Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 159] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JUNE 13, 2026/JYAISTHA 23, 1948 ss24, 1947
CG-DL-E-25062026-273819
जलजमटेड *** *** *** *** 150-200
जलजमटेड *** *** *** *** 50-100
5 अन्य *** *** *** *** 400-450
इकाई 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 पीओआई
ii मांग % *** *** *** ***
iii क ु ल आयात % 44% 73% 90% 93%
i मांग % *** *** *** ***
400-500 200-300 200-300 200-300
2022 -23.
2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 पीओआई
2 जबिी % 320% 190% 29%
4 भंडार % 117% 66% 4%
7 कअि लाभ % -965% -181% -54%
200-250
जलजमटेड *** *** *** *** 50-100
उत्पादक *** *** *** *** 150-200
5 अन्य *** *** *** *** 250-300
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 39095000,
39191000,
39199010,
39199090,
39201019,
39201099,
39206190,
39206290,
39206919,
39206922,
39206929,
39206939,
39206999,
39209490,
39209912,
39209919,
39209939,
39209991,
39209999,
39211310,
6 39211900,
39219029,
39219099,
39269069,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUS TRY
(Department o f Commerce )
[DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES]
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 1 2th June, 2026
CASE No. AD (OI) – 15/2025
Anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of ―Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU)
based Surface/Paint Protectio n Film‖ originating in or exported from People’s Republic of
China.
Pictographic presentation of Paint Protection Film (PPF)
Subject: Anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of ―Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) based
Surface/Paint Protection Fil m‖ originating in or exported from People’s Republic of China.
F. No. 6/17/2025 -DGTR – Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as the ‗Act‘) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -
Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995 thereof, as amended from time to
time (hereinafter also referred to as the ‗AD Rules‘ or the ‗Rules‘);
i. The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as ―Authority‖) received an application filed on behalf of
the domestic industry by Garware Hi -Tech Films Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ―applicant‖ or the
―domestic industry‖) seeking initiation of an anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of
Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) based Surface/Paint Protection Film (hereinafter referred to as the
―product under consideration‖, ―PUC‖, ―TPU PPF‖ or ―subject goods‖) originating in or exported from
China PR (hereinafter referred to as the ―subject coun try‖, with imports of the product under consideration
from the subject country referred to as ―subject imports‖ or ―subject goods‖).
ii. The Authority examined the application and found prima facie evidence that exports from the subject country
were at dumped prices and there was consequent injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, pursuant to
Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, vide Notification F. No. 06/17/2025 -DGTR dated 16th June 2025, the Authority
initiated an investigation to examine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of the subject
goods and to recommend the amount of anti -dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the
alleged injury to the domestic industry.
A. PROCEDURE
1. The procedure described below has been followed wi th regard to the present investigation:
1.1. Initiation
i. In accordance with Rule 5(5), prior to initiation of the investigation, the Authority notified the government of
China PR through its embassy in India about the receipt of the present anti -dumping applic ation.
ii. As noted above, upon examination of the application, the Authority found prima facie evidence of dumping and
consequent injury. Therefore, in accordance with Rules 5 and 6, vide Notification F. No. 06/17/2025 -DGTR
dated 16th June 2025 (―Initiation N otification‖), the Authority initiated the present proceedings.
1.2. Period of Investigation and Injury Period
i. As noted in the initiation notification, the period of investigation (POI) adopted by the Authority is 1st
January 2024 to 31st December 2024 (12 m onths). The injury investigation period shall cover the period 1st
April 2021 to 31st March 2022, 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023, 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024 and POI.
1.3. Import Data
ii. A request was made to the Directorate General for Systems and Dat a Management (DG Systems) for transaction -
wise import data of the subject goods for the injury period. The Authority has relied upon the DG Systems data
for computation of the volume of imports and required analysis after due examination of the transaction s.
1.4. Circulation of non -confidential version of the application
i. The Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters and to the Government of the subject country, through their Embassy in India, in
accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Anti -Dumping Rules. A copy of the non -confidential version of the
application was made available to other interested parties, wherever requested .
1.5. Participation by Exporters of Subject Country
i. The Authority sent expor ter‘s questionnaire to the known producers/exporters in accordance with Rule 6(4)
of the Rules .
ii. The Authority sent questionnaires to the government of the subject country through its embassy in India. The
government of the subject country was requested to forward the Initiation Notification and the questionnaires
to the producers of the subject goods in China PR and advised them to respond to the questionnaire within
the prescribed time limit.
iii. The following known producers/exporters/traders have registered themselves as interested parties in these
proceedings:
SN Producer/Exporter
1 3M Innovation Singapore Pte. Ltd.
2 Avery Dennison (China) Co. Ltd.
3 BASF Coatings Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
4 Beijing Zhongshuo Weiye Technology Co., Ltd.
5 Guangzho u YuQuan Composite Material Co. Ltd.
6 Nantong NKODA Polyurethane Technology Co., Ltd. & Nalinv International Trade (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.
7 NAR Coating Technology Co., Ltd.
8 Shanghai NAR Industrial Co., Ltd.
9 Seeho Film Co., Ltd.
10 Zhaoqing KL Ne w Materials Technology Co., Ltd.
11 Zhaoqing Morthink Film Technology Co., Ltd.
1.6. Participation by Importers/Users
i. The Authority sent Importer‘s and User‘s Questionnaire to the known importers / users of the subject goods
in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
ii. The following importers, users and user associations have registered themselves as interested parties in the
present proceedings:
SN Importer/User/Association
1 3M India Limited
2 Avery Dennison (In dia) Pvt. Ltd.
3 Crest Automotive Solutions LLP
1.7. 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 ci rculate the non -confidential version of all
their submissions in the present proceedings with all the other interested parties.
1.8. Economic Interest Questionnaire
i. The Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire to the Embassy of the subject country , all the
known exporters/producers, importers/users, domestic industry as well as the other known producers in
India . The EIQ was also shared with the administrative line ministry on 18th June 2025. Beijing
Zhongshuo Weiye Technology Co., Ltd. have filed a response to the EIQ.
1.9. Oral Hearing
i. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to the interested parties to
present their views orally in a public hearing held on 8th April, 2026. The parties, which presented their
views in the oral hearing, were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally,
followed by rejoinder submissions.
1.10. Further Procedures
i. In the Initiation Notification, the interested parties were directed to file their comments on the sco pe of
the product under consideration (‗product scope‘) and the PCN methodology within 15 days of receipt of
intimation of the initiation of the investigation. Upon the request of the parties, an extension was granted
till 05.07.2025. After consideration o f the submissions filed, the Authority notified the product scope and
PCN methodology to be considered for the present investigation vide its notice dated 17.09.2025, which
was notified on the website of the Authority.
ii. The Authority made available non -confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested
parties. A list of all interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website, along with the request to all
of them to email the non -confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties
iii. In accordance with Rule 8, the Authority conducted verification of the data provided by the applicant
and other interested parties 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.
iv. The Authority calculated the non -injurious price (NIP) for the product under consideration so as to
ascertain whether duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remedy the injury being
suffered by the domestic industry. The NIP 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
applicant and having regard to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
v. The Authority examined the issues raised, information provided, and submissions made by the interested
parties during the course of the proceedings, to the extent they were supported by evidence and
conside red relevant to the present investigation, in preparing this final findings.
vi. 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 pr esent proceedings, or has
significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as non -cooperative and
recorded the findings based on the facts available.
vii. In accordance with Rule 7, information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was
examined by the Authority with regard to the sufficiency of the confidentiality claimed. On being
satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentialit y claims, wherever warranted, and such
information has been considered as confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever
possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide a non -confidential
summary of the information filed on a confidential basis.
viii. A disclosure statement dated 02.06.2026 was issued by the Authority, in accordance with Rule 16 of the
Anti-Dumping Rules disclosing the essential facts under consideration in the matter relating to the
present anti -dumping investigation. The comments to disclosure statement received from the interested
parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant and non -repetitive, in this final findings.
ix. The Authority, during the course of the investigatio n, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the information
supplied by the interested parties, which forms the basis of the present final findings to the extent
possible and verified the data/documents submitted by all the interested parties to the extent c onsidered
relevant, practicable and necessary.
x. ‗***‘ in this final findings represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis
and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xi. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the present investigation is 1 USD = Rs. 84.58.
B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
B.1 Submissions of the other interested parties
2. The other interested parties submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under consideration, like
article and PCN methodology:
i. BASF Group has sought exclusion of six categories of products, namely: High Optical Clarity TPU PPF;
Ultra -Low Haze TPU PPF; Extended UV Durability TPU PPF; Chemical Resistant TPU PPF; Precision
Elasticity TPU PPF; and High -Strength TPU PPF. BASF submits that products not manufactured by the
domestic industry should be excluded from the PUC. BASF relies on the "like article" concept, the DGTR
Manual, and precedent to argue that the domestic industry cannot claim injury from prod ucts it does not
manufacture.
ii. BASF further argues that its branded products are premium -priced and sold with higher warranty support,
different quality parameters, and premium TPU resin to a distinct customer segment including luxury -
vehicle users. BASF su bmitted laboratory evidence (QUV test reports) comparing samples of the domestic
industry‘s products with imported products, which allegedly demonstrate material technical differences on
parameters such as elastic modulus, adhesion force, stain resistance, and UV ageing performance (ΔE
values, gloss retention, haze).
iii. BASF contends that the domestic industry‘s objection to exclusion rests on a capability argument rather
than actual manufacture and commercial sale. It relies on Rule 2(b), Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules, and
paragraph 3.10 of the Manual, asserting that mere competence without production or merchant sales may
not be sufficient. Precedent in Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Private Limited v. Designated Authority,
Oxo Alcohols Industries' Association v. De signated Authority, and Indian Refractory Makers Association v.
Designated Authority is cited in support.
iv. NAR Group has sought exclusion of TPU PPF above 200 microns thickness, coloured TPU PPF, and
sunroof TPU PPF. NAR contends that these are separate pro duct categories requiring different
manufacturing processes, raw materials, and technical expertise.
v. Avery Group has sought exclusion of coloured TPU -based surface/paint protection film and TPU -based
surface protection film with width of 1.83 meters, on g rounds that the petitioner manufactures only
transparent film and that 1.83 -meter width film requires different machinery, handling and installation
applications.
vi. Seeho raises substantially the same objections as BASF, stating that its exports belong to a
premium/branded market space and are sold with higher warranty support and premium input usage.
vii. Nantong NKODA Polyurethane Technology Co., Ltd. and Nalinv International Trade (Guangzhou) Co.,
Ltd. and Beijing Zhongshuo Weiye Technology Co., Ltd. have reque sted the Authority to expressly confirm
that base TPU film is not part of the PUC.
viii. 3M contends that the Authority finalised the scope of the PUC and the PCN methodology without
appreciating 3M‘s comments and without issuing a speaking order. 3M seeks recon sideration of the PCN
methodology.
ix. 3M further argues that there is significant price variation (approximately 10% to 30%) between matte and
glossy PPF and that, accordingly, import volumes, normal value, export price, landed value and injury
indicators sho uld be examined on a PCN -to-PCN basis.
x. NAR Group has submitted that the Authority must undertake a fair comparison with respect to defective
PUC and PUC carrying different warranty periods, requesting separate PCNs for defective PUC and
warranty -differenti ated PUC because price, cost structure, technical performance and market positioning
vary depending on grade and warranty.
xi. The interested parties have argued that products with different warranty periods use different TPU resin
types, adhesive formulations and protective coatings. It has been submitted that the domestic industry
mainly sells 5 -year and 8 -year warranty products whereas imports comprise predominantly 3 -year and 5 -
year warranty products and that any comparison ignoring those differences would not be like -to-like.
xii. Guangzhou YuQuan Composite Material Co. Ltd and Zhaoqing KL New Materials Technology Co., Ltd.,
has submitted that the Respondents are not dumping the subject goods, that all relevant data supporting the
absence of dumping is on record , and that price differentials with domestic producers are fully explained by
differences in scale, efficiency, input costs, and market structure.
B.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
3. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under consideration and
like article:
i. The product -exclusion pleas are meritless, technically unsuitable, and transparently designed to carve out
artificial sub -categories from the PUC for the sole purpose of evading the remedial effect of anti -
dumping duty.
ii. The domestic industry has already placed on record that coloured TPU PPF has been manufactured by it
during the POI, that PPF of width 1.83 meters can be manufactured on its existing line and has in fact
been manufactured and sold f or export purposes, that TPU -based PPF above 200 microns has been
manufactured and sold, and that the DI‘s TPU -based PPF is equally suitable for sunroof application.
iii. The so -called high optical clarity, ultra -low haze, extended UV durability, chemical resis tant, precision
elasticity, and high -strength variants are not separate products at all, but only performance attributes
within the same TPU -based PPF family that the domestic industry can tailor depending on customer
requirement. Many of the products such as UV durability, chemical resistant, elasticity are intrinsic to
the PUC.
iv. Width -based, thickness -based, attribute -based and application -based exclusion requests would create
immediate and obvious avenues for circumvention. A respondent could avoid duty s imply by marginally
changing a visual specification, marketing the same film as sunroof use, or exporting a film slightly
above a thickness threshold.
v. The challenge to the PCN methodology is both belated and devoid of merit. Warranty is not an objective
physical parameter that can be uniformly mapped across producers. It is a commercial/marketing
decision which may vary across companies for the same or similar merchandise. Thickness differences
already stand captured through the weight -based data.
vi. As regard s defective PUC or B -Grade PUC, the domestic industry‘s consistent understanding from
import descriptions is that such transactions are vanishingly small, below 0.1% of imports from China.
No objective and verifiable criterion has been proposed by which cu stoms authorities can distinguish
‗regular‘ from ‗defective‘ grade.
vii. The base TPU film stands on a different footing because the DI itself has clarified that anything which
does not answer the definition of TPU -based Surface/Paint Protection Film remains ou tside the PUC by
definition. No further clarification is required beyond the product description already adopted by the
Authority.
B.3 Examination by the Authority
4. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration was defined as under:
“The p roduct under consideration in the present investigation is „Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) based
Surface/Paint Protection Film‟. TPU -based PPF represents the premium and technologically superior segment of
surface/paint protection films. The PUC is prima rily used in the automotive sector for protection of painted
surfaces against scratches, stone chips, abrasion, weathering, and environmental damage.”
5. The Initiation Notification invited all interested parties to file their comments on the product scope an d PCN
methodology within the prescribed timeline. The Authority received submissions from a number of interested
parties requesting exclusion of various forms and grades of the product. The Authority vide notification dated 17th
September, 2025 decided to adopt the same scope of PUC as notified in the Initiation Notification, without any
changes which is as follows:
S. No Parameter Specification PCN
1 Colour of the final product Transparent T
Colour C
2 Finish of the final product Gloss G
Matt M
6. The Authority notified that it shall consider appropriately all duly substantiated requests for exclusion of any
product presently falling within the scope of the PUC, during the course of the investigation.
7. The Authority notes that Rule 2(d) of the Rules defines ―like article‖ as an article which is identical or alike in
all respects to the article under investigation or, in the absence of such an article, another article which
although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling tho se of the articles under
investigation.
8. The Authority has examined the exclusion requests and the submissions of all parties. The burden of
establishing that a particular product variant is not a like article and should be excluded rests on the party
seeki ng such exclusion. Where an interested party seeks exclusion based on allegedly distinct technical
attributes, it must demonstrate through positive evidence that those attributes render the product technically
and commercially non -substitutable with the do mestic like article, and that the domestic industry does not
manufacture and commercially sell such product.
9. The Authority further notes that an exclusion from the PUC is not warranted merely because a respondent
describes a product by reference to a brand position, warranty promise, end -use emphasis, width, colour,
finish, thickness, or enhanced performance claim. The relevant inquiry is whether the article sought to be
excluded is so technically and commercially distinct that it cannot be considered ident ical or closely
resembling the domestic like article, and whether the domestic industry is unable to manufacture the like
article. On the present record, the exclusion -seeking parties have not discharged that burden by demonstrating
non-substitutability. R ather, the record indicates that the domestic industry manufactures TPU -based PPF and
has placed material showing capability to tailor relevant performance attributes depending on customer
requirement. Rule 2(d) expressly covers an article which, although not alike in all respects, has characteristics
closely resembling the article under investigation. On the record presently available, the Authority considers
that the relevant characteristics of the imported products and domestic products closely resemble each other
and that the attribute -based exclusion claims are not substantiated.
Exclusion of PPF with High Optical Clarity, Ultra -Low Haze, Extended UV Durability etc.
10. The Authority has examined the laboratory material and technical assertions placed on r ecord by the interested
parties regarding the product variants based on performance attributes (High Optical Clarity, Ultra -Low Haze,
Extended UV Durability, Chemical Resistant, Precision Elasticity, and High -Strength TPU PPF). The
Authority notes that the se represent performance gradations and specifications within the TPU -based PPF
family rather than separate and distinct products. The domestic industry has submitted that these attributes are
inherent in TPU -based films or can be tailored based on custome r demand. The interested parties have not
demonstrated that the domestic industry is incapable of producing films that meet these performance
specifications. The laboratory evidence submitted by the interested parties shows differences in performance
param eters but does not establish that the products are distinct articles that cannot be considered like articles.
The Authority also notes that creating exclusions based on such performance thresholds would create avenues
for circumvention. Therefore, the Auth ority, considers that the laboratory evidence does not justify treating
these attribute -based variants as separate articles outside the PUC and decides not to grant exclusion on the
basis of these performance attributes.
Exclusion of coloured TPU -based PPF, width of 1.83 meters, and above 200 microns.
11. With regard to coloured TPU -based PPF, PPF with width of 1.83 meters, and TPU -based PPF above 200
microns, the domestic industry has submitted evidence of manufacture and/or capability to manufacture thes e
variants. The interested parties have not established that these variants constitute distinct articles that are not
technically and commercially substitutable. Width, thickness, and colour are specifications within the same
product family and do not crea te distinct products. The interested parties have not placed evidence showing
that these products are manufactured through a wholly different process, sold to a wholly separate market, or
incapable of being used interchangeably with other TPU -based PPF for surface/paint protection. Further,
limited demand is not a ground for exclusion where the product otherwise falls within the product description
and the domestic industry has manufactured or is capable of manufacturing the like article. On the contrary,
excluding low -volume variants may itself encourage circumvention through marginal changes in width, colour
or thickness. The Authority therefore considers that the exclusion claims based on colour, 1.83 metre width
and thickness above 200 microns are not su pported by the evidence required for exclusion.
Exclusion of Sunroof TPU PPF
12. With regard to sunroof TPU PPF, the Authority notes that the interested parties have claimed that sunroof PPF
incorporates infrared and ultraviolet ray blocking properties. Howeve r, the domestic industry has submitted
that its TPU -based PPF is equally suitable for application on sunroofs and has provided video evidence.
Further, the interested parties have not demonstrated that the alleged additional infrared or ultraviolet feature
creates a separate article that is not technically or commercially substitutable with TPU -based PPF. The
Authority considers that ordinary TPU -based PPF can be applied to sunroofs and the additional property
claimed does not establish a separate product. Therefore, exclusion is not warranted.
Exclusion of TPU film/uncoated TPU film
13. With regard to base TPU film / uncoated TPU film, both the domestic industry and the interested parties are in
agreement that standalone base TPU film is outside the scope of t he PUC. The Authority decides that uncoated
TPU film or base TPU film, not constituting TPU -based Surface/Paint Protection Film, is outside the scope of
the PUC.
PCN Methodology and defective -grade PCNs
14. With regard to PCN methodology and warranty -based/def ective -grade PCNs, the Authority notes that it is a
settled position that PCNs are formulated to account for differences in costs and prices. The practice of
classification of the PUC into different PCNs is rooted in Article 2.4 of the WTO Anti -Dumping Agr eement,
which provides that allowances may be made on account of differences in physical characteristics, provided
that such differences are demonstrated to affect price comparability. The Authority notes that the PCN
methodology as notified is appropriate . With regard to defective PUC, the interested parties have not proposed
any objective and verifiable criterion by which customs authorities or the Authority can distinguish ‗regular‘
from ‗defective‘ grade for purposes of systematic comparison. Therefore, the Authority decides not to modify
the PCN methodology.
Warranty -based PCNs
15. Warranty is a commercial/marketing decision that may vary across companies for the same or similar
merchandise and cannot serve as a uniform, objective basis for PCN formulation The Authority has further
examined the contention that warranty periods must form a separate PCN because imported products allegedly
carry shorter warranties and domestic products allegedly carry longer warranties. The Authority notes that
warranty is not an inherent physical characteristic of the film in the same manner as colour, finish or thickness.
It is a commercial commitment that may depend on brand policy, customer contract, market positioning,
installer practices, claim administration and after -sales strategy. Similar films may carry different warranties in
different markets or under different brands. Therefore, the Authority considers that it cannot serve as a
uniform, objective basis for PCN formulation.
B-grade PCNs
16. With regard to B -grade PUC, th e Authority has examined the respondent's contention that descriptions such as
'B grade' and 'short roll' identify defective goods. The Authority notes that such expressions, even where they
appear in certain transaction descriptions, do not establish a un iform, objective and verifiable product category
for PCN purposes. Defectiveness may arise from multiple causes, degrees and commercial understandings, and
the mere description of a consignment as B -grade or short roll does not establish a standardized tec hnical
parameter comparable across producers and exporters. The Authority therefore decides not to modify the PCN
methodology on this basis.
17. In view of the foregoing, having considered submissions of the interested parties regarding product scope, the
Auth ority concludes that the product scope should be defined as in the Initiation Notification, with the express
clarification that standalone uncoated or base TPU film is outside the scope of the PUC. Thus, the PUC may be
defined as follows:
“Thermoplastic P olyurethane (TPU) based Surface/Paint Protection Film‟. TPU -based PPF represents the
premium and technologically superior segment of surface/paint protection films. The PUC is primarily used
in the automotive sector for protection of painted surfaces again st scratches, stone chips, abrasion,
weathering, and environmental damage. Base TPU film / uncoated TPU film is excluded from the scope of
Product under Consideration”
C. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
C.1 Submissions made by the other interested par ties
18. The other interested parties have not made any substantive submission disputing the standing of the domestic
industry, except to the extent that exclusion claims would affect the scope of the like article.
C.2 Submissions made by the domestic industry
19. The domestic industry has submitted that Garware Hi -Tech Films Limited is the sole producer of the subject
goods in India and accounts for 100% of total Indian production of the like article. The company has not
imported the subject goods from the subject country during the period of investigation and is not related to any
producer of the subject goods in the subject country or importer of the subject goods in India.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
20. Rule 2(b) of the Anti -Dumping Rules defines the domestic industry as 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 a rticle.
21. The Authority notes that the present application has been filed by Garware Hi -Tech Films Limited. The
Authority notes that, based on the information on record, the applicant is the sole producer of the like article in
India.
22. The Authority notes tha t based on the material on record, the total Indian production of the domestic like
article during the period of investigation was produced entirely by the applicant.
23. In view of the foregoing, the Authority concludes that the applicant, Garware Hi -Tech Fil ms Limited,
constitutes ‗domestic industry‘ within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules and satisfies the requirement of
standing as prescribed in Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
D. CONFIDENTIALITY
D.1 Submissions made by the other interested parties
24. Guangzhou YuQu an Composite Material Co. Ltd and Zhaoqing KL New Materials Technology Co., Ltd.,
submits that confidentiality has been granted mechanically and excessively, in violation of Rule 7 and Trade
Notice No. 10/2018, because key elements such as NIP and net sale s realization were not meaningfully
summarised. ASL relies on Sterlite Industries , H&R Johnson and the WTO Appellate Body report in EC –
Fasteners to argue that confidentiality cannot be automatic and must be justified by good cause objectively
examined by the Authority.
D.2 Submission made by the domestic industry
25. The domestic industry has submitted that it has complied with the statutory confidentiality regime and has
furnished the non -confidential material necessary for respondents to understand the case they had to meet. The
NCV Application filed by the domestic industry disclosed possible summaries on product scope, PCN
methodology, dumping margins, injury indicators and price effects.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
26. With regard to confidentiality of i nformation, Rule 7 provides that the Designated Authority may require
parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non -confidential summary thereof in sufficient
details to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the confide ntial information.
27. The Authority also notes that confidentiality objections have been examined in light of the nature of the
information involved. Non -Injurious Price (NIP), Net Sales Realisation (NSR), cost of sales, profitability,
allocation methodology, customer identities and transaction -level commercial data are inherently sensitive
business information which are confidential by nature, and therefore cannot be disclosed as per Rule 7 of the
Agreement on anti -dumping. The non -confidential version on rec ord contains the trend, indexed and ranged
information necessary to understand the substance of the claims, while the Authority has itself verified and
used the confidential data for the purpose of determination. The Authority therefore does not consider t hat the
confidentiality claims, as accepted in this investigation, have prevented interested parties from understanding
the substance of the case.
E. SAMPLING OF PRODUCERS/EXPORTERS
E.1 Submissions of the other interested parties
28. The other interested parties submitted as follows with regard to the Authority‘s decision to undertake sampling
of producers/exporters:
i. Zhaoqing KL New Materials Technology Co., Ltd., contended that the number of responding
producers/exporters (seven to eight) was limited and did not render individual examination
impracticable. It submitted that sampling had not been resorted to by the Authority in several previous
investigations involving a larger number of responding exporters, and that the practice of the Authority
did not support the adoption of sampling in the present case. It further argued that the respondents had
already filed complete questionnaire responses and that sampling could not be resorted to at a stage
when the investigation had substantially advanced and all such res ponses were on record.
ii. BASF Group (Zhaoqing Morthink Film Technology Co., Ltd., BASF Coatings Technology (Shanghai)
Co., Ltd. and Crest Automotive Solutions LLP) submitted that sampling would not reflect its market
position. It argued that its products wer e branded, premium -priced, sold with higher warranty support,
manufactured to different quality standards and intended for a distinct customer segment, including
luxury -vehicle users. According to BASF, a sample dominated by lower -priced suppliers would di stort
the margin determination and would not give a correct picture of its export pricing or market
behaviour.
iii. BASF further submitted that the timeline for sampling was long over. It pointed out that the
investigation was initiated on 16 June 2025 and that the decision to resort to sampling was notified
nearly ten months thereafter, i.e., on 1 April 2026, after the PCN methodology had been finalised and
after all participating exporters had filed full questionnaire responses. It relied on paragraph 8.8.4 of the
Manual of Operating Practices of the DGTR, which states that resort to sampling should be notified
within 80 days from initiation.
iv. BASF also argued that sampling would lead to unrepresentative data because the sampled exporters
might be exporting only a limited number of product control numbers (PCNs). It submitted that the
Authority had notified four PCNs based on colour and finish, and that the range of PCNs exported by
the sampled entities may not adequately represent the diversity of the product un der consideration.
v. It submitted that its CIF prices were significantly higher than the average CIF value of imports reported
in the non -confidential petition, and that a sample -based determination would result in higher duties
being applied to its exports, even though its own pricing did not reflect dumping. It contended that
undertaking sampling after receiving the questionnaire responses lacked objectivity and appeared to be
an afterthought.
vi. BASF also relied on the past practice of the Authority, pointing out that in the investigation concerning
Resin Bonded Thin Wheels from China PR , where 28 producers/exporters had filed questionnaire
responses, sampling was not adopted. It further submitted that since China PR is treated as a
non-market economy and no e xporter had claimed market economy treatment, the Authority would not
be burdened with verification of cost of production and domestic sales, and that only export prices and
adjustments would require verification.
vii. Finally, BASF submitted that, even if samp ling were retained, the non -sampled cooperating exporters
who had filed timely voluntary responses should be awarded individual rates of anti -dumping duty
under Article 6.10.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.
viii. Seeho Film Co., Ltd. raised substantially the sam e objections as BASF. It submitted that its products
occupied a separate market position, being sold at a premium price with higher warranty support,
different quality standards and premium TPU resin, and that its products catered to luxury -vehicle
users. It argued that a sample dominated by lower -priced exporters would not represent its commercial
strategy and pricing behaviour.
ix. Seeho also contended that the sampling decision had been taken belatedly, nearly ten months after
initiation, after all questionn aire responses had been filed and without any prior request for quantity and
value information at the stage of initiation. It relied on paragraph 8.8.4 of the Manual and submitted
that sampling should have been notified within 80 days of initiation.
x. Seeho submitted that its CIF prices were materially higher than the average CIF value relied upon by
the domestic industry and that a sample -based margin determination would unfairly penalise its
exports. It argued that the decision to sample after receipt of al l pricing information raised concerns
about the objectivity of the process.
xi. Seeho further submitted that the Authority‘s past practice did not support resort to sampling in such
cases, that there was no undue burden on the Authority in verifying non -sample d exporters in a
non-market economy case, and that the subject goods comprised a large variety of products ordered on
the basis of varied end -uses, which made sampling unsuitable. It also requested that, if sampling were
retained, individual rates should b e granted to cooperating non -sampled exporters in terms of Article
6.10.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.
xii. Avery Group (Avery Dennison (China) Co. Ltd. and Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd.) submitted that
the domestic industry‘s generalized country -wide dump ing allegations could not be applied to it and
that its position should be examined on the basis of its own confidential questionnaire response. It
submitted that its branded exports were sold at materially higher price levels and that any measure, if at
all warranted, should distinguish fair -priced and higher -priced imports from low -priced imports.
xiii. Nantong NKODA Polyurethane Technology Co., Ltd. and Nalinv International Trade (Guangzhou)
Co., Ltd. (NKODA Group), having been selected as a sampled producer/e xporter, submitted that it was
entitled to an individual dumping margin and an individual duty rate based on its own data.
xiv. Beijing Zhongshuo Weiye Technology Co. Ltd., a cooperating non -sampled producer/exporter,
submitted that it should receive a non -samp led rate of anti -dumping duty based on the weighted
average margin of the sampled cooperating producers/exporters.
E.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
29. The domestic industry submitted as follows with regard to the sampling of producers/exporters:
i. The p leas relating to sampling, voluntary responses and producer/exporter -specific rate treatment were
essentially producer/exporter -side pleas concerning the manner in which the Authority may compute
margins for particular cooperating producers/exporters. Thes e pleas did not dislodge the central facts on
record, namely, that subject imports from China PR as a whole were dumped at a substantial margin, had
increased sharply in absolute and relative terms, commanded a dominant share of Indian demand, and had
caused pronounced volume and price injury to the domestic industry.
ii. The question whether sampling was warranted was one for the Authority to decide in accordance with the
statute and the procedural realities of the investigation. The Authority had selected the sample on the basis
of the largest export volumes, which was a methodology that ought to cover the product mix. The
arguments of BASF and Seeho that their branded or premium positioning made the sample
unrepresentative were factually incorrect and lacked merit.
iii. As 3M had not been sampled, individual assessment of dumping and injury margins was not warranted
where sampling had been resorted to, and the non -sampled cooperating producers/exporters were to be
accorded the weighted average duty based on the sam pled producers.
A.3 E.3 Examination by the Authority
30. Rule 17(3) of the Anti -Dumping Rules provides as under:
“The designated authority shall determine an individual margin of dumping for each known exporter or
producer concerned of the article under investigat ion: Provided that in cases where the number of exporters,
producers, importers or types of articles involved are so large as to make such determination impracticable, it
may limit its findings either to a reasonable number of interested parties or article s by using statistically valid
samples based on information available at the time of selection, or to the largest percentage of the volume of
the exports from the country in question which can reasonably be investigated …
Provided further that the designa ted authority shall, determine an individual margin of dumping for any
exporter or, producer, though not selected initially, who submit necessary information in time, except where
the number of exporters or, producers are so large that individual examinati on would be unduly burdensome
and prevent the timely completion of the investigation.”
31. The Authority notes that the initiation notification did not contain a request for filing of quantity and value
information for the purposes of sampling. All registered producers/exporters were directed to file complete
questionnaire responses. In the course of the investigation, seven producers/exporters from China PR filed
questionnaire responses and cooperated with the Authority. The details of the cooperating producer s/exporters
and their respective export volumes of the product under consideration to India during the POI are as follows:
S. No. Producer/Exporter Volume of Exports to India
in POI (Kgs)
1. Nar Coating Technology Co., Ltd. (along with related exporter Sh anghai
NAR Industrial Co., Ltd.) ***
2. Nantong NKODA Polyurethane Technology Co. Ltd. (along with related
trader Nalinv International Trade (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd.) ***
3. Avery Dennison (China) Co., Ltd. (along with related importer Avery
Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd.) ***
4. Seeho Film Co. Ltd. ***
5. Zhaoqing KL New Materials Technology Co., Ltd. (along with related
exporter Guangzhou YuQuan Composite Material Co. Ltd.) ***
6. Zhaoqing Morthink Film Technology Co., Ltd. (along with related
exporter BASF Coatings Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.) ***
7. Beijing Zhongshuo Weiye Technology Co. Ltd. ***
32. Considering the number of cooperating producers/exporters and the volume of exports from the subject country,
the Authority, in exercise of its power under Rule 17(3) of the AD Rules, proposed sampling of
producers/exporters vide notification dated 1st April, 2026. The proposal was to select three producers on the
basis of the largest percentage of the volume of exports to India during the POI. Interested par ties were invited to
offer their comments.
33. Comments were received from Zhaoqing KL, BASF Group, Seeho, Avery Group, and other interested parties.
The objections have been summarised above. The Authority has carefully examined each of the submissions.
34. With regard to the contention that the number of responding producers/exporters is not so large as to make
individual examination impracticable, the Authority notes that Rule 17(3) does not prescribe a fixed numerical
threshold. The test is one of impracticabil ity and the reasonableness of conducting individual examinations in the
facts of each case. The Manual of Operating Practices (paragraph 8.8.4) indicates that sampling may generally be
resorted to where the number of cooperating producers -exporters is thre e or more. In the present investigation,
seven producers/exporters cooperated, and the Authority considered it appropriate to limit individual examination
to a reasonable number in order to complete the investigation within the statutory time frame. The fa ct that in
certain other investigations the Authority did not resort to sampling does not restrict the statutory discretion
available under Rule 17(3).
35. With regard to the objection that sampling cannot be resorted to after receipt of complete questionnaire responses
and nearly ten months after initiation, the Authority notes that Rule 17(3) does not contain any prohibition on
undertaking sampling after the filing of questionnaire responses. The second proviso to Rule 17(3) itself
recognises that individual examination may be declined where the number of exporters is so large that such
examination would be unduly burdensome and prevent timely completion of the investigation. Mere filing of
responses does not divest the Authority of its statutory discretion. T he Authority, having regard to the volume of
data, the variety of products, and the time remaining for completion of the investigation, considered it necessary
to resort to sampling in order to ensure a timely and effective determination.
36. With regard to th e objections relating to unrepresentativeness, the distinct market position of certain
premium -priced exporters, and the request for individual rates for non -sampled cooperating exporters, the
Authority notes that the sample was drawn on the basis of the l argest volume of exports to India, which is a
method permitted under Rule 17(3) and is intended to achieve reasonable representativeness of the subject
imports. The Rules do not require that every grade, price point or market segment be individually repres ented in
the sample. The Authority further notes that the second proviso to Rule 17(3) limits the obligation to determine
individual margins for non -selected exporters where such individual examination would be unduly burdensome
and prevent timely completi on. In the present case, the Authority, after considering the number of cooperating
exporters, the volume and complexity of data, and the statutory time limits, reached the conclusion that individual
examination of all non -sampled exporters would be unduly burdensome. The non -sampled cooperating
producers/exporters shall be entitled to the weighted average dumping margin of the sampled cooperating
producers/exporters, in accordance with the Rules.
37. After considering the comments received, the Authority final ised the sampling of producers/exporters vide
notification dated 15th April, 2026. The following producers, along with their associated exporters, were selected
for individual determination of dumping margin, on the basis of the largest percentage of the v olume of exports to
India during the POI:
S. No. Producer
1. Nar Coating Technology Co., Ltd.
2. Nantong NKODA Polyurethane Technology Co. Ltd.
3. Avery Dennison (China) Co., Ltd.
38. The Authority has determined the dumping margin for the non -sampled coo perating producers/exporters on the
basis of the weighted average dumping margin of the sampled producers, in accordance with the Rules. For
non-cooperative producers/exporters, the dumping margin has been determined on the basis of facts available in
terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules.
F. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
F.1 Submissions by other interested parties
39. Guangzhou YuQuan Composite Material Co. Ltd and Zhaoqing KL New Materials Technology Co., Ltd., has
argued that non -subject country imports were improperly exclu ded even though, collectively, they account for a
significant share of imports (exceeding 16.10% of total imports). It has been submitted that this omission vitiates
the injury analysis, inflates the injury margin and the causal link attributed to subject country, and would lead to
trade diversion if duty is imposed only on the subject country.
40. 3M has submitted that there is no dumping on account of export sales by 3M and that its export price is
substantially above the average landed value of imports from China. 3M also contends that the DI in fact
undercuts 3M, not vice versa, because 3M‘s landed values are premium -priced and materially above DI‘s
domestic selling price.
41. BASF, Seeho, and Avery have submitted that if any duty is imposed, it should be in the form of a reference -price
based anti -dumping duty. The respondents argue that an ad valorem duty based on lower -priced sampled
exporters would overburden higher -priced branded imports and could exceed the permissible remedial scope.
42. BASF, Seeho and Avery have objected to sampling, arguing that the timeline for sampling was long over, nearly
ten months had elapsed since initiation, and the respondents had already filed full responses. They argue that
sampling will not reflect their market position because t heir products are branded, premium -priced products.
43. The interested parties, including BASF, Seeho, Avery and NAR, alleged that the domestic industry‘s injury
claims are distorted because it is engaged in export -oriented white -label manufacturing for global brands such as
XPEL. They argued that such exports involve premium specifications, higher warranty commitments, specialised
imported TPU resin and different technical standards. According to them, higher -cost export transactions, white -
label supplies and warranty -linked product streams have been blended into the domestic cost base, thereby
inflating cost of sales, profitability losses and NIP. They therefore requested the Authority to segregate export -
oriented premium or white -label costs before attributin g injury to dumped imports.
F.2 Submissions by the domestic industry
44. The domestic industry has submitted that the market for TPU -based PPF in India is a developing market created
substantially through its own efforts, that it has undertaken promotional and market development activities, that it
has established approximately 170 application centres and trained 900 -1000 professionals, and that dumped
imports are free -riding on the demand created by the domestic industry.
45. With regard to non -subject -country imp orts, the domestic industry has submitted that imports from other
countries declined from 51% of Indian demand in the base year to only 12% in the POI, whereas imports from
China PR increased from 40% to 65% during the same period. The landed value of othe r country imports is more
or less comparable to the DI‘s selling price and therefore, the DI is not suffering any injury on account of these
imports.
46. The domestic industry has submitted that reference -price based duty would not be appropriate in a dynamic
pricing environment where prices of key raw materials are inherently volatile, being closely linked to fluctuations
in crude oil.
47. As regards the allegation that the domestic industry‘s injury claims are distorted because it is engaged in export -
oriented wh ite-label manufacturing for global brands such as XPEL, it has been submitted that the allegations are
speculative, unsupported and legally untenable. The domestic industry has submitted that injury must be
examined for the domestic industry producing the like article in India and cannot be defeated merely because
exports are also undertaken. It argued that respondents had not produced verifiable evidence regarding white -label
manufacturing, premium resin use or export -specific cost distortion. The DI furth er stated that raw materials are
procured in bulk and commonly used across all production streams, without export -domestic bifurcation. It also
submitted that Annexure III of the AD Rules does not require such segregation, and customer identities are
confi dential.
F.3 Examination of the Authority
48. The period of investigation for the present investigation is 1st January, 2024 to 31st December, 2024 (12 months).
The Authority notes that the domestic industry commenced commercial production in the base year and is a
relatively recent entrant in the PPF market.
49. The Authority notes that the existence of some high -priced imports does not negate the effect of significant
volumes of dumped imports entering at prices substantially below the domestic industry's selling price and cost of
sales.
50. The Authority has examined the request for a reference -price form of duty advanced by BASF, Seeho and Avery.
The principal ground advanced is that premium or higher -priced imports should not bear duty derived from
lower -priced imp orts. However, the record shows significant dumping and injury margins for the subject imports
and substantial volatility in input costs linked to TPU resin and crude -oil related inputs as submitted by the
interested parties. A reference -price duty in such a dynamic pricing environment may become quickly ineffective
if the benchmark does not track the movement in costs, prices and margins. The Authority further notes that the
purpose of the measure is to remove injury caused by dumping of the PUC as a whole . The Authority, therefore,
considers that the request for reference -price duty does not, on the present record, provide a more appropriate
remedial form than a duty calibrated to the dumping and injury margins determined in the investigation.
51. With regard to the submission on non -subject -country imports, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has
demonstrated that imports from other countries declined significantly over the injury period, and their landed
values are comparable to the DI‘s selling pr ice. The Authority considers that non -subject country imports have
not caused injury to the domestic industry.
52. The Authority notes that the allegations regarding white -label manufacturing, premium export orders, specialised
resin, warranty -linked product s treams and inflated domestic cost base are general in nature and have not been
supported by verifiable evidence. The burden to establish that export -oriented production has distorted the
domestic cost of sales or NIP lies on the parties making such allegat ion, which has not been discharged. The
Authority further notes that the domestic industry has submitted that raw materials are procured in bulk and are
commonly used across production streams, without any bifurcation between export and domestic sales. Fur ther,
Annexure III of the AD Rules does not mandate segregation of costs based on market destination. Accordingly,
the Authority considers that injury is required to be assessed for the domestic industry as it exists and decides not
to accept the responden ts‘ claims.
G. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE, AND DUMPING MARGIN
G.1 Submission made by the other interested parties
53. The interested parties have submitted that the responding exporters‘ transaction -wise data and cost structures are
based on fai r pricing and absence of dumping. They submit that the domestic industry‘s country -wide dumping
narrative cannot be mechanically applied to each cooperating exporter, particularly where respondent -specific
questionnaire responses have been filed.
54. 3M has su bmitted that its export price is substantially above the average landed value of imports from China,
demonstrating absence of dumping and injury.
G.2 Submission made by the domestic industry
55. The domestic industry has submitted that the dumping margin in t he present case is ***%. The domestic industry
has provided the following dumping margin calculation:
Particulars Unit China PR
Import Quantity MT 443
Constructed Normal Value (CNV) Rs/MT ***
Ex-factory Price of Imports Rs/MT ***
Dumping Margin Rs/MT ***
Dumping Margin % ***
Dumping Margin Range 150-200
56. The Domestic Industry submits that a dumping margin of this magnitude in the POI is itself a compelling
indicator of serious distortion in fair market conditions and establishes that exporters from C hina PR are not
competing on the basis of normal market economics, but through materially unfair pricing.
G.3 Examination by the Authority
57. Under Section 9A(1)(c), normal value in relation to an article means the comparable price, in the ordinary
course of trade, for the like article, when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory. The
section is detreated:
i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when meant for consumption
in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -section
(6), or
ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the
exporting country or territory, or when because of the parti cular market situation or low volume of the
sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper
comparison, the normal value shall be either:
(a)comparable representative price of the like article when exp orted from the exporting country or
territory to an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -
section (6); or
the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for
administrative, selling, and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules
made under sub -section (6);
(b)Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin
and where the article has been merely transshipped through the country of export or such article is
not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the
normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country o f origin.
58. The Authority notes that the following exporters of the subject goods have filed exporter‘s questionnaire
responses: -
i. Nantong NKODA Polyurethane Technology Co., Ltd. (producer) along with its related trader Nalinv
International Trade (Guangzho u) Co., Ltd.
ii. Avery Dennison (China) Co., Ltd. (producer) along with its related importer Avery Dennison (India) Pvt.
Ltd.
iii. NAR Coating Technology Co., Ltd. (producer) along with its related trader Shanghai NAR Industrial Co.,
Ltd.
iv. Seeho Film Co., Ltd.
v. Zhaoq ing KL New Materials Technology Co., Ltd. along with its related exporter Guangzhou YuQuan
Composite Material Co., Ltd.
vi. Zhaoqing Morthink Film Technology Co., Ltd. along with its related exporter BASF Coatings Technology
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
vii. Beijing Zhongs huo Weiye Technology Co. Ltd.
59. In accordance with Rule 8, the Authority conducted the desk verification of the data provided by the applicant and
other interested parties to the extent considered necessary for the present proceedings. The Authority has
considered the verified data of the interested parties in its analysis in these final findings.
60. The Authority has examined the export price based on the transaction -wise import data from DG Systems and the
questionnaire responses filed by the cooperating prod ucers/exporters.
61. The Authority notes that, in accordance with the sampling methodology adopted, the dumping margin has been
determined for the sampled cooperating producers/exporters and the non -sampled cooperating
producers/exporters. The dumping margin f or non -cooperative producers/exporters has been determined based
on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules.
62. The Authority has considered the submission that certain cooperating exporters have reported higher export prices
or that their own tran saction data allegedly shows absence of dumping. In a case where sampling has been
resorted to under Rule 17(3), individual dumping margins are determined for sampled cooperating
producers/exporters, while non -sampled cooperating exporters receive the appl icable weighted -average rate in
accordance with the Rules. Higher prices reported by non -sampled exporters do not by themselves invalidate the
dumping determination for sampled exporters or the weighted -average margin determined for non -sampled
cooperating exporters.
63. The confidential numbers pertaining to Normal value, export price, landed price, and dumping margins are being
provided to concerned interested parties on confidential basis, and comments received from them in this regard
will be taken into acc ount by the Authority for the final findings.
G.3.1 Determination of Normal Value
64. Article 15 of the China‘s Accession Protocol to the WTO provides as follows:
“Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agr eement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“Anti -Dumping Agreement”) and the SCM Agreement shall apply in
proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the following.
15. (a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under
investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in
China based o n the following rules:
(i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the
industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product,
the importing WTO Membe r shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in
determining price comparability;
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with
domestic prices or costs in China if the produce rs under investigation cannot clearly show that market
economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture,
production and sale of that product.
(b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement , when addressing subsidies
described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), l4(c) and l4(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall
apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO Member may
then use methodologies for i dentifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the
possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate
benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO M ember should
adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions
prevailing outside China.
(c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a)
to the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with
subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a
market e conomy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing
Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the
provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should
China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy
conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non -market economy provisions of
subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.”
65. The domestic industry has cited and relied upon Article 15(a)(i) of China's Accession Protocol. The domestic
industry has claimed that producers in China PR must be asked to demonstrate that market economy conditi ons
prevail in their industry. It has been stated by the domestic industry that in case the responding Chinese
producers are not able to demonstrate that their costs and price information are market -driven, the normal value
should be calculated in terms of provisions of Para 7 and 8 of Annexure - I to the Rules.
66. None of the cooperative producers have claimed market economy treatment in the present case. Accordingly,
the normal value has been determined in accordance with paragraph 7 of Annexure I of the Rul es which state as
follows.
“In case of imports from non -market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the
price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to
other countrie s, including India or where it is not possible, or on any other reasonable basis, including the
price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a
reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated
authority in a reasonable manner, keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the
product in question, and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of
selection. Accounts shall be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation made in any
similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be
informed without any unrea sonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and
shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments.”
67. The applicant has claimed that the normal value should be determined on the basis of price payable in India. The
other interested parties have not adduced any other basis, amongst that listed under paragraph 7 of Annexure I of
the Rules, which may form basis of determination of normal value. The Authority has therefore, determined
normal value as per the price p ayable in India, based on cost of production of the applicant, duly adjusted for
selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profits.
G.3.2 Determination of Export Price
68. The Authority has determined the normal value and export price on a PCN -wise basis, wherever the required
PCN -wise information has been provided by the cooperating producers/exporters and considered by the
Authority.
69. The Authority has examined the export price on the basis of the transaction -wise information filed by the
cooperating producers/exporters, relevant import data, and the information made available during the course of
the investigation. Adjustments have been made, wherever applicable, on account of inland transportation, port
and related expenses, ocean freight , marine insurance, bank charges, credit cost and other expenses, to arrive at
the ex -factory net export price. The dumping margin so determined is mentioned at dumping margin table.
a) Avery Dennison (China) Co. Ltd.
70. Avery Dennison (China) Co. Ltd. has part icipated in the investigation along with its related importer/trader,
Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd.
71. The producer/exporter has reported exports of the product under consideration to India during the period of
investigation. The exports have been made to its related importer/trader in India, namely Avery Dennison
(India) Pvt. Ltd., which has thereafter sold the product under consideration to unaffiliated customers in India.
72. The producer/exporter has reported exported quantity of *** MT of the product und er consideration to India
during the period of investigation. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustment on account of credit cost and
other applicable expenses, wherever relevant, for arriving at the ex -factory export price.
73. The Authority has examined the information submitted by Avery Dennison (China) Co. Ltd. and Avery
Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd. The quantity and value of exports reported by the producer/exporter have been
considered for determination of net export price, subject to necessary adjustmen ts, wherever applicable.
74. The net export price so determined are mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
b) NAR Coating Technology Co. Ltd.
75. NAR Coating Technology Co. Ltd. has participated in the investigation along with its related trader, Shanghai
NAR Industrial Co. Ltd.
76. The producer/exporter has reported exports of the product under consideration to India through different
channels, namely direct exports to unrelated customers in India, exports through its related trader Shanghai
NAR Industrial Co. Ltd., and exports through 3M Innovation Singapore Pte. Ltd.
77. The producer/exporter has reported export quantity of *** MT of the product under consideration to India
during the period of investigation.
78. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on acc ount of inland transportation, port and other related
expenses, credit cost, bank charges and other applicable expenses for arriving at the ex -factory export price. In
respect of transactions routed through 3M Innovation Singapore Pte. Ltd., the Authority has considered the
information available on record.
79. The Authority has examined the information submitted by NAR Coating Technology Co. Ltd. and Shanghai
NAR Industrial Co. Ltd. The net export price has been determined on a PCN -wise basis after making
adjustments considered appropriate by the Authority.
80. The net export price so determined are mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
c) Nantong NKODA Polyurethane Technology Co. Ltd.
81. Nantong NKODA Polyurethane Technology Co. Ltd. has participated in the inv estigation along with its related
trader, Nalinv International Trade (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd.
82. The producer has reported that it exports the product under consideration to India both directly to unrelated
Indian customers and through its related trader, Nalinv International Trade (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd.
83. The producer/exporter has reported exported quantity of *** MT of the product under consideration to India
during the period of investigation. The net export price, after the claimed adjustments, has been determin ed on
the basis of the information submitted in the exporter‘s questionnaire response.
84. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on account of inland transportation, port and other related
expenses and other applicable adjustments for arriving at the ex-factory export price. The Authority has
examined the transaction -wise information filed by Nantong NKODA Polyurethane Technology Co. Ltd. and
Nalinv International Trade (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd., and has determined the PCN -wise net export price after
making necessary adjustments.
85. The net export price so determined are mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
d) Non-sampled cooperating producers/exporters
86. The dumping margin for non -sampled cooperating producers/exporters has been determined in accordance wi th
the sampling methodology adopted by the Authority. The normal value and export price for such
producers/exporters have been considered on the basis of the weighted average dumping margin determined for
the sampled cooperating producers/exporters, as con sidered appropriate by the Authority. The non sampled
cooperative producers are Seeho Film Co. Ltd., Zhaoqing KL New Materials Technology Co., Ltd. (along with
related exporter Guangzhou YuQuan Composite Material Co. Ltd.), Zhaoqing Morthink Film Technolog y Co.,
Ltd. (along with related exporter BASF Coatings Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.) and Beijing Zhongshuo
Weiye Technology Co. Ltd.
e) Non-cooperative producers/exporters
87. The normal value and export price for non -cooperative producers/exporters from China PR have been
determined on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules.
88. The dumping margins for the cooperating producers/exporters, non -sampled cooperating producers/exporters
and non -cooperative producers/exporters from China PR are mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
G.3.3 Dumping margin
89. Considering the normal value constructed as provided above, and export price as determined, the dumping
margin determined for the subject country is as follows :
SN Producers CNV
(USD/MT) NEP
(USD/MT) Dumping
Margin
(USD/MT) Dumping
Margin
(%) Dumping
Margin
(Range)
1 Nar Coating Technology Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 150-200
2 Nantong NKODA Polyurethane
Technology Co. Ltd. *** *** *** ***
300-350
3 Avery Dennison (China) Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 50-100
4 Non-sampled cooperative Producers *** *** *** *** 200-250
5 Others *** *** *** *** 400-450
H. EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
H. 1 Submission made by the other interested parties
90. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
i. The domestic industry‘s own data shows explosive growth in production, capacity utilisation, domestic
sales, export sales, employment, wages and productivity. Out of sixteen injury indicators, thirteen to
fourteen are positive, and the few adverse indicators are attributable to start -up costs, capital expenditure
and depreciation, not imports.
ii. Any alleged injury is self -inflicted due to sudden capacity expansion, initial investment costs and
structural lack of backward integration. The domestic industry‘s losses followed a sharp capacity
expansion from 145 index points in 2022 -23 to 250 index points in 2023 -24, which increased fixed costs
and adversely affected profitability.
iii. The domestic industry is a recen t entrant in the PPF segment. The financial effects of start -up and
expansion activity, including depreciation, interest, and upfront business -building costs, are internal
commercial factors.
iv. The domestic industry‘s own public statements contradict the pet ition‘s injury allegations. The PPF line
was "overbooked" and products were well accepted in domestic and overseas markets, and a second PPF
line is expected from September 2025.
v. The domestic industry publicly stated that it had repaid all loans, including term loans, and had become
net debt free a position inconsistent with financial distress.
vi. Increase in imports is a natural response to increase in domestic demand and market expansion. Chinese
imports followed overall market expansion rather than displaci ng the DI.
vii. The landed value of imports from China PR increased from Rs. 9,29,319 per MT in FY 2021 -22 to Rs.
16,53,667 per MT in the POI, which does not support a case of significant price depression or suppression.
viii. The domestic industry itself stated that it had adopted introductory offers and other market penetration
measures because it was only four years old in the PPF market and was competing with established global
suppliers. Any pressure on margins arising from such pricing strategy is self -generated .
ix. The domestic industry‘s cost structure may have been affected by premium export orders, white -label
supplies, and high -warranty products requiring specialized imported resin. If such export -oriented
premium production is blended with the cost base for or dinary domestic sales, the cost of sales and NIP
for the domestic segment would stand artificially inflated.
x. The domestic industry‘s own admission that inventory build -up was predominantly in another segment
(SCF or window film) and linked to export channe ls and post -COVID demand correction. Such inventory
cannot be attributed to imports of PPF from China PR.
xi. Subject imports in the base year were only 40 MT, yet the domestic industry claims that it incurred losses
in that year. This shows that the losses in the base year could not have been caused by subject imports.
xii. The domestic industry is increasingly focused on exports rather than the domestic market. Export sales
increased from indexed 100 to 2911, while domestic sales increased from 100 to 1610.
xiii. The do mestic industry is already protected by a 10% basic customs duty and, additionally, by the
depreciation of the INR against the USD after the POI.
H.2 Submissions made by the domestic industry
91. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with re gard to injury and causal link:
i. The evidence on record establishes both volume injury and price injury, along with adverse impact on the
domestic industry‘s economic and financial performance.
ii. The imports from China PR have increased by 1,001% during the i njury period, far outpacing demand
growth of 576%. Imports from subject country have captured a dominant and increasing share of the
Indian market, reaching about 65% market share in the POI.
iii. The domestic industry‘s market share has stagnated at 23% since FY 2023 -24 despite being the sole
producer and market developer.
iv. The landed value of subject country dumped imports in the POI is Rs. 16,53,667 per MT, while the DI‘s
selling price is Rs. *** per MT and the DI‘s cost of sales is Rs. *** per MT. Price under cutting in the POI
stood at ***%, and the injury margin at ***%.
v. The domestic industry has been compelled to reduce or restrain its selling price and to continue operating
below its cost of sales merely to remain present in the market.
vi. The domestic industr y‘s expansion decisions were taken in response to the very market growth that
existed in India and are consistent with a legitimate expectation that a sole domestic producer should be
able to participate fairly in a growing market.
vii. The production process i nvolves significant costs associated with shutdown and restart. Suspension of
production in itself is a significant cost to the industry, and reducing production or sales volumes is not a
viable option.
viii. The domestic industry has suffered persistent losses, cash losses and negative return on capital employed.
Cumulatively for 2022 -23 and the period of investigation, the domestic industry has suffered significant
losses.
ix. The market in India was substantially developed by the DI through ecosystem -building effo rts, including
the setting up of approximately 170 Garware Application Studios and training of approximately 900 -1000
professionals. Dumped imports have free -ridden on a market created by the domestic industry.
x. There is no other known factor that could hav e caused or contributed to the injury suffered by the
domestic industry. The sole and proximate cause of the injury to the domestic industry is the dumped
imports from the subject country.
H.3 Examination by the Authority
92. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Ann exure -II thereto 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 dom estic market for like articles and the
consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles.
93. The Authority has taken note of the various submissions made by the interested parties, including the domestic
industry, and has analysed them considering the facts available on record and the applicable laws. The injury
analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto addresses the various submissions made by the interested
parties.
I. Assessment of demand/apparent consumption
94. The Authority has determined demand/apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of the domestic
sales of the domestic industry, estimated sales of the other producers and imports from all sources.
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Sales of domest ic industry MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 432 1,249 1,610
2 Imports from China MT 36 129 343 492
3 Imports from Other Countries MT 46 47 40 34
4 Total Demand/Consumption MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 236 548 742
95. It is seen that the d emand for the subject goods has increased substantially over the injury period, rising from
***MT in the base year to ***MT in the POI, representing a growth of approximately 642% in indexed terms.
The domestic industry, which is the sole producer of the l ike article in India, increased its domestic sales from
***MT to ***MT over the same period. Imports from China PR grew from 36 MT to 492 MT, while imports
from other countries declined from 46 MT to 34 MT.
96. The Authority notes that the domestic industry co mmenced commercial production of the subject goods in the
base year itself and has progressively expanded its capacity during the injury period. The rapidly expanding
demand, coupled with the presence of a single domestic producer, indicates a market envir onment in which the
domestic industry should have been able to secure a larger share of the growing consumption. However, as
examined in the succeeding paragraphs, a significant portion of the incremental demand has been absorbed by the
subject imports.
97. With regards 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. The relevant information is a s below:
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Imports from China MT 36 129 343 492
2 Imports from Other Countries MT 46 47 40 34
3 Total Imports MT 82 176 383 527
4 Demand in India MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 236 548 742
5 Subj ect imports in relation to:
i Indian domestic sales % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 83 76 85
ii Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 151 174 184
iii Total Imports % 44% 73% 90% 93%
6 Share of Domestic sales in
relation to:
i Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 183 228 217
98. It is seen that the volume of dumped imports from the subject country has increased sharply and consistently over
the injury period. Subject imports rose from 36 MT in FY 2021 -22 to 492 MT in the POI, an increase of
approximately 1,267%. Over the same period, total demand for the subject goods grew from *** MT to ***MT,
representing an increase of about 642%. The growth in subject imports has thus been nearly twice the rate of
expansion in dome stic demand, indicating that the subject imports have not merely kept pace with the market but
have substantially outpaced it.
99. The share of subject imports in Indian demand increased from ***% in the base year to ***% in the POI. The
share of subject impor ts in total imports rose from 44% in in base year to 93% in the POI. These trends show that
subject imports have not only gained a dominant position in the Indian market but have also progressively
displaced imports from other countries, which declined fro m 46 MT in the base year to 34 MT in the POI.
100. The share of subject imports in total Indian domestic sales was more than 300% through most of the injury period
including POI.
101. The Authority notes that while the domestic industry‘s domestic sales increased substantially, from ***MT in the
base year to ***MT in the POI (indexed 1,570), the domestic industry‘s share in total demand improved only
from ***% in FY 2021 -22 to ***% in the POI. In contrast, subject imports captured a ***% share of demand.
The domest ic industry, despite being the sole producer in India, could not obtain a fair share of the expanding
market because the incremental demand was largely absorbed by the dumped subject imports.
102. The Authority has considered the submission of the interested pa rties that the increase in imports is
demand -driven and reflects market expansion. While demand has indeed grown substantially, the
disproportionate increase in subject imports relative to demand growth, the dominant and rising market share of
subject impo rts, and the displacement of third -country imports indicate that the subject imports have not merely
responded to demand but have actively pre -empted the domestic industry from capturing a larger portion of the
market.
II. Price effect of dumped imports on the domestic industry
103. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is required to be analyzed whether there has been a
significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to the price of the like products in
India, or whe ther the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress the prices or prevent the price increase, which
otherwise would have occurred in the normal course.
a. Price undercutting
104. For the purpose of price undercutting analysis, the net sales realisation of the domestic industry has been
compared with the landed value of imports from the subject country.
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Landed Value from China Rs/MT 8,03,668 14,00,953 13,73,156 12,29,646
2 Domestic Selling Price Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 102 98 97
3 Price Undercutting Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
4 Price Undercutting % *** *** *** ***
Range
400-500 200-300 200-300 200-300
105. It is seen that the price undercutting has been positive and significant throughout the inju ry period and in the POI.
The landed value of subject imports is substantially below the domestic industry‘s selling price in every period.
The undercutting was significantly high at ***% in the POI. Although the magnitude of undercutting moderated
from th e exceptionally high level observed in the base year, it remained in the range of 200 -300% during the POI
and continues to be both substantial and persistent. The Authority considers that such a significant and sustained
price gap has enabled the subject i mports to secure orders, dealers and end -user preference in the Indian market at
the expense of the domestic industry.
a. Price suppression/depression
106. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are suppressing or depressing the domestic prices, the chan ges
in the costs and prices over the injury period are examined as below:
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Cost of sales Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 86 95 92
2 Selling price Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 102 98 97
3 Landed Value from
China Rs/MT 8,03,668 14,00,953 13,73,156 12,29,646
107. It is seen that:
i. The cost of sales of the domestic industry declined from Rs. ***per MT (indexed 100) in the base year to
Rs. *** per MT (indexed 92) in the POI. The selling price also declined, from Rs. *** per MT
(indexed 100) to Rs. *** per MT (indexed 97) over the same period.
ii. The selling price of the domestic industry was continuously below the cost of sales during the injury
period including the POI except in 2022 -23.
iii. The land ed value of subject imports increased from Rs. 8,03,668 per MT to Rs. 12,29,646 per MT in the
POI. Despite this increase, the landed value remained substantially below the domestic industry‘s selling
price and cost of sales in injury period.
108. The Authority has considered the submission of the interested parties that the landed value of subject imports
increased during the injury period. While the landed value did rise in absolute and indexed terms, it continued to
be a small fraction of the domestic industry ‘s selling price and cost of sales. The domestic industry incurred losses
in three of the four periods, and its selling price remained below cost of sales even as production and sales
volumes were expanding. The wide and persistent gap between the landed v alue of subject imports and the
domestic industry‘s prices demonstrates that the dumped imports suppressed and depressed domestic prices. The
domestic industry was unable to align its selling price with its cost structure so as to achieve sustainable
profi tability.
III. Economic parameters of the domestic industry
109. Annexure II to the Anti -Dumping Rules provides that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the
domestic industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all the relevant economic factors and
indices. The various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed below.
a. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sale
110. The information on capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales are given below.
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 145 250 250
2 Production (PUC) MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 353 2481 2834
3 Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index ed 100 244 992 1134
4 Domestic Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 420 1220 1570
5 Demand MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 236 548 742
111. It is seen that:
i. The installed capacity of the domestic industry was expanded significantly during the injury period, from
***MT in the base year to ***MT in the POI.
ii. Production of the subject goods, which was ***MT in the base year, increased to *** MT in the POI due
to corresponding increase in the demand of the PUC. Overall, production recorded positive growth over
the injury period.
iii. Capacity utilisation, which stood at *** % in FY 2021 -22 increased to ***% in the POI. The improvement
in utilisation is partly attributable to the significant increase in exports.
iv. Domestic sales increased substantially, fro m *** MT in the base year to *** MT in the POI, representing
a 15-fold increase in volume terms.
v. The domestic industry has submitted that a large part of the enhanced capacity utilisation was directed
towards export markets, and that the capacity utilisati on for domestic sales alone remains in single digits.
The Authority notes that the domestic industry‘s operations include a sizeable export component and that
the injury analysis has been conducted on the basis of its domestic operations.
SN Market share o f UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Domestic industry % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 183 228 217
2 Subject country % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 151 174 184
3 Other countries % 50% 22% 8% 5%
112. It is seen that:
i. The market share of the do mestic industry increased from ***% in base year to ***% in the POI. On an
indexed basis, the market share rose to 217 in the POI.
ii. The market share of the subject country increased sharply from ***% in the base year to ***% in the
POI, indicating that subj ect imports have captured a dominant and steadily expanding portion of Indian
demand over the injury period.
iii. The market share of other countries declined from 50% in base year to 5% in the POI, further evidencing
that subject imports have displaced not onl y the domestic industry but also third -country imports.
113. The Authority notes the submission of the interested parties that the domestic industry‘s market share increased in
indexed terms and that this improvement is inconsistent with a finding of injury. Ho wever, the base year market
share of the domestic industry was only ***%, and the growth, while significant in percentage terms, has resulted
in a market share of only ***% in the POI. The subject imports, which held ***% of the market in the base year,
expanded their share to ***% in the POI. In a market that the domestic industry claims to have substantially
developed, and in which it is the sole Indian producer, a market share of less than one -quarter in the POI indicates
that the domestic industry has n ot been able to obtain a fair share of the expanding demand. The benefits of
market growth have largely accrued to the dumped subject imports.
114. It is noted that the new producer in a rapidly expanding market may show increases in production, sales and
emplo yment while still suffering material injury if dumped imports prevent it from achieving remunerative prices
and a fair share of market growth. The Anti -Dumping Rules require an evaluation of the totality of indicators and
do not require every injury factor to deteriorate simultaneously. In the present case, the volume growth of the
domestic industry coexists with persistent price undercutting, price suppression, losses, negative cash profits and
negative return on capital employed. The Authority, therefore, considers that positive volume indicators do not
negate material injury.
b. Inventories
115. 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 *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 63 272 629
2 Closing Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 431 851 1057
3 Average Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 206 497 795
116. It is seen that:
i. The opening inventory of the domestic industry increased from *** MT in base year to ***MT in the POI.
On an indexed basis, opening inventory rose to 629 index points in the POI as compared to base year,
indicating a significant build -up of stocks in absolute terms.
ii. The closing inventory of t he domestic industry increased from ***MT in base year to ***MT in the POI. On
an indexed basis, closing inventory rose to 1,057 index points in the POI as compared to base year, indicating
a significant build -up of stocks in absolute terms.
iii. The average in ventory increased from ***MT in the base year to ***MT in the POI. On an indexed basis,
closing inventory rose to 795 index points in the POI as compared to base year.
c. Profitability, cash profits and return on investment
117. The performance of the domestic in dustry with respect of profitability, profits, cash profits, PBIT, and return on
investment is given below.
SN Particulars UOM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Profit/loss Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Index -100 635 -698 -386
3 Profit/loss Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Index -100 147 -56 -24
5 Depreciation Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Index 100 728 676 747
7 Cash Profit Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
8 Trend Index -100 865 -702 -325
9 Interest Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
10 Trend Index 100 598 161 35
11 Capital Employed Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
12 Trend Index 100 151 190 180
13 ROCE Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
14 Trend Index -100 879 -530 -413
118. It is seen that:
i. The domestic industry incurred a loss of Rs. *** lacs in in base year which increased to Rs *** lacs in POI.
On an indexed basis, the profit/loss moved from -100 in the base year to -386 in the POI.
ii. The domestic industry incurred the cash losses of Rs. *** lacs in base year which rose to Rs. *** lacs in the
POI. On an indexed basis, the cas h profit moved from -100 in the base year to -325 in the POI.
iii. The domestic industry earned a positive PBIT only in FY 2022 -23 and recorded negative PBIT in the
remaining three periods.
iv. Return on capital employed (ROCE) was -***% in the base year which decl ined further to -***% in the POI.
On an indexed basis, ROCE moved from -100 in the base year to -413 in the POI.
119. The Authority notes the submission of the interested parties that the domestic industry‘s losses in the base year
could not have been caused by subject imports since imports were only 36 MT in that year. The Authority notes
that the domestic industry was in its first year of commercial production and the presence of start -up costs and
initial production inefficiencies partly explains the base yea r losses. However, the Authority also observes that the
domestic industry was unable to return to sustained profitability even after scaling up production and sales
substantially, and its selling price remained below the cost of sales in three of the four periods.
120. The Authority has also considered the submission that the domestic industry is a recent entrant and the financial
effects of start -up and expansion activity are internal commercial factors. While start -up costs may have
contributed to the cost str ucture, the persistent inability to achieve profitable operations over the injury period,
including the POI when production and sales had grown significantly, indicates that other factors have affected
the domestic industry‘s performance. The domestic indu stry‘s brief return to profitability in FY 2022 -23, when
import volumes were relatively contained and import prices had risen, suggests that its operations could be viable
in the absence of dumped imports. The renewed and deepening losses in FY 2023 -24 and the POI coincided with
the sharp surge in subject import volumes and continued price undercutting, indicating that dumped imports are
the primary cause of the injury.
d. Employment, wages and productivity
121. Employment, wages and productivity of the domestic in dustry over the injury period are given in the table below:
SN Particular UoM 2021 -22 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Employees No. *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Index 100 332 514 523
3 Wages Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Index 100 720 1851 1953
5 Wages/employee ( Rs) Rs./Employee *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Index 100 217 360 374
122. It is seen that:
i. The number of employees engaged in the production of the subject goods rose from ***in FY 2021 -22 to ***
in the POI (indexed 523), indicating a more than five -fold increase in employment over the injury period.
ii. Salaries and wages increased from Rs. ***lacs in the base year to Rs. ***lacs in the POI (indexed 1,953),
reflecting the substantial expansion of the workforce and the scaling up of operations.
iii. Wages per employee impro ved from Rs. ***to Rs. *** (indexed 374), showing an improvement in the
average remuneration per worker over the period.
123. The Authority notes that the significant expansion of employment and the rise in wages are consistent with the
commissioning of additio nal capacity and the ramp -up of production. The improvement in productivity, as
reflected in the growth of wages per employee, indicates that the domestic industry has been able to enhance
operational efficiency. However, the Authority observes that these positive developments in employment and
productivity have not been matched by corresponding improvements in profitability, as the domestic industry has
been unable to realise remunerative prices owing to the presence of dumped subject imports.
e. Growth
124. The t able below shows the growth of the domestic industry in terms of various parameters.
SN Particulars UOM 2022 -23 2023 -24 POI
1 Production % -13% 245% 20%
2 Sales % 320% 190% 29%
3 Profit/(Loss) per unit % -247% -138% -57%
4 Inventory % 117% 66% 4%
5 Market Share % 83% 25% -5%
6 Profit Before Tax % -735% -210% -45%
7 Cash Profit % -965% -181% -54%
8 Capital Employed % 51% 26% -5%
9 ROCE % -979% -160% -22%
125. It is seen that:
i. Production growth was negative at –13% in FY 2022 -23 (over FY 2021 -22), reco vered strongly to 245% in
FY 2023 -24 and stood at 20% in the POI (over FY 2023 -24), indicating that production was scaled up
substantially after the initial dip.
ii. Sales growth followed a broadly similar pattern, remaining significantly positive at 320% in F Y 2022 -23,
190% in FY 2023 -24 and 29% in the POI, reflecting the domestic industry‘s efforts to expand its market
presence.
iii. Profit/(Loss) per unit, however, showed persistent negative growth, moving from –247% in FY 2022 -23 to
–138% in FY 2023 -24 and –57% in the POI. While the rate of decline in per -unit profitability moderated,
the domestic industry remained in a loss -making position throughout.
iv. Inventory growth decelerated from 117% in FY 2022 -23 to 66% in FY 2023 -24 and further to 4% in the
POI, suggesti ng that the build -up of stocks was progressively brought under control.
v. Market share growth, which was 83% in FY 2022 -23, fell to 25% in FY 2023 -24 and turned negative to –
5% in the POI, indicating that the domestic industry lost some of the share gains ma de in the earlier periods.
vi. Profit before tax, cash profit and return on capital employed all recorded deeply negative growth rates
throughout the injury period, though the magnitude of the decline moderated in the POI.
126. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has achieved strong expansion in volumes, particularly in
production and sales. However, the price and financial parameters have consistently shown negative or sharply
declining growth. The pattern of robust volume expansion coexisting with persi stent erosion of profitability and
returns indicates that the domestic industry has been compelled to pursue volumes at suppressed prices in order to
maintain its market presence. The moderation in the rate of decline of some financial indicators in the PO I does
not detract from the fact that the domestic industry continues to operate at a loss and is unable to earn a
reasonable return on its investment, a situation attributable to the pressure exerted by the dumped subject imports.
f. Magnitude of dumping mar gin
127. The magnitude of dumping is an indicator of the extent to which the imports are being dumped into India. The
investigation has shown that the dumping margin is positive and significant during the period of investigation.
g. Ability to raise capital invest ment
128. The domestic industry has expanded its capacity during the injury period and has publicly announced plans for
further expansion and backward integration. However, the persistent financial losses and negative returns on
investment indicate that the abi lity to raise capital investment has been adversely impacted.
h. Factors affecting price
129. Examination of DG system import data showed that the weighted average import price from the subject country is
substantially below the selling price and cost of sales of the domestic industry. The imports from other countries
are at prices comparable to or higher than the domestic industry‘s selling price and are not causing injury. The
landed price of subject imports is depressing the prices of the domestic industry as a result of which the domestic
industry has suffered financial losses.
I. CAUSAL LINK AND NON -ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
130. The Authority is required to examine any known factors other than dumped imports that are injuring the
domestic industry, so that the injury caus ed by these other factors may not be attributed to the dumped imports.
Factors which may be relevant in this respect include, inter alia, the volume and prices of imports not sold at
dumped prices, contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consum ption, trade restrictive practices of
and competition between the foreign and the domestic producers, developments in technology and the export
performance and the productivity of the domestic industry. It has been examined below whether the factors
listed under the Rules could have contributed to the injury suffered by the domestic industry.
a. Volume and price of imports from third countries
131. It is seen that imports from countries other than China PR declined sharply over the injury period, both in
absolute v olume and in share of Indian demand. The volume of third -country imports fell from 46 MT in
FY 2021 -22 to 34 MT in the POI, while their share in Indian demand dropped from 50% in the base year to
approximately 5% in the POI. The landed values of these impo rts were comparable to, or higher than, the
domestic industry‘s selling price in each period. The Authority, therefore, considers that imports from third
countries have not caused injury to the domestic industry.
b. Contraction in demand
132. It is seen that the d emand for the subject goods expanded substantially over the injury period, rising from ***
MT in FY 2021 -22 to *** MT in the POI. Accordingly, the domestic industry has not suffered injury on account
of any contraction in demand.
c. Change in the pattern of c onsumption
133. There is no evidence on record of any material change in the pattern of consumption for the product under
consideration. Hence, this factor is not a cause of injury.
d. Trade restrictive practices
134. No interested party has placed on record any eviden ce concerning trade restrictive practices that could have
caused injury to the domestic industry. The Authority, therefore, concludes that this factor has not contributed to
the injury.
e. Development of technology
135. The Authority notes that there is no evidenc e that the technology for the production of the subject goods has
undergone a material change during the injury period. Accordingly, developments in technology are not a cause
of injury.
f. Export performance
136. The Authority has based its injury analysis exclus ively on the domestic operations of the domestic industry.
While the domestic industry has achieved significant growth in export sales, the performance of exports has
been segregated and does not form part of the injury assessment for the domestic market. Export performance is,
therefore, not a factor that can explain the injury suffered in the domestic market.
g. Performance of other products
137. The Authority has examined the data relating to the subject goods only. The performance of other products
produced and sold by the domestic industry is not a possible cause of injury to the domestic industry in respect
of the product under consideration.
h. Start -up costs and capacity expansion
138. The interested parties have submitted that the domestic industry‘s losses are att ributable to start -up costs,
aggressive capacity expansion, and the associated depreciation and interest burden. The Authority has examined
this submission.
139. The domestic industry commenced commercial production in the base year and expanded its installed c apacity
from ***MT to *** MT during the injury period. Depreciation increased from indexed 100 in the base year to
in the POI, while interest costs, which had risen to indexed 598 in FY 2022 -23, declined to ***in FY 2023 -24
and ***in the POI.
140. While start -up costs and the fixed cost burden of capacity expansion have contributed to the domestic industry‘s
cost structure, the Authority notes that:
i. The domestic industry was profitable in FY 2022 -23, its second year of production, demonstrating that
operations could be viable once the initial ramp -up phase was navigated.
ii. In FY 2023 -24 and the POI, even as production and sales continued to scale up, the domestic industry
returned to loss -making. This return to losses coincided with a sharp surge in subject impor t volumes and
a widening price gap.
iii. The domestic industry‘s selling price has remained below its cost of sales, and the presence of subject
imports at prices substantially below both the domestic selling price and cost of sales has prevented the
domestic i ndustry from aligning its prices with costs and achieving sustainable profitability.
141. Therefore, while start -up costs and capacity expansion may have contributed to the domestic industry‘s cost
profile, the Authority considers that dumped imports have preve nted the domestic industry from achieving the
remunerative pricing necessary to recover its costs and earn a reasonable return, and are the primary cause of
injury.
i. Self-inflicted injury – introductory pricing and market development costs
142. The interested pa rties have submitted that the domestic industry adopted introductory offers and market
penetration measures, and that the pressure on margins arising from such strategies is self -generated. The
domestic industry has also invested significantly in establish ing application centres and training professionals.
143. The Authority notes that the domestic industry‘s investment in market development, application centres, and
training is part of a legitimate business strategy to create and expand the market for a new pro duct in India. In a
fairly traded market, such investments would ordinarily be recovered through remunerative pricing as demand
grows. However, the presence of dumped imports at substantially lower prices has prevented the domestic
industry from recovering these investments through appropriate pricing. The Authority, therefore, considers that
these costs are not a separate cause of injury but are costs that would have been recovered in the absence of
dumped imports.
j. Backward integration and cost structure
144. The interested parties have submitted that the domestic industry lacks backward integration and that this
structural disadvantage explains its higher costs and lower margins. The domestic industry has itself announced
plans for a TPU extrusion facility as p art of its backward integration strategy.
145. The Authority notes that the domestic industry‘s cost structure is a function of its stage of development and its
business decisions. The relevant inquiry is not whether the domestic industry could theoretically op erate at a
lower cost, but whether dumped imports have caused material injury to the domestic industry as it exists. The
Authority considers that the domestic industry‘s cost structure, in the present circumstances, does not break the
causal link between t he dumped imports and the injury suffered.
146. The Authority has also considered allegations regarding white -label production, export -oriented premium
production, high -warranty products and differential resin costs. The domestic industry has submitted that raw
materials are procured in bulk and used across production streams, and that there is no substantiated evidence
that higher -grade inputs for export products have been blended into the domestic cost base so as to inflate injury.
The Authority has verified t he cost information of the domestic industry in accordance with its established
methodology. In the absence of positive evidence demonstrating erroneous allocation or artificial inflation of
domestic costs, the allegations regarding product mix, resin grad es and white -label manufacturing do not
constitute an alternative cause of injury.
Factors affecting causal link:
i. The volume of imports from the subject country has increased sharply in absolute terms and relative to
consumption in India, capturing a domin ant and rising share of the market.
ii. The landed price of subject imports is substantially below the selling price of the domestic industry, resulting
in persistent and significant price undercutting throughout the injury period.
iii. The dumped imports have supp ressed and depressed domestic prices, preventing the domestic industry from
increasing its prices to recover costs and earn reasonable returns.
iv. The domestic industry is incurring financial losses, negative cash profits, and a negative return on capital
employed, except for a brief profitable period in FY 2022 -23.
v. The domestic industry‘s market share, while growing from a low base, stands at only ***% in the POI in a
market it claims to have substantially developed, whereas subject imports command a ***% sha re of
demand.
vi. No other known factor breaks the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered by
the domestic industry. The dumped imports are the proximate cause of the injury.
147. For the reasons set out above, the Authority consider s that the non -attribution arguments raised by the interested
parties, whether based on start -up costs, capacity expansion, exports, annual -report statements, market -
development expenditure, backward integration, alleged warranty differences, premium -brand positioning, BCD
or exchange -rate movements, do not individually or collectively explain the material injury found in the
domestic market. The verified record shows a simultaneous and mutually reinforcing pattern of dumped imports
gaining dominant market share, significant price undercutting, price suppression, financial losses and negative
returns. The Authority therefore considers that the injury suffered by the domestic industry is attributable to
dumped imports from the subject country.
J. MAGNITUDE OF I NJURY MARGIN
148. The Authority has determined Non -Injurious Price for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down
in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The non -injurious price of the subject goods has been
determined by adopting the v erified information/data relating to the cost of production for the period of
investigation. For determining the non -injurious price, the best utilisation of the raw materials and utilities by
the domestic industry over the injury period has been considere d, along with the best utilisation of production
capacity. A reasonable return @ 22% on average capital employed was allowed towards interest, tax and profit
to arrive at the non -injurious price as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules.
149. Based on the land ed price and non -injurious price determined as above, the injury margin for
producers/exporters from the subject country has been determined by the Authority and the same is provided in
the table below:
SN Producers NIP
(USD/MT) Landed Value
(USD/MT) Injur y
Margin
(USD/MT) Injury
Margin
(%) Injury
Margin
(Range)
1 Nar Coating Technology Co.,
Ltd. *** *** *** *** 50-100
2 Nantong NKODA
Polyurethane Technology
Co. Ltd. *** *** *** ***
200-250
3 Avery Dennison (China) Co.,
Ltd. *** *** *** *** 50-100
4 Non sampled Cooperative
Producers *** *** *** *** 150-200
5 Others *** *** *** *** 250-300
K. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Public interest and Domestic Industry Interest
K.1 Submissions made by the other interested parties
150. The interested parties have submitted that imp osition of anti -dumping duty will harm downstream industries and
create a de facto monopoly for Garware in the domestic market. They have also submitted that TPU -based PPF is
used primarily in the premium automotive sector, and any anti -dumping duty will r aise costs for Indian
consumers and automotive OEMs.
151. The interested parties have submitted that the domestic industry is already sufficiently protected by the existing
10% Basic Customs Duty and by the depreciation of the INR against the USD after the POI.
K.2 Submissions made by the domestic industry
152. The domestic industry has submitted that the imposition of anti -dumping duty will create a level playing field and
allow the domestic industry to compete in the market on fair terms and protect its sharply det eriorating financial
standing. The domestic industry has invested substantial resources in creating and developing the market,
including capacity expansion.
153. The domestic industry has submitted that the imposition of anti -dumping duty would not eliminate fa ir
competition; rather, it would eliminate unfair competition arising from dumping practices. Imports can continue
to enter the Indian market at fair prices.
K.3 Examination by the Authority
154. The Authority has considered the interests of all parties, includ ing the domestic industry, importers, users, and
consumers. The purpose of anti -dumping duties is to remedy the injury caused by dumped imports and to restore
fair competition in the domestic market. The imposition of anti -dumping duties would not prevent imports from
entering the Indian market; imports can continue to enter at fair prices.
155. The interested parties have also argued that the existing 10% Basic Customs Duty and post -POI depreciation of
the INR provide sufficient protection to the domestic indus try. The domestic industry submits that ordinary
customs duty and exchange -rate movements are not substitutes for anti -dumping duty where dumping and injury
are established. The Authority notes that the purpose of anti -dumping duty is to offset injurious d umping and not
to provide general tariff protection. The existence of 10% basic customs duty does not remove the need for
remedial action where subject imports continue to undercut domestic prices substantially. Exchange -rate
movements are also external an d fluctuating macroeconomic factors and cannot be treated as a reliable or legally
adequate remedy for dumping.
156. The Authority notes that the domestic industry is the sole producer of the subject goods in India and has made
significant investments in capaci ty expansion and market development. The continued presence of dumped
imports at injurious prices threatens the viability of the domestic industry and could lead to complete import
dependence in the future.
157. The Authority has examined public interest in the specific context of the product under consideration. TPU -based
PPF is an end -use protective film, primarily used in the automotive sector for protection of painted and other
surfaces from scratches, abrasion, stone chips, weathering and environmental dama ge. It is not a basic raw
material or an industrial intermediate used for producing essential downstream goods. Therefore, the imposition
of anti -dumping duty on the PUC is not expected to create an inverted duty structure or a cascading cost effect
across a broad manufacturing chain. The economic impact, if any, is likely to be confined to purchasers of the
end-use protective film and not to essential consumer goods or critical industrial inputs.
158. The Authority also notes that the interested parties themsel ves have described the PUC as a premium automotive
product and have relied on brand, warranty, luxury -vehicle users and premium positioning to support their
arguments. This reinforces that the PUC is a discretionary and value -added protective product rathe r than a
necessity product. In such circumstances, public interest is not served by allowing injurious dumping to discipline
the price of a discretionary end -use product at the cost of domestic production. Public interest is better served by
maintaining fa ir competition between domestic production and fairly priced imports.
159. The Authority has examined the submission that the duty would create a monopoly for the domestic industry. The
Authority notes that anti -dumping duty does not prohibit imports, does not allocate market share to the domestic
industry, and does not prevent users from sourcing imported products at fair prices. It merely neutralizes the
unfair price advantage arising from dumping. Importers and users would continue to have access to domestic
goods and to imports from China PR and other sources, subject only to the discipline that dumped imports should
not cause injury to the domestic industry.
160. The Authority further notes that the market for TPU -based PPF in India has been developed to a materi al extent
through domestic industry‘s investment in application studios, installer training, product awareness and market -
building. The record indicates that the domestic industry has set up about 170 Garware Application Studios and
trained/enabled about 9 00-1000 professionals for proper application/installation of the PUC. If dumped imports
capture the market created through such investments before the domestic industry can achieve sustainable scale
and fair returns, the result would be erosion of domestic manufacturing as well as the application and service
ecosystem associated with it.
161. The Authority has further considered the employment implications . The record shows that the domestic industry
has increased employment related to the PUC and has also creat ed downstream installer/application capability.
The domestic industry has submitted that the product ecosystem directly and indirectly supports employment,
including skilled and semi -skilled personnel associated with production, sales, application studios and installation
services. A fair market share for domestic production in a growing market is likely to support further skill
creation and employment opportunities, whereas continued injurious dumping may confine India to an import -
dependent model with lim ited domestic manufacturing value addition.
162. The Authority notes that the imposition of anti -dumping duty in the present case would not amount to protection
against fair competition. The measure, if recommended, would be calibrated with reference to the dum ping
margin and injury margin determined in the investigation. In view of the end -use nature of the PUC, the absence
of critical downstream industrial dependence, the discretionary/premium character of the product, the domestic
market -development efforts, the employment and skill -creation ecosystem, and the need to avoid import
dependence created by dumped pricing, the Authority considers that the imposition of anti -dumping duty would
not be contrary to public interest.
163. Therefore, in view of above it is not ed that the anti -dumping measures are not intended to protect the domestic
industry from fair competition but to address the unfair trade practice of dumping.
Quantification of Impact of Anti -Dumping Duty on the end user
164. The quantification of the impact o f Anti -Dumping Duty on the end user is essential to assess its implications on
pricing, market competitiveness, and overall consumer welfare. While Anti -Dumping Duty is imposed to protect
domestic industry from unfairly low -priced imports, it may also lead to increased procurement costs for
downstream industries and final consumers. Therefore, a balanced evaluation is necessary to understand both the
protective benefits to domestic manufacturers and the financial burden on end users. Based on the cost struc ture
of PPF and average requirement of PPF in one car, an analysis of impact of ADD on end user is shown in the
illustration below:
165. It clearly shows that the alleged burden on end users is limited and proportionate. For a car valued at ₹10,00,000,
the PPF requirement is 200 sq ft, costing ₹29,000. Even at a high anti -dumping duty rate of 100%, the duty
impact is ₹29,000. When compared with the total car value including PPF, i.e. ₹10,29,000 the impact is only
2.82%. Thus, the duty does not create a dispropo rtionate burden on consumers. It remains a small, measurable
and commercially manageable cost, while ensuring fair competition and preventing injury from dumped imports.
L. POST DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
L.1. Submissions by Other Interested Parties
i. 3M Innovation Singapore Pte. Ltd. and 3M India Limited submitted that the dumping margin determined for
NAR Coating Technology Co., Ltd. is exceptionally high and appears to have been determined without
properly considering high -priced exports made through 3M Singapore. They requested confirmation that such
sales were duly considered while determining export price, landed value, dumping margin and injury margin.
ii. 3M submitted that its imports are premium, branded and warranty -supported products, with landed value
material ly higher than average imports from China PR and the domestic selling price. It was argued that such
high-priced imports cannot cause price injury and should be examined separately in terms of competition
with the domestic like article.
iii. 3M also objected to the PCN methodology, stating that only colour and finish were adopted as parameters
without adequately considering other relevant factors. It requested PCN -wise examination of normal value,
export price, landed value, price effects and injury indicators.
iv. 3M, and other interested parties submitted that any duty, if recommended, should be in the form of reference
price or benchmark duty. They argued that fixed or ad valorem duty would unfairly affect premium -priced
imports already above the non -injurious lev el, whereas reference price duty would permit fair -priced imports
and preserve consumer choice.
v. Some interested parties sought exclusion of coloured TPU -based PPF and TPU -based surface protection film
of 1.83 metre width, contending that these products wer e not manufactured and commercially sold by the
domestic industry during the POI and require different manufacturing processes, raw materials, handling and
end-use applications.
vi. Some interested parties sought exclusion of TPU PPF above 200 microns, coloure d TPU PPF and sunroof
TPU PPF, arguing that these products differ in physical characteristics, performance, cost, pricing, customer
preference and substitutability. They, however, welcomed the clarification that standalone uncoated/base
TPU film is outside the PUC.
vii. Interested parties further submitted that defective/off -specification products and products carrying different
warranty periods should not be compared with regular domestic goods without adjustment, as such
differences affect quality, durability, cost, commercial value, dumping margin, price undercutting and injury
margin.
viii. Interested parties submitted that it is a cooperating producer/exporter with transaction -wise data on record
and objected to application of weighted average margins of sampled e xporters. It claimed that its exports are
premium and higher -priced, with landed price above NIP, and therefore requested individual examination or
reference price duty.
ix. Interested parties submitted that the Authority‘s own volume data does not support a f inding of injury, as
production, domestic sales, capacity utilisation and market share of the domestic industry increased
substantially. They argued that increase in imports merely reflected demand growth in a developing TPU PPF
market.
x. The interested part ies also submitted that injury, if any, was not caused by subject imports but by other
factors such as non -subject imports, start -up costs, capacity expansion, white -label/export -oriented
manufacturing, premium export orders, specialised resin, warranty -linked costs, raw material volatility and
foreign exchange movement. They requested termination of the investigation or, alternatively, limited duty in
reference price form.
xi. The interested party requested clarification that expenses relating to Garware Appli cation Centres, installer
networks, post -sales support and market -development activities should not be included in injury or NIP
determination.
L.2. Submissions by the Domestic Industry
i. The domestic industry has supported the Disclosure Statement and subm itted that the Authority has correctly
examined the essential facts relating to product scope, standing, confidentiality, sampling, dumping, injury,
causal link, non -attribution, injury margin and public interest.
ii. It has submitted that anti -dumping duty is intended to remedy injury caused by dumped imports and not to
shield the domestic industry from fair competition. The facts disclosed by the Authority establish dumping,
price undercutting, price suppression/depression and significant presence of subject imports from China PR.
iii. The domestic industry has requested confirmation of the product scope as TPU -based Surface/Paint
Protection Film, with the clarification that standalone uncoated/base TPU film is outside the scope. It has
opposed exclusion requests b ased on colour, width, thickness, warranty, optical clarity, haze, UV durability,
chemical resistance, elasticity, strength, branding or end -use.
iv. It has submitted that the burden to prove technical and commercial distinction, non -substitutability and
absen ce of likeness lies on the party seeking exclusion. According to the domestic industry, colour, width,
thickness and sunroof application are only specifications/applications within the same TPU -based PPF
product family, and exclusion may create scope for c ircumvention.
v. The domestic industry has supported the PCN methodology adopted by the Authority and submitted that
warranty is not an inherent physical characteristic but a commercial commitment. Similarly, alleged
defective, B -grade or short -roll descripti ons are not objective and verifiable PCN criteria.
vi. It has submitted that Garware Hi -Tech Films Limited is the sole producer of the domestic like article in India,
accounts for the entire Indian production, has not imported the subject goods from China PR d uring the POI
and is not related to any exporter/importer, and therefore satisfies Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules.
vii. The domestic industry has supported the Authority‘s approach on confidentiality, sampling, normal value and
export price. It has sub mitted that sensitive commercial data such as NIP, NSR, cost, profitability, allocation
methodology and customer details have been correctly treated as confidential; sampling was justified under
Rule 17(3); non -sampled cooperating exporters should receive weighted average margins; and normal value
has been correctly determined under paragraph 7 of Annexure I of the Rules.
viii. The domestic industry has opposed the plea for reference price duty and rejected allegations relating to white -
label manufacturing, premi um export orders, specialised resin, warranty -based cost differences, export -
oriented costs and inflated cost base as speculative and unsupported. It has submitted that imposition of duty
is not against public interest, as TPU PPF is a premium/discretionar y automotive accessory and the measure
would only ensure fair -priced imports while supporting domestic manufacturing, value addition and
employment.
L.3. Examination by the Authority
I. General consideration of post -disclosure comments
166. The Authority has exami ned the post -disclosure submissions filed by the domestic industry and the other
interested parties. The Authority notes that several submissions made at the post -disclosure stage are reiterations
of submissions already made during the investigation and al ready examined in the Disclosure Statement. The
Authority has nevertheless considered all relevant comments to the extent they are supported by evidence on
record and are material to the final determination.
II. Objection regarding time granted for filing disc losure comments
167. With regard to the objection that insufficient time was granted for filing comments on the Disclosure Statement,
the Authority notes that the investigation is time -bound under the Rules. The interested parties, including those
raising this objection, have filed detailed post -disclosure comments. The comments have been taken on record
and examined. No party has demonstrated any specific prejudice or shown that any material evidence could not
be placed on record due to the time granted. The ob jection is therefore rejected.
III. Request for fresh disclosure statement
168. The Authority further notes that issuance of a fresh disclosure statement is not warranted merely because an
interested party disagrees with the facts disclosed. Rule 16 requires disclos ure of the essential facts under
consideration. The Disclosure Statement disclosed the essential facts forming the basis of the final determination.
The request for issuance of a fresh disclosure statement is therefore not accepted.
IV. Product scope and exclu sion requests
169. The Authority has examined the requests for exclusion of coloured TPU PPF, TPU PPF of 1.83 metre width, TPU
PPF above 200 microns, sunroof TPU PPF, high optical clarity PPF, ultra -low haze PPF, extended UV durability
PPF, chemical -resistant P PF, precision elasticity PPF and high -strength TPU PPF. The Authority notes that the
PUC is Thermoplastic Polyurethane based Surface/Paint Protection Film and that differences in specifications,
performance claims, colour, width, thickness, finish, warrant y or application do not, by themselves, alter the
essential character of the product.
170. The burden to establish that a product variant is technically and commercially distinct, non -substitutable and not a
like article lies on the party seeking exclusion. The interested parties have not placed sufficient verifiable
evidence to establish that the products sought to be excluded constitute separate articles outside the scope of TPU -
based PPF. The exclusion requests are therefore rejected.
V. Clarification regarding base/uncoated TPU film
171. The Authority confirms that standalone uncoated/base TPU film is not TPU -based Surface/Paint Protection Film
and is outside the scope of the PUC. Such base film is not the finished surface/paint protection film under
consideration.
VI. Circumvention concerns in product exclusions
172. The Authority further notes that acceptance of exclusion requests based on narrow product descriptions such as
colour, width, thickness, warranty, grade, brand positioning or end -use description would create an a voidable
route for circumvention. Marginal alteration of product description cannot be permitted to defeat the remedial
purpose of the investigation.
VII. PCN methodology
173. The Authority has examined the objections to the PCN methodology. The Authority notes that the adopted PCN
parameters capture the objective product characteristics considered necessary for fair comparison in the facts of
the present investigation. The request to reopen or modify the PCN methodology at the post -disclosure stage is
not accepted.
VIII. Warranty and defective goods as PCN parameters
174. Warranty is not an inherent physical characteristic of the product. It is a commercial undertaking dependent upon
brand policy, installer practice, after -sales strategy and contractual terms. Similarly, descri ptions such as
defective, off -specification, B -grade or short -roll goods are not uniform, objective and verifiable product -defining
criteria for PCN classification. Defectiveness may arise from multiple causes, degrees and commercial
understandings, and th e mere description of a consignment as B -grade or short roll does not establish a
standardized technical parameter comparable across producers and exporters. The Authority therefore decides not
to modify the PCN methodology on this basis.
IX. Domestic industry and standing
175. The Authority confirms that Garware Hi -Tech Films Limited constitutes the domestic industry within the
meaning of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules and satisfies the standing requirement under Rule 5(3). The Authority
notes that Garware is the sole p roducer of the domestic like article in India, accounts for the entire Indian
production, has not imported subject goods from the subject country during the POI and is not related to any
producer/exporter or importer of the subject goods.
X. Confidentiality
176. The Authority has examined the confidentiality claims in accordance with Rule 7 of the AD Rules. Information
relating to NIP, NSR, cost of sales, profitability, allocation methodology, customer identity, supplier/customer -
specific data and transaction -level commercial details is commercially sensitive. The Authority has relied on
verified information and has ensured availability of non -confidential summaries, trends, ranges or indices
wherever required under the Rules.
XI. Sampling of producers/exporters
177. The Aut hority notes that several producers/exporters from the subject country cooperated in the investigation.
Considering the number of cooperating producers/exporters and the need for timely completion of the
investigation, the Authority adopted sampling in acc ordance with Rule 17(3) of the AD Rules. Selection of
sampled producers/exporters on the basis of largest representative volume of exports is objective, permissible and
consistent with the Rules.
XII. Individual examination requests
178. The Authority does not accep t the contention that premium positioning, brand value, warranty, customer profile
or higher landed value requires individual examination of every cooperating exporter. Sampling would be
rendered meaningless if every non -sampled exporter were granted indiv idual examination on such grounds. The
request of non -sampled cooperating producers/exporters for individual examination is therefore rejected.
XIII. Treatment of sampled and non -sampled exporters
179. The Authority has determined individual margins for sampled coope rating producers/exporters on the basis of
their verified data. For non -sampled cooperating producers/exporters, margins have been determined in
accordance with the sampling methodology and the Rules. For non -cooperative producers/exporters, the
Authority has proceeded on the basis of facts available in accordance with Rule 6(8).
XIV. Determination of normal value and export price
180. The Authority notes that none of the cooperating producers/exporters from China PR claimed market economy
treatment. Normal value has therefore been determined in accordance with paragraph 7 of Annexure I to the AD
Rules. Export price has been determined on the basis of DG Systems data and questionnaire responses of
cooperating producers/exporters, wherever accepted, after making necess ary adjustments to arrive at the ex -
factory export price.
XV. High -priced or premium imports
181. The Authority has examined the contention that high -priced or premium imports, including sales through specific
traders or branded channels, cannot cause injury. The A uthority notes that the existence of certain high -priced
transactions does not negate dumping, injury or causal link in respect of the subject imports as a whole. Premium
brand positioning or higher -priced sales cannot neutralise the injurious effect of si gnificant volumes of dumped
imports entering the Indian market at injurious prices.
XVI. Injury despite positive volume parameters
182. The Authority does not accept the contention that increase in production, domestic sales, capacity utilisation or
market share pre cludes a finding of material injury. Injury is required to be examined on the basis of all relevant
economic parameters, including price effects, profitability, return, cash profits, cost of sales and ability to earn
reasonable returns. An expanding or new ly established domestic industry may still suffer material injury if
dumped imports suppress or depress its prices.
XVII. Demand growth and import increase
183. The Authority notes that increase in demand may explain market opportunity, but it does not explain injuri ous
pricing of dumped imports. The issue is not whether imports are required in India, but whether imports from the
subject country are dumped and causing injury to the domestic industry. The evidence on record shows that
dumped imports from the subject co untry have caused price pressure and material injury to the domestic industry.
XVIII. Non-attribution and other known factors
184. The Authority has examined other known factors, including non -subject imports, recent entry of the domestic
industry, start -up costs, cap acity expansion, depreciation and interest cost, market development expenses, export
orientation, white -label manufacturing, warranty obligations, product mix, raw material prices and foreign
exchange movement. The interested parties have not placed verifi able evidence to establish that these factors,
individually or collectively, break the causal link between dumped imports and injury to the domestic industry.
XIX. NIP, injury margin and lesser duty rule
185. The Authority has determined the non -injurious price in a ccordance with Annexure III to the AD Rules on the
basis of verified cost information of the domestic industry. For sampled cooperating producers/exporters,
individual injury margins have been determined on the basis of their data. For non -sampled cooperat ing
producers/exporters, the injury margin has been determined in accordance with the sampling methodology. The
lesser duty rule has been applied in accordance with law.
XX. Form of duty, public interest and final conclusion
186. The Authority has examined the requ est for reference price duty. Considering the nature of the product, volatility
in input costs and import prices, and the need for an effective and administrable remedy, the Authority does not
consider reference price duty appropriate in the facts of the p resent case. Anti -dumping duty does not prohibit
imports; it only ensures that imports enter India at fair prices.
187. The Authority further notes that TPU -based PPF is an end -use protective film used mainly in the automotive
sector and is not an essential raw material for essential consumer goods. No party has demonstrated that
imposition of duty would cause disproportionate adverse public -interest impact. The Authority therefore confirms
its findings on product scope, domestic industry, sampling, dumping, inj ury, causal link, non -attribution, injury
margin and public interest, and recommends imposition of definitive anti -dumping duty in accordance with the
duty table.
M. CONCLUSION
188. Having examined the submissions made by all interested parties and issues raised therein, and considering the
facts available on record, the Authority concludes the following:
a. The scope of the product under consideration is Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) based Surface/Paint
Protection Film. Standalone uncoated/base TPU film, not con stituting TPU -based Surface/Paint Protection
Film, is outside the scope of the product under consideration.
b. The PCN methodology adopted for the purpose of the present investigation is based on colour of the final
product and finish of the final product. Th e requests for modification of PCN methodology on the basis of
warranty, defective grade, B -grade, short roll or similar descriptions have not been accepted.
c. The domestic industry has produced like article to the imported product under consideration. The p roduct
produced by the domestic industry and the subject goods imported from the subject country are comparable
in terms of physical characteristics, functions and uses, product specifications, distribution and marketing,
and are technically and commercial ly substitutable.
d. Garware Hi -Tech Films Limited is the sole producer of the domestic like article in India. The applicant
accounts for the entire Indian production of the domestic like article, and has not imported the subject goods
from the subject countr y during the period of investigation, and is not related to any producer/exporter or
importer of the subject goods. The applicant, therefore, constitutes domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the
Anti-Dumping Rules and satisfies the standing requirement und er Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
e. The Authority has relied upon DG Systems data for the purpose of examination of imports of the subject
goods, after due examination of the transactions.
f. Considering the number of cooperating producers/exporters from the subject c ountry, the Authority adopted
sampling in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the Anti -Dumping Rules. The dumping margin and injury margin
for sampled cooperating producers/exporters have been determined on the basis of their questionnaire
responses, after exami nation and verification. The margins for non -sampled cooperating producers/exporters
have been determined in accordance with the sampling methodology, and the margins for non -cooperative
producers/exporters have been determined on the basis of facts availa ble.
g. None of the cooperating producers/exporters from China PR claimed market economy treatment. The normal
value has therefore been determined in accordance with paragraph 7 of Annexure I to the Anti -Dumping
Rules. Export price has been determined on the basis of DG Systems data and questionnaire responses of
cooperating producers/exporters, wherever accepted, after making necessary adjustments.
h. The dumping margin and injury margin determined for producers/exporters from the subject country are
positive an d significant.
i. The domestic industry has suffered material injury during the period of investigation, as is evident from the
following:
i. Demand for the product under consideration increased during the injury period and the period of
investigation.
ii. The volum e of subject imports from the subject country increased sharply in absolute terms and in
relation to consumption in India.
iii. Subject imports command a dominant share in the Indian market, whereas the share of the domestic
industry remains substantially lower despite the domestic industry being the sole domestic producer
of the like article.
iv. The landed price of subject imports is substantially below the selling price of the domestic industry,
resulting in significant price undercutting.
v. The subject imports hav e suppressed and depressed the prices of the domestic industry and
prevented the domestic industry from increasing its prices to recover cost and earn reasonable
returns.
vi. The domestic industry has increased production and sales during the injury period. Ho wever,
improvement in certain volume parameters does not negate material injury where price and
profitability parameters show significant deterioration.
vii. The domestic industry has suffered financial losses, negative cash profits and negative return on
capit al employed during the period of investigation.
viii. The domestic industry has not been able to earn reasonable return despite demand for the product in
India.
ix. The injury margin determined for producers/exporters from the subject country is positive and
signifi cant.
x. The existence of some higher -priced or premium imports does not negate dumping, injury or causal
link in respect of the subject imports as a whole.
xi. The dumped imports are adversely impacting the prices and profitability of the domestic industry.
j. The domestic industry has not suffered injury due to any other known factor. Factors such as imports from
non-subject countries, start -up costs, capacity expansion, depreciation and interest cost, market development
expenses, export orientation, white -label ma nufacturing, premium product positioning, warranty obligations,
product mix, raw material prices, foreign exchange movement, or any other factor raised by the interested
parties have not individually or collectively broken the causal link between dumped im ports from the subject
country and material injury suffered by the domestic industry.
k. Imposition of anti -dumping duty shall be in the larger public interest, as can be seen from the following:
i. The imposition of duty shall prevent unfair advantage to foreig n producers/exporters through
dumping practices and would provide a level playing field to the domestic industry in the Indian
market.
ii. Anti-dumping duty does not prohibit imports. Imports may continue to enter the Indian market at
fair and non -dumped price s.
iii. TPU -based PPF is primarily an end -use protective film used in the automotive sector and is not an
essential raw material for essential consumer goods.
iv. No interested party has demonstrated that imposition of duty would cause disproportionate adverse
impa ct on public interest.
v. The request for reference price duty is not accepted, considering the nature of the product, volatility
in input costs and import prices, and the need for an effective and administrable remedy.
vi. The imposition of duty would support do mestic manufacturing, domestic value addition,
employment, skill creation and fair competition, without preventing fair -priced imports.
vii. No case has been made out for exclusion of any application or product variant from the scope of
duty, except the clarifi cation that standalone uncoated/base TPU film is outside the scope of the
product under consideration.
N. RECOMMENDATIONS
189. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate
opportunity was given to t he domestic industry, exporters, importers and other interested parties to provide
positive information on the aspect of dumping, injury and causal link. Having initiated and conducted the
investigation into dumping, injury and causal link in terms of the provisions laid down under the Anti -Dumping
Rules, the Authority is of the view that imposition of anti -dumping duty is required to offset dumping and
injury. Therefore, Authority considers it necessary and recommends imposition of anti -dumping duty on imp orts
of subject goods from the subject country.
190. Having regard to the lesser duty rule followed by the Authority, the Authority recommends imposition of anti -
dumping duty equal to the lesser of margin of dumping and the margin of injury, so as to remove th e injury to
the domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority recommends imposition of anti -dumping duty on the imports
of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country, from the date of notification to be
issued in this regard by the Central Government, for a period of 5 years, equal to the amount indicated in Col. 7
of the duty table appended below.
DUTY TABLE
S.
No. Heading Description Country
of Origin Country
of Export Producer Amount Unit Currency
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 39095000,
39191000,
39199010,
39199090,
39201019,
39201099,
39206190, TPU -based
PPF China PR Any
country
including
China PR Nar Coating
Technology Co.,
Ltd. 22,353 MT USD
2 -do- China PR Any
country
including Nantong
NKODA
Polyurethane 31,141 MT USD
39206290,
39206919,
39206922,
39206929,
39206939,
39206999,
39209490,
39209912,
39209919,
39209939,
39209991,
39209999,
39211310,
39211390,
39211900,
39219029,
39219099,
3926 9069,
and
39269099
China PR Technology Co.
Ltd.
3 -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Avery Dennison
(China) Co., Ltd. 18,504 MT USD
4 -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Seeho Film co.
Ltd. ("Seeho") 26,126 MT USD
5 -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Zhaoqing KL 26,126 MT USD
6 -do- China P R Any
country
including
China PR Zhaoqing
Morthink Film
Technology Co.,
Ltd.
("Morthink") 26,126 MT USD
7 -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Beijing
Jhongshuo Weiye
Technology Co.
Ltd. 26,126 MT USD
8 -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Any producer
other than S. No.
1 to 7 34,027 MT USD
9 -do- Any
country
other than
China PR China PR Any 34,027 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, ce rtify that the (volume) of (product concerned) sold for export to India covered by
this invoice was manufactured by (producer name and address) in the (name of country). I declare that
the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.‘ If n o such invoice is presented, the
duty applicable to all other producers 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
191. An appeal against the determination of the Designated Authority in these final findings shall lie before the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act/Rules.
AMITABH KUMAR , 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