Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 274] NEW DELHI, MON DAY, OCTOBER 23, 2023/KARTIKA 1, 194 5
CG-DL-E-26102023-249691
जलजंटेड *** *** *** *** 40-50
2 अन् य *** *** *** *** 50-60
2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 पीओआई
6 कुल आयात % 98% 100% 100% 100%
% 1-5
सूचीबद्ध 100 1,296 4,537 2,124
सूचीबद्ध 100 1,516 3,952 1,465
2 संथाक % *** *** *** ***
4 अन् य देि % *** *** *** ***
5 कुल ंांग % 100% 100% 100% 100%
2 ंई *** *** -0.1%
3 िूि *** *** -1.3%
4 िुलाई *** *** -3.1%
8 िवंबर *** *** -7.3%
10 ििवरी *** *** -20.9%
11 फ़रवरी *** *** -4.6%
12 ंाचा *** *** -10.9%
1 अप्रैल (***) (***) -2.49% -0.85%
2 ंई (***) (***) -0.48% -0.34%
3 िूि (***) (***) -1.83% -0.32%
4 िुलाई (***) (***) -3.60% -1.83%
5 अगस्ट्त (***) (***) -3.95% -1.06%
म्बर (***) (***)
-4.83% -3.19%
र (***) (***)
-5.56% -2.12%
8 िवंबर (***) (***) -7.82% -4.65%
म्बर (***) (***)
-23.41% -16.85%
री (***) (***)
-21.12% -14.62%
री (***) (***)
-5.03% -2.38%
12 ंाचा (***) (***) -31.33% -18.90%
-6.92% -3.83%
8 आरओआई % *** *** *** (***)
18 कुल जबिी *** *** *** ***
दप कुल *** *** *** ***
1 बेंिीि *** *** *** *** 83%
2 सी.एि.ए. *** *** *** *** 123%
4 सयोगडा ेि *** *** *** *** 75%
7 ईंधि *** *** *** *** 142%
2 अन्य *** *** *** *** 50-60
% ***
% ***
1https://www.precisechem.com/news/current -dye-market -in-china -producers -
stop-receiving -orders -prices -soaring -dramatically/
3 http://www.schgchem.com/about.html
सं. जववरण यूओएं 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 2022 -23
1 ररेलू *** *** *** ***
2 जियाात *** *** *** ***
3 ररेलू *** *** *** ***
4 जियाात *** *** *** ***
% *** *** *** ***
श्रेणी 15-25 (15-25) 0-10 30-40
ME2GL 0.187 2.12% 0.042% 0.106%
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1. 29215120
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce )
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2023
Subject: Sunset review investigation of anti -dumping duty on import of “Meta Phenylene Diamine (MPDA)”
originating in or exported from China PR
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CA SE
F. No. 7/06/2023 -DGTR .—Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as “the Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -
Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as the “Rules” or the “AD Rules”) thereof.
1. The original anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the su bject country
was initiated by the Authority vide Notification No. 14/4/2012 -DGAD dated 19thJune 2012. In the same
investigation, final finding was issued vide No. 14/4/2012 -DGAD, dated 17th December 2013 recommending
imposition of definitive antidumping d uties on imports of the subject goods from the subject country, which
was implemented vide Customs Notification No. 11/2014 - Customs (ADD) dated 11th March 2014. The said
duties were imposed for a period of 5 years following which the first sunset review investigation was
initiated by the Authority vide Notification No. 7/2/2018 -DGAD, dated 26th February 2018. In the same
1st SSR investigation, final finding was issued vide No. 7/2/2018 -DGAD, dated 13th December 2018
recommending the extension and enhance ment of definitive anti -dumping duties on imports of the subject
goods from the subject country. The same was implemented vide Customs Notification No. 5/2019 -Customs
(ADD) dated 24th January 2019. The duties so imposed are set to expire on 23rd January 20 24.
2. In terms of Section 9A (5) of the Act read, the anti -dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier,
cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition. The Authority is required to
review whether the expiry of anti -dumping duty is likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping
and injury.
3. Further, Rule 23(1B) of the Rules provides as follows:
“any definitive anti -dumping duty levied under the Act shall be effective for a period not exceeding five
years from the date of its imposition, unless the designated authority comes to a conclusion, on a review
initiated before that period on its own initiative or upon a duly substantiated request made by or on
behalf of the domestic industry, within a reasonable p eriod of time prior to the expiry of that period, that
the expiry of the said anti -dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and
injury to the domestic industry ."
4. In accordance with the above, the Authority is required to revi ew, on the basis of a duly substantiated request
made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, as to whether the expiry of anti -dumping duty is likely to lead
to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
5. In view of the duly substantiated appl ication by the domestic industry with prima facie evidence of the
likelihood of dumping and injury filed on behalf of the domestic industry and in accordance with Section
9A(5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Rules, the Authority initiated a sunset re view investigation vide
Notification No. F. No. 07/06/2023 -DGTR dated 30th June 2023, to review the need for the continued
imposition of the duties in force in respect of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject
country and to examine whether the expiry of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury to the domestic industry.
6. The scope of the present review covers all aspects of the previous investigation concerning the subject goods
issued vide final finding No. 7/2/2018 -DGAD, dated 13th December 2018, which were implemented vide
Notification No. 5/2019 -Customs (ADD) dated 24.01.2019.
B. PROCEDURE
7. The procedure described herein below has been followed with regard to the subject investigation:
i. The Authorit y notified the embassy of the subject country in India about the receipt of the anti -
dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation.
ii. The Authority issued a public notice dated 30th June 2023, published in the Gazette of India
Extraordi nary, initiating the sunset review anti -dumping investigation concerning the imports of the
subject goods from China PR.
iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification dated 30th June 2023, to the embassy of the
subject country in India, known pr oducers/exporters from the subject country, known importers/users
in India, other Indian producers and other interested parties, as per the information made available by
the applicant.
iv. The Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the ap plication to the known
producers/exporters and to the embassy of the subject country in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of
the Rules.
v. In the initiation notification, the Authority had called for comments on the proposed PCN methodology
from the interest ed parties in order to have a fair comparison. No comments were received from the
interested parties and thereafter, vide letter dated 18th August 2023, the interested parties were
requested to file their questionnaire response in accordance with the initi ation notification.
vi. The interested parties were requested to provide relevant information in the form and manner
prescribed and to make their views known in writing within the prescribed time, in accordance with
Rules 6(2) and 6(4) of the Rules.
vii. The embass y of the subject country in India was also requested to advise the producers/exporters from
its country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and
questionnaire sent to the producers/exporters was also sent t o the embassy along with the names and
addresses of the known producers/exporters from the subject country.
viii. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in the subject country,
in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
i. Zhejiang Amino -Chem Company, Limited
ii. Norino Group Sichuan North Hongguang Special Chemicals Limited
iii. Jiangsu Tianjayi Chemical Company Limited
iv. China Sun Specialty Products Company Limited,
ix. In response, the following exporters/producers from the subject country filed exporter’s questionnaire
response in the prescribed format:
i. Zhejiang Amino -Chem Company, Limited
ii. Changshan Haicheng Chemical Company, Limited
x. The Authority sent Importer’s Questionnaires to the following known importers/users of subject goods in
India, calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
i. Aaishwariya Chemicals Private Limited
ii. Anil Colours Industries Private Limited
iii. Ankur Chemicals
iv. Aries Dye Chem Industries
v. Aries Organics Private Limited
vi. Bodal Chemicals Limited Unit – I
vii. Chemworld Incorporated
viii. Chhatariya Dye Stuff Private Limited
ix. Hexone Interchem Private Limited
x. Hexone Interchem Private Limited
xi. Indo Colchem Limited
xii. Jainik Industries
xiii. Krishna Industries
xiv. Loxim Industries Limited
xv. Mascen Laboratories
xvi. Monica Industries
xvii. Novacid Private Limited
xviii. Orjet Intermediates Private Limited
xix. Prashant Industries
xx. Rohan Dyes & Intermediaries Limited
xxi. Shree Pushkar Petro Products Ltd.
xxii. Shreeji Organics
xxiii. Solar Dyes Industries
xxiv. Synthopharma Chemicals
xxv. Hindprakash International
xxvi. Chemex Chemical
xxvii. Yash Chemex Incorporated
xi. In response, none of the importers/users except Gujarat Dyestuff Manufacturers Association (hereinafter
referred to as “respondent” or “GDMA”) have responded or filed importer's / user's questionnaire
responses.
xii. The Authority issue d Economic Interest Questionnaire to the Chinese Embassy, all the known exporters,
importers and the domestic industry. The Economic Interest Questionnaire was also shared with the
administrative line ministry. Economic Interest questionnaire was filed onl y by the domestic industry.
None of the other interested parties have filed the Economic Interest Questionnaire.
xiii. The petition was filed based on the basis of DGCI&S published data. The Authority has, however,
considered DGCI&S transaction -wise details of i mports of the subject goods for the past three years and
the period of investigation.
xiv. Additional information was sought from the applicant and exporters to the extent deemed necessary and
the same has been considered for the proposed determination.
xv. Verification of the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the purpose of
the present investigation and such verified information has been relied upon for the purpose of the final
finding.
xvi. The domestic industry has submitted fina ncial data. The non -injurious price (NIP) has been determined
based on the optimum cost of production and the cost to make & sell the subject goods in India as per the
information furnished by the domestic industry and in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules. Such non -injurious price has been considered to
ascertain whether anti -dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury
to the domestic industry.
xvii. The verification of the information provided by the producers/exporters to the extent deemed necessary,
was carried out by the Authority.
xviii. The Period of Investigation for the purpose of the present anti -dumping investigation is from 1st April
2022 to 31st March 2023 (12 Months). The injury investigation period has, however, been considered as
the period 1st April 2019 - 31st March 2020, 1st April 2020 - 31st April 2021, 1st April 2021 -31st March
2022, and POI.
xix. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Au thority conducted an oral hearing on 29th September
2023, to provide an opportunity to the interested parties to present the relevant information orally before
the Authority. All the parties attending the oral hearing were advised to file written submissio ns by
06.10.2023, of the views expressed orally. Non -confidential versions of the written submissions were
circulated to the interested parties by email, and an opportunity was given to them to submit rejoinder
submissions by 10.10.2023, if any.
xx. The argume nts made in the written submissions/rejoinders received from the interested parties have been
considered in the present final findings.
xxi. The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, wherever found
relevant, have be en addressed by the Authority, in this final findings.
xxii. Information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to the
sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confi dentiality
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.
xxiii. 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 in vestigation, the Authority
has considered such parties as non -cooperative and recorded on the basis of the facts available
xxiv. In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules, the essential facts of the investigation were disclosed to the
known interested parties vide disclosure statement dated 17.10.2023 and comments received thereon,
considered relevant by the Authority, have been addressed in these final findings. The post -disclosure
submissions to the extent considered relevant are being examined in these final fin dings.
xxv. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is US$1 = ₹ 81.06
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1. Views of the other interested parties
8. None of the other interested parties have made any submissions in rega rd to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article.
C. 2. Views of the domestic industry
9. The views of the domestic industry with regard to the product under consideration and like article are as
follows :
i. The product under consideration in the present petition is “Meta Phenylene Diamine (MPDA)".
ii. Meta Phenylene Diamine has two amino groups attached to a Benzene ring, at Meta positions, with
respect to each other. It is an isomer of o - Phenylene Diamine (Ortho Phenylene Diamine) and
p- Phenyl ene Diamine (Para Phenylene Diamine).
iii. MPDA is a chemical reagent. MPDA has various end application areas such as aramid fibre
manufacturing, engineering polymer, dye manufacturing, photography and medical etc.
iv. There is no known difference in the PUC expor ted from China PR and that produced by the Indian
industry. In the present case, both the imported and the domestic product have comparable
characteristics in terms of parameters such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing
process & technolo gy, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing
and tariff classification, etc. Consumers can use and are using the two interchangeably. The two are
technically and commercially substitutable and thus, are like article.
v. The product under consideration is generally imported under HS code 2921 5120. However, import
can also take place under other HS codes, therefore, it is clarified that the HS codes are only
indicative, and the product description shall prevail in all circumst ances.
C.3. Examination by the Authority
10. The present investigation is a sunset review investigation concerning anti -dumping duties imposed on
imports of ‘'Meta Phenylene Diamine' (MPDA)’ originating in or exported from China PR. Hence, the
PUC in the pres ent investigation is the same as considered in the original investigation. The product under
investigation as defined in the original investigation is as follows:
“2. The product under consideration in the present investigation is 'Meta Phenylene Diamine' (MPDA).
Commercially, it is also called MPD or MPDA. Under normal (room) conditions, it is a colourless or
white colour solid, which tends to turn red, purple (dark colour) in air, on storage. Meta Phenylene
Diamine has two amino groups attached to a Benz ene ring, at Meta position, with respect to each
other. It is an isomer of o - Phenylene Diamine (Ortho Phenylene Diamine) and p -Phenylene Diamine
(Para Phenylene Diamine). Meta Phenylene Diamine functions as a chemical intermediate. MPDA as
a chemical inte rmediate is used for manufacturing dyes, engineering polymer, aramid fibre and in
photography & medical applications."
10. The PUC in the present sunset investigation is ‘Meta Phenylene Diamine’, also referred to as
MPDA. Other names of the PUC are m - Phen ylene Diamine; 1,3 -diaminobenzene; 1, 3 -
Benzenediamine, m -Aminoaniline; m Benzenediamine, m -Diaminobenzene; 1,3 - Phenylenediamine;
3-Aminoaniline, m -Fenylendiamin, Phenylenediamine, m; and Phenylenediamine, m. Commercially it
is also called MPD or MPDA.
11. The product under consideration is generally classified under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act under
head 2921 and subheadings 29215120. The HS codes are considered only indicative, and the product
description is decisive for the purpose of the present investigation.
12. The PUC functions as a chemical intermediate. V arious end application areas of Meta Phenylene diamine
are Aramid fibre manufacture, engineering polymer, dye manufacturing, photography etc. The most
common use is dyes and polymer.
13. The Autho rity notes that the product under consideration produced by the domestic industry and imported
from the subject country are comparable in terms of physical & chemical characteristics, functions & uses,
product specifications, pricing, distribution & market ing, and tariff classification of the goods. The goods
produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject country are like articles in terms of the
Rules. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The Authority holds that the sub ject goods
produced by the domestic industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from
subject country within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of anti -dumping Rules.
D. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION MANUFAC TURING PROCESS
E. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
E.1. Views of the other interested parties
14. None of the other interested parties have made any submission regarding the standing and scope of the
domestic industry.
E.2. Views of the domestic industry
15. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to standing and scope of the
domestic industry:
i. The application has been filed by M/s Aarti Industries Limited. The applicant account for a major
proportion (***%) in total Indian production of t he product concerned in India.
ii. The application was supported by M/s Anupam Rasayan at the time of filing the application.
iii. The applicant is neither related to any producer/exporter of the product under consideration in
China PR, nor are they related to any importer in India or exporter in the subject country. Further,
the applicant has not imported the product under consideration from China PR. Thus, the applicant
should be considered as eligible to constitute the domestic industry in terms of Rules.
iv. The ap plicant has sufficient standing and constitutes the domestic industry within the meaning of
the Rules, even though this is not a condition mandatory for sunset review investigation.
E.3. Examination by the Authority
16. Rule 2(b) of the Anti -Dumping Rules defines the domestic industry as under:
“(b) “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the
like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such
producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves
importers thereof in such case the term ‘domestic industry’ may be constr ued as referring to the rest of
the producers ”.
17. The application is filed by M/s Aarti Industries Limited. It is seen that the applicant was the sole producer
in the past two investigations. The applicant earlier had a capacity of ***MT. The applicant, howe ver,
increased capacity to *** in 2016 -17.
18. The applicant is engaged in the manufacturing APIs, generic intermediates and xanthine derivatives for
the pharmaceutical and food/beverages industry. As per the website of the company, the company is
engaged in production of a number of different products having manufacturing facilities at 4 places, i.e.,
Dombivli, Vapi, Tarapur, Atali. However, manufacturing facilities for MPDA are stand alone and are
used exclusively only for production of MPDA. It was found t hat the manufacturing facilities have not
been used for production of any other product. It was also noted that no other product can be produced at
these facilities.
19. M/s Anupam Rasayan has set up a capacity of [***] MT in 2018 -19 and has started productio n since
2019. Anupam Rasayan has supported the investigation and requested continuation of the duty.
20. The applicant considered production of Anupam Rasayan at the same level as capacity. However, post
initiation of the investigation, Anupam Rasayan has s upported the application and has provided details of
its production and domestic sales. Since the company has now provided the relevant information, the
Authority has considered the same for the purpose of the present final findings and for establishing
essential facts relevant for the proposed determination.
21. Information on record shows that the production by the applicant constitutes more than ***% i.e., “a
major proportion” of total Indian production. However, relevant information provided by the supporte r as
made available has been nevertheless separately examined at relevant places in order to ascertain whether
its performance shows a materially different position as compared to the applicant.
22. On examination of the material on record as above, and consi dering the legal provisions, the Authority
holds that the applicant constitutes the domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b) of the Anti -dumping Rules
and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules even though
standing within the meaning of Rule 5(3) is not required to be established in a sunset review initiated
under Rule 23.
F. ISSUES RELATED TO CONFIDENTIALITY & MI SCELLANEOUS SUBMISSI ONS
F.1. Views of the other interested parties
23. Following submissions have been made by other interested parties in regard to confidentiality and
miscellaneous submissions :
i. The applicant has claimed essential information as production flow chart etc. as confidential.
ii. If the Authority finds confidentiality is not warranted, and the su pplier of information is unwilling to
make it public or authorize disclosure, the Authority may disregard such information.
iii. Each and every information submitted by a party on a confidential basis cannot be regarded as
confidential unless the same is suppor ted by reasons and is so accepted by the Authority.
iv. Sunset review investigation can only be initiated where there is sufficient evidence of dumping,
material injury, likelihood thereof and causation.
v. Insufficient information provided in the present review , does not justify initiation under Rule 5(3).
The petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of the present
investigation. The Authority has found “prima facie” evidence as against the requirement of
“sufficient evidenc e”.
vi. Para 17 of the initiation notification wherein DGTR has used the word prima facie evidence and has
used the Oxford dictionary to define prima facie and sufficient. The Authority has found “prima
facie” evidence as against the requirement of “sufficient ” evidence. Reference is made to Panel’s
decision in United States - Softwood Lumber from Canada, Guatemala - Cement II and Mexico -Steel
Pipes and Tubes.
F.2. Views of the domestic industry
24. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry in regard to confidentiality and
miscellaneous submissions:
i. The respondent has claimed confidentiality on information that is not confidential, such as their
financial statements and the statement of Chinese production. This is preventing the domestic
indust ry from making their submissions, as they do not have access to this information.
ii. The information pertaining to raw material, utilities, other conversion cost and interest cost reported
in Format C1 are treated in confidence without being accompanied by a non-confidential summary.
iii. The applicant has claimed only such information as confidential which is neither in public domain not
mandated by law to disclose. Further, the petitioner has provided reasons, at appropriate places, for
claiming confidentiality.
iv. The respondents have claimed excessive confidentiality in the exporter questionnaire response and
the same curtails the petitioners right to comment as the responses do not provide meaningful
summary without assigning any good cause for the same. The submi ssions of all the exporters and
producers from the subject country should be disregarded and the individual treatment be denied to
them.
v. While the interested party has made submissions that insufficient evidence of dumping, material
injury, likelihood ther eof and causation is there. However, the interested party has failed to point out
how the information is insufficient. Respondent has unnecessarily attempted to create confusion
between the requirement of sufficiency under Rule 5(3) and the term “ prima fac ie”, whereas the
Authority makes out a prima facie case after thorough examination.
vi. The responding exporter/producer rather than proving the absence of dumping has preferred making
baseless averments upon the authenticity and nature of analysis by the Auth ority.
F. 3. Examination by the Authority
25. Various submissions have been made by the applicant as well as the other interested parties during the
course of the investigation with regard to confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant by the
Author ity, have been examined below.
26. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of the Anti -Dumping Rules provides as follows:
“Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6,
sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub -rule (4) of rule 15 and subrule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications
received under sub -rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated Authority on a
confidential basis by any party in the course of investigati on, shall, upon the designated Authority being
satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to
any other party without specific authorisation of the party providing such information.
(2) The desig nated Authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish
non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such
information is not susceptible of summary, such party may sub mit to the designated Authority a
statement of reasons why summarisation is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the
request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make
the information public or to authorise its disclosure in a generalised or summary form, it may disregard
such information. ”
27. The Authority considers that any information which is by nature confidential (for ex ample, because its
disclosure would be of significant competitive advantage to a competitor or because its disclosure would
have a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom
that person acquired the info rmation), or which is provided on a confidential basis by the parties to an
investigation shall, upon good cause shown, should be treated as such by the Authority. Such information
cannot be disclosed without specific permission of the party submitting it.
28. The Authority has considered the claims of confidentiality made by the applicant and the other interested
parties and on being satisfied about the same, the Authority has allowed the claims on confidentiality. The
Authority made available to all the inter ested parties the non -confidential version of evidence submitted
by various interested parties for inspection.
29. In reference to submissions made on the application lacking justification for initiating the present
investigation, the Authority considers that the requirements for initiation of an investigation were met. In
this respect, the Authority had noted the submissions and evidence placed on record at the stage of
initiation and considered that there was sufficient evidence pointing to a likelihood of c ontinuation or
recurrence of dumping should the anti -dumping duties applicable to imports from China PR be allowed to
lapse.
30. The Authority notes that the responding exporter/producer has made submissions wherein the
interpretation of “ prima facie ” case has been submitted as “ first impression ”. The Authority refers to the
Black’s law dictionary wherein the term “ prima facie case ” is defined as:
“A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in the party’s favor is sufficiently
stron g for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established
by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side.”
31. Further, the domestic industry in their submissions have made reference to a judgment by the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in the matter of Ramji Lal Mahindar Kumar vs Naresh Kumari and Anr.1 wherein it was
held that:
“Prima facie case means that it needs serious consideration, investigation or determination. It does not
mean proof at this stage. It means bona fide dispute requiring determination without pre -judging the
case. The proper stage for judging the case is at the conclusion of the trial when the full facts are placed
before the Court”
32. It is thus seen that “ prima facie ” means sufficient evidence and not “ first impression ” as alleged by the
interested party. The Authority from analysis of the information submitted along with application had
noted, at the stage of initiation, that the dumping and injury m argins are positive, the performance of the
domestic industry has deteriorated over the injury period, there were significant capacities with the
producers in China, Chinese producers are highly export oriented, and Chinese producers are undertaking
furthe r expansions based on the evidence placed by the domestic industry. The Authority finds that the
aforementioned observations are sufficient to initiate sunset review investigation to examine in detail
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
33. Furthermore, the argument from other interested parties is unsubstantiated and lacks material ground. The
interested parties have not specified as to what exactly the interested parties find deficient in the
application as received by them. In th e absence of specific instances or grounds that the application
lacked, the Authority cannot address the same in detail. The Authority has followed an objective and
unbiased process while assessing the merits of the application and subsequently as the inve stigation has
proceeded.
1 IR 1984 Delhi 95, 24 (1983) DLT 100, 1983 RLR 381
G. DETERMINATION OF NOR MAL VALUE, EXPORT PR ICE AND DUMPING MARG IN
G.1. Views of other interested parties
34. The submissions made by the other interested parties on determination of normal value, export price and
dumping margin are as follows:
i. The applicant has wrongly claimed the export price of China PR.
ii. The applicant has claimed baseless adjustments for marine insurance, port expenses, bank charges,
commission and inland freight while calculating the export price of China PR.
iii. As ex port price is misleading, consequent dumping margin claimed by the applicant is also
incorrect and misleading.
G.2. Views of the domestic industry
35. The following are the submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to determination of normal
value, export price and dumping margin are as follows:
i. The subject country has continued to dump into India despite the imposition of anti -dumping duty.
ii. There is no significant difference in the technology adopted or the manufacturing process used for
produci ng the subject goods or the raw material prices in China, therefore the calculations are
justified.
iii. Market economy status cannot be granted to the respondents unless the responding exporters satisfy
that none of their major shareholders is a state owned/co ntrolled entity, that the prices of major
inputs substantially reflect market values; unless the responding Chinese exporters pass the test in
respect of each and every parameter laid down under the rules and that the responding company has
participated in the present investigation along with its related parties involved with PUC.
iv. Market economy treatment cannot be given where Chinese exporters are unable to establish that
their books are consistent with International Accounting Standards (IAS).
v. The normal value for China in such a case can be determined only in accordance with the provisions
of para 7 of the Annexure I to Anti -dumping Rules in view of the aforementioned facts and
circumstances.
vi. The applicant made efforts to get evidence on the price of the product concerned in the domestic
market of the subject country by engaging with customers to procure price quotations from their
domestic markets and through published sources. However, no publication was found.
vii. The prices are transacted between the produ cer and consumers and therefore are not in the public
domain. Thus, no reasonable, authentic, and accurate information could be obtained from published
sources about the actual transaction -selling price of the PUC in the domestic markets of the subject
country.
viii. Normal value in China of the product under consideration could not be determined on the basis of
price or constructed value in a market economy third country for the reason that the relevant
information is not publicly available.
ix. Normal value in Chin a could not be determined on the basis of price from such third country to
other countries, including India as the relevant information is not publicly available pertaining to
exports from market economy third countries to other countries.
x. The applicant h as determined normal value in China on the basis of the cost of production,
considering consumption norms of the domestic industry for raw material and utilities, taking the
price of all raw materials as per the domestic industry and duly adjusted with sel ling, general and
administrative expenses and considering the consumption norms of the applicant.
xi. The export price is constructed based on the information available from the import data after making
due adjustments based on the best available information with the industry to make it comparable
with normal value.
xii. The dumping margin is positive and substantial.
xiii. The very fact that the exporters have resorted to dumping gets established by their tacit admission in
not denying existence of dumping.
xiv. None of the e xporters have claimed market economy treatment. In fact, they have stated that they do
not request market economy treatment and that they accept the normal value determined by DGTR.
xv. The Authority may verify information provided by the responding exporter a nd determine
appropriate normal value.
G.3. Examination by the Authority
36. Under section 9A (1) (c), normal value in relation to an article means:
(i) the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when destined for
consumpti on in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made
under sub -section (6); or
(ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of
the exporting country or territory , or when because of the particular market situation or low volume
of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a
proper comparison, the normal value shall be either –
a. comparable representative price o f the like article when exported from the exporting country or
territory to an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under
sub-section (6); or
b. the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along wit h reasonable addition for
administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the
rules made under sub - section (6):
Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and
where the article has been merely 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 of origin.
37. Article 15 of the China’s Accession Protocol with the WTO provides as follows:
“Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti -Dumping Agr eement") and the SCM Agreement shall
apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the
following:
"a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti - Dumping
Agreement, the im porting WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry
under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices
or costs in China based on the following rules:
i. If the producers under investi gation can clearly show that my conditions prevail in the industry
producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product,
the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under
investigati on in determining price comparability;
ii. The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with
domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that
market economy conditi ons 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 l4(a), l4(b), I4(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall
apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO Member may
then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account
the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as
appropriate benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO
Member should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before consid ering 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 wi th
subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a
market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the
importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In
any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession.
In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member,
that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non -market economy
provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector."
38. It is noted that while the pr ovisions contained in Article 15(a)(ii) have expired on 11.12.2016. However ,
the provisions under Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO read with obligation under 15 (a) (i) of the Accession
protocol require the criterion stipulated in para 8 of Annexure I of India's AD Rules to be satisfied through
the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire for claiming the market economy
status.
39. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded as per the information given by the applicant. Upon
initia tion, the Authority advised the producers/ exporters in China PR to respond to the notice of the
initiation and provide information relevant to determination of their market economy status. The
Authority sent copies of the supplementary questionnaire to al l the known producers/ exporters for
rebutting presumption of non -market economy in accordance with criteria laid down in Para 8(3) of
Annexure -I to the Rules and furnish relevant detailed information. The Authority also requested
Government of China PR to advise the producers/ exporters in China PR to provide the relevant
information. Only one producers/exporters have co-operated in this investigation by filing the
questionnaire response namely, Zhejiang Amino -Chem Company, Limited, China PR.
40. None of the e xporters/producers contested the NME status of China. Thus, in view of the above position
and in the absence of rebuttal of the non -market economy presumption by any Chinese exporting
company, the Authority, considers it appropriate to treat China PR as a non-market economy country in
the present investigation and proposes to proceed with para 7 of Annexure -I to the Rules for
determination of normal value in case of China PR.
G.4. NORMAL VALUE FOR CHINA PR
41. The Authority notes that no evidence has been p rovided by the domestic industry or other interested
parties on prices in market economy third countries. Neither of the interested parties have given
information on cost of production in market economy third countries. It has been claimed that subject
goods are largely produced by India and China. As regards imports into India, the imports are only from
China. Apart from China, imports are not coming in from any other country. Thus, the normal value based
on price from third country to other country includ ing India could not be determined.
42. Therefore, the Authority has constructed the normal value (CNV) for the subject imports from China PR
as per the “price actually paid or payable in India” as stipulated in para 7 of Annexure – I to the Anti-
Dumping Rul es, 1995. It has been computed based on the cost of production of the domestic industry,
with reasonable addition for selling, general and administrative expenses, and profits.
G.5. EXPORT PRICE
A.1 Zhejiang Amino -Chem Company, Limited, China PR and Changsha n Haicheng
Chemical Co., Ltd
43. From the responses filed, it is noted that Zhejiang Amino -Chem Co. Ltd. and its unrelated trader
Changshan Haicheng Chemical Co., Ltd. is involved in the production and exports of the product
concerned to India.
44. Zhejiang Amino -Chem Co., Ltd. is a limited liability company, which has been established on November
22, 2005, under the Company Law of PRC.
45. During the POI, Zhejiang Amino -Chem Co., Ltd., China PR, has exported ***MT of the subject goods to
India of invoice value ***RMB , out of which the company has exported ***MT directly to India and the
rest of the quantity ***MT has been exported to India indirectly through an unrelated exporter/trader
namely, Changshan Haicheng Chemical Co., Ltd.
46. The producer/exporter has claimed a djustment on account of ocean freight, port and other related
expenses, insurance, inland transportation, credit cost, bank charges and the same have been allowed by
the Authority. Accordingly, export price at ex -factory level for Zhejiang Amino -Chem Co., Ltd. has been
determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.
Export price of Non cooperating producers and exporters from China
47. The export price for the non -responding producers/exporters from China has been determined on the basis
of facts available taking into account the export transactions of the responding exporter.
H. DETERMINATION OF DUM PING MARGIN
48. The dumping margin determined for the producers/exporters based on constructed normal value and net
export price (NEP) as mentioned a bove, is as follows:
Dumping Margin Table
S. No. Producer/Exporter CNV NEP Dumping Margin
USD/Kg USD/Kg USD/Kg % % Range
1 Zhejiang Amino -Chem Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 40-50
2 Others *** *** *** *** 50-60
I. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
I.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties
49. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to injury and causal
link:
i. The duty has been in force for more than 10 years, still the petitioner is not able to increase its
production/capacity and sales during the period of investigation as compared to the base year.
ii. It appears that there are some factors other than the imports from China PR which are causing
injury to the domestic industry. The Authority must examine kn own factors other than the subject
import, which are causing injury to the domestic industry.
iii. The Authority must separate and distinguish the injurious effects of the dumped imports from the
injurious effects of those other factors.
iv. The other factors in t he present case may include weakened demand, subdued pricing
environment, coronavirus impact, disproportionate fall in realizations, adverse stock valuation
rate, increase in foreign exchange loss, higher stores and spares expenses, repair & maintenance,
security expenses, depreciation and interest charges, shut down of a plant etc.
v. As per the petition, the company remained shut for 146 days during 2022 for marketing related
shutdowns.
vi. After protection of 10 years, the domestic industry is still contending that the domestic industry is
suffering injury due to the subject imports from China, this shows that there is no connection
between imposition of anti -dumping duties and injury to the domestic industry. The alleged injury
is on account of the domestic ind ustry’s internal factors.
vii. The applicant has claimed PUC and total production (PUC and NPUC) as same, which seems
incorrect. Incorrect and misleading information has been filed by the applicant for injury analysis.
viii. Majority imports from China are under adv ance license; around ***% of the total imports to India.
ix. Market structure of the PUC is such that overwhelming majority of market share is consumed for
production of export goods; this part of overall market is not available to the domestic industry
irresp ective of anti -dumping duty.
x. The domestic industry increased capacity manifold in 2016 -17, indicated the domestic industry
increased capacity recklessly, without considering that Indian laws do not permit trade protection
on imports meant for production of export goods.
xi. Capacity was increased considering international demand. Impact of fall in export demand during
POI should not be attributed to alleged dumped imports.
xii. Imports continued at same level despite anti -dumping duty, and it shows imports from Chin a are
technical necessity for producers in the country.
xiii. Anupam Rasayan has not clarified the reason for entering into this market despite domestic
industry claiming injury by Chinese imports since October 2010. No correlation between alleged
dumped imports and claim of injury.
xiv. The domestic industry’s argument that injury parameters have shown deterioration is flawed as the
base years used for trend analysis are flawed as they were abnormal years.
xv. Average price from China PR is Rs. 150 – Rs. 300 per Kg in th e last 12 years except preceding
2 years and base year (FY 2019 -20). Average domestic price of applicant is Rs. 150 – Rs. 300 per
Kg in last 12 years except in preceding 2 years and the base year (FY 2019 -20)
xvi. Average ratio of price from China to price of major raw material Benzene is about 3 to 4 times in
last 12 years, except preceding two years and the base year (2019 -20), ratio rose abnormally to
11 to 16 times in preceding 2 years and 2019 -20.
xvii. The average ratio of the domestic price of the subject goo ds of the applicant to the price of major
raw material Benzene was also in the same range.
xviii. Import prices and domestic prices increased abnormally in 2019 -20 and 2020 -21, around 11 times
of Benzene price. While domestic price was 16 times of Benzene price despite the fact that
benzene price declined drastically during this period.
xix. Thus, preceding 2 years and 2019 -20 were absolutely abnormal years and analysis based on this is
faulty and misleading.
xx. Import prices of the subject goods from China and the appl icant’s domestic prices of subject goods
increased abnormally during preceding two years and the base year of FY 2019 -20. The abnormal
increase was due to an accident (explosion) in Jiangshu Tianjiayi Chemical Co. Ltd in March
2019, following which the Chi nese government imposed strict audit on chemical plants creating
disruption in production activity causing market disruption, and lastly due to COVID -19.
xxi. The imports from China PR declined significantly by around 54% from 3,807 MT in FY 2021 -22
to 1,775 M T FY 2022 -23 in the POI.
xxii. There is no causal link between the claim made by the applicant of so -called injury and likelihood
of continuation and recurrence of dumping and injury and the imports of the subject goods from
China PR.
xxiii. Abnormal increase in capaci ty of the applicant of PDA is from 3000 MT in 2016 -17 to 12,000 MT
in annual report of 2016 -17. 80% of PDA capacity is for MPDA. Accordingly, capacity of MPDA
has increased from 2,400 MT to 9,600 MT. Demand in domestic market is consistently around
5,000 MT over the last 10 -15 years.
xxiv. No justification has been provided for abnormal increase of capacity by the applicant. Injury has
been caused due to mismanagement, wrong investment, increase in cost.
xxv. Slowdown of economy - Global demand outlook for short ter m has been impacted due to
inventory corrections and recessionary trends. (applicant’s annual report for POI). The applicant
claimed stability and strong long term growth trajectory.
xxvi. Internal competition - Initially the applicant was only producer of the PUC in India, Anupam
Rasayan started production 3 years back, creating internal competition for the applicant. The
domestic industry is facing injury on account of internal competition, mismanagement, wrong
investment, increase in cost. and not imports.
xxvii. Temporary decline in the performance of the applicant is on account of global decline in demand,
which is temporary and not an account of imports from China. Demand decline by 32 % from 109
in 2021 -22 to 68 in POI (indexed). Shows injury suffered is due to d ecline in demand and not due
to the subject imports.
xxviii. The plant was shut for 146 days during the year 2022 for marketing related shutdowns.
xxix. There is a dedicated capacity for the product under consideration. Therefore, the applicant may
have loaded the actu al fix cost, repair and maintenance cost, consumables cost etc. including that
related to abnormal increase in the capacity on the product under consideration.
xxx. The production of the other products of the applicant also declined significantly in the POI. I n
such a case, application of production or sales ratio will also not result in lower allocation of the
fixed cost to product under consideration.
xxxi. The claim of extension of duties by the domestic industry, is completely unjustified in view of the
fact tha t as per the market intelligence of the respondent, around 70% of the total import to India is
against advance license which cannot be subjected to any anti -dumping duties.
xxxii. The applicant has claimed production of the PUC and total production (PUC and NPUC ) as same,
which prima facie seems incorrect.
I.2. Submissions of the domestic industry
50. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal link.
i. The demand declined in 2020 -21 in view of the pandemic and inc reased thereafter in 2021 -22
and declined again in the POI.
ii. The global demand for dyes and intermediaries has declined in the POI resulting in decline in
the demand of the subject goods.
iii. The imports in absolute and relative terms from China declined in 2 019-20 as compared to high
volumes during the 1st sunset review investigation, i.e., 2014 – 2017.
iv. The imports have once again increased in 2021 -22 but have declined in the POI due to decline
in demand. The imports from China are significant and still const itutes almost 46% of the
Indian demand in a situation when the country is self -sufficient.
v. The landed price declined significantly in 2021 -22 and thereafter, and, without commensurate
decline in the cost of production. Resultantly the domestic industry als o had to reduce its
prices. The imports are undercutting the prices in the domestic market.
vi. The domestic industry had to sell its goods at prices lower than the cost of production in the
POI. The imports thus had a depressing effect on the domestic industr y prices.
vii. The appendix I submitted by the exporter shows that the decline in selling price is more for
goods exported to India as compared to exports to third countries and the domestic market.
viii. There is positive dumping margin and injury margin, the import s from the subject country
constitute 43% of the Indian demand. Thus, it is not for the domestic industry to explain why
duties are warranted, rather the onus is on the exporters to explain how they were able to reduce
prices so significantly and why capac ities are being expanded.
ix. The raw materials and utilities cost on overall basis during the injury period increased by 26%
whereas the import price declined by 53%. This is simply unprecedented and is beyond any
business economics.
x. The effects of global de cline in demand affecting the Indian demand have direct relation, but
the amount of market share that the Chinese imports have taken away in such a situation is not
justifiable.
xi. The only reason for the same is unnatural decline in the prices by Chinese pro ducers.
Therefore, the slowdown of economy or global decline in demand are not the reason for injury
caused to the domestic industry.
xii. Decline in demand is both for Indian and Chinese producers. This decline in demand is also the
cause for decline in capaci ty utilisation. However, this decline is not responsible for the severe
decline in the prices in this period.
xiii. Chinese exporters have provided no explanation regarding the whopping decline in the import
prices.
xiv. The fixed costs incurred by the domestic indu stry have steeply declined over the injury period.
In fact, in a situation where input costs have so significantly increased, the domestic industry
has still reported a significant decline in costs. Thus, it is totally baseless to contend that the
domestic industry is suffering due to capacity addition.
xv. When the cost in 2019 -20 and 2020 -21 were higher, the domestic industry was not only having
reasonable profits but also a decent cash flow and ROI.
xvi. In the current period, when the fixed costs have declined b oth at gross and fixed cost level, the
profitability of the domestic industry has so severely declined that the domestic industry is
suffering whopping cash loss and hugely negative ROI.
xvii. The explosion in Jiangshu Tianjiayi Chemical Co., Ltd. was caused in the end of March 2019,
which is the last month of FY 2019 -20. Therefore, it could not have any effect on the prices of
FY 2019 -20.
xviii. Jiangshu Tianjiayi Chemical Co. Ltd. was not a major producer of the PUC, rather only had
around 17,000 MT production capacit y of the PUC. This further explains why this incident
could not have had an effect on domestic as well as import prices, as has been significantly
overexaggerated by the user industry.
xix. COVID -19 pandemic was hit in 2020 March, again the user industry’s argu ments fail to justify
the increase in price in 2019 -20 as claimed. Even in COVID -19, the subject imports from
China captured 35% of the market share and have worked their way up to 48% in the following
year and finally at 43% in the POI.
xx. The user industry ’s claim that 3 years of the injury period are abnormal and other above -
mentioned contentions are baseless and should be rejected by the Authority.
xxi. The import prices have declined so severely even when input costs have increased over the
injury period. Res ultantly, the performance of the domestic industry has steeply deteriorated in
respect of parameters such as profits, cash flow, return on investment.
xxii. Merely the volume of imports is not indicative of the complete situation and the same cannot be
assessed in isolation of the demand and market share.
xxiii. It is evident from trend analysis that the imports of the subject goods from China PR decreased
from 100 to 78 which is 22 indexed points, whereas the Indian demand in the same period
declined 34 indexed points from 100 to 66. The decline in the subject imports is not in
consonance with the decline in Indian demand.
xxiv. Subject imports were able to increase its market share despite decline in demand and sufficient
capacity available in India to cater the demand.
xxv. Performance of the domestic industry has severely declined in the present injury period despite
same level of capacity over the present injury period.
xxvi. The applicant was making profits even when Anupam Rasayan entered the business. The
profitability declined wh en the import price declined drastically. Thus, it is imports which has
caused injury to the Indian industry and not a new domestic producer.
xxvii. The new producer entered the market, thereafter, import prices increased. The prices of the
domestic industry incr eased, and the domestic industry had reasonable price parameters.
Thereafter, the import prices declined severely as a result of which the prices of the domestic
industry declined severely, resulting into the domestic industry facing huge adverse price
parameters.
xxviii. As claimed by the interested parties, the prices of inputs in India and global market are the
same, they have failed to explain how there is a whopping decline in the prices when input
costs have increased.
xxix. The cost increase faced by the domest ic industry was not unique to the domestic industry.
Unless the Chinese producers claim that they are indeed in such a state -controlled economy that
they are totally insulated from international market. Comparing efficiency parameters of the
domestic indus try shows that raw material and utility consumption over the injury period
remained fairly stable. There was no deterioration in the present POI.
xxx. The conversion costs have significantly declined over the injury period. Therefore, the
domestic industry in f act has become more competitive in this period rather than becoming less
competitive. There is therefore no internal inefficiency on this account.
xxxi. The export sales in the POI as compared to the base year or even 2020 -21 are higher. The
domestic industry fa ced no loss in the base year with low export sales, while severe losses are
faced in the POI where the export sales are comparatively higher.
xxxii. It is not a situation where the domestic industry would have suffered financial losses due to
decline in producti on and capacity utilisation. The fixed cost per unit of production were at
their lowest levels in the POI.
xxxiii. The legal requirement for causal link is existence of “a” causal relationship between dumped
imports and injury to the domestic industry. The require ment is not with regard to existence of
“the” causal link between dumped imports and injury to the domestic industry.
xxxiv. The decline in demand has affected the sales, but the same is only to a certain level. It can be
seen that the Chinese imports have rather increased their market share even in the event of
decline in demand. Further, the injury is primarily in adverse price effect and likelihood.
xxxv. The applicant reaffirms that there are no other reasons for injury and the sole reason is the
dumping of subject goods from China PR.
xxxvi. Excess capacities are not cause of injury to the domestic industry. The capacities created are
not a cause of injury to the domestic industry.
xxxvii. The capacities created have allowed the domestic industry to obtain most economic factors of
production.
xxxviii. So far as fixed costs are concerned, the petitioner has charged fixed cost in a ratio linked to
production. Thus, when production and sales are lower, expenses apportioned to the products
itself are lower.
xxxix. The decline in import price is despit e the fact that raw materials and utilities have increased
over the period. Evidently, Chinese producers have reduced MPDA price when costs were
going up. There has been a very steep decline in the import price over the injury period.
xl. The increase in inpu t prices is not limited to the domestic market. These price increases were
global phenomenon.
xli. While dumping briefly stopped during 2019 -2021, it has not only recommenced but also
increased significantly in its intensity. The dumping that is now being resor ted is much higher
than dumping resorted in the past.
xlii. Further and more importantly, the pricing by Chinese producers is most irrational during this
period.
xliii. The exporters have shipped the product at significantly different prices in a short period.
Imports are occurring in one month at significantly varying prices thus causing significant
disturbance in the market.
xliv. The exporters must explain the wide variations in prices. The variations are not only over the
POI, but also within the POI and even within a mon th of the POI.
I.3. Examination by the Authority
51. The Authority has examined the evidence submitted by all the interested parties with regard to injury to
the domestic industry. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder addresses the various
submissions made by the interested parties.
52. According to Section 9(A)(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, anti -dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked
earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition, provided that, i f
the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such
imposition for a further period of five yea rs and such further period shall commence from the date of
order of such extension.
53. The Authority notes that this being a sunset review of anti -dumping duty already in force, continuation of
material injury to the domestic industry, as well as the likeliho od of continuation or recurrence of material
injury needs to be examined in the context of actual or likely imports of the subject goods from the subject
country.
54. In consideration of the submissions received in this regard, the Authority has first examine d the current
injury, if any, to the domestic industry before examining the likelihood aspects of dumping and injury on
account of imports from the subject country.
Volume effect of dumped imports and impact on domestic industry
i. Assessment of Demand
55. The A uthority has defined, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand, or apparent consumption
of the subject goods in India as the sum of domestic sales of the Indian producers and imports from all
sources. The demand for the product under considerat ion is given below:
Demand Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Imports Subject Country -China MT 2,031 1,794 3,701 1,722
Other Countries MT 35 - 18 -
DI Domestic Sales MT-Indexed 100 82 80 47
Other Indian Producers MT-Indexed 100 1,519 3,960 1,469
Total MT-Indexed 100 92 137 68
56. It is seen that the demand of the PUC declined in 2020 -21 from the base year and increased in 2021 -22,
and again declined in the POI. According to the submissions made by the domestic industry, it is noted
that the change in demand especially during the POI was due to global decline in the demand of
downstream industry i.e., dye industry. The user industry association stated that majority of imports were
under advance authorization scheme. Therefore, the Authority has examined impor ts further to quantify
duty free and duty paid imports. Further, the Authority has undertaken analysis on the basis of data
(secondary source) provided by the domestic industry. The table below shows imports under duty free and
duty paid category, and dema nd for the product after excluding duty free imports. It is seen that a
significant proportion of the imports is under duty free category. However, imports made under duty paid
category are also quite significant.
Demand Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
a) Imports from China MT 2,031 1,794 3,701 1,722
Duty free imports MT *** *** *** ***
Duty paid imports MT *** *** *** ***
b) Demand in India MT
Excluding duty free imports MT *** *** *** ***
Including duty free imports MT *** *** *** ***
ii. Import vol umes and share of the imports from subject country
57. With regard to volume of the subject imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been
a significant increase in dumped imports either in absolute terms or relative to production or con sumption
in India. The volume of imports of the subject goods from the subject country have been analysed as
under:
S.No. Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Subject Country Imports MT 2,031 1,794 3,701 1,722
2 Other Country imports MT 35 0 18 0
3 Total Imports MT 2,066 1,794 3,719 1,722
Subject Imports in Relation to
4 Indian production %-
Indexed 100 80 111 93
5 Indian consumption %-
Indexed 100 97 133 125
6 Total Imports % 98% 100% 100% 100%
58. It is seen that:
a. The imports from the s ubject country declined post enhancement of duty in the first sunset review
investigation. However, imports increased significantly in 2021 -22 as compared to the base year and
decreased again in the POI in consonance with the movement of demand.
b. Imports in relation to production declined marginally over the injury period. This is also because a
new player has started production in the Indian market.
c. Imports in relation to consumption has increased over the injury period. Imports in relation to
demand has increased over the injury period despite decline in demand and commencement of
production by another domestic producer.
iii. Price effect of subject imports and impact on domestic industry
59. With regard to the effect of dumped imports on prices, the Authority h as considered whether there has
been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like
product in India, or whether the effect of such dumped imports is otherwise to depress prices to a
significant degree or prev ent price increase, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.
a) Evolution of prices
60. Analysis of the imports over the injury period shows a very significant decline in the import price. It is,
thus, noted that there was significant and sharp decline in import price despite increase in cost on account
of raw materials and utilities. The information provided by the domestic industry showed a significant
increase in cost on account of raw materials and utilities.
61. The Authority examined the import price from China and selling price of the domestic industry over the
injury period. It is seen that the domestic prices have moved in tandem with the import price.
b) Price undercutting
62. Price undercutting has been worked out by comparing the landed price of the imports with the selling
price of the domestic industry for the investigation period. The price undercutting has been determined for
the product under consideration. The weighted average undercutting computation is as under:
Particular s UOM POI
Landed price ₹/Kg 314
NSR ₹/Kg ***
Undercutting ₹/Kg ***
% ***
%Range 1-5
63. The Authority notes that imports were undercutting the prices of the domestic industry.
c) Price suppression and depression
64. In order to determine whether the effec t of imports is to depress prices or prevent price increases which
otherwise would have occurred, the Authority has examined the changes in the landed price of imports,
and costs & prices of the domestic industry over the injury period.
Particulars UOM 2019-20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Cost of Sales ₹/Kg *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 110 94 97
Selling Price ₹/Kg *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 86 54 39
Landed price ₹/Kg 704 738 440 314
Indexed 100 105 63 45
65. It is seen that both the cost of sales and sellin g price of the domestic industry has declined over the injury
period. However, the decline in selling price was far more than decline in costs. While costs have declined
by [Rs ***/kg] over the injury period, the selling price declined by [Rs ***/kg].
66. The landed price of imports was at reasonable levels upto 2020 -2021. Resultantly the domestic industry
was able to sell goods at reasonable prices and at profits. However, landed price declined significantly
since 2021 -22 and declined further in the POI. Furt her, the landed price of imports was below the level of
cost of sales in the POI. Resultantly, the selling price of the domestic industry declined significantly in the
POI and were significantly below the cost of sales.
67. The interested parties claimed that majority of imports are under advance license and thus does not attract
anti-dumping duty. The Authority however notes that the domestic industry was forced to reduce the
prices in response to the import prices in order to maintain its sales.
Economic P arameters relating to the domestic industry
68. The Rules require that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of the
consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products. With regard to the
consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products, the Rules further provide that
the examination of the impact of the imports on the domestic industry should include an objective and
unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices havi ng a bearing on the state of the
industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return
on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, actual and potential negative
effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. The
Authority has, accordingly, hereinunder examined the performance of the domestic industry over the
injury period.
a) Production, capacity, capacity utilizat ion and sales
69. The position of the domestic industry over the injury period with regard to production, capacity, capacity
utilization, domestic sales and export is as under:
Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Installed Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 100 100 100
Production MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 98 119 69
Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 98 119 69
Domestic Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 82 80 47
Export Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 139 235 152
70. The Authority notes that the capacity of the domestic industry has remained at the same level over the
injury period. Various interested parties have argued that the capacity of the domestic industry is
significantly higher than the demand. It is noted that the capacity was enhanced by the domestic industry
in 2016 -17 when the demand for the product was around ***MT and the capacity with the domestic
industry was *** MT. The domestic industry has undertaken only one capacity expansion. It is se en that
the capacity is dedicated only to this product and cannot be used for production of other product. It was
also seen that the fixed costs involved exclusively with this capacity is only in the region of ***% of the
total cost of sales (on account of depreciation). It is thus seen that the fixed costs associated with this
capacity addition is quite small.
71. Production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry increased in 2021 -22 and declined
significantly in the POI. On overall basis, producti on of the domestic industry declined by 31% over the
injury period, whereas the demand for the product declined by 32%.
72. The domestic sales of the domestic industry declined consistently over the injury period. Whereas the
demand for the product declined by 32%, and production declined by 31%, domestic sales volumes
declined by 53% and domestic sales values declined by 82%.
73. It has also been argued that the expansion of capacities by the domestic industry has led to decline in
profitability of the domestic in dustry. The Authority however notes that the domestic industry had same
level of capacity over the entire injury period. The profitability however declined very significantly from
a situation of good profits in first two years to severe financial losses in the POI. The Authority noted the
contention of the domestic industry and analysed the changes in variable and fixed costs. It is seen that
whereas the costs on account of raw material increased, the fixed costs incurred by the domestic industry
– both in absolute terms and per unit of production have declined significantly over this period. Thus, the
capacity addition could not have been a reason for decline in profits.
74. The information provided by the supporters on capacity, production and sales is given below:
Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Installed Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 100 100 100
Production MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 1,296 4,537 2,124
Domestic Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 1,516 3,952 1,465
Domes tic Selling price Rs/Kg *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 86 54 39
75. It is seen that the supporter started production in the base year and the production increased till 2021 -22
and declined thereafter in the POI. The sales have also shown the similar trend. Sa les have declined
drastically in the POI. The decline in production and sales is more than the decline in demand. The selling
price has also followed the movement of the applicant the domestic industry and has witnessed steep
decline in the POI.
b) Market Share in demand
76. The market share of the domestic industry, other domestic producer and imports over the injury period is
as under :
S..No. Market Share Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Domestic Industry % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 89 58 69
2 Supporters % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 900 1600 1200
3 Subject Country % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 96 133 125
4 Other Countries % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 - 37 -
5 Total Demand % 100% 100% 100% 100%
77. Market share of th e domestic industry has declined till 2021 -22 and then increased in POI. The market
share of the domestic industry however remained much lower in the POI as compared to the base year.
Whereas the domestic industry lost market share by 29%, subject imports gained by 17% over the injury
period.
78. It is seen that despite commencement of production by Anupam Rasayan, the market share of imports did
not decline, rather it increased. Instead, market share of domestic industry declined till 2021 -22. In the
POI, whe reas domestic industry was able to increase its market share at the cost of incurring losses, the
market share of imports declined. Further, the market share of the supporter declined. While the supporter
has not participated with relevant information, it is seen that the domestic industry has suffered significant
financial losses, despite the fact that it has reported decline in conversion costs. Thus, it appears that the
financial losses forced the other domestic producers to reduce their production. It i s seen that whereas the
production of the domestic industry declined by 40% (in POI, as compared to preceding period), the
production of the supporter declined by 63% in this period.
79. The Authority has taken note that Anupama Rasayan established production capacities and started selling
the product from 2019 -20. The company has supported the extension of anti -dumping duty. It is seen that
the supporter started selling the product in 2019 -20 with a very small volume. The index figures show
high increase due to low market share in the base year. The market share of the supporter was however
only [ ***%] of the market share of the petitioner.
80. The Authority has noted that imports capture a significant share in the Indian demand. It is seen that
around 47% import s are duty paid while 53% imports are duty free imports. Table below shows the
comparative analysis of CIF price on monthly basis during the period of investigation, i.e., April 22 -
March 23.
Comparative CIF Price in US$/MT
S. No. Month Duty free Duty paid Difference
1 Apr *** *** -2.0%
2 May *** *** -0.1%
3 Jun *** *** -1.3%
4 Jul *** *** -3.1%
5 Aug *** *** -3.5%
6 Sep *** *** -4.4%
7 Oct *** *** -5.1%
8 Nov *** *** -7.3%
9 Dec *** *** -23.1%
10 Jan *** *** -20.9%
11 Feb *** *** -4.6%
12 Mar *** *** -10.9%
Grand Total *** *** -3.8%
Comparative CIF Price in INR/MT
S.
No. Month Difference amount Difference
Duty free vs. duty
paid Duty free vs. average
price Duty free vs. duty
paid Duty free vs. average
price
1 Apr (***) (***) -2.49% -0.85%
2 May (***) (***) -0.48% -0.34%
3 Jun (***) (***) -1.83% -0.32%
4 Jul (***) (***) -3.60% -1.83%
5 Aug (***) (***) -3.95% -1.06%
6 Sep (***) (***) -4.83% -3.19%
7 Oct (***) (***) -5.56% -2.12%
8 Nov (***) (***) -7.82% -4.65%
9 Dec (***) (***) -23.41% -16.85%
10 Jan (***) (***) -21.12% -14.62%
11 Feb (***) (***) -5.03% -2.38%
12 Mar (***) (***) -31.33% -18.90%
Grand
Total (***) (***)
-6.92% -3.83%
81. It is thus seen that imports attracting anti -dumping duty has been consistently below the level of imports
made under duty free category. The difference between the prices of duty -free imports and duty paid
imports is significantly higher since November 2022. Thus, the imported goods that are actually
competing with the domestic industry’s goods in t he domestic market are entering at far lower prices as
compared to the average price reported from China.
c) Profit or loss, cash profits and return on capital employed.
82. The position of the domestic industry in terms of profit or loss, cash profits and ret urn on investment is as
under:
S.No. Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Cost of sales Rs/kg *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 110 94 97
2 Selling price Rs/kg *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 86 54 39
3 Profit/loss Rs/kg *** *** *** (***)
Index ed 100 58 4 -33
4 Profit/loss Rs Lacs *** *** *** (***)
Indexed 100 47 3 -16
5 Cash Profit Rs/kg *** *** *** (***)
Indexed 100 65 11 -23
6 Cash Profit Rs. Lacs *** *** *** (***)
Indexed 100 53 9 -11
7 PBIT Rs. Lacs *** *** *** (***)
Indexe d 100 50 5 -13
8 ROI % *** *** *** (***)
Indexed 100 51 8 -40
83. The Authority also examined the trends in major input prices, and fixed expenses incurred by the
domestic industry – both on per unit and gross expenses – over the injury period
Expenses i ncurred by the domestic industry on PUC (Rs. lacs)
S. No. Particulars 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
A Production (MT) *** *** *** ***
B Domestic Sales (MT) *** *** *** ***
C Export Sales (MT) *** *** *** ***
D Opening Stock (MT) *** *** *** ***
E Closin g Stock (MT) *** *** *** ***
1 Raw Materials *** *** *** ***
2 Packing materials *** *** *** ***
3 Consumables *** *** *** ***
4 Utilities *** *** *** ***
5 Salaries & Wages *** *** *** ***
6 Depreciation *** *** *** ***
7 Manufacturing Ove rheads *** *** *** ***
8 Bank Charges *** *** *** ***
9 Financials Costs *** *** *** ***
10 Administration Overheads *** *** *** ***
11 Selling & distribution *** *** *** ***
12 Direct selling expenses *** *** *** ***
13 Other/Miscellaneous expense (***) *** *** ***
14 Change in stock (***) (***) (***) ***
15 Cost of Sales (1 to 25) *** *** *** ***
16 Domestic Sales in Lacs Rs. *** *** *** ***
17 Export Sales *** *** *** ***
18 Total Sales *** *** *** ***
19 Profit before Tax *** *** *** (***)
Per unit of production costs incurred by the domestic industry on PUC (Rs/kg)
S. No. Particulars 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Raw Materials *** *** *** ***
2 Packing materials *** *** *** ***
3 Consumables *** *** *** ***
4 Utilities *** *** *** ***
5 Salaries & Wages *** *** *** ***
6 Depreciation *** *** *** ***
7 Manufacturing Overheads *** *** *** ***
Sub total *** *** *** ***
8 Bank Charges *** *** *** ***
9 Financials Costs *** *** *** ***
10 Administration Overheads *** *** *** ***
11 Selling & distribution *** *** *** ***
12 Direct selling expenses *** *** *** ***
13 Other/Miscellaneous expense (***) *** *** ***
14 Change in stock (***) (***) (***) ***
15 Cost of Sales (1 to 25) *** *** *** ***
16 Domestic Sales *** *** *** ***
17 Export Sales *** *** *** ***
Price (Rs/KG) for major inputs involved in production of the PUC
S. No. Particulars 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI Change
1 Benzene *** *** *** *** 83%
2 C.N.A. *** *** *** *** 123%
3 Sulphuric Acid *** *** *** *** 55%
4 Soda Ash *** *** *** *** 75%
5 Hydrogen *** *** *** *** 25%
6 Nitrogen *** *** *** *** -9%
7 Fuel *** *** *** *** 142%
84. The Authority holds that:
a. The domestic industry was reasonably profitable in the first two years of the injury period.
b. The import prices declined declining from 2021 -22. As the import prices declined by Rs. 292 per
kg. in 2021 -22, the selling price of the domestic industry declined by Rs. 271 per kg. As against the
same, the cost of sales declined only by Rs. 70 per kg. The severe pr ice depression caused by the
Chinese imports in 2021 -22 resulted in significant decline in profitability of the domestic industry
and the domestic industry suffered small financial loss in 2021 -22. Thereafter, the import price
declined by Rs. 131 per kg. i n POI as compared to preceding year. Resultantly, the domestic
industry was forced to reduce the prices by Rs. 125 per kg. This decline in the prices was despite
significant increase in the prices of all major inputs in this period. In fact, despite signif icant
increase in all major inputs, the domestic industry reported marginal decline in per unit cost.
c. The domestic industry was suffering significant financial losses in the POI.
d. Cash profits, profit before interest and return on capital employed of the d omestic industry have also
followed the similar trend. All these parameters were positive in the initial two years of the injury
period. All these parameters have shown significant decline from 2021 -22. Further, the domestic
industry suffered significantly high cash loss, negative profit before interest and negative return on
investment.
d) Inventories
85. The data relating to inventories of the subject goods is as follows:
S. No. Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Opening Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 74 171 334
2 Closing Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 231 451 417
3 Average Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 141 290 369
86. It is seen that the average inventories were low in the base year and have increased fr om about March
2022. Inventories with the domestic industry in last two years of the injury period were high and
constituted almost 1.8 months of sales.
e) Employment, wages and productivity
87. The situation of the domestic industry with regard to employment, w ages and productivity during the
injury period is as under:
S.
No. Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Employment Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 100
2 Wages ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 117 73 45
3 Wages -for the plant Rs Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 120 139 188
4 Productivity per day MT/Day *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 98 119 69
5 Productivity per employee Per No *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 98 119 69
88. It is seen that the number of emp loyees has remained at the same level over the injury period. This is due
to dedicated nature of the capacity. However, wages charged into the PUC declined by 56%. This decline
in wages is due to decline in production and apportionment of common salaries & wages to the PUC.
Otherwise, the total wages paid for the plant has increased over the injury period.
f) Growth
89. The trends of volume and profit parameters of the domestic industry was as under -
Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Production Y/Y - -2% 22% -42%
Capacity Utilisation Y/Y - -2% 22% -42%
Domestic Sales Y/Y - -18% -3% -41%
Inventory Y/Y - 41% 106% 27%
Profit Per Unit Y/Y - -42% -93% -977%
Profit in ₹ Lacs Y/Y - -53% -94% -615%
Cash Profit in ₹ Lacs Y/Y - -47% -84% -227%
ROCE Y/Y - -49% -85% -626%
Market Share -Domestic
Producers Y/Y
-8% 50% -51%
90. It is seen that there is significantly negative growth in almost all economic parameters over the injury
period.
g) Dumping Margin
91. It can be seen that the dumping margin is not only more than de-minimis, but also substantial. Thus, the
Chinese producers have continued dumping subject goods in the Indian market.
h) Factors affecting domestic prices
92. The examination of the import prices from the subject country, change in the cost structure, competit ion
in the domestic market, factors other than dumped imports that might be affecting the prices of the
domestic industry in the Indian market, etc. shows that the import prices to India are affecting the prices
of the domestic industry. The landed price o f the subject goods is below the selling price, NIP and cost of
sales in the POI.
CAUSAL LINK
93. As per Annexure II of the AD Rules, factors which are relevant in this respect include, inter alia, volume
and prices of imports not sold at dumped prices, contr action in demand or changes in the pattern of
consumption, trade restrictive practises and competition between the foreign and domestic producers,
developments in the technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry.
The Auth ority examined whether the factors other than dumped imports could be a cause of injury to the
domestic industry.
a) Volume and prices of imports from third countries
94. The imports of the subject goods from countries/sources other than the subject country a re nil.
b) Contraction of demand and changes in the pattern of consumption
95. Demand for the product declined in 2020 -21, increased in 2021 -22 and thereafter declined significantly in
the POI. The decline in demand is owing to the decline in domestic and glo bal demand for the
downstream products. The market share of imports has, however, increased over the injury period, despite
this decline in demand. It is also seen that whereas direct costs on account of inputs have increased over
the injury period, fixed costs charged to the product have declined significantly, owing to apportionment
of a number of fixed costs. Thus, the decline in demand has not had adverse effects on the cost of
production of the domestic industry. However, whereas the direct input costs have significantly increased,
the selling price declined severely due to decline in Chinese imports. It is thus, decline in the import
prices triggered by the Chinese producers that were the cause of injury to the domestic industry.
c) Conditions of com petition and trade restrictive practises
96. There is no trade restrictive practice. The Authority holds that the investigation has not shown any change
in the conditions of competition or any trade restrictive practises.
d) Developments in technology
97. Technol ogy for production of the product concerned has not undergone any change. Thus, developments
in technology cannot be regarded as a factor causing injury to the domestic industry. None of the
interested parties has furnished any evidence to demonstrate any change in the technology. There is not
even a claim on this account.
e) Export performance of the domestic industry
98. The injury analysis with regard to price parameters is based on domestic performance of the domestic
industry.
99. Since the domestic industry has significant exports over the injury period, the Authority compared the
price of the domestic industry in respect of exports and domestic sales. It is seen that the export prices
earlier by and large lower than the domestic prices in the past. However, in the recent period, the export
price of the domestic industry was significantly higher than the domestic prices. It is thus seen that the
domestic industry was able to get better prices in export market as compared to domestic market in the
present POI.
f) Performance of other products being produced and sold by the domestic industry
100. The Authority has only considered data relating to the performance of the subject goods. Therefore, the
performance of other products produced and sold are not a possible cause of injury to the domestic
industry.
101. The Authority has analysed the contentions raised by the domestic industry and other interested parties
regarding continuation of injury to the domestic industry. The Authority notes that whereas the other
intere sted parties made submissions on this account, no supporting evidence has been provided by them.
Further, the investigation has not shown that any of the allegations of the domestic industry distort the
conclusions drawn hereinabove. The Authority conclude s that the domestic industry has suffered the price
injury on account of the dumped imports from the subject country.
g) Internal competition
102. As regards the argument that internal competition can be a cause of injury, it is noted in this regard that
the domestic industry was making profits when Anupam Rasayan entered the business. The profitability
declined when the import price declined drastically. Information provided by Anupam Rasayan shows
that their sales also declined drastically in the POI. Author ity also notes that the duty paid imports are
significantly undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. Further, significant imports under duty paid
category is undercutting the domestic industry prices, even after addition of anti -dumping duty amoun t.
Thus, it is imports which has caused injury to the Indian industry.
J. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
103. The Authority has determined the NIP for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in the
Rules read with Annexure -III, as amended. The NIP o f the product under consideration has been
determined by adopting the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the domestic
industry. The NIP has been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject country for
calculating injury margin. For determining the NIP, the best utilisation of the raw materials and utilities
has been considered over the injury period. Best utilisation of production capacity over the injury period
has been considered. Extraordinary or non -recurring expenses have been excluded from the cost of
production. A reasonable return (pre -tax @ 22%) on average capital employed (i.e., average net fixed
assets plus average working capital) for the product under consideration was allowed as pre -tax profit to
arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure III to the Rules.
104. Based on the landed price and the NIP determined as above, the injury margin as determined by the
Authority is provided in the table below: -
INJURY MARGIN
S.
No. Producers Non-
Injurious
Price
(US$/KG) Landed Price
(US$/KG) Injury
Margin
(US$/KG) Injury
Margin (%) Injury Margin
(Range %)
1 Zhejiang Amino -
Chem Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 40-50
2 Others *** *** *** *** 50-60
K. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTIN UATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING AND INJUR Y
K.1. Submissions by other interested parties
105. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regard to likelihood of
continuance or recurrence of dumping and injury:
i. The applicant has claimed the PUC and total production (PUC and NPUC) as same, which seems
incorrect.
ii. Majority of imports from China are under advance license, around 70% of total imports to India.
iii. Market structure of the PUC is such that overwhelming majority of market share is consumed for
production of export goods; this part of overall market is not available to the domestic industry
irrespective of anti-dumping duty .
iv. The domestic industry increased capacity manifold in 2016 -17, without considering that Indian laws
do not permit trade protection on imports meant for prod uction of export goods.
v. Capacity was increased considering international demand. Impact of fall in export demand during
the POI should not be attributed to alleged dumped imports.
vi. Imports continued at same level despite anti-dumping duty , shows imports fro m China are technical
necessity for producers in the country.
vii. Anupam Rasayan has not clarified reason for entering into this market despite the domestic industry
claiming injury by Chinese imports since October 2010.
viii. No correlation between alleged dumped i mports and claim of injury and the likelihood of dumping
and injury.
ix. The domestic industry’s argument that injury parameters have shown deterioration is flawed as the
base years used for trend analysis are flawed as they were abnormal years.
x. The applicant has neither suffered any injury nor there is any likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping and injury on account of the imports of the subject goods from China PR
as there was a decline in imports by 54% from 2021 -22 to 2022 -23 (POI).
xi. The petitio ner has provided installed capacity for the whole group whereas it is not relevant to the
present investigation. Zhejiang Longsheng Group produces various other products and the
capacity mentioned by the petitioner comprises of all, not only MPDA.
xii. Statemen t made by Zhejiang Longsheng in the Annual Report for the year 2022 that “In the future,
it plans to expand the production capacity of m -phenylenediamine to 100,000 tons/year.”
Zhejiang Amino Chem Co. Ltd. hereby submits that it is merely a future plan wh ich depends on
the demand and other factors in future.
K.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
106. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to likelihood of continuance
or recurrence of dumping and injury:
i. The respondin g producer/exporter is dumping with likelihood of intensifying volumes on cessation
of duty and has no material evidence to rebut to the same.
ii. None of the interested parties have submitted any material evidence supporting their claims of no
likelihood. Nei ther of the interested parties have tried to prove the absence of dumping.
iii. Even with duty, imports have been significant and at dumped and injurious prices. Imports declined
in 2020 -21 (majorly due to COVID -19), increased 2021 -22 onwards but declined in PO I (due to
decline in demand). Dumping margin and injury margin in the past and present investigations
have been positive and significant.
iv. There is significant freely disposable capacity with China. Capacity with China in 1st SSR was 1.25
lac MT (approx.) while Indian demand was merely about 6,000 MT. Demand has increased over
the injury period, but capacity is still significantly more than total Indian demand.
v. There are large number of producers in China, that are largely export oriented and have capaciti es
more than their domestic demand. This signifies potential dumping in event of cessation duties.
vi. Zhejiang Longsheng Group, largest producer in China, is investing in adding capacities which will
further add -up to surplus Chinese capacity.
vii. Export orienta tion and enormous capacity with China poses significant threat to the Indian industry.
Zhejiang Longsheng Group & Sichuan Hongguang Special Chemical Co., Ltd have specifically
identified India as a key export destination.
viii. Producers in China are always loo king for a favourable market to utilise their excess capacities.
ix. Indian market is highly price sensitive. Consumers decide procurement, with price being the
foremost consideration. Availability of such low -priced imports would adversely impact on the
dome stic industry.
x. The Authority, in the initiation notification, noted that evidence provided by the applicant, prima
facie , shows likelihood of dumping and injury in case of cessation of duty.
xi. The responding exporter/producer has made baseless allegations re garding authenticity and nature
of analysis by the Authority which shows that they’re dumping with likelihood of intensifying
upon cessation of duty. No evidence was provided to rebut the same.
K.3. Examination by the Authority
107. The present investigation is a sunset review investigation, and the purpose of this investigation is to
examine the continuation or recurrence of dumping and consequent injury if anti -dumping duty is allowed
to expire even if there is no current injury. This also requires a conside ration of whether the duty imposed
is serving the intended purpose of eliminating injurious dumping.
108. It is further noted that there is continuing injury on account of dumped imports. The domestic industry has
further claimed that there is a likelihood of r ecurrence of injury if the anti -dumping duty is not extended.
All factors brought to the notice of the Authority have been examined to determine whether there is a
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in the event of cessation of the duty. The
Authority has considered various information, as made available by the interested parties during the
course of the investigation, in order to evaluate the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping or
injury.
There are no specific m ethodologies available to conduct such a likelihood analysis. However, Clause (vii) of
Annexure II of the Rules provides, inter alia for factors which are required to be taken into consideration viz.:
i. A significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India indicating the likelihood of substantially
increased imports;
ii. Sufficient freely disposable, or an imminent, substantial increase in, capacity of the exporter
indicating the likelihood of substantially increased dumped exports to Indian markets, takin g into
account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports;
iii. Whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect
on the domestic prices, and would likely increase demand for furt her imports; and
iv. Inventories of the article being investigated.
109. Further, the Authority has also examined other relevant factors having a bearing on the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry. The examination
of the parameters of the likelihood as follows:
a) Continued imports and dumping from China
110. It is seen the subject imports have remained significant throughout injury period. Imports declined in
2020 -21 owing to COVID -19 pandemic. Thereafter, imports increased significantly in 2021 -22, but
declined again in 2022 -23, owing to decline in demand (decline in demand, as per submissions of all
parties, is due to decline in domestic and global demand).
111. The investigation has shown that the dumping ma rgin and injury margin in the present period have
increased beyond the levels found at the time of previous two investigations. Further, the volume of
imports during the present POI was quite significant, having regard to consumption of the product in the
country.
b) Significant decline in import price despite increase in input costs
112. As stated above, there is a steep decline in the import price, despite increase in direct costs, during last
two years. Further, no relevant information has been provided by the producer and exporter from China
PR. It is however seen that all major inputs involved in the production of the PUC are widely traded
goods and there is no reason why the prices should have increased only in India. Analysis of trade data in
fact shows that the prices of these major inputs increased globally.
c) Third country dumping
113. The participating exporter provided information with regard to their exports of the PUC globally. Analysis
of information provided by the participating exporter shows tha t the material has been exported by the
Chinese producers in global market at a price materially below normal value.
Producer/Exporter Unit Zhejiang Amino -Chem Co., Ltd.
CNV USD/Kg ***
NEP USD/Kg ***
Dumping Margin USD/Kg ***
% ***
% Range 40-50
114. It is thus seen that Chinese producers have exported the product in third countries at significantly dumped
prices, and the volume of such exports is quite significant, having regard to demand for the product in the
country.
d) Injurious volume of export s
115. The information provided by the domestic industry and participating exporter with regard to exports to
third countries shows that the Chinese producers have exported significant volume of the subject goods to
third countries at highly injurious prices.
Producer/Exporter UoM Zhejiang Amino -Chem Co., Ltd.
NIP of DI USD/Kg ***
Landed value USD/Kg ***
Injury Margin USD/Kg ***
% ***
% Range 40-50
e) Surplus capacities in the subject country
116. Despite prescribed requirements, the responding interested parties have not provided capacity or demand
prevalent in China in their questionnaire response. The Authority considers that the participating exporter
has withheld relevant information in this regard. The domestic industry has provided information on the
capacity of various producers along with relevant evidence. The capacity information for the producers
made available during the course of the investigation is as follows:
Producer/Exporter Capacity (in tons)
Jiangsu Tianjiayi Chemical Co., Ltd 17,0001
Zhejiang Longsheng Group 65,0001&2
(Zhejiang Amino -chem) 35,0002
Sichuan Hongguang Special Chemical Co., Ltd 20,0003
Total capacity of known producers 1,37,000 MT
Range 1,35,000 - 1,45,000MT
Sources: -
1 https://www.precisechem.com/news/current -dye-market -in-china -producers -stop-receiving -orders -
prices -soaring -dramatically/
2 As per annexure 4.1 of the application as filed by the domestic industry (extract of annual report of
Longsheng Group for 2022)
3 http://www.schgchem.com/about.html
It is see n that the capacity with the only responding producer/exporter Zhejiang Amino -Chem is 65,000
MT. The Authority notes that India and China are the only producers of the product. It is seen that the Chinese
producers have capacity which is significantly in e xcess of the Indian demand.
117. The domestic industry contended that Zhejiang Amino -chem is adding capacity by 35,000 MT despite
existing surplus capacities in China. During the oral hearing, when asked, the participating exporter
denied that the company was adding capacity, but refrained from admitting that the group was adding
capacity. The responding exporter has not provided relevant information in this regard.
f) Export orientation of the producers in the subject country
120. The response submitted by the res ponding exporter shows significant exports being made. Almost 50% of
production by the exporter is meant for exports. The Authority has seen from the annual report (2022) of
Zhejiang Longsheng Group that the focus of the company is majorly on exports. The annual report
specifically identifies India as a key destination for exports. Additionally, Sichuan Hongguang Special
Chemical Co., Ltd also identifies India one of the export destinations. Additionally, Sichuan Hongguang
Special Chemical Co., Ltd also ide ntifies India one of the export destinations. Relevant part from their
website is extracted below:
Our products are sold in the following countries:
China, Japan, Korea, USA, Germany, Spain, UK, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Singapore, etc.
121. It is thus evide nt that the producers in China are on the lookout for favourable markets to utilise their
capacity. Considering the mammoth capacities of the subject goods with Chinese producers in concert
with their export orientation, there is high likelihood of increas e in the dumped imports to India upon
cessation of duty.
L. POST DISCLOSURE SUBM ISSIONS
L.1 Submissions by other interested parties
122. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties on the disclosure statement:
i. Flow chart given for the production process of the PUC at page no. 10 of the disclosure
statement is erroneous and misleading.
ii. Di-nitro benzene is reduced using H2 and catalyst, product is then distilled to get 85% MPDA,
15% OPD and PPD. Both OPD and PPD are saleable products . This is the standard production
method in Indian and China as per responding producer’s/exporter’s knowledge.
iii. As per responding producer’s/exporter’s knowledge the applicant produces PPD and OPD along
with MPDA which is not confirmed or mentioned anywhe re in the disclosure statement.
iv. If the applicant is claiming not to produce OPD and PPD, then the manufacturing method of the
applicant and the exporter differs to this extent and therefore the cost of production also differs to
this extent.
v. The Authorit y should seek clarification from the applicant regarding the quantity of OPD and
PPD sold by them and whether their sale has been included while calculating the cost of MPDA.
vi. The applicant has taken data for 2 years preceding the POI to justify their clai m. Abnormal
circumstances and abnormal price and market condition cannot be considered for justifying
dumping when the situation returns to normal.
vii. The responding producer/exporter submit that as per market sources the applicant and supporter
have exporte d the PUC at USD 4 during the POI and post -POI. Sale price has been adjusted for
costs as it appears to be lower than the costs claimed by the applicant.
viii. Zhejiang Amino -Chem’s parent company is listed in Shanghai stock exchange and no company
listed on st ock market would resort to dumping for 10 years to gain market share.
ix. 50% of responding producer’s production is used internally to produce resorcinol, MAP,
DEMAP, MDSA. 40% of production is sold to dyes and fiber market in China and only 10% is
used for exports. During the POI exports were only 7.69% of the total production. Therefore,
Zhejiang Amino -Chem is not dumping the PUC in India.
x. Capacity information for the producers in China for the POI, one of the Chinese producers has
stopped or no longer pro ducing the subject goods has been stated as producing the goods in the
disclosure statement.
xi. DGTR is giving undue protection to the domestic industry by applying 22% return on capital
employed which was designed in 1987.
xii. The NIP determined by the Directo r General is highly inflated and not based on real situation.
The Authority should adopt actual profits earned by the domestic industry and not 22% ROCE,
adoption of which gives undue protection to the domestic industry.
xiii. Basis of 22% ROCE was designed in 1987, when all parameters like interest rate, corporate tax
rate were different. These cannot be termed reasonable after 30 years. In 1987 interest was 18%
and corporate tax was 40%, now interest is around 10% and corporate tax around 30%.
xiv. Reference to Br idge Stone Tyre Manufacturing & others vs. Designated Authority wherein the
Hon’ble CESTAT has observed that the practice of 22% ROCE adopted by the Designated
Authority was not correct as calculating the NIP by assuming such a high rate of return gives an
inflated picture of price underselling.
xv. GDMA was registered to be considered as an interested party within the prescribed time, and has
also participated in other stages of investigation and filed its submissions. However, name of the
respondent is not in cluded in Section B.
xvi. GDMA has submitted that base year being used for trend analysis were abnormal years. It is
clear from the disclosure statement that the import prices and the domestic prices for the
applicant for the period April 2019 to Feb 2023 were considered for analyzing price effect of the
subject imports on the domestic industry.
xvii. Comparison of performance of the applicant during the preceding 2 years and base year will lead
to absurdity.
xviii. Neither likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumpi ng and injury from the subject country
has been made. Imports of the PUC declined sharply by 54% in POI from the preceding year.
xix. Export price of the applicant is higher than the domestic price. MPDA used in India is a low -cost
product whereas the one used in other countries is a very high -quality product.
xx. Request to examine other factors which are cause of injury. Abnormal increase in capacity,
slowdown of economy, internal competition, internal inefficiency of the applicant, significant
decline in export sales, significant decline in export sales per unit, contraction in demand.
xxi. Continuous and sustained use of trade remedy measures by the domestic industry is wholly
unjustified.
xxii. Extension of duties not justified in view of peculiar fact that majority of the imports from China
are under Advance License. Around 70% of the total import to India is against advance license
not subject to anti -dumping duty.
xxiii. Impact of duty will adversely impact on consumers particularly the textile sector.
xxiv. Per unit price of Dir ect Black 22 has been mentioned wrong and average price of Direct Black
22 is INR 380 per kg.
xxv. Adverse impact of measures ranges from minimum 2.4% to maximum 14.2%.
xxvi. The Authority is requested to examine the mentioned issues and release another disclosure
statement on which the interested parties can make their comments.
L.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
123. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to Indian industry’s interest:
i. China and Zhejiang Longsheng group ha s the largest share in global production of the subject
goods.
ii. As per the market report the global MPDA market was valued at US$ 589.9 million in 2022, i.e.,
1,65,000 MT considering average Chinese export price in 2022. China in year 2022 accounted for
about 87% of the global market, which is huge and only slightly short of the entire global market.
iii. The market report states that Zhejiang Longsheng is the largest manufacturer of MPDA globally,
with around 69% market share at a global level. Zhejiang Longshe ng group is the parent company
of which the responding producer Zhejiang Amino -Chem is a subsidiary.
iv. The Authority in the disclosure statement has rightfully noted that neither of the interested parties
have brought evidence on record that shows that the u sers or downstream industry has faced or will
face adverse effects/impact due to the anti -dumping duties.
v. There is no information on record to establish that there exists probably an adverse effect on the
extension of duty on the consumers.
vi. The quantum of present anti -dumping duties should be further enhanced to address the dumping
margin and injury margin in the present investigation based on significant imports under both duty
free and duty paid.
vii. Dumping margin and injury margin are the highest in the present investigation compared to the
previous segments of the investigation. Further, the imports are happening at significantly low
price.
viii. The landed price of duty paid imports, even after addition of anti-dumping duty is significantly
below the cost of s ales of the domestic industry, likely to cause significant price depression in the
domestic market.
ix. Performance of the domestic industry improved initially, however deteriorated significantly with
significant decline in import prices. Therefore, non -enhan cement of quantum of duties would lead
to intensified injury to the domestic industry.
x. Jiangshu Tianjiayi Chemicals Co. Ltd. was not a major producer of the PUC, rather only had around
17,000 MT production capacity of the PUC. The volume of imports from C hina PR in 2019 -20 was
still significant and higher than the level prevailing in POI. Therefore, the incident relating to
Jiangshu Tianjiayi Chemicals could not have had that significant effect on domestic as well as
export prices.
xi. Even in COVID -19, the s ubject imports from China captured around 35% of market share in
demand and have worked their way up to 48% in the year following that and 43% in the POI.
xii. User industry has provided no material evidence to support their contentions at such a late stage and
are therefore baseless and hollow.
xiii. The user industry’s claim that 3 years of the injury period are abnormal and other above -mentioned
contentions are baseless and should be rejected by the Authority.
xiv. The prices in the POI are undisputedly below the level of cost of sales, NIP and selling price of the
domestic industry resulting into losses to the industry. Thus, it cannot be denied that imports
continue to cause injury to the domestic industry.
xv. Out of stated 146 days of shutdown, 139 days were on account of prevailing market conditions,
wherein the domestic industry was forced to undertake these shutdowns as it was unable to produce
considering market situation disrupted by Chinese imports.
xvi. Despite a decline in demand, the imports from China have increase d at significantly low price,
making further production unviable for producers. The domestic industry was selling through
inventory and even the inventory has shown a rising trend, making further production unviable and
resultantly production was regulated , and plant was shut down immediately
L.3. Examination by the Authority
124. The Authority has examined the post disclosure submissions made by the interested parties and
notes that some of the comments are reiterations which have already been examined suitably and
addressed adequately in the relevant paras of the final findings. The issues raised for the first
time in the post -disclosure comments/submissions by the interested parties and considered
relevant by the Authority are examined below.
125. The other intere sted parties have contended that the production process provided by the domestic
industry is flawed to the extent that it does not mention OPD and PPD which are both saleable
product and have also raised a question pertaining to the quantity of OPD and PPD sold by the
domestic industry being considered while calculating the cost of MPDA. The Authority notes
from the information provided by the domestic industry in its application, and information
verified by desk and on -site verification that the domestic i ndustry already separates
consumption of inputs in the production of MDNB. The Authority has further noted that the raw
materials consumption reported by the petitioner takes into account only such quantity of inputs
as were consumed in the production of M PDA. The consumption considered for determination
of costs and NIP does not include raw material cost to produce OPDA and PPDA and the same
has been separated at the stage of application itself. The applicant has thus reported costs on
account of raw mate rials exclusively for MPDA and the same is not inclusive of raw material
costs to produce OPDA and PPDA.
126. The Authority examined whether export price of the domestic industry was higher than domestic
price due to difference in the product grade. For the pu rpose, the Authority compared the
domestic and export price of the domestic industry for the same grade [ 99.8% concentration] of
the product. It is seen that the export price of the domestic industry was higher than domestic
price in three out of four per iods of injury period. Further, the export price of the domestic
industry was higher by 36% in the POI, even when the volume of sales was very comparable. It
is thus concluded that the domestic industry was able to get a higher price in export market as
compared to the domestic market, barring the exception of 2020 -21. Further, the difference was
too significant in the POI.
S. No. Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 2022 -23
A Volumes
1 Domestic MT *** *** *** ***
2 Export MT *** *** *** ***
B Average price Rs/Kg
3 Domestic *** *** *** ***
4 Export *** *** *** ***
C Difference Rs/Kg *** *** *** ***
% *** *** *** ***
Range 15-25 (15-25) 0-10 30-40
127. The responding exporter/producer has claimed that the parent company of the respondin g
producers i.e., Zhejiang Longsheng group is a company listed on the Shanghai stock exchange
and that a listed company would not resort to dumping for 10 years. The Authority notes that
existence or absence of dumping is a matter of fact. The investigatio n has revealed that dumping
margin in the present POI in fact is higher than the previous investigations.
128. The responding producer/exporter has further stated that only 10% of their production is
exported and rest 90% of the subject goods produced by them are either used captively or are
sold to the Chinese dye manufacturers. The Authority in this regard notes that the Zhejiang
Longsheng’s annual report for 2022 brought by the applicant on record clearly specifies that the
group’s key sales areas are identi fied as Germany, the United States, Brazil, South Korea,
Thailand, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Turkey, Pakistan and other countries. The investigation
has shown that the dumping margin and injury margin for the responding exporter/producer is
not only more than de minimis but is also significant and higher than the past, which negates the
contention that the exporter does not have compulsions to export the product.
129. Zhejiang Amino -Chem contended that the capacity information for Chinese producers provided
by the domestic industry for the POI is not correct. The Authority has prescribed a questionnaire
for the Chinese producers, whereas the Authority requires information on Chinese capacity,
production, domestic consumption and exports. It is noted that despi te holding a large capacity,
the company preferred not to provide relevant information in its questionnaire response. It was
much easier for the exporter to provide relevant information and the Authority would have
considered the same for the present deter mination. The exporter has not even provided the
information on capacity with their group company. In a situation where the Chinese exporters
have not provided the relevant information, the Authority is required to make determination
based on information o n record. The domestic industry provided evidence of capacity with the
Group companies, whereas the participating exporter has restricted itself to its own capacity, and
has not provided capacity information even with the group. It is also noted that the e xporter was
specifically asked at the time of oral hearing to clarify whether the claim of the domestic industry
with regard to capacity addition by the Group Companies was correct. The exporter merely
stated in its submission that the capacity expansion i s a proposal and if the market is not suitable
it will not expand. The Authority also notes that the capacity of the producer whose plant faced
an accident and was out of production is having merely 17,000 MT per annum capacity. The
capacity of Zhejiang Lo ngsheng group is more than 10 times that of gross Indian demand and
therefore poses a significant threat to the Indian industry especially when dumping and injury
margins have increased in the present period.
130. The user industry has raised contention that t he present anti -dumping measure is not justified
owing to more than 70% of the imports coming in under advance license and are not susceptible
to anti -dumping duties. The Authority notes that (a) analysis of the imports show that the imports
under duty pai d category are around 50%, (b) the import price of duty paid material is materially
lower than the import price of duty -free material. It is the import price of duty paid material that
is more relevant than the import price of duty -free material in order t o ascertain the likelihood of
injury in the event of cessation of anti -dumping duty. Further, the volume of duty paid material is
quite significant. The Authority also notes that it remained unexplained why the Chinese
producers were charging a lower price for duty paid supplies as compared to duty free supplies.
The Authority considers that the same is clearly indicative of opportunistic pricing by the
Chinese producers. Further, the duty paid price clearly shows the price that the Chinese
producers are li kely to charge in the event of cessation of anti -dumping duty.
131. With regard to the submissions made by interested parties concerning 22% return on capital
employed for calculating NIP, the Authority notes that NIP has been calculated in accordance
with Ann exure III of Anti -dumping Rules and consistent practice of the Authority.
132. With regard to other contentions raised in post -disclosure submissions by other interested parties
that are reiterations of earlier submissions, the Authority has suitably examined t hese
submissions and have addressed them adequately in the relevant paras of the final findings.
These submissions were pertaining to likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, causal
link, other factors of injury, interest of Indian industry.
M. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTER EST & OTHER ISSUES
M.1 Submissions by other interested parties
133. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regard to Indian
industry’s interest:
i. The applicant has increased prices drastically since t he imposition of duties and enjoying monopoly
in the Indian market as the applicant is price setter for the Indian market.
ii. Small Indian companies manufacturing dyes made out of MPDA majorly MSMEs are unable to
export dyes as they do not have the required infrastructure to procure advance authorization.
iii. Small dye manufacturers of India are not able to import MPDA without paying anti -dumping
duties.
iv. These producers have become uncompetitive against global producers of dyes.
v. 80% of MPDA is used for dye manu facturing, which is used in textile industry. Imposition of
duty will adversely impact MSME textile users.
vi. The Authority should examine the impact of the duty on the performance of the domestic
industry, demand pattern, movement in the import price etc. d uring the period when duties
were in place.
vii. To continue anti -dumping measures in this investigation will be inconsistent with the long -term
and overall interests of the Indian domestic industry and its downstream industries.
viii. Improper implementation of anti-dumping duty as means of trade protection, cannot play the
role of protecting industry, but will cause an unfair competitive environment and cause damage
to the fundamental interests of their respective industries.
M.2 Submissions by the domestic indust ry
134. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to Indian industry’s
interest:
i. It is at the foremost submitted that the only one user association has participated in the present
investigation. Despite issuance of Economic Intere st Questionnaire (EIQ), the user has not
provided any information.
ii. The responding exporter has also not submitted EIQ.
iii. Lot of submissions were made on behalf of the association. However, the association has not
filed any submission, nor EIQ response. Nor t he members of the association have cooperated
with the Authority.
iv. In view of complete silence of the interested parties on any adverse public interest, the Authority
should construe that the measures are in public interest and no adverse impact has been sh own.
v. There have been no adverse effects in any form or manner due to the imposition of past
measures. After the original investigation and the first sunset review investigation and the
imposition of anti-dumping duty , the Indian industry has only witnessed growth.
vi. The past measures have had no adverse effects on immediate consumers, downstream industry or
public at large. The impact of duty as calculated and provided by the applicant is so low that the
impact is nearly negligible.
M.3 Examination by the Authority
135. The Authority notes that the purpose of imposition of anti -dumping duty, in general, is to
eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to
re-establish a situation of open and fair competition i n the Indian market, which is in the general
interest of the country. Continuation of anti -dumping measures does not aim to restrict imports
from the subject country in any way. The Authority recognizes that the continuation of anti -
dumping duties might af fect the price levels of the product in India. However, fair competition in
the Indian market will not be reduced by the imposition of anti -dumping measures. On the
contrary, continuation of anti -dumping measures would ensure that no unfair advantages are
gained by dumping practice, prevent decline of the domestic industry and help maintain
availability of wider choice to the consumers of the subject goods.
136. The Authority considered whether continuation of anti -dumping shall have any adverse impact
on the in terest of the public. In order to determine such impact, the Authority weighed the impact
of the continuation of duties on the availability of the goods in the Indian market, the impact on
the users of the product as well as the domestic industry and the i mpact on the general public at
large. This determination is based on the submissions and evidence submitted over the course of
the present investigation.
a. The Authority issued initiation notification inviting views from all the interested parties, includin g
importers, consumers, and others. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the users/ consumers
to provide the relevant the information about the present investigation including any possible effects of
anti-dumping duty on their operations. The Authority issued gazette notification inviting views from all
the interested parties, including importers, consumers, and other interested parties. The Authority also
prescribed a questionnaire for the consumers to provide the relevant information with reg ard to the present
investigation, including effect of anti -dumping duty on their operations. The Authority sought information
on, inter -alia, interchangeability of the product supplied by various suppliers from different countries,
ability of the domestic industry to switch sources, effect of anti -dumping duty on the consumers, factors
that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to the new situation caused by imposition of anti -
dumping duty, impact of repealing or maintaining the present duty. The Authority notes that none of the
interested parties, barring the domestic industry, have responded to the economic interest questionnaire.
The user association responded in the present investigation, however, none of its members have filed the
user questi onnaire response. The Authority notes that there is no evidence showing that the imposition of
anti-dumping duty has had any significant adverse effect either on the consumers or at public at large.
Instead, the Authority from the submissions made by the user industry has noted that significant volume
of the subject goods is being imported under advance license and are therefore exempt from paying anti -
dumping duties. As rightfully argued by the domestic industry, such importers that are importing the
subje ct goods under advance license are already exempt from paying anti -dumping duties and shall have
no impact whatsoever.
b. Additionally, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has calculated the impact of duties on
the downstream products which use th e subject goods. For doing this analysis, the domestic industry has
considered the consumption norms based on SION. The domestic industry has thereafter calculated the
impact of duty on the downstream products. One of the interested parties has pointed out that the price of
Direct Black 22 considered by the domestic industry for determining impact of the proposed measures is
incorrect. The Authority therefore reviewed the calculations and found that there was error in the prices
considered for determining i mpact. The Authority has therefore determined the impact of proposed
measures and the same has been considered for the present determination. Further, it is noted that the
subject goods are mainly used for production of reactive dyes. The consumption of re active dyes in next
product is in the region of 2 -5%. Therefore, impact given of MPDA in eventual end product would be 2 -
5% of the impact on dyes.
S.
No. Particular End Product MPDA
Required
(kg/kg) Impact of
ADD
(%) Impact on
eventual
end product
At
2% At
5%
1 Pharma Acriflavine 2.3 0.12%
2 Reactive Dye Acid Black 210 0.15 1.87% 0.03
7% 0.09
3%
3 Reactive Dye Direct Black 22 0.2236 3.33% 0.06
7% 0.16
6%
4 Reactive Dye Reactive Navy Blue ME2GL 0.187 2.12% 0.04
2% 0.10
6%
5 Reactive Dye Reactive Supra Golden Yellow
HRNL 0.3 3.68% 0.07
4% 0.18
4%
6 Intermediate for reactive and
disperse dye Meta Phenylene Diamine 4,6
Disulphonic Acid 0.682 6.35% 0.12
7% 0.31
7%
c. The Authority notes that the anti -dumping duty has been in place on the product for quite some
time. Further, the prices of MPDA had admittedly increased significantly in 2019 -20 and 2020 -21. A
significant difference in the prices has been found within the POI itself and even within the same month.
Despite the same, there was no adverse impact of th e anti -dumping duty on the consumers. Rather, now
when the price of the product has so significantly declined, the consumption of the product has also
declined. It is therefore evident that there is no adverse impact of the price of the product on the
consumption of the product in the market. Further, the product is largely used in production of dyes or
dyes intermediates. Therefore, the consumption of the product in the eventual end product is extremely
low.
d. The applicant provided Annual reports of some of the downstream producers and contended that
these companies are the largest dye manufacturers in India. An analysis of their financial reports shows
that when MPDA prices increased, their profits increased, and when MPDA prices declined, their profits
declined.
e. The enhancement of duty following previous sunset review led to establishment of production
capacity in the domestic market. A new producer has also set up production capacities and has supported
the request for extension of anti-dumping duty . It is seen that the sales of this supporting producer have
also declined significantly in the POI. The investments made by this new producer is also required to be
protected from unfair imports by providing a level playing field.
f. It is noted that India and Ch ina are the only two producers of the PUC. Further, the Chinese
producers have resorted to very aberrationally high and low price for the product. Under these
circumstances, cessation of production by domestic producers is likely to leave the consumers tot ally at
the hands of foreign producers.
g. The Authority further notes that the impact of the proposed measures may have on certain users
should be balanced against the risk of a discontinuation of production in India. Not extending measures
will lead to less reliable and unstable sources of supply and inevitably to price increases and fluctuations
in the Indian market. The Authority therefore, concludes that imposition of duty would be in the larger
public interest.
N. JUSTIFICATION FOR EX TENSION OF MEASURES
137. The Authority has considered whether the extension of measures is justified, particularly when
the same has been in force for 10 years. The Authority has considered following parameters for
this purpose.
i. India and China are the sole producer of the PUC global ly
138. The Authority notes that India and China are the only producers of the product under
consideration globally. The domestic industry has already shrunk significantly during the current
period and is suffering unprecedented financial losses. Should the mea sure be withdrawn at this
juncture the producers from the subject country can wipe out domestic producers. The domestic
industry is engaged in production of a large number of products and therefore it would not be
very difficult for the domestic industry t o stop production of such heavily loss -making product.
The other domestic producer is also a multi -product company and therefore possibility of their
exiting the market can also not be ruled out. Should the same happen, the consumers would be
left complete ly at the mercy of the Chinese suppliers. It is noted that the interested parties
conceded that the reason for significant increase in the prices was the suspension of production
by one Chinese producer, owing to a fire incidence in its plant. This also sh ows that cessation of
production in India is likely to cause significant disruptions in the Indian market, should any
such disruptions happen with the Chinese producers.
ii. India is self -sufficient and imports are not necessary to meet the demand
139. During the original investigation of this product, the applicant was the sole producer in India and
there was some demand and supply gap in the country. However, owing to the imposition of the
measures, the applicant was able to increase the production capacity. Addi tionally, another
producer has set up their production capacity in the present injury period. At present, both of the
Indian producers are capable to individually cater to the entire Indian demand. The Authority
finds that the current amount of market shar e captured by dumped Chinese imports of the subject
goods owing to steep reduction in prices is unexplained particularly when there is a decline in
demand.
140. This further reflects the need for extension of duties, as with the measures in force, the Chinese
imports are able to capture a high amount of market share in Indian demand, then it is extremely
likely that upon cessation of duties, the Indian market will be flooded with Chinese dumped
imports, which necessitates the extension of measures.
iii. Continuous dumped and injurious volume from China
141. The Authority considers that the imports have continued to be made at dumped and injurious
price. Additionally, the dumping margin in the present review investigation are comparatively
higher than that in the previous two investigations relating to the product.
142. The investigation has shown that the dumping and injury has actually intensified while the
measures is in force. This signifies the likelihood of imports from the subject country being
dumped further (in terms o f volumes) in the event of cessation of duties, warranting extension of
duties.
iv. The Indian industry is vulnerable
143. The Indian industry is highly vulnerable to material injury, as is evident from the losses being
made by the industry in the POI in view of s teep decline in prices from China. China holds
significant markets share despite no demand supply gap in the country. This clearly indicates the
interest that the Chinese producers have in the Indian market. The fresh investments undertaken
by the new prod ucer will also be jeopardised because of presence of dumped imports in the
market. It is seen that the volume of imports, dumping margin and injury margin are too
significant in the present investigation.
v. China is the largest producer of the subject goods
144. China is the largest manufacturer and exporter of the subject goods. Globally, at present, India
and China are known to be the only producers of the subject goods. The installed capacities in
China have been quantified at 1,25,000 MT, as against installed capacity of 12,300 MT in India.
vi. No adverse impact on consumers
145. As explained above, it is found that there was no adverse impact of existing measures on the end -
users. The analysis shows that the impact of the present measures is not even 1% on majority o f
the end -products , in a theoretical situation where the domestic industry increased the prices by
the quantum of anti -dumping duty. It is however found that the selling price of the domestic
industry were materially below the landed price of imports after adding the anti-dumping duty.
This shows that the domestic industry has not even increased its prices by the full quantum of
anti-dumping duty. Therefore, there shall be no adverse impact of the measures on the
downstream industry and public at large.
O. CONCLUSION
146. Having regard to the contentions raised, submissions made, information provided and facts
available before the Authority as recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis of
dumping, injury and likelihood of dumping and injury to the domest ic industry, the Authority
concludes that:
i. Being a sunset review investigation, the scope of the product under consideration is the same as
in the original investigation. Accordingly, the PUC is being defined as “Meta Phenylene Diamine
(MPDA)”.
ii. Despite the imposition of the anti -dumping duty, the imports from the subject country have
remained substantial in absolute terms as well as relative to the domestic industry’s production
and in the Indian demand, even though the volume has declined slightly since th e original
investigation.
iii. The import price from China witnessed a significant decline despite the increase in input costs on
account of raw materials and utilities. Whereas the costs on these accounts increased by 27%
over the injury period, the import pri ces in the POI declined by 55% over the base year.
iv. The import prices declined by about 25% within the POI itself, without any decline in the input
costs on account of raw materials and utilities.
v. A significant proportion of imports is under duty free cat egory - significant price difference
between the duty free and duty paid imports has remained unexplained, and is clearly indicative
of the likely situation in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duty . The Authority considers
that the lower price at whic h duty paid imports have been made are relevant to ascertain the
likely situation in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duty , which clearly shows much higher
dumping margin and injury margin. The imported goods that are actually competing with the
dome stic industry’s goods in the domestic market in terms are volumes, are entering at materially
lower prices as compared to the duty -free imports. While the price of duty -free imports also
impacts the prices of the domestic industry, in a situation where dut y paid imports are at a
materially lower price than the duty paid imports, it is the duty paid imports that would become
benchmark for the selling prices of the Indian industry.
vi. Production, sales, capacity utilization of the domestic industry is adversely impacted on account
of dumped imports. The decline in sales is more than the decline in demand. While some decline
in these parameters were inevitable due to decline in demand, the decline faced by the domestic
industry is more than the decline in demand. Further, the decline in demand further shows
vulnerability of the domestic industry. Imports at dumped prices, if allowed without anti-
dumping duty , would further weaken the viability of the Indian industry.
vii. The domestic industry has started incurring si gnificant financial losses in the POI. The return on
investment and cash profit has also declined significantly in the POI and became significantly
negative in the POI. These declines were despite significant reduction in conversion costs over
the injury p eriod. Further, the selling price of the domestic industry declined significantly over
the POI on month -on-month basis, which shows decline in profits, cash profits and ROI
successively over the period within the POI.
viii. The Chinese producers are exporting t he subject goods to third countries at significantly dumped
and highly injurious prices. Further, the volume of such exports is quite significant.
ix. Chinese producers of the subject goods are holding significant surplus production capacities far
exceeding t he Indian demand.
x. The domestic industry remains vulnerable to not only continued, but also intensified injury by
dumped imports of the subject goods in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duty .
xi. None of the users have provided information relevant to as sessment of impact of existing duty
and extension of the same. The participating other interested parties have not established
plausible adverse impact of anti-dumping duty on the user industry.
xii. From the information on record, which was also made available to other interested parties, it is
also seen that the impact of anti -dumping duty on the consumers is insignificant. Therefore, there
is no reason to believe that continuation of present measure is likely to lead to increase in the
prices of the product u nder consideration in the country.
xiii. The imposition of anti -dumping duties and providing of level playing field led to establishment
of production capacity in the Indian market, including the setting up of capacity by a new
producer.
147. In view of the above th e Authority concludes that there is a likelihood of not only continuation
but also intensification of dumping and consequent injury to the Indian industry in the event of
cessation of the existing anti -dumping duties. The Authority recommends continuation of the
duty and enhancement of the quantum for a further period of five years. The enhancement of the
quantum is considered appropriate in view of significant duty paid imports and increased
dumping margin & injury margin in the same.
P. RECOMMENDATIONS
148. The investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties. Adequate opportunities were
given to the domestic industry, embassy of the subject country, exporters, importers and other
interested parties to provide positive information on the aspect of dumping, injury, causal link,
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, the effect of measure in place
and plausible effect of extension of the measure. Having initiated and conducted the
investigation into these aspects and having established positive dumping margin, material injury
to the domestic industry caused by such imports as well as likelihood of continuation of dumping
and injury, the Authority is of the view that continuation of anti -dumping duty is necessary.
Therefore, the Authority recommends continuation of anti -dumping measure. Further, the
quantum of measure is required to be modified. Accordingly, definitive anti -dumping duty equal
to the amount mentioned in column 7 of the duty table below is recommended to be imp osed for
five (5) years from the date of the notification to be issued by the Central Government, on
imports of the subject goods described at column 3 of the duty table, originating in or exported
from China PR.
Duty Table
S. No. Heading/
Subheading Descr iption
of Goods Country
of Origin Country
of Export Producer Amount
(USD/KG)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1. 29215120
&
29215190 ‘Meta Phenylene
Diamine’
(MPDA)* China PR Any
country
including
China PR Zhejiang Amino -
Chem Co., Ltd 1.50
2.
-do- -do- China PR Any country
including
China PR Any
producer other than
serial number 1
1.71
3.
-do- -do- Any Country
other than
China PR
China PR Any 1.71
*Meta Phenylene Diamine’ (MPDA), also known as m - Phenylene Diamine, 1,3 - diaminobenzene, 1, 3 -
Benzenediamin e, m - Aminoaniline, mBenzenediamine, m - Diaminobenzene, 1,3 -Phenylenediamine, 3 -
Aminoaniline, mFenylendiamin, Phenylenediamine, and m -Aminoaline, Phenylenediamine meta.
N. FURTHER PROCEDURE
149. An appeal against the determination/review of the Designated Auth ority in this final
finding shall lie before the Customs , Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.
ANANT SWARUP, Designated Authority
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at G overnment of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text