Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-18062025-263904
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I-Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 162]
NEW DELHI, MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2025/JYAISTHA 26, 1947
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
INITIATION NOTIFICATION
New Delhi,the 16th June, 2025
Case No-04/2025
Date: 16 June 2025
Subject: Initiation of sunset review investigation of anti-dumping duty on imports of
“Fluoroelastomer” originating in or exported from China PR.
1. F. No. 07/08/2025-DGTR .—Having regards to 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 thereof, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the "Rules" or "AD Rules”),
Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant” or “domestic industry")
has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority")
for initiation of sunset review investigation concerning imports of "Fluoroelastomer” (hereinafter
referred to as the "subject goods" or "product under consideration” or “FKM" from China PR
(hereinafter referred to as the “subject country").
2. In terms of Section 9A (5) of the Act, the anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier,
cease to have effect on expiry of five years from the date of such imposition and the Authority is
required to review whether the expiry of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping
and injury. In accordance with the same, the Authority is required to review, on the basis of a duly
substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic industry as to whether the expiry of duty is
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
A. Background of previous investigation.
3. The original anti-dumping investigation into imports of product under consideration from China was
initiated on 2nd January 2018 and vide Final Finding Notification No. 6/25/2017-DGAD dated 27th
December 2018, anti-dumping duty were recommended for a period of 18 months. The measures were
imposed on the subject goods vide Customs Notification No. 6/2019-Customs (ADD) dated 28th
January 2019.
4. Thereafter, a sunset review investigation was initiated vide Notification No. 7/03/2020-DGTR dated
07th February 2020. Pending the investigation, the anti-dumping duty was extended for a period of
three months vide Custom Notification No. 19/2020-Customs (ADD) dated 21st July 2020 upto 27th
October 2020. The final findings of the sunset review were issued on 19th October 2020, and definitive
antidumping duty was extended on the subject goods for a period of five years vide Notification No.
40/2020 dated 27th November 2020. The present duties are in force till on 27th November 2025.
B. Product under Consideration
5. The product under consideration in the present investigation is same as defined in the original
investigation which is as follows:
“The product under consideration (PUC) in the present investigation is Fluoroelastomers
(FKM). Fluoroelastomers (FKM) is a class of synthetic rubber designed for very high
temperature operation. With excellent over-all properties, Fluoroelastomers (FKM) is called as
the "Rubber King. It contains not-fully- fluorinated molecular structure, and its main and side
chains contain strong electronegativity of fluorine atoms. "Fluoroelastomers” are a family of
fluoropolymer rubbers, not a single entity. It can be classified by their fluorine content, 66%,
68%, & 70% respectively. FKMs are broadly categorized in two sets – Copolymer and
Terpolymer."
6. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act under the subheading
3904. The subject goods are being imported under the following HS codes: - 39045090, 39046990,
39049000 and 39046910. The customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on the scope
of the product under consideration.
7. The applicant had referred to the PCN methodology notified by the Authority in the previous
investigation. The applicant had proposed that the same methodology be considered in the present
investigation.
+----+----------------------------+---------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| SN | Name of product | PCN | Description of PCN |
+----+----------------------------+---------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Co Polymer-Raw gum | FCP#RG0001 | Fluoroelastomers (FKM) Co-Polymer Raw Gun |
| 2 | Terpolymer Bisphenol | FTPBRG0002 | Fluoroelastomers (FKM) Terpolymer Bisphenol |
| | Curable Raw Gum | | Curable Raw Gum |
| 3 | Terpolymer Peroxide | FTPPRG0003 | Fluoroelastomers (FKM) Terpolymer Peroxide |
| | Curable Raw Gum | | Curable Raw Gum |
| 4 | Copolymer Pre-Compound | FCP#PC0004 | Fluoroelastomers (FKM) Copolymer Pre-Compound |
| 5 | Terpolymer BisPhenol | FCP#PC0005 | Fluoroelastomers (FKM) Terpolymer Bisphenol |
| | Curable Pre-Compound | | Curable Pre-Compound |
+----+----------------------------+---------------+-------------------------------------------------+
8. The interested parties in the subject investigation may provide their comments on the PUC/PCN
methodology, if any, within 15 days from the date of initiation of this investigation.
C. Like article
9. The applicant has submitted that there are no significant differences in the product produced by the
applicant and those imported from the subject country, and both are like articles. The product produced
by the applicant and those imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of essential
product characteristics such as physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process &
technology, functions & usage, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff
classification of the goods. Consumers can use and have been using the two interchangeably. The two
are technically and commercially substitutable, and hence, should be treated as 'like article' under the
Rules. The issue of like article has already been examined by the Authority in the original investigation
as well. The product produced by the domestic industry is like article to the product under consideration
produced and imported from the subject country.
D. Domestic industry and standing
10. The application has been filed by Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited (GFL). The applicant is the sole
producer of the subject product in India.
11. Based on the information provided, it is seen that the applicant constitutes ‘domestic industry' within
the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules, and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of
Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
E. Subject county
12. The subject county for the present anti-dumping investigation is China PR.
F. Period of investigation
13. The applicant had proposed 01 January 2024 – 31 December 2024 as the period of investigation. The
Authority has considered the period proposed by the applicant for the purpose of the investigation. The
injury investigation period will cover the period of 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and the period of
investigation.
G. Basis of alleged dumping
i. Normal value
14. The applicant has cited and relied upon Article 15(a) (i) of China's Accession Protocol and has claimed
that China PR should be treated as a non-market economy and that producers from China PR should
be directed to demonstrate that market economy conditions prevail in the industry with regard to the
production and sales of the product under consideration. Unless the producers from China PR show
that such market economy conditions prevail, their normal value should be determined in accordance
with Para 7 and 8 of Annexure-I to the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995.
15. The applicant has submitted that data relating to cost and price in market economy third country is not
available. With regard to the price at which the product under consideration have been sold from the
market economy third country to any other country, including India, the applicant has claimed normal
value based on the import price from United States of America adjusted to arrive at net ex-factory
level. The methodology was contested in the previous investigation.
16. The applicant has additionally submitted normal value based on price payable in India based on cost
of production of the domestic industry. For the purpose of initiation, the normal value has been
determined based on price paid or payable in India, adjusted to include a reasonable profit margin.
17. The interested parties are advised to offer their comments and make duly substantiated claims with
regard to methodology to be adopted for determination of normal value.
ii. Export price
18. The export price of the product under consideration has been determined by considering the CIF price
of the product under consideration as reported in DG Systems data. Adjustments have been claimed
for ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, bank charges, port expenses, handling expense,
inland freight, credit costs, inventory carrying cost and secondary packaging.
iii. Dumping margin
19. The normal value and the export price have been compared at the ex-factory level. It is prima facie
seen that while the dumping margin for one of the producer exporters is negative, dumping margin for
all other producers is positive. This prima facie establishes that product under consideration is being
dumped in the domestic market of India by the exporters from the subject country.
H. Injury and likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury.
20. The volume of imports from the subject country has increased over the injury period in absolute as
well as relative terms. The applicant has also provided information on capacity expansion in the subject
country, decline in demand in the subject country, export orientation, measures imposed by third
country and price attractiveness of India as the basis to establish the likelihood of injury. The
information provided by the applicant, prima facie, shows likelihood of continuation of dumping from
the subject country and the consequent injury to the domestic industry in case of cessation of the anti-
dumping duties.
I. Initiation of sunset review investigation.
21. On the basis of the duly substantiated application of the applicant, and having satisfied itself on the
basis of the prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, substantiating the likelihood of
continuation/ recurrence of dumping and injury, and in accordance with Section 9A(5) of the Act read
with Rule 23 (1B) of the Rules, the Authority hereby initiates a sunset review investigation to review
the need for continued imposition of the duties in force in respect of the subject goods, originating in
or exported from the subject country and to examine whether the expiry of such duty is likely to lead
to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.
J. Procedure.
22. Principles, as given in Rule 6 of the Rules, will be followed for the present investigation.
K. Submission of information.
23. All communication should be sent to the Authority via email at the email addresses dir16-dgtr@gov.in
and dd15-dgtr@gov.in with a copy to adv13-dgtr@gov.in.It should be ensured that the narrative part
of the submission is in searchable PDF/MS Word format and data files are in MS Excel format.
Submissions requiring special software to access the files will not be accepted.
24. The known producers/exporters in the subject country, the government of the subject country
through its embassy in India, and the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the
subject goods are being informed separately to enable them to file all the relevant information in
the form and manner prescribed within the time limit set out below.
25. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the form
and manner prescribed within the time limit set out below. Any party making any confidential
submission before the Authority is required to make a non-confidential version of the same
available to the other parties.
L. Time limit.
26. Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent to the Designated Authority
via email at the following email addresses dir16-dgtr@gov.in and dd15-dgtr@gov.in with a copy to
adv13-dgtr@gov.in. within 30 days from the date on which it was sent by the Designated Authority
or transmitted to the appropriate diplomatic representative of the exporting country as per Rule
6(4) of the AD Rules. It may, however, be noted that in terms of explanation of the said Rule, the
notice calling for information and other documents shall be deemed to have been received within
one week from the date on which it was sent by the Designated Authority or transmitted to the
appropriate diplomatic representative of the exporting countries. If no information is received
within the prescribed time limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may
record its findings on the basis of the facts available on record in accordance with the AD Rules.
27. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of
interest) in the instant matter and file their questionnaire responses within the above time limit.
28. Where an interested party seeks additional time for filing of submissions, it must demonstrate
sufficient cause for such extension in terms of Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules, 1995 and such request
must come within the time stipulated in this notification.
M. Submission of information on a confidential basis.
29. Any party making any confidential submission or providing information on a confidential basis before
the Authority, is required to simultaneously submit a non-confidential version of the same in terms
of Rule 7(2) of the AD Rules. Failure to adhere to the above may lead to the rejection of the response
I submissions.
30. The parties making any submission (including Appendices/Annexures attached thereto), before the
Authority including questionnaire response, are required to file Confidential and Non-Confidential
versions separately. In case, the submission is made in multiple parts, it is instructed to provide an
index table in each part outlining the contents of all parts/emails and documents enclosed. Please
ensure page numbering on all submissions.
31. Where the original documents are in a language other than Hindi and English, the interested parties
are requested to ensure that the true translated version is provided along with the original documents.
32. The "confidential" or "non-confidential" submissions must be clearly marked as "confidential" or
"non-confidential" at the top of each page. Any submission made without such marking shall be treated
as non-confidential by the Authority, and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other interested
parties to inspect such submissions.
33. The non-confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential version with the confidential
information preferably indexed or blanked out (in case indexation is not feasible) and summarized
depending upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed. The non-confidential summary
must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information
furnished on a confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, the party submitting the
confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible to a summary, and a
statement of reasons why summarization is not possible must be provided to the satisfaction of the
Authority. The interested parties may offer their comments on the confidentiality claimed by other
parties within 7 days of receiving the non-confidential version of the documents.
34. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the
information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted
or if the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize
its disclosure in generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.
35. Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or a good cause statement
on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on record by the Authority.
36. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for confidentiality of the information provided,
shall not disclose it to any party without specific authorisation of the party providing such information.
N. Inspection of public file.
37. A list of registered interested parties will be uploaded on DGTR's website along with the request
therein to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all other interested
parties. The non-confidential version of the questionnaire response or other submissions should
preferably be circulated to all other interested parties on the same day and, in no case, later than the
day following the filing of submissions on a confidential basis. Failure to circulate a non-confidential
version of submissions/responses/information might lead to the consideration of an interested party as
non-cooperative.
O. Non-cooperation.
38. In case any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide necessary information
within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may declare such
interested party as non-cooperative and record its findings based on the facts available to it and make
such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.
SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, 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.