Gazette Tracker
Gazette Tracker
Register
Ministry of Commerce and Industry DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES

Final findings in the ADD of Pentaerythritol from China PR Saudi Arabia and Taiwan

Issue Date: 20 February 2024 Published: 23 February 2024 Published with 3 days delay
Gazette ID: CG-DL-E-23022024-252323 Download PDF Official source ↗
Back to Feed
Cite this gazette 

                    
                

            

        


        
        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                
                Core Purpose
            

            
Final Finding in the anti-dumping investigation (Case No. AD-OI-04/2023) concerning imports of Pentaerythritol from China PR, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

        

        

        
        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    
                
                Detailed Summary
            

            
Final Finding notification issued by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (F. No. 06/04/2023-DGTR, dated 20 February 2024), in Case No. AD-OI-04/2023, concerns an anti-dumping investigation into imports of "Pentaerythritol" from China PR, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan, initiated on application by M/s Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995; the investigation was initiated via public notice dated 12 May 2023 (notification no. 6/04/2023-DGTR), with questionnaires sent to producers/exporters and importers/users under Rules 6(2)-6(4), the delayed response of Methanol Chemicals Company (Chemanol) of Saudi Arabia (filed 44 days late) was not formally accepted though its submissions were considered, the Government of Saudi Arabia participated, and the period of investigation was 1 July 2022 to 31 March 2023 (9 months); the document also recounts prior investigations against China PR (original 2005, Sunset Review I 2010-11, Sunset Review II 2016-17), Saudi Arabia (a fresh investigation terminated in 2013) and Taiwan (original 2001, Sunset Review I 2006, Mid-Term Review 2010, Sunset Review II 2012), lists numerous named exporters, producers, importers and users consulted, and describes computation of a non-injurious price (NIP) based on domestic industry cost data maintained per Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); the extracted text ends before the Authority's final determination and recommended duty are stated.

        

        

        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                
                Full Text
            

            
            

                
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-23022024-252323
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 45]
NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2024/PHALGUNA 1, 1945

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 20th February, 2024
FINAL FINDINGS
CASE NO. AD-OI-04/2023
Subject: Final Finding in anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Pentaerythritol” originating in or exported from China PR, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan.
F. No. 06/04/2023 -DGTR.-
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. M/s Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant" or the "petitioner") filed an application in the form and manner prescribed 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 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 as the "Rules"), for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation and imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of "Pentaerythritol” (hereinafter also referred to as the 'subject goods' or the 'product under consideration') originating in or exported from China PR, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan (hereinafter also referred to as the "subject countries").
2. Previous investigations conducted by the Authority on the subject goods are provided herein below:

Table 1: Details of previous anti-dumping investigations against China PR
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+-------------------------+---------------------------+
| Subject countries           | Original Investigation       | Sunset Review - I       | Sunset Review - II        |
+=============================+==============================+=========================+===========================+
|                             | China PR and Sweden          | China PR and Sweden     | China PR                  |
| Initiation Notification No. | 14/16/2004-DGAD              | 15/03/2010-DGAD         | 15/01/2016-DGAD           |
| Initiation Notification date| 04th Feb. 2005               | 26th March 2010         | 07th June 2016            |
| Preliminary Finding - MOC   | 05th August 2005             | -                       | -                         |
| Provisional Duty - MoF      | 20th October 2005            | -                       | -                         |
| Customs Notification of     | 93/2005                      | -                       | -                         |
| Provisional Duty            |                              |                         |                           |
| Final Finding-DGAD          | 02nd February 2006           | 25th March 2011         | 12th May 2017             |
| Definitive Duty - MoF       | 20th April 2006              | 14th June 2011          | 29th June 2017            |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+-------------------------+---------------------------+

Table 2: Details of previous anti-dumping investigations against Saudi Arabia
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| Subject countries           | Fresh Investigation          |
+=============================+==============================+
|                             | Saudi Arabia                 |
| Initiation Notification No. | 14/11/2011-DGAD              |
| Initiation Notification date| 22nd May 2012                |
|                             | Terminated on 08th Nov. 2013 |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+

Table 3: Details of previous anti-dumping investigations against Taiwan
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
| Subject countries           | Original Investigation       | Sunset Review - I | Mid Term Review   | Sunset Review - II        |
+=============================+==============================+===================+===================+===========================+
|                             | Taiwan, Japan, Canada        | Taiwan and Japan  | Taiwan            | Taiwan                    |
| Initiation Notification No. | 48/1/2001-DGAD               | 15/07/2006-DGAD   | 15/10/2010-DGAD   | 15/19/2012-DGAD           |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
B. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described below has been followed with regards to the investigation:
i) The Authority notified the embassies of the subject countries/territories in India about the receipt of the present anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Rules.
ii) The Authority vide notification no.6/04/2023-DGTR dated 12th May 2023 published a public notice in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the subject countries.
iii) The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice along with the questionnaires to the embassies of the subject countries in India, all known exporters, importers and users (whose details were made available by the applicant) and gave them the opportunity to make their views known in writing in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the anti-dumping rules. They were advised to reply within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice.
iv) The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known exporters and the embassies of the subject countries in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the anti-dumping Rules. A copy of the application was also provided to the other interested parties, as requested.
v) The Authority sent questionnaire to elicit relevant information to the following known producers/exporters in the subject countries in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD rules:

+-------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------------+
| S.No. | Name of known Exporter/ Producer      | S.No. | Name of known Exporter/Producer       |
+=======+=======================================+=======+=======================================+
| 1.    | Guizhou Crystal Chemicals Co. Ltd.    | 2.    | China National Chemicals Construction |
|       |                                       |       | Corporation                           |
| 3.    | Sincohem Jiangsu Import & Export      | 4.    | Shanxi Sanwei Group Company Ltd.      |
|       | Corporation                           |       |                                       |
| 5.    | Cosmoss VU Limited                    | 6.    | Hubei Yihua Chemical Industry Co. Ltd.|
| 7.    | PuyangPengxin Chemical Co. Ltd.       | 8.    | Shanghai Covan Chemical Co.           |
| 9.    | Sinoright International Trade         | 10.   | Star Chemicals Far East Co. Ltd.      |
| 11.   | Wuhan Biet Co. Ltd.                   | 12.   | Zhejiang Medicines & Health Products  |
| 13.   | Perstop Specialty Chemicals AB        | 14.   | Chemanol (Methanol Chemicals Company) |
| 15.   | LCY Chemical Corp.                    | 16.   | Ocean Chemical Co. Ltd.               |
| 17.   | Roshal Group                          | 18.   | Metafrax Chemicals                    |
| 19.   | Karbolit JSC (Metafrax Group)         |       |                                       |
+-------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------------+

vi) Methanol Chemicals Company ("Chemanol") producer/exporter from Saudi Arabia filed an Exporter Questionnaire Response but with a delay of 44 days and without seeking extension of time for such a significant delay. Since, there has been considerable delay in filing of response, the Authority is constrained not to accept the same. However, submissions made by the Chemanol have been appropriately considered by the Authority wherever necessary.
vii) Questionnaires were also sent to the following known importers/users of the subject goods in India seeking necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules:

+-------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------------+
| S.No. | Name of Known Importer/User           | S.No. | Name of Known Importer/User           |
+=======+=======================================+=======+=======================================+
| 1.    | Amber Chemicals                       | 2.    | Amjey Chem Trade Pvt. Ltd.            |
| 3.    | Aron Universal Ltd.                   | 4.    | Asian Paints Ltd.                     |
| 5.    | Aureole Rubbers Pvt. Ltd.             | 6.    | B Pankaj Kumar & Company              |
| 7.    | Berger Paints India Ltd.              | 8.    | Bharat Solvent & Chemical Corp.       |
| 9.    | Boro Criss                            | 10.   | Chemical Corp Pvt. Ltd.               |
| 11.   | Esdee Paints Ltd.                     | 12.   | Fine Organic Industries Ltd.          |
| 13.   | Gumpro Drilling Fluids Pvt. Ltd.      | 14.   | Hardware Trading Corporation          |
| 15.   | Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd.            | 16.   | J Kirit and Brothers                  |
| 17.   | JP DyechemPvt. Ltd.                   | 18.   | JaimarutiPolychem LLP                 |
| 19.   | K K Global                            | 20.   | Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd.            |
| 21.   | Kushal Chemicals                      | 22.   | Leo Chemo PlastPvt. Ltd.              |
| 23.   | Lok Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.               | 24.   | Macro Polymers Pvt. Ltd.              |
| 25.   | N.R. Colours Ltd.                     | 26.   | Paarichem Resources LLP               |
| 27.   | Pawan Chemicals                       | 28.   | Peekay Agencies Pvt. Ltd.             |
| 29.   | Perstorp Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd.    | 30.   | Pioneer Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. |
| 31.   | R Nandlal& Sons                       | 32.   | R.R. Innovative Pvt. Ltd.             |
| 33.   | Ramniklal S Gosalia& Co.              | 34.   | Resins and Plastics Ltd.              |
| 35.   | Saanvi Chemicals                      | 36.   | Sanjay Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd.    |
| 37.   | Santwani Brothers Pvt. Ltd.           | 38.   | Shah CJ World LLP                     |
| 39.   | Shlok Chemicals                       | 40.   | Solar Industries India Ltd.           |
| 41.   | SpakOrgochem (India) Pvt. Ltd.        | 42.   | Su-Rasayan                            |
| 43.   | Uniform Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.          | 44.   | Vandana Chemicals                     |
| 45.   | Ratnaka Machinery and Spares          | 46.   | A V M Sales Pvt. Ltd.                 |
| 47.   | Subham Oils & Resins Private Ltd.     | 48.   | Addison Paints & Chemicals Ltd.       |
| 49.   | Century Enka Ltd.                     | 50.   | Ciba Specialty Chemicals India Ltd.   |
| 51.   | Coates of India Ltd.                  | 52.   | Decpro Paints                         |
| 53.   | Dujodwala Paper Chemicals Ltd.        | 54.   | Gargi Industries Prop.                |
| 55.   | GoodlassNerolac Paints Ltd.           | 56.   | Hardcastle & Waud Mfg. Co. Ltd.       |
| 57.   | Hero Dye Chem Industries              | 58.   | Hindustan Inks & Resins Ltd.          |
| 59.   | IVP Ltd.                              | 60.   | Jenson & Nicholson (I) Ltd.           |
| 61.   | Mitsu Industries Ltd.                 | 62.   | Paras Dyes & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.      |
| 63.   | Resin & Pigments                      | 64.   | Perstorp Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd.    |
| 65.   | A.V.M. Sales Pvt. Ltd.                | 66.   | Alcon Enterprises                     |
| 67.   | Chemi Colour Agency                   | 68.   | Eastcorp International                |
| 69.   | Garaware Polyester Ltd.               | 70.   | H.R. Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.            |
| 71.   | Leo ChemoplastPvt. Ltd.               | 72.   | Samir Dye Chem                        |
| 73.   | Sanman Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd.          | 74.   | Saraf Chemicals Ltd.                  |
+-------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------------+

+-------+-----------------------------------+-------+-----------------------------------+
| S.No. | Name of Known Importer/User       | S.No. | Name of Known Importer/User       |
+=======+===================================+=======+===================================+
| 75.   | Vibgyor Paints Pvt. Ltd.          | 76.   | Indian Paints Association         |
| 77.   | Indian Resin Manufacturer's       | 78.   | Indian Small Scale Paint          |
|       | Association                       |       | Association                       |
+-------+-----------------------------------+-------+-----------------------------------+

viii) M/s Sandeep Organics, an importer of the subject goods in India, did not file an Importer Questionnaire Response but has submitted comments during the course of the investigation. The same have been appropriately addressed wherever necessary.
ix) The Government of Saudi Arabia participated in the present investigation as well as submitted its comments.
x) The Authority issued economic interest questionnaire (EIQ) to all interested parties and the concerned ministry. Response to EIQ was submitted only by the domestic industry.
xi) The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to the 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 the 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.
xii) Further information was sought from the applicant to the extent deemed necessary.
xiii) Verification of the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the purpose of the present investigation.
xiv) The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIP') based on the cost of production and the cost to make and sell the subject goods in India based on the information furnished by the domestic industry, maintained as per Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), has been worked out so as to ascertain whether the present anti-dumping duty is sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
xv) The period of investigation for the purpose of the present review is 1st July 2022 to 31st March 2023 (9 months) (hereinafter referred to as the “period of investigation” or “POI”). The Authority had recorded reasons in the initiation notification of the present investigation, for considering a period of 9 months as POI. It had been stated that the POI was considered to be this period after (a) excluding the period during which duties on China were in force, and the period for which data/information is not available, (b) considering urgency in undertaking investigation, having regard to irreparable loss and damage that is occurring to the domestic industry. It had also been specified in the initiation notification, that other parties may comment an appropriateness of POI. In the absence of any comments received, and the aforesaid factors, the Authority considers the POI, i.e., 1st July 2022 to 31st March 2023 to be appropriate for the present investigation. The injury analysis period included the period of investigation and the preceding years, 2019-20, 2020-21, April 2021- June 2022. Further, since the POI is of 9 months and the immediately preceding year is 15 months, hence the Authority to appropriately examine the trends of the injury period, has annualized these two periods. The actual figures for these two periods have been annualized by implementing the following formula: (x/15) *12 and (x/9) *12, respectively.
xvi) In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the AD Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to the interested parties to present their views during the oral hearing held on 22nd September 2023. The interested parties were requested to submit their written submissions by 29th September, 2023 and rejoinder submissions by 6th October. 2023 at the latest.
xvii) 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 recorded its observation on the basis of the facts available.
xviii) In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules Supra, the essential facts were disclosed by the Authority on 17th January, 2024 to the concerned interested parties. Comments were requested by 24th January, 2024. Comments received on the disclosure statement to the extent considered relevant by the Authority have been considered in this final finding.
xix) ***In this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis, and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xx) Exchange rate considered for the POI for conversion of USD to Indian Rupees is 1 USD = Rs. 82.16.

C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1 VIEWS OF THE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
4. Following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to scope of the product under consideration (PUC) and like article:
i) The domestic industry manufactures pentaerythritol of purity 92% & 96%. Whereas imports entering the Indian market are of minimum 98% purity. Actual purity of imports from Russia is minimum 99%. There is a difference in usage & price as per purity, and therefore, data should be compared as per purity. Further, in this regard certificate of analysis should be examined.
C.2 Views of the domestic industry and supporter
5. The Indian industry has made the following submission with regard to the scope of the product under consideration and like article:
i) The product under consideration is Pentaerythritol, excluding Di-Pentaerythritol. It is an organic compound and constitutes of four hydroxyl groups, indicated by the term “erythritol”, and five carbon atoms indicated by the prefix "Penta". It can be produced in two grades, in which the difference is primarily on the basis of the purity, crystal size, and uniformity of crystals. Apart from this, there is no material difference between the two grades.
ii) Pentaerythritol is used in the manufacture of derivatives such as alkyd resins, esters, and other derivatives. These derivatives are used as drying agents in paint, varnishes, and other surface coating industries and more recently, as lubricants in various industries.
iii) With respect to alleged difference with respect to purity of subject goods, the same has been examined previously, both by the DGTR and also by other jurisdiction which conducted an investigation on subject goods. The European Commission in Regulation (EC) No 2007/214/EC of 3 April 2007¹, had noted that all grades share the same chemical and physical characteristics, and are used for the same purpose.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
6. The product under consideration in the present investigation is, 'Pentaerythritol'. Pentaerythritol is an organic compound. The term “erythritol” indicates the presence of four hydroxyl groups, and the prefix "Penta" indicates that there are five carbon atoms in the molecule.
7. Pentaerythritol is produced using electrodialysis separation technology or fractional crystallization technology having molecular formula of C5H12O4 and molecular weight of 136.
8. There is no difference in product properties produced through the two technologies. Major raw materials required for production of Pentaerythritol are methanol, ethanol, caustic soda, and activated carbon.
9. Pentaerythritol can be of either technical or nitration grade. The principal difference in the two grades is in purity, crystal size and uniformity of crystals. Both the grades are produced out of the same process. However, it is only a matter of gradation, after production and at the stage of analytical testing of the product. Pentaerythritol having purity above 98% and better crystal formation can be used in the explosive industry and therefore, this grade has been designated as "nitration grade" in commercial parlance. However, Pentaerythritol considered as "nitration grade" can also be used for production of alkyd resins and other products (where the other grade, "technical grade" Pentaerythritol is used). It is noted that the production process, largely results in production of "technical grade' and less than 2% production results in nitration grade. Production of Di-penta is less than 0.5%. In terms of imports of subject goods, these are also primarily of technical grade.
10. There is no material difference between technical or nitration grade. Nitration grade is sold at nominally higher price due to its higher purity compared to the technical grade. However, the aforesaid price difference is insignificant. Di-pentaerythritol is beyond the scope of the product under consideration of the present investigation.
11. The price difference between technical and nitration grade is insignificant. Consistent with the past determination of this the Authority in previous investigations conducted in the product under consideration², has considered that there is no difference between the two grades for the purpose of the present investigation.

¹https://eur-lex.e,uropa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007D0214
² Final Findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Pentaerythritol originating in or exported from Russia-reg. dated 11th Dec., 2014

D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1 Views of the other interested parties
15. No submission has been made by other interested parties with regard to the domestic industry and standing.
D.2 Views of the domestic industry
16. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the domestic industry and standing:
i) The application has been filed by M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited (Kanoria).
ii) The applicant has neither imported the subject goods from the subject countries nor related to any importer in India or producer/exporter from the subject countries.
iii) There is one more producer in India, M/s Asian Paints (India) Ltd.
iv) Perstorp Industries India Pvt. Ltd., is a new producer, and has participated in the present investigation and supported the application.
v) Asian Paints produces the goods for captive consumption. However, their production is insufficient to meet their own requirements. The company supplements its requirement through purchases from the market.
vi) Asian Paints should not be included in the eligible production, as neither does this production compete with the dumped imports from the subject countries nor does it compete with the sales made by the Indian producers.
vii) The applicant constitutes a 'major proportion' (53%) of the total Indian production according to Rule 2(b).
D. 3 Examination by the Authority
17. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules defines the domestic industry as under:
"(b) "domestic industry " means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry 'must be construed as referring to the rest of the producers"
18. The present application has been filed by M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited (“Kanoria"). The applicant has not imported the subject goods and are neither related to an importer or exporter thereof. The applicant company is an eligible the domestic industry within the meaning of the Rule 2(b).
19. The applicant has been supported by M/s Perstorp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (“Perstorp India" or Perstorp). Perstorp submitted that it has made substantial commitment in setting up manufacturing facility of Pentaerythritol in India. It has set up a plant having capacity of *** MT per annum for manufacturing of Pentaerythritol in India. It has invested about Rs. *** crores in setting up this facility and has plans to invest further. The company has further stated that it was scheduled to start the production from September 2023, which was earlier planned for July 2023, but the same has been delayed. In their subsequent submission to the Authority, they have submitted that Perstorp, has now started production of Pentaerythritol in November 2023 at Sayakha, Gujarat.
20. M/s Asian Paints (India) Ltd. (“Asian Paints”) is also a producer of the subject goods in India. The applicant has identified Asian Paints as a (a) producer, (b) consumer (c) importer and (d) customer of the applicant in respect of the product under consideration. Asian Paints has not participated in the present investigations. The past findings notified by the Authority also considered Asian Paints as a captive producer of Pentaerythritol. The company has neither supported nor opposed the present investigation. It has been claimed that Asian Paints is another producer, producing the product for its own captive requirements. The applicant has submitted that the production of Asian Paints should be excluded since the production of Asian Paints was not competing in market and they have not experienced injury from such dumping of subject goods in the Indian market.
21. As per the Anti-dumping Rules, the Authority is required to examine whether (a) the production by the domestic industry constitutes “a major proportion" of total Indian production (b) domestic producers expressly supporting the application account for more than twenty five percent of the total production of the like article by the domestic industry; and (c) the application is supported by those domestic producers whose collective output constitute more than fifty percent of the total production of the like article produced by that portion of the domestic industry expressing either support for or opposition to the application. Considering the facts of the present case, and submissions made above, the share of production by the applicant in total Indian production has been determined considering both, the production of Asian Paints, as well as after exclusion Asian Paints' production. The applicant accounts for 100 % of Indian production after excluding production of Asian Paints and ***% after including production of Asian Paints. The Authority considers that it was not necessary to adjudicate whether production of Asian Paints is required to be included or excluded for the purpose of deciding standing of the applicant, as (a) the company has preferred non-cooperation, (b) the company has been identified as a major consumer of the product under consideration, (c) the company is an importer of the product, (d) the company has bought Pentaerythritol from the applicant domestic industry.
22. It is seen that the applicant accounts for a major proportion in Indian production, in both the scenario i.e., after excluding production of Asian Paints for captive consumption; as well as including production of Asian Paints for captive consumption. The application thus satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. Further, the applicant, Kanoria Chemicals, constitutes the domestic industry within the meaning of the Rules.
E. ASSESSMENT OF DUMPING AND DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
E.1 Views of the other interested parties
23. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the normal value, export price and dumping margin:
i) The respondent was under the bona fide belief and understanding that the due date for filing the questionnaire response fell on 23rd June 2023 and had filed its interested party letter on the same date asking for a further extension of time by 4 weeks. There was no response from the Authority.
ii) The respondent in view of the Eid Holidays in the month of June and July in Saudi Arabia, which reduced the number of operational days and necessitated additional time to complete the questionnaire in the form and manner prescribed requested for further extension of times.
iii) On receipt of this email on 2nd August 2023 from Perstorp, stating that it supports the levy of anti-dumping duty, it became clear as to why there was no response from Perstorp to the repeated requests by Chemanol for sharing information relevant for filing the Exporters' Questionnaire Response.
iv) The delay in submitting the EQR by the respondent was occasioned due to the unique circumstances which were beyond its control and are therefore required to be condoned.
v) The Designated Authority has further discretion with itself to grant an extension in filing the Questionnaire Response in with retrospective effect where sufficient cause is shown for the same as done in various cases such as aluminium frame, VFY, Flax yarn etc.
vi) The Authority should consider the facts and circumstances of this case on merit and accept the response filed by it since the exporter turned hostile due to the abovementioned change in its nature of interest in the market for the subject goods in India. Reference has been made to text of paragraph 8(v) of the "GENERAL section" of the format of Exporters' Questionnaire which states as follows:
In case, any unrelated exporter does not cooperate and does not provide the relevant information, the Designated Authority may disregard the information provided by the concerned participating producer(s)/exporters(s). However, the Designated Authority may consider the facts and circumstances of each case on merit, before taking such decision.”
vii) Resorting to constructed normal value is erroneous and inconsistent with Article 2.2 of ADA as well as Section 9A (1) of the Act and cannot be considered either adequate or accurate information vis-à-vis normal value or a dumping margin calculated on that basis. It had to establish that there exist two conditions to resort to (a) where there are no sales of the like article in the domestic market of the exporting country (b) when because of the particular market situation or low volume of sales in the domestic market of the exporting country, such sales do not permit a proper compassion.
viii) The costs of the domestic industry could not have been used to construct the normal value in Saudi Arabia for the further reason that its cost of production was inflated due to an unprecedented increase in the cost of raw materials in India arising out of an instability in prices as a result of the pandemic.
ix) No evidence has been provided by the applicants in respect of the adjustments claimed in the petition and the adjustments are high.
E.2 Views of the domestic industry and supporter
24. The submissions of the Indian industry with regards to the normal value, the export price and the dumping margin, are as follows:
i) China should be considered a non-market economy, in line with the position taken by the Authority in previous cases, and by the investigating authorities in other countries. Chinese producers' cost and price cannot be relied upon for determination of normal value.
ii) The Authority shall follow Para 1 – 6 of Annexure I for the determination of normal value only if the responding Chinese companies establish that their costs and price information is such that individual normal value and dumping margin can be determined. If the responding Chinese companies are not able to demonstrate that their costs and price information can be adopted, the Designated Authority shall reject the claim of individual dumping margin.
iii) Paragraph 1 to 6 of Annexure I of the Rules does not apply for computation of normal value for imports from China PR, unless a producer/exporter shows with sufficient evidence that he is operating under market economy conditions. As a result, normal value for China PR has to be determined in terms of Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules.
iv) Chinese producers are required to be treated as companies operating under non-market economy environment and the Authority may proceed to determine the normal value on the basis of Para 7 of Annexure-I.
v) The applicant has constructed the normal value on the basis of the estimate of cost of production in the subject country considering the costs of the domestic industry in India, duly adjusted to include selling, general and administrative costs of the domestic industry by adding reasonable profits, after addition for selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profits.
vi) This investigation requires, dumping margin to be computed on quarterly basis. Reliance placed on Article 2.4.2 of the ADA, para no. 9.6.20 of DGTR's manual of operating practices, and Appellate Body in US – Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), to state that the Authority is required to only examine a pattern of export price. If it is found that there exists a pattern of export price, the Authority has discretion to undertake any appropriate methodology for determination of dumping margin. In this regard, reliance also placed on Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Anti-dumping Duty Investigation of Large Residential Washers from the Republic of Korea, and Appellate Body in US – Washing Machines, to submit that deviation in dumping margin methodology can be made, if
a. Volatility in Input cost or selling prices;
b. Volatility in volume of imports;
с. Volatility in landed value;
d. Volatility in export price,
e. Volatility in normal value;
vii) DGTR and other authorities have conducted quarterly examination in Phenol originating in or exported from Japan and Thailand; Carbon Black used in rubber applications' originating in or exported from Australia, China PR, Iran, Malaysia, Russia and Thailand; Phenol originating in or exported from Japan and Thailand; 'Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC)- Whether or not further processed into compound' from Korea RP and China PR; Melamine originating in or exported from the European Union, Japan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates; Mid-Term Review investigation in respect of the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of, 'Acetone' originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei; Sunset Review of anti-dumping duty on Viscose Staple Fibre from China PR; Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) of 1500 series and 1700 series, originating in or exported from European Union, Korea RP and Thailand; EU's investigation on certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, nonalloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China.
viii) In the present case also, there is also significant difference in, normal value, export price and resultantly dumping margin.
ix) Highly unfair to not only the domestic industry but also to other parties, if EQR of the exporter is accepted. Not only the Authority has already rejected the response, but also the oral hearing is already over. Above all, the delay is not in few minutes or hours, but of several days. No global Authority allows such delayed responses. GCC practice referred where Indian producers were given 2-3 days to file response.
x) Further, in a situation where more than 90% of the sales are of a company that is non-cooperative, in any case, dumping margin cannot be determined, as value chain is severely missing and incomplete.
xi) While the applicant had made efforts to gather information on actual transactional prices prevailing in the domestic market of Saudi Arabia, the same was not available. Having no information/evidence available either in public domain or in published sources, for the purposes of the application and computation of dumping margin, the applicant was constrained to rely on constructing the normal value.
xii) It is not the argument of interested party that some information was available with respect to normal value and the domestic industry has deliberately not provided the same. Saudi government does not even make public information such as trade data, which is made public by other major WTO members. Should the other party make available any other appropriate evidence other than the aforesaid, then the same may be accepted by the Authority.
xiii) With respect to the argument that the costs of the domestic industry could not have been used to construct the normal value in Saudi Arabia as it was inflated due to the pandemic, the same is incorrect. The period of investigation is July 2022 to March 2023, a period that was not impacted by the pandemic. The applicant believes that the argument of the exporter is misplaced.
xiv) As regards no evidence being provided for adjustment claimed, the applicant has provided the same for freight. With respect to all other adjustments claimed, the same is based on market intelligence. There is no basis for stating that the amount of adjustments claimed are high, and no evidence has been provided.
xv) All claims made in Chemanol's written submission are denied, by Perstorp.
xvi) Chemanol has only reproduced and reiterated details of the investigation.
xvii) In reference to condonation of delay requested by Chemanol, any request for extension should be submitted within original time limit prescribed by the EQR.
xviii) When there is no response from the Authority regarding extension, consistent practice is that it is not granted and it is granted, there is a notice expressly stating so.
xix) Chemanol filed an extension of time for 4 weeks on 23rd June, and even if granted, the response would be due on 22nd July. EQR was admittedly submitted on 5th August which is a delay of 14 days.
xx) Respondent notes that Chemanol filed a request for registration as an interested party along with request for extension of time for filing EQR on 23rd June. Chemanol failed to register itself as an interested party within the prescribed time, and further failed to file the EQR within the prescribed time.
xxi) Emails sent to the Authority by Chemanol for extension of time limit was not provided by Chemanol and Perstorp understands that Chemanol also never informed the Authority the cause for delay within the time limit.
xxii) In any case, nothing prevented Chemanol from filing EQR containing its own information within the time limit. In reference to submissions made by Chemanol against Perstorp AB Sweden, the respondent notes that accusations by Chemanol are redundant and have no legal relevance and that the Authority is not required to adjudicate on the bona fides of Perstorp AB Sweden. Perstorp AB Sweden is not even registered as an interested party in the investigation.
xxiii) With regard to the specific allegation that Perstorp AB Sweden has become hostile and not complied with the requirement of the trade notice, Perstorp stated that Chemanol's statement is unwarranted and has no legal basis. Legal obligation is on Chemanol to provide information regarding its exports to India. Chemanol cannot shift the burden, and there is no mandate under the anti-dumping rules that an unrelated trader of producer has to comply with the request of producer unconditionally.
xxiv) No assurances were given orally or in writing to Chemanol, that Perstorp AB Sweden would submit an EQR, and in any case, no obligation is formed on Perstorp AB Sweden.
xxv) EQR filed by Chemanol should be rejected as it is incomplete and because the unrelated trader through whom Chemanol has exported the product to India has not cooperated in the present investigation. This is also the Authority's consistent practice.
E.3 Examination by the Authority
25. Under Section 9A(1)(c) of the Act, normal value in relation to an article means:
i. the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or
ii. when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either-
(a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or
(b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along With reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6):
Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.
26. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject countries, as well as to the appropriate diplomatic representative advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority within the prescribed time limit.
27. The exporter questionnaire response was due on 21.06.2023. However, Methanol Chemical Company (Chemanol)-Saudi Joint Stock Company (hereinafter referred as Chemanol), submitted the Exporter Questionnaire Response well beyond the prescribed time limit, on 05.08.2023 (delay of 44 days).
28. The exporter, in fact registered itself as an interested party, and sought extension, after expiry of the deadline i.e., on 23.06.2023. The request for extension was based on holidays for Eid that had reduced the number of operarational days. Notwithstanding the delay in registering as an interested party and seeking extension in a timely manner it is noted that the extension was sought for four weeks, i.e., till 21st July 2023 and the response has been filed on 5th August., 2023. It has been submitted by the producer that it was waiting for the exporter, Perstorp AB, to cooperate in this investigation by providing relevant information, in order to effectively respond to the questionnaire issued. However, the questionnaire response filed on 5th August, 2023 is without questionnaire response of the exporter. It is noted from the questionnaire response that no exports have been made by the company to India. Exports to India have been made by Perstorp AB. Since Perstorp AB has not filed questionnaire response, the Authority can, in anyway, not determine export price appropriately and cannot accept the response filed by Chemanol.
E.3.1 Determination of dumping margin on quarterly basis
29. The domestic industry, in its petition, determined dumping margin, and injury margin on quarterly basis and contended that the same was necessary in view of significant decline in the import prices without proportionate decline in the cost of production. No interested party has disputed the claim of the domestic industry for determination of dumping margin on quarterly basis.
30. In view of significant fluctuations in the import prices and raw material prices during the POI, it is considered appropriate to compare normal value with export price on basis quarterly averages. Considering the material changes in the raw materials prices, the Authority considers that a dumping margin determined on the basis of weighted average for the POI would not be appropriate. The Authority has therefore undertaken quarterly quantification of both dumping margin and injury margin. Weighted average dumping margin and injury margin for the POI has been determined on the basis of associated weights.
E.3.2 Normal value for China PR
31. 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 YI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology, that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules:
(i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining price comparability;
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product.
(iii) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO Member may then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China.
(iv) 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.
(v) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event; the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector. "
32. Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules reads as under:
In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including India or where it is not possible, or on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated authority in a reasonable manner, keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in question, and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of selection. Accounts shall be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation made in any similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without any unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments.
33. Para 7 lays down a hierarchy for determination of normal value 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 country, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. Thus, the Authority notes that the normal value is required to be determined having regard to the various sequential alternatives provided under Annexure 7. There is no evidence of price or constructed value prevailing in 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. Thus, imports into India from market economy third country could not be considered for determination of normal value. The normal value could not be based on the price from a market economy third country to other country, including India as this subject good does not have dedicated customs classification. Therefore, price from a market economy third country to other country, including India, cannot be considered for the present purposes.
34. Therefore, the Authority has determined normal value for the subject imports in China as per any other reasonable basis including the "price actually paid or payable in India" as stipulated in para 7 of Annexure – I to the AD Rules, 1995. It has been computed based on the cost of production of the domestic industry, with reasonable addition for selling, general and administrative expenses, and profits. The normal value so determined is given below in the dumping margin table.
35. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from China, advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority. However, none of the producers/exporters from China PR have participated in the present investigation.
E.3.3 Export price for China
36. The Authority notes that none of the producers/exporters from China have participated in the present investigation or filed questionnaire response. In the absence of cooperation from the producers/exporters of the PUC in China, the Authority is constrained to proceed on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995 with regard to the determination of export price for all non-cooperative producers/exporters from China.
37. The Authority has determined the export price on the basis of volume and value of imports as per DGCI&S transaction by transaction data. Price adjustments have been made for ocean freight, inland freight, insurance, handling charges, commission, and bank charges, on the basis of facts available, in view of non-cooperation. The export price so determined is stated in the table below.
E.3.4 Normal value for Saudi Arabia
38. The Authority notes that even though the producer/exporter from Saudi Arabia has participated in the present investigation, the same has not been accepted by the Authority for the reasons specified above. In the absence of timely cooperation from the producers/exporters of the PUC, the Authority is constrained to proceed on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995 with regard to the determination of normal value for all non-cooperative producers/exporters. The Authority has, therefore, constructed the normal value for all producers/exporters from Saudi Arabia on the basis of the facts available with regard to the cost of production of the subject goods, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses, and a reasonable profit margin. As noted above, in view of steep changes in the import prices without proportionate decline in the input prices, comparison of normal value and export price on the basis of weighted average for the POI would result in a skewed quantification of dumping margin. Thus, normal value has been determined on quarterly basis. The constructed normal value so determined for producers/exporters from Saudi Arabia is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
E.3.5 Export price for Saudi Arabia
39. The Authority notes that none of the producers/exporters from Saudi Arabia have filed timely questionnaire response. It is further noted that the responding producer Chemanol has stated that all the goods were in fact sold in the Indian market by Perstorp AB. Perstorp AB has not cooperated in the present investigation. Since the goods have been sold in the Indian market by Perstorp AB, the Authority considers that export price in any case cannot be appropriately determined without complete value chain of exports from Chemanol. In the absence of timely cooperation from the producers/exporters of the PUC in Saudi Arabia, the Authority is constrained to proceed on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995 with regard to the determination of export price for all non-cooperative producers/ exporters from Saudi Arabia.
40. The Authority has determined the export price after considering the volume and value of imports in the POI as per DGCI&S data. As noted above, in view of steep changes in the import prices without proportionate decline in the input prices, comparison of normal value and export price on the basis of weighted average for the POI would result in a skewed quantification of dumping margin. Thus, export price has been determined on quarterly basis. Adjustments have been made for ocean freight, inland freight, insurance, handling charges, commission, and bank charges. The export price so determined is stated in the below – mentioned dumping margin table.
E.3.6 Normal value for Taiwan
41. In the present case, the Authority notes that none of the producers/exporters from Taiwan have participated in the present investigation or filed a timely questionnaire response. In the absence of cooperation from the producers/exporters of the PUC, the Authority is constrained to proceed on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995 with regard to the determination of normal value for all non-cooperative producers/exporters. The Authority has, therefore, constructed the normal value for all producers/exporters from Taiwan on the basis of the facts available with regard to cost of production of the subject goods, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses, and a reasonable profit margin. As noted above, in view of steep changes in the import prices without proportionate decline in the input prices, comparison of normal value and export price on the basis of weighted average for the POI would result in a skewed quantification of dumping margin. Thus, normal value has been determined on quarterly basis. The constructed normal value so determined for producers/exporters from Taiwan is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
E.3.7 Export price for producers/exporters of Taiwan
42. The Authority notes that none of the producers/exporters from Taiwan have participated in the present investigation or filed questionnaire response. In the absence of cooperation from the producers/exporters of the PUC in Taiwan, the Authority is constrained to proceed on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995 with regard to the determination of export price for all non-cooperative producers/exporters from Taiwan.
43. The Authority has determined the export price after considering the volume and value of imports for the POI as per DGCI&S data. As noted above, in view of steep changes in the import prices without proportionate decline in the input prices, comparison of normal value and export price on the basis of weighted average for the POI would result in a skewed quantification of dumping margin. Thus, export price has been determined on quarterly basis. Adjustments have been made for ocean freight, inland freight, insurance, handling charges, commission, and bank charges. The export price so determined is stated in the below – mentioned dumping margin table.
E.3.8 Determination of Dumping margin
44. Considering the normal value and the export price for the subject goods, determined as stated above, dumping margin for the subject goods from the subject countries have been determined as shown in table below. Further, as stated above, the dumping margin have been determined for all producers and exporters from subject countries by undertaking quarterly quantification of normal value and export price.

Dumping margin Table from China PR, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan
+-------------+--------+---------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+-------+
| Country     | Period | Import volume | Normal value| Export price| Dumping margin                | Range |
|             |        |               |             |             |---------------+---------------+       |
|             |        | MT            | USD/MT      | USD/MT      | Amount        | %             | %     |
+=============+========+===============+=============+=============+===============+===============+=======+
| China       | POI-Q1 | 371           | ***         | 1,710       | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q2 | 1377          | ***         | 1,342       | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q3 | 72            | ***         | 1,286       | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI    | 1820          | ***         | 1,415       | ***           | ***           | 30-40 |
| Saudi Arabia| POI-Q1 | 1240          | ***         | 1,904       | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q2 | 1500          | ***         | 1,437       | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q3 | 1280          | ***         | 1,209       | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI    | 4020          | ***         | 1,508       | ***           | ***           | 25-35 |
| Taiwan      | POI-Q1 | 567           | ***         | 1,549       | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q2 | 620           | ***         | 1,528.36    | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q3 | 770           | ***         | 1,356.70    | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI    | 1957          | ***         | 1,534.30    | ***           | ***           | 25-35 |
+-------------+--------+---------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+---------------+-------+

F. EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
F.1 Views of other interested parties
45. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regards to injury and continuation or recurrence of injury:
i) Imports from Saudi Arabia decreased in both absolute terms and in relation to consumption in India.
ii) No injury was caused by imports from Saudi Arabia as the performance of the petitioner was stable till June 2022 despite the presence of price undercutting.
iii) Domestic sales of the petitioner increased since the base year of 2019-20, despite the petitioner's capacity remaining the same, and capacity utilization has been nearly 100%.
iv) Closing inventories of the petitioner have gone down significantly since the base year of 2019-20.
v) The petitioner's market share has increased since the base year and has gone up to 32.33 in the year 2020-21.
vi) Profitability of the petitioner depends on the fluctuations of the prices for methanol and ethanol, which are used in the production of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
vii) Profit margins could have been affected by the trend of the Rupee against the US Dollar.
viii) Number of employees and productivity per day per employee has shown a healthy improvement over the injury period and wages also increased by a substantial degree.
ix) The petitioner has witnessed significant improvements across all volume parameters as both sales and production have increased in relation to the increase in capacity and decrease in inventories.
x) The domestic industry has witnessed significant improvement across all its volume parameters as both sales and production have increased commensurately to the increase in capacity and inventories have also decreased. Reference made to MEG.
xi) Ukraine - Russia war was a factor that had impacted pricing and demand-supply of the subject goods.
xii) Further, effect of imports from other countries such as Japan, Korea, Europe, to be considered.
xiii) It has also been submitted that in the POI, changes in the pricing & demand-supply of factors such as raw material, methanol, crude oil, freight, currency etc., should be provided. Whereas the domestic industry had agreed that there has been some decline in the raw material costs as well, but it has neither been quantified nor mentioned by name.
xiv) The domestic industry should explain the result/effect of the past anti-dumping duties & cessation thereof on imports from Europe, Russia, China & Taiwan.
xv) Significant volume of imports implies high demand from the end consumers including the paint industry.
xvi) Further, it has also been submitted that COVID & non-financial performance by countries such as Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc. had impacted global demand-supply & pricing.
xvii) It has also been submitted that data from the post-POI period will reflect a better picture.
xviii) It has been submitted that annual reports of the domestic industry have not been provided.
xix) In order to eliminate the possibility of manipulation of data, the POI should be of minimum 2 years.
F.2 Views of the domestic industry and supporter
46. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry, and the supporter, with regard to injury and causal link:
i) Import price of the product declined very steeply without proportionate decline in the costs of inputs. While there has been some decline in the raw material costs as well, the domestic industry has been forced to sell the product at significant financial losses. The exporters/producers have resorted to predatory pricing.
ii) The subject imports are causing injury to the domestic industry.
iii) Imports from other countries are either negligible or at abnormally higher prices.
iv) The demand in the base year declined due to COVID-19, after which it increased till the POI and achieved levels similar to that of the base year.
v) The import prices in the POI were low, witnessing a very steep decline.
vi) Prices of the dumped imports were controlled by China, and it is seen that Saudi Arabia and Taiwan followed the trend that was set by China in any event.
vii) Price undercutting is positive and has been determined by comparing the landed price of subject imports with the Net Sales Realization of the domestic industry.
viii) The depression of the domestic industry prices by the subject goods have forced the domestic industry's net selling price to be reduced to lower than the cost of production. The selling price has to be lowered below cost despite an increase in cost of sales, in the POI.
ix) The domestic industry's capacity remained constant, however the production and capacity utilization declined from base year to 2020-21 to the decline in demand, increased in 2021-22 and then declined again in the POI.
x) The sales of the domestic industry increased from the base year to the POI.
xi) The domestic industry has attempted to maintain its utilization and sales by reducing prices, even below cost.
xii) Inventories of the domestic industry increased from the base year to 2020-21, with a considerable decline in 2021-22, and increased significantly in the POI.
xiii) The wages paid and the number of employees both have declined from the base year to 2020-21, and then increased in the POI. However, wages have shown improvement over the injury period.
xiv) Price parameters have seen negative growth due to the subject imports in the POI. Growth in terms of volume parameters such as sales, production, and market share has also remained adverse.
xv) Dumping margins are significantly more than de-minimis and quarterly analysis of the dumping margin shows that the dumping intensified within the POI.
xvi) Imports into India at unfair prices would prevent Perstorp from achieving its projected results; Perstorp supports the claims made by the domestic industry and requests recommendation of anti-dumping duty.
xvii) Total volume of imports from the subject countries have consistently and significantly increased since 2020-21; 9490 MT to 15,681 MT in POI (annualized).
xviii) Import price of the subject good has declined in the recent period as imports from the subject countries are forcing the prices to dip lower due to aggressive pricing policies and is exerting price pressure in the Indian market.
xix) Perstop has already invested approx. INR *** crore for setting up a manufacturing facility for Pentaerythritol. Perstorp has further plans to invest approx. INR ***crore for production of Pentaerythritol. It provides direct employment to 106 employees, and has established production facility in *** acres.
xx) Production of Pentaerythritol was earlier planned to start from August- September 2023 but the same has been slightly delayed. Continued dumping of subject goods from China PR, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia has compelled Perstorp to postpone its schedule for commencement of production. Perstorp India has started production of Pentaerythritol in India in November 2023 at Sayakha, Gujarat.
xxi) Perstop will produce 2 products namely, Pentaerythritol and Calcium Formate. Calcium Formate is used as an animal feed preservative in various European countries. It is also used as a masking agent in chrome tanning of leather. Total production capacity of Calcium Formate is ***MT per annum. Almost entire production of Calcium Formate will be exported outside India.
xxii) Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, raw materials of Pentaerythritol, would be sourced locally by Perstorp. It has entered into long term supply agreements with raw material suppliers such as Balaji Formalin Private Limited and Lakshmi Organics Industries Ltd. Both these raw material suppliers have invested in greenfield and brownfield projects in line with long term supply contracts, of INR 130 Cr and INR 100 Cr, respectively.
xxiii) Perstorp supports the claims made by the domestic industry concerning dumping of subject goods from subject countries and material injury and requests for recommendation of anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods from China PR, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. Adequate trade remedy measures will also support “Make in India" initiative. It also requests imposition of provisional duties.
xxiv) Imports into India at unfair prices will prevent Perstorp India from achieving its projected results and earn reasonable rate of return on its investment. The anti-dumping duty on Pentaerythritol from China PR expired on 28th June 2022 and import price from China PR has declined significantly thereafter. Exporters from Saudi Arabia and Taiwan are forced to match import price from China PR.
xxv) With the commencement of production by Perstorp, the total capacity of Indian producers for the subject good would exceed the total demand of the subject good in India; imports would not be required to bridge the demand-supply gap.
xxvi) As to why the Indian industry did not expand the capacity, it is to be considered the profitability of this product over last two decades and this requirement of return. It would be evident that there was no justification for this investment.
xxvii) In terms of evidentiary and legal standards regarding dumping, injury, and causal link between the alleged dumping and injury, Perstorp reiterates submissions made in its WS and has no additional rejoinder.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
47. The Authority has taken note of the submissions made by the interested parties and has examined various parameters in accordance with the Rules after duly considering the submissions made by the interested parties. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties.
48. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on the domestic producers of such articles. In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the Rules.
F.3.1 Cumulative Assessment
49. Annexure II (iii) of the Anti-Dumping Rules provides that in case imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigations, the Designated Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that:
a. The margin of dumping established in relation to imports from each country/territory is more than two percent expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three percent of the imports of the like article or where the export of the individual countries is less than three percent, the imports cumulatively account for more than seven percent of the imports of like article, and;
b. Cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of conditions of competition between the imported articles and the like domestic articles.
50. In view of the above, the Authority considers it appropriate to cumulatively assess the effect of imports.
F.3.2 Assessment of Demand/Apparent Consumption
51. The Authority has taken into consideration, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand, or apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of the domestic sales of the domestic industry and all other Indian producers and imports from the subject countries as per DGCI&S data, and imports from all other sources. The Authority has determined demand or apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of the domestic sales of the Indian producers and imports of the subject goods in India from all sources, twice – once including and once excluding captive consumption by Asian Paints. The demand so assessed can be seen in the tables below, both including and excluding captive production.

Demand
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Demand                         | Unit      | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+================================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| Sales of domestic industry     | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend                          | Indexed   | 100       | 103       | 115               | 121       |
| Sales of other producers       | MT        | -         | -         | -                 | -         |
| Trend                          | Indexed   |           |           |                   |           |
| Import from Subject countries  | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend                          | Indexed   | 100       | 83        | 103               | 92        |
| Import from other countries    | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend                          | Indexed   | 100       | 49        | 39                | 22        |
| Demand excluding captive       | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend                          | Indexed   | 100       | 77        | 86                | 77        |
| Captive consumption            | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend                          | Indexed   | 100       | 100       | 100               | 100       |
| Demand including captive       | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| consumption                    |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Trend                          | Indexed   | 100       | 82        | 89                | 82        |
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

52. It is seen that the demand for pentaerythritol declined in 2020-21. This period was affected with COVID-19. The demand thereafter has increased thereafter before declining in POI. Overall, the demand has declined during the injury period.
F.3.3 Volume Effect of Dumped Imports on the domestic industry
a. Import Volumes and Share of Subject Countries in Imports
53. The effects of the volume of dumped imports from the subject countries as well as imports from other countries have been examined by the Authority as follows:

+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Particulars                     | Unit      | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+=================================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| Import Volume                   |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Subject Country                 | MT        | 11,273    | 9,396     | 11,593            | 10,396    |
| Trend                           | Indexed   | 100       | 83        | 103               | 92        |
| China                           | MT        | 2,719     | 1,116     | 1,789             | 2,427     |
| Trend                           | Indexed   | 100       | 41        | 66                | 89        |
| Saudi Arabia                    | MT        | 7,665     | 5,060     | 9,108             | 5,360     |
| Trend                           | Indexed   | 100       | 66        | 119               | 70        |
| Taiwan                          | MT        | 889       | 3,220     | 696               | 2,609     |
| Trend                           | Indexed   | 100       | 362       | 78                | 294       |
| Other Countries                 | MT        | 8,073     | 3,977     | 3,142             | 1,787     |
| Trend                           | Indexed   | 100       | 49        | 39                | 22        |
| Total                           | MT        | 19,347    | 13,373    | 14,735            | 12,183    |
| Trend                           | Indexed   | 100       | 69        | 76                | 63        |
| Share in imports                |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Subject Countries               | %         | 58.27%    | 70.26%    | 78.68%            | 85.33%    |
| China                           | %         | 14.06%    | 8.35%     | 12.14%            | 19.92%    |
| Saudi Arabia                    | %         | 39.62%    | 37.84%    | 61.81%            | 44.00%    |
| Taiwan                          | %         | 4.60%     | 24.08%    | 4.72%             | 21.42%    |
| Other Countries                 | %         | 41.73%    | 29.74%    | 21.32%            | 14.67%    |
| Total                           | %         | 100%      | 100%      | 100%              | 100%      |
| Subject country imports in      | %         | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| relation to Indian production   |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Trend                           |           | 100       | 120       | 101               | 95        |
| Indian consumption              | %         | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend                           |           | 100       | 108       | 120               | 120       |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

54. It is seen that:
i. Imports from the subject countries declined in 2020-21 and increased thereafter before declining marginally during the POI. The imports from the subject countries have remained nearly the same throughout the POI and the injury period.
ii. Share of subject imports in total imports increased consistently over the injury period, from 58% in base year to 85% in the POI.
iii. Imports from other countries have declined steeply over the injury period. Share of imports from other countries have declined from 41% to 14% in the POI.
F.3.4 Price Effect of Dumped Imports
55. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is required to be analysed whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to the price of the like products in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred in normal course.
56. Accordingly, the impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject countries have been examined with reference to price undercutting and price suppression/depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis the cost of sales and the net sales realization (NSR) of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed price of the subject imports from the subject countries. In view of the steep changes in the input prices, the Authority has undertaken quarterly comparison of NSR, cost of production and landed price of imports.
a. Evolution of prices
57. Table below shows the import price from subject and non-subject countries and prices of major input materials.

+-------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| CIF Price   | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 -A  | POI-A     | POI-Q1    | POI-Q2    | POI-Q3    |
+=============+===========+===========+===================+===========+===========+===========+===========+
| Subject     | 1,10,800  | 91,191    | 1,54,635          | 1,27,345  | 1,52,271  | 1,23,963  | 1,07,334  |
| Country     |           |           |                   |           |           |           |           |
| China       | 99,873    | 90,814    | 1,44,343          | 1,28,938  | 1,51,203  | 1,23,458  | 1,19,015  |
| Saudi Arabia| 1,16,433  | 93,688    | 1,56,791          | 1,31,931  | 1,61,776  | 1,27,291  | 1,08,457  |
| Taiwan      | 95,656    | 87,399    | 1,52,882          | 1,16,443  | 1,32,184  | 1,17,033  | 1,04,376  |
| Other       | 1,14,940  | 96,027    | 1,60,156          | 1,52,711  | 1,42,004  | 1,65,124  | 1,29,933  |
| Countries   |           |           |                   |           |           |           |           |
| Raw         | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| materials   |           |           |                   |           |           |           |           |
| prices of DI|           |           |                   |           |           |           |           |
+-------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

58. It is seen that:
i. Import price from non-subject countries were marginally higher than the import price from subject countries in 2019-20. Also, the volume of imports from non-subject countries was significant in that year. However, by the investigation period, the import price from subject countries became materially lower than import price from non-subject countries. The resultantly, subject imports displaced significant portion of imports from other sources to such an extent that import volumes from non-subject countries in the last two quarters of POI were much lower as compared to imports from the subject countries.
ii. Comparison of import prices with changes in raw materials, from the table herein above, shows that there was no decline in price of raw materials (raw material prices rather increased), import price from the subject countries declined significantly.
iii. It is seen that amongst the other countries, only imports from EU is substantial in the POI, however, in absolute terms the same have declined from 8,025 MT in the base year to 1,440 MT in the POI and the import price are significantly higher than the import price from subject countries.
59. The Authority compared the trends registered in import price and selling price of the domestic industry in the current investigation period. It is seen that there was a steep decline in the import price within the POΙ. Consequently, the selling price of the domestic industry has also declined significantly. Further, there was some increase in the domestic industry prices after January 2023 and in the import price after March 2023. However, overall prices have shown significant decline over the POI.

Import price vis-a-vis selling price of domestic indutry (in Rs./MT)
60. The domestic industry submitted that imports started having adverse effect on the domestic industry since lapse of duties on China i.e. post 28th June 2022. Import price declined significantly since Q2 (July-September) of 2021-22. It has also been claimed that the rapid decline in import prices has led to an aggravated situation of the industry over the injury period.
61. In view of the claim of adverse price effects on the domestic industry, selling price of the domestic industry has been compared with landed prices of subject imports, raw material prices prevailing globally, and raw material prices of the domestic industry. The table below shows the relevant data. It is noted that raw material prices of the domestic industry are based on information filed by the domestic industry, that has been verified from the applicant's system generated reports, during verification undertaken by the Authority while international raw material prices have been sourced from secondary source i.e. trade map. It is seen that the decline in the import prices is not commensurate with the prevailing global raw material prices. In fact, the trends registered in import prices were opposite to the prevailing global prices of raw material. Further, it is also seen that the domestic industry's purchasing price of raw material, has been well below the prevailing global raw material prices. Thus, raw material prices paid by the domestic industry could not be attributed as a cause of losses suffered by the domestic industry. It is evident that reduced import prices of the subject goods of foreign producers, despite no corresponding decline in input prices, could be the reason for declining domestic prices.

+-----+--------+-----------------+-------------------------------+
| SN  | Month  | RM prices       | Selling price/Landed price    |
|     |        +---------+-------+---------+----------+--------+
|     |        | Global  | D.I.  | China   | Saudi    | Taiwan |
+=====+========+=========+=======+=========+==========+========+
| A   | Actual price (Rs/MT)                                    |
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 1   | Jul-22 | ***     | ***   | 1,58,652| 1,79,162 | 1,68,246|
| 2   | Aug-22 | ***     | ***   | 1,73,773| 1,75,718 | 1,50,086|
| 3   | Sep-22 | ***     | ***   | 1,44,571| 1,68,336 | 1,31,824|
| 4   | Oct-22 | ***     | ***   | 1,32,846| 1,46,397 | 1,28,477|
| 5   | Nov-22 | ***     | ***   | 1,33,811| 1,32,427 | 1,31,346|
| 6   | Dec-22 | ***     | ***   | 1,48,213| 1,35,430 | 1,21,589|
| 7   | Jan-23 | ***     | ***   | 1,34,096| 1,17,203 | 1,11,495|
| 8   | Feb-23 | ***     | ***   | 1,20,556| 1,20,899 | 1,15,407|
| 9   | Mar-23 | ***     | ***   | 1,54,431| 1,11,379 | 1,13,316|
| 10  | Apr-23 | ***     | ***   | 1,18,689| 1,26,547 | 1,16,450|
| 11  | May-23 | ***     | ***   |         | 1,27,558 | 1,10,793|
| 12  | Jun-23 | ***     | ***   |         | 1,16,469 |         |
+-----+--------+---------+-------+---------+----------+--------+
| B   | Trends                                                  |
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 1   | Jul-22 | 100     | 100   | 100     | 100      | 100    |
| 2   | Aug-22 | 110     | 101   | 92      | 110      | 98     |
| 3   | Sep-22 | 106     | 100   | 85      | 91       | 94     |
| 4   | Oct-22 | 103     | 101   | 81      | 84       | 82     |
| 5   | Nov-22 | 107     | 102   | 76      | 84       | 74     |
| 6   | Dec-22 | 111     | 97    | 71      | 93       | 76     |
| 7   | Jan-23 | 119     | 106   | 71      | 85       | 65     |
| 8   | Feb-23 | 111     | 103   | 72      | 76       | 67     |
| 9   | Mar-23 | 114     | 103   | 73      | 97       | 62     |
| 10  | Apr-23 | 122     | 97    | 75      | 75       | 71     |
| 11  | May-23 | 114     | 98    | 76      |          | 71     |
| 12  | Jun-23 | 101     | 98    | 81      |          | 65     |
+-----+--------+---------+-------+---------+----------+--------+

b. Price undercutting
62. In order to determine whether the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market, price undercutting has been worked out by comparing the landed price of the subject imports with the selling price of the domestic industry during the injury period. The analysis for price undercutting is given in table below:

+-----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Particulars                       | Units     | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+===================================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| Landed price of imports           |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Subject Countries                 | Rs./MT    | 1,19,941  | 98,715    | 1,67,392          | 1,37,851  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 82        | 140               | 115       |
| China                             | Rs./MT    | 1,08,113  | 98,306    | 1,56,251          | 1,39,576  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 91        | 145               | 129       |
| Saudi Arabia                      | Rs./MT    | 1,26,038  | 1,01,417  | 1,69,726          | 1,42,815  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 80        | 135               | 113       |
| Taiwan                            | Rs./MT    | 1,03,547  | 94,610    | 1,65,495          | 1,26,049  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 91        | 160               | 122       |
| Other Countries                   | Rs./MT    | 1,24,423  | 1,03,949  | 1,73,369          | 1,73,369  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 84        | 139               | 139       |
| Domestic industry's selling price | Rs./MT    | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 88        | 144               | 110       |
| Change over previous period       |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Subject Countries                 | Rs./MT    | -21,226   | 68,678    | -29,541           |           |
| China                             | Rs./MT    | -9,807    | 57,945    | -16,675           |           |
| Saudi Arabia                      | Rs./MT    | -24,621   | 68,309    | -26,911           |           |
| Taiwan                            | Rs./MT    | -8,938    | 70,885    | -39,445           |           |
| Other Countries                   | Rs./MT    | -20,473   | 69,419    | 0                 |           |
| Domestic industry                 | Rs./MT    | (***)     | ***       | (***)             |           |
| Price undercutting               |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Subject Countries                 | Rs./MT    | ***       | ***       | ***               | (***)     |
| China                             | Rs./MT    | ***       | ***       | ***               | (***)     |
| Saudi Arabia                      | Rs./MT    | (***)     | ***       | ***               | (***)     |
| Taiwan                            | Rs./MT    | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Other Countries                   | Rs./MT    | ***       | ***       | ***               | (***)     |
| Price undercutting               |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Subject Countries                 | %         | ***       | ***       | ***               | (***)     |
| Range                             |           | 1-10      | 1-10      | 1-10              | Negative  |
| China                             | %         | ***       | ***       | ***               | (***)     |
| Range                             |           | 10-20     | 1-10      | 10-20             | Negative  |
| Saudi Arabia                      | %         | (***)     | ***       | ***               | (***)     |
| Range                             |           | Negative  | 1-10      | 1-10              | Negative  |
| Taiwan                            | %         | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Range                             |           | 10-20     | 10-20     | 1-10              | 1-10      |
| Other Countries                   | %         | (***)     | ***       | ***               | (***)     |
| Range                             |           | Negative  | 1-10      | 1-10              | Negative  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

+-----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Particulars                       | Units     | POI-Q1    | POI-Q2    | POI-Q3    |
+===================================+===========+===========+===========+===========+
| Landed price of imports           |           |           |           |           |
| Subject Countries                 | Rs./MT    | 1,64,834  | 1,34,190  | 1,16,189  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 81        | 70        |
| China                             | Rs./MT    | 1,63,677  | 1,33,644  | 1,28,834  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 82        | 79        |
| Saudi Arabia                      | Rs./MT    | 1,75,122  | 1,37,792  | 1,17,404  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 79        | 67        |
| Taiwan                            | Rs./MT    | 1,43,090  | 1,26,688  | 1,12,987  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 89        | 79        |
| Other Countries                   | Rs./MT    | 1,53,719  | 1,78,743  | 1,40,396  |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 116       | 91        |
| Domestic industry's selling price | Rs./MT    | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Trend                             | Indexed   | 100       | 83        | 78        |
| Change over previous period       |           |           |           |           |
| Subject Countries                 | Rs./MT    | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| China                             | Rs./MT    | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Saudi Arabia                      | Rs./MT    | (***)     | (***)     | ***       |
| Taiwan                            | Rs./MT    | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Other Countries                   | Rs./MT    | ***       | (***)     | (***)     |
| Domestic industry                 | Rs./MT    | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Price undercutting               |           |           |           |           |
| Subject Countries                 | Rs./MT    | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| China                             | Rs./MT    | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Saudi Arabia                      | Rs./MT    | (***)     | (***)     | ***       |
| Taiwan                            | Rs./MT    | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Other Countries                   | Rs./MT    | ***       | (***)     | (***)     |
| Price undercutting               |           |           |           |           |
| Subject Countries                 | %         | (***)     | (***)     | ***       |
| Range                             |           | Negative  | Negative  | 1-10      |
| China                             | %         | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Range                             |           | Negative  | Negative  | Negative  |
| Saudi Arabia                      | %         | (***)     | (***)     | ***       |
| Range                             |           | Negative  | Negative  | 1-10      |
| Taiwan                            | %         | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Range                             |           | 1-10      | 1-10      | 1-10      |
| Other Countries                   | %         | 1.42      | -27.98    | -13.47    |
| Range                             |           | 1-10      | Negative  | Negative  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

63. It is seen that
i. In the POI, that the domestic industry was facing price undercutting from Taiwan. Resultantly, the volume of imports was increasing from Taiwan over the POI. Taiwan imports in the last quarter of POI were higher than the past annualised imports. Further, the price undercutting by Taiwan imports was high in 2020-21. Resultantly, the volume of Taiwan imports increased sharply in that year as compared to preceding year.
ii. Import prices from Saudi Arabia declined steeply and were undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the last quarter of POI. Resultantly, the import volumes from Saudi Arabia increased in the last quarter, despite overall decline in the imports.
iii. Imports from China were undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. However, the volume remained restricted because of anti-dumping duty in place. As the Chinese producers reduced the prices steeply in Q2 of the POI, the volume of imports increased significantly. The price difference however once again increased between China and other subject countries in the Q3 of the POI and the volume of imports fell sharply.
iv. The volume of non-subject imports however declined steeply with increasing difference between their prices vis-à-vis other import prices.
v. Saudi Arabia imports were not undercutting the prices in 2019-20 and their prices were higher than non-subject countries. Resultantly, imports from Saudi Arabia were lower than non-subject imports in that year. However, Saudi Arabia imports became cheaper as compared to non-subject imports thereafter. Resultantly, Saudi Arabia imports increased vis-à-vis non subject imports.
vi. Even when the raw material prices have not declined, and have rather increased, the domestic industry has been forced to face significant price declines.
It is thus, seen that there were several suppliers of the product in the market, and the domestic industry has been forced to benchmark its prices to the lowest prices prevailing in the market. The domestic industry explained that the negative price undercutting during the investigation period was in view of the fact that there was too steep change in the price over the POI itself.
64. The information thus suggests that dumped imports were causing price pressure on the domestic industry. The industry responded by reducing prices, leading to increased sales volumes but also higher losses. The Authority also notes the submission of the domestic industry that most often, whenever the foreign producers declare price revisions, the domestic prices also get affected immediately, whereas imported product lands into India much later. Thus, whereas the effect of price reduction on the domestic prices is immediate, the import price reflects the price decline in subsequent months. It is also well understood that both undercutting, and suppression/depression need not be present at the same time. Thus, in a situation where price undercutting is negative, the Authority is required to consider whether selling prices of the domestic industry show suppressing or depressing effect on the same. The Authority has found significant suppressing effect on the prices.
c. Price Suppression or Depression
65. For the purpose of analyzing price suppression and depression in the domestic market, the applicant has provided information about (a) unit cost of sales, (b) domestic selling price as is given in the table below.

+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Particulars         | Units     | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+=====================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| Actual figures for the period                                                         |
| Selling Price       | Rs./kg    | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 88        | 144               | 110       |
| Cost of Sales       | Rs./kg    | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 107       | 140               | 139       |
| Raw material cost   | Rs./kg    | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 104       | 133               | 137       |
| Utilities           | Rs./kg    | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 108       | 153               | 171       |
| Changes over previous period                                                          |
| Selling Price       | Rs./kg    |           | (***)     | (***)             | (***)     |
| Cost of Sales       | Rs./kg    |           | (***)     | (***)             | (***)     |
| Raw material cost   | Rs./kg    |           | (***)     | (***)             | (***)     |
| Utilities           | Rs./kg    |           | (***)     | (***)             | (***)     |
+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Particulars         | Units     | POI-Q1    | POI-Q2    | POI-Q3    |
+=====================+===========+===========+===========+===========+
| Actual figures for the period                                   |
| Selling Price       | Rs./kg    | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 83        | 78        |
| Cost of Sales       | Rs./kg    | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 94        | 91        |
| Raw material cost   | Rs./kg    | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 99        | 103       |
| Utilities           | Rs./kg    | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 88        | 80        |
| Changes over previous period                                    |
| Selling Price       | Rs./kg    |           | (***)     | (***)     |
| Cost of Sales       | Rs./kg    |           | (***)     | (***)     |
| Raw material cost   | Rs./kg    |           | (***)     | ***       |
| Utilities           | Rs./kg    |           | (***)     | (***)     |
+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

66. It is seen that:
i. Whereas cost of sales increased in 2020-21, the selling price declined.
ii. In April 21 – June 22, whereas both cost of sales and selling price increased, the increase in selling price was far more than increase in cost of sales.
iii. In Q1 of POI, whereas cost of sales increased, the selling price declined significantly.
iv. In Q2 of POI, whereas both cost of sales and selling price declined, the decline in the selling price was far more than the decline in the cost of sales.
v. In Q3 of POI, whereas both cost of sales and selling price declined, the decline in the selling price was slightly more than the decline in the cost of sales.
67. It is thus seen that whereas the domestic industry was not facing any suppressing/ depressing effects on the prices till April-21-June, 22, the domestic industry faced significant price depression in the POI. Trend registered in 2020-21 were exceptional, as the same were impacted by the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. However, in the POI, with such significant volume of imports entering at prices below costs, the domestic industry was in no other position but to reduce its prices. Further, the domestic industry reduced the prices in a situation where the input costs were increasing. Thus, the subject imports were both suppressing and depressing the prices of the domestic industry in the market causing significant injury.
68. Further, it is seen that the prices of the major raw materials used in the manufacturing of the product, i.e., Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde and caustic soda which accounts to about *** ***% of the total cost have not undergone any notable changes and yet the import prices from the subject countries have fallen significantly.
F.3.5 Economic Parameters of the domestic industry
69. Annexure II to the Rules provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all the relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, and the ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed herein below:
a. Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilization and Sales
70. The Authority has considered capacity, production, capacity utilization, and sales volume of the domestic industry over the injury period.

+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Particulars         | Units     | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+=====================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| Installed Capacity  | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 100       | 100               | 100       |
| Capacity Utilization| %         | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 70        | 101               | 97        |
| Production          | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 70        | 102               | 97        |
| Domestic Sales      | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 103       | 115               | 121       |
+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

71. It is seen that:
i. The capacity with the domestic industry has remained constant throughout the injury period.
ii. The domestic industry's production and capacity utilisation declined from base year to 2020-21 with decline in demand in the corresponding period and Covid related disturbances. Production however, increased in April 2021-June 22 and slightly declined in the POI.
iii. Sales of the domestic industry increased from the base year to the POI. Sales in the base year were much below production in that year, leading to significant piling up of the inventories. Thereafter, production in 2020-21 declined significantly and sales volumes remained low. The production and sales in 2019-20 and 2020-21 were impacted by the Covid-19.
b. Market Share in Demand
72. The market share of the subject imports and the domestic industry over the entire injury period was as follows:

+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Particulars                     | Unit      | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+=================================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| Subject Countries               | %         | 43.94     | 47.29     | 52.77             | 52.51     |
| Trend                           |           | 100       | 108       | 120               | 120       |
| Other Countries                 | %         | 31.47     | 20.02     | 14.30             | 9.03      |
| Trend                           |           | 100       | 64        | 45                | 29        |
| Total Imports                   | %         | 75.41     | 67.31     | 67.06             | 61.54     |
| Trend                           |           | 100       | 89        | 89                | 82        |
| Domestic industry               | %         | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend                           |           | 100       | 133       | 134               | 156       |
| Total Share                     | %         | 100.00    | 100.00    | 100.00            | 100.00    |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

73. The market share of the subject countries has increased significantly over the injury period, while that of non-subject countries declined very significantly. The market share of the domestic industry increased over the injury period. The same was however owing to low sales volumes in the first two years due to Covid related disturbances. Further, the domestic industry has maintained its share in the market by undertaking steep price reductions. Since non subject import prices have not declined, and rather increased, the market share of other countries has declined significantly over the injury period. While share of subject imports increased by 20% points in the POI when compared to the base year, that of other countries declined by almost 71% points in the same period.
c. Profitability, Cash profits, and Return on Capital Employed
74. The profit, profitability, cash profits, profit before interest (PBIT) and return on investment of the domestic industry over the injury period has been analysed as follows:

+-------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Particulars                   | Unit      | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+===============================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| PBT (Profit before Tax)       | /Mt       | ***       | (***)     | ***               | (***)     |
| Trend                         |           | 100       | -210      | 205               | -348      |
| PBT (Profit before Tax)       | Lacs      | ***       | (***)     | ***               | (***)     |
| Trend                         |           | 100       | -216      | 235               | -420      |
| Cash Profit (PBT+             | /Mt       | ***       | (***)     | ***               | (***)     |
| Depreciation)                 |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Trend                         |           | 100       | -127      | 172               | -218      |
| Cash Profit (PBT+             | Lacs      | ***       | (***)     | ***               | (***)     |
| Depreciation)                 |           |           |           |                   |           |
| Trend                         |           | 100       | -130      | 197               | -263      |
| ROCE                          | %         | ***       | (***)     | ***               | (***)     |
| Trend                         |           | 100       | -204      | 249               | -456      |
+-------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

75. It is seen that:
i. The domestic industry was earning a profit in the base year. However, it incurred major losses in 2020-21, on account of the Covid pandemic. With the recovery of the market, and imports entering the Indian market at fair prices, the domestic industry started earning profits. However, with the increased dumped imports in significant volume and at prices even below costs in the POI, the domestic industry has suffered significant financial losses in the POI.
ii. Cash profits, profit before interest, and ROI have also followed the same trend as that of profits and have registered a steep decline. The domestic industry suffered cash losses, negative profit before interest and negative ROI in the POI.
76. The Authority examined the trends in price parameters within the POI in view of steep decline in the prices and without decline in the costs. It is seen that profit before interest, profit before tax, cash profits and ROI of the domestic industry declined steeply within POI on quarter-on-quarter basis.

+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Particulars         | unit      | POI (A)   | POI-Q1    | POI-Q2    | POI-Q3    |
+=====================+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+
| Cost of Sales       | /Kg       | ***       | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 106       | 99        | 96        |
| Selling Price       | /Kg       | ***       | ***       | ***       | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 116       | 96        | 90        |
| Profit/(Loss)       | /Kg       | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Trend               |           | -100      | -52       | -120      | -128      |
| Profit/(Loss)       | Lacs      | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Trend               |           | -100      | -12       | -30       | -34       |
| PBIT                | Lacs      | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Trend               |           | -100      | -11       | -30       | -31       |
| PBIT                | /Kg       | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Trend               |           | -100      | -48       | -120      | -124      |
| Cash Profit         | Lacs      | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Trend               |           | -100      | -10       | -30       | -35       |
| Cash Profit         | /Kg       | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Trend               |           | -100      | -43       | -171      | -126      |
| ROCE                | %         | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     | (***)     |
| Trend               |           | -100      | -45       | -119      | -136      |
+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

77. It is thus seen that the significant reduction in the import price causing significant decline in the performance of the domestic industry in respect of profits before tax, profit before interest, cash profits and ROI.
d. Inventory
78. The data relating to inventory position of the domestic industry over the injury period and the POI is given in the table below:

+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Particulars         | Unit      | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+=====================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| Opening Inventory   | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 4674      | 201               | 1725      |
| Closing Inventory   | MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 4         | 37                | 24        |
+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

79. The Authority notes that level of inventories with the domestic industry increased significantly towards the end of 2019-20 and declined thereafter till March, 2021. Inventories increased thereafter once again. However, the increase in inventories in March, 2020 was because of Covid related disturbances. Further, the domestic industry submitted that it is forced to liquidate the stocks by compromising on the prices and selling at high losses.
e. Employment, Wages, and Productivity
80. The position with regard to employment, wages, and productivity of the domestic industry is as follows:

+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Particulars         | Unit      | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+=====================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| No of employees     | Nos.      | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 98        | 98                | 112       |
| Salaries & Wages    | Lacs      | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 68        | 124               | 136       |
| Productivity Per day| MT        | ***       | ***       | ***               | ***       |
| Trend               |           | 100       | 70        | 102               | 97        |
+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

81. The Authority notes that the number of employees has increased over the injury period. Accordingly, the wages paid also increased with increase in employees. Productivity per day has remained stable throughout the injury period. These parameters do not indicate adverse effect of dumped imports on the domestic industry.
f. Performance of new player in the industry
82. Perstorp India has submitted quantification of adverse impact on its profitability if the prevailing prices of Pentaerythritol in India are to prevail in 2024. Perstorp India has submitted that it will experience steep negative EBITA of Rs *** Lacs in 2024 on domestic sales of *** MT of Pentaerythritol at the current market price. This will result in lower capacity utilisation rates and higher fixed costs in short and medium term, which will also impact employment and also exports by Pentaerythritol from India.
g. Ability to raise capital investments
83. It is seen that the domestic industry is incurring losses which indicates that the ability of the domestic industry to raise investments for this product is limited.
h. Magnitude of Dumping and Dumping Margin
84. It is seen that the dumping margin from the subject countries is not only more than de-minimis but also significant.
i. Growth
85. The information with respect to growth of the domestic industry is given below:

+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| Particulars           | Units     | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+=======================+===========+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| Production            | %         | -30       | 46        | -4                |           |
| Sales                 | %         | 3         | 11        | 5                 |           |
| Profit/(Loss) per unit| %         | -310      | 198       | -270              |           |
| ROI                   | %         | -304      | 222       | -282              |           |
| Cash Profit           | %         | -227      | 236       | -226              |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

86. It is seen that the growth of the domestic industry was negative in respect of various price parameters. While the growth was positive in respect of volume parameters, the same was due to adverse performance in volume parameters in earlier period due to Covid related disturbances.
G. CAUSAL LINK AND OTHER FACTORS (NON-ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS)
87. The Authority examined whether other factors listed under the anti-dumping Rules could have caused injury to the domestic industry. The Authority examined known factors other than the dumped imports and ascertained whether these are at the same time have been injuring the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by these other factors, if any, is not attributed to the dumped imports. Factors which are relevant in this respect include, inter alia, the volume and prices of imports not sold at dumped prices, contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and the productivity of the domestic industry.
a) Volume and prices of imports from third countries
88. It is seen that there were significant imports from other countries. However, the volume of non-subject imports declined significantly by the POI, as the price difference between subject and non-subject imports increased significantly. Therefore, imports from other countries are not a cause of material injury suffered by the domestic industry. Rather, imports from other countries declined considerably in the POI, with the advent of significant dumped imports from the subject countries. The non-subject imports were primarily from Malaysia, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey.

+-----+-------------------+------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+
| SN  | Particulars       | UOM  | 2019-20   | 2020-21   | Apr'21-Jun'22 (A) | POI (A)   |
+=====+===================+======+===========+===========+===================+===========+
| 1   | Import Volume     |      |           |           |                   |           |
| i   | Subject Country   | MT   | 11,273    | 9,396     | 11,593            | 10,396    |
| ii  | Other Countries   | MT   | 8,073     | 3,977     | 3,142             | 1,787     |
| iv  | Total             | MT   | 19,347    | 13,373    | 14,735            | 12,183    |
| 3   | CIF Price         |      |           |           |                   |           |
| i   | Subject Country   | /MT  | 1,10,800  | 91,191    | 1,54,635          | 1,27,345  |
| 11  | Other Countries   | /MT  | 1,14,940  | 96,027    | 1,60,156          | 1,52,711  |
+-----+-------------------+------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+-----------+

b) Contraction in Demand
89. It is seen that, barring 2020-21 demand for the product under consideration has remained stable over the injury period. Demand declined steeply in 2020-21. The same was however due to Covid. Thereafter, the demand has been increasing.
c) Changes in pattern of consumption
90. It is seen that there are no changes in the pattern of consumption for the product under consideration over the injury period.
d) Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices
91. The Authority notes that the investigation has not shown any change in the conditions of competition or any trade restrictive practices.
e) Developments in Technology
92. It is seen that there are no significant changes in technology.
f) Export performance of the domestic industry
93. The domestic industry had no exports over the entire injury period.
g) Performance of other products
94. The domestic industry has provided the injury data for the PUC and the same has been adopted by the Authority for the purpose of injury analysis. Performance of other products produced and sold by the domestic industry have not been considered.
H. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
95. The Authority has determined the NIP for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The NIP of the product under consideration has been determined by adopting the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the domestic industry for the POΙ. The NIP has been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject countries for calculating injury margin. For determining the NIP, the best utilisation of the raw materials and utilities has been considered over the injury period. Best utilisation of production capacity over the injury period has been considered. Extraordinary or non-recurring expenses have been excluded from the cost of production. A reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on average capital employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the product under consideration was allowed as pre-tax profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure III to the Rules. The Authority has determined NIP separately for each of the quarters of the PΟΙ.
96. Based on the landed price and the NIP determined as above, the injury margin as determined by the Authority is provided in the table below.

+-------------+--------+---------------+-----------+-----------+---------------+---------------+-------+
| Country     | Period | Import volume | NIP       | Landed    | Injury margin                 | Range |
|             |        |               |           |           |---------------+---------------+       |
|             |        | MT            | USD/MT    | USD/MT    | USD/MT        | %             | %     |
+=============+========+===============+===========+===========+===============+===============+=======+
| China       | POI-Q1 | 371           | ***       | 2,038.35  | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q2 | 1377          | ***         | 1,612.28  | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q3 | 72            | ***         | 1,546.97  | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI    | 1820          | ***         | 1,696.55  | ***           | ***           | 15-25 |
| Saudi Arabia| POI-Q1 | 1240          | ***         | 2,180.89  | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q2 | 1500          | ***         | 1,662.33  | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q3 | 1280          | ***         | 1,409.73  | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI    | 4020          | ***         | 1,741.85  | ***           | ***           | 15-25 |
| Taiwan      | POI-Q1 | 567           | ***         | 1,781.97  | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q2 | 620           | ***         | 1,528.36  | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI-Q3 | 770           | ***         | 1,356.70  | ***           | ***           |       |
|             | POI    | 1957          | ***         | 1,534.30  | ***           | ***           | 25-35 |
+-------------+--------+---------------+-----------+-----------+---------------+---------------+-------+

I. POST DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
I.1 Views of other interested parties
97. The other interested parties have made the following submissions post circulation of the disclosure statement:
a) Saudi General Authority of Foreign Trade (GAFT) submitted that measures applied on Saudi exports based on this investigation would lack a proper legal basis justifying the imposition of measures. GAFT requested that investigation should be terminated, for following reasons:
i. The Saudi producer couldn't defend itself properly due to Perstorp's control over exports during the POI, impacting price determination objectivity.
ii. Total imports, especially from Saudi Arabia, declined during the POI, with a 30% drop compared to the base year.
iii. Saudi Arabia didn't undercut prices during the POI, having the highest selling prices compared to other countries and Indian market averages.
iv. Domestic industry saw positive trends during the POI, including increased sales, market share, employees, wages, and decreased inventory.
v. Negative industry trends didn't correlate with import volumes, suggesting other factors influencing performance.
b) Methanol Chemicals Company (Chemanol) has requested that delay in filing of exporter questionnaire response be condoned. The same was due to peculiar circumstances as has been submitted before. The delay was bonafide on account of the peculiar circumstances that arose with its sole exporter viz. Perstop.
c) Chemanol has objected to the determination of dumping margin on a quarterly basis since the very inception of the investigation. Normal value calculated by the petitioner was wrong and not according to the laid down rules and principles. It has not been established that the normal value has materially changed over the period. In the case of HFC blends from China, the Authority had said mere decline in selling price does not warrant quarterly examination. The petitioner has not established that the normal value has also materially changed. The Authority has committed a patent error in only considering decline in import prices as a sufficient basis for quarterly examination without determining that the normal value has also materially changed.
d) Costs of the petitioner could not have been used to construct the normal value in Saudi Arabia since the petitioner's cost of production was inflated by an unprecedented increase in the cost of raw materials in India due to an instability in prices during the pandemic. Acetaldehyde and Formaldehyde are the major raw materials to produce the Pentaerythritol.
e) Imports from the subject countries decreased from 11,273MT to 10,396MT during the POI. Specifically, Saudi imports dropped from 7,665MT to 5,360MT. Despite this, the share of Saudi imports in the total subject country imports increased marginally from 39.62% to 44.00%. Notably, there was no substantial increase in Saudi imports, which decreased from the base year of 2019-20.
f) Consumer preference shifting to Saudi Arabia doesn't impact domestic industry pricing. Despite Saudi's price advantage, it hasn't forced domestic industry price reductions.
g) No price effect attributed to Saudi imports; landed price increased from Rs. 1,26,038/- to Rs. 1,42,815/- per MT. Minimal undercutting suggests no basis for price injury.
h) Price undercutting due to imports from Saudi could not have caused injury to the domestic industry. As despite some undercutting in 2020-21 and in Apri’21-Jun'22, the domestic industry's performance was stable till then. Thus, there is no price effect on account of imports from Saudi Arabia.
i) The decline in market share of imports from other countries is irrelevant to assessing adverse effects on the domestic industry's performance. Chemanol requests the Authority to exclude this fact when determining the impact of imports from the subject countries on the domestic industry's market share in the final findings.
j) The domestic industry's profit reduction can't be solely blamed on Saudi imports. Despite negative profitability metrics since the start of the POI, Saudi price undercutting remained negative until the last quarter. The industry hasn't adequately shown how Saudi imports caused injury in Q1 and Q2 of the POI.
k) Even if India's domestic industry was facing difficulties, these difficulties caused by the increase in raw material prices resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the other factors mentioned above, rather than the subject imports.
h) It has been submitted that minutes & annual reports of the domestic industry have not been included as part of the disclosure statement.
i) It has been requested that duty free imports i.e. import against duty free license, should be excluded from analysis.
j) In total imports, it would be seen that imports from Russia and Sweden have also been regular and in good quantity.
k) It would be seen that landed price of the subject goods from Taiwan is higher than Saudi Arabia, and further, landed price of Saudi Arabian imports is higher than that of China.
l) Perstorp Sweden and Perstorp India are related companies.
m) The domestic industry should respond to difference in usage & prices of the subject goods with purity difference of 92, 96, 98 & 99%.
n) Further, it has been requested to look into the difference that establishment of Perstorp's new plant would have made to the domestic industry.
o) PUC's prices are directly proportionate to the raw material prices of methanol.
p) In terms of customers preference, it has been submitted to the Authority that Taiwanese subject goods are preferred over that of China & Saudi Arabia.
q) In reference to whether the Authority should consider information of Asian Paints, it has been submitted that the Authority should remove information of Asian Paints.
I.2 Views of domestic industry
98. The domestic industry has made the following submissions post circulation of disclosure statement:
a) Anti-dumping duty on Chinese Pentaerythritol imports expired on June 28, 2022. domestic industry assumed prices would stay reasonable, so they didn't seek a remedy through a sunset review.
b) After the anti-dumping duty ended, Chinese producers aggressively dumped Pentaerythritol, causing harm and losses to the domestic industry. Dumping worsened in each quarter of the POI.
c) Chinese dumping led other countries to do the same, threatening the domestic industry's market share in India. Fair competition is necessary for survival.
d) The product under investigation is a commodity product which is influenced by market prices. When one source lowers prices, others follow suit to stay competitive, including both other countries and the domestic industry in India.
e) The Indian market faces a demand-supply gap. The domestic industry earned profits with duties in place, leading to investments by other players like Perstop. Perstop invested Rs. *** crores to produce *** MT of Pentaerythritol, enough to meet the Indian demand. However, dumped imports are jeopardizing Perstop's establishment. Earlier anti-dumping duties encouraged industry expansion, but dumped imports now threaten investments. Protecting these investments is crucial for India's self-reliance.
f) The European Commission considers protection of investment as a parameter for determining the target price (non-injurious price).
g) Impact of duties as quantified is negligible.
h) Negative price undercutting during the investigation period was in view of the fact that there was too steep change in the price over the POI itself.
i) The domestic industry faced higher losses from spot sales due to falling import prices and decreased contract sales volumes.
j) Lowering prices increased contract sales volumes, but also led to higher losses in contract sales.
k) Towards the end of the investigation period, rising import prices corresponded with increased contract sales volumes, resulting in reduced losses from spot sales.
l) Dumped imports pressured domestic prices, prompting lower prices and higher sales but also increased losses. Foreign price adjustments quickly affected domestic prices, while import prices reflected in later months. If undercutting was absent, the Authority should examine if domestic prices showed a suppressing effect, as suggested by its disclosure statement.
m) Duty should be imposed for a period of 5 years in US dollars
n) Perstorp is in agreement with the Authority's conclusion in the disclosure statement.
I.3 Examination by the Authority
99. The Authority notes that the post-disclosure comments / submissions are mostly reiterations of the submissions made before. These have already been examined suitably and adequately addressed in the relevant paras of these final findings. These have however been examined below to the extent found relevant.
100. As regards transactions of the product in different purities, the Authority notes that the interested party has not demonstrated the existence of different purities and their impact on the analysis. In fact, the Authority had sought comments from parties and none of the parties desired consideration of a PCN for the purpose of analysis.
101. As regards the contention that the Saudi producer could not defend itself properly due to Perstop control over exports to India, the Authority notes that the export price determination requires complete information with regard to the price at which exports have been made to India. Saudi producer itself has admitted that Perstop alone has control over exports to India. If Perstop has preferred not to cooperate with the Saudi producer, the Authority notes that the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority. Not only the Saudi producer has filed significantly belated questionnaire response, but also, the same does not contain information on the price at which exports have been made to India. It was open for the Saudi producer to file their response within the time limits. However, even the same was delayed significantly. This clearly shows that the Saudi producer considered cooperation and participation of Perstop important and necessary for the present investigation, but failed to ensure the same.
102. The Authority further notes that it is not only a question of delay in filing of response, but also the fact that information with regard to export price to India is significantly incomplete without participation from Perstop. The producer itself has admitted that entirety of their exports has been made through Perstop. Under these circumstances, the export price cannot be appropriately and adequately determined without cooperation and participation from Perstop.
103. As regards the contention that there is no justification for determining dumping margin and injury margin by considering quarterly comparisons, the Authority notes that there is a decline in the normal value over the period by more than 11%. Since there is a significant decline in the normal value also on quarterly basis, it is also appropriate to determine dumping margin by considering quarterly comparison. In any case, it is seen that even if the comparison is done on weighted average basis, the same leads to significant dumping margin and injury margin.
104. As regards the contention that exports from Saudi Arabia declined by 30% over the injury period, the Authority notes that the injury to the domestic industry has been determined cumulatively from the subject countries. Saudi producer has not provided any evidence nor demanded individual assessment of injury. In a situation where the Authority is required to determine injury to the domestic industry cumulatively from the subject countries, movement of import from individual countries is immaterial. In any case, the Authority has not concluded existence of injury on account of adverse volume effect. The conclusion on injury is based on adverse price effects of dumped imports on the domestic industry. On this account, it is seen that the import price declined from all the sources, including Saudi Arabia. The table below demonstrates.

Import Price Rs/MT
+------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+
| Import Price Rs/MT | China     | Saudi Arabia| Taiwan    |
+==================+===========+=============+===========+
| POI-Q1           | 1,51,203  | 1,61,776    | 1,32,184  |
| POI-Q2           | 1,23,458  | 1,27,291    | 1,17,033  |
| POI-Q3           | 1,19,015  | 1,08,457    | 1,04,376  |
+------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+

105. As regards the contention that Saudi Arabia producer did not undercut the prices of the domestic industry, it is noted that the import prices from Saudi Arabia declined steeply. Further, whereas the price undercutting for Saudi Arabia was negative in Q1 and Q2 of the POI, the price undercutting was positive and significant in Q3 of the POI. It is also seen that whereas import price from Saudi Arabia was higher than import price from China in Q1 and Q2, the same was lower in Q3. It is, thus, very evident that the producers from Saudi Arabia also reduced their prices significantly to match the prices offered by the Chinese producers.
106. As regards the contention that Saudi imports did not cause injury, it is noted that the investigation has shown that the subject imports have resulted in significant depressing effects on the prices and performance of the domestic industry deteriorated steeply in the POI and on quarter-on-quarter basis. Further, the domestic industry suffered significant financial losses, cash losses and negative return on investment.
107. The submissions concerning negative price undercutting have been examined further.
a) The domestic industry explained that the negative price undercutting during the investigation period was in view of the fact that there was too steep change in the price over the POI itself. Not only prices changed from month to month but also prices varied significantly in respect of imports reported in the same month. The domestic industry highlighted from the transaction wise data that the import of the product occurred at significantly different prices in the same month.
b) In view of the submission of the interested parties with regard to absence of price undercutting, the Authority examined the transaction wise import data in detail. It is seen that indeed imports of the product were reported at a very significantly different prices in the same month. The table below shows imports reported the low and high price reported in different months in POI. The table also shows weighted average price for the month. The domestic industry contended that it is not possible for the domestic industry to get the price from the customers based on highest or weighted average import price, when there has been so severe a price fluctuation within the month. The consumers look at the prices prevailing in the market and expect the domestic industry to match the same. Thus, in a situation where imports are being reported at significantly different prices, the domestic industry gets constrained to offer the price based on low price at which imports are being reported. The domestic industry contended that determination of price undercutting under these circumstances would be misleading on the basis of weighted average import prices. The domestic industry demanded that the Authority should consider only those imports which were undercutting the domestic prices. On the basis of the same, the domestic industry submitted that around 45% of the imports were reported at a price below the selling price of the domestic industry in the POI.

+-----+-----------+-------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| SN  | Month     | DI selling price              | Import price from subject countries |
|     |           |                               |----------+----------+------------+
|     |           |                               | Average  | Lowest   | Highest    |
+=====+===========+===============================+==========+==========+============+
| 1   | Jul-22    | ***                           | 154000   | 120950   | 181390     |
| 2   | Aug-22    | ***                           | 156453   | 116667   | 179113     |
| 3   | Sep-22    | ***                           | 136856   | 116580   | 160900     |
| 4   | Oct-22    | ***                           | 126213   | 109897   | 160900     |
| 5   | Nov-22    | ***                           | 136829   | 116482   | 144381     |
| 6   | Dec-22    | ***                           | 127958   | 104438   | 152475     |
| 7   | Jan-23    | ***                           | 105601   | 98760    | 123876     |
| 8   | Feb-23    | ***                           | 111200   | 95163    | 123236     |
| 9   | Mar-23    | ***                           | 1,04,907 | 96,025   | 1,42,662   |
+-----+-----------+-------------------------------+----------+----------+------------+

c) The Authority has taken notes of the submissions made by the domestic industry. It is noted that none of the interested parties have disputed the claim of the domestic industry. The Anti-dumping Rules stipulates various economic parameters to assess the injury caused to the domestic industry from imports. Price undercutting is one of the aspects for the determination of injury, however, it is noted that price undercutting is not 'the" factor to assess injury. In a situation where price undercutting is negative, the further examination on the aspect of injury is the suppression and depression effect caused to the domestic industry due to the imports. There can be situations where all the three parameters viz. undercutting, suppression and depression need not necessarily be positive at the same time. Thus, in a situation where price undercutting is negative, the Authority is required to consider whether selling prices of the domestic industry show supressing or depressing effect. In the facts of the present investigation, the Authority has found significant suppressing effect on the prices of the domestic industry despite a negative price undercutting which establishes that one of the parameters of injury determination viz. price suppression is positive.
108. As regards the contention that the consumers' preference is shifting to imports from Saudi Arabia, thereby it does not impact domestic industry prices and especially since the import price from Saudi Arabia was higher than Taiwan and China in Q1 and Q2; it is seen that the import prices from Saudi were lower than that of China in Q3. Further, it is also seen that import price from Saudi Arabia also declined steeply on quarter-on-quarter basis over the POI.
109. As regards the contention that the performance of the domestic industry has improved in respect of volume parameters, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has not even claimed adverse volume effect as the form of injury. Nor the Authority has found that the dumped imports have caused adverse volume effects to the domestic industry. The Authority has found that dumping of the product in the country has caused significantly adverse price effect to the domestic industry. The same is quite visible in decline in profit, cash profit and return on investment in the POI. It is also seen that the dumping margin, price undercutting and injury margin increased significantly within POI.
110. As regards absence of price effect due to Saudi imports, the Authority considers that adverse price effects is required to be seen by considering the performance of the domestic industry in respect of profit, cash profit and return on investment. The investigation has clearly shown that the domestic industry has suffered significant depressing effects on their prices. The price depression caused by imports has resulted in significant decline in profit, cash profit and return on investment.
111. As regards the contention that import price from Saudi Arabia has increased by 13%, it is seen that the cost of sales increased by 39% whereas the landed price of imports increased only by 13%. Further, it is seen that raw materials and utilities costs for the domestic industry increased by 37% and 71% respectively. It is thus evident that imports prices have not increased in tandem with increase in the cost of the domestic industry.
112. As regards the imports from Russia and Sweden, the same has been appropriately examined in non-attribution analysis and imports from non-subject sources. It has already been noted that imports from non-subject countries are either insignificant in volume or higher in prices.
113. As regards the contention that import price from Taiwan is higher than Saudi Arabia, and further Saudi prices are higher than China, it is noted that Saudi producer has argued to the contrary and submitted that their prices are the highest. In any case, the Authority has undertaken cumulative analysis of injury to the domestic industry.
114. As regards the contention that Perstop Sweden and Perstop India are related entities, the Authority notes that the issue is entirely irrelevant, as the domestic industry, as defined in the present investigation does not consist of Perstop India.
115. As regards new manufacturing facilities of Perstop India, it is noted that the said plant came into production much after the investigation period. Therefore, injury to the domestic industry found in the investigation period cannot be attributed to the new production facilities of Perstop India.
116. As regards the contention that prices of PUC are directly proportionate to raw material prices of methanol, the Authority notes that the same has been appropriately considered in the injury analysis.
117. With regard to the submission made by interested parties that the European Commission considers protection of investment as a parameter for determining the target price (non-injurious price), the authority notes that NIP has been calculated in accordance with Annexure III of Anti-dumping Rules and consistent practice of the Authority.
118. As regards preference of Taiwanese product, it is noted that the import price from Taiwan have been all along lower than import price from all other countries. Moreover, it is seen that volume of imports from Taiwan was lower than volume of imports from other countries, and the same increased significantly over the injury period. Therefore, information on record do not suggest any possibilities of preference of Taiwanese material.
119. As regards information concerning Asian Paints, the Authority has considered that Asian Paint is producing the product for captive consumption. The Authority has therefore not considered any information relating to Asian Paint for injury analysis. Further, the petitioner constitutes domestic industry whether or not production of Asian Paint is included in gross domestic production.
J. PUBLIC INTEREST
J.1 VIEWS OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
120. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regards to public interest:
i) The end-user should provide a letter regarding substitution of imported product with domestic product.
ii) The Authority should critically examine consumer's interest and interest of the public at large.
J.2 Views of the domestic industry
121. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regards to public interest:
i) Imposition of anti-dumping duties is essential to ensure a level playing field and prevent India from becoming solely import reliant on the product. There are no other industries in India selling the subject goods in the Indian market which would mean that in case of a collapse of the applicant, the Indian market would become entirely reliant on imports to meet the demand of the subject goods, leading to issues such as high prices, disrupted availability, or trade deficits in a larger picture.
ii) It is in the interest of consumers to have a market with fairly priced products powered by a competitive domestic industry that can compete with imports.
iii) Encouraging domestic manufacturing activities in India is essential to aid its role in becoming a manufacturing powerhouse. Domestic production will further boost employment and increase the GDP of the country.
iv) Previous duties levied since 2002 have not created any adverse impact.
v) Other parties have sought consumers interest to be checked, however, none have substantiated with evidence. Whereas the applicant has submitted detailed EIQ in the case.
J.3 Examination by the Authority
122. The Authority notes that the purpose of imposition of anti-dumping duty, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. Imposition of anti-dumping measures does not aim to restrict imports from the subject countries in any way.
123. The Authority issued initiation notification inviting views from all the interested parties, including importers, consumers and others and had also prescribed a questionnaire for the users/ consumers to solicit information viz. inter-alia, interchangeability of the product supplied by various suppliers from different countries, ability of the domestic industry to switch sources, effect of anti-dumping duty on the consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to the new situation caused by imposition of anti-dumping duty.
124. The Authority has not received any response to questionnaire issued to the interested parties, besides the domestic industry.
125. It is noted that the primary consumption of the subject goods is primarily used in the paint industry (commanding more than 90% of total consumption). The domestic industry has submitted that since there is past history of imposition of anti-dumping duties, it has relied on the annual reports of the major end-users of the product under consideration, like Asian Paints, Nerolac Paints, and Berger Paints. It is seen that the paint industry has not referenced to any increased cost or hardship caused to them by the duties that were imposed earlier. The Authority considers that duties were in force prior to the POI and the performance of these industries, as seen through the annual reports placed on record, does not show any adverse effect. It is thus seen that while the duties had no known adverse effect on the consumers, cessation of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods from the subject countries has had significantly adverse effect on the domestic industry, as is evident from the injury analysis conducted in this notification.
126. Interested parties have argued that imports into India are necessary because there is gap between demand and supply in India and the single domestic producer in India has a limited capacity and cannot meet the entire demand of Pentaerythritol in India. The Authority notes that the gap between demand and supply cannot justify dumping of the product in India, particularly when the same is causing injury to the existing domestic industry. Also, it is noted that the situation regarding gap between demand and supply shall be remedied with the investment by new domestic producer, Perstorp India. Perstorp India has commenced production of Pentaerythritol India in November 2023 and has a capacity of 40,000 MT per annum. The combined capacity of domestic producers in India now are far higher than the demand of Pentaerythritol in India. However, Perstorp has claimed that the dumped imports are threatening effective establishment of the company. The anti-dumping duties that were in force earlier had encouraged the Indian industry to invest and expand to meet the domestic demand.
127. The opposing interested parties have not provided any information on how the anti-dumping duty is likely to adversely impact the downstream industry and end customers. The domestic industry has provided calculations on the impact of duty on the end consumers, i.e., paint industry. It is seen that subject goods do not even constitute a major input in the production of subject goods. Thus, the impact of the anti-dumping duty will be too low.
Justification for extension of measures: Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) was in force on Pentaerythritol imports from China till 28th June 2022. The domestic industry submitted that it believed that prices would remain stable and fair after anti-dumping duty expiry, and accordingly, sunset review was not pursued to avoid unnecessary remedy requests. However, following the anti-dumping duty expiry, foreign producers once again engaged in aggressive dumping, causing renewed injury and losses to the domestic industry. This is also evident from the trends registered in performance parameters. It is noted that the intensity of dumping escalated over the POI, as is seen in increasing dumping margin and injury margin in each quarter of the Period of Investigation (POI). Consequently, other countries have also resorted to aggressive dumping to safeguard their market share in the Indian market, necessitating a level playing field for the domestic industry's survival.
128. The PUC in this case is a commodity product, where purchasing is heavily influenced by prevailing market prices. Due to competitive pricing pressure from one source, all other suppliers are compelled to adjust their pricing accordingly. Therefore, whenever one exporter lowered its prices, other suppliers in the market followed suit to remain present in the Indian market, aligning their prices with the prevailing prices.
129. Moreover, it is seen that anti-dumping duties in force earlier and fair market situation incentivized the industry to invest and set up significant capacities in order to fulfil Indian demand. The Authority considers that protection of investment is essential, as the dumped imports can jeopardize these investments and establishment of the operations of the company. It's imperative to safeguard the additional investments made to ensure the country's self-reliance.
K. CONCLUSION
130. Having regard to the contentions raised, submissions made, information provided and facts available before the Authority as recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry, the Authority concludes that:
i) The scope of the product under consideration is "Pentaerythritol" originating in or exported from China PR, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.
ii) The application has been filed by M/s Kanora Chemicals & Industries Ltd. M/s Asian Paints (India) Ltd. ("Asian Paints") is also a producer of the subject goods in India. The applicant is the major producer of the subject goods in India and constitutes domestic industry, considering both, the production of Asian Paints, as well as after exclusion of Asian Paints production, under Rule 2(b) of the Rules and satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3).
iii) Perstop India has participated as a supporter of the proposed measure and has submitted that they are setting up a manufacturing unit of *** MTPA product under consideration at an investment of Rs. *** crores. The company has now submitted that they have since commenced commercial production. The company has submitted that imposition of anti-dumping duty is necessary to prevent dumping, as this dumping would not allow them to produce and sell at remunerative prices and the investment being made by them would significantly suffer.
iv) Response of Chemanol has not been accepted by the Authority for determination of individual dumping margin, as there was inordinate delay in filing questionnaire response and seeking extension in a timely manner. Further, they filed a grossly incomplete response. Exports to India have been made by Perstorp AB. However, Perstorp AB has not filed questionnaire response. Therefore, response filed by Chemanol was grossly insufficient to determine individual dumping margin. The reason given by Chemanol for not filing response in a timely manner and for not being able to ensure complete questionnaire response are not worthy of acceptance. The Authority considers that it is for the producer concerned to ensure that the questionnaire response is complete and all relevant information has been provided to the Authority for determination of individual dumping margin.
v) In view of significant fluctuations in the import prices and raw material prices during the POI, quantification of both dumping and injury margin has been undertaken on quarterly basis.
vi) The dumping margin is not only above de-minimis level but also significant. The dumping margin progressively increased within the investigation period. The product under consideration has been exported to India at a price below the normal value, resulting in dumping.
vii) Imports from the subject countries remained nearly the same throughout the POI and the injury period. Imports from other countries declined over the injury period.
viii) There was a steep decline in the import price within the POI, leading to significant decline in the selling price of the domestic industry. The domestic industry submitted that it is forced to benchmark its prices to the lowest prices prevailing in the market, irrespective of the country, considering that the product is a pure commodity product. The average price undercutting during the POI was negative in view of the fact that there was too steep change in the price over the POI itself.
ix) The market share of the subject countries has increased over the injury period. While market share of the domestic industry increased over the injury period, it is seen that the same is due to price corrections taken by the domestic industry.
x) The production, capacity utilisation and domestic sales volume were maintained, in view of the nature of the product, and, as the domestic industry took frequent and steep price corrections in order to maintain sales.
xi) In order not to lose market and to keep the production running, the domestic industry had no other option but to follow the price levels set by the dumped imports. This resulted in the significant drop in profitability in the POI.
xii) The domestic industry was earning a profit in the base year. However, it suffered losses in 2020-21, on account of the Covid pandemic. With the recovery of the market, and fair priced imports, the domestic industry earned profits. However, with expiry of duties and increase in dumped imports and at prices even below costs in the POI, the domestic industry has suffered significant financial losses in the POI.
xiii) Considering the entry of a new producer, i.e. Perstrop India in the Indian market, it has been noted from their submissions that if the prevailing prices of Pentaerythritol in India are to prevail, there would be an adverse impact on their performance and consequent establishment of their production facilities.
xiv) The Authority has examined the submissions made by other parties on any other factors which could have caused injury to the domestic industry. No other factor appears to have caused injury to the domestic industry. The Authority concludes that the material injury suffered by the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the subject countries.
xv) The Authority had prescribed an Economic Interest Questionnaire which was sent to all interested parties to this investigation. None of the interested except the domestic industry have responded to the Economic Interest Questionnaire. No Economic Interest Questionnaire response has been filed by any users. The domestic industry has also provided a quantification of the potential impact of the duty. However, none of the interested party has made any comments on this.
131. In view of the above the Authority finds that there is sufficient evidence that the product has been exported at dumping prices and such dumping of the product has caused material injury to the domestic industry.
L. RECOMMENDATION
132. Having initiated and conducted the investigation into dumping, injury, and causal link in terms of the provisions laid down under the Anti-Dumping Rules, the Authority is of the view that imposition of the anti-dumping duty is required to offset the dumping and consequent injury. The Authority considers it necessary to recommend imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries.
133. Having regards to the lesser duty rule followed, the Authority recommends imposition of antidumping duty equal to the lesser of the margin of dumping and the margin of injury so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority recommends imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries, equal to the amount mentioned in Col. 7 of the duty table appended below, for a period of five years from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government. The landed value of the imports for this purpose shall be the assessable value as determined by the Customs under Customs Act. 1962 and applicable level of the customs duties except duties levied under Section 3, 3A, 8B, 9, 9A. of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

DUTY TABLE
+-------+-------------+---------------------+-------------------+------------------+-------------------+-----------+---------------------+----------+
| S. No.| Heading/sub-| Description of goods| Country of origin | Country of export| Producer/exporter | Amount    | Unit of measurement | Currency |
|       | heading     |                     |                   |                  |                   |           |                     |          |
+=======+=============+=====================+===================+==================+===================+===========+=====================+==========+
| (1)   | (2)         | (3)                 | (4)               | (5)              | (6)               | (7)       | (8)                 | (9)      |
+-------+-------------+---------------------+-------------------+------------------+-------------------+-----------+---------------------+----------+
| 1.    | 2905.42.90  | Pentaerythritol     | China PR          | Any country      | Any               | 345.15    | MT                  | USD      |
|       |             |                     |                   | including        |                   |           |                     |          |
|       |             |                     |                   | China PR         |                   |           |                     |          |
| 2.    | 2905.42.90  | Pentaerythritol     | Any country       | China PR         | Any               | 345.15    | MT                  | USD      |
|       |             |                     | other than        |                  |                   |           |                     |          |
|       |             |                     | China PR          |                  |                   |           |                     |          |
| 3.    | 2905.42.90  | Pentaerythritol     | Saudi Arabia      | Any country      | Any               | 300.15    | MT                  | USD      |
|       |             |                     |                   | including        |                   |           |                     |          |
|       |             |                     |                   | Saudi Arabia     |                   |           |                     |          |
| 4.    | 2905.42.90  | Pentaerythritol     | Any country       | Saudi Arabia     | Any               | 300.15    | MT                  | USD      |
|       |             |                     | other than        |                  |                   |           |                     |          |
|       |             |                     | Saudi Arabia      |                  |                   |           |                     |          |
| 5.    | 2905.42.90  | Pentaerythritol     | Taiwan            | Any country      | Any               | 499.01    | MT                  | USD      |
|       |             |                     |                   | including        |                   |           |                     |          |
|       |             |                     |                   | Taiwan           |                   |           |                     |          |
| 6.    | 2905.42.90  | Pentaerythritol     | Any country       | Taiwan           | Any               | 499.01    | MT                  | USD      |
|       |             |                     | other than        |                  |                   |           |                     |          |
|       |             |                     | Taiwan            |                  |                   |           |                     |          |
+-------+-------------+---------------------+-------------------+------------------+-------------------+-----------+---------------------+----------+

***Note-Customs classification is only indicative, and the determination of anti-dumping duty shall be made as per the description of the PUC.
134. The landed value of imports for the purpose of this notification shall be assessable value as determined by the Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and includes all duties of customs except duties under Sections 3, 8B, 9, 9A of the said Act.
M. FURTHER PROCEDURE
135. An appeal against this determination/review of the Designated Authority in this final finding shall lie before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.
ANANT SWARUP, Designated Authority

                

                
                
                
            

            
        


        
        

        
        
        

            

                

                    
                        
                    
                

                

                    
Never miss important gazettes

                    
Create a free account to save gazettes, add notes, and get email alerts for keywords you care about.

                

                Sign Up Free
            

        

        

        
        

        
        
        

            Create free account to save & get alerts →
        

        

        
        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                
                More from Ministry of Commerce and Industry
            

            

                
                

                    
                        Publication of Notification in respect of Manyata Promoters Private Limited for IT ITES SEZ at Villages Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka, for partial denotification of 1.4310 Ha out of 19.199 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of notification in respect of Delta Electronics India Private Limited for Electronic Hardware and Software including Information Technology and Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone at Kurubarapalli, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu, for addition of an area of 1.14 hectares thereby making resultant area as 12.10 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of Notification in respect of Brahmani Infratech Limited for IT ITES SEZ at Mamidipalli Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, for Full denotification of 60.70 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of notification in respect of Rackbank Datacenters Private Limited for IT ITES SEZ at Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, for addition of an area of 2.708437 hectares thereby making resultant area as 5.412488 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Corrigendum to Public Notice No 27 2026 2027 dated 20 08 2026 regarding Modalities for Application and Distribution of TRQ for Import of 10 Lakh MT of Raw Sugar and one time conversion from Advance Authorisation AA Scheme to Tariff Rate Quota TRQ Scheme
                    
                    07 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of notification Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation for Apparel Park at Khokhra, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, for partial denotification of 15.59989 Ha out of 20.41491 Ha.
                    
                    03 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Modalities for Application and Allocation of Balance Quantity under TRQ Scheme for Import of 10 Lakh MT of Raw Sugar reg
                    
                    02 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of the Notification for Development Commissioner of SEZs Recruitment Rules, 2026
                    
                    01 Sep 2026
                

                
            

            

                View all Ministry of Commerce and Industry gazettes →