Final findings of Pretilachlor and PEDA from China PR

REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India CG-DL-E-24032025-261899 EXTRAORDINARY PART I—Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 86] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 2025/PHALGUNA 30, 1946 MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce) (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES) FINAL FINDINGS New Delhi the 21st March, 2025 CASE NO. (ΟΙ)- 29/2023 Subject: Final findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Pretilachlor in any of its form & its intermediate – 2,6-Diethyl-n-(2-propoxy ethyl) Aniline (also known as PEDA)” originating in or exported from China PR. F. No. 6/31/2023- DGTR: Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the "Act"), and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time, (hereinafter also referred to as the “AD Rules" or the "Anti-dumping Rules" or the "Rules") thereof; A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE. 1. Whereas, M/s India Pesticides Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") has filed a duly substantiated 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 anti- dumping investigation concerning imports of "Pretilachlor in any of its form & its intermediate – 2,6-Diethyl-n-(2-propoxy ethyl) Aniline (also known as PEDA)” (hereinafter referred to as the "subject goods") originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the “subject country") and has requested for 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. 6/31/2023-DGTR dated 29th March 2024, published in Part-I Section-I of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating the subject 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 country, and to recommend the appropriate 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 herein below has been followed with regard to the investigation: a. The Authority notified the embassy of the subject country in India about the receipt of the present application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the AD Rules. b. The Authority issued a notification dated 29th March 2024, published in the Part-I Section-I of Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating an investigation concerning the imports of the subject goods from the subject country. c. In accordance with Rule 6(2), the Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the embassy of the subject country in India, the known producers and exporters from the subject country, the known importers/users in India, and the other interested parties, as per the information provided by the applicant. The interested parties were asked to provide relevant information in the form and manner prescribed in the initiation notification and make their submissions known in writing within the time limit prescribed in the initiation notification. d. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application filed by the applicant to the known producers/exporters, known importers/users and to the embassy of the subject country in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules. e. The embassy of the subject country in India was sent a copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the producers/exporters with the request to advise the exporters/producers from their country to submit their responses to the questionnaire within the time limit prescribed by the initiation notification. f. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the issues of confidentiality claimed by the domestic industry within 7 days of the circulation of the non- confidential version of the document filed before the Authority. g. The Authority also issued an economic interest questionnaire (hereafter referred to as “EIQ”) to the interested parties seeking inputs on the economic impact of the proposed duties. h. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/ exporters in the subject country in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules. i. Agrosource Company Limited ii. China Jiangsu International iii. Demeter Cropscience Ltd iv. Eastchem Company ltd V. FJ Agrochemicals Co. Ltd. vi. Hangzhou Kaiyi Chemical Co. Ltd vii. Hangzhou Nutrichem Company Limited viii. Hangzhou Qingfeng Agrochemical Co., Ltd ix. Iprochem Company limited Χ. Jiangsu Sunshare Group Co. Ltd xi. Microchem Global Limited xii. Microchem Specialities trade Limited xili. Nantong Weilike Chemical Co., Ltd. xiv. Pacific Spot Ltd XV. Shandong Binnong technology Co. Ltd. xvi. Shandong Qiaochang Modern xvii. Shanghai Agrotree Chemical Co. Ltd xviii. Shanghai E -Tong Chemical Co. Ltd xix. Shenzhou Chemical (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd XX. Sinochem Pharmaceutical Co Ltd xxi. Sinolite Industrial Co. Limited xxii. U Like Trading Pte. Ltd xxi11. Willowood Limited xxiv. Zhejiang Hengdian Imp. And Exp. Co. Ltd XXV. Zhejiang Yousheng Industry Trade Co., Ltd i. In response to the above notification, the following producers/exporters of the product under consideration from subject country have registered as an interested party. i. Shandong Qiaochang Modern International Co., Ltd ii. Qiaochang Modern Agriculture Co., Ltd iii. QCC ShangHai Co., Ltd. iv. Capital Industry Construction Tech. Co. Ltd. V. Lion Agrevo (Nantong) Co., Ltd., China PR vi. Novatic Chem Co., Ltd., China PR vii. Hangzhou Nutrichem Co.,Ltd., China PR viii. Inner Mongolia Lange Biotechnology Co., Ltd., China PR ix. Shanghai Agrotree Chemical Co., Ltd., China PR Χ. Anhui Futian Agrochemical Co., Ltd., China PR xi. Kunshan Rising Chemical Co., Ltd., China PR xii. Microchem Specialities Trade Limited, China PR j. In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, following producers/exporters from the subject country have responded by filing questionnaire response: i. Shandong Qiaochang modern International Co., Ltd ii. Qiaochang Modern Agriculture Co., Ltd iii. QCC ShangHai Co., Ltd. iv. Capital Industry Construction Tech. Co. Ltd. V. Lion Agrevo (Nantong) Co., Ltd., China PR vi. Novatic Chem Co., Ltd., China PR vii. Hangzhou Nutrichem Co., Ltd., China PR viii. Inner Mongolia Lange Biotechnology Co., Ltd., China PR 1x. Shanghai Agrotree Chemical Co., Ltd., China PR Χ. Anhui Futian Agrochemical Co., Ltd., China PR xi. Kunshan Rising Chemical Co., Ltd., China PR xii. Microchem Specialities Trade Limited, China PR k. 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. i. Agrow Allied Ventures Private Limited ii. Anu Products Limited iii. Best Agrochem Private Limited iv. Best Agrolife Limited V. Crystal Crop Protection Limited vi. Daga Crop Care Private Limited vii. Heranba Industries Limited vili. Hind Agrow Care Limited ix. HPM Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited Χ. Ichiban Crop Science Limited xi. Insecticides (India) Limited xii. Indogulf Cropsciences Limited xiii. Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Limited xiv. Kingtech Bio Chem Private Limited XV. OFB Tech Private Limited xvi. NACL Industries Limited xvii. Rol Agrichem Private Limited xviii. Parijat Industries (India) Private Limited xix. Shree Ram Agro India XX. Safex Chemicals (India) Limited xxi. Universal Agro Chemical Industries Limited xxii. Sunagro Insecticides Private Limited xxiii. Crystal Crop Protection Limited xxiv. Ross Lifescience Limited XXV. KR Lifesciences Private Limited xxvi. JU Agri Sciences Private Limited xxvii. Mahamaya Lifesciences Private Limited xxvill. Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Limited xxix. Willowood Chemicals Limited XXX. Tropical Agrosystem Private Limited 1. The following importers/users have registered themselves as interested parties: i. Crystal Crop Protection Ltd ii. Willowood Chemicals Limited iii. Krishi Rasayan Export Pvt. Ltd. IV. Universal Agro Chemical Industries V. HPM Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd m. The following importers/users have submitted questionnaire responses to the Authority: i. HPM Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd ii. Crystal Crop Protection Limited iii. Universal Agro Chemical Industries Limited n. The following producers/exporters association from China PR have registered themselves as an interested party and made written submissions: i. China Crop Protection Industry Association (“CCPIA”), Association 0. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st October 2022 to 30th September 2023 (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 period of investigation. p. The DG System was requested to provide transaction-wise details of the imports of the subject goods for the injury investigation period. The same was received by the Authority and considered at the stage of initiation of the investigation as well as for the final findings. q. Interested parties were provided 15 days' time from the date of circulation of intimation letters, to file their comments on the scope of PUC and product control numbers (PCN) methodology which was further extended till 21st May, 2024 upon request of certain interested parties. Comments and submissions were received from interested parties, which were duly examined by the Authority. r. The Authority held a discussion on 10th July, 2024 with all the interested parties to discuss the scope of product under consideration and the product control numbers (PCNs). After receiving inputs from the interested parties, the Authority vide notification dated 06th August, 2024 finalized the scope of the PUC. The Authority granted 30 days' time to interested parties from 06th August, 2024 to file questionnaire responses which was further extended till 12th September, 2024 upon the request from certain interested parties. s. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present their views orally regarding the subject investigation in a public hearing held on 22nd October, 2024. 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. t. 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 records maintained 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. u. The information submitted by the domestic industry has been examined and verified during on site-verification to the extent deemed necessary and has been relied upon for the present findings. V. The examination and verification of the information submitted by the cooperating producers/exporters from the subject country was also carried out to the extent deemed necessary and have been relied upon for the purpose of the present findings. W. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested parties on mutual basis in the manner prescribed through Trade Notice no. 01/2020 dated 10th April, 2020. The information/submissions provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis were examined concerning the sufficiency of such confidentiality claims. Χ. 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. y. 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. z.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 05th March, 2025 and comments received thereon, considered relevant by the Authority, have been addressed in these final findings. aa. ‘***' in these findings represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under Rule 7 of AD Rules, 1995. bb. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = Rs. 83.21. C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE 4. The product under consideration (hereinafter also referred to as the “PUC” or the "subject goods") as defined at the stage of initiation was as follows: “3. The product under consideration in the present petition is pretilachlor in any of its form and its intermediate “2,6-diethyl-n-(2-propoxy ethyl) aniline” (also known as PEDA). 4. Pretilachlor is a liquid chemical used to produce herbicides formulation for controlling weeds in rice cultivation. It is colourless and odourless liquid. The basic raw materials required to produce pretilachlor are 2- Propoxyethyl Chloride and 2,6 Diethyl Aniline. PEDA is then processed with Chloro Acetyl Chloride and Soda Ash to produce pretilachlor in technical form. Unit of measurement 5. The product under consideration is produced and sold in terms of weight expressed in Kgs or MT. Use 6. PEDA is used to produce pretilachlor technical. Pretilachlor technical is used to produce pretilachlor formulation, which is used as a herbicide. 7. Pretilachlor is a pre-emergence herbicide that suppresses all types of weeds in rice. Tariff Classification 8. The product under consideration does not have a dedicated classification under the Custom Tariff Act,1975 and have been classified under following codes -3808 9199, 3808 9390, 3808 9910, 3808 9990, 2921 4290, 2922 1990 and 2922 2990. The customs classification code is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of the present investigation." C.1. Submissions by other interested parties 5. The other interested parties made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the product under consideration and like article: i. PEDA and Pretilachlor Technical cannot be considered a single product under PUC, as they are different products with different characteristics. ii. PEDA and Pretilachlor Technical are chemically and technically two different products warranting separate product control numbers (PCNs). They differ in terms of chemical formula, molecular weight, density, boiling point, and flash point. Furthermore, the production of Pretilachlor Technical from PEDA involves significant value addition, ranging between 10- 20%. iii. Contrary to the applicant's submission, the conversion of PEDA into Pretilachlor Technical involves multiple complex chemical reactions, and is not a straightforward process. The machinery, level of investment, HS code, nature of product, major raw material, production process and number of major producers are different for both Pretilachlor Technical and PEDA. iv. The imposition of anti-dumping duty on Pretilachlor Formulation based on an apprehension of potential future imports is unwarranted under the law. Exporters are required to obtain mandatory registration with the Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee (CIBRC) to be eligible for exporting Pretilachlor Formulation, and as of now, no exporter has been granted such registration. The applicant has withheld the information in the application that the import of Pretilachlor Formulation requires a specific license. V. The Authority has not adopted any PCN methodology in the present case. No clarification has been provided regarding the inclusion of Pretilachlor Formulation within the scope of PUC. vi. If PEDA and Pretilachlor Technical are to be included within the scope of the PUC, then they should be classified under separate PCNs. C.2. Submissions of the domestic industry 6. The applicant has made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the product under consideration and like article: i. Both, the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement and the CVD Rules do not provide any requirement for defining the product or requirement that the product types within the scope of the product under consideration are to be internally homogeneous. ii. PEDA has no independent use, as its entire consumption is dedicated to the production of Pretilachlor Technical. iii. The conversion of PEDA to Pretilachlor Technical is a single-step chemical process that does not require significant investment or a large number of machines. iv. If the scope of the PUC is restricted to PEDA, any PEDA producer/exporter can easily set up a Pretilachlor Technical production facility to export the product to the Indian market. The applicant has nowhere contended that PEDA and Pretilachlor are interchangeably used. V. The facts of the present investigation are similar to the facts of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Ofloxacin and its intermediates originating in or exported from China PR¹⁷. vi. The Authority has in various previous investigations included intermediate and end product within one product under consideration. Some of the investigations are Ofloxacin¹⁸, Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) Resin- whether or not further processed into compound from China PR and Korea RP19, Compact Fluorescent Lamps CFL From China PR, Sri Lanka And Vietnam²º, Solar Cells whether or not assembled partially fully in modules or panels or on glass or some other suitable substrates from Malaysia, China PR, Chinese Taipei And USA²¹, Caustic Soda from Japan and Qatar²², Flat Rolled Products Of Stainless Steel from China PR, Korea RP, European Union, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, USA, Thailand, South Africa, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam and Malaysia²³, Polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) from Russia²⁴ and Aluminium Foil 80 micron and below from China PR, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand²⁵. vii. When an importer can obtain a CIBRC license for Pretilachlor Technical, it can obtain the license for Pretilachlor Formulation as well. No user has taken license to import Pretilachlor Formulation, as Pretilachlor Technical form is available, and it is commercially prudent to import Pretilachlor Technical as compared to Pretilachlor Formulation. viii. The applicant has disclosed within its application that imports of Pretilachlor Formulation require CIBRC license. ix. There is no legally dividing line between Pretilachlor Technical and Pretilachlor Formulation. Pretilachlor Technical is the highest concentration range in which the product can be synthesized in a chemical reaction / process. Pretilachlor Formulation is the concentration / product form in which actual application on farms will be carried out. The concentration for different producers could be different. X. In the case of M/s. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. vs. Designated Authority²⁶, CESTAT had held that the scope of PUC should be defined in such a way that it avoids circumvention. xi. Pretilachlor Technical and Pretilachlor Formulation are not different products but rather different forms of the same product. xii. The production of Pretilachlor Formulation from Pretilachlor Technical is an incremental step involving low value addition and addition of solvents. xiii. There is no legal basis for the contention that Pretilachlor Formulation cannot be imported into India, and it is not "importable". xiv. The applicant has not misled the Authority and has disclosed as part of its application itself that for imports of Pretilachlor Formulation, users first have to get the source registered in CIBRC. xv. The multiples steps identified by interested parties in conversion from PEDA to Pretilachlor Technical includes steps such as “cooling”, “continuation of previous process”, “checking previous process”, “sending sample” and “packing". C.3. Examination by the Authority 7. The submissions made by the domestic industry and the other interested parties with regards to the product under consideration and like article have been examined as below. i. Pretilachlor is a liquid chemical used to produce herbicides formulation for controlling weed in rice cultivation. It is a colourless and odourless liquid. The basic raw materials required to produce PEDA are 2- Propoxyethyl Chloride and 2,6 Diethyl Aniline. PEDA is then processed with Chloro Acetyl Chloride and Soda Ash to produce pretilachlor in technical form. Pretilachlor Technical is the highest concentration range in which the product can be synthesized in a chemical reaction. Pretilachlor Formulation is the concentration at which its application is carried out. The concentration requirement for Pretilachlor formulation could be different for different producers. PEDA is used as an intermediate for the manufacture of Pretilachlor Technical. Pretilachlor Technical is converted into Pretilachlor Formulation for use. ii. With regards to inclusion of both Pretilachlor in any form and its intermediate PEDA, in the scope of the product under consideration, it is noted that the Authority deems it appropriate to mention here that the scope of the 'product concerned' has direct impact on the objective and purpose of the investigation. A wider scope of the product under consideration can lead to uncalled for protection, in addition to possible complexities in the conduct of the investigation. At the same time, a narrow scope of the product under consideration may fail to meet the intended objective of addressing injurious dumping in the domestic market. A narrow scope of the product under consideration may not provide requisite remedy to the domestic industry and can result in continued injury to the domestic industry because of adoption of measures by importers/users intended to avoid the measures invoked. In order to ensure that the objective of the investigation is rightfully fulfilled, the Authority has thus carefully considered arguments raised by the various interested parties regarding the scope of the product under consideration. iii. It is noted that manufacturing of Pretilachlor Technical from PEDA is a single step process. PEDA is reacted with Chloro acetyl chloride (CAC) in the presence of sodium carbonate to produce Pretilachlor Technical. A lot of Pretilachlor Technical manufacturers in India are importing PEDA and converting the same into Pretilachlor Technical. The investment required to setup a plant for production of PEDA is significantly higher than that required to setup a plant for conversion of PEDA to Pretilachlor Technical. With such low investment required, imposition of anti-dumping duty on one product may lead to increased imports of the other. It is also seen that the imports of Pretilachlor Technical have declined but that of PEDA has increased which shows the demand for both the products are related to each other. iv. It is noted that Pretilachlor Technical is commercially manufactured without any substantial processing activities after the stage of manufacture of PEDA. It is also noted that PEDA is only used in making Pretilachlor Technical which is diluted to make Pretilachlor Formulation. It is seen that Pretilachlor Technical and Pretilachlor Formulation have the similar physical and chemical characteristics. The market for PEDA, Pretilachlor Technical and Pretilachlor Formulation is the same, i.e., the agricultural sector. V. It is also noted from the submission on record that a lot of Pretilachlor Technical manufacturers in India are importing PEDA and converting the same into Pretilachlor Technical. In view of this, exclusion of Pretilachlor Technical from the purview of levy of anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to export of intermediate from the subject country, thereby nullifying the very purpose of the entire exercise of anti-dumping investigation and subsequent imposition of anti- dumping duty on imports of pretilachlor. vi. It has been contested by the other interested parties that scope of product under consideration cannot include formulation form of Pretilachlor as the formulation form of Pretilachlor is not imported. The Applicant has contended that once anti-dumping duties are imposed on only Pretilachlor Technical, import price of Pretilachlor Formulation will become cheaper than the import price of Pretilachlor Technical including anti-dumping duty, thereby rendering duties on Pretilachlor Technical ineffective. vii. In this regard, it is noted that it is not disputed that all essential technical characteristics of the product are developed in the technical form of the product. However, Pretilachlor in its technical form, has no usage and application. It would not perform its intended function in its technical form. It must be converted into formulation form in order to perform the intended function. Thus, while Pretilachlor Technical form contains the essential technical properties, the Pretilachlor Formulation form performs the eventual function intended to be performed by the product. The technology, plant & equipment, manpower, production skills are involved in production of Pretilachlor Technical. As far as, Pretilachlor formulation is concerned, the same is neither capital, nor manpower nor technology intensive process. It is just an incremental process of technical. If the scope of the product under consideration is restricted to Pretilachlor Technical, it may lead to a situation of imports of Pretilachlor Formulation. Therefore, the purpose of anti-dumping duty will not be served. CESTAT in case of M/s. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. vs. Designated Authority had held that the scope of product under consideration should be defined in such a way that it avoids circumvention. viii. Based on the submissions made by the applicant and other interested parties, the Authority notes that the entire consumption of imported Pretilachlor Technical has been used in the production of Pretilachlor Formulation. In fact, the product consumed by the end consumers is formulation form of Pretilachlor. The product is ultimately consumed in diluted form. Pretilachlor in technical and formulation are just two forms of the Pretilachlor. ix. As regards requirement of a specific license for imports, the authority notes that mere requirement of a license does not imply that the product cannot be imported or may not be imported in future. Licensing requirements and norms are subject to change and have basis independent of trade remedy actions. The Authority does not consider it appropriate to take them into account for the investigation. X. The scope of the product under consideration includes PEDA, Pretilachlor Technical and Pretilachlor Formulation. The interested parties have argued that no clarification has been provided as to the inclusion of Pretilachlor Formulation within the product scope. It is noted that initiation notification details the product under consideration as “Pretilachlor in any of its form", which is inclusive of both Pretilachlor Technical and Pretilachlor Formulation. xi. Therefore, in view of the examination hereinabove, the Authority holds that the scope of the product under consideration in the present investigation includes PEDA, Pretilachlor Technical and Pretilachlor Formulation. 8. In view of the above, the Authority holds the product under consideration as below: “3. The product under consideration in the present petition is pretilachlor in any of its form and its intermediate “2,6-diethyl-n-(2-propoxy ethyl) aniline” (also known as PEDA). 4. Pretilachlor is a liquid chemical used to produce herbicides formulation for controlling weeds in rice cultivation. It is colourless and odourless liquid. The basic raw materials required to produce pretilachlor are 2- Propoxyethyl Chloride and 2,6 Diethyl Aniline. PEDA is then processed with Chloro Acetyl Chloride and Soda Ash to produce pretilachlor in technical form." 9. The Authority notes that the product under consideration imported from the subject country 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 country 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. 10. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the scope of domestic industry and standing. i. The applicant lacks standing to be considered a domestic industry. The applicant's share in the production of Pretilachlor Technical is extremely small. ii. The exclusion of Pretilachlor Technical produced by other manufacturers from the standing assessment lacks legal basis and violates the requirements set forth under Rule 5(3) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. iii. Import of PEDA by producers of the Pretilachlor Technical as an input should not lead to their disqualification as domestic industry. iv. The applicant is itself importing the raw material required to produce the product under consideration. D.2 Submissions of the domestic industry 11. The applicant has made the following submissions with regards to the scope of the domestic industry and standing. i. The applicant is the sole eligible domestic producer under Rule 2(b). ii. There are only two producers of PEDA in India, namely the applicant and NACL Industries Limited (NACL). NACL imports the product under consideration from China PR. iii. There are nine producers of Pretilachlor Technical in India, but they import PEDA from China which is further processed to manufacture Pretilachlor Technical. iv. These producers are importing one form of the product under consideration and converting it into another form of the product under consideration. V. The major manufacturing process and investment are required at the stage of PEDA, it is essential for a producer to produce PEDA to be considered as eligible domestic producer. vi. Since these parties have imported the product under consideration, they cannot be considered as eligible domestic industry. vii. There are various formulators who import Pretilachlor Technical from China or buy from the domestic market to produce Pretilachlor Formulation. However, formulating involves only mixing water and some solvents into Pretilachlor Technical. It is not a significant process. viii. The authority has followed a similar approach in investigations including Ofloxacin, Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) Resin, Compact Fluorescent Lamps CFL, Solar Cells and Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel. ix. As regards the submission of the other interested parties for determination of standing for each product separately, standing is required to be determined for product under consideration as a whole and not each component of the product. D.3 Examination by the Authority. 12. 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" 13. The present application has been filed by India Pesticides Limited. The applicant is not related to any importer or exporter of the subject goods in the subject country, nor have they imported subject goods from the subject country during the period of investigation. 14. It has been argued that the applicant has imported input to produce PEDA after the period of investigation. The Authority notes that Rule 2(b) only allows exclusion of producers that have themselves imported the like article and not raw materials involved in the production of the like article. The Authority also notes that it is the imports made during the period of investigation that is relevant to consider eligibility of the domestic producer in terms of Rule 2(b) as it is these import that become relevant to examine nexus of such imports on the dumping and injury alleged. 15. With regard to determination of separate standing for PEDA and Pretilachlor, the Authority notes that the standing of the applicant to file an application is required to be seen with reference to the product under consideration and like article. The product under consideration and like article in the present investigation include both Pretilachlor in any of its form and its intermediate “2,6-diethyl-n- (2-propoxy ethyl) aniline” (also known as PEDA), and therefore the standing of the applicant to file the present application is required to be seen considering total production of PEDA and Pretilachlor in any form. 16. The producers who are importing PEDA and manufacturing Pretilachlor Technical from the imported PEDA are in any case importer of the product under consideration and hence such production cannot be treated as eligible Indian production for determination of eligibility as domestic industry. On similar lines, the producers who are importing Pretilachlor Technical to make Pretilachlor Formulation cannot be treated as eligible Indian production for determination of eligibility as domestic industry. Further, production of those producers who are buying PEDA from Indian suppliers and selling Pretilachlor in the market is already included in the production of PEDA and hence it cannot be included to prevent double counting. 17. Having already found that the primary form of the product under consideration is PEDA, the Authority notes that it is essential for a party to be a producer of PEDA first. This is because, the information on record shows that conversion of PEDA to Pretilachlor Technical is not a significant manufacturing process. The Authority considers that companies who do not have the manufacturing facilities for PEDA cannot be considered as eligible domestic producers. 18. Therefore, the other producers of pretilachlor technical who are importing PEDA or pretilachlor technical, cannot be considered as eligible domestic industry. 19. In view of the above, the Authority holds that India Pesticides Limited constitutes domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules and satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3). Ε. CONFIDENTIALITY E.1 Submissions by other interested parties. 20. No submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to confidentiality. E.2 Submissions by the domestic industry. 21. The following submissions have been made by the applicant with regard to confidentiality. a. The list of adjustments for determination of export price has been claimed confidential. b. Channel of distribution has been claimed confidential by the exporters without providing a non-confidential summary. E.3 Examination by the Authority. 22. 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). 23. 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 non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why 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.” 24. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regards to sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to 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 confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all interested parties have claimed their business- related sensitive information as confidential. F. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT, DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE, AND DUMPING MARGIN 25. Under Section 9A(1)(c) of the Act, normal value in relation to an article means: i. the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or ii. when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either- (a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or (b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6): Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin. " F.1 Submissions by other interested parties. 26. Following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regards to the normal value, export price and dumping margin: i.Normal value determined by the applicant on the basis of cost of production of the applicant with reasonable addition of margins is not appropriate as the applicant only commenced production of PEDA in mid-2022. The cost of PEDA of the applicant therefore suffers from new plant start-up issues and other product stabilization issues. Even in case of Pretilachlor Technical, injury data is available only for 3 years. F.2 Submissions by the domestic industry. 27. Following submissions have been made by the applicant with regards to the normal value, export price and dumping margin: i. In absence of market economy treatment claimed by the exporters, the Authority should not determine normal value on the basis of their domestic sales. The normal value should be determined as per Para 7 of Annexure I of the ADD Rules. F.3 Examination by the Authority. 28. The Authority had sent questionnaire to the known producer/exporters from the subject country, advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority. The following producers/exporters have co-operated in the investigation by filing the prescribed questionnaire response: a.QCC ShangHai Co. Ltd. (exporter) b. Shandong Qiaochang Modern International Co., Ltd. (exporter) c.Qiaochang Modern Agriculture Co., Ltd. (producer) d. Capital Industry Construction Technology Co., Ltd. (producer and exporter) e.Anhui Futian Agrochemical Co., Ltd. (producer) f. Inner Mongoloa Lange Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (producer) g. Kunshan Rising Chemical Co., Ltd. (exporter) h. Lion Agrevo (Nantong) Co., Ltd. (producer) i. Microchem Specialities Trade Limited (exporter) j. Novatic Chem Co., Ltd. (producer and exporter) k. Hangzhou Nutrichem Co., Ltd. (producer and exporter) 1. Shanghai Agrotree Chemical Co., Ltd. (producer and exporter) F.3.1 Determination of Normal Value 29. 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. " 30. The applicant has relied upon Article 15(a)(i) of China's the Accession Protocol as well as para 7 of the Annexure I. The applicant claimed that producers in China PR must be asked to demonstrate that market economy conditions prevail in their industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of the product under consideration. It was stated by the applicant that in case the responding Chinese producers are not able to demonstrate that their costs and price information are market-driven, the normal value should be calculated in terms of provisions of Para 7 and 8 of Annexure- I to the Rules. 31. It is noted that while the provision contained in Section 15 (a)(ii) has expired on 11.12.2016, the provision under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement read with the 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. 32. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded as per the information made available by the domestic producers on the cost of production of the subject goods with due addition of SGA and profits. Upon initiation, the Authority advised the producers/ exporters in China PR to respond to the notice of the initiation and provide information relevant to the determination of their market economy status. The Authority sent copies of the supplementary questionnaire to all the known producers/ exporters for rebutting the presumption of a non-market economy in accordance with criteria laid down in Para 8(3) of Annexure-I to the Rules and furnish relevant detailed information. The Authority also requested the Government of China PR to advise the producers/exporters in China PR to provide the relevant information. 33. The Authority also notes the existing jurisprudence on constructing normal value in case of a non- market economy contained in the Supreme Court judgement in Shenyang Mastsushita S. Battery Co. Ltd. vs M/s Exide Industries ltd.²⁷, Guwahati High Court in M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd & Anr.-vs- Union of India & tur.²⁸ and CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appollo Tyres Ltd, vs Union of India²⁹, Kuitun Jinjiang Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. vs Union of India³⁰. These judgements provide directions regarding implementation of para 7 of Annexure 1 of the Rules with respect to the choice of an appropriate option, and associated obligations thereof. 34. None of the exporters/producers contested the non-market economy status of China PR. Thus, in view of the above position and in the absence of rebuttal of the non-market economy presumption by any Chinese exporting company, the Authority considers it appropriate to treat China PR as a non- market economy country in the present investigation and proceeds with para 7 of Annexure-I to the Rules for determination of normal value in case of China PR. 35. Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules reads as under: “In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including India or where it is not possible, or on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated authority in a reasonable manner, keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in question, and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of selection. Accounts shall be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation made in any similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without any unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments.” 36. Para 7 lays down a hierarchy for the determination of normal value and provides that normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country or the price from such a third country to other 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. Apart from the subject country in the present investigation, imports into India from other countries are low in volume. Thus, imports into India from the market economy third country could not be considered for determination of normal value. ²⁷. AIR 2005 SC 851. ²⁸. W.P No. 6568/2017. ²⁹. Appeal No. C1768, 600,601,773,769/2005-AD-dated 9/9/2005. ³⁰. Appeal no. 52291 of 2019. 37. The Authority has therefore constructed the normal value for China PR on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted, including selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profits. The constructed normal value so determined for Chinese producers/exporters is mentioned in the dumping margin table. F.3.2 Determination of export price: 38. Anhui Futian Agrochemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Futian”) was established on 21st May, 2009 as a limited liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China. During the POI, Anhui Futian Agrochemical Co., Ltd., China PR, has sold *** MT of the subject goods to India indirectly through an unrelated exporter/trader namely, Kunshan Rising Chemical Co., Ltd. Further, Kunshan Rising Chemical Co., Ltd., has also sold the same subject goods to India indirectly through another related exporter/trader namely, Microchem Specialities Trade Limited. It is further noted that during the POI, Microchem Specialities Trade Limited has sold *** MT to unrelated buyers in India, out of which company also sourced *** MT of subject goods from another unrelated producer/supplier namely, Changzhou Nongfeng Co., Ltd., but since this unrelated producer/supplier has not filed its EQR with the Designated Authority, this quantity has not been considered. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustment on account of inland transportation to arrive at export price at ex-factory level. The same has been accepted and the export price so determined is shown in the dumping margin table. 39. Inner Mongolia Lange Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Lange") was established on 18th January, 2019, as a limited liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China. During the POI, Inner Mongolia Lange Biotechnology Co., Ltd., China PR, has sold *** MT of the subject goods to India indirectly through an unrelated exporter/trader namely, Shanghai Agrotree Chemical Co., Ltd. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustment on account of inland transportation to arrive at export price at ex-factory level. The same has been accepted and the export price so determined is shown in the dumping margin table. 40. Lion Agrevo (Nantong) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lion Agrevo”) was established on 17th October, 2005 as a limited liability company in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China. During the POI, Lion Agrevo (Nantong) Co., Ltd., China PR, has sold *** MT of the subject goods to India indirectly through a related exporter/trader namely, Novatic Chem Co., Ltd., on ex-work basis. The producer/exporter has claimed no adjustment to arrive at export price at ex-factory level. The same has been accepted and the export price so determined is shown in the dumping margin table. 41. Hangzhou Nutrichem Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “Nutrichem”) was established on 1st January, 1957 as a limited liability company by shares in accordance with Company Law of the People's Republic of China. During the POI, Hangzhou Nutrichem Co., Ltd. China PR, has sold *** MT subject goods to India directly to unrelated buyers in India. The producer/exporter has claimed no adjustments on account of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses, credit cost and bank charges to arrive at export price at ex-factory level. The same has been accepted and the export price so determined is shown in the dumping margin table. 42. Capital Industry Construction Technology Co., Ltd., Shandong Qiaochang Modern Agriculture Co., Ltd, Shandong Qiaochang Modern International Co., Ltd and QCC ShangHai Co., Ltd. to are four related entities who have filed questionnaire response. From their responses, it is noted that two companies Shandong Qiaochang Modern Agriculture Co. and QCC ShangHai Co., Ltd have not exported the subject goods to India and remaining two companies Capital Industry Construction Technology Co., Ltd., and Shandong Qiaochang Modern International Co., Ltd have exported the subject goods to India. It is further noted that Capital Industry Construction Technology Co., Ltd., exported Pretilachlor Technical and Shandong Qiaochang Modern International Co., Ltd exported PEDA to India which was produced by Capital Industry. The Authority has considered the data submitted by the above entities. The exporter has claimed adjustments on account of inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, port and handling charges, credit cost, bank charges, etc. and these have been accepted after desk verification of information submitted by cooperating producer and exporter. 43. The net export price for all other producers/exporters from China PR has been determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table. 44. The CNV & net export price have been calculated separately for PEDA and Pretilachlor Technical for fair comparison and then weighted average CNV & net export price has been determined which is mentioned below in the dumping margin table. Dumping Margin Table +----+-----------------------------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+-----------------+ | SN | Producer | Normal Value | Ex-Factory export| Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin | | | | (US$/MT) | price (US$/MT) | (US$/MT) | (%) | Range (%) | +====+===================================+================+==================+==================+================+=================+ | 1. | Anhui Futian Agrochemical Co., Ltd.| *** | *** | *** | *** | 40-50 | +----+-----------------------------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+-----------------+ | 2. | Inner Mongolia Lange Biotechnology | *** | *** | *** | *** | 50-60 | | | Co., Ltd. | | | | | | +----+-----------------------------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+-----------------+ | 3. | Lion Agrevo (Nantong) Co., Ltd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 55-65 | +----+-----------------------------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+-----------------+ | 4. | Hangzhou Nutrichem Co., Ltd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 45-55 | +----+-----------------------------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+-----------------+ | 5. | Capital Industry Construction | *** | *** | *** | *** | 45-55 | | | Technology Co., Ltd., / Shandong | | | | | | | | Qiaochang Modern Agriculture Co., | | | | | | | | Ltd, / Shandong Qiaochang Modern | | | | | | | | International Co., Ltd / QCC | | | | | | | | ShangHai Co., Ltd. | | | | | | +----+-----------------------------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+-----------------+ | 6. | Any other producer | *** | *** | *** | *** | 60-70 | +----+-----------------------------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+-----------------+ G. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK G.1 Submissions by other interested parties 45. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to injury and causal link. i. The applicant has presented injury data after cumulating all products within PUC which is highly misleading and have serious adequacy issues considering how injury concerning a recently started product like PEDA and Pretilachlor Technical be clubbed with fairly stabilized other product like pretilachlor formulation. ii. Except for Pretilachlor Formulation, injury data is not available for all 4 years covered in the injury period, thus, data is not sufficient to conduct any trend analysis. iii. By excluding Pretilachlor Technical producers, the data of such producers is not reflected in the injury claimed by the applicant. iv. The period 2021-22 onwards should be considered as abnormal period considering the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, government interventions and stimulus measures, logistical challenges and cost increases and raw material and energy price volatility. V. The applicant has experienced an increase in sales by 7 times, despite a decline in demand by 20%. vi. The applicant has claimed highest level of injury during the POI while the imports has been lowest during the POI. vii. Total imports have declined by 34% and therefore, no volume injury can be attributed to imports from the subject country. viii. Subject imports in relation to Indian production have declined during the POI compared to the base year 2020-21. ix. In relation to demand, subject imports have also declined during the POI as compared to the base year 2020-21. X. The applicant has been consistently increasing its installed capacity year by year, despite the low-capacity utilization during the previous year. If the applicant had not increased its capacity, the utilization would have improved and reached an optimum level. xi. The domestic sales volume has increased from 100 to 1465 during the POI as compared to the base year. xii. The applicant has suffered losses because of the unnecessary increase in installed capacity over the years without a corresponding increase in the demand. xiii. Injury claimed in Pretilachlor Formulation requires further explanation as the applicant has been able to maintain healthy employment and wage levels for Pretilachlor Formulation even when they were increasing their losses year after year. Inventory for Pretilachlor Formulation during POI was also lower than base year. xiv. With regards Pretilachlor Technical, imports have declined in the POI post commencement of PEDA production by applicant. The applicant made robust profit in this product during 2022- 23 and there have been losses during the 2021-22 and POI, which shows that the industry is not yet stabilised and it can swing back to profits like in 2022-23 on its own and the situation cannot be termed as that of material injury. XV. The productivity per day of the petitioner has increased from 100 during the base year 2020-21 to 667 during the POI. xvi. The applicant has failed to established causal link between alleged dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject country and alleged injury having been suffered by the domestic industry from such imports. xvii. The applicant deliberately fails to address a number of crucial issues which had an impact on the domestic industry independently from the imports originating in the country concerned including internal problems, depressed market conditions globally, fluctuations in the price of raw materials, decrease in demand, high channel inventory, impact of the pandemic COVID- 19, Russia Ukraine War, shutdown of the plant, and excessive capacity addition. xviii. The inclusion of Pretilachlor Formulation in the scope of the product under consideration (PUC) appears to be arbitrary and aimed at fulfilling the 4-year injury data requirement rather than addressing any actual injury. Injury data is incomplete for PEDA and Pretilachlor Technical, making any trend analysis unreliable. xix. The applicant's claims of unutilized investments are not supported, as injury data clearly shows that the establishment of production capacity was unaffected. XX. The applicant's claims regarding the cyclical nature of imports are irrelevant as the injury periods and the period of investigation (POI) already account for any cyclicity. xxi. High levels of imports before the applicant began production have no relevance to the POI and cannot be used to support injury claims. xxii. Decline in imports is in line with declining product demand and is not indicative of injury caused by imports. xxiii. The price difference between import price and the applicant's costs may be due to startup or stabilization costs rather than dumping. xxiv. The respondents oppose the claim that exporters from the subject country resorted to aggressive pricing post-PEDA operations commencement by the applicant. The increase in PEDA imports is attributed to rising production of Pretilachlor Technical in India, leading to a decline in imports of Pretilachlor Technical. xxv. The applicant incorrectly claims that imports increased prior to operations commencement. The increase in Q4 2020-21 was due to COVID-related uncertainties in raw material availability. Except for Q4 2020-21, import trends aligned with the product's cyclic demand, as shown in the table provided. xxvi. The applicant's internal feasibility report is not a reliable source for performance comparison, as it is based on optimistic assumptions that do not reflect the real-world challenges of the injury period, including input price volatility and supply chain disruptions. xxvii. As regards the contention that injury is due to capacity expansion, the pretilachlor technical plant of the applicant has been set up in four phases with a combined capacity of *** MT. When the imports have taken place below the variable cost of the applicant, establishment of the capacity cannot be said the cause of the injury to the domestic industry. xxviii. As regards separate injury analysis for PEDA, pretilachlor technical and pretilachlor formulation, reference is provided to the Authority's finding in Industrial Laser Machines from China PR wherein three different types of machines were brought under one scope of the product under consideration and conducted injury analysis for the product as a whole. G.2 Submissions by the domestic industry 46. The following submissions have been made by the applicant with regard to injury and causal link. i. The applicant has set up Pretilachlor Technical plant in 4 phases. ii. The applicant had set up its *** MT PEDA plant with the same commencing production from May 2022. The applicant had also planned a second plant for PEDA with *** MT capacity. However, the same has been put on hold because of the present unviability of operating the plant due to dumped imports from the subject country. iii. When the applicant's second phase of Pretilachlor Technical plant was to start commercial production in around the period April 2021, the period January 2021 to March 2021 saw a significant increase in the imports. iv. When the applicant commenced production at its PEDA plant in May 2022, the period April 2022 to June 2022 saw an abnormal increase in the import volumes of PEDA. V. The peak demand for PEDA is in January to March and in the peak demand for the product the imports were taking place in large volume and the applicant's production was suffering. vi. The last quarter of the period of investigation has seen large volume of imports of PEDA, and therefore, imports of Pretilachlor Technical have declined. vii. The demand of PEDA declined in 2021-22, increased sharply in 2022-23 and then declined thereafter in the period of investigation. The decline in period of investigation is attributable to the "surplus imports" in the domestic market in 2022-23. If the excess imports are addressed and the period 2020-21 is excluded because of fear of uncertainties in the domestic market, the demand for PEDA shows a consistent increase. viii. Imports are below the cost of sales of applicant. Applicant was forced to sell below the cost of production due to dumping. ix. Landed price has been consistently below the cost of sales of applicant. The dumped imports have depressed the prices of the applicant. Χ. The price undercutting is positive. xi. Applicant had to shut down its PEDA plant for more than *** days and its pretilachlor technical plant for around *** days. xii. Applicant had setup sufficient capacities to cater the demands met by dumped imports for PEDA and Pretilachlor Technical. xiii. Production of applicant increased till 2022-2023 and thereafter declined. The increase in production was because of new plant being set up with its production being used for captive transfer purposes. xiv. Even though the domestic sales increased over injury period, it was only because the applicant sold at losses. XV. Applicant has been able to sell only around 60% of its production in POI and holds significant inventory. xvi. Dumping of product had led to significant accumulation of inventories towards the end of 2022-23. Applicant had to suspend production in POI due to product remaining unsold. xvii. Loss per unit of sales has increased in POI from the immediately preceding year to. Even at optimum operations, applicant would have suffered losses and negative ROCE. xviii. Total loss of the applicant has also increased in the period of investigation. Cash losses are also very high. xix. While the investment made by applicant in two plants are at Rs *** cr., total loss till POI is Rs. *** cr. XX. Suspension of production has affected employment, wages and productivity. xxi. Dumped imports have forced the applicant to sell below the cost of production. Despite demand for PEDA, applicant has to sell at negative contribution because of low-priced imports. xxii. Negative cash flow prevented applicant to recover the cost of production. Cash losses have also increased due to dumping. xxiii. Authority may compare actual performance of the applicant for the period of its operation with projected performance when investment was made. xxiv. The delta between raw material price and landed price of PEDA and the delta between the raw material cost and the landed price of pretilachlor technical declined when the applicant commenced commercial production. xxv. The dumping of the product has impacted on the entire chain of operations of the applicant. xxvi. As regards the contention that import volume reported in Proforma IV A and Proforma IV B is different, the volume of imports reported in proforma IVA is consolidated at Pretilachlor technical level. However, the volume reported in proforma IV B is at actual level because product type wise comparison has been made. xxvii. As regards the contention that injury is due to capacity expansion, the pretilachlor technical plant of the applicant has been set up in four phases with a combined capacity of *** MT. When the imports have taken place below the variable cost of the applicant, establishment of the capacity cannot be said the cause of the injury to the domestic industry. xxviii. As regards separate injury analysis for PEDA, pretilachlor technical and pretilachlor formulation, reference is provided to the Authority's finding in Industrial Laser Machines G.3 Examination by the Authority. 47. The Authority has taken note of the arguments and counter arguments of the interested parties on injury. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties. However, the specific submissions made by the interested parties are addressed by the Authority as below. 48. The product under consideration is used as an herbicide and the product has demand at the time plantation is stated for kharif season. The primary demand for the product is only when the cultivation is done. 49. The interested parties have contended that a separate injury analysis must be conducted for PEDA, Pretilachlor Technical and Pretilachlor Formulation. The Authority notes that, having already examined in the scope of PUC that all the three product types are different forms of the same base product, eventually used as formulation, it would not be appropriate to examine injury for all the three types of products separately. There is no requirement under any law or in jurisprudence to examine injury analysis separately for the different forms of products separately under one PUC. However, for the purpose of injury analysis, the Authority has examined the price effect taking into account Pretilachlor Technical and PEDA separately. The economic parameters of the domestic industry have been examined for the product under consideration as a whole. 50. It has been contended by the interested parties that the applicant has consistently increased capacities which has led to the injury suffered. The applicant has submitted that the pretilachlor technical plant has been set up in four phases with a combined capacity of ***MT as per below. a.First plant of *** MT in October 2020 b. Second phase of *** MT in April 2021 c. Third phase of *** MT in June 2022 d. Final phase of *** MT completed in January 2023 51. Further, the applicant has submitted that the commercial production at PEDA plant of capacity *** MT which began in May 2022. The Authority also notes that the applicant has suffered cash losses and loss before interest and tax. The Authority also notes that the applicant was suffering losses even before interest, depreciation and taxes and the cash losses and loss before interest are highest in the period of investigation. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute the alleged injury to capacity expansion. 52. The applicant has provided segregated information for PEDA, pretilachlor technical and pretilachlor formulation form of the product. All three forms of the product have been sold in the domestic market. The Authority has considered aggregated data of PEDA, pretilachlor technical and pretilachlor formulation to examine the economic parameters of the domestic industry. Conversion factors to bring all forms of PUC to the level of Pretilachlor Technical, for all the years of the injury investigation period are as below- +-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | Particulars | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +===================================+=========+=========+=========+=====+ | Pretilachlor Technical | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | PEDA to Pretilachlor Technical | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ +-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | Formulation to Pretilachlor Technical| *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ G.3.1 Assessment of Demand/Apparent Consumption. 53. 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 imports of pretilachlor technical (since there are no imports of pretilachlor formulation) and PEDA into India, domestic sales of PEDA, Pretilachlor Technical and Pretilachlor Formulation of the applicant, and the production of PEDA by other producers in India. Formulation is only prepared from either the Pretilachlor Technical produced in India or from imported Pretilachlor Technical. Therefore, production and sale of Pretilachlor Formulation by other domestic producers has not been included in the demand assessment, as the same would lead to double accounting. However, production of PEDA by other producers has been included to quantify demand. 54. The table below shows the demand in India. +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | SN | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+===================================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | 1. | Imports from subject country | | | | | | +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | | PEDA (equivalent to technical) | MT | 5,030 | 3,009 | 5,598 | 4,252 | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 60 | 111 | 85 | | | Pretilachlor technical (actual) | MT | 5,316 | 3,110 | 2,563 | 982 | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 59 | 48 | 18 | | | Total imports | MT | 10,346 | 6,119 | 8,161 | 5,234 | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 59 | 79 | 51 | +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 2. | Imports from other countries | MT | | | | | +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 3. | Sales of Domestic Industry | | | | | | +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | | Pretilachlor technical (actual) | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | PEDA (equivalent to technical) | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Pretilachlor formulation | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | (equivalent to technical) | | | | | | | | Total sales of applicant | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 799 | 803 | 2,334 | +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 4. | Sales of other producer | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 5. | Demand | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 67 | 85 | 63 | +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 55. It is seen that the demand for PUC declined from 2020-21 to 2021-22, increased in 2022-23 and thereafter significantly decreased in the POI. The Authority notes that the demand for PUC has seen a fluctuating trend eventually declining in the POI. H.3.2 Volume and price effect of dumped imports on domestic industry. 56. With regard to the volume of dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports, either in absolute terms or in relation to production or consumption in India. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied upon the transaction-wise data from DG Systems. 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. Accordingly, the impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject country has 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. a. Imports in absolute and relative terms: 57. The import volumes of the subject goods (for pretilachlor technical and PEDA equivalent of pretilachlor technical) and share of the same in relation to production and consumption in India (for pretilachlor technical and PEDA equivalent of pretilachlor technical) during the injury investigation period are as follows: +----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | SN | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+==============================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====+ | 1 | Imports from subject country | MT | 10,346 | 6,119 | 8,161 | 5,234 | +----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | | Subject imports in relation to | | | | | | +----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | 2. | Total imports | % | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | 3. | Indian production | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 16 | 16 | 11 | | 4. | Indian demand | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 89 | 93 | 80 | +----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ 58. It is seen that the subject imports in absolute terms declined in 2021-22, thereafter increased in 2022- 23 and again declined in the period of investigation. 59. Imports in relative terms have also declined. However, the decline in imports in relation to production is also attributable to the fact that the applicant has commenced commercial production in the base year of the injury period. As the applicant's production increased, the imports declined in relation to production. b. Price undercutting. 60. 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. 61. The Authority has compared landed price of imports with the selling price of the domestic industry for PEDA and pretilachlor technical. Thereafter, a weighted average price undercutting has been determined after considering associated import volumes. +----+----------------------------------+---------+---------+-----------------------+---------+ | S.N| Particulars | Unit | PEDA | Pretilachlor Technical| Overall | | | | | | | PUC | +====+==================================+=========+=========+=======================+=========+ | 1. | Imports from subject country | MT | 3,300 | 982 | 4,282 | | 2. | Net selling price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | | 3. | Landed price | Rs/MT | 4,36,638| 4,23,343 | 4,33,589| | 4. | Price undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | | 5. | Price undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | | 6. | Price undercutting | Range | 5-15% | (0-10) % | 0-10% | +----+----------------------------------+---------+---------+-----------------------+---------+ 62. It is seen that during the period of investigation, the subject goods originating in the subject country were imported into the Indian market at prices lower than the selling prices of the domestic industry. 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 positive. с. Price Suppression/Depression 63. For the purpose of analysing price suppression and depression in the domestic market, the Authority has compared the cost of sales and selling price of the applicant separately for Pretilachlor Technical and PEDA which is shown in the tables below. Table for PEDA +----+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | SN | Particulars | Units | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+=================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====+ | 1 | Cost of Sales | Rs/MT | - | *** | *** | *** | | 2 | Change | Rs/MT | - | *** | *** | *** | | 3 | Trend | Index | - | 100 | 69 | 69 | | 4 | Selling Price | Rs/MT | - | *** | *** | *** | | 5 | Change | Rs/MT | - | *** | *** | *** | | 6 | Trend | Index | - | 100 | 101 | 101 | +----+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ 64. It is seen in the table above that over the injury period, the cost of sales of the applicant has declined but the selling price has marginally increased. However, it is noted that selling price has been consistently below the cost of sales over the entire injury period. Table for Pretilachlor Technical +----+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | SN | Particulars | Units | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+=================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====+ | 1 | Cost of Sales | Rs/MT | - | *** | *** | *** | | 2 | Change | Rs/MT | - | *** | *** | *** | | 3 | Trend | Index | - | 100 | 99 | 108 | | 4 | Selling Price | Rs/MT | - | *** | *** | *** | | 5 | Change | Rs/MT | - | *** | *** | *** | | 6 | Trend | Index | - | 100 | 129 | 80 | +----+-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ 65. It is seen in the table above that over the injury period, the cost of sales of the applicant for Pretilachlor Technical has increased but the selling price has declined and domestic industry has sold the Pretilachlor Technical at losses during POI. G.3.3 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 period of investigation has been compared with its performance in the base year. a. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and sales. 68. The Authority has considered the capacity, production, capacity utilization, and sales volume of the domestic industry over the injury period. The table below shows factual position. +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | SN | Particulars | Units | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+===================================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====+ | 1. | Installed Capacity (equivalent to | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | pretilachlor technical) | | | | | | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 1,140 | 5,093 | 6,038 | | 2. | Production (equivalent to | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | pretilachlor technical) | | | | | | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 378 | 1,819 | 1,655 | | 3. | Capacity Utilisation (equivalent | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | to pretilachlor technical) | | | | | | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 63 | 32 | 26 | | 4. | Domestic sales (equivalent to | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | pretilachlor technical) | | | | | | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 799 | 803 | 2,334 | +----+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ 69. It is seen that: a.The applicant was earlier producing pretilachlor formulation by sourcing pretilachlor technical from China PR. The applicant has set up pretilachlor technical plant and then PEDA plant. b. The applicant has installed pretilachlor plant in 4 phases with first phase of *** MT in October 2020, second phase of *** MT in April 2021, third phase of *** MT in June 2022 and final phase completed in January 2023. The applicant began commercial production of PEDA from May 2022. c. The capacity of the applicant has consistently increased over the injury period. d. The production of the applicant has increased in 2021-22, further increased in 2022-23 and thereafter declined in PΟΙ. e.The current capacity utilization of the applicant is at a significantly low level. f. It has been contended by the applicant that it was forced to shut down its PEDA and Pretilachlor Technical plant for more than *** days and *** days respectively in the period of investigation alone. b. Market share in the demand. 70. The market share of the subject imports and the applicant over the entire injury period have been analysed and were as follows: +----+---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | S.N| Market share of | Units | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+=====================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====+ | 1. | Subject Country | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 89 | 93 | 80 | | 2. | Domestic industry | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 1,199 | 950 | 3,676 | | 3. | Other producers | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 450 | 266 | 394 | +----+---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ 71. It is seen that the market share of the applicant has increased over the injury period and that of the subject country imports has declined. The Authority however notes that the imports in past were excessive and have declined in POI. It is also seen that the applicant's market share over the entire injury period is significantly below the demand that the applicant is capable of catering to. c. Profitability, cash profits, and return on capital employed 72. The profit, cash profits, profit before interest (PBIT), and return on investment of the domestic industry over the injury period have been analysed and were as follows: +----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | S.N| Particulars | Units | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+==============================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====+ | 1. | Profit/ (loss) | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 774 | 1,087 | 2,313 | | 2. | Profit/ (loss) | ₹ Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 6,186 | 8,728 | 53,972| | 3. | Cash Profit | ₹ Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | -2,740 | -2,608 | -23,139| | 4. | Profit before interest and tax | ₹ Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | -13,536 | -19,016 | -1,20,666| | 5. | Return on investment | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | -5,271 | -1,903 | -10,046| +----+------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ 73. It is seen that: a. The applicant has suffered financial losses over the entire injury period. b. The financial loss, cash loss, and loss before interest increased in 2021-22. The financial loss and loss before interest has further increased in 2022-23. c. The financial loss, cash loss and loss before interest have intensified over the entire injury period. d. The applicant is operating with negative return on capital employed. e.The applicant has suffered cumulative loss of Rs *** cr. over the entire injury period. while the investment in the product is Rs *** cr. d. Inventory 74. The data relating to the inventory position of the domestic industry over the injury period have been analysed and were as follows: +----+---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | SN | Particulars | Units | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+=====================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====+ | 1 | Opening inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | *** | *** | *** | *** | | 2 | Closing inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | *** | *** | *** | *** | | 3 | Average inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 205 | 1,318 | 808 | +----+---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ 75. It is seen that the level of inventories with the domestic industry increased over the injury period till 2022-23. While inventory has declined in the period of investigation, it was because the suspension of the production in the period of investigation. The applicant has been forced to shut down its PEDA and pretilachlor technical plant for more than *** days and *** days in the period of investigation alone. e. Employment, Wages, and Productivity 76. The position with regard to employment, wages, and productivity of the domestic industry is as follows: +----+---------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ | SN | Particulars | Units | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+===========================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====+ | 1. | Number of employees | Nos. | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 104 | 176 | 224 | | 2. | Wages | Rs. Lacs| *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 376 | 765 | 1,207 | | 3. | Productivity per employee | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 378 | 1,819 | 1,655 | | 4. | Productivity per day | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index | 100 | 363 | 1,034 | 737 | +----+---------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----+ 77. It is seen that: a.The number of employees of the applicant have increased over the injury period as the applicant has expanded its capacity. The setting of capacity by the applicant has led to creation of employment. b. The wages paid by the applicant have increased over the injury period. c. The productivity per employee of the applicant has increased over the injury period. d. The productivity per day of the applicant has increased over the injury period till 2022-23 and thereafter declined in the period of investigation. f. Growth 78. The information regarding growth is given below: +----+------------------------------+---------+-------+---------+---------+-----+ | SN | Particulars | UoM | Y/Y | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +====+==============================+=========+=======+=========+=========+=====+ | 1. | Production | MT | % | 613% | 129% | -4% | | 2. | Sales | MT | % | 699% | 0.48% | 191%| | 3. | Profit/(Loss) per unit | Per MT | % | -674% | -40% | -113%| | 4. | Profit before tax | Rs. Lacs| % | -6086% | -41% | -518%| | 5. | Cash profit | Rs. Lacs| % | -2740% | 5% | -819%| | 6. | Profit before interest and tax | Rs. Lacs| % | -13536% | -41% | -537%| | 7. | Return on investment (ROI) | % | % | -5271% | 65% | -452%| | 8. | Inventory | MT | % | 105% | 544% | -39%| +----+------------------------------+=========+=======+=========+=========+=====+ 79. It is seen that the applicant has recorded significant negative adverse growth in all price parameters in the period of investigation. g. Magnitude of dumping 80. The magnitude of dumping is an indicator of the extent to which the imports are being dumping into India. The investigation has shown that the dumping margin is positive and significant during the period of investigation. h. Ability to raise capital investment 81. The Authority notes that due to the significant and continuous losses suffered, the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment has been impaired. The applicant has stated that it has