Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 52] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2025/MAGH 23, 1946
CG-DL-E-14022025-261015
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the12th February, 2025
Case No. AD (OI)-03/2024
Subject: Final findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Titanium dioxide”
originating in or exported from China PR.
F. No. 6/03/2024 -DGTR.–– Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from
time to time (hereafter also referred to as the “Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and
Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995
thereof, as amended from time to time (hereafter also referred to as the “Rules”).
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Whereas, Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., and VV Titanium Pigments
Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “applicants” or the “domestic industry” or the “DI”) have filed an
application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”), on behalf of the
domestic industry, in accordance with the Act and the Rules for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation
concerning imports of “Titanium Dioxide” (hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods” or “product under
consideration” or the “PUC”) originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the
“subject country”) and has requested for imposition of anti-dumping duty.
2. And whereas, the Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima-facie evidence submitted by the applicants,
issued a public notice vide notification no. 6/03/2024-DGTR dated 28th March 2024, published in the Part-I
Section-I of Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating the anti-dumping investigation in accordance with
Section 9A of the Customs Tariff 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 said 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 industry.
B. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described herein 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
application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the
Rules.
b. The Authority issued a notification dated 28th March 2024, published in Part-I Section-I of Gazette
of India, Extraordinary, initiating an investigation concerning the imports of the subject goods
from the subject country.
c. In accordance with Rule 6(2), the Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the embassy
of the subject country in India and known producers and exporters from the subject country, the
known importers/users of the subject goods and other interested parties, as per the information
provided by the applicants. The interested parties were requested to provide relevant
information in the form and manner prescribed in the initiation notification and to make their
submissions known in writing within the time limit prescribed by the initiation notification.
d. The Authority also provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters and to the embassy of the subject country in India, in accordance with Rule
6(3) of the Rules. A copy of the non-confidential version of the application was circulated to the
other interested parties.
e. The embassy of the subject country in India was also requested to advise the producers / exporters
in their country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the
letter and questionnaire sent to the producers / exporters was also sent to them along with the
names and addresses of the known producers/exporters from the subject country.
f. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the scope of the
PUC and propose product control numbers (PCNs), if required, within a period of 15 days from
the date of the circulation of the non-confidential application.
g. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the issues of
confidentiality claimed by the domestic industry within 7 days of the circulation of the non-
confidential version of the document filed before the Authority.
h. The Authority also issued an economic interest questionnaire (hereafter referred to as ‘EIQ’) to the
interested parties seeking inputs on the economic impact of the proposed duties.
i. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/ exporters in the subject
country calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
i. Lomon Billions Group (China)
ii. CNNC Hua Yuan Titanium Dioxide Co. Ltd (China)
iii. Shandong Doguide Group Co. Ltd (China)
iv. Jinan Yuxing Chemical Co. Ltd (China)
v. Shandong Dawn Group Co. Ltd (China)
vi. Jilin GPRO Titanium Industry Co. Ltd (China)
vii. Ningbo Xinfu Titanium Dioxide Co. Ltd (China)
viii. Pangang Group Titanium Resources Co. Ltd (China)
ix. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co. Ltd (China)
x. Panzhihua Dongfang Titanium Industry Co. Ltd (China)
xi. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Co. Ltd (China)
xii. Guangxi Jinmao Titanium Co. Ltd (China)
xiii. Shanghai Yuejiang Titanium Chemical Manufacturer Co. Ltd (China)
xiv. Jiangsu GPRO Group (China)
xv. Shandong Jinhai (Lubei) (China)
xvi. China National Blue Star Group Co. (China)
xvii. Panzhihua Taihai (China)
xviii. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co. Ltd (China)
xix. Panzhihua Haifengxin Chem. Co. Ltd (China)
xx. Cangwu Shunfeng Titanium Dioxide Co. Ltd (China)
xxi. Chemours Chenguang (China)
xxii. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Co. Ltd (China)
xxiii. Guangxi Jinmao (China)
xxiv. Guang Dong Hui Yun Titanium Industry (China)
xxv. Jiangsu Taibai Group Co. Ltd (China)
xxvi. Tianyuan Group (China)
xxvii. Yunnan Dahutong (China)
xxviii. Panzhihua Xingzhong (China)
j. In response to the above notification, the following producers/exporters of the product under
consideration from subject country have registered as an interested party.
i. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd.
ii. Lb Group Co., Ltd.
iii. Lb Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
iv. Lb Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
v. Lb Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
vi. Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited
vii. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd.
viii. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
ix. Yibin Tianyuan Haifeng Hetai Co., Ltd
x. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., Ltd
xi. Efon (Hongkong) Company Limited
xii. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.
xiii. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
xiv. Chongqing Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. of Pangang Group
xv. Pangang Group Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xvi. Pangang Group Chengdu Vanadium & Titanium Resources Development Co., Ltd.
xvii. Pangang Group Chongqing Vanadium & Titanium Technology Co., Ltd.
xviii. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Products Co Ltd ( A Tronox Company)
xix. Kunming Donghao Titanium Co., Ltd.
xx. Inter-China Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxi. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xxii. Shandong Doguide Group Co., Ltd.
xxiii. Qianjiang Fangyuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xxiv. Jinan Yuxing Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxv. Ningbo Xinfu Titanium Dioxide Co., Ltd.
xxvi. Ningbo Xinfu Chemical Marketing Co., Ltd.
xxvii. Shandong Dawn Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
k. In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, following producers/exporters
from the subject country have responded by filing questionnaire response:
i. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd.
ii. Lb Group Co., Ltd.
iii. Lb Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
iv. Lb Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
v. Lb Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
vi. Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited
vii. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd.
viii. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
ix. Yibin Tianyuan Haifeng Hetai Co., Ltd
x. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., Ltd
xi. Efon (Hongkong) Company Limited
xii. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.
xiii. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
xiv. Chongqing Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. of Pangang Group
xv. Pangang Group Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xvi. Pangang Group Chengdu Vanadium & Titanium Resources Development Co., Ltd.
xvii. Pangang Group Chongqing Vanadium & Titanium Technology Co., Ltd.
xviii. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Products Co Ltd ( A Tronox Company)
xix. Kunming Donghao Titanium Co., Ltd.
xx. Inter-China Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxi. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xxii. Shandong Doguide Group Co., Ltd.
xxiii. Qianjiang Fangyuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xxiv. Jinan Yuxing Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxv. Ningbo Xinfu Titanium Dioxide Co., Ltd.
xxvi. Ningbo Xinfu Chemical Marketing Co., Ltd.
xxvii. Shandong Dawn Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
l. The Authority sent questionnaire to the following known importers / users of the subject goods in
India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
i. Asian Paints India Ltd
ii. JCT Limited
iii. Berger Paints Ltd
iv. Schulman Plastics India Ltd
v. Berger Becker Coatings Pvt Ltd
vi. Hanson Paints
vii. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd
viii. Kamdhenu Paints
ix. Akzo Nobel
x. UFlex Limited
xi. Jotun India Pvt Ltd
xii. Apollo Piping Systems
xiii. Indigo Paints
xiv. Yansefu Inks and Coatings Pvt Ltd
xv. Clariant Chemicals
xvi. Mundra Masterbatches
xvii. SCJ Plastics
xviii. Paramount Powders
xix. Aashirvaad Pipes
xx. Bhavin Industries
xxi. Hi-Tech Inks Pvt Ltd
m. The following importer/user have registered themselves as interested parties:
i. Kemco Corporation
ii. Sandeep Organics Pvt. Ltd.
iii. Soltex Petroproducts Ltd
iv. Shri Ambica Polyfill
v. Merit Polymers Pvt Ltd
vi. Plastek Innovations Pvt Ltd
vii. Polyworld
viii. K T Quality Control Pvt Ltd
ix. Kandui Industries India Pvt. Ltd.
n. The following importers and users have submitted questionnaire responses to the Authority:
i. Kemco Corporation
ii. Nippon Paint India Private Limited through Indian Paint Association
o. The following importer/user has not registered themselves as interested party but made written
submissions during the course of the investigation:
i. Classic Solvents
p. The following user associations have registered themselves as interested parties:
i. Indian Paint Association (IPA)
ii. All India Plastics Manufacturers, Association (AIPMA)
iii. The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM)
iv. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI)
q. The following producer/exporter association from China PR has registered themselves as an
interested party and made written submissions
i. China National Coatings Industry Association (CNCIA)
r. The following user associations have made written submissions during the course of the
investigation:
i. Indian Paint Association (IPA)
ii. All India Plastics Manufacturers, Association (AIPMA)
iii. The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM)
iv. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI)
s. The following user association has not registered themselves as interested party but made written
submissions during the course of the investigation:
i. Indian Paint and Coating Association (IPCA)
t. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st October 2022 to
30th September 2023 (12 months). The injury investigation period covers the periods 1st April
2020 – 31st March 2021, 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022, 1st April 2022 – 31st March 2023 and
the period of investigation.
u. The DG System was requested to provide transaction-wise details of the imports of the subject
goods for the injury period and the period of investigation. The same was received by the
Authority and considered at the stage of initiation of the investigation as well as for the final
findings.
v. Interested parties were provided 15 days’ time from the date of circulation of non-confidential
version of application, to file their comments on the scope of PUC and PCN methodology
which ended on 6th May, 2024 post an extension granted by the Authority upon the request of an
interested party. Comments and submissions were received from certain interested parties,
which were duly examined by the Authority.
w. The Authority held a discussion on 3rd June 2024 with all the interested parties to discuss the
product under consideration and the proposed product control numbers(PCNs). After receiving
inputs from the interested parties, the Authority vide notification dated 16th July 2024 finalized
the scope of the PUC and PCN methodology. The Authority granted 30 days’ time to interested
parties from 16th July, 2024 to file questionnaire responses.
x. In view of large number of producers and exporters/traders who responded in the investigation, the
Authority, pursuant to Rule 17(3) of the AD Rules and after examining the comments of
interested parties, selected the following three (3) producers along with their associated
exporters for determination of dumping margin, on the basis of the largest percentage of the
volume of the exports to India from China PR during the investigation period, which is listed
below:
a. LB Group comprising of following producers/ exporters - Henan Billions Advanced
Material Co., Ltd., LB Group Co., Ltd., LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., LB
Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd, LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd , Billions
(Hong Kong) Corporation Limited and Billions Europe Ltd, UK
b. Gold Star Group comprising of producer/exporter- Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide
(Group) Co., Ltd and Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
c. Shandong Group comprising of producer/exporter- Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.
and Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
y. The Authority determined the dumping margin for non-sampled cooperating producers/ exporters
from China PR on the basis of dumping margin of the sampled producers from China PR, and in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules.
z. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested
parties for presenting their views orally regarding the subject investigation through a public
hearing held on 29th October, 2024. The interested parties who presented their views in the oral
hearing, were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by
rejoinder submissions, if any. The interested parties were further directed to share the non-
confidential version of the written submissions with the other interested parties.
aa. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIP’) has been determined based on the cost
of production and reasonable return on capital employed for the subject goods in India, based on
the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules, 1995 so as to ascertain
whether anti-dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove
injury to the domestic industry.
bb. The information submitted by the domestic industry has been examined and verified during on-site
verification to the extent deemed necessary and has been relied upon for the present findings.
cc. The examination and verification of the information submitted by the cooperating
producers/exporters from the subject country was also carried out to the extent deemed
necessary and have been relied upon for the purpose of the present findings.
dd. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various
interested parties on mutual basis in the manner prescribed through Trade Notice no. 01/2020
dated 10th April 2020. The information/submissions provided by the interested parties on a
confidential basis were examined concerning the sufficiency of such confidentiality claims.
ee. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the
interested parties, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to
the present investigation.
ff. Wherever an interested party has refused access to, or has otherwise not provided necessary
information during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the
investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the
final findings on the basis of the facts available.
gg. ‘***’ in these final findings represent information furnished by an interested party on confidential
basis and so considered by the Authority under Rule 7 of AD Rules, 1995.
hh. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = Rs. 83.21.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
4. The product under consideration (hereinafter also referred to as the “PUC” or the “subject good”) as
defined at the stage of initiation was as follows:
“
3. The product under consideration in the present application is “Titanium Dioxide, excluding
food, pharma, skin-care, textile and fibre application and nano or ultrafine titanium dioxide
having particle size below 100 nm”
Specific Exclusions from the scope of the product
4. Specifically excluded from the scope of product under consideration are titanium dioxide
meant for following applications or specification:
i. food
ii. pharma
iii. skin-care
iv. textile
v. fibre application
vi. Nano or ultrafine titanium dioxide having particle size below 100 nm
General Properties of the product
5. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is a white inorganic compound extracted mainly from mineral ores
and is used in a vast number of diverse products. The principal natural source of TiO2 is
mined Ilmenite ore which contain 30 – 60% TiO2. Pure TiO2 is produced from Ilmenite ore
either using chloride or sulphate process.
6. The subject good in the present investigation i.e. TiO2 are pigments. Titanium dioxide can be
broadly classified into Pigmentary TiO2 and Nano/Ultrafine TiO2, based on its particle size.
Pigmentary titanium dioxide is approximately 200 – 350 nm in dimension which forms 98 % of
the total production and is used mainly for its high refractive index and consequent scattering
of visible light and high opacity. In other words, 98% of the global production of titanium
dioxide is used as a pigment.
Grades of Titanium Dioxide-Rutile and Anatase Grades
7. The petitioners/applicants are manufacturing rutile and anatase grades of titanium dioxide
which are two forms of titanium dioxide depending on their crystal structure.
8. Rutile is a mineral composed primarily of titanium dioxide. Rutile is produced from ilmenite,
which is a mixture of titanium, ferrous iron and ferric iron. Rutile is the most common natural
form of TiO2. Rutile has among the highest refractive indices of any known mineral and
exhibits high dispersion. Natural rutile may contain up to 10% iron and significant amounts of
niobium and tantalum.
9. Anatase grade of TiO2 is produced from ilmenite, which is a mixture of titanium, ferrous iron
and ferric iron. It has a very high degree of whiteness. Titanium in ilmenite is extracted by
reacting this raw material with sulphuric acid. Titanium goes into the solution as titanium oxy
sulphate. Titanium dioxide anatase is obtained from titanium oxy sulphate by injecting live
steam and dewatering the treated pulp.
Uses
10. Titanium dioxide is the brightest and whitest of the known pigments and is the most sought
white pigment in applications such as paints & coatings, plastics, papers, rubbers and inks on
account of its high refractive index and UV resistance. The high refractive index imparts high
whiteness and hiding power (opacity) to the end products. TiO2 pigment also finds application
as energy saver as it reduces need of air conditioning because of light reflecting qualities when
used in paint coatings on the outside of buildings in warm climates.
Tariff Classification
11. The product under consideration can be classified under Chapter 28 and 32 of the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975. The dedicated code for the product under Chapter 28 is 28230010. However,
since it is a pigment, imports are also being reported under 32061110 and 32061190.
However, it is possible that the subject goods may be imported under other heading and
therefore, the customs classifications are indicative only and not binding on the scope of the
present investigation.”
5. The domestic industry initially proposed the PCN methodology based on the crystalline structure i.e.,
Anatase and Rutile only.
6. Various comments on the scope of the PUC and the PCN methodology were received from the interested
parties. A meeting to discuss the same was held on 3rd June 2024. The following are the comments received
from interested parties with regards to scope of PUC, and PCN methodology.
C.1. Submissions by other interested parties
7. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the scope of the product
under consideration and like article:
i. PCN wise assessment is crucial in the investigation to ensure a fair comparison due to differences in
physical and chemical characteristics, usage, pricing, and production cost of various grades and types
of titanium dioxide (TiO2). PCN classification based on production process and crystalline structure:
Anatase-Sulphate (A-S), Rutile-Sulphate (R-S), and Rutile-Chloride (R-C) has been proposed by
many interested parties.
ii. TiO2 exists in two crystalline forms: Rutile and Anatase. Rutile has a higher refractive index, greater
chemical stability, and improved durability due to its more compact and symmetrical crystal lattice.
Anatase has a lower refractive index, reduced stability, and a less dense, irregular crystal structure.
These differences influence their distinct applications and properties.
iii. TiO2 is produced through the chloride or sulphate route, significantly impacting its properties and
grades. The chloride process produces high-purity TiO2 suitable for high-quality applications like
paints and coatings for automobiles and architecture but is more expensive. The sulphate process
produces lower-purity TiO2, which is cost-effective for applications in paper, plastics, and rubber.
Anatase pigment is typically produced via the sulphate process, while rutile pigment can be produced
via both chloride and sulphate processes.
iv. There is more than a 20% price difference between sulphate-anatase and sulphate-rutile and more
than a 40% price difference between sulphate-anatase and chloride-rutile.
v. Exclusion of “rutile-grade TiO2 manufactured through the sulphate route” from the PUC is requested
since none of the applicants produce this specific grade. Additionally, exclusion of “rutile-grade
TiO2 produced through the chloride process” from the scope of PUC due to significant differences in
technical parameters, production costs, end-use, and pricing has been requested.
vi. Combining anatase and rutile grades of TiO2 in the scope of PUC would be flawed. They are distinct
in their production process, physical, technical, and chemical properties, as well as end uses. These
grades are also classified under different tariff headings.
vii. It has been stated that the domestic industry itself has acknowledged that anatase and rutile grades
differ significantly in properties such as purity, refractive index, specific gravity, hardness, and
crystal structure, among others. Additionally, they cannot be interchangeably used due to differences
in production technology and application.
viii. Most Chinese producers manufacture rutile-grade TiO2 through the sulphate process, while Kerala
Minerals and Metals Limited produces Rutile-grade TiO2 using the chloride process. Travancore
Titanium Products Limited and VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd produce anatase-grade TiO2 via the
sulphate process. None of the domestic producers manufacture rutile-grade TiO2 through the
sulphate process. Therefore, the rutile grade manufactured through the sulphate process should be
excluded from the PUC.
ix. It has been submitted that the domestic industry has defined pigmentary TiO2 as having a particle
size range of 200-350nm. Products with particle sizes below 200nm and above 350nm should be
excluded from the investigation as they fall outside the defined scope of pigmentary TiO2.
x. Indian Paint Association (IPA) has contended that the scope of the PUC defined in the initiation
notification is overly broad, encompassing grades that are neither produced nor supplied
domestically by the domestic industry. These grades, with distinct technical and commercial
properties, should be excluded as they do not meet the definition of “like product” or “like article”
under relevant anti-dumping rules. IPA argues that parameters like consumer perception, physical
and chemical properties, usage, and application differences establish non-substitutability.
xi. The bright and bluish undertone rutile grade is distinguished by its superior physical properties,
including higher brightness, enhanced UV resistance, and better overall performance compared to the
domestic industry’s product. These properties make it a preferred choice for end consumers,
particularly in applications demanding high-quality finishes and durability.
xii. Performance grades BLR 895 or LR 961 are widely used in industrial and decorative paints due to
their ability to deliver exceptional finish, high gloss, superior durability, and a high distinctness of
image (DOI). The domestic industry’s grades, however, fall short in these critical aspects. Industrial
and decorative paint manufacturers have consistently rejected the domestic industry’s grades, citing
their inability to meet the performance standards required for high-end applications.
xiii. Sulphate grades BLR 698 or BLR 601 excel in providing higher coverage, better finish quality, and a
visually appealing bright white appearance. On the other hand, the domestic industry’s grades, which
are manufactured through the chloride process, often exhibit lower coverage, inferior finish, and a
yellowish tint. These deficiencies make the domestic industry’s products unsuitable for users seeking
precise and consistent outcomes in high-end applications.
xiv. Further, for industrial paints, the domestic industry’s products often require additional sand milling,
reducing capacity and throughput. For decorative usage, similar issues are observed. Imported grades
do not require sand milling, making them significantly more cost-effective and economically
advantageous compared to the domestic industry’s product.
xv. IPA further contends that the domestic industry uses the chloride process to manufacture the PUC,
whereas imported grades are manufactured using the sulphate process, resulting in chemical
differences between the two. Therefore, grades not manufactured by the domestic industry should be
excluded from the scope of the PUC as the domestic industry cannot suffer material injury for such
grades during the POI, and they are not like articles to the imported grades.
xvi. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI) and Associated Chambers of Commerce and
Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) sought some clarifications regarding the exclusion of TiO2 used in
the fibre and textile.
xvii. PHDCCI has contended that the paper and paperboard industry consume approximately 6,000 MT of
rutile TiO2 annually for the production of décor paper, which is primarily used in laminates for
furniture and housing. TiO2 is essential for achieving desired opacity, whiteness, and brightness in
décor paper due to its high refractive index, effective light scattering, and UV absorption properties.
The sulphate process rutile TiO2, being more economical, is the variant predominantly used by the
décor paper industry.
xviii. TiO2 is applied at the pulp or fibre stage of paper manufacturing for décor paper, and not post-
manufacturing. The domestic industry’s TiO2 does not meet the specific requirements of the décor
paper industry. Further, there have been no sales of TiO2 by the domestic industry to the décor paper
industry, further confirming the unsuitability of their product for this application. Therefore, TiO2
used in the pulp or fibre stage for manufacturing décor paper must be excluded from the scope of
PUC.
xix. ASSOCHAM has submitted that TiO2 anatase grade for making paper other than décor paper (used
at fibre/pulp stage) must be excluded from the scope of PUC.
xx. TiO2 used in plastic and PVC application may be excluded from the scope of PUC.
xxi. TiO2 by rutile chloride process requires higher-grade raw materials such as superior TiO2 ore, which
is more expensive and scarcer as compared to TiO2 by Rutile sulphate process which requires
Ilmenite ore which lowers raw material costs due to being found in abundance and is less expensive.
Additionally, rutile produced through chloride process requires specialized corrosive-resistant
equipment for handling chemicals such as chlorine and titanium tetrachloride, increasing production
costs and complexity while in Rutile sulphate process, simpler equipment is used and there are fewer
safety requirements.
xxii. TiO2 with varying particle sizes has different cost patterns, with finer particle sizes requiring more
complex production processes and resulting in higher costs.
xxiii. KMML’s Rutile chloride- RC 822, with a TiO2 content of 91.5%, is lower in quality compared to
imported grades with a higher TiO2 content.
C.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
8. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article:
i. Exclusion of rutile grade as a whole cannot be accepted as the majority of domestic production and
imports are of rutile grade, and KMML exclusively produces rutile-grade TiO2.
ii. The domestic industry has submitted that Anatase grade of TiO2 is produced domestically by the
domestic industry. Further, with respect to exclusion of rutile TiO2 through sulphate process, the
domestic industry has submitted that the production process does not result in a distinct product.
Furthermore, there is no significant difference in price or interchangeability between products made
by the sulphate and chloride processes. Comparison between imported and domestically produced
Rutile through Chloride reveals that the performance of the Rutile through Chloride of the domestic
industry is highly comparable to the imported.
iii. Exclusions based solely on differences in production processes have not been accepted by
Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) unless they result in different products.
iv. The domestic industry also opposes the respondent’s contention of exclusion of TiO2 with particle
sizes below 200nm and above 350nm, stating that these sizes are being produced and supplied
domestically. The interested parties have not provided any valid justification for restricting these
particle sizes.
v. The contention regarding bright and bluish undertone rutile TiO2 by Indian Paint Association (IPA)
is similarly contested by the domestic industry on the grounds that no distinctively different product
has been demonstrated, and the parameters referred to by respondents are not substantiated with data.
The BIS for Rutile TiO2 does not state characteristics such as ‘bright’ or ‘blue’ or ‘bright and bluish’
undertones. The undertone of a TiO2 product is inherently subjective and does not have measurable
characteristics. No two TiO2 producers can offer exact uniformity in terms of brightness and
undertone. Further, the domestic industry does offer products with bright and bluish undertones,
which can be assessed through the Carbon Black Undertone (CBU) value range. Additionally, the
opacity, brightness, and gloss values of the domestic industry’s products are comparable, or in some
cases, superior to those of imported products.
vi. The domestic industry opposes the exclusion of performance-grade TiO2, such as BLR 895 or LR
961 as BLR895 grade is not analogous to DI’s RC822, but is highly comparable to DI’s RC808 in
compositional, surface coating, and performance attributes. DI’s RC822 and RC822+ are comparable
to imported BLR 896 and BLR896+ respectively while RC800 is the R-C domestic industry grade
that is comparable to imported LR961. R-C by domestic industry has comparable physical and
performance attributes including pH, opacity, gloss, durability etc, to imported R-C and satisfies the
requirement of specific end uses such as decorative and industrial applications. Below specified are
the R-C grades offered by domestic industry that are comparable to R-C imported grades mentioned
by the other interested party in their submission:
+---------------+---------------------+
| R-C Imported | Comparable R-C by DI|
+---------------+---------------------+
| BLR 895 | RC 808 |
| BLR 896 | RC 822 |
| BLR 896+ | RC 822+ |
| LR 961 | RC 800 |
+---------------+---------------------+
vii. With respect to exclusion of sulphate grades, such as BLR 698 or R 868 or BLR 601/ R 216, the
domestic industry submits that they cannot be excluded on the basis of grade name of a specific
producer as they are only names but not International Standards to be adhered to.
viii. The domestic industry also submits that the sand milling process is necessary for both imported
products and domestic products because it is an essential step in mixing raw materials for paint
production. This process is required to ensure uniformity and proper dispersion of the product in
industrial applications. Additional sand milling is required only when agglomeration levels of TiO2
are higher, whereas grade produced by the domestic industry offers high levels of dispersion and low
agglomeration. The coverage of the domestic industry’s rutile through chloride process is not inferior
to that of imports, as evidenced by the scattering ability, high rutile percentage, and superior tint
strength values.
ix. In response to PHDCCI and ASSOCHAM, the domestic industry submits that TiO2 used for making
textiles (used at fibre/pulp stage), TiO2 rutile grade used for making décor paper (used at fibre/pulp
stage), and TiO2 used for making food can be excluded from the scope of PUC, as these products are
not used as pigments. Additionally, TiO2 used for making skin care, pharmaceutical applications,
and nano or ultrafine TiO2 with particle sizes below 100nm can be excluded from the scope of PUC
as the domestic industry does not produce these articles.
x. However, the domestic industry objects to ASSOCHAM’S contention of excluding TiO2 anatase
grade used for making paper other than décor paper (used at fibre/pulp stage) on the ground that
domestic industry is producing and selling this product.
xi. Further, the domestic industry submits that PVC application should also be considered as plastic
application, as PVC is a type of plastic in this sense. TiO2 is used in making of masterbatches which
are used in the plastic industry to add colour to plastic.
xii. Plastic industry constitutes around 25% of the demand of TiO2 in India and domestic industry
manufactures grades consumed by the plastic industry. The application, being a major consumption
for TiO2, is catered by the DI. Therefore, PVC application must be included in the scope of PUC.
xiii. The exclusion of rutile through sulphate based solely on differences in production processes is
unjustified, as variations in methods do not inherently create a fundamentally different product. Both
rutile through sulphate and rutile through chloride share interchangeable uses and exhibit only the
characteristics of the rutile crystal. Consumers often purchase both types, underscoring their
functional equivalence. Additionally, the cost of production for both processes is comparable, despite
differences in raw materials. Notably, one of the applicants, TTPL, has the necessary technology and
setup to produce rutile through sulphate route and actively manufactures rutile Tio2 using this
process.
C.3. Examination by the Authority
9. After examining the transaction wise import data called from DG System and submissions of the interested
parties, the Authority observes a significant difference in the import prices and cost of production of Rutile
Chloride (R-C) and Rutile Sulphate (R-S). Accordingly, the Authority deems it necessary to establish
separate PCNs for fair comparison of both products for the purpose of this investigation.
10. The Authority considers as follows with regard to exclusion requests made and concerns expressed by the
interested parties:
a. Rutile through sulphate TiO2 should be excluded- With respect to submissions alleging that the
domestic industry does not produce rutile through sulphate process, the Authority notes that the
Indian industry produces rutile grade through sulphate process as well as chloride process. Further,
it is noted that TTPL, has the necessary technology and setup to produce rutile through sulphate
route and has manufactured and sold rutile Tio2 produced using sulphate process during POI.
Therefore, the Authority disagrees with the exclusion sought for this product type.
b. TiO2 with particle sizes below 200 nm and above 350 nm- The interested parties have argued that
TiO2 with particles size below 200 nm and above 350 nm should be excluded. It is noted that
subject goods below particle size 100 nm is already exempted from the scope of product under
consideration. Further, information on record shows that all the grades of TiO2 with particles size
above 100nm is being produced and sold by the applicants. Thus, the Authority holds that the
product scope excludes only particle size below 100 nm.
c. TiO2 rutile with bright and bluish undertone, Performance Grade TiO2 (BLR 895 or LR 961) and
Sulphate Grades (BLR 698/R 868 or BLR 601/R 216) - The interested parties have requested that
certain grades, including TiO2 Rutile grade with a bright and bluish undertone, performance
grades, and specific sulphate grades, be excluded. However, the authority notes that these requests
are not supported by credible scientific data showing differences in physical or chemical
characteristics or end uses compared to the domestic products. The domestic industry has asserted
that it provides comparable products and contends that exclusions should not be based solely on
grade names created by individual producers. These grade names are specific to the producers and
do not align with international standards. Since consumers use these products interchangeably,
there is no evidence to justify the exclusion of these product types.
d. TiO2 anatase grade for making paper other than décor (used at fibre/pulp stage)- The interested
party has requested that anatase grade for making paper be excluded from the scope of the product
under consideration. The domestic industry has submitted that the domestic industry produces and
has sold material to consumers for production of papers (other than décor paper). Since the
domestic industry produces this product, the Authority disagrees with this exclusion request.
e. TiO2 for certain applications- Rutile grade for making décor paper and TiO2 used in the production
of textiles, food- The interested parties have requested that TiO2 used in the production of textiles
and food, and rutile grade used for producing décor paper may be excluded from the scope of
product under consideration. The domestic industry has agreed with such request for exclusion as
TiO2 in these applications is not used as a pigment. The Authority excludes TiO2 for these
applications.
f. Nano or ultrafine- The domestic industry and interested parties have agreed with exclusion of nano
or ultrafine as the domestic industry does not produce this article and the demand for this product is
low. The Authority accordingly excludes this product type from the scope of product under
consideration.
g. TiO2 for skin care and pharmaceutical applications- The interested parties have requested that
TiO2 used for skin care and pharmaceutical applications may be excluded from the scope of
product under consideration. The domestic industry has agreed with such request for exclusion as
TiO2 for these applications is not being produced by the domestic industry. The scope of product
under consideration thus excludes TiO2 for skin care and pharmaceutical applications.
11. In view of the above, the Authority holds the product under consideration and product control
numbers(PCNs) as below:
“
12. The product under consideration in the present application is “Titanium Dioxide, excluding
food, pharma, skin-care, textile and fibre application and nano or ultrafine titanium dioxide
having particle size below 100 nm”
Specific Exclusions from the scope of the product
13. Specifically excluded from the scope of product under consideration are titanium dioxide
meant for following applications or specification:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| S. No.| Product | Description of the excluded product and details |
| | excluded | |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Food | TiO2 used in food additives like food colouring |
| 2 | Pharma | TiO2 used as ingredient in tablet film coatings |
| 3 | Skin-care | TiO2 is used in cosmetics and sunscreen lotions for UV-absorbing and photocatalyst applications |
| 4 | Textile | TiO2 used in production of textile/fibre. TiO2 which is used in the production of textiles and fibres largely because of its photo-catalytic self-cleaning, UV-protection and delustering abilities, etc. is excluded from the scope of product under consideration. However, such exclusion does not extend to the TiO2 that is used as a pigment for printing over the textile/garment/cloth/fabric. |
| 5 | Fibre | TiO2 is used for delustering the artificial fibre and this fibre is used to product the textiles. Fibre grade materials are used to blend with fibre threads to make the cloth itself. TiO2 Rutile grade for making décor paper (used at fibre/pulp stage). |
| 6 | Nano or ultrafine | Nano or ultrafine titanium dioxide having particle size below 100 nm used in textile/paint industry to offer characteristics such as dust free textile/paint. |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
PCN Methodology
+-------------------+-----------+
| PCN | PCN Code |
+-------------------+-----------+
| Rutile -Chloride | R-C |
| Rutile- Sulphate | R-S |
| Anatase-Sulphate | A-S |
+-------------------+-----------+
12. The Authority notes that the product produced by the applicants and the product under consideration
imported from the subject country is comparable in terms of physical and chemical characteristics,
functions and uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution and marketing, and tariff classification of
the goods. The Authority holds that the subject goods produced by the applicants’ is like article to the
product under consideration imported from the subject country within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d)
of the Anti-dumping Rules.
D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1. Submissions by other interested parties
13. No submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to the scope of domestic industry
and its standing.
D.2. Submissions by domestic industry
14. The applicants have made the following submissions with regard to the scope of domestic industry and
standing:
i. The application has been filed by M/s. Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd, M/s. Travancore Titanium
Products Ltd and M/s. VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd.
ii. The applicants comprise of all the producers in India involved in the manufacturing of the PUC.
Applicants have neither imported nor are related to any importer or exporter of subject goods.
iii. The applicants constitute a ‘major proportion’ of the total Indian production and satisfies the
requirements of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules.
D.3. Examination by the Authority
15. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules defines the domestic industry as under:
"(b) "domestic industry " means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the
like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such
producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves
importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry ' must be construed as referring to the
rest of the producers"
16. The present application has been filed by M/s Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd, M/s Travancore Titanium
Products Ltd and M/s VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd. The applicants are the only producers of subject
goods in the POI in the country. There are no other domestic producers of subject goods.
17. The applicants have not imported the subject goods and are not related to either an importer or exporter of
subject goods from subject country. Information on record shows that the applicants account for 100% of
Indian production in the POI. The application thus, satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of
the Rules. Therefore, the Authority holds the applicants/petitioners as the eligible domestic industry.
Further, the applicants constitute the domestic industry.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1. Submissions by other interested parties
18. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties with respect to confidentiality:
i. The domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality, violating Rule 7 of the AD Rules and
Trade Notices 1/2013 dated 9th December, 2013 and 10/2018 dated 7th September, 2018. The non-
confidential version of the petition fails to provide a reasonable understanding of the allegations and
does not meet the prescribed standards for disclosure.
ii. Rule 7 mandates that non-confidential summaries of confidential data must be provided, with a good
cause statement for claims of confidentiality. The domestic industry has failed to justify its claims or
provide meaningful non-confidential summaries. Significant data, including costing information and
injury indicators, have either been completely withheld or provided in trends rather than actual
figures, making it impossible for interested parties to analyse and respond effectively.
iii. Trade Notice 10/2018 specifies disclosure requirements for multiple producer petitioners, which the
domestic industry has not adhered to. Key data points such as sales quantity, sales value, Profit
before interest and tax (PBIT), Non-injurious price (NIP), and depreciation expenses are either not
provided or disclosed inadequately in non-confidential versions.
iv. In Section VI (Costing Information) of the petition, the domestic industry has entirely withheld
information, failing to provide justification for the confidentiality claimed. Annexures referenced in
the petition are not included in the non-confidential version.
v. The domestic industry has not complied with the requirements laid down in Trade Notice 10/2028 by
not adequately providing information regarding various indicators, such as production volumes, sales
realizations, funds raised, and financial details like depreciation, interest, and PBIT.
vi. Excessive confidentiality prevents other interested parties from exercising their right of defense. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. Designated
Authority (2011) 2 SCC 258 held that duty to follow the principles of natural justice is implicit in the exercise of
power conferred on DA under the AD Rules.
E.2. Submissions by domestic industry
19. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to confidentiality:
i. The domestic industry consists of three entities: two PSUs (KMML and TTPL) and one private
company (VVT). KMML produces only Rutile grade by chloride process, VVT produces only
Anatase grade, and TTPL produces both grades. There is a significant difference in the cost and
selling price of Rutile and Anatase grades during the POI.
ii. Disclosure of aggregate figures could enable producers to deduce the cost and price of grades they do
not produce, harming the DI’s competitive interests. Cost, profit, and selling price are highly
sensitive business information, and disclosure would negatively impact the competitive position of
the DI.
iii. It is further submitted by domestic industry that claims of confidentiality are in consonance with the
practice of the Authority in cases such as Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of
Phthalic Anhydride originating in or exported from Russia and Japan (14/6/2014-DGAD (https://www.dgtr.gov.in/anti-dumping-cases/phthalic-anhydride-originating-or-exported-russia-and-japan))., where there were 3
(three) producers as a part of the domestic industry, the Authority did not provide details such as
selling price and PBIT of the constituents of the domestic industry and has claimed it confidential.
This pattern was also followed in other cases such as Anti-dumping investigation concerning
imports of Phthalic Anhydride (PAN) originating in or exported from China PR, Indonesia, Korea
RP and Thailand (6/16/2020-DGTR (https://www.dgtr.gov.in/anti-dumping-cases/anti-dumping-investigation-concerning-imports-phthalic-anhydride-pan-originating))., Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Glazed Unglazed
Porcelain Vitrified tiles in polished or unpolished finish from China PR (14/14/2014-DGAD (https://www.dgtr.gov.in/anti-dumping-cases/glazed-unglazed-porcelain-vitrified-tiles-polished-or-unpolished-finish-less-3)). and Anti-dumping
investigation concerning imports of Plastic Processing Machines originating in or exported from
China PR (6/54/2020-DGTR (https://www.dgtr.gov.in/anti-dumping-cases/anti-dumping-investigation-concerning-imports-plastic-processing-machines)).
iv. Further, many respondents have not disclosed affiliated companies, names of shareholders, details of
the company such as telephone and fax numbers. These details have been claimed confidential
without a valid justification.
v. Sample domestic and export sales documents have not been disclosed. While documents itself may
be confidential, the list of documents submitted has not been disclosed.
E.3. Examination by the Authority
20. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by the various
parties to all the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7).
21. With regard to confidentiality of the information, Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:
“7. Confidential Information:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12,
sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub -rule
(1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by
any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its
confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party
without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the interested parties providing information on confidential
basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such
information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the
designated authority a statement of reasons why summarisation is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that
the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling
to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it
may disregard such information.”
22. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regards to
sufficiency of such claims. The Authority holds that the domestic industry’s claims on price parameters
have been accepted, while volume parameters have been disclosed. Hence, the Authority is satisfied with
information provided by the domestic industry on confidential basis.
F. SAMPLING OF FOREIGN PRODUCERS
24. A large number of producers and exporters of the subject goods from China submitted questionnaire
response. In view of the large number of producers and exporters, the Authority decided to resort to
sampling in the present investigation in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17(3). Based on the
questionnaire responses filed before the Authority, the following three groups were chosen for individual
dumping margin determination.
i LB Group comprising of following producers/exporters- Henan Billions Advanced Material Co.,
Ltd., LB Group Co., Ltd., LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., LB Sichuan Titanium Industry
Co., Ltd, LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited and
Billions Europe Ltd, UK.
ii Gold Star Group comprising of producer/exporter- Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co.,
Ltd and Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
iii Shandong Group comprising of producer/exporter- Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd. and
Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
25. The Authority vide email dated 29.08.2024 intimated all the interested parties regarding the sampling
methodology and the sampled groups for further investigation and sought the comments from them. The
comments sent by the interested parties were examined by the Authority and the final sampled groups of
exporters/producers were intimated vide notification no F.No.-06/03/2024 dated 7th October, 2024. The
Authority also informed the interested parties that these producers along with their associated exporters
were considered for determination of individual dumping margin.
26. The Authority invited comments from the interested parties. The submissions made by the interested parties
are briefly as under.
F.1 Submissions by other interested parties
27. There were no submissions made by other interested parties in this regard.
F.2 Submissions made by the domestic industry
28. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i. 21 producers have filed questionnaire responses as per the interested parties’ list, which is a high
number to permit individual determination.
ii. Given the low volumes of exports by certain parties, it is obvious that their product profile and
exports pattern is not representative of exports into India, in terms of both product profile and time
period.
iii. In the past, Chinese producers who have had negligible export volumes in the POI, after getting
individual lower duty, flood the Indian market.
iv. The global norm in sampling is to consider at most three companies:
a. In Ceramic Tiles from India, Europe originally considered two companies and refused to
extend sampling size to three companies even following aggressive representations from the
company at number 3.
b. In Wood Pulp from Canada, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) refused to
individually determine dumping margin for the company at number 3 even though the
companies in the first three places were exporting almost equal volume.
c. The USA considers more than two companies as ‘unduly burdensome’. In the matter of
Quartz Surface Products from India, out of 50 companies considered, investigation and
determination of dumping margin was carried out only for two companies, the results of which
were extended to the others.
v. Filing of questionnaire response on voluntary basis cannot be grounds to determine individual
dumping margin.
F.3. Examination by the Authority
29. After reviewing the comments from interested parties, the export data was organized in descending order
of production of PUC. Based on the largest percentage of export volume to India from China during the
POI, three (3) producers, along with their associated exporters/producers, were selected for the
determination of the dumping margin. These 3 sampled producers/exporters group contribute to about
49% of exports during the POI, making them an appropriate and representative sample. Therefore, the
Authority has considered the sampled producers to determine dumping margin and the dumping margin
for non-sampled cooperating producers/ exporters from China PR would be determined on the basis of the
same.
G. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT
PRICE, AND DUMPING MARGIN
G.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
30. Following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regards to the normal value, export
price and dumping margin:
i Market economy status should be granted to China PR based on the development of the market
economy of China. Article 15(a)(ii) of China’s Accession Protocol expired on December 11, 2016.
ii After 11th December 2016, anti-dumping regulations cannot contain any provisions allowing for the
establishment of the normal value for the Chinese exporting producers on a basis other than their
domestic prices and costs.
iii India has no legal basis under the WTO Agreement to calculate normal value in anti-dumping
investigation for products from China PR using the non-market economy methodology. Any such
action by India would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the GATT.
iv The surrogate country methodology is no longer applicable in calculating normal value, regardless of
whether China PR is treated as a market economy due to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, Section
15 of China’s Accession Protocol to WTO and Appellate Body Report on EC- Fasteners initiated by
China PR.
v China PR should not be treated as a non-market economy as per China’s accession protocol to WTO,
the same was also confirmed by the WTO Appellate Body in “EC-Fasteners”. US and EU in their
respective bilateral agreement with China PR had also noted about the expiry of non-market economy
status after 15 years after China enters WTO.
G.2 Submissions made by the domestic industry
31. The submissions of the domestic industry with regards to the normal value, the export price and the
dumping margin, are as follows:
i China should be considered a non-market economy country and normal value in case of the
producers/exporters from China PR should be determined in accordance with para-7 read with para 8
(2) and 8(3) of Annexure I of the AD Rules. In terms of Para 8 in Annexure I to the AD Rules, it is
presumed that the producers of the subject goods in China PR are operating under non-market
economy conditions. Therefore, normal value of the subject goods in China PR has been estimated in
terms of Para 7 of Annexure I to the AD Rules.
ii Article 15 (d) of the Protocol, the provision of 15(a)(ii) has expired in December 2016 i.e., 15 years
after China PR’s accession to the WTO. However, Article 15(a)(i), which provides for presumption of
non-market economy for China PR, is still in force. Hence, a valid presumption exists that China PR is
a non-market economy country for anti-dumping investigations.
iii The Authority shall follow Para 1 – 6 of Annexure I for the determination of normal value only if the
responding Chinese companies establish that their costs and price information is such that individual
normal value and dumping margin can be determined. If the responding Chinese companies are not
able to demonstrate that their costs and price information can be adopted, the Designated Authority
shall reject the claim of individual dumping margin.
iv Paragraph 1 to 6 of Annexure I of the Rules does not apply for computation of normal value for
imports from China PR, unless a producer/exporter shows with sufficient evidence that he is operating
under market economy conditions. As a result, normal value for China PR has to be determined in
terms of Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules.
G.3. Examination by the Authority
32. Under Section 9A(1)(c) of the Act, normal value in relation to an article means:
i. the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when meant for
consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules
made under sub-section (6); or
ii. when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic
market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market
situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or
territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either-
(a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting
country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the
rules made under sub-section (6); or
(b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along With reasonable
addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in
accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6):
Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of
origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export or
such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the
country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the
country of origin.
33. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject country, as well as to
the appropriate diplomatic representative advising them to provide information in the form and manner
prescribed by the Authority within the prescribed time limit. The Authority received questionnaire
responses from the following exporters/producers:
i. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd.
ii. LB Group Co., Ltd.
iii. Lb Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
iv. Lb Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
v. Lb Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd
vi. Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited
vii. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd.
viii. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
ix. Yibin Tianyuan Haifeng Hetai Co., Ltd
x. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., Ltd
xi. Efon (Hongkong) Company Limited
xii. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd.
xiii. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
xiv. Chongqing Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. of Pangang Group
xv. Pangang Group Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xvi. Pangang Group Chengdu Vanadium & Titanium Resources Development Co., Ltd.
xvii. Pangang Group Chongqing Vanadium & Titanium Technology Co., Ltd.
xviii. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Products Co Ltd ( A Tronox Company)
xix. Kunming Donghao Titanium Co., Ltd.
xx. Inter-China Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxi. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xxii. Shandong Doguide Group Co., Ltd.
xxiii. Qianjiang Fangyuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
xxiv. Jinan Yuxing Chemical Co., Ltd.
xxv. Ningbo Xinfu Titanium Dioxide Co., Ltd.
xxvi. Ningbo Xinfu Chemical Marketing Co., Ltd.
xxvii. Shandong Dawn Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
34. The Authority has sampled following three groups which includes related traders and producers:
i LB Group comprising of following producers/exporters- Henan Billions Advanced Material Co.,
Ltd., LB Group Co., Ltd., LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., LB Sichuan Titanium Industry
Co., Ltd, LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited and
Billions Europe Ltd, UK.
ii Gold Star Group comprising of producer/exporter- Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co.,
Ltd and Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
iii Shandong Group comprising of producer/exporter- Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd. and
Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd.
35. The normal value and export price for all producers/ exporters from the subject country have been
determined as below.
G.3.1 Normal Value
36. Article 15 of China's Accession Protocol in WTO provides as follows:
"Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") and the SCM Agreement shall apply in
proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the following:
"(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under
investigation or a methodology, that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in
China based on the following rules:
(i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in
the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of
that product, the importing WO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under
investigation in determining price comparability;
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with
domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under 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
provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should
China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy
conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the nonmarket economy provisions of
subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector. "
37. 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.
38. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded as per the information made available by the domestic
producers on the cost of production of the subject goods with due addition of SGA and profits. Upon
initiation, the Authority advised the producers/ exporters in China PR to respond to the notice of the
initiation and provide information relevant to the determination of their market economy status. The
Authority sent copies of the supplementary questionnaire to all the known producers/ exporters for
rebutting the presumption of a non-market economy in accordance with criteria laid down in Para 8(3) of
Annexure-I to the Rules and furnish relevant detailed information. The Authority also requested the
Government of China PR to advise the producers exporters in China PR to provide the relevant
information.
39. None of the exporters/producers contested the non-market economy status of China. Thus, in view of the
above position and in the absence of rebuttal of the non-market economy presumption by any Chinese
exporting company, the Authority considers it appropriate to treat China PR as a non-market economy
country in the present investigation and proceeds with para 7 of Annexure-I to the Rules for determination
of normal value in case of China PR.
40. Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules reads as under:
In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the
basis of the price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from such
a third country to other countries, including India or where it is not possible, or on any other
reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly
adjusted if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy
third country shall be selected by the designated authority in a reasonable manner, keeping in
view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in question, and due
account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of selection.
Accounts shall be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation made in any
similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the
investigation shall be informed without any unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the
market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their
comments.
41. In the absence of sufficient information on record regarding the other methods enshrined in Para 7 of
Annexure I of the AD Rules, the Authority has determined the normal value by considering the method on
“any other reasonable basis”.
42. The Authority has therefore constructed the normal value for China PR on the basis of cost of production in
India, duly adjusted, including selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profits. The
constructed normal value so determined for Chinese producers/exporters is mentioned in the dumping
margin table below.
G.3.2 Export Price for all sampled producers and exporters
A) LB Group (Sampled)
i. M/s. LB Group Co Ltd.
ii. M/s. LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
iii. M/s. LB Sichuan Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
iv. M/s. LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co. Ltd.
v. M/s. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co. Ltd
vi. M/s. Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited
vii. M/s Billions Europe Ltd., UK
43. LB Group Co., Ltd. was established on August 20, 1998 as a public listed company in accordance with
Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
During the POI, LB Group Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT subject goods to India. Out of this, the
producer/exporter has sold *** MT indirectly through a related exporter/trader namely, Billions (Hong
Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. It is further noted that out of this ***MT, Billions (Hong Kong)
Corporation Limited, Hong Kong has sold ***MT to India directly and rest of *** MT has been sold to
India indirectly through another related exporter/trader namely, Billions Europe Ltd., UK. The
producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland
transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at net export price at
ex-factory level and the net export price so determined is as shown in the dumping margin table.
44. LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. was established on April 20, 2015 as a limited liability company
in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
During the POI, LB Lufeng Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. has sold *** MT subject goods to India.
Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold *** MT indirectly through a related exporter/trader namely,
Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. The producers/exporters have claimed
adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses,
bank charges and commission to arrive at net export price at ex-factory level and the net export price so
determined is as shown in the dumping margin table.
45. LB Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. was established on February 21, 2001 as a limited liability
company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
During the POI, LB Sichuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. China PR, has sold ***MT subject goods
to India. Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold ***MT indirectly through a related exporter/trader
namely, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. It is further noted that out of this *** MT,
Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong has sold *** MT to India directly and rest of ***
MT of subject goods Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong has sold to India indirectly
through another related exporter/trader namely, Billions Europe Ltd., UK. The producers/exporters have
claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related
expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at net export price at ex-factory level and the net export
price so determined is as shown in the dumping margin table.
46. LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., China PR, was established on April 29, 2011 as a limited
liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
During the POI, LB Xiangyang Titanium Industry Co., Ltd., China PR, has sold *** MT subject
goods to India. Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold *** MT indirectly through a related
exporter/trader namely, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. The producers/exporters
have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other
related expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at net export price at ex-factory level and the net
export price so determined is as shown in the dumping margin table.
47. Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd. was established on May 19, 2016 as a limited liability
company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
During the POI, Henan Billions Advanced Material Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT subject goods to
India. Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold ***MT indirectly through a related exporter/trader
namely, Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong. It is further noted that out of this *** MT,
Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong has sold *** MT to India directly and rest of ***
MT of subject goods Billions (Hong Kong) Corporation Limited, Hong Kong has sold to India indirectly
through another related exporter/trader namely, Billions Europe Ltd., UK. The producers/exporters have
claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related
expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at PCN-wise weighted average of export price at ex-
factory level and the ex-factory export price so determined is as shown in the dumping margin table.
B) Gold Star Group (Sampled)
i. M/s. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd.
ii. M/s. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd.
48. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd. was established as a limited liability company in
accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China, on January 18, 1996.
During the POI, Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd., China PR, has sold *** MT
subject goods to India indirectly through a related exporter/trader namely, Anhui Gold Star Titanium
Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd., China PR on ex-works basis. The producer/exporter has claimed no adjustments
to arrive of export price at ex-factory level and the net export price so determined is as shown in the
dumping margin table.
49. M/s. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd., was established as a limited liability
company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China, on October 20, 2017.
During the POI, Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd., has sold ***MT subject goods
to India. Out of this, the producer/exporter has sold *** MT of subject goods from its related
producer/exporter namely M/s. Anhui Gold Star Titanium Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd., China PR. The
producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland transportation,
port and other related expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at net export price at ex-factory
level and the net export price so determined is as shown in the dumping margin table.
C) Shandong Group (Sampled)
i. M/s. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co. Ltd.
ii. M/s. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co. Ltd.
50. M/s. Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd., was established on October 16, 2013 as a limited liability
company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China.
During the POI, Shandong Xianghai Titanium Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT subject goods to India.
The producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean, freight, insurance, inland
transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and commission to arrive at net export price at
ex-factory level and the ex-factory export price so determined is as shown in the dumping margin table.
51. M/s. Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd. China PR, was established on April
24, 2012 as a limited liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of
China.
During the POI, Shandong Jinhai Titanium Resources Technology Co., Ltd. China PR, has sold
*** MT subject goods to India directly. The producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on accounts of
ocean, freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and
commission to arrive at net export price at ex-factory level and the ex-factory export price so determined is
as shown in the dumping margin table.
D) Non sampled cooperating producers/exporters
52. The Authority has considered the weighted average dumping margin evaluated on the basis of individual
dumping margins for the producers/exporters of the sampled category. This weighted average dumping
margin has been accorded to the non-sampled category of producers/exporters of subject goods and has
been mentioned in the dumping margin table.
E) Non-cooperating producers/exporters
53. The Authority determines the export price for non-cooperating producers/ exporters from China PR on the
basis of facts available. The export price so determined has been mentioned in the dumping margin table.
G.3.3 Determination of dumping margin
54. Considering the normal value and export price determined, as explained above, it is determined that the
dumping margin is more than the de-minimis limit prescribed under the Rules.
55. It is noted that many cooperating producers and exporters are related to each other and form a group of
related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider related exporting producers
and exporters as one single entity for the determination of a dumping margin and thus to establish one
single dumping margin for them. The rationale for this approach is that calculating individual dumping
margins might encourage circumvention of anti-dumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by
enabling related exporting producers to channel their exports to India through the company with the lowest
individual dumping margin.
56. In accordance with the above, related producers and exporters have been regarded as one single entity and
attributed one single dumping margin which was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the
dumping margins of the cooperating related producers and exporters.
Dumping Margin (DM) Table
+-----+----------------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+--------+-----------+
| S. | Producer | CNV($/MT) | Net Export | Dumping | DM | DM |
| No. | | | Price | Margin | (%) | Range |
| | | | ($/MT) | (DM) | | (%) |
| | | | | ($/MT) | | |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+--------+-----------+
| 1. | M/s Anhui Gold Star | *** | *** | *** | *** | 60-70 |
| | Titanium Dioxide (Group) | | | | | |
| | Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 2. | M/s Anhui Gold Star | | | | | |
| | Titanium Dioxide Trading | | | | | |
| | Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 3. | M/s Shandong Jinhai | *** | *** | *** | *** | 40-50 |
| | Titanium Resources | | | | | |
| | Technology Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 4. | M/s Shandong Xianghai | | | | | |
| | Titanium Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 5. | M/s LB Xiangyang | *** | *** | *** | *** | 35-45 |
| | Titanium Industry Co Ltd, | | | | | |
| | and | | | | | |
| 6. | M/s LB Sichuan Titanium | | | | | |
| | Industry Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 7. | M/s LB Lufeng Titanium | | | | | |
| | Industry Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 8. | M/s LB Group Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 9. | M/s Henan Billions | | | | | |
| | Advanced Material Co., | | | | | |
| | Ltd. | | | | | |
| 10. | Non-Sampled Cooperative | *** | *** | *** | *** | 40-50 |
| | Producers/Exporters | | | | | |
| 11. | Residual | *** | *** | *** | *** | 90-100 |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+--------+-----------+
SECTION III
H. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
H.1. Submissions made by other interested parties
57. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regard to injury and causal link:
i. Import volume data shows significant reliance on imports to meet domestic demand, particularly
from China PR.
ii. Imports have shown steady increase in tandem with increase in demand in the POI.
iii. Sales of the domestic industry have increased slightly while imports from other countries declined in
the POI.
iv. Domestic industry is unable to meet the increasing demand for the subject goods and the demand
supply gap highlighting the need for imports.
v. Grade-wise examination would enable a clearer assessment of how different quality grades have
contributed to changes in cost and pricing dynamics. This approach will allow identification of
grades that may be experiencing higher or lower demand, pricing pressures, or cost variances,
leading to more tailored strategies for pricing, marketing, and production. Such an analysis can also
uncover trends that might be obscured in the aggregate data, thereby enabling more informed
decision-making and enhancing profitability.
vi. The alleged injury to the domestic industry cannot be attributed solely to subject imports. Other
contributing factors include fluctuations in raw material prices, supply chain disruptions, changing
consumer preferences, and increased competition from both domestic and foreign producers.
vii. The DI’s claim of a 22% return on capital employed (ROCE) for determining the non-injurious price
is excessive and inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Rules, as it inflates the non-injurious price
calculation by applying an unjustifiable rate across both net worth and debt components of capital
employed. It is submitted that non-injurious price should be calculated based on the actual ROCE
earned by the domestic industry during periods without dumping allegations, considering the
prevailing economic conditions and ensuring that interest costs and profit margins reflect realistic
and reasonable levels.
viii. Injury must be analysed separately for rutile and anatase grades as they are distinct forms of the PUC
due to their unique crystal structures and resultant physical and chemical differences.
ix. Injury must be analysed separately for rutile-chloride and rutile-sulphate as they cannot be used
interchangeably. Mere adoption of PCN is insufficient for a holistic injury examination and does not
reflect the correct volume effect, price effect, and economic parameters for determining injury as per
the AD Rules.
x. Domestic industry has used two separate import volumes to calculate dumping margin, and for
determining net export price, injury margin, price undercutting. Domestic industry has created an
inconsistency that could distort the injury examination. Volume of imports from China has risen by
50% while that of non-subject countries have experienced a decline of about 25%. Imports into India
have increased by only 12.80%, aligning with the increase in total Indian demand. Hence, Chinese
imports are taking away market share of non-subject country imports and not Indian market share,
which remained more or less at the same level.
xi. Segregation of Chinese imports reveals that the increase in imports pertain to rutile-sulphate due to
the non-availability of rutile-sulphate domestically. Imports of rutile-sulphate are a necessity than a
choice.
xii. Price undercutting in itself cannot be an indicator of injury leading to material injury. Setting of net
sales realisation (NSR) is a business decision, therefore, DI’s internal inefficiency that may lead to
higher cost of production and higher NSR cannot be a reason to claim injury or material injury.
xiii. As per the audits of the Comptroller and Auditor General, KMML has maintained pricing practices
that ensure recovery of variable costs which contradict claims of price suppression or depression.
xiv. KMML has not expanded its production capacity since fiscal year 2006-07 despite being the sole
domestic producer of rutile TiO2 in India. Despite consistent and increasing demand from the user
industry, capacity of KMML has remained the same. Capacity utilisation data suggests that KMML’s
performance has been consistent over time, showing no changes in output or capacity utilisation.
xv. Sales prices of KMML have increased substantially over the injury period, whereas the cost of
production has decreased indicating that KMML is currently not facing adverse financial impacts
that would necessitate imposition of duties.
xvi. KMML has reported gross profits across all segments including PUC, of 120% and 20% respectively
from 2019-20 to 2022-23. Thus, claims regarding decline in profitability are devoid of merit and
warrant rejection.
xvii. Achieving 4, 00,000 MT capacity as mentioned by the domestic industry during the oral hearing
would require an approximate capital outlay of INR 10,000 Cr. Considering the domestic industry is
reportedly, financially constrained due to internal inefficiencies and borrowing, such investment
seems highly improbable.
xviii. Domestic industry’s sales volume and sales price have risen slightly which indicate stability and
improvement in the domestic industry’s performance, negating the assertion that the domestic
industry is suffering from injury.
xix. Increase in imports from China PR has been modest and cannot be considered significant enough to
substantiate a claim of threat of material injury.
xx. India does not constitute an exceptionally high-growth or lucrative market for foreign exporters as
demand has remained relatively steady over recent years and does not indicate significant or
increasing attractiveness to foreign exporters.
xxi. Domestic industry has not provided reliable data on actual installed capacity in China which is
dedicated for the production of the PUC as opposed to the grades of TiO2 which are not subject to
this investigation, in the absence of which, the Authority should disregard the domestic industry’s
speculative assertions of excess capacities.
xxii. The COVID-19 pandemic and resultant lockdown is a factor in the performance of the domestic
industry and demonstrates the absence of any causal relationship between the dumped goods and
injury to the domestic industry. KMML’s annual report of 2022-23 reports an increase in COVID
related expenses, which may have increased the costs of the company.
xxiii. Domestic industry has the option to address any injury arising from alleged subsidies as claimed by
the domestic industry by filing a separate anti-subsidy petition. It would be inappropriate to include
in the present anti-dumping assessment any injury purportedly caused by subsidisation such as export
tax rebates.
xxiv. The domestic industry is inefficient owing to the massive increase in its interest costs which may
have contributed significantly to the domestic industry’s rising cost of sales, turning prior profits into
losses, and leading to the decline in ROI.
xxv. The domestic industry has specifically highlighted injury from the LB Group. However, it must be
noted that LB Group is backward integrated, thereby maintaining a more competitive cost structure.
KMML relies on purchased raw materials and is hence unable to efficiently manage its raw
materials. KMML’s annual report shows that there is a significant increase in raw material costs
which is disproportionate to the rise in sales, indicating inefficiencies.
H.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry
58. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal link:
i. Demand increased steadily until 2021-22 but declined in 2022-23 and during the POI.
ii. Imports from the subject country have increased significantly from the base year to the POI.
iii. The increase in imports is substantial both in absolute and relative terms.
iv. The share of imports from the subject country in relation to Indian production and consumption has
grown consistently over the injury period.
v. Subject imports hold ***% market share in total Indian demand.
vi. Price undercutting was determined by comparing the landed price of the subject imports with the
selling price of the domestic industry. The subject imports are undercutting the prices of the DI.
vii. The cost of sales increased till 2022-23, after which it saw a slight decline in the POI. The selling
price increased till 2021-22 and then decreased till the POI. Subject imports therefore, are
suppressing the prices of the domestic industry.
viii. The capacity of domestic industry has remained constant throughout the injury period.
ix. Production and capacity utilisation of domestic industry has increased from the base year to 2021-
22, however declined significantly since then till POI.
x. Despite sufficient demand in the country, the domestic industry is operating at a very low
utilisation level.
xi. Sales of the domestic industry increased till 2021-22, declined in 2022-23, and saw an increase in
the POI.
xii. Market share of the applicants declined over the injury period whereas share of subject imports
have increased and is more than 50%. The subject imports have also taken away the share of other
countries in demand.
xiii. With regard to the profitability parameters of the domestic industry, COVID and low-priced
imports caused the domestic industry to incur losses in the base year.
xiv. In 2021-22, the domestic industry started earning profits, cash profits, and a reasonable ROI.
However, it started incurring severe losses in 2022-23, which continued into the POI, where the
landed price of the subject imports started to decline significantly. The ROI of the domestic
industry was negative ***% in the POI.
xv. The inventories with the domestic industry have undergone a highly significant increase over the
injury period. The inventory in the POI is at *** MT, despite a reduction in production.
xvi. The number of employees and the wages paid have declined marginally over the injury period.
xvii. Productivity per employee has increased from the base year to 2021-22, it has however declined
significantly since then till the POI, following the movement of production.
xviii. The subject imports have adversely affected the growth of the domestic industry in respect of price
and profitability parameters.
xix. There is an increase in dumped imports from the subject country, even beyond the demand supply
gap in India, after accounting for the new producer that has already started producing subject goods
after the POI.
xx. Injury must be seen for the domestic industry as a whole as the PUC is defined as ‘titanium
dioxide’ and injury analysis must be considered for the product as a whole.
xxi. Calculation of dumping margin and injury margin has been carried out based on anatase and rutile
grades, as they are identified and any unknown grades of TiO2 have not been considered.
xxii. To calculate price undercutting, the total volume of imports has been considered.
xxiii. Landed price of Chinese imports declined after 2021-22, the landed price of non-Chinese imports
increased significantly, especially in the POI.
xxiv. Volume of imports from China increased as that of other countries declined.
xxv. The increase in stocks over the injury period is from about 50 crores to 250 crores.
xxvi. Capacity utilisation for one of the constituents of the domestic industry is only at 32% in the POI,
while that of another applicant is 32% for two different PCNs.
xxvii. Domestic industry was forced to follow movement of landed price and not costs by reducing
selling price in 2022-23 even with a cost increase. However, landed price was too low and below
cost and declined further in the POI.
xxviii. KMML suffered massive declines in PBT by about *** Cr and in PBIT by about *** Cr while its
interest cost increased only *** Cr.
xxix. The reference made to KMML’s policy is to variable costs and not full costs and ignores full costs
knowing that market forces may not allow for full costs to be recovered.
xxx. COVID related expense was made initially in 2021, as per orders of the Government of Kerala. The
amount paid in 2022-23, was simply a part payment to complete the amount contributed as part of
the company’s CSR obligations. Moreover, CSR expenses are not even considered for reporting
profits and are met from profit after tax.
H.3. Examination by the Authority
59. The Authority has taken note of the submissions made by the interested parties and has examined various
parameters in accordance with the Rules after duly considering the submissions made by the interested
parties. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto addresses the various submissions
made by the interested parties.
60. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve examination
of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, taking into account all relevant facts, including
the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the
consequent effect of such imports on the domestic producers of such articles. In considering the effect of
the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant
price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether
the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases,
which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of the
dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such
as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the
magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the Rules.
H.3.1 Assessment of Demand/Apparent Consumption
61. The Authority has defined, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand, or apparent consumption
of the subject goods in India as the sum of domestic sales of the applicants and imports from all sources.
The demand for the PUC is as follows:
+---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI |
+---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Imports from Subject | MT | 1,46,998| 1,72,187| 2,02,922| 2,26,869|
| Country- China | | | | | |
| Indexed | | 100 | 117 | 138 | 154 |
| Imports from other countries| MT | 1,46,874| 1,77,252| 1,41,605| 1,22,608|
| Indexed | | 100 | 121 | 96 | 83 |
| Sales of Domestic Industry| MT | 46,855 | 47,913 | 38,998 | 47,223 |
| Indexed | | 100 | 102 | 83 | 101 |
| Indian Demand | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 117 | 113 | 116 |
+---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
62. It is seen that the demand for the product under consideration increased in 2021-22 and declined marginally
thereafter till POI. The imports from subject country have increased significantly by 54% when compared
with base year 2020-21.
H.3.2 Volume effect of dumped imports on domestic industry
a) Imports in absolute and relative terms
63. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has
been a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or in relation to production or
consumption in India. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied upon the transaction-
wise import data from DG System. The Authority has considered the data based on the finalised PUC and
PCN of the subject goods. The import volumes of the subject goods and share of the same during the injury
investigation period are as follows:
+------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI |
+------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Import Volume | | | | | |
| Subject Country- China | MT | 1,46,998| 1,72,187| 2,02,922| 2,26,869|
| Indexed | | 100 | 117 | 138 | 154 |
| Other Countries | MT | 1,46,874| 1,77,252| 1,41,605| 1,22,608|
| Indexed | | 100 | 121 | 96 | 83 |
| Total Imports Volume | MT | 2,93,872| 3,49,439| 3,44,527| 3,49,476|
| Indexed | | 100 | 119 | 117 | 119 |
| Subject imports in relation to| | | | | |
| Total imports | % | 50 | 49 | 59 | 65 |
| Indexed | | 100 | 99 | 118 | 130 |
| Indian production | % | 287 | 302 | 433 | 494 |
| Indexed | | 100 | 105 | 151 | 172 |
| Indian demand | % | 43 | 43 | 53 | 57 |
| Indexed | | 100 | 100 | 123 | 133 |
+------------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
64. It is seen that:
a. The subject imports have witnessed a significant increase throughout the injury period. Imports
from other countries increased in 2021-22, but declined sharply thereafter till the POI.
b. Share of imports from China PR in total imports was already quite high. Further, the same
increased over the injury period, and share of imports from other countries have declined.
c. Subject imports in relation to Indian production and consumption has increased over the injury
period.
d. It can be observed that there is an overall increase in the demand.
H.3.3 Price effect of dumped imports on domestic industry
65. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is required to be analysed whether there has
been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to the price of the like
product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or prevent price
increases, which otherwise would have occurred in normal course.
66. Accordingly, the impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of dumped imports of the subject
goods from the subject country has been examined with reference to price undercutting and price
suppression/depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis the cost of sales and the net sales realization
(NSR) of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed price of the subject imports.
a) Price Undercutting
67. In order to determine whether the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the
market, price undercutting has been worked out by comparing the landed price of the subject imports with
the selling price of the domestic industry during the investigation period. For the purpose, the Authority
notes that there is significant difference in the prices of different types of the product under consideration.
Therefore, the Authority has compared landed price of imports with the selling price of the domestic
industry for comparable types, by considering the PCN notified by the Authority. Thus, weighted average
price undercutting has been determined after considering associated import volumes and same is given
below:
+-------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Particulars | Unit | A-S | R-S | R-C | Weighted |
| | | | | | Average |
+-------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------------+
| Landed Price | ₹/MT | 1,78,574 | 2,01,911 | 2,26,934 | 2,05,197 |
| Net Selling Price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting| ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting| % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting| Range | 0-10 | Negative | 5-15 | Negative |
+-------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------------+
68. It is seen from the data that the imports are not undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the
market. However, the Authority notes that the R-S form manufactured by the domestic industry is in
uncoated form.
b) Price Suppression/Depression
69. For the purpose of analysing price suppression and depression in the domestic market, the applicants have
provided information about (a) cost of sales, (b) domestic selling price, as is given in the table below.
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI |
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Landed Price | ₹/MT | 1,74,761| 2,61,253| 2,33,166| 2,05,197|
| Indexed | | 100 | 149 | 133 | 117 |
| Cost of Sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 110 | 147 | 135 |
| Selling Price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 133 | 124 | 113 |
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
70. It is seen that both the selling price and the cost of sales increased over the injury period. However, the
increase in cost of sales was much higher than the increase in selling price of the subject goods. Further,
whereas the selling price was above cost of sales till 2021-22, the same declined below the level of cost of
sales in 2022-23 and the POI. The landed price of imports shows a fluctuating trend, with a significant
increase in 2021-22 followed by a decline during the POI .The landed price of imports were materially
below cost of sales in the POI. The selling price trend also reflects price depression, as it declined from its
peak in 2021-22 (₹***/MT) to ***/MT) during the POI, despite the cost of sales remaining elevated.
Subject imports are, thus, causing significant price suppression in the domestic market.
H.3.4 Economic Parameters of the domestic industry
71. Annexure II to the Rules provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic
industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices
having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output,
market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic
prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow,
inventories, employment, wages, growth and the ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, various
injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed herein below.
72. The performance of the applicants in the POI has been compared with its performance in the base year.
a) Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilisation, and Sales
73. The Authority has considered the capacity, production, capacity utilisation, and sales volume of the
domestic industry over the injury period. The table below shows factual position.
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI |
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Installed Capacity | MT | 82,500 | 82,500 | 82,500 | 82,500 |
| Indexed | | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Production | MT | 51,221 | 56,956 | 46,811 | 45,944 |
| Indexed | | 100 | 111 | 91 | 90 |
| Capacity Utilisation| % | 62 | 69 | 57 | 56 |
| Indexed | | 100 | 111 | 92 | 90 |
| Domestic Sales | MT | 46,855 | 47,912 | 38,999 | 47,223 |
| Indexed | | 100 | 102 | 83 | 101 |
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
74. It is seen that:
a. Capacity of the domestic industry has remained constant throughout the injury period.
b. Production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry has increased from base year to
2021-22 but declined significantly since then till POI.
c. Despite sufficient demand in the country, the applicants are operating at low utilization level.
d. Production, sales and capacity utilization in 2020-21 were lower due to country wide COVID
related lockdown.
e. Sales of the domestic industry increased till 2021-22, declined in 2022-23 and increased again in
the POI.
b) Market Share in Demand
75. The market share of the subject imports and the domestic industry over the entire injury period was as
follows:
+---------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI |
+---------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Subject Country| % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 100 | 123 | 133 |
| Other Countries| % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 103 | 86 | 72 |
| Domestic Industry| % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 102 | 74 | 87 |
+---------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
76. The market share of the subject country has increased significantly over the injury period. The market share
of the domestic industry has decreased over the injury period, while the share of imports from the subject
country has increased, and the share of imports from non-subject countries has consistently declined.
c) Profitability, Cash Profits, and Return on Investment
77. The profit, cash profits, profit before interest (PBIT), and return on investment of the domestic industry
over the injury period has been analysed and were as follows:
+---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI |
+---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Cost of Sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 110 | 147 | 135 |
| Selling Price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 133 | 124 | 113 |
| Profit/Loss per Unit | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 476 | (327) | (307) |
| Profit/Loss (PBT) | ₹ Lacs| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 1,220 | (872) | (1007) |
| PBIT – Domestic Sales | ₹ Lacs| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 923 | (620) | (707) |
| PBIT – per Unit | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 434 | (278) | (259) |
| Cash Profit – Domestic Sales| ₹ Lacs| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 691 | (454) | (513) |
| Cash Profit – per Unit | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 387 | (242) | (226) |
| Return on Investment | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
78. It is seen that
a. The costs of sales increased over the injury period, whereas the selling price increased in 2021-22 and
declined consistently thereafter till the POI. Resultantly, the profits of the domestic industry increased
in 2021-22 and steeply declined thereafter leading to significant financial losses. The financial losses
suffered have increased in the POI.
b. As a result of decline in profits, the cash profits declined significantly over the injury period. The
domestic industry has suffered cash losses in 2022-23 and the POI.
c. The return on investment followed the same trend as that of profit before tax. Return on investment
declined significantly over the injury period. The ROI was at a negative ***% in the POI.
d. The profitability of the domestic industry was low in 2020-21 due to COVID related lockdown. In any
case, the performance of the domestic industry deteriorated steeply by the POI in respect of profits,
cash profits and return on investment.
d) Inventory
79. The data relating to the inventory position of the domestic industry over the injury period and POI is given
in the table below:
+----------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI |
+----------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Opening Inventory| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Closing Inventory| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Average Inventory| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 126 | 237 | 394 |
+----------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
80. It is seen that the level of inventories with the domestic industry increased significantly over the injury
period.
e) Employment, Wages, and Productivity
81. The position with regard to employment, wages, and productivity of the domestic industry is as follows:
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI |
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Number of employees | Nos | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 99 | 96 | 99 |
| Wages | ₹ Lacs| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 84 | 82 | 83 |
| Productivity per employee| MT/No.| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 113 | 95 | 91 |
| Productivity per day| MT/Day| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Indexed | | 100 | 111 | 91 | 90 |
+---------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
82. The Authority notes that the number of employees and wages paid have decreased over the injury period.
The productivity per employee has increased from the base year to 2021-22 and declined in 2022-23 and
the POI.
f) Growth
83. It is seen that the imports have led to an adverse effect on the growth of the domestic industry in respect of
both volume and price parameters.
+-----------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI |
+-----------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+
| Capacity | Y/Y | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Production | Y/Y | 11% | -18% | -2% |
| Sales | Y/Y | 2% | -19% | 21% |
| PBT | Y/Y | 1119% | -163% | -17% |
| PBIT | Y/Y | 823% | -156% | -17% |
| Cash profit per unit | Y/Y | 591% | -151% | -17% |
| ROI | Y/Y | 729% | -150% | -10% |
+-----------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+
g) Factors affecting domestic price
84. The Authority has examined the import prices from the subject country, change in the cost structure,
competition in the domestic market, factors other than dumped imports that might be affecting the prices
of the domestic industry in the domestic market. The Authority further notes that the principal factor
affecting the domestic prices is the dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject country.
h) Ability to raise capital
85. The Authority notes that even though the domestic industry has the ability to raise new investments to
increase its capacities to cater to the demand of the PUC in India the domestic industry has been unable to
utilise its capacities and is facing losses due to dumped imports. The dumping of the subject goods has
impacted the domestic industry’s ability to raise capital investments. The Authority also notes that new
players are planning to make and making investments in the Indian industry of the PUC, but they are
however, unable to move forward due to the dumped imports.
i) Magnitude of dumping and dumping margin
86. It is seen that the dumping margin from the subject country is not only more than de-minimis but also
significant.
I. CAUSAL LINK AND OTHER FACTORS
87. The Authority examined whether other factors listed under the Rules could have caused injury to the
domestic industry. The Authority examined known factors other than the dumped imports and ascertain
whether these are at the same time have been injuring the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by
other, if any, is not attributable to the dumped imports. Factors which are relevant in this respect include,
inter alia, the volume of subject goods not sold at dumped prices, contraction in demand or changes in the
pattern of consumption, trade restrictive practices, changes in technology, the export performance of the
domestic industry and the productivity of the domestic industry.
i) Volume and prices of imports from third countries
88. It is seen that the imports of the product under consideration from other countries are significant. However,
they are at significantly higher prices than selling price of the domestic industry. Therefore, imports from
other countries are not a cause of material injury suffered by the domestic industry.
ii) Contraction in Demand
89. The demand has consistently increased throughout the injury period. Thus, decline in demand is not the
cause of injury.
iii) Changes in pattern of consumption
90. There are no changes in the pattern of consumption for the product under consideration over the injury
period that could have caused injury to the domestic industry.
iv) Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices
91. The investigation has not shown any change in the conditions of competition or any trade restrictive
practices.
v) Developments in Technology
92. No evidence has been brought forward to show that there are no significant changes in technology.
vi) Export performance of the domestic industry
93. The information provided has been considered for domestic operations of the domestic industry.
vii) Performance of other products
94. The domestic industry has provided the injury data for the PUC and the same has been adopted by the
Authority for the purpose of the injury analysis. Performance of other products produced and sold by the
domestic industry has not been considered.
I.1. Conclusion on Injury and Causal Link
95. Analysis of the performance of the domestic industry over the injury period shows material injury to the
domestic industry. The causal link between dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry is
established on the following grounds:
i. Imports have increased in absolute terms and relative terms.
ii. The increase in cost of sales is higher than the increase in selling price of the subject goods over the
injury period with selling price going below the level of cost of sales in 2022-23 and the POI. The
landed price of subject imports increased till 2021-22 and declined in 2022-23 and the POI leading to
price suppression and depression in the domestic market.
iii. Domestic industry has not been able to increase production and sales due to dumping.
iv. Subject imports hold ***% of the market share despite domestic industry’s capacity lying unutilised.
v. Inventories of the domestic industry has been on the rise and has increased significantly in the POI,
despite production reducing over the injury period.
vi. The domestic industry’s profitability and return on capital employed has been adversely affected.
The domestic industry has made losses in 2022-23 and the POI. The ROI of the domestic industry in
the POI is significantly low.
96. The above analysis indicates that the domestic industry is suffering material injury due to increased dumped
imports of the PUC into India from the subject country. There exists a causal relation between the increase
in dumped imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country and the
material injury suffered by the domestic industry.
J. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
97. The Authority determines the NIP for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in the
Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The NIP of the product under consideration is to be
determined by adopting the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the domestic
industry for the POI. The NIP has been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject
country for calculating injury margin. For determining the NIP, the best utilisation of the raw materials
and utilities has been considered over the injury period. Best utilisation of production capacity over the
injury period has been considered. Extraordinary or non-recurring expenses have been excluded from the
cost of production. A reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on average capital employed (i.e., average net
fixed assets plus average working capital) for the product under consideration was allowed as pre-tax
profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure III to the Rules. The Authority has determined NIP
separately for each of the quarters of the POI.
98. It is noted that many cooperating producers and exporters are related to each other and form a group of
related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider related exporting producers
and exporters as one single entity for the determination of injury margin and thus, to establish one single
injury margin for them. This is in particular because calculating individual injury margins might encourage
circumvention of anti-dumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related exporting
producers to channel their exports to India through the company with the lowest individual injury margin.
99. In accordance with the above, related producers and exporters have been regarded as one single entity and
attributed one single injury margin which was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the injury
margins of the cooperating related producers and exporters.
100. Based on the landed price and the NIP determined as above, the injury margin as provisionally
determined by the Authority is provided in the table below.
+-----+------------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+--------+-----------+
| S.No| Producer | NIP($/MT) | Landed | Injury | IM | IM |
| | | | Value | Margin(IM) | (%) | Range |
| | | | ($/MT) | ($/MT) | | |
+-----+------------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+--------+-----------+
| 1. | M/s Anhui Gold Star Titanium | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
| | Dioxide (Group) Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 2. | M/s Anhui Gold Star Titanium | | | | | |
| | Dioxide Trading Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 3. | M/s Shandong Jinhai Titanium | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
| | Resources Technology Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 4. | M/s Shandong Xianghai Titanium | | | | | |
| | Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 5. | M/s LB Xiangyang Titanium | *** | *** | *** | *** | 15-25 |
| | Industry Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 6. | M/s LB Sichuan Titanium | | | | | |
| | Industry Co. Ltd | | | | | |
| 7. | M/s LB Lufeng Titanium | | | | | |
| | Industry Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 8. | M/s LB Group Co., Ltd | | | | | |
| 9. | M/s Henan Billions Advanced | | | | | |
| | Material Co., Ltd. | | | | | |
| 10. | Non-Sampled Cooperative Producers/Exporters | *** | *** | *** | *** | 15-25 |
| 11. | Residual | *** | *** | *** | *** | 25-35 |
+-----+------------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+--------+-----------+
K. THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY
101. In the present investigation, the domestic industry has contended threat of material injury. The Authority
examined the threat of material injury to the domestic industry considering the parameters relating to the
threat of material injury in terms of Paragraph (vii) of Annexure II of the Rules, which states as under:
“A determination of a threat of material injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation,
conjecture or remote possibility. The change in circumstances, which would create a situation in which
the dumping would cause injury, must be clearly foreseen and imminent. In making a determination
regarding the existence of a threat of material injury, the Designated Authority shall consider, inter
alia, such factors as:
a. a significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India indicating the likelihood of
substantially increased importation;
b. sufficient freely disposable or an imminent, substantial increase in capacity of the exporter
indicating the likelihood of substantially increased dumped exports to Indian market, taking
into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports;
c. whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing
effect on domestic prices, and would likely to increased demand for further imports; and
d. inventories of the article being investigated.”
K.1. Submissions by other interested parties
102. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to threat of material
injury:
i. Increase of imports from the subject country has been only 4% on a year-on-year basis and cannot be
considered as significant enough to substantiate threat.
ii. Marginal increase in imports both in relative and absolute terms is not sufficient to support the claim
of threat of material injury.
iii. India does not constitute an exceptionally high-growth or lucrative market for exports of the subject
goods due to stable demand.
iv. Stable demand does not indicate significant or increasing attractiveness to foreign exporters, including
Chinese exporters.
v. Threat must be both imminent and clearly foreseen and existence of surplus production capacity alone
does not fulfil this criterion.
vi. Domestic industry has not provided reliable data on actual installed capacity in China dedicated for
production of the subject goods as compared to those grades of titanium dioxide that are used in food
or pharmaceuticals.
vii. Lack of bifurcated data on China’s capacities for the product under consideration and other titanium
dioxide types leaves a gap in understanding the extent of production dedicated to the subject goods in
China.
viii. It is the established policy of one of the constituents of the domestic industry to price the product
under consideration above its variable costs of production, contradicting the claims of existence of
threat of material injury.
K.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
103. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to threat of material
injury:
i. Imports have increased significantly over the injury period with relative to increase in demand.
Imports increased in the POI significantly whereas the demand declined.
ii. Imports of rutile grade increased significantly.
iii. Post POI import volumes and prices of the subject country have remained consistent.
iv. Chinese capacity for the subject goods is around 55 lacs MT, which amounts to 56% of the global
capacity to produce the subject goods. Capacity with one Chinese exporter alone is 15 lacs MT.
v. Domestic demand of China PR is weak, thereby showing freely disposable capacity for exports.
vi. Public domain knowledge suggests that production levels of the subject goods in China showed year
on year increase despite weak demand.
vii. Chinese government heavily aids producers and manufacturers in China, creating distortions in the
Chinese economy, significantly affecting input costs.
viii. Various jurisdictions around the world have imposed measures against imports of titanium dioxide
from China PR, indicating China’s behaviour to dumped goods.
ix. Imposition of global actions has resulted in a restricted export market for China, which already has
weak demand, hence creating the possibility that China will redirect its excess capacity to the Indian
market.
x. Chinese producers of the subject goods have suffered a loss of market due to the global actions, and
such volume is likely to shift to India.
xi. Indian market is price sensitive, and availability of low-priced imports would have an adverse impact
on the prices of the product in the market, and hence leaves the domestic industry susceptible to
aggravated injury.
xii. Subject imports are at a price lower than cost of sales of the domestic industry, forcing it to reduce its
selling price and making the domestic industry vulnerable.
K.3. Examination by the Authority
104. The Authority has examined the threat of material injury considering the parameters relating to the threat
of material injury in terms of Paragraph (vii) of Annexure II of the Rules below.
a. Significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India
105. From an analysis of the import data, it is seen that there has been a year-on-year increase of imports into
India and the rate of increase in imports in the POI as compared with the base year is significant. Imports
have increased by 54%. The import price has also seen a significant decline in prices from 2021-22 to the
POI. A significant increase in imports with declining prices indicates the threat of substantially increased
imports in the future.
b. Freely disposable capacity with the producers
106. The applicants have submitted that there is significant freely disposable capacity for titanium dioxide in
China PR. The interested parties have contended that the disposable capacities as submitted by the
domestic industry are unreliable and should be bifurcated into that of capacity of PUC and of NPUC.
However, the domestic industry has relied upon the website of the Chinese producers (https://www.lomonbillions.global/key-facts/) as evidence, apart
from which they have relied upon a market research report. As per such information, the capacity
available with just one sampled group is 15 lacs MT, making it nearly three times that of Indian demand.
107. The Authority has compared the information on capacity and production, as made available by the
responding producers. It is seen that the sampled producers alone have a surplus capacity of ***MT
which is in the range of 85-95 % of total Indian demand.
+-----------+-------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Particulars | Gold Star Group| Shandong Group | LB Group | Total |
+-----------+-------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
| Capacity | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Production| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Surplus | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------+-------------+----------------+----------------+-----------+
c. Imports entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on
domestic prices
108. As noted above from the movement of cost of sales, selling price and landed price of imports that the
subject imports are suppressing the domestic prices. The increase in selling price is lower than the
increase in cost of sales, and the selling price is below the level of cost of sales since 2022-23. The landed
price of imports increased till 2021-22 and declined significantly thereafter, while the cost of sales
increased.
d. Level of inventories
109. The level of inventories available with the producers in subject countries could not be ascertained as such
information was not made available by the interested parties. Accordingly, this parameter for ascertaining
threat of injury could not be examined by the Authority.
e. Trade remedial actions by other countries
110. It is seen that various countries including Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the EU
have imposed anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods in their country from China PR. Further, the
United States has imposed an additional import duty since 2018. This highlights the tendency of the
producers from the subject country to dump goods in various markets. The actions by various countries
can be seen in the table below:
+----+----------+--------------+---------------+----------------+----------+
| SN | Date | Country | Action | Exporters | Duty |
+----+----------+--------------+---------------+----------------+----------+
| 1. | 21st Oct | Brazil | Interim duty | LB Group | 578 USD/MT|
| | | | | Gold Star Group| 654 USD/MT|
| 2. | 9th Oct | Saudi Arabia | Initiated case| -- | -- |
| 3. | 3rd Sep | Eurasian | Final duty | LB Group | 14.27% |
| | | Economic | | Shandong Group | 16.25% |
| | | Union | | | |
| 4. | 10th | EU | Preliminary | LB Group | 39.7% |
| | July | | duty | Gold Star Group| 14.4% |
+----+----------+--------------+---------------+----------------+----------+
f. Loss of market due to trade remedial actions
111. It has been brought to the notice of the Authority that in lieu of the actions imposed globally, there is a
loss of market to China PR. Chinese exports are highly likely to be diverted into the Indian market,
considering the Indian market’s stable demand. This poses a credible threat of the volumes exported to
these countries shifting to India due to imposition of such measures as can be seen from the table below.
+-----------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Particulars | UOM | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
+-----------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| China Global Exports | MT | 12,91,858| 13,88,669| 14,68,805| 16,93,380| 10,04,541|
| China exports to India| MT | 1,51,242 | 1,76,914 | 1,93,768 | 2,54,655 | 1,48,566 |
| % Share | % | 12% | 13% | 13% | 15% | 15% |
| Particulars | UOM | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| China exports to EU | MT | 2,03,459 | 2,26,531 | 2,22,034 | 2,61,734 | 1,71,596 |
| China exports to USA | MT | 18,227 | 13,118 | 20,418 | 15,619 | 8,986 |
| China exports to Brazil| MT | 1,08,344 | 1,02,322 | 96,014 | 1,20,989 | 76,978 |
| China exports to Saudi| MT | 13,606 | 10,721 | 17,152 | 23,678 | 15,209 |
| Arabia | | | | | | |
| Potential volume that | MT | 3,43,635 | 3,52,692 | 3,55,619 | 4,22,020 | 2,72,769 |
| can shift to India | | | | | | |
+-----------------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
(Source: Trademap)
g. Vulnerability of the Indian industry
112. It has been contended by the domestic industry that the Indian market is price sensitive and is vulnerable
to imports that are low-priced. As has been noted above, the landed value of the subject imports has
dropped consistently. In this situation, the Authority holds that there is a tenable threat of aggravated
injury to the industry, considering the dumping of subject imports.
L. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
L.1. Submissions by other interested parties
113. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regards to public interest:
i) Imposition of anti-dumping duty would increase the price of the subject goods, there by impacting
paint and plastic manufacturers.
ii) One of the other interested parties have submitted that TiO2 has no substitutes that provide the same
performance in their products. They have projected that the imposition of a 10% anti-dumping duty
(ADD) would increase paint production costs by ₹5/kg for finished products, potentially raising paint
prices by ₹3.5–6/kg depending on dosage levels in formulations. Given the significant share of TiO2
in paint formulations (15–20%), the cost increase would likely be passed on to consumers. Despite
this, it is believed that demand for TiO2 is not highly price-sensitive but driven by quality, as
domestic industry cannot meet the required standards for whiteness, sheen, and gloss. They have
highlighted a significant dependency on imports, as the domestic industry lacks the capacity to meet
demand.
iii) Consumers relying on affordable products would be unable to afford these products anymore.
iv) The cost of imports has already been increased due to the customs duty payable on the subject goods
at 10%. Addition of anti-dumping duty would lead to a substantial price hike for titanium dioxide.
v) Imposition of duty would be against consumer interest as the largest consumer of subject goods is the
paint industry. The demand supply gap in the country can only be overcome with imports.
vi) In total Indian consumption, there is likely not more than 10% of total Indian production. Hence, if
duties are applied, it will affect the majority negatively.
vii) Domestically available rutile grade is not suitable and hence users will have to import, which will be
deterred by duties if imposed.
viii)The duties imposed by the EU is causing difficulties to paint manufacturers within the EU and the
same situation is likely to be replicated in India.
ix) Imposition of duties will bring challenges to the Indian masterbatch industry as there is financial
stress on the industry due to inverted duty structure, and further, there will be a potential setback on
export competitiveness.
x) India does not constitute an exceptionally high-growth or lucrative market for foreign exporters as
demand has remained relatively steady over recent years and does not indicate significant or
increasing attractiveness to foreign exporters.
xi) One of the other interested parties have asserted that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would
have minimal impact on their operations. Despite previous price increases of up to 50% for TiO2,
they experienced no interruptions in demand, suggesting that price hikes do not significantly affect
the downstream industry. Further, they have emphasized that the demand for TiO2 is not highly
price-sensitive, with no substitutes available in the market. They also mentioned that large paint
companies typically pass price increases on to consumers without a reduction in demand. There are
viable alternatives to Chinese TiO2 from non-subject countries, so they could easily switch suppliers
if duties are imposed. TiO2 is a small component in finished products, and price increases would
have a minimal effect on profitability.
L.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
114. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regards to public interest:
i) The domestic industry constitutes the entire Indian industry and one more producer has recently
entered the market. Imposition of duties is essential to ensure a fair market price and will prevent
India from becoming solely import reliant. If duties are not imposed, Chinese producers will create a
monopoly in the market.
ii) Increasing market share of the subject imports of China have not only caused injury to the domestic
industry but also taken all the share of other countries.
iii) Encouraging domestic production will further boost employment, improve standard of living and
increase the GDP of the country.
iv) Titanium dioxide is used in the paints and coating industry, plastic industry, paper, rubber and leather
industries. The cost on account of subject goods for the downstream industry is miniscule. 70% of
the demand for subject goods is generated by the paints industry wherein TiO2 hardly constitute 5%
of the composition.
v) Titanium dioxide primarily serves the paint industry accounting for approximately 70% of total
demand. The subject goods constitute a 5%, 25% and 30% of the overall composition of paints used
in households, paints used in industrial application and powder coating used in appliances
respectively. The eventual impact of duties on the end consumer would be minimal and non-
consequential.
vi) If measures are not imposed, the industry is likely to shut down due to inability to match the price of
the dumped imports, deteriorating profitability, and other financial indicators.
vii) The paint industry, even if unable to pass on any possible increase in cost to the consumers, would be
able to absorb the impact of duties imposed themselves.
viii)As regards the plastics industry, the sector would remain profitable even if the impact of duties were
not to be passed on or were not absorbed.
ix) Existence of demand supply gap does not justify dumping of the subject goods.
x) There exist imminent plans to expand the capacity of the domestic industry, and to make additions to
the Indian industry, which will take away the need for imports as a whole.
xi) Any minimal impact on masterbatch industry can be passed on to the downstream user, and
alternatively, there are other sources of TiO2 from where the masterbatch industry can source TiO2.
xii) For export competitiveness, exporters of masterbatch can obtain an advance authorisation license,
which would enable them to import products duty-free.
xiii)India is a growing market and the volume of demand offered by the Indian market is significant and
unmatched by other countries individually.
xiv) Multiple investigating authorities have levied duties and initiated investigations on imports of TiO2
from China.
xv) Rutile through sulphate and rutile through chloride can both be sourced from alternate sources of
supply, in the event that importers and users want to opt for alternate sources.
xvi) The product is a price sensitive and capital-intensive product and expansion of capacity for such
product presents challenges and requires considerable time. Domestic industry is making efforts in
this regard.
xvii) The domestic industry requires a fair market to make investments to further its plans of expansions.
L.3. Examination by the Authority
115. The Authority notes that the purpose of imposition of anti-dumping duty, in general, is to eliminate injury
caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re-establish a situation of
open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. Imposition
of anti-dumping measures does not aim to restrict imports from the subject country in any way. Trade
remedial investigations are intended to restore equal competitive opportunities in the domestic market by
ensuring a level playing field for domestic producers by the imposition of appropriate duties against trade
distorting imports. At the same time, the Authority is aware that the impact of such duties is not limited to
only the domestic producers of the PUC but also affects the users and consumers of the PUC. Moreover,
the imposition of duties may stimulate the emergence of new producers within the country.
116. The Authority issued initiation notification inviting views from all the interested parties, including
importers, consumers and others. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the users/ consumers
to provide relevant information about the present investigation including any possible effects of anti-
dumping duty on their operations. Information was sought on, inter-alia, interchangeability of the product
supplied by various suppliers from different countries, ability of the domestic industry to switch sources,
effect of anti-dumping duty on the consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment
to the new situation caused by imposition of anti-dumping duty.
117. The interested parties have filed economic interest questionnaires. It is noted from the submission of all
the interested parties that the subject goods are primarily used in the paint industry which constitutes a
major portion of the total demand for the subject goods and the subject goods form very low percentage
of the total volume of composition of the paints. The analysis submitted by the applicants and other
interested parties shows that difference in the cost of the subject goods due to impact of imposition of
duties would not be significant.
118. The Authority notes that there exists a demand-supply gap in the present investigation. The Authority
notes the submission of the domestic industry that active steps are being taken to expand capacity by the
existing producers and also by new producers. One new producer namely, M/s Meghmani Organics Pvt
Ltd, has already set up new capacities post POI. It is also recognised that dumping needs to be addressed,
so as to provide the Indian industry with a fair and level playing field to plan capacity expansion
considering the fact that the industry is a capital-intensive industry.
119. It is also noted in this regard that existence of demand-supply gap does not justify dumping in any
situation. The same has been held by the CESTAT in DSM Idemitsu Limited v. Designated Authority (10 2000(119)EL.T 308 (TRI-DEL.)).
as well as by the Gujarat High Court in NOCIL Limited v. Government of India. The Gujarat High Court
held as follows in this regard:
“Where gap of demand and supply exists, the imports are inevitable but that is not a
justification for imports coming into India at unfair and dumped prices. In view of the
information made available by the petitioner to the authority, it is clearly found that there is
continuous dumping, in the present case and, therefore, the demand and supply gap is not the
basis for allowing such import.”
120. The Authority notes that the volume of imports from the subject country has increased throughout the
injury period. The share of subject imports forms 57% of the total Indian demand. The increase in imports
from the subject country has also adversely impacted the market share of the volume of imports from non-
subject countries, whose share in the market has been reduced from 43% in the base year to 31% in the
POI. The consumers have alternate sources of supply. Therefore, even if volume of imports declines as a
consequence of the imposition of anti–dumping duties, imports from non–subject countries would replace
such dumped imports and, thereby, mitigate the adverse effects, if any.
M. POST-DISCLOSURE SUBMISSIONS
M.1 Submissions by other interested parties:
i. Rutile-Sulphate Titanium Dioxide should not be included in the investigation scope, because it is
distinct from Rutile-Chloride in terms of applications and pricing.
ii. Domestic producers lack the capacity to meet India's demand, with total installed capacity at
82,500 MT while demand is ***MT, making imports essential.
iii. There is no causal link between imports and injury to the domestic industry, as several other market
factors have impacted the domestic industry's financial health.
iv. The raw material price fluctuations, supply chain disruptions, and global macroeconomic issues are
key reasons for financial difficulties faced by domestic producers, rather than imports.
v. The other interested parties challenge the injury analysis methodology, arguing that the Authority
has not sufficiently examined non-import factors affecting the domestic industry.
vi. The domestic manufacturers have not expanded capacity despite years of protection, demonstrating
that anti-dumping duties have not led to increased domestic production.
vii. Imports from China help bridge the demand-supply gap, ensuring stable input costs for the plastics
industry.
viii. Anti-dumping duties will lead to increased costs for key downstream sectors, including plastics,
paints, and paper, affecting price stability for finished goods.
ix. Many alternative sources of supply (such as from Australia, Mexico, and Malaysia) exist, meaning
that anti-dumping duties on China will not necessarily benefit domestic producers but rather
shift trade flows to other countries.
x. Strongly opposes the imposition of anti-dumping duties on public interest grounds, stating that such
measures will harm India’s competitiveness in the global plastics industry.
xi. Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) produced via the Chloride and Sulphate processes serve different market
segments, and the DGTR should not treat them as interchangeable for anti-dumping
calculations.
xii. The classification of China PR as a non-market economy is incorrect, because China’s pricing and
cost structures are market-driven and should be accepted in the normal value determination.
xiii. The application of a 22% Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) for the domestic industry is
incorrect as it is outdated and results in an artificially high non-injurious price (NIP).
xiv. The Authority’s determination of dumping margins is incorrect, because the methodology used
does not reflect transaction-level price variations and should be adjusted accordingly.
xv. The imposition of anti-dumping duties would not be in public interest as they will increase input
costs for key downstream industries such as paints, plastics, and paper.
xvi. The global economic factors have influenced Titanium Dioxide prices, and the Authority should
not attribute all price movements to dumping.
xvii. The injury to the domestic industry is not caused by imports, but rather due to inefficiencies in
production, outdated technology, and high operational costs.
xviii. The use of surrogate country methodology in the calculation of normal value is in incorrect,
asserting that China PR should be treated as a market economy.
xix. The domestic industry has been unable to supply Titanium Dioxide at competitive prices, leading
to a natural shift toward imports rather than a case of dumping.
xx. The other interested parties oppose reference price-based anti-dumping duties, stating that such
duties are prone to manipulation and may not reflect actual market conditions.
xxi. Requests that the injury margin calculations be reassessed, ensuring that cost fluctuations in raw
materials and other economic conditions are properly accounted for.
xxii. The landed price of imports has fluctuated significantly due to global economic factors.
xxiii. Similar anti-dumping investigations in Brazil and the European Union have used different
methodologies for injury assessment, suggesting that the Authority should align its approach
with global practices.
xxiv. The dumping margin calculation does not reflect actual market behaviour, as weighted averages do
not account for transaction-level pricing variations.
xxv. Indian importers have diversified their sourcing strategies, meaning that duties on Chinese imports
could result in a shift to other supplying countries rather than benefiting the domestic industry.
xxvi. Requests that the Authority disclose the names of paint companies that have purportedly purchased
Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 from the domestic industry, as claimed in the disclosure statement.
xxvii. The paint industry in India is growing rapidly and requires a stable supply of Titanium Dioxide at
competitive prices, which the domestic industry has not been able to ensure.
xxviii. The injury to the domestic industry is exaggerated, as demand for paints and coatings has remained
strong, allowing producers to operate profitably.
M.2 Submissions by the domestic industry:
i. Imports have increased by 54% over the injury period, despite a relatively stable demand, leading
to a decline in domestic market share.
ii. The domestic industry claims that China’s non-market economy status should be upheld, and the
normal value should be determined accordingly.
iii. China’s surplus production capacity is significantly higher than India’s total demand, meaning
dumped imports are likely to continue without intervention.
iv. The dumped imports have affected production, sales, profits, and return on investment, leading to
financial stress and underutilization of capacity.
v. The domestic industry argues that there is a direct link between dumped imports and the injury
suffered by domestic producers.
vi. Cost of sales has increased, but selling price has declined, leading to a steep reduction in profits
and negative return on investment (ROI).
vii. Cash losses have been recorded by domestic manufacturers in recent years due to dumped imports.
viii. Price suppression caused by low-priced imports has prevented the domestic industry from
increasing prices in response to rising costs.
ix. Market share of Chinese imports has increased consistently, whereas the share of domestic
production has shrunk significantly.
x. The domestic industry supports the exclusion of food, pharma, skin-care, textile, and nano/ultrafine
Titanium Dioxide from the scope of the investigation.
xi. The domestic industry strongly opposes the exclusion of Rutile-Sulphate TiO2 from the scope of
anti-dumping duties. Both Rutile-Chloride and Rutile-Sulphate grades have similar chemical
and physical properties.
xii. The difference in prices is not a valid reason for differentiation, as production costs are
comparable.
xiii. The other interested parties claim that the Authority’s PCN methodology is incorrect, but the
domestic industry argues that PCN methodology should be based on crystalline structure (rutile
& anatase), not process (chloride & sulphate).
xiv. Producers/Exporters from subject country have misled the Authority by claiming high-cost
differences, whereas verified data shows that costs are comparable.
xv. The Brazilian and EU authorities have treated Rutile-Sulphate and Rutile-Chloride grades as a
single product, and the Authority should do the same.
xvi. The domestic industry disputes the determined NIP, stating that the coating cost for TiO2 has been
underestimated. The domestic industry has provided financial records showing higher actual
coating costs, which should be factored into the final determination. The injury margin and
dumping margin should reflect these adjustments to provide adequate protection to domestic
producers.
xvii. The domestic industry strongly opposes reference price-based anti-dumping duties. Importers can
manipulate invoices to avoid duties. Past investigations have shown that reference price duties
were ineffective, leading to their replacement with fixed duties in later reviews.
xviii. A fixed quantum of duty should be imposed to ensure that duties are effectively applied and not
evaded.
xix. The domestic industry acknowledges that there is a demand-supply gap in the Indian market but
asserts that Indian producers are actively expanding their capacity to bridge the gap.
xx. Meghmani Organics has set up new production units, and existing producers (KMML, TTPL) have
investment plans to increase production.
xxi. If dumping continues unchecked, planned expansions will be jeopardized, harming long-term self-
reliance.
xxii. The domestic industry rejects the claim that anti-dumping duties will harm consumers.
xxiii. TiO2 forms a small percentage of the total cost of paints, plastics, and paper. The actual cost
impact on final products is minimal (0.012% to 1.44%).
xxiv. Alternative suppliers from non-subject countries (e.g., Australia, Malaysia, and Mexico) exist to
replace Chinese imports.
xxv. The domestic industry highlights that Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU),
the European Union, and the US have all imposed ADD on Chinese TiO2.
xxvi. Given these global trends, India must also impose duties to prevent market distortion and trade
diversion from China.
xxvii. The domestic industry requests a fixed quantum anti-dumping duty in USD for a period of five
years.
M.3 Examination by the Authority:
121. The Authority has examined the post disclosure comments made by the interested parties. It is noted that
the comments which are reiterations and have already been suitably examined and adequately addressed
in the relevant paragraphs of this final findings, are not being repeated in the post-disclosure examination
by the Authority for the sake of brevity. Issues raised by the interested parties other than those examined
in detail and which are considered relevant by the Authority have been examined as hereunder:
122. As regards the argument of the domestic industry that the PCN methodology should be based on
crystalline structure, the Authority reiterates that PCN was correctly adopted because it goes beyond
crystalline structure to incorporate production process and cost and price differences. This broader
classification allows for a more precise and fair comparison taking into account the pricing and technical
differences of the two processes.
123. Given the interchangeability and competitive market positioning of both sulphate and chloride rutile
titanium dioxide, the Authority concludes that the inclusion of sulphate-rutile titanium dioxide within the
scope of the product under consideration is appropriate and justified.
124. As regards the argument that other factors such as internal inefficiency, raw material price fluctuation,
supply chain disruptions have caused injury and price suppression to the domestic industry, it is noted that
dumped imports are the principal factor affecting the domestic industry’s pricing and profitability. The
examination of data shows that the selling price of the domestic industry has been consistently below cost
since 2022-23, while the landed price of imports has been materially lower than the cost of sales, leading
to significant price suppression. Furthermore, claims attributing the domestic industry’s losses to internal
inefficiencies or supply chain disruptions have not been substantiated with any concrete evidence. The
alleged raw material fluctuation, if any, is a factor that affects both, the domestic industry and the
exporters alike.
125. The 22% Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) benchmark has been consistently used in anti-dumping
investigations, which ensures a reasonable return on investment for the domestic industry. The Authority
finds no concrete reason to depart from its established practice in this matter. The Authority’s
determination of NIP is based on established principles outlined in Annexure III of the Anti-dumping
Rules.
126. The exporters had not requested transactional wise dumping margin earlier and there is no information
available to determine the NIP and the normal value at a transactional level at this stage of the
investigation. Furthermore, the information on record does not show consistent and significant difference
in export price between different periods. Minor price variations are accounted for using weighted
averages, ensuring a fair comparison. No substantive evidence has been provided by the exporters to
demonstrate that an alternative approach would provide more accurate results.
127. The domestic industry has provided names of paint manufacturers to whom goods have been sold to along
with relevant evidence.
128. In order to ensure fair comparison between sulphate-rutile titanium dioxide produced by the domestic
industry and imported from exporters/producers of the subject country, appropriate adjustments have been
made on account of coating cost for determining injury margin and dumping margin.
129. As regards domestic industry’s contention regarding underestimation of coating cost, the Authority notes
that the coating cost assessment is based on verified data made available by the domestic industry and
after considering relevant cost components in accordance with the principles enshrined under Annexure
III of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
N. CONCLUSION
130. Based on the submissions made, information provided, and facts available before the Authority as
recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic
industry, the Authority concludes the following:
i) The scope of the product under consideration is “Titanium Dioxide” originating in or exported from
China PR.
ii) The subject goods are classified under the customs sub-heading 28230010, and since it is a pigment,
imports of subject goods are also being reported under 32061110 and 32061190.
iii) The application has been filed by M/s. Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd, M/s. Travancore Titanium
Products Ltd and M/s. VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd. The applicants constitute domestic industry,
under Rule 2(b) of the Rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule
5(3).
iv) The subject goods exported from China PR and the article manufactured by the domestic industry are
‘like article’ to each other in terms of Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules, 1995.
v) The product under consideration has been exported to India at a price below the normal value,
resulting in dumping. The dumping margin is above de-minimis level and significant.
vi) The volume of subject imports increased over the injury period, especially in the POI, in absolute
and relative terms. Imports of subject country constitute a majority of the total imports into India
throughout the injury period.
vii) Imports have had a considerable impact on suppressing the prices of the domestic industry.
viii)Production and capacity utilisation increased from the base year and 2021-22 after which there was a
decline. Capacity utilisation is low despite high demand in the country.
ix) Sales of the domestic industry increased till 2021-22, declined in 2022-23, and increased in the POI.
x) Market share of imports from the subject country in domestic demand has increased whereas, that of
domestic industry has declined over the injury investigation period.
xi) Profits and cash profits have declined for the domestic industry during the injury investigation
period. The domestic industry is incurring losses since 2022-23 and the POI. ROI has also declined
steeply and was negative ***% in the POI.
xii) Average inventory has increased significantly during the injury period.
xiii)Number of employees and wages paid have decreased over the injury period with marginal increase
in the POI as compared to previous year.
xiv) Productivity per employee increased in the base year and 2021-22, while decreasing in 2022-23 and
the POI.
xv) Imports at dumped prices have adversely impacted the growth of the domestic industry.
xvi) No other factor appears to have caused injury to the domestic industry. It is noted that domestic
industry has suffered material injury as a result of the dumped imports of the subject goods from
subject country, and is facing threat of injury from subject country.
O. RECOMMENDATIONS
131. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all the interested parties and
adequate opportunity was given to them to provide information on the aspect of injury, causal link, and
impact of measures. Having initiated and conducted the investigation in terms of the provisions of anti-
dumping investigations as laid down under the Anti-dumping Duty Rules, the Authority has reached a
conclusion that the duty should be imposed on subject goods. Accordingly, the Authority recommends
imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports of the product under consideration.
132. Further, having regard to the conclusion reached with regard to imports of the product under consideration
under HS Codes- 28230010, 32061110 and 32061190, the Authority recommends collection of anti-
dumping duties on imports of the product under consideration, falling under this code.
133. Having regards to the lesser duty rule followed, the Authority recommends imposition of anti-dumping
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 definitive anti-dumping duty
on the imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country, equal to the amount
mentioned in Col. 7 of the duty table appended below, to be issued in this regard by the Central
Government for a period of 5(five) years from the date of notification to be issued in this regard.
DUTY TABLE
+-----+-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
| SN | Heading/ | Description | Country | Country | Producer | Amount | Unit of | Currency |
| | sub- | of goods | of | of export | | | measurement | |
| | heading | | origin | | | | | |
+-----+-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) |
+-----+-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
| 1. | 28230010, | Titanium | China | Any | Anhui Gold | 609 | MT | USD |
| | 32061110, | Dioxide** | PR | country | Star | | | |
| | and | | | including | Titanium | | | |
| | 32061190* | | | China PR | Dioxide | | | |
| | | | | | (Group) | | | |
| | | | | | Co., Ltd. | | | |
| | | | | | Anhui Gold | | | |
| | | | | | Star | | | |
| | | | | | Titanium | | | |
| | | | | | Dioxide | | | |
| | | | | | Trading | | | |
| | | | | | Co., Ltd. | | | |
+-----+-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
| 2. | -do- | -do- | China | Any | Shandong | 563 | MT | USD |
| | | | PR | country | Jinhai | | | |
| | | | | including | Titanium | | | |
| | | | | China PR | Resources | | | |
| | | | | | Technology | | | |
| | | | | | Co., Ltd. | | | |
| | | | | | Shandong | | | |
| | | | | | Xianghai | | | |
| | | | | | Titanium | | | |
| | | | | | Co., Ltd. | | | |
+-----+-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
| 3. | -do- | -do- | China | Any | LB | 460 | MT | USD |
| | | | PR | country | Xiangyang | | | |
| | | | | including | Titanium | | | |
| | | | | China PR | Industry Co | | | |
| | | | | | Ltd., and | | | |
| | | | | | LB Sichuan | | | |
| | | | | | Titanium | | | |
| | | | | | Industry | | | |
| | | | | | Co., Ltd. | | | |
| | | | | | LB Lufeng | | | |
| | | | | | Titanium | | | |
| | | | | | Industry | | | |
| | | | | | Co., Ltd. | | | |
| | | | | | LB Group | | | |
| | | | | | Co., Ltd. | | | |
| | | | | | Henan | | | |
| | | | | | Billions | | | |
| | | | | | Advanced | | | |
| | | | | | Material | | | |
| | | | | | Co., Ltd. | | | |
+-----+-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
| 4. | -do- | -do- | China | Any | ****Non | 510 | MT | USD |
| | | | PR | country | Sampled | | | |
| | | | | including | Cooperative | | | |
| | | | | China PR | Producers | | | |
+-----+-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
| 5. | -do- | -do- | China | Any | Any | 681 | MT | USD |
| | | | PR | country | producer | | | |
| | | | | other | other than | | | |
| | | | | than | SN 1, 2, 3, | | | |
| | | | | subject | & 4 | | | |
| | | | | country | | | | |
+-----+-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
| 6. | -do- | -do- | Any | China PR | Any | 681 | MT | USD |
| | | | country | | | | | |
| | | | other | | | | | |
| | | | than | | | | | |
| | | | subject | | | | | |
| | | | country | | | | | |
+-----+-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+--------------------+---------+-------------------+----------+
*Note-Customs classification is only indicative, and the determination of anti-dumping duty shall be made
as per the description of the PUC.
**Excluding the following:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| S. No.| Product | Description of the excluded product and details |
| | excluded | |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Food | TiO2 used in food additives like food colouring |
| 2 | Pharma | TiO2 used as ingredient in tablet film coatings |
| 3 | Skin-care | TiO2 is used in cosmetics and sunscreen lotions for UV-absorbing and photocatalyst applications |
| 4 | Textile | TiO2 used in production of textile/fibre. TiO2 which is used in the production of textiles and fibres largely because of its photo-catalytic self-cleaning, UV-protection and delustering abilities, etc. is excluded from the scope of product under consideration. However, such exclusion does not extend to the TiO2 that is used as a pigment for printing over the textile/garment/cloth/fabric. |
| 5 | Fibre | TiO2 is used for delustering the artificial fibre and this fibre is used to product the textiles. Fibre grade materials are used to blend with fibre threads to make the cloth itself. TiO2 Rutile grade for making décor paper (used at fibre/pulp stage). |
| 6 | Nano or ultrafine | Nano or ultrafine titanium dioxide having particle size below 100 nm used in textile/paint industry to offer characteristics such as dust free textile/paint. |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
****Non-Sampled Cooperative Producers
1. Yibin Tianyuan Group Co., Ltd
2. Chongqing Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. of Pangang Group
3. Pangang Group Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
4. Jiangxi Tikon Titanium Products Co Ltd ( A Tronox Company)
5. Kunming Donghao Titanium Co., Ltd.
6. Inter-China Chemical Co., Ltd.
7. Anhui Annada Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
8. Shandong Doguide Group Co., Ltd.
9. Qianjiang Fangyuan Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
10. Jinan Yuxing Chemical Co., Ltd.
11. Ningbo Xinfu Titanium Dioxide Co., Ltd.
12. Shandong Dawn Titanium Industry Co., Ltd.
P. FURTHER PROCEDURE
135. An appeal against the order of the Authority arising out of this final finding shall lie before the Customs
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Customs
Tariff Act.
DARPAN JAIN, Designated Authority
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.