ADD on TPU from China PR

REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India CG-DL-E-09082024-256223 EXTRAORDINARY PART I—Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 203] NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2024/ SHRAVANA 15, 1946 4924 GI/2024 MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department Of Commerce) (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES) Final Findings New Delhi, the 6th August, 2024 Case No. AD (OI) -22/2023 Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU)" originating in or exported from China PR F. No. 6/23/2023-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. Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter also referred to as the “applicant" or the "domestic industry") has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority"), on behalf of the domestic industry, in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Thermoplastic Polyurethane” (“TPU”) (hereinafter referred to as the "subject goods" or "product under consideration” or “PUC”), originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the "subject country"). 2. The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a public notice vide notification no. 6/23/2023-DGTR dated 29th September 2023, published in the Gazette of India- Extraordinary, initiating the subject investigation in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules to determine the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country and to recommend the appropriate amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry. B. PROCEDURE 3. The following procedure has been followed with regard to this investigation: a. The Authority notified the embassy of the subject country in India about the receipt of the present anti- dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Rules. b. The Authority issued a public notice dated 29th September, 2023, published in the Gazette of India- Extraordinary, initiating the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the subject country. с. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the embassy of the subject country in India, the 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 applicant. The interested parties were requested to provide relevant information in the form and manner prescribed in the initiation notification and to make their submissions in writing within the time limit prescribed in the initiation notification. d. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application filed by the applicant to the known producers/exporters, known importers/users and to the embassy of the subject country in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules. e. The embassy of the subject country in India was sent a copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the producers/exporters with the request to advise the exporters/producers from their country to submit their responses to the questionnaire within the time limit prescribed by the initiation notification. f. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the scope of the PUC and propose product control numbers (PCNs), if required, within a period of 15 days from the date of the circulation of the non-confidential application. g. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the issues of confidentiality claimed by the other interested parties within 7 days of the circulation of the non-confidential version of the document filed before the Authority. h. The Authority also issued an economic interest questionnaire (hereafter also referred to as 'EIQ') to the interested parties seeking inputs on the economic impact of the proposed duties. i. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in the subject country in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules: i. Wanhua Chemical Singapore Pte Ltd ii. Shandong Inov Polyurethane Co Ltd iii. Wanhua Chemical Group Co Ltd iv. Shandong Huada Chemical New Material Co Ltd V. Yantai Jinbei Chemicals Co. Ltd vi. Baoding Bangtai Polymeric New-Materials Co Ltd vii. Shandong Dawn Polymer Co Ltd viii. Chuang Xin Trading Company Ltd ix. Grand Dignity Industrial Co Ltd Χ. Yantai Linghua New Material Co Ltd xi. Ningbo Joan Import Export Co Ltd xii. BASF Polyurethane Specialties China Co., Ltd. xiii. Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co., Ltd. xiv. Miracll Chemicals Co. Ltd XV. Singbon New Materials (Shandong) Co., Ltd and Yantai Singbon New Material Technology Co., Ltd j. In response to the above notification, the following producers/exporters of the product under consideration from subject country have registered as an interested party; i. BASF Polyurethane Specialties China Co., Ltd. (BAPS) ii. BASF International Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (BITC) iii. BASF Hong Kong Limited (BHKL) iv. BASF Integrated Site (Guangdong) Co. Ltd (BISL) V. Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co., Ltd. (Huafon) vi. Miracll Chemicals Co. Ltd (Miracll) vii. Yantai Singbon New Material Technology Co., Ltd viii. Singbon New Materials (Shandong) Co., Ltd k. The Authority notes that Singbon New Materials (Shandong) Co., Ltd and Yantai Singbon New Material Technology Co., Ltd have registered themselves as interested parties but have not filed the questionnaire response. They have also not filed any submission during the course of the investigation. l. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known importers/users of subject goods in India calling for necessary information, in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules: i. G R Industries ii. Polyhose India Pvt Ltd iii. Tirupati Global International iv. Sen Hon Lee Technologies Private Limited V. Excel Polymer Industries vi. Electra Enterprise Llp vii. P V Engineering Associates Private Limited viii. Lanshang Industrial Private Limited ix. Calsea Footwear Private Limited Χ. Globechem Imports xi. BASF India Limited xii. Le Mei Plastic Manufacturing Private Limited xiii. Adani International xiv. Saurav Footwear Private Limited XV. Ms Chemical Corporation xvi. Rajasthan Plastic Industries xvii. Plasticent Marketing Private Limited m. The following importers/users have registered themselves as interested parties: i. BASF India Limited (BIL) ii. Excel Polymer Industries iii. Essentex Company iv. Royal Marketing n. The following interested parties have not filed the questionnaire response but have submitted written submissions during the course of the investigation: i. Excel Polymer Industries ii. Essentex Company iii. Royal Marketing o. The following entities have neither registered as interested parties nor filed questionnaire response but have submitted written submissions during the course of the investigation i. Calsea Footwear Private Limited (Calsea) ii. Gemini & Co. (Gemini) iii. Enkay (India) Rubber Company Pvt. Ltd. (Enkay) iv. Rajkot Mobile Cover Manufacturer Association (“RMCMA") V. PU Leather Cloth Manufacturers Association p. The producers/exporters from the subject country who have not submitted the questionnaire response or have not cooperated in the investigation have been treated as non-cooperative in the investigation. q. Interested parties were provided 15 days' time from the date of circulation of non-confidential version of the application, to file their comments on the scope of PUC and PCN methodology, which ended on 24th October, 2023. None of the interested parties provided any comments or proposals to the Authority for the scope of PUC or proposed PCN methodology within the prescribed timelines. r. Accordingly, the Authority finalized the scope of PUC and PCN methodology in the subject investigation vide notice no. 6/23/2023-DGTR dated 30th October, 2023. Authority granted 30 days' time to interested parties from 30th October, 2023 to file questionnaire responses. Upon the request of certain interested parties, the Authority granted further extension of two weeks to file the questionnaire responses i.e., till 13th December, 2023. S. The DG System and the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics (DGCI&S) were 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 investigation as well as for the present final findings. t. The period of investigation (“POI”) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023. The injury period for the present investigation is 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, 1st April 2020 – 31st March 2021, 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022 and the POI. u. 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 21st May, 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 the written submissions with the other interested parties. V. The non-injurious price (hereinafter also referred to as the "NIP") has been determined based on the cost of production and reasonable profits of the goods in India, based on the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules so as to ascertain whether anti-dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry. W. The information submitted by the domestic industry has been examined and verified during on site-verification to the extent deemed necessary and has been relied upon for the present final findings. X. 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 present final findings. y. 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. Z. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the interested parties in the present final findings, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation. aa. In accordance with Rule 16 of Rules Supra, the essential facts of the investigation were disclosed to the known interested parties vide disclosure statement dated 23rd July, 2024 and comments received thereon, considered relevant by the Authority, have been addressed in this final findings notification. bb. '***' in this document represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under Rule 7 of the Rules. cc. The exchange rate for the POI adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US $= Rs. 81.06. C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE 4. The product under consideration as defined at the stage of initiation is as follows- "3. The product under consideration is “Thermoplastic Polyurethane” (“TPU”) originating in or exported from China PR. TPU is a melt-processable thermoplastic elastomer having unique properties of plastic and rubber, including elasticity, transparency, and resistance to oil, grease, and abrasion. TPU is thermoplastic elastomer consisting of linear segmented block copolymer composed of hard and soft segments. PUC covers TPU in the form of powder, granules, pellets, unmodified or modified by colourants, fillers or other additives. 4. TPU is a unique type of plastic that bridges the gap between rubber and plastic. TPU combines a multitude of strengths characterizing rubber on one hand and thermoplastic materials on the other. TPU can, for instance, be deformed under tensile and compressive load, but afterwards return to their original shape. Furthermore, it can be stretched when heated, and when heated even, it can be melted and moulded over and over again. The key to TPU's versatility is that its hardness can be highly customized. TPU can be as soft as rubber or as hard as rigid plastic. TPU can be transparent or coloured or hard or soft/smooth to provide grip. 5. TPU is obtained from the reaction of polyols (polyester or polyether or polycaprolactone based or a combination of these), diisocyanates and short-chain diols. Additives can be added to these to achieve special properties. By combining all the elements, a wide range of hardness and mechanical properties can be achieved. PUC is offered by the applicant in different grades. However, these different grades are different merely in terms of properties, which can be achieved through control on process parameters and use of specific additives. All these grades remain the same as one article. 6. The product scope covers polyester-based TPU as well as polyether-based TPU, and polycaprolactone- based TPU is specifically excluded from the scope of product. 7. The product under consideration is used in a wide variety of applications including automotive instrument panels, agriculture (animal ID tags), caster wheels, power tools, sporting goods, medical devices, tubes & hoses, belts and profiles industry, footwear, inflatable rafts, variety of extruded film, sheet and profile applications, outer cases of mobile electronic devices, keyboard protectors for laptops etc. TPU is also substituting rubber and PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride) in premium motorcycle market as well as passenger car interiors. 8. The product under investigation is being imported under Custom Tariff Heading 39095000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, it is possible that the subject goods may also be imported under other headings and therefore, the Customs tariff heading is indicative only and is not binding on scope of the product." C.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 5. The other interested parties have made following submissions with respect to product under consideration: a. The specifications of the PUC exported from China PR to India are transforming from low value-added products to high value-added products. The complexity of product design and the demand for customization has increased. Some technically advanced products cannot be produced by the domestic industry. As a result, the domestic industry is not able to meet such demand of downstream customers. b. Subject goods produced by the domestic industry does not meet the stringent demand of customers who are exporters of footwear and source their footwear soles from Enkay. с. Calsea and Gemini have sourced TPU grades from the domestic industry, however, the same does not meet demand of its clients in other countries. Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co. Ltd, China is duly approved by its clients in other countries for quality specifications and price agreements. It is further submitted that this approval from customers, which are reputed brands, is given after due audit of the material from suppliers. d. Excel's customer also did an extensive audit of its supplier Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co. Ltd, China, and it was the only company to pass the stringent test requirement of its customer. e. International brands advocate for the use of Global Recyclable Standard Grades (“GRS grades") to promote environmental sustainability. The domestic industry does not produce these grades. These grades are manufactured by only a select few manufacturers globally and China PR being the biggest in this category. The current supplier Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co. Ltd, China PR has already obtained GRS certificate to manufacture GRS grades and its customers in other countries have also approved their quality specifications. f. The domestic industry is also dependent on major imports of its raw materials from China PR for making TPU. The domestic industry has only limited grades manufactured in their Indian facility which is an old technology. The domestic industry's products/grades are technically incompetent in mobile phone cover application. g. The PU Leather Cloth Manufacturers Association has claimed that its members use Polyurethane Resin ("PU Resin") as an input product in their manufacturing process. PU Resin and TPU fall under the same custom tariff heading i.e., 39095000. The association anticipates that there may be confusion between both the products at the customs at the time of import if anti-dumping duty is recommended on TPU by the Authority and imposed by Ministry of Finance. Thus, the association has requested that PU resin may be expressly excluded from the scope of PUC. C.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 6. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the product under consideration: a. None of the interested parties has made any submissions/comments on the PUC or proposed PCNs within the time limit prescribed by the Authority. b. Calsea, Gemini, Enkay and RMCMA have not registered themselves as interested parties and have not filed importer/user questionnaire response. Thus, their written submissions on the scope of PUC should not be considered by the Authority. с. Trade Notice No. 11/2018 provides for streamlining of investigation process with regard to registration of interested parties and weightage to be given to submissions made by parties during the course of the investigation. Thus, if an entity does not register as an interested party and fails to file a questionnaire response within the given timeline, the Authority will disregard that entity's submissions. Additionally, if an interested party registers but does not file the questionnaire response, their submissions will be given less weightage. d. In Forech India Ltd. Versus the Designated Authority & Others, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that substantive and procedural requirements laid down by the Authority in its own trade notices are required to be followed in all cases and flexibility cannot be granted by the Authority in this regard. e. The Authority should not consider Calsea, Gemini, Enkay and RMCMA as interested parties in the subject investigation. Consequently, submissions made by Calsea, Gemini, Enkay and RMCMA are required to be rejected for this reason itself. f. Excel Polymer Industries , Royal Marketing and Essentex Company have registered themselves as interested parties but they have not filed the importer/user questionnaire response. g. In Merino Panel Products Ltd. Versus Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping And Allied Duties, Hon'ble Customs, Excise, Service Tax and Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) observed that if the importer does not file questionnaire response then it cannot establish itself as an importer in the anti- dumping investigation. h. Excel Polymer Industries, Royal Marketing and Essentex Company should be treated as non-cooperating importers/users and granted lesser weightage to the submissions made by them in accordance with Trade Notice No.11/2018. i. Calsea and Excel Polymer Industries have not provided any information regarding their imports to show that GRS grade has been imported by them. Thus, it cannot not be verified whether their claim regarding import of GRS grade is correct or not and also whether there is any demand of GRS grade in the domestic market. j. In anti-dumping investigation concerning Coated/Plated Tin Mill Flat Rolled Steel Products originating in or exported from the European Union, Japan, USA and Korea RP, final findings dated 17th June 2020, the Authority observed that when it cannot be verified whether there is any demand of the product sought to be excluded, exclusion of product types cannot be granted. k. Calsea and Excel Polymer Industries have not provided any technical specifications of GRS grade and have made a generic and presumptuous submission that the domestic industry is not producing GRS grade. The basis for claiming exclusion based on generic description of GRS grade is to create opportunity for circumvention of anti-dumping duty in the future by declaring the imports of TPU as GRS grade. l. GRS is a voluntary product standard for tracking and verifying the content of recycled materials in a final product. The standard applies to the full supply chain and addresses traceability, environmental principles, social requirements, chemical content and labelling. GRS covers processing, manufacturing, packaging, labelling, trading and distribution of all products made with a minimum of 20% recycled material. It also sets requirements for third-party certification of recycled content, chain of custody, social and environmental practices, and chemical restrictions. The standard supports companies looking to verify the recycled content of their products as well as responsible social, environmental, and chemical practices in the production of these products. The desired effect of GRS is to provide brands with a tool for more accurate labelling, to encourage innovation in the use of reclaimed materials, to establish more transparency in the supply chain, and to provide better information to consumers. The goal of GRS is to increase use of recycled materials in products and reduce or eliminate the harm caused by its production. Thus, GRS grade is not a mandatory requirement and is not a distinct product grade having different technical specification. It is effectively a certification of minimum amount of recycled content/raw materials in the finished goods. m. Calsea and Excel Polymer Industries have not provided any evidence to show that order was placed on the domestic industry for supply of the GRS grade and the domestic industry refused to supply such grade to Calsea and Excel. The domestic industry has not received any orders specifying the requirement of GRS grade of the subject goods till date. n. It is the consistent practice of the Authority to examine whether any users/customers have placed an order for a specific grade of the PUC with the domestic industry, and the domestic industry has not been able to supply that specific grade or shown its inability to fulfil such orders. o. If an exclusion is granted for GRS grade simply without providing any technical specifications of such grade, it will result in circumvention of anti-dumping duty. Customs Authority cannot verify at the time of import whether the imported TPU is GRS grade if no technical specifications are prescribed by the Authority. p. In anti-dumping investigation concerning Coated/Plated Tin Mill Flat Rolled Steel Products originating in or exported from the European Union, Japan, USA and Korea RP, Final Findings dated 17th June 2020, the Authority rejected the request for exclusion of certain specialized grades and/or non-prime product when it was determined that there are no clear physical attributes or technical distinctions that differentiate such product types. q. The subject goods produced and sold by the domestic industry and the imported GRS grade from the China PR are functionally substitutable and replaceable in the market, due to similar end use. In Merino Panel Products Ltd. Versus Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-dumping and Allied Duties, CESTAT observed that exclusion of certain types/grades of the product from the investigation is permissible where the imported product is not in commercial competition with the indigenous product and its import, therefore, would not cause any injury to the domestic industry. r. In DSM Idemitsu Limited v. Designated Authority, CESTAT observed that the appellant did not produce any evidence/ technical literature to substantiate that the product manufactured by the domestic manufacturers was different from the goods exported into India except stating that they were of different grades. CESTAT rejected the contentions of the appellant. s. In Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. Versus Designated Authority, the CESTAT observed the irrelevance of different grades, when it is known that the grades imported into India are at dumped prices and can replace the grade supplied by the domestic industry. t. Further, the Hon'ble CESTAT in DSM Idemitsu Limited vs Designated Authority also upheld the fact that difference in quality does not imply that the imported product and the domestic product are not like articles. u. Calsea and Excel Polymer Industries have submitted regarding the GRS grades for the first time in their post-hearing written submissions. Calsea and Excel Polymer Industries have not provided any evidence of their imports of GRS grades of the subject goods from Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co Ltd in China PR. v. Calsea was regularly procuring the subject goods from the domestic industry till 2019. However, Calsea shifted its sourcing to imports from China PR. Calsea never raised any objections on the quality, or the grades of the subject goods supplied by the domestic industry to Calsea. The reason for change in supplier is lower dumped price of the subject goods from China PR. w. With regard to the claim that the TPU grade produced by the domestic industry is not suitable for production of the mobile covers, the claim is factually incorrect. No information is provided regarding particular grade or details of technical specifications of TPU etc. that are required for production of the mobile covers, and which cannot be supplied by the domestic industry. TPU produced and supplied by the domestic industry is fully suitable for production of mobile covers. In fact, TPU supplied by the domestic industry is having better cycle time, processing, and transparency but due to lower price, customers have shifted to exporters from China PR. The TPU supplied by the domestic industry is regularly used for making mobile covers. Details of key customers and volume of TPU supplied for making mobile covers has been furnished to the Authority by the domestic industry. x. With regard to quality of the PUC supplied by the domestic industry, submissions by other interested parties are generic and unsubstantiated allegations. None of the importers/users have reported that TPU supplied by the domestic industry was tested and not approved by their R&D departments or customer inspection teams. Importers/users of TPU for mobile covers or shoe soles have not provided any test reports to show that product supplied by domestic industry is inappropriate. The failure or refusal to test the domestic product does not indicate that it is of inappropriate quality. y. The domestic industry is a part of a multi-national corporation having manufacturing plants of TPU in countries outside India as well. It is not possible for any multi-national corporation to set up manufacturing facility in different countries if its products are not competitive in quality by global standards. Moreover, the domestic industry has exported the TPU produced in India to other countries as well. None of their customers either in India or outside India have raised any issue regarding quality of TPU supplied by the domestic industry. z. Gemini has sourced the subject goods from one of the dealers of the domestic industry and Gemini did not communicate that the quality or grade supplied by the domestic industry was not suitable for their requirement. Mere statement by Gemini that quality of the domestic industry does not meet their standard without any evidence should not be considered by the Authority. aa. It is a settled principle that quality is not the criterion for seeking exclusion of product grades from the scope of the PUC. It has been the consistent practice of the Authority to not grant any exclusion of product grade based on claim regarding inferior quality of product supplied by the domestic industry. bb. In the following cases, issue regarding inferior quality of the subject goods supplied by the domestic industry was not considered as relevant justification for condoning dumping of product into India and/or for granting exclusion of product type from the scope of the PUC: i. Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Newsprint in rolls or sheets, excluding glazed newsprint originating in or exported from Australia, Canada, European Union, Hong Kong, Russia, Singapore and United Arab Emirates – final findings dated 19th January 2021 ii. Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Electrogalvanized Steel from Korea RP, Japan and Singapore - final findings dated 27th July 2022 iii. Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn originating in or exported from China PR – final findings dated 29th September 2023 cc. Regarding the claim that the domestic industry imports raw material from China PR for TPU production, the domestic industry has already disclosed these imports to the Authority. The Rules do not require that a domestic industry seeking anti-dumping duties on a product it manufactures in India must refrain from importing raw materials from China PR for that product. dd. In many previous investigations conducted by the Authority, the domestic industry in India requesting imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports from China PR was also an importer of raw material from China PR. Some illustrative examples of such investigations are as follows: i. Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of New/unused pneumatic radial tyres with or without tubes and/or flap of rubber (including tubeless tyres) having nominal rim dia code above 16" used in buses and lorries/trucks", originating in or exported from China PR – final findings dated 1st October 2017 - Carbon black, which is the raw material for production of tyres, is imported from China PR by the domestic industry. ii. Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Fluoro Backsheet originating in or exported from China PR. final findings dated 29th March 2022 raw material polyvinylidene fluoride used in production of Fluoro Backsheet is imported from China PR iii. Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Solar Cells whether or not assembled partially or fully in Modules or Panels or on glass or some other suitable substrates from China PR – final findings dated 22nd May 2014 raw materials such as silicon wafer, fluoro backsheet, EVA sheets etc. for production of solar cells and modules are imported from China PR iv. Anti-dumping duty investigation concerning imports of Aluminium Foil originating in or exported from China PR – final findings dated 10th March 2017 – Foil Stock used for production of Aluminium Foil was imported from China PR by domestic industry. v. Anti-dumping investigation on Hot-Rolled flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel originating in or exported from China PR, Japan, Korea RP, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia – final findings dated 10 April 2017 - Met coke required for production of Hot-Rolled flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel was imported by domestic producers from China PR, Japan, Indonesia etc. C.3. Examination by the Authority 7. The Authority notes that none of the submissions regarding scope of the PUC were raised by interested parties within the timeline of 15 days granted by the Authority from the date of circulation of non-confidential version of the application by domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority confirmed the aforementioned scope of PUC vide notice having no. 6/23/2023-DGTR dated 30th October 2023. 8. The Authority has however addressed the arguments regarding the scope of the PUC and has examined the same based on the relevant information available on record. 9. The Authority also notes that none of the alleged importers/users or association has substantiated their claim regarding lack of quality of goods produced by the domestic industry with evidence. Moreover, none of the alleged importers/users or association who has raised issue regarding scope of the PUC has filed importers/users questionnaire response to evidence the imports of the subject goods made by them and their status as importers/users of the subject goods. In absence of any importer or user questionnaire response from individual entities, the Authority is unable to verify whether they are actually importer/user of the subject goods and interested parties in the subject investigation. The Authority notes that in accordance with Trade Notice 11 of 2018, lesser weightage should be granted to the submissions made by importers/users who have not filed questionnaire response. 10. With regard to the submission made by Rajkot Mobile Cover Manufacturer Association on behalf of their members who are alleged importers and users of the subject goods, the Authority notes that none of their members are clearly identified and the members have also not filed importer or user questionnaire response. Thus, the Authority is also unable to verify the status of Rajkot Mobile Cover Manufacturer Association as an association of importers/users of subject goods and as an interested party. 11. The Authority also notes that the information provided by the domestic industry shows that users in India have been procuring the subject goods from the applicant. The applicant has submitted that there has been no instance of rejection of the subject goods supplied by the applicant to the users for quality issues. 12. With regard to the submissions concerning 'GRS grade' of the PUC, the Authority notes as follows: i. Importers and users who have claimed that they import the subject goods with GRS certification have not filed the importer/user questionnaire response or provided evidence to show that GRS is a different product grade having different technical and physical characteristics. ii. Importers and users who have claimed that they import subject goods with GRS certification have not provided technical specifications of such product sought to be excluded. In the absence of technical specifications, it is not possible to consider their claim regarding exclusion of the same. iii. In absence of questionnaire response from importers and users, the Authority is unable to verify that the subject goods with GRS certification have been imported by them. Thus, it cannot also be verified whether their claim regarding use of the subject goods with GRS certification is correct or not and also whether there is any demand of the subject goods with GRS certification in the domestic market. iv. The Authority is also unable to verify the claim that products produced by them using imported subject goods with GRS certification have been exported by them. v. Exclusion of a particular product type from the scope of the PUC can be considered only if it is established that the product type sought to be excluded is technically different, is meant for specific end use and is not substitutable with grades produced by the domestic industry. vi. It is also pertinent to note that the product types not manufactured by the domestic industry such as polycaprolactone based TPU have been excluded from the scope of PUC by the domestic industry themselves. The domestic industry has claimed that all other types of TPU are produced by them. vii. Therefore, the Authority concludes that there is no requirement to exclude 'GRS grade' from the scope of the PUC. 13. With regard to the claim that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry is not suitable for mobile covers, the Authority notes as follows: i. The importers and users who have claimed that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry is not suitable for production of the mobile covers, have not filed the importer/user questionnaire response. Therefore, the Authority cannot examine the details of the subject goods imported by them and the correctness of their claim. ii. The importers and users have also not provided any information to substantiate their claim that TPU grade produced by the domestic industry is not suitable for production of mobile covers. iii. The domestic industry has also provided information to show that TPU produced by them has been used for the production of the mobile covers and have been used by mobile cover manufacturers. No information is provided regarding particular grade or details of technical specifications of TPU etc. that are required for the production of mobile covers, and which cannot be supplied by the domestic industry. iv. It is also pertinent to note that the product types not manufactured by the domestic industry such as polycaprolactone based TPU have been excluded from the scope of PUC by the domestic industry itself. The domestic industry has claimed that all other types of TPU are produced by them. v. Therefore, the Authority concludes that there is no requirement to exclude the subject goods for use in mobile cover from the scope of the PUC. 14. With regard to the request to expressly exclude 'PU Resin' because the subject goods and PU resin are imported under the same HS code 39095000, the Authority notes that the anti-dumping duty is levied on the basis of the description of the PUC and the HS codes are only indicative. In the present case, the PUC is Thermoplastic Polyurethane(TPU). PU resin is not part of the description of PUC and hence there is no need to expressly exclude PU resin from the scope of the PUC. 15. Rule 2(d) of the Rules provides the definition of like article as under: "like article" means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation; 16. After considering the information on record, the Authority concludes that the product produced by the domestic industry is like article to the product under consideration imported from the subject country within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Rules and it is comparable in terms of physical & chemical characteristics, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially, substitutable. 17. Further, the Authority concludes that the PUC is same as noted in the initiation notification and as determined vide notice dated 30th October, 2023 and the same is reproduced as below: "3. The product under consideration is “Thermoplastic Polyurethane” (“TPU”) originating in or exported from China PR. TPU is a melt-processable thermoplastic elastomer having unique properties of plastic and rubber, including elasticity, transparency, and resistance to oil, grease, and abrasion. TPU is thermoplastic elastomer consisting of linear segmented block copolymer composed of hard and soft segments. PUC covers TPU in the form of powder, granules, pellets, unmodified or modified by colourants, fillers or other additives. 4. TPU is a unique type of plastic that bridges the gap between rubber and plastic. TPU combines a multitude of strengths characterizing rubber on one hand and thermoplastic materials on the other. TPU can, for instance, be deformed under tensile and compressive load, but afterwards return to their original shape. Furthermore, it can be stretched when heated, and when heated even, it can be melted and moulded over and over again. The key to TPU's versatility is that its hardness can be highly customized. TPU can be as soft as rubber or as hard as rigid plastic. TPU can be transparent or coloured or hard or soft/smooth to provide grip. 5. TPU is obtained from the reaction of polyols (polyester or polyether or polycaprolactone based or a combination of these), diisocyanates and short-chain diols. Additives can be added to these to achieve special properties. By combining all the elements, a wide range of hardness and mechanical properties can be achieved. PUC is offered by the applicant in different grades. However, these different grades are different merely in terms of properties, which can be achieved through control on process parameters and use of specific additives. All these grades remain the same as one article. 6. The product scope covers polyester-based TPU as well as polyether-based TPU, and polycaprolactone- based TPU is specifically excluded from the scope of product. 7. The product under consideration is used in a wide variety of applications including automotive instrument panels, agriculture (animal ID tags), caster wheels, power tools, sporting goods, medical devices, tubes & hoses, belts and profiles industry, footwear, inflatable rafts, variety of extruded film, sheet and profile applications, outer cases of mobile electronic devices, keyboard protectors for laptops etc. TPU is also substituting rubber and PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride) in premium motorcycle market as well as passenger car interiors. 8. The product under investigation is being imported under Custom Tariff Heading 39095000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, it is possible that the subject goods may also be imported under other headings and therefore, the Customs tariff heading is indicative only and is not binding on scope of the product.” D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING D.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 18. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the domestic industry and standing: a. Rule 2(b) of the Rules provides that producers who are importers or related to exporters/importers shall be excluded from the definition of the domestic industry. D.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 19. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the domestic industry and standing: a. Covestro (India) Pvt. Ltd. is the sole producer of the subject goods in India during the injury period and constitutes 100% of the production of the subject goods in India. b. The domestic industry has imported small quantities of the subject goods from its related companies in China PR and other non-subject countries. The domestic industry has imported certain specific grades of the PUC from China PR for testing purposes and to meet some urgent demand. Imports of the subject goods from China PR by the domestic industry during the POI is in the range of 0-0.15% in relation to (i) imports from China PR or (ii) imports from all countries or (iii) Indian demand. с. The Authority can decide if a domestic producer related to a foreign producer/exporter or importer of dumped goods, or who imports the goods themselves, qualifies as an eligible domestic producer under Rule 2(b). This determination is not automatic and is made on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant legal and economic factors. d. The facts and circumstances considered by the Authority while exercising its discretion have been noted in many investigations conducted by the Authority in the past. The Authority has consistently observed that mere relationship of the domestic producer with the producer/exporter in the subject country will not exclude such producer from the definition of the domestic industry. e. In anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Soda Ash originating in or exported from China PR, EU, Kenya, Iran, Pakistan, Ukraine and US, final findings dated 17th February 2012, the Authority observed that mere fact of relationship of a domestic producer with an importer or exporter or import by such a producer is insufficient to exclude such a producer from the scope of the domestic industry. The Authority is required to apply its mind so as to make objective determination of whether a domestic producer in such a situation should be considered as eligible or ineligible to be considered as a domestic industry. The Authority also held that the current AD Rules continue to grant such discretion to the Designated Authority to decide on the merits of the case to include or exclude such a domestic producer within/from the scope of "domestic industry". f. In anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Soda Ash originating in or exported from China PR, EU, Kenya, Iran, Pakistan, Ukraine and USA, Nirma Ltd. and Saukem also had a related producer/exporter in USA, namely Searles Valley Minerals. The Authority observed in this anti-dumping investigation that exports by related foreign producer/exporter of domestic producers Nirma Ltd. and Saukem were not significant in comparison to total imports into India. The related foreign producer/exporter was not the major exporter of the concerned product. The focus of domestic producers Nirma Ltd. and Saukem was primarily on domestic production and not on trading of goods imported from its related foreign producer/exporter. Thus, Nirma Ltd. and Saukem were held to constitute eligible domestic industry under the Rules. g. The Authority had enunciated the same principles in its final findings dated 17th May 2010 in anti- dumping investigation concerning imports of Viscose Staple Fibre excluding Bamboo Fibre originating in or exported from China PR and Indonesia. In this case, the domestic industry i.e. Grasim Industries Ltd. had related companies in Indonesia and China PR, namely, Birla Jingwai Fibres Company Limited, China PR and PT Indo Bharat Rayon, Indonesia, who were producing & exporting the subject goods to India. The Authority observed that exports by related companies from China PR and Indonesia to India were small and sporadic and significant dumping to India was practiced by other producers/exporters from China PR and Indonesia. Moreover, focus of Grasim Industries Ltd. continued on production and did not shift to trading of goods imported from its related companies. Thus, Grasim Industries Ltd. was held to be an eligible domestic industry. h. In anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Circular Weaving Machines having six or more shuttles for weaving PP/HDPE Fabrics of a width exceeding 30 cms., originating in or exported from China PR, the Authority also observed that mere fact of relationship between domestic producer and producer/exporter in the subject country is insufficient to consider the domestic producer as ineligible domestic industry. i. In the case of State of Gujarat Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited v. Government of India, (2012) 286 ELT 348, the High Court examined the question of exclusion of an importer of the dumped article from the definition of the domestic industry under Rule 2(b). The Court observed that nearly 15% of total production of the company was imported by it and that too casually and to meet customer's demand during the time when the production was disrupted. This quantity was found from the facts to be very insignificant portion of the total import from the same exporting country. Thus, the concerned domestic producer was considered as eligible domestic industry and was not excluded from the definition of the domestic industry under Rule 2(b). j. In anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Soda Ash originating in or exported from China PR, EU, Kenya, Iran, Pakistan, Ukraine and US, the Authority noted that it is neither the intent of the WTO Agreement nor of the AD Rules that a straight jacketed formula should be adopted while defining 'domestic industry' where an iota of import of subject goods from the subject country by a domestic producer be treated as sacrilege and thereby ineligible for the status of 'domestic industry'. The conduct of trade and business at times necessitates importation of goods by the domestic industries for either research purposes or to supplement their own production to meet emergent demand in the market or for any other justified reasons. k. When volume of exports by related foreign producer/exporter and/or imports by the domestic industry is small for bona fide reasons and essential business of the domestic producer as a producer of subject goods is not in doubt, the domestic producer cannot be excluded from the definition of the domestic industry on the ground that the domestic producer is related to the foreign producer/exporter and/or is an importer of concerned product in terms of Rule 2(b). l. In the present case, the domestic industry has imported small quantities of the subject goods from its related companies in China PR and other non-subject countries. The domestic industry has imported certain specific grades of the PUC from China PR for testing purposes and to meet some urgent demand. The imports of the subject goods from China PR by the domestic industry during the POI is *** MT, which is in the range of 0-0.15% in relation to (i) imports from China PR (ii) imports from all countries and (iii) Indian demand. Thus, the imports by the domestic industry are insignificant. The domestic industry has also disclosed that its related company has not supplied to any other entity in India. m. Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co. Ltd claimed that the domestic industry imported *** MT of the subject goods but did not provide supporting details or import data to substantiate its claim. It is unclear how Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co. Ltd obtained this confidential exporter or importer-specific data. The domestic industry submits that Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co. Ltd.'s claim is factually incorrect and requests that the Authority may verify the claim using official import data from DG System. n. The domestic industry has disclosed information about imports from its related entities in both the subject country and non-subject countries, including Covestro (Hong Kong) Ltd. o. The domestic industry has submitted that none of the key managerial personnel of Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd hold any managerial position in the related party in China PR exporting the subject goods to India. Further, key managerial personnel of related producer/exporter in China PR also do not hold any managerial position in the applicant company. D.3. Examination by the Authority 20. Rule 2 (b) of the Rules defines the "domestic industry" as under: "(b) "domestic industry" means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry' may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers". 21. The application in the present case has been filed by Covestro (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the applicant has claimed that they are the sole producer of the subject goods in India. None of the interested parties have claimed existence of any other domestic producers in India. Thus, the Authority concludes that the applicant is the sole producer of the subject goods in India during the injury period and constitutes 100% of the production of subject goods in India. 22. It is noted that the applicant has one related producer of the subject goods in the subject country and is not related to any importer of the PUC in India. The Authority also notes that the applicant has imported the subject goods from its related producer in the subject country during the POI as admitted in the application. In this regard, the Authority has also noted in its initiation notification as below: “13. The application has been filed by Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd. The applicant has claimed that it is the sole producer of the subject goods in India constituting 100% of the Indian production and therefore, has the requisite standing to file the present application. 14. As per the information submitted by the applicant, it has imported the subject goods from related producer/exporter in China PR. Considering the volume of such imports is not significant, the Authority notes, after due examination, that the applicant constitutes eligible domestic industry in terms of the provisions of Rule2(b) and the application satisfies the criteria in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules." 23. The Authority notes that the mere fact of relationship of a domestic producer with a foreign producer/exporter or importer or import by such domestic producer does not automatically lead to exclusion of such domestic producer from the scope of the domestic industry. Under Rule 2(b), the use of the word 'may' clearly indicate that the Authority has discretion to decide whether the domestic producer, who is related to the producers/exporters in the subject country or importer in India or has itself imported the subject goods, is eligible to be considered as domestic industry or not. The Authority is required to exercise its discretion after considering all the facts and circumstances so as to make objective determination of whether the concerned domestic producer should be considered as eligible or ineligible domestic industry under Rule 2(b). 24. The Authority considered the arguments of some of the interested parties regarding the relationship of the applicant with producer/exporter in China PR and Hong Kong and imports made by the applicant from its related entities in China PR and Hong Kong. 25. The examination of imports shows that the applicant has imported *** MT of the subject goods from Covestro (Hong Kong) Limited which is related trader in Hongkong exporting the TPU produced by its related producer/exporter in China PR during the POI, which accounts for 0-0.1% of the total demand and 0-0.1% of the total imports into India. Thus, the imports of the subject goods by the applicant are not significant so as to disentitle the applicant from being treated as domestic industry. 26. The claim submitted by Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co. Ltd does not have the description of the product imported and hence does not substantiate the claim of import of the PUC by the domestic industry. Further analysis of DG System data shows that the domestic industry has imported raw material and other non- PUC from related entities in China PR and Hong Kong. 27. The Authority notes following facts and circumstances regarding relationship of the applicant with producers/exporters in China PR and imports by the applicant from its related entities in China PR: a. None of the opposing interested parties have advanced any justification for exclusion of Covestro (India) Pvt. Ltd. from the scope of the domestic industry, barring the fact of imports and relationship with foreign producer/exporter itself. b. Related entities of Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd. in China PR have only exported small quantities of the PUC to India to Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd. and not to any other entity in India. с. Exports by the related entities of Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd. during the POI are insignificant when compared with total imports into India from China PR. As per the DG System data, exports by related entities in China PR of Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd. during the POI are mainly non-PUC and raw materials. d. The volume of exports by related entities in China PR to India during the POI is not significant so as to cause injury to the domestic industry in India. e. Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd. continues to focus on production of the subject goods in India. Relationship of Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd. with producers/exporters in China PR has not affected its behaviour and business as domestic producer of PUC in India. f. The key managerial personnel of Covestro (India) Pvt Ltd do not hold any managerial position in the related party in China PR exporting the subject goods to India and key managerial personnel of related producer/exporter in China PR also do not hold any managerial position in the applicant company. 28. Therefore, considering the information on record, the Authority holds the applicant/petitioner- Covestro (India) Pvt. Ltd. as eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules, and that the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. E. CONFIDENTIALITY E.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 29. The other interested parties have not made any submissions with regard to the confidentiality. E.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 30. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the confidentiality: a. BASF Polyurethane Specialties China Co., Ltd (BAPS): i. Company has not disclosed the information regarding owner/principal shareholder list and their affiliations. ii. Company has not disclosed its marketing/distribution channel details for domestic and export sales to India. (Exhibit B-3) iii. Company has not disclosed the details of adjustments claimed for determining normal value and export price. iv. Company has not disclosed manufacturing process in Exhibit G-1. V. Company has not disclosed raw material names. b. BASF Hong Kong Ltd (BHKL): vi. Company has not disclosed the information regarding owner/principal shareholder list and their affiliations. vii. Company has not disclosed its marketing/distribution channel details for domestic and export sales to India. с. BASF Integrated Site (Guangdong) Co. Ltd (BISL): viii. Company has not disclosed the information regarding owner/principal shareholder list and their affiliations. ix. Company has not disclosed manufacturing process in Exhibit G-1 Χ. Company has not disclosed raw material names. d. BASF International Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd (BITC): xi. Company has not disclosed the information regarding owner/principal shareholder list and their affiliations. e. BASF India Limited (BIL): xii. Claiming Appendix 13 as confidential without proper indexing. f. Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co., Ltd. (Huafon): xiii. Company has not disclosed the information regarding owner/principal shareholder list and their affiliations (Exhibit A-2). xiv. Company has not disclosed manufacturing process in Exhibit G-1 XV. Company has not disclosed raw material names in Appendix-6. 31. The Authority should treat BASF Group and Zhejiang Huafon TPU Co., Ltd as a non-cooperative party due to the excessive confidentiality claims and incomplete information provided in their questionnaire responses. E.3. Examination by the Authority 32. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by various interested parties to all interested parties for inspection through e-mail communication between various parties. 33. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995 provides as follows: “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorisation of the party providing such information. (2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing 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 authorise its disclosure in a generalised or summary form, it may disregard such information." 34. Submissions made by the domestic industry and other opposing interested parties with regard to confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed accordingly The Authority notes that the information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was duly examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all interested parties have claimed their business-related sensitive information as confidential. F. MISCELLANEOUS F.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 35. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the miscellaneous issues: a. Government of India is in the process of implementing mandatory standard certification requirement on "polyurethanes" vide notification dated 6 th March 2024. The same will be effective from 19th September 2024. This will create a non-tariff barrier and consequently affect imports of TPU into India. b. That IS 17397 (Part 1): 2020/ISO 16365-1:2014 is applicable to the subject goods whereby requiring all producers of the subject goods to mandatorily obtain certification as per conformity assessment schemes under the provisions of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016. This, in effect, will increase the prices of the subject goods, thereby creating a demand-supply gap as it will affect the free flow of trade between the countries. F.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 36. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with respect to the miscellaneous issues: a. Quality control order and anti-dumping duty are two different instruments with different objectives. If a product complies with the quality control order and is imported into India at dumped prices, anti- dumping duty can be recommended on such product. If a product is not in compliance with the quality control order, then such product cannot be imported into India even if such product is to be exported to India at un-dumped prices. b. The Authority in its final findings dated April 2017 in anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Cold-Rolled flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel originating in or exported from China PR, Japan, Korea RP and Ukraine had observed that even if a quality control order exists, it does not lead to a conclusion that no dumping or injury can be caused to the domestic industry. с. The quality control order on the PUC has not come into force till date. After the quality control order was issued on 13th September 2021, it was scheduled to be implemented on 12 March 2022. However, the time for implementation has been extended several times as and when the scheduled implementation date is approaching. +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Order No. | Date of notification | Prescribed date of entry into force | +===========================+=======================+=============================================================+ | S.O. 3931(E) Principal Order | 13th September 2021 | It shall come into force on the expiry of one hundred and | | | | eighty days i.e., 12th March 2022 | +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | S.O. 1277(E) | 23rd March 2022 | It shall come into force on 19th September 2022 | +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | S.O. 4141(E) | 2nd September 2022 | It shall come into force on 19th March 2023 | +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | S.O. 1238(E) | 15th March 2023 | It shall come into force on 19th March 2024 | +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | S.O. 1112(E) | 6th March 2024 | It shall come into force on 19th September 2024 | +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------+ d. As per the recent notification on 6th March 2024, the time limit for implementation of quality control order has been once again extended till 19th September 2024. Thus, the time limit for implementation of quality control order has been repeatedly extended and it cannot be assumed that quality control order will be implemented on 19th September 2024. e. In any case, existence of quality control order is inconsequential and legally irrelevant consideration for the Authority in the present investigation while deciding whether the anti-dumping duty should be recommended by the Authority on the imports of the PUC into India. F.3. Examination by the Authority 37. The Authority notes that quality control order and the Rules are two different instruments for different purposes. The purpose of quality control order is to ensure that product imported into India is of prescribed standard and specification. The Rules are framed to ensure that product imported into India is at un-dumped prices and is not causing injury to the domestic industry. Even if quality control order comes into force on the import of the PUC, it will not in any way curtail the right of the domestic industry to get protection in the form of anti-dumping duty on dumped imports into India. G. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT, NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE & DETERMINATION OF DUMPING MARGIN G.1. Normal Value 38. 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 destined 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