FF of ADD imports of PTFE exported from China PR Russia

REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India EXTRAORDINARY PART I—Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 251] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2025/BHADRA 28, 1947 CG-DL-E-23092025-266306 6216 GI/2025 (1) MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce) (Directorate General of Trade Remedies) NOTIFICATION New Delhi the 19th September, 2025 FINAL FINDINGS Case No. AD (OI)-19/2024 Subject: Final findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)” originating in or exported from China PR and Russia-regd F. No. 6/21/2024-DGTR:- Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereafter also referred to as the “Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, as amended from time to time (hereafter also referred to as the “Rules”). A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 1. Whereas, M/s Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”), on behalf of the “domestic industry”, in accordance with the Act and the Rules for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Polytetrafluoroethylene” (PTFE) (hereinafter referred to as “PTFE” or “subject goods”) originating in or exported from China PR and Russia (hereinafter referred to as the “subject countries”) and has requested the imposition of anti-dumping duty. 2. And whereas, the Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a public notice vide notification no. 6/21/2024- DGTR dated 30th September 2024, published in the Part-I Section I of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating the anti-dumping investigation in accordance with Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules to determine the existence, degree, and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the said subject countries, and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry. B. PROCEDURE 3. The procedure described hereinbelow has been followed with regard to the investigation: i. The Authority notified the embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the present application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Rules. ii. The Authority issued a notification dated 30th September 2024, published in the Part-I Section-I of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating an investigation concerning the imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. iii. In accordance with Rule 6(2), the Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the embassies of the subject countries in India and known producers and exporters from the subject countries. iv. The Authority also provided a copy of the initiation notification to the known importers / users in India who are known to be associated with the subject goods, and requested them to make their views known in writing within the prescribed time limit. v. The Authority also provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known producers/exporters and to the embassies of the subject countries in India, in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules. A copy of the non-confidential version of the application was circulated to the other interested parties. vi. The embassies of the subject countries in India were also requested to advise the producers / exporters in their country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the producers / exporters was also sent to them along with the names and addresses of the known producers/exporters from the subject countries. vii. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/ exporters in the subject countries calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules. a. Changzhou Xiangtong Chemical Co. Ltd., China PR b. DuPont (Changshu) Fluoro Technolozy Co. Ltd., China PR c. Fuxin Hengtong Fluorine, China PR d. Juhua Group Corporation, China PR e. Jiangsu Meilan Chemical Co., Ltd., China PR f. Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat, Russia g. Shandong Dongyue Chemical Co., Ltd., China PR h. Shandong Dongyue Polymer Material Co. Ltd., China PR i. Sichuan Chenguang lnstitute of Chemical lndustry, China PR j. Taizhou Meilan Resin Process Co, China PR k. Zhengxin Fluorocarbons, China PR l. Halo Polymer, Russia viii. In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, following producers/exporters from China PR have registered as an interested party and responded by filing questionnaire response: a. Jinhua Yonghe Fluorochemical Co. Ltd. b. Shandong Dongyue Polymer Material Co., Ltd. c. Shaowu Yonghe Jintang New Material Co., Ltd. d. The Chemours (Changshu) Fluoro Technology Company Limited e. Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. ix. In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, Halo Polymer Group, Russia consisting of Halo Polymer Perm JSC (Producer/Exporter, Russia), Halo Polymer Kirovo- Chepetsk, (Exporter/Trader, Russia), Halo Polymer Trading INC (Exporter/Trader, USA) and Halo Polymer LLC (Exporter/Trader, Russia) have participated in the present investigation and made written submissions but have not submitted their questionnaire responses. x. The Authority sent questionnaire to the following known importers / users of the subject goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules. a. Goldseal-Saargummi India Pvt. Ltd. b. J D Jones & Co Pvt Ltd c. Andrew Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd. d. Garlock India Pvt Ltd e. Heat And Control South Asia Private Limited f. Luminous Power Technologies Private Limited g. Insolation Energy Pvt Ltd h. Waaree Energies Ltd i. Manek Fluoro Polymers Pvt. Ltd. j. Araflex Gaskets And Jointings Pvt. Ltd. k. Bihar Insulation House l. Tritan m. Grindwell Norton Ltd. n. James Walker Inmarco Industries Pvt Ltd. o. Insulation Solutions p. Raj Asbestos Co q. Keflon Fine Products r. Mehar Solar Technology Pvt Ltd. s. Microlit t. J K Oversears u. Srinar Electronics Pvt Ltd. v. New Tech Medical Devices w. Three G Fluropolymers Pvt Ltd. x. Sanghvi Techno Products y. Franke Faber India Pvt Ltd. z. Flojet Engineers P Ltd. aa. Ankur Traders & Engineers Pvt Ltd. bb. Swadeshi Marketing Pvt Ltd. cc. Labotech Microscopes India Pvt Ltd. dd. Bihar Mica House ee. Kottai Shoes ff. Enkay Solar Power and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. gg. West Bengal Trading Corporation hh. Future Glass Works Pvt Ltd. ii. Vimal International jj. IndyGreen Tech Pvt Ltd. kk. Modern Industrial Equipments Pvt Ltd. ll. Kohli Enterprises mm. Rayzon Green Energies nn. Sri Shyam International oo. Labotron Instruments Pvt Ltd. pp. Icon Solar En Power Technologies Pvt Ltd. qq. Mehar Solar Technology Pvt Ltd. rr. Image Labels Pvt Ltd. ss. Patanajli Renewable Energy Pvt Ltd. tt. Genesis Comtrade Pvt Ltd. uu. Pioneer Mill Stores Co. vv. Premier Energies Ltd. ww. Premier Solar System Pvt Ltd. xx. Gupta H C Overseas (I) Pvt Ltd. yy. Raipur CG Impex zz. Rechts Gasket MFG aaa.Rhine Solar Ltd. bbb. Pall India Pvt Ltd. ccc.Cesare Bonetti India Pvt Ltd. ddd. Solar Solutions India eee.HR Solar Solution Pvt Ltd. fff. Visaka Industries Ltd. ggg. Deepak Electrical Industries hhh. Teadit Packing and Gaskets Pvt Ltd. iii. Jay International jjj. J Khushaldas & Company (SPD) kkk. JMD International lll. RK Exim mmm.Asian International Co nnn. Philips India Ltd ooo. Spectrochem Pvt Ltd. ppp. RG Techno Industrial qqq. U W A Enterprises rrr. Easyflo Polymer Engineers Pvt Ltd. sss. Rose Trading Co. ttt. Ferry International uuu. N M Impex vvv. Sealmax www. Milap Traders xxx. International Tools Company yyy. Akash Kedia zzz.Dharm Exim aaaa. Tani Enterprises bbbb. Virang Traders cccc. Shreeji Traders dddd. Lena Hardwares Pvt Ltd. eeee. V R Associates xi. The following importers/users have submitted questionnaire responses to the Authority: a. Chemours India Private Limited b. Guarniflon India Private Limited c. Omega Industries xii. The Authority issued economic interest questionnaire (EIQ) to all interested parties and the concerned ministry. Response to EIQ was submitted by the following parties: a. Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd b. Shaowu Yonghe Jintang New Material Co., Ltd. c. Jinhua Yonghe Fluorochemical Co. Ltd. d. Angana International e. Omega Industries xiii. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024 (12 months). The injury investigation period covers the periods 1st April 2020 – 31st March 2021, 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022, 1st April 2022 – 31st March 2023 and the POI. xiv. The DG System was requested to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of the subject goods for the injury period and the POI. The same was received by the Authority and considered at the stage of initiation of the investigation as well as for the final findings. xv. The Authority vide para 6 of the initiation notification dated 30th September 2024 granted an opportunity to the interested parties to present their comments on the scope of the product under consideration (PUC) within 15 days of the initiation. All the submissions made by the interested parties with regard to the scope of the product under consideration or for the construction of product control numbers (PCN) which were received within such time period were considered. The Authority held a discussion on 21st November 2024 with all the interested parties to discuss the product under consideration and the PCNs. After receiving inputs from the interested parties, the Authority vide notification dated 4th December 2024 clarified the scope of the PUC and PCN methodology. xvi. Further information was sought from the applicant to the extent deemed necessary. Verification of the data provided by the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the purpose of the present investigation. xvii. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the submissions made by the various interested parties. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website along with the request therein to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties. xviii. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties for presenting their views orally regarding the subject investigation through a public hearing on 19th February 2025. The interested parties who presented their views in the oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. The interested parties were further directed to share the non-confidential version of the written submissions with the other interested parties. xix. Due to change of the Designated Authority, a fresh oral hearing was held on 2nd July, 2025 wherein all interested parties were provided the opportunity to present their views. The interested parties were requested to submit their written submissions and rejoinder submissions, if any. xx. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIP’) has been determined based on the cost of production and reasonable return on capital employed for the subject goods in India, based on the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules, 1995 so as to ascertain whether anti-dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry. xxi. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the interested parties at this stage, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation. xxii. Wherever an interested party has refused access to, or has otherwise not provided necessary information during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the final findings on the basis of the facts available. xxiii. In accordance with Rule 16 of Rules Supra, the essential facts of the investigation were disclosed to the known interested parties vide disclosure statement dated 25th August, 2025 and comments received thereon, considered relevant by the Authority, have been addressed in these final findings. xxiv. ‘***’ in these final findings represent information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under Rule 7 of AD Rules, 1995. xxv. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = Rs. 83.69. C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION 4. The product under consideration (hereinafter also referred to as the “PUC”) as defined at the stage of initiation was as follows: “3. The product under consideration in the present application is Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The PUC is primarily used in the electronic, mechanical, and chemical industries for its unique characteristics such as chemical inertness, electrical and thermal insulation, low coefficient of friction, nontoxic, non-flammable, resistance to radiation, low level of static and dynamic friction, and outstanding electrical properties over a wide frequency range. 4. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act under the sub-heading 39046100. The customs classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the product under consideration. 5. The applicant has proposed the following product control numbers (PCNs), in the application filed: | S.No. | Parameter | Base | Full Name | |:------|:----------|:---------|:-------------------------------| | i. | A-PTFE | A-PTFE | Aqueous Dispersion PTFE | | ii. | C-PTFE | C-PTFE | Filled Compound PTFE | | viii. | D-PTFE | D-PTFE | Fine Powder PTFE | | ix. | PTFE | PTFE | Granular PTFE (Suspension Grade)| | x. | PT-PTFE | PT-PTFE | Granular Modified PTFE (Molding Grade/ Low Flow Virgin Grade/ Free Flow Virgin Grade)”| C.1. Submissions by other interested parties 5. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the scope of the product under consideration and like article: i. A-PTFE should be excluded since the applicant’s product does not match the standard of imported goods and has higher consumption norms than the imported goods, making it costlier and unsusceptible to sustain temperature variations. ii. The applicant does not produce C-PTFE but only has the capability to manufacture it and further does not have the requisite machinery to product PEEK PTFE, Stainless Steel PTFE, Polyamide PTFE, Filled Alumina (AI203) PTFE, Calcium Fluoride PTFE, Filled Polymer in PTFE, Mica in PTFE, Borum Nitrate filled PTFE and Cobalt aluminate filled PTFE, and therefore, these grades should be excluded from scope of PUC. iii. D-PTFE produced by the applicant does not have the requisite technical and quality standards required by processors and the imported D-PTFE is superior, therefore the same should be excluded. iv. The applicant does not produce filled grade RAM extrusion grade (moulding grade) /pre-sintered powder. It only produces Granular Modified PTFE (which includes Molding Grade/Low Virgin Grade/Free Flow Virgin Grade). No producer or processor in India has the technology to produce pre-sintered filled grades and free flow grades, which should be excluded and a list of the grades is given below: • Pre sinter & Free Flow carbon filled PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow glass filled PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow bronze filled PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow graphite filled PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow stainless steel filled PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow Mos2 filled PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow Polyamide PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow Aluminum oxide • Pre sinter & Free Flow PEEK PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) PTFE. • Pre sinter & Free Flow Filled Polymer in PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow Mica in PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow Borum nitrate filled PTFE • Pre sinter & Free Flow Cobalt aluminate filled PTFE v. The applicant does not produce all grades of the PUC as mentioned in the notice of initiation. vi. The applicant does not sell any like article to Fine Powder (D-PTFE) Resin Grade 640C. Applicant’s grade INOFLON GN7500 differs in technical, physical, and end-use aspects. vii. GN7500 and Fine Powder (D-PTFE) Resin Grade 640C cannot be used interchangeably as reduction ratio of the two differs, with the latter having a higher ratio. viii. As per market intelligence, the applicant’s product hasn’t been approved for small tube application for two-wheeler brake hoses which require high reduction ratio, which Chemours group caters to. Thus, they are not technically and commercially substitutable. C.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 6. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the product under consideration and like article: i. The applicant produces all grades of the product under consideration, as mentioned in the initiation notification. ii. D-PTFE produced by the domestic industry adheres to quality and technical characteristics required by the customers. iii. GN7500, which is the applicant’s product, matches the specifications of Fine Powder D-PTFE Resin Grade 640C in respect of the properties. iv. GN7500 is specifically designed for high reduction ratio applications, supporting reduction ratios up to 4000:1, which aligns with the industry requirements for tubing and hose processing. v. A-PTFE produced by the domestic industry meets quality standards, as is evidenced by the FDA compliance certificate that has been submitted. vi. The stated types of C-PTFE have seen no imports from the subject countries. Notwithstanding the same, the applicant has submitted that the C-PTFE filled grades have been sold by the domestic industry during the POI as can also be verified from the information submitted by the applicant. vii. The applicant manufactures a range of standard filled PTFE grades including glass-filled PTFE, carbon-filled PTFE, bronze-filled PTFE, MoS₂-filled PTFE, and various other filler combinations. viii. Filled grades of C-PTFE as mentioned by the interested parties can be manufactured by the applicant. The demand for these products has been quite low, and these grades are highly customised products which are produced against orders. ix. Customers have not raised any requirements for filled grades of C-PTFE and should the requirement arise, the applicant is equipped to provide the same. x. D-PTFE produced by the applicant adheres to quality and technical standards and high reduction ratio is achieved by the domestic industry. The applicant’s product of GN7300 achieves the reduction ratio of 2500:1, and the same is also exported and is well accepted by both domestic and global customers. xi. The grade of the applicant that can be compared with pre-sintered PTFE is INOFLON 510, which is part of PT-PTFE and is used for RAM extrusion applications. xii. The absence of imports of a particular product type cannot be grounds to exclude the said product type, as was held by the Authority in the final findings of Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber (IIR). C.3. Examination by the Authority 7. The product under consideration in the present investigation is “Polytetrafluoroethylene” (also referred to as “PTFE”). PTFE resin is produced in various grades, such as molding grade, fine powder, aqueous dispersion, compound grades, or filled grades. 8. PTFE is primarily used in electrical, electronic, mechanical, and chemical industries for its unique characteristics which are chemical inertness, electrical and thermal insulation, low coefficient of friction, nontoxic, non-flammable, resistance to radiation, low level of static and dynamic friction, and outstanding electrical properties over a wide frequency range. 9. The product is classified under customs tariff sub-heading 3904 6100 of the Customs Tariff Act. This classification is, however, indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the product under consideration. 10. The Authority considers as follows with regard to issues/exclusion requests raised by the interested parties: a. A-PTFE: As regards the contention of the other interested parties that A-PTFE must be excluded since the applicant’s product does not match quality standards, sustain temperature variations, and is costlier, the Authority notes that the applicant supplies A-PTFE to customers as is evidenced by production & sales volumes and the invoices placed on record. The domestic industry produced *** MT of A-PTFE during the POI, and the same constituted ***% of its total production. It is seen that imports of A-PTFE were quite low till 2022-23 and increased sharply in the POI. Consequently, the sales of the domestic industry declined significantly in the POI. Further, it is noted that the domestic industry possesses the FDA compliance certificate for A-PTFE. The Authority also notes that the TDS of the applicant for A-PTFE indicates the specifications such as the service temperature range, showing that the product can sustain temperature variations. Therefore, the Authority disagrees with the exclusion sought for this product type. b. C-PTFE: With respect to the submissions alleging that the domestic industry does not produce C-PTFE, the Authority notes that the information provided by the Applicant on record shows that the Applicant has produced and sold C-PTFE throughout the injury period. As regards the argument on PEEK PTFE, Stainless Steel PTFE, Polyamide PTFE, Filled Alumina (AI203) PTFE, Calcium Fluoride PTFE, Filled Polymer in PTFE, Mica in PTFE, Borum Nitrate filled PTFE and Cobalt aluminate filled PTFE filled grade is concerned, the Authority notes that these are different types of filled C-PTFE. Applicant produces a variety of standard-filled C-PTFE grades. However, the demand for these grades is quite low, which is further evidenced by the fact that there are insignificant imports of these grades. Further, the domestic industry produces a comparative volume to the imports of C-PTFE. The Authority verified the production process, and manufacturing facilities at the time of on-the-spot verification. The Authority also notes that owing to very limited demand for these products, these grades are produced against specific orders. The applicant has submitted a declaration that it can produce the filled grade C-PTFE and has all necessary production facility for that. Thus, in light of these submissions, the Authority holds that all filled C-PTFE grades are included within the scope of the product under consideration. c. RAM extrusion grade/pre-sintered PTFE powder: With regard to the submission of the other interested parties that the Applicant does not produce filled RAM extrusion grade/pre-sintered PTFE powder, specifically Pre sinter glass filled PTFE, Pre sinter bronze filled PTFE, Pre sinter graphite filled PTFE, Pre sinter stainless steel filled PTFE, Pre sinter Mos2 filled PTFE, Pre sinter Polyamide PTFE, Pre sinter Aluminum oxide, Pre sinter PEEK PTFE, Pre sinter Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) PTFE, Pre sinter Filled Polymer in PTFE, Pre sinter Mica in PTFE, Pre sinter Borum nitrate filled PTFE, Pre sinter Cobalt aluminate filled PTFE, Free Flow carbon filled PTFE, Free Flow glass filled PTFE, Free Flow bronze filled PTFE, Free Flow graphite filled PTFE, Free Flow stainless steel filled PTFE, Free Flow Mos2 filled PTFE, Free Flow Polyamide PTFE, Free Flow Aluminum oxide, Free Flow PEEK PTFE, Free Flow Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) PTFE, Free Flow Filled Polymer in PTFE, Free Flow Mica in PTFE, Free Flow Borum nitrate filled PTFE, Free Flow Cobalt aluminate filled PTFE, it is noted that these grades are also not imported from the subject countries. None of the interested parties have shown any import of the product during the period. Further, the applicant has submitted and placed on record evidence showing that its product “INOFLON 510” is equivalent to pre-sintered PTFE and is being used for RAM extrusion applications. It has been submitted by the applicant that RAM extrusion grade/pre-sintered PTFE powder carry essentially the same product characterises as PTFE. Minor variations in the product properties does not render them different article. These products continue to be like article to the product under consideration. It has been submitted by the applicant that there is no additional manufacturing facility or technology or production skill required to produce pre-sintered filled grades. Thus, in light of these submissions, the Authority holds that all filled pre-sintered filled grades are included within the scope of the product under consideration. d. D-PTFE: The interested parties have argued that D-PTFE produced by the applicant is different from the imported product based on technical parameters. In this regard, the applicant has submitted that its product meets the same quality and technical standards as alleged by the interested party. It is seen that whereas gross imports of D-PTFE from China during injury period were around 2000 MT, the domestic industry produced *** MT of D-PTFE over the injury period. The applicant provided evidence of sales of D-PTFE to its customers, and it is seen from the TDS of the applicant’s product, INOFLON GN7300 that the reduction ratio of 2500:1 is achieved. It is noted that the applicant’s product is sold both domestically and globally. Hence, the Authority disagrees with the requested exclusion. The Authority, upon verification, is satisfied that the Applicant’s product meets the requirements and parameters that the imported goods do and hence disagrees with the requested exclusion. e. Fine Powder D-PTFE Resin Grade 640C and its application in two-wheeler brake hose: It has been submitted by the other interested parties that the applicant does not sell a like article to Fine Powder D-PTFE Resin Grade 640C. The applicant has submitted that its grade INOFLON GN7500 is the equivalent grade to 640C. The applicant has also provided a comparison of the typical properties of both the GN7500 as well as the 640C. The Authority has noted that the two grades are comparable on the basis of technical properties. 11. In view of the above, the Authority holds the product under consideration and product control numbers (PCNs) as below: “3. The product under consideration in the present application is Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The PUC is primarily used in the electronic, mechanical, and chemical industries for its unique characteristics such as chemical inertness, electrical and thermal insulation, low coefficient of friction, nontoxic, non-flammable, resistance to radiation, low level of static and dynamic friction, and outstanding electrical properties over a wide frequency range. 4. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act under the sub-heading 39046100. The customs classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the product under consideration. 5. The applicant has proposed the following product control numbers (PCNs), in the application filed: | S. No. | Parameter | Base | Full Name | |:-------|:----------|:--------|:--------------------------------| | i. | A-PTFE | A-PTFE | Aqueous Dispersion PTFE | | ii. | C-PTFE | C-PTFE | Filled Compound PTFE | | iii. | D-PTFE | D-PTFE | Fine Powder PTFE | | iv. | PTFE | PTFE | Granular PTFE (Suspension Grade)| | v. | PT-PTFE | PT-PTFE | Granular Modified PTFE (Molding Grade/ Low Flow Virgin Grade/ Free Flow Virgin Grade)”| 12. The Authority notes that the product produced by the applicant and the product under consideration imported from the subject countries is comparable in terms of physical and chemical characteristics, functions and uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution and marketing, and tariff classification of the goods. The Authority holds that the subject goods produced by the applicant is like article to the product under consideration imported from the subject countries within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Anti-dumping Rules. D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING D.1. Submissions by other interested parties 13. No submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to the scope of the domestic industry and its standing. D.2. Submissions by domestic industry 14. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the domestic industry and its standing: i. The application has been filed by M/s Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. ii. The applicant is the sole producer involved in the manufacturing of the PUC in POI. The applicant has neither imported nor is related to any importer or exporter of the subject goods. iii. The only other known producer, Hindustan Fluorocarbons Ltd., has had no production in the last two years of the injury period, as is seen from their annual report. iv. SRF Ltd. has set up capacities for the production of the product under consideration and will start producing commercially, and has supported the application. v. The production by the applicant constitutes a ‘major proportion’ of the total Indian production and satisfies the requirements of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules. D.3. Examination by the Authority 15. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules defines the domestic industry as under: "(b) "domestic industry " means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry ' must be construed as referring to the rest of the producers" 16. The present application has been filed by M/s Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. The applicant is the only functioning producer of subject goods in the POI in the country. Hindustan Fluorocarbon Ltd. was earlier producing subject goods. The applicant has submitted the annual report of Hindustan Fluorocarbon Ltd. as proof that no production took place during the POI. There are no other domestic producers of subject goods in the period of investigation. The Authority notes that there is a new producer, SRF Ltd., that has set up capacities of *** MT to produce the subject goods. The company began commercial production in October 2023, as is seen from the support letter submitted by SRF Ltd. 17. The applicant has not imported the subject goods and are not related to either an importer or exporter of subject goods from the subject countries. Information on record shows that the applicant accounts for 100% of the Indian production in the POI. Therefore, the Authority holds the applicant as the eligible domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. E. CONFIDENTIALITY E.1. Submissions by other interested parties 18. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties with respect to confidentiality: i. The domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality, violating Rule 7 of the AD Rules and Trade Notices 1/2013 dated 9th December, 2013 and 10/2018 dated 7th September, 2018. The application is not fully compliant with the trade notice since it does not provide any information or justification for non-disclosure of write up on broad stagewise manufacturing process and names of major raw materials used in PUC production. ii. Key data points such as volume and value of production of other producers, normal value of Russia, cost of sales per unit for export data, NIP calculation, injury margin have not been disclosed and non-disclosure has not been justified. iii. Price undercutting has not been provided by the domestic industry. E.2. Submissions by domestic industry 19. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with respect to confidentiality: i. The disclosure of actual information for the parameters listed out by the other interested parties will lead to confidential data of the sole domestic producer in the instant investigation being disclosed. ii. Price undercutting does not form part of the mandatory prescribed information and is not mentioned in trade notice No. 10/2018. iii. Responding exporters have claimed excessive confidentiality in the public version of their responses, with information such as details of name of shareholders, details of company, and the affiliated companies, shareholding percentage, details of company, affiliated companies as well as activities of the related companies as confidential. iv. Sample domestic and export sales documents have not been disclosed. While documents itself may be confidential, the list of documents submitted has not been disclosed. E.3. Examination by the Authority 20. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by the various parties to all the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7). 21. With regard to confidentiality of the information, Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows: “7. Confidential Information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub -rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such information. (2) The designated authority may require the interested parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish nonconfidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarisation is not possible. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.” 22. The Authority allows, wherever claimed, confidentiality claims of domestic industry on information such as selling price, cost of production, profit, cash profit, return on investment, customers’ name, sale/purchase invoice, and documents/information in support of these information or leading to this information. Further, the Authority allows, wherever claimed, confidentiality claims of exporters/other interested parties on information such as various performance indicators, sales volumes & values, price adjustments and various information & documents provided in support of the same or leading to the same. The Authority considers that this information is confidential by nature and disclosure of these information and document on actual basis can cause significant adverse effect on the party concerned and can give undue competitive advantage to competitors and parties with opposing interests. 23. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regards to sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority accepts the confidentiality claims wherever warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, the parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on a confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all interested parties have claimed their business-related sensitive information as confidential and the same is considered appropriate. F. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES F.1. Submissions by other interested parties 24. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties: i. The recommendations to impose duties in 2022 were rejected by the Ministry of Finance, which was challenged by the domestic industry in the Delhi High Court. The domestic industry wilfully concealed this information while filing the application, which if disclosed would have led to investigation being not initiated. The domestic industry is engaging in forum shopping. ii. If the High Court decides in favour of the domestic industry and if the present investigation results in imposition of duties, this will lead to double remedies. The present investigation would undermine the interim order of the Delhi High Court. iii.The Ministry of Finance rejected imposition of last anti-dumping duties for five years, and thus the next request should only arise after five years. iv. The domestic industry has been privy to a history of measures and has had long protection afforded to it, which has created a monopoly and supernatural profits. It also enjoys protection on multiple products apart from PTFE such as FKM, Methylene Di Chloride, and Caustic Soda through various anti-dumping measures, allowing the domestic industry to maintain a dominant and near monopolistic position in the domestic market. F.2. Submissions by domestic industry 25. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry: i. Current investigation is a fresh investigation, and any measures imposed would be on the basis of complete and thorough investigation. ii. While duties were in place for a long time, they were not entirely effective for the entire period as the dumped subject imports maintained a significant presence in the market, thereby undermining the remedial effect of such measures. iii. The domestic industry has not created a monopoly or earned abnormal profits. On the contrary, the domestic industry has had a loss of profits in the POI, since cessation of previously existing duties. iv. The prices of the domestic industry have been lower than both the EU and the USA throughout the injury period, evidencing that the domestic industry has been constantly competitive and has never increased its prices abnormally. The domestic industry, therefore, has never shown any monopolistic tendencies. v. The domestic industry has withdrawn its rights relating to W.P.(C) 10641/2022, arising out of CESTAT orders, which was also disposed of by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 13th February 2025. vi. The domestic industry had filed W.P.(C) No. 13928/2022 challenging the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Finance, dated 18th July 2022, which refused to accept the Authority’s recommendation to impose anti-dumping measures. The Court has disposed of this matter vide order dated 12th March 2025. vii. The domestic industry did not engage in or intend to engage in forum shopping and was only trying to protect itself from unfair imports. Both petitions have been disposed of by the Court. viii. There is no legal basis for the claim that simply because the Ministry of Finance did not accept the Authority’s recommendations, there should be no duty for the next five years. F.3. Examination by the Authority 26. The other interested parties contended that the domestic industry has not informed the Authority regarding ongoing petitions before the High Court. It has further been contended that had such information been disclosed, the investigation would not have been initiated. The domestic industry has submitted that it has withdrawn its rights in these proceedings and both petitions have been disposed of. Further, it is noted that the petitions before the High Court have been disposed of, indicating that the domestic industry is not availing any other remedy from any other forum. 27. Further, as regards the contention that the next request for anti-dumping measures should arise only after five years due to rejection of the previous recommendations by the Ministry of Finance, the Authority finds no legal basis for the claim. There is no legal provision that places any bar on domestic industry for seeking ADD simply because a previous recommendation was rejected by the Ministry of Finance. The initiation of the present investigation has been undertaken after Authority’s prima facie satisfaction with the facts of the case, which pertain to a POI distinct from that of the earlier case. G. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT, DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE, AND DUMPING MARGIN G.1. Submissions made by other interested parties 28. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regards to the normal value, export price, and dumping margin: i. Market economy status should be granted to China PR based on the development of the market economy of China. Article 15(a)(ii) of China’s Accession Protocol expired on December 11, 2016. ii. After 11th December 2016, anti-dumping regulations cannot contain any provisions allowing for the establishment of the normal value for the Chinese exporting producers on a basis other than their domestic prices and costs. iii. India has no legal basis under the WTO Agreement to calculate normal value in anti-dumping investigation for products from China PR using the non-market economy methodology. Any such action by India would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT. iv. The surrogate country methodology is no longer applicable in calculating normal value, regardless of whether China PR is treated as a market economy due to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, Section 15 of China’s Accession Protocol to WTO and Appellate Body Report on EC- Fasteners initiated by China PR. v. China PR should not be treated as a non-market economy as per China’s accession protocol to WTO, the same was also confirmed by the WTO Appellate Body in “EC-Fasteners”. US and EU in their respective bilateral agreement with China PR had also noted about the expiry of non-market economy status after 15 years after China enters WTO. vi. China’s normal value calculation is incorrect due to comparison with the price of the EU, as is noted in the initiation notice. The normal value is highly exaggerated. vii. Dumping margin of 40-70% claimed by the applicant is exaggerated due to using a high normal value based on cost of the applicant which is devoid of adjustments to remove excessive costs. The Authority may use only normalised cost for construction of normal value for Russia. G.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 29. The submissions of the domestic industry with regards to the normal value, the export price, and the dumping margin are as follows: i. China should be considered a non-market economy country and normal value in case of the producers/exporters from China PR should be determined in accordance with Para 7 read with Para 8(2) and 8(3) of Annexure I of the AD Rules. In terms of Para 8 in Annexure I to the AD Rules, it is presumed that the producers of the subject goods in China PR are operating under non-market economy conditions. Therefore, normal value of the subject goods in China PR has been estimated in terms of Para 7 of Annexure I to the AD Rules. ii. Article 15(d) of the Protocol, the provision of 15(a)(ii) has expired in December 2016 i.e., 15 years after China PR’s accession to the WTO. However, Article 15(a)(i), which provides for presumption of non-market economy for China PR, is still in force. Hence, a valid presumption exists that China PR is a non-market economy country for anti-dumping investigations. iii. The Authority should 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 Authority should reject the claim of individual dumping margins. iv. Paragraph 1 to 6 of Annexure I of the Rules does not apply for computation of normal value for imports from China PR, unless a producer/exporter shows with sufficient evidence that he is operating under market economy conditions. As a result, normal value for China PR has to be determined in terms of Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rues. v. The domestic industry has considered imports into India from the EU for determination of normal value in respect of China PR. vi. The domestic industry was not able to gather information on the prices of the subject goods in the domestic markets of Russia. The domestic industry hence has determined normal value for Russia considering the cost of production in India, after due additions for selling, general, and administrative expenses and reasonable profits. G.3. Examination by the Authority 30. 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. 31. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject countries, as well as to the embassies of the subject countries in India advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority within the prescribed time limit. The Authority received questionnaire responses from the following exporters/producers: a. Jinhua Yonghe Fluorochemical Co. Ltd. b. Shandong Dongyue Polymer Material Co., Ltd. c. Shaowu Yonghe Jintang New Material Co. Ltd. d. The Chemours (Changshu) Fluoro Technology Company Limited e. Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 32. The normal value and export price for all producers/exporters from the subject countries are determined as below. Market Economy Status for Chinese Producers 33. Article 15 of China’s Accession Protocol in WTO provides as follows: “Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") and the SCM Agreement shall apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the following: (a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology, that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining price comparability; ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. (b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO Member may then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China. (c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. (d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event; the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.” 34. It is noted that while the provision contained in Section 15(a)(ii) has expired on 11.12.2016, the provisions under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement read with obligation under Section 15(a)(i) of the Accession Protocol require criterion stipulated in paragraph 8 of Annexure I of the Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire on claiming market economy treatment. 35. None of the responding producers have submitted supplementary questionnaire. Accordingly, the normal value and export price for all the producers/exporters from China PR are determined as below. China PR a. Determination of normal value for China PR 36. Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules lays down a hierarchy for the determination of normal value and provides that the normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country or the price from such a third country to other countries, including India or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. Thus, the Authority notes that the normal value is required to be determined having regard to the various sequential alternatives provided under para 7. There is no evidence of price or constructed value prevailing in a market economy third country brought forward by any interested party. 37. The domestic industry in its application claimed normal value on the basis of import price into India from the EU. The Authority, after analysing the import data, has noted even though the product has a dedicated classification, there are other kinds of PTFE, which are beyond the scope of the product under consideration which falls under the same customs classification. Further, different types of products are sold at significantly different prices and the Authority has devised a PCN for ensuring fair comparison. It is therefore not possible to use customs data for the HS classification meant for the product in order to determine the price and normal value of the product. 38. In the absence of sufficient information on record regarding the other methods enshrined in Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules, the Authority has determined the normal value by considering the method on “any other reasonable basis”. Therefore, the Authority has determined the normal value for the subject imports in China based on cost of production of the domestic industry, after due adjustments, and with reasonable addition for selling, general and administrative expenses, and profits. The normal value so determined is given in the dumping margin table. b. Determination of export price i. Shaowu Yonghe Jintang New Material Co., Ltd. And Jinhua Yonghe Fluorine Chemical Co. Ltd 39. Shaowu Yonghe Jintang New Material Co., Ltd. (“Shaowu”) is a producer of subject goods in China PR. Shaowu has exported the subject goods to unrelated customers in India directly. Jinhua Yonghe Fluorochemical Co., Ltd (“Jinhua”) is a trading company related to Shaowu who has exported the subject goods to India during the POI. Shaowu and Jinhua have provided relevant PCN wise information in the prescribed exporter questionnaire format. 40. It is noted that Jinhua has exported the subject goods produced by other unrelated producers to India. Jinhua has not exported the subject goods produced by Shaowu to India during the POI. The producers from whom Jinhua have purchased the subject goods for exports to India have not cooperated with the Authority and therefore, Authority has not considered the information provided by Jinhua for determination of net export price and landed value. 41. It is noted that Shaowu has produced and exported *** MT of subject goods to unrelated customers in India directly. Shaowu has claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses, credit cost and bank charges which have been allowed by the Authority after desk verification. The weighted average ex-factory export price as determined for Shaowu is given in the dumping margin table. ii. Shandong Dongyue Polymer Material Co., Ltd. 42. Shandong Dongyue Polymer Material Co., Ltd., is other limited liability company, which has been established on November 30, 2001 under the Company Law of PRC. During the POI, Shandong Dongyue Polymer Material Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT of subject goods directly to unrelated buyers in India. The producer/exporter have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses, bank charges and credit cost to arrive at PCN-wise export price at ex-factory level which has been accepted after desk verification by the Authority. The weighted average net export price so determined is shown in the dumping margin table. iii. Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 43. Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., is a limited liability company established under Company Law of People’s Republic of China. During the POI, Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT of subject goods directly to unrelated buyers in India. The producer/exporter have claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses and bank charges to arrive at PCN-wise export price at ex-factory level which have been allowed by the Authority after desk verification. The weighted average ex-factory export price as determined for Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co., Ltd is given in the dumping margin table. iv. The Chemours (Changshu) Fluoro Technology Company Limited 44. The Authority notes that Chemours (Changshu) Fluoro Technology Company Limited (“Chemours Changshu”) is a producer of PUC in China PR and has exported *** MT of PUC in the POI directly to India either to its related importer Chemours India Private Limited (“Chemours India”) or independent customers/importers in India. Both Chemours Changshu and Chemours India have filed their exporter and related importer questionnaire responses. Out of *** MT, Chemours Changshu has sold *** MT to Chemours India that has further resold the PUC to end customers in India. The Authority notes that the resales by Chemours India to end customers are at a profit. The Authority has considered the data filed by Chemours Changshu for calculating the net export price. 45. The adjustments claimed on account of ocean freight, ocean insurance, port charges, inland transportation cost and credit cost have been allowed by the Authority after desk verification. Accordingly, the net export price for Chemours Changshu has been determined based on the PCN wise data, and thereafter weighted average net export price to India has been determined, and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table. Russia i. Halo Polymer Perm JSC (Producer/Exporter, Russia) ii. Halo Polymer Kirovo-Chepetsk (Exporter, Russia) iii. Halo Polymer Trading INC (Exporter/Trader, USA) iv. Halo Polymer LLC (Exporter/Trader, Russia) a. Determination of Normal Value 46. The Authority notes that while the Halo Polymer group has registered as an interested party in the present investigation and has filed legal submissions, they have not filed the exporter questionnaire responses on behalf of any of the companies in its group. The Authority has determined normal value at ex-factory level on the basis of the cost of production in India, after due additions for selling, general, and administrative expenses and reasonable profits. b. Determination of Export Price 47. In the absence of the submission of the relevant information in the form and manner prescribed of the exporter questionnaire response, the Authority has determined the net export price based on the transaction wise DG System import data after making appropriate adjustments on account of ocean freight, insurance, commission, port expenses, and inland freight charges to arrive at net export price at ex-factory level. Accordingly, the net export price at ex-factory level of exports from Russia has been determined and mentioned in the dumping margin table. Determination of Normal Value for all non-cooperative producers from China PR and Russia 48. Normal Value for non-cooperative producers/exporters from China and Russia has been determined on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table. Determination of Export Price for all the non-cooperative producers from China PR and Russia 49. The Export Price for other non-cooperative producers/exporters from China and Russia has been determined on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table. Dumping Margin 50. Considering the normal values and export prices determined as above, it is noted that the dumping margin is more than the de-minimis limit prescribed under the Rules. The dumping margin has been determined after considering normal value and export price for each PCN from the producers/exporters from subject countries. The weighted average dumping margin so determined for producers and exporters from subject countries is indicated in table below: DUMPING MARGIN TABLE | S. No. | Country | Name of Producer | Net Export Price (US$/MT) | CNV (US$/MT) | DM Amount (US$/MT) | DM (%) | DM Range | |:-------|:----------|:---------------------------------------|:--------------------------|:-------------|:-------------------|:-------|:---------| | 1. | China PR | Shandong Dongyue Polymer Material Co., Ltd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 50-60 | | 2. | | Shaowu Yonghe Jintang New Material Co., Ltd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 110-120 | | 3. | | The Chemours (Changshu) Fluoro Technology Company Limited | *** | *** | *** | *** | Negative | | 4. | | Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | Negative | | 5. | | Any other producer from China PR | *** | *** | *** | *** | 150-160 | | 6. | Russia | All producers | *** | *** | *** | *** | 85-95 | H. EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK H.1. Submissions made by other interested parties 51. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regard to injury and causal link: i. The decline in sales was more than the decline of total demand in the POI. ii. In 2022-23, imports increased by 40% whereas in POI it only increased by 28%. iii. The domestic industry has failed to show significant price undercutting. iv. During the injury period, Chinese and Russian import prices rose significantly. The domestic industry’s selling price and cost of sales also increased. Thus, subject imports are not lowering domestic prices. v. The prices of Chemours Group are higher than average prices of Chinese exporters, thus, indicating no injury to the domestic industry. vi. The domestic industry reallocated one reactor for the production of another product. However, the capacity remained the same. vii. The decline in capacity, production and capacity utilisation is due to decline in demand. viii. The productivity per day of the domestic industry increased till 2021-22 and then kept declining in 2022-23 and POI. The number of employees and productivity per employee follows same trend. Thus, fall in productivity is due to fall in number of employees and not due to subject imports. ix. The dip in sales is due to decline in domestic demand. x. The net sales realisation increased till 2022-23, after which it declined. This could be due to industry lowering its prices to gain market share. However, price is still above 100 indexed points, thus, no indication of injury. xi. End-to-end comparison shows that selling price and cost increased at similar levels. Thus, no impact. xii. The cost of sales increased consistently during injury period but declined in POI. xiii. The domestic industry suffered injury due to high finance, interest cost, depreciation and amortisation cost. xiv. Working capital massively increased due to introduction of capex of INR *** crores. xv. Even with decrease in export volume, the applicant had kept its prices above base year. xvi. The domestic industry’s market share has increased consistently except in POI, which is attributable to decline in demand. xvii. The average inventory shows good sales performance, except in POI which is due to drop in demand. xviii. The anti-dumping duties on China PR expired in 2022 and on Russia in 2021, as a result of which there were no duties for 8 months in 2022-23 and the POI, during which capacity, production, and capacity utilisation improved. This improvement shows that imports did not cause injury, but other factors did. xix. The injury information shows a drop in profits during the POI; however, Russian import prices fell at a rate lower than fall in the domestic industry’s cost thus, they could retain higher prices. Injury margin has not been disclosed. xx. There has been a downward revision in capacity with no explanation raising legitimate concerns as to whether the plant was repurposed for the production of non-PUC items, indicating the possibility of multi-product manufacturing. xxi. The Authority must examine whether costs have been appropriately and accurately allocated between the PUC and non-PUC items due to repurposing of capacities. Misallocation of common costs or overheads could artificially inflate cost and understate profitability and hence distort injury analysis. xxii. The domestic industry has claimed to have a plant dedicated for manufacture of the PUC. Shutting down of one reactor would lead to underutilization of other plant equipment, resulting in higher fixed costs and increased per-unit capital costs. H.2. Submissions made by domestic industry 52. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal link: i. The imports from subject countries have substantially increased despite marginal decrease in demand in POI. Imports constitute 83% of total imports in the POI. ii. In absolute terms the imports increased by 101% over injury period and in relative terms the imports increased significantly in POI. iii. Price of imports from China PR has declined, whereas imports from Russia has been either stable or increased. Subject countries’ imports are materially lower priced than non-subject countries. iv. The weighted average price undercutting is positive and significant, while PCN wise price undercutting is positive and significant for all PCNs except C-PTFE. v. The anti-dumping duties on China PR and Russia was in force till July 2022. Landed price declined in POI. vi. With increase in subject imports, selling price declined more than cost, leading to price depression. vii. The production and capacity utilisation decreased from 2022-23 till POI. viii. The domestic sales increased till 2022-23 and then declined. ix. The market share of the domestic industry fell by 10%, to ***% in the POI and the subject imports slightly declined in 2021-22, then substantially increased to ***% in POI. x. Profitability, ROI and cash profit, fell from base year in 2021-22, increased in 2022-23 and declined to its lowest level in POI. xi. Average inventory declined in 2021-22 as compared to the base year but significantly increased in POI. xii. No of employees increased substantially from base year in 2021-22, then declined in 2022-23 and POI. xiii. Wages increased from base year in 2021-22, declined in 2022-23 and increased significantly in POI. xiv. Productivity per day and employee decreased in POI compared to past year. xv. Domestic industry registered negative growth in POI in both volume and price parameters. xvi. Dumping margin is more than de-minimis and significant. xvii. Import price declined significantly in POI, leading to increase in subject imports. Price dropped but cost did not, thus, consequent decline in volume and price parameters due to increased imports. xviii. The export volumes of the domestic industry in the POI and in the base year are almost on the same level, however, the profits in the domestic market were lower than the base year by 44%. xix. The export volumes in 2021-22 were highest, where the profits in the domestic market in this period has declined. Thereafter, exports declined while profits in the domestic market increased. xx. In the POI, both domestic profits as well as export volumes declined, showing that there is no link between domestic profits and export volumes. The increase in exports in 2021-22 are due to post covid effects, post which the exports declined as demand normalised. xxi. High level of imports of PTFE Grade from Russia are priced higher than Chinese imports. Further, conditions fulfil cumulative assessment criteria. Thus, imports of subject goods from subject countries caused injury. xxii. Import price from Russia declined more than decline in cost in POI compared to previous year. xxiii. Capacity in POI declined due to reallocation of reactor for production of another product, in light of increased imports. Even then, capacity exceeds domestic demand. Thus, shutdown is not responsible for injury. xxiv. Significant increase in subject imports at decreased price in the POI, led to decline in selling price more than cost of sales, causing price depression. xxv. Domestic industry has very low captive consumption, thus, that did not cause injury. xxvi. Due to increased imports, Domestic industry reallocated reactor. Drop in capacity would in turn increase capacity utilisation, however, the latter declined too. Accordingly, resultant decline in productivity is due to decrease in production. xxvii. PBDIT itself declined, thus, decline in PBT is not due to increase in depreciation. xxviii. Drop in production, sales and capacity utilisation is due to cumulative effect of imports from subject countries. xxix. Regardless of ADD and CVD on exports to USA, there is decline in domestic sales and production, which evinces injury due to dumping. xxx. Increase in injury parameters after cessation of duties, with decline in import price in the POI, establishes causation of injury due to dumped imports. xxxi. The domestic industry has submitted that they have reallocated one reactor from production of subject PTFE to non-subject PTFE due to injury suffered from imports, despite which capacity utilisation declined in the POI, as has been verified by the Authority during the physical verification. xxxii. The domestic industry has not considered capacity as the basis for allocation of costs or overheads, and hence the same does not have any impact on the injury analysis. xxxiii. The domestic industry submits that the Authority must not rely on the pollution control board document as evidence of capacity as the capacity sanctioned by the PCB reflects the permissible upper limit of capacity and not the actual capacity of the plant. H.3. Examination by the Authority 53. The Authority has noted submissions made by the interested parties and has examined various parameters in accordance with the Rules after duly considering the information and documents provided by the interested parties. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties. 54. With regard to the domestic industry’s submission regarding considering the actual capacity of the plant while calculating non-injurious price, the Authority notes that the applicant has claimed that the capacity as seen from the pollution control board certificate includes NPUC capacities as well. During physical verification of the plant, the Authority notes that the capacities of the plant is dedicated to the PUC only. It is seen that the plant has specific reactors assigned for subject goods (specific PCNs) which is not evident from the PCB certificate. Therefore, the Authority has considered the actual capacity of the plant, as demonstrated by the applicant during the physical verification. 55. 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 on 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 utilisation, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realisation, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc., have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the Rules. H.3.1 Assessment of Demand/Apparent Consumption 56. The Authority has defined, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand, or apparent consumption of the subject goods in India as the sum of domestic sales of the applicant and imports from all sources. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied upon transaction-wise data from DG Systems. The Authority has considered the data based on the finalised PUC and PCN of the subject goods. The demand for the PUC is as follows: | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:-------------------------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:------| | Sales of domestic industry | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 119 | 122 | 98 | | Imports from Subject countries | MT | 1,631 | 1,771 | 2,663 | 3,645 | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 163 | 223 | | Imports from China PR | MT | 765 | 992 | 1,493 | 2,206 | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 130 | 195 | 288 | | Imports from Russia | MT | 866 | 780 | 1,170 | 1,440 | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 90 | 135 | 166 | | Imports from other countries | MT | 905 | 1,012 | 964 | 805 | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 112 | 107 | 89 | | Indian Demand | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 115 | 130 | 127 | 57. It is seen that the demand for the subject goods increased from the base year to 2022-23 and declined marginally thereafter in the POI. The imports from the subject countries increased over the injury period. H.3.2 Volume effect of dumped imports on domestic industry i. Imports in absolute and relative terms 58. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or in relation to production or consumption in India. The import volumes of the subject goods and share of the same during the injury investigation period are as follows: | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:-------------------------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:------| | Import Volume | | | | | | | Imports from China PR | MT | 765 | 992 | 1,493 | 2,206 | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 130 | 195 | 288 | | Un-dumped imports from China PR | MT | *** | | | *** | | Imports from Russia | MT | 866 | 780 | 1,170 | 1,440 | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 90 | 135 | 166 | | Imports from subject countries | MT | 1,631 | 1,771 | 2,663 | 3,645 | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 163 | 223 | | Imports from other countries | MT | 905 | 1,012 | 964 | 805 | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 112 | 107 | 89 | | Total import volume | MT | 2,536 | 2,783 | 3,627 | 4,451 | | Trend | Indexed | 100 | 110 | 143 | 176 | | Subject imports in relation to | | | | | | | Indian production | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | 100 | 83 | 129 | 222 | | | Indian demand | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | 100 | 94 | 126 | 176 | | | Imports into India | % | 64 | 64 | 73 | 82 | | Trend | 100 | 99 | 114 | 127 | | 59. It is seen that: a. Imports from other countries increased in 2021-22, thereafter saw a declining trend till the POI. b. Share of imports from the subject countries in total imports increased over the injury period, and share of imports from other countries have declined. c. Imports in relation to Indian production has increased over the injury period and is significant. H.3.3. Price Effect of dumped imports on domestic industry 60. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is required to be analysed whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to the price of the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred in normal course. 61. 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. i. 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 investigation period. For the purpose, the Authority notes that there is significant difference in the prices of different types of the product under consideration. Therefore, the Authority has compared landed price of imports with the selling price of the domestic industry for comparable types, by considering the PCN notified by the Authority. Thus, weighted average price undercutting has been determined after considering associated import volumes. This comparison showed that during the period of investigation, the subject goods originating in the subject countries were imported into the Indian market at prices which were materially lower than the selling prices of the domestic industry, except for C-PTFE from China PR, where import volume is also very minimal. It is thus noted that imports of subject goods were undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market, and margin of undercutting was quite significant except for C-PTFE from China, as shown in the table below: | Particulars | Unit | PTFE | PT-PTFE | D-PTFE | A-PTFE | C-PTFE | Overall PUC | |:------------|:---------|:-----------|:-----------|:-----------|:-----------|:-----------|:------------| | China PR | | | | | | | | | Import Volume | MT | 795 | 164 | 1,018 | 213 | 16 | 2,206 | | Landed Price | Rs. /MT | 5,07,293 | 6,99,934 | 8,64,987 | 5,32,006 | 10,85,404 | 6,93,276 | | Net Selling Price | Rs. /MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Price Undercutting | Rs. /MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Range | 0-10 | 0-10 | 0-10 | 90-100 | Negative | 5-15 | | Russia | | | | | | | | | Import Volume | MT | 1,176 | 249 | 14 | - | - | 1,440 | | Landed Price | Rs. /MT | 5,01,450 | 5,75,693 | 5,44,542 | - | - | 5,14,732 | | Net Selling Price | Rs. /MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Price Undercutting | Rs. /MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Range | 5-15 | 25-35 | 60-70 | - | - | 10-20 | 63. It is seen that the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market. The undercutting is positive and significant. ii. Price Suppression/Depression 64. For the purpose of analysing price suppression and depression in the domestic market, the Applicant has provided information about (a) cost of sales, (b) domestic selling price, as is given in the table below. | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:--------------|:-------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:------| | Cost of Sales | ₹ /MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 138 | 150 | 126 | | Selling Price | ₹ /MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 132 | 145 | 119 | 65. It is seen that both the selling price and the cost of sales increased till 2022-23 and declined thereafter in the POI. However, the increase in cost of sales was more than increase in selling price up to 2022-23. Further, the decline in the selling price was more than the decline in the cost of sales in POI. It is seen that the significant increase in subject imports coupled with decline in price and price undercutting caused by imports led to the decline in selling price of the domestic industry more than the decline in cost of sales. Subject imports are, thus, causing significant price suppression in the domestic market during the injury period. H.3.4. Economic Parameters of the Domestic Industry 66. Annexure II to the Rules provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth and the ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed herein below. 67. The performance of the applicant in the POI has been compared with its performance in the base year. i. Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilisation, and Sales 68. The Authority has considered the capacity, production, capacity utilisation, and sales volume of the domestic industry over the injury period. The table below shows factual position. | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:-------------------------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:------| | Capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 105 | 105 | 100 | | Net Production of PUC | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 130 | 127 | 101 | | Capacity utilization | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 123 | 119 | 99 | | Domestic Sales | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | 69. It is seen that: a. Capacity of the domestic industry increased from the base year to 2022-23 and thereafter decreased in the POI reverting capacity back to the level of the base year. b. The domestic industry has sufficient capacity to cater the domestic demand. c. The production and capacity utilization increased from the base year to 2021-22 and has declined thereafter up to the POI. d. The sales increased from the base year to 2022-23 and decreased thereafter till the POI. e. Capacity utilisation is at low levels despite sufficient demand in the country. 70. With regard to the submissions of the other interested parties that there has been a reduction of capacity with no explanation by the domestic industry, the Authority notes that during physical verification it was observed that the domestic industry has re-deployed one reactor from the PUC to another product which is not the PUC. 71. The other interested parties have submitted that there could be misallocation of costs in view of reallocation of capacity. In this regard, the domestic industry submitted that allocation of costs is not based on the basis of capacity. The Authority notes that the allocation of costs is based on reasonable and scientific basis and therefore, there has been no misallocation of costs. ii. Market Share in Demand 72. The market share of the subject imports and the domestic industry as percentage of total Indian demand over the entire injury period was as follows: | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:-------------------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:------| | Total Imports | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 95 | 110 | 138 | | China PR | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 113 | 150 | 227 | | Russia | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 78 | 104 | 131 | | Subject Countries | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 94 | 126 | 176 | | Other Countries | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 97 | 82 | 70 | | Domestic Industry | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 103 | 94 | 77 | 73. The market share of the subject countries has increased significantly during injury period. Market share of the domestic industry has declined over the injury period. Market share of dumped imports increased by 19% over the injury period whereas share of the domestic industry declined by 14%. iii. Profitability, Cash Profits, and Return on Capital Employed 74. The profit, cash profits, profit before interest (PBIT), and return on investment of the domestic industry over the injury period has been analysed and were as follows: | Particulars | UoM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:------------------|:----------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:------| | Profit before tax | Rs. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 97 | 130 | 55 | | Profit before tax | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 82 | 106 | 56 | | PBIT | Rs. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 86 | 111 | 60 | | PBIT | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 72 | 91 | 62 | | Cash Profit | Rs. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 95 | 125 | 67 | | Cash Profit | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 80 | 103 | 68 | | ROI | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 72 | 109 | 51 | 75. It is seen that a. The profits of the domestic industry decreased from the base year to 2021-22, the COVID period, and increased in 2022-23, and declined sharply in the POI with steep decline in import price. b. The profitability is at the lowest in the POI. Cash profits also declined significantly in the POI. c. The return on investment (ROI) followed the same trend as that of profits and cash profits. ROI declined in 2021-22 and significantly in the POI. iv. Inventory 76. The data relating to the inventory position of the domestic industry over the injury period and POI is given in the table below: | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:------------------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:------| | Opening Inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Closing Inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Average Inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 93 | 94 | 117 | 77. It is seen that the average level of inventories with the domestic industry decreased from the base year and thereafter increased very significantly in the POI. v. Employment, Wages, and Productivity 78. The position with regard to employment, wages, and productivity of the domestic industry is as follows: | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:---------------------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:------| | No. of Employees | Nos. | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 139 | 112 | 109 | | Wages | Rs. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 133 | 125 | 139 | | Productivity/ day | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 130 | 127 | 101 | | Productivity/ employee | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Trend | Index | 100 | 94 | 113 | 92 | 79. The Authority notes that the number of employees has increased from the base year to 2021-22 and thereafter decreased till the POI. Wages paid have increased over the injury period. The productivity per employee decreased from the base year to 2021-22, increased in 2022-23 and then decreased in the POI. vi. Growth 80. It is seen that the imports have led to an adverse effect on the growth of the domestic industry in respect of both volume and price parameters. | Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:-------------------------|:-----|:--------|:--------|:-------| | Capacity Utilization (%) | % | 23% | -3% | -17% | | Production (MT) | % | 29% | -3% | -21% | | Domestic Sales (MT) | % | 19% | 3% | -20% | | Average Inventory (MT) | % | -7% | 1% | 25% | | Productivity per day (MT)| % | 30% | -3% | -20% | | PBT per unit (₹/MT) | % | -18% | 30% | -47% | | PBIT (₹/MT) | % | -28% | 27% | -32% | | Cash Profits (₹/MT) | % | -20% | 28% | -34% | | Cash Profit in ₹ lacs | % | -5% | 32% | -47% | | ROI | % | -28% | 52% | -53% | vii. Factors affecting domestic price 81. The Authority has examined the import prices from the subject countries, change in the cost structure, competition in the domestic market, factors other than dumped imports that might be affecting the prices of the domestic industry in the domestic market. The Authority notes that the principal factor affecting the domestic prices is the dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. viii. Ability to raise capital 82. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has been unable to utilise its capacities due to the dumped imports. The dumping of the subject goods has impacted the domestic industry’s ability to raise capital investments. ix. Magnitude of dumping and dumping margin 83. It is seen that the dumping margin from the subject countries is not only more than de-minimis but also significant. I. NON-ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS (OTHER FACTORS) 84. 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 ascertain whether these are at the same time have been injuring the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by other, if any, is not attributable to the dumped imports. Factors which are relevant in this respect include, inter alia, the volume of subject goods not sold at dumped prices, contraction in demand or changes in the pattern of consumption, trade restrictive practices, changes in technology, the export performance of the domestic industry and the productivity of the domestic industry. a) Volume and prices of imports from third countries 85. It is seen that the imports of the product under consideration from other countries are in low volumes. Therefore, imports from other countries are not a cause of material injury suffered by the domestic industry. b) Contraction in Demand 86. The demand has consistently increased throughout the injury period, except a marginal decline in the POI, which is normal in the course of trade. The imports increased substantially in the POI, even with the marginal decline in demand. Thus, decline in demand is not the cause of injury. c) Changes in pattern of consumption 87. There are no changes in the pattern of consumption for the product under consideration over the injury period that could have caused injury to the domestic industry. d) Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices 88. The investigation has not shown any change in the conditions of competition or any trade restrictive practices. e) Developments in Technology 89. No evidence has been brought forward to show that there are no significant changes in technology. f) Export performance of the domestic industry 90. The information provided has been considered for domestic operations of the domestic industry. g) Performance of other products 91. The domestic industry has provided the injury data for the PUC and the same has been adopted by the Authority for the purpose of the injury analysis. Performance of other products produced and sold by the domestic industry has not been considered. I.1 Conclusion on Injury and Causal Link 92. Analysis of the performance of the domestic industry over the injury period shows material injury to the domestic industry. The causal link between dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry is established on the following grounds: i. Share of imports from the subject countries in total imports increased over the injury period, and share of imports from other countries have declined. ii. Imports have increased in absolute and relative terms. Thus, the domestic industry has lost sales volumes. iii. The market share of the subject imports has increased. iv. The imports of subject goods are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market, and the margin of undercutting is positive and significant in the period of investigation. v. The subject imports are causing significant price suppression and depression in the domestic market during the injury period. vi. The subject imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry, thereby causing price depression. Thereafter, the domestic industry faced a significant decline in profits, cash profits, and return on investment. vii. The domestic industry’s loss of sales volumes led to decline in production and capacity utilisation. viii. The market share of the subject countries has increased significantly during injury period resulting in loss of market share for the domestic industry. ix. The profits of the domestic industry decreased from the base year to 2021-22, the COVID period, and increased in 2022-23, and declined sharply in the POI with steep decline in import price. x. The profitability is at the lowest in the POI. The cash profits also declined significantly in the POI. xi. The return on investment (ROI) followed the same trend as that of profits and cash profits. The ROI declined in 2021-22 and significantly in the POI. xii. The average level of inventories with the domestic industry decreased from the base year and thereafter increased very significantly in the POI. J. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN 93. The Authority has determined the non- injurious price (NIP) for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid 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 POI. 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 POI. 94. 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. INJURY MARGIN TABLE | S. No | Country | Name of Producer | Landed Price (US$/MT) | NIP (US$/MT) | IM Amount (US$/MT) | IM (%) | IM Range | |:------|:----------|:---------------------------------------|:----------------------|:-------------|:-------------------|:-------|:---------| | 1. | China PR | Shandong Dongyue Polymer Material Co., Ltd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 50-60 | | 2. | | Shaowu Yonghe Jintang New Material Co., Ltd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 110-120 | | 3. | | The Chemours (Changshu) Fluoro Technology Company Limited | *** | *** | *** | *** | Negative | | 4. | | Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | Negative | | 5. | | Any other from China PR | *** | *** | *** | *** | 140-150 | | 6. | Russia | All the producers | *** | *** | *** | *** | 80-90 | K. THREAT OF INJURY 95. In the present investigation, the domestic industry has contended threat of material injury. The Authority examined the threat of material injury to the domestic industry considering the parameters relating to the threat of material injury in terms of Paragraph (vii) of Annexure II of the Rules, which states as under: “A determination of a threat of material injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. The change in circumstances, which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause injury, must be clearly foreseen and imminent. In making a determination regarding the existence of a threat of material injury, the Designated Authority shall consider, inter alia, such factors as: a. a significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importation; b. sufficient freely disposable or an imminent, substantial increase in capacity of the exporter indicating the likelihood of substantially increased dumped exports to Indian market, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports; c. whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would be likely to increased demand for further imports; and d. inventories of the article being investigated.” K.1. Submissions by other interested parties 96. No submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to the threat of material injury. K.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 97. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to the threat of material injury: i. Imports have consistently played a significant role throughout the injury period but saw a notable surge during the POI. Despite a 3% decline in demand in the POI compared to the previous year, imports from the subject countries jumped by 29%, signalling a growing oversupply that is expected to continue. ii. The rise in imports during the POI, compared to the previous year, reflects a sharp increase in dumped imports into India, suggesting a high probability of further substantial import growth. iii. By the end of 2022, China had significantly expanded its fluoropolymer production capacity and is likely to continue this expansion amid declining domestic demand. India remains an attractive market for absorbing this excess capacity. iv. In 2020, Russia’s sole producer increased its capacity by 15%, mainly for PTFE production, raising the likelihood of higher imports into India. v. The subject countries possess ample freely disposable capacity, pointing to the probability of significantly increased dumped exports to India, considering the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports. vi. The market share of the subject countries has grown considerably in the POI, while that of the domestic industry has declined, despite a decline in demand. vii. Producers from the subject countries have maintained a consistent presence in the Indian market, with their market share experiencing a substantial increase during the POI. viii. The landed price of imported goods is considerably lower than domestic prices, making India an attractive market for Chinese and Russian producers, thereby creating a strong opportunity for them to increase exports. ix. Imports are arriving at prices that are expected to have a substantial depressing or suppressing impact on domestic prices, which could further drive demand for additional imports. K.3. Examination by the Authority 98. The Authority has examined the threat of material injury considering the parameters relating to the threat of material injury in terms of Paragraph (vii) of Annexure II of the Rules below. a. Significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India 99. From an analysis of the import data, it is seen that there has been an increase of imports into India and the rate of increase in imports in the POI as compared with the base year is significant. | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | |:-----------------------------------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:--------|:------| | Volume of imports from subject countries | MT | 1,631 | 1,771 | 2,663 | 3,645 | | Trend | Index | 100 | 109 | 163 | 223 | | PTFE | MT | 1,294 | 1,078 | 1,570 | 1,971 | | PT-PTFE | MT | 82 | 317 | 352 | 414 | | D-PTFE | MT | 243 | 366 | 712 | 1,033 | | A-PTFE | MT | 11 | 7 | 27 | 213 | | C-PTFE | MT | 1 | 3 | 2 | 16 | 100. Imports have consistently increased over the injury period. The import price declined significantly in the POI. A significant increase in imports coupled with the significant decline in the import price indicates the threat of substantially increased imports in the future. b. Freely disposable capacity with the producers 101. The responding producers/exporters have provided information on capacity and production. The Authority has compared the capacity and production of the responding Chinese producers/exporters based on the information as made available by them. It is seen that the responding producers have significant capacities to produce subject goods. The Authority notes that surplus capacities as available with the producers could take away market share from the domestic industry. c. Imports entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices 102. As noted above from the movement of the cost of sales, selling price, and landed price of imports, the subject imports are supressing and depressing the domestic prices. Both the selling price and the cost of sales increased till 2022-23 and declined thereafter in the POI. However, the increase in cost of sales was more than increase in selling price up to 2022-23. Further, the decline in the selling price was more than the decline in the cost of sales in POI. Throughout the injury period, the landed price remained below both the selling price and cost of sales. Thus, imports are likely to further depress the domestic prices. d. Presence of Chinese and Russian producers in the Indian market 103. It is submitted by the applicant that producers from the subject countries have had persistent presence in the Indian market. It has also been submitted that the producers from China and Russia have tried to keep their presence by reducing prices, and through circumvention of antidumping duties earlier imposed. The Authority notes that the subject countries’ imports increased throughout the injury period, even when Indian demand declined in the POI. e. Price attractiveness of the Indian market 104. It is noted that the Indian market is price attractive to PTFE exporters due to its demand. Further, imported PTFE is priced lower than the domestic product in the Indian market. It is seen that the landed price of the subject imports is significantly lower than the selling price of the domestic industry in the POI, thus opening the opportunity to exporters to increase their exports in the Indian market. Thus, India is a price attractive market for the producers in the subject countries. L. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES L.1. Submissions by other interested parties 105. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with respect to the Indian industry’s interest and other issues: i. The imposition of duties would impact the manufacturing cost of final products. ii. This would impact operational viability and market competitiveness of other small-scale processors and would impact down-stream users. iii. The applicant’s market practices have exerted monopolistic pressure, restricted fair competition and reducing choices for consumers. iv. Post imposition of anti-dumping duty, imports have historically surged implying shifting of value addition from India to foreign markets. Removal of duties resulted in decline of imports. v. The applicant had established its plant primarily to obtain carbon credits and have earned three times the cost of plant already. vi. Most producers in the industry for which the PUC is a key input are small units and have a scattered nature, preventing them from even representing their concerns before the Authority. vii. The Authority must consider interest of such users even if not represented. viii. Impact of duty on the price of the finished product would be between 2 and 3%. L.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 106. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with respect to the Indian industry’s interest and other issues: i. The subject goods were previously subject to anti-dumping measures, and there is no public information to show that the previously imposed duties had any adverse impact on the end consumers. ii. The use of subject goods is in making components, and the component manufacturers can be said to be a pass-through industry, the finished product in which a component is used will absorb any impact that duties may have. iii. The subject goods are produced globally in various countries, indicating that consumers have access to multiple supply sources. iv. The producers in the subject countries with only operate with their revenue in mind, whereas the Indian industry will keep the Indian consumer’s interests in mind. v. The applicant produces a large number of products that are produced in order to producer PTFE, or along with it. The continuity and viability of PTFE is important in order to maintain production of these operations. vi. The value addition being carried out by the applicant at an integrated level is high and should there be an obstacle in the value addition, the entire chain of production would come to a halt. vii. The ability of the domestic industry to serve highly developed export markets demonstrates that its production quality meets the stringent standards set by these markets. viii. To ensure high production standards and quality for both domestic and export markets, the domestic industry has consistently invested significant effort in research and development activities related to PTFE. ix. The domestic industry has never faced accusations or complaints from its downstream sector or end-users regarding the misuse of these duties or the adoption of monopolistic pricing policies. x. The domestic industry in the past has also supported downstream producers by facilitating the extension of anti-dumping measures to downstream products through anti-circumvention investigations. L.3. Examination by the Authority 107. 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. The imposition of anti-dumping measures does not aim to restrict imports from the subject countries in any way. The trade remedial investigations are intended to restore equal competitive opportunities in the domestic market by ensuring a level playing field for domestic producers by the imposition of appropriate duties against trade distorting imports. At the same time, the Authority is aware that the impact of such duties is not limited to only the domestic producers of the PUC but also affects the users and consumers of the PUC. Moreover, the imposition of duties may stimulate the emergence of new producers within the country. 108. The Authority issued initiation notification inviting views from all the interested parties, including importers, consumers and others. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the users/ consumers to provide relevant information about the present investigation including any possible effects of anti-dumping duty on their operations. Information was sought on, inter alia, interchangeability of the product supplied by various suppliers from different countries, ability of the domestic industry to switch sources, effect of anti-dumping duty on the consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to the new situation caused by imposition of anti-dumping duty. 109. The interested parties have filed economic interest questionnaires. It is noted from the submissions that PTFE is widely used in components that serve as intermediaries in various industries, passing through multiple stages without significant standalone prices. Since these components integrate into larger products, any duties imposed on PTFE would have a minimal impact on the overall cost of the component industry. Therefore, levying duties on PTFE would not substantially affect the component industry’s feasibility. M. POST-DISCLOSURE COMMENTS M.1 Submissions by other interested parties 110. The following comments to disclosure statement have been made by the other interested parties. i. With respect to the exclusion request for the A-PTFE grade, it is submitted that for applications in the food segment, the A-PTFE produced by the domestic industry does not adequately sustain the required temperature variations and hence cannot be used in specific circumstances. ii. The consumption norms of the PUC supplied by GFL are significantly higher compared to the imported PUC for achieving the same level of downstream output. This is primarily attributable to the lower material absorption and weaker bonding strength of the grade produced by the domestic industry. iii. With respect to the exclusion request for the C-PTFE grade, the Authority has noted that the information on record indicates that the domestic industry has produced and sold C-PTFE during the injury investigation period. In this regard it is submitted that the Authority has noted that the information on record indicates that the domestic industry has produced and sold C-PTFE during the injury investigation period. In this regard it is submitted that self-admission made by the domestic industry during the second oral hearing, wherein it was specifically acknowledged that neither the domestic industry produced the C-PTFE grade nor have there been any imports of such grades into the country may be noted by the Authority. iv. The Authority in its disclosure statement has merely indicated that the domestic industry produces various types of filled C-PTFE grade, however, there is no examination with respect to production and supply of specific grades for which the respondents has sought an exclusion viz. PEEK PTFE, Stainless Steel PTFE, Polyamide PTFE, Filled Alumina (AI203) PTFE, Calcium Fluoride PTFE, Filled Polymer in PTFE, Mica in PTFE, Borum Nitrate filled PTFE and Cobalt aluminate filled PTFE filled grade. No evidence has been provided with regards to the production or supply of these grades in the domestic market. v. The Authority while examining the exclusion request made by the respondents for Pre sinter Carbon filled PTFE and Free Flow Filled grades has noted that these grades are also not imported from the subject countries. In view of such an observation from the Authority the request for exclusion should be duly considered as these grades on account of no imports cannot be the factors injuring the domestic industry and therefore should be excluded from the scope of the PUC. vi. With respect to exclusion request of Fine Powder (D-PTFE) Resin Grade 640C not being accepted by the Authority on the ground that domestic industry’s INOFLON 7500 is comparable to the imported grade, it is submitted that the Authority’s analysis regarding the comparability is incorrect as both the grades are technically different because of their reduction ratios whereby the same is higher for the imported grade. The higher the reduction ratio, thinner is the tube and with high reduction ratio, the Fine Powder (D-PTFE) Resin Grade 640C is more compatible for use in small tube application for two-wheeler brake hoses as compared to the domestic grade INOFLON GN7500. vii. Further, it was requested that the Authority may verify whether the INOFLON GN7500 has been produced and sold in commercial volumes for the small tube application for two-wheeler brake hoses to acknowledge if the grade is approved largely by the customers. However, no observation has been made by the Authority in this regard. viii. The Authority is requested to examine the increase in import market share by conducting a comparative assessment of the quality performance of domestically produced PTFE vis-à-vis the imported PUC. Such a comprehensive evaluation would establish that the increased reliance on imports is a market-driven necessity to fulfil downstream demand. ix. The domestic industry has failed to provide any justification for non-disclosure of pending litigation before High Court at the time of initiation of investigation and the disclosure statement is also silent on this aspect. x. Withdrawal of W.P. 13928 of 2022 by the domestic industry on 12th March 2025 should not be considered sufficient to remedy the incorrect initiation of investigation. xi. It is the fundamental legal principle that a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong. If the anti-dumping investigation was initiated promptly to ensure that fresh recommendation for anti-dumping duty is made at the earliest by hiding the relevant information regarding pendency of proceedings before Delhi High Court, the domestic industry cannot take be allowed to achieve this intended outcome and obtain the advantage of its own wrong. xii. The Authority should discontinue the use of non-market economy methodology or the surrogate country approach with respect to producers/exporters from China PR. xiii. The Authority should not require satisfaction of Market Economy Treatment (MET) conditions under Paragraph 8 of Annexure I, as the legal basis for such requirement has ceased to exist post-11 December 2016. xiv. The normal value must be determined in accordance with Article 2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, using the prices and costs in the ordinary course of trade of the Chinese producers/exporters, including the data provided by the participating company in this investigation. xv. Given that the Authority itself has determined that the imports from Chemours (Changshu) Fluoro Technology Company Limited (‘Chemours’) and Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co., Ltd (‘Zhonghao’) are not dumped, the same must necessarily be considered under the category of “imports not sold at dumping prices”. Consequently, any impact of such imports on the performance of the domestic industry falls squarely within the category of “other factors” referred to under para (v) of Annexure II. Therefore, undumped exports by Chemours and Zhonghao should be excluded from the analysis of material injury. The Authority’s examination of injury to the domestic industry may change upon exclusion of such imports from the injury assessment. xvi. The dumping and injury margin determined in the disclosure statement in case of Russia is not only very excessive but exceeds even the inflated claims of the applicant at the time of the application which needs reconsideration. xvii. Even though the basis of determination of normal value remained the same for application and the disclosure statement, there is a substantial jump in the dumping margin which shows the Authority determined a higher normal value apparently on the basis of a higher cost allowed for the applicant, even more than their claims, and it is also not clear what is the reasonable profits added while determining the normal value on constructed basis. xviii. The price difference between product grades imported from Russia and China PR needs some corroborations and the differences in price on certain grades were very doubtful. It is not explained why the users were importing from China PR at a higher price if the material has been available from Russia at a much lower price which also shows the margins determined for Russia is not realistic and a higher number is proposed based on half facts. xix. A comparison between price undercutting and dumping margin/injury margin as disclosed shows the cause of injury claimed by the applicant is not imports from Russia, but the extremely higher cost of the applicant instead. xx. The price undercutting from Russia in the present case as per the disclosure statement is only 10-20% (total for PUC) which shows the imports reached at a price only 10-20% lower than the price of the domestic industry. However, the dumping margin/injury margin determined in case of Russia is 85-95% and 80-90% respectively evidencing very high cost/NIP of the applicant. The imports at comparable price ought not to have caused any injury to the domestic industry. xxi. The Authority must review and reassess the use of 22% ROCE in NIP computation. It must instead consider the actual return on capital employed by the domestic industry during periods free from alleged dumping, or at least adopt a contemporaneous rate that reflects current interest rates and tax regimes xxii. PTFE is an intermediate product with applications across multiple industries and sectors. In India, there are approximately 300 PTFE processors, the majority of whom belong to the MSME sector, with annual turnovers ranging between ₹50 lakhs to ₹5-10 crores. xxiii. PTFE constitutes a significant portion of the overall cost; any duties would have a material impact on the manufacturing cost of the final products. The cost increase in the final products would result the manufacturing in India uncompetitive compared to the vertically integrated domestic manufacturers or imported product. M.2 Submissions by domestic industry 111.The following comments to disclosure statement have been made by the domestic industry. i. The demand for the PUC in India increased till 2022-23 before slightly declining during the POI. Despite decline in demand, imports from subject countries surged, accounting for 83% of total imports in the POI. ii. The imports from subject countries rose in absolute terms by 101%, by 27% in relation to production, ad by 44% in relation to consumption. iii. The sales of the domestic industry declined in the POI, indicating that the increased imports have adversely affected the domestic industry. iv. The import prices from the subject countries for various PTFE categories declined whereas prices from the rest of the world remained stable or declined, creating a significant price gap. v. The subject countries’ imports consistently undercut domestic prices especially in categories such as A-PTFE, with undercutting being over 95%. All product categories showed positive undercutting, except for C-PTFE, showing that the imported goods were sold at materially lower prices than the domestic product. vi. The domestic industry’s cost of sales and selling prices rose till 2022-23 and declined in the POI, with selling price declining more than the cost. Subject imports hence have led to price suppression and depression. vii. The production, capacity utilisation, and sales of the domestic industry declined significantly in the POI after the initial growth shown. viii. The market share of the domestic industry in demand declined significantly, while share of subject imports captured ***% of the demand in POI, rising from ***% in 2020-21. ix. The profitability parameters declined sharply, being at the lowest levels in the POI. Cash profits and ROI have also declined significantly and is at the lowest level. x. The level of inventories increased, while employment and productivity declined. xi. There has been negative growth across volume and price parameters in the POI. xii. If the domestic operations of the company cease, about 75-80% of the company’s business will be stopped and even foreign operations of PTFE will become unviable. xiii. The primary raw material for PTFE, which is Tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) is captively produced by the domestic industry using R-22, which is also produced captively by the domestic industry. The NIP calculation claimed by the domestic industry reported cost of R-22 to TFE at its manufacturing cost along with a return on net fixed assets, in line with the standard accounting practices. However, Authority has determined cost for R-22 on the basis of cost +5%, considering a return of 5% and finance cost. xiv. The calculation as considered by the Authority is inappropriate as: a. Annexure III is not required to be applied to captive inputs and is violative of Annexure III. b. The Authority normally applies Annexure III to immediate captive inputs, however the same has been extended to the chain of products which is not consistent with Annexure III and past practice. c. Such treatment implies changing approach and methodologies of the Authority with no corresponding change in Annexure III, making such treatment inappropriate. d. The Authority gave no direction to the domestic industry to provide format prescribed for PUC for captive inputs. e. Such treatment is contrary to the trade notice issued specifying requirements for filing the application. xv. The Authority has further not considered administrative overheads while taking the value of R-22 which has artificially and unduly lowered the NIP. xvi. Subject goods are used in multiple industries and applications and encouraging the domestic industry would open the door for larger investments and job creation, boosting overall industrial activity and economic growth in the country. xvii. The anti-dumping duty should be imposed in terms of US dollars and for a period of five years. Domestic industry has requested in particular, the imposition of fixed quantum duty in order to prevent any misuse or abuse by importers. M.3 Examination by the Authority 112. The Authority has examined the post disclosure comments made by the interested parties. It is noted that the comments which are reiterations and have already been suitably examined and adequately addressed in the relevant paragraphs of this final findings, are not being repeated in the post-disclosure examination by the Authority for the sake of brevity. The issues raised by the interested parties other than those examined in detail and which are considered relevant by the Authority have been examined hereunder. 113. As regards the contention concerning A-PTFE, the other interested party has submitted that the A-PTFE produced by the domestic industry does not adequately sustain the required temperature variations and hence cannot be used in specific circumstances, in the food segment. It has further contended that the consumption norms of the PUC supplied by the domestic industry are significantly higher compared to the imported PUC for achieving the same level of downstream output, which is attributable to the lower material absorption and weaker bonding strength of the grade produced by the domestic industry. On these grounds, the other interested party has requested exclusion of A-PTFE. The Authority notes that the request for exclusion of A-PTFE has been examined by the Authority in the disclosure statement issued and in these findings. The other interested party has not provided any evidence to substantiate the claim that the domestic industry’s product does not meet quality standards. Further, the Authority has examined the invoices placed on record by the domestic industry evidencing sales of A-PTFE made to customers. It has also been noted by the Authority that the domestic industry’s production of A-PTFE accounts for ***% of its total production. Regarding the temperature variations, as noted by the Authority above, the TDS of the domestic industry for A-PTFE indicates the specifications such as the service temperature ranging from -250 degrees Celsius to +250 degrees Celsius, showing that the product can sustain temperature variations. The domestic industry has also provided evidence to show that their product is FDA compliant. In view of the fact that there has been no evidence provided by the other interested party to substantiate such claim, and taking into account the evidence placed on record of production and sales of A-PTFE by the domestic industry, the Authority holds that A-PTFE shall not be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. 114. The other interested party has submitted that C-PTFE is not produced by the domestic industry. The Authority notes that C-PTFE has been produced and sold by the domestic industry, as is evident from the data placed on record by the domestic industry. Further, the domestic industry has also placed on record evidence of sales to customers by way of invoices showing sales of C-PTFE to various customers. The Authority has also found in the import data considered, that there have been imports of C-PTFE made into India from the subject countries. Thus, it is concluded by the Authority after due verification, that the domestic industry produces and sells C-PTFE to various customers. 115. It has been contended by one of the interested parties that the Authority has not examined the production and supply of grades such as PEEK PTFE, Stainless Steel PTFE, Polyamide PTFE, Filled Alumina (AI203) PTFE, Calcium Fluoride PTFE, Filled Polymer in PTFE, Mica in PTFE, Borum Nitrate filled PTFE, and Cobalt aluminate filled PTFE filled grade. However, it is to be noted that the Authority in its disclosure statement has stated that the above-mentioned grades are different types of filled C-PTFE. As has been stated, it is also noted that the domestic industry produces a range of standard filled grades, such as C-PTFE filled with glass, bronze, etc. The domestic industry has placed on record invoices showing the sale of such C-PTFE grades to customers. Further, the domestic industry has also submitted a declaration that states that such filled grade of C-PTFE as mentioned above can be produced, as the domestic industry has the production facility for these grades. The demand for the above-mentioned grades of C-PTFE is low, which is also corroborated by the miniscule volume of imports of these grades. 116. As regards the contention of the other interested party that pre-sinter carbon filled grades and free flow filled grades have not been imported from the subject countries and thus must be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration, it is noted that while there are no exports of these from the subject countries, the domestic industry does produce the equivalent of the pre sintered grade through its product INOLFON 510. 117. It has been contended by the other interested party that Fine Powder (D-PTFE) Resin Grade 640C is to be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as both the 640C grade and the grade of the domestic industry, which is INOFLON GN7500, are technically different because of their reduction ratios whereby the same is higher for the imported grade. As has been noted by the Authority in its examination of the scope of the product under consideration, the comparison of the typical properties of both grades show that the technical properties are comparable. Further, the domestic industry has submitted that the reduction ratio supported by INOFLON GN7500 aligns with the requirements for tubing and hose processing. The domestic industry has also placed on record invoices, evidencing sales of INOLFON GN 7500 to customers in the business of tubing. 118. As regards the contention of the domestic industry regarding normation/optimization of captively produced raw material, the Authority notes that the non-injurious price is required to be determined as per Annexure-III of Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. For determining non-injurious price, the data relating to the elements of cost of production for the period of investigation are considered. The best utilization of raw materials, utilities over the past three years and the period of investigation, which are used directly or indirectly to manufacture the product under consideration are considered to determine the cost of raw material and utilities applying the rate at period of investigation. This process is adopted in order to nullify injury, if any, caused to the domestic industry by inefficient utilization of raw materials and utilities. For captively produced raw materials, similar procedure is followed if the domestic industry provides the detailed information as per Annexure-III of the Anti-dumping Rules. In the absence of detailed information, the Authority determines price of the captively produced raw material based on either market price or verified cost of production of such captively produced raw material and reasonable return as per consistent practice of the Authority. In the instant case, the said procedure has been adopted for the captively produced raw materials used to produce PUC. 119. With respect to the submission of the other interested parties regarding the use of the “surrogate country” methodology for China PR, arguing that its classification as a Non-Market Economy (NME) is inconsistent with WTO provisions, it is noted that none of the producers/exporters contested the non-market economy status of China PR in any of their questionnaire responses or filed any supplementary questionnaire. Consequently, the Authority considered it appropriate to treat China PR as a non-market economy country in the present investigation. 120. As regards the contentions made concerning higher margins with respect to Russia, the Authority notes that the concerned party has not submitted questionnaire response. The Authority thus, does not have exporter-specific information and has made its determination using the best facts available. 121. Other interested party has contended that the domestic industry did not disclose details of pending litigation at the time of initiation of the investigation, and that the withdrawal of a writ petition should not be considered as sufficient enough remedy to the incorrect initiation. As has been noted by the Authority in its disclosure statement, the domestic industry has withdrawn its rights in these proceedings and both petitions have been disposed of. Thus, it is noted that the petitions before the High Court have been disposed of, indicating that the domestic industry is not availing any other remedy from any other forum. 122. The interested parties have made various submissions on the calculation of non-injurious price. With regard to the submission for consideration of return of 22%, the Authority notes that it has consistently allowed 22% return on capital employed. There is no justification to deviate from this practice and thus the same has been adopted in the present investigation as well. N. CONCLUSION 123. Based on the submissions made, information provided, and facts available before the Authority as recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry, the Authority concludes the following: i) The scope of the product under consideration is “Polytetrafluoroethylene” (PTFE) originating in or exported from China PR & Russia. ii) The subject goods are classified under the customs sub-heading 39046100, however, the classification is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of the present investigation. iii) The application has been filed by M/s. Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. The applicant constitutes domestic industry, under Rule 2(b) of the Rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3). iv) The subject goods exported from China PR and Russia, and the article manufactured by the domestic industry are ‘like article’ to each other in terms of Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules, 1995. v) The product under consideration has been exported to India at a price below the normal value, resulting in dumping. The dumping margin is above de-minimis level and significant. vi) The volume of subject imports increased over the injury period, especially in the POI, in absolute and relative terms. Imports of subject countries constitute a majority of the total imports into India throughout the injury period. vii) The subject imports from subject countries are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry and have had a considerable suppressing impact on the prices of the domestic industry. viii) Production and capacity utilisation increased from the base year to 2021-22 after which there was a decline in the POI. Capacity is underutilised despite sufficient capacity to cater to Indian demand. ix) The sales of the domestic industry increased till 2022-23, and then declined in the POI. x) The market share of subject countries in Indian demand has increased whereas domestic industry declined over the injury period. xi) The profits and cash profits have declined from base year to 2021-22, after which it increased in 2022-23, and thereafter declined in the POI. ROI has also followed the same movement as the profits and cash profits and was at *** in the POI. xii) Number of employees increased from the base year to 2021-22 and then decreased till the POI. Wages paid increased from base year to 2021-22, thereafter declining in the 2022-23, and then seeing a marginal increase in the POI. xiii) Productivity per employee decreased marginally from the base year to 2021-22, while increasing in 2022-23 and declining thereafter in the POI. xiv)Imports have adversely impacted the growth of the domestic industry. xv) No other factor appears to have caused injury to the domestic industry. It is noted that domestic industry has suffered material injury as a result of the dumped imports. O. RECOMMENDATIONS 124. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all the interested parties and adequate opportunity was given to them to provide information on the aspect of injury, causal link, and impact of measures. 125. 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 anti-dumping duty is required to offset dumping and injury. Therefore, the Authority considers it necessary and recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject countries. 126. Further, having regard to the conclusion reached with regard to imports of the product under consideration under the HS Code 39046100, the Authority recommends collection of anti-dumping duties on imports of the product under consideration, falling under this code. 127. Having regards to the lesser duty rule followed, the Authority recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty equal to the lesser of the margin of dumping and the margin of injury so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority recommends imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries, equal to the amount mentioned in Col. 7 of the duty table appended below, to be issued in this regard by the Central Government for a period of five years from the date of notification to be issued in this regard. DUTY TABLE | S.N | Heading/ sub heading | Description of goods | Country of origin | Country of export | Producer | Amount | Unit of measurement | Currency | |:----|:--------------------|:--------------------------------------|:------------------|:----------------------------------|:---------------------------------------|:--------|:--------------------|:---------| | 1. | 39046100* | Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)# | China PR | Any country including China PR | Shandong Dongyue Polymer Material Co., Ltd. | 2,884.01| MT | USD | | 2. | -do- | -do- | China PR | Any country including China PR | Shaowu Yonghe Jintang New Materials Co., Ltd. | 5,206.75| MT | USD | | 3. | -do- | -do- | China PR | Any country including China PR | The Chemours (Changshu) Fluoro Technology Company Limited | NIL | MT | USD | | 4. | -do- | -do- | China PR | Any country including China PR | Zhonghao Chenguang Research Institute of Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. | NIL | MT | USD | | 5. | -do- | -do- | China PR | Any country including China PR | Any producer other than SN 1, 2, 3 & 4 | 5,933.70| MT | USD | | 6. | -do- | -do- | Any country other than China PR and Russia | China PR | Any | 5,933.70| MT | USD | | 7. | -do- | -do- | Russia | Any country including Russia | Any | 4,578.80| MT | USD | | 8. | -do- | -do- | Any country other than China PR and Russia | Russia | Any | 4,578.80| MT | USD | *Note-Customs classification is only indicative, and the determination of anti-dumping duty shall be made as per the description of the PUC. #The product under consideration in the present application is Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The PUC is primarily used in the electronic, mechanical, and chemical industries for its unique characteristics such as chemical inertness, electrical and thermal insulation, low coefficient of friction, nontoxic, non-flammable, resistance to radiation, low level of static and dynamic friction, and outstanding electrical properties over a wide frequency range. 128. 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, 9A of the said Act. P. FURTHER PROCEDURE 129. An appeal against the order of the Authority arising out of this final finding shall lie before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act. SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Designated Authority