Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-12022025-260922
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I-Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 42]
NEW DELHI, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2025/MAGHA 21, 1946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
New Delhi, 10th February, 2025
FINAL FINDING
Case No. ADD (OI) 17/2024
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ‘Glufosinate and its salt' originating in or
exported from China PR.
F. No. 6/19/2024-DGTR.—
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Having regard to 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 as the "Anti-Dumping Rules" or "the Rules") thereof, the Astral Life India
Limited, UPL Limited, United Phosphorus (India) LLP, UPL Sustainable Agri Solutions Limited
and Swal Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “domestic industry" or "applicants")
has filed a duly substantiated application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as
the "Authority") for initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Glufosinate and
its salt (hereinafter referred to as "product under consideration” or “PUC" or "subject goods"), from
China PR (hereinafter referred to as the “subject country").
2. The Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicants, issued a public
notice vide Notification No. 6/19/2024-DGTR dated 29th June 2024, published in the Gazette of
India - Extraordinary, initiating the subject investigation in accordance with the Section 9A of the
Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged
dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country and to recommend
the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to
the domestic injury.
B. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the 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 Anti-Dumping Rules.
b. The Authority issued a public notice dated 29th June 2024, 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
in India, and the other interested parties, as per the addresses made available by the applicants.
The interested parties were asked 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 in the initiation notification.
d. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application filed by the
applicants to the known producers/exporters and to the embassies 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 also requested to advise the
exporters/producers to submit their responses to the questionnaire within the prescribed time
limit. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the known producers/exporters was also
sent to them along with the names and addresses of the known producers/exporters from the
subject country.
f. The Authority sent exporter's questionnaire to the following known producers/ exporters in
China PR in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
+-----+-----------------------------------------------+
| SN | Name of producers/exporters in the subject country|
+-----+-----------------------------------------------+
| xi. | Agrodragon Co. Ltd. |
| xii.| BASF |
| xiii| Fuhua Tongda Agro-chemical Technology Co. Ltd.|
| xiv.| Jiangsu Huifeng Bio Agriculture Co. Ltd. |
| XV. | Lier Chemical Co. Ltd. |
| xvi.| Limen Chemical Company Limited |
| xvii| Shandong Binnong Technology Co. Ltd. |
| xviii| Shanghai Qizhou Ziyui Co. Ltd. |
| xix.| Weifiang Xinlu Chemical Co. Ltd. |
| Χ. | Yongnong Biosciences Co. Ltd. |
+-----+-----------------------------------------------+
g. In response to the above, the following producers/exporters from China PR have responded
and filed exporter's questionnaire response:
+-----+-------------------------------------------+
| SN | Name of producers/exporters in the subject country|
+-----+-------------------------------------------+
| i. | Lier Chemical Co. Ltd. |
| ii. | Shanghai Agrotree Chemical Co. Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------+
h. The Authority also sent questionnaire to the following known importers/users of the product
under consideration in India calling necessary information in accordance with the Rule 6(4) of
the Rules: -
+-----+-------------------------------------------------------+
| SN | Name of users/importers of the product under consideration in India|
+-----+-------------------------------------------------------+
| i. | Amish Crop Science Private Limited |
| ii. | BASF India |
| iii.| Crystal Crop Protection Private Limited |
| iv. | Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------------+
i. In response to the questionnaire issued, Crystal Crop Protection Private Limited has filed a
user questionnaire response.
J. Submissions have been made by the China Crop Protection Industry Association (CCPIA) and
the same have been duly considered in the present final finding.
k. Exporters, foreign producers and other interested parties who have not responded to or not
supplied relevant information to this investigation, have been treated as non-cooperating
interested parties.
1. The Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire to all the known producers and
exporters, importers, and the applicants. The economic interest questionnaire was also shared
with the administrative line ministry. Only the applicants have filed the economic interest
questionnaire. No other interested party has filed an economic interest questionnaire.
m. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is 1st January 2023
to 31st December 2023 (12 months). The injury analysis period covers 2020-21, 2021-22,
2022-23 and the period of investigation.
n. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the scope of
the PUC and propose PCNs, if required, within a period of 15 days from the date of the
circulation of the non-confidential version application. Based on submissions of certain
interested parties, a meeting was held on 22nd August 2024 to discuss the need for PCN
methodology.
0. The scope of the product under consideration and the PCN methodology for the investigation
was notified on 5th September 2024.
p. 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.
q. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity for the
interested parties to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 18th October 2024 in
hybrid mode. The 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.
r. 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,
parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-
confidential versions of the information filed on a confidential basis.
S. A request was made to the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics
(DGCI&S) to provide transaction-wise details of the imports of the subject goods for the
injury investigation period and the period of investigation. The same has been received by the
Authority and has been considered in this final finding.
t. The Authority conducted the physical verification at the premises of the applicants to the extent
considered necessary for the purposes of present investigation.
u. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIP') has been determined based on the
cost of production and reasonable profits of the subject goods in India, based on the
information furnished by the applicants on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules, 1995 so as to ascertain whether anti-
dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the
domestic industry.
V. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation which have formed
the basis of the final findings was issued to the interested parties on 21st January 2025 and the
interested parties were allowed time up to 28th January 2025 to comment on the same. The
W. submissions made by the interested parties, arguments raised, and the comments to disclosure
statement received from the interested parties have been considered, to the extent found
relevant, non-repetitive and supported with evidence in this final finding notification.
The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the
interested parties to the extent the same is supported with evidence and considered relevant to
the present investigation.
Χ. “***” in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on a
confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
y. 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 was defined as under:
"3. The product under consideration in the present investigation is glufosinate and its salt.
The product under consideration is also known as glufosinate ammonium (D, L
phosphinothricin or 2- amino-4-(hydroxy methyl phosphonyl).
Glufosinate is white to light yellow crystalline solid with slight pungent odor and is highly
soluble and volatile material. Glufosinate is traded in two forms i.e. technical and formulation
and both are part of the scope of the product. The entire consumption of glufosinate technical
is in the production of glufosinate formulation. Glufosinate technical does not have any
independent use and has to be compulsorily processed into formulation in order to use it. The
process from the stage of technical to formulation is single step process. Glufosinate in
formulation form is not imported due to commercial considerations as the major concentration
is of water and higher shipping costs.
The product under consideration does not have dedicated classification under the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975. However, the product is imported under 38089190, 38089390 and 38089990.
The custom classification code is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of the present
investigation."
C.1 Submission of the other interested parties
5. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the scope of product
under consideration and like article.
i. Glufosinate technical and formulation cannot be considered as like article in terms of Rule
2(d) of the Rules as they are not substitutable.
ii. By including formulation inside the scope of the product, applicants have tried to invoke the
provision of circumvention which is applicable only once duties are imposed. However, goods
which are not imported cannot be included in the scope.
iii. Glufosinate formulation is neither imported nor importable into India. The import of
formulation requires a specific license. There is not a single license for the entire formulation
category.
iv. Obtaining license is a costly and time-intensive process spanning 3 to 4 years. This includes
submitting test reports across two seasons over two years, with final product approval
contingent upon CIBRC's rigorous evaluation and decision, often specific to the intended
crop.
V. There are other viable substitutes available in the market. In case the price of formulation
increases, the farmer will purchase other substitutes.
vi. Authority should conduct spot verification of the producers of formulation to check the
conversion cost from technical to formulation.
vii. The applicants relied on the combined investigation of Hot and Cold Rolled products ignoring
the fact that separate investigations for these products were also conducted and concluded.
Decisions by quasi-judicial bodies are binding only on the specific parties involved in the
original case.
viii. Contrary to the submission of the applicants, the value addition undertaken by the importers
from converting technical to formulation is 30%.
ix. In the panel report adopted by the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures on 28
April 1992 - Concerning Wine and Grape Products - United States - Definition of Industry, it
was concluded that since two separate industries existed for wine-grape growers and wineries,
therefore, both cannot be said to be of same industry. Same principle should be applied here.
Χ. The applicants have relied on various ongoing investigations. The applicants cannot rely on
those cases where finding is yet to be issued by the Authority.
xi. Paraquet is potential substitute of the subject goods. Both Paraquat and Glufosinate have
stringent usage policies in India to ensure safe application and minimize health risks.
C.2 Submission of the applicants
6. The applicants have submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article:
i. Prior to commencement of production by UPL group, there were no production in India. UPL
introduced the product in the domestic market. The first plant was set up in 2016.
ii. Glufosinate technical is primarily produced in China PR and India, with minimal production in
EU. Faced with competition from China, even the producer in EU Union has stopped
production of technical and reduced its operations to conversion of imported technical from
China to formulation.
iii. Since 2004, the Directorate of Weed Science has promoted Glufosinate for its safer, residue-
free, and consistent weed control compared to paraquat and glyphosate.
iv. UPL Group launched the product in India in 2018, conducting around 72,000 village-level
demonstrations and over 58,900 field days, cumulatively amounting to 161 years of employee
effort, reaching nearly 1 million farmers.
V. Glufosinate technical is generally traded with 95% concentration. Glufosinate formulation can
be with 13.5% concentration or 50% concentration. Glufosinate formulation is nothing but a
diluting of glufosinate technical with solvents by incurring an incremental cost.
vi. Due to high water content, transporting glufosinate in formulation form is commercially
unviable due to higher shipping costs. Only glufosinate in technical form is imported from
China. There are limited formulation imports from the EU.
vii. The product produced by the applicants and imports from the subject country share similar
characteristics, manufacturing processes, and uses, making them commercially
interchangeable. Glufosinate formulation and technical bear the same characteristics. The
process of glufosinate technical to formulation does not alter the chemical/technical
characteristics. It merely dilutes the concentration of the material.
viii. There is no specific provision in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement which provides for the
parameters for determination of the product under consideration. Glufosinate technical does
not have independent use and must be compulsory processed into formulation. The entire
consumption of imported glufosinate technical is in the production of glufosinate formulation.
ix. The per unit investment in technical is more than Rs [***] per MT, while the per unit
investment in case of formulation is in the region of Rs [***] per MT. Conversion of technical
to formulation does not require huge investment.
X. Converting glufosinate to formulation involves simple dilution with low-cost solvents like
Ammonyx Mo and Myristyl Amine Oxide, making it a minor incremental process.
xi. If the cost of other raw materials purchased from the market is excluded, the cost of technical
alone is around [***] of the cost of formulation. Value addition between technical to
formulation is 10%.
xii. All forms of glufosinate must be included under the scope; otherwise, imports will shift from
the technical form to the formulation.
xiii. In various past investigations, the Authority has included both the product under consideration
and its intermediate or further processed forms inside the same scope.
xiv. Various authorities globally include wide range of products inside the scope of the product
under consideration. The USITC expanded the scope of its investigation into imports of 2,4-D
to include all herbicides containing 2,4-D, covering around 1,500 products made from 2.4-D.
XV. In the investigations for CVP-23 and Phthalocyanine pigments, US and China have included
both the intermediate and finished forms of products in the scope of the product under
consideration despite no direct exports of these intermediates.
xvi. The other interested parties have stated that the time required for the license is 4 years. The
applicants developed glufosinate formulation in 2018, before which there was no demand for
glufosinate formulation. Even if importers applied for licenses in 2019, they wouldn't have
been able to import until 2023; however, they began to import in 2022.
xvii. The applicants export formulation to large number of countries and Europe has supplied
glufosinate with 50% strengths to India.
xviii. The other interested parties failed to provide evidence of available substitutes for the product
under consideration and withheld the product's name, citing confidentiality.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
7. At the time of initiation, the product under consideration was considered “Glufosinate and its salts”.
Glufosinate is also known as glufosinate ammonium (D, L-phosphinothricin or 2-amino-4 - (hydroxy
methyl phosphinyl). The product is white to light yellow crystalline solid with a slightly pungent
odor and is highly soluble and volatile material.
8. It is noted that Glufosinate is a widely employed broad spectrum herbicide. The product is mainly
used in modern agriculture due to its efficacy in weed control and versatility across various crops.
The primary application of the product is in row crop farming, where it is applied before or during
plantation to suppress unwanted vegetation. Glufosinate utility extends to major crops such as corn,
soybeans, and cotton, providing farmers with a valuable tool to combat weed competition and
safeguard the health of cultivated plants.
9. The product under consideration does not have a dedicated classification. The product is being
imported under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under sub-heading 38089199, 38089390
and 38089990 of the Tariff classification. The customs classification is indicative only and is in no
way binding on the scope of the subject investigation.
10. The Authority invited comments from the interested parties on the proposed PCN methodology and
scope of the product under consideration. Thereafter, the Authority held a meeting with all interested
parties on 27th August 2024 through hybrid mode to finalize the PCN methodology and the scope of
the PUC. All the parties who presented their views at the time of deliberation were given liberty to
file their submissions in writing.
11. The Authority after considering submissions made by all interested parties notified the following
PCN methodology vide notification dated 5th September 2024.
+-----+--------------------------+----------+
| SN | PCN parameter | PCN Code |
+-----+--------------------------+----------+
| 1 | Glufosinate technical | 'GT' |
| 2 | Glufosinate formulation | 'GF' |
+-----+--------------------------+----------+
12. The various interested parties have objected to the inclusion of glufosinate formulation within the
scope of the present investigation, primarily on the grounds that it has not been imported from China
PR and it cannot be imported due to regulatory requirements in the Country.
13. The Authority deems it appropriate to mention here that the scope of the 'product concerned' has
direct impact on the objective and purpose of the investigation. A wider scope of the product under
consideration can lead to uncalled for protection, in addition to possible complexities in the conduct
of the investigation. At the same time, a narrow scope of the product under consideration may fail to
meet the intended objective of addressing injurious dumping in the domestic market. A narrow scope
of the product under consideration may not provide requisite remedy to the domestic industry and
can result in continued injury to the domestic industry because of adoption of measures by
importers/users intended to avoid the measures invoked.
14. It is not disputed that all essential technical characteristics of the product are developed in the
technical form of the product. However, in its technical form, the product has no usage and
application. It would not perform its intended function in its technical form. It must be converted into
formulation form in order to perform the intended function. Thus, while technical form contains the
essential technical properties, the formulation form performs the eventual function intended to be
performed by the product. Technical form has no usage as such, and the sole purpose of its
production is to convert it into formulation. The technology, plant & equipment, investment,
manpower, production skills are involved in production of technical form. The conversion of
glufosinate technical into formulation only requires dilution with solvents. Glufosinate technical is
produced first which is then converted into glufosinate formulation thorough dilution with solvents
such as Ammonyx Mo, Myristyl Amine Oxide (Mo), Ammonium Sulphate, Sulphuric Acid 44%,
Propylene Glycol, 1-Methoxy-2-Propanol etc. The applicants have submitted that they produce
between 20 to 25 different kinds of formulation in the three formulation companies. Further, onsite
verification was conducted at the formulation facilities of the domestic industry and it was noted that
production facilities have been deployed for different kinds of formulation. From the information
filed by the responding importer, it is seen that they are also engaged in making different types of
formulation. This reinforces the point that technical is the base material and different formulations
can be made out of it as per requirements. This goes on to demonstrate that Glufosinate in technical
and formulation are just two forms of the same product.
15. The Authority notes that the linkage between the two forms is also evident from its application. The
applicants have contended that imports of the product in technical form have been converted into
formulation and then sold in competition to the formulation form sold by the applicants. The
applicants have not sold technical form in the domestic market. Since the applicants have sold only
the formulation form in the domestic market, it has suffered injury in the formulation form and the
same has in turn impacted the performance of the technical form. This demonstrates a strong nexus
between the formulation and the technical form of the product.
16. The interested parties have contended that formulation form of the product is neither imported nor
importable. It is however seen that the domestic industry has exported formulation to a number of
countries while European Union has exported formulation to India. The fact that import of
formulation might involve higher transportation cost does not imply that it is not importable. The
possibility of importation of formulation from China cannot be ruled out. Exclusion of formulation
from the purview of levy of anti-dumping duty may lead to direct export of formulation from China
PR, thereby nullifying the very purpose of entire exercise of providing remedy to the domestic
industry against dumping of the product.
17. As regards requirement of a specific license for imports, the authority notes that mere requirement of
a license does not imply that the product cannot be imported or may not be imported in future.
Licensing requirements and norms are subject to change and have basis independent of trade remedy
actions. The Authority does not consider it appropriate to take them into account for the
investigation.
18. In view of the above, the Authority concludes that the scope of product under consideration in the
present investigation is Glufosinate and its salt, both in technical and formulation form.
19. The product under consideration produced by the Indian industry and imported from the subject
country are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics,
manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution
& marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially
substitutable and consumers can use them interchangeably. It is concluded that the goods produced
by the applicants are like articles to the product under consideration imported from the subject
country.
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1 Submission made by the other interested parties
20. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the domestic
industry and standing:
i. There is no basis to exclude the production of formulators from total production. The
applicant's contention that a producer has to first set up facilities to produce ultimate raw
material and then commence production of finished goods to be considered eligible as
domestic industry is not supported by law.
ii.If applicants who are converting technical to formulation can be considered as eligible
domestic industry, there is no reason why other formulators cannot be considered as part
of domestic industry.
D.2 Submission made by the applicants
21. The applicants have submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the domestic industry and
standing:
i. The present application is filed by UPL Limited, Astral Life India Limited, Swal Corporation
Limited, United Phosphorus (India) LLP and UPL Sustainable Agri Solution Limited.
ii.The applicants' plant operates at full capacity during peak demand months. To meet export
demand for glufosinate formulation, applicants imported glufosinate technical from China.
This was even when prices were undumped.
iii. The entire imports by the applicants were made for a unit set up in the free trade zone area and
solely for export market.
iv. The imports were made from an unrelated exporter in China, with no related Chinese entities
involved in the process.
v. The imported glufosinate technical was processed into formulation for the export market, with no
volume used in domestic formulations. Additionally, the volume of these imports is minimal
relative to the applicants' overall production.
vi. The applicants have expanded their production capacity over the injury period, maintaining
their role as producers rather than shifting to importer-traders.
vii. UPL Limited is the sole producer of the product in India. Production of formulators cannot be
considered for ascertaining total Indian production as they are importing one form of product
under consideration and processing it to make another form.
viii. Since formulators have imported technical form of the product under consideration, they
cannot be considered as eligible domestic industry.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
22. Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules defines 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 constructed as referring to the rest of the producers.”
23. The present application has been filed by UPL Limited, Astral Life India Limited, United
Phosphorus (India) LLP, UPL Sustainable Agri Solutions Limited and Swal Corporation Limited.
24. It is noted that applicant companies are producing glufosinate in both technical and formulation
form. UPL Limited produces the product in technical form, which is processed further by UPL
Limited, Astral Life India Limited, United Phosphorus (India) LLP into formulation. UPL
Sustainable Agri Solutions Limited and Swal Corporation Limited are engaged in selling the
formulation form in Indian market, while UPL Limited is engaged in exporting technical and
formulation form to a number of countries. The applicant companies are related to each other and
thus constitute one group of companies. UPL Limited has not sold technical form to any unrelated
entity in India. Further, the related group companies have not bought Glufosinate technical from any
domestic producer in India.
25. The imports in SEZ unit made by UPL Limited during the period of investigation, accounted for only
[***] of their own production. It is seen that the imports are not significant in proportion to
production undertaken by the applicants and thus do not alter the predominant manufacturing status
of the applicant. The applicants have certified not having sold any material in the DTA either in
technical form or in formulation form.
26. Crystal Crop Protection Private Limited and Krishi Rasayan Limited imported glufosinate technical,
processed it into glufosinate formulation and sold in the domestic market, in competition to the
applicants.
27. Astral Life India Limited and United Phosphorus (India) LLP have taken technical form from UPL
and converted the same into formulation. Thereafter, the formulation has been sold both in the
domestic and global market. The company has sold formulation form in the domestic market in
competition to Crystal Crop Protection Private Limited and Krishi Rasayan Limited (the companies
who have imported technical form from China).
28. The Authority considers that companies who do not have the manufacturing facilities for production
of glufosinate technical and are engaged in merely formulating technical form cannot be considered
domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) for the reason that the product under
consideration in the present investigation includes both the technical and formulation form and these
companies have imported one form of the product under consideration and merely converted it to
another form. Technical and formulation are merely two forms of the same product with major
investment, production technology, manufacturing activities, plant & equipment, employment, raw
materials, production skills involved in production of technical form. It is, therefore, essential for the
domestic producers to be a manufacturer of technical form in order to be treated as an eligible
domestic industry. These companies have imported the technical form of the product under
consideration and the same is considered as “imports into India"
29. In view of the above, considering the provisions of Rule 2(b) and facts of the case, the Authority
concludes that the applicants account for a major proportion of the total domestic production of the
subject goods. The Authority concludes that the applicants collectively constitute domestic industry
within the meaning of the Rule 2 (b) and satisfy the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the
Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS
E. 1 Submission made by the other interested parties
30. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to confidentiality and
miscellaneous:
i. The applicants have grossly violated the Trade Notice 10/2018. The applicants must provide
actual information relating to production quantity, capacity utilization, sales volume and value,
no. of employees.
ii. The Trade Notice No. 10/2018 does not provide any specific directions to conceal data solely
because it is a group of companies. Instead, the Trade Notice explicitly states that in cases
involving multiple producers, information should be provided in actual numbers.
iii. It needs to be clarified if the applicants obtained DGTR's permission to deviate from the Trade
Notice. If permission was granted, communication must be shared. If no request was made, the
investigation should be terminated.
iv. There is no formal “UPL Group" for which submissions were made. The information has been
submitted by individual entities.
V. All economic parameters should be disclosed in a manner that allows for a comprehensive
assessment of the situation. Failure to comply with the trade notice, has impacted the ability of
the interested party to accurately evaluate the economic impact on the market.
vi. Applicants have not provided any information or evidence on consumption of products by
farmers and that the product under consideration are more effective than other herbicides.
E. 2 Submission made by the applicants
31. The applicants have submitted as follows with regards to confidentiality and miscellaneous:
i. The applicants have provided justification for claiming the import volume as confidential as
the imports in past were being made by the applicants only and the disclosure of the import
volume would have resulted in the disclosure of imports made by the applicants.
ii. The data in regard to economic parameters pertains to five entities, all are part of the UPL
Group, meaning the data effectively represents UPL alone.
iii. If the interested parties were aggrieved by the excessive confidentiality claimed by the
applicants, they should have filed comments within the time limit prescribed in the initiation
notification.
iv. Paraquat is a highly toxic herbicide, harmful to humans and wildlife. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency classifies it as “restricted use," limiting its application to licensed users,
and it is banned in 32 countries, this resulted in decline in demand.
V. The product under consideration is categorized as restricted, requiring importers to obtain a
license from the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine, and Storage before importing,
although imports are not prohibited.
vi. Applicants are the only entities in India licensed to produce both glufosinate technical and
formulation, while other Indian producers lack the necessary licenses for technical production,
though some producers do formulate products from imported technical.
vii. The export price to other countries in the post period of investigation has declined sharply and
the Authority may consider imposing benchmark form of measures.
E. 3 Examination by the Authority
32. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the information provided by various
interested parties to all interested parties as per Rule 6(7) and Trade Notice 10/2018 dated 7th
September 2018 read with Trade Notice 01/2020 (as extended by the Authority till further notice).
33. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of Anti-dumping Rules provides as follows:
“Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3)
and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule(2) ofrule12,sub-rule(4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17,
the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information
provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of
investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality,
be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party
without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on a
confidential basis to furnish a non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a
party providing such information, such information is not susceptible to summary, such
party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization is
not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is
satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the
information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure
in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.”
34. The submissions made by the applicants and the other interested parties concerning confidentiality,
to the extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed accordingly. On
being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such
information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties.
Wherever possible, parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide
sufficient non-confidential versions of the information filed on a confidential basis. The Authority
also notes that all the interested parties have claimed their business-related sensitive information as
confidential.
35. Regarding the contention raised by other interested parties that there is no formal UPL group and
since there are more than 5 applicants, actual information should have been shared as per Trade
Notice 10/2018. The Authority notes that even though UPL group is not a legal entity, the
information is provided by 5 producers who are a part of one group of companies. Only one entity is
engaged in production of technical and two entities are involved in production of formulation. The
rationale behind disclosure of actual data in case of multiple producers filing application is that it
will reveal only consolidated data of different entities, while preserving confidential data of
particular companies. However, the information provided in the present case relating to technical
would pertain to only one company, while the information relating to sales of formulation would
pertain to two affiliated companies. Therefore, the confidentiality claimed by the applicants is
considered appropriate and has been accepted.
36. With regards to the contention raised by the interested parties, that paraquat is a substitutable product
of glufosinate and consumers will shift to paraquet, the Authority notes that the jurisdiction of this
Authority is limited to examination of unfair trade practices, and recommend appropriate remedy, if
necessary, in accordance with law.
F. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
F.1 Submissions made by other interested parties.
37. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to normal value, export
price and dumping margin:
i. China's accession to the WTO expired in 2016 and China PR can no longer be treated as non-
market economy.
F.2 Submission made by the applicants
38. The applicants have made the following submissions with regard to normal value, export price and
dumping margin:
i. The product under consideration is a highly capital-intensive unit. The per unit fixed asset
employed for the product is around Rs [***] per MT. A 5% return on cost would imply only
[***] return on fixed assets deployed by the applicants. This is lower than the bank rate of
return and no producer would invest if this profit margin were considered ideal. [***] return
on capital employed may be allowed.
ii. The interested parties have failed to file an MET questionnaire. Therefore, normal value
should be determined as per Para 7 Annexure I of the ADD rules.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
Normal value for China PR
39. 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 WTO Member shall use Chinese prices
or costs for the industry under investigation in determining price comparability;
(ii) The importing WO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict
comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation
cannot 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 SCM Agreement
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 notify methodologies
used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures.
(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it
is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the
importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of
accession. In any event, the provision 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 or
sector, the nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that
industry or sector."
40. The applicants have relied upon Article 15(a)(i) of China's the Accession Protocol as well as para 7
of the Annexure I. The applicants have claimed that producers in China PR must be asked to
demonstrate that market economy conditions prevail in their industry producing the like product with
regard to the manufacture, production and sale of the product under consideration. It has been stated
by the domestic industry that in case the responding Chinese producers are not able to demonstrate
that their costs and price information are market-driven, the normal value should be calculated in
terms of provisions of Para 7 and 8 of Annexure- I to the Rules.
41. 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. It is noted that since the responding
producers/exporters from China PR have not submitted response to the supplementary questionnaire
the normal value computation is required to be done as per the provisions of paragraph 7 of
Annexure I of the Rules.
42. The Authority also notes the existing jurisprudence on constructing the normal value in the case of a
non-market economy contained in the various judgements. These judgements provide directions
regarding the implementation of Para 7 of Annexure-I of the Rules concerning the choice of an
appropriate option, and associated obligations thereof.
43. The response to exporters questionnaire has been filed by the following producer/exporters from
subject country.
i. Lier Chemical Co. Ltd.
ii. Shanghai Agrotree Chemical Co. Ltd.
44. As none of the producer from Chian PR have filed the supplementary questionnaire response, the
normal value has been determined in accordance with Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules. Para 7 lays
down hierarchy for determination of normal value and provides that normal value i) determined on
the basis of the price ii) or constructed value in a market economy third country, iii) or the price from
such a third country to any other country including India or where it is not possible 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.
45. The applicants have submitted that it was not able to gather the information on prices of the subject
goods in market economy third country of price as the product is majorly produced in India or China
with minor production in European Union. Further, the product under consideration does not have
dedicated classification. The interested parties have also not provided any information on appropriate
market economy countries. Therefore, normal value for China PR could not be determined on the
basis of price from such third country to any other country, including India.
46. Therefore, the Authority has determined the normal value for the subject imports in China PR as
"price actually payable in India" as stipulated in para 7 of Annexure – I to the AD Rules, 1995. It has
been computed based on the cost of production of the domestic industry, with reasonable addition for
selling, general and administrative expenses, and profits. The normal value so determined is given
below in the dumping margin table.
F.3.2 Export price for China PR
47. Lier Chemical Co. Ltd., a producer of the subject goods in China PR has participated and filed a
complete questionnaire response. Lier Chemical Co. Ltd. has not exported the subject goods to India
directly. Their exports to India have been made through unrelated exporter, namely Shanghai
Agrotree Chemical Co. Ltd. Shanghai Agrotree Chemical Co. Ltd has participated in the present
investigation and has provided the relevant details to the Authority in the prescribed formats.
48. During the period of investigation, Lier Chemical has reported [***] MT of the subject goods to
India at the invoice value [***] US$. It is seen that the import volume of the producer does not
reconcile with the volume of imports as per DG System data which shows import volume of [***
MT].
49. A letter was issued to the producer wherein clarification was sought on the difference in the volume
reported in the response and as per the DG System data. The producer has not been able to reconcile
the differences. The Authority has therefore rejected the response.
50. The net export price for all producers/exporters from China PR has been determined based on facts
available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net export price so determined is mentioned in the
dumping margin table below.
F.3.4 Dumping margin
51. Considering the normal value and the export price determined as explained above, the dumping
margin is calculated and shown below. It is seen that the dumping margin for is positive.
+-----+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | Normal value | Net export price| Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin %| Range % |
+-----+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------+
| 1 | Any producer| USD/MT | USD/MT | USD/MT | | |
+=====+=============+===============+=================+===================+=================+==========+
| | | *** | *** | *** | ***0% | 20-30 |
+-----+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+----------+
G. EXAMINATION OF INJURY
G. 1 Submissions made by other interested parties
52. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal
link:
i. 2022-23 was an abnormal period and should not be considered for injury analysis on account
of dramatic increase in demand.
ii. There was no increase in installed capacity from 2021-22 to 2022-23. However, the number of
employees fell slightly, while salaries and wages nearly doubled.
iii. Interest and depreciation went up in 2022-23 as compared to the base year 2020-21 even
though the installed capacity didn't change.
iv. Despite the unusual circumstances in 2022-23, the applicants' performance has improved.
Thus, there is no substantiated injury from imports from China PR.
V. Return on capital employed should not be allowed at 22%.
vi. The claim regarding production capacity in China PR is baseless. Further, the fact that the
Chinese producers are likely to export to utilize surplus capacities is speculative and
unsubstantiated.
vii. Contrary to the claim of the applicants that the distributors returned the formulation form of
the product because of low priced imports, the returns were made by the distributors due to
poor quality.
viii. The imports depend on the demand for the product. The imports made by applicants clearly
show that intensity of the imports depends on the demand and supply function in peak and
non-peak seasons. The majority of imports are happening only in some quarters.
G.2 Submissions made by the applicants
53. The applicants have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
i. Chinese producers are dumping glufosinate not only in Indian market but also in other markets,
with the aim to eliminate competition.
ii. Two new formulators, Crystal Crop Protection Limited and Krishi Rasayan Limited obtained
licenses for formulation without having production facilities for the technical product which
led to a sharp increase in imports.
iii. The demand for the product declined in 2021-22, increased in 2022-23 and declined in the
period of investigation. The demand shows a decline because of the imports made for export
purposes. If the imports for exports are excluded, the demand will show a consistent increase.
iv. The imports from the subject country have sharply increased in the period of investigation.
The imports increased from *** MT in the base year to *** MT in the period of investigation.
V. Imports from China PR for consumption in the domestic Indian market started in 2022-23 and
have shot up in the period of investigation. The imports increased by 1000% in the period of
investigation as compared to previous year.
vi. The imports from subject country increased sharply in relation to Indian production and
consumption. The imports increased despite there being no demand supply gap in the country.
vii. There has been a sharp decline in the import price. The decline in import price is without any
commensurate decline in the cost of production.
viii. Till 2022-23, both the import price of glufosinate technical and raw material cost of for
glufosinate technical increased. However, during the period of investigation, the cost of raw
material declined by 23% whereas the import price declined by 54%.
ix. UPL Limited has sold glufosinate technical to related parties and only formulation form has
been sold in the domestic market to unaffiliated parties. Selling price of technical cannot be
considered for price undercutting calculations.
Χ. The price undercutting can be calculated based on adjusted formulation selling prices to arrive
at technical and the actual landed prices of technical. The Authority may also determine price
undercutting by comparing applicants' formulation prices with those of other formulators
using imported technical.
xi. The import price was significantly higher than the cost of sales of the applicants prior to the
period of investigation. However, the import price sharply declined and is below the cost of
sales during the period of investigation.
xii. While the applicants sold glufosinate in formulation form at profits, it impacted on their
market share, and the applicants were forced to suspend production. If the applicants had
continued to produce and sell, they would have been forced to sell at prices matching the
import prices.
xiii. Formulators who rely on imported technical had access to low priced material which reduced
their production cost and resulted in low priced formulation being available in the domestic
market.
xiv. In view of the growing demand for the product in the domestic and export market, the
applicants increased capacity in 2021-22. The capacity of the applicants is sufficient to cater to
the entire demand in the country.
XV. The capacity utilization declined in the period of investigation compared to base year as well
as previous year.
xvi. The production of the applicants has sharply declined in the period of investigation. This
decline is due to a decline in the domestic sales as well as export sales.
xvii. The market share of imports has increased from [*** % to ***%] in a period of investigation
considering domestic demand for the product.
xviii. Due to the increase in imports from the subject country, the inventory of the applicants has
sharply increased and reached at such alarming level that the applicants were forced to
suspend their production.
xix. At the time of suspension of plant, the applicants had the inventory of Rs [*** cr.] of technical
and Rs [*** cr]. of formulation.
XX. UPL Group has invested nearly [****] crore in this business. The decline in the sales volume
has adversely impacted on the gross profits earned from the product.
xxi. During the period of investigation, the influx of low-priced imports led to a sharp decline in
domestic sales for the applicants. As a result, profits before interest and cash profit declined to
half. This substantial profit decline has significantly impacted the applicants' business
operations.
xxii. The applicants provide employment to more than 500 permanent people in their plant. In
addition to this, the applicants also have contractual labor. Since the plants of the applicants
were shutdown from October 2023, this has adversely impacted employment.
xxiii. Around [***] MT of formulation worth about Rs [***] Crores was returned back by
applicants' distributors in the period of investigation.
xxiv. The increase in imports in the period of investigation is more than 1000%, showing clear
threat of the further increase in imports.
xxv. The monthly capacity with Chinese producers is around 12000 MT and total capacity is
around 150000 MT. The capacity with the Chinese producer is significantly more than the
domestic demand which will be utilized for exports.
xxvi. As regards the submission of the other interested parties that decline in production and sale is
because of the decline in demand, the domestic industry has claimed that decline in demand
applies equally to all suppliers, both domestic and foreign. It has also been submitted that
imports of subject goods have increased despite the decline in demand.
xxvii. As regards the increase in the net fixed assets, the applicants use many inputs captively, and as
production increased, the deployment of assets for these captive inputs has also increased.
xxviii. As regards the submission that 2022-23 was abnormal, there were no abnormal
circumstances in 2022-23. As imports increased significantly during the period of
investigation, the domestic industry's performance declined sharply. The fact that the
applicants' performance remained stable before the surge in imports and deteriorated steeply
thereafter demonstrates that the injury was directly caused by the dumped imports from China.
xxix. As regards 22% return on capital employed, the Authority and Tribunal has taken the view that
unless other interested parties demonstrate the need for consideration of a different return,
22% shall be allowed for determination of non-injurious price.
XXX. As regards justification for inclusion of formulation, it must be included in the injury analysis
because the dumping of technical forms has initially caused harm to formulation sales. The
injury to formulation has directly impacted technical sales, as imports of technical are
converted into formulation before being sold.
G.3 Examination by the Authority
54. Rule 11 of the Rules read with its Annexure-11 thereto 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 domestic producers of
such articles." In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary
to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as
compared to 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 with Annexure II of the Rules.
55. The applicants have provided segregated information on both technical and formulation form of the
product. The volume for formulation has been provided at the level of equivalent of technical volume
(by using conversion factor of ***). The Authority has considered production and capacity
utilization in respect of technical form since the primary production activity is in production of
technical, and processing of technical into formulation is a mere incremental production process.
Since the applicants have sold only the formulation form in the domestic market, domestic sales, and
market share of the domestic industry has been calculated considering formulation form of the
product. Since the technical form of the product has been used to produce the formulation form, the
cost of sales of the formulation so considered also includes the cost of glufosinate technical. Profits,
cash profits, profit before interest and tax, return on investment and inventories have been considered
by considering both the products. The price undercutting has been determined as explained in the
relevant part below. Data relating to technical has been considered to ascertain price
suppression/depression. Conversion factor of [***] has been used for converting technical to
formulation or formulation to technical, wherever necessary.
56. With regard to the submission made by other interested parties for consideration of return of 22% for
determination of non-injurious price is not appropriate, the Authority notes that relevant guidelines in
this regard are well laid down under Annexure III of the Anti-Dumping Rules. The Authority has
consistently allowed 22% return on capital employed and the same has been adopted in the present
investigation as well.
a. Assessment of demand/apparent consumption
57. The Authority has determined the demand or apparent consumption of the product in India as the
sum of domestic sales of the applicants and the import from all sources. The product under
consideration includes both technical and formulation. The other suppliers of the formulation are
producing formulation from the imported technical. If the sales of the formulation of these entities
are included, it would lead to double accounting. To enable proper comparison, the technical sales of
the domestic industry (after conversion from formulation) and the technical imports of the importers
have been included in the demand calculation. The volume for formulation has been considered at
the level equivalent for technical.
+-----+----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan - Dec 23|
+-----+----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Domestic industry sales (sales of formulation have | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | been converted to technical) | | | | | |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 103 | 147 | 76 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | Imports from China PR (technical) | MT | 590 | 266 | 931 | 1,296 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Imports from other countries (sales of formulation | MT | 100 | 53 | - | - |
| | have been converted to technical) | | | | | |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 4 | Total Demand (Technical) | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 77 | 141 | 127 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
58. It is seen that the demand for the product under consideration declined in 2021-22, increased
thereafter in the year 2022-23 and declined marginally in the POI. The demand has increased over
the injury period. It has been noted that the demand shows an erratic trend because of the imports
were made by an SEZ unit for exports in the past period and if the same is excluded, the demand will
show a consistent increase.
b. Volume effect of dumped imports
59. With regards to the volume of dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there
has been a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to
production or consumption in India. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied
on the transaction-wise import data procured from DGCI&S transaction wise data. The factual
position is as follows. The volume for formulation has been considered at the level of technical
equivalent: -
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan - Dec 23|
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Imports of technical form from China PR | MT | 590 | 266 | 931 | 1,296 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| B | Subject country import in relation to: | | | | | |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Indian production of technical | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 36 | 120 | 246 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | Consumption of glufosinate | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 58 | 112 | 173 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Total imports of technical | % | 86% | 83% | 100% | 100% |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
60. It is seen that the volume of imports declined in 2021-22, increased sharply in both 2022-23 and the
period of investigation. The imports also increased in relation to Indian production and consumption.
The imports in relation to production has increased from ***% in the preceding year to ***% in POI,
and in relation to consumption increased from ***% to ***%. The imports in relation to production
and consumption have also increased during the injury period.
c. Price effect of dumped imports
61. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on the prices, it is required to be analyzed whether
there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared to the price of the
like products in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress the prices or
prevent the price increase, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course. Further, the
Authority is required to consider the impact of the dumped imports on the prices of the domestic
industry by examining price suppression/ depression effects, if any.
i. Evolution of price
62. The Authority has examined the trend of import prices of technical and raw material cost and cost of
sales of technical form of the domestic industry over the injury period and is shown below.
+-----+-----------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particular | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan - Dec 23|
+-----+-----------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Import price (technical) | ₹/KG | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | Trend | Indexed| 100 | 103 | 141 | 64 |
+-----+-----------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Cost of sales (technical) | ₹/KG | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 4 | Trend | Indexed| 100 | 131 | 149 | 127 |
+-----+-----------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 5 | Raw material cost (technical)| ₹/KG | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 6 | Trend | Indexed| 100 | 147 | 175 | 134 |
+-----+-----------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
63. It is seen that both the import price from China and cost of sales increased till 2022-23. In the period
of investigation, the cost of sales declined due to the decline in raw material cost. However, while the
cost of sales declined by 22 index points, the import price declined by 76 index points. The decline in
the import price is materially higher than the decline in cost of sales. It is also seen that with a
decline in the import price, the import volumes have shot up.
Increase in imports with decline in price
```
1600 + + 2,100
| / \ |
1400 + / + 1,900
| / |
1200 + / + 1,700
| / |
1000 + / + 1,500
| / |
800 + / + 1,300
| / |
600 +-------------------+---------------------+ 1,100
| | |
400 +-------------------+---------------------+ 900
| | |
200 +-------------------+---------------------+ 700
| | |
0 +-------------------+---------------------+ 500
2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 POI
Import volume - - - - - Import price
```
64. It is also noted that the price of imported technical was above cost of sales of the domestic industry
prior to the period of investigation. However, it is materially below the cost of sales in the period of
investigation.
ii. Price undercutting
65. The Authority has defined PCN methodology in the present case. Glufosinate technical and
formulation has been accorded separate PCN. Therefore, price undercutting is required to be
determined at PCN wise. The product which has been imported from the subject country is
glufosinate technical. The domestic industry has sold glufosinate technical only within the group, to
its affiliated entities. Only glufosinate formulation has been sold in the domestic market. Therefore,
the price undercutting has been examined using two alternative methodologies-
i. comparing the import price of glufosinate technical with the adjusted selling price of technical by
the domestic industry. The selling price of formulation by the domestic industry has been
adjusted for costs incurred between technical & formulation;
ii. comparing the selling price of formulation by the importers (who imported technical and sold
formulation) with the selling price of formulation of the domestic industry. The response filed
by the cooperating importers has been used for this purpose and their selling price has been
considered for comparing with the selling price of the domestic industry.
66. The table below shows the price undercutting considering the selling price of formulation of the
domestic industry and adjusting it with the cost incurred in converting technical to formulation. It is
seen that the price undercutting is significantly high.
+-----+------------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+------------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| 1 | Net Selling Price of formulation | ₹/KG | *** |
| 2 | Cost incurred in technical to formulation| ₹/KG | *** |
| 3 | Constructed selling price of technical| ₹/KG | *** |
| 4 | Landed price of technical | ₹/KG | 1,002 |
| 5 | | ₹/KG | *** |
| 6 | Price undercutting | % | *** |
| 7 | | % | 150-200% |
+-----+------------------------------------+-------+-------------+
67. The table below shows the price undercutting considering the selling price of formulation by
importers who import technical to make formulation, and the selling price of the domestic industry
for formulation sold in the domestic market.
+-----+-----------------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+-----------------------------------------+-------+-------------+
| 1 | Selling price of domestic industry formulation| ₹/KG | *** |
| 2 | Selling price of importers' formulation | ₹/KG | *** |
| 3 | | ₹/KG | *** |
| 4 | Price undercutting | % | *** |
| 5 | | % | 10-20% |
+-----+-----------------------------------------+-------+-------------+
68. It is seen that the importers have sold the product at prices materially lower than the domestic
industry prices.
iii. Price suppression/depression
69. The table below shows the cost of sales and the selling price of formulation of the domestic industry.
+-----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particular | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Selling price of formulation | ₹/KG | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 124 | 160 | 155 |
+-----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Cost of sales of formulation | ₹/KG | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 4 | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 128 | 140 | 167 |
+-----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
70. It is seen that domestic industry has been able to increase their selling price till 2022-23. The selling
prices have declined in the period of investigation, while the cost of sales has increased. It is however
seen that the domestic industry continues to remain profitable. The domestic industry, however,
submitted that they have not adjusted their prices in response to imports considering the nature of
market, but lost significant sales and market share as a result of significant difference in the domestic
and imported product prices.
71. The table below shows the import price of glufosinate technical and the cost of sales of glufosinate
technical of the domestic industry. It is seen that whereas the cost of sales of technical has increased
over the injury period, the import price of technical has declined significantly over the injury period,
and very significantly as compared to preceding year.
+-----+----------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+----------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Cost of sales of technical | ₹/KG | 932 | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | Trend | Index | 100 | 131 | 149 | 127 |
+-----+----------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Import price from China PR of technical| ₹/KG | 1,401 | 1,441 | 1,972 | 903 |
+-----+----------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
d. Economic parameters of the domestic industry
i. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales
72. The Authority has considered capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales of the
domestic industry over the injury period. Since the product is first produced in technical form,
capacity, production, and capacity utilization have been considered for technical form. Domestic
sales have been considered for the product (formulation - equivalent to technical) which has been
sold in the domestic market.
+-----+-----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+-----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Capacity of technical | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 119 | 119 | 124 |
+-----+-----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | Production of technical | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 125 | 132 | 89 |
+-----+-----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Capacity utilization of technical | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 105 | 111 | 96 |
+-----+-----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 4 | Domestic industry sales technical (sales of | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | formulation have been converted to technical) | | | | | |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 103 | 147 | 76 |
+-----+-----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 5 | Export sales technical | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 108 | 97 | 84 |
+-----+-----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 6 | Export sales formulation (sales of formulation have | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | been converted to technical) | | | | | |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 148 | 190 | 118 |
+-----+-----------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
73. It is seen that the domestic industry expanded their capacity in 2021-22 and then further in the period
of investigation. It has been stated that capacity expansion was undertaken in view of growing
demand for the product in the domestic and global market. The domestic industry exports significant
share of their production in the global market.
74. The domestic industry's production grew steadily until 2022-23 but experienced a sharp decline
during the period of investigation. This decline is attributable to decline in domestic and export sales.
The domestic industry was forced to suspend production, and the plant was shut down for 3 months
from October 2023 to December 2023.
75. The capacity utilization for the product increased till 2022-23 but declined significantly in the period
of investigation. Capacity utilization has declined compared to base year as well as previous year and
is lowest in POI over the injury period.
76. The domestic sales of the domestic industry increased till 2022-23, but sharply declined in the period
of investigation. The sales have declined sharply in POI as compared to previous years.
ii. Market share
77. The information on the market share of different entities is given below: -
+-----+----------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particular | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Domestic industry (formulation equivalent to | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | technical) | | | | | |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 134 | 104 | 60 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | Subject country (technical) | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 58 | 112 | 173 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Other countries (technical) | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 69 | - | - |
+-----+----------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
78. It is seen that the market share of the domestic industry increased in 2021-22, declined in 2022-23
and then declined steeply in the period of investigation. It has been stated that, the market share of
the Chinese imports represented imports made by the domestic industry for export of formulation. If
these imports are excluded, the imports had no market in 2020-21 and 2021-22. The imports started
in 2022-23 and their share shot up in the period of investigation.
iii. Inventories
79. The inventory position with the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below:
+-----+---------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+---------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Opening stock (technical and formulation)| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+---------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | Closing stock (technical and formulation)| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----+---------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Average stock (technical and formulation)| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 86 | 120 | 243 |
+-----+---------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
80. It is seen that the inventories with the domestic industry increased sharply in the period of
investigation. The domestic industry submitted that they had inventory of Rs [***] crore just for
technical and Rs [***] crores of formulation and were forced to suspend production in view of high
inventories. Further, the domestic industry faced return of material from market, valued at about Rs
[***] crores.
iv. Profitability, cash profit and return on capital employed
81. The performance of the domestic industry has been examined in respect of profitability, profits, cash
profits, PBIT, and return on investment. Since the domestic industry have sold formulation in the
domestic market and the injury analysis is required to be considered for domestic operations, the
Authority has considered the below data for formulation.
+-----+-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Profit before tax (formulation)| Lacs | 7,483 | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 120 | 283 | 102 |
+-----+-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | PBIT (formulation) | Lacs | 7,902 | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 120 | 281 | 103 |
+-----+-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Cash Profit (formulation) | Lacs | 7,546 | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 120 | 283 | 102 |
+-----+-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 4 | ROI (formulation) | % | 25% | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 79 | 182 | 88 |
+-----+-------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
82. It is seen that profit before tax increased till 2022-23. However, with the decline in the sales
volumes, profit before tax has very steeply declined by 64% in the period of investigation as
compared with the preceding year.
83. The significant decline in profits in POI as compared to preceding year led to significant decline in
cash profit and profit before interest (PBIT). Both cash profits and PBIT declined sharply in the
period of investigation as compared to previous year.
84. It is seen that the steep decline in sales in the period of investigation led to corresponding steep
decline in profits, profit before interest, cash profit and return on investment.
85. The domestic industry has submitted that they opted to sacrifice market share to maintain profitable
prices. However, with the decline in the sales volumes, profit before tax has very steeply declined in
the period of investigation as compared with the preceding year.
86. The domestic industry submitted that they have invested close to Rs [***] cr. in business and such
steep decline in the profits has adversely impacted their operation.
V. Employment, wages and productivity
87. Employment, wages and productivity of the domestic industry over the injury period are given in the
table below:
+-----+----------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | No of employees (technical and formulation) | Nos. | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 107 | 112 | 105 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | Productivity per day (technical) | Nos. | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 125 | 132 | 120 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
88. The number of employees increased till 2022-23 but declined in the period of investigation, as the
domestic industry was forced to suspend production. The wages paid also increased till 2022-23 but
have declined in the period of investigation. Due to suspension of production, productivity per day
has declined in the period of investigation as compared to previous year. The domestic industry
submitted that they have employed more than 500 persons in their plant. The above employment is
only dedicated employment in the technical and formulation production plants and does not include
employment in formulation sales operations.
vi. Growth
89. The growth of the domestic industry in terms of capacity, production, domestic sales volume, PBT,
PBIT, cash profits and the return on capital employed is as per given table below:
+-----+---------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+---------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Capacity | % | 19% | 0% | 4% |
| 2 | Production | % | 25% | 6% | -32% |
| 3 | Domestic sales | % | 3% | 42% | -48% |
| 4 | Market share | % | 5% | -1% | -44% |
| 5 | Profit per unit | % | 16% | 66% | -30% |
| 6 | Profit in Rs lakhs | % | 20% | 135% | -64% |
| 7 | PBIT | % | 20% | 134% | -63% |
| 8 | Cash profit | % | 20% | 135% | -64% |
| 9 | ROCE | % | -21% | 129% | -52% |
+-----+---------------------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
90. It is seen that the domestic industry has recorded severely negative growth in volume and price
parameters in the POI. Growth in production, domestic sales, market share, profits before tax, profit
before interest, cash profits, return on investment, all were negative in the period of investigation
with significant increase in imports in the period.
vii. Magnitude of dumping
91. The magnitude of dumping is an indicator of the extent to which the imports are being dumped into
India. The investigation has shown that the dumping margin is positive and significant in the period
of investigation.
viii. Ability to raise capital investment
92. Despite having sufficient capacity to cater to the entire demand in Inda, the performance of the
domestic industry was adversely impacted on both volume and price accounts, due to dumped
imports from subject country. The decline in both volume and price parameters leading to suspension
of production have adversely impacted on the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital
investment.
ix. Factors affecting domestic prices
93. It is seen that the import price is materially below the cost of sales of the domestic industry. Further,
the selling price of formulation sold by importers is materially below the selling price of formulation
sold by the domestic industry. The domestic industry has, however, not reduced its prices in response
to the imported product prices. The decline in domestic sales has been so significant that the
domestic industry was forced to suspend production.
e. Threat of material injury
94. The Authority has additionally examined threat of material injury to the domestic industry by
dumped imports, having regard to the provisions of Annexure II of the Rules. Since Minimum
Import price was in force in the post period of investigation, the performance of the post period of
investigation has not been examined.
i. Significant rate of increase of dumped imports:
95. The table below shows imports from China PR during the investigation period.
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Gross imports from China (technical) | MT | 590 | 266 | 931 | 1,296 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | Demand excluding imports made by DI for exports (technical | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | +formulation equivalent to technical) | | | | | |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| | Trend | Indexed| 100 | 98 | 140 | 137 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 3 | Imports excluding imports for exports (technical) | MT | 0 | 0 | 86 | 636 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
96. It is seen that, the imports from China increased significantly. The imports have increased by over
600% in the period of investigation as compared to previous year. The degree of increase in the
imports is too significant, thus posing a clear threat of further increase in the imports.
ii. Substantial increase in the capacity of the exporters
97. The Authority has examined the response of the participating producers, and it is seen that the
participating producers have not expanded their capacity. However, the domestic industry has
provided evidence that the total designed capacity in China for the product under consideration is 1.5
lakh MT which is far more than the domestic demand in China. Demand for the product under
consideration in the Indian market is between 1500 MT to 2000 MT and is much low when compared
with the massive capacities in China.
iii. Imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect
98. The table below shows the relevant information.
+-----+----------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| SN | Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | Jan-Dec 23 |
+-----+----------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | Cost of sales (technical) | Rs/Kg | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Indexed| 100 | 131 | 149 | 127 |
+-----+----------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 2 | Import price from China PR (technical) | Rs/Kg | 1,401 | 1,441 | 1,972 | 903 |
+-----+----------------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
99. It is seen that prior to the period of investigation, import price from China was higher than the cost of
sales of the domestic industry. However, import prices fell sharply in the POI, and are much below
the cost of sales of the domestic industry. Further, the import prices fell to a level of Rs. 903 per KG
towards the end of the period of investigation. The domestic industry has further provided
information on export price of glufosinate to other countries in the post period of investigation. It is
seen that export price from China to other countries has further declined. Therefore, the imports are
likely to have a significant suppressing/ depressing impact on the prices of the domestic industry. The
domestic industry was even forced to suspend production for a significant period and faced return of
material worth over Rs. [***] cr. If the domestic industry were to continue production, it would have
had to sell the product at prices below cost of sales which would have resulted in financial losses.
iv. Inventories of the article being investigated with Chinese producers
100. No information has been provided by any party in this regard and therefore, the same cannot be
examined.
f. Conclusion of injury
101. On the basis of the above the following has been concluded:
i. The subject imports have entered the Indian market at dumped prices.
ii. The imports from China have increased sharply in the period of investigation. The imports
have increased in both absolute and relative terms.
iii. The imports increased despite no demand and supply gap in the country.
iv. There were no imports from the subject country in 2020-21 and 2021-22 for domestic
consumption. The imports started in 2022-23 and have increased sharply in the period of
investigation.
V. The price undercutting by the imported product is positive and significant.
vi. Chinese imports are below the cost of the sales of the domestic industry.
vii. Availability of technical at lower prices has allowed formulators to sell Glufosinate
formulation at lower prices. This has impacted sales of the domestic industry.
viii. The imported product has taken away the market share of the domestic industry. As the
domestic industry was unable to sell in the market, it was left with significant idle inventory
and had to undertake production suspension for a significant period.
ix. The domestic industry was forced to suspend production. The domestic industry's plant was
shut down for 3 months after the period of investigation.
Χ. The production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry has declined significantly.
xi. With significant increase in imports and consequent decline in sales volumes, the domestic
industry has faced a steep decline in profits, cash profits and return on investment in the POIΙ.
xii. The domestic industry has suffered significantly negative growth on all volume and price
parameters in the POI.
xiii. The imports are entering at prices which are likely to cause further injury to the domestic
industry.
xiv. The Chinese producers have expanded their capacities significantly and are likely to dump
their product in the Indian market.
XV. The growth in imports was too high, thus showing a clear threat of increased imports in the
absence of anti-dumping duty.
xvi. The price undercutting is too significant and is likely to result in further imports and is likely
to have suppressing/depressing effects on the prices of the domestic industry in the market.
H. CAUSAL LINK AND NON-ATRIBUTION ANALYSIS
102. As per the Rules, the Authority, inter alia, is required to examine any known factors other than the
dumped imports which are injuring or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry, so that the
injury caused by these other factors may not be attributed to the dumped imports. Factors which may
be relevant in this respect include, inter alia, the volume and prices of imports not sold at dumped
prices, contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of
and competition between the foreign and the domestic producers, developments in technology and
the export performance and the productivity of the domestic industry. It has been examined below
whether the factors listed under the Rules could have contributed to the injury suffered by the
domestic industry.
i. Volume and price of imports from third countries
103. Apart from China PR, there are imports from European Union. However, these imports are of
formulation and at much higher prices. Therefore, imports from other countries are not causing
injury to the domestic industry.
ii. Contraction in demand
104. It is seen that the demand for the subject goods has increased in the period of investigation compared
to the base year. Therefore, the domestic industry has not suffered injury due to contraction in
demand.
iii. Changes in the patten of consumption
105. There has been no known material change in the pattern of consumption of the product under
consideration.
iv. Trade restrictive practices
106. No interested parties have produced any evidence relating to any known trade restrictive practice,
which could have caused injury to the domestic industry. Therefore, the Authority concludes that
trade restrictive practice has not caused injury to the domestic industry.
V. Development of technology
107. The Authority notes that the technology for the production of the subject goods has not undergone
any change. Hence, development in technology has not caused injury to the domestic industry.
vi. Export performance
108. The Authority has considered the injury data for the domestic operations for the injury analysis.
Therefore, export performance is not the cause of injury to the domestic industry.
vii. Performance of other products
109. The Authority has considered data relating to the performance of the subject goods only. Therefore,
the performance of the other products produced and sold by the domestic industry is not a possible
cause of injury to the domestic industry.
I. ANALYSIS BY THE AUTHORITY ON CAUSAL LINK
110. It is seen that there are no other factors which could have caused injury to the domestic industry.
Therefore, the Authority concludes that the injury to the domestic industry has been caused by
dumped imports as is established by below.
i. The imports from the subject country are at dumped prices.
ii. With the import price being low, the import volumes started entering the domestic market in
2022-23 and surged significantly in the period of investigation.
iii. As the imports from China increased, they captured the market share of the domestic industry.
As the market share of the imports increased, that of the domestic industry declined.
iv. As the imports increased, the domestic industry faced a steep decline in its domestic sales and
faced return of material already sold.
V. As the domestic industry lost sales, it was forced to suspend production. Dumped imports led
to plant shutdown towards the end of the period of investigation for three months.
vi. The imports from the subject country are at low prices and are below the cost and price of the
applicants.
vii. As the imports surged in the POI, the domestic industry lost significant profits, cash profits
and its return on investment declined.
J. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
111. The Authority has determined the non-injurious price for the domestic industry on the basis of
principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III. The non-injurious price has been
determined by adopting the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the
domestic industry. The non-injurious price has been compared with the landed price of the product
under consideration from the subject country for calculating the injury margin. For determining the
non-injurious price, the best utilization of the raw materials and utilities and the best utilization of
production capacity has been considered. It is ensured that no extraordinary or nonrecurring expenses
were charged to 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 PUC was allowed as
pre-tax profit to arrive at the non-injurious price. The NIP so determined has been considered for
calculating injury margin.
112. Based on the landed price and NIP determined as above, the injury margin for the producer/exporter
as determined by the Authority is provided in the table below:
+-----+-------------+--------------------+--------------+--------------+------------+--------+
| SN | Particulars | Non-injurious price| Landed price | Injury margin| Injury margin| Range |
+-----+-------------+--------------------+--------------+--------------+------------+--------+
| | | USD/MT | USD/MT | USD/MT | % | % |
+=====+=============+====================+==============+==============+============+========+
| 1 | Any producer| *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
+-----+-------------+--------------------+--------------+--------------+------------+--------+
K. INDIAN INDUSTRY INTEREST AND OTHER ISSUES
K.1 Submissions made by other interested parties.
113. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the Indian industry's
interest:
i. The imposition of anti-dumping duties on glufosinate will not be in the public interest as the
product is a critical herbicide. Increase in the glufosinate costs would likely be passed on to
consumers, raising agricultural product prices and financially burdening lower income
households.
ii. The subject goods are used as an essential commodity by farmers. Since there is huge demand
and supply gap, any additional burden of duties will have very significant adverse impact on
the large population. Therefore, duties would not be in public interest.
iii. Competitors like Crystal Crop Protection and Krishi Rasayan, who recently started producing
formulations using imported technical Glufosinate would face undue barriers if duties were
imposed. Such measures would restrict their access to technical Glufosinate from domestic
producers, who primarily focus on captive consumption.
K.2 Submissions made by the applicants.
114. The applicants have made the following submissions with regard to the Indian industry's interest:
i. The imposition of anti-dumping duty on glufosinate would only increase the price of the
ultimate formulation price by Rs 24 per bottle of price Rs 900. One bottle of water is used in
1 acre of land. Therefore, impact of duty on the end farmer is insignificant.
ii. The price of glufosinate technical and formulation was higher in past and has declined
recently. If those higher prices did not impact the downstream industry, the current prices
would not have an adverse impact.
iii. The applicants allocate approximately ₹31 crore annually to societal contributions, targeting
education, sustainable livelihoods, and nature conservation, benefiting around 1.5 million
people. With profitability already reduced, if duties are not imposed it would negatively
impact on these social initiatives.
iv. Producers from the subject country focus solely on maximizing revenue without long-term
interest in the Indian market or its consumers. If a more profitable market arises, they are
likely to shift their focus. In contrast, the applicants, as domestic producers, are more
committed to supporting Indian consumers' interests.
V. The imports of the dumped subject imports into the Indian market have caused a severe
deterioration in the performance of the applicants and have caused material injury to the
applicants. Therefore, the imposition of anti-dumping duty will ensure that the imports are at
fair prices, which will be in the interest of the domestic industry.
vi. It is in the interest of the public at large to have a strong competitive domestic production of
the product.
vii. Anti-dumping duty is not a protection to the industry, but rather a remedial tool to bring fair
market competition in the country. The objective of imposition of anti-dumping duty is to
establish a level playing field, by removing any trade distortion by the producers in the
subject country and allowing the Indian industry an opportunity for fair competition.
viii. The imposition of anti-dumping duty will not increase the cost of eventual end product. The
other interested party has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the imposition of
duty will lead to increase in costs.
ix. Despite economic interest questionnaire prescribed by the Authority, the other interested
parties made only mere statement without any supporting evidence, whereas the domestic
industry has responded and provided impact of anti-dumping duty.
K.3 Examination by the Authority
115. The Authority considered whether imposition of the recommended anti-dumping duty will be against
public interest. This determination is based on consideration of information on records and interests
of various parties including the domestic industry, foreign producers and consumers.
116. The Authority issued gazette notification inviting views from all the interested parties, including
importers, consumers and other interested parties. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for
the users to provide the relevant information with regard to the present investigation, including
possible effect of the anti-dumping duty on their operation. The Authority sought information on,
inter-alia, interchangeability of the product supplied by the various suppliers from different
countries, ability to switch sources, the effect of the anti-dumping duty on the consumers, the factors
that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to the new situation caused by the imposition of
the anti-dumping duty.
117. The Authority notes that the purpose 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.
118. The Authority further notes that imposition of anti-dumping duty does not restrict imports. Imports
will continue to happen at fair prices. Anti-dumping duty ensures that the imports are entering the
Indian market at fair prices and a level playing field is maintained between the foreign exporters and
the applicants.
119. The Authority had prescribed an Economic Interest Questionnaire which was sent to all interested
parties in this investigation. The Authority notes that none of the interested parties have provided any
information or quantified the impact of the imposition of anti-dumping duty on end users. The
domestic industry provided quantified information about the impact of duty on the subject goods.
Based on the calculation provided by the domestic industry, it is seen that the impact of
recommended duties on the end users would be insignificant, as is evident from the table below.
+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+
| SN | Particulars | | Value |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+
| 1 | Glufosinate technical import price of POI | A | 921 |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+
| 2 | Anti-dumping duty (estimate) | B | 20% |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+
| 3 | Price increase for technical (A X B) | C | 184 |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+
| 4 | Final price of glufosinate formulation bottle to consumer – Rs/Ltr. | D | 800 |
| | (https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/upl-sweep-power-glufosinate-ammonium-13-5-w-w-sl-| | |
| | 2852750882533.html?pos=1&DualProdscaps) | | |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+
| 5 | Glufosinate concentration in 1 liter (description) | E | 13.5% |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+
| 6 | Likely price increase of end bottle (C X E) | F | 24 |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------+-------+
120. Farmers typically mix approximately 400 ML of the product with 100 liters of water. 400 ML is then
sprayed over an area of 1 acre. The consumption of the product per acre is only 0.04% per liter of
water.
121. It has been contended that there is a demand and supply gap which necessitates imports into India.
From the information on record, it is seen that there exists no demand supply gap in the country. The
domestic industry has sufficient capacity to cater to the entire demand in the country. The domestic
industry is catering to not only the demand in the country but actively exporting the product to
several countries.
L. Post disclosure submissions.
L.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
122. The other interested parties have made the following comments to disclosure statement: -
a. Lier has submitted relevant documentation, including invoices, which substantiate the export
volume of 96 MT. Lier Chemical is unaware of why the DG System data reports 192 MT. It's a
reporting error and requests the Authority to reconsider rejecting their response.
b. Return on capital employed should not be allowed at 22%.
c. There's a significant discrepancy between the data presented in the disclosure statement and the
figures provided by the applicants in both the application and the written submission.
d. Glufosinate is a critical agricultural herbicide, and higher prices resulting from duties would
increase production costs for farmers, negatively impacting food security and agricultural
productivity.
e. The Authority has not addressed the 1992 report by the Panel on Committee on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures on 28 April 1992 - Concerning Wine and Grape Products - United
States wherein it was concluded that wine-grape growers and wineries constitute separate
industries, and therefore, cannot be considered the same industry.
f. The Authority has not provided any reason that when both Glufosinate Technical and
Glufosinate Formulation are not technically as well as commercially substitutable, how can
they be considered as like articles.
g. The Authority has not made any analysis relating to the domestic industry loss of sales due to
availability of viable substitutes in the market.
h. Separate non-injurious price and normal value may be determined to arrive at dumping margin
and injury margin.
i. Injury to the domestic industry is self-inflicted as despite imposition of minimum import price,
the domestic industry is selling the product below the MIP price.
j. UPL is exporting the goods outside India at prices significantly below the MIP. This indicates
that prices have declined post-initiation, and therefore, the prices during the period of
investigation may not be suitable for duty reference.
L.2 Submissions made by the applicants.
123. The applicants have made the following comments to disclosure statement: -
a. The users have claimed a 30% value addition, as it takes into consideration the significantly
high incremental costs. The cost of materials added by the consumer cannot be used to
determine the value addition by that consumer.
b. The dumping and injury margin determined by the Authority for non-cooperative producers is
lower than that of the producer which has participated. Rule 6(8) of the rules requires the
Authority to rely on available information for determining the net export price but does not
prevent considering data from participating producers, even if rejected.
c. In the post period of investigation, there was a significant decline in the import price from
China to various countries. While prices did not decline for the Indian market because of
imposition of minimum import price, export prices from China reached to as low as 6.38 USD
per kg.
d. Given the price reduction by Chinese manufacturers, the applicants request benchmark form
of duty. This benchmark should be based on the landed price of imports during the period of
investigation and the quantum of anti-dumping duty as determined by the Authority.
e. Shorter duration of duty would not allow domestic industry to recover from significant injury
caused by dumped imports.
L.3 Examination by the Authority
124. The Authority has examined the post-disclosure submissions made by the interested parties. It is
observed that the majority of these submissions are reiterations of arguments and contentions that
have already been examined and addressed to the extent deemed necessary in the relevant paragraphs
of these final findings. For the sake of brevity, the Authority has refrained from repeating responses
to such issues in this post-disclosure examination. However, any new issues raised for the first time
in the post-disclosure submissions, as well as those previously addressed but deemed necessary to
examine further are addressed hereunder.
125. With regard to contention raised by the other interested parties that there are discrepancies in the data
presented in the disclosure statement and data provided by the applicants, the Authority notes that no
such discrepancy has been highlighted. Further, the data reported in the disclosure statement is the
verified data.
126. With regard to contention raised by the other interested parties that the loss of the domestic sales is
due to availability of the other substitutable product in the domestic market, the Authority notes that
the import volume of the product under consideration from the subject country has increased while
the domestic sales of the domestic industry have declined. It has already been examined in the
disclosure statement that the demand for the product has increased. Therefore, there is no merit in the
contention made by the other interested parties.
127. With regard to computation of different non-injurious price and normal value for glufosinate
technical and formulation, the Authority notes that these two forms are two separate PCNs within the
PUC. Since the formulation form of the product has not been imported in the POI, it was unnecessary
to determine non injurious price and normal value, even though the domestic industry has provided
all relevant information. It would have been futile to determine the normal value and NIP for
formulation form when there are no imports of this form in the POI. Principles of judicial economy
also demand that the separate non-injurious price and normal value need not be determined for the
product type that has not been imported into India.
128. With regard to submission that imposition of duty would increase the prices of the downstream
product, the Authority notes that exporters have not provided any information on the impact of
proposed anti-dumping duty. Further, the investigation has shown that the impact of imposition of
anti-dumping duty shall be insignificant.
129. As regards the submission on value addition by the applicants, the Authority notes that value
addition is not the sole criteria for considering two forms of product as same. The Authority has
found sufficient justification for inclusion of technical and formulation form as part of the product
under consideration.
Μ. CONCLUSION
130. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided, and submissions made by the
interested parties and facts available before the Authority, as recorded in the above findings, and on
the basis of above analysis of the dumping, injury and causal link to the domestic industry, the
Authority concludes as follows:
a. The product under consideration is Glufosinate and its salts, in both technical and formulation
forms. The scope of the product includes glufosinate technical and glufosinate formulation. All
forms of glufosinate are within the scope of the product under consideration.
b. While the product under consideration is imported in technical form, it is consumed in
formulation form. Conversion of technical to formulation form is merely an incremental
process. Glufosinate technical and Glufosinate formulation are not distinct products, but
simply different forms of the same product.
c. The product supplied by the domestic industry is a like article to the imported product.
d. The applicants constitute ‘domestic industry' within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules.
e. The applicants are the sole producer of technical form of the product.
f. One of the Chinese producers filed questionnaire response and participated in the investigation.
However, it is seen that there is major difference in the exports reported by the participating
Chinese producer and import data reported in DG System. The Authority has therefore not
determined individual dumping margin in respect of participating Chinese producer.
g. Considering the normal value and export price for the subject goods, the dumping margin for
the subject goods from the subject country has been determined. It is seen that dumping
margin is significantly positive. It is thus established that the imports of the product under
consideration have entered the Indian market at significantly dumped prices.
h. The total imports have shot up from 590 MT in the base year to 1296 MT in the period of
investigation. The imports in past were for export purpose.
i. The imports for consumption in the domestic market started in 2022-23 and increased sharply
in the period of investigation.
j. Import price of the product declined steeply over the injury period. As the import price
declined significantly, the volume of imports significantly increased and in a short duration.
k. The import price of glufosinate technical is materially below the cost of sales of technical form
produced by the domestic industry.
1. Dumped imports have forced the domestic industry to shut down their production. Plant of the
domestic industry were shut down for the period October to December during the period of
investigation.
m. Production, capacity utilization, and domestic sales of the domestic industry declined
significantly, with sharp increase in import volumes.
n. The domestic sales of the applicant have declined by 48% in the period of investigation.
0. The availability of technical form at lower prices has adversely impacted the domestic
industry's domestic sales of formulation and resulted in decline in production and capacity
utilization of technical form of the product.
p. With the increase in low-priced imports from China, there is a steep decline in profits, cash
profits, and return on investment of the domestic industry.
q. Domestic industry has recorded negative growth in volume and price parameters in the period
of investigation, with significant imports in this period.
r. Imports from China are causing threat of material injury, considering significant difference in
the domestic price & imported price, significant unutilized production capacities in China,
significant surge in imports in a relatively short period, and imports at a price materially below
the cost structures in India.
S. The investigation has not shown any other factor which could have caused injury to the
domestic industry.
t. Despite the issuance of an economic interest questionnaire, consumers of the product have not
provided any quantification of how imposition of proposed anti-dumping duty would
adversely impact the downstream industry and public at large.
u. The domestic industry quantified impact of proposed duty and demonstrated that the
imposition of anti-dumping duty would have an insignificant impact on end consumer and
public at large.
V. Given the nature of the product, industry and the extent of the injury caused by dumped
imports, the Authority considers the imposition of anti-dumping duty for a period of five (5)
years necessary and appropriate.
Ν. RECOMMENDATIONS
131. The Authority notes that investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate
opportunity was given to the domestic industry, exporters, importers, and other interested parties to
provide positive information on the aspect of dumping, injury, causal link, and impact of
recommended measures. Having initiated and conducted the investigation into dumping, injury, and
casual link in terms of provisions laid down under the anti-dumping rules, the Authority is in view
that imposition of anti-dumping duty is required to offset dumping and injury. The Authority
considers it necessary and recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods
from the subject country.
132. Having regards to the lesser duty rule followed, the Authority recommends imposition of
antidumping duty equal to the lesser of the margin of dumping and the margin of injury so as to
remove the injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority recommends imposition of
anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject
country for a period of five years (5) from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the
Central Government, equal to the amount mentioned in Col. 7 of the duty table appended below:
+-----+------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+------------+---------------------+----------+-----------+
| S. No.| Heading/sub-heading* | Description of goods | Country of origin| Country of Export| Producer | Amount | Unit of measurement | Currency|
+-----+------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+----------+-----------+
| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
+=====+================================================+==========================+=================+=================+============+=================+=====================+==========+===========+
| 1 | 38089190, 38089390 and 38089990 | Glufosinate and its salt | China PR | Any Country | Any Producer| 2998 | MT | USD |
| | | | | including China PR| | | | | |
+-----+------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+----------+-----------+
| 2. | -do- | -do- | Any Country | China PR | Any Producer| 2998 | MT | USD |
| | | | other than China| | | | | | |
| | | | PR | | | | | | |
+-----+------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+----------+-----------+
*The Customs classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the product under
consideration.
133. The landed value of imports for this purpose shall be the assessable value as determined by the
customs under Customs Tariff Act, 1962 and applicable custom duties, except duties levied under
Section 3, 3A, 8B, 9, 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Ο. FURTHER PROCEDURE
134. An appeal against the determination of the Designated Authority that may arise out of these final
findings shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with
the relevant provisions of the Act.
DARPAN JAIN, Designated Authority