Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 258]
NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2025/ASVINA 1, 1947
CG-DL-E-25092025-266364
126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART I—SEC.1]
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 23rd September
(CASE NO. AD(OI)-21/2024)
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "certain antioxidants"
originating in or exported from China PR and Singapore.
F. No. 6/23/2024 – DGTR.—A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. M/s Vinati Organics Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant" or the "petitioner" or “VOL”) filed an application, in the form and manner prescribed before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the "Authority") in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred as the “Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred as the “Rules”), for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation and imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of “certain antioxidants” (hereinafter also referred to as “AO” or “subject goods” or the “product under consideration”) originating in or exported from China PR and Singapore (hereinafter also referred to as the "subject countries").
B. PROCEDURE
2. The procedure described below has been followed with regards to the investigation:
a. The Authority notified the embassy of the subject countries/territory in India about the receipt of the present anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Rules.
b. The Authority vide notification no.6/23/2024-DGTR dated 26th September 2024 published a public notice in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the subject countries.
c. The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice along with the questionnaires to the embassy of the subject counties in India, all known exporters, importers and users (whose details were made available by the applicant) and gave them opportunity to make their views known in writing in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the anti-dumping rules. They were advised to reply within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice.
d. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known exporters and the embassy of the subject countries in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the anti-dumping Rules. A copy of the application was also provided to the other interested parties, as requested.
e. The Authority sent questionnaire to elicit relevant information to the following known producers/exporters in the subject countries in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD rules:
| SN | Producer/ Exporter |
|:---|:------------------------------------|
| i. | Guangzhou Flying Dragon |
| ii. | BASF Southeast Asia Pte Ltd |
| iii. | Jiyichem |
| iv. | Nanjing Lanya Chemical Co., Ltd. |
| v. | Onelead Innovation Co. Ltd |
| vi. | Polygel Global Pte. Ltd. |
| vii. | Qingdao Richkem Co. Ltd |
| viii.| Rianlon Technology Company Ltd |
| ix. | Shandong Linyi Sunny Wealth Chemicals Co., Ltd. |
| x. | SI Group |
| xi. | Songwon |
| xii. | Suqian Unitechem |
| xiii.| Unitechem |
f. Following producers/exporters from the subject countries have filed the exporter’s questionnaire response or made submissions:
| SN | Responding Producer/ Exporter |
|:---|:------------------------------------|
| i. | BASF South East Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (BSEA) |
| ii. | BASF (China) Co. Ltd. (BCH) |
| iii. | BASF Chemicals Company Ltd. (BACH) |
| iv. | BASF Hong Kong Ltd. (BHKL) |
| v. | Rianlon Technology Co Ltd. |
| vi. | Rianlon (ZhongWei) New Material Co. Ltd. |
| vii. | Rianlon (ZhuHai) New Materials Co. Ltd. |
| viii.| Rianlon Corporation |
g. Arrowchem Pte. Ltd., a stockist and trader of chemicals, initially registered as an interested party in the subject investigation. The company later submitted that it did not export any antioxidants to India during the POI and requested withdrawal from the interested party list.
h. Questionnaires were also sent to the following known importers/users of the subject goods in India seeking necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules:
| SN | Importer/ User |
|:---|:------------------------------------|
| i. | BASF India Ltd. (BIL) |
| ii. | GAIL (India) Ltd. |
| iii. | Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. |
| iv. | High Grade Industries (India) Pvt Ltd. |
| v. | HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. |
| vi. | Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. |
| vii. | Machino Polymers Ltd. |
| viii.| Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. |
| ix. | Mittal Enterprises |
| x. | Prakash Chemicals Pvt Ltd. |
| xi. | Reliance Industries Ltd. |
| xii. | Solaris Chemical Corporation (Unit of Solaris Spec) |
| xiii.| ONGC Petro Additions Ltd |
| xiv.| BCPL |
| xv. | Nayara Energy Ltd. |
i. Following importers of the subject goods registered themselves as the interested parties in the investigation.
| SN | Responding Importer |
|:---|:------------------------------------|
| i. | BASF India Ltd. (BIL) |
| ii. | Ambitious Polytech |
| iii. | Amcom Polysol Pvt Ltd. |
| iv. | Chakravarthy Plastic Industries |
| v. | Coraplast Industries |
| vi. | Reliance Silbur Elastomers Pvt Ltd. |
| vii. | Sidma Polymers Pvt Ltd. |
j. Out of the above, a response to the importer’s questionnaire was received only from BASF India Ltd. (BIL).
k. In addition to the above, 2 associations viz., Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Association (CPMA) and Compound and Masterbatch Manufacturer Association of India also registered themselves as interested parties in the present investigation. The contentions of the associations have been addressed appropriately wherever possible. However, out of the two associations, a response to the economic interest questionnaire was received only from Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Association (CPMA).
l. The Authority issued an economic interest questionnaire (EIQ) to all interested parties and the concerned ministry. Response to EIQ has been submitted by the domestic industry, BASF Group and one importer association, i.e., CPMA.
m. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to the sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non confidential version of the information filed on a confidential basis.
n. The Authority vide para 9 of the initiation notification dated 26th September 2024 invited comments on the scope of the product under consideration and product control number (PCN) from the stakeholders within 30 days of initiation which ended on 26th October
2024. However, a further extension of time was granted by the Authority i.e., till 4th November 2024, to file comments on the scope of PUC/ PCN.
o. Subsequent to receipt of comments on the scope of PUC/ PCN, the Authority held a meeting for deciding the scope of the PUC and the PCN methodology on 22nd November 2024. The Authority received and considered the comments with regards to the PUC and the PCN methodology. The scope of the PUC and the PCN methodology were redefined vide notification dated 11th December 2024. The interested parties were directed to file the questionnaire response within 30 days of issuance of the notice i.e., by 10th January 2024.
p. A request was made to DG Systems to provide transaction-wise details of the imports of the subject goods for the injury investigation period and the period of investigation. The same has been received by the Authority and has been considered in this final finding.
q. Verification of the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the purpose of the present investigation.
r. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIP’) has been determined based on the cost of production and the cost to make and sell the subject goods in India based on the information furnished by the domestic industry, maintained as per Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules, 1995, has been worked out so as to ascertain whether the present anti-dumping duty is sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
s. The applicant had proposed July 2023 – March 2024 as the period of investigation at the time of filing of the application. However, the Authority considered the period of investigation (POI) as 1st July 2023 to 30th June 2024 (a period of 12 months). The injury investigation period covers the periods 2020 – 2021, 2021 – 2022, April 2022 – June 2023 and the period of investigation.
t. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the AD Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present their views during the oral hearing held on 21st April 2025. The interested parties were requested to submit their written submissions by 28th April 2025 and rejoinder submissions by 5th May 2025.
u. Due to the change of the Designated Authority, a fresh oral hearing was held on 26th May 2025 wherein all interested parties were provided the opportunity to present their views. The interested parties were requested to submit their written submissions by 28th May 2025 and rejoinder submissions by 30th May 2025.
v. The Authority circulated the disclosure statement containing all essential facts under consideration for making the final recommendations to the Central Government to all interested parties on 19th August 2025. The Authority has examined all the post-disclosure comments made by the interested parties in these final findings to the extent deemed relevant. Any submission which was merely a reproduction of the previous submission and which had been adequately examined by the Authority has not been repeated for the sake of brevity.
w. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has recorded its observations on the basis of the facts available.
x. “***” in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on a confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
y. Exchange rate considered for the POI for conversion of USD to Indian Rupees is 1 USD = Rs. 83.99.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1 Views of the other interested parties
3. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the scope of the product under consideration and like article:
i) AO 168 should be excluded from the scope of the PUC as it doesn’t use Metilox as base material. Reference is made to Exotic Décor Pvt. Ltd. v. DA case, where CESTAT ruled that wooden flooring with a plywood bottom layer could not be included in the investigation, as the notification specified the use of “real wood” as the bottom layer. Further, it is also not technically or commercially substitutable to other antioxidants.
ii) Antioxidants not produced and sold in commercial quantities by the applicant should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.
iii) The applicant’s products face quality issues and fail to pass lab tests. Hence, they were not approved by customers and licensors of technologies. Communications received from the users show that the applicant’s product does not match specifications required by users. Due to substandard packaging, the applicant’s product is prone to lump formation and is not suitable for use as it impacts flowability of the compounds.
iv) The pricing & cost of different forms of antioxidants i.e., powder and tablet, are different. An additional manufacturing process is involved to make tablets from powder. PCN methodology should additionally be prescribed based on the form of the antioxidant.
v) The applicant has produced and sold 2 blends viz., B215 and B225, which implies that it did not sell any other blends of the subject antioxidants. The product scope should be restricted to include only these two blends.
vi) Clause (g) of the PUC definition, which covers blends of subject antioxidants with any other product if the resultant blend has 50% or more of the subject antioxidant, must be deleted. The clause is very wide and has the potential to include even the blends antioxidant and products other than antioxidants for which no like product is offered by the applicant. Antioxidants are often consumed with other additives. Blending ingredients may contain additives other than antioxidants. If other additives besides antioxidants in the blend dominates the main function, the blend is not an antioxidant anymore.
vii) If the PUC definition covers blends of the subject antioxidants with “any other product” it will not be consistent with the general practice and will make the dumping, injury and causation analysis inaccurate.
viii)The criteria of 50% in clause (g) of the PUC definition is highly insufficient to ensure that the final blend is an antioxidant and is not backed with any scientific basis. If clause (g) is retained, the proportion of the subject antioxidant should be modified to at least 80% in terms of weight.
ix) The term “equivalents” and “other products” make the PUC definition vague and do not lend any clarity. It is unclear how the Customs Authorities would, from the description, be able to identify “equivalents” or products with at least 50% of subject antioxidants.
x) Apprehension of circumvention cannot be a basis for including blends within the scope of the investigation. The concept of circumvention would be applicable only where it can be demonstrated that the circumventing product can commercially and technically substitute the PUC or in situations where is can be established that the circumventing product can be used to produce the PUC by some kind of reverse engineering. The applicant claims that clause (g) needs to be included to prevent circumvention through minor composition changes without alteration in essential characteristics and end use. However, circumvention is not possible because end use differs.
xi) AO B2777, a blend of AO168 and AO1790 in a 2:1 ratio, is exported by the Rianlon Group. Since the applicant does not manufacture AO1790, they are unable to produce B2777. However, this blend falls within the scope of the PUC. Therefore, the applicant should be required to disclose a product equivalent to B2777. In any case, blending is more than just mixing; and involves extensive research, stabilizing production, achieving the desired properties through titration experiments.
xii) Rianlon disagrees with the Authority regarding there being lack of evidence that the applicant does not produce a like article. If the applicant is manufacturing B2777, the responsibility lies with them to provide proof. This obligation cannot be imposed on other interested parties.
xiii)Rianlon also sells a proprietary blend, for the rubber market, comprising 60% subject AO and 40% of two other AOs not produced by the Applicant. Subject AO or its blends cannot meet the performance standards for rubber applications. The Applicant cannot replicate this blend, as they lack the composition details and do not produce other two components.
xiv) Regarding the General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff cited by the applicant, product classification is only indicative. The mere fact that a product falls under a particular heading does not automatically make it a "like article." In several investigations, even when both PUC and NPUC were classified under the same heading, the Authority has excluded NPUC from the product scope.
xv) The applicant stated that it analysed import data including HS codes not mentioned in Initiation Notice. Over broad classification of the PUC would include products not manufactured by applicant and lead to over protection.
xvi) Where blends constitute merely 4% of total imports and 8% of the applicant’s own domestic sales i.e., a small fraction, there is no case of dumping.
xvii) The applicant claims that excluding blends would undermine duties, as consumers can easily switch from neat AO to blends. However, blending is not a simple process. It requires research.
xviii) The applicant has failed to substantiate that they produce a like product to B2777 and failed to substantiate the claim of interchangeability of its own product with the imported product. It has been admitted that applicant cannot produce this blend. B2777 therefore should be excluded from product scope.
xix) Non-availability of CAS for a blend shows that blending is a unique process. An infinite composition of blends is possible which makes it impossible to have a unique CAS number.
xx) Once a blend is made, it becomes a single functional product, that cannot revert to its individual antioxidant constituents. Therefore, the Applicant’s claim, that exclusion of blends would lead to customers shifting from neat AOs to blends causing an estimated loss of 2400MT of AO168 sales to it, is incorrect.
xxi) The proposal of imposing duty only to the extent of subject AO in a blend poses practical challenge for the Authority to identify the quantum of subject AO in each blend.
xxii) As regards the investigations referred to i.e., 2,4-D and certain epoxy resins, these cases do not specifically mention that duties are levied solely on subject component within blends based on specified thresholds.
xxiii) CPMA confirms that its members use only neat antioxidants, and blends are neither purchased nor commercially relevant in the domestic market. Inclusion of blends in produce scope, therefore, is unjustified since user submissions and applicant’s own data reflect usage and preference for neat antioxidants.
C.2. Views of the domestic industry
4. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the scope of the product under consideration and like article:
i) The product under consideration is “Antioxidants” conforming to the following CAS nos., or their equivalent:
a) 6683-19-8 also known as Antioxidant 1010 and its equivalents. The chemical name is Pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate)
b) 2082-79-3 also known as Antioxidant 1076 and its equivalents. The chemical name is Octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate
c) 31570-04-4 also known as Antioxidant 168 and its equivalents. The chemical name is Tris(2,4-di-tert butylphenyl) phosphite
d) 23128-74-7 also known as Antioxidant 1098 and its equivalents. The chemical name is N,N'-hexane-1,6-diylbis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenylpropionamide))
e) 125643-61-0 also known as Antioxidant L135 or 1135 its equivalents. The chemical name is Benzenepropanoic acid, 3,5-bis (1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-, C7-9-branched alkyl esters
f) Blends of antioxidants referred to in (a) to (e)
g) Antioxidants having any of the product at (a) to (e) as principal component/ part.
ii) Antioxidants in polymers are essential to prevent oxidation i.e., a process where oxygen comes in contact with a certain material causes degradation. Plastic products are manufactured at high temperatures which compromises the raw polymers, as they are exposed to a process called thermal oxidation. For the polymer to remain stable, antioxidants are introduced during the manufacturing process.
iii) The product under consideration is being imported under large number of HS codes, primarily under Chapter 29 and 38 of the Customs Tariff Act. Importers may also be importing under alternative HS codes, leading to possible underreporting of actual volumes. The Authority should include such other codes within the purview of investigation apart from the ones already considered.
iv) The subject goods are transacted under several brand names and descriptions. There is no global well defined/codified name for the product. Some companies have their own brand names for the subject goods, and it may not be possible to identify all such names. The term “and its equivalents” has been used to denote the alternate names of the subject goods.
v) The term “other products” in clause (g) of the PUC definition refers to functional additives, other than antioxidants in blends, which provide other functions in the end application from the feature of antioxidants.
vi) CAS no. or chemical abstract services number, which is a unique numeric identifier designated to only one substance and is hence unique to each chemical has been relied upon to identify the PUC.
vii) Only blends B215 and B225 are being sold in the domestic market by the applicant. However, there are other blends like B1171 and B912 that have been produced and supplied in the export market. The applicant has the capacity to produce blends. Blending is not a complicated or technical process. It simply requires physical mixing of the antioxidants. Once the combination/proportion in which individual products need to be mixed is known, which alone requires R&D, blending involves mere mixing of the product. The machines used for mixing are fungible i.e., they can be used to prepare all types of blends needing any antioxidants in any desired ratio.
viii)As regards the argument that blending requires not just mixing but also stabilizing production and desired properties by titration experiments, the same is unfounded. Customers are aware of the blends and the ratio that is to be used. The blending procedure per se does not need R&D.
ix) Blends form a small share of both imports and domestic sales. However, antioxidants are rarely used in neat form or individually. Industry practice is to blend them for downstream application; therefore, consumers typically purchase neat antioxidants but use them in combination. Since users eventually use a combination or blend of antioxidants, excluding blends from product scope would allow users to easily switch from importing neat antioxidants to blends.
x) If an ADD applies only to neat AOs and blends are exempt, blends could be imported duty free, despite being technically and commercially substitutable with the neat forms, thus bypassing duties on product types covered under clause (a) to (f).
xi) The widespread ability to blend shows that blending involves a simple process of just mixing known proportions of antioxidants. Exclusion of blends would defeat the purpose of duties.
xii) While developing a blend requires research but blending itself is a simple physical mixing. It does not involve a chemical process. There is no transformation of constituents, instead they still retain their original properties in the blend. In fact, a blend has no CAS number but is specified in terms of the CAS number of its constituent products.
xiii)Although 95% of subject goods, either imported or domestically manufactured, are sold in their neat form but entirety of consumption is in blended forms. Consumers can either directly buy blends; buy neat products, blend them in the desired proportion and charge resultant blend; or simply buy and charge the neat products in desired proportions.
xiv) If clause (g) is excluded, following imposition, importers may also start importing blends with 95% subject antioxidant and 5% other material to evade duties. While the functionally will remain the same, but if clause (g) is excluded, such product would be outside the duty scope.
xv) Some customers buy subject AOs from the Applicant and non-subject AOs from other sources, blend them and consume. For instance, subject AO 168, is blended with non subject AOs like AO 1330, AO 3114 and AO 1024 in a 1:2 ratio for use in the plastics industry. If clause (g) is excluded, these customers could shift to importing blends directly, leading to an estimated annual loss of 2,400 MT in AO 168 sales for the applicant. The applicant's product has been approved by consumers. Quality complaints are common in business, especially for a new industry. Complaints have decreased over time, and the applicant has addressed them, leading to repeat orders.
xvi) Exclusion of AO 168 is unwarranted. All phenolic antioxidants use Metilox, made from 2,6 DTBP, as a raw material. AO168, a phosphite antioxidant, uses 2,4 DTBP. This difference does not classify them as distinct products. Antioxidants, regardless of composition, are primarily employed as additives in plastic formulations, serve a common purpose and are thus treated as a single product.
xvii) The initiation notice serves as the basis for investigation and is not intended to be an exhaustive document. The Authority is fully empowered under the Rules to clarify the product scope in the course of the investigation based on stakeholder submissions. In the PUC notification, the Authority noted the arguments taken by all parties and still included AO 168 within PUC scope, giving it a separate PCN, indicating that metilox is not the sole criteria to treat it as one product.
xviii) There is no legal requirement of (a) internal homogeneity within the product under consideration, (b) inter-se substitutability of various types of the product under consideration, (c) similarities in costs and prices of different types.
xix) The statement where it has been stated that all antioxidants use metilox as the raw material may be changed to “while AO 1010, AO 1076, AO 1098 & L135 use 2,6 DTBP and AO168 uses 2,4 DTBP as raw material, the major differences lie in the additional raw materials specific to each antioxidant type and the distinct process conditions tailored for each antioxidant”.
xx) Antioxidants alleged to not have been sold have in fact been produced and sold by the applicant in commercial quantities.
xxi) 50% criterion in clause (g) has been proposed with the understanding that a product constituting 50% or more in a blend would impart its essential features to the resultant blend. Most blends are typically mixed in ratios like 1:1 or 1:2. The suggestion to increase the threshold to 80% lacks scientific basis.
xxii) The forms of the PUC covered within the PUC definition may be treated as different PCNs. In case of blends covered under clause (f), each blend should be separately specified with the share of different antioxidants. While in case of blends covered under clause (g), each blend should be separately specified with the share of subject antioxidant therein. Interested parties may identify the value of other component forming part of blends and provided appropriate evidence to support their claim.
xxiii) To prescribe PCN for powder and tablet form is unnecessary. These are merely different forms of the subject goods. Powder form is produced first and processed into tablets, with only 2% value addition. The cost difference is negligible. Additionally, the form of antioxidant cannot be identified in import data. Market information suggests that most imports are in powder form. The applicant can producer both forms as per demand.
xxiv) The subject goods are normally produced and sold in terms of net weight expressed in terms of Metric Tonne (MT)/ Kilograms (Kg). The prescribed unit of measurement for all codes under Chapter 29 and 38 i.e., the codes under which subject goods are being imported is also weight “kg”.
xxv) Subject goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported from China PR and Singapore are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing, and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The product produced by the domestic industry is “like article” to the product under consideration imported from the subject countries.
xxvi) The duty may be recommend only to the extent of subject AO in the blend. Thus, any concern regarding duties being imposed on non-subject AO would adequately be addressed.
xxvii) Para 3(b) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonized System establishes that where a product is composed of more than one component, the component that imparts essential character is decisive of its classification. It highlights the essential character of the product, which is important for assessing physical characteristics, end use, and consumer perception, key factors for product scope and like article analysis. Where classification aligns with the essential character and predominant composition of the product, it serves as a supporting factor in establishing the degree of similarity between the imported product and the domestically produced article. Hence, the General Rules support the argument that the characteristic of AO shall be determined by the major constituent of the AO.
xxviii) As regards blending ingredients including functional additives other than AO, including other functional additives in a blend doesn't disqualify it as an antioxidant. If the antioxidant in the blend had no function, it wouldn’t be added in the blend.
xxix) As regards exclusion of B2777 i.e., a blend under clause (g) of the PUC definition, this blend is not exclusively made by Rianlon. Other producers also manufacture it. Domestic industry can make B2777 by sourcing the non-subject component i.e., AO 1790 from other suppliers. Since the market for this is small, domestic industry has not produced such blend. End users can also buy AO 168 and AO 1790 individually and use to achieve similar stabilization properties. The domestic industry is, in any case, only seeking ADD on the subject AO component of the blend, not the entire blend. For instance, if AO 168 makes up 67% of B2777, duty applies only to 67% of total quantity.
xxx) As for the exclusion of B2777 due to it having a significantly different application from other blends, i.e., B215 and B225, B2777 is a blend with two-thirds part of a subject AO and hence its imports are causing injury to the domestic industry.
xxxi) As regards the proprietary blend with 60% subject AO and 40% of two other AOs, that is alleged to not be produced by the Applicant, even the name of such blend has not been disclosed by the respondent preventing the domestic industry from providing informed comments on the blend’s nature or classification. Regardless, duties may be imposed only on the portion of the blend that includes the subject AO, ensuring no undue harm to users of genuine blends not supplied by the domestic industry.
xxxii) As regards the claim that the applicant lacks the know-how to produce the blend, the same is unfounded. Blends are sold with ingredient names disclosed, making the information accessible. Moreover, none of these blends are covered by patents. If they were truly unique or proprietary, they would be patentable.
xxxiii) The applicant is also in discussion with a customer regarding a blend of subject antioxidant with non-subject antioxidant.
xxxiv) The applicant has only sought ADD to the extent of subject AO. The Authority can clarify that no duty would be charged on non-subject AO.
xxxv) In the U.S. investigations on 2,4-D from India and China, it was noted that converting 2,4-D acid into its salts or esters, or formulating non subject products with 2,4-D, does not exclude 2,4-D, its salts, or its esters from product scope. In this case, the DOC imposed duties on only 2,4-D, its salt and ester components within formulations. Similarly, in the Epoxy Resins case, the Designated Authority held modifiers or additives were included in product scope if epoxy resin made up at least 30% of the total weight.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
5. The product under consideration in the application and the initiation notification was defined as Antioxidants conforming to the following CAS numbers or their equivalent:
a. 6683-19-8 also known as Antioxidant 1010 and its equivalents. The chemical name is Pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate)
b. 2082-79-3 also known as Antioxidant 1076 and its equivalents. The chemical name is Octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate
c. 31570-04-4 also known as Antioxidant 168 and its equivalents. The chemical name is Tris(2,4-di-tert butylphenyl) phosphite
d. 23128-74-7 also known as Antioxidant 1098 and its equivalents. The chemical name is N,N'-hexane-1,6-diylbis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl-propionamide))
e. 125643-61-0 also known as Antioxidant L135 or 1135 its equivalents. The chemical name is Benzenepropanoic acid, 3,5-bis (1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy, C7-9-branched alkyl esters
f. Blends of antioxidants referred to in (a) to (e)
g. Antioxidants having any of the product at (a) to (e) as principal component/ part.
6. The applicant proposed that the various types of antioxidants falling within the scope of the PUC should be represented by distinct PCNs.
7. The interested parties, through para 9 of the notice of initiation, were advised to furnish their comments/ suggestions on the proposed PCN methodology within 30 days from the date of initiation of the investigation. Thereafter the timeline for filing of the comments or suggestions to the PUC/ PCN methodology was extended to 4th November 2024.
8. Comments were received from the interested parties within the stipulated time limits. Subsequent to the receipt of the comments, to discuss and understand the comments made on the scope of the PUC and PCN methodology, a virtual meeting was held at 04:00 PM (IST) on 22nd November 2024. After having conducted the discussion, the interested parties were allowed to elaborate on and further substantiate their comments, in writing, by 27th November 2024. The submissions made by the interested parties were examined by the Authority and vide notice dated 11th December 2024.
9. The scope of the PUC was clarified as follows vide notice dated 11th December 2024:
“6. The scope of the product under consideration is further clarified as follows:
a. 6683-19-8 also known as Antioxidant 1010 and its equivalents. The chemical name is Pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate)
b. 2082-79-3 also known as Antioxidant 1076 and its equivalents. The chemical name is Octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate.
c. 31570-04-4 also known as Antioxidant 168 and its equivalents. The chemical name is Tris(2,4-di-tert butylphenyl) phosphite.
d. 23128-74-7 also known as Antioxidant 1098 and its equivalents. The chemical name is N,N'-hexane-1,6-diylbis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenylpropionamide))
e. 125643-61-0 also known as Antioxidant L135 or 1135 its equivalents. The chemical name is Benzenepropanoic acid, 3,5-bis (1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy, C7-9-branched alkyl esters
f. Blends of subject antioxidants referred to at (a) to (e)
g. Blends of subject antioxidants referred to at (a) to (e) with any other product if the resultant blend has 50% or more of the subject antioxidants”
10. It was also clarified that:
a. The term “equivalents” refers to the alternate names or company-specific brand names of the subject antioxidants under clause (a) to (e).
b. “any other product” under clause (g) refers to non-subject antioxidants and/ or any additives by weight in MT.
c. In the case of blends, the interested parties may specify (a) the subject antioxidant forming part of it and (b) the share of different AO in the blend.”
11. Considering that every kind of AO has a different cost and hence a different price, the product forms covered within the scope of PUC were treated as different PCNs. Further, each blend was treated as a different PCN. Accordingly, the following PCN methodology was adopted.
| SN | Attribute | Description | Code |
|:---|:------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------|:-----|
| a) | Product type | Antioxidant | A |
| | | Blends | B |
| b) | Type of Antioxidant | 6683-19-8 also known as AO 1010 and its equivalents | 1010 |
| | | 2082-79-3 also known as AO 1076 and its equivalents | 1076 |
| | | 31570-04-4 also known as AO 168 and its equivalents | 0168 |
| | | 23128-74-7 also known as AO 1098 and its equivalents | 1098 |
| | | 125643-61-0 also known as AO L135 or 1135 its equivalents | 1135 |
| c) | Type of blend | Blends of subject AOs | BA |
| | | Blends of subject AO with non-subject AO / products | BO |
12. The Authority clarifies that for clause (g), only the subject antioxidant of such blend is covered by the scope of this investigation and the antidumping duty, if recommended, will be applicable only to the portion of the blend comprising the subject antioxidant. In any case, the non-subject components shall be beyond the scope of the measures, if recommended.
13. Other parties argued that the initiation notification stated that all subject antioxidants use metilox as base raw material and AO168 should be outside the PUC scope as it does not use metilox as a raw material. It has further been argued that AO168 is not produced by the applicant and it differs from other antioxidants, has different HS codes, and is not technically or commercially substitutable. It is noted that the applicant clarified that all antioxidants use butyl phenols – 2,4 DTBP or 2,6 DTBP – as the primary raw material. Nonetheless, raw material was not the only parameter based on which the Authority considered the different product types as one PUC. The Authority also considered the fact that the production equipment, the production process and the resultant characteristics of each type are largely the same. All subject antioxidants are closely interlinked in trade and usage. The essential function of the subject antioxidants including AO168 is to act as stabilizers, preventing the degradation of polymers during processing and throughout the product life cycle. While the specific composition and properties of these antioxidants may differ, the fundamental role across these antioxidants remains the same, i.e., to prevent oxidation/ degradation of plastics. It is also seen that applicant has sold AO168 in commercial volumes.
14. The interested parties have contended that the applicant is not producing AO1098 in commercial quantities. The applicant provided evidence of sale of AO 1098 in commercial volumes. It is also seen that the imports and demand of this grade itself is quite limited.
15. The interested parties have contended that blends of subject antioxidants covered under clause (f) not produced by the applicant should be excluded and the scope should be restricted to B215 and B225. It is noted that since the applicant is already producing the subject antioxidants from clause (a) to (e), making blends other than B215 and B225 only requires blending of subject antioxidants in different ratios, without undertaking any chemical process. Further, there are other blends of the subject antioxidants, like B1171 and B912, which the applicant has produced and sold in the export market. Hence, blends of the subject antioxidants are rightly included within the product scope, as they are functionally and materially derived from the subject antioxidants at clause (a) to (e).
16. While the applicant claimed that blending is a minor process of merely mixing different products in a simple blender, does not involve any chemical reaction and stated that it can blend subject antioxidants if orders of such blends are received, the other interested parties claimed that blending is more than just mixing and requires research. The Authority notes, from the information on record, that blending does not involve any chemical reaction of the subject goods but rather is a process of proportionate mixing based on needs of the users. While interested parties have claimed that blending requires research, the applicant has clarified that research and development efforts are not involved in the physical act of mixing the antioxidants. Instead, R&D is required in determining the optimal combination and ratio of individual antioxidants in a blend to meet a specific requirement. It has been submitted that customers are generally informed of the blending ratios and compositions that meet their particular requirements. The Authority also notes, from the communication between the applicant and its customer, that tailor-made blends i.e., as per the ratios demanded by the consumers have also been prepared by the applicant. It is seen from such communications that the customers have requested changes in blend ratios and the creation of new blends, following which the applicant shared technical data sheets (TDS) and received corresponding orders. It is also seen that customers have also inquired whether the applicant could supply a blend of subject and non subject antioxidants to meet user’s specific needs. In response, the applicant synthesized a sample and shared the TDS with the customer. This further substantiates that consumers are aware of ratios and blends are made as per the customers’ requirements. Blends and the ratios become known to all parties.
17. It is also noted that majority of sales made to the consumers are in neat form during the present period and the customers can simply switch to blends in case of imposition of ADD on neat form and exemption of blends. The blending can be easily carried out by the consumers, as they are well aware of the ratio in which the blends are mixed by the suppliers. During the oral hearing held on 26th May 2025, the Authority enquired whether members of the user association purchase neat antioxidants and use them either in combination or after blending, but no response to the question posed was provided in their written submissions.
18. Some of the interested parties have contended that blends of subject antioxidants with other products are not manufactured by the applicant and should not be included. It was contended that in case such blends are included they should be part of the PUC only if one of the subject antioxidants is 80% or more. The applicant contended, and the same is unrebutted by the other interested parties, that while the subject goods are majorly sold in their neat form, almost entirety of the consumption is in blend form, implying that all users invariably use a combination of antioxidants. Thus, it is seen that limiting duties to subject neat antioxidants alone will lead to duty avoidance by shifting purchases to blends instead of importing the product in its neat form. Thus, blends covered under clause (g) are included in the scope of the product under consideration. Further, the criterion of 50% of subject antioxidant in clause (g) is considered appropriate as a product that is 50% or more (by weight) in a blend would form the "majority" or "dominant"