the cost of sales of the subject goods. Mere change in selling price alone is
not sufficient to show that the dumping of subject goods in India has stopped causing injury to the domestic
industry.
G. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT (MET), NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE &
DETERMINATION OF DUMPING MARGIN
G.1 Submissions by the other interested parties
46. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the market economy
treatment, normal value, export price and dumping margin.
i. The dumping margin determined by the domestic industry is inflated and the actual data of the
exporters must be used to determine the normal value, export price and dumping margin.
ii. While Formosa Taiwan has participated in the present investigation, its related party Formosa USA has
not exported to India during the period of investigation directly or indirectly and thus, has not filed a
response.
iii. China PR cannot be treated as a non-market economy the practice of treating China PR as a non market economy was bound to expire on 11th December 2016.
iv. Appellate Body report in Fastener case against EU has provided strong justification that China PR
should automatically obtain market-economy status.
v. Following the principles of “pacta sunt servanda”, India is obligated under the international law to
recognize China PR as a market economy. Article 15 of China’s accession protocol clearly establishes
that no country can treat China PR as a non-market economy post 11th December 2016. India does not
have a legal basis to do otherwise.
vi. The sampling has been notified at a belated stage, that is, after 80 days of the initiation, contrary to
what has been provided for in the Manual.
vii. Sufficient time has not been provided to the interested parties for filing comments on sampling
notification.
viii. Reason for not undertaking sampling in case of USA must be given, as the difference in approach
taken for sampling for Japan and USA is arbitrary. Sampling of producers from Japan and not the US,
indicates discretion contrary to the obligation under Rule 17(3).
ix. Sampling must not be undertaken as the subject goods constitute of many grades, all of which are not
produced by all of the producers.
x. Sampling was not undertaken in previous investigations with multiple subject
countries.
xi. In the Sunset Review Investigation of PVC from Taiwan, China PR, Indonesia, Japan, Korea RP,
Malaysia, Thailand and USA, sampling was undertaken for only for producers from China PR.
xii. Since the exporters have filed voluntary responses, the same must be considered for determination of
individual dumping margin in accordance with Rule 17 (3) of the AD Rules 1995 and Article 6.10.2 of
Anti-dumping Agreement. The term “shall” used under Rule 17(3) creates a mandatory obligation to
determine an individual dumping margin for a voluntary respondent.
xiii. Tianjin and Wanhua Group must be sampled for individual margin as they have significant share in
Indian market, are regular suppliers of the subject goods, and their exports are comparable to exports
made by sampled exporters.
xiv. Tianjin and Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co. Ltd. are 100% FDI companies, unlike the sampled
companies, and operate under market economy conditions. Formosa has also filed a Market Economy
Treatment questionnaire.
xv. Wanhua Group must be sampled as it produces the subject goods with an ethylene-based process,
comparable with the domestic industry; which has higher prices and will be subject to a lower duty.
xvi. The sample companies notified for China PR are located in North China. Yibin Haifeng Herui Co,
(along with its related traders) are located in South China and operate on different costs and sales
prices. Yubin Herui, Yibin Tianyuan and Yibin Tianyuan Materials must be included in the sample.
G.2 Submissions by the Domestic Industry
47. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to market economy
treatment, normal value, export price and dumping margin:
i. China PR should be treated as a non-market economy in accordance with Article 15(a)(i) of China’s
accession protocol, and the normal value should be determined in accordance with Para 7 of Annexure
I to the Rules.
ii. The normal value for the China PR has been determined based on cost of production of [DCM Shriram
Limited] duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profits.
iii. The normal value for other subject countries has been determined based on cost of production of [
Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited] duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses
and reasonable profits.
iv. The applicants have made adjustments with regard to ocean freight, marine insurance, commission,
port expenses, bank charges and inland freight in order to determine ex-factory export price.
v. The dumping margin is positive and significant.
vi. 28 producers/exporters from China and 5 producers/exporters from Japan have filed questionnaire
responses as per the interested party list, which is a high number to permit individual determination.
vii. Given low volumes of exports by certain parties, it is obvious that their product profile and exports
pattern is not representative of exports into India, in terms of both product profile and time period.
viii. In the past, Chinese producers who have had negligible export volumes in the period of investigation,
after getting individual lower duty, flood the Indian market, such as in the case of PET resin.
ix. Global norm in sampling is to consider at most three companies:
a. In Ceramic Tiles from India, Europe originally considered three companies and refused to extend
sampling size to four companies even following aggressive representations from the company at
number 4.
b. In Wood Pulp from Canada, the MOFCOM refused to individually determine dumping margin for
the company at number 3, even though the companies in the first three places were exporting
almost equal volume.
c. In Ceramic Tiles and Sanitarywares, the GCC sampled three companies while keeping a reserve of
2 companies, as is the standard of practice in the GCC.
d. The USA considers more than two companies as ‘unduly burdensome’. In the matter of Quartz
Surface from India, out of 50 companies considered, investigation and determination of dumping
margin was carried out only for two companies, the results of which were extended to the others.
x. Filing of questionnaire response on voluntary basis cannot be grounds to determine individual
dumping margin.
xi. Exports of niche grade or special products cannot be grounds for inclusion in the sampled group as
such supply would indicate that the response and the data of the company would not be representative
of the responding companies and imports from China PR.
G.3 Examination by the Authority
48. The Authority had sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject countries, advising
them to provide the information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority. Responses to
questionnaire response has been filed by the following producers/exporters.
i. Inner Mongolia Chemical Industry Company Ltd.
ii. Inner Mongolia Erdos Electric Power and Metallurgy Group Co., Ltd.
iii. Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co., Ltd.
iv. Formosa Plastics Corporation
v. Simosa International Co. Ltd.
vi. Itochu Plastics Pte., Ltd.
vii. ITOCHU Corporation
viii. ITOCHU (Thailand) Ltd.
ix. China General Plastics Corporation
x. CGPC Polymer Corporation
xi. Grand Dignity Industrial Co. Ltd.
xii. Wanhua Chemical (Fujian) Co., Ltd.
xiii. Wanhua Petrochemical (Yantai) Co., Ltd.
xiv. Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
xv. Grand Dignity
xvi. Chiping Xinfa Polyvinyl Chloride Co., Ltd
xvii. Chiping Xinfa Huaxing Chemical Co., Ltd
xviii. Shandong Xinfa Import & Export Co., Ltd
xix. Jiali Bio Group (Qingdao) Limited
xx. Yue Xiu Textiles Co., Ltd
xxi. Xinjiang Zhongtai Import & Export Co., Ltd
xxii. Zhong Tai International Development (HK) Limited
xxiii. Xinjiang Shengxiong Chlor-Alkali Co., Ltd
xxiv. Guangxi Huayi Chlor-Alkali Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxv. Shanghai Chlor-Alkali Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxvi. Joc International Technical Engineering Co., Ltd.
xxvii. Tianjin Lg Bohai Chemical. Co. Ltd
xxviii. LG Chem, Ltd.
xxix. Canko Marketing
xxx. TS Corporation
xxxi. Ordos Junzheng Energy & Chemical Industry Co., Ltd
xxxii. Inner Mongolia Junzheng Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.
xxxiii. Shaanxi Beiyuan Chemical Industry Group Co
xxxiv. Henan Pulite Import And Export Trade Co., Limited
xxxv. Chemdo Group Company Limited
xxxvi. United Raw Material Pte. Ltd.
xxxvii. Cosmoss Vu Limited
xxxviii. Tun Wa Industrial Co. Ltd.
xxxix. SAR Overseas Limited
xl. Kaneka Corporation
xli. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd
xlii. Taiyo Vinyl Corporation
xliii. Tokuyama Corporation
xliv. Tokuyama Sekisui Co. Ltd
xlv. Tosoh Nikkemi Corporation
xlvi. Mitsui & Co., Ltd
xlvii. Mitsubishi Corporation
xlviii. IVICT (Singapore) Pte. Ltd
xlix. Kanematsu Corporation
l. Marubeni Corporation
li. Sojitz Asia Pte Limited
lii. PT Asahimas Chemical
liii. AGC Vinythai Public Limited Company
liv. GCM Polymer Trading DMCC Company Limited
lv. PTT Global Chemical Public Company Limited
lvi. Thai Polyethylene Co. Ltd
lvii. Thai Plastics and Chemicals Plc.
lviii. Qingdao Haiwan Chemical Co. Ltd.
lix. CNSIG Jiltani Chlor – Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd.
lx. China Salt Chemical International Trading Co. Ltd.
lxi. Yibin Haifeng Herui Co. Ltd.
lxii. Yibin Tianyuan Materials Industry Group Ltd.
lxiii. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co. Ltd.
lxiv. Tianjin Bohua Chemical Developments
lxv. Cheongfuli (Hongkong) Company Limited
lxvi. Hanwa Corporation
lxvii. Stavian Chemical JSC
lxviii. Sunshine International Pvt Ltd
lxix. Texpo International Limited
49. As per the provisions of Rule 17, while the Authority shall determine individual dumping margin in respect
of all those producers/exporters who have filed questionnaire responses, in a situation where a large number
of producers/ exporters have filed questionnaire responses, the Authority may resort to sampling by limiting
the response to a limited number of producers. The Rules provides as follows in this regard.
17(3) The designated authority shall determine an individual margin of dumping for each known
exporter or producer concerned of the article under investigation:
Provided that in cases where the number of exporters, producers, importers or types of articles
involved are so large as to make such determination impracticable, it may limit its findings either to a
reasonable number of interested parties or articles by using statistically valid samples based on
information available at the time of selection, or to the largest percentage of the volume of the exports
from the country in question which can reasonably be investigated, and any selection, of exporters,
producers, or types of articles, made under this proviso shall preferably be made in consultation with
and with the consent of the exporters, producers or importers concerned :
Provided further that the designated authority shall, determine an individual margin of dumping for
any exporter or producer, though not selected initially, who submit necessary information in time,
except where the number of exporters or producers are so large that individual examination would be
unduly burdensome and prevent the timely completion of the investigation.
50. In view of the large number of responses, the Authority considered sampling of producers. The same was
proposed vide notification dated 28th August 2024. After receiving comments from various parties, the
sampled producers were notified vide notification dated 23rd September 2024. The sample considered was
based on the volume of exports to India, with the producers having the largest volume of exports, being
considered as a part of the sample. The Authority notes that even though only three producers are selected
within sample, the number of producers/exporters, for whom duty would be quantified, is much higher.
51. The interested parties have contended that the time allowed for furnishing comments on sampling was too
low. The Authority notes that 2 working days were allowed to all interested parties. However, no request for
further time was received from any party.
52. Some of the interested parties have questioned why no sampling has been proposed for USA. The Authority
notes that in case of USA, a response has been filed by
Login to read full text