Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 332] NEW DELHI, MONDAY , DECEMBER 16, 2024 /AGRAHAYAN 25, 194 6
CG-DL-E-17122024-259462
1….
4 कुल 4,008 100%
कुल 8,203 1,738 6,465
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES )
ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 16th December 2024
CASE NO. AD(OI) – 30/ 2023
Subject: Order pa ssed pursuant to direction of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15673 of 2024 in the anti -dumping investigation concerning
imports of “Polyvinyl Chloride Suspension Resins” originating in or exported from China
PR, Indonesia, Japan, Korea RP, Taiwan, Thailand and the United States of America.
A BACKGROUND
1. F. No. 6/33/2023 -DGTR .––Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited, DCM Shriram Limited
and DCW Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the “Applicants”) filed an application
before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the “Authority”), in
accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter
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, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the “Rules” or
“Anti -Dumping Rules”), for initiation of an anti -dumping investigation concerning imports
of Polyvinyl Chloride Suspension Resins (hereinafter also referred to as the “product under
consideration” or the “subject goods”), originating in or exported from China PR,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea RP, Taiwan, Thailand and the United States of America
(hereinafter also referred to as the “subject countries”).
2. The Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicants, issued a public
notice vide Notification No. 6/33/2023 -DGTR dated 26th March 2024, published in the Gazette of
India Extraordinary, initiating the subject investigation in accordance with Section 9A of the Act
read with Rule 5 of the Rules to determine existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the
subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries, and to recommend the amount of
anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic
industry.
3. After examining the submissions made by all other interested parties, the Authority concluded that
there is a need for imposition of provisional anti -dumping duty in order to offset dumping and injury
to the domestic industry, pending completion of the investigation. Accordingly, the Authority issued
a preliminary findings dated 30th October 2024 recommending imposition of provisional anti -
dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject countries.
4. Post issuance of preliminary findings, Epigral Limited, an importer/user of the product under
consideration, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court alleging that the
submissions made by it were not considered by the Authority prior to issuance of the preliminary
findings and the grades specified by it should have been excluded from the scope of product under
consideration, The Hon’ble High Court passed the following order vide order dated 29th November
2024,
1….
2. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 referred to the
communication dated 28th November, 2024 from the respondent No.2 - Director General of
Trade Remedies, Govt. of India, New Delhi addressed to him and submitted that the
petitioners have now informed the respondent No.2 that on 23rd November, 2024 that the
confidentiality qua the details submitted by the petitioners is not claimed.
3. In view of the above submissions, the following order is passed in the interest of justice
as well as in the facts of the case to resolve the issue raised in this petition.
(1) The respondent No.2 shall share the information which was claimed to be confidential
up to 23rd November, 2023 with the members of the domestic industries i.e. respondent
No. 4,5 and 6 on or before 4th December, 2024.
(2) The respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 shall file their objections or reply with regard to the
objections raised by the petitioners for exclusion of the item from the product under
consideration (PUC) on or before 6th December, 2024.
(3) The petitioners shall file rejoinder if any to such reply on or before 10th December,
2024.
(4) The respondent No.2 shall finally decide the issue of exclusion of Special grade SPVC
as claimed by the petitioners to be excluded or not from the product under consideration
(PUC) on or before 16th December, 2024 by providing opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 and other stakeholders if any and place
the order which may be passed on the record of this petition on or before the next date of
hearing.
Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondent is directed to communicate to the
respondent Nos. 1,2 3 and 7 not to take any further action to implement impugned order
till the next date of hearing.
Needless to say, that the petitioners and respondents shall cooperate and comply with the
aforesaid directions.
Stand over to 18th December, 2024.
5. The following procedure was followed by the Authority post issuance of the aforesaid order by
Hon’ble High Court.
B Procedure
6. The procedure described hereinbelow has been followed with regard to the subject investigation.
i. The Authority received an email from Epigral Limited dated 25/11/2024 waiving
theconfidentiality claimed on the submissions made.
ii. The Authority circulated the submissions made by Epigral Limited to domestic industry and all
interested parties/other stakeholders vide email dated 4th December 2024 and directed to file
their written submissions on the same latest by 6th December 2024.
iii. The Authority received written submissions from other interested parties/stakeholders including
the domestic industry on 6th December 2024.
iv. The other interested parties/stakeholders including Epigral Limited and the domestic industry
filed rejoinder to the written submissions made by the other interested parties/stakeholders.
7. The Authority conducted an oral hearing through hybrid mode (VC/physical) dated 11th December
2024 at 04:00 PM and provided due opportunity to all the interested parties including Epigral and
domestic industry to present their views orally.
C Submissions by other interested parties
8. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties/stakeholders with regard to
request for exclusion of certain grades from the scope of the product under consideration.
I. Submissions by Epigral Limited
i. There is a need to exclude special grade of PVC suspension resins used for manufacturing of C -
PVC as the same are not offered by the domestic industry. The grades produced by the domestic
industry are not technically and commercially substitutable with grades imported into India.
ii. Special grade PVC is designed for very high porosity which is suitable for uniform chlorination
for C -PVC.
iii. Special grade of PVC has different kind of formulation to ensure long term heat stability of C -
PVC resin which is not there in case of general grade of PVC.
iv. Formosa Plastics Corporation produces and exports specialty grade PVC S65C.
v. S65C of Formosa has higher apparent density than PR 065 of DCW Limited. This allows for
achieving high productivity and output for end users of C -PVC.
vi. S65C offers higher plasticizer absorption as compared to PR 065. This ensures effective
chlorination of C -PVC.
vii. S65C has smaller mean particle size as compared to PR 065. With large particle size the
homogeneity of chlorine distribution is disrupted.
viii. PR 065 leads to a shorter gelation speed which is not favorable for C -PVC manufacturing.
ix. General grade of Suspension PVC cannot be used as Suspension PVC should have adequate
internal morphology to achieve desired and homogeneous chlorination.
x. Mass grade PVC has been excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. The
specialty grades are similar in end use to mass / bulk polymerized PVC grade.
xi. DCW Limited has imported S -65C of Formosa and SF58S of Thai Polyethylene of PVC. This
shows that the special grade of PVC is not available in India and DCW cannot use its own
product for production of C -PVC.
xii. DCW in its investor call has admitted that special quality of PVC is required to manufacture C -
PVC.
xiii. The specialty grades for C -PVC manufacturing include S65C and S57C produced by Formosa
Plastics Corporation, SG66J and SF58S produced by Thai Polyethylene Co. and M1000
produced by Shanghai Chlor Alkali Chemical Co. Ltd.
xiv. There was no production of specialty grade PVC Resins during the period of investigation
which is evident from the fact that DCW commissioned its new plant post period of
investigation and started using its own PVC suspension resin.
xv. As opposed to the submission of the domestic industry, BIS refers to only a basic C -PVC resin.
PVC Suspension grades supplied by domestic industry does not yield C -PVC as per the
specifications in IS 17988.
xvi. Epigral has imported a number of grades from a number of suppliers on trial basis to examine,
experiment, conduct R&D and ascertain feasibility for production of C -PVC. While some
grades have worked the others have not worked.
xvii. The grades imported by Epigral is miniscule as compared to the total imports into India, thus,
establishing that such grades are specialty grades.
xviii. The applicants have not disclosed during the course of the investigation that there are different
grades of PVC suspension resins and that such grades have been imported by DCW Limited.
xix. The applicants have started importing specialty grades directly post period of investigation which
were being imported in the period of investigation through connected entities. This is
circumvention of the Anti -Dumping Rules.
xx. DCW Limited has imported S -65C from Formosa Plastics Corporation till November 2024. While
Formosa Plastics Corporation exports a number of grades, only S65C which is specialized grade
for C -PVC has been imported.
xxi. The applicants have not disclosed the imports made during the period of investigation. The
Authority has not checked the adequacy and accuracy of the information filed by the domestic
industry.
xxii. There is no provision in the Anti -Dumping Rules for conducting meetings regarding PUC and
PCN with officers of the Designated Authority and the same cannot be considered as a proper
and adequate opportunity to all interested parties.
xxiii. A hearing was conducted on the scope of PUC and PCN without providing adequate time for
preparation of submissions.
xxiv. In the submission dated 6th May 2024, Epigral had already stated that the applicants have
themselves admitted that K -value is not the only relevant parameter but there are other
parameters for specification of the product under consideration. Thus, K -value should not be the
only parameter for deciding the scope of the product under consideration.
xxv. The applicants did not rely on the BIS standards while proposing scope of the product under
consideration, and the reliance was placed at a later stage indicating that the same is an
afterthought.
xxvi. While the BIS standard 17658:2021 submitted by the applicant states that PVC resins have
different grades and are classed based on viscosity behavior, particle size distribution, apparent
density etc., the Authority has only considered K -value as a relevant factor for the scope of
product under consideration.
xxvii. IS 17658:2021 specifically recognizes that there are special grades of PVC suspension resins on
account of both end -use and technical parameters. Hence, the claim that there are no specialty
grades is incorrect.
xxviii. The BIS standards classify PVC suspension resins and mass PVC resins under the same
standard. Accordingly, exclusion of mass grade cannot be justifiable. Both mass PVC resins and
specialty PVC suspension resins are not produced in India.
xxix. The Order of the High Court of Gujarat has not been followed in the true spirit as only the
domestic industry and Epigral Limited should have been given an opportunity for submissions
and hearing.
xxx. Reliance placed on grades supplied by Reliance Industries Limited is unlawful as the said
manufacturer is not part of the present investigation.
xxxi. In case, there was no specialty grade requirement, then DCW should have consumed PVC
suspension grade manufactured by other domestic producers as well.
xxxii. The Authority must verify the commercial considerations of DCW Limited for not using its own
grade. The requirement of PVC suspension resins for production of C -PVC by DCW Limited is
only 8% of its total capacity, thus, such assertions are incorrect. Such information should be
disclosed to the other interested parties.
xxxiii. Commercial considerations are not an excuse for permitting imports of grades of subject goods
that domestic industry alleges to manufacture.
xxxiv. The reliance on imports of C -PVC have reduced due to presence of Epigral in the domestic
market. It is further expanding capacities in order to further reduce its dependence.
xxxv. The domestic industry has not approached Epigral to offer their product as they do not
manufacture specialty grade.
xxxvi. Epigral has tried using grade supplied by Reliance Industries Limited and has informed them
that the grade is not running well. DCW Limited had verbally refused for supplying Epigral the
product.
xxxvii. The domestic industry has made contradictory submissions with regard to porosity. Even the
mass PVC grade of Formosa imported by DCW has high porosity, narrow particle distribution
and less fine powder used for manufacturing C -PVC.
xxxviii. The image provided by the Epigral makes it clear that morphology of S65C supports uniform
chlorination.
xxxix. Patent vide No. US6,384,149 B2 dated May 7, 2002 which is with reference to PCV
requirement for production of C -PVC clearly mentioned importance of average particle size
porosity, viscosity, heat stability, Free flow property, sedimentation tendency, particle size
distribution etc.,
xl. While DCW Limited produces pipe grade and fitting grade, there is no single grade for C -PVC
manufacturing.
xli. DCW Limited did not have a BIS license between October 2022 to June 2024.
xlii. The authenticity of the test reports provided by the domestic industry are doubtful as the samples
have been provided by the domestic industry and the domestic industry can manipulate the
samples provided to the Lab.
II. Submissions by Formosa Plastic Corporation
i. Grade S -65C is primarily utilized for production of C -PVC.
ii. The cold plasticizer absorption of S -65C is 27.9%, compared to 25.6% for Normal Grade K65
PVC, indicating its superior absorption capabilities.
iii. The mean particle size for Grade S -65C is 132 μm, while Grade K65 PVC has a mean particle
size of 118 μm.
iv. Particle size distribution shows Grade S -65C has thinner skin with uniform porosity and high
cold plasticizer absorption. This allows chlorine to diffuse evenly during the chlorination
process.
v. DCW does not produce this grade and has imported significant quantity of S -65C. Thus, the
grades used for production of C -PVC should be excluded from the scope of the product under
consideration.
vi. Formosa has endorsed the submissions placed by Epigral Limited.
III. Submissions by Thai Polyethylene Co. Ltd.
i. TPE produces specialty grades (SG66J and SF58S) which are exclusively used to produce C -
PVC.
ii. The domestic manufacturers do not produce an equivalent grade that is commercially and
technically viable substitutes to SG66J and SF58S.
iii. The specialty grades have higher apparent density than PRO 65 produced by DCW Limited.
Higher density is essential for achieving high productivity and output for CPVC end -users.
iv. SG66J has low yellow index as compared to PRO65. This difference is significant in application
where visual consistency is critical.
v. SG66J has smaller particle size compared to PRO65. This allows uniform chlorination process
which is crucial for maintaining high standards of C -PVC production.
vi. SG66J has faster absorption time as compared to PRO65. The domestic grade thus has slower
rate of chlorine penetration which can reduce production rate and efficiency.
vii. SG66J has lower cold plasticizer absorption time, allowing for quicker incorporation of chlorine
into PVC as compared to PRO65.
viii. SG66J is formulated with optimized additives that supports chlorination reaction with minimal
color changes and ensures long -term hear stability for C -PVC products.
ix. The domestic industry imports specialty grades through trader, MK Industries, for the
manufacturing C -PVC.
x. Imposition of anti -dumping duty on specialty grades would increase the costs of end -producers
and create barriers for products in the Indian market.
IV. Submissions by Hanwha Solutions Corporation
i. Epigral initially requested for exclusion of specialty grades without providing the specific grades
and reason for exclusion. Grades were specified after the deadlines had passed.
ii. All grades of products under consideration have no specially designated usage and are used to
produce a variety of products.
iii. No exporter other than Thai Plastic and Chemicals Plc and Thai Polyethylene Co. Ltd. filed
their submissions regarding exclusion.
iv. Any exemption of any specialty grade is unjustified and against the purpose of the anti -dumping
duty investigation.
D Submissions by domestic industry
9. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to request for exclusion
of certain grades from the scope of the product under consideration.
i. Epigral started producing in 2022 but made no significant efforts to develop a domestic source. It
bought domestically produced subject goods from the market and not directly from the producers
and did not give any feedback to the domestic producer in order to develop the grade.
ii. Epigral is non -cooperative in the present investigation as it has not filed an importers’
questionnaire response and economic interest questionnaire response.
iii. BIS is the competent authority to give specifications of the product and input material. Any
demand beyond the BIS should be considered as a choice and not technical requirement.
iv. While DCW has BIS license to manufacture C -PVC, Epigral does not have a license to do so.
Thus, the contention that use of subject goods supplied by domestic industry leads to production
of C-PVC not as per specifications stated in the BIS is not correct.
v. Epigral does not have a technology provider and hence, struggling with different PVC grades.
Epigral has not substantiated any claims technically or produced any recommendations from
technology supplier.
vi. Epigral simply stated that specialty grades should be excluded in its initial submissions without
providing a justification or specification of such specialty grades.
vii. Porosity of the product does not play a significant role in chlorination to C -PVC. The major
factors which play a role in manufacturing of C -PVC include surface reaction nature,
homogeneous chlorination and controlling factors.
viii. The Indian industry produces a number of grades with porosity even higher than the imported
grade.
ix. S65C has a bulk density (Apparent density) and porosity (plasticizer absorption) almost identical to
the values of DCW resin as per reports of third -party independent laboratory accredited by BIS.
x. There are no differences between the product supplied by DCW Limited and those imported from
Formosa.
xi. Epigral has not provided the source of data given for comparison of Formosa grade and DCW
grade.
xii. Epigral has made comparison to only one grade of one manufacturer in India. There are multiple
grades produced by producers in India and there are five producers of the subject goods in India.
xiii. While Epigral has stated that it has imported various grades in India and some of the grades have
failed, it has not provided any reason for such failure.
xiv. Since subject goods are produced in batch process, it is not possible to have same specification for
each batch. For this reason, the technical data sheets of the producers are given in range.
xv. Apparent bulk density is not related to high productivity and output for C -PVC end users. The
main parameters include extrusion technology, fusion and processing parameters.
xvi. There is no material difference between the grades supplied by the domestic industry and those
offered by the imports in terms of bulk density and porosity.
xvii. As against the submissions of Epigral Limited, higher mean particle size is an advantage and
not a drawback.
xviii. There is no correlation between gelation speed of PVC suspension resin and chlorination.
Subject goods manufactured by DCW shows earlier and better fusion (higher area under the
curve) compared to the so -called specialised resin.
xix. There is no conclusive evidence showing resin of what internal morphology alone will work for
making C -PVC resin and whether no grade made in India has adequate morphology.
xx. The domestic industry is offering like article to the product imported into India. This is evident
from the fact that DCW Limited has used its own PVC suspension resins to manufacture C -PVC.
xxi. DCW Limited has also used PVC suspension resins manufactured by other producers in order to
produce C -PVC.
xxii. Even after imposition of anti -dumping duty, Epigral Limited is free to import the subject goods
at fair prices.
xxiii. The BIS standard for C -PVC states raw material for manufacturing C -PVC is PVC suspension
resins with specification as per BIS standard 17658:2021. All domestic producers of subject
goods hold BIS licenses for manufacturing PVC suspension resins.
xxiv. As opposed to the submissions made by Epigral Limited, the investor’s call referred to the time
when DCW was producing only in its first plant, where technology supplier approved usage of
only MPVC. Hence, PVC suspension resins has not been used in that plant.
xxv. The second new plant of DCW was commenced in June 2023 for trial production and
commercial production was commenced in October 2023 for manufacturing C -PVC wherein, it
has used own PVC suspension resins to manufacture C -PVC.
xxvi. There are no specialty grades of PVC suspension resins which is evident from the fact that none
of the producers of the subject goods submitted that there is a need for exclusion of specialty
grade prior to issuance of PUC PCN notification.
xxvii. There are a number of producers of C -PVC globally which are using their own PVC suspension
resins to manufacture C -PVC.
xxviii. Hanwha Solutions is a producer of both PVC suspension resins and C -PVC and has consumed
its own PVC suspension resins to produce C -PVC. It has submitted that there are no specialty
grades of PVC suspension resins for manufacturing C -PVC.
xxix. As opposed to the submissions by Thai Plastics and Chemical Plc, the specification sheet of its
product states that the grades can be used for general purposes . Majority of volumes of imports
of such grades is by traders not involved in production of C -PVC.
E Examination by the Authority
10. The contentions made by various stakeholders as per the Hon’ble High Court Order has been
examined by the Authority.
11. In view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the Authority deems it unnecessary to examine the
matter related to timeliness and adequacy of response of Epigral Limited during the investigation
proceedings prior to the issuance of the provisional findings. The Authority has considered all the
information and arguments submitted by the domestic industry, Epigral Limited and other interested
parties on the matter related to Epigral Limited’s claim for exclusion of specific grades post the
orders of the Hon’ble High Court. The Authority has focused its examination on the arguments
which are relevant for the purposes of determining whether the claim of Epigral Limited for
exclusion of specific grades is tenable under Rule 2(d) of Anti -Dumping Rules.
12. With reference to the claim of Epigral Limited regarding exclusions of specific grades, the Authority
has examined the submissions made by the parties on technical and commercial substitutability
aspects. On Epigral Limited’s submission that S65C supplied by Formosa Plastics Corporation is
technically distinct from the grade supplied by DCW, it is noted that no evidence has been provided
with regard to the source of such information. On the contrary, the domestic industry has provided
lab reports of NABL/ISO Accredited Laboratory. As per the tests conducted by the said laboratory,
the grade supplied by DCW Limited (domestic Industry in the application) is comparable in terms of
bulk density and porosity, the two key parameters highlighted by Epigral Limited.
Particulars Grade name Bulk Density Plasticizer
Absorption
(Porosity)
DCW Limited PRO65 0.53 21%
DCW Limited PRO057 0.51 15.45%
Formosa Plastics Corporation SF58S 0.50 16%
Formosa Plastics Corporation S65C 0.53 21.8%
Thai Polyethylene S66J 0.51 19.7%
13. Thai Plastics and Chemicals Plc and Thai Polyethylene Co. Ltd. have stated that grades SG66J and
SF58S are exclusively used for conversion into C -PVC. On the contrary, the Authority notes that as
per the specification sheets of such grades, the grades can also be used for general purposes. The
technical data sheet for grade SF58S and SG66J as enclosed by Epigral Limited states that these
grades can be used for general purpose to special products regarding customer's satisfactions.”
“SCGC PVC SF58S is polyvinyl chloride homopolymer having low molecular weight with high
porosity. SF58S is white and free - flowing resins produced by suspension polymerization process.
The resin is recommended to use for chlorinated poly vinyl chloride process to produce chlorinated
poly vinyl chloride (CPVC). Applications are ranging from general purpose to special products
regarding customer's satisfactions.”
“SCGC PVC SG66J is polyvinyl chloride homopolymer having medium molecular weight, SG66J
is white and free -flowing resins produced by suspension polymerization process. The resin can
easily blend with variety of additives to achieve desired qualities needed in many applications.
Applications are ranging from general purpose to special products regarding customer's
satisfactions.”
14. The Authority has thereafter examined if the grades which Epigral limited has claimed to be
specialized are actually unique for only C -PVC use or they have been used for applications other
than C -PVC. Epigral Limited has claimed that the grades SG66J and SF85S are specifically to be
used for C -PVC only. However, from the data on record regarding grades produced and exported by
Thai Plastics and Chemicals Plc and Thai Polyethylene Co. Ltd. during the period of investigation, it
is seen that 92% of the imports are by traders not producing C -PVC. This clearly demonstrates that
the so -called grades specialty grades, claimed to be fit for C -PVC use only, have been used
interchangeably in significant quantities for other applications
SN Importer Quantity in MT for SG66J and SF85S grade Share
1 Epigral Limited 36 1%
2 MK Industries 282 7%
3 Others 3,690 92%
4 Total 4,008 100%
15. A similar demonstration of likeness emerges from the claim made by Hanwha Solutions Corporation.
It is a producer of both C -PVC and PVC suspension resins. The said producer has claimed that there
are no specialty grades for manufacturing C -PVC and it is manufacturing C -PVC using its own PVC
suspension resins. It has further claimed that the same grade of PVC suspension resins used by
Hanwha for production of C -PVC has been exported to India and it has been used for other
applications such as cable covers and PVC pipes. The same grade has been used for manufacturing
C-PVC by DCW Limited. The Authority on examination of this information submitted by Hanwha
Solutions Corporation and DCW is of the opinion that it is demonstrated that the grade used for C -
PVC is a like product to the grade used for other applications.
16. Another contention which has been emphatically made by Epigral Limited is that if the PVC grade
being manufactured by domestic industry is fit for manufacture of C -PVC, why DCW Limited (one
of the Domestic Industry applicants), which makes both PVC resin and C -PVC resin has not used its
own PVC resin for making C -PVC resin. To this DCW Limited has placed material on record to
show that it has produced C -PVC using captively produced PVC suspension resins as well as
imported PVC suspension resins. As per the evidence on record, the following grades have been
consumed by DCW Limited in order to manufacture C -PVC.
SN Grade Name MT Prior to
30-09-2023 Post 30 -9-23 Remarks
1 DCW Pipe Grade 1,498 76 1,422 DCW PR 065
2 DCW Fitting Grade 742 10 732 DCW PR 057
3 Oxychem 225p 2,354 517 1,837 Market
4 P 1000 1,051 541 510 MPVC
5 Hanwha P 1000 SB 553 143 410 Market
6 Westlake 1230p 66 8 58 Market
7 Westlake 1091 8 8 - Market
8 Tpe Sg 66j 933 273 660 MK Industries
9 Tpe Sf58s 108 9 99 MK Industries
10 Formosa B 57 226 116 110 MPVC
11 Formosa B 57 C 118 - 118 MPVC Direct Import
12 Formosa B 65c 177 - 177 MPVC Direct Import
13 Formosa S 65c 194 - 194 SPVC Direct Import
15 Indonesia Fj65r 25 25 - Market
16 Kemone Pipe 6 6 - MPVC Direct Import
17 Kemone Fitting 120 - 120 MPVC Direct Import
18 P700 Fitting 18 - 18 MPVC Direct Import
19 Chemplast 6 6 - Market
Total 8,203 1,738 6,465
17. The above shows that DCW Limited has used domestically produced subject goods for
manufacturing C -PVC. Hence, the domestic industry has demonstrated that the PVC resin
manufactured by it is a like article to the product imported into India which is used for manufacturing
of C-PVC.
18. Further it is noted from the claims of domestic industry, Epigral Limited and producer/exporters that
different grades of PVC suspension resin have been used for making C -PVC resin. There is no
exclusive group of PVC suspension resin that is commonly used for the purposes of making C -PVC
resin. Thus, the Authority is unable to appreciate the argument of exclusivity with reference to
certain grades as claimed by Epigral Limited.
19. Finally, Epigral Limited has contended that in order to manufacture C -PVC, special grades of PVC
are required, which are not available in India and not manufactured by the domestic industry. The
Authority notes that as per the evidence on record, Epigral has not approached domestic industry or
bought subject goods from the domestic industry and thereafter, communicated to the domestic
industry regarding the deficiency if any, in the subject goods for manufacturing C -PVC. In such a
case, the contention that the domestically produced products cannot be used in manufacturing C -
PVC is untenable and does not establish the fact that domestic industry’s products cannot be used in
manufacturing in C -PVC.
20. After examination of submissions made by all the interested parties and perusing the material placed
on record, the Authority concludes that there is a no exclusive, clearly identifiable category of PVC
suspension resin which is unique for manufacturing of C -PVC resin. PVC suspension resins claimed
as special by Epigral Limited for manufacture of C -PVC resin can be used for other applications and
there are other PVC resins which have been used for manufacture of the C -PVC resin. In view of
this, the two are technically and commercially substitutable. The subject goods produced by the
domestic industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from subject country
within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of anti -dumping Rules. Hence it is held that the grades
claimed by Epigral Limited do not warrant exclusion from the scope of PUC.
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.
Login to read full text