Full Text
2020 GI/202 6 (1)
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 75] NEW DELHI FRIDAY , MARCH 19, 2026/PHALGUNA 28, 1947
CG-DL-E-24032026-271227
22 2022 -23 2023 -24 पीओआई
/एमटी *** *** *** ***
/एमटी *** *** *** ***
4 मलेजिया *** 1,04,028 *** ***
5 ताइवाि *** 1,21,804 *** ***
6 यूएसए *** 1,10,761 *** ***
7 भाररत औसत *** 1,16,644 *** ***
1 अप्रैल-24 1,36,946 - 1,39,736 1,28,621 1,50,704 1,37,218
2 मई-24 1,35,046 - 1,47,968 - 1,47,797 -
3 िूि-24 - 84,300 1,16,318 - 1,19,093 1,26,731
4 िुलाई -24 1,14,407 - 1,25,059 1,05,548 1,16,226 -
5 अगस्ट्त -24 1,21,766 - 1,14,536 98,945 1,05,118 -
6 जसतम्बर -24 1,10,421 - 1,18,755 - - -
7 अक्टूबर -24 1,79,738 - - 82,231 - -
8 िवंबर -24 - - - - - -
9 ददसम्बर -24 - - 96,858 - - 91,284
10 ििवरी -25 - - - - - 99,797
11 फरवरी -25 1,65,771 - - 89,807 - 99,000
12 माचष-25 - - - - - -
%
1 अप्रैल-24 6,235 *** 1,36,717 *** ***
2 मई-24 3,902 *** 1,47,704 *** ***
3 िूि-24 6,151 *** 1,20,674 *** ***
4 िुलाई -24 4,304 *** 1,15,397 *** ***
5 अगस्ट्त -24 6,547 *** 1,08,660 *** ***
6 जसतम्बर -24 2,189 *** 1,17,066 *** ***
7 अक्टूबर -24 668 *** 84,911 *** ***
8 िवंबर -24 - *** - - ***
9 ददसम्बर -24 4,048 *** 93,970 *** ***
10 ििवरी -25 3,085 *** 99,797 *** ***
11 फरवरी -25 2,244 *** 94,603 *** ***
12 माचष-25 - *** - - ***
13 क ु ल 39,374 *** ***
2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 पीओआई
1 अप्रैल *** *** *** ***
2 मई *** *** *** ***
3 िूि *** *** *** ***
4 िुलाई *** *** *** ***
6 जसतंबर *** *** *** ***
8 िवंबर *** *** *** ***
9 ददसंबर *** *** *** ***
10 ििवरी *** *** *** ***
11 फरवरी *** *** *** ***
12 माचष *** *** *** ***
13 औसत *** *** *** ***
4 अन्य देि % *** *** *** ***
6 यूएसए 15-25% 20-30% 10-20%
6 यूएसए 8,80,000 1,58,478 18%
6 यूएसए 1,49,639 18,653 12%
6 यूएसए 1,49,639 42,836 29%
0-10%
2 कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 10-20%
मलेजिया 54 4,581 1,04,044 4%
ताइवाि 42 3,626 1,22,297 3%
यूएसए 30 2,529 1,10,772 2%
/दकग्रा 0.6 0.743 0.803 0.558 0.6
5 ताइवान 8,903 2,973 33%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MINIST RY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce )
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies )
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi , the 19th March , 2026
Case No. AD (SSR) -07/2025
Subject: Sunset Review Investigation concerning imports of “2 - Ethyl Hexanol” from European Union,
Indonesia, Korea RP, Malaysia, Taiwan and United States of America.
F. No. 7/14/2025 – DGTR .—Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter 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 referred as the “Anti -Dumping Rules” or “the Rules”) thereof.
1. The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as “Authority”) received an application from the Andhra
Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant’ or the “domestic industry”) seeking initiation
of a sunset review for extension and enhancement of the anti -dumping duty imposed on imports of ‘2 -Ethyl
Hexanol’ (hereinafter to be referred to as the “subject goods” or the “the product under consideration” or
“PUC”), originating in or exported from European Union, Republic of Indonesia (“Indonesia”), Republic of
Korea (“Korea”), the Federation of Malaysia, (“Malaysia”) Taiwan and United States of America (hereinafter
referred to as the “subject countries”).
2. On the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, the Authority issued a public notice vide
notification no. 7/14/2025 - DGTR dated 9th September 2025 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
initiating the subject investigation. The investigation was initiated in accordance with Section 9A (5) of the Act
read with Rule 23 of the Rules to examine whether the expiry of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry and if there is a need for continued imposition of the
anti-dumping duties.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
3. The original anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of the product under consideration from the
European Union, Indonesia, Korea RP, Malaysia, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and the United States of America was
initiated by the Authority vide Notification No. 14/24/2014 dated 20th November 2014. Pursuant to a duly
substantiated application filed by the domestic industry and after detailed examination, the Authority concluded
that the imports from the subject countries, except Saudi Arabia had caused material injury to the domestic
industry. Accordingly, vide Final Finding dated 18th February 2016, the Authority recommended imposition of
anti-dumping duties on the European Union, Indonesia, Korea RP, Malaysia, Taiwan and the United States of
America. The Ministry of Finance, thereafter, accepted the recommendation and imposed anti -dumping duties
vide Customs Notification No. 10/2016 -Customs (ADD) dated 29th March 2016.
4. Subsequently, a sunset review investigation was initiated by the Authority vide Notification No. 7/28/2020 -
DGTR dated 28th August 2020 concerning imports from the European Union, Indonesia, Korea RP, Malaysia,
Taiwan and the United States of America. After examination, the Authority, vide Final Finding dated 8th
March 2021, recommended continuation of the anti -dumping duties. The Ministry of Finance accepted the
recommendation and extended the anti -dumping duties for a period of five years vide Notification No.
17/2021 -Customs (ADD) dated 26th March 2021. The duties are presently in force and were effective until
25th March 2026. However, the Ministry of Finance, vide Notification No. 38/2025 -Customs (ADD), extended
the existing duties by a further period of three months. Accordingly, the duties shall remain effective until 25th
June 2026.
5. In terms of Section 9A (5) of the Act, any anti -dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to
have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such an imposition. Further, Rule 23(1B) of the Rules
provides as follows:
“any definitive antidumping duty levied under the Act, shall be effective for a period not exceeding five
years from the date of its imposition, unless the designated Authority comes to a conclusion, on a review
initiated before that period on its own initiative or upon a duly substantiated request made by or on
behalf of the domestic industry, within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of that period, that
the expiry of the said anti -dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and
injury to the domestic industry”
6. In accordance with the above, the Authority is required to review, on the basis of a duly substantiated request
made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, whether the expiry of existing anti -dumping duty is likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
7. The scope of the present review covers all aspects of the final finding no. 7/28/2020 -DGTR dated 8th March
2021 and Notification No. 17/2021 -Customs (ADD) dated 26th March 2021.
B. PROCEDURE
8. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
8.1 Initiation
i. In accordance with Rule 6, upon examination of the application and finding prima facie evidence of
dumping, injury, likelihood and causal link, the Authority issued a notification no. 7/14/2025 - DGTR
dated 9th September 2025, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating the sunset review
anti-dumping investigation concerning the imports of the product under consideration from the subject
countries.
ii. In accordance with Rule 5(5), prior to initiation of the investigation, the governments of the subject
countries were notified through their embassy in India about the receipt of the present anti -dumping
application.
iii. In accordance with Rule 6(2), the interested parties were informed of the initiation of the investigation
by sharing a copy of the initiation notification with the embassies of the subject countries in India,
known producers and exporters of the product under consideration in the subject countries, known
importers of the subject goods in India and other interested parties, as per the information made
available in the application.
8.2 Period of Investigation and Injury Period
i. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st April 2024 to 31st
March 2025. The examination of trends in the context of injury analysis covers the years 2021 -22,
2022 -23, 2023 -24 and the period of investigation.
8.3 Import Data
i. A request was made to the DG System to obtain transaction -wise import data of the subject goods for
the injury period. The data was received and has been relied upon for the necessary analysis after due
examination of the transactions.
8.4 Circulation of non -confidential version of the application
i. In accordance with Rule 6(3), a copy of the non -confidential version of the application was provided to
the governments of the subject countries through their embassies in India, known producers/exporters
of the subject goods and to other interested parties who requested in writing a copy of the application.
8.5 Participation by Exporters of Subject Country
i. In accordance with Rule 6(4) of ADD Rules, Exporter’s Questionnaires were sent to the following
producers and exporters to seek information regarding the normal value and net export price for the
investigation.
SN Subject countries Producers/exporters
European Union Arkema S.A.
2 BASF Lampertheim GmbH
3 Celanese Chemicals Europe GmbH
4 Exonmobil Chemical Holland BV, Rotterdam
5 Grupa Azoty Kędzierzyn
6 INEOS Oxide (Oxochemie)
7 Oltchim S.A.
8 Oxea GmbH
9 Perstorp Oxo AB
10 Zak S.A UL
Indonesia Petro Oxo Nusantara (Pon)
12 PT Petro Oxo Nusantara
Korea RP Hanwha Chemical
14 Hyundai Corporation
15 LG Chem Ltd
16 Malaysia BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd
Taiwan Formosa Plastic Group
18 Nan Ya Plastics Corporation
United States of America Dow Chemicals
20 Eastman Chemical Co.
21 ICC Chemical Corporation
22 Vinmar International Ltd.
ii. Exporter’s Questionnaires were also sent to the governments of the subject countries through their
embassies in India. The governments of the subject countries were requested to forward the Initiation
Notification and the exporter’s questionnaires to the producers/exporters of the subject goods in their
respective countries and advise them to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit.
iii. In response to the above, the following producers/exporters from the subject country have responded
and filed the exporter’s questionnaire response:
SN Subject countries Producers/exporters
1 Indonesia PT Petro Oxo Nusantara
2 Malaysia BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd.
3 Taiwan Nan Ya Plastics Corporation
8.6 Participation by Importers/Users
i. In accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules, Importer’s Questionnaires were also sent to the following
known importers/users of the product under consideration in India calling necessary information:
SN Names of importers and users in India
1 Agarwal Sales Corporation
2 Agsar Paints Private Limited
3 Amar Industrial Services
4 Associated Dyestuff Private Limited
5 Bansal Trading Company
6 C & E Limited
7 C J Shah & Company
8 Deepak Nitrite Limited
9 Galaxy Surfactants Limited
10 Indian Additives Limited
11 Jagadamba Chemicals
12 Jeevika Spakchem Private Limited
13 KLJ Plasticizers Limited
14 Lalitha Chem Industries Private Limited
15 Laxminarain Vishambharnath
16 Meghaaarika International Pvt. Ltd.
17 Meghmani Dyes and Intermediates Limited
18 Merck Limited
19 Mody Enterprises Private Limited
20 Naq Global (India)
21 Neelam Aqua & Speciality Chem Private Limited
22 Nicholas Pigments & Inks
23 Nitin Dye Chem Private Limited
24 Pasuparthy Polymers Private Limited
25 Payal Polyplast Private Limited
26 PCL Oil & Solvents Ltd.
27 Petchem Products
28 Petrochem Middle East Private Limited
29 Premier Enterprises
30 R. K. Trading Company
31 Rachana Plasticizers
32 Raghunath Dye Chem Private Limited
33 Salicylates & Chemicals Private Limited
34 Shalimar Paints Limited
35 Srivatsa Industries Limited
36 Troix Chemicals Private Limited
ii. In response to the above, the following importers/users from India have responded and filed
importer/user questionnaire response:
SN Names of importers and users in India
1 BASF India Limited
2 KLJ Petroplast Limited
3 KLJ Plasticizers Limited
4 Payal Plastichem Private Limited
5 Payal Polyplast Private Limited
iii. In response to the initiation notification, the Government of Indonesia and Indian Plasticizers
Manufacturers Association have also made legal submissions in the present investigation.
8.7 Registered Interested Parties
i. A list of all interested parties that registered themselves within the prescribed timeline was uploaded on
the website. All registered interested parties were directed to circulate the non -confidential version of
all their submissions in the present proceedings with all other interested parties.
8.8 Economic Interest Questionnaire
i. An economic interest questionnaire was issued to all the known producers and exporters, importers, and
the domestic industry. The economic interest questionnaire was also shared with the administrative line
ministry. Economic interest questionnaire was filed by the domestic industry, BASF India Limited KLJ
Petroplast Limited, KLJ Plasticizers Limited, Payal Plastichem Private Limited and and Payal Polyplast
Private Limited.
8.8 Oral Hearing
i. In accordance with Rule 6(6), the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present
their views orally in a hearing held on 11th December 2025. The parties presenting their views in the
oral hearing were directed to make written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by
rejoinder submissions.
8.9 Other Procedures
i. Foreign producers, exporters and other interested parties who have not responded, or have not supplied
information relevant to this investigation, have been treated as non -cooperative with interested parties.
ii. The non -confidential version of the submissions filed by the various interested parties was made
available to all participating interested parties. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the
DGTR website along with the request therein to all of them to email the non -confidential version of
their submissions to all the other interested parties.
iii. In accordance with Rule 6(8), wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not
provided necessary information in a timely manner during the course of the present proceedings, or has
significantly impeded the investigation, such parties have been considered as non -cooperative and the
findings have been recorded on the basis of the facts available.
iv. In accordance with Rule 7, the information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was
examined with regard to the sufficiency of such confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the
confidentiality claims have been accepted wherever warranted, and such information has been
considered as confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties
providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non -confidential version
of the information filed on confidential basis.
v. In accordance with Rule 8, during the course of the investigation, accuracy of the information supplied
by the domestic industry and the interested parties have been verified, which forms the basis of this final
finding. The information was verified to the extent possible and the data documents submitted by the
domestic industry and the interested parties to the extent considered relevant, practicable and necessary.
vi. In accordance with Rule 8, verification of the data provided by the domestic industry and other
interested parties was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the present proceedings. The
Authority has considered the verified data of the interested parties in its analysis in the present case.
vii. The non -injurious price has been calculated based on the optimum cost of production and cost to
produce & sell the domestic like article in India, based on the information furnished by the domestic
industry and having regard to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and as per the
principles laid down in Annexure III of the Rules.
viii. All the arguments raised and information provided by all the interested parties to the extent that the
same is supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation have been
considered.
ix. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation which have formed the basis of
the final findings was issued to the interested parties on 12th March 2026 and the interested parties were
allowed time up to 17th March 2026 to comment on the same. The submissions made by the interested
parties, arguments raised, and the comments to disclosure statement received from the interested parties
have been considered, to the extent found relevant, non -repetitive and supported with evidence in this
final finding notification.
x. “***” in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on a confidential basis
and so considered under the Rules.
xi. The exchange rate adopted for the subject investigation is 1 US$=Rs 85.43.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
C.1Submission of the other interested parties
9. The other interested parties have not made any submissions with regards to the product under consideration and
like articles.
C.2Submission of the domestic industry
10. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regards to the product under consideration and
like articles.
a. Since the present investigation is a sunset review investigation, the scope of product under
consideration remains the same as in the original investigation.
b. The domestic industry is producing a like article to product under consideration.
C.3Examination by Authority
11. The present investigation is a sunset review investigation and the scope of the product under consideration
remains the same as defined in the original investigation. The product under consideration as defined in the
original investigation and considered at the stage of initiation is reproduced hereunder –
“The product under consideration in this investigation is “2 -Ethyl Hexanol”. 2 -Ethyl Hexanol
(abbreviated as ‘2 -EH’) is a basic organic chemical. It is a fatty alcohol, clear, mobile, neutral liquid
with a characteristic odour. 2 -EH is produced on a massive scale for use in numerous applications such
as solvents, flavours, and fragrances and especially as a precursor for production of other chemicals
such as emollients and plasticizers. Main application of 2 -Ethyl Hexanol is as a feed stock in the
manufacture of low volatility esters; the most important of it is Di -(2Ethyl hexyl) Phthalate (DOP or
DEHP). The product under consideration is classified under Customs Tariff Heading No. 29051620.
However, the said Customs classification is indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the
present investigation.”
12. None of the importers, exporters and other interested parties have advanced any argument with regard to the
scope of the product under consideration and like article. Thus, the scope of the product under consideration in
the present review investigation remains the same as that in the original investigation and as considered at the
stage of initiation notification and is reproduced below: -
“The product under consideration in this investigation is “2 -Ethyl Hexanol”.
13. The major raw materials used in the production of 2 -Ethyl Hexanol are Naphtha and Propylene.
14. The manufacturing process begins with the production of synthesis gas (syngas), typically generated by
naphtha reforming. The synthesis gas generated reacts with propylene in the aldehyde unit through a
hydroformylation (oxo synthesis) reaction. This reaction produces normal butyraldehyde and mixed
butyraldehyde. Normal butyraldehyde is hydrogenated to form 2 -ethyl hexanol, while mixed butyraldehyde
undergoes liquid -phase hydrogenation to yield normal butanol and iso -butanol. The hydrogen required for
these processes is supplied by the hydrogen produced in the Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) unit, which
serves both synthesis gas units.
15. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under the
heading “Organic Chemicals” and the sub -heading is 2905 16 20. It is also noted that the customs classification
is indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the subject investigation.
16. The prescribed unit of measurement for the product under consideration is metric tons (MT), and the same has
been adopted for this investigation.
17. It is noted that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and those imported from the subject
countries are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing
process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff
classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. Accordingly, it is noted
that the product produced by the domestic industry are ‘like article’ to the product under consideration
imported from the subject countries in terms of Rule 2(d) of the Rules and the scope of product under
consideration remains the same as defined in the original investigation.
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1 Submission of the other interested parties
18. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the domestic industry and
standing:
i. BPCL has set up its capacity for the production of the PUC in the year 2021. BPCL has chosen not to
participate in the present investigation.
ii. The applicant does not represent the entire Indian industry. BPCL’s production capacity is far more than
the applicant and the applicant doesn’t represent 50% of the total domestic production of the like article
in India.
iii. The applicant wrongly presumes BPCL’s silence to be neutral despite being the largest producer, and
until the Authority formally ascertains BPCL’s position, the applicant cannot be treated as
representative of the domestic industry.
iv. The Authority misapplied the law by mechanically accepting the applicant’s standing without
examining or explaining whether it represents 50% of domestic production as required under Rule 5(3)
of AD rules, rendering the initiation of the investigation unlawful.
v. The DGTR SOP requires the Authority to contact non -participating producers, especially if the
applicant’s production is below 50%, as BPCL and the concerned ministry should be consulted.
D.2 Submission of the domestic industry
19. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with respect to the domestic industry and standing:
i. The present application has been filed by Andhra Petrochemicals Limited.
ii. In the previous investigation, the applicant was the sole producer in India. Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited (BPCL) recently set up its plant and started commercial production in April 2021.
iii. The applicant had sent communication to BPCL, but BPCL has not replied to the applicant. The
applicant has considered BPCL as neutral in the present investigation.
iv. The applicant has neither imported the subject goods from subject countries nor is related to any
importer in India or producer/exporter from subject countries.
v. Rule 5(3)(a) requires that an application be supported by the producers accounting for at least 25% of
the total Indian production.
vi. The next condition for 50% is for cases where other Indian producers have either supported or opposed
the application. In the present case, BPCL has neither supported nor opposed the application and has
remained neutral.
vii. As there is no opposition from any domestic producer, the requirement relating to 50% support from
other producers does not arise.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
20. Rule 2(b) of the anti -dumping rules defines domestic industry as below:
“(b) “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the
like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such
producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves
importers thereof in such case the term ‘ domestic industry ’ may be constructed as referring to the rest
of the producers.”
21. The present application has been filed by Andhra Petrochemicals Limited. In the original and subsequent first
sunset review investigation, Andhra Petrochemicals Limited was the sole producer of the like article in India.
In April 2021, another producer, namely Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), commenced
commercial production of 2 -Ethyl Hexanol in India with a capacity of 48,000 MT.
22. With regard to the contention that the applicant does not constitute the domestic industry on the ground that
BPCL’s production capacity is higher than that of the applicant and that the applicant does not represent 50%
of the total domestic production, the Authority sent communication to other domestic producer, seeking
information regarding its production, its position with respect to the present investigation, and other relevant
details for the purposes of the present investigation. However, the said producer has neither furnished the
requested information nor communicated its position on the present investigation.
23. The applicant has certified that it has not imported the subject goods from the subject countries during the
period of investigation and that it is neither related to any exporter or producer of the subject goods in the
subject countries nor to any importer of the product in India. The DG System data has been examined, and it is
found that the applicant has not imported the product under consideration.
24. The applicant accounts for [***%] of the total Indian production and, therefore, constitutes a major proportion
of the domestic production within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules. With regard to the contention that the
Authority has misapplied the law by accepting the domestic industry's standing without examination as
required under Rule 5(3) of the Rules, it is noted that the present investigation is a sunset review seeking
continuation of anti -dumping duties and not an original investigation.
25. In view of the above, it is concluded that the applicant constitutes an eligible domestic industry within the
meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules and that the application satisfies the standing requirements under Rule 5(3)
of the Rules.
E. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES AND CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1 Submission of the other interested parties
26. The other interested parties have made the following submission with respect to miscellaneous issues and
confidentiality:
i. The domestic industry is a habitual user of trade remedy investigations and taking undue advantage.
ii. The domestic industry has not brought about any substantive evidence to prove the condition for
initiation of the sunset review investigation, while the investigating authority has not carried out
appropriate and enough scrutiny of the related facts.
iii. The facts on the record reveal that the domestic industry has exaggerated the increased import of the
subject product. The domestic industry has deliberately invented the injury.
iv. The application was not filed within a reasonable time prior to the expiry of duties. The present sunset
review was initiated on September 9, 2025, and the statutory due date for issuing the final finding is
December 28, 2025. This gives the authorities only 110 days to conduct the investigations, as against
normal period of 365 days.
v. The application does not contain the date on which it has been filed. The Authorities must disclose the
date of filing of the application or the date on which the application was duly substantiated.
vi. Payal Plastichem purchase price of 2 -EH, selling price of finished products, and conversion ratio are
commercially sensitive information and are not capable of meaningful public summarization.
Disclosure would harm the competitive position of Payal.
vii. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. Meghmani Organics Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court upheld
that confidential information may be withheld if disclosure would confer a competitive advantage or
cause adverse effects, and that Rule 7 is a valid exception to natural justice. Trade Notice No. 10/2018
does not mandate disclosure of the computation of duty impact.
E.2 Submission of the domestic industry
27. The domestic industry has made the following submission with respect to confidentiality:
i. The participating users failed to comply with the confidentiality guidelines as per Trade Notice
10/2018.
ii. The users were required to disclose the prescribed formats in trend or summary form but details have
been completely claimed as confidential without any meaningful non -confidential disclosure.
iii. One of the users namely Payal Plastichem Private Limited claimed excessive confidentiality by
claiming entire prescribed formats as confidential.
iv. Payal Plastichem Private Limited has claimed the calculation of impact of duty as confidential.
v. The initiation notification itself records that Authority has after examining the duly substantiated
application and the prima facie evidence, initiated the sunset review.
vi. Neither the Customs Tariff Act nor the Anti -Dumping Rules restrict the domestic industry from
approaching the Designated Authority for appropriate trade remedial measures whenever unfair imports
cause injury to the domestic industry
E.3 Examination by the Authority
28. The non -confidential version of the information provided by various interested parties was made available to
all interested parties as per Rule 6(7) and Trade Notice 10/2018 dated 7th September 2018.
29. Rule 7 of the Rules provide that:
“Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule
6, sub -rule(2) of rule12,sub -rule(4) of rule 15 and sub -rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications
received under sub -rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a
confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being
satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to
any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on a confidential basis to
furnish a non -confidential summary thereof, and if, in the opinion of a party providing such
information, such information is not susceptible to summary, such party may submit to the designated
authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the
request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make
the information public or to authorise its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard
such information.”
30. The submissions made by the domestic industry and the participating exporters concerning confidentiality, to
the extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed accordingly. It is seen that the
domestic industry and interested parties have claimed confidentiality on information, such as production,
capacity, capacity utilization, sales volumes, market share, stocks, selling price, costs, profits, cash profits,
return on investment, non -injurious price, cost of production related information, normal value, export price,
dumping margin, injury margin, price adjustments, profit related information, sales channels, sales & purchase
documents, customers and suppliers names, etc. It is also seen that wherever information is for injury period,
the same has been provided on an indexed basis. Information such as normal value, non -injurious price and
price undercutting has been disclosed in the range.
31. The interested parties have claimed confidentiality on various supporting documents & information, wherever
such information has not been publicly disclosed by them. In those cases where an interested party has not
publicly disclosed its annual reports and financial statements, the same have been claimed confidential.
Wherever the interested parties have claimed a document as confidential, it is noted that these interested parties
have claimed that these documents are not susceptible to summary and have given reasons why summarisation
is not possible.
32. The Authority has consistently allowed interested parties to claim confidentiality on such information and
documents provided by domestic industries, foreign producers and other interested parties in all investigations.
The Authority notes that all the interested parties have claimed their business -related sensitive information as
confidential. 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.
33. As regards the contention that the domestic industry is a habitual user of trade remedy measures, it is seen that
as per Section 9(A)(5), there is no bar on the number of times domestic industry can seek redressal from unfair
trade practices of the foreign producers/exporters and no bar on the number of times anti -dumping duty can be
imposed. In an anti -dumping investigation, the primary mandate is to assess whether remedial measures are
required in light of dumped imports and consequent injury to the domes tic industry. The anti -dumping duty can
be imposed for a period as long as necessary to counteract dumping and injury. The recommendations for the
imposition of anti -dumping duty are made only after investigation and when the requisite legal requirements
are met.
34. With regards to the submissions made by the other interested parties that the domestic industry has not brought
any substantive evidence to justify initiation of the present investigation and the Authority has not carried out
appropriate scrutiny of facts, it is seen the domestic industry had provided sufficient information to justify
initiation and the investigation was initiated by the Authority after satisfying that there was sufficient prima -
facie evidence to justify initiation.
35. With regard to the contention that the application in the present sunset review investigation was not filed within
the timeline prescribed, it is clarified that the domestic industry filed the application in accordance with the
prescribed timelines, that is, 270 days prior to the expiry of the anti -dumping duties.
F. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
F.1 Submission of the other interested parties
36. The other interested parties have made the following submissions concerning normal value, export price and
dumping margin:
i. The domestic industry has wrongly claimed that the subject countries are non -market economy.
ii. The domestic industry has proposed the computation of normal value for Korea and USA on the basis
of import price into the said countries. This is not a legally acceptable methodology for computation of
normal value as given in Section 9A(1)(c)(ii)(a) of the Act and Article 2.2 of the anti -dumping
agreement.
iii. The domestic industry has proposed the computation of normal value for Indonesia, Malaysia and
Taiwan on the basis of its own cost of production along with SGA expenses. Under Section
9A(1)(c)(ii)(b) of the Act and Article 2.2 of the ADA, the normal value can only be computed on the
basis of the cost of production in the country of origin and not the cost of production in India.
iv. The application does not contain duly substantiated evidence regarding the adjustments to the export
price for ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, bank charges, port expenses, credit costs and
inventory carrying cost.
v. The domestic industry has inflated the commission and credit cost since no commissioning agent is
involved in the transaction and the purchases are based on letters of credit or advance payment.
vi. Inventory carrying cost is not a logistics cost and shall not be deducted from the export price. The
domestic industry has not provided any evidence regarding the need for such an adjustment.
vii. The adjustments for ocean freight proposed by the domestic industry for each of the subject countries is
inconsistent. In the case of the USA (where the goods have to travel the furthest), the ocean freight
charges are only USD 3,771, whereas the adjustments for Taiwan, Korea RP and China are very high
compared to both USA and the EU.
viii. The domestic industry’s request for computation of month -wise dumping margin is not permissible
under Article 2.4.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and paragraph 6(iv) of the AD Rules.
F.2 Submission of the domestic industry.
37. The domestic industry has not made any submissions concerning normal value, export price and dumping
margin of the participating producers.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
38. Under Section 9A (1)c, 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 countries or territory as determined in accordance both 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 countries or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the
sales in the domestic market of the exporting countries 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 countries or
territory or an appropriate third countries as determined in accordance with the rules made under
sub-section (6); or
b. the cost of production of the said article in the countries 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 countries other than the countries of origin and
where the article has been merely transhipped through the countries of export or such article is not produced
in the countries of export or there is no comparable price in the countries of export, the normal value shall
be determined with reference to its price in the countries of origin.
39. Questionnaires were sent to the known producers/exporters from the subject countries, advising them to
provide information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority. The following producers and
exporters from the subject countries, along with their related entities in India, have filed the prescribed
questionnaire responses.
i. PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia
ii. BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia and its related importer in India.
iii. Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan
40. The normal value and export price for all producers/exporters from the subject countries have been determined
as below.
F.3.1 Normal value and export price determination for Taiwan
a. Nan Ya Plastics Corporation
i. Normal value
41. During the period of investigation, Nan -Ya Plastics Corporation, who is a producer of the Taiwan has sold
[***] MT of the subject goods in the domestic market to unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient
volumes when compared with the exports to India.
42. To determine the normal value, the ordinary course of trade test was conducted to determine the profit -making
domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of the subject goods. If profit making
transactions are more than 80% of the total sales, then all the transactions in the domestic sales are considered
for the determination of the normal value and in case the profitable transactions are less than 80%, only
profitable domestic sales are taken into consideration for the determinati on of the normal value. In the present
investigation, since the profit -making sales are only 68% of the total sales, therefore, only those domestic sales
have been considered to determine the normal value.
43. Nan-Ya Plastics Corporation has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, and credit cost in the
calculation of normal value and the same have been allowed.
ii. Export price
44. Nan-Ya Plastics Corporation, the producer and exporter of the subject goods in Taiwan, has filed questionnaire
response. During the period of investigation, Nan -Ya Plastics Corporation has exported [***] MT of the
subject goods to India directly. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight,
marine insurance, inland transportation, port and other related expenses and the same has been allowed after
verification.
45. The table below shows the normal value, cost of production and the export price of the producer.
Particulars UOM Value
Normal value USD/MT ***
Export price USD/MT ***
Cost of Production USD/MT ***
b. Non-cooperating producers/exporters
46. It is noted that no other producers/exporters from Taiwan have cooperated in the present sunset review. In view
of the same, the normal value and export price for all other non -cooperating producers and exporters of Taiwan
have been determined based on the facts available under Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The data of the participating
producer from Taiwan has been considered and the lowest export price after allowing for adjustments as
claimed by the participating producer has been considered for export price.
F.3.2 Normal value and export price determination for Malaysia
a. BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd.
i. Normal value
47. During the period of investigation, BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as “BASF”),
has sold [***] MT of the subject goods in the domestic market to unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in
sufficient volumes when compared with the exports to India.
48. To determine the normal value, the Authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine the
profit -making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of the subject goods. If profit
making transactions are more than 80% of the total sales, then all the transactions in the domestic sales are
considered for the determination of the normal value and in case the profitable transactions are less than 80%,
only profitable domestic sales are taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. In the
present investigation, since the profit -making sales are only 35%, therefore, only those domestic sales have
been considered to determine the normal value.
49. BASF has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, and credit cost in the calculation of normal value
and the same have been allowed.
ii. Export price
50. During the period of investigation, BASF has exported *** MT of the subject goods through related importer
in India namely, BASF India Limited, while the rest was exported to unrelated importer in India.
51. In case of exports made by BASF directly to unrelated customers in India, the export price has been determined
based on the price of sale charged by BASF for sales to unrelated customers. In case of sales through a related
importer, the export price has been determined based on the resale price of the related importer after due
adjustments. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance,
inland transportation, port and other related expenses and the same has been allowed after verification.
52. The table below shows the normal value, cost of production and the export price of the producer.
Particulars UOM Value
Normal value USD/MT ***
Export price USD/MT ***
Cost of Production USD/MT ***
b. Non-cooperating producers/exporters
53. It is noted that no other producers/exporters from Malaysia have cooperated in the present sunset review. In
view of the same, the normal value and export price for all other non -cooperating producers and exporters of
Malaysia have been determined based on the facts available under Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The data of the
participating producer from Malaysia has been considered, and the lowest export price after allowing for
adjustments as claimed by the participating producer has been considered for export price.
F.3.3 Normal value and export price determination for Indonesia
a. PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia
i. Normal value
54. During the period of investigation, PT Petro Oxo Nusantara (hereinafter referred to as “PT Petro”), who is a
producer of the subject goods in Indonesia has sold [***] MT of the subject goods in the domestic market to
unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes.
55. To determine the normal value, the Authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine the
profit -making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of the subject goods. If profit
making transactions are more than 80% of the total sales, then all the transactions in the domestic sales are
considered for the determination of the normal value and in case the profitable transactions are less than 80%,
only profitable domestic sales are taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. In the
present investigation, since the profit -making sales are less than 80%, therefore, only those domestic sales have
been considered to determine the normal value.
56. PT Petro has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, and credit cost, and the same have been allowed.
Accordingly, the normal value at ex -factory level for PT Petro has been determined, and the same is shown in
the dumping margin table below.
ii. Export price
57. PT Petro, the producer and exporter of the subject goods in Indonesia, has filed a questionnaire response.
During the period of investigation, PT Petro has claimed that they have not exported the subject goods to India.
The Authority verified the same through DG System data. It is seen that there are no imports of subject goods
from Indonesia during the period of investigation. Therefore, no actual export price can be determined.
Consequently, the actual dumping margin for the producer of PT Petro cannot be determined.
F.3.4 Normal value and export price determination for the European Union
58. None of the producers/exporters from the European Union has participated in the present investigation.
Accordingly, the normal value and export price have been determined on the basis of facts available in terms of
Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value is determined on the basis of the best estimates of the cost of
production of the subject goods, duly adjusted for selling, general & administrative expenses, with addition of
reasonable profit margin at 5%.
59. Export price has been determined on the basis of facts available. For this purpose, the information provided in
the DG system data has been considered. Price adjustments have been made on account of ocean freight, inland
transportation, port -related expenses, insurance, and credit cost on the basis of facts available. The ex -factory
export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table.
F.3.5 Normal value and export price determination for Republic of Korea
60. None of the producers/exporters from Korea RP have participated in the present investigation. Accordingly, the
normal value and export price has been determined on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the
Rules. The normal value is determined on the basis of best estimates of cost of production of the subject goods,
duly adjusted for selling, general & administrative expenses, with the addition of reasonable profit margin at
5%.
61. Export price has been determined on the basis of facts available. For this purpose, the information provided in
the DG system data has been considered and adjustments on have been made on account of ocean freight,
inland transportation, port related expenses, insurance, and credit cost on the basis of facts available. The ex -
factory export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table.
F.3.6 Normal value and export price determination for United States of America
62. None of the producers/exporters from United States of America have participated in the present investigation.
Accordingly, the normal value and export price has been determined on the basis of facts available in terms of
Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value is determined on the basis of best estimates of cost of production of
the subject goods, duly adjusted for selling, general & administrative expenses, with the addition of reasonable
profit margin at 5%.
63. Export price has been determined on the basis of facts available. For this purpose, the information provided in
the DG system data has been considered and adjustments have been made on account of ocean freight, inland
transportation, port related expenses, insurance, and credit cost on the basis of facts available. The ex -factory
export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table.
F.3.7 Dumping margin
64. Based on normal value and export price determined as above, the dumping margin has been determined below.
SN Particular Normal
value
($/MT) Export
price
($/MT) Dumping margin
$/MT % Range
A Taiwan
1 Nan-Ya Plastics Corporation *** *** *** *** 0-10
2 Any other producer *** *** *** *** 10-20
B Malaysia
1 BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. *** *** *** *** 0-10
2 Any other producer *** *** *** *** 10-20
C European Union
1 Any producer *** *** *** *** 10-20
D Korea RP
1 Any producer *** *** *** *** 15-25
E USA
1 Any producer *** *** *** *** 10-20
G. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
G.1 Submission of the other interested parties
65. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
i. The decline in the performance of the domestic industry is due to its own operational inefficiencies,
non-availability of raw materials and shutdowns, not from the impact of imports from Taiwan.
ii. Such frequent disruptions in manufacturing activities have led to sub -optimal capacity utilization,
higher per -unit manufacturing cost, supply unreliability and loss of market confidence, which in turn
would erode profitability.
iii. After BPCL started commercial production of the PUC, the domestic market was materially altered.
BPCL has emerged as a dominant domestic producer, catering to a substantial portion of Indian
demand for the subject goods. APCL’s sales remained low and erratic.
iv. Despite the imports, BPCL has managed to improve its sales of the PUC despite increased imports.
This indicates that the injury to the domestic industry is not on account of imports of the subject
goods from subject countries.
v. The domestic industry’s competitive difficulties stem from domestic competition, especially
BPCL’s strong market presence, rather than imports, and this unsegregated domestic competition
undermines any claim of import -caused injury.
vi. BPCL is operating at 100% capacity, and its sales are not affected by imports.
vii. While the domestic industry net sales realisation per unit declined by 74 index points in the period
of investigation, its cost of sales per unit increased to 116, indicating that the deterioration in
profitability is due to internal cost inefficiencies and poor cost absorption.
viii. The domestic industry interest costs increased by 71% on a per -MT basis, while depreciation
expenses surged abnormally by over 950% in total terms and 1,390% per MT, reflecting a heavy
capital and accounting burden rather than market -driven injury.
ix. Employee numbers remained broadly unchanged, while wages declined by 44%, indicating reduced
operations and internal cost -cutting measures.
x. There was a demand and supply gap of 85,677 MT during the period of investigation. Even if the
domestic industry’s claimed production of 54,000 MT was considered as their domestic sales, there
would still be a gap of at least 67,677 MT. The end -users have to source the same from imports
only. Therefore, imports are not only warranted but also necessitated.
xi. The domestic industry’s capacity increased from 30,000 MT to 73,000 MT for Oxo Alcohol, by
143%, without installing a new production line capacity increase appears implausible. The domestic
industries may be asked to substantiate their capacity claims.
xii. The recovery in production and capacity utilisation in 2023 –24, when these constraints eased,
further confirms that imports were not the cause of earlier declines.
xiii. As a result of the shutdown, the prices of the product under consideration have increased
substantially. Imports are not only necessary for a stable and consistent supply of the product, but
also to ensure stability in the prices.
xiv. The decline in the domestic industry’s production and profitability is due to its dependence on a
single supplier. Domestic industry has admitted that sourcing propylene from alternative suppliers
(BPCL and GAIL) is not economical due to high logistics costs, and that it largely depends on
HPCL for propylene supply.
xv. The annual report stated that during FY 2024 -25, the domestic industry faced a shortage of
propylene supply from HPCL, which led to lower production and a decline in financial performance,
along with other factors such as a sharp drop in international oxo -alcohol prices and subdued market
demand.
xvi. The domestic industry may be overstating its utilities costs. As per the Annual Report, additional
electricity charges (FPPCA) imposed by APERC have been challenged before APTEL, and a
substantial portion has been treated as contingent liabilities. If the APERC order is overturned, the
actual utilities cost may be reduced.
xvii. According to ICRA, operating margins of the domestic industry declined in FY 2023 due to reduced
product feedstock spreads following a fall in product prices amid weak global demand, with only a
partial recovery from Q2 FY 2024. Margins remain vulnerable to continued global demand
weakness.
xviii. ICRA also highlights the absence of backward integration, exposure to global price volatility,
changes in duty structures and trade protection measures, and competitive pressures from imports
and domestic producers. Such has impacted the business structure of the domestic industry.
xix. During the period of investigation, there is negative price undercutting for imports from all subject
countries. The landed values of imports are higher than the domestic industry’s net selling price.
xx. Negative price undercutting establishes that imports are not priced below domestic prices and
therefore do not exert downward pressure on the domestic industry’s pricing.
xxi. Imports from Taiwan did not undercut domestic prices, as import prices remained above domestic
costs and net selling prices.
xxii. The proposal to alter the established methodology for determining price undercutting is incorrect.
Price undercutting must be assessed by comparing the landed value of imports with the domestic net
selling price during the same period, a practice consistently followed by the Authority and under
which undercutting has been found negative.
xxiii. The request to compare import prices of earlier months or make unsubstantiated adjustments for
alleged interest -free credit has no legal basis and is unsupported by evidence.
xxiv. Where import prices are higher than domestic prices, there is no factual or economic basis to
conclude that imports are causing price depression or price suppression in the domestic market.
xxv. While the domestic industry’s market share declined sharply during the period of investigation,
BPCL’s market share remained significantly higher, indicating that the domestic industry’s loss was
absorbed by another domestic producer rather than by imports.
xxvi. There is no causal link as the imports from non -subject countries increased sharply during the POI,
whereas imports from subject countries showed no abnormal surge and, in fact, declined compared
to earlier periods.
xxvii. The decline in the domestic industry's profitability is not attributable to imports from the subject
countries but to its own internal operational disruptions, such as intermittent production and
shutdowns during the injury period, which adversely affected capacity utilisation, cost absorption,
and margins.
xxviii. Low depreciation does not justify inflated ROCE; such claims contradict Annexure III, as plant age
or depreciation cannot warrant arbitrary returns, especially with lower interest and tax rates.
xxix. Uniform application of a 22% ROCE results in unreasonable and inflated profits, distorts the non -
injurious price, and has been questioned by CESTAT. A reasonable return must instead be based on
actual profitability under normal competitive conditions.
xxx. There is no justification for examining only the price impact of low -priced imports.
xxxi. The reliance of the domestic industry on the CESTAT’s judgement of Kothari Sugars is misplaced
since Kothari Sugars was a case where there were multiple grades of the product, which warranted
an examination of low -priced imports, unlike in the present investigation.
G.2 Submission of the domestic industry.
66. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
i. Although import prices from the subject countries were above the cost of sales during the injury
period, however the difference between them has significantly declined in the period of
investigation.
ii. During the period of investigation, despite an increase in the cost of sales, the domestic industry’s
selling price declined, as subject imports prevented it from charging remunerative prices.
iii. Syngas, naphtha, and propylene are the major raw materials for producing 2 -Ethyl Hexanol, together
accounting for over 90% of the cost. Despite the increase in raw material costs, import prices have
declined.
iv. The demand for the product sharply increased in 2022 -23, declined in 2023 -24, and increased again
during the period of investigation.
v. Imports were low in 2021 -22 due to COVID -19, but as demand normalised in 2022 –23, imports
from the subject countries increased sharply due to higher demand and a temporary shutdown of the
domestic industry’s plant. Although imports declined thereafter, they increased again during the
period of investigation.
vi. While part of the import increase is attributable to the domestic demand –supply gap, imports from
the subject countries have increased more than the increase in demand.
vii. Imports from the subject countries, in relation to production, increased from 15% to 48%, and in
relation to consumption, from 13% to 24%.
viii. In past investigations concerning the product, the Authority has determined negative price
undercutting. Price undercutting should be assessed by comparing the order prices of the domestic
industry and exporters, with the domestic industry’s monthly prices compared to import prices from
two months earlier due to delivery lag.
ix. The domestic industry’s capacity remained constant during the investigation period and, together
with the other domestic producer, is sufficient to meet about 65% of Indian demand.
x. In 2022 -23, production and capacity utilisation declined marginally due to a maintenance shutdown
but recovered in the subsequent period when the plant operated fully.
xi. During the period of investigation, production and capacity utilisation declined significantly due to
plant shutdowns and dumping by producers from the subject countries. The domestic industry was
compelled to shut down its plant due to the non -availability of propylene from HPCL, resulting in a
partial decline in production and utilisation.
xii. Based on past operating rates, the domestic industry could have produced [***] MT during the
period of investigation, compared to actual production of [***] MT, resulting in a shortfall of [***]
MT.
xiii. Monthly production data show that utilisation during the period of investigation was significantly
lower than in earlier periods. Given the increase in domestic demand, this decline in utilisation is
attributable to only dumping.
xiv. The domestic sales of the domestic industry declined in 2022 –23, recovered in the subsequent
period, and then declined sharply again during the period of investigation.
xv. The domestic industry was able to sell about 98% of its production during the period of
investigation only by significantly reducing prices. In value terms, sales revenue declined from Rs.
[***] crore in 2021 –22 to Rs. [***] crore during the period of investigation.
xvi. The domestic industry’s inventory increased sharply in 2022 –23, declined marginally in the
subsequent period, and further declined during the period of investigation.
xvii. Due to dumped imports, the market share of the domestic industry and other Indian producers has
declined, while the market share of subject imports has increased.
xviii. The domestic industry was profitable in 2021 –22. Profitability declined in 2022 –23 due to a sharp
increase in low -priced imports from the subject countries, improved in 2023 –24, but declined
sharply again during the period of investigation, resulting in losses.
xix. Cash profit, PBIT, and ROI of the domestic industry followed the same trend as profit, turning
negative during the period of investigation.
xx. Dumped imports from the subject countries caused negative growth for the domestic industry in
both volume and price parameters.
xxi. The domestic industry’s plant has already been depreciated, as it was set up in 1994. Therefore, the
depreciation cost is very low, and the net fixed assets deployed in the business are also minimal.
Allowing a 22% return on capital employed for NIP purposes would not remedy injury due to
dumping.
xxii. The domestic industry’s plant was shut down during the period of investigation due to the non -
availability of propylene arising from a maintenance shutdown at HPCL; the injury suffered by the
domestic industry cannot be attributed only to this factor.
xxiii. Excluding the impact of the shutdown period, the domestic industry would have incurred losses
during the period of investigation.
xxiv. The domestic industry's monthly operating rates show that capacity utilisation in previous years was
significantly higher than during the period of investigation. The average utilisation ranged between
89% and 97% in the preceding years; it declined sharply to about 73% in the period of investigation.
This is not due to internal factors.
xxv. In 2022 -23, the cost of sales increased while the landed prices of imports declined, compelling the
domestic industry to reduce its selling price. In 2023 –24, although costs declined, both import prices
and the domestic industry’s selling price fell further.
xxvi. In period of investigation, the cost of sales increased by around 12%, whereas the landed price of
imports increased by only about 4%, once again forcing a reduction in the domestic industry’s
selling price.
xxvii. Overall, the landed prices of subject imports have declined more sharply than the domestic
industry’s cost of sales over the injury period.
xxviii. Employees and salary & wages of the domestic industry moved in line. The domestic industry has
not claimed injury on these parameters, as it depends on various other factors.
xxix. On the submission that the depreciation cost of the domestic industry increased, the domestic
industry undertook some capital expenditure by installing certain new equipment during the
financial year 2022 -23. While the depreciation cost and interest cost have increased, they are less
than 1% of the total cost.
xxx. While NanYa has alleged that the plant of the domestic industry undergoes frequent shutdowns,
based on information in public domain, the plant of Nanya has itself undergone shutdowns. The
plant of the respondent was shut down only once in POI.
xxxi. BPCL started commercial production in the year 2021. When BPCL started production, the
domestic industry was in profit. The domestic industry continued to earn profits till 2023 -24 when
the landed price of imports was sufficiently higher than the cost of sales of the domestic industry.
However, the gap declined materially only in the period of investigation.
xxxii. On the submission that the capacity of the domestic industry is only 30,000 MT, the claimed number
of 30,000 MT pertains to the year 1994. The domestic industry has provided daily production over
the injury period, and it can be seen that the capacity of the domestic industry is well above the
claimed capacity of 30,000 MT per annum.
xxxiii. On the statements in annual reports, the domestic industry has also attributed the decline in the
performance of the product under consideration to a drop in international oxo -alcohol prices, which
shows that it is the price of imports that is impacting the prices.
xxxiv. On the submission that the domestic industry may be overstating its utilities costs by including
additional electricity charges (FPPCA) imposed by APERC, the domestic industry has filed an
appeal against these charges, and these charges have not been included in the cost of production for
the product under consideration.
xxxv. On the submission of the ICRA reports, the ICRA report for August 2025 also states that the
operating margins were impacted and sharply declined to negative levels in FY2025 and Q1FY2026
from 10.7% in FY2024 as the spreads reduced with the fall in product prices because of cheaper
imports.
xxxvi. The domestic industry is claiming only the adverse impact of low -priced imports, which are
affecting its selling prices. Given the current demand -supply gap, imports are inevitable. However,
imports at unfairly low prices prevent the domestic industry from charging adequate, remunerative
prices and earning a reasonable return. Reference is placed to Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Limited
v. Designated Authority .
G.3 Examination by the Authority
67. Rule 11 of Antidumping Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve
examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, “… taking into account all relevant
facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles
and the consequent effect of such imports on the domestic producers of such articles…”. In considering the
effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a
significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or
whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price
increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of
the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry,
such as production, capacity utilisation, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realisation, the
magnitude and margin of dumping, etc., have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the Anti -
Dumping Rules.
68. Various submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties on injury and causal link have
been examined and analyzed considering the facts available on record and applicable laws. The injury analysis
by the Authority ipso facto addresses submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties.
69. With regard to the submission of the other interested parties that frequent suspension of operations caused
injury to the domestic industry during the period of investigation, it is seen that the domestic industry had only
a single shutdown in the period of investigation. And that was due to the temporary unavailability of raw
materials. The domestic industry has provided information on the operating rate of the domestic industry on a
monthly basis over the injury period. It is seen that the domestic industry did not undertake production for
[***] days during the injury period. The number of days in which the applicant did not produce is significantly
higher than the number of days in which the domestic industry did not produce due to lack of raw material,
which shows that the decline in production was not due to just raw material unavailability.
70. With regard to the submission of the other interested parties that the domestic industry is dependent on only
one supplier for propylene, which has affected its operations, it is seen that the domestic industry was sourcing
its raw material from HPCL not only in the period of investigation but also in the previous years as well. Had
the dependency on one raw material supplier impacted the performance of the domestic industry, it would have
suffered losses in the previous years as well. However, the domestic industry was profitable in past, and the
profitability declined only in the period of investigation. It is also seen that the plant of the other producer is
located in the nearby premises to the domestic industry, and therefore, sourcing raw material cost cannot be
said to have caused injury to the domestic industry.
71. With regard to the submission of the other interested parties that the domestic market was materially altered
after BPCL commenced commercial production of 2EH, and that the alleged injury to the domestic industry is
attributable to domestic competition rather than imports, it is seen that BPCL commenced commercial
production in 2021, and the domestic industry was profitable till 2023 -24. If the commencement of production
by BPCL were the cause of injury, the domestic industry would have suffered losses immediately upon BPCL
commencing production. It is seen that the domestic industry recorded profits when the landed price of imports
remained sufficiently higher than the cost of sales, and as the gap reduced in the period of investigation, these
profits turned into losses with a negative return on investment.
72. With regard to the submission of the other interested parties that the injury to the domestic industry is
attributable to abnormal increases in interest and depreciation costs rather than to market -driven factors. The
domestic industry has submitted that its manufacturing facility was established in the late 1990s and that,
during the base year, the plant and machinery had largely been depreciated. The domestic industry has added
three new machines in 2022 -23, which led to an increase in depreciation and interest costs. It is seen that even
after the increase, the depreciation and interest costs attributable to the product constitute less than 1% of the
total cost of sales. The decline in per -unit profitability of the domestic industry is significantly higher than the
increase in depreciation and interest costs.
73. With regard to the submission of the other interested parties that the domestic industry has overstated its
utilities costs on account of additional electricity charges imposed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity
Regulatory Commission. The domestic industry submitted that the additional Fuel and Power Purchase Cost
Adjustment charges imposed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission have been challenged
before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and that the outcome of the appeal is pending. The data provided
by the domestic industry has been examined, and it is seen that these charges have not been considered as part
of the cost of production for the purpose of the present investigation.
74. With regard to the submission of the other interested parties that the injury is caused due to factors such as
shortage of propylene, reliance on single suppliers, decline in international oxo -alcohol, etc., which have
caused injury to the domestic industry. It is seen that the other interested parties have not produced any
evidence to substantiate their claims. Reference is also drawn to the WTO Panel Report China – Definitive
Anti -Dumping Duties on X -Ray Security Inspection Equipment from the European
Union (WT/DS425/R ), wherein the Panel held that where an interested party identifies a factor other than
dumped imports causing injury but does not provide evidence showing how this factor is causing injury to the
domestic industry, the investigating authority is not required to make a determination with regard to that factor.
In the present case, the interested parties have not submitted any evidence to substantiate their claims.
75. The Authority has examined the injury parameters objectively, considering the facts and arguments submitted
by the domestic industry and other interested parties. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder
addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties.
G.3.1 Volume effect of the dumped imports
a. Assessment of demand/consumption
76. The Authority has determined demand or apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of domestic
sales of the domestic industry, sales of other producer and imports of 2EH from all sources.
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Imports from subject countries MT 12,288 44,793 25,878 39,374
2 Imports from other countries MT 64 9,534 5,202 48,335
3 Sales of the domestic industry MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 84 109 71
4 Sales of other Indian producers MT 40,600 46,200 48,100 48,100
5 Total demand MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 138 130 166
77. It is seen that the demand for the product sharply increased in 2022 -23 but marginally declined in 2023 -24. The
demand for the product increased again in the period of investigation. Over the investigation period, the
demand for the product has increased by 66%.
78. The demand in 2020 -21 and 2021 -22 was low owing to Covid situations in the domestic market and the decline
in demand of the downstream industry. The sharp increase in demand in 2022 -23 was due to low demand in the
previous two years.
b. Imports in absolute and relative terms
79. With regard to the volume of dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a
significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in
India. For the injury analysis, the Authority has relied on the DG system import data. The information is as
below:
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Imports from subject countries MT 12,288 44,793 25,878 39,374
2 Imports from other countries MT 64 9,534 5,202 48,335
3 Subject imports in relation to
a Indian production % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 370 190 347
b Indian consumption % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 264 162 193
a Total imports % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 83 84 45
80. It is noted that:
i. The subject imports increased in 2022 -23, declined in 2023 -24 and increased again in the period of
investigation.
ii. The domestic industry has acknowledged that the increase in subject imports during 2022 -23 was
attributable to the increase in demand for the product as well as the shutdown of the domestic industry’s
plant during the same period.
iii. As demand for the product declined in 2023 -24, imports from the subject countries and other countries
also declined. However, the volume of imports from the subject countries increased once again in the
period of investigation.
iv. The imports from subject countries in relation to production have increased from [***] % in the base
year to [***] % in the period of investigation.
v. The imports from subject countries in relation to Indian consumption have increased from [***] % in
the base year to [***] % in the period of investigation.
vi. The imports from other countries have also increased by 64 MT in the base year to 48,355 MT in the
period of investigation.
vii. Imports from both the subject countries and other countries have increased during the period of
investigation. Imports from other countries are more than those of the subject countries in POI.
Consequently, the share of subject imports in total imports declined from [***] % in the base year to
[***] % in the period of investigation, though the volume of subject imports continues to remain
significant.
G.3.2 Price effect of the dumped imports
81. In terms of Annexure II (ii) of the Rules, with regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, the
Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports
as compared with the price of the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to
depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a
significant degree.
a. Evolution of price
82. The major raw materials required for the production of 2 -Ethyl Hexanol are naphtha and propylene, which
together account for more than 90% of the cost of production of 2 -Ethyl Hexanol. The table below shows the
trend of raw material cost (procurement price) and import prices over the injury period:
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Raw material cost Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 116 101 108
2 CIF Import price Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 81 74 77
83. It is seen that between 2023 -24 and the period of investigation, both raw material prices and import prices from
the subject countries have increased. The increase in import prices was lower than the increase in the cost of
raw materials. Over the injury period, the raw material prices increased by 8% or Rs [***] per MT, whereas
import prices from the subject countries declined by 23% or Rs [***] per MT. It is therefore seen that import
prices have not moved in line with raw material prices.
b. Price undercutting
84. Price undercutting has been determined by comparing the net sales realization of the domestic industry with the
landed price of the imports for the period of investigation. The table below shows the price undercutting from
the subject countries.
SN Subject countries Net sales
realisation Landed
price Price
undercutting Price
undercutting
Rs/MT Rs/MT Rs/MT Range
1 European Union *** 1,18,657 *** ***
2 Indonesia *** 84,300 *** ***
3 Korea RP *** 1,22,736 *** ***
4 Malaysia *** 1,04,028 *** ***
5 Taiwan *** 1,21,804 *** ***
6 USA *** 1,10,761 *** ***
7 Weighted average *** 1,16,644 *** ***
85. It is seen that the landed price of imports from the subject countries during the period of investigation is higher
than the net sales realisation of the domestic industry. Accordingly, the price undercutting from the subject
countries is negative.
86. It is also seen that the import prices have fluctuated significantly in the period of investigation. The table below
shows the monthly landed price in the period of investigation.
SN Month European
Union Indonesia Korea RP Malaysia Taiwan USA
1 Apr-24 1,36,946 - 1,39,736 1,28,621 1,50,704 1,37,218
2 May-24 1,35,046 - 1,47,968 - 1,47,797 -
3 Jun-24 - 84,300 1,16,318 - 1,19,093 1,26,731
4 Jul-24 1,14,407 - 1,25,059 1,05,548 1,16,226 -
5 Aug-24 1,21,766 - 1,14,536 98,945 1,05,118 -
6 Sep-24 1,10,421 - 1,18,755 - - -
7 Oct-24 1,79,738 - - 82,231 - -
8 Nov-24 - - - - - -
9 Dec-24 - - 96,858 - - 91,284
10 Jan-25 - - - - - 99,797
11 Feb-25 1,65,771 - - 89,807 - 99,000
12 Mar-25 - - - - - -
87. It is seen that the import price was higher towards the beginning of the period of investigation and has steeply
declined towards the end of the period of investigation. Further, the imports have not shown a consistent trend.
Therefore, it is considered appropriate to note monthly price undercutting as given below:
SN Month Import
In MT Net selling
price
Rs/MT Landed price
Rs/MT Price
undercutting
Rs/MT Price
undercutting
%
1 Apr-24 6,235 *** 1,36,717 *** ***
2 May-24 3,902 *** 1,47,704 *** ***
3 Jun-24 6,151 *** 1,20,674 *** ***
4 Jul-24 4,304 *** 1,15,397 *** ***
5 Aug-24 6,547 *** 1,08,660 *** ***
6 Sep-24 2,189 *** 1,17,066 *** ***
7 Oct-24 668 *** 84,911 *** ***
8 Nov-24 - *** - - ***
9 Dec-24 4,048 *** 93,970 *** ***
10 Jan-25 3,085 *** 99,797 *** ***
11 Feb-25 2,244 *** 94,603 *** ***
12 Mar-25 - *** - - ***
13 Total 39,374 *** ***
88. The domestic industry has contended that the price undercutting should not be based on a comparison of the
landed price of imports with the domestic industry’s selling price but should be compared with the price at
which orders are placed by consumers on the domestic industry and on exporters during the same month. It has
been stated that the customers negotiate its selling prices based on the prices quoted by exporters, and that the
time lag between placement of import orders and actual delivery in India is approximately 2 months. Therefore,
the selling price in a given month should be compared with import prices prevailing two months earlier. Such
an analysis would show positive price undercutting. It has also been contended that exporters extend a
substantial interest -free credit period to their customers, which must be factored into the comparison. These
factors resulted in negative price undercutting in all previous investigations concerning the product under
consideration.
c. Price suppression and depression
89. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing the domestic prices and whether the effect of
such imports is to suppress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases which otherwise would
have occurred in the normal course, the changes in the costs and prices over the injury period were compared
as follows:
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Cost of sales Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 118 103 116
2 Selling price Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 88 82 74
3 Landed price Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 83 77 80
90. It is seen that:
i. In 2022 -23, while the cost of sales of the domestic industry increased by 18 index points, its selling
price declined by 12 index points. Consequently, the profitability of the domestic industry recorded a
sharp decline in profits.
ii. In 2023 -24, both the cost of sales and the selling price of the domestic industry declined. However,
since the selling price did not decline in the same proportion as the reduction in cost of sales, the
profitability of the domestic industry showed improvement.
iii. During the period of investigation, the cost of sales increased by 13 index points, whereas the selling
price of the domestic industry declined by 8 index points. The domestic industry was thereby forced to
sell the product at a loss.
iv. Over the injury period, the cost of sales increased by 16% or Rs [***] per MT, but the selling price
declined by 26% or Rs [***] per MT. The landed price of imports has declined by 20% or Rs [***] per
MT.
v. The imports were depressing the selling price of the domestic industry in the market over the injury
period and preventing the price increases that would have occurred in view of the increase in costs.
91. It is noted that while the cost of sales of the domestic industry increased by 13 % in the period of investigation
as compared to the previous year, the landed price of the subject imports increased only by 3% over the same
period. As a result, the domestic industry was compelled to reduce its selling prices and sell the product at a
loss.
G.3.2 Economic parameters of the domestic industry
92. 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, ability to raise capital investments. The various injury parameters relating to the
domestic industry are discussed below. The Authority has examined the injury parameters objectively, taking
into account various facts and arguments made by the interested parties in their submissions.
a. Production, capacity, capacity utilisation and domestic sales
93. The Authority has considered capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales of the domestic
industry over the injury period.
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 100 100 100
2 Capacity utilisation % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 86 105 71
3 Production of PUC MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 86 105 71
4 Domestic sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 84 109 71
5 Domestic sales Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 74 90 53
94. It is noted that:
i. The capacity of the domestic industry has remained constant over the injury period.
ii. The Indian industry has the capacity to cater to around [***%] of the domestic demand.
iii. The production and capacity utilisation of the domestic industry declined in 2022 -23. The domestic
industry has submitted that this decline was on account of a shutdown of its plant for maintenance
purposes.
iv. As the plant operated during 2023 -24, both production and capacity utilisation improved. However,
during the period of investigation, production as well as capacity utilisation again declined.
v. The domestic industry has submitted that the decline in production and capacity utilisation during the
period of investigation was partly due to dumping of the product in the country and partly due to non -
availability of raw materials, leading to the shutdown of its plant.
vi. Domestic sales of the domestic industry followed the same trend as that of production. During the
period of investigation, the domestic industry was able to sell 98% of its production, though by selling
the product at a loss. The domestic industry has reported a revenue loss of Rs. [***] crore during the
period of investigation.
95. The domestic industry has submitted that it had taken a shutdown from 9 September 2024 to 5 October 2024
during the period of investigation. The domestic industry has provided a monthly production statement and
daily production reports for the product. It is seen that despite having sufficient raw material stocks, the
domestic industry did not undertake production. It is seen that while no production was undertaken for 26 days
period from 9 September 2024 to 5 October 2024 because of raw material availability, the domestic industry
did not produce for [***] days in the period of investigation. The domestic industry has submitted that
production was not undertaken in [***] days because of the lack of demand for its product because of
dumping, and even after selling at a loss. Thus, the primary reason for the absence of production by the
domestic industry for a significant part of the period of investigation was the presence of low -priced imports
from the subject countries. As the domestic industry was unable to realise reasonable prices, it decided not to
produce the product.
96. The Authority examined the monthly capacity utilisation of the domestic industry. The table below shows the
operating rate of the domestic industry on a monthly basis over the injury period, excluding the periods during
which the domestic industry’s plant was shut down either for maintenance or due to a shortage of raw
materials. The table below shows the month wise utilization of the domestic industry
SN Month Utilization
2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 April *** *** *** ***
2 May *** *** *** ***
3 June *** *** *** ***
4 July *** *** *** ***
5 August *** *** *** ***
6 September *** *** *** ***
7 October *** *** *** ***
8 November *** *** *** ***
9 December *** *** *** ***
10 January *** *** *** ***
11 February *** *** *** ***
12 March *** *** *** ***
13 Average *** *** *** ***
97. It is seen that the operating rate of the domestic industry in the past was significantly higher than the operating
rate during the period of investigation. Despite an increase in demand, the capacity utilisation of the domestic
industry declined during the period of investigation.
98. It is therefore considered that the dumping of the product also adversely impacted production, capacity
utilization and sales of the domestic industry in the POI.
b. Market share
99. The Authority has examined the effect of the dumped imports on the market share of the domestic industry,
other Indian producers, subject countries and other countries as under.
SN Market share of UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Domestic industry % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 61 84 43
2 Other Indian producer % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 82 91 72
3 Subject countries % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 264 162 193
4 Other countries % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 10,825 6,282 45,717
100. It is seen that:
i. The market share of the domestic industry declined in 2022 -23, increased in 2023 -24, but declined
again in the period of investigation.
ii. The market share of imports from the subject countries moved opposite to that of the domestic industry.
The market share of the subject countries increased sharply in 2022 -23. Market share declined in 2023 -
24 but increased again during the period of investigation.
iii. The market share of imports from other countries has also increased significantly in the period of
investigation as compared to the base year.
iv. The market share of the Indian industry as a whole has also significantly declined in the POI as
compared to the base year.
v. Despite having the capacity to cater to [***] % of the demand, the share of the Indian industry is
restricted to [***] %.
c. Profitability, cash profit and return on capital employed
101. The performance of the domestic industry has been examined in respect of profitability, profits, cash profits,
PBIT, and return on investment.
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Profit/loss Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 22 34 -19
2 Profit/loss Rs lakhs *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 19 37 -13
3 Cash profit Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 23 34 -18
4 Cash profit Rs lakhs *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 19 38 -13
5 PBIT Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 24 35 -16
6 PBIT Rs lakhs *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 20 38 -11
7 ROI Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 16 30 -10
102. It is seen that:
i. The domestic industry was in profit in 2021 -22 but as the volume of imports sharply increased in 2022 -
23, the profits of the domestic industry significantly declined. With a decline in import volume from
the subject countries in 2023 -24, the domestic industry’s profits improved.
ii. With an increase in the dumped imports in the period of investigation, the profits of the domestic
industry declined sharply and turned into losses.
iii. A similar trend has been seen in the cash profit and profit before interest. Both cash profits and PBIT
have declined over the injury period and are negative in the period of investigation.
iv. As the domestic industry is suffering losses, the return on investment has sharply declined and turned
negative in the period of investigation.
d. Inventories
103. The inventory position with the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below:
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Opening inventory MT *** *** *** ***
2 Closing inventory MT *** *** *** ***
3 Average inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 328 298 155
104. It is seen that in the base year, the closing inventory was low. With a sharp increase in imports from the subject
countries, the domestic industry’s closing inventory increased significantly. However, as subject imports
declined in the subsequent period, the closing inventory of the domestic industry also decreased. Subsequently,
with a sharp increase in imports from the subject countries during the period of investigation, the closing
inventory of the domestic industry increased again. There is a direct relation between an increase in the
inventory of the domestic industry and an increase in subject imports. It is also seen that the inventory levels of
the domestic industry were higher in the period of investigation compared to the base year.
105. The Authority further notes that although the domestic industry was able to sell more than [***%] of its
production, it came at a significant loss of profitability. The domestic industry has provided details of daily
production and sales, which show that the inventory with the domestic industry had reached an alarmingly high
level of [***] MT before it suspended production at its production line. Therefore, it is considered that while
the inventory declined, the decline was attributable to the suspension of production and the significant loss of
profitability.
e. Employment, wages and productivity
106. Employment, wages and productivity of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table
below:
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 No of employee’s Nos. *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 99 105 101
2 Salaries & Wages Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 101 112 101
3 Productivity per day MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 86 105 71
4 Productivity per employee MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 87 100 71
107. It is seen that:
i. The level of employment and the salary and wages of the domestic industry marginally increased over the
injury period.
ii. Productivity per day and productivity per employee of the domestic industry have declined in the period of
investigation.
f. Growth
108. The growth of the domestic industry in terms of capacity, production, domestic sales volume, PBT, PBIT, cash
profits and the return on capital employed is as per the table given below:
SN Particulars UOM 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Production Y/Y -14% 21% -32%
2 Capacity Utilisation Y/Y -14% 21% -32%
3 Domestic Sales Y/Y -16% 30% -35%
4 Inventory Y/Y 228% -9% -48%
5 Profit Per Unit Y/Y -78% 53% -156%
6 Profit in Rs Lacs Y/Y -81% 99% -136%
7 Cash Profit in Rs Lacs Y/Y -81% 98% -133%
8 ROCE Y/Y -84% 93% -133%
109. It is seen that the growth of the domestic industry during the period of investigation has been negative in all the
volume and price parameters.
g. Ability to raise capital investment
110. It is seen that there is a demand and supply gap in the country. It is also noted that the profitability and return
on capital employed of the domestic industry has declined and the domestic industry was operating with losses
during the period of investigation. Therefore, the ability to raise capital investment has been severely impacted,
preventing the domestic industry from expanding its capacity.
h. Factor affecting the domestic prices.
111. The examination of DG System imports data shows that the import price from the subject countries is higher
than the selling price of the domestic industry. However, the landed price of subject imports has not moved in
proportion to the changes in cost. As a result, the domestic industry was compelled to reduce its selling price,
which fell below the cost of sales. This had a significant adverse impact on the profitability of the domestic
industry. The fact that the domestic industry has incurred losses and recorded a negative return on investment
during the period of investigation clearly demonstrates the adverse effects of continued dumped imports.
i. Magnitude of dumping
112. It is seen that there is continued dumping of the subject goods in India from the subject countries.
j. Conclusion of injury
113. Based on the above analysis, the Authority concludes as follows:
a. The volume of imports from subject countries increased in 2022 -23, declined in 2023 -24 and increased
again in the period of investigation. The import volume has increased over the injury period. The
imports from the subject countries have also increased in relation to production and consumption.
b. The weighted average price undercutting is negative. It is however seen that there are significant
fluctuations in the prices of the imports on a monthly basis.
c. Over the injury period, the raw material prices increased by 8% or Rs [***] per MT, whereas import
prices from the subject countries declined by 23% or Rs [***] per MT. It is therefore seen that import
prices have not moved in line with raw material prices.
d. The imports were depressing the selling price of the domestic industry in the market over the injury
period and preventing the price increases that would have occurred in view of the increase in costs.
e. The domestic industry production and domestic sales declined in period of investigation. The decline is
attributable to both plant shutdown and low -priced imports.
f. The market share of imports from subject countries increased in 2022 -23, declined in 2023 -24 but
increased again in the period of investigation.
g. The domestic industry was in profit till 2023 -24, but with an increase in the dumped imports in the
period of investigation, the profits of the domestic industry declined sharply and turned into losses.
h. The profit before interest, cash profit and return on capital employed of the domestic industry is
significantly negative in the period of investigation.
i. The domestic industry recorded negative growth in various volume and price parameter in the period of
investigation.
j. The subject imports have prevented the domestic industry to
k. There is continued dumping of the subject goods in India from subject countries except from Indonesia.
114. It is therefore concluded that domestic industry has suffered continued injury in the period of investigation.
H. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY
H.1 Submission of the other interested parties
115. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regards to injury and causal link:
i. Duty should not be continued on Indonesia as there are no imports.
ii. There is no likelihood of dumping from Malaysia and Indonesia. As imports from Malaysia have more
or less remained at the same level, demonstrating that the pattern will not change.
iii. PT Petro Oxo Nusantara operates at high -capacity utilisation, has no excess capacity or expansion plans.
iv. BASF Group operates at high -capacity utilisation, has no excess capacity or expansion plans, and enjoys
higher profitability in third -country markets.
v. India accounts for a marginal share of BASF’s total sales and exports to other countries at higher prices.
vi. Domestic industry reliance on past dumping margins to allege continued dumping is legally
unsustainable, as dumping margins alone cannot establish continuation or likelihood of dumping without
examining actual import volumes and causal link.
vii. Imports from Taiwan show no consistent rising trend, and the domestic industry has failed to segregate
subject imports from non -subject and fresh dumping sources.
viii. The allegations of excess capacities in the subject countries, particularly Taiwan, are unsubstantiated and
based on selective reliance on global capacity data.
ix. Installed capacity alone does not demonstrate dumping risk, and actual import trends from Taiwan show
no abnormal or sustained surge during the injury period.
x. Domestic industry’s reliance on alleged dumping in third -country markets is wholly irrelevant to the
present sunset review. An SSR is limited to assessing the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury in the Indian market, and export pricing in other countries has no legal relevance.
xi. Exports to third countries are profitable and priced higher than the domestic market.
H.2 Submission of the domestic industry
116. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
i. Despite duties being in place, producers from the subject countries continue to dump the product in the
Indian market.
ii. Nan Ya Corporation claims China is its largest market. However, with significant capacity expansion in
China, the producer is likely to seek alternative markets.
iii. BASF PETRONAS Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. shows a significant decline in exports to third countries. As
exports declined, the producer’s production and capacity utilisation fell, and it operated with the idle
capacity.
iv. Global demand for the product is around 4.5 million MT, while total installed capacities of producers in
the subject countries alone are around 5.7 million MT. Producers in the subject countries have
significant excess capacities, substantially higher than Indian demand and even exceeding demand in
their domestic markets.
v. Producers from Korea and Taiwan export more than 60% of their installed capacity to international
markets, including India, demonstrating that they are highly export oriented.
vi. Although Indonesia did not export to India during the period of investigation, public information shows
that the Indonesian producer exports nearly 80% of its production globally.
vii. No imports from Indonesia occurred during the period of investigation due to the highest anti -dumping
duty imposed on the country. This absence of imports demonstrates the likelihood of continued
dumping and injury if the duty is withdrawn.
viii. Producers from the subject countries are dumping not only in India but also in other third -country
markets, with a significant share of exports sold below normal value or at dumped prices.
ix. India is a lucrative and important market for producers from the subject countries.
x. The historical import data shows that whenever Indonesian exports enter the Indian market, they are
priced at significantly low levels. When the imports from Indonesia were present, the landed prices of
Indonesian imports were consistently lower than the highest landed prices from other subject countries.
H.3 Examination by the Authority
117. The Authority has examined the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury considering the requirement
laid down under Section 9A (5), Rule 23 and parameters relating to the threat of material injury in terms of
Annexure - II (vii) of the Anti -dumping rules and other relevant factors brought on record by the interested
parties.
118. The present investigation is a sunset review of duties imposed on the imports of the product under
consideration from the European Union, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, the USA and Indonesia. Under the Rules,
the Authority is required to determine whether cessation of existing duty is likely to lead to continuance or
recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.
119. Producers from Indonesia, Malaysia and Taiwan have participated in the present investigation. It is seen that
the participating producers from Indonesia and Malaysia are the sole producers in the respective countries.
Therefore, the data of these producers has been considered to examine the likelihood. For the European Union,
Korea, and the USA, the information on record has been considered.
120. There are no specific methodologies available to conduct such a likelihood analysis. However, Clause (vii) of
Annexure II of the Rules provides, inter alia, for factors which are required to be taken into consideration, viz.
a. A significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India, indicating the likelihood of substantially
increased importation.
b. Sufficient freely disposable, or an imminent, substantial increase in, capacity of the exporter indicating the
likelihood of substantially increased dumped exports to Indian markets, taking into account the
availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports.
c. Whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on
domestic prices and would likely increase demand for further imports; and
d. Inventories of the article being investigated.
121. The Authority has, inter alia , considered the above requirements and the following parameters in order to
determine whether dumping is likely in the event of cessation of anti -dumping duty, and if so, whether the
same is likely to cause injury to the domestic industry in case of cessation of anti -dumping duty. Additionally,
the Authority has examined all the relevant information brought on record by the domestic industry and the
other interested parties.
a. Continued dumping of the subject goods from subject countries.
122. The table below shows the dumping margin determined by the Authority in the original, the first sunset and the
present investigation (for the participating producers).
SN Subject countries Original
Investigation 1st SSR
investigation Present
investigation
1 PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia 0-10% 10-20% NA
2 BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd,
Malaysia 0-10% 0-10% 0-10%
3 Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan No participation No participation 0-10%
4 European Union 25-35% 20-40% 10-20%
5 Korea RP 0-20% 0-10% 15-25%
6 USA 15-25% 20-30% 10-20%
123. In the case of participating producers, it is seen that the dumping for BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd,
Malaysia, has continued. PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia, had exported in past but has not exported in the
period of investigation. Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan, had not participated in the original or 1st sunset
review investigation but has participated in the present investigation. It is seen that the exports of Nan Ya
Plastics Corporation, Taiwan, are at dumped prices.
124. As regards other subject countries from where there is no participation, it is seen that dumping has continued
from the European Union, Korea RP and United States of America.
b. Increase in imports of the subject goods from subject countries.
125. The table below shows the import volume in the injury period.
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Demand MT *** *** *** ***
2 Indian capacity MT *** *** *** ***
3 Imports from other countries MT 64 9,534 5,202 48,335
4 Gap MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 11,087 9,539 7,361
5 Imports from subject countries MT 12,288 44,793 25,878 39,374
126. It is seen that imports of the subject goods from the subject countries increased sharply in 2022 -23, declined in
2023 -24 and further increased in the period of investigation. Overall, imports from the subject countries have
increased over the injury period.
127. The increase in imports is more than the demand and supply gap in the country. While the demand for the
product increased from [***] MT in the base year to [***] MT in the period of investigation, i.e. an increase of
60%, the imports from the subject countries have increased from 12,288 MT in the base year to 39,374 MT in
the period of investigation, i.e. an increase of 220%. Thus, the increase in imports from the subject countries
has far exceeded the growth in demand.
128. The fact that the increase in dumped imports is more than the increase in demand, despite the existing anti -
dumping measures in place, shows a likelihood of a further surge in imports in the event of the expiry of the
measures.
c. Surplus capacities of the subject goods from subject countries.
129. The domestic industry has provided global figures of demand and capacity and claimed that global capacities
are significantly higher than the demand. The global demand for the product stands at approximately 4.5
million MT, the total installed capacities of the producers in the subject countries alone are around 5.7 million
MT, therefore, the producers will always look for markets to export in order to utilise their idle capacities.
130. The table below shows the capacity and export sales of the participating producers. In the case of countries
where there is no participation, the information available on record has been considered.
SN Subject countries Capacity/
Production Export
sales Export
orientation
1 PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia *** *** 90-100%
2 BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd,
Malaysia *** *** 15-25%
3 Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan *** *** 65-75%
4 European Union 7,15,000 1,65,751 23%
5 Korea RP 2,90,000 1,94,965 67%
6 USA 8,80,000 1,58,478 18%
Source: In case of participating producers, production has been considered. In case of European Union, Korea RP
and USA, capacity has been considered as per ICIS Market reports as no information is available on production.
131. It is seen that a significant share of capacities is being utilised for export purposes, showing that the producers
in the subject countries are operating with surplus capacities.
d. Decline in demand for the producers in the subject countries.
132. The domestic industry has submitted that the demand for producers in the subject countries has declined as the
producers have lost a significant export market to China. It has been stated that the participating producers have
acknowledged that one of the largest markets is China. However, there has been significant capacity expansion
in China, and Chinese producers reportedly possess capacities sufficient to cater to more than 50% of global
demand. Therefore, there is a likelihood of a decline in exports to the Chinese market, which would lead to
diversion of surplus exports to the Indian market.
e. India is a lucrative market for the subject countries.
133. The table below shows the exports made to third countries by the responding producers from the subject
countries and the volume of exports at attractive prices (exports below the price to India).
SN Subject countries Total
exports Attractive
exports Share of
attractive export
1 PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia *** *** 90-100%
2 BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd,
Malaysia *** *** 30-40%
3 Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan *** *** 90-100%
4 European Union 3,00,611 2,07,136 69%
5 Korea RP 1,83,493 1,37,153 75%
6 USA 1,49,639 18,653 12%
Demand in India 1,71,675
Attractive exports as % of demand 344%
Source: Exports for the European Union, Korea, and USA are as trademap data.
134. It is seen that
a. In the case of PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia, ***% of exports are at attractive prices to third
countries.
b. In the case of BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd, Malaysia, ***% of exports are at attractive prices
to third countries.
c. In the case of Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan, ***% of exports are at attractive prices to third
countries.
d. In the case of the European Union, 69% of exports are at attractive prices to third countries.
e. In the case of the Korea RP, 75% of exports are at attractive prices to third countries.
f. In the case of the USA, 12% of exports are at attractive prices to third countries.
f. Third country injurious exports.
135. The table below shows the exports made to third countries by the responding producers from the subject
countries and the volume of exports at injurious prices (exports below the non -injurious price).
SN Subject countries Total
exports Injurious
exports Share of
injurious
export
1 PT Petro Oxo Nusantara , Indonesia *** *** 80-90%
2 BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd,
Malaysia *** *** 40-50%
3 Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan *** *** 80-90%
4 European Union 3,00,611 21,742 7%
5 Korea RP 1,83,493 22,683 12%
6 USA 1,49,639 42,836 29%
Demand in India 1,71,675
Injurious exports as % of demand 175%
Source: Exports for the European Union, Korea, and USA are as trademap data.
136. It is seen that
a. In the case of PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia, 80 -90% of exports are at injurious prices.
b. In the case of BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd, Malaysia, 40 -50% of exports are at injurious prices.
c. In the case of Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan, 80 -90% of exports are at injurious prices.
d. In the case of the European Union, 7% of exports are at injurious prices.
e. In the case of Korea RP, 12% of exports are at injurious prices.
f. In the case of the USA, 29% of exports are at injurious prices.
g. Conclusions on likelihood of further injury
137. Based on the above analysis, the Authority concludes as follows
a. The imports from the subject countries continued to the dump the product under consideration in the
Indian market.
b. Over the injury period, the imports from the subject countries have increased. While the demand for the
product has increased by 60%, the subject imports have increased by 198%.
c. The participating exporters from the subject countries are highly export oriented. Significant share of
the capacities is being unitized for the export’s purposes.
d. PT Petronas, BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation are exporting 90 -100%,
15-25% and 65 -75% respectively of their production to global market.
e. As the producers from the subject countries lost significant export market to China, there is a likelihood
of diversion of surplus exports to the Indian market.
f. 30-100% exports made by each of the participating exporters, to third countries are priced below at
attractive prices and at injurious price.
g. In the case of PT Petronas, Indonesia, 90 -100% of exports are at attractive prices to third countries. For
BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd, Malaysia, 30 -40% of exports are at attractive prices to third
countries and for Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan, 90 -100% of exports are at attractive prices to
third countries.
h. In the case of PT Petronas, Indonesia, 80 -90% of exports are at injurious prices. For BASF Petronas
Chemicals Sdn Bhd, Malaysia, 40 -50% of exports are at injurious prices and for Nan Ya Plastics
Corporation, Taiwan, 80 -90% of exports are at injurious prices.
138. The Authority concludes that the investigation has shown that there exists sufficient evidence of likelihood of
injury to the domestic industry in event of cessation of antidumping duty.
I. CAUSAL LINK & NON -ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
139. As per the Rules, the Authority is required to, inter alia, examine any known factors other than dumped imports
which are injuring or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by these other
factors may not be attributed to the dumped imports. While the present investigation is a sunset review
investigation and a causal link has already been examined in the original investigation, the Authority examined
whether other known listed factors have caused or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry. It was
examined whether other factors listed under the Rules could have contributed or are likely to contribute to the
injury suffered by the domestic industry.
a. Volume and price of imports from third countries
140. Apart from the imports from the subject countries, there were imports above de -minis level from China PR and
Saudi Arabia. It is seen that the imports from China PR and Saudi Arabia are below the estimated normal
value. However, the injury margin determined for China and Saudi Arabia is negative.
b. Contraction in demand
141. It is seen that the demand for the product under consideration has increased over the injury period. The
investigation has not shown that the demand is likely to decline. Therefore, a decline in demand or a likely
decline in demand cannot be a cause of injury to the domestic industry.
c. Trade restrictive practices
142. There is no trade restrictive practice that has caused or is likely to cause injury to the domestic industry.
d. Development of technology
143. Information on record shows that technology for the production of the product has not undergone any change.
Therefore, technology cannot be a cause of injury to the domestic industry.
e. Export performance
144. The domestic industry has not exported the product to the international market. Therefore, export performance
cannot be the cause of injury to the domestic industry.
f. Performance of other products of the company
145. The Authority has considered data relating to the performance of the subject goods only. Therefore, the
performance of the other products produced and sold by the domestic industry is not a possible cause of injury
to the domestic industry.
J. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
146. The Authority has determined the NIP for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in AD
Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The NIP of the product under consideration has been determined by
adopting the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the domestic industry. The NIP has
been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject countries for calculating the injury margin.
For determining the NIP, the best utilisation of the raw materials and utilities has been considered over the
injury period. Best utilisation of production capacity over the injury period has been considered. Extraordinary
or non -recurring expenses have been excluded from the cost of production. A reasonable return (pre -tax @
22%) on average capital employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the product
under consideration was allowed as pretax profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure III to the AD
Rules.
147. The landed price and non -injurious price determined above have been compared for the product under
consideration. The weighted average of the injury margin determined for the producers/exporters is provided in
the table below:
SN Particular Non-injurious
price ($/MT) Landed price
($/MT) Injury margin
($/MT) % Range
A Taiwan
1 Nan-Ya Plastics
Corporation *** *** *** *** Negative
2 Any other *** *** *** *** Negative
B Malaysia
1 BASF Petronas Chemicals
Sdn. Bhd. *** *** *** *** 0-10%
2 Any other *** *** *** *** 10-20%
C European Union
1 Any other *** *** *** *** Negative
D Korea RP
1 Any other *** *** *** *** Negative
E USA
1 Any other *** *** *** *** Negative
K. INDIAN INDUSTRY INTEREST AND OTHER ISSUES
K.1 Submission made by the other interested parties
148. The other interested parties have made the following submissions about the Indian industry’s interest:
a. Imposing or continuing duties would artificially restrict sourcing options, distort market dynamics, and
disrupt efficient supply chains, ultimately harming the broader economy.
b. Continuing duties would unjustly shield an inefficient producer, harm consumers and downstream
industries, and discourage efficiency, whereas removing them would promote competition, investment,
and a healthier domestic industry.
c. 2-Ethylhexanol is a key raw material predominantly used in the manufacture of plasticisers such as
Dioctyl Phthalate and Di -Octyl Terephthalate.
d. These downstream products are subject to an inverted duty structure under the Korea -India CEPA and
the ASEAN -India FTA.
e. This inverted duty structure is already imposing significant cost pressure on domestic producers of DOP
and DOTP.
f. The imposition of anti -dumping duties on 2 -EH, over and above the existing basic customs duties,
further aggravates this disadvantage and renders the duty inversion even more severe.
g. The continuation of the duty on 2 -EH will impose a significant burden on downstream industries that
rely on imported 2 -EH for manufacturing plasticizers, solvents, and related chemicals. This results in
increased raw material costs and threatens the viability of these downstream businesses.
h. About 75% of 2 -EH used by the plasticizer industry is utilized in the manufacturing of Dioctyl Phthalate
(DOP) and Di -Octyl Terephthalate (DOTP). The imposition of ADD would have a significantly higher
and adverse financial impact on DOP and DOTP user industries.
i. The domestic industry’s assertion that anti -dumping duty leads to only a 1% financial impact on
downstream industries understates the real effect, and it would be much higher, depending upon the user
country.
j. Domestic industry’s disclosure of CSR expenditure is irrelevant to this anti -dumping investigation. CSR
spending has no impact on dumping, injury, or causal link determinations under the Anti -Dumping
Rules.
k. Anti-dumping measures are temporary and remedial, not a means for perpetual protection. The repeated
initiation of investigations by the petitioner reflects attempts to shield the industry from normal market
competition rather than address actual import injury.
l. Continuation of duties beyond this period would defeat the purpose of the sunset review. The Authority
should assess whether the domestic industry can now compete on its own merits, allowing normal
market forces to prevail.
m. Imports are necessary to meet the domestic demand. There is a significant demand -supply gap of around
85,677 MT.
n. The domestic industry’s estimate of the impact of the duty is erroneous. The actual impact of the duties
on DOA is around 10% and on DOP and DOTP, it extends to 16.79% and 15.84% respectively.
o. The plasticizer market is growing, and there are about 15 plasticiser producers in India. It is not possible
for all plasticizer producers to rely on the domestic industry and BPCL to meet their requirements.
p. In addition to the demand -supply gap, the domestic industry is inefficient and has a 30 -year-old plant.
The supply chain of the domestic industry’s raw material is also uncertain and unreliable.
q. Downstream users are impacted by the combined effects of high anti -dumping duties, disruption in the
supply of the PUC by the domestic industry on account of shutdowns and inverted duty structure.
r. The purpose of anti -dumping duties is to provide temporary protection against unfair imports. The
duties, which have been in force for 26 years, have served their purpose and are no longer required.
K.2 Submission made by the domestic industry
149. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the Indian industry’s interest:
a. The downstream industry claimed that anti -dumping duties had a double -digit impact. However, the
duty constitutes only 1 -4% of the landed price and given that consumption norms are not 1:1, the actual
impact cannot exceed 1 -4%.
b. Since this is a sunset review, any effect of anti -dumping duties on the downstream industry would have
already occurred. No adverse impact has been observed.
c. The anti -dumping duties have not affected downstream industries, as new downstream players have
entered in the market.
d. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the past duties have adversely impacted the downstream
industry.
e. The demand for the product has increased decade despite the duties being in force. Therefore, there is
no adverse impact on the downstream industry.
f. The producers in the subject countries focus solely on profits and have no interest in the long -term
development of the Indian market. They will divert sales if better prices are available elsewhere. In
contrast, the Indian industry, being domestic, considers the interests of Indian consumers.
g. If the duties result in the restrictions of imports, it will not lead to the monopolising of the domestic
industry in the Indian market. There are imports from non -subject countries as well, and there is another
producer in the Indian market.
h. The domestic industry has allocated Rs 2,68,64,978 CSR Expenditure for FY 2024 -25. The entire CSR
amount was disbursed to a non -profit hospital.
i. Contrary to the submission that the imports of 40,019 MT were necessitated, the actual demand and
supply gap is only *** MT.
j. The Rules do not permit dumped imports to be legitimised merely on the ground that imports are
required to bridge a demand -supply gap.
k. The moment the plant of the domestic industry was shut down, the exporters increased their prices. It is
not only imports that are necessary to ensure stability in the prices, but it is the domestic industry is also
necessary to ensure stability. The statement of the interested parties itself establishes the need for a
healthy domestic industry.
K.3 Examination by the Authority
150. The Authority considered whether the recommendation for continuation of imposition of anti -dumping duty
will be against public interest. This determination is based on consideration of information on records and
interests of various parties including the domestic industry, foreign producers and consumers.
151. It is noted that the purpose of anti -dumping measures, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic
industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re -establish a situation of open and fair competition
in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. The Authority recognizes that the
continuation of the anti -dumping duties might affect the price levels of the product under consideration as well
as other downstream products manufactured by using the subject goods in India. However, fair competition in
the Indian market will not be reduced by the imposition of anti -dumping measures. On the contrary, the
continuation of anti -dumping measures would prevent the decline in the performance parameters of the
domestic industry that may ensue as a consequence of low -priced imports from the subject countries and help
maintain the wider availability of choices to the consumers of the product under consideration.
152. The Authority further notes that imposition of anti -dumping duty does not restrict imports. Imports will
continue to happen at fair prices. Anti -dumping duty ensures that the imports are entering the Indian market at
fair prices and a level playing field is maintained between the foreign exporters and the domestic industry.
153. The Authority has prescribed an economic interest questionnaire, which was sent to all interested parties in this
investigation. The domestic industry, BASF India Limited, KLJ Petroplast Limited, KLJ Plasticizers Limited,
Payal Plastichem Private Limited and Payal Polyplast Private Limited have filed response to economic interest
questionnaire.
154. The table below shows the landed price of imports from the subject countries in the period of investigation and
the anti -dumping duty in force. It is seen that the anti -dumping duty is only 1 -4% of the landed price.
Country ADD
$/MT ADD Rs/MT Landed
Rs/MT ADD as % of
landed
Malaysia 54 4,581 1,04,044 4%
Indonesia 46 3,901 84,300 4.6%
European Union 45 3,884 1,18,645 3%
Korea RP 16 1,328 1,22,683 1%
Taiwan 42 3,626 1,22,297 3%
USA 30 2,529 1,10,772 2%
155. The other interested parties have claimed that continuation of anti -dumping duty would impact the financial
performance for the downstream industries by 1% to 7%. However, it is seen that when the anti -dumping duty
in force is only 1 -4% of the landed price, the anti -dumping duty impact cannot be as high as 7%.
156. The domestic industry has quantified the following impact of anti -dumping duty, considering the duties in
force.
Particulars UOM DOTP
(Dioctyl
Terephthalate
) DOA
(Dioctyl
Adipate
) DOM
(Dioctyl
Maleate
) Octyl
Salicylat
e OMC
(Octyl
Methoxycinnamate
)
Selling price Rs/kg 140 150 150 170 170
Import price of
2EH Rs/kg 109 109 109 109 109
Consumption
Norm (SION) kg/kg 0.6 0.743 0.803 0.558 0.6
Cost in
downstream
product Rs/kg 65 81 88 61 65
Current duty Rs/kg 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Impact of duty Rs/kg 0.75 0.93 1 0.69 0.75
Impact of duty % 0.69 0.85 0.92 0.64 0.69
157. It is seen that the impact of continuation of anti -dumping duty on downstream industries is insignificant.
158. The Authority also notes that anti -dumping duties were in place for more than 9 years. There is no evidence to
suggest that there was any adverse impact on the downstream industry as a result of the duties in force. In the
event there was any adverse impact, there would have been strong opposition from the user industry in the
present investigation.
159. In regard to the contention that there are a demand -supply gap of 85,677 MT and the imports were warranted to
meet the demand supply gap. The table below shows the demand supply gap in the country:
SN Particulars UOM POI
1 Domestic industry capacity MT ***
2 Other producer capacity MT 47,000
3 Total capacity MT ***
4 Demand in India MT ***
5 Imports from sources not subject to duty MT 48,335
6 Demand and supply gap MT ***
7 Actual imports from subject countries MT 39,374
160. It is noted that while the actual demand -supply gap in the country during the period of investigation is [***
MT], the actual imports from the subject countries amount to 39,374 MT. Evidently, imports from the subject
countries more than the actual demand -supply gap in the domestic market. The Authority reiterates that the
existence of a demand -supply gap does not justify the dumping of the product in the Indian market. The
demand for the product has consistently increased over the injury period, as well as in the period of
investigation, which shows that the anti -dumping duties have not adversely affected demand. Accordingly, the
continuation of the measures would not restrict the supply to consumers.
161. It is also noted that the imposition of anti -dumping measures does not restrict imports from the subject
countries in any way. Further, apart from the Indian industry and imports from subject countries, there are
imports from other countries as well. The Indian industry has the capacity to meet the 60% of demand in India.
Hence, even if the duties were to have an unintended consequence of reducing import volumes from the subject
countries, the downstream industry in India will not run out of supplies.
L. POST DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
L.1 Comments made by the other interested parties
162. The following comments on the disclosure statement have been filed by the other interested parties:
a. Under Rule 23(1B) of the AD Rules and Article 11.3 of the ADA, anti -dumping duties lapse after 5
years unless a properly initiated review justifies their continuation.
b. Despite the Authority’s view that domestic industry constitutes a “major proportion” and that Rule 5(3)
is inapplicable, Rule 23(1B) still requires a sunset review application to be filed “by or on behalf of the
domestic industry,” which has not been satisfied.
c. The negative price undercutting shows no price pressure from imports.
d. Since the Authority found negative injury margin for non -subject countries and dismissed them as a
cause of injury, the same reasoning should apply to subject countries, where both injury margin and
price undercutting are also negative.
e. In its annual report for 2024 -25, the applicant has stated that the decline in selling price was due to
factors such as reduced raw material supply, falling international prices, and weak demand.
f. The increase in imports is misleading, as the base year was impacted by COVID. The long -term data
shows a decline in imports compared to earlier years, and current import levels are lower than in some
previous periods.
g. The actual installed capacity in the subject countries is around 2.308 million MT. The applicant itself
admits that China has about 2,800 kilo tons of installed capacity, which is 50% of the global demand of
the PUC. Therefore, there is a threat of material injury from China PR, and not the subject countries.
h. Since a high percentage of exports from the subject countries to third countries are sold at attractive
prices, there are many lucrative markets available. Therefore, it is unlikely that exporters would
specifically target the Indian market.
i. The Authority used incorrect duty rates, considering only the lowest rates and ignoring the full
applicable range, which is up to 13% of the landed price.
j. The Authority fails to consider the inverted duty structure. Even using the Authority’s methodology, the
actual impact of duties ranges from 1% to 7%.
k. The existing anti -dumping duties on product have been in force since 2016. The duties are no longer
necessary because a new producer, BPCL, has entered the market and is showcasing healthy sales and
financial performance.
l. The applicant is not cost -competitive and has historically relied on trade remedy measures to maintain
its market position.
m. Nan-Ya Plastics Corporation, though not a participant in the original investigation, has fully cooperated
in the present sunset review and provided verified data, on the basis of which the Authority has
determined its normal value, export price and margins separately. The Authority’s recent practice in the
Sodium Citrate case granted exporter -specific duty rates rather than being placed under the residual
category, even if they had not participated in the original investigation.
n. The applicant’s plant undergoes several shutdowns during a given financial year. Once APL declares a
plant shut down, the demand -supply gap further widens, and this results in the PUC price increasing.
o. The continuation of measures is unjustified as the domestic industry has already benefited from
prolonged and uninterrupted protection for over a decade.
p. There is a factual error in the disclosure statement, which incorrectly states that exports were made to
unrelated Indian importers. BASF clarifies that all exports were made only to a related importer, BASF
India Limited.
q. The landed value should be calculated based on CIF price in line with DGTR guidelines. The Authority,
however, appears to have used prices charged by BASF to BASF India Limited. Actual sales to
independent Indian customers occurred through related importer are at high prices.
r. Injury to the domestic industry is not caused by imports but by internal and structural factors. The
frequent production disruptions, including plant shutdowns and insufficient availability of propylene
from its key supplier, HPCL has impacted the domestic industry.
s. Capacity utilisation of BASF has consistently remained high throughout the injury period. A significant
portion of its production is absorbed domestically and through captive consumption. There is no
evidence of a decline in demand in Malaysia.
t. Exports to unrelated third -country customers are made at higher prices than exports to India, and
therefore cannot be considered injurious.
u. The capacity of Indonesian producer operates at consistently high -capacity utilisation. The production is
absorbed through domestic sales and exports to multiple third -country markets.
v. Indonesia producer did not export the product to India during the POI, and therefore there is no existing
trade pattern that could support likelihood of recurrence.
w. All exports to third countries by the Indonesian producer are made to unrelated parties at profitable
prices, and there is no evidence of significant dumping margins.
L.2 Comments made by the domestic industry
163. The following comments on the disclosure statement have been filed by the domestic industry:
a. While the Authority has considered monthly price fluctuations for assessing price undercutting, similar
analysis is required for injury margin.
b. Import prices fluctuated sharply, ranging from approximately Rs 40,000 to Rs 70,000 per MT, making a
weighted average injury margin inadequate.
c. Reliance is placed on the CESTAT decision in Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. Designated
Authority, which held that low -priced imports causing injury should be given due weight even if higher -
priced imports exist.
d. A negative injury margin for cooperating producers does not justify cessation of anti -dumping duties in
a sunset review. The purpose of a sunset review investigation is to examine whether the expiry of duties
would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
e. While the injury margin for exports to India may be negative, a substantial proportion of exports by
participating producers to third countries are at injurious prices. Significant volumes of their global
exports are priced below the non -injurious price.
f. The absence of imports from Indonesia during the period of investigation does not indicate that
dumping or injury has ceased. Rather, the decline is attributable to the existing anti -dumping duty.
g. Indonesian producers are highly export -oriented, possess surplus capacity, and are likely to target India,
especially when demand in China declines. India remains an attractive and potentially high -priced
market. Indonesian producers have also indicated plans to export to India.
h. The domestic industry’s plant is largely depreciated, and the share of depreciation in total production
cost is negligible. The use of a 22% return on capital employed in calculating the NIP is inappropriate
given the plant’s age and low asset base. As a result, the return in the NIP is approximately [4%] of cost,
which is inadequate.
i. The Authority is requested to analyse third -country export prices. This is essential to assess exporters’
pricing behavior. The Authority conducted this analysis in the first sunset review as well.
j. While duties have supported the investments made by BPCL, injury persists due to continued dumped
imports.
L.3 Examination by the Authority.
164. The Authority has examined the post -disclosure submissions made by the interested parties. It is seen that most
of these submissions are reiterations of arguments and contentions that have already been examined and
addressed to the extent deemed necessary in the relevant paragraphs of these final findings. The issues raised
for the first time in the post disclosure comments/submissions by the interested parties and the domestic
industry and considered relevant by the Authority are examined below. Any submission which was merely a
reproduction of the previous submissions, and which had been adequately examined by the Authority has not
been repeated for the sake of brevity.
165. The other interested parties submitted that, under Rule 23(1B) of the Rules read with Article 11.3 of the
Agreement, the anti -dumping duty is required to lapse after a period of five years unless a review justifies its
continuation. Authority notes that anti -dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect
on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition, provided that, if the Central Government, in a
review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period upto
five years. The only condition necessary for extension of duties is whether cessation of such duty is likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. As per Section 9(A)(5) of the Act and Rule 23 of the
Rules, there is no restriction on the maximum period for which the duty can remain in force. The only
condition necessary for extension of duties is whether cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry. The antidumping duty can be extended
for a period as long as necessary to counteract likelihood of dumping and injury, or withdrawn, if there is no
justification for continuation of duty.
166. On the comments that the applicant does not represent the domestic industry as its share in total production is
below 50%, the Authority notes that the issue of standing was already examined in the disclosure statement.
BPCL has neither supported nor opposed the application . In such a situation, the production of the applicant
constitutes a major proportion of the domestic production within the meaning of the Rules and the applicant
constitutes domestic industry. The present application was filed by domestic industry and therefore
requirements of Rule 23 are fulfilled.
167. On the comments that decline in international prices caused injury to the domestic industry, it is seen that the
domestic industry is not engaged in exports of the product under consideration and, therefore, the relevant
benchmark for price determination is the price of imports into India. The decline in international prices is
reflected in import prices, which have exerted downward pressure on domestic prices. This has resulted in price
suppression and a deterioration in the profitability of the domestic industry.
168. On the comment by domestic industry that 22% return should not be provided on capital employed for
calculation of non -injurious price as the plant of the domestic industry is fully depreciated and the return on
cost is below 5%, the Authority considers that it has been consistent practice to consider 22% return on capital
employed. The non -injurious price has been determined in accordance with Annexure III to the anti -dumping
rules.
169. On the submission of the interested parties that the lowest duty has been considered to examine the impact of
measures instead of the highest duty, the Authority notes that in an event where there are exports by the
producer which were accorded the lowest duty, the domestic industry will benchmark its prices to these
imports. It is not possible for the domestic industry to benchmark its prices considering the import price and the
highest anti -dumping duty in place. In such circumstances, the prices are benchmarked effectively to the lowest
duty applicable to these producers. Considering the highest import price is not appropriate. It is also seen that
the interested parties have calculated the impact of anti -dumping duty considering duty applicable on imports
from Indonesia. When there are no imports from Indonesia in the period of investigation, it would be
inappropriate to examine the impact of anti -dumping duty considering the highest duty applicable on the
imports from Indonesia particularly when the evidence on record shows that there exists only a single producer
from Indonesia.
170. As regards the submission on inverted duty structure, the Authority notes that the present investigation is
restricted to examine whether there is a likelihood of recurrence of dumping and consequent injury to the
domestic industry in the event of expiry of measures. The existence of inverted duty structure is not relevant to
the investigation. It is also seen that the existence of inverted duty structure is equally applicable to the
domestic industry as the imports of the product under consideration from Indonesia and Malaysia are subject to
nil duty under ASEAN FTA.
171. The Authority has additionally examined whether the exports to third countries by the producers from the
subject countries are below the normal value. The table below shows the exports made to third countries and
the volume of exports below the associated normal value.
SN Subject countries Total
exports Dumped
exports Share of
dumped export
1 PT Petronas, Indonesia *** *** ***
2 BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd,
Malaysia *** *** ***
3 Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan *** *** ***
4 European Union 3,00,611 1,08,259 36%
5 Korea RP 1,83,493 1,64,177 89%
6 USA 1,49,639 1,07,589 72%
Source: Exports for the European Union, Korea, and USA are as trademap data. For Indonesia, Malaysia and
Taiwan, analysis has been done as per the EQR.
172. It is seen that
a. In the case of PT Petronas, Indonesia, ***% of exports are below the normal value.
b. In the case of BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd, Malaysia, ***% of exports are below the normal
value.
c. In the case of Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, Taiwan, ***% of exports are below the normal value.
d. In the case of European Union, 36% of exports are below the normal value.
e. In the case of Korea RP, 89% of exports are below the normal value.
f. In the case of USA, 72% of exports are below the normal value.
173. On the comments of the other interested parties that negative injury margin implies that imports are priced
fairly and therefore there is no need for anti -dumping measures, it is noted that the relevant consideration in a
sunset review is to examine whether there is a likelihood of injury in even of cessation of measures. Existence
of negative injury margin alone is not sufficient. Having already found that there is a steep fluctuation in the
import price over the period of investigation, a conclusion drawn only on the basis of injury margin would not
be appropriate. Therefore, the volume of imports from the subject countries which are below the non -injurious
price of the domestic industry has also been examined. It is seen that similar analysis was also undertaken in
previous sunset review investigation for the product. The table below shows the imports which are below the
non-injurious price. The likelihood of injury has been examined based on the analysis below.
SN Particulars Total imports
(MT) Imports below
NIP (MT) Share of imports
below NIP
1 European Union 1,261 120 9%
2 Indonesia - - -
3 Korea RP 13,404 4,174 31%
4 Malaysia 5,517 5,517 100%
5 Taiwan 8,903 2,973 33%
6 USA 10,289 4,138 40%
174. On the submissions made by BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd, Malaysia on the determination of normal
value, the same has been corrected and taken into account in the calculation of injury margin.
M. CONCLUSION
175. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided, submissions made and the facts available before
the Authority as recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis of the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry, the Authority concludes that: -
a. The product under consideration is “2 -Ethyl Hexanol”. 2 -Ethyl Hexanol is a basic organic chemical.
The scope of the product under consideration remains the same as defined in the original investigation.
b. The application has been filed by Andhra Petrochemicals Limited. The domestic industry accounts for a
major proportion of the total Indian production.
c. The applicant satisfies the requirements of “Domestic Industry” under the Rules.
d. There is evidence showing likelihood of continuation of dumping in the subject countries and injury to
the domestic industry in case of cessation of anti -dumping duty in force.
e. Normal value, export price and dumping margin
i. The dumping margin for participating producer Nan -Ya Plastics Corporation is found as 0 -10% and
in case of BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. from Malaysia is found as 10 -20%. The dumping
margin is positive in case of participating producers.
ii. The dumping margin for the non -participating exporters has been determined based on facts
available.
iii. There is a continuation of dumping of the product in the present review investigation, and the
investigation has shown that dumping of the product is likely to continue in the event of expiry of
the duties.
f. Injury to the domestic industry
i. The import volume from the subject countries has increased in both absolute and relative terms.
ii. Despite the increase in the cost of raw materials, the import price from the subject countries
declined.
iii. The dumped imports have prevented the domestic industry from increasing its prices in line with
changes in costs. The prices of the domestic industry have declined which shows that the
dumped imports have depressed the prices of the domestic industry.
iv. The production and sales of the domestic industry declined over the injury period. The market
share of the subject countries increased in 2022 -23, declined in 2023 -24, but increased again
during the period of investigation.
v. The domestic industry has suffered losses, including loss before interest, cash losses, and a
negative return on capital employed during the period of investigation. Consequently, the ability
of the domestic industry to raise capital investment has been severely impacted.
g. Likelihood of injury to the domestic industry
i. The imports are entering in the domestic market which are likely to cause suppressing/depressing
effect on the prices of the domestic industry.
ii. PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia, BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd., Malaysia and Nan Ya
Plastics Corporation, Taiwan have participated in the present investigation, and it is seen that the
producers are significantly export oriented as they are exporting 90 -100%, 15 -25% and 65 -75%
respectively of their production to global market. In case of European Union, Korea and United
States of America, the information on record shows that exports as % of capacity is 23%, 67% and
18% respectively.
iii. The information on record shows that China was one of the important export markets for the
producers in the subject countries. However, significant capacity expansions have taken place in
China and as a result, the producers in the subject countries will suffer a loss of market and will
likely to divert there surplus production to India.
iv. Significant share of exports by subject countries to third countries are at injurious and attractive
prices. The cumulative price attractive exports are 1,71,675 MT which is 344% of the demand in
India.
v. Dumping of the product from subject countries has continued in POI.
h. Indian industry interest
i. Anti-dumping duties were in place for more than 9 years. There is no evidence to suggest that there
was any adverse impact on the downstream industry as a result of the duties in force.
ii. The continuation of the measures would have negligible effect on downstream industries.
iii. The domestic industry in the present investigation has suffered continued injury in the period of
investigation. Therefore, continued imposition of duties will be in the interest of the domestic
industry.
N. RECOMMENDATION
176. The Authority notes that the present proceedings were conducted in accordance with the applicable law. All
interested parties were duly notified and were afforded adequate opportunity to provide information and
present their views on the matters under investigation, including dumping, injury, causal link, likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and impact of the measures on the Indian industry. Pursuant
to the sunset review, the Authority has arrived at the conclusion that continuation of the existing anti -dumping
duties is required in the present case.
177. Having concluded that there is a need for continued imposition of anti -dumping duty as there is a likelihood of
continuation/recurrence of dumping and injury if the anti -dumping measure are allowed to cease, the Authority
considers that the quantum of anti -dumping duty is not required to be modified, considering that the duty is
proposed to be extended on the grounds of likelihood of dumping and injury. The cumulative volume of
dumped and injurious exports from cooperating exporters to India and to the rest of the world have been
considered. The Authority notes that in the instant case the likelihood of injury has been found by the
Authority, therefore the modification of duties based on dumping margin and injury margin determined in the
present investigation will not be appropriate, considering that the anti -dumping duty is proposed to be extended
on the grounds of likelihood of injury to the domestic industry.
178. In view of same, the Authority considers it appropriate and necessary to recommend continuation of definitive
antidumping duty as notified vide F.No.7/28/2020 - DGTR dated 8th March 2021, except in respect of those
producer exporters who have not participated in the current sunset review investigation. Those non -cooperating
producer exporters in this sunset review investigation have been accorded residual duty as mentioned in the
table below. In case of the producers who have not participated in the original investigation or the first sunset
review investigation, and the fact that the Authority has recommended continuation of measures based on
likelihood of injury in the review investigation, the Authority considers that it would not be appropriate to
accord individual anti -dumping duty to the producers. However, the producers are free to seek an appropriate
review in accordance with the Rules.
179. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as established hereinabove, antidumping duty equal to the
amount indicated in Column (7) of the duty table given below is recommended to be imposed from the date of
notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, on all imports of the product under
consideration, from the subject countries for a further period of five (5) years.
DUTY TABLE
SN Heading
/Subheading Description of
the goods Country of origin Country of
export Producer Amount UOM Currency
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2905 16 20 2-Ethyl Hexanol
(2- EH) in all
forms and grades European Union Any country
including
European
Union Any 113.47 MT USD
2 -do- -do- Any country other
than Indonesia,
Korea RP, Malaysia,
Chinese Taipei and
USA European
Union Any 113.47 MT USD
3 -do- -do- Malaysia Any country
including
Malaysia BASF Petronas
Chemicals Sdn.
Bhd. 53.63 MT USD
4 -do- -do- -do- -do- Any producer
other than
mentioned in S.
No. 3 107.30 MT USD
5 -do- -do- Any country other
than EU, Indonesia,
Korea RP, Chinese
Taipei and USA Malaysia Any 107.30 MT USD
6 -do- -do- Indonesia Any country
including
Indonesia PT Petro Oxo
Nusantara 45.67 MT USD
7 -do- -do- -do- -do- Any producer
other than
mentioned in S.
No. 6 127.82 MT USD
8 -do- -do- Any country other
than EU, Korea RP,
Malaysia, Chinese
Taipei and USA Indonesia Any 127.82 MT USD
9 -do- -do- Korea RP Any country
including
Korea RP Any 15.55 MT USD
10 -do- -do- Any country other
than EU, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Chinese
Taipei and USA Korea RP Any 15.55 MT USD
11 -do- -do- Taiwan Any country
including
Taiwan Nan-Ya Plastics
Corporation 42.45 MT USD
12 -do- -do- -do- -do- Any producer
other than
mentioned in S.
No. 11 42.45 MT USD
13 -do- -do- Any country other
than EU, Indonesia,
Korea RP, Malaysia,
and USA Taiwan Any 42.45 MT USD
14 -do- -do- USA Any country
including
USA Any 29.61 MT USD
15 -do- -do- Any country other
than EU, Indonesia,
Korea RP, Malaysia,
and Chinese Taipei USA Any 29.61 MT USD
Note —The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in the above shall be
conditional upon presentation to customs authorities of a valid commercial invoice, on which shall appear a
declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her name and
function, drafted as follows:
“I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of (product concerned) sold for export to India covered by
this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) in the (name of country). I declare that
the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’ If no such invoice is presented, the
duty applicable to all other companies shall apply. This requirement is without prejudice to the
verification procedures independently undertaken by the Customs authorities under the applicable
customs law and regulations.”
O. FURTHER PROCEDURE
180. An appeal against the determination/review of the Designated Authority in this final finding shall lie before the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Act/Rules.
AMITABH KUMAR, Designated Authority
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text