Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 69] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 2025/PHALGUNA 16, 1946
CG-DL-E-10032025-261521
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 7th March 2025
Case No. – AD(OI) – 01/2024
Subject: Anti-Dumping investigation concerning imports of “Insoluble Sulphur” originating in or
exported from China PR and Japan
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
F.No. 6/01/2024-DGTR:––Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to
time (hereinafter referred as the “Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and
Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as
amended from time to time (hereinafter referred as the “AD Rules”) thereof,
1. Whereas, Oriental Carbon and Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant” or “domestic
industry” or “petitioner”) filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to
as the “Authority”), on behalf of the domestic industry, in accordance with the Act and the AD Rules
for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Insoluble Sulphur” (hereinafter
also referred to as the “product under consideration” or the “subject goods” or the “PUC”) originating
in or exported from China PR and Japan (hereinafter referred to as the “subject countries”).
2. The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima-facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a
public notice vide Notification No. 6/01/2024-DGTR dated 27th March 2024 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Initiation Notification”), published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating the anti-
dumping investigation in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5 of the AD Rules to
determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in
or exported from the said subject countries, and to recommend the 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 procedure described hereinbelow has been followed with regard to the investigation:
i. The Authority notified the embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the
present application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5)
of the AD Rules.
ii. The Authority issued a public notice dated 27th March 2024, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject
goods from the subject countries.
iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the embassies of the subject countries
in India, known producers and exporters from the subject countries, 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 make their submissions known in writing within the
time limits prescribed by the initiation notification and requested them to make their views
known in writing within the prescribed time limit.
iv. 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 countries in India, in accordance
with Rule 6(3) of the AD Rules through its email dated 04.04.2024.
v. The embassies of the subject countries in India were also requested to advise the
exporters/producers from their countries to submit their responses to the questionnaire within
the time limit prescribed by the initiation notification. The embassies of the subject countries
were also sent a copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the producers/exporters along with
the names and addresses of the known producers /exporters from their respective countries.
vi. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters in the subject countries in
accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules.
vii. In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, the following
producers/exporters from the subject countries have responded by filing questionnaire
response:
i. M/s Shikoku Chemicals Corporation, Japan
ii. Mitsubishi Corporation Plastics Ltd., Japan
iii. IVICT (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Singapore
viii. None of the producers/exporters from China have responded in the present investigation.
ix. The producers/exporters from the subject countries who have not submitted the questionnaire
response or have not cooperated in the investigation have been treated as non – cooperative in
the investigation.
x. The Authority also sent questionnaires to the known importers/users and user association of the
subject goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the
AD Rules.
xi. In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, the following importers
and users have submitted questionnaire responses to the Authority:
i. MRF Limited
xii. Further, the following interested parties have also made submissions during the investigation:
i. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association (ATMA)
xiii. The Authority issued economic interest questionnaire (EIQ) to all interested parties and the
concerned ministry. Response to EIQ was submitted by the following interested parties :
i. Oriental Carbon and Chemicals Ltd. (“domestic industry”)
ii. MRF Limited
xiv. The period of investigation (hereinafter referred to as the “POI”) for the present investigation is
from 1st January 2023 to 31st December 2023 (12 months). The injury investigation for the
present investigation is April 2020 to March 2021, April 2021 to March 2022, April 2022 to
March 2023 and the POI.
xv. The Directorate General of Systems & Data Management (DG Systems) was requested to
provide transaction-wise details of the imports of the subject goods for the injury investigation
period and the period of investigation. The same was received by the Authority and considered
at the stage of initiation of the investigation. For the purpose of the present Final Findings, the
Authority has relied upon the Directorate General of Systems (hereinafter referred to as “DG
System”) import data.
xvi. The Authority discussed the PUC and the PCN methodology with the interested parties. After
receiving inputs and submissions from all the interested parties, the Authority vide notification
dated 12th August 2024 decided the scope of the PUC and noted that PCNs were not warranted
in the case.
xvii. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the submissions made by the
various interested parties. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website
along with the request therein to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their
submissions to all the other interested parties.
xviii. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the AD Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the
interested parties to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 14th January 2025.
The parties, which 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 submitted by them with the other interested parties.
xix. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIP’) has been determined based on the
cost of production and reasonable return on capital employed for the subject goods in India,
based on the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules so as to ascertain
whether anti-dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove
injury to the domestic industry.
xx. The Authority circulated the disclosure statement containing all essential facts under
consideration for making the final recommendations to the Central Government to all
interested parties on 18th February 2025. The Authority has examined all the post disclosure
comments made by the interested parties in these final findings to the extent deemed relevant.
Any submission which was merely a reproduction of the previous submission, and which had
been adequately examined by the Authority has not been repeated for the sake of brevity.
xxi. The information submitted by the applicant has been examined and verified during on-site
verification to the extent deemed necessary and has been relied upon for the present Final
Findings.
xxii. The information submitted by M/s Shikoku Chemicals Corporation (SCC) has been examined
and verified during on-site verification to the extent deemed necessary and has been relied
upon for the present Final Findings.
xxiii. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with
regard to the sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has
accepted the confidentiality claims wherever warranted and such information has been
considered as confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible,
the parties providing the information on a confidential basis were directed to provide an
adequate summary of the confidential version in a non-confidential version.
xxiv. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the
interested parties at this stage, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and
considered relevant to the present investigation.
xxv. Wherever an interested party has refused access to, or has otherwise not provided necessary
information during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the
investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded this
Final Findings on the basis of the facts available.
xxvi. “***” in this notification represents information furnished by an interested party on
confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under Rule 7 of AD Rules.
xxvii. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = Rs. 83.52.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
4. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration (herein after also referred to as “PUC”) was
defined as follows:
“2. The product under consideration in the present investigation is the “Insoluble
Sulphur” hereinafter also referred to as “subject goods” or “product under
consideration” or “PUC”.
3. Insoluble sulphur, by definition, is a polymeric sulphur which is insoluble in
carbon disulphide (CS2). Insoluble sulphur is generally used as a vulcanization
agent in some rubber applications in order to resist the blooming phenomenon
which is detrimental to rubber compound.
4. Insoluble sulphur is an important rubber additive agent. It improves product
quality, wearability and resistance to both fatigue and ageing. In addition to being
universally recognized as the best vulcanizing agent, it is widely used in the
manufacture of tire, tread, shoes, all kinds of automobile rubber parts and other
rubber products. Therefore, due to its non-blooming characteristic, Insoluble
sulphur is widely used in the manufacture of rubber products in which common
sulphur is incorporated in high proportion. Based on the end-user industry, out of
the total consumption of Insoluble sulphur in India, more than 90% is used in the
tyre industry and the remaining is used in non-tyre industry. The unit of
measurement considered is weight of the product reported in kilograms (Kg).”
C.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties
5. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the product under
consideration:
a. The PUC described in the Initiation Notification is expansive as it includes certain grades
which the domestic industry does not manufacture. The scope of PUC encompasses both
the grades produced and marketed by the domestic industry and grades that are not
domestically manufactured/ available with the domestic industry.
b. These grades exhibit distinct technical and commercial characteristics in terms of physical
characteristics, quality, application and end use, which makes them commercially non-
substitutable with the grades produced by the domestic industry. Consequently, the grades
not manufactured by the domestic industry do not qualify as a ‘like product’ or a ‘like
article’.
c. The interested parties have sought exclusion of Super High Thermal Stability (hereinafter
referred to as “SHTS”) grade from the scope of PUC due to its non-availability with the
domestic industry. The imported SHTS grade is priced higher than the ordinary grades,
indicating its unique market position and ensuring that its exclusion would not harm the
domestic industry’s pricing.
d. The SHTS grade is a specialized variant used in radial tyres containing steel belts. This
grade provides superior adhesion between steel and rubber components, which ordinary
PUC grades cannot achieve. The enhanced adhesion property is essential for maintaining
tyre durability and stability.
e. The SHTS grade serves multiple critical functions in radial tyre manufacturing. It improves
the structural integrity of tyres and increases their resistance to wear and tear, thereby
extending operational life.
f. Thermal stability is identified as a crucial characteristic of SHTS grade. The grade
maintains stability at high temperatures, ensuring consistent quality and performance
throughout production. This stability is necessary to meet industry manufacturing
standards.
g. The SHTS grade has the capability for effective sulphur dispersion in compounds. This
property is significant in applications requiring high tack (adhesion) and zero tolerance to
blooming, as blooming can degrade tyre quality and performance. The thorough dispersion
ensures compound uniformity and integrity.
h. Radial tyres cannot be manufactured using standard or ordinary PUC grades, making
SHTS grade indispensable for this application.
i. The domestic industry has been unable to meet SHTS specifications required by tyre
manufacturers. All samples provided by the domestic industry have been found
qualitatively inadequate for radial tyre manufacturing. Consequently, MRF has not
approved the domestic product for radial tyre manufacturing use.
j. The domestic industry had offered a substitute grade “Vulcamax OT-10” for the trial
purposes. However, this substitute grade has failed in the process standards when evaluated
against the reference imported material.
k. The domestic industry has also offered a substitute grade “Diamond Sulf DS-OT-UHD”.
This grade was also found to be not acceptable on the account of poor sulphur dispersion
and low pull-out adhesion, which are the essential properties of the PUC required to
manufacture radial tyres.
l. The UHD grade exhibits significant physical/ chemical differences. Due to these
fundamental dissimilarities, the UHD grade cannot serve as a direct replacement or
interchangeable alternative for the SHTS grade.
m. The domestic industry's High Dispersible Oil Treated (HD-OT-20) and Oil Treated (OT-
20) grades are not substitutes for imported products.
n. The domestic grade exhibits a yellowish-brown coloration different from imported
products. This difference indicates fundamental issues beyond visual appearance, affecting
finished product performance. This coloration is attributable to compositional differences
and impurities in domestically available PUC. The correspondence between domestic
industry and ATMA members along with Comprehensive Corrective & Preventive Action
Report was submitted as evidence to shows details of colour variation issues identified
during inspection of domestic grades.
o. Bulk trials with sample grades demonstrate measurable compositional differences. The
domestic grade's performance in tyre manufacturing fails to meet tack and blooming
specifications required for non-steel coating applications.
p. Additional complaints report undispersed hard grits contaminating cured tires, creating
quality and safety risks including the potential for tensile failure.
q. Despite multiple technical consultations with domestic industry, significant improvements
in domestic grade quality remain unrealized. The physical and technical specifications are
mandated by customers, specifically Automobile OEM Manufacturers. The tyre
manufacturing companies cannot use these products when their customers reject the
differences in domestic grades.
r. It was later submitted that the“HD-OT-20” and “OT-20” grades are recently being
procured by the importers/ users from both imported sources as well as domestic sources.
Consequently, exclusion requests against these grades would not be further pressed by
ATMA.
s. MuCron OT-20 HD G (hereinafter referred to as the “specialty grade”) should be excluded
from the scope of PUC since it is not a like article to the product produced by the domestic
industry. The specialty grade is not produced by the domestic industry and has significant
difference in performance and specifications with the grades produced by the domestic
industry. The cost and selling price of the specialty grade is also different from the PUC.
t. In the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Flat Rolled Products of Stainless
Steel originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP, European Union, Japan,
Taiwan, Indonesia, USA, Thailand, South Africa, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico,
Vietnam and Malaysia, the Authority excluded certain grades from the scope of PUC as the
domestic industry did not rebut the claim of the exporter that certain grades cannot be
produced by the domestic industry and that comparable grades have not been produced and
sold by the domestic industry.
u. In anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless
Steel from China PR, Japan, Korea, European Union, South Africa, Taiwan (Chinese
Taipei), Thailand and USA, the Authority has specifically excluded certain grades from the
scope of the investigation as the domestic industry did not show sufficient evidence to
prove that they supplied such grades in the POI and did not show equivalence of its grades
with the grades that were sought to be excluded by the exporters.
v. In anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Coated Paper” originating in or
exported from China PR, European Union and USA, the Authority excluded certain
products from the scope of PUC as it was not produced by the domestic industry.
w. The performance of the specialty grade is significantly better compared to the general
grade in terms of thermal stability, bloom resistance and flame test. The speciality grade
exhibits higher thermal stability @ 120oC. The speciality grade reduces the risk of sulphur
bloom because of less reversion to soluble sulphur during the mixing of rubber compound.
The speciality grade is considered as non-hazardous material whereas OT-20 HD grade is
considered as hazardous material as per Fire Services Act in Japan. The burning time of
speciality grade is significantly less than burning time of OT-20 HD grade. Further, the
specialty grade has higher cost and price vis-à-vis regular grades.
x. The domestic industry admitted during the oral hearing that it does not manufacture this
specialty grade and attributed it to lack of demand. The domestic industry’s claim of ‘lack
of demand’ is inconsistent with market realities, as producer from Japan has sold the
specialty grade in India to meet needs of Indian consumers.
y. This specialty grade is comparable to the Super High Thermal Stability (hereinafter
referred to as “SHTS”) grade, for which the user industry is also requesting an exclusion.
C.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry
6. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the domestic industry with regard to the
product under consideration:
a. None of the interested parties have made any substantiated claim, backed by any positive
evidence to support their exclusion request.
b. ATMA on behalf of its member company i.e. MRF sought exclusion of SHTS grade
claiming non-availability from domestic industry. The domestic industry demonstrated that
their UHD grade is equivalent to SHTS grade. The industry maintained that their UHD
grade possesses requisite attributes of high thermal stability, effective sulphur dispersion
and other requisite properties of this SHTS grade.
c. The four grades of OT-20 which are universally recognized are: High Dispersibility
(hereinafter referred to as “HD”), High Stability (hereinafter referred to as “HS”), Ultra-
High Dispersibility (hereinafter referred to as “UHD”), and Normal OT-20. HD and UHD
grades are used interchangeably in market practice, and the UHD grade is synonymous
with the SHTS grade based on end-user specifications.
d. Additional parameters such as minimal ash content, low acidity, and controlled heat loss
further substantiate the UHD grade’s technical competence. The domestic industry's
commitment to meeting market demands is evidenced by its long-standing supply of the
UHD grade to other tyre manufacturers.
e. The domestic industry's UHD grade demonstrates high thermal stability at 105°C and
115°C exceeding MRF’s specification requirements. Domestic industry has provided
comprehensive Technical Data Sheet. The Technical Data Sheet specifies that the grade
comprises sulphur and coating oil with suitable additives which are characterized as a non-
blooming vulcanizing agent used in radial tyre manufacturing.
f. A comparative analysis sheet demonstrated the equivalence between domestic UHD grade
and SHTS specifications required. The analysis covers parameters including insoluble
sulphur content, CS2 insoluble values, total sulphur content, and thermal stability
parameters. The domestic industry also provided detailed pull adhesion test results showing
their product achieves requisite values against MRF’s specification requirement of,
demonstrating technical competence.
g. It is substantiated that the SHTS product required by two tyre manufacturing companies is
identical to the UHD grade offered by the domestic industry. The domestic industry has