Gazette Tracker
Gazette Tracker
Register
Ministry of Commerce and Industry DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES

FF AD remand back proceeding Titanium Dioxide from China PR

Issue Date: 03 August 2026 Published: 07 August 2026 Published with 4 days delay
Gazette ID: CG-DL-E-07082026-275263 Download PDF Official source ↗
Back to Feed
Cite this gazette 

                    
                

            

        


        
        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                
                Core Purpose
            

            
This notification presents the final findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Titanium Dioxide originating in or exported from China PR, conducted as a remand proceeding following a judgment by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta.

        

        

        
        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    
                
                Detailed Summary
            

            
The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Commerce) issued these final findings on August 3, 2026, in Case No. AD (OI)-03/2024. This action is a remand proceeding initiated on October 17, 2025, following the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta’s judgment dated September 22, 2025, in Indian Paint Association v. Union of India & Ors. (WPO No. 148 of 2025). The High Court had quashed the DGTR’s original Final Findings (Notification No. 6/3/2024-DGTR dated February 12, 2025) and the subsequent anti-dumping duty imposed by the Central Government (Notification No. 12/2025-Customs (ADD) dated May 10, 2025). The remand specifically directed reconsideration of confidentiality issues and the disclosure of essential facts, particularly regarding the inclusion of Rutile-Sulphate Titanium Dioxide (R-S TiO2) within the product under consideration (PUC), in accordance with Rule 7(2) and Rule 16 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The Period of Investigation (POI) was October 1, 2022, to September 30, 2023, with the injury period covering April 1, 2020, to September 30, 2023. The domestic industry, comprising Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (TTPL), and VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd., alleged injury from dumped imports of "Titanium Dioxide" from China PR. The Authority affirmed that TTPL has commercially produced and sold R-S TiO2 during the injury period and POI, and that R-S TiO2 and Rutile-Chloride Titanium Dioxide (R-C TiO2) are 'like articles' in terms of Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules, justifying the inclusion of R-S TiO2 in the PUC. The Authority accepted the domestic industry's confidentiality claims for customer names and sales data, noting consistency with Trade Notice No. 1 of 2013 and international practice, but did not accept the withdrawal of 'Asian Paints' name once disclosed. The PUC is defined as "Titanium Dioxide," excluding food, pharma, skin-care, textile and fibre application, and nano or ultrafine titanium dioxide with particle size below 100 nm. Imports from China PR increased significantly by 54% from 2020-21 to the POI, reaching 2,26,869 MT in the POI and capturing 57.2% of Indian demand, while the domestic industry's market share declined to 11.9%. The domestic industry's production capacity remained constant at 82,500 MT, with capacity utilization at 56% in the POI. The Authority found that while price undercutting was not significant, imports caused substantial price suppression, with the domestic industry's selling price falling below the cost of sales in 2022-23 and the POI, leading to significant financial losses and a negative return on investment. Dumping margins for Chinese producers ranged from 35-45% for LB Group to 90-100% for Residual exporters, and injury margins ranged from 15-25% for LB Group and Non-Sampled Cooperative Producers/Exporters to 25-35% for Residual exporters. The Non-Injurious Price (NIP) was determined using a pre-tax 22% return on average capital employed. The Authority concluded that material injury to the domestic industry is due to increased dumped imports from China PR, exacerbated by China's significant surplus capacity (e.g., sampled producers alone have *** MT surplus capacity, 85-95% of Indian demand) and trade remedial actions by other countries including Brazil (interim duty 578-654 USD/MT), Eurasian Economic Union (final duty 14.27%), EU (preliminary duty 14.4%-39.7%), and the US, which could divert Chinese exports to India.

        

        

        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                
                Full Text
            

            
            

                
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 219] NEW DELHI, MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2026/SHRAVAN 12, 1948
CG-DL-E-07082026-275263

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2026
Case No. AD (OI)-03/2024
Subject: Final findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Titanium Dioxide” 
originating in or exported from China PR, pursuant to Hon’ble High Court Judgment in 
Indian Paint Association v. Union of India & Ors. (WPO No. 148 of 2025) dated 22 
September 2025, in remand proceeding.

F. No. 6/03/2024 –DGTR.—Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended 
from time to time (hereafter 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 thereof, as amended from time to time (hereafter also referred to as the “Rules”).

A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1. The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”), consequent to an application 
filed by Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., and VV Titanium 
Pigments Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “applicants” or the “domestic industry” or the
“DI”), had recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of “Titanium Dioxide”
(hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods” or “product under consideration” or the “PUC”)
originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the “subject country”) vide its 
Final Findings Notification No.6/3/2024-DGTR dated 12th February 2025.

2. Aggrieved by the recommendations of the Authority in the above referred Final Findings, Indian 
Paint Association (IPA) filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, challenging 
the Final Findings issued vide Notification No. 6/3/2024-DGTR dated 12th February 2025 and 
Disclosure Statement dated 29th January 2025. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Central 
Government imposed the anti-dumping duty vide Notification No. 12/2025-Customs (ADD) dated 
10th May 2025. 

3. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta vide its judgment dated 22nd September 2025 in Indian Paint 
Association v. Union of India & Ors. (WPO No. 148 of 2025), quashed the Final Findings dated
12th February 2025 issued by the Authority as well as Customs Notification No. 12/2025-Customs 
(ADD) dated 10th May 2025, and remanded the matter to the Designated Authority for 
reconsideration of the confidentiality issue, “from the stage of the response filed by the petitioner 
therein for the purpose of considering such issue in accordance with the observations made herein, 
and the scope and object of Rule 7(2) of the said Rules”. 

B. PROCEDURE EARLIER FOLLOWED WHILE ISSUING THE FINAL FINDINGS 
DATED 12TH FEBRUARY 2025

4. The procedure described herein below has been followed with regard to the investigation:

4.1. Initiation

i. The Authority notified the embassy of the subject country in India about the receipt of the 
present application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 
5(5) of the Rules.
ii. The Authority issued a notification dated 28th March 2024, published in Part-I Section- I of 
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating an investigation concerning the imports of the 
subject goods from the subject country.
iii. In accordance with Rule 6(2), the Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the 
embassy of the subject country in India and known producers and exporters from the subject 
country, the known importers/users of the subject goods and other interested parties, as per 
the information provided by the applicants. The interested parties were requested to provide 
relevant information in the form and manner prescribed in the initiation notification and to 
make their submissions known in writing within the time limit prescribed by the initiation 
notification.

4.2. Circulation of non-confidential version of the application 

i. The Authority also provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the 
known producers/exporters and to the embassy of the subject country in India, in accordance 
with Rule 6(3) of the Rules. A copy of the non-confidential version of the application was 
circulated to the other interested parties.
ii. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the scope of 
the PUC and proposed product control numbers (PCNs), if required, within a period of 15 
days from the date of the circulation of the non-confidential application.
iii. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the issues of 
confidentiality claimed by the domestic industry within 7 days of the circulation of the non confidential version of the document filed before the Authority.
iv. The Authority also issued an economic interest questionnaire (hereafter referred to as ‘EIQ’) 
to the interested parties seeking inputs on the economic impact of the proposed duties.

4.3. Participation by Exporters of Subject Country

i. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/ exporters in the subject
country calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
a. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co. Ltd (China)
b. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co. Ltd (China)
c. Cangwu Shunfeng Titanium Dioxide Co. Ltd (China)
d. Chemours Chenguang (China)
e. China National Blue Star Group Co. (China)
f. CNNC Hua Yuan Titanium Dioxide Co. Ltd (China)
g. Guang Dong Hui Yun Titanium Industry (China)
h. Guangxi Jinmao (China)
i. Guangxi Jinmao Titanium Co. Ltd (China)
j. Jiangsu GPRO Group (China)
k. Jiangsu Taibai Group Co. Ltd (China)
l. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Co. Ltd (China)
m. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Co. Ltd (China)
n. Jilin GPRO Titanium Industry Co. Ltd (China)
o. Jinan Yuxing Chemical Co. Ltd (China)
p. Lomon Billions Group (China)
q. Ningbo Xinfu Titanium Dioxide Co. Ltd (China)
r. Pangang Group Titanium Resources Co. Ltd (China)
s. Panzhihua Dongfang Titanium Industry Co. Ltd (China)
t. Panzhihua Haifengxin Chem. Co. Ltd (China)
u. Panzhihua Taihai (China)
v. Panzhihua Xingzhong (China)
w. Shandong Dawn Group Co. Ltd (China)
x. Shandong Doguide Group Co. Ltd (China)
y. Shandong Jinhai (Lubei) (China)
z. Shanghai Yuejiang Titanium Chemical Manufacturer Co. Ltd (China)
aa. Tianyuan Group (China)
bb. Yunnan Dahutong (China)
ii. The embassy of the subject country in India was 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 
country.
iii. In response to the above notification, the following producers/exporters of the product under
consideration from subject country have registered as an interested party.
a. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd.
b. Lb Group Co., Ltd.
c. Lb Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
d. Lb Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
e. Lb Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
f. Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited
g. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd.
h. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
i. Yibin Tianyuan Haifeng Hetai Co., Ltd
j. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., Ltd
k. Efon (Hongkong) Company Limited
l. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.
m. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
n. Chongqing Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. of Pangang Group
o. Pangang Group Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
p. Pangang Group Chengdu Vanadium & Titanium Resources Development Co., Ltd.
q. Pangang Group Chongqing Vanadium & Titanium Technology Co., Ltd.
r. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Products Co Ltd ( A Tronox Company)
s. Kunming Donghao Titanium Co., Ltd.
t. Inter China Chemical Co., Ltd.
u. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
v. Shandong Doguide Group Co., Ltd.
w. Qianjiang Fangyuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
x. Jinan Yuxing Chemical Co., Ltd.
y. Ningbo Xinfu Titanium Dioxide Co., Ltd.
z. Ningbo Xinfu Chemical Marketing Co., Ltd.
aa. Shandong Dawn Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
iv. In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, following
producers/exporters from the subject country have responded by filing questionnaire
response:
a. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd.
b. Lb Group Co., Ltd.
c. Lb Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
d. Lb Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
e. Lb Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
f. Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited
g. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd.
h. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
i. Yibin Tianyuan Haifeng Hetai Co., Ltd
j. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., Ltd
k. Efon (Hongkong) Company Limited
l. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.
m. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
n. Chongqing Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. of Pangang Group
o. Pangang Group Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
p. Pangang Group Chengdu Vanadium & Titanium Resources Development Co., Ltd.
q. Pangang Group Chongqing Vanadium & Titanium Technology Co., Ltd.
r. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Products Co Ltd (A Tronox Company)
s. Kunming Donghao Titanium Co., Ltd.
t. Inter China Chemical Co., Ltd.
u. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
v. Shandong Doguide Group Co., Ltd.
w. Qianjiang Fangyuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
x. Jinan Yuxing Chemical Co., Ltd.
y. Ningbo Xinfu Titanium Dioxide Co., Ltd.
z. Ningbo Xinfu Chemical Marketing Co., Ltd.
aa. Shandong Dawn Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.

4.4. Participation by Importers/Users

i. 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. Asian Paints India Ltd
b. JCT Limited
c. Berger Paints Ltd
d. Schulman Plastics India Ltd
e. Berger Becker Coatings Pvt Ltd
f. Hanson Paints
g. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd
h. Kamdhenu Paints
i. Akzo Nobel
j. UFlex Limited
k. Jotun India Pvt Ltd
l. Apollo Piping Systems
m. Indigo Paints
n. Yansefu Inks and Coatings Pvt Ltd
o. Clariant Chemicals
p. Mundra Masterbatches
q. SCJ Plastics
r. Paramount Powders
s. Aashirvaad Pipes
t. Bhavin Industries
u. Hi-Tech Inks Pvt Ltd
ii. The following importer/user have registered themselves as interested parties:
a. Kemco Corporation
b. Sandeep Organics Pvt. Ltd.
c. Soltex Petroproducts Ltd
d. Shri Ambica Polyfill
e. Merit Polymers Pvt Ltd
f. Plastek Innovations Pvt Ltd
g. Polyworld
h. K T Quality Control Pvt Ltd
i. Kandui Industries India Pvt. Ltd.
iii. The following importers and users have submitted questionnaire responses to the
Authority:
a. Kemco Corporation
b. Nippon Paint India Private Limited through Indian Paint Association
iv. The following importer/user has not registered themselves asinterested party but madewritten
submissions during the course of the investigation:
a. Classic Solvents
v. The following user associations have registered themselves as interested parties:
a. Indian Paint Association (IPA)
b. All India Plastics Manufacturers, Association (AIPMA)
c. The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM)
d. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI)
vi. The following producer/exporter association from China PR has registered themselves as an 
interested party and made written submissions
a. China National Coatings Industry Association (CNCIA)
vii. The following user associations have made written submissions during the course ofthe
investigation:
a. Indian Paint Association (IPA)
b. All India Plastics Manufacturers, Association (AIPMA)
c. The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM)
d. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI)
viii. The following user association has not registered themselves as interested party but made
written submissions during the course of the investigation:
a. Indian Paint and Coating Association (IPCA)

4.5. Period of Investigation and Injury Period

i. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st October 
2022 to 30th September 2023 (12 months). The injury investigation period covers the periods
1st April 2020 – 31st March 2021, 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022,1st April 2022 – 31st March 
2023 and the period of investigation.

4.6. Discussion on PUC/PCN

i. Interested parties were provided 15 days’ time from the date of circulation of non confidential version of application, to file their comments on the scope of PUC and PCN 
methodology which ended on 6th May, 2024 post an extension granted by the Authority upon 
the request of an interested party. Comments and submissions were received from certain
interested parties, which were duly examined by the Authority.
ii. The Authority held a discussion on 3rd June 2024 with all the interested parties to discuss the
product under consideration and the proposed product control numbers (PCNs). After
receiving inputs from the interested parties, the Authority vide notification dated 16th July
2024 finalized the scope of the PUC and PCN methodology. The Authority granted 30 days’
time to interested parties from 16th July,2024 to file questionnaire responses.

4.7. Import Data

i. The DG System was requested to provide transaction-wise details of the imports of the 
subject goods for the injury period and the period of investigation. The same was received 
by the Authority and considered at the stage of initiation of the investigationas well as for
the present Disclosure Statement.

4.8. Sampling

i. In view of large number of producers and exporters/traders who responded in the
investigation, the Authority, pursuant to Rule 17(3) of the AD Rules and after examining the
comments of interested parties, selected the following three (3) producers along with their
associated exporters for determination of dumping margin, on the basis of the largest
percentage of the volume of the exports to India from ChinaPR during the investigation 
period, which is listed below:
a. LB Group comprising of following producers/ exporters - Henan Billions Advanced 
Material Co., Ltd., LB Group Co., Ltd., LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., LB
Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd, LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd ,
Billions(Hong Kong) Corporation Limited and Billions EuropeLtd, UK
b. Gold Star Group comprising of producer/exporter- Anhui Gold Star Titanium
Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd and Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
c. Shandong Group comprising of producer/exporter- Shandong Xianghai TitaniumCo.,
Ltd. and Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
ii. The Authority determined the dumping margin for non-sampled cooperating producers/ 
exporters from China PR on the basis of dumping margin of the sampled producers from 
China PR, and in accordance with the provisions of the Rules.

4.9. Oral Hearing

i. 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 held on 29th October, 2024. 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 thewritten submissions with the other 
interested parties.

4.10. Further Procedure

i. 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 onthe 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.
ii. The information submitted by the domestic industry has been examined and verified during 
on site-verification to the extent deemed necessary. 
iii. The examination and verification of the information submitted by the cooperating
producers/exporters from the subject country was also carried out to the extent deemed
necessary and have been relied upon for the purpose of the final findings earlier issued.
iv. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the evidence presented by 
various interested parties on mutual basis in the manner prescribed through Trade Notice no. 
01/2020 dated 10th April 2020. The information/submissions provided by the interested
parties on a confidential basis were examined concerning the sufficiency of such 
confidentiality claims.
v. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by allthe
interested parties, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant
to the present investigation.
vi. 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.
vii. Final Findings in the original investigation were issued on 12th February 2025. Anti dumping duty was imposed vide Notification No. 12/2025-Customs (ADD) dated 10th May 
2025.
viii. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta vide its judgment dated 22nd September 2025 in Indian 
Paint Association v. Union of India & Ors. (WPO No. 148 of 2025), quashed the Final 
Findings dated 12th February 2025 issued by the Authority as well as Customs Notification 
No. 12/2025-Customs (ADD) dated 10th May 2025, and remanded the matter to the 
Designated Authority for reconsideration of the confidentiality issue, “from the stage of the 
response filed by the petitioner therein for the purpose of considering such issue in 
accordance with the observations made herein, and the scope and object of Rule 7(2) of the 
said Rules.”
ix. Since the matter has been remanded back to the Designated Authority for reconsideration of 
the confidentiality issue, from the stage of the response filed by the writ petitioner for the 
purpose of considering the same in accordance with the observations made by the Hon’ble 
Court and the scope and object of Rule 7(2) of the said Rules, the Designated Authority 
initiated the remand back proceedings on 17th October 2025.
x. A Disclosure Statement in the instant remand back proceedings dated 12th May 2026 was 
issued by the Authority, in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules disclosing the essential 
facts under consideration in the matter relating to the present proceedings. The interested 
parties were allowed time up to 19th May 2026 to file comments on the same. 
xi. Based on the request from the interested parties the deadline was extended to 26th May 2026. 
Pursuant to the subsequent order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta dated 20th May 2026, 
arising out of Writ Petition No. WPA 11284 of 2026, the time limit was further extended to 
16th June 2026. 
xii. The exchange rate adopted: 1 US$ = Rs. 83.21.

C. REMAND BACK PROCEEDINGS

C.1. Writ Petition filed by Indian Paint Association before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

5. Aggrieved by the recommendations of the Authority in the Final Findings, Indian Paint Association 
(hereinafter "IPA") filed Writ Petition No. 148 of 2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, 
challenging the Final Findings dated 12th February 2025 and Disclosure Statement dated 29th 
January 2025. The gist of IPA's challenge is twofold:
a) First, the Authority had allowed the domestic industry (DI) to maintain complete confidentiality 
over the names of the paint companies to whom it had purportedly sold Rutile-Sulphate grade 
TiO2 ("R-S TiO2"), as well as over the volume and transaction details of such sales, without 
directing the DI to provide a non-confidential summary thereof as required under Rule 7(2) of 
the AD Rules read with the initiation notification. The name of the buyer has been maintained 
confidential. IPA was consequently unable to verify whether the DI had actually made 
commercial sales of R-S TiO2 to paint companies during the Period of Investigation ("POI"). 
b) Second, the Authority failed to disclose essential facts prior to issuing Final Findings as required 
by Rule 16 of the AD Rules, thereby preventing IPA from testing the foundational claim that 
R-S TiO2 had been produced and sold domestically during the POI.
6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Central Government imposed anti-dumping duty vide 
Notification No. 12/2025-Customs (ADD) dated 10th May 2025.

D. SCOPE OF REMAND AND COURT'S DIRECTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

7. The Hon’ble High Court has remanded the final findings to the Authority for fresh determination 
on the issue of confidentiality, and of non-disclosure of essential facts forming the basis of the final 
findings. It is the observation of the Hon’ble High Court that the final findings and the Disclosure 
Statement earlier issued by the Authority did not grant IPA an opportunity to offer comments on the 
issue of confidentiality and the basis on which Rutile – Sulphate Titanium Dioxide (hereinafter 
referred to as “Rutile Sulphate”, “R-S”, or “R-S TiO2”) has been included within the scope of 
product under consideration. The Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to the Authority 
for reconsideration of these aspects. Accordingly, the Authority has re-examined the information on 
record and evidence provided by the interested parties to decide these two issues, after providing 
adequate opportunity to the interested parties an opportunity of oral hearing. 
8. The Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to the Authority for reconsideration of the 
confidentiality issue, from the stage of the response filed by IPA, for the purpose of considering the 
issue of confidentiality in accordance with the observations made in the judgment and the scope and 
object of Rule 7(2) of the said Rules. Relevant extract of the judgment dated 22 September 2025 is 
reproduced below.
“55. In the light of the above, it can be deduced that the claim of confidentiality which was 
allowed by the designated authority was limited to the disclosure of price only, the names of the 
domestic industries which allegedly purchased the product under consideration, during the 
period of investigation or the volume thereof was not accepted. Though, Mr. Mookherjee, has 
submitted that in absence of a claim of confidentiality being allowed the designated authority 
was not authorized to withhold such information on the claim of confidentiality thereof, I 
however, find that the domestic industry had claimed complete confidentiality on all information, 
as such the same could not have authorised the designated authority to disclose such confidential 
information having regard to the judgement delivered in the case of Meghmani Organics Limited 
& Ors. (supra). However, at the same time, if the domestic industry failed to disclose non confidential summary of the confidential information as is required in terms of the initiation 
notification, it was for the designated authority to call for such information from the domestic 
industry, and in absence of such disclosure, to reject such information. In this case, admittedly, 
the petitioner had called upon the designated authority to disclose necessary information as 
regards the names of the paint companies with whom there have been transactions of the 
domestic industries in connection with sale of rutile sulphate, for the petitioner to verify the 
accuracy of such information…..In my view, the entirety of the aforesaid disclosure sought for 
by the petitioner though was not only in consonance with Rule 7(2) of the said Rules, however, 
the designated authority having only accepted the claim for confidentiality on price parameters 
and thus, having refused the claim for confidentiality on volume and other parameters as is 
reflected from the final findings, ought to have directed the domestic industry to provide summary 
of such confidential information in non-confidential form, and in the event, such disclosure was 
not made, ought to have refuse the claim in terms of paragraphs 35 to 38 of the initiation 
notification. The same has not been done. By reasons of refusal of the designated authority to 
call for information in terms of the initiation notification from the domestic industry and disclose 
the claim for confidentiality made by the domestic industry to the petitioner, the petitioner has 
been prevented from objecting and contesting the claim for confidentiality especially when the 
domestic industry has held all business related information to be confidential. The designated 
authority could not have allowed confidentiality in respect of all the business data for selling 
titanium dioxide through rutile sulphate process, especially when the petitioner claims that there 
are no commercial sale of rutile sulphate and especially when such contention had been turned 
down by contending that the respondent no.4 has the necessary technology and set up to produce 
rutile through sulphate route and has manufactured and sold titanium dioxide products using 
sulphate process. Since, the finding to the contrary has to be supported by reasons and 
documentary evidence, ordinarily, the same or the non-confidential summary thereof, ought to 
have been disclosed and in the event the domestic industry insisted for total confidentiality, in 
terms of Rule 7(3) the said Rules the same ought to have been ignored. Further the designated 
authority was also obliged to disclose essential facts prior to rendering the final findings in terms 
of Rule 16 of the said Rules. In absence of such disclosure, the petitioner had been unable to 
verify the very basis on which the aforesaid product has been included within the scope of product 
under consideration and to test out whether there has been domestic sale of the PUC which forms 
the foundation of the claim of the levy of duty. The sub issues are accordingly answered.
56. In my view, the procedural safeguard in terms of article 6.9 of the ADA which has been 
incorporated in the said Act, and the rules framed thereunder, especially in Rule 7(2) of the said 
Rules has not been followed. The petitioner was thus, not made aware of the essential facts under 
consideration which forms the basis of the decision for applying the definitive measures. In the 
peculiar facts, morefully noted hereinabove, I am of the view that the final findings of the 
designated authority stands vitiated. In the interregnum, however, there has been a development. 
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government has already ascertained and imposed 
a levy of anti-dumping duty vide notification dated 10th May, 2025. In this context, it would be 
relevant to note that by an order dated 6th March, 2025, this Court considering the lengthy 
arguments advanced and considering the balance of convenience and the prima facie case had 
granted an interim protection by, inter alia, observing that steps, if any, taken by the respondents 
shall abide by the result of the writ petition. Since, respondents were aware and were conscious 
that any steps taken by the respondents are subject to the final decision to be rendered by this 
Court, I am of the view that since, the levy of duty is based on the final findings, which stands 
vitiated for reasons noted hereinabove, the levy of duty effected by notification dated 10th May, 
2025 also cannot be sustained and the same with the final findings are accordingly quashed. The 
matter is remanded back to the designated authority for reconsideration of the aforesaid issue, 
from the stage of the response filed by the petitioner for the purpose of considering the same in 
accordance with the observations made herein and the scope and object of Rule 7(2) of the said 
Rules. Levy if any, collected in the meantime shall be subject to the final outcome of the 
proceedings…..”. 
9. The Hon’ble High Court in the judgment specifically noted that, if the domestic industry failed to 
file non-confidential summary of the confidential information as is required in terms of the initiation 
notification, it was for the Authority to call for such information from the domestic industry, and in 
absence of such disclosure or insufficient explanation provided for claiming such information 
confidential from the domestic industry, to reject such information. It was further held by the 
Hon’ble High Court that the Authority ought to have directed the domestic industry to provide a 
summary of such confidential information in non-confidential form, and in the event such disclosure 
was not made, ought to have refused the claim in terms of paragraphs 35 to 38 of the initiation 
notification. 
10. The Hon’ble High Court stated that the Authority was also obliged to disclose essential facts prior 
to rendering the final findings in terms of Rule 16 of the said Rules. It was held that in absence of 
such disclosure, IPA was unable to verify the very basis on which the R-S TiO2 has been included 
within the scope of product under consideration and whether there has been domestic sale of the 
PUC which forms the foundation of the claim of the levy of duty.
11. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the final findings dated 12th February 2025 of the Authority 
holding that the Authority did not follow the abovesaid procedure. The Hon’ble High Court held 
that the matter is required to be remanded back to the Authority for reconsideration of the aforesaid 
issue, from the stage of the response filed by IPA for the purpose of considering the same in 
accordance with the observations made in the judgment and the scope and object of Rule 7(2) of the 
Rules. Though the interested parties and new parties have made submissions on issues beyond 
confidentiality and sufficient disclosure of essential facts during the remand proceedings, the 
Authority notes that the Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter for examination of only these 
limited issues. Accordingly, the issues of confidentiality and sufficient disclosure of essential facts, 
and consequently, the inclusion of Rutile-Sulphate Titanium Dioxide within the scope of the product 
under consideration, is examined hereinbelow.

E. PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THE PRESENT REMAND PROCEEDING

12. The procedure described below has been followed in the present remand proceeding:
a. Pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment dated 22nd September 2025, the Authority 
issued public notice dated 17th October 2025 which reads as follows:
“2. Since the matter has been remanded back to the Designated Authority for 
reconsideration of the confidentiality issue, from the stage of the response filed by the writ 
petitioner for the purpose of considering the same in accordance with the observations made 
by the Hon’ble Court and the scope and object of Rule 7(2) of the said Rules, the Designated 
Authority has taken up the proceedings in the present matter accordingly. The domestic 
industry has been directed to disclose information or provide sufficient justification in terms 
of Rule 7 regarding the names of the paint companies with whom the domestic industry had 
transacted for the sales of Rutile Sulphate grade. The domestic industry has been informed 
that if the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the 
applicant is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorise its disclosure in 
a generalised or summary form, the Authority may disregard such information.”
b. The domestic industry filed its submission pursuant to the public notice dated 17th October 
2025 issued by the Authority in respect of confidentiality and other aspects along with non confidential version of the same. 
c. Indian Paint Association and other interested parties also filed submissions pursuant to the 
public notice dated 17th October 2025 issued by the Authority. 
d. The Authority provided an opportunity to the domestic industry and interested parties to present 
their views orally in an oral hearing held on 23rd December 2025. 
e. The interested parties who presented their views orally at the time of oral hearing were 
requested to file written submissions of the views expressed by them orally, followed by 
rejoinder submissions, if any. 
f. The oral hearing was also attended by new parties who did not participate during the original 
proceedings. The following new parties also filed their written submissions and rejoinder 
submissions. 
i. Indian Chemical Corporation 
ii. Nemi Chem
iii.Saral Chemicals
g. The Authority notes that new parties that have not participated in the original proceedings, 
cannot be considered as interested parties in the present proceeding as the Hon’ble High Court 
has remanded the matter back for reconsideration of the aforesaid issue, from the stage of the 
response filed by the petitioner. However, as per the trade notice 11 of 2018, submissions made 
by these parties are examined to the extent relevant for the present proceedings.
h. The Authority has considered all the submissions made by various interested parties and the 
same were examined in detail in light of the judgment dated 22nd September 2025 of the 
Hon’ble High Court. 

F. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE INSTANT REMAND PROCEEDINGS

F.1 ISSUE 1: CONFIDENTIALITY

F.1.1 Submissions By Domestic Industry In The Present Remand Proceedings

a) TTPL has produced and sold Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 and this is demonstrated by extensive 
evidence on record, including: (a) application (injury annexures, costing information, NIP 
information, production and sales information for R-S); (b) production process flow-chart 
showing sulphate route; (c) pollution-control board certificate showing approvals for sulphuric 
acid and titanium dioxides; (d) financial statements/annual reports showing revenue for R-S 
TiO2; (e) Cost Audit Report showing consumption of sulphur to make sulphuric acid; (f) trial 
balance showing sales of Rutile Grade TiO2 under multiple heads; and (g) on-site verification 
by the Authority confirming production and sales.
b) Authority’s practice and available law support confidentiality for customer/supplier lists and 
verification exhibits, seen through Trade Notice 1/2013 identifies customer lists as information 
whose disclosure causes significant adverse effect, Trade Notice 10/2018, and the Manual (Ch. 
8) recognise verification exhibits as confidential. 
c) Other interested parties, including members of IPA, routinely claimed confidentiality over 
customer identities, supplier names, transaction details, and even document lists. The Authority 
accepted many such claims establishing a consistent practice applied. 
d) Evidence filed at various stages, including the application for initiation, costing formats (distinct 
for R-S and A-S), cost audit reports, sulphur and sulphuric acid consumption (specific to sulphate 
route), subsequent written submissions, rejoinder submissions, verification documents, sample 
invoices and post-hearing responses clearly establishes that TTPL manufactures Rutile grade 
TiO₂ through the Sulphate process
e) The DI submitted that the name of one buyer that purchased R-S TiO2 was inadvertently 
disclosed during the original proceedings and that such disclosure should not be used to defeat 
the confidentiality claim for the complete buyer list.
f) TTPL has supplied R-S TiO2 to both paint and non-paint users, with a total of *** transactions 
constituting *** MT of purchases spanning over a 14-year period.

F.1.2 Submissions by Indian Paint Association and Other Interested Parties

a) IPA submitted that the DI never disclosed the names of the paint companies or provided any 
meaningful non-confidential summary of the purported sales of R-S TiO2. Without such 
disclosure, IPA was unable to verify whether there had been any domestic commercial sale of R S TiO2 to the paint industry, which is the very foundation of the levy of duty.
b) IPA contended that there are no commercial sales of R-S TiO2 by the DI to the paint industry. 
The R-S TiO2 commercially available in the Indian market is entirely through imports.
c) Mandatory requirement of sales in commercial quantities remains wholly unfulfilled by the DI 
in terms of R-S TiO2. Even if non-zero quantities in the sales entries provided are aggregated, 
total quantity sold is only about (1,900–2,000 MT); POI sales reduce sharply to 430–440 MT, 
which when viewed against Indian demand of (3,38,000 MT,) constitutes a negligible and de 
minimis fraction.
d) TTPL primarily produces Anatase and its capacity to produce Rutile is largely theoretical. The 
Rutile produced by TTPL is uncoated and lacks surface treatment. TTPL’s uncoated rutile cannot 
be a substitute for imported coated rutile. Other interested parties also submitted that the domestic 
industry's claim of interchangeability between R-C and R-S TiO2 is incorrect; the two differ in 
chemical properties, end-uses, price sensitivities, and supply chains. Coated R-S is essential for 
SMEs (15,000+ manufacturing units) for whom it is an indispensable raw material, and 
substituting it with R-C would adversely affect economy-grade paint viability.
e) Remand proceedings should remain confined strictly to reconsideration of the confidentiality 
issue on the basis of the existing record as it stood at the relevant stage of issuance of Disclosure 
Statement and does not contemplate or permit the domestic industry to introduce fresh 
justification, additional reasoning, or post-facto explanations. 
f) The domestic industry cannot be permitted to supplement or cure defects in its original 
confidentiality claims as at this stage it would effectively grant a second opportunity to the 
domestic industry which is impermissible in law as the domestic industry cannot cure a 
fundamental procedural defect through post-facto justification. 
g) Domestic industry stated that the reasons for claiming confidentiality were not given during the 
original filing as it was considered to be well understood by all parties to the investigation, 
showing clear admission that no good-cause statement was submitted at the time of claiming 
confidentiality, and that the reasons for claiming confidentiality are being furnished only at this 
stage. 
h) Reliance on alleged customary practice of treating customer names as confidential is wholly 
misplaced as Trade Notice No. 10/2018 dated 7th September 2018 states parameters and 
categories of information for which confidentiality may be claimed, along with the manner of 
furnishing meaningful non-confidential summaries.
i) Inadvertent disclosure of the customer’s name is inconsistent with record of the remand 
proceedings as customer’s identity was expressly made during the oral hearing, and such 
reference was during substantive arguments, supported by a document indicating sales to specific 
customer. Such reliance to substantiate indicates the disclosure was deliberate and prepared in 
advance. 
j) Repetition of disclosure of customer’s name in the written submissions despite it being after a 
cooling off period establishes reference was intentional and made due consideration. 
k) Attempt to characterise the disclosure of customer’s name as inadvertent appears to be an 
afterthought and relating to implications of the disclosure. This conduct indicates that the 
disclosure forms part of litigation strategy of the domestic industry. 
l) Under applicable legal regime for anti-dumping investigations in India. If the party claiming 
confidentiality upon information discloses such information, it cannot stop other interested 
parties’ reliance on the same or claim that the information be treated as confidential.

F.1.3 Examination by the Authority

13. The Authority has examined the submissions made by the interested parties pursuant to the notice 
dated 17th October 2025, notifying parties of the present remand proceedings, and inviting 
comments on the same. The submissions have been examined by the Authority and have been dealt 
with appropriately below. 
14. At the outset, it must be examined whether the direction of the Authority contained within the 
notification dated 17th October 2025 was within the purview of the present remand proceedings. It 
has been contended by the other interested parties that the domestic industry cannot be allowed to 
give justification for claiming confidentiality within the scope of the remand proceedings, as the 
Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to the Authority for reconsideration of the issue of 
confidentiality from the stage of the response filed by IPA. It is noted that the judgment further 
states that such reconsideration must be in accordance with the observations made within it and the 
scope and object of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, so as to provide fair opportunity to IPA and other 
interested parties to defend their interests in terms of Rules 7(2) as the same was not done earlier. 
The relevant extract of the judgment is below:
“56. …The matter is remanded back to the designated authority for reconsideration 
of the aforesaid issue, from the stage of the response filed by the petitioner for the 
purpose of considering the same in accordance with the observations made herein and 
the scope and object of Rule 7(2) of the said Rules…”
15. As can be seen, the Authority must reconsider the issue of confidentiality, in accordance with the 
observations made within the judgment as well as the scope and object of the Rules. The Hon’ble 
High Court observed in the judgment that in the instant factual matrix wherein the domestic industry 
had not circulated non-confidential information, it was for the Authority to call for such information 
from the domestic industry. Relevant extract of the judgment is below:
“55. …In my view, the entirety of the aforesaid disclosure sought for by the petitioner 
though was not only in consonance with Rule 7(2) of the said Rules, however, the 
designated authority having only accepted the claim for confidentiality on price 
parameters and thus, having refused the claim for confidentiality on volume and other 
parameters as is reflected from the final findings, ought to have directed the domestic 
industry to provide summary of such confidential information in non-confidential form, 
and in the event, such disclosure was not made, ought to have refuse the claim in terms of 
paragraphs 35 to 38 of the initiation notification. The same has not been done…”
16. Rule 7(2) states that the Authority should require that parties submitting information on a 
confidential basis provide a non-confidential summary of that information. It further states that if 
the party believes that the information cannot be summarised, then they may instead provide a 
statement with reasons stating why a summary of the information is not feasible. Rule 7(2) is 
reproduced below:
“(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on 
confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a 
party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such 
party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarisation is 
not possible.”
17. The Hon’ble High Court in its judgment also states that in the scenario that the Authority did not 
call for a non-confidential summary to be provided, or a good cause statement to be given, the 
Authority should have acted in terms of Rule 7(3). Rule 7(3) allows the Authority to disregard 
information which has unwarranted claims of confidentiality or alternatively that the supplier of 
such information does not want to make this information or its summary form public. Rule 7(3) is 
reproduced below:
“(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 authorise its 
disclosure in a generalised or summary form, it may disregard such information.”
18. From Rule 7(3) it is clear that in the event that the Authority is satisfied that the request for 
confidentiality is not warranted, or the supplier of the information is not willing to make the 
information available in any form, such information may be disregarded. It is therefore evident that 
the question of rejection of information and evidence arises only when an interested party refuses 
to provide sufficient NCV of the information and evidence provided by the party. 
19. In the present case, the domestic industry has provided justification for not providing NCV of the 
information on customer name and invoices provided by it to support its claim of sales to paint 
industry. It is seen that the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court observes that the Authority ought 
to have called for information from the domestic industry as no non-confidential information was 
provided. The Hon’ble High Court directed the Authority to reconsider the issue (of confidentiality) 
from the stage of the response filed by IPA, in accordance with the observations of the Hon’ble 
Court as well as Rule 7(2). Rule 7(2) specifically states that the interested parties need to provide 
non-confidential summaries of confidential information or statement of reasons not to submit such 
summaries thereof to the Authority. 
20. With regard to confidentiality of the information, Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:
“7. Confidential Information:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule
(2)of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of 
applications received under sub -rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided
to the designatedauthority 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 nosuch information shall be disclosed to
any other party without specific authorization of theparty 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
disclosurein a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.”
21. In the present case, the domestic industry has provided justification for not providing Non 
confidential version (NCV) of the information on customer name and invoices provided by it to 
support its claim of sales to paint industry. It is seen that the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court 
observes that the Authority ought to have called for information from the domestic industry as no 
non-confidential information was provided. The Hon’ble High Court directed the Authority to 
reconsider the issue (of confidentiality) from the stage of the response filed by IPA, in accordance 
with the observations of the Hon’ble Court as well as Rule 7(2). Rule 7(2) specifically states that 
the interested parties need to provide non-confidential summaries of confidential information or 
statement of reasons not to submit such summaries thereof to the Authority. 
22. Accordingly, the Authority issued the public notice dated 17th October 2025 with Notification F. 
No. 06/03/2024-DGTR, calling for the domestic industry to either disclose information or provide 
sufficient justification in terms of Rule 7 regarding the names of the paint companies with whom 
the domestic industry had transacted for the sales of Rutile Sulphate grade. Such direction is 
squarely within the scope of the judgment, as well as Rule 7(2) of the Rules. Therefore, the issue of 
confidentiality and whether the invoices of the domestic industry and the names of its customer can 
be treated as confidential must be decided by the Authority. 
23. The Authority examined the DI's confidentiality claims on customer names, sales invoices, sales 
summaries, trial balances, and costing information. The DI justified these claims on the ground that 
such information is business-sensitive, not publicly available, and its disclosure would confer undue 
competitive advantage to rivals. The Authority accepts these claims and holds that:
a) Confidentiality on price parameters, customer names (including paint companies), sales 
invoices, and transaction details is justified and has been allowed.
b) This practice is consistent with Trade Notice No. 1 of 2013, which explicitly lists customer 
and supplier lists as confidential information. Trade Notice No. 10 of 2018 does not 
supersede this; it addresses disclosure of specific data parameters and does not deal with 
customer/supplier lists.
c) Maintaining customer names as confidential is also consistent with the practice of other 
major investigating authorities (USA, EU, Canada, UK, Australia, and Mexico) and the 
Authority's own consistent practice.
d) Notably, Nippon Paints - a TiO2 user and IPA member, claimed complete confidentiality on 
its customer and supplier names in its questionnaire response, confirming that such claims 
are standard practice.
24. However, the DI on its own disclosed the name of Asian Paints as a historical buyer during the oral 
hearing and reiterated this in its written submissions, which were circulated to all interested parties. 
Subsequently, the DI sought to withdraw the name, claiming inadvertent disclosure. The Authority 
does not accept this withdrawal, as the disclosure was made in a formal written submission, and 
interested parties have already filed comments on the basis of this disclosure, rendering it a fait 
accompli and forming part of the record. Thus, the claim of inadvertence is therefore not accepted 
at this stage. 
25. The Authority's determination on the inclusion of R-S TiO2 within the scope of the PUC is not 
primarily based on sales to Asian Paints or any specific paint company. The determination rests on 
the finding that TTPL has produced and sold R-S TiO2 commercially, that R-C TiO2 and R-S TiO2 
are like articles in terms of Rule 2 (d) of AD Rules, and that the DI is not required to have sold the 
product to every segment of the consumer market before seeking imposition of anti-dumping duty.

F.2. ISSUE 2: EXAMINATION OF DISCLOSURE OF ESSENTIAL FACTS ON PUC 
MADE TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES 

26. The Authority notes that the Hon’ble High Court further held that the Authority was also obliged 
to disclose essential facts prior to rendering the final findings in terms of Rule 16 of the said Rules 
and that in absence of such disclosure, IPA was unable to verify the very basis on which R-S TiO2 
has been included within the scope of product under consideration and to test whether there has 
been domestic sale of the PUC which forms the foundation of the claim of the levy of duty. 
27. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: 
“55…. In absence of such disclosure, the petitioner had been unable to verify the very basis 
on which the aforesaid product has been included within the scope of product under 
consideration and to test out whether there has been domestic sale of the PUC which forms 
the foundation of the claim of the levy of duty.…” 
28. The Authority has considered (a) production and sale of R-S TiO2 in commercial volumes by the 
domestic industry during the POI and injury period, irrespective of the customers to whom this has 
been sold, (b) interchangeability of sulphate and chloride rutile titanium dioxide for inclusion of 
sulphate-rutile titanium dioxide within the scope of the product under consideration. This has been 
noted in the original final findings and has been further examined and brought out in the present 
remand proceedings. The Authority examined the records of the original investigation and further 
notes as under. 
a. At the outset it is noted that the domestic industry manufactures Titanium Dioxide 
through all routes, details of which are as follows:
i. Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (KMML): Rutile grade through Chloride process 
ii. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.(TTPL): Rutile grade through Sulphate process 
and Anatase grade through Sulphate process 
iii. VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd. (VVT): Anatase grade through Sulphate process
b. In the application, information regarding injury to the domestic industry (including 
production and sale) of the product under consideration was filed by all applicant 
companies. The said injury information included, inter-alia, information on capacity, 
production, domestic sales, export sales, stocks, cost, prices, profits, cash profits, capital 
employed, return on capital employed. The said information was provided by TTPL 
separately for both rutile-sulphate and anatase-sulphate. The information provided by 
the domestic industry also includes injury information, costing information, NIP 
information, production, and sales information about Rutile-Chloride, Rutile-Sulphate, 
and Anatase-Sulphate TiO2. 
c. The annexures and costing information filed by TTPL, including statement of normal 
value with the application filed on confidential basis, of which the non-confidential 
version was circulated to all the interested parties, shows that the TTPL has produced 
and sold Rutile-Sulphate grade of TiO2. In particular, the said information includes the 
production process flow chart of TTPL, which shows the production route adopted by 
TTPL is of sulphate process, and the pollution control board certificate submitted as 
evidence of capacity shows approval for ‘sulphuric acid’ and “titanium dioxides” which 
is used in the sulphate process of production of TiO2. 
d. It is also seen that financial statements, including annual reports for 19-20, 21-22, and 
22-23 shows revenue for R-S TiO2.
e. The Cost Audit Report of TTPL filed with the application shows that there has been 
consumption of sulphur to make sulphuric acid which is used in making Rutile-Sulphate 
TiO2 and contains a statement showing production, sales, expenses, cost of production 
and profit/loss in respect of Rutile Sulphate TiO2. 
f. Trial balance/ annual accounts were also examined which shows sales of rutile grade of 
TiO2.
29. The domestic industry has also placed reliance on the injury statements filed for each of the applicant 
companies, as well as the costing information filed. It is seen that the injury annexure submitted by 
the domestic industry contained separate injury statements for each of the applicant companies, 
including a distinct injury statement for R-S by TTPL, which provides information on TTPL’s 
production and sales of R-S. Further, the costing formats of TTPL includes: (i) Format VI-1, wherein 
the costing information filed as part of the prescribed format in the application contains details of 
sulphur consumption for the entire injury period and separately provides raw material consumption 
for R-S and Anatase-Sulphate, including consumption of sulphuric acid; (ii) Format VI-2, which 
contains separate cost statements for Anatase-Sulphate and R-S for the entire injury period; (iii) 
Format VI-2T, which provides sales details for the entire injury period, including separate sales of 
Anatase-Sulphate and R-S; (iv) Format VI-5, which contains production details and NIP 
calculations provided separately for R-S and Anatase-Sulphate, including production of R-S for 
three years and the linkage of expenses to various accounting records; and (v) Quantitative 
Information, which sets out production and sales details provided separately for Anatase-Sulphate 
and R-S.
30. Domestic industry also made reference to the public information available on the website of TTPL, 
which shows the products that are sold under the category of Rutile Titanium Dioxide under heads 
such as ‘Ajantox RD-1, Ajantox RD-1-PG, Ajantox RD-1-GP’ along with its usage as “widely used 
for production of solvent and water based paints, paper, coatings, inks & plastics, etc.” 
31. The domestic industry had filed verification documents vide its email dated 10th August 2024 
wherein it provided the following information and evidence including sale invoices, production and 
sales summaries, signed trial balance for the POI, POI trial balance extracted, and signed costing 
formats of TTPL. The Authority has examined these information and document and notes that these 
also establishes production and sales of Rutile-Sulphate TIO2, as summarised below: 
i. Invoices showing ‘description and HSN’ demonstrating that Rutile Grade of Titanium 
Dioxide was sold. 
ii. Quantitative details of opening and closing stock, production, and sales
iii. Production and Sales quantity of R-S and A-S PCN for the injury period 
iv. Production and Sales summary
32. The Authority during the course of investigation verified that TTPL manufactures R-S TiO2 and it 
produced and sold R-S TiO2 during the injury period, including POI. During verification, the 
Authority examined the production process and observed that sulphuric acid was consumed in the 
manufacture of R-S TiO2. Throughout the verification and review of documentation provided, 
including production and sales invoices, the Authority was satisfied with the evidence that TTPL 
manufactures and sells Rutile grade TiO2 through the sulphate route. Accordingly, separate NIP for 
R-S TiO2 was determined by the Authority, after detailed scrutiny of financial and cost records of 
the company. 
33. Regarding confidentiality concerns and the question of whether the domestic industry produced and 
sold R-S grade TiO2 during the POI, including whether such sales were made to members of the 
IPA paint industry and whether the product should fall within the scope of the PUC, the Authority 
notes that the evidence on record, right from the stage of initiation, clearly establishes that TTPL 
produced and sold R-S TiO2. Further, such sales have been made to both paint and non-paint users. 
It is also seen from the letter dated 17th February, 2026 by the Indian Paint Association that they 
have now accepted purchase of R-S TiO2 by one of the paint customer until 2019. Such an 
admission contradicts their earlier assertion during the course of original investigation that the 
domestic industry had not supplied R-S TiO₂ to the paint segment at all. The Authority further notes 
that even at this stage, IPA stated that the purchases been low in volume for industrial paint, 
whereas the domestic industry has contended that there were [*** transactions] constituting [***
MT] purchase spanning over 14 years period. Notwithstanding, the Authority also considers that 
production and sale of a product type is relevant, irrespective of the segment of the customers to 
whom the goods were sold. The, Authority does not consider it necessary that the domestic industry 
should have sold the product to every segment of the customer or every part of a segment. 
34. Notwithstanding above, the Authority further also considers that there is enough evidence on record 
that R-S TiO2 and R-C TiO2 are like products. The interchangeability and competitive market 
positioning of both sulphate and chloride rutile titanium dioxide and the fact of production and sales 
of R-S are sufficient basis for inclusion of sulphate-rutile titanium dioxide within the scope of the 
product under consideration. 
35. The Authority also takes note in this regard that the determination made by global investigating 
authorities of Brazil, European Union, and Saudi Arabia concerning the same product under 
consideration. The Authority notes that in the anti-dumping investigations conducted by these 
Authorities, it was held that R-C and R-S TIO2 are interchangeable. It must also be noted that this 
position was found despite (a) European producers being a majority R-C TIO2 producing, (b) Brazil 
producing only R-S TIO2, and (c) Saudi Arabia producing only R-C TIO2. The Authority further 
notes that even when both R-S and R-C were imported into Brazil and the Brazil domestic industry 
was producing only R-S, the normal value was determined only on the basis of R-C product. 
Therefore, it is seen that the interchangeability of R-C and R-S TIO2 are found by global 
investigating authorities and that R-C and R-S TIO2 have overlapping applications. 
36. Based on these facts, the Authority is of the view that that R-S TiO2 and R-C TiO2 are like article 
and the domestic industry manufactured and sold R-S grade during the POI and that its exclusion 
from the PUC scope is not warranted:
a) In the present remand proceedings, the DI has disclosed (both in the oral hearing and in written 
submissions) that TTPL has sold R-S TiO2 to major paint users including historically Asian 
Paints, with (***) transactions comprising (*** MT) spanning over 14 years. This disclosure, 
combined with the extensive documentary evidence on record (invoices, trial balance, costing 
formats, annual reports, Cost Audit Report), fully establishes that TTPL produced and sold R-S 
TiO2 during the POI and the injury period.
b) The DI cannot subsequently claim that the buyer's name was disclosed inadvertently and seek to 
reassert blanket confidentiality. As held above, such a claim is legally impermissible once the 
disclosure has been made in formal proceedings.
c) The Authority further notes that IPA has accepted, in its letter dated 17th February, 2026 that 
one paint customer did purchase R-S TiO2 from the DI until 2019. While IPA characterizes the 
volume as low, this admission is sufficient to establish commercial sale for the purposes of the 
investigation.
37. In view of the above, the Authority finds that it has now fully complied with the procedural
obligations identified by the Hon'ble High Court. The essential facts underlying the inclusion of R S TiO2 within the scope of PUC — namely, that TTPL has the technology, has produced, and has 
commercially sold R-S TiO2 during the injury period and POI — have been disclosed.

G. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE

G.1 Views of the other interested parties:

G.1.a Submissions in the original proceedings 

38. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the scope of the 
product under consideration and like article in the original proceedings:
i.PCN wise assessment is crucial in the investigation to ensure a fair comparison due to
differences in physical and chemical characteristics, usage, pricing, and production cost of
various grades and types of titanium dioxide (TiO2). PCN classification based on production 
process and crystalline structure: Anatase-Sulphate (A-S), Rutile-Sulphate (R-S), and Rutile Chloride (R-C) has been proposed by many interested parties.
ii. TiO2 exists in two crystalline forms: Rutile and Anatase. Rutile has a higher refractive index, 
greater chemical stability, and improved durability due to its more compact and symmetrical 
crystal lattice. Anatase has a lower refractive index, reduced stability, and a less dense, irregular 
crystal structure. These differences influence their distinct applications and properties.
iii.TiO2 is produced through the chloride or sulphate route, significantly impacting its properties 
and grades. The chloride process produces high-purity TiO2 suitable for high- quality 
applications like paints and coatings for automobiles and architecture but is more expensive. 
The sulphate process produces lower-purity TiO2, which is cost-effective for applications in 
paper, plastics, and rubber. Anatase pigment is typically produced via the sulphate process, 
while rutile pigment can be produced via both chloride and sulphate processes.
iv. There is more than a 20% price difference between sulphate-anatase and sulphate-rutile and 
more than a 40% price difference between sulphate-anatase and chloride-rutile.
v. Exclusion of “rutile-grade TiO2 manufactured through the sulphate route” from the PUC is 
requested since none of the applicants produce this specific grade. Additionally, exclusion of 
“rutile-grade TiO2 produced through the chloride process” from the scope of 
PUC due to significant differences in technical parameters, production costs, end-use, and 
pricing has been requested.
vi.Combining anatase and rutile grades of TiO2 in the scope of PUC would be flawed. They are 
distinct in their production process, physical, technical, and chemical properties, as well as end 
uses. These grades are also classified under different tariff headings.
vii. It has been stated that the domestic industry itself has acknowledged that anatase and rutile 
grades differ significantly in properties such as purity, refractive index, specific gravity, 
hardness, and crystal structure, among others. Additionally, they cannot be interchangeably 
used due to differences in production technology and application.
viii. Most Chinese producers manufacture rutile-grade TiO2 through the sulphate process, while 
Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited produces Rutile-grade TiO2 using the chloride process. 
Travancore Titanium Products Limited and VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd produce anatase grade TiO2 via the sulphate process. None of the domestic producers manufacture rutile-grade 
TiO2 through the sulphate process. Therefore, the rutile grade manufactured through the 
sulphate process should be excluded from the PUC.
ix. Domestic industry has defined pigmentary TiO2 as having a particle size range of 200-350nm. 
Products with particle sizes below 200nm and above 350nm should be excluded from the 
investigation as they fall outside the defined scope of pigmentary TiO2.
x. Indian Paint Association (IPA) has contended that the scope of the PUC defined in the initiation 
notification is overly broad, encompassing grades that are neither produced nor supplied 
domestically by the domestic industry. These grades, with distinct technical and commercial 
properties, should be excluded as they do not meet the definition of “like product” or “like 
article” under relevant anti-dumping rules. IPA argues that parameters like consumer 
perception, physical and chemical properties, usage, and application differences establish non substitutability.
xi. The bright and bluish undertone rutile grade is distinguished by its superior physical properties, 
including higher brightness, enhanced UV resistance, and better overall performance compared 
to the domestic industry’s product. These properties make it a preferred choice for end 
consumers, particularly in applications demanding high-quality finishes and durability.
xii. Performance grades BLR 895 or LR 961 are widely used in industrial and decorative paints due 
to their ability to deliver exceptional finish, high gloss, superior durability, and a high 
distinctness of image (DOI). The domestic industry’s grades, however, fall short in these critical 
aspects. Industrial and decorative paint manufacturers have consistently rejected the domestic 
industry’s grades, citing their inability to meet the performance standards required for high-end 
applications.
xiii. Sulphate grades BLR 698 or BLR 601 excel in providing higher coverage, better finish quality, 
and a visually appealing bright white appearance. On the other hand, the domestic 
industry’s grades, which are manufactured through the chloride process, often exhibit lower 
coverage, inferior finish, and a yellowish tint. These deficiencies make the domestic industry’s 
products unsuitable for users seeking precise and consistent outcomes in high- end applications.
xiv. Further, for industrial paints, the domestic industry’s products often require additional sand 
milling, reducing capacity and throughput. For decorative usage, similar issues are observed. 
Imported grades do not require sand milling, making them significantly more cost-effective and 
economically advantageous compared to the domestic industry’s product.
xv. IPA further contends that the domestic industry uses the chloride process to manufacture the 
PUC, whereas imported grades are manufactured using the sulphate process, resulting in 
chemical differences between the two. Therefore, grades not manufactured by the domestic 
industry should be excluded from the scope of the PUC as the domestic industry cannot 
suffer material injury for such grades during the POI, and they are not like articles to the 
imported grades.
xvi. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI) and Associated Chambers of Commerce 
and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) sought some clarifications regarding the exclusion of 
TiO2 used in the fibre and textile.
xvii. PHDCCI has contended that the paper and paperboard industry consume approximately 6,000 
MT of rutile TiO2 annually for the production of décor paper, which is primarily used in 
laminates for furniture and housing. TiO2 is essential for achieving desired opacity, whiteness, 
and brightness in décor paper due to its high refractive index, effective light scattering, and UV 
absorption properties. The sulphate process rutile TiO2, being more economical, is the variant 
predominantly used by the décor paper industry.
xviii. TiO2 is applied at the pulp or fibre stage of paper manufacturing for décor paper, and not post manufacturing. The domestic industry’s TiO2 does not meet the specific requirements of the 
décor paper industry. Further, there have been no sales of TiO2 by the domestic industry to the 
décor paper industry, further confirming the unsuitability of their product for this application. 
Therefore, TiO2 used in the pulp or fibre stage for manufacturing décor paper must be 
excluded from the scope of PUC.
xix. ASSOCHAM has submitted that TiO2 anatase grade for making paper other than décor paper 
(used at fibre/pulp stage) must be excluded from the scope of PUC.
xx. TiO2 used in plastic and PVC application may be excluded from the scope of PUC.
xxi. TiO2 by rutile chloride process requires higher-grade raw materials such as superior TiO2 ore, 
which is more expensive and scarcer as compared to TiO2 by Rutile sulphate process which 
requires Ilmenite ore which lowers raw material costs due to being found in abundance and is 
less expensive. Additionally, rutile produced through chloride process requires specialized 
corrosive-resistant equipment for handling chemicals such as chlorine and titanium 
tetrachloride, increasing production costs and complexity while in Rutile sulphate process, 
simpler equipment is used and there are fewer safety requirements.
xxii. TiO2 with varying particle sizes has different cost patterns, with finer particle sizes requiring 
more complex production processes and resulting in higher costs.
xxiii. KMML’s Rutile chloride- RC 822, with a TiO2 content of 91.5%, is lower in quality compared
to imported grades with a higher TiO2 content.

G.1.b Submissions in the present remand back proceedings

39. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the product under
consideration and like article in the present proceedings. Since, various submissions which are 
repetition of the submissions made earlier, the same have not been reproduced again:
i. Mandatory requirement of sales in commercial quantities remains wholly unfulfilled by the 
DI in terms of R-S. 
ii. Assertion that TTPL has many sales transactions is misleading and the sales listing relied 
upon by the DI spans a period from April’20 to September’23 and contains approximately 
395 invoice entries. The said listing contains entries with zero or nil quantities, trade 
samples, off-grade supplies, or highly fragmented consignments and these cannot be 
regarded as commercial sales demonstrating a meaningful or stable market presence. 
iii. Alleged sales of POI constitute a negligible and de minimis fraction of demand and cannot 
be characterized as sales in commercial quantities. 
iv. In Technova Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., Anti-Dumping Appeal 
No. 51425 of 2022, the Tribunal held that only 2% of the requirement was supplied by the 
appellant and that commercial production had not been undertaken by Hindalco. This 
squarely applies to the case of miniscule sales have been made of R-S by the DI. The 
Technova judgment has not been set aside, stayed, or modified by any superior court and 
hence remains binding. 
v. DI’s claim of interchangeability between R-C and R-S is incorrect, the difference is seen in 
chemical properties, end-uses, price sensitivities, and distinct markets and supply chains. R C and R-S are not like article as they differ in crystallographic stability, optical undertones, 
and processing even though they share a chemical formula as they are functionally distinct.
vi. Coated R-S is essential for SMEs, with over 15,000 manufacturing units, in the paint sector 
for which it is an indispensable raw material and substituting it with R-C would adversely 
affect the viability of manufacturing of economy-grade paints. 
vii. The DI's interchangeability claim ignores crystallography, optics, and surface chemistry, and 
is similar to grouping diamond and graphite as mere "Carbon”, which is chemically accurate 
but ignores end user disparities. TTPL being historically a producer of A-S, cannot be 
substituted for imported coated R-S. 
viii. Blue undertone of R-S is critical for neutralizing yellowness that is inherent, while R-C does 
not provide for this and yields a product resulting in a neutral or yellowish undertone. R-S 
with blue undertone enhances appearance in plastics (masterbatch) and ink industries, and 
domestic R-C cannot provide this. 
ix. Coated R-S offers superior dispersibility, durability, and UV stability, while Uncoated R-S 
lacks such coating and is photo-active and difficult to disperse. Absence of coated R-S 
domestically creates a “technical availability gap” for SMEs even though coated R-S is more 
beneficial to SME sector.
x. DI’s claim regarding interchangeability ignores the fact that SMEs adjust pigment loading 
to serve economy, standard, and premium markets using one core ingredient, which is R-S. 
xi. TTPL primarily produces Anatase and its capacity to produce Rutile is largely theoretical. 
The Rutile produced by TTPL is uncoated and lacks surface treatment. TTPL’s uncoated 
rutile cannot be a substitute for imported coated rutile. 
xii. Advance ruling sought from Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, which confirmed no 
ADD should be levied on toilet soaps, as toilet soaps are considered under categories of 
cosmetics.
xiii. As term "cosmetics" is broad and ambiguous, leading to issues at customs clearance during 
the prior ADD levy, Authority is requested to either provide complete exclusion for PUC 
used in skin-care products or specify "cosmetics includes toilet soaps" to avoid 
complications at clearance.
xiv. Nemi Chem requests either to exclude Anatase from PUC scope or terminate investigation 
on entire PUC.
xv. Authority should direct the domestic industry to disclose information relating to the 
production and sales of R-S during the POI in actual numerical terms, to verify whether such 
sales were made in commercial quantities as per the legal requirement. 
xvi. Authority should also disclose names of the parties to whom such commercial sales were 
made, which is consistent with existing practice of the Authority. 
xvii. Tronox submitted that R-S and R-C are interchangeably used in paint and plastics industries.
xviii. Tronox submitted that before duty was imposed in May 2025, R-S was being sold to Indian 
plastic manufacturers, however, after imposition of duty, customers switched to R-C 
showing that it is interchangeably used. 
xix. R-C is supplied by affiliates of Tronox to Indian paint companies and R-S to paint producers 
in Brazil, showing that rutile TiO2 is interchangeably used. 
xx. Indian coating manufacturer and distributors as per letters provided through Tronox confirm 
that R-C can effectively replace R-S and are interchangeable. 
xxi. Tronox submitted that Brazil DECOM, European Commission, and Saudi Arabian Authority 
concluded that R-S and R-C are like products and interchangeable. 

G.2 Views of the domestic industry

G.2. a Submissions in the original proceedings 

40. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the 
product under consideration and like article in the original proceedings:
i. Exclusion of rutile grade as a whole cannot be accepted as the majority of domestic
production and imports are of rutile grade, and KMML exclusively produces rutile-grade
TiO2.
ii. The domestic industry has submitted that Anatase grade of TiO2 is produced domestically 
by the domestic industry. Further, with respect to exclusion of rutile TiO2 through sulphate
process, the domestic industry has submitted that the production process does not result in a
distinct product. Furthermore, there is no significant difference in price or interchangeability
between products made by the sulphate and chloride processes. Comparison between
imported and domestically produced Rutile through Chloride reveals that the performance of 
the Rutile through Chloride of the domestic industry is highly comparable to the imported.
iii.Exclusions based solely on differences in production processes have not been accepted by 
Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) unless they result in different products.
iv.The domestic industry also opposes the respondent’s contention of exclusion of TiO2 with 
particle sizes below 200nm and above 350nm, stating that these sizes are being produced
and supplied domestically. The other interested parties have not provided any valid 
justificationfor restricting these particle sizes.
v. The contention regarding bright and bluish undertone rutile TiO2 by Indian Paint
Association (IPA) is similarly contested by the domestic industry on the grounds that no
distinctively different product has been demonstrated, and the parameters referred to by
respondents are not substantiated with data. The BIS for Rutile TiO2 does not state
characteristics such as ‘bright’ or ‘blue’ or ‘bright and bluish’ undertones. The undertone of 
a TiO2 product is inherently subjective and does not have measurable characteristics. No 
two TiO2 producers can offer exact uniformity in terms of brightness and undertone. Further,
the domestic industry does offer products with bright and bluish undertones, which can be
assessed through the Carbon Black Undertone (CBU) value range. Additionally, the opacity, 
brightness, and gloss values of the domestic industry’s products are comparable, or in some
cases, superior to those of imported products.
vi.The domestic industry opposes the exclusion of performance-grade TiO2, such as BLR 895 
or LR 961 as BLR895 grade is not analogous to DI’s RC822, but is highly comparable to
DI’s RC808 in compositional, surface coating, and performance attributes. DI’s RC822 and
RC822+ are comparable to imported BLR 896 and BLR896+ respectively while RC800 is
the R-C domestic industry grade that is comparable to imported LR961. R-C by domestic
industry has comparable physical and performance attributes including pH, opacity, gloss,
durability etc, to imported R-C and satisfies the requirement of specific end uses such as
decorative and industrial applications. Below specified are the R-C grades offered by
domestic industry that are comparable to R-C imported grades mentioned by the other
interested party in their submission:
+----------------+---------------------+
| R-C Imported   | Comparable R-C by DI|
+----------------+---------------------+
| BLR 895        | RC 808              |
+----------------+---------------------+
| BLR 896        | RC 822              |
+----------------+---------------------+
| BLR 896+       | RC 822+             |
+----------------+---------------------+
| LR 961         | RC 800              |
+----------------+---------------------+

vii. With respect to exclusion of sulphate grades, such as BLR 698 or R 868 or BLR 601/ R 216,
the domestic industry submits that they cannot be excluded on the basis of grade name of a
specific producer as they are only names but International Standards to be adhered to.
viii. The domestic industry also submits that the sand milling process is necessary for both
imported products and domestic products because it is an essential step in mixing raw
materials for paint production. This process is required to ensure uniformity and proper
dispersion of the product in industrial applications. Additional sand milling is required only
when agglomeration levels of TiO2 are higher, whereas grade produced by the domestic
industry offers high levels of dispersion and low agglomeration. The coverage of the
domestic industry’s rutile through chloride process is not inferior to that of imports, as
evidenced by the scattering ability, high rutile percentage, and superior tint strength values.
ix.In response to PHDCCI and ASSOCHAM, the domestic industry submits that TiO2 used for
making textiles(used at fibre/pulp stage), TiO2 rutile grade used for making décor paper(used 
at fibre/pulp stage), and TiO2 used for making food can be excluded from the scope of PUC, 
as these products are not used as pigments. Additionally, TiO2 used for making skin care,
pharmaceutical applications, and nano or ultrafine TiO2 with particle sizes below100nm can 
be excluded from the scope of PUC as the domestic industry does not producethese articles.
x. However, the domestic industry objects to ASSOCHAM’S contention of excluding TiO2
anatase grade used for making paper other than décor paper (used at fibre/pulp stage) on the
ground that domestic industry is producing and selling this product.
xi. Further, the domestic industry submits that PVC application should also be considered as
plastic application, as PVC is a type of plastic in this sense. TiO2 is used in making of
masterbatches which are used in the plastic industry to add colour to plastic.
xii. Plastic industry constitutes around 25% of the demand of TiO2 in India and domestic
industry manufactures grades consumed by the plastic industry. The application, being a
major consumption for TiO2, is catered by the DI. Therefore, PVC application must be
included in the scope of PUC.
xiii. The exclusion of rutile through sulphate based solely on differences in production processes 
is unjustified, as variations in methods do not inherently create a fundamentallydifferent
product. Both rutile through sulphate and rutile through chloride share interchangeable uses 
and exhibit only the characteristics of the rutile crystal. Consumers often purchase both types,
underscoring their functional equivalence. Additionally, the costof production for both
processes is comparable, despite differences in raw materials. Notably, one of the
applicants, TTPL, has the necessary technology and setup to producerutile through sulphate
route and actively manufactures rutile Tio2 using this process.

G.2.b Submissions in present remand back proceedings

41. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to PUC in the present 
proceedings:
i. TTPL produces and sells Rutile Sulphate Titanium Dioxide and the same has been shown 
by the domestic industry on multiple occasions. 
ii. Application contained sufficient information and evidence that the domestic industry is 
producing and selling Rutile-Sulphate Titanium Dioxide (R-S TiO2) and Rutile-Chloride 
Titanium Dioxide (R-C TiO2).
iii. All evidence demonstrating that TTPL has been producing and selling R-S TiO2 was placed 
on record through the application and part of the information during the course of the 
investigation.
iv. Evidence filed at various stages, including the application for initiation, subsequent written 
submissions, rejoinder submissions, verification documents, and post-hearing responses 
clearly establishes that TTPL manufactures Rutile grade TiO₂ through the Sulphate process.
v. Application included injury information, costing information, NIP information, production 
and sales information about Rutile-Sulphate grade of TiO2, which has been submitted by 
TTPL. 
vi. Website of TTPL clearly shows the products that are sold under the category of Rutile 
Titanium Dioxide under heads such as ‘Ajantox RD-1, Ajantox RD-1-PG, Ajantox RD-1-
GP’ along with its usage as “widely used for production of solvent and water based paints, 
paper, coatings, inks & plastics, etc.”.
vii. Annexures and costing information filed by TTPL with the application filed shows that the 
company has produced and sold Rutile-Sulphate grade of TiO2. Such evidence includes 
production process flow chart, evidence of capacity, reported raw materials in Format VI-1, 
financial statements, cost audit report, trial balance, injury statement, costing formats. 
viii. Letter dated 2nd July 2024 had explicitly clarified that TTPL produces R-S and letter dated 
26th July 2024 clarified that the data submitted in the application had information separately 
for the PCNs considered and expressly stated that TTPL produces Rutile grade TiO2 through 
the Sulphate route. 
ix. Written submissions of the domestic industry at paragraph 15 stated that the three applicant 
companies produce the PCNs that were included in the subject matter investigation. 
x. At Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the rejoinder submissions of the domestic industry, it was reiterated 
that TTPL does produce and sell Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 in response to allegation of the other 
interested party.
xi. Verification documents of TTPL filed vide email dated 10th August 2024 provided evidence 
by way of invoices showing descriptions and HSN, quantitative details of opening, closing 
stock, production and sales, and production and sales quantities and summaries. 
xii. It was verified that TTPL has the necessary technology and setup to produce Rutile-Sulphate 
grade TiO2 and that it has manufactured and sold Rutile-Sulphate grade TiO2 during the 
POI.
xiii. Consumption of sulphur for production of sulphuric acid and production/consumption/ costs 
of sulphuric acid in production of Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 was verified by the Authority. 
xiv. Authority determined separate NIP for R-S TiO2 produced and sold by TTPL, and the same 
was disclosed. 
xv. Invoices submitted with the email dated 7th February 2025 are simply supporting evidence 
of early contentions made and not new facts that were brought on record.
xvi. No necessity for the sales invoices to be specifically highlighted as proof of sales of Rutile Sulphate TiO2 by TTPL as information showing production, cost of production, raw 
materials consumed, details of consumption of raw materials and utilities, NIP claims, 
expenses incurred in production and sale of the grade, trial balance are part of the information 
and evidence provided.
xvii. There have been repeat orders by customers for R-S TiO2 and sales of Rutile Sulphate 
Titanium Dioxide was made throughout the injury period as is seen from the injury statement 
submitted.
xviii. Various evidences including production process flow chart, capacity evidence, injury 
statement, annual reports, costing formats, cost audit reports, written and rejoinder 
submissions, invoices, sales summaries, stock, trial balances, were provided over the course 
of the investigation, showing production and sales of Rutile-Sulphate by TTPL.
xix. Rutile-Sulphate and Rutile-Chloride are interchangeable and commercially substitutable 
products, sharing similar physical and chemical characteristics, end uses, and channels of 
distribution.
xx. KMML is the largest producer of the subject goods and has produced and sold Rutile Chloride TiO2 during the injury period of the subject matter investigation, while TTPL 
produced and sold Rutile-Sulphate TiO2. 
xxi. R-S and R-C have the same rutile crystal structure and hence both exhibit only the 
characteristics of the rutile crystal. R-S matches R-C in all essential physical and chemical 
properties including Refractive Index, TiO2 content, kind of inorganic surface coating, pH, 
specific gravity, bulk density etc
xxii. Both the domestic and imported R-C TiO2 grades are recommended in similar applications.
xxiii. Chemical composition of Rutile TiO2 itself remains unchanged regardless of whether 
produced by the sulphate route or the chloride route, and regardless of the raw material used.
xxiv. Common category of customers for KMML and TTPL, and even common customers, 
despite one company selling Rutile-Chloride and the other selling Rutile-Sulphate clearly 
shows that even consumers use Rutile-Chloride in substitution to Rutile-Sulphate and vice 
versa.
xxv. Consumers shift their consumption from major international R-C grades to Chinese made R S grades for same applications which is proven by major manufacturers now using 60% or 
above of Chinese R-S grades or KMML R-C grades (some are over 90%) compared to near 
30% use of Chinese R-S grades 3 to 4 years back.
xxvi. ***, a paint company has imported significant volumes of R-S TiO2 from China while also 
buying a significant volume of R-C TiO2 from KMML, showing that the two are 
interchangeable.
xxvii. Brazilian Authority in its anti-dumping investigation on imports of Titanium Dioxide from 
China, clearly held that both R-S and R-C result in chemically and functionally similar final 
products that are used interchangeably in overlapping industrial applications
xxviii. European Commission in its findings found that R-S and R-C are interchangeable. 
xxix. In its final findings in the anti-dumping investigation into imports of TiO2 from China, the 
Saudi General Authority of Foreign Trade held that Rutile grade titanium dioxide produced 
through chloride and sulphate routes are interchangeable.
xxx. TTPL has supplied to major paint users historically, and transactions evidence acceptance 
of TTPL’s grades by top industry participants. 
xxxi. CAS No. 1317-80-2 corresponds to rutile titanium dioxide as a whole, and allegations that 
it denotes nanoparticles are incorrect. 
xxxii. Market practice and verification show overlapping customers using both R-S and R-C, and 
users substitute between them across paints, coatings, plastics, paper. 
xxxiii. Claims that only coated R-S is relevant are misplaced. Uncoated R-S is used by paint 
companies and KMML’s R-C covers the same applications and offers bluish undertone rutile 
grades meeting user specifications. 
xxxiv. IPA’s reliance on Technova case to demand “commercial volume” exclusion is selective. 
Parallel CESTAT orders on the same issue are stayed by the Delhi High Court with no 
finality to the proposition. 
xxxv. TTPL’s historical R-S supply from 2002 and reported year-wise domestic sales across the 
injury period show that sales made by TTPL is not miniscule by any measure and it has sold 
in commercial volumes.
xxxvi. Requests to exclude Anatase-Sulphate TiO2 from the scope of the PUC are untenable as 
continuous dumping has caused injury and decreased utilisation. Imposition of duty would 
merely restore fair competition and imports can continue to meet the gap at fair prices. 
xxxvii. Cosmetic-grade exemption is tied to stringent BIS-grade uses (leave-on cosmetics) and not 
generic wash-off products like toilet soaps. Misuse of “cosmetic grade” declarations to divert 
to industrial uses should not create a blanket exclusion. 

G.3. a. Examination by the Authority 

42. The product under consideration (hereinafter also referred to as the “PUC” or the “subject good”) 
as defined at the stage of initiation (in original proceedings) was as follows:
43. The product under consideration in the present application is “Titanium Dioxide, excluding food,
pharma, skin-care, textile and fibre application and nano or ultrafine titanium dioxide having
particle size below 100 nm”

Specific Exclusions from the scope of the product

44. Specifically excluded from the scope of product under consideration are titanium dioxide meant 
for following applications or specification:
i. food
ii. pharma
iii. skin-care
iv. textile
v. fibre application
vi. Nano or ultrafine titanium dioxide having particle size below 100 nm

General Properties of the product

45. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is a white inorganic compound extracted mainly from mineral ores 
and is used in a vast number of diverse products. The principal naturalsource of TiO2 is mined 
Ilmenite ore which contain 30 – 60% TiO2. Pure TiO2 is produced from Ilmenite ore either using
chloride or sulphate process.
46. The subject good in the present investigation i.e. TiO2 are pigments. Titanium dioxidecan be broadly
classified into Pigmentary TiO2 and Nano/Ultrafine TiO2, based on its particle size. Pigmentary 
titanium dioxide is approximately 200 – 350 nm in dimension which forms 98 % of the total 
production and is used mainly for its high refractive index and consequent scattering of visible light 
and high opacity. In other words, 98% of the global production of titanium dioxide is used as a 
pigment.

Grades of Titanium Dioxide-Rutile and Anatase Grades

47. The petitioners/applicants are manufacturing rutile and anatase grades of titanium dioxide which
are two forms of titanium dioxide depending on their crystal structure.
48. Rutile is a mineral composed primarily of titanium dioxide. Rutile is produced from ilmenite, which
is a mixture of titanium,ferrousiron and ferric iron. Rutile isthe most common natural form of TiO2.
Rutile has among the highest refractive indices of anyknown mineral and exhibits high dispersion. 
Natural rutile may contain up to 10% iron and significant amounts of niobium and tantalum.
49. Anatase grade of TiO2 is produced from ilmenite, which is a mixture of titanium, ferrous iron and 
ferric iron. It has a very high degree of whiteness. Titanium in ilmenite is extracted by reacting this
raw material with sulphuric acid. Titanium goesinto the solution as titanium oxy sulphate. Titanium
dioxide anatase is obtained fromtitanium oxy sulphate by injecting live steam and dewatering the
treated pulp.

Uses

50. Titanium dioxide is the brightest and whitest of the known pigments and is the most sought white 
pigment in applications such as paints & coatings, plastics, papers, rubbers and inks on account of 
its high refractive index and UV resistance. The highrefractive index imparts high whiteness and
hiding power (opacity) to the endproducts. TiO2 pigment also finds application as energy saver as 
it reduces need of air conditioning because of light reflecting qualities when used in paint coatings 
on the outside of buildings in warm climates.

Tariff Classification

51. The product under consideration can be classified under Chapter 28 and 32 of theCustoms Tariff 
Act, 1975. The dedicated code for the product under Chapter 28 is 28230010. However, since it is 
a pigment, imports are also being reported under 32061110 and 32061190. However, it is possible
that the subject goods may be imported under other heading and therefore, the customs
classifications areindicative only and not binding on the scope of the present investigation.”
52. The domestic industry initially proposed the PCN methodology based on the crystalline structurei.e.,
Anatase and Rutile only.
53. 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 3rd June 2024. The following are the
comments received from interested parties with regards to scope of PUC, and PCN methodology.
54. After examining the transaction wise import data called from DG System and submissions of the
interested parties, the Authority observed a significant difference in the import prices of Rutile
Chloride (R-C) and Rutile Sulphate (R-S). Accordingly, the Authority deemed it necessary to
establish separate PCNsfor fair comparison of both products for the purpose of this investigation
55. The Authority confirms the scope of the product under consideration as stated above and with 
regard to exclusion requests made and concerns expressed by the interested parties it observes as 
follows :
a. Rutile through sulphate TiO2 should be excluded- With respect to submissions alleging
that the domestic industry does not produce rutile through sulphate process, the Authority notes 
that the Indian industry produces rutile grade through sulphate process as well as chloride 
process. Further, it is noted that TTPL, has the necessary technology and setup to produce rutile 
through sulphate route and has manufactured and sold rutile Tio2 produced using sulphate 
process during POI. Further, as noted above the contention that R-S should be excluded from 
the scope of the product under consideration, the Authority holds that exclusion of R-S from 
the scope of the investigation would not be appropriate even in a possible situation where the 
domestic industry has not sold R-S to IPA members during the POI or for same application, but 
the same has been sold to other customers. Under the Rules, the Authority is required to 
determine whether the domestic industry has produced like article to the PUC. Further, the R C sold by KMML is a like article to R-S. Both sulphate-route rutile and chloride-route rutile 
share interchangeable applications. Consumers routinely use and purchase both types, showing 
the similarity and interchangeability between the two. Therefore, the Authority disagrees with
the exclusion sought for this product type.
b. TiO2 with particle sizes below 200 nm and above 350 nm- The interested parties have
argued that TiO2 with particles size below 200 nm and above 350 nm should be excluded.It is 
noted that subject goods below particle size 100 nm is already exempted from the scope of 
product under consideration. Further, information on record shows that all the grades of TiO2 
with particles size above 100nm is being produced and sold by the applicants.Thus, the product
scope excludes only particle size below 100 nm.
c. TiO2 rutile with bright and bluish undertone, Performance Grade TiO2 (BLR 895 or 
LR961) and Sulphate Grades (BLR 698/R 868 or BLR 601/R 216) - The interested parties
have requested that certain grades, including TiO2 Rutile grade with a bright and bluish
undertone, performance grades, and specific sulphate grades, be excluded. However, the 
authority notes that these requests are not supported by credible scientific data showing
differences in physical or chemical characteristics or end uses compared to the domestic
products. The domestic industry has asserted that it provides comparable products and contends
that exclusions should not be based solely on grade names created by individual producers. 
These grade names are specific to the producers and do not align with international standards. 
Since consumers use these products interchangeably, the authority holds that there is no 
evidence to justify the exclusion of these product types.
d. TiO2 anatase grade for making paper other than décor (used at fibre/pulp stage)- The
interested party has requested that anatase grade for making paper be excluded from the scope 
of the product under consideration. The domestic industry has submitted that the domestic
industry produces and has sold material to consumers for production of papers (otherthan décor
paper). Since the domestic industry produces this product, the Authority disagrees with this
exclusion request.
e. TiO2 for certain applications- Rutile grade for making décor paper and TiO2 used 
in theproduction of textiles, food- The interested parties have requested that TiO2 used in the
production of textiles and food, and rutile grade used for producing décor paper may be
excluded from the scope of product under consideration. The domestic industry has agreed with 
such request for exclusion as TiO2 in these applications is not used as a pigment. The Authority
excludes TiO2 for these applications.
f. Nano or ultrafine- The domestic industry and interested parties have agreed with
exclusion of nano or ultrafine as the domestic industry does not produce this article and the 
demand for this product is low. The Authority accordingly excludes this product type from the
scope of product under consideration.
g. TiO2 for skin care and pharmaceutical applications- The interested parties have
requested that TiO2 used for skin care and pharmaceutical applications may be excluded from 
the scope of product under consideration. The domestic industry has agreed with such requestfor 
exclusion as TiO2 for these applications is not being produced by the domestic industry. The 
scope of product under consideration thus will exclude TiO2 for skin care and pharmaceutical
applications.
56. In view of the above, the Authority holds the product under consideration and product control
numbers (PCNs) as below:
57. The product under consideration in the present application is “Titanium Dioxide, excluding food,
pharma, skin-care, textile and fibre application and nano orultrafine titanium dioxide having
particle size below 100 nm”

Specific Exclusions from the scope of the product

58. Specifically excluded from the scope of product under consideration are titanium dioxide meant 
for following applications or specification:
+------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| S No.| Product excluded| Description of the excluded product and details             |
+------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1    | Food           | TiO2 used in food additives like food colouring             |
+------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2    | Pharma         | TiO2 used as ingredient in tablet film coatings             |
+------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3    | Skin-care      | TiO2 is used in cosmetics and sunscreen lotions for UV-     |
|      |                | absorbing and photocatalyst applications                    |
+------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4    | Textile        | TiO2 used in production of textile/fibre. TiO2 which is     |
|      |                | used in the production of textiles and fibres largely       |
|      |                | because of its photo-catalytic self-cleaning, UV-           |
|      |                | protection and delustering abilities, etc. is excluded      |
|      |                | from the scope ofproduct under consideration.               |
|      |                | However, such exclusion does not extend to the TiO2 that is |
|      |                | used as a pigment for printing over the                     |
|      |                | textile/garment/cloth/fabric.                               |
+------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5    | Fibre          | TiO2 is used for delustering the artificial fibre and this    |
|      |                | fibre is used to product the textiles. Fibre grade materials|
|      |                | are used to blend with fibre threads to make the cloth      |
|      |                | itself.TiO2 Rutile grade for making décor paper (used       |
|      |                | at fibre/pulp stage).                                       |
+------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6    | Nano or        | Nano or ultrafine titanium dioxide having particle          |
|      | ultrafine      | size below 100 nm used in textile/paint industry to       |
|      |                | offercharacteristics such as dust free textile/paint        |
+------+----------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+

PCN Methodology
+-------------------+------------+
| PCN               | PCN Code   |
+-------------------+------------+
| Rutile -Chloride  | R-C        |
+-------------------+------------+
| Rutile- Sulphate  | R-S        |
+-------------------+------------+
| Anatase-Sulphate  | A-S        |
+-------------------+------------+
59. The Authority notes that the product produced by the applicants and the product under consideration
imported from the subject country 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 applicants’
companiesislike article to the product under consideration imported from the subject country within
the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Anti-dumping Rules.

H. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING

H.1 Submissions by other interested parties

60. No submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to the scope of domestic
industry and its standing.

H.2 Submissions by domestic industry

61. The applicants have made the following submissions with regard to the scope of domestic
industry and standing:
i. The application has been filed by M/s. Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd, M/s. Travancore
Titanium Products Ltd and M/s. VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd.
ii. The applicants comprise of all the producers in India involved in the manufacturing of the
PUC. Applicants have neither imported nor are related to any importer or exporter of subject
goods.
iii. The applicants constitute a ‘major proportion’ of the total Indian production and satisfies the
requirements of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules.

H.3 Examination by the Authority

62. 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 casethe term 'domestic industry ' must be construed as
referring to the rest of the producers"
63. The present application has been filed by M/s Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd, M/s Travancore
Titanium Products Ltd and M/s VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd. The applicants are the only
producers of subject goods in the POI in the country. There are no other domestic producers of
subject goods.
64. The applicants have not imported the subject goods and are not related to either an importer or
exporter of subject goods from subject country. Information on record shows that the applicants
account for 100% of Indian production in the POI. The application thus, satisfies the criteria of
standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. Therefore, the Authority holds that the
applicants/petitioners as the eligible domestic industry. Further, the applicants constitute the
domestic industry.

I. SAMPLING OF FOREIGN PRODUCERS

65. A large number of producers and exporters of the subject goods from China submitted questionnaire 
response. In view of the large number of producers and exporters, the Authority decided to resort to 
sampling in the present investigation in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17(3). Based on the 
questionnaire responses filed before the Authority, the following threegroups were chosen for
individual dumping margin determination.
i LB Group comprising of following producers/exporters- Henan Billions Advanced Material 
Co., Ltd., LB Group Co., Ltd., LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., LB Sichuan Titanium 
Industry Co., Ltd, LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd, Billions (Hong Kong)
Corporation Limited and Billions Europe Ltd, UK.
ii Gold Star Group comprising of producer/exporter- Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide
(Group) Co., Ltd and Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
iii Shandong Group comprising of producer/exporter- Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.
and Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
66. The Authority vide email dated 29.08.2024 intimated all the interested parties regarding the
sampling methodology and the sampled groups for further investigation and sought the comments 
from them. The comments sent by the interested parties were examined by theAuthority and thefinal
sampled groups of exporters/producers were intimated vide notification no F.No.- 06/03/2024 dated
7th October, 2024. The Authority also informed the interested parties that these producers along with
their associated exporters are proposed to be considered for determinationof individual dumping 
margin.
67. The Authority invited comments from the interested parties. The submissions made by the interested
parties are briefly as under.

I.1 Submissions by other interested parties

68. There were no submissions made by other interested parties in this regard.

I.2 Submissions made by the domestic industry

69. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i. 21 producers have filed questionnaire responses as per the interested parties’ list, which is a 
high number to permit individual determination.
ii. Given the 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.
iii. In the past, Chinese producers who have had negligible export volumes in the POI, after 
getting individual lower duty, flood the Indian market.
iv. The global norm in sampling is to consider at most three companies:
a. In Ceramic Tiles from India1, Europe originally considered two companies and
refused to extend sampling size to three companies even following aggressive
representations from the company at number 3.
b. In Wood Pulp from Canada2, China’s Ministry of Commerce (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. The USA considers more than two companies as ‘unduly burdensome’. In the matterof
Quartz Surface Productsfrom India3, 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.
v. Filing of questionnaire response on voluntary basis cannot be grounds to determine
individual dumping margin.

I.3. Examination by the Authority

70. After reviewing the comments from interested parties, the export data was organized in descending 
order of production of PUC. Based on the largest percentage of export volume to India from China
during the POI, three (3) producers, along with their associated exporters/producers, were selected 
for the determination of the dumping margin. These 3 sampled producers/exporters group contribute
to about 49% of exports during the POI, makingthem an appropriate and representative sample. 
Therefore, the Authority has considered the sampled producers to determine dumping margin and 
the dumping margin for non-sampled cooperating producers/ exporters from China PR would be
determined on the basis of the same.

J. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT, DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE,
EXPORT PRICE, AND DUMPING MARGIN

J.1. Submissions made by other interested parties

71. Following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regards to the normal value,
export price and dumping margin:
i. Market economy status should be granted to China PR based on the development of the market 
economy of China. Article 15(a)(ii) of China’s Accession Protocol expired on December 11, 
2016.
ii. After 11th December 2016, anti-dumping regulations cannot contain any provisions allowing 
for the establishment of the normal value for the Chinese exporting producers on a basis other 
than their domestic prices and costs.
iii. India has no legal basis under the WTO Agreement to calculate normal value in anti-dumping 
investigation for products from China PR using the non-market economy methodology. Any 
such action by India would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT.
iv. The surrogate country methodology is no longer applicable in calculating normal value, 
regardless of whether China PR is treated as a market economy due to the principle of pacta 
sunt servanda, Section 15 of China’s Accession Protocol to WTO and Appellate Body Report 
on EC- Fasteners initiated by China PR.
v. China PR should not be treated as a non-market economy as per China’s accession protocol to 
WTO, the same was also confirmed by the WTO Appellate Body in “EC-Fasteners”. US and 
EU in their respective bilateral agreement with China PR had also noted about the expiry of 
non-market economy status after 15 years after China enters WTO.

J.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry

72. The submissions of the domestic industry with regards to the normal value, the export price and the
dumping margin, are as follows:
i. China should be considered a non-market economy country and normal value in case of the 
producers/exporters from China PR should be determined in accordance with para-7 read with 
para 8 (2) and 8(3) of Annexure I of the AD Rules. In terms of Para 8 in Annexure I to the AD 
Rules, it is presumed that the producers of the subject goods in China PR are operating under 
non-market economy conditions. Therefore, normal value of the subject goods in China PR has 
been estimated in terms of Para 7 of Annexure I to the AD Rules.
ii. Article 15 (d) of the Protocol, the provision of 15(a)(ii) has expired in December 2016 i.e., 15 
years after China PR’s accession to the WTO. However, Article 15(a)(i), which provides for 
presumption of non-market economy for China PR, is still in force. Hence, a valid presumption 
exists that China PR is a non-market economy country for anti-dumping investigations.
iii. The Authority shall follow Para 1 – 6 of Annexure I for the determination of normal value only 
if the responding Chinese companies establish that their costs and price information is such that 
individual normal value and dumping margin can be determined. If the responding Chinese 
companies are not able to demonstrate that their costs and price information can be adopted, 
the Designated Authority shall reject the claim of individual dumping margin.
iv. Paragraph 1 to 6 of Annexure I of the Rules does not apply for computation of normal value for 
imports from China PR, unless a producer/exporter shows with sufficient evidence that he is 
operating under market economy conditions. As a result, normal value for China PR has to be 
determined in terms of Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules.

J.3. Examination by the Authority

73. Under Section 9A(1)(c) of the Act, normal value in relation to an article means:
i. the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when meant 
for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with 
the rules made under sub-section (6); or
ii. when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic 
market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market
situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of theexporting country or 
territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be
either-
(a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the
exporting country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in
accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or
(b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along With
reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as
determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6):
Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the
country of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the
country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is
no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined
with reference to its price in the country of origin.
74. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject country, aswell 
as to the appropriate diplomatic representative advising them to provide information in the form and 
manner prescribed by the Authority within the prescribed time limit. The Authority received
questionnaire responses from the following exporters/producers:
i. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd.
ii. LB Group Co., Ltd.
iii. Lb Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
iv. Lb Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
v. Lb Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
vi. Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited
vii. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd.
viii. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
ix. Yibin Tianyuan Haifeng Hetai Co., Ltd
x. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., Ltd
xi. Efon (Hongkong) Company Limited
xii. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.
xiii. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
xiv. Chongqing Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. of Pangang Group
xv. Pangang Group Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xvi. Pangang Group Chengdu Vanadium & Titanium Resources Development Co., Ltd.
xvii. Pangang Group Chongqing Vanadium & Titanium Technology Co., Ltd.
xviii. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Products Co Ltd ( A Tronox Company)
xix. Kunming Donghao Titanium Co., Ltd.
xx. Inter China Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxi. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xxii. Shandong Doguide Group Co., Ltd.
xxiii. Qianjiang Fangyuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xxiv. Jinan Yuxing Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxv. Ningbo Xinfu Titanium Dioxide Co., Ltd.
xxvi. Ningbo Xinfu Chemical Marketing Co., Ltd.
xxvii. Shandong Dawn Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
75. The Authority has sampled following three groups which includes related traders and producers:
i. LB Group comprising of following producers/exporters- Henan Billions Advanced
Material Co., Ltd., LB Group Co., Ltd., LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., LB
Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd, LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd, Billions
(Hong Kong) Corporation Limited and Billions Europe Ltd, UK.
ii. Gold Star Group comprising of producer/exporter- Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide 
(Group) Co., Ltd and Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
iii. Shandong Group comprising of producer/exporter- Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co.,
Ltd.and Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
76. The normal value and export price for all producers/ exporters from the subject country have
been determined as below.

J.3.1. Normal Value

77. Article 15 of China's Accession Protocol in WTO provides as follows:
"Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") and the SCM Agreement
shall apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent
with the following:
"(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for
the industry under investigation or a methodology, that is not based on a strict comparison with
domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules:
(i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions
prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production
and sale of that product, the importing WO Member shall use Chinese pricesor costs for the
industry under investigation in determining price comparability;
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict
comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigationcannot 
clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product 
with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product.
(b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies
described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCMAgreement 
shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO 
Member may then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which 
take into account the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always
be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable,
the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before
considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China.
c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with
subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and shall notifymethodologies
used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies andCountervailing 
Measures.
d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, thatit
is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided thatthe 
importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession.
In any event; the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of 
accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing
WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry orsector, the
nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to thatindustry or 
sector. "
78. It is noted that while the provision contained in Section 15 (a)(ii) has expired on 11.12.2016, the
provision under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement read with the obligation under
Section 15(a)(i) of the Accession Protocol require criterion stipulated in paragraph 8 of Annexure I
of the Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary
questionnaire on claiming market economy treatment.
79. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded as per the information made available by the
domestic producers on the cost of production of the subject goods with due addition of SGA and
profits. Upon initiation, the Authority advised the producers/ exporters in China PR to respond to
the notice of the initiation and provide information relevant to the determination of their market
economy status. The Authority sent copies of the supplementary questionnaire to all the known
producers/ exporters for rebutting the presumption of a non-market economy in accordance with
criteria laid down in Para 8(3) of Annexure-I to the Rules and furnish relevant detailed information. 
The Authority also requested the Government of China PR to advise the producersexportersin China 
PR to provide the relevant information.
80. None of the exporters/producers contested the non-market economy status of China. Thus, in view
of the above position and in the absence of rebuttal of the non-market economy presumptionby any 
Chinese exporting company, the Authority considers it appropriate to treat China PR as anon-market
economy country in the present investigation and proceeds with para 7 of Annexure-I to the Rules 
for determination of normal value in case of China PR.
81. Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules reads as under:
“In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on 
the basis of the price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from 
such a third country to other countries, including India or where it is not possible, or on any 
other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, 
duly adjusted if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market
economy third country shall beselected by the designated authority in a reasonable manner, 
keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in question, 
and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of 
selection. Accountsshall be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation made
in any similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The partiesto the 
investigation shall be informed without any unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the
market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period oftime to offer their 
comments.”
82. In the absence of sufficient information on record regarding the other methods enshrined in Para7 of
Annexure I of the AD Rules, the Authority has determined the normal value by consideringthe
method on “any other reasonable basis”.
83. The Authority has therefore constructed the normal value for China PR on the basis of cost of
production in India, duly adjusted, including selling, general and administrative expenses and
reasonable profits. The constructed normal value so determined for Chinese producers/exportersis
mentioned in the dumping margin table below.

J.3.2. Export Price for all sampled producers and exporters

A) LB Group (Sampled)
i. M/s. LB Group Co Ltd.
ii. M/s. LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
iii. M/s. LB Sichuan Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
iv. M/s. LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
v. M/s. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co. Ltd
vi. M/s. Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited
vii. M/s Billions Europe Ltd., UK
84. LB Group Co., Ltd. was established on August 20, 1998 as a public listed company in accordance
with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
85. During the POI, LB Group Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT subject goods to India. Out of this, the 
producer/exporter has sold *** MT indirectly through a related exporter/trader namely, Billions 
(Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. It is further noted that out of this *** MT, Billions 
(Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong has sold *** MT to India directly and rest of *** 
MT has been sold to India indirectly through another related exporter/trader namely, Billions Europe 
Ltd., UK. The producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, 
insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and commission to 
arrive at net export price at ex-factory level and the net export price so determined is as shown in 
the dumping margin table.
86. LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. was established on April 20, 2015 as a limited liability
company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
87. During the POI, LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. has sold *** MT subject goods to India. 
Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold *** MT indirectly through a related exporter/trader 
namely, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. The producers/exporters have 
claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other 
related expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at net export price at ex-factory level and 
the net export price so determined is as shown in the dumping margin table.
88. LB Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. was established on February 21, 2001 as a limited
liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
89. During the POI, LB Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. China PR, has sold *** MT subject goods 
to India. Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold *** MT indirectly through a related 
exporter/trader namely, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. It is further noted 
that out of this *** MT, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong has sold *** MT 
to India directly and rest of *** MT of subject goods Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, 
Hong Kong has sold to India indirectly through another related exporter/trader namely, Billions 
Europe Ltd., UK. The producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, 
insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and commission to 
arrive at net export price at ex-factory level and the net export price so determined is as shown in 
the dumping margin table.
90. LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., China PR, was established on April 29, 2011 as a
limited liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China. 
91. During the POI, LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., China PR, has sold *** MT subject 
goods to India. Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold *** MT indirectly through a related 
exporter/trader namely, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. The 
producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland 
transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at net export 
price at ex-factory level and the net export price so determined is as shown in the dumping margin 
table.
92. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd. was established on May 19, 2016 as a limited 
liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
93. During the POI, Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT subject goods to 
India. Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold *** MT indirectly through a related exporter/trader 
namely, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. It is further noted that out of this 
*** MT, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong has sold *** MT to India directly 
and rest of *** MT of subject goods Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong has 
sold to India indirectly through another related exporter/trader namely, Billions Europe Ltd., UK. 
The producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland 
transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at PCN-wise 
weighted average of export price at ex-factory level and the ex-factory export price so determined is 
as shown in the dumping margin table.
B) Gold Star Group (Sampled)
i. M/s. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co. Ltd.
ii. M/s. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co. Ltd.
94. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co. Ltd. was established as a limited liability
company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China, on January 18, 1996.
95. During the POI, Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd., China PR, has sold *** MT 
subject goods to India indirectly through a related exporter/trader namely, Anhui Gold Star Titanium 
Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd., China PR on ex-works basis. The producer/exporter has claimed no 
adjustments to arrive of export price at ex-factory level and the net export price so determined is as 
shown in the dumping margin table.
96. M/s. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd., was established as a limited liability 
company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China, on October 20, 2017.
97. During the POI, Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT subject 
goods to India. Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold *** MT of subject goods from its related 
producer/exporter namely M/s. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd., China PR. 
The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland 
transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at net export 
price at ex-factory level and the net export price so determined is as shown in the dumping margin 
table.
C) Shandong Group (Sampled)
i.M/s. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co. Ltd.
ii. M/s. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co. Ltd.
98. M/s. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd., was established on October 16, 2013 as a limited
liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
99. During the POI, Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT subject goods to India. 
The producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland 
transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at net export 
price at ex-factory level and the ex-factory export price so determined is as shown in the dumping 
margin table.
100.M/s. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd. China PR, was establishedon
April 24, 2012 as a limited liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's 
Republic of China.
101.During the POI, Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd. China PR, has sold *** 
MT subject goods to India directly. The producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on accounts 
of ocean, freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and 
commission to arrive at net export price at ex-factory level and the ex-factory export price so 
determined is as shown in the dumping margin table.
D) Non sampled cooperating producers/exporters
102.The Authority considers the weighted average dumping margin evaluated on the basisof individual
dumping margins for the producers/exporters of the sampled category. This weighted average
dumping margin has been accorded to the non-sampled category of producers/exporters of subject
goods and has been mentioned in the dumping margin table.

E) Non-cooperating producers/exporters

103.The Authority has determined the export price for non-cooperating producers/ exporters from China 
PR after considering the volume and value of imports based on data of cooperating producers from 
China PR. Adjustments have been made for ocean freight, inland freight, insurance, handling 
charges, commission, and bank charges. The export price so determined is stated in the below –
mentioned dumping margin table.

J.3.3 Determination of dumping margin

104.Considering the normal value and export price determined, as explained above, it is determined that
the dumping margin is more than the de-minimis limit prescribed under the Rules.
105.It is noted that many cooperating producers and exporters are related to each other and form a group 
of related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider relatedexporting
producers and exporters as one single entity for the determination of a dumping marginand thus to
establish one single dumping margin for them. This is in particular because calculatingindividual 
dumping margins might encourage circumvention of anti-dumping measures, thus rendering them 
ineffective, by enabling related exporting producers to channel their exports to India through the 
company with the lowest individual dumping margin.
106.In accordance with the above, related producers and exporters is regarded as onesingle entity and 
attributed one single dumping margin which was calculated on the basis of theweighted average of
the dumping margins of the cooperating related producers and exporters.

Dumping Margin (DM) Table
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| S.No.| Producer                                        | CNV      | Net Export  | Dumping       | DM     | DM       |
|      |                                                 | ($/MT)   | Price       | Margin        | (%)    | Range    |
|      |                                                 |          | ($/MT)      | (DM) ($/MT)   |        | (%)      |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 1.   | M/s Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group)    | ***      | ***         | ***           | ***    | 60-70    |
|      | Co., Ltd.                                       |          |             |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 2.   | M/s Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading    |          |             |               |        |          |
|      | Co., Ltd.                                       |          |             |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 3.   | M/s Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources          | ***      | ***         | ***           | ***    | 40-50    |
|      | Technology Co., Ltd.                            |          |             |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 4.   | M/s Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.        |          |             |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 5.   | M/s LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co Ltd, and  | ***      | ***         | ***           | ***    | 35-45    |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 6.   | M/s LB Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.      |          |             |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 7.   | M/s LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.       |          |             |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 8.   | M/s LB Group Co., Ltd                           |          |             |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 9.   | M/s Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd.  |          |             |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 10.  | Non-Sampled Cooperative Producers/Exporters     | ***      | ***         | ***           | ***    | 40-50    |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 11.  | Residual                                        | ***      | ***         | ***           | ***    | 90-100   |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+-------------+---------------+--------+----------+

K. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK

K.1. Views of the other interested parties

K.1.a Views of other interested parties in original proceedings

107.The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regard to injury and 
causal link:
i. Import volume data shows significant reliance on imports to meet domestic demand,
particularly from China PR.
ii. Imports have shown steady increase in tandem with increase in demand in the POI.
iii. Sales of the domestic industry have increased slightly while imports from other countries 
declined in the POI.
iv. Domestic industry is unable to meet the increasing demand for the subject goods and the 
demand supply gap highlighting the need for imports.
v. Grade-wise examination would enable a clearer assessment of how different quality grades 
have contributed to changes in cost and pricing dynamics. This approach will allow 
identification of grades that may be experiencing higher or lower demand, pricing pressures, 
or cost variances, leading to more tailored strategies for pricing, marketing, and production. 
Such an analysis can also uncover trends that might be obscured in the aggregate data, 
thereby enabling more informed decision-making and enhancing profitability.
vi. The alleged injury to the domestic industry cannot be attributed solely to subject imports. 
Other contributing factors include fluctuations in raw material prices, supply chain 
disruptions, changing consumer preferences, and increased competition from both domestic 
and foreign producers.
vii. DI’s claim of a 22% return on capital employed (ROCE) for determining the non-injurious 
price is excessive and inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Rules, as it inflates the non injurious price calculation by applying an unjustifiable rate across both net worth and debt 
components of capital employed. It is submitted that non-injurious price should be calculated 
based on the actual ROCE earned by the domestic industry during periods without dumping 
allegations, considering the prevailing economic conditions and ensuring that interest costs 
and profit margins reflect realistic and reasonable levels.
viii. Injury must be analysed separately for rutile and anatase grades as they are distinct forms of 
the PUC due to their unique crystal structures and resultant physical and chemical 
differences.
ix. Injury must be analysed separately for rutile-chloride and rutile-sulphate as they cannot be 
used interchangeably. Mere adoption of PCN is insufficient for a holistic injury examination 
and does not reflect the correct volume effect, price effect, and economic parameters for 
determining injury as per the AD Rules.
x. Domestic industry has used two separate import volumes to calculate dumping margin, and 
for determining net export price, injury margin, price undercutting. Domestic industry has 
created an inconsistency that could distort the injury examination. Volume of imports from 
China has risen by 50% while that of non-subject countries have experienced a decline of 
about 25%. Imports into India have increased by only 12.80%, aligning with the increase in 
total Indian demand. Hence, Chinese imports are taking away market share of non- subject 
country imports and not Indian market share, which remained more or less at the same level.
xi. Segregation of Chinese imports reveals that the increase in imports pertain to rutile- sulphate 
due to the non-availability of rutile-sulphate domestically. Imports of rutile- sulphate are a 
necessity than a choice.
xii. Price undercutting in itself cannot be an indicator of injury leading to material injury. Setting 
of net sales realisation (NSR) is a business decision, therefore, DI’s internal inefficiency that 
may lead to higher cost of production and higher NSR cannot be a reason to claim injury or 
material injury.
xiii. As per the audits of the Comptroller and Auditor General, KMML has maintained pricing 
practices that ensure recovery of variable costs which contradict claims of price suppression 
or depression.
xiv. KMML has not expanded its production capacity since fiscal year 2006-07 despite being the 
sole domestic producer of rutile TiO2 in India. Despite consistent and increasing demand 
from the user industry, capacity of KMML has remained the same. Capacity utilisation data 
suggests that KMML’s performance has been consistent over time, showing no changes in 
output or capacity utilisation.
xv. Sales prices of KMML have increased substantially over the injury period, whereas the cost 
of production has decreased indicating that KMML is currently not facing adverse financial 
impacts that would necessitate imposition of duties.
xvi. KMML has reported gross profits across all segments including PUC, of 120% and 20% 
respectively from 2019-20 to 2022-23. Thus, claims regarding decline in profitability are 
devoid of merit and warrant rejection.
xvii. Achieving 4, 00,000 MT capacity as mentioned by the domestic industry during the oral 
hearing would require an approximate capital outlay of INR 10,000 Cr. Considering the 
domestic industry is reportedly, financially constrained due to internal inefficiencies and 
borrowing, such investment seems highly improbable.
xviii. Domestic industry’s sales volume and sales price have risen slightly which indicate stability 
and improvement in the domestic industry’s performance, negating the assertion that the 
domestic industry is suffering from injury.
xix. Increase in imports from China PR has been modest and cannot be considered significant 
enough to substantiate a claim of threat of material injury.
xx. India does not constitute an exceptionally high-growth or lucrative market for foreign 
exporters as demand has remained relatively steady over recent years and does not indicate 
significant or increasing attractiveness to foreign exporters.
xxi. Domestic industry has not provided reliable data on the actual installed capacity in China 
which is dedicated for the production of the PUC as opposed to the grades of TiO2 which 
are not subject to this investigation, in the absence of which, the Authority should disregard 
the domestic industry’s speculative assertions of excess capacities.
xxii. The COVID-19 pandemic and resultant lockdown is a factor in the performance of the 
domestic industry and demonstrates the absence of any causal relationship between the 
dumped goods and injury to the domestic industry. KMML’s annual report of 2022-23 
reports an increase in COVID related expenses, which may have increased the costs of the 
company.
xxiii. Domestic industry has the option to address any injury arising from alleged subsidies as 
claimed by the domestic industry by filing a separate anti-subsidy petition. It would be 
inappropriate to include in the present anti-dumping assessment any injury purportedly 
caused by subsidisation such as export tax rebates.
xxiv. The domestic industry is inefficient owing to the massive increase in its interest costs which 
may have contributed significantly to the domestic industry’s rising cost of sales, turning 
prior profits into losses, and leading to the decline in ROI.
xxv. The domestic industry has specifically highlighted injury from the LB Group. However, it 
must be noted that LB Group is backward integrated, thereby maintaining a more 
competitive cost structure. KMML relies on purchased raw materials and is hence unable to 
efficiently manage its raw materials. KMML’s annual report shows that there is a significant 
increase in raw material costs which is disproportionate to the rise in sales, indicating
inefficiencies.

K.1.b Views of other interested parties in remand proceedings

108.The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal 
link in the present proceedings: 
i. India's domestic capacity is 82,500 MT per annum, but actual production is around 47,000 
MT, creating greater than 300,000 MT deficit which is met by imports, reflecting supply 
issues and not injury caused by dumping.
ii. The DI claims TTPL can produce and has sold R-S but annual capacity of TTPL at 10,000 
MT is primarily for A-S and any Rutile produced is uncoated and technically unsuitable for 
premium paints and high-grade plastics. Injury on account of R-S imports are invalid and DI 
must provide invoices showing R-S sales to paint manufacturers to substantiate the injury 
on account of imports of R-S. 
iii. The claimed domestic capacity of 82,500 MT is contradicted by actual production of 47,000 
MT against total Indian demand of 4,00,000 MT, resulting in an 88% import dependency. 
Actual production in FY23 implies 57% utilization due to inefficiencies. 
iv. KMML does not produce R-S and only produces R-C, which is not the grade needed by the 
15,000 SMEs. Further, capacity expansion plans have been delayed due to administrative 
hurdles, meaning it cannot physically supply the deficit of 3,00,000 MT. 
v. True injury to the domestic industry is from Tronox and Chemours, not from China, as post 
imposition of duties both exporters have reduced their prices significantly with prices 
dropping to 600-700 USD/MT as compared to 2,900 USD/MT earlier. Price reduction was 
concealed from the Authority by issuance of post-sale credit notes. These prices were 
significant because they were lower that landed cost of Chinese TiO2 after imposition of 
ADD and they are substantially below prices of KMML. 
vi. Tronox submitted that imposition of duties in Brazil, the EU, and Saudi Arabia which are 
higher than India’s duty has led to trade diversion with Chinese exporters redirecting massive 
volumes (approx. 150,000 MT annually) to the Indian market, which has the lowest duties. 
vii. Tronox submitted that since the Hon’ble High Court in Calcutta set aside the final findings, 
Authority now is legally entitled to reconsider findings with regard to NIP, causal link, and 
IM along with confidentiality issues. 
viii. Under Rules 5 and 6, the domestic industry must prove dumping, injury, and causal link with 
verifiable data and withholding data under confidentiality undermines importers right to 
reply. 
ix. Domestic industry failed to prove that the injury it suffered was specifically caused by 
dumped imports, as required by WTO ADA Article 3.5 and Rule 11(2). Other factors such 
as raw material price shifts and domestic inefficiencies were not properly isolated making 
the causal link insufficient.
x. Like article and injury analysis may be re-assessed using only verified, non-confidential 
evidence.

K.2. Views of the Domestic Industry

K.2.a Views of the domestic industry in original proceedings

109.The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal 
link:
i. Demand increased steadily until 2021-22 but declined in 2022-23 and during the POI.
ii. Imports from the subject country have increased significantly from the base year to the 
POI.
iii. The increase in imports is substantial both in absolute and relative terms.
iv. The share of imports from the subject country in relation to Indian production and 
consumption has grown consistently over the injury period.
v. Subject imports hold 57% market share in total Indian demand.
vi. Price undercutting was determined by comparing the landed price of the subject imports 
with the selling price of the domestic industry. The subject imports are undercutting the 
prices of the DI.
vii. The cost of sales increased till 2022-23, after which it saw a slight decline in the POI. The 
selling price increased till 2021-22 and then decreased till the POI. Subject imports 
therefore, are suppressing the prices of the domestic industry.
viii. The capacity of domestic industry has remained constant throughout the injury period.
ix. Production and capacity utilization of domestic industry has increased from the base year 
to 2021-22, however declined significantly since then till POI.
x. Despite sufficient demand in the country, the domestic industry is operating at a very low 
utilization level.
xi. Sales of the domestic industry increased till 2021-22, declined in 2022-23, and saw an 
increase in the POI.
xii. Market share of the applicants declined over the injury period whereas share of subject 
imports have increased and is more than 50%. The subject imports have also taken away 
the share of other countries in demand.
xiii. With regard to the profitability parameters of the domestic industry, COVID and low priced imports caused the domestic industry to incur losses in the base year.
xiv. In 2021-22, the domestic industry started earning profits, cash profits, and a reasonable 
ROI. However, it started incurring severe losses in 2022-23, which continued into the POI, 
where the landed price of the subject imports started to decline significantly. The ROI of 
the domestic industry was negative *** % in the POI.
xv. The inventories with the domestic industry have undergone a highly significant increase 
over the injury period. The inventory in the POI is at *** MT, despite a reduction in 
production.
xvi. The number of employees and the wages paid have declined marginally over the injury 
period.
xvii. Productivity per employee has increased from the base year to 2021-22, it has however 
declined significantly since then till the POI, following the movement of production.
xviii. The subject imports have adversely affected the growth of the domestic industry in respect 
of price and profitability parameters.
xix. There is an increase in dumped imports from the subject country, even beyond the demand 
supply gap in India, after accounting for the new producer that has already started 
producing subject goods after the POI.
xx. Injury must be seen for the domestic industry as a whole as the PUC is defined as ‘titanium 
dioxide’ and injury analysis must be considered for the product as a whole.
xxi. Calculation of dumping margin and injury margin has been carried out based on anatase 
and rutile grades, as they are identified and any unknown grades of TiO2 have not been 
considered.
xxii. To calculate price undercutting, the total volume of imports has been considered.
xxiii. Landed price of Chinese imports declined after 2021-22, the landed price of non-Chinese 
imports increased significantly, especially in the POI.
xxiv. Volume of imports from China increased as that of other countries declined.
xxv. The increase in stocks over the injury period is from about 50 crores to 250 crores.
xxvi. Capacity utilization for one of the constituents of the domestic industry is only at 32% in 
the POI, while that of another applicant is 32% for two different PCNs.
xxvii. Domestic industry was forced to follow movement of landed price and not costs by 
reducing selling price in 2022-23 even with a cost increase. However, landed price was too 
low and below cost and declined further in the POI.
xxviii. KMML suffered massive declines in PBT by about *** Cr and in PBIT by about *** Cr 
while its interest cost increased only *** Cr.
xxix. The reference made to KMML’s policy is to variable costs and not full costs and ignores 
full costs knowing that market forces may not allow for full costs to be recovered.
xxx. COVID related expense was made initially in 2021, as per orders of the Government of 
Kerala. The amount paid in 2022-23, was simply a part payment to complete the amount 
contributed as part of the company’s CSR obligations. Moreover, CSR expenses are not 
even considered for reporting profits and are met from profit after tax.

K.2.b Views of the domestic industry in present remand back proceedings

110.The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link in 
the present proceedings:
i. Production volume of the domestic industry has been significantly impacted by the dumping 
practices of Chinese producers. 
ii. Financial strain has led to underutilisation of existing capacity and delays in planned 
expansions which has affected growth of the domestic industry, hindering its ability to meet 
the increasing demand for TiO2 in India.
iii. Despite sufficient demand in the country, domestic industry is operating at only 56% capacity 
utilisation. 
iv. Challenges of price undercutting as well as increasing import volumes have been have 
impacted the domestic industry. 
v. Restrained quantum of duty risks undermining the long-term capacity utilisation and 
investment in domestic production of the subject goods.
vi. There is a significant difference between the duty recommended by the Indian authorities 
when compared to that recommended and imposed by the trade remedial authorities in the 
European Union, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia.

K.3. Examination by the Authority

111.The Authority has taken note of the submissions made by the interested parties and has examined
various parameters in accordance with the Rules after duly considering the submissions made bythe 
interested parties. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto addressesthe
various submissions made by the interested parties.
112.Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve
examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, taking into account all
relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market 
for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on the domestic producers of such articles.
In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessaryto examine 
whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with 
the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress 
prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a 
significant degree. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic 
industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as production, capacity
utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of
dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance withAnnexure II of the Rules.

K.3.1 Assessment of Demand/Apparent Consumption

113.The Authority has defined, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand, or apparent
consumption of the subject goods in India as the sum of domestic sales of the applicants and imports
from all sources. The demand for the PUC is as follows:
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Particulars                  | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI  |
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Imports from Subject Country-| MT   | 1,46,998| 1,72,187| 2,02,922| 2,26,869|
| China                        |      |         |         |         |      |
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indexed                      |      | 100     | 117     | 138     | 154  |
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Imports from other countries | MT   | 1,46,874| 1,77,252| 1,41,605| 1,22,608|
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indexed                      |      | 100     | 121     | 96      | 83   |
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Sales of Domestic Industry   | MT   | 46,855  | 47,913  | 38,998  | 47,223|
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indexed                      |      | 100     | 102     | 83      | 101  |
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indian Demand                | MT   | 3,40,727| 397,352| 383,525| 396,699|
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indexed                      |      | 100     | 117     | 113     | 116  |
+------------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
114.It is seen that the demand for the product under consideration increased in 2021-22 and declined
marginally thereafter till POI. The imports from subject country have increased significantly by 
54% when compared with base year 2020-21.

K.3.2 Volume effect of dumped imports on domestic industry

a) Imports in absolute and relative terms

115.With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether 
there has been a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or in relationto 
production or consumption in India. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied 
upon the transaction-wise import data from DG System. The Authority has considered thedata based
on the finalised PUC and PCN of the subject goods. The import volumes of the subjectgoods and 
share of the same during the injury investigation period are as follows:
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Particulars               | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI  |
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Import Volume             |      |         |         |         |      |
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Subject Country- China    | MT   | 1,46,998| 1,72,187| 2,02,922| 2,26,869|
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indexed                   |      | 100     | 117     | 138     | 154  |
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Other Countries           | MT   | 1,46,874| 1,77,252| 1,41,605| 1,22,608|
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indexed                   |      | 100     | 121     | 96      | 83   |
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Total Imports Volume      | MT   | 2,93,872| 3,49,439| 3,44,527| 3,49,476|
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indexed                   |      | 100     | 119     | 117     | 119  |
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Subject imports in relation to|      |         |         |         |      |
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Total imports             | %    | 50      | 49      | 59      | 65   |
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indexed                   |      | 100     | 99      | 118     | 130  |
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
| Indian production         | %    | 287     | 302     | 433     | 494  |
+---------------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+------+
Indexed 100 105 151 172
Indian demand % 43 43 53 57
Indexed 100 100 123 133
116.It is seen that:
a. The subject imports have witnessed a significant increase throughout the injury period.
Imports from other countries increased in 2021-22, but declined sharply thereafter till thePOI.
b. Share of imports from China PR in total imports was already quite high. Further, the same
increased over the injury period, and share of imports from other countries have declined.
c. Subject imports in relation to Indian production and consumption has increased over the
injury period.
d. It can be observed that there is an overall increase in the demand.

K.3.3 Price effect of dumped imports on domestic industry

117.With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is required to be analysed whether there
has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to theprice of 
the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or
prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred in normal course.
118.Accordingly, the impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of dumped imports ofthe
subject goods from the subject country has been examined with reference to price undercutting and
price suppression/depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysisthe cost ofsales and the net sales 
realization (NSR) of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed price of the subject 
imports.

a) Price Undercutting

119.In order to determine whether the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry inthe
market, price undercutting has been worked out by comparing the landed price of the subjectimports 
with the selling price of the domestic industry during the investigation period. For the purpose, the 
Authority notes that there is significant difference in the prices of different types ofthe product under 
consideration. Therefore, the Authority has compared landed price of importswith the selling price 
of the domestic industry for comparable types, by considering the PCN notified by the Authority. 
Thus, weighted average price undercutting has been determined after considering associated import 
volumes and same is given below
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+
| Particulars         | Unit  | A-S     | R-S     | R-C     | Weighted Average|
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+
| Landed Price        | ₹/MT  | 1,78,574| 2,01,911| 2,26,934| 2,05,197       |
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+
| Net Selling Price   | ₹/MT  | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***            |
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+
| Price Undercutting  | ₹/MT  | ***     | (***)   | ***     | (***)          |
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+
| Price Undercutting  | %     | ***     | (*** )  | ***     | (***)          |
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+
| Price Undercutting  | Range | 0-10    | Negative| 5-15    | Negative       |
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+

120.It is seen that the imports are not undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market.

b) Price Suppression/Depression

121.For the purpose of analysing price suppression and depression in the domestic market, the applicants 
have provided information about (a) cost of sales, (b) domestic selling price, as is given in the table 
below.
+-------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Particulars | Unit  | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI   |
+-------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Landed Price| ₹/MT  | 1,74,761| 2,61,253| 2,33,166| 2,05,197|
+-------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed     |       | 100     | 149     | 133     | 117   |
+-------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Cost of Sales| ₹/MT  | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+-------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed     |       | 100     | 110     | 147     | 135   |
+-------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Selling Price| ₹/MT  | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+-------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed     |       | 100     | 133     | 124     | 113   |
+-------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
122.It is seen that both the selling price and the cost of sales increased over the injury period. However, 
the increase in cost of sales was much higher than the increase in selling price of the subject goods. 
Further, whereas the selling price was above cost of sales till 2021-22, the same declined below the 
level of cost of sales in 2022-23 and the POI. The landed price of imports shows a fluctuating trend,
with a significant increase in 2021-22 followed by a decline during thePOI .The landed price of
imports were materially below cost of sales in the POI. The selling price trend also reflects price 
depression, as it declined from its peak in 2021-22 (₹***/MT) to (₹***/MT) during the POI, despite 
the cost of sales remaining elevated. Subject imports are, thus, causing significant price suppression 
in the domestic market.

K.3.4 Economic Parameters of the domestic industry

123.Annexure II to the Rules provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the 
domestic industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic 
factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential 
decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of
capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and 
potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth and the ability to 
raise capital investments. Accordingly, various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry 
are discussed herein below.
124.The performance of the applicants in the POI has been compared with its performance in the base 
year.

a) Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilisation, and Sales

125.The Authority has considered the capacity, production, capacity utilisation, and sales volume ofthe
domestic industry over the injury period. The table below shows factual position.
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Particulars        | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI   |
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Installed Capacity | MT   | 82,500  | 82,500  | 82,500  | 82,500|
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed            |      | 100     | 100     | 100     | 100   |
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Production         | MT   | 51,221  | 56,956  | 46,811  | 45,944|
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed            |      | 100     | 111     | 91      | 90    |
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Capacity Utilisation | %    | 62      | 69      | 57      | 56    |
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed            |      | 100     | 111     | 92      | 90    |
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Domestic Sales     | MT   | 46,855  | 47,912  | 38,999  | 47,223|
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed            |      | 100     | 102     | 83      | 101   |
+--------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
126.It is seen that:
a. Capacity of the domestic industry has remained constant throughout the injury period.
b. Production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry has increased from base year to
2021-22 but declined significantly since then till POI.
c. Despite sufficient demand in the country, the applicants are operating at low utilization level.
d. Production, sales and capacity utilization in 2020-21 were lower due to country wide
COVID-related lockdown.
e. Sales of the domestic industry increased till 2021-22, declined in 2022-23 and increased
again in the POI.

b) Market Share in Demand

127.The market share of the subject imports and the domestic industry over the entire injury period was
as follows:
+------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Particulars      | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI   |
+------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Subject Country  | %    | 43.1    | 43.3    | 52.9    | 57.2  |
+------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed          |      | 100     | 100     | 123     | 133   |
+------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Other Countries  | %    | 43.1    | 44.6    | 36.9    | 30.9  |
+------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed          |      | 100     | 103     | 86      | 72    |
+------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Domestic Industry| %    | 13.8    | 12.1    | 10.2    | 11.9  |
+------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed          |      | 100     | 102     | 74      | 87    |
+------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
128.The market share of the subject country has increased significantly over the injury period. The
market share of the domestic industry has decreased over the injury period, while the share of
imports from the subject country has increased, and the share of imports from non-subject countries
has consistently declined.

c) Profitability, Cash Profits, and Return on Investment

129.The profit, cash profits, profit before interest (PBIT), and return on investment of the domestic
industry over the injury period has been analysed and were as follows:
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Particulars              | Unit  | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI   |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Cost of Sales            | ₹/MT  | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                  |       | 100     | 110     | 147     | 135   |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Selling Price            | ₹/MT  | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                  |       | 100     | 133     | 124     | 113   |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Profit/Loss per Unit     | ₹/MT  | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                  |       | 100     | 476     | (327)   | (307) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Profit/Loss (PBT)        | ₹ Lacs| ***     | ***     | (***)   | (***) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                  |       | 100     | 1,220   | (872)   | (1007)|
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| PBIT – Domestic Sales    | ₹ Lacs| ***     | ***     | (***)   | (***) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                  |       | 100     | 923     | (620)   | (707) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| PBIT – per Unit          | ₹/MT  | ***     | ***     | (***)   | (***) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                  |       | 100     | 434     | (278)   | (259) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Cash Profit – Domestic Sales| ₹ Lacs| ***     | ***     | (***)   | (***) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                  |       | 100     | 691     | (454)   | (513) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Cash Profit – per Unit   | ₹/MT  | ***     | ***     | (***)   | (***) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                  |       | 100     | 387     | (242)   | (226) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Return on Investment     | %     | ***     | ***     | (***)   | (***) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                  |       | 100     | 829     | (512)   | (552) |
+--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
130.It is seen that
a. The costs of sales increased over the injury period, whereas the selling price increased in
2021-22 and declined consistently thereafter till the POI. Resultantly, the profits of the
domestic industry increased in 2021-22 and steeply declined thereafter leading to
significantfinancial losses. The financial losses suffered have increased in the POI.
b. As a result of decline in profits, the cash profits declined significantly over the injury period.
The domestic industry has suffered cash losses in 2022-23 and the POI.
c. The return on investment followed the same trend as that of profit before tax. Return on
investment declined significantly over the injury period. The ROI was at a negative *** %
in the POI.
d. The profitability of the domestic industry was low in 2020-21 due to COVID related
lockdown. In any case, the performance of the domestic industry deteriorated steeply by 
thePOI in respect of profits, cash profits and return on investment.

d) Inventory

131.The data relating to the inventory position of the domestic industry over the injury period andPOI
is given in the table below:
+-------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Particulars       | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI   |
+-------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Opening Inventory | MT   | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+-------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed           |      | 100     | 54      | 139     | 363   |
+-------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Closing Inventory | MT   | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+-------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed           |      | 100     | 259     | 418     | 451   |
+-------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Average Inventory | MT   | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+-------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed           |      | 100     | 126     | 237     | 394   |
+-------------------+------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
132.It is seen that the level of inventories with the domestic industry increased very significantly over the
injury period.

e) Employment, Wages, and Productivity

133.The position with regard to employment, wages, and productivity of the domestic industry is as
follows:
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Particulars            | Unit  | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI   |
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Number of employees    | Nos   | ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                |       | 100     | 99      | 96      | 99    |
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Wages                  | ₹ Lacs| ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                |       | 100     | 84      | 82      | 83    |
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Productivity per employee| MT/No.| ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                |       | 100     | 113     | 95      | 91    |
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Productivity per day   | MT/Day| ***     | ***     | ***     | ***   |
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
| Indexed                |       | 100     | 111     | 91      | 90    |
+------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------+
134.The Authority notes that the number of employees and wages paid have decreased over the injury 
period. The productivity per employee has increased from the base year to 2021-22 and declinedin
2022-23 and the POI.

f) Growth

135.It is seen that the imports have led to an adverse effect on the growth of the domestic industry in
respect of both volume and price parameters.
+-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI   |
+-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+
| Capacity    | Y/Y  | 0%      | 0%      | 0%    |
+-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+
| Production  | Y/Y  | 11%     | -18%    | -2%   |
+-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+
| Sales       | Y/Y  | 2%      | -19%    | 21%   |
+-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+
| PBT         | Y/Y  | 1119%   | -163%   | 17%   |
+-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+
| PBIT        | Y/Y  | 823%    | -156%   | -17%  |
+-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+
| Cash profit | Y/Y  | 591%    | -151%   | -17%  |
+-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+
| ROI         | Y/Y  | 729%    | -150%   | -10%  |
+-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+

g) Factors affecting domestic price

136.The Authority has examined the import prices from the subject country, change in the cost structure,
competition in the domestic market, factors other than dumped imports that might beaffecting the
prices of the domestic industry in the domestic market. The Authority further notesthat the principal
factor affecting the domestic prices is the dumped imports of the subject goodsfrom the subject 
country.

h) Ability to raise capital

137.The Authority notes that even though the domestic industry has the ability to raise new investments 
to increase its capacities to cater to the demand of the PUC in India the domestic industry has been 
unable to utilise its capacities and is facing losses due to dumped imports. The dumping of the 
subject goods has impacted the domestic industry’s ability to raise capital investments. The 
Authority also notes that new players are planning to make and making investments in the Indian 
industry of the PUC, but they are however, unable to move forward due to the dumped imports.

i) Magnitude of dumping and dumping margin

138.It is seen that the dumping margin from the subject country is not only more than de-minimis but 
also significant.

L. CAUSAL LINK AND OTHER FACTORS

139.The Authority examined whether other factors listed under the Rules could have caused injury tothe
domestic industry. The Authority examined known factors other than the dumped imports and
ascertain whether these are at the same time have been injuring the domestic industry, so that the
injury caused by other, if any, is not attributable to the dumped imports. Factors which are relevant
in this respect include, inter alia, the volume of subject goods not sold at dumped prices,contraction 
in demand or changes in the pattern of consumption, trade restrictive practices, changes in 
technology, the export performance of the domestic industry and the productivity of the domestic
industry.

i) Volume and prices of imports from third countries

140.It is seen that the imports of the product under consideration from other countries are significant.
However, they are at significantly higher prices than selling price of the domestic industry. 
Therefore, imports from other countries are not a cause of material injury suffered by the
domestic industry.

ii) Contraction in Demand

141.The demand has consistently increased throughout the injury period. Thus, decline in demand is not 
the cause of injury.

iii) Changes in pattern of consumption

142.There are no changes in the pattern of consumption for the product under consideration over the
injury period that could have caused injury to the domestic industry.

iv) Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices

143.The investigation has not shown any change in the conditions of competition or any trade restrictive
practices.

v) Developments in Technology

144.No evidence has been brought forward to show that there are no significant changes in technology.

vi) Export performance of the domestic industry

145.The information provided has been considered for domestic operations of the domestic industry.

vii) Performance of other products

146.The domestic industry has provided the injury data for the PUC and the same has been adoptedby
the Authority for the purpose of the injury analysis. Performance of other products producedand sold 
by the domestic industry has not been considered.

M.1. Conclusion on Injury and Causal Link 

147.Analysis of the performance of the domestic industry over the injury period shows material injury 
to the domestic industry. The causal link between dumped imports and the injury to the domestic 
industry is established on the following grounds:
i. Imports have increased in absolute terms and relative terms. 
ii. The increase in cost of sales is higher than the increase in selling price of the subject goods 
over the injury period with selling price going below the level of cost of sales in 2022-23 
and the POI. The landed price of subject imports increased till 2021-22 and declined in 
2022-23 and the POI leading to price suppression and depression in the domestic market.
iii. Domestic industry has not been able to increase production and sales due to dumping.
iv. Subject imports hold 57% of the market share despite domestic industry’s capacity lying 
unutilised.
v. Inventories of the domestic industry has been on the rise and has increased significantly in 
the POI, despite production reducing over the injury period.
vi. The domestic industry’s profitability and return on capital employed been adversely 
affected. The domestic industry has made losses in 2022-23 and the POI. The ROI of the 
domestic industry in the POI is significantly low.
148.The above analysis indicates that the domestic industry is suffering material injury due to increased 
dumped imports of the PUC into India from the subject country. There exists a causal relation 
between the increase in dumped imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the 
subject country and the material injury suffered by the domestic industry.
149.Authority also examined if any other factor caused injury. The examination of data shows that the 
selling price of the domestic industry has been consistently below cost since 2022-23, while the 
landed price of imports has been lower than the cost of sales, leading to significant price suppression. 
Furthermore, none of the interested party substantiated injury to the domestic industry on account 
of other factors with concrete evidence. 

M. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN

M.1. Views of other interested parties 

150.No other interested parties have made submissions in the present proceedings with respect to the 
injury margin. 

M.2. Views of the domestic industry 

151.The domestic industry has made the following submissions in the present proceedings with respect
to the injury margin:
i. NIP and consequently duty recommended in the final findings was quite low and is concerning 
with regard to the protection afforded to the domestic producers. 
ii. All expenses incurred by the domestic industry were not allowed, on the grounds that expenses 
could not be fully verified. 
iii. With utilisation at 55% and subject imports suppressing prices, higher duties are necessary to 
restore viable capacity use and competitiveness.
iv. Evidence of expenses can be provided as deemed appropriate by the Authority instead of 
rejecting/disallowing such expenses. 

M.3. Examination by the Authority

152.TheAuthority determinesthe NIP for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in the 
Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The NIP of the product under consideration is to be 
determined by adopting the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the 
domestic industry for the POI. The NIP has been considered for comparing the landed price from
the subject country for calculating injury margin. Fordetermining the NIP, the best utilisation of the 
raw materials and utilities has been considered over the injury period. Best utilisation of production 
capacity over the injury period has been considered. Extraordinary or non-recurring expenses have 
been excluded from the cost of production. A reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on average capital
employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the product under 
consideration was allowed as pre-tax profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure III to the
Rules. The Authority hasdetermined NIP separately for each of the quarters of the POI.
153.It is noted that many cooperating producers and exporters are related to each other and form a group 
of related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider relatedexporting 
producers and exporters as one single entity for the determination of a injury margin and thus to 
establish one single injury margin for them. This is in particular because calculatingindividual injury
margins might encourage circumvention of anti-dumping measures, thusrendering them ineffective, 
by enabling related exporting producers to channel their exports to India through the company with
the lowest individual injury margin.
154.In accordance with the above, related producers and exporters is regarded as onesingle entity and 
attributed one single injury margin which was calculated on the basis of theweighted average of the
injury margins of the cooperating related producers and exporters.
155.Based on the landed price and the NIP determined as above, the injury margin as determined by the
Authority is provided in the table below.

INJURY MARGIN TABLE
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| S.No.| Producer                                        | NIP($/MT)| Landed   | Injury        | IM     | IM       |
|      |                                                 |          | Value    | Margin(IM)    | (%)    | Range    |
|      |                                                 |          | ($/MT)   | ($/MT)        |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 1.   | M/s Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group)    | ***      | ***      | ***           | ***    | 20-30    |
|      | Co., Ltd.                                       |          |          |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 2.   | M/s Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading    |          |          |               |        |          |
|      | Co., Ltd.                                       |          |          |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 3.   | M/s Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources          | ***      | ***      | ***           | ***    | 20-30    |
|      | Technology Co., Ltd.                            |          |          |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 4.   | M/s Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.        |          |          |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 5.   | M/s LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.    | ***      | ***      | ***           | ***    | 15-25    |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 6.   | M/s LB Sichuan Titanium Industry Co Ltd         |          |          |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 7.   | M/s LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.       |          |          |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 8.   | M/s LB Group Co., Ltd                           |          |          |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 9.   | M/s Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd.  |          |          |               |        |          |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 10.  | Non-Sampled Cooperative Producers/Exporters     | ***      | ***      | ***           | ***    | 15-25    |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+
| 11.  | Residual                                        | ***      | ***      | ***           | ***    | 25-35    |
+------+-------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+---------------+--------+----------+

N. THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY

156.The domestic industry has contended threat of material injury. TheAuthority examined the threat of 
material injury to the domestic industry considering the parameters relating to the threat of material
injury in terms of Paragraph (vii) of Annexure II ofthe Rules, which states as under:
“A determination of a threat of material injury shall be based on facts and not merely on
allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. The change in circumstances, which would createa
situation in which the dumping would cause injury, must be clearly foreseen and imminent.In
making a determination regarding the existence of a threat of material injury, the
Designated Authority shall consider, inter alia, such factors as:
a. a significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India indicating the likelihoodof
substantially increased importation;
b. sufficient freely disposable or an imminent, substantial increase in capacity of the exporter 
indicating the likelihood of substantially increased dumped exports to Indian market, 
taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorbany additional 
exports;
c. whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or
suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would likely to increased demand forfurther
imports; and
d. inventories of the article being investigated.”

N.1.Submissions by other interested parties

157.The following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to threat of 
material injury:
i. Increase of imports from the subject country has been only 4% on a year-on-year basis andcannot
be considered as significant enough to substantiate threat.
ii. Marginal increase in imports both in relative and absolute terms is not sufficient to support the 
claim of threat of material injury.
iii. India does not constitute an exceptionally high-growth or lucrative market for exports of the 
subject goods due to stable demand.
iv. Stable demand does not indicate significant or increasing attractiveness to foreign exporters, 
including Chinese exporters.
v. Threat must be both imminent and clearly foreseen and existence of surplus production capacity 
alone does not fulfil this criterion.
vi. Domestic industry has not provided reliable data on actual installed capacity in China dedicated 
for production of the subject goods as compared to those grades of titanium dioxide that are used 
in food or pharmaceuticals.
vii. Lack of bifurcated data on China’s capacities for the product under consideration and other 
titanium dioxide types leaves a gap in understanding the extent of production dedicated to the 
subject goods in China.
viii. It is the established policy of one of the constituents of the domestic industry to price the product 
under consideration above its variable costs of production, contradicting the claims of existence 
of threat of material injury.

N.2. Submissions by the domestic industry

158.The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to threat of
material injury:
i. Imports have increased significantly over the injury period with relative to increase in
demand. Imports increased in the POI significantly whereas the demand declined.
ii. Imports of rutile grade increased significantly.
iii. Post POI import volumes and prices of the subject country have remained consistent.
iv. Chinese capacity for the subject goods is around 55 lacs MT, which amounts to 56% of the global 
capacity to produce the subject goods. Capacity with one Chinese exporter alone is 15 lacs MT.
v. Domestic demand of China PR is weak, thereby showing freely disposable capacity for exports.
vi. Public domain knowledge suggests that production levels of the subject goods in China showed 
year on year increase despite weak demand.
vii. Chinese government heavily aids producers and manufacturers in China, creating distortions in 
the Chinese economy, significantly affecting input costs.
viii. Various jurisdictions around the world have imposed measures against imports of titanium 
dioxide from China PR, indicating China’s behaviour to dumped goods.
ix. Imposition of global actions has resulted in a restricted export market for China, which already 
has weak demand, hence creating the possibility that China will redirect its excess capacity to 
the Indian market.
x. Chinese producers of the subject goods have suffered a loss of market due to the global actions, 
and such volume is likely to shift to India.
xi. Indian market is price sensitive, and availability of low-priced imports would have an adverse 
impact on the prices of the product in the market, and hence leaves the domestic industry 
susceptible to aggravated injury.
xii. Subject imports are at a price lower than cost of sales of the domestic industry, forcing it to 
reduce its selling price and making the domestic industry vulnerable.

N.3. Examination by the Authority

159.The Authority has examined the threat of material injury considering the parameters relating to the
threat of material injury in terms of Paragraph (vii) of Annexure II of the AD Rules 

a. Significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India

160.From an analysis of the import data, it is seen that there has been a year-on-year increase of imports
into India and the rate of increase in imports in the POI as compared with the base yearis significant. 
Imports have increased by 54%. The import price has also seen a significant decline in prices from 
2021-22 to the POI. A significant increase in imports with declining prices indicates the threat of
substantially increased imports in the future.

b. Freely disposable capacity with the producers

161.The applicants have submitted that there is significant freely disposable capacity for titanium
dioxide in China PR. The interested parties have contended that the disposable capacities as
submitted by the domestic industry are unreliable and should be bifurcated into that of capacityof 
PUC and of NPUC. However, the domestic industry has relied upon the website of the Chinese 
producers4
as evidence, apart from which they have relied upon a market research report. As per 
such information, the capacity available with just one sampled group is 15 lacs MT, making it nearly
three times that of Indian demand.
162.The Authority has compared the information on capacity and production, as made available bythe 
responding producers. It is seen that the sampled producers alone have a surplus capacity of ***
MT which is in the range of 85-95 % of total Indian demand.
+-------+-------------+---------------+---------------+-----------+-------+
| S. No | Particulars | Gold Star Group | Shandong Group| LB Group  | Total |
+-------+-------------+---------------+---------------+-----------+-------+
| 1.    | Capacity    | ***           | ***           | ***       | ***   |
+-------+-------------+---------------+---------------+-----------+-------+
| 2.    | Production  | ***           | ***           | ***       | ***   |
+-------+-------------+---------------+---------------+-----------+-------+
| 3.    | Surplus     | ***           | ***           | ***       | ***   |
+-------+-------------+---------------+---------------+-----------+-------+

c. Imports entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing
effect on domestic prices

163.As noted above from the movement of cost of sales, selling price and landed price of imports that 
the subject imports are suppressing the domestic prices. The increase in selling price is lower than 
the increase in cost of sales, and the selling price is below the level of cost of sales since 2022-23. 
The landed price of imports increased till 2021-22 and declined significantly thereafter, while the
cost of sales increased.

d. Level of inventories

164.The level of inventories available with the producers in subject countries could not be ascertained 
as such information was not made available by the interested parties. Accordingly,this parameter 
for ascertaining threat of injury could not be examined by the Authority.

e. Trade remedial actions by other countries

165.It is seen that various countries including Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the Eurasian Economic Union,and
the EU have imposed anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods in their country fromChina 
PR. Further, the United States has imposed an additional import duty since 2018. This highlights 
the tendency of the producers from the subject country to dump goods in various markets. The 
actions by various countries can be seen in the table below:
+-----+----------+---------------+---------------+--------------------+----------+
| SN  | Date     | Country       | Action        | Exporters          | Duty     |
+-----+----------+---------------+---------------+--------------------+----------+
| 1.  | 21st Oct | Brazil        | Interim duty  | LB Group           | 578      |
|     |          |               |               |                    | USD/MT   |
|     |          |               |               | Gold Star Group    | 654      |
|     |          |               |               |                    | USD/MT   |
+-----+----------+---------------+---------------+--------------------+----------+
| 2.  | 9th Oct  | Saudi Arabia  | Initiated case| --                 | --       |
+-----+----------+---------------+---------------+--------------------+----------+
| 3.  | 3rd Sep  | Eurasian      | Final duty    | LB Group           | 14.27%   |
+-----+----------+---------------+---------------+--------------------+----------
| 4.  | 10th July| EU            | Preliminary   | LB Group           | 39.7%    |
|     |          |               | duty          | Gold Star Group    | 14.4%    |
+-----+----------+---------------+---------------+--------------------+----------

f. Loss of market due to trade remedial actions

166.It has been brought to the notice of the Authority that in lieu of the actions imposed globally, there 
is a loss of market to China PR. Chinese exports are highly likely to be diverted into the Indian 
market, considering the Indian market’s stable demand. This poses a credible threat of the volumes
exported to these countries shifting to India due to imposition of such measures ascan be seen from 
the table below.
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Particulars           | UOM   | 2020       | 2021       | 2022       | 2023       | 2024       |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| China Global Exports  | MT    | 12,91,858  | 13,88,669  | 14,68,805  | 16,93,380  | 10,04,541  |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| China exports to India| MT    | 1,51,242   | 1,76,914   | 1,93,768   | 2,54,655   | 1,48,566   |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| % Share               | %     | 12%        | 13%        | 13%        | 15%        | 15%        |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Particulars           | UOM   | 2020       | 2021       | 2022       | 2023       | 2024       |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| China exports to EU   | MT    | 2,03,459   | 2,26,531   | 2,22,034   | 2,61,734   | 1,71,596   |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| China exports to USA  | MT    | 18,227     | 13,118     | 20,418     | 15,619     | 8,986      |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| China exports to Brazil| MT    | 1,08,344   | 1,02,322   | 96,014     | 1,20,989   | 76,978     |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| China exports to Saudi| MT    | 13,606     | 10,721     | 17,152     | 23,678     | 15,209     |
| Arabia                |       |            |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Potential volume that | MT    | 3,43,635   | 3,52,692   | 3,55,619   | 4,22,020   | 2,72,769   |
| can shift to India    |       |            |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------------+-------+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
(Source: Trademap)

g. Vulnerability of the Indian industry

167.It has been contended by the domestic industry that the Indian market is price sensitive and is
vulnerable to imports that are low-priced. As has been noted above, the landed value of the subject 
imports has dropped consistently. In this situation, the Authority holds that there is a tenable threat
of aggravated injury to the industry, considering the dumping of subject imports.

O. POST-DISCLOSURE SUBMISSIONS

O.1. Submissions made by other interested parties:

168.The following submissions have been made by other interested parties in response to the Disclosure 
Statement issued:
i. The Disclosure Statement neither discloses the essential facts under consideration nor is it 
provisional but final in many parts of the disclosure. The disclosure has used unambiguous 
language that shows that the Authority has already determined its findings, which is contrary to 
the settled legal position articulated in Nirma Ltd. v. Union of India (2017).
ii. The directions of the Hon’ble High Court were confined to the limited issue of confidentiality 
and the obligation to furnish a meaningful non-confidential version of the material relied upon 
and did not authorise a reopening of the investigation, the admission of fresh evidence, or the 
introduction of new legal reasoning.
iii. The Authority has impermissibly expanded the scope of inquiry by relying on matters outside the 
original record, including trade notices, newly furnished reasons for confidentiality, clarificatory
letters, foreign authority determinations, and historical and pre-POI transactions, amounting to a 
reconstruction of the domestic industry’s case and an impermissible curing of evidentiary defects, 
contrary to the settled principle of remand proceedings.
iv. The Disclosure Statement is vitiated by disregard of the statutory confidentiality framework, as 
the domestic industry has admitted that no contemporaneous “good cause” statement was 
furnished at the time of making confidentiality claims, and that specific reasons in support thereof 
have been provided only at the stage of remand, which is violative of statutory requirements.
v. Requirement of a good-cause statement is not a procedural formality but a jurisdictional 
precondition under Rule 7(2), the Initiation Notification, and Article 6.5 of the WTO 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, as clarified in EC – Fasteners and Guatemala – Cement II. In its 
absence, the Authority was legally obliged to reject the confidential material altogether and could 
not subsequently validate the defect by accepting post-facto explanations furnished during 
remand proceedings.
vi. The Authority has not only accepted such material but has endorsed blanket confidentiality over 
customer names, invoices, and sales data, while simultaneously failing to engage with the 
Respondents’ submissions on the fatal consequences of non-compliance, contradicting the 
Authority’s approach in HIIR and Effect Pearlescent Pigments.
vii. Untenability of the confidentiality claim is further accentuated by the domestic industry’s own 
voluntary disclosure of Asian Paints as a customer during the remand proceedings, thereby 
demonstrating that such information is capable of disclosure and negating any claim of 
irreparable competitive harm arising from such disclosure.
viii. Letter dated 19th May seeking certain additional information such as the underlying quantitative 
and transactional data allegedly evidencing commercial sales of R-S Titanium Dioxide, including 
the identities of customers, volumes sold, and time periods of such sales, as also the factual basis 
for the adoption of a 22% return on capital employed in the computation of the non-injurious 
price from the Authority was not responded to. Findings issued without disclosing essential 
information and thus depriving IPA of a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on such 
information would be a violation of the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair 
investigation.
ix. The entire Disclosure Statement rests upon the assertion that R-S TiO2 was manufactured and 
sold by the domestic industry in commercial quantities during the POI, which is unsupported by 
the evidence. Even on a most favourable reading of the domestic industry’s own data, the total 
quantity of R-S TiO2 allegedly sold during the POI is in the range of approx. 430-440 MT, and 
approximately 650 MT across the injury period, which constitutes a very small fraction of total 
domestic demand, amounting to less than 0.15% annually and less than 0.05% over the injury 
period.
x. The only paint-sector buyer identified on record, Asian Paints, procured the product exclusively 
for trial and evaluation purposes, and discontinued such procurement by 2019, before the injury 
period and POI upon the product failing to meet requirements as per test reports and thus these 
trial transactions cannot constitute “commercial sales” as per the decision of the Hon’ble 
CESTAT in Technova Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2022).
xi. Authority has placed reliance upon material that is inadmissible in law and extraneous to the 
original record, including the domestic industry’s letter dated 7 February 2025, which was filed 
beyond the stipulated deadline, submitted only in confidential form without a non-confidential 
version, and not even referenced in the original final findings.
xii. The conclusions of the Authority are founded not on the original record, but on material that the 
respondents had no opportunity to contest, thereby rendering the entire exercise procedurally 
unsustainable.
xiii. The Authority has erred in law in equating interchangeability with likeness, and in concluding, 
on that basis alone, that R-S and R-C TiO2 constitute like articles within the meaning of Rule 
2(d). Such an approach disregards the established multi-factor test under Article 2.6 of the WTO 
Agreement, which requires an examination of physical characteristics, end-use, consumer 
perception, and competitive substitutability.
xiv. It is submitted that the evidence on record, including the failure of trial evaluations and the 
absence of acceptance in the paint industry, demonstrates that R-S TiO2 serves a distinct technical 
and functional role and cannot be treated as interchangeable with the domestically produced 
grade.
xv. The Authority’s reliance on foreign authority determinations is inconsistent with its own settled 
position, as articulated in investigations such as Solar Cells (2014) and the bilateral safeguard 
investigation concerning DOTP/DECH (2026), wherein it has been categorically held that 
findings of foreign authorities do not bind the Indian Authority.
xvi. It is submitted that the record establishes a pronounced and structural demand-supply mismatch 
in the domestic market for R-S TiO2. The maximum production capacity of the domestic industry 
is in the range of 3,500-4,000 MT per annum, whereas the total domestic demand is 
approximately 3,00,000 MT per annum, with the paint industry alone accounting for 
approximately 1,80,000 MT. The Authority has previously excluded a grade from the scope of 
duties in view of inadequate domestic production and the disproportionate burden that would 
otherwise be imposed on downstream industries.
xvii. The anti-dumping regime is premised on the domestically produced like article that is 
commercially manufactured and supplied during the POI. It does not extend protection to product 
grades that the domestic industry neither produces in commercially meaningful quantities nor 
supplies to the relevant market segment.
xviii. The approach adopted in the Disclosure Statement seeks to rely on historical trial production and 
post-facto assertions of capability rather than contemporaneous commercial evidence, is contrary 
to both the statutory framework and settled jurisprudence.
xix. TTPL produces uncoated Rutile grade, which is far inferior in quality compared to coated Rutile 
grades imported from China. Thus, TTPL's product is not comparable or interchangeable with 
coated Rutile (Sulphate or Chloride) grades under investigation. The Authority is requested to 
verify with past customers of TTPL on quality comparability.
xx. Authority’s observation that TTPL possesses the technology and capability to produce rutile TiO2 
through the sulphate route is, by itself, insufficient to establish actual production and commercial 
sales during the POI and domestic industry should be required to substantiate with evidence. 
xxi. TiO2 grades outside of particle size inside the range of 200 to 350 nm range should not be 
considered in the scope of investigation.
xxii. An advance ruling from the Customs Authority was sought to check whether ADD will be levied 
on toilet soaps or not, as toilet soaps are considered under the category of "cosmetics" wherein 
the Customs Authority held that anti-dumping duty is not applicable on Titanium Dioxide.
xxiii. The word "cosmetics" is very broad and the same needs to be defined in the final findings 
properly. The current wording of the exclusion may lead to ambiguity and potential issues during 
customs clearance and has created issues at custom clearances during the present levy of the 
ADD before the Customs Notification was quashed by the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the 
Authority is requested to provide clarification on the exclusion of toilet soaps as a part of 
skincare.
xxiv. It is submitted that the global production of Anatase grade is limited and concentrated in China 
PR, Korea and India, with Korean capacity mostly to meet its own domestic demand leaving 
negligible room for exports to India.
xxv. Domestic capacity of R-S TiO2 meets only 20–25% of the admitted 3,38,840 MT demand, with 
actual capacity disputed by CAG/NGT records and TTPL's negative net-worth, leaving an 80% 
import dependency. Given the absence of viable domestic alternatives for coated R-S TiO2 used 
by the masterbatch industry, exclusion is essential.
xxvi. R-S coated TiO2 and R-S uncoated TiO2 are not like articles as uncoated Rutile grades are 
generally unsuitable for plastics applications and contain material differences rendering 
functionally distinct products serving different end-use markets. The concept of "like article" 
requires a holistic examination of physical characteristics, end uses, consumer preferences, 
channels of distribution, tariff classification, and competitive overlap.
xxvii. The Authority has already made end use-based product exclusions while determining the PUC at 
Paragraphs 42-43 of the Disclosure Statement, demonstrating that the Authority has distinguished 
products based on functional characteristics, end-use applications, and commercial realities. As 
per the DGTR Manual, Paragraph 3.49, "if it is claimed that the production process results in 
different physical characteristics, then these differences must be taken into account while 
determining whether the goods are like articles or not." Further the domestic capacity of R-S 
TiO2 is grossly insufficient, capable of supplying only 2-3% of demand.
xxviii. White masterbatches use up to 80% TiO2 content, and India currently faces a raw material cost 
of approximately USD 2.458 per kg versus USD 2.220 per kg for ASEAN nations (which benefit 
from zero-duty Chinese imports under RCEP), a structural cost disadvantage already exists. The 
imposition of anti-dumping duties would substantially widen this gap, while ASEAN costs would 
remain unchanged at USD 2.22 per kg. This escalating cost disparity would severely undermine 
the competitiveness of India's downstream masterbatch industry. 
xxix. In view of the significant differences in quality, performance, end-use applications, market 
segments, and pricing between chloride-route and sulphate-route TiO2, the Authority is requested 
to make appropriate adjustments in its analysis so as to accurately reflect market realities and 
ensure continued supply of R-S TiO2 to Indian customers that depend on such products.
xxx. Adjustments should be made based on the selling/exporting prices of Gold Star Trading, whose 
export price should be constructed as a related trader, rather than on the prices of Gold Star 
Group.
xxxi. Profitability of Gold Star Trading has been incorrectly determined and the purchase cost should 
be based on the net invoice value reported in the relevant transaction data. The revised 
profitability calculations and requested corresponding revisions to the constructed export price 
and dumping margin calculations are requested. 
xxxii. Profit amount should be based on the profit of the unrelated trader, subject to the applicable 
ceiling, in accordance with the principles of the WTO AD Agreement and requested appropriate 
revisions to the export price and resultant dumping margins. 
xxxiii. While import prices rose from ₹175/kg to ₹225/kg post anti-dumping duty, the domestic 
industry's prices rose only to ₹185/kg from ₹170/kg showing underutilization of the existing anti dumping duty protection.
xxxiv. The Authority is requested to disclose the basis for adopting 22% ROCE. A 22% ROCE is 
unusually high for this key industrial raw material. Two domestic industry constituents are PSUs 
with largely depreciated and well-aged capital assets, making the 22% ROCE particularly 
questionable.
xxxv. In addition to the existing customs duty of 10%, further imposition of ADD would lead to 
increased prices of finished products, and ultimately impact consumers.
xxxvi. The domestic production of Titanium Dioxide in India is insufficient to meet the requirements of 
the domestic market.
xxxvii. MSMEs constitute a major segment of the downstream user industry, and the imposition of anti dumping duty would escalate import prices rendering procurement commercially unviable for 
the user industry, severely impacting MSMEs, potentially leading to their closures.
xxxviii. The domestic industry has not provided any substantial evidence to show planning for expansion 
of capacities. Further the global manufacturers are evaluating new greenfield PUC investments 
in India, but such long-term commitments require a stable and fair competitive environment. 
Imposing effective anti-dumping duties would help create a level playing field for domestic 
producers.
xxxix. In US, Section 301 tariffs reduced Chinese imports without material inflationary impact on 
paints/coatings and in EU, post-duties Chinese import volumes declined while downstream 
demand tracked growth without disruption. 
xl. It is submitted that sulphate and chloride route rutile share identical chemical composition, 
overlapping physical characteristics, and common end uses. Once the PUC in the rutile form is 
produced, it is not feasible to conclusively determine whether such product has been 
manufactured through the sulphate or chloride process. This inherent inability to differentiate the 
product based on production route reinforces that both products constitute a like article and are 
fully interchangeable in the Indian market. Reliance is placed on the Final Findings in the Sunset 
review investigation concerning Phthalic Anhydride, holding that product produced through both 
routes finds application in the same segment and there is no basis to claim that imported goods 
are not comparable to goods manufactured by the domestic industry.
xli. The remand proceedings, including the Notification dated 17th October 2025, filing of additional 
submissions, and conduct of oral hearing, ensured that interested parties were afforded a fair 
opportunity to comment upon confidentiality claims and the basis for inclusion of R-S TiO2 
within the scope of the PUC. Accordingly, the procedural concerns identified by the Hon'ble High 
Court stand addressed in the present proceedings. 
xlii. Requiring the DI to demonstrate supply of a product type to every individual customer segment, 
user cohort, or member of a user association would impose no basis under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or the Anti-Dumping Rules.
xliii. The duty levels at paragraph 128 of the Disclosure Statement do not reflect the current and higher 
levels of duties imposed by other investigating authorities. The Authority is requested to verify 
and correct the duty. As the higher duty levels in other jurisdictions reinforce the likelihood of 
diversion of dumped Chinese volumes into the Indian market in the absence of effective duties.
xliv. Ongoing investigations in Australia and the UK are likely to trigger provisional trade remedial 
measures, raising the risk that dumped Chinese volumes be diverted into India. The higher 
ADD imposed by Brazil, the European Union, and Saudi Arabia call for a reassessment of the 
NIP adopted by the Authority in the present investigation. The NIP could be reconsidered to a 
level of comparable to Brazilian and European ADD. 

O.2. Submissions made by the Domestic industry:

169.The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry in response to the Disclosure 
Statement issued: 
i. The Authority has correctly accepted the confidentiality claims relating to customer names, 
customer-specific sales information, invoices, costing records, trial balances and related 
commercial information, which constitute sensitive business information deserving protection 
under Rule 7 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. 
ii. The Authority has correctly confirmed that TTPL manufactured and sold Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 
during the injury period and the POI based on verified evidence including production records, 
sales data, cost audit reports, verification documents and sales invoices. 
iii. The Authority has correctly concluded that Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 forms part of the product under 
consideration and that Rutile-Sulphate and Rutile-Chloride TiO2 constitute like articles and are 
commercially interchangeable. 
iv. The setting aside of the Final Findings dated 12 February 2025 and remand of the matter permits 
the Authority to undertake a fresh examination of consequential issues including determination 
of NIP, injury margin and anti-dumping duty and is not restricted solely to confidentiality and 
PUC-related issues. 
v. The non-injurious price requires reconsideration as certain expenses and cost elements incurred 
by the domestic industry were either not fully recognised or only partly allowed, resulting in 
suppression of the NIP and consequential reduction in injury margins and duties. 
vi. Production volumes of the domestic industry were adversely impacted by dumped imports from 
China, resulting in reduced production and underutilisation of capacity due to financial strain 
rather than inefficient operations. 
vii. The coating cost considered by the Authority appears significantly lower than the actual coating 
costs reported by the domestic industry in its records and financial statements, resulting in 
understatement of the NIP. 
viii. The value adopted for utilities appears lower than the actual utility costs reported and supported 
by records maintained by the domestic industry and therefore warrants reconsideration. 
ix. The recommended duty based on understated NIP and injury margins is incapable of fully 
removing the injury suffered by the domestic industry and therefore fails to achieve the remedial 
objective of anti-dumping measures. 
x. The methodology adopted for determination of injury margins for non-cooperating exporters 
requires reconsideration, as the margins for non-cooperating exporters are not materially different 
from those for cooperating exporters despite substantial non-cooperation. 
xi. The export prices adopted for non-cooperating exporters appear higher than the levels normally 
considered by the Authority in such circumstances, resulting in understated margins. 
xii. Disclosure of customer identities was not necessary to establish manufacture and sale of Rutile Sulphate TiO2 since extensive verified evidence already existed on record confirming production 
and sales. 
xiii. The disclosure of the name of one paint customer was inadvertent and unauthorised, and 
confidentiality over the identity of that customer should continue to be maintained in the final 
findings as disclosure of such information may cause commercial prejudice to the domestic 
industry. 
xiv. The relevant issue before the Authority is whether Rutile-Sulphate and Rutile-Chloride TiO2 
constitute like articles and are commercially interchangeable, and not whether every paint 
manufacturer or customer purchased Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 produced by TTPL.
xv. The domestic industry has demonstrated that Rutile-Chloride TiO2 produced by KMML and 
Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 imported into India and produced by TTPL are used for the same 
applications, cater to the same customers and compete in the same market. 
xvi. Anti-dumping law does not require the domestic industry to replicate every imported variant, 
supply every customer, or manufacture products identical to every imported grade for a product 
to be considered a like article. 
xvii. The Authority has correctly concluded that Rutile-Sulphate and Rutile-Chloride TiO2 possess 
comparable characteristics, overlapping applications and commercial interchangeability and 
therefore appropriately fall within the scope of the PUC. 
xviii. Investigating authorities in Brazil, the European Union, and Saudi Arabia have concluded that 
Rutile TiO2 produced through both sulphate and chloride routes constitutes a single like article 
and falls within the same product scope notwithstanding differences in production route. 
xix. The Brazilian Authority concluded that there was no proof of differentiation between TiO2 
produced through chloride and sulphate routes that would justify treating them as separate 
products and held that both products were highly substitutable. 
xx. The Brazilian Authority imposed anti-dumping duties on both Rutile-Sulphate and Rutile Chloride TiO2 despite the domestic industry producing only sulphate-route material, thereby 
confirming that exact product identity is not required for determining like articles. 
xxi. The European Commission rejected requests for exclusion of chloride-route TiO2 and concluded 
that chloride and sulphate route TiO2 are used in the same industries, sometimes even in the same 
applications, and therefore fall within a common product scope. 
xxii. The position of the domestic industry regarding interchangeability of Rutile-Sulphate and Rutile Chloride TiO2 is corroborated by findings of multiple foreign investigating authorities. 
xxiii. IPA repeatedly asserted during the original investigation that there were no domestic commercial 
sales of Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 to the paint industry but subsequently admitted during remand 
proceedings that purchases had been made by a paint industry customer until 2019. 
xxiv. The Authority itself has recognised that IPA’s admission contradicts its earlier assertion that the 
domestic industry had not supplied Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 to the paint segment at all. 
xxv. IPA cannot simultaneously maintain that no sales existed and subsequently argue that sales 
existed but were insignificant, as such shifting positions undermine the credibility of its challenge 
to inclusion of Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 within the PUC. 
xxvi. The claim that sales to the paint industry were only in extremely small quantities is contradicted 
by (***) commercial transactions involving (*** MT) supplied to the paint customer and its 
group entities between 2005 and 2019. 
xxvii. Exporter and interested-party submissions on record themselves demonstrate that Rutile Sulphate and Rutile-Chloride TiO2 are interchangeable and compete in the same market. 
xxviii. Interested parties have admitted that Rutile-Sulphate and Rutile-Chloride TiO2 are used 
interchangeably in paints and plastics applications and that customers switched between the two 
after imposition of duties, evidencing commercial substitutability. 
xxix. The recommendation and imposition of anti-dumping duties is in public interest as it would help 
establish a level playing field, encourage domestic manufacturing and reduce excessive 
dependence on imports from China. 
xxx. The Indian TiO2 market supports downstream industries with turnover of approximately Rs. *** 
crores and continued viability of domestic TiO2 production is critical for these industries. 
xxxi. Close to 67% of imports originate from China and cessation of domestic production would leave 
Indian consumers and industries vulnerable to Chinese market dominance. 
xxxii. Anti-dumping duties have already been imposed by the European Union, Brazil, Saudi Arabia 
and the Eurasian Economic Union, while the United Kingdom has initiated an anti-dumping 
investigation concerning TiO2 from China, demonstrating global concern regarding Chinese 
dumping. 
xxxiii. The European Commission concluded after a detailed public interest examination that there were 
no compelling reasons against imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on TiO2 from China. 
xxxiv. There exists a domestic demand-supply gap in TiO2 and multiple foreign investors are 
considering large-scale capacity investments in India, which require a fair competitive 
environment free from dumped imports. 
xxxv. The projected increase in domestic demand for TiO2 by 2030 would require significant greenfield 
investments, which are unlikely to materialise if Chinese dumping continues unchecked. 
xxxvi. The proposed duties are unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on downstream 
consumers because TiO2 represents only one component of the overall cost structure of 
downstream products such as paints and coatings. 
xxxvii. Historical market behaviour demonstrates that reductions in TiO2 prices were not proportionately 
passed on to end consumers by major paint manufacturers, indicating significant pricing power 
and ability to absorb cost changes. 
xxxviii. Recent geopolitical developments underscore the need to maintain domestic TiO2 production 
capability and reduce vulnerability to external supply disruptions. 
xxxix. The objective of anti-dumping duties is not to restrict imports but to restore fair competition by 
neutralising injurious dumping and enabling domestic producers to compete on equitable terms. 
xl. The broader economic benefits of duties, including preservation of employment, manufacturing 
capability, supply security, investment and regional development, substantially outweigh any 
limited impact on downstream users. 
xli. KMML’s TiO2 operations support strategic national initiatives including Titanium Sponge and 
Monazite Cracking projects linked to defence, aerospace and nuclear sectors, and closure of the 
TiO2 plant may adversely affect these strategic capabilities. 
xlii. The impact of duties on downstream products has been quantified by the domestic industry and 
is submitted to be minimal and insignificant. 
xliii. Duty levels imposed by investigating authorities in other jurisdictions demonstrate the severity 
of distortions caused by dumped Chinese imports and provide useful context for determining an 
appropriate level of protection in India. 
xliv. Since anti-dumping duty was previously imposed and subsequently set aside on technical 
grounds before remand, the Authority is requested to recommend application of duties from the 
date on which they were withdrawn by the Ministry of Finance. 
xlv. The domestic industry requests the Authority to confirm its conclusions regarding confidentiality, 
inclusion of Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 within the PUC, and the finding that Rutile-Sulphate and 
Rutile-Chloride TiO2 are like articles, while also reconsidering NIP, injury margins and anti dumping duty levels to ensure effective relief against injurious dumping. 

O.3. Examination by the Authority

170.The Authority has examined the post-disclosure submissions filed by the interested parties. The 
Authority has examined hereinbelow the contentions raised by the interested parties in their post disclosure comments, to the extent considered relevant by the Authority. Post-disclosure 
submissions merely reiterating earlier submissions and which have been adequately examined by 
the Authority have not been examined here again for the sake of brevity. 
i. Whether conclusive and determinative language has been used in the Disclosure Statement 
and whether the same implies a decision by the Authority without getting comments from 
interested parties 
171.It has been argued by certain interested parties that the Authority has used conclusive and 
determinative language in the Disclosure Statement in contravention of the mandate under Rule 16, 
which does not allow the Authority to conclude contentious issues at the stage of the Disclosure 
Statement. 
172.The Authority has examined the submissions of the interested parties in this regard and considers 
that the contention is misplaced. 
173.At the outset, the Authority has clearly stated in the Disclosure Statement itself that 
“notwithstanding the facts given in this Disclosure Statement (including facts given on a confidential 
basis), the Designated Authority would consider all replies given, on merit, in order to arrive at a 
final determination.” The Authority also stated that “The Authority would conclude on the matter 
and give its final determination and recommendation after receiving comments from the domestic 
industry and other interested parties on the Disclosure Statement.” It is just evident that the 
Authority has not closed its consideration or determination to any submissions made by interested 
parties prior to issuance of Disclosure Statement, merely on the grounds that the same has already 
been examined and decided in the Disclosure Statement. Entirety of examination in the Disclosure 
Statement remains open to the Authority for its consideration on the basis of submissions made by 
various interested parties in response to their comments to the Disclosure Statement. 
174.The interested party has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Nirma Ltd. 
v. Union of India (2017). The Authority notes that In Nirma Case, facts were entirely different as 
the Designated Authority concluded based on various facts in the Disclosure Statement itself that 
levy of Anti-dumping duty is no longer justified. The Hon’ble High Court held that the conclusion 
recorded by the Designated Authority in the Disclosure Statement that levy of Anti-dumping duty 
is no longer justified, amounts to arriving at a decision as to whether or not to apply definitive 
measures based upon essential facts recorded by it. The very fact that the Designated Authority, 
without waiting for the comments on the Disclosure Statement, has recorded its conclusions as to 
whether or not to apply definitive measures had vitiated the final finding. 
175.It is further noted by the Authority that in paragraph 31.5 of the said judgment, which is also relied 
upon by the interested party, the Hon’ble Court has categorically held the following: 
31.5 Thus, while Article 6.9 does not prescribe a particular form for the disclosure of the essential 
facts, it does require in all cases that the investigating authority disclose those facts in such a 
manner that an interested party can understand clearly what data the investigating authority has 
used, and how those data were used to determine the margin of dumping. The Disclosure 
Statement, therefore, contains the intermediate findings and conclusions of the designated 
authority on the essential facts which would form the basis for the decision whether or not to 
apply definitive measures and not final conclusions on whether or not definite measures are 
required to be applied. In the opinion of this court, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel 
for the petitioners, the Disclosure Statement should contain the conclusions of the designated 
authority on those essential facts which would form the basis for its decision as to whether or 
not to apply definitive measures and not its conclusions on the basis of those essential facts. 
The conclusions on the basis of the essential facts are to be recorded in the final findings, viz., 
whether or not on the basis of such facts definitive measures are required to be applied……” 
176.The Hon’ble Court has further clarified at paragraph 37 of the judgment that:
“As already discussed hereinabove, the Disclosure Statement is required to record only the 
essential facts which are necessary for the purpose of determining as to whether or not the 
definitive measures are required to be applied or not. The designated authority is required to 
record its conclusions on those facts but not its conclusions based upon those facts. The 
conclusion as to whether or not the definitive measures are required to be applied is a 
conclusion based upon the essential facts and hence, could not have found place in the 
Disclosure Statement. Besides as to whether or not definitive measures are required to be 
applied is a conclusion that has to be recorded after receipt of the comments on the Disclosure 
Statement. The conclusion recorded by the designated authority in the Disclosure Statement 
that levy of Anti-dumping duty is no longer justified, amounts to arriving at a decision as to 
whether or not to apply definitive measures based upon essential facts recorded by it.….” 
177.The Authority takes note of its consistent practice that under Rule 16, the Authority is required to 
disclose the essential facts under consideration, including conclusions on such facts, which would 
cumulatively form the basis for its decision in the final findings. The Authority, in the Disclosure 
Statement, examines the material on record, states its views and conclusions resulting from such 
examination, and provides the reasoning therefor, while clearly stating that such disclosure does not 
amount to final determination and that submissions received after issuance of the Disclosure 
Statement would be duly considered prior to issuance of final findings.
178.The Authority considers that statements in the Disclosure Statement are the views which are formed 
upon the examination of the material on record, on the various issues under consideration and these 
do not amount to “pre-judgement” or “final adjudication”, as expressed by some interested parties. 
The interested parties were asked to offer comments to the Disclosure Statement. The observations 
in the Disclosure Statement therefore, do not amount to final determination by the Authority. In the 
present investigation, the Authority has duly considered the submissions received from the 
interested parties on the Disclosure Statement and has duly taken them into account in arriving at 
its final determination.
179.In view of the above legal position and consistent practice, the Authority finds that the contention
that the present Disclosure Statement contains “conclusive” or “definitive findings” is without merit. 
The Authority notes that the Disclosure Statement sets out the essential facts under consideration in 
accordance with what was held in Nirma case. The Authority further notes that the Disclosure 
Statement does not record any conclusion as to whether definitive measures are required to be 
imposed. Accordingly, the Authority finds no infirmity in the Disclosure Statement on this account.

ii. Whether the scope of the remand was confined to limited issues but, investigation has been 
reopened with fresh evidence

180.It has been contended by the interested party that the scope of the remand as per the directions of 
the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the order was confined to limited issues of confidentiality, 
however, that the Authority has reopened the investigation with fresh evidence admitted and new 
legal reasoning introduced. 
181.In this regard, it is essential to go through the order of the Hon’ble High Court. The relevant and 
operative portion of the order is extracted below:
“56. In my view, the procedural safeguard in terms of article 6.9 of the ADA which has been 
incorporated in the said Act, and the rules framed thereunder, especially in Rule 7(2) of the said 
Rules has not been followed……….”
“56… The matter is remanded back to the designated authority for reconsideration of the 
aforesaid issue, from the stage of the response filed by the petitioner for the purpose of 
considering the same in accordance with the observations made herein and the scope and object 
of Rule 7(2) of the said Rules…..”
182.It is the contention of the interested parties that the scope of the remand pursuant to the order of the 
Hon’ble High Court is limited, and that the Authority has allegedly exceeded the same by reopening 
the investigation. The Authority has carefully considered the said contention and finds it to be 
without merit.
183.At the outset, it is observed that the Hon’ble High Court, in its order, has categorically recorded that 
Article 6.9 of the ADA, as incorporated in Rule 7(2) of the AD Rules, had not been followed in the 
final findings of original investigation. On that basis, the Hon’ble Court set aside the final findings 
and the consequent levy of duty and remanded the matter to the Authority for reconsideration from 
the stage of the response filed by the petitioner, in accordance with the observations made within 
the order as well as the scope and object of Rule 7(2) of the Rules. Thus, the direction of the Hon’ble 
Court is explicit in requiring the Authority to reconsider the matter in light of, and in conformity 
with, the requirements of Rule 7(2).
184.The Authority further notes that Rule 7(2) mandates that any party claiming confidentiality is 
required to furnish a non-confidential summary of the information supplied, or, where such 
summarisation is not possible, to provide a statement of reasons explaining why such summarisation 
cannot be made. The Hon’ble High Court has specifically observed that this requirement had not 
been adhered to in the original proceedings and that the Authority failed in fulfilling its obligation 
in calling for the relevant information at the appropriate time. Accordingly, the remand necessitates 
an examination of confidentiality claims in accordance with Rule 7(2). Such examination cannot be 
undertaken without calling upon the concerned parties, including the domestic industry, to provide 
appropriate justification for their claims of confidentiality or to furnish adequate non-confidential 
summaries.
185.In view of the above, the Authority finds that the actions undertaken in the remand proceedings, 
including calling for justification of confidentiality claims and examining the same, are in 
compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and the mandate of Rule 7(2). The 
Authority does not find merit in the contention that the remand proceedings amount to granting 
a “second opportunity” to the domestic industry. The opportunity being provided to the domestic 
industry to justify its confidentiality claims flows directly from the requirements of Rule 7(2) and 
the observations of the Hon’ble High Court. 
186.It is further noted that the Hon’ble High Court’s order envisages that the Authority should have, in 
the original proceedings, required non-confidential versions of submissions and examine the 
confidentiality claims accordingly. Therefore, in the remand proceedings, the Authority is obliged 
to undertake this exercise by requiring that the domestic industry comply with the requirements of 
Rule 7(2), including providing justification where summarisation is not feasible.
187.The Authority also observes that, while the remand is to be undertaken from the stage of the response 
filed by the petitioner, the examination of confidentiality claims pertains to the material already on 
record at that stage. Allowing the domestic industry to furnish justification for such claims does not 
introduce new evidence but constitutes a procedural step to render the existing record compliant 
with Rule 7(2). In this regard, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has relied upon the 
information already on record of the investigation.
188.It has been contended that reliance has been placed upon material that was not part of the original 
record such as Trade Notice No. 1/2013, the submissions of the Domestic Industry dated 31 October 
2025 furnishing reasons for confidentiality, subsequent clarification letters and correspondence, 
references to determinations of foreign jurisdictions, and certain pre-POI or historical transactions.
189.As noted above, the present proceedings are being undertaken pursuant to the directions of the 
Hon’ble High Court, which, inter alia, required the Authority to reconsider the scope of 
confidentiality under Rule 7(2) and to disclose essential facts forming the basis of inclusion of R-S 
TiO2 within the product scope. Accordingly, the Authority was under the obligation to ensure that 
all material necessary for arriving at a determination on the issue of inclusion of R-S TiO2 was duly 
considered, examined, and, to the extent required, disclosed as essential facts. Further, as noted 
above, the present proceedings are being undertaken pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High 
Court, which, inter alia, required the Authority to reconsider the scope of confidentiality under Rule 
7(2) and to disclose essential facts forming the basis of inclusion of R-S TiO2 within the product 
scope. Accordingly, the Authority is under the obligation to ensure that all information for arriving 
at a determination on the issue of inclusion of R-S TiO2 was duly considered, examined, and, to the 
extent required, disclosed as essential facts. In this regard, it is noted that in the original final 
findings dated 12 February 2025 which is now set aside, the Authority had concluded that 'given 
the interchangeability and competitive market positioning of both sulphate and chloride rutile 
titanium dioxide, the inclusion of sulphate-rutile titanium dioxide within the scope of the product 
under consideration is appropriate and justified.' Since this conclusion on interchangeability and 
competitive market positioning of R-S TiO2 and R-C TiO2 constitutes an essential fact forming part 
of the basis for inclusion of R-S TiO2 within the PUC scope, the Authority is obliged under Rule 16 
and the High Court's direction to disclose the reasoning and evidence underlying the said conclusion, 
so that interested parties may meaningfully contest the basis of R-S inclusion. 
190.The Authority further notes the following with regard to the material cited by the interested party:
i. Reference to Trade Notice No. 1/2013 cannot be termed as reliance on new facts or information. 
Trade Notice No. 1/2013 is public notice and therefore the Authority can rely upon the same for 
the purpose of its determination. 
ii. The acceptance of the Domestic Industry’s submissions dated 31 October 2025, including the 
good cause statement, was in direct compliance with the Authority’s notification dated 17th 
October 2025, which in itself was issued in pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court’s directions.
iii. The consideration of all post-remand submissions by interested parties, clarification letters, and 
correspondence was necessary to ensure a complete and proper appreciation of facts with regard 
to the issues that are being examined in this remand back proceedings.
iv. The reference to foreign authority determinations was limited to aiding the analysis on like article 
and product scope, and treatment of R-S TiO2 by these jurisdictions, which aided in including 
R-S TiO2 as part of the product scope and is also recognized practice. The Authority notes that 
the domestic industry had already referred to and relied upon the same prior to issuance of 
original final findings. Moreover, there can be no bar on reliance placed on other investigating 
authorities’ determination at this stage of the proceedings. This was indeed relevant and necessary 
considering that the primary challenge of the interested parties is that R-C TiO2 and R-S TiO2 
are totally different products, and these investigating authorities have found that R-C TiO2 and 
R-S TiO2 are like article. 
v. The examination of certain historical or pre-POI information was undertaken only to the limited 
extent necessary to understand product characteristics, production capabilities, and industry 
practices relevant to addressing the concerns of the interested parties regarding absence of sales 
of R-S TiO2 to paint industry. It is now evident that Asian Paints and Indian Paint Association 
suppressed vital information from the Authority and repeatedly contended that R-S TiO2 was not 
supplied by the domestic industry. It is only when the domestic industry brought on record that 
R-S TiO2 was supplied by the domestic industry as well that Asian Paints and Indian Paint 
Association admitted the same, but stated that the volumes were not commercial. The domestic 
industry provided information showing that the volumes were commercial. It is also noted that 
the non-confidential version of the application filed by the domestic industry clearly shows 
separate injury statement with four years data in respect of R-S TiO2 sold by the domestic 
industry. 
191. Accordingly, the Authority finds that the consideration of the aforesaid material was not 
impermissible but was in fact necessitated by the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and the 
requirement to disclose essential facts relating to the inclusion of R-S TiO2 in the PUC.
192. The Authority also notes even if the above material as well as the letter dated 7th February 2025, 
which was alleged to suffer from lack of good cause statement on confidentiality and circulation is 
excluded from consideration in determination of whether R-S TiO2 should be included within the 
product scope, the conclusion regarding such inclusion remains unchanged by virtue of several other 
information and evidence on record as examined by the Authority.
193. The Authority holds that the record as it stood during the original investigation, already contained 
sufficient information and evidence demonstrating production and sale of R-S TiO2 by the domestic 
industry. The same is evident from, inter alia, the documents forming part of the application, such 
as production process flowchart, costing formats, injury statement, capacity evidence, cost audit 
reports, invoices, etc. The Authority notes that these information were already available on record 
and duly verified during the course of the original investigation. In fact, the Authority has prepared 
separate NIP for the goods produced by TTPL, which includes separate NIP for R-S TiO2 produced 
by the company. Consequently, the inclusion of R-S TiO2 within the scope of the PUC is supported 
by substantive and verifiable evidence. 
194. In view of the above, the Authority holds that the reliance on the material is justified and consistent 
with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. Further, even ignoring such material, the conclusion 
regarding inclusion of R-S TiO2 in the PUC is fully supported by the evidence already on record. 

iii. Whether domestic industry’s request to expand the remand proceedings to redetermine NIP, 
injury margin and quantum of duty can be considered within the scope of the present remand 
proceedings

195.The domestic industry has submitted that Hon’ble High Court has quashed the final findings and 
the Authority shall reconsider all submissions and issue final finding specifically in regard to the 
determination of NIP, injury margin and quantum of duty. It has further contended that the NIP 
determined in the original investigation is unduly low and the same should be re-examined 
considering the full cost information and evidence on record. The domestic industry further 
submitted that with revision in the NIP, the consequential injury margins and duties should be 
recalculated to provide effective relief against the dumping.
196.In this regard, the Authority reiterates that the Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter to the 
Authority for reconsideration of the issue of confidentiality from the stage of the response filed by 
the IPA. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the Authority was obliged to disclose the essential 
facts forming the basis of its determination in terms of Rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules to verify 
the very basis on which R-S TiO2 was included within the scope of the product under consideration. 
It is therefore evident that the present remand proceedings are confined to reconsideration of the 
issues relating to confidentiality and disclosure of essential facts concerning the inclusion of R-S 
TiO2 within the product scope. Examination of any other issues, including the domestic industry's 
request for redetermination of the Non-Injurious Price (NIP), falls beyond the scope of the remand 
proceedings. Accordingly, the Authority does not consider it appropriate to revisit or modify the NIP 
in the present remand proceedings.
197.In any event, the Authority notes that the issues relating to the cost elements now raised by the 
domestic industry were duly examined during the original investigation. These issues were 
considered pursuant to the domestic industry's comments on the Disclosure Statement, and the 
Authority addressed the same in the final findings. Since these issues have already been examined 
and determined, and do not form part of the limited scope of the present remand proceedings, there 
is no basis to revisit them. The relevant extract from the original findings, which is adopted herein, 
is reproduced below:
“As regards domestic industry’s contention regarding underestimation of coating cost, the 
Authority notes that the coating cost assessment is based on verified data made available by 
the domestic industry and after considering relevant cost components in accordance with the 
principles enshrined under Annexure III of the Anti-Dumping Rules.”

iv. Whether the domestic industry did not fulfil statutory requirement of good cause statement 
for claiming confidentiality and whether the Authority was obliged to direct the domestic 
industry to give reasons for its confidentiality claim

198.The interested party has contended that the domestic industry has not given the statutory requirement 
of a good cause statement which is mandatory prescription under Rule 7(2) of the Rules. 
199.It is noted that the final findings notified by the Authority were remanded back to the Authority 
precisely for the reason that the Authority accepted the confidentiality claims without giving good 
cause for the same. Therefore, the Authority issued a notification dated 17th October 2025, 
specifically calling upon the domestic industry to provide a detailed justification in support of its 
claims of confidentiality. The said notification was issued in compliance with the directions of the 
Hon’ble High Court, which had, inter alia, directed the Authority to reconsider the issue of 
confidentiality in light of Rule 7(2) and the observations contained in the order. One of the 
observations of the Hon’ble Court was that it was for the Authority to have required reasoning for 
the claims of confidentiality from the domestic industry.
200.Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the domestic industry submitted a detailed good cause 
statement vide its submissions dated 31st October 2025. The Authority finds that the domestic 
industry has provided reasons substantiating its claims for confidentiality. 

v. Whether Authority has not followed practice followed in previous cases with regard to name 
of customers

201.It has been contended that the Authority has directly contradicted its own approach in the cases of 
Halobutyl Rubber and Effect Pearlescent Pigments, where customer identities were disclosed to 
substantiate claims of commercial sales. In the present case, domestic industry has claimed 
confidentiality regarding names of customer. In this regard, the Authority notes that the information, 
for which disclosure has been sought by interested parties, has been considered confidential by the 
domestic industry. It is noted that such information has been claimed confidential by the users and 
foreign exporters as well. The users cannot, on the one hand, contend that the domestic industry has 
claimed excessive confidentiality by protecting the details of its supplies; while on the other hand, 
claiming the details of their own procurements as confidential. 

vi. Whether Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 should be excluded from the scope of the PUC 

202.It has been contended by the interested parties that R-S TiO2 ought to be excluded from the scope 
of the product under consideration on the ground that the domestic industry does not produce or sell 
the said grade, that any such claim, if made, has been substantiated with evidence, and if any 
sales have been made, the same is not in commercial quantities. 
203.It is noted that the information furnished by the domestic industry, both at the stage of initiation and 
during the course of the investigation, established that TTPL manufactured and sold R-S TiO2. 
TTPL has provided separate injury statement and costing information for R-S TiO2. A number of 
other information were part of the application which clearly showed production and sale of R-S 
TiO2. The NCV of the application also establishes the same. The Authority notes that the 
information on record since the stage of initiation contained detailed information in respect of 
production and sales of R-S TiO2, including injury data, costing formats, production records, 
product-wise segregation of data. The same has been duly examined and verified by the Authority 
during the course of the investigation.
204.The evidence provided by the domestic industry includes process flow charts demonstrating 
manufacturing of TiO2 through the sulphate route, capacity evidence for sulphuric acid, financial 
statements showing sales revenue from R-S TiO2, cost audit reports indicating production and cost 
elements specific to R-S TiO2, and trial balance and sales data showing sales of R-S TiO2. The 
Authority also notes the sample sales invoices and verified production and sales information, which 
shows transactions of R-S TiO2.
205.The Authority also observes that the argument seeking exclusion on the ground of alleged absence 
of sales to specific user segments, such as the paint companies who are members of Indian Paint 
Association, is misplaced. The determination of the scope of the product under consideration does 
not require the domestic industry to demonstrate sales to each and every end-use segment. It is 
sufficient that the domestic industry produces and sells the product. The Authority notes that absence 
or limited sales to a particular segment would not warrant exclusion of the product from the scope 
of product under consideration. Further, the Authority notes that evidence on record establishes 
sales of R-S TiO2 to both paint and non-paint users.

vii. Whether R-S TiO2 sales made by the domestic industry are not in commercial quantities

206.With regard to the contention that the domestic industry has not made sales in commercial quantities, 
the Authority notes that the Rules do not prescribe any minimum threshold of sales volume as a 
condition for determining the scope of the product under consideration. The relevant consideration 
is whether the domestic industry has produced and sold the like article in commercial volumes. In 
the present case, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the domestic industry has undertaken 
production and sale of R-S TiO2 during the injury period, in commercial quantities. The Authority 
further notes that such sales have been made to various categories of consumers and are reflected in 
the verified records of the domestic industry.

viii. Whether TiO2 with particle size of 200–350 nm should be excluded from the product scope

207.The Authority has examined the submissions made by the interested parties that TiO2 particle size 
within the range of 200–350 nm should be excluded within the scope of the product under 
consideration. The Authority notes that the product under consideration was defined at the stage of 
initiation as Titanium Dioxide, excluding food, pharma, skin-care, textile and fibre applications, and 
nano or ultrafine Titanium Dioxide having particle size below 100 nm. Further, being a remand 
proceeding the instant contention falls outside the scope of the remand investigation. 

ix. Whether complete skin care products should be excluded, or, Authority should clarify that 
the term “cosmetics” includes toilet soaps

208.Interested parties have requested either a complete exclusion for the product under consideration 
used in skin-care products or an express clarification that the term “cosmetics” includes toilet soaps. 
The Authority notes that the present proceedings arise pursuant to the remand directions of the 
Hon'ble High Court and are limited to the issues of confidentiality, disclosure of essential facts, and 
matters consequential thereto. Issues relating to modification of the scope of exclusions already 
determined in the original investigation do not arise from the remand directions and therefore fall 
beyond the scope of the present proceedings. The Authority further notes that the exclusions have 
already been addressed in this finding and it excludes titanium dioxide meant for skin care. 
Accordingly, the Authority does not consider it appropriate to revisit or modify the scope of 
exclusions in the present remand proceedings.

x. Gold Star Trading group’s contentions on export price and profitability

209.Gold Star Trading has contended that the export price should be constructed using the selling prices 
of the related trader rather than the producer group and that the profitability must be revised for 
purchase cost, constructed export price, and dumping margin calculations. The Authority notes that 
the present remand proceedings have not been initiated for reconsideration of normal value, export 
price, dumping margin, or adjustment methodologies applied in the original investigation. The 
Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter solely with respect to confidentiality and disclosure of 
essential facts relating to inclusion of R-S TiO2 within the scope of the product under consideration. 
Accordingly, the Authority considers that issues relating to export price construction and dumping 
margin calculations are beyond the scope of the present proceedings and therefore need not be re examined. 

xi. Whether duty imposition should be recommended from the date it was withdrawn by the 
Ministry of Finance

210.The domestic industry has contended that, since anti-dumping duties were earlier imposed on the 
subject goods and were subsequently set aside by the Hon'ble High Court on procedural grounds, 
the anti-dumping duty recommended pursuant to the present remand proceedings should be made 
applicable from the date on which the earlier duty ceased to be in force. The Authority notes that 
the Hon’ble High Court has clearly stated that the levy of duty effected by notification dated 10th 
May, 2025 cannot be sustained and the same with the final findings have accordingly been quashed. 
The Authority, therefore, does not agree with the contention of the domestic industry that anti dumping duty recommended pursuant to the present remand proceedings should be made applicable 
from the date on which the earlier duty ceased to be in force. The Authority holds that the duties can 
thus only be imposed when it will be notified by the Ministry of Finance.

xii. Whether disclosures requested by IPA vide letter dated 19th May 2026 justified any further 
disclosure by the Authority 

a. Request for disclosure regarding details of months in which sales to paint industry were made

211.It has been argued that in the original findings it is noted that the domestic industry made commercial 
sales of R-S TiO2 and paint industry invoices were provided. It has further been submitted that in 
the remand proceedings, the domestic industry itself admits that R-S TiO2 was not sold to the paint 
industry during the POI. It was requested that details of months in the injury period and POI when 
sales to paint industry were made including volumes and details of the paint company be disclosed.
212.On examination of the submissions of the domestic industry, it is seen that the domestic industry 
has not made any submission in the remand proceedings that R-S was not sold to the paint industry 
during the POI. On the contrary, it is seen from the submissions that the domestic industry has 
maintained that it has sold R-S to various categories of customers including the paint industry during 
the POI. As regards the commercial sale of R-S TiO2 to paint industry is concerned, attention is 
drawn to para 25 of the Disclosure Statement. The Authority’s determination not to exclude R-S 
TiO2 from the scope of the product under consideration is not solely based on sales of TiO2 to Asian 
Paints or any specific paint company or those Paint companies who are member of the IPA. Relevant 
part is extracted below. Further, it is reiterated that the domestic industry provided, in its application, 
separate injury and costing information for R-S TiO2, along with other information/documents:
Para 25: The Authority's determination on the inclusion of R-S TiO2 within the scope of the PUC 
is not primarily based on sales to Asian Paints or any specific paint company. The determination 
rests on the finding that TTPL has produced and sold R-S TiO2 commercially, that R-C TiO2 
and R-S TiO2 are like articles in terms of Rule 2 (d) of AD Rules, and that the DI is not required 
to have sold the product to every segment of the consumer market before seeking imposition of 
anti-dumping duty.

b. Request for disclosure regarding data corresponding to commercial quantities of R-S sale

213.Further disclosure has been requested in respect of the data on sale of R-S in commercial quantities 
and it has been submitted that since there has been no actual data disclosed, the conclusion is 
factually incorrect. It has been further argued that information that the domestic industry itself has 
disclosed cannot be selectively withheld by the Authority. 
214.The matter has been examined, and it is noted that at para 28 of the Disclosure Statement the 
Authority has already elaborated that it examined all records of the original investigation as well as 
the present remand proceedings to verify the production and sale of R-S TiO2 by TTPL and to 
examine production and sales of R-S TiO2 in commercial quantities.
215.As regards the contention that the sales volumes disclosed by the domestic industry in its written 
submissions have neither been reproduced nor expressly confirmed by the Authority, it is noted that 
the Authority is required to disclose essential facts forming basis of proposed determination on the 
basis of the record of the case. The Authority is not required to reproduce each and every information 
brought by the interested parties. Non-reproduction of such information does not imply non 
consideration of the same. In fact, a large number of information provided by domestic industry and 
foreign producers in an investigation relating to determination of dumping margin, injury and injury 
margin is considered by the Authority while arriving at the essential facts under consideration and 
final findings. The Authority however does not reproduce all those information either in the 
Disclosure Statement or in the final findings. At the stage of disclosure, the Authority is required to 
disclose essential facts under consideration based on which the Authority shall make determination. 
The Authority is not required to disclose the information that becomes the basis for establishing 
essential facts. In any case, the sales by the domestic industry of R-S has been verified and expressly 
confirmed in the present findings. The Authority has even determined NIP, which implies data for 
four years in commercial volumes.

c. Disclosure of basis for 22% ROCE considered

216.Disclosure of average historical rate of return for both the domestic industry and foreign producers 
concerning this industry have been requested. It has been further submitted that the request is being 
made as the 22% ROCE goes against established legal position that 22% ROCE cannot be simply 
applied as it is a very high rate and artificially inflates NIP and the injury margin. 
217.In this regard, it is noted that the return on investment earned by the domestic industry over the 
injury period is given at Para 93 of the Disclosure Statement. It is clarified that the domestic industry 
earned a ROI much beyond 22% in one of the years during the injury period. However, it is the 
Authority’s consistent practice to adopt 22% return on capital employed for the purpose of 
determination of NIP for the domestic industry. 
218. As far as Chinese producers are concerned, return on investment earned by them in any case is not 
relevant. 

xiii. Whether coated R-S TiO2 and uncoated R-S TiO2 are like article

219.It has been argued by interested parties that TTPL produces uncoated Rutile grade, which is far 
inferior in quality compared to coated Rutile grades imported from China and thus, TTPL's product 
is not comparable or interchangeable with coated Rutile (Sulphate or Chloride) grades under 
investigation. In this regard, the Authority notes that the only difference between the two is the 
process of coating, and in order to ensure fair comparison between sulphate-rutile titanium dioxide 
produced by the domestic industry and imported from exporters/producers of the subject country, 
appropriate adjustments have been made on account of coating cost for determining injury margin 
and dumping margin. 

P. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES

P.1.Submissions by other interested parties

P.1.a Submissions made by other interested parties in the original proceedings

220.The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regards to public 
interest:
i. Imposition of anti-dumping duty would increase the price of the subject goods, there by
impacting paint and plastic manufacturers.
ii. One of the other interested parties have submitted that TiO2 has no substitutes that provide 
the same performance in their products. They have projected that the imposition of a 10% 
anti-dumping duty (ADD) would increase paint production costs by ₹5/kg for finished 
products, potentially raising paint prices by ₹3.5–6/kg depending on dosage levels in 
formulations. Given the significant share of TiO2 in paint formulations (15–20%), the cost 
increase would likely be passed on to consumers. Despite this, it is believed that demand for 
TiO2 is not highly price-sensitive but driven by quality, as domestic industry cannot meet 
the required standards for whiteness, sheen, and gloss. They have highlighted a significant 
dependency on imports, as the domestic industry lacks the capacity to meet demand.
iii. Consumers relying on affordable products would be unable to afford these products 
anymore.
iv. The cost of imports has already been increased due to the customs duty payable on the 
subject goods at 10%. Addition of anti-dumping duty would lead to a substantial price hike
for titanium dioxide.
v. Imposition of duty would be against consumer interest as the largest consumer of subject 
goods is the paint industry. The demand supply gap in the country can only be overcome 
with imports.
vi. In total Indian consumption, there is likely not more than 10% of total Indian production. 
Hence, if duties are applied, it will affect the majority negatively.
vii. Domestically available rutile grade is not suitable and hence users will have to import, which 
will be deterred by duties if imposed.
viii. The duties imposed by the EU is causing difficulties to paint manufacturers within the EU 
and the same situation is likely to be replicated in India.
ix. Imposition of duties will bring challenges to the Indian masterbatch industry as there is 
financial stress on the industry due to inverted duty structure, and further, there will be a 
potential setback in export competitiveness.
x. India does not constitute an exceptionally high-growth or lucrative market for foreign 
exporters as demand has remained relatively steady over recent years and does not indicate 
significant or increasing attractiveness to foreign exporters.
xi. One of the other interested parties have asserted that the imposition of anti-dumping duties 
would have minimal impact on their operations. Despite previous price increases of up to 
50% for TiO2, they experienced no interruptions in demand, suggesting that price hikes do
not significantly affect the downstream industry. Further, they have emphasized that the
demand for TiO2 is not highly price-sensitive, with no substitutes available in the market.
They also mentioned that large paint companies typically pass price increases on to
consumers without a reduction in demand. There are viable alternatives to Chinese TiO2
from non-subject countries, so they could easily switch suppliers if duties are imposed. TiO2
is a small component in finished products, and price increases would have a minimal effect
on profitability.

P.1.b Submissions made by other interested parties in the present remand proceedings:

221.The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal
link in the present proceedings:
i. R-S enables producers to vary pigment loading thereby enabling affordable paint production 
unlike costly R-C and conflating these distinct products ignores market realities and risks any 
benefits of the social equity programmes of govt.
ii. Availability of affordable R-S is a matter of social equity, housing security and inflation control. 
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna aims at providing housing to million of families and key 
component to maintain ‘Pucca’ houses as per this scheme is paint.
iii. Making R-S unviable endangers 15,000 SME units, leading to widespread job losses and social 
disruption.
iv. Nemi Chem trades in Anatase grade which is indispensable for optical properties, dispersion 
and opacity making it a non-substitutable raw material in many formulations. Domestic 
industry’s capacity for ISI-certified Anatase is 28,000–30,000 MT, while total demand is 
2,00,000 MT, creating a gap of 1,70,000 MT. This gap necessitates imports to avoid supply 
disruption.
v. Global Anatase production is limited to China PR, Korea, and India. Korea meets its own 
demand while India's capacity is insufficient, making China’s imports inevitable. 
vi. The Authority's finding in the Acetone SSR (2016) held that if duties were extended it would 
not serve interest of DI or domestic producers, due to presence of significant demand-supply 
gap which necessitates imports. Similarly, here China has ample capacity to meet its domestic 
as well as global demand of Anatase.
vii. Imposition of ADD on Anatase would shut down allied facilities due to incapability of DI to 
satisfy demand and import price of Anatase being so high that it would be unaffordable for 
importers/users.
viii. ADD is unwarranted as imports are essential to sustain downstream industries and anti-dumping 
measure can’t be used as protective barrier or to disrupt market equilibrium in order to penalize 
imports that are necessary to fill supply shortfall.
ix. Anatase constitutes 20-25% in paints, 30-40% in masterbatch, 15-20% in paper, and 18-20% in 
ceramics, making it a significant cost component in key industries. Duties would escalate costs 
which will be borne by downstream industries or consumers reducing competitiveness, 
distorting markets and harming economy. 
x. Import prices rose from ₹175/kg to ₹225/kg post ADD, while Domestic Industry's prices only 
from ₹170/kg to ₹185/kg, showing underutilization of ADD protection. 
xi. MSMEs will face closures from increase in prices. ADD will harm users more than it protects 
DI and outweighs Domestic Industry protection.
xii. TiO2 is a critical raw material for major industries like paints, plastics, inks, and packaging, 
which include a large number of MSMEs. Duties would increase input cost, reduce 
competitiveness of downstream industries and adversely impact employment and exports.

P.2. Views of the Domestic Industry

P.2.a Submissions made by domestic industry in the original proceedings

222.The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regards to public interest 
in the original proceedings:
i. The domestic industry constitutes the entire Indian industry and one more producer has
recently entered the market. Imposition of duties is essential to ensure a fair market price
and will prevent India from becoming solely import reliant. If duties are not imposed,
Chinese producers will create a monopoly in the market.
ii. Increasing market share of the subject imports of China have not only caused injury to the
domestic industry but also taken all the share of other countries.
iii. Encouraging domestic production will further boost employment, improve standard of living 
and increase the GDP of the country.
iv. Titanium dioxide is used in the paints and coating industry, plastic industry, paper, rubber 
and leather industries. The cost on account of subject goods for the downstream industry is 
miniscule. 70% of the demand for subject goods is generated by the paints industry wherein 
TiO2 hardly constitute 5% of the composition.
v. Titanium dioxide primarily serves the paint industry accounting for approximately 70% of 
total demand. The subject goods constitute a 5%, 25% and 30% of the overall composition 
of paints used in households, paints used in industrial application and powder coating used 
in appliances respectively. The eventual impact of duties on the end consumer would be 
minimal and non-consequential.
vi. If measures are not imposed, the industry is likely to shut down due to inability to match the 
price of the dumped imports, deteriorating profitability, and other financial indicators.
vii. The paint industry, even if unable to pass on any possible increase in cost to the consumers, 
would be able to absorb the impact of duties imposed themselves.
viii. As regards the plastics industry, the sector would remain profitable even if the impact of 
duties were not to be passed on or were not absorbed.
ix. Existence of demand supply gap does not justify dumping of the subject goods.
x. There exist imminent plans to expand the capacity of the domestic industry, and to make 
additions to the Indian industry, which will take away the need for imports as a whole.
xi. Any minimal impact on masterbatch industry can be passed on to the downstream user, and 
alternatively, there are other sources of TiO2 from where the masterbatch industry can source 
TiO2.
xii. For export competitiveness, exporters of masterbatch can obtain an advance authorization 
license, which would enable them to import products duty-free.
xiii. India is a growing market and the volume of demand offered by the Indian market is 
significant and unmatched by other countries individually.
xiv. Multiple investigating authorities have levied duties and initiated investigations on imports 
of TiO2 from China.
xv. Rutile through sulphate and rutile through chloride can both be sourced from alternate 
sources of supply, in the event that importers and users want to opt for alternate sources.
xvi. The product is a price sensitive and capital-intensive product and expansion of capacity for 
such product presents challenges and requires considerable time. Domestic industry is 
making efforts in this regard.
xvii. The domestic industry requires a fair market to make investments to further its plans of
expansions.

P.2.b Submissions made by domestic industry in the present remand back proceedings

223.The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link in 
the present proceedings:
i. ADD is in public interest to prevent import dependence, ensure fair pricing, and sustain 
domestic capacity central to India’s manufacturing objectives. 
ii. KMML’s TiO2 plant viability underpins strategic initiatives aligned with Atmanirbhar and 
critical minerals strategy. Persistent losses risk shutdowns with downstream defence/aerospace 
implications. 
iii. Demand supply gap cannot justify dumped pricing and imposition of ADD does not block 
imports but only ensures fair, non-dumped prices so that domestic capacity can operate viably 
and expansion plans can proceed. 
iv. Claims that ADD will cripple SMEs are unsubstantiated and quantified impact on downstream 
sectors is minimal, while reliance on dumped imports can destabilise supply. 

P.3. Examination by the Authority

224.The Authority notes that the purpose of imposition of anti-dumping duty, in general, is to eliminate 
injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re-establish 
a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the 
country. Imposition of anti-dumping measures does not aim to restrict imports from the subject 
country in any way. Trade remedial investigations are intended to restore equal competitive
opportunitiesin the domestic market by ensuring a level playing field for domestic producers by the
imposition of appropriate duties against trade distorting imports.At the same time, the Authority is
aware that the impact of such duties is not limited to only the domestic producers of the PUC but also
affects the users and consumers of the PUC. Moreover,the imposition of duties may stimulate the
emergence of new producers within the country.
225.The Authority issued initiation notification inviting views from all the interested parties, including 
importers, consumers and others. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the users/ 
consumers to provide relevant information about the present investigation includingany possible
effects of anti-dumping duty on their operations. Information was sought on, inter- alia, 
interchangeability of the product supplied by various suppliers from different countries, ability of
the domestic industry to switch sources, effect of anti-dumping duty on the consumers,factors that are 
likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to the new situation caused by imposition of anti dumping duty.
226.The interested parties have filed economic interest questionnaires. It is noted from the submission 
of all the interested parties that the subject goods are primarily used in the paint industry which 
constitutes a major portion of the total demand for the subject goods and the subject goods form 
very low percentage of the total volume of composition of the paints. The analysis submitted by the 
applicants and other interested parties shows that difference in the cost of the subject goods due to
impact of imposition of duties would not be significant.
227.The Authority notes that there exists a demand-supply gap in the present investigation. The
Authority notes the submission of the domestic industry that active steps are being taken to expand 
capacity by the existing producers and also by new producers. One new producer, namely 
Meghmani Organics Pvt Ltd. has already set up new capacities post POI. It is also recognised that 
dumping needs to be addressed, so as to provide the Indian industry with a fair and level playing 
field to plan capacity expansion considering the fact that the industry is a capital-intensive industry.
228.It is also noted in this regard that existence of demand-supply gap does not justify dumping in any
situation. The same has been held by the CESTAT in DSM Idemitsu Limited v. Designated 
Authority5 as well as by the Gujarat High Court in NOCIL Limited v. Government of India. The
Gujarat High Court held as follows in this regard:
“Where gap of demand and supply exists, the imports are inevitable but that is not a
justification for imports coming into India at unfair and dumped prices. In view of the 
information made available by the petitioner to the authority, it is clearly found that there is 
continuous dumping, in the present case and, therefore, the demand and supply gap is not 
the basis for allowing such import.”
229.The Authority notes that the volume of imports from the subject country has increased throughout 
the injury period. The share of subject imports forms 57% of the total Indian demand. The increase 
in imports from the subject country has also adversely impacted the market share of the volume of
imports from non-subject countries, whose share in the market has been reduced from 43% in the 
base year to 31% in the POI. The consumers have alternate sources of supply. Therefore, even if 
volume of imports decline as a consequence of the imposition of anti–dumping duties, imports from 
non–subject countries would replace such dumped imports and, thereby, mitigate the adverse
effects, if any.

Q. CONCLUSION

230.Based on the submissions made, information provided, and facts available before the Authority as 
recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis of dumping and consequent injury to the 
domestic industry, the Authority concludes the following:
i) The scope of the product under consideration is “Titanium Dioxide” originating in or exported 
from China PR.
ii) The subject goods are classified under the customs sub-heading 28230010, and since it is a 
pigment, imports of subject goods are also being reported under 32061110 and 32061190.
iii) The application has been filed by M/s. Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd, M/s. Travancore 
Titanium Products Ltd and M/s. VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd. The applicants constitute 
domestic industry, under Rule 2(b) of the Rules and the application satisfies the criteria of 
standing in terms of Rule 5(3).
iv) The subject goods exported from China PR and the article manufactured by the domestic 
industry are ‘like article’ to each other in terms of Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules, 1995.
v) The product under consideration has been exported to India at a price below the normal value, 
resulting in dumping. The dumping margin is above de-minimis level and significant.
vi) The volume of subject imports increased over the injury period, especially in the POI, in 
absolute and relative terms. Imports of subject country constitute a majority of the total imports 
into India throughout the injury period.
vii) Imports have had a considerable impact on suppressing the prices of the domestic industry.
viii)Production and capacity utilisation increased from the base year and 2021-22 after which there 
was a decline. Capacity utilisation is low despite high demand in the country.
ix) Sales of the domestic industry increased till 2021-22, declined in 2022-23, and increased in the 
POI.
x) Market share of imports from the subject country in domestic demand has increased whereas, 
that of domestic industry has declined over the injury investigation period.
xi) Profits and cash profits have declined for the domestic industry during the injury investigation 
period. The domestic industry is incurring losses since 2022-23 and the POI. ROI has also 
declined steeply and was negative ***% in the POI.
xii) Average inventory has increased significantly during the injury period.
xiii)Number of employees and wages paid have decreased over the injury period with marginal 
increase in the POI as compared to previous year.
xiv) Productivity per employee increased in the base year and 2021-22, while decreasing in 2022-

                

                
                
                
            

            
        


        
        

        
        
        

            

                

                    
                        
                    
                

                

                    
Never miss important gazettes

                    
Create a free account to save gazettes, add notes, and get email alerts for keywords you care about.

                

                Sign Up Free
            

        

        

        
        

        
        
        

            Create free account to save & get alerts →
        

        

        
        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                
                More from Ministry of Commerce and Industry
            

            

                
                

                    
                        Publication of Notification in respect of Manyata Promoters Private Limited for IT ITES SEZ at Villages Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka, for partial denotification of 1.4310 Ha out of 19.199 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of notification in respect of Delta Electronics India Private Limited for Electronic Hardware and Software including Information Technology and Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone at Kurubarapalli, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu, for addition of an area of 1.14 hectares thereby making resultant area as 12.10 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of Notification in respect of Brahmani Infratech Limited for IT ITES SEZ at Mamidipalli Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, for Full denotification of 60.70 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of notification in respect of Rackbank Datacenters Private Limited for IT ITES SEZ at Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, for addition of an area of 2.708437 hectares thereby making resultant area as 5.412488 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Corrigendum to Public Notice No 27 2026 2027 dated 20 08 2026 regarding Modalities for Application and Distribution of TRQ for Import of 10 Lakh MT of Raw Sugar and one time conversion from Advance Authorisation AA Scheme to Tariff Rate Quota TRQ Scheme
                    
                    07 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of notification Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation for Apparel Park at Khokhra, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, for partial denotification of 15.59989 Ha out of 20.41491 Ha.
                    
                    03 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Modalities for Application and Allocation of Balance Quantity under TRQ Scheme for Import of 10 Lakh MT of Raw Sugar reg
                    
                    02 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of the Notification for Development Commissioner of SEZs Recruitment Rules, 2026
                    
                    01 Sep 2026
                

                
            

            

                View all Ministry of Commerce and Industry gazettes →