Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-20032026-271102
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I-Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 58] | NEW DELHI TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2026/PHALGUNA 26, 1947
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2026
(FINAL FINDINGS)
Case No. AD (OI)- 02/2025
Subject: Anti-dumping Investigation concerning imports of "Flexible Slabstock Polyol" originating in or
exported from China PR and Thailand.
F. No. 06/02/2025-DGTR: - Having regard 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, as amended from time to time,
(hereinafter also referred to as the Anti-Dumping Rules or the Rules);
A. | BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. | Manali Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant" or the “domestic industry") 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
| Anti-Dumping Rules or the Rules) for initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Flexible
| Slabstock Polyol (hereinafter also referred to as "FSP" or the "product under consideration" or the "subject
| goods") from China PR and Thailand (hereinafter referred to as “subject countries").
2. | In view of the duly substantiated application with prima facie evidence substantiating existence of dumping
| and injury, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules, the Authority issued a public notice initiating the anti-
| dumping investigation into imports of the product under consideration from China PR and Thailand, vide
| Notification No. 06/02/2025-DGTR, dated 18th March 2025, published in the Gazette of India. The Authority
| initiated the anti-dumping investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
the subject goods 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 below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
3.1 Initiation
a. | The Authority notified the Embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the present
| application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of
| the Rules.
b. | The Authority issued a public notice dated 18th March 2025, published in the Gazette of India,
| Extraordinary, initiating the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of subject goods from the
| subject countries.
c. | The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the Government of the subject countries,
| through their Embassies in India, known producers and exporters from the subject countries, known
| importers / users and the domestic industry as well as other interested parties, as per the addresses made
| available by the applicant and requested them to make their views known in writing within the
| prescribed time limit.
3.2 Circulation of non-confidential version of the application
d. | The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known
| producers/exporters and to the Government of the subject countries, through their Embassies in India, in
| accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. A copy of the non-confidential version of the
| application was made available to other interested parties, wherever requested.
3.3 Participation by Exporters of Subject Country
e. | The Authority sent exporter's questionnaire to the known producers/exporters from the subject
| countries, known importers/ users in India, other Indian producers and the domestic industry as per the
| addresses made available by the applicant and requested them to make their views known in writing by
| the extended timeline.
f. | The Authority sent the Exporters' Questionnaire to the following known producers/ exporters to elicit
| relevant information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
| 1. Allnex Resins (China) China., Limited (China)
| 2. Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Singapore
| 3. Wanhua Chemical (Yantai) Trading Co. Limited (China)
| 4. Wanhua Chemicals Group (China)
| 5. Allnex (Thailand) Ltd. (Thailand)
| 6. Dow Chemical Thailand Limited (Thailand)
| 7. GC Polyols Company Limited (Thailand)
| 8. Toyota Tsusho (Thailand) Co., Limited (Thailand)
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
g. | The Embassies of the subject countries in India were requested to advise the exporters/producers from
| their countries to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit.
h. | In response to the initiation of the subject investigation, the following producers/exporters from the
| subject countries have responded by filing questionnaire response:
| 1. Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd (China)
| 2. Wanhua Chemical (Yantai) Trading Co., Ltd (China)
| 3. Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. (China)
| 4. Dow Chemical Thailand Ltd., Thailand (Thailand)
| 5. Dow Chemical International Pvt Ltd, Dubai Branch (Thailand)
| 6. Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited (Thailand)
3.4 Participation by Importers/Users
i. | The Authority sent Importer's and User's Questionnaire to the known importers / users of the subject
| goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
| 1. Dow Chemical International Private Limited, India (DCIPL)
| 2. M.H. Polymers Ltd.
| 3. Sheela Foam Ltd. (SFL)
| 4. Tirupati Foam Ltd.
| 5. Toyota Tsusho India Pvt. Ltd.
| 6. Wanhua International (India) Pvt. Ltd.
j. | In response to the initiation of the subject investigation notification, following importers/users have
| responded by filing questionnaire response:
| 1. Expanded Polymer Systems Private Limited
| 2. Sheela Foam Limited (SFL)
| 3. Wanhua International (India) Private Limited
k. | Submissions were also received from Allnex Resins (China) China., Limited (China) and Allnex
| (Thailand) Ltd. (Thailand) during the course of the investigation.
l. | A copy of the initiation notification and non-confidential version of the application was sent to the
| Indian Polyurethane Association as well. The Association made submissions during the course of the
| investigation.
m. | A copy of the initiation notification and non-confidential version of the application was sent to the
| Department of Chemical and Petrochemicals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. However, the
| Authority has not received any comments.
n. | The Authority made available non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested
| parties. A list of all interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website, along with the request to all
| of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties.
o. | Request was made to DG Systems to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of subject goods for
| the injury period and also the period of investigation. The Authority has relied upon the DG Systems
| data for computation of the volume of imports and required analysis after due examination of the
| transactions.
p. | The non-injurious price (NIP) based on the optimum cost of production and cost to make & sell the
| subject goods in India, as per the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of
| Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules, has been worked out
| so as to ascertain whether anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to
| remove injury to the domestic industry.
3.5 Period of Investigation and Injury Period
q. | The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is 1st October 2023 to 30th
| September 2024 (12 months). The examination of trends in the context of injury analysis covered the
| periods 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and the period of investigation.
r. | An opportunity was provided by the Authority to all interested parties to give their comments on the
| scope of the product under consideration and PCN methodology.
3.6 Further Procedures
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
s. | In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to the interested parties
| to present their views in a oral hearing held on 1st December 2025. The parties presented their views in
| the oral hearing and were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed
| by rejoinder submissions.
t. | The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, to the extent
| supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately
| considered by the Authority, in this final finding.
u. | The Authority circulated the disclosure statement containing all essential facts under consideration for
| making the final recommendations to the Central Government to all interested parties on 5th March
| 2026. The Authority has examined all the post-disclosure comments made by the interested parties in
| these final findings to the extent deemed relevant. Any submission which was merely a reproduction of
| the previous submissions, and which had been adequately examined by the Authority, has not been
| repeated for the sake of brevity.
v. | Information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to
| sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the
| confidentiality claims wherever warranted and such information has been considered as confidential and
| not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on
| confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed
| on confidential basis.
w. | 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 views/observations on the
| basis of the facts available.
x. | The Authority, during the course of the investigation, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the
| information supplied by the interested parties, which forms the basis of the present disclosure statement
| to the extent possible and verified the data/documents submitted by all the interested parties to the
| extent considered relevant, practicable and necessary.
y. | '***' in this notification represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis
| and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
z. | The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = ₹ 84.27.
C. | PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1. Submissions by other interested parties
4. | The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties regarding the scope of the product
| under consideration and like article.
a. | The product produced using KOH technology leads to higher potassium residue, which makes it
| unusable in the polymer polyol production by the users. In contrast, FSP produced through DMC
| technology aligns with the process of the users and has superior consistency, which is important for the
| users' competitiveness
b. | The domestic industry uses KOH technology which is outdated and inferior to DMC technology used by
| global producers, which may be cause of injury. The applicant has itself admitted to making investment
| in new DMC based plants.
c. | The users are unable to use the subject goods produced by the applicant for production of polymer
| polyol.
d. | The user industry depends on imports of FSP as compared to domestic FSP as it lacks requisite quality,
| limiting the competitiveness of downstream and export-oriented sectors.
e. | The quality of the product supplied by the domestic industry is poor. While large manufacturers can
| sometimes mitigate the defects in the domestic product, majority of the downstream users which are
| MSMEs lack the infrastructure required to correct these inconsistencies.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
f. | The applicant has submitted technical data sheet for viscoelastic polyether polyol which does not relate
| to Flexible Slabstock Polyol, which brings doubt over authenticity of information.
g. | The Authority must exclude polyester resin from the scope of the product under consideration, as it is an
| entirely different product and was excluded in past investigations as well.
h. | The subject goods manufactured using KOH and DMC technologies are not technically or commercially
| identical, as the choice of catalyst materially impacts quality, impurity, levels and downstream
| performance. DMC based FSP is a distinct, superior product with lower unsaturation and potassium
| impurities and cannot be equated with KOH based FSP.
C.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
5. | The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the product under
| consideration and like article:
a. | The product under consideration is Flexible Slabstock Polyol with molecular weight 3000-4000.
b. | The product is used for manufacturing of foams which is majorly used in mattresses, upholstery,
| pillows, bolsters, transport seating and packaging.
c. | The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Prior to
| February 2022, the product was imported under tariff item ‘3907 20' and thereafter, it was imported
| under tariff items '3907 29 10' and '3907 29 90'.
d. | The applicant has no objections to exclusions of polyester resins from the product scope.
e. | The subject goods can be produced using KOH or DMC technology. While the applicant has used KOH
| technology, the producers from the subject countries have used both technologies.
f. | FSP produced using KOH technology or DMC technology is comparable and can be used
| interchangeably as there is no major difference in the raw materials and product process used in both
| technologies.
g. | The technical and chemical characteristics of the end product produced using both technologies are
| same, except potassium residue which is very less pronounced. The same is reproduced in the table
| below. As can be seen from the table, the molecular weight, hydroxyl number, viscosity, functionality
| and appearance of the products produced from both routes is same or similar. The only difference
| between the product produced by the two routes is the difference in potassium residue. The domestic
| industry has claimed that such a difference can be easily offset by the users, through use of fillers.
Parameter | KOH-Catalysed Polyols | DMC-Catalysed Polyols | Remarks
Molecular Weight | 3000-4000 | 3000-4000 | Same
Hydroxyl Number (mg KOH/g) | ~48-56 | ~48-56 | Same
Viscosity @ 25°C (cP) | 500-700 | 400-600 | Similar
Functionality | 3 (triol) | 3 (triol) | Same
Potassium Residue | 5-10 ppm (after neutralization) | <1 ppm | Different
Appearance | Clear liquid | Clear liquid | Same
h. | Further, certain interested parties have argued that they are unable to use the product produced by the
| domestic industry due to the poor quality of the product produced using KOH technology, while the
| DMC based product is of higher quality. In this regard, the domestic industry has submitted that they
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
have been regularly supplying the product to its customers, who have continued to purchase its product
produced using KOH technology. Thus, it is not a case that the users have ceased purchasing the
product from the domestic industry on account of the product being inferior.
Name of | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
*** | *** | *** | *** | ***
*** | *** | *** | *** | ***
*** | *** | *** | *** | ***
*** | *** | *** | *** | ***
*** | *** | *** | *** | ***
*** | *** | *** | *** | ***
*** | *** | *** | *** | ***
*** | *** | *** | *** | ***
*** | *** | *** | *** | ***
i. | The domestic industry is regularly supplying the subject goods to all major consumers in the country,
| which demonstrates that the users are using products produced using KOH and DMC technology.
j. | Globally, all producers, including producers in the subject countries have been using KOH technology.
| While certain producers have added production lines for DMC technology, such producers have not
| stopped the production lines for KOH technology.
k. | As against the claim that FSP produced through DMC route is of better quality, the price of imported
| FSP is lower than price offered by the domestic industry.
l. | The Authority in the past investigation determined that the products produced by both technologies
| were used by customers interchangeably.
m. | Contrary to the claim that the subject goods cannot be used for production of polymer polyol, the
| applicant is itself using self-produced FSP for the production of polymer polyol, which is sold in the
| market.
n. | EMPEYOL F3502 is the brand name for the product under consideration, for which the applicant has
| provided technical data sheet. The product falls under the larger class of products called "polyether
| polyols".
o. | The product produced by the domestic industry is like article to the product under consideration.
C.3. | Examination by the Authority
| At the time of initiation of the present investigation, the Authority considered the following as the scope of product
| under consideration.
| “3. The product under consideration is “Flexible Slabstock Polyol”, abbreviated as FSP. It is a clear
| viscous liquid polymer of molecular weight 3000-4000 manufactured by polymerization of propylene
| oxide and ethylene oxide with a triol chain starter. It is a polyether and on reaction with catalysts and
| additives, yields polyurethane foams which is used in upholstery, mattresses, pillows, bolsters, transport
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
| seating and packaging. The major raw materials used in the production process are propylene oxide
| and ethylene oxide."
| 4. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 39 viz., "Plastics and articles thereof, of the
| Customs Tariff Act under heading 3907 and tariff item 3907 29 10 and 3907 29 90, with effect from 1st
| February 2022. Additionally, the product has also been imported under the sub heading 3907 20 for
| part of the injury period, i.e., 1st April 2021 to 31st January 2022. The customs classification is only
| indicative and is not binding on the scope of the product under consideration”
6. | The other interested parties have argued that Double Metal Cyanide (DMC) catalyst technology is a modern
| and advanced process and produced using this technology are preferred over KOH-based method. Further,
| users have also claimed that they are unable to use the KOH-based FSP supplied by the domestic industry due
| to its poor performance and higher potassium residue. It is also argued that while large scale customers can
| mitigate the defects in the domestic product, majority of the downstream users which are MSME's lack
| the infrastructure required to correct these inconsistencies.
7. | On the contrary, the domestic industry has submitted that there are no differences in the product produced by
| either of the technologies and the products can be used interchangeably. The domestic industry has argued that
| there is no major difference in the production process used in either of the technologies. While the inputs such
| as catalysts used may differ, the major raw materials, that is propylene oxide and ethylene oxide, used in the
| production process are the same. The technical characteristics of the FSP produced using KOH or DMC route
| are also largely similar, except with respect to Potassium residue. Further, difference of the potassium residue
| can be easily offset by the usage of fillers by the foam manufacturers of India. The domestic industry has also
| claimed that it has been regularly supplying its products to all major foam producers in the country, including
| those who have participated in the present investigation. In fact, the applicant is itself using the KOH-based
| FSP to make downstream products.
8. | The domestic industry has also highlighted that similar arguments regarding difference between KOH and
| DMC technology have been made by interested parties in the past investigations as well. However, the
| Authority determined that products produced by either of the technologies were used by the customers
| interchangeably, and are like products.
9. | The Authority has examined the arguments made by all other interested parties as well as the domestic
| industry. With respect to arguments raised against difference in technical properties between FSP produced
| using both technologies, the Authority notes that the technical and physical properties of the end-product
| produced from both the production processes fall within the same range, and are inter-se comparable and
| substitutable, as per information submitted by the domestic industry.
10. | Further, it is seen that both the products are being interchangeably used and as substitutes to each other by the
| user industry.
11. | Further, certain interested parties have argued that polyester resin must be excluded from the product scope, as
| was done in past investigations, considering that the products are different. The domestic industry has clarified
| that it has no objection to exclusion of polyester resin. It is noted that Polyester Resin was not included within
| the product scope ab initio and thus, there is not cause for exclusion.
12. | The Authority granted an opportunity to all the interested parties to file their submissions regarding
| determination of the PCN methodology. However, none of the interested parties filed comments on creation of
| PCN methodology. Therefore, the product scope and PCN methodology was finalized by the Authority vide
| Notification dated 16th April 2025.
13. | On the basis of information and evidence on record, past determinations made by the Authority in
| investigations concerning this product and other products, and having regard to the above, the scope of the
| product under consideration is as follows:
| "3. The product under consideration is “Flexible Slabstock Polyol", abbreviated as FSP. It is a clear
| viscous liquid polymer of molecular weight 3000-4000 manufactured by polymerization of propylene
| oxide and ethylene oxide with a triol chain starter. It is a polyether and on reaction with catalysts and
| additives, yields polyurethane foams which is used in upholstery, mattresses, pillows, bolsters, transport
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
| seating and packaging. The major raw materials used in the production process are propylene oxide
| and ethylene oxide."
| "4. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 39 viz., "Plastics and articles thereof, of the
| Customs Tariff Act under heading 3907 and tariff item 3907 29 10 and 3907 29 90, with effect from 1st
| February 2022. Additionally, the product has also been imported under the sub heading 3907 20 for
| part of the injury period, i.e., 1st April 2021 to 31st January 2022. The customs classification is only
| indicative and is not binding on the scope of the product under consideration"
14. | The Authority notes that the product produced by the domestic industry is comparable to the product under
| consideration imported from the subject countries in terms of physical and chemical characteristics, product
| specifications, technical specifications, manufacturing process, and technology, functions and uses, pricing,
| distribution and marketing, and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially
| interchangeable. Accordingly, the Authority proposes to conclude that the product produced by the domestic
| industry are 'like article' to the product under consideration imported from the subject countries in terms of
| Rule 2(d) of the Rules.
D. | SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1. Submissions by other interested parties
15. | The other interested parties have not made any submissions with regard to the scope of domestic industry and
| standing.
D.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
16. | The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the scope of domestic
| industry and standing:
i. | The applicant is the sole producer of the subject goods in the country, and thus accounts for 100% of
| total Indian production and is eligible to constitute domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b) of the Anti-
| dumping Rules.
D.3. Examination by the Authority
17. | Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules defines domestic industry as under:
| “(b) “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like
| article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a
| major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to
| the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case
| the term 'domestic industry' may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers”.
18. | The present application has been filed by Manali Petrochemicals Limited. The Authority notes that the
| applicant is the sole producer of subject goods in India and there is no other domestic producer of the subject
| goods in India.
19. | The Authority also notes that the products produced by the domestic industry are like article to the imports of
| subject goods from the subject countries.
20. | Further, the Authority notes that the applicant has not imported the subject goods from the subject countries
| during the period of investigation. The applicant is not related to any exporter of the subject goods in the
| subject countries or importer of the subject goods in India. Thus, the applicant constitutes domestic industry as
| defined under Rule 2(b) of the Anti-dumping Rules, and the application satisfies the requirement of standing in
| terms of Rule 5(3) of the Anti-dumping Rules.
E. | CONFIDENTIALITY
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
E.1. Submissions by other interested parties
21. | The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regards to confidentiality.
a. | The applicant has claimed excessive confidentiality with respect to – (a) average industry norms for
| capacity utilization, productivity per day, inventory and PBIT; (b) sales quantity, value and realization
| per for small scale industries; (c) R & D expenses; (d) funds raised; (e) cost of sales per unit – Exports;
| and (f) NIP in range of +/- 10%.
b. | The applicant has claimed excessive confidentiality with respect to NIP and net sales realization which
| is in violation of the trade notice 10/2018. The Authority should not have automatically accepted the
| confidentiality claim without evaluating the information, based on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
| Court in Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. DA; CESTAT in H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. v. DA; and WTO
| Appellate Body in EC – Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China.
E.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
22. | The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to confidentiality.
a. | The arguments of the interested parties regarding confidentiality claims are highly belated and cannot be
| accepted.
b. | The applicant is not required to report average industry norms for capacity utilization, productivity per
| day, inventory and PBIT; sales quantity, value and realization per for small scale industries; R & D
| expenses; funds raised; and cost of sales per unit – Exports as per Trade Notice 5/2021, and thus, there
| can be no claim for excessive confidentiality.
c. | The non-injurious price of the domestic industry is highly confidential, and can be severely detrimental
| to the competitive interests of the domestic industry, in its negotiations with the customers. Thus, the
| same cannot be disclosed.
d. | The exporters from the subject countries and user industry have claimed excessive confidentiality in
| their questionnaire responses. Further, certain interested parties have claimed information entirely
| confidential, while such information is available in public domain.
E.3. Examination by the Authority
23. | The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by various parties to all
| the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7) of the Rules.
24. | With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of the Anti-dumping Rules provide as follows:
| "Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule
| 6, sub-rule(2) of rule12,sub-rule(4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications
| received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a
| confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being
| satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to
| any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
| (2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on 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 summarization is not possible.
| (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the
| requeqst 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."
25. | The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to
| sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever
| warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties.
| Wherever possible, the parties provided information on a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
non confidential versions of the information filed on a confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all
interested parties have claimed their business-related sensitive information as confidential.
F. | MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS
F.1. Submissions by other interested parties
26. | The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties.
a. | The domestic industry has been a beneficiary of anti-dumping duties for a long time, restricting imports
| of FSP from various countries and includes withdrawal of application in some cases demonstrating that
| the domestic industry has received adequate protection since 2001.
b. | Anti-dumping duties have been imposed on subject goods for the last 22 years, giving a near permanent
| character.
c. | Since duty is imposed for 5 years, the decision of Ministry of Finance to not impose duties should also
| stand for 5 years. Issuing a new recommendation within 2 years of rejection of duty would undermine
| the decision of the Ministry of Finance.
d. | The applicant has approached the Authority seeking duties on China and Thailand immediately after
| earlier recommendations were rejected by the Central Government. Trade remedial investigations
| cannot be misused by filing application having been dissatisfied with the rejection.
e. | The import data submitted by the applicant is unreliable as it does not align with the import data
| published by the Authority in the previous final findings. Even if the investigation was initiated based
| on imports from DGCI&S/DG systems, the application was deficient and should not have been accepted
| and highlights the frivolity and internal inconsistencies of the present proceedings.
f. | The petitioner has presented irreconcilable data for the same base year, inflating import volumes, total
| demand, and market size, while converting a year previously verified as loss-making into a profitable
| benchmark. This deliberate manipulation artificially exaggerates alleged volume and financial effects,
| creating a distorted picture of market injury.
g. | The injury parameters in the petition are wholly unreliable, and in the absence of a credible base year,
| the petitioner has failed to establish injury. The continuation of the present investigation is consequently
| unwarranted.
h. | The Authority must provide the user industry with import data in the format and manner in which it was
| placed on record. Reliance was placed on Exotic Décor Pvt. Ltd. vs Designated Authority in this regard.
i. | The Authority is requested to use DGCI&S/DG systems data to determine injury as against the inflated
| margins claimed by the applicant.
j. | The profitability figures reported in the present petition are different than as noted by the Authority in
| its final findings. The Authority should not have initiated an investigation based on incorrect
| information.
k. | The differences in prices between present and earlier proceedings as highlighted during the hearing
| highlight the frivolity and internal inconsistencies of the present proceedings.
l. | The association's membership can be publicly verified, and any attempt by the applicant to cast doubt
| on the credibility of the association is unwarranted, given that the applicant itself is a member of the
| association.
m. | The present investigation is based on data that is fundamentally inconsistent with the Hon'ble
| Authority's own verified findings in the earlier anti-dumping investigation concerning Flexible
| Slabstock Polyol from China PR and Thailand. The year 2021-22, which was the base year in both
| cases, was conclusively examined by the Authority, with verified import volumes, demand figures, and
| financial performance recorded in the Final Findings dated 28th March 2024.
n. | The petitioner's current submission inflates imports from China PR and Thailand by 59–83% and total
| market demand by over 63%, without explanation. Similarly, a year previously verified as loss-making
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
| with negative cash profits and ROCE are now presented as profitable, creating a distorted economic
| narrative.
o. | The petitioner's unexplained data inflation, selective presentation of financials, and failure to address
| contradictions raised during hearings indicate that the data is unreliable and self-serving. Consequently,
| the present investigation is founded on distorted facts, lacks credibility, and warrants rejection at the
| threshold.
F.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
27. | The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry.
a. | Claims of misuse of trade remedy investigation are misplaced, as it is the foreign producers that are
| abusing fair market.
b. | Contrary to the argument of the other interested parties, the Authority found that the subject imports
| caused injury to the domestic industry and there was a need to continue duties in past investigations,
| except where the applicant withdrew its application considering temporary relief against dumping.
c. | The Ministry of Finance has not provided any reason for not accepting the recommendation of the
| Authority in the previous investigation, and any speculation in this regard should not be accepted.
d. | The applicant has relied on imports sourced from third parties, while the Authority relies on
| DGCI&S/DG systems data, which may have led to the differences in import volumes.
e. | The association has not provided list of its members, or demonstrated which of its members would be
| affected by the measures. Therefore, it has not demonstrated its status as an interested party. The
| association must also demonstrate that it was validly authorized to participate.
f. | Since the exporters have continued to dump the subject goods, the domestic industry cannot be faulted
| for approaching the Authority to seek remedy.
F.3. Examination by the Authority
28. | With regards to the submission that the applicant is misusing trade remedial measures and has been a
| beneficiary of trade remedial investigations since last two decades, the Authority notes that all the
| investigations have been conducted based on detailed examinination of evidence submitted by all parties and
| recommendation for imposition / continuation of duties has been made only after examination of dumping,
| injury and causal link, relevant.
29. | With regards to the submission that the Authority has not made available the import data in the format and
| manner prescribed to the user industry, the Authority notes that the DGCI&S/DG systems transaction wise
| import data is not available in the public domain and the same cannot be shared with any party under the
| current legal provisions.
30. | Certain interested parties have claimed that the data used by the applicant is not reliable and thus, has resulted
| in the inflated claims of margins. In this regard, it is noted that the applicant has relied on import data sourced
| from market sources in the application filed. However, the Authority has relied upon the import data as per
| DGCI&S/DG systems for the purpose of this investigation. Further, the dumping margin for the cooperating
| exporters would be based on the data submitted by them and duly verified by the Authority. Accordingly, the
| reliability of the import data used by the applicant in its application is not material.
G. | NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
G.1. Submissions by other interested parties
31. | The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties, with reference to determination of
| normal value, export price and dumping margin.
a. | The Authority should calculate individual margins based on the information provided by the exporter in
| their response.
b. | China PR should not be treated as a non-market economy since Article 15 of the Accession Protocol has
| expired on 11th December, 2016, as understood by US and EU at the time of China's accession to WTO.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
c. | As such, the practice of determining 'surrogate country' for normal value determination should not be
| used. Refence can be made to the recent Appellate Body report in EC-Fasteners (China).
d. | India is bound by the principle of "pacta sunt servanda" as a member of WTO and must recognize
| China's full market economy status from 11th December 2016. It cannot invoke domestic law as a
| justification for failure to perform.
e. | Statement issued by White House and Explanatory Memorandum attached to EU Council decision
| reveal that US and European Union also shared the understanding that China PR can be treated as a
| non-market economy only till 11th December 2016.
f. | Dow Thailand is not a major supplier of subject goods to, accounting for only 15% of the total exports,
| and thus, does not have the ability to influence prices, supply, or competition in India.
g. | The applicant has failed to demonstrate any material injury, as imports from the subject countries have
| in fact declined during the POI and alleged import volumes appear inflated and inconsistent with earlier
| findings. A proper evaluation of injury parameters does not establish any adverse impact attributable to
| the subject imports.
G.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
32. | The domestic industry has submitted as follows with reference to determination of normal value, export price
| and dumping margin.
a. | The normal value for the Chinese producers should be determined as per Para 7 of Annexure-I of Anti-
| dumping Rules as no producer has sought market economy treatment.
b. | The Authority must verify the information submitted by Dow Thailand, particularly with respect to
| purchase of inputs from affiliated parties. Only if such information is found to be appropriate and
| accurate, the same may be used for determination of dumping margin for the exporters.
c. | If the exporter is unable to demonstrate that inputs purchased from the affiliates were at an arm's length,
| the cost of production for the producer should be determined based on price of imports of propylene and
| ethylene into Thailand based on Trade Map data.
d. | The Authority should examine whether transfer price of captively produced raw material is reflective of
| market price or not.
e. | The fact that the Authority found dumping in previous investigations shows that the dumping is not
| attributable to the technology or level of integration of the domestic industry, but the unfair pricing
| practices adopted by the foreign producers.
f. | Contrary to claim of interested parties, the domestic industry has not claimed dumping based on positive
| price undercutting.
g. | Section 15(a)(ii) of the Protocol of Accession of China to WTO has expired on 11th December 2016 for
| considering China PR as a non-market economy while determining the normal value. Therefore, for
| exporters from China PR, normal value in the current investigation must be determined based on Para
| (vii) of Annexure II. Any other method will violate India's obligation towards WTO.
h. | Contrary to claim of interested parties, the domestic industry has not claimed dumping based on positive
| price undercutting.
i. | The fact that the Authority found dumping in previous investigations shows that the dumping is not
| attributable to the technology or level of integration of the domestic industry, but the unfair pricing
| practices adopted by the foreign producers.
G.3. Examination by the Authority
33. | Under section 9A(1)(c), the 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
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
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 transshipped 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.”
34. | The Authority notes the contention regarding variation in the reported volume of imports from the subject
| countries between the earlier findings and the present investigation. The data relied upon in the present
| investigation is based on updated and verified import records. In any event, minor variation does not alter the
| overall trend of significant imports nor does it affect the assessment of injury.
35. | The Authority notes that the following exporters of the subject goods have filed exporter's questionnaire
| responses:
a. | Dow Chemical Thailand Ltd., Thailand (Thailand)
b. | Dow Chemical International Pvt Ltd, Dubai Branch (Thailand)
c. | Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited (Thailand)
d. | Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd (China)
e. | Wanhua Chemical (Yantai) Trading Co., Ltd (China)
f. | Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. (China)
G.3.1. Normal Value from China PR
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 WTO 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
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
| 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 non-market economy provisions of
| subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector."
37. | The applicant has cited and relied upon Article 15(a)(i) of China's Accession Protocol. The applicant has
| claimed that producers in China PR must be asked to demonstrate that market economy conditions prevail in
| their industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacturing, the production and the sale of the
| product under consideration. It has been stated by the applicant that in case the responding Chinese producers
| are not able to demonstrate that their costs and price information are market driven, the normal value should be
| calculated in terms of provisions of Para 7 and 8 of Annexure- I to the Rules.
38. | The Authority notes that none of the cooperating producers from China have claimed market economy
| treatment in the present case. Accordingly, the normal value has been determined in accordance with Paragraph
| 7 of Annexure I to the Rules, which states as follows.
| "7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the
| basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third
| country to other countries, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis,
| including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to
| include a reasonable profit margin. 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 the selection. Account shall also be taken within time limits; where appropriate,
| of the investigation if any made in a similar matter in respect of any other market economy third
| country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay of the aforesaid
| selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer
| their comments.
39. | The applicant has claimed normal value based on price payable in India, in absence of information required to
| calculate normal through other methods. The other interested parties have not adduced any other basis,
| amongst those listed under Paragraph 7 of Annexure I to the Rules, which may form the basis of determination
| of normal value.
40. | As noted above, Paragraph 7 lays down a hierarchy for determination of normal value with respect to non-
| market economy and provides that normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed
| value in a market economy third country or the price from such a third country to other countries, including
| India or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in
| India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. In the present case,
| there is no evidence of price or constructed value prevailing in a market economy third country brought
| forward by any interested party. Apart from the subject countries in the present investigation, imports into
| India from other countries are low in volume or are at dumped prices. Thus, imports into India from the market
| economy third country could not be considered for determination of normal value.
| Accordingly, the Authority proposes to determine normal value based on the price payable in India, as
| stipulated in para 7 of Annexure - I to the AD Rules, 1995, having regard to the cost of production of the
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
applicant, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profits. The normal
value determined is given below in the dumping margin table.
G.3.2. Export price for China PR
Export price for Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd
41. | Wanhua Chemical Group Co. Ltd. is a limited company incorporated and registered under the Company Law
| of People's Republic of China. During the period of investigation, Wanhua Chemical Group Co. Ltd. has sold
| *** MT of subject goods of invoice value *** RMB indirectly through two related exporters/traders namely,
| Wanhua Chemical (Yantai) Trading Co. Ltd. and Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. out of which
| Wanhua chemical Group Co. Ltd. has sold *** MT indirectly through Wanhua Chemical (Yantai) Trading Co.
| Ltd. and *** MT indirectly through Wanhua Chemical (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
42. | It is further noted that the subject goods (*** MT) sold to Wanhua Chemical (Yantai) Trading Co. Ltd. by
| Wanhua Chemical Group Co. Ltd. has been ultimately sold to India indirectly through Wanhua Chemical
| (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on account of Ocean freight, insurance,
| inland transportation, port and other related expense and credit cost, and the same has been accepted after desk
| verification. Accordingly, the weighted average of net export price at ex-factory level so determined is as
| shown in the Dumping Margin table below.
Export price for other producers/exporters in China PR
43. | The export price for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of China PR has been determined based
| on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
G.3.3. Normal value for Thailand
Normal value for Dow Chemical Thailand Ltd., Thailand
44. | Dow Chemical Thailand Limited ("Dow Thailand") has submitted its Exporter's Questionnaire response
| furnishing the required information. The Authority notes that during the Period of Investigation (“POI”), Dow
| Thailand sold the subject goods directly to unrelated customers in the domestic market. It is further noted that
| such domestic sales were made in sufficient quantities.
45. | For determination of the normal value, the Authority conducted the Ordinary Course of Trade ("OCT") test by
| examining the profitability of domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of the subject
| goods. Where profit-making transactions constitute more than 80% of total domestic sales, all domestic sales
| are considered for determination of normal value. However, where profit-making transactions are less than
| 80%, only the profitable domestic sales are taken into account for determination of normal value. Based on the
| OCT test, it was found that the proportion of profitable domestic sales was less than 80% and accordingly, only
| profitable domestic sales have been considered for determination of the normal value.
46. | Dow Thailand claimed adjustments on account of inland transportation, credit cost, packing cost and other
| related expenses. The Authority has allowed the claimed adjustments after due verification and has accordingly
| determined the normal value at the ex-factory level. The ex-factory normal value so determined is reflected in
| the dumping margin table below.
Normal value for other producers/ exporters from Thailand
47. | The normal value for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of Thailand has been determined based
| on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
G.3.4. Export price for Thailand
Export Price for Dow Chemical Thailand Ltd., Thailand
48. | During the POI, Dow Thailand sold the subject goods to its related exporter, Dow Chemical Pacific
| (Singapore) Private Limited (“Dow Singapore”). Dow Singapore, in turn, invoiced the subject goods to another
| related trader, Dow Chemical International Pvt Ltd, Dubai Branch (“DCIPL Dubai"). DCIPL Dubai
| subsequently sold the subject goods to unrelated customers in India. All the concerned companies have
| furnished the relevant information in the prescribed formats.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
49. | It is noted from the responses submitted by Dow Singapore and DCIPL Dubai that the subject goods
| manufactured and exported by Dow Thailand to India were resold at a loss by the related exporter during the
| POI. Accordingly, the Authority has made appropriate adjustment for the loss incurred by the related exporter
| in order to arrive at the net export price. Dow Thailand also claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight,
| insurance, inland transportation, port-related expenses, credit cost, packing expenses, and other related
| expenses. These adjustments have been allowed by the Authority after due verification. The ex-factory export
| price so determined has been reflected in the dumping margin table below.
Export price for other producers/ exporters in Thailand
50. | The export price for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of Thailand has been determined based
| on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
G.3.5. Dumping margin
51. | The normal value, export price and dumping margin determined in the present investigation are as follows. It is
| seen that the dumping margin for the subject countries is above de minimis, and is significant.
Dumping Margin Table
S. No. | Name of Producer | Normal Value/CNV (USD/MT) | Export Price (USD/MT) | Dumping Margin (USD/MT) | Dumping Margin (%) | Dumping Margin (Range)
China PR | | | | | |
1. | Wanhua Group Co., Ltd | *** | *** | *** | *** | 70-80
| Any Other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 90-100
Thailand | | | | | |
2. | Dow Chemical Thailand Limited | *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20
| Any Other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30
H. | ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
H.1. Submissions of other interested parties
52. | The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to injury and causal link:
a. | Imports from China and Thailand have witnessed a decline in the period of investigation when
| compared to 2023-24 in absolute terms and have witnessed only marginally increased in relative terms,
| and thus, could not have caused injury. The imports were necessitated to meet the demand.
b. | Price undercutting is not indicative of dumping but is due to high cost of the domestic industry resulting
| from obsolete technology and lack of backward integration.
c. | The increase in cost of sales is contradictory to the sharp decline in price of main raw material, that is
| propylene oxide.
d. | The overall profitability of the applicant has declined as per the Annual reports, which demonstrates that
| broader business factors, and not just imports, may be the cause of injury.
e. | Imports from other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Singapore were significantly higher than the
| imports from Thailand during the period of investigation and are likely to have caused injury. Further,
| despite significant imports from Singapore, the applicants did not timely seek a review of duties from
| Singapore which has resulted in inflated injury and erroneous causal link.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
f. | The prices of the domestic industry were suppressed as it was unable to cover its high costs which were
| affected by high raw material prices, and self-inflicted internal disruptions such as acquisition and
| depreciation burdens.
g. | The depreciation cost of the domestic industry has increased substantially without any increase in
| capacity, which is required to be verified.
h. | Reduced domestic sales of the applicant cannot be attributed solely to import competition as the imports
| increased in line with increased demand. On the contrary, a substantial share of production was diverted
| towards captive consumption by the domestic industry.
i. | The inability of the applicant to scale production is due to constraints in the availability Propylene
| Oxide and Ethylene Oxide, and not due to imports.
j. | The Authority must examine if other factors such as production constraints, limited capacity or any
| other factor may have caused injury to the domestic industry.
k. | Disruptions caused due to cyclone Michaung to the applicant's operations during the period of
| investigation shall be considered when assessing the injury claim.
l. | Factors such as disruption caused by cyclone “Michaung”, environmental clearance challenges, reliance
| on raw material imports, and reliance on the old KOH method have led to low production, capacity
| utilisation and productivity.
m. | Stable profitability, capacity utilisation, uninterrupted operations, and no evidence of plant closures or
| workforce reductions, have been reflected in the data of the applicant. This is not consistent with an
| industry under injurious pressure.
n. | Limited production capacity of the domestic industry as compared with major global players, prevents it
| from achieving economies of scale, resulting in higher per-unit costs. Further, the applicant is not
| backward integrated and is dependent on other suppliers for major raw materials. Lastly, the applicant is
| located at a distance from suppliers of PO and EO, which adds to incompetitiveness.
o. | Lack of backward integration forces the domestic industry to procure raw materials from third-party,
| increasing production costs and contributing to its poor performance, as also
p. | There is no basis for consideration of a high return of 22% on the capital employed for computation of
| non-injurious price, which is inconsistent with Annexure III. Reliance is placed on decision of the
| CESTAT in the case of Bridge Stone Tyre Manufacturing, wherein it was held that adoption of 22%
| return was incorrect as it gives an inflated picture of the injury margins.
q. | Any injury suffered by the domestic industry is attributable to factors other than subject imports,
| including significant imports from non-subject countries such as Singapore, obsolete production
| technology, higher raw material costs and lack of scale. The causal link between alleged dumping from
| China and Thailand and the claimed injury is therefore not established.
H.2. Submissions of the domestic industry
53. | The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the injury and causal
| link:
a. | The provision for cumulative assessment under the Rules is a mandatory provision and the conditions
| set therein are met in the present case.
b. | The volume of subject imports has increased significantly over the injury period, in absolute terms as
| well as in relation to Indian production and consumption. Despite decline in volumes of imports in the
| period of investigation, the volume of imports has remained significant.
c. | The rate of increase in imports has outpaced the rate of increase in demand in the country. In fact, the
| subject imports are in excess of the demand-supply gap in the country.
d. | The landed price of the subject imports has declined sharply over the injury period, despite no material
| change in the price of major raw material, propylene. As against a decline of 6% in the global import
| price of propylene oxide, the landed price declined by 44%.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
e. | The mark-up of landed prices over raw materials has declined over the injury period.
f. | The subject imports were undercutting the prices of the domestic industry.
g. | The subject imports suppressed and depressed the prices of the domestic industry.
h. | The costs of the domestic industry in absolute terms have declined, including fixed costs and cost of
| utilities. However, due to dumping, the production has reduced, and as a result, the per unit cost is
| higher.
i. | The volume of imports have increased in the post-POI period, while the prices of such imports have
| declined further.
j. | The sales of the domestic industry declined significantly due to increasing demand for low-priced
| subject imports. As a result, the domestic industry was forced to curtail its production and its production
| volumes declined.
k. | The decline in domestic sales is directly related to increase in dumped imports from all sources.
l. | While the captive consumption of the domestic industry increased over the period, such consumption
| was less than 3% and 4% in relation to production and sales of the domestic industry respectively.
m. | Despite a demand-supply gap, the domestic industry was operating at less than 50% capacity utilization
| during the period of investigation.
n. | Contrary to the claim that the domestic industry not shown any improvement despite duties, the
| domestic industry was unable to increase capacities due to continuous onslaught of dumped imports.
o. | The domestic industry is not required to show improvement in performance in face of unfair dumping.
| Dumping that is an unfair pricing practice, and the domestic industry cannot be expected to take steps to
| offset such pricing practices.
p. | As the demand for dumped imports increased over the period, the market share of the subject imports
| also increased, while the market share of the domestic industry was woefully low.
q. | The domestic industry faced significant accumulation inventories, which increased by 637% over the
| injury period.
r. | Since 2022-23, the domestic industry has been incurring significant financial losses including cash
| losses, and has earned negative returns on its investment.
s. | Injury to the domestic industry has not been caused by any other factor.
t. | With respect to claim that the domestic industry is not backward integrated, the applicant cannot be
| faulted for not having a backward integrated plant since the same would require a multi-million
| investment for setting up a refinery, which is not feasible.
u. | Injury to the domestic industry must be examined as it exists and factors inherent to the industry cannot
| be considered as causing injury, as held by the Appellate Body in EU – Biodiesel (Argentina), in the
| case of Nippon Zeon Co. Ltd. vs. Designated Authority, and accepted by the Authority in various
| investigations.
v. | The subject imports must be one of the causes of injury and not the only cause of injury, as held in EC
| – Tubes and Pipes, U.S. – Hot-Rolled Steel Products and U.S. – Salmon.
w. | Imports from Singapore are priced higher than the subject imports. The landed price of imports from
| Singapore, after accounting for anti-dumping duty, did not undercut the prices of the domestic industry
| during the period of investigation. Thus, such imports did not cause injury to the prices of the domestic
| industry during the period of investigation.
x. | Despite adjusting the total capacity in the injury analysis for removing the effects of shutdown caused
| due to cyclone, the domestic industry faced significantly underutilized capacities. Further, since variable
| costs account for more than 80% of the total cost, increased costs due to shut down could not have
| caused injury to the domestic industry.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
y. | The deprecation cost allocated to the subject goods has changed due to change in allocation
| methodology. However, such cost account for only 1-3% of the total cost and thus, could not have
| caused injury to the domestic industry
z. | The EBIDTA of the domestic industry has also declined over the injury period, which indicates that
| injury to the domestic industry is not due to increase in depreciation cost.
aa. | Performance of the domestic industry in other products is irrelevant in an anti-dumping investigation as
| per para (vi) of Annexure II.
ab. | The major reason for decline in the overall profitability of the company was sharp increase in cheap
| imports which eroded the market share of the applicant.
ac. | Contrary to the arguments of the other interested parties, the domestic industry did not face any raw
| material supply shortage.
ad. | Even if the domestic industry arguendo faced shortage of raw material, it does not explain the price
| pressure faced by the domestic industry.
ae. | While the other interested parties have claimed allowing a 22% return for determination of non-
| injurious price is not reasonable, they have provided the return which should be allowed. Considering
| the reliance on the practice of European Commission and the decision of CESTAT in case of Bridge
| Stone Tyre Manufacturing, the Authority should allow return earned by the domestic industry in the
| past when it was unaffected by dumping, which was higher than presently considered.
af. | As held by the Tribunal in Tangshan Sanyou Group Hong Kong International Trade Co. Ltd. vs. Union
| of India, in absence of evidence showing a different return should be allowed, a 22% return is justified
| as this rate has been consistently applied by the Authority in numerous cases.
ag. | While the other interested parties have referred to the practice of the European Commission, they have
| failed to highlight that the Commission determines fair selling price based on total cost of production
| without any adjustments as opposed to the practice of the Authority.
H.3. Examination by the Authority
53. | Rule 11 of Antidumping 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 Anti-Dumping Rules.
54. | The Authority has examined the arguments and counterarguments of the interested parties with regard to injury
| to the domestic industry. The analysis made by the Authority hereunder addresses the various submissions
| made by the interested parties.
H.3.1. Cumulative assessment of injury
55. | Article 3.3 of the WTO agreement and para (iii) of Annexure II of the Rules provides that in case where
| imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping
| investigations, the Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that:
b. | The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than two per
| cent expressed as a percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three
| per cent (or more) of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than
| three per cent, the imports collectively account for more than seven per cent of the import of like article,
| and
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
c. | Cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition
| between the imported article and the like domestic articles.
56. | The Authority notes that:
b. | The subject goods are being dumped into India from the subject countries. The margin of dumping from
| each of the subject countries is more than de minimis limits prescribed under the Rules.
c. | The volume of imports from each of the subject countries is individually more than 3% of the total
| volume of imports.
d. | Cumulative assessment of the effects of import is appropriate as the imports from the subject countries
| not only directly compete with the like articles offered by each of them but also the like articles offered
| by the domestic industry in the Indian market.
57. | In view of the above, the Authority considers that it is appropriate to assess the effect of dumped imports of the
| subject goods from China PR and Thailand on the domestic industry.
H.3.2. Volume effect of the dumped imports
a) | Assessment of demand / apparent consumption
58. | The Authority, has defined, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand or apparent consumption of
| the product in India as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry and imports from all sources. The
| demand so assessed is given in the table below.
Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Excluding Captive | | | | |
Sales of domestic industry | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 99 | 81 | 44
Imports from subject countries | MT | 22,540 | 40,530 | 46,101 | 30,733
Imports from other countries | MT | 77,026 | 79,146 | 94,975 | 1,18,040
(including countries attracting ADD) | | | | |
Total demand | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 117 | 132 | 133
Including Captive | | | | |
Sales of domestic industry | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 82 | 45
Imports from subject countries | MT | 22,540 | 40,530 | 46,101 | 30,733
Imports from other countries | MT | 77,026 | 79,146 | 94,975 | 1,18,040
Total demand | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 117 | 132 | 133
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
59. | The Authority notes that the demand for the subject goods in India has increased year on year over the injury
| period and was the highest in the period of investigation.
b) | Import Volumes from the subject countries
60. | With regard to the volume of the imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a
| significant increase in dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in
| India. For the purpose of injury analysis, the Authority has relied on the transaction-wise import data procured
| from DG Systems data. The import volumes from the subject countries during the injury period are as follows:
Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Imports from subject countries | MT | 22,540 | 40,530 | 46,101 | 30,733
China PR | MT | 5,734 | 21,134 | 18,354 | 14,563
Thailand | MT | 16,806 | 19,395 | 27,748 | 16,169
Imports from other countries | MT | 77,026 | 79,146 | 94,975 | 1,18,040
Total Imports | MT | 99,566 | 1,19,675 | 1,41,076 | 1,48,773
Subject imports in relation to | | | | |
Domestic production | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 181 | 240 | 231
Consumption/Demand | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 154 | 155 | 103
Total imports | % | 23% | 34% | 33% | 21%
61. | The Authority notes that:
i. | The volume of imports from the subject countries has increased over the injury period. The volume of
| imports increased from the base year to 2023-24, and thereafter declined in the POI.
ii. | Imports in relation to production in India increased significantly over the injury period, despite a
| marginal decline in the POI
iii. | Imports in relation to consumption in India increased till 2023-24 but declined in the period of
| investigation.
iv. | The share of subject imports in total imports increased to 34% in 2022-23 and remained almost the same
| in 2023-24. Thereafter, the share of subject imports in total imports declined in the period of
| investigation.
H.3.3. Price effect of the dumped imports
62. | In terms of Annexure II (ii) of the Rules, with regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, the
| Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports
| as compared with the price of the like product 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.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
a) | Price undercutting
63. | Price undercutting has been determined by comparing the net sales realization of the domestic industry with the
| landed price of the imports for the period of investigation.
Particulars | Unit | POI
Net sales realization | ₹/MT | ***
Landed price | ₹/MT | ***
Price undercutting | ₹/MT | ***
Price undercutting | % | ***
Price undercutting | Range | 15-25%
64. | The Authority notes that the subject imports are priced significantly below the selling price of the domestic
| industry. The price undercutting from the subject countries is positive and significant.
b) | Delta of landed price over raw material cost of domestic industry
65. | The domestic industry has claimed that despite any significant fluctuation in the cost of raw materials, the
| landed price has continued to decline and was even lower than the cost of materials. The landed price of
| imports has declined by 43% during this period. Further, while the subject imports were priced significantly
| above the raw material cost of the domestic industry in 2021-22, the delta has reduced significantly. In the
| period of investigation, the subject imports were priced below the cost of raw materials of the domestic
| industry.
Particular | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Raw Material Cost | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Landed Price | ₹/MT | 1,82,636 | 1,36,745 | 1,09,777 | 1,04,720
Mark up | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Mark up | Range | 60-70% | 10-20% | 0-10% | (0-10)%
c) | Price suppression/depression
66. | In order to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing the domestic prices to a significant degree or
| whether the effect of such imports is to suppress price to a significant degree or prevent price increase which
| otherwise would have occurred in normal course, the Authority has examined the changes in the costs and
| prices of the domestic industry over the injury period.
Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Cost of sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 98 | 117
Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 69 | 64 | 66
Landed price | ₹/MT | 1,82,636 | 1,36,745 | 1,09,777 | 1,04,720
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 75 | 60 | 57
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
67. | The Authority notes that in 2022-23, the cost of sales increased. However, the selling price of the domestic
| industry declined due to sharp decline in the prices of subject imports. Thereafter, the cost of sales and selling
| prices of the domestic industry and landed prices of imports have declined. The decline in landed prices was
| higher than the decline in cost of sales of the domestic industry. During the period of investigation, the cost of
| sales increased by about 20%, whereas the selling price increased only marginally by about 3-4%, even as the
| landed price of imports continued to decline. An examination of the trends from the base year shows that while
| the cost of sales of the domestic industry has increased, the selling price of the domestic industry has declined
| by 34% pursuant to the decline in the landed prices by 43%. It is, therefore, noted that the imports have
| depressed the prices of the domestic industry and prevented price increases, which otherwise would have
| occurred.
H.3.4. Economic parameters of the domestic industry
68. | Annexure II to the Anti-Dumping Rules require that the determination of the injury shall involve an objective
| examination of the consequent impact of dumped imports on the domestic producers of the subject goods. With
| regards to the consequent impact of these imports on the domestic producers of subject goods, the Rules further
| provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry would include an
| objective 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, actual and potential negative effects on
| cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly,
| performance of the domestic industry has been examined over the injury period.
a) | Production, capacity, capacity utilization and sales volumes
69. | The capacity, production, sales and capacity utilisation of the domestic industry over the injury period were as
| below.
Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Installed Capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100
Available Capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 100 | 86
Production | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 99 | 85 | 59
Production (PUC+NPUC) | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Capacity utilization* | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 94 | 102 | 65
Domestic Sales | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 99 | 77 | 49
Export sales | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 37 | 25 | 12
Captive Consumption | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 181 | 296 | 364
70. | The Authority notes that:
b. | The installed capacity of the domestic industry has remained stable throughout the injury period.
c. | The production and sales of the domestic industry have declined over the injury period. As a result of
| significant decline in the sales of the domestic industry, the domestic industry was forced to curtail its
| production.
d. | The capacity utilisation has also declined significantly over the injury period. During the period of
| investigation, the domestic industry was operating with only half of its capacities.
71. | It has also been argued that decline is production is linked to plant shutdown faced due to cyclone. The
| domestic industry submits that it has faced significant underutilized capacities despite adjusting the total
| capacity for removing the effects of the plant shutdown. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has
| submitted data after excluding the impact of the plant shutdown due to cyclone. Even after excluding the
| impact, the capacity utilization of the domestic industry is less than 50%. Therefore, a decline in the
| performance in the period of investigation cannot be attributed to the plant shutdown.
72. | Further, it has been argued that the captive consumption of the subject goods has increased, however the
| domestic sales of the domestic industry has declined. In this regard, the Authority notes the volume of captive
| consumption has remained low and accounted for a negligible share as compared to the total production
| volume and total volume of domestic sales of the domestic industry.
b) | Market share
73. | Market share of the imports and domestic industry is given in the table below:
Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Market Share excluding captive | | | | |
Domestic industry | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 87 | 62 | 31
Subject imports | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 153 | 153 | 105
Other imports | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 88 | 94 | 115
Market Share including captive | | | | |
Domestic industry* | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 87 | 62 | 31
Subject imports | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 153 | 153 | 105
Other imports | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 88 | 94 | 115
74. | The Authority notes that the market share of the domestic industry has declined over the injury period.
| However, the market share of subject imports in the POI is broadly comparable to the base year.
c) | Inventories
75. | Inventory position of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below:
Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Opening Inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Closing Inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Average Inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 89 | 247 | 737
76. | The Authority notes that the inventories of the domestic industry have increased significantly over the injury
| period, reflecting the adverse impact on the domestic industry.
d) | Profitability, cash profits and return on capital employed
77. | Performance of the domestic industry has been examined in respect of profits, cash profits and return on capital
| employed.
Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Cost of sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 98 | 117
Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 69 | 64 | 66
Profit / (loss) | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | -30 | -22 | -63
Profit / (loss) | ₹ Lacs | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | -30 | -17 | -28
Cash profits | ₹ Lacs | *** | *** | *** | ***
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
Trend | Indexed | 100 | -25 | -14 | -23
Return on capital employed | % | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | -50 | -41 | -68
78. | The Authority notes the following:
b. | The domestic industry earned sufficient profits during till 2021-22. However, the profitability of the
| domestic industry declined in 2022-23. The domestic industry suffered significant losses due to a sharp
| decline in selling prices, even as costs increased.
c. | During the period of investigation, the profitability of the domestic industry deteriorated as compared to
| the base year.
d. | The domestic industry has also suffered deterioration in cash profits over the period.
e. | The domestic industry has faced a significant decline in its return on capital employed. The return on
| capital employed, which was healthy in 2021-22, turned negative in 2022–23 and remained negative
| thereafter, further declining in the period of investigation
79. | With regard to the submissions by the other interested parties that losses in past investigation have been
| converted to profits in present investigation, it is noted that during the POI (Oct, 2021 to Sep, 2021) of the
| previous investigation, an important ingredient namely, propylene oxide, which was used for manufacture of
| PUC was procured domestically from related party (at arm's length price) and also produced captively. The
| methodology for transfer price during the previous injury period was based on domestic procurement (i.e., from
| related party at arm's length price). This resulted in higher raw material price, leading to higher cost of sales and
| consequential losses for PUC. The same practice was followed for all the four years of injury period for even
| comparison. However, since the input raw material was considered at market price, no capital employed for such
| captive input was provided for determining return on capital employed. In the present investigation period,
| during POI (Oct, 2023 to Sep, 2024), the domestic industry manufactured propylene oxide captively and same
| was transferred at cost. Therefore, for the whole current injury investigation period, (which also includes the
| common FY 2021-22 with previous investigation period), same practice was required to be followed for even
| comparison. Thus, the transfer price for the captive input, namely, propylene oxide, is considered at cost for
| ascertaining the cost of production of the PUC. Further, capital employed for such captive input has been added
| to the capital employed for PUC for allowing return on capital employed.
e) | Employment, productivity and wages
80. | The Authority has examined the information relating to employment, wages and productivity, as given below:
Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Employees | Nos. | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100
Productivity per day | MT/Day | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 99 | 85 | 59
Productivity per employee | MT/Nos | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100
Wages | ₹ Lacs | *** | *** | *** | ***
Trend | Indexed | 100 | 104 | 42 | 88
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
81. | The Authority notes that the number of employees and productivity per employee have remained unchanged
| over the injury period. However, productivity per day declined over the injury period. While wages increased
| marginally in 2022-23, they declined thereafter and remained below the base year level in the POI. The
| domestic industry has not claimed injury on this account
f) | Growth
Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI
Installed Capacity | % | - | - | - | -
Production | % | - | -1% | -14% | -31%
Domestic sales | % | - | -1% | -19% | -46%
Profit / (loss) per unit | % | - | -130% | -29% | 193%
Cash profits | % | - | -125% | -45% | 65%
Return on capital employed | % | - | -150% | -19% | 67%
82. | The Authority notes:
b. | The capacity of the domestic industry has not shown any change over the injury period.
c. | The domestic sales have shown a negative growth.
d. | The profitability parameters have shown significant negative growth as the domestic industry have
| continued to face losses and earned negative returns.
g) | Factors affecting prices
83. | It is noted that the domestic industry has not been able to increase its prices in relation to the increase in cost of
| sales. The subject imports have forced the domestic industry to sell the goods below its costs. Further, the
| subject imports have significantly undercut the domestic prices, creating a strain on the prices of domestic
| industry, which has resulted in a decline in profitability and return on capital employed. Thus, the subject
| imports have affected the prices of the domestic industry.
h) | The magnitude of dumping
84. | The Authority notes that the subject goods are being dumped in India from the subject countries. The dumping
| margin is positive and significant.
I. | NON-ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS AND CASUAL LINK
Non-attribution analysis
85. | Having examined the existence of injury, volume and price effects of dumped imports on the prices of the
| domestic industry, the Authority has examined whether injury to the domestic industry can be attributed to any
| factor, other than the dumped imports, as listed under the Rules.
a. | Volume and value of imports from third countries
86. | It is noted that the subject goods are being imported in significant quantities from other countries such as Saudi
| Arabia, Singapore, USA, Japan, Korea, Taiwan. The Authority notes that it is currently undertaking a sunset
| review of anti-dumping duty being conducted against imports from Saudi Arabia. Moreover, imports from
| other countries, including Singapore, are priced higher than the prices from the subject countries.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
87. | Certain interested parties have argued that imports from Singapore have caused injury to the domestic industry
| and not the subject goods. As per the data on record, the prices of imports from Singapore are higher than the
| price of subject imports.
b. | Contraction in demand
88. | The demand for the subject goods has increased over the injury period and was the highest during the period of
| investigation. The domestic industry has not suffered injury due to possible contraction in demand.
c. | Pattern of consumption
89. | There has been no material change in pattern of consumption of the product under consideration, which could
| have caused injury to the domestic industry.
d. | Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices
90. | The Authority notes that there are no trade restrictive practices or conditions of competition, which may have
| cause injury to the domestic industry.
e. | Developments in technology
91. | There has been no change in technology for production of the subject goods, due to which the domestic
| industry could have suffered injury.
f. | Productivity
92. | The Authority notes that the productivity per employee of the domestic industry has more or less remained
| constant. Therefore, the domestic industry has not suffered injury on this account.
g. | Export performance of the domestic industry
93. | The injury information examined hereinabove relates only to the performance of the domestic industry in terms
| of its domestic market. Thus, the injury suffered cannot be attributed to the export performance of the domestic
| industry.
h. | Performance of other products
94. | The injury suffered cannot be attributed to the performance of other products of the company, as the domestic
| industry has segregated and provided information with regard to the like article only.
i. | Plants of domestic industry not backward integrated and use of obsolete technology
95. | With regards to the submissions that the injury to the domestic industry has been caused due to its own
| inefficiencies such as lack of backward integration in plants, usage of obsolete technology and depreciation
| burdens, the Authority notes that the such factors are inherent to the industry and has remained unchanged.
| Thus, it cannot be said that such factors have now started causing injury to the domestic industry.
j. | Impact of Michaung cyclone
96. | It has been argued by certain interested parties that the domestic industry may have suffered injury due to
| shutdowns suffered on account of Michaung Cyclone in the region. It is noted that the domestic industry
| segregated the impact of shutdown faced due to cyclone, and has reduced its available capacities in order to
| remove the impact of such shutdown. However, despite making adjustment to the capacity to offset the impact
| of cyclone-related shutdown, the domestic industry has faced significant underutilization and its production
| continues to decline as its sales also declined continuously.
Factors establishing causal link
97. | While other known factors listed under the Rules have not caused injury to the domestic industry, the Authority
| notes that the following parameters show that injury to the domestic industry is caused by the dumped imports.
i. | There is significant dumping of the subject goods from the subject countries.
ii. | The volume of dumped imports has increased over the injury period.
iii. | The volume of imports has also increased in relation to Indian consumption and production.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
iv. | The increase in dumped imports adversely affected the ability of the domestic industry to sell its goods
| in the market at remunerative prices and the subject imports continued to undercut the domestic prices.
| It is also noted that the domestic industry has suffered price depression, and suppression on account of
| imports of subject goods from subject countries.
v. | As a result, the market share of the domestic industry declined over the injury period, while imports
| increased significantly in the intervening years and remained substantial during the period of
| investigation.
vi. | The production and sales volume of the domestic industry have declined over the injury period.
vii. | The domestic industry faced significant accumulation of inventories as it was unable to sell its product
| in the market.
viii. | The domestic industry has suffered losses and cash losses.
ix. | The domestic industry is not able to earn sufficient returns on the investments made and it earned
| negative returns on its investment.
J. | MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
98. | The Authority has determined the non-injurious price for the domestic industry on the basis of the principles
| laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The non-injurious price of the subject goods has
| been determined by adopting the verified information/data relating to the cost of production for the period of
| investigation.
99. | The non-injurious price has been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject countries for
| calculating the injury margin. For determining the non-injurious price, the best utilisation of the raw materials,
| the utilities and the production capacity by the domestic industry over the injury period have been considered.
| It is ensured that no extraordinary or non-recurring expenses were charged to the cost of production. A
| reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on the 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 non-injurious
| price as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules and is being followed.
100. | Based on the landed price and non-injurious price determined as above, the injury margin for
| producers/exporters has been determined by the Authority and the same is provided in the table below: -
Injury Margin Table
S. No. | Name of Producer | NIP (USD/MT) | Landed Price (USD/MT) | Injury Margin (USD/MT) | Injury Margin (%) | Injury Margin (Range (%))
China PR | | | | | |
1. | Wanhua Group Co., Ltd | *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20
2. | Any Other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30
Kingdom of Thailand | | | | | |
3. | Dow Chemical Thailand Limited | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10
4. | Any Other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20
N. | RECOMMENDATIONS
127. | The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate
| opportunity was given to the domestic industry, exporters, importers and other interested parties to provide
| positive information on the aspect dumping, injury, causal link, and impact of measures. Having initiated and
| conducted the investigation in terms of the provisions under the Anti-Dumping Rules, the Authority is of the
| view that imposition of anti-dumping duty is required to offset dumping and injury. Accordingly, the Authority
| recommends imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports of the product under consideration from the subject
| countries.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
128. | 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 countries, for a period of 5 years, from the date of
| notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, equal to the amount mentioned in Column 7
| of the duty table appended below.
Duty Table
S. No. | Heading | Description | Country of Origin | Country of Export | Producer | Amount | Unit | Currency
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
1. | 39072910, | Flexible | China PR | Any country, | Wanhua | 207 | MT | USD
| 39072990 | Slabstock | | including China | Chemical | | |
| | Polyol of | | PR | Group Co., Ltd | | |
| | molecular | | | | | |
| | weight 3000- | | | | | |
| | 4000 | | | | | |
2. | -do- | -do- | China PR | Any country, | Any, other than | 318 | MT | USD
| | | | including China | that mentioned | | |
| | | | PR | at S.No. 1 | | |
3. | -do- | -do- | Any country | China PR | Any | 318 | MT | USD
| | | other than | | | | |
| | | China PR | | | | |
| | | and | | | | |
| | | Thailand | | | | |
4. | -do- | -do- | Thailand | Any country | Dow Chemical | 72 | MT | USD
| | | | including | Thailand | | |
| | | | Thailand | Limited | | |
5. | -do- | -do- | Thailand | Any country | Any, other than | 141 | MT | USD
| | | | including | that mentioned | | |
| | | | Thailand | at S.No. 4 | | |
6. | -do- | -do- | Any country | Thailand | Any | 141 | MT | USD
| | | other than | | | | |
| | | China PR | | | | |
| | | and | | | | |
| | | Thailand | | | | |
129. | The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in the above duty table shall
| be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of a valid commercial invoice, on which shall
| appear a declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her
| name and function, drafted as follows:
| "I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of Flexible Slabstock Polyol sold for export to the India covered
| by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) in [country concerned]. I declare that the
| information provided in this invoice is complete and correct."
| If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other rates shall apply. This requirement is without
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
prejudice to the verification procedures independently undertaken by the Customs authorities under the
applicable customs law and regulations.
O. | FURTHER PROCEDURE
130. | An appeal against the determination of the Designated Authority in these final findings shall lie before the
| Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act /
| Rules.
AMITABH KUMAR, Authorized Officer
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. | GORAKHA NATH
YADAVA | Digitally signed by GORAKHA
| NATH YADAVA
| Date: 2026.03.20 15:40:47 +05'30"
Login to read full text