Full Text
7839 GI/ 2023 (1)
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 313] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 29, 194 5
CG-DL-E-26122023-250890
क े आधार पर) *** *** *** 40-50
2 कोररया *** *** *** ***
जियाातक *** *** *** *** 50-60
जियाातक *** *** *** *** 380-390
यू एस ए एमटी 300 420 160 260 1,140
कुल आयात एमटी 3,447 3,661 1,435 1,182 9,724
कांक 100 251 776 583
कांक 100 113 78 61
मांग/खपत % 100 100 100 100 100
अन्य देि -1,577 -2,555 -3,415
मांग *** *** ***
क ु ल आयात एमटी 12,139 12,392 12,282 9,724
आयात कीमत प्रवृजत्त 100 126 133
कोररया % *** *** *** ***
यूएसए % *** *** *** ***
21-22
जतमाही 2 *** *** *** *** *** ***
21-22
जतमाही 3 *** *** *** *** *** ***
21-22
जतमाही 4 *** *** *** *** *** ***
22-23
जतमाही 1 *** *** *** *** *** ***
सूचकांक (100) (963) (2,113 )
सूचकांक (100) (1,542 ) (3,767 )
1 ससंगापुर *** *** *** *** 10-20
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce )
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi the 20th December , 2023
FINAL FINDINGS
Case No. AD(OI) – 14/2022
Subject : Anti-Dumping investigation concerning imports of “Para -Tertiary Butyl Phenol (PTBP)” originating in or
exported from South Korea, Singapore and the United States of America.
F. No. 6/14/2022 -DGTR: Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as amended from time to time
(hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) and th e Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -
dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, as amended from time to
time (hereinafter referred as the ‘AD Rules’ or the ‘Anti -dumping Rules’ or th e ‘Rules’).
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Vinati Organics Limited (VOL) (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) filed an application before the
Authority seeking initiation of an anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of “Para -Tertiary Butyl
Phenol” ( hereinafter referred to as the “PTBP”, “subject goods” or “product under consideration”) originating
in or exported from South Korea, Singapore and the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as
“subject countries”).
2. The Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a public notice vide
Notification No. 6/14/2022 -DGTR dated 21st December 2022, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating an anti -dumping investigation in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules to determine the
existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the
subject countries, and to recommend the amount of anti -dumping duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to
remove the alleged injury in the form of material retardation to the domestic industry.
B. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
i) The Authority notified the Embassies of the subject countries in India about the recei pt of the present
application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Rules.
ii) The Authority issued a public notice dated 21st December 2022, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating an investig ation concerning imports of the subject goods originating in or
exported from the subject countries.
iii) The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the Embassies of the subject countries in India,
known producers and exporters from the subject countries, known importers / users and the domestic
industry as per the information made available to it by the applicant and requested them to make their
views known in writing within the prescribed time limit.
iv) The Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters and to the Embassies of the subject countries in India, in accordance with Rule 6(3)
of the Rules. A copy of the non-confidential version of the application was circulated to the other
interested parties.
v) The Embassies of the subject countries in India were also requested to advise the producers / exporters in
their countries to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit.
vi) The Authority forwarded a copy of the public no tice initiating the anti -dumping investigation to the
following known producers/exporters in the subject countries, as made available by the applicant and
offered an opportunity to them to make their submissions known in accordance with Rule 6(2) of
the Rules:
SN Exporters
1. SI Group Inc.
2. SI Group -Korea Ltd.
3. Sojitz Corporation
4. Tasco Chemical Corporation
vii) In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, the following producers/exporters
from the subject countries have responded by filing a questionnaire response:
SN Exporters
1. SI Group Inc.
2. SI Group -Korea Ltd.
viii) DIC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, an exporter from Singapore, registered as an interested party and later
withdrew its participation from the present investigation.
ix) The Autho rity sent questionnaires to the following known importers / users of the subject goods in India,
calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
SN Importers/Users
1. Cardolite Speciality Chemicals India
2. Chandras' Chemical Ent erprises
3. Dic India Limited
4. Elantas Beck India Limited
5. Eternis Fine Chemicals Limited
6. Hubergroup India Private Limited
7. J. Kirit & Brothers
8. Mac Industry
9. Mangalam Organics Limited
10. Melog Speciality Chemicals Pvt. Limited
11. Mrib Chemicals
12. Polyols & Polymers Pvt. Limited
13. Privi Speciality Chemicals Limited
14. Rajsha Chemicals Pvt. Limited
15. Techno Waxchem Private Limited
x) In response to the initiation notification of the subject investigation, the following importers/users have
responded by fil ing a questionnaire response:
SN Importers/Users
1. SI Group India Private Limited
2. Eternis Fine Chemicals Limited
3. Polymers and Polysols
xi) The Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire to the Embassies of the subject countries, all
the known ex porters, importers and the domestic industry. The Economic Interest Questionnaire was also
shared with the administrative line ministry. Response to Economic Interest questionnaire has been filed
by the following parties:
SN Importers/Users
1. SI Group India Private Limited
2. Eternis Fine Chemicals Limited
3. Polymers and Polysols
xii) The period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is from 1st July 2021 to 30th June 2022. The
injury investigation period for the present investigation is 2019 -20, 2020 -21, 2021 -22 and the POI.
xiii) The petition was filed based on the DGCI&S published import data for the period 2019 -20 to June 2022.
A request was made by the Authority to the Directorate General of Systems (DG System) to provide the
transaction -wise detai ls of imports of the subject goods for the past three years and the period of
investigation, which was received by the Authority.
xiv) The Authority sought further information from the applicant to the extent deemed necessary. The
verification of the data provi ded by the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered
necessary for the purpose of the present investigation. The Authority has considered the verified data of
the domestic industry in its analysis in the present case.
xv) The Authority sought further information from the other interested parties to the extent deemed
necessary. The verification of the data provided by the other interested parties was conducted to the
extent considered necessary for the purpose of the present investigation. The Aut hority has considered
the verified data of the domestic industry in its analysis in the present case.
xvi) The Authority made available the non -confidential version of the submissions made by the various
interested parties. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website along with
the request to all of them to email the non -confidential version of their submissions to all the other
interested parties.
xvii) In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to the interested parties to
present their views orally in a public hearing held on 17th August 2023. The parties presented their views
in the oral hearing and were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally,
followed by rejoinder submissions .
xviii) The submissions made by the interested parties, arguments raised, and the information provided by the
various interested parties during the course of the investigation, to the extent the same were supported
with evidence and considered relevant to the pr esent investigation, have been appropriately considered
by the Authority in this document.
xix) Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information
during the course of the present investigation, or has signifi cantly impeded the investigation, the
Authority has considered such parties as non -cooperative and has conducted the examination on the
basis of facts available.
xx) The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with r egard to
the sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the
confidentiality claims wherever warranted and such information has been considered as confidential and
not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, the parties providing the information on
a confidential basis were directed to provide an adequate summary of the confidential version in a non -
confidential version.
xxi) A Disclosure Statement containing the essential facts in this investiga tion which forms the basis of the
present final finding was issued to the interested parties on 8th December 2023. The post Disclosure
Statement submissions received from the Domestic Industry and other interested parties have been
considered, to the exten t found relevant, in this Final Finding Notification
xxii) *** in this Final Finding represents information furnished by interested parties on confidential basis and
so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xxiii) The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is US $1= INR 76.14.
xxiv) Following abbreviations have been used in this document:
SN Abbreviations Full description
a. DI Domestic industry
b. MOF Ministry of Finance
c. PUC Product under consideration
d. Act Customs Tariff Act, 1975
e. Rules Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -
Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules,
f. Other interested parties Interested parties participating in the present investigation and opposing
imposition of anti -
dumping duty
g. Petitioner / Applicant Vinati Organics Limited (VOL)
h. SI Group SI Group Inc., SI Group -Korea Limited and
SI Group - India Private Limited
i. EIQ Economic Interest Questionnaire
j. EQR Exporter’s questionnaire response
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C. 1. Views of the other interested parties
4. No submission has been made by other interested parties with regard to scope of the product under
consideration (PUC) and like article.
C. 2. Views of the domestic industry
5. The domestic industry has made the following submission with regard to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article:
i) The product under consideration is Para -Tertiary Butyl Phenol (“PTBP”), also known as 4 tert
butylphenol / p tert butylphenol/ PTBP Chemical / para tert butyl phenol. PTBP is an organic aromatic
compound with chemical formula (C10H14O). It occurs in a white crystalline solid form and has a
distinct phenolic odour.
ii) The product under consideration in the presen t application is ‘Para -Tertiary Butyl Phenol’ also known as
‘PTBP’.
iii) PTBP chemical is usually prepared by the reaction of phenols and isobutylene. It is prepared by
incorporating a gaseous of isomer butenes into phenols in the presence of an acid-activated clay as a
catalyst. In the process of manufacturing 4- tert, butyl phenols from isobutene and phenols there involve
a reaction of the liquid form of phenol with an acid -activated catalyst. Another commonly used method
of preparation of PTBP chemicals is by using phenol and tert -butanol in water. The subject goods are
classified under Chapter 29 under 29071940.
iv) This product is mainly used to manufacture perfumery raw material para tertiary butyl cyclo hexyl acetate
(PTBCHA). It is also used in the production to manufacture a range of resins including epoxy,
polycarbonate resins and phenolic resins.
v) The molten and flaked forms of the PUC are both covered within the scope of this application. Domestic
sales happen in both molten and flaked forms. The molten for m of the subject goods is converted into
flaked form by a simple manufacturing process of drying and reducing the temperature of the product.
The subject goods are predominantly sold in flaked form. The usage of both molten and flaked forms is
common and c an be used interchangeably. The difference in the cost and price of molten form and
flaked form is minimal. The density conversion rate is about 0.98%. Some customers buy the PUC in the
molten form as a preference in order to not handle the hazardous chemi cal in the flaked form.
vi) There is no difference in the technology adopted by the petitioner and that adopted by the producers in the
subject countries. The technology adopted by the domestic industry is comparable with the technology
adopted by the producer s of the subject goods in the subject countries. However, every producer fine -
tunes its production process based on necessities and available facilities.
vii) The subject goods produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject countries are
compar able in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing
process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and
tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically an d commercially substitutable. The consumers
are using the two interchangeably. The goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the
product under consideration imported from the subject countries.
C. 3. Examination by the Authority
6. The product under consideration (hereinafter also referred to as the “PUC”) as defined at the stage of initiation
was as follows:
“3. The product under consideration (PUC) in the application is “Para - Tertiary Butyl Phenol” or “PTBP.”
PTBP is also known as 4 tert butylphenol/ p tert butylphenol/ PTBP Chemical / para tert butyl phenol.
4. The product under consideration is an organic aromatic compound with the chemical formula
(C10H14O). It occurs in a white crystalline solid form and has a distinct phenolic odour. PTBP chemical is
usually prepared by a reaction of phenols and isobutylene.
5. It is prepared by incorporating a gaseous of isomer butenes into phenols in the presence of
an acid-activated clay as a catalyst. This product is mainly used to manufacture a perfumery raw material
para tertiary butyl cyclo hexyl acetate (PTBCHA). It is also used in production to manufacture a range of
resins including epoxy, polycarbonate resins and phenolic resins.”
7. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 29 under HS Code 29071 940. The scope of the product under
consideration includes imports of the product by all descriptions and irrespective of the customs classification.
The customs classification is merely indicative and not binding on the scope of the product under
consider ation.
8. PTBP can be in molten and flaked forms. Both, molten and flaked form of the PUC are covered within the scope
of this application. The subject goods are predominantly sold in flaked form. The usage of both molten and
flaked forms is common and can be used interchangeably. The difference in the cost and price of molten form
and flaked form is minimal.
9. Although the subject goods have been in use in the domestic market since long, the requirements were,
however, met entirely by imports. There is no known substitute for the subject goods. As per annual report, the
applicant invested around Rs. *** crores and has set up manufacturing facilities for production of Butyl
Phenols, specifically *** crores for PTBP. The applicant conceived this product in 2014 -15 and started
commercial production of the subject goods in July 2020. The subject goods are a new product in the Country
in so far as its production in India is concerned.
10. The Authority notes that the goods produced by the domestic industry and imported fr om the subject countries
are comparable in terms of physical & chemical characteristics, functions & uses, product specifications,
pricing, distribution & marketing, and tariff classification of the goods. The goods produced by the domestic
industry and imported from the subject countries are like articles in terms of the Rules. The two are technically
and commercially substitutable. The Authority holds that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry
are like article to the product under considerat ion imported from the subject countries within the scope and
meaning of Rule 2(d) of Anti -Dumping Rules.
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D. 1. Views of the other interested parties
11. No submission has been made by other interested parties with regard to s cope of the domestic industry and
standing:
D. 2. Views of the domestic industry
12. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to scope of the domestic industry and
standing:
i) The applicant started commercial production of the subject goods in July 2020. Prior to this, India had
been fully dependent on imports of the subject goods for its domestic demand.
ii) The applicant, being the first and the only producer of the product under consideration, holds 100%
share in the total domestic prod uction of the subject goods in India.
iii) The domestic industry has not imported the subject goods from the subject countries and is also not
related to any producers/exporters or importers of the subject goods in India.
D. 3. Examination by the Authority
13. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules defines 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 articl e 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 industr y ' must be construed as referring to the rest of the producers"
14. The present investigation has been initiated pursuant to a petition filed by Vinati Organics Limited as the sole
producer of the subject goods in India. The applicant started commercial produ ction in July 2020. It is
undisputed that subject goods were never produced in the country, the entire demand was being met by imports,
and the applicant has for the first -time established facilities to produce the subject goods. The Authority has in
detai l examined whether the industry is new or nascent industry in terms of AD Rules under Injury
Examination.
15. The Authority notes that the present application has been filed contending that dumping of the product under
consideration is materially retarding the establishment of the domestic industry in India. The Indian industry
for the product under consideration is at a nascent stage and is yet to establish itself in the market. The
applicant reported that there is no other producer of the PUC in India. The ap plicant is the sole producer of the
subject goods, and therefore, holds 100% of the share of total domestic production of the subject goods.
16. None of the interested parties have contested the claim of the applicant that it is the sole producer of the
subjec t goods in India. It is further noted that the applicant has not imported the subject goods from the subject
countries nor is it related to any producers/exporters or importers of the subject goods in India. The Authority
therefore holds that the applicant company is thus eligible, domestic industry within the meaning of the Rule
2(b) and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule5(3) of the Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E. 1. Views of the other interested parties
17. The other interested parties have made the following submissions:
i) The petitioner has not provided the estimate of normal value for the USA in Annexure 3.1 of the
Petition.
ii) The petitioner has not disclosed the source of the freight considered for adjustment in the CIF
price, which is a requirement as per the trade notice.
iii) The petitioner has not disclosed the export sales quantity and value data.
iv) The petitioner has not disclosed its project report and the projected economic parameters for the
PUC.
E. 2. Views of the Domestic Industry
18. The domestic industry has made the following submissions:
i) SI Group claimed the entire submission regarding determination of export price as entirely confidential.
The argument regarding imports from USA not causing injury was also entirely claimed confidential .
ii) The project report has business proprietary information that is not amenable to summarization.
iii) The commodity market price for imported PUC has been incorrectly claimed as confidential.
iv) The entire basis of the claim that imports from the USA are not causi ng any injury is unaccepted.
E. 3. Examination of the Authority
19. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by the various
parties to all the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7).
20. With regard to confidentiality of the information, Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:
“7. Confidential Information:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6,
sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub -rule (4) of rule 15 and sub -rule (4) of rule 17, the cop ies of applications received
under sub -rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated Authority on a confidential
basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated Authority being satisfied as to its
confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party
without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
The designated Authority may require the interested parties providing information on confidential basis to
furnish nonconfidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such
information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated Authority a statement of
reasons why summ arisation is not possible.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rule (2), if the designated Authority is satisfied that the request
for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the
information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such
information.”
21. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regards to
sufficiency of such claims. On being satisf ied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever
warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested
parties. Wherever possible, the parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide
sufficient nonconfidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority also notes that
all interested parties have claimed their business -related sensitive information as confidential
F. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
F. 1. Views of the other interested parties
22. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the normal value, export price
and dumping margin:
i) Due to the volatile nature of the co mmodity and the extent of price fluctuations during the POI, a
comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of export prices of PUC for the
entire POI will give a distorted comparison of domestic and export prices. Since the prices of the PUC
have widely varied during the POI, a transaction -to-transaction or a month -to-month comparison of
normal value and export prices will yield a ‘fair comparison’ under the above provisions considering the
nature of market of the PUC and the price fluctuation during the POI.
ii) The price mentioned on the invoice issued at the time of shipment is merely a reflection of what price
was agreed with the end customer on the date when the contract/order was entered into. Hence, a fair
comparison will be achi eved when the prices of all the shipments made under a domestic contract/order
entered into during a particular point in time (say a month) are compared with the prices of all shipments
made under a similarly dated contract/order for export market.
iii) The pri ces to related importer are not benchmarked with the prevailing market price in India unlike
unaffiliated importer/customer. The Authority may apply the relevant adjustments to remove the impact
of any affiliation/compensatory arrangements affecting the ex port prices.
iv) As per the definition of Export Price in the Act, it is the practice of the Authority not to rely on the
prices between producer/exporter and importer when they are associated entities.
v) The prices at which the exports were made to SI Group Ind ia for its internal consumption by SI Group
Korea and SI Group USA are not reliable for the calculation of export price as the imports have been
invoiced incorrectly and have been undervalued on account of systematic glitches in computing the
transfer price.
vi) Even though the transactions are undertaken at arm’s length prices, transfer price at arm's length basis
does not necessarily mean that the said prices reflect the market prices. The Authority has to consider
the export prices to unaffiliated customers in India to determine the net export price as the export price
between an exporter and its associated importer can be unreliable.
vii) The prices at which the exports of the PUC during POI were made to SI Group India for its own
consumption, never intended for sale to the India market. Therefore, these prices are not representative of
competitive market pricing of the PUC in Indian market.
viii) The transfer price of between SI Group USA, South Korea and India is determined according to the
agreement between them and is not impacted by the market forces.
ix) All three entities’ accounts are consolidated at group level, therefore intercompany transactions are not
recorded in consolidated accounts.
x) Transfer price policy generally followed by the company is the comparable unc ontrolled pricing method.
The inter -company price is determined based on similar transactions between manufacturing entity and
third -party customers.
xi) The inter-company transfer price to the affiliate is based on the closest comparable third -party net selli ng
price for the same or similar products delivered into countries located in the same region (country) of the
purchasing affiliate.
xii) There is no statutory requirement in USA for audit of the financial statements of private companies, and
therefore the acco unts are not audited.
F. 2. Views of the domestic industry
23. The submissions of the domestic industry with regards to the normal value, the export price and the dumping
margin, are as follows:
i) The petitioner has determined consumption price of the product i n the domestic market in South Korea
and USA using the price at which consumer has bought the product from the petitioner for eventual
consumption in Korea and USA. Thus, export price from petitioner to Korea and USA is considered as
consumption price for normal value.
ii) The petitioner has collected information on imports into Singapore from other countries. It is seen that
Singapore is importing significant volume of the subject goods. Imports of the subject goods into
Singapore is also the consumption price of the subject goods in the domestic market of Singapore and
can thus be considered as the normal value prevailing in Singapore. The petitioner has thus adopted a
conservative approach and has considered the average price of imports into Singapore as norm al value
for the PUC. Thus, imports into Singapore have been considered as consumption price.
iii) Export price must be determined considering volume and value of imports for the proposed period of
investigation adopted from the published DGCIS data after due a djustments are made to determine the ex -
factory price.
iv) The respondents have contended that since the exports were made to SI Group India, the sales are
related party sales and thus should not be considered for the determination of export price and that
Section 9A provides that if there are related party sales, the Authority may construct the export price if
the price is unreliable.
v) The respondents have not established as to how the export price is unreliable as a mere existence of
relationship cannot make t he price unreliable.
vi) There is a burden on the party demanding construction of export price to prove that (a) the prices are
unreliable (more so when it has already been considered by the custom authorities as reliable), (b)
suggest a methodology for constr uction of export price. If the declaration before the customs authorities
has been that the prices are reliable and at arm’s length, there is no basis for the prices being unreliable.
vii) The respondents have submitted that date of contract should be considere d as the date of sale which is
unsubstantiated. DGTR Manual has stated that generally, the date of the invoice, as recorded in the
exporter’s or producer’s records kept in the ordinary course of business is considered as the date of sale.
viii) The dumping margi n from each of the subject countries is not only above the de minimis levels, but also
significant.
ix) Respondent needs to demonstrate the compensatory arrangement and it impacts calculation of export
price and establish that the prices are unreliable. Must e stablish what claims were made before the
customs authorities when these consignments were cleared. Ignoring these export transactions from the
calculation of export price determination would be illegal.
F. 3. Examination by the Authority
24. The Authority had s ent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject countries, advising
them to provide the information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority. The following
producers/exporters from the subject countries have filed exporter’s questionnaire responses:
i. SI Group Inc.
ii. SI Group -Korea Ltd.
25. The Authority has analysed the submissions made by the interested parties, including the domestic industry.
26. The SI Group has claimed that the export price to the related importer in India i.e., SI Group India is unreliable
and therefore the Authority should exclude the said price from the calculation of the export price. However, as
evident from the following provision of the anti-dumping agreement, it is solely the Authority that can
determine the reliability of the NEP. The exporters or interested parties can only make a quantified and
verifiable claim of unreliability and provide necessary information to construct export price in such cases:
In cases where there is no export price or where it appe ars to the authorities concerned that the export price
is unreliable because of association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or
a third party, the export price may be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imp orted products are
first resold to an independent buyer, or if the products are not resold to an independent buyer, or not resold in
the condition as imported, on such reasonable basis as the authorities may determine.
27. The question of unreliability can ari se in a case where the exporter denies the dumping allegations claiming
high export price. The Authority in such cases, examines the reliability of export prices where there is an
association or compensatory arrangement between the exporter and importer an d the Authority may find it
unreliable. The question of unreliability of the export price can arise when the said prices were unduly low and
the exporter provides all relevant information and evidence to construct the export price for those export
transact ions. The applicant in its petition has alleged that SI Group USA and SI Group Korea are dumping the
PUC in the Indian market. The Authority on being prima facie satisfied initiated the investigation. The EQR
filed by SI Group USA and SI Group Korea confir ms that the said producers/exporters are dumping. There is
no question of the unreliability of the low export price to the related importer in India.
28. SI Group laid emphasis on Explanation (b) to Section 9(A)(1) of the Act which defines the export price:
“export price”, in relation to an article, means the price of the article exported from the exporting country or
territory and in cases where there is no export price or where the export price is unreliable because of
association or a compensatory arrangemen t between the exporter and the importer or a third party, the export
price may be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported articles are first resold to an
independent buyer or if the article is not resold to an independent buyer, or not resold in the condition as
imported, on such reasonable basis as may be determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -section
(6);”
29. It is noted that the reason given by SI Group for the unreliability of NEP is not consistent with the statutory
provision given in Explanation (b) to Section 9(A)(1) above. As per the SI Group, the ground for claiming the
unreliability of NEP is that the PUC imported from SI Group South Korea and SI Group USA has been
invoiced incorrectly and has been undervalued on ac count of systematic glitches in computing the transfer
price. The export price is unreliable not because of association or a compensatory arrangement between the
exporter and the importer but on account of systematic glitches in computing the transfer pric e.
30. It is also be noted that the SI Group in its submissions has declared the exports to related importer in India as
sale transactions in its book of accounts and at arm's length price. The SI Group has declared its exports to SI
Group India to be unreliab le post filing of questionnaire response. The fact was nowhere disclosed in the
questionnaire response.
31. It is further noted that explanation (b) to Section 9A(1) states as under:
“export price”, in relation to an article, means the price of the article e xported from the exporting country or
territory and in cases where there is no export price or where the export price is unreliable because of
association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or a third party, the export
price may be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported articles are first resold to an
independent buyer or if the article is not resold to an independent buyer, or not resold in the condition
as imported, on such reasonable basis as may be determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -
section (6).
32. The objective and purpose of the provision relating to construction of export price under Explanation (b) to
Section 9A(1) is to ensure that export price to related parties is not manipulat ed in a manner that actual
dumping by the exporter is not captured. This means that when there are exports to related parties in importing
country at high price and subsequent resale by such related party is at low price, it is clear that the actual
higher export price to related entity could not be considered as reliable ‘because of association or a
compensatory arrangement’ for the purpose of determining dumping margin for the exporter. In such a
situation, actual export price to related party would be di scarded and export price is constructed based on
resale price of related entity to capture the full extent of dumping by the exporter.
33. However, in an opposite situation where the export price to the related entity is lower as compared to export
price to un related entities, there is no requirement of discarding the actual lower export price to related entity.
In this situation, it is not doubted that lower export price to India is actual price and has resulted in dumping.
The object and purpose of Explanatio n (b) to Section 9A(1) is not to provide a second opportunity to the
exporter to increase its export price hypothetically for the purpose of investigation after having dumped into
India and causing injury to the domestic industry.
34. If this is permitted, the exporter will be able to ensure in all cases that most of its exports to India is to its
related entity in India at lowest possible price to capture the market and only some exports are made to
unrelated exporters at fair and undumped prices. Thereafter, at the time of anti -dumping investigation, exporter
would be able to claim that price to related entity is unreliable and price to unrelated entity should be relied to
calculate dumping margin as per Explanation (b) to Section 9A(1), which will show lower or no dumping. It
is clear that such practice cannot be permitted, and such cannot be the intention and objective of Section
9A(b). Interpretation of Explanation (b) to Section 9A(1) cannot be done in a mechanical manner and by
ignoring its object and purp ose. In view of the above, the Authority has proceeded by taking into
consideration the prices as reported in the exporter’s questionnaire response for all the exports made by SI
Group to India.
35. It was argued that the prices at which the exports of PUC dur ing POI were made to SI Group India for its
consumption, were never intended for sale to the Indian market. Therefore, these prices are not representative
of the competitive market pricing of PUC in the Indian market. However, it is noted that since the co nsumption
by the related importer, i.e., SI Group India is part of total Indian demand, it affects the domestic pricing in
India. Further the related importer has purchased the PUC domestically in the injury period and has also sold
some quantity of import ed PUC in POI in the Indian market.
F. 3. 1. Determination of Normal Value
36. Under Section 9A(1)(c) of the Act, normal value in relation to an article means:
i. the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when meant for consumption in
the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -section (6); or
ii. when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the
exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in
the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the
normal value shall be either -
(a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory
or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -section (6);
or
(b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along With reasona ble 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 wher e
the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the
country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be
determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.
A. Singapore
37. DIC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, an exporter from Singapore, registered as an interested party and later withdrew its
participation from the present investigation. In the absence of cooperation from the producers/exporters of the
product under consideration in Singapore, the Authority is constrained to proceed with the principles of facts
available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules with regard to determination of normal value for all non -
cooperative producers/exporters from Singapo re. The applicant claimed that Singapore is importing significant
volume of subject goods. Imports of subject goods into Singapore is also the consumption price of the subject
goods in the domestic market of Singapore and can thus be considered as the norm al value prevailing in
Singapore. The applicant had considered the average price of imports into Singapore as normal value for the
PUC. It has been observed that imports under the HS code 290719 includes imports into Singapore of non -
PUC as well. Therefore , the average price of imports cannot be considered as the consumption price of the
PUC and resultantly cannot be considered as the basis for determination of normal value. Alternatively, the
applicant had provided information for the normal value on the basis of estimates of the cost of production,
after addition for SGA and reasonable profit.
38. The Authority has accordingly determined normal value for all non -cooperative producers/exporters from
Singapore, considering the best facts available. The normal va lue so determined for Singapore
producers/exporters is mentioned in the dumping margin table.
B. South Korea
SI Group Korea Ltd
39. The Authority notes that SI Group Korea Ltd., is a producer and exporter of the subject goods in Korea RP. SI
Group Korea has expo rted the subject goods to its related party in India, i.e., SI Group India Pvt. Ltd. and also
to unrelated customers in India.
40. SI Group Korea Ltd. has sold *** MT of PTBP in the domestic market during the POI whereas, it has
exported *** MT of the subject goods to India. The exports made to related parties in India is *** MT and
exports made to unrelated parties in India is *** MT. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in
sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the nor mal value, the Authority
conducts the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with
reference to the cost of production of the subject goods. If profit making transactions are more than 80% of the
total sales, th en all the transactions in the domestic sales are considered for the determination of the normal
value and in cases, profitable transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken into
consideration for the determination of the normal value. In the present case since more than 80% of domestic
sales are profitable hence all domestic sales have been considered to determine normal value. The company
has claimed adjustments on account of credit cost and inland transportation and the same is allowed by the
Authority. The Authority also notes that company has claimed that margin be determined on month -to-month
basis, however, company has not provided cost on month -to-month basis. The information on cost is available
only on quarterly basis. It is seen that the cost does not vary significantly on quarterly basis. Thus, the normal
value at ex-factory level for SI Group Korea has been calculated for the POI as a whole and the same is
mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Normal Value for other producers/exporters in Korea RP
41. The Authority notes that no other producer/ exporter from Korea RP have responded to the Exporters
Questionnaire in the present investigation in the form and manner prescribed. Therefore, the normal value in
their cases has been determined on the basis of best facts available on record which is provided in the Dumping
Margin Table herein below.
C. United Stated of America
SI Group Inc
42. The Authority notes that SI Group Inc., is a producer and exporter of the subject goods fr om Korea RP. SI
Group Inc. has exported the subject goods to its related party, i.e., SI Group India Pvt. Ltd. and also to
unrelated customers in India.
43. SI Group USA has filed response to the questionnaire. The company has exported *** MT to India. Out of ***
MT exported to India, export to unrelated party is ***MT and exports to related party, i.e., SI Group India is
*** MT, constituting ***% of total exports. There is a significant difference in the price at which goods have
been exported to SI Group Indi a and other unaffiliated parties.
44. SI Group Inc. has sold *** MT of PTBP in the domestic market during the POI whereas, it has exported *** MT
of the subject goods to India. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when
compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the Authority conducted the ordinary course of
trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of the
subject goods. More than 80% of domestic sales are profitable hence all domestic sales have been considered to
determine normal value. The company has claimed adjustments on account of credit cost and inland
transportation and the same is allowed by the Authority. Accordingly, the normal value a t ex-factory level for
SI Group Inc. has been calculated and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
45. The exporter claimed that the Authority should determine dumping margin by comparing normal value and
export price on month -by-month basis . It has been claimed that there is significant difference in the cost of
major inputs and price of the PUC. The Authority notes that even when the company have claimed that margin
be determined on month -to-month basis, the company has not provided informa tion on cost on a monthly
basis. Hence, the claim lacks factual evidence. The information on cost is available only on quarterly basis. It
is seen that the cost does not vary significantly on quarterly basis. Thus, the normal value at ex-factory level for
SI Group Inc has been calculated for the POI as a whole and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin
table below.
Normal Value for other producers/exporters in the USA
46. The Authority notes that no other producer/ exporter from the USA have responded to t he Exporters
Questionnaire in the present investigation in the form and manner prescribed. Therefore, the normal value in
their cases has been determined on the basis of best facts available on record which is provided in the Dumping
Margin Table herein be low.
F. 3. 2. Determination of Export Price
A. Singapore
47. DIC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, an exporter from Singapore, registered as an interested party and later withdrew its
participation from the present investigation. In the absence of cooperation from the producers /exporters of the
product under consideration in Singapore, the Authority has not determined individual export price for
producers/exporters. In view of non -cooperation of the producers/exporters, the Authority has determined export
price as per facts avai lable in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules considering volume and value of imports for the period
of investigation as per import data made available by the DG Systems data. Adjustments have been made for ocean
freight, inland freight, insurance, handling cha rges, commission and bank charges to determine ex -factory export
price. These price adjustments have been carried out on the basis of claim made by the domestic industry in view of
non- cooperation of the foreign producers. The export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin
table.
B. South Korea
SI Group Korea Ltd
48. SI Group Korea Ltd has exported *** MT of PTBP to India during the POI. SI Group Korea Ltd. has claimed
adjustment on accounts of ocean freight, marine insurance, port expenses, cred it cost, claim expenses and
inland transportation and the same have been allowed by the Authority.
49. SI Group Korea has stated that the export price of SI Group Korea should be compared with normal value on a
transaction -to-transaction, or month -to-month basis based on contract/order dates. However, as noted above,
the exporters have not provided information on cost for comparison on a month -to-month basis. The quarterly
information provided does not show significant variation. Further, consistent with DGTR p ractice in such
cases, the Authority has considered the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporters or producer’s records
kept in the ordinary course of business is considered as the date of sale. It has not been satisfactorily shown as
to why date of invoice should not be considered for the purpose of determining date of sale.
50. The export price for SI Group Korea Ltd. has been determined based on all exports made by the company and
considering the volume and value of such exports, after correlating th e same with the DG Systems data. The
said export price has been adjusted for expenses as claimed by the exporter to determine ex -factory export
price. The same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Net export price for other producers/exporters in Korea RP
51. The net export price for non -cooperative producers/ exporters from Korea PR has been calculated based on
facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net export price so considered is mentioned in the
dumping margin table below.
C. Unite d Stated of America
SI Group Inc
52. SI Group Inc has exported *** MT of PTBP to India during the POI. The Authority has verified the response
filed by SI Group Inc. wherein it has claimed adjustment on accounts of ocean freight, marine insurance, port
expen ses, credit cost, claim expenses and inland transportation and the same have been allowed by the
Authority.
53. SI Group Inc have stated that the export price of SI Group Inc should be compared with normal value on a
transaction -to-transaction or month -to-mont h basis based on contract/order dates. However, as noted above,
the exporters have not provided information on cost for comparison on a month -to-month basis. The quarterly
information provided does not show significant variation. Further, akin to the pract ice in the past cases, the
Authority has considered the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter’s or producer’s records kept in the
ordinary course of business is considered as the date of sale.
54. The export price for SI Group Inc. has been determin ed based on all exports made by the company and
considering the volume and value of such exports, after correlating the same with the DG Systems data. The
said export price has been adjusted for expenses as claimed by the exporter to determine ex - factory export
price. The same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Net export price for other producers/exporters in the USA
55. The net export price for non-cooperative producers/ exporters from the USA has been calculated based on facts
available in term s of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net export price so considered is mentioned in the dumping
margin table below.
F. 3. 3. Determination of Dumping margin
56. Considering the normal value and the export price for the subject goods, the dumping margin for the subjec t
goods from the subject country has been determined as follows:
SN
Producers/Countries Normal Value Net Export
Price
Dumping margin
(US$/MT) (US$/MT) (US$/MT) % (Range
%)
1 Singapore *** *** *** *** 40-50
2 Korea *** *** ***
I SI Group Korea *** *** *** *** 40-50
II. Other producers/
exporters *** *** *** *** 50-60
3 USA *** *** *** ***
I SI Group Inc *** *** *** *** 280- 290
II. Other producers/
exporters *** *** *** *** 380- 390
G. METHODOLOGY FOR INJURY DETERMINATION AND EXAMINATION OF I NJURY AND
CAUSAL LINK
57. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve examination of
factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, “… taking into account all relevant facts, including
the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the
consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles… ”. In considering the effect of the
dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to e xamine whether there has been a significant price
undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect
of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price incr eases, which
otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.
G. 1. Views of the other interested parties
58. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regards to injury:
i) The determination of an "established" industry should be based on "positive evidence" and reasonable
assumptions derived from credible facts. In the final findings of the Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR)
investigation, the Authority stated that in the case of a developing or nascent industry, the test of
material retardation applies to industries that have not yet fully established themselves in the market.
ii) The WTO panel held that the introduction of a new product line within an existing industry does not
necessarily create a new industry. The degree of overlap with the existing infrastructure is crucial in
determining the establishment of a new industry, as also considered by DGTR in DCC case.
iii) In the case of Vinyl Tiles from China PR, Taiwan and Vietnam - DGTR held that only the manufacturing
entity Welspun Floorin g Limited (WFL) is a nascent industry and not Welspun Global Brands Limited
(WGBL), the selling entity.
iv) VOL, being an existing player in the chemical business, has chosen to introduce a new product line. It is
likely that they utilize existing infrastructu re, such as customer contacts and distribution channels, in
selling the product. Thus, the introduction of the new product line does not necessarily create a new
industry.
v) The respondent have contended that there is a degree of overlap in the infrastructur e used for other
product lines and the Para -Tertiary Butyl Phenol (PTBP) line which is important to determine whether
PTBP can be regarded as a "new industry.
vi) Vinati focuses on manufacturing multiple types of butyl phenols, so it should be examined if it h as
dedicated capacity, investment and whether financing and feasibility studies were made specifically for
the PUC.
vii) No industry can be expected to capture the market as soon as they begin production of a certain product
and in a situation when there was wo rldwide lockdown due to COVID -19. Industry has to go through
quality check for 6 -9 months. During the period of investigation, Vinati achieved a market share of
almost 46% in the fourth quarter of FY 2021 -22 and around 40% in the first quarter of FY 2022 -23, 39%
market share in third quarter of FY 2022 -23. The WTO Panel stated that a market share 40% and above
indicates stability and establishment.
viii) These DGTR cases have also held that there is material retardation in cases of low market share:
a) Veneered Flooring- imports had significant share in market. DI share 17% (annual)
b) PVC Flex-DI market share 15% (annual) 26% max on quarterly basis, Capacity utilization 30%
c) Electrogalvanized Steel - 24% share max on quarterly basis
d) Non-Woven Fabric -10% market share of DI (annual)
ix) Although the PBIT of the petitioner has remained positive almost throughout the injury period, the ROI,
which is PBIT as the % of capital employed has remained negative throughout the injury period.
x) The performance of the petitioner has improve d significantly post POI.
xi) The project report was for the Butyl Phenol plant and no estimates were given for the individual
production line for the PUC. It was drawn up in 2016 and the estimates in the project report were as per
the market conditions in 201 6.
xii) The petitioner has only made appropriate adjustments to the input prices and not volumes of estimated
sales which have been affected post 2016 due to COVID.
xiii) Adjustments have to be made to project report to account for unexpected events such as the COVID -19
pandemic, increase in raw material prices, and geopolitical factors like the Ukraine war.
xiv) There is an impact of lockdown even if the plant was not shutdown which is not acknowledged by the
petitioner. No adjustment was made for low -capacity utilization s due to migration of labour.
xv) The petitioner faced losses and declines in their total turnover. They cannot expect only the PUC to be
profitable.
xvi) The petitioner does not have to factor in international freight and import duty costs in its pricing,
allowing it to offer lower prices in the Indian market. The freight cost had increased by almost 10 times
during the period 2020 -21 and 2021 - 22.
xvii) SI Group has cited the following market research reports to indicate the performance of the domestic
industry in butyl phenols:
a. Anand Rathi Report: Butyl Phenol plant is mainly captively consumed up to 45% for the production of
value -added products (antioxidants).
b. ICICI Direct's report - Vinati's exceptional performance in the butyl phenol segment.
c. Chola Wealth's report - Vinati's capacity expansion plans were primarily aimed at manufacturing
antioxidants.
xviii) Exporters have lost business opportunities because they were unable to match the petitioner's lower
prices. Sample call transcripts shows customers asking for price matc hing and the respondents' inability
to secure deals due to petitioner's pricing strategy.
xix) At the start of 2019, the commodity market price for imported PUC was consistent with sale prices of
the imported PUC. Pricing steadily declined when Vinati entered t he market in July 2020. By January
2021, import prices began rising considerably due to increased raw material and ocean freight costs.
xx) The petitioner’s competitors -maintained customers due to product quality, reliability of supply and
lowering prices to c ompete with Vinati’s market leading prices.
xxi) The petitioner’s choice to use Methyl tert -Butyl Ether (MTBE) to produce Isobutylene, which
increased in cost due to oil and gasoline demand stemming from the Russia -Ukraine War, added to the
higher costs of the PUC production.
xxii) The petitioner has allocated the common expenses incurred based on the capacities for different
products produced. The Authority must evaluate the correctness of the basis of allocation of expenses.
xxiii) The petitioner manufactures 4 types of butyl phenols which can be manufactured on the same
production line by changing the catalyst and altering the molar ratios. With the amalgamation of Vinati
with VAPL, Vinati will divert its capacity of butyl phenols to cater to its captive consumption to
manufacture further downstream products. This will create a demand -supply gap of the PUC.
xxiv) Inclusion of WIP in finished goods is a wrong methodology.
xxv) The petitioner faced internal issues unrelated to the subject imports with their production output,
product quality, and qualifying their products with customers. Qualification process with customers
typically takes 6 to 9 months. Vinati faced production output issues starting in September 2022,
leading to delays in shipments and even a plant shut down for mainten ance.
xxvi) The shutdown is another symptom of Vinati’s difficulty in getting its plant up and running acceptably.
Vinati's quality and supply issues raise doubts about their ability to meet customers' needs, despite
claiming to have the capacity to supply the d omestic PUC market.
xxvii) There were several lockdowns in Maharashtra due to COVID during the POI. There is impact of
lockdown even if plant was not shutdown which is not acknowledged by the petitioner.
xxviii) Vinati has stated in paragraph 9 of the petition that the a pplicable basic customs duty on PUC is 7.5%.
However, in Annexure B of the Petition, Vinati has considered the customs duty as "Nil" when
calculating the landed value of PUC from South Korea.
xxix) Vinati has not provided any methodology adopted to arrive at notional production considering optimum
utilization.
xxx) The benchmark of 80% market share in the first year of operations itself shows that the projections
made by the petitioner are unrealistic.
xxxi) Imports from the subject countries have declined in the POI.
xxxii) The Authority ought to examine what is the breakeven threshold claimed by Vinati and whether such
threshold is reasonable, since the cost of production of the PUC has varied during the injury period.
xxxiii) The petitioner cannot use the definition of like product in a n analysis of whether there is an overlap in
production facilities of PTBP and other products manufactured by Vinati. The definition is for the
purpose of identifying whether the article being produced by the domestic industry is identical to the
article under investigation.
xxxiv) The Authority cannot examine material injury in case it decides that the petitioner is already well
established as according to the initiation notification, the petition in the present investigation alleges
material retardation.
G. 2. Views of the domestic industry
59. The following submission were made by the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal link:
i) The petitioner has set up a new plant in Lote for 4 butyl phenols. PTBP has an allocated capacity of
around *** MT out of *** M T.
ii) The plot of land being used for producing butyl phenol was purchased in 2014 -15 for the purpose of
expansion or diversification. Thus, the land that is used for the Butyl Phenol is separate and without
any overlap from the pre -existing industry that man ufactures the other products in the Lote site.
iii) Prior to the commencement of the production by the applicant in July 2020, there was no production of
PTBP in India. The entire demand for the subject good in India was being satisfied by imports,
mostly from the subject countries.
iv) While the production by the petitioner is continuous, the capacity utilisation continues at sub -optimal
level. The petitioner has not been able to meet the breakeven point
v) The petitioner could get sales only to the extent third count ries vacated the market and was forced to
suffer significant financial losses
vi) There was a new infrastructure set up for new industry in the already existing area used for other
products
vii) The petitioner established a completely new plant for PTBP which has d ifferent HS code, raw
materials, plant and equipment, production technology and manufacturing process when compared to
existing products
viii) The petitioner earlier dealt with pharmaceuticals, now also dealing with perfumery and resin. The
PTBP plant is a new e xtension of the existing land and is using different utilities. The customers and
distribution channels are different
ix) The market share was only at ***% in the POI, as against the targeted/ expected/ achievable/
reasonable levels of 80% in this period.
x) The capacity utilisation declined to ***% immediately after Q1, 22-23. There is no reason why
capacity utilisation of a new product would decline after rising
xi) WTO case refers to market share for the entire one -year period and not for a specific quarter. The
panel report also highlighted the importance of the nature of product while examining market share
stability.
xii) The petitioner having regard to the nature of product and business had anticipated significantly high
level of production, sales and market share in the very first year of establishment, which was not
possible due to imports.
xiii) The domestic industry has gained volumes almost to the extent of volumes lost by non -subject
countries and the subject countries gained volumes almost to the extent of increase i n demand.
xiv) The volume of imports has witnessed an increase and then a slight decline over the injury period. The
volume of imports should have declined significantly with the commencement of production by the
domestic industry. However, the volume of import s remained significantly high. Thus, the volume of
imports is significant in relation to Indian production and consumption.
xv) The petitioner submits that the price undercutting should be determined considering the target prices
and prices that were prevailin g when the project was conceived. It was these prices that the domestic
industry had considered when deciding on the project. It would show that significant price
undercutting is being caused by the imports, forcing the domestic industry not to even target those
projected prices.
xvi) The cost of sales and selling price have increased over the period, however the selling price is even
below the level of cost of sales. Landed price of imports are much below the level of cost and selling
price of the domestic indu stry. The imports have thus supressed the prices of the domestic industry.
xvii) The capacity built by the domestic industry is sufficient to cater to the demand. However, production
is at significantly low level and much below the demand capacity established.
xviii) Dumping of the product prevented the domestic industry from utilising its production facilities to the
extent it could have in the absence of dumping.
xix) The domestic industry has not been able to sell the material in the market, despite highly injurious
sales price offered by the domestic industry.
xx) The production and sales have shown an increase as a natural consequence of commencement of
production, however, the same is significantly below the optimum level. The domestic industry has
not been able to increase its production and capacity utilisation to the optimum levels it had planned at
the time of setting up of the plant.
xxi) The petitioner had projected to earn profit, cash profits and positive return on investment in its very
first year of operations. However, the petitioner is suffering significant financial losses due to
dumping in the country.
xxii) In Electrogalvanized Steel case, the domestic industry was also having profits in its first year of
operation and the Authority still held that it was facing injury be cause the actual profits fell short in
comparison to the expected profits. Thus, the improvement in the performance of the domestic
industry in respect of volume parameters does not amount to the fact that it is not facing injury by
imports.
xxiii) The actual per formance of the domestic industry is far below the level as was projected while setting
up the plant. Imports have thus prevented the domestic industry from achieving its targeted result.
xxiv) Imports from other countries are below de-minimis limits and are thu s not causing injury to the
domestic industry. In fact, the petitioner has gained the volume lost by other countries.
xxv) Demand for the subject goods has increased over the injury period. Though it appears that there was
some decline in demand in the most rec ent period, injury to the domestic industry could not have
been due to the same as the production and sale is much below the level of demand.
xxvi) The technology adopted by the domestic industry is comparable to the technology being adopted by
the producers in the subject countries. There is no significant difference in the manufacturing process.
xxvii) The pattern of consumption with regard to the product under consideration has not undergone any
material change.
xxviii) There is no trade restrictive practice, which could have contributed to the claimed injury to the
domestic industry.
xxix) The technology for production of the product has not undergone any change. Developments in
technology are, therefore, not a factor of claimed injury.
xxx) The injury data provided refers solely to th e domestic operations of the domestic industry and the
effect of export performance has been segregated.
xxxi) The injury information provided relates solely to the performance of the product under consideration.
Therefore, the injury claimed is not attributable to the performance of other products.
xxxii) Even after the domestic industry began production, the volume of imports has remained high. In
normal market situations, the import volumes would have shown a rapid decline with the
commencement of production by the d omestic industry.
xxxiii) Dumping of the product is preventing the domestic industry from producing and selling the subject
goods and hence, the domestic industry is unable to utilize its capacity to optimum level.
xxxiv) Imports are undercutting the prices. The price un dercutting has prevented the domestic industry from
raising prices to the extent of cost and reasonable profits.
xxxv) The imports are suppressing the prices of the domestic industry.
xxxvi) The landed price of subject imports from the subject countries is below curren t and projected cost of
sales of the subject goods.
xxxvii) Even though the domestic industry has capacity sufficient enough to meet the demand of the product
in the country, imports are holding majority share in the market, and the domestic industry holds
minorit y share.
xxxviii) The pre -feasibility report was provided for getting the Environmental Clearance in 2016 which was
later revised. Pre -feasibility report numbers should not be considered as basis for costs and project
timelines. The environmental clearances were expected to be obtained faster. However, it was
received only in March 2018, post which petitioner obtained the Consent to Establish in March 2019,
and then the Consent to Operate in March 2020. The investment projected for the butyl phenol plant
has been ap portioned to the PTBP plant based on the capacity installed.
xxxix) Any increase in raw material, utility price because of Covid 19 would have been a global
phenomenon. Should have led to corresponding increase in selling price but low -priced imports
prevented it .
xl) The other interested parties have stated that the petitioner was suffering decline in turnover and
profits due to COVID and then cites market reports to show that the petitioner was earning profits in
Butyl Phenols and other products. The parties are con tradicting their own statements on petitioner’s
performance.
xli) The freight increasing import prices should have benefitted the petitioner but it was still facing losses.
The domestic industry should have ideally been able to perform better as it catered to t he demand
with the benefit of close proximity. However, it was still not able to find its place in the market due to
the dumped and injurious imports in the market.
xlii) Being a new producer, customers would not buy from the petitioner if they do not benchmark its price
to imports. The prices are highly market driven. Akin to the general practice, the customers compare
the prices quoted by the domestic industry and the exporters, and after considerable negotiations, they
ask the domestic industry to reduce the p rices to match those of the exporters.
xliii) The reference is to market prices not to a price of a party. Information cannot be claimed confidential.
Respondents admits that pricing declined when Vinati entered the market. This itself shows that the
prices were lowered in order to prevent Vinati from making a footing in the domestic market.
xliv) VOL is forced to set prices based on prevailing price in the market, i.e, based on the landed price of
the imports, even when the petitioner attempts to set the prices based o n basic raw material and have a
contract based on formula pricing.
xlv) On one hand, the interested parties contend that the subject countries maintained the volumes and
customers, and on other hand they contend that the petitioner was driving out the subject c ountries
and was undercutting them.
xlvi) The claimed injury is not due to start -up operations. The domestic industry has not reported price
parameters based on actual costs.
xlvii) There is apparently one case of higher impurity material supplied by the petitioner to one customer.
This is due to different segments of consumers require different level of impurity and the petitioner
has produced and supplied the impurity levels desired by different customer segments.
xlviii) The price movement of both, Methyl tert -Butyl Ether (M TBE) and tert -Butyl alcohol [(CH₃)₃COH)]
follows same trend. The Designated Authority may determine cost of production of PTBP
considering market price of Isobutylene. This would take away any cost related issues in Isobutylene.
xlix) Expenses are rightly alloca ted on this basis, as the petitioner has not even achieved optimum
production. Apportioning expenses on actual production and then dividing the same with targeted
production would be highly unfair.
l) WIP is part of inventories.
li) The petitioner has set up new production lines and have dedicated the same for individual products. It
is not possible to use production line of one butyl phenol product for producing different butyl
phenol. All these 4 products have 3 separate/independent reactors. The distillation co lumns are
designed based on product characteristics, purity level & impurity profile & are dedicated for each
product.
lii) The petitioner had considered imports into India as the potential demand. The demand increased but
the petitioner did not stop production during the entire period of lockdown. The raw material prices
considered in the project report have been revised as per actual raw material prices incurred by the
petitioner. Thus, the Authority must consider principal factors that impacted the performanc e and not
inconsequential factors as contended by the interested parties.
liii) Further, the shutdowns were for extremely short periods of time and have not impacted ability to
cater to demand. The petitioner produces against stocks and sells from stocks and had sufficient
inventories throughout the period.
liv) The product approval on average takes around 3-6 months and not 6-9 months as contended by the
respondents. The petitioner has provided evidence of email communications to the Authority wherein
the product was approved by the customers in 3 months.
lv) The petitioner had taken the customs duty as “Nil” for calculating the landed value of the PUC from
South Korea which has been amended to 7.5%. However, even when landed value is calculated with
the applicable custom s duty of 7.5%, the landed price of the PUC is not only lesser than selling price
of the petitioner but is lesser than even cost of production of the domestic industry. Thus, the
undercutting continues to remain positive and significantly high.
G. 3. Exami nation by the Authority
60. The Authority has noted the submissions of the interested parties with regard to injury to the domestic industry.
The Authority notes that the present application is with respect to material retardation to the establishment of
an in dustry. Thus, prior to undertaking detailed injury examination, the Authority has examined whether the
domestic industry, was an established industry to such an extent that the same permitted assessment of injury
in the form of material injury, or the dome stic industry was an embryonic or nascent industry, in the process of
establishment, and not having sufficient past history to permit assessment of material injury as the form of
injury.
G. 3. 1. Material retardation to establishment of an industry
61. The other interested parties as well as the domestic industry have relied on several previous investigations
involving material retardation conducted by the Authority as well as other literature related to material
retardation. Such submissions have been considered by the Authority to the extent they were relevant to the
present investigation. The Authority has also taken note of the past findings concerning material retardation of
industry issued by the DGTR, in this regard.
62. The Authority notes that the AD Agreement or the AD Rules does not define what is a new industry. “Material
retardation to the establishment of the domestic industry” has also not been defined. Footnote 9 to Article 3
merely states as follows:
Under this Agreement the term "injury" shall, unless otherwise specified, be taken to mean material injury to a
domestic industry, threat of material injury to a domestic industry or material retardation of the establishment
of such an industry and shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of t his Article.
63. The concept of "material retardation " is intimately connected to the definition of the concept of " industry in
the process of establishment ".
64. Regarding the proposal at the WTO for amendment of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which provides clarity
on the meaning of ‘material retardation’ and ‘unestablished industries,’ the relevant portion of the draft
proposal is as under. Even though the said provision has not been incorporated in the Agreement so far, the
Authority has considered the same as wel l for making the present determination:
“3.9. A determination of material retardation of the establishment of a domestic industry shall be based on
facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. An industry may be considered to be in
establishment where a genuine and substantial commitment of resources has been made to domestic
production of a like product not previously produced in the territory of the importing Member, but production
has not yet begun or has not yet been achieved in commercial volumes. In making a determination whether an
industry is in establishment, and in examining the impact of dumped imports on the establishment of that
industry, the authorities may take into account evidence concerning, inter alia, installed ca pacity, investments
made, and financing obtained, and feasibility studies, investment plans or market studies.”
65. While the proposal suggests various parameters that can be taken into consideration in the determination of
whether an industry is in establishm ent, it does not state anything about parameters to be considered when the
industry is new and has recently started producing the subject goods.
66. The Authority also notes that WTO Appellate Body Report, Russia – Commercial Vehicles which was further
reitera ted by the WTO Panel in the matter of Morocco - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot -Rolled Steel
from Turkey held that Article 3.1 does not prescribe a particular methodology that an investigating Authority
must follow in assessing whether a domestic indu stry is established.
67. The Authority has examined the following parameters while examining whether the case is fit to examine
material retardation:
a. Does the domestic industry constitute a "new" industry for the product under consideration, or whether
product ion of the product under consideration merely constitutes an extension of existing established
operation of the domestic industry. The Authority examined the degree of overlap between existing product
lines of the company and the new product.
b. When did the domestic industry began its production.
c. Operations of the domestic industry as achieved in the POI and as compared to the operations that were
projected while setting up the plant. In case the domestic industry has not achieved projected levels of
operatio ns, whether the same is due to presence of dumped imports in the country, or due to any other
reason.
d. Size of production, capacity utilisation and domestic sales as compared to the size of the domestic market
as a whole. If domestic sales, market share, an d consequently production & capacity utilisation are well
below the levels projected levels, whether the same is due to presence of dumped imports in the country, or
due to any other reason. The Authority has also examined stability of production and capac ity utilization.
The Authority has also considered the level of capacity utilisation that the domestic industry should have
achieved in the POI and compared the same with level of capacity utilisation that the domestic industry
has achieved.
e. Since the dome stic industry has commenced commercial production only during the present injury period,
whether the domestic industry has been prevented from producing the product due to any technical
reasons or product acceptance by the customers, or any other regulator y requirements in the country. The
Authority has also examined the level of inventories of the product and reasons for the same.
f. Did the domestic industry reach a reasonable level of profitability? If not so, whether the reasons for the
same are linked to dumping of the product or any other commercial or technical reasons.
68. The above referred parameters have been examined in detail below:
G. 3. 2. Material retardation to the establishment of the domestic industry in the present investigation
69. The Authority no tes that the applicant has set up a new manufacturing facility of the subject goods by making
significant investment in a plant at Lote, Maharashtra. Prior to the commencement of the production by the
applicant in July 2020, there was no production of PTBP in India and none of the other interested parties have
claimed otherwise.
a. Whether the petitioner is a “new” industry or it is merely an extension of an already
established operation?
70. It is noted that PTBP is a new product and has been produced in the coun try for the first time by the domestic
industry. Information on record and verification undertaken has demonstrated that the production of the
subject goods was not significantly aided by the existing and established product operations of the petitioner.
The petitioner set up a new plant in Lote for four types of butyl phenols with a total annual capacity of ***
MT. These products include Para Tertiary Butyl Phenol (PTBP), Ortho Tertiary Butyl Phenol (OTBP), 2 4 Di -
Tertiary Butyl Phenol (2,4 DTBP), 2 6 Di -Tertiary Butyl Phenol (2,6 DTBP). During the physical verification,
it was seen that there are four different types of butyl phenols, and these have different capacities, different
production facilities and different production lines. Out of these capacitie s, PTBP has a capacity of *** MT. It
was explained by the domestic industry that the applicant has dedicated production facilities to individual
butyl phenols and has been using the same on dedicated basis only. However, the production facilities are such
that a producer can stop the production of one butyl phenol and convert the production facilities into
production of other butyl phenol. This can be done over a short duration, and without incurring any significant
expense. It was explained that it was not possible to switch over production of one butyl phenol product to
another product on a daily basis. The reactors have been dedicated for each product for their optimum use and
are not expected to be used interchangeably as a matter of routine. It was demo nstrated that the distillation
columns have been designed based on product characteristics, purity level & impurity profile, and are dedicated
for each product. Therefore, any such switchover would require efforts and even some additional investment.
71. The p etitioner has established a new plant for Butyl Phenol in Lote, without any material overlap with the pre -
existing production facilities. It has established a new product, and not a mere addition of a new production
line to the existing facilities. Interes ted parties have contended that there is significant degree of overlap
between PTBP, and the existing products being produced by the petitioner. It is noted in this regard that the
raw material of the subject good, Isobutylene (IB), has been produced by VO L since 2010. However, it is not
produced in the same plant as that of the PUC. Isobutylene is produced at a different plant whereas PTBP
production facilities have been set up Lote. Following differences have been noted between PTBP and the
other products produced by the petitioner in its old plant (pre -existing facility), from the information on
record:
i) The HS code of PTBP falls under a different customs sub -heading 29071940 under Chapter 29 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975
ii) The plant and equipment deployed for the production of PTBP entails different reactors, catalysts,
distillation columns and construction materials. These are different from the plant and equipment
deployed by the petitioner for producing other products in the preexisting facility.
iii) The ra w materials for producing the PUC are isobutylene and phenol, which are entirely different from
raw materials being used for producing other products in the preexisting facility.
iv) Isobutylene is captively produced by the company. However, isobutylene is not the major raw material in
total costs on account of raw materials. The cost on account of phenol is more than cost on account of
isobutylene.
v) Production of the PUC involves butylation of Phenol which entails a different manufacturing from the
other produc ts produced in the preexisting facility.
vi) The PUC broadly performs the function of intermediate in phenolic resins and perfumery industries,
which is different from the other products produced in the preexisting facility.
vii) The land that is used for the Butyl Phenol is separate and without any overlap from the pre-existing
industry that manufactures the other products in the Lote site.
viii) The utilities being used in PTBP are not by and large benefiting from existing products in the plant. The
main operations invo lved in the Butyl Phenol plant are reaction, extraction, distillation & flaking.
Utilities required for Butyl Phenol, i.e., steam, chilled water, DM water, process water, electricity, and
coal for hot oil TFH (thermic fluid heater). All these utilities wer e newly established except steam and
air. Steam is only 25% of the total utility cost. Air is an insignificant amount. While the electricity
supply is also from the same grid, it is with a dedicated newly set up transformer for Butyl Phenol Plant.
ix) VOL ear lier dealt with products meant for pharmaceutical industry, Agro - Pharma, water treatment, oil
field drilling, construction, personal care industries. The new production line of PTBP deals with
products for perfumery and resin.
x) Further, the domestic indus try has submitted that almost ***% of the domestic sales by the petitioner are
to the new customers of PTBP. Further, the majority of sales are through a new trader appointed for the
perfumery and resin industries.
b. When did the domestic industry began its production?
72. The Authority notes that the domestic industry commenced commercial production of the subject goods only in
July 2020. The production of the subject goods began only few months prior to the POI. There was no other
domestic producer of the subje ct goods in India. It is noted that although the production of the subject goods
has commenced, the production has not reached the levels projected by the domestic industry and commercial
scales of the plant. Further, the domestic industry has not got a pr ice in consonance with the projections made
(with adjustments for material changes in prices of inputs involved in production of the product under
consideration). A comparison of the domestic industry’s actual and projected production and sales figures
reveals that actual production and sales figures in the POI have not achieved the projected levels, which shows
that their anticipated commercial operations have been impacted.
c. Operations achieved vs operations projected.
73. The performance achieved by the domes tic industry in respect of various macro - economic parameters, such as
production, domestic sales, capacity utilisation, market share, profits, cash profits, ROI is materially below the
levels projected by the domestic industry. The domestic industry had p rojected profits in its very first year of
operations. But the domestic industry has not been able to recover its costs and is suffering significant
financial losses. Further, the difference between the projected performance and actual performence achieved
is too significant.
d. Size of production, capacity utilisation and domestic sales as compared to the size of the
domestic market as a whole
74. The applicant is the only Indian producer of the subject goods in India who has established production
facilities for the PUC. The demand for the product under consideration in India was *** MT during the
present POI. As against this, the domestic industry has set up a production capacity of *** MT. Thus, the
domestic industry was in a position to achieve 100% market share in the country and could have achieved a
capacity utilisation of more than 80%. However, the market share of the domestic industry during the POI was
around 24%, where the subject imports held about 74%. The imports from the subject countries are more t han
four times the total domestic production of the subject goods in India.
75. Quarterly movement of market has also been analysed and it is seen that the maximum market share achieved by
the domestic industry is up to 49% as can be seen from the table below:
Demand / Market share Units POI Q1 POI Q2 POI Q3 POI Q4 POI
Subject Countries MT 3,447 3,357 1,435 1,182 9,420
Korea Rp MT 1,635 2,000 1,149 796 5,579
Singapore MT 1,512 937 126 126 2,701
U S A MT 300 420 160 260 1,140
Other Countries MT - 304 - - 304
Total Imports MT 3,447 3,661 1,435 1,182 9,724
Sales of the domestic
industry MT *** *** *** *** ***
Index 100 251 776 583 100
Sales of Other Domestic
Producers MT - - - - -
Demand/Consumption
including Captive MT *** *** *** *** ***
Index 100 113 78 61 100
Market Share
Subject Countries % 95 82 51 53 74
Other Countries % - 7 - - 2
Total Imports % 95 89 51 53 76
Domestic industry % 5 11 49 47 24
Other Domestic
Producers % - - - - -
Demand/Consumption
including Captive % 100 100 100 100 100
76. Other interested parties have contended that the domestic industry was able to capture 46% market share in the
fourth quarter of FY 2021 -22 and almost 40% market share in the first quarter of FY 2022 -23. It has been
argued that the Panel report in in the matter of Morocco - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot -Rolled
Steel from Turkey suggested that if the market share achieved by the domestic industry is significant, then the
fact that such market share has been attained after incurring loss does not necessarily preclude a finding of
stabilisation. It is however seen that (a) the actual market share and capacity utilisation projected by the
domestic industry was significantly higher than what is actually achieved, (b) the market share achieved by th e
domestic industry is at the cost of financial losses, (c) the domestic industry has not been able to sell to the
extent of production, (d) the market share of the domestic industry declined in the last quarter, whereas the
same should have increased (con sidering that new production facilities were set up in the country), (e) the
market share achieved by the domestic industry is the market vacated by the other country imports. In so far as
the subject imports are concerned, these have shown an increase, ra ther than showing a decline, despite new
production facilities set up by the domestic industry. Thus, the production, capacity utilisation and market share
achieved by the domestic industry in one quarter was insufficient to conclude stability of the indus try in the
market.
77. The volume of subject imports has in fact increased over the injury period, before reducing in the POI, despite
the domestic industry starting commercial production, as can be seen from the table below. It is seen that in
fact the domest ic industry gained volumes that have been vacated by non-subject countries. Thus, the domestic
industry has been able to establish itself in respect of production and sales to some level only because of the
market vacated by non -subject countries. As far a s subject imports are concerned, these have by and large
maintained their levels:
Parameters Unit 2019 - 20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Subject Countries MT 8,421 10,250 11,118 9,420
Other Countries MT 3,719 2,142 1,163 304
Sales by DI MT NA *** *** ***
Index NA 100 4,447 6,466
Demand MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 102 118 105
Change over base year
Subject Countries 1,830 2,697 1,000
Other Countries -1,577 -2,555 -3,415
Sales by DI *** *** ***
Demand *** *** ***
78. It is seen that the domestic ind ustry has gained volumes almost to the extent of volumes lost by non -subject
countries and the subject countries gained volumes almost to the extent of increase in demand from the base
year.
Particulars Units 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Installed Capacity MT NA *** *** ***
Index NA 100 133 133
Production MT NA *** *** ***
Index NA 100 1,743 2,321
Capacity Utilization % NA *** *** ***
Index NA 100 1,307 1,740
Domestic Sales MT NA *** *** ***
Index NA 100 4,347 6,361
Export Sales MT NA NA *** ***
Index NA NA 100 128
79. In terms of level of production and sales, it is normally expected that an industry which has recently commenced
production may face instability in production owing to new production facilities and would be able to
gradually increas e its production levels and consequently capacity utilisation. It was therefore examined
whether the low level of production and capacity utilisation of the domestic industry was due to instability in
production and new production facilities. It is seen th at the domestic industry had projected a capacity
utilisation of more than 80% whereas the actual capacity utilisation achieved is only ***. It is also
noted that the utilisation achieved by the domestic industry was *** for the POI as a whole, while the domestic
industry achieved a capacity utilisation of *** in the fourth quarter of 2021 -22. It is seen that the domestic
industry was not able to achieve capacity utilisation as projected within the POI and suffered underutilisation
of production capacities. Further, the domestic industry was able to improve its capacity utilisation till Q4,
2021 -22 and suffered decline in capacity utilisation thereafter. Further, the capacity utilisation of the domestic
industry was quite low as compared to projected levels and the same was not due to some possible technical
constraints. It is noted that the demand had declined in the POI, however, the demand did not decline
significantly so as to prevent the domestic industry from utilising its capacity to optimum level.
e. Whe ther the domestic industry has been prevented from producing the product due to reasons other
than imports
80. It has been examined if other parameters, such as product approval, product quality, technical glitches in new
plant, etc. have been a reason for low production and sales. Interested parties have argued that the approval
time for the products takes around 6- 9 months. It is also noted from the information on record, by way of sales
negotiation with sampled customers, that an approval for the sale of th e product under consideration usually
takes around 3 - 6 months for the domestic industry. However, the subject imports increased with the
commencement of production by the applicant, whereas ideally it should have declined. The non -subject
imports declined , whereas subject imports increased. The domestic industry gained sales volumes to the extent
of market vacated by the non-subject imports. The domestic industry has been able to export significant
volumes and at a price higher than the domestic prices. It is thus evident that reasons for low production are
not any such reason stated by the interested parties.
81. Other parties have also argued that the quality of the product is sub optimal and have been a reason for
producers not opting to purchase from the domestic industry. In this regard, it was submitted by the domestic
industry and noted by the Authority that PTBP produced has impurity in it. While some customers specify the
maximum level of impurity, others are not concerned with impurities. The customers of the subject goods
using it for production of resin does not have a threshold for impurity level. However, customers using PTBP
for perfumery industry have permissible level of impurities. The domestic industry has been able to produce
and sell subject goods of desired specifications to customers in both the segments. The domestic industry
submitted that there was one instance of concern raised on the impurity level (during post POI period) by one
of the responding interested party, which was as per evidence brought on record, was later resolved. It was
seen during verification that the entire manufacturing process has been automated & being controlled through
the Distributed Control System (DCS) in control room of the factory. It is also seen that the domestic industry
has sold the subject goods to all major customers of the subject goods and thus the product quality has been
established and accepted by the customers. This has also not been disputed by the other parties. The domestic
industry has been exp orting the product, that too at a higher price. Further, the domestic industry has been able
to get the market vacated by the non -subject imports. In any case, alleged concern of quality on one sale in the
post POI does not address the increase in imports upto POI.
f. Did the domestic industry reach a profitability/break -even point?
82. The Authority notes that the production of the applicant commenced in July 2020 and the production figures on
a quarter -to-quarter basis shows an increasing trend during the POI. However, production declined in Q1, 22-23
after increasing till Q4, 21-22. The petitioner has not been able to meet the breakeven point. The information
provided by the domestic industry and considered by the Authority for the purpose of profit assessmen t is after
considering cost of production at optimum level of capacity utilisation. Even such normatted cost shows that
the domestic industry suffered financial losses in sale of the PUC. The losses determined at actual costs are in
fact significantly high er.
83. The above analysis indicates that the production of PTBP is a newly established industry which has no
significant degree of overlap with the existing manufacturing facilities of the petitioner. The petitioner has not
been able to stabilize its producti on and has not achieved the breakeven point. The increase in production and
sales is at the cost of incurring losses.
84. The Authority has thus conducted the injury analysis, herein below, based on the established understanding
with regard to material retarda tion. The Authority notes that the domestic industry does not have operations in
respect of various injury parameters for the entire injury period.
85. The Authority has also examined the actual performance of the domestic industry during the period and
compar ed it with the projections made to assess whether dumping of the PUC has materially retarded
establishment of the domestic industry in the Country. Since both the product and the input prices were based
on the prices that were prevailing in the period when projections were made, and there have been significant
changes in the input prices, the Authority has considered the projections by appropriately adjusting changes in
the input prices. The Authority notes that prices of the product were decided based on a price for the inputs
while drawing the projections. Further, the same prices of inputs and product have been considered over the
entire period of projection. The petitioner submitted that the projections are drawn considering that any change
in the prices of inputs shall be appropriately reflected in the prices of the finished product. It is clearly
understood that if the input prices increased, the finished product prices would increase to the extent of
increase in costs on account of inputs, and vice -versa. The petitioner further submitted that the prices of inputs
have significantly increased since the projections were drawn and therefore prices of both input and finished
product are required to be appropriately adjusted for the increase in the cost of i nputs.
86. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has insignificant captive consumption [*** MT]. The same has
been included in the domestic sales made by the domestic industry.
G. 3. 3. Cumulative assessment
87. Article 3.3 of the WTO Anti -Dumping Agreeme nt, Rule 11 and Annexure II (iii) to the Antidumping Rules
provide that in case imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to
antidumping investigations, the Designated Authority will cumulatively assess the effect o f such imports, in
case it determines that:
a) The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than two percent
expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three percent of the
imports of the like article or where the export of the individual countries is less than three percent, the imports
cumulatively account for more than seven percent of the imports of like article; and
b) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the impor ts is appropriate in light of the conditions of
competition between the imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products
and the like domestic products.
88. The Authority notes that the margin of dumping from each of the subjec t countries is more than the limits
prescribed. The quantum of imports from each of the subject countries is more than the de-minimis limits.
89. Cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate since the exports from the subject countries
compete between themselves and also directly compete through comparable sales channel under similar
commercial conditions with the like articles offered by the domestic industry in the Indian market.
90. The Authority has, therefore, assessed injury to the domestic i ndustry cumulatively from the subject countries.
The Authority notes that the dumped imports are identical to the goods sold in the domestic market. The dumped
imports are entering the Indian market simultaneously from all the subject countries.
G. 3. 4. Assessment of Demand/Apparent Consumption
91. The Authority has taken into consideration, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand or apparent
consumption of the product in India as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry and imports from
various sources as per transaction wise import data received from the DG Systems. The same was analysed
and imports of the PUC have been quantified.
Demand Units 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Sales of Domestic Industry MT-
Indexed
NA
4,447
6,466
Sales of Other Indian
Producers MT - - - -
Imports from Subject
Countries MT 8,421 10,250 11,118 9,420
Korea MT 5,676 5,665 6,174 5,579
Singapore MT 1,925 3,468 4,004 2,701
USA MT 820 1,117 940 1,140
Imports from Other
Countries MT 3,719 2,142 1,163 304
Demand/Consumption
(including captive) MT-
Indexed
92. It is seen that the demand has increased from the base year to 2021 – 22 and declined by 13% in the POI as
compared to the previous year. However, overall demand for the product ha s increased in the POI compared to
the base year.
G. 3. 5. Volume Effect of Dumped Imports on the Domestic Industry
a. Imports in absolute and relative terms
93. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been
a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption
in India. The import volumes of the subject goods from the subject countries and share of the dumped imports
during the injury investigati on period are as follows:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Import Volume
Imports from Subject
Countries MT 8,421 10,250 11,118 9,420
Korea MT 5,676 5,665 6,174 5,579
Singapore MT 1,925 3,468 4,004 2,701
USA MT 820 1,117 940 1,140
Imports from Other
Countries MT 3,719 2,142 1,163 304
Total Imports MT 12,139 12,392 12,282 9,724
Sales of Domestic Industry MT-
Indexed
NA
4,447
6,466
Sales of Other Indian
Producers MT - - - -
Demand/Consumption MT-
Indexed
Subj ect imports in relation to
Total imports % 69 83 91 97
Indian production %-
Indexed NA 100 6 4
Indian demand %-
Indexed
100 119 112 107
Changes in subject and non-subject imports as compared to base year
Subject countries 1,830 2,697 1000
Non subject countries -1,577 -2,555 -3,415
94. It is seen that:
a. Imports from the subject countries increased till 2021 – 22 and declined in the POI. The demand for the
product also increased till 2021 -22 and then declined in the POI. The decline in imports in POI is as a
result of decline in demand of the subject goods.
b. Whereas demand for the product increased by *** MT over the injury period, the imports from the subject
countries increased by 999 MT. Thus, increase in subject imports was slightly more than the in crease in
demand. In other words, entire increase in demand was taken away by the subject imports.
c. Share of the subject countries in total imports into India has increased significantly over the injury period,
from ***% in the base year to ***% in the POI, whereas share of non -subject countries declined steeply.
Subject imports constitute almost 97% of the total imports into India in the POI.
d. Subject imports in relation to production and consumption declined after commencement of commercial
production in In dia. However, share of subject imports was significant even after commencement of
commercial production by the domestic industry. The subject imports were catering to around ***% of
the demand of the subject goods in India when the domestic industry has established capacities sufficient
to cater the demand in the country.
G. 3. 6. Price Effect of Dumped Imports
95. In terms of Annexure II (ii) of the Rules, with regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, the
Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped
imports as compared with the price of the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is
otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which ot herwise would have
occurred, to a significant degree.
96. Accordingly, the impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of dumped imports of the subject
goods from the subject countries has been examined with reference to price undercutting and pri ce
suppression/depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis, the cost of sales and the net sales realization
(NSR) of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed price of the subject imports from the
subject countries.
a. Price undercutti ng
97. To determine the price undercutting, a comparison has been made between the landed value of the product and
the average selling price of the domestic industry, net of all rebates and taxes, at the same level of trade. The
prices of the domestic industry were determined at ex -factory levels, after reducing the selling price for all
post ex -factory expenses.
Particulars Unit Korea Singapore USA Subject
Countries
Landed Value of
Imported Product Rs/MT 1,42,600 1,54,942 83,757 1,39,018
Net Sales Realisatio n Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Price Undercutting Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Price Undercutting % *** *** *** ***
Price Undercutting Range 0-10 0-10 80-90 10-20
98. It is seen that the landed price of imports is below the level of selling price of the domestic indust ry. The
imports, barring Singapore, were significantly undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market.
99. The other interested parties have argued that the exporters from other countries have lost business
opportunities because they were unabl e to match domestic industry's lower prices. The petitioner explained its
pricing mechanism wherein it was stated that the petitioner quotes the prices to the customers based on current
prices prevailing in the market. It refers to the import data and pric es being quoted by foreign producers to
evaluate the landed price of imports, which are driving the prices in the Indian market. It has been submitted
by the petitioner that it tends to match the price prevailing in the market since it is a new producer. The
petitioner showed evidence of proposal made to customers on a pricing strategy on a cost-margin basis [to
customers such as Eternis and Privi], to ensure a more transparent pricing. The pricing policy suggested by the
petitioner was one of formula -based pricing, based on the prices of Phenol and Isobutylene, for the previous
month. However, it as been claimed that this written proposal fell through, because even though the formula
pricing was decided, the customers ultimately fell back on the import pric es.
b. Price Suppression or Depression
100. For the purpose of analysing price suppression and depression in the domestic market, the Authority has
considered information on (a) unit cost of sales, (b) domestic selling price.
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Normated Cost of
sales ₹/MT NA *** *** ***
Index - 100 139 148
Selling price ₹/MT NA *** *** ***
Index - 100 143 151
Landed price of
imports ₹/MT 1,19,024 1,04,913 1,32,457 1,39,018
Index 100 126 133
101. The normated cost of sales, selling p rice and landed price of imports have increased over the period. However,
the selling price is below even the normated level of cost of sales throughout the injury period. It is further
seen that the landed price of imports are much below the level of cost and selling price of the domestic
industry. Further, the increase in the landed price of imports was much lower than the increase in the cost of
sales and selling price of the domestic industry. The imports were thus supressing the prices of the domestic
industry in the market.
102. It has been argued that landed price of imports have increased over the injury period. The Authority therefore
analysed the trends in major raw materials prices and impact of the same on the costs of the subject goods. It
was seen t hat prices of major raw materials involved in production of the product have increased significantly.
However, import prices have not increased commensurate with the increase in cost of raw materials. Whereas,
raw material cost increased by ***%, import pr ice increased only by 33% between 2020 -21 and the POI. This
is without considering the increase in costs on account of increase in the prices of utilities.
Particulars Unit 2019 -
20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Phenol Price Rs/MT NA *** *** ***
IB Price Rs/MT NA *** *** ***
Phenol Cost Rs/MT NA *** *** ***
IB Cost Rs/MT NA *** *** ***
RM Cost Rs/MT NA *** *** ***
RM Cost Trend NA 100 140 151
Import Price - Subject
Countries Rs/MT 1,09,953 96,918 1,22,362 1,28,423
Import Price Trend
G. 3. 7. Economic parameters of the domestic industry
103. Annexure II to the Rules provides that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic
industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indic es
having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output,
market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices,
the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories,
employment, wages, growth and the ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, various injury
parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed herein below:
a. Capac ity, production, capacity utilization and sales
104. The performance of the domestic industry with regards to capacity, production, capacity utilization and sales is
as follows:
Annual Movement
Quarterly movement
Particulars Units POI Q1 POI Q2 POI Q3 POI Q4
Installed Capacity* MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 100 100 100
Production MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 262 370 333
Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Index 100 250 358 317
Domestic Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 261 850 640
Export sales MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 83 86 92
105. The Authority notes that the petitioner is the sole producer of the subject goods in India and started commercial
production in Ju ly 2020. Further, the petitioner projected a capacity utilisation of ***% in its very first year of
operations. While production & capacity utilization of the petitioner shows an increasing trend over the
period, however, the production and capacity utiliz ation is quite low considering the demand in India and level
of capacity utilisation projected while setting up the plant. The petitioner was operating at a capacity
utilization of only ***% during the POI, as against ***% projected and despite significant demand of the
subject goods in India. The Authority has considered ***% capacity utilisation as reasonable capacity
utilisation for the domestic industry in the POI for the purpose of NIP determination and considers that the
same is the level of capacity utilisation that the domestic industry would have achieved in the absence of
dumping. The actual capacity utilisation was much below projected levels. Dumping of the product in the
country has prevented the domestic industry from achieving the level of cap acity utilisation considered
reasonable.
106. The interested parties contended that the domestic industry has already achieved a capacity utilisation of ***%
in one of the quarters of the POI. The Authority however notes that (a) the same was still materially b elow the
level of capacity utilisation that was found appropriate and reasonable for the domestic industry, (b) the
capacity utilisation declined sharply to ***% in the subsequent quarter. Thus, even this level of ***% capacity
utilisation was not sustaine d by the domestic industry and (c) the domestic industry has exported about ***%
of its production. Particulars Units 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Installed Capacity* MT NA *** *** ***
Index NA 100 133 133
Production MT NA *** *** ***
Index NA 100 1,743 2,321
Capacity
Utilization % NA *** *** ***
Index NA 100 1,307 1,740
Domestic Sales MT NA *** *** ***
Index NA 100 4,347 6,361
Export sales MT NA NA *** ***
NA NA 100 128
b. Market Share in Demand
107. The yearly market share is as shown in table below.
Particulars Units 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Subject Countries %-
Indexed 100 119 112 106
Korea % *** *** *** ***
Singapore % *** *** *** ***
USA % *** *** *** ***
Other Countries % *** *** *** ***
Domestic Industry %-
Indexed - 100 3,826 6,266
108. Quarterly movement of market share is as follows:
Subject
Countries
Korea
Singa pore
USA Other
Countries
DI
21-22 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** ***
21-22 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** ***
21-22 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** ***
22-23 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** ***
109. It is seen that:
a. The market share of the domestic industry increased upto Q4, 21 -22 and declined thereafter.
b. The market share of the subject imports declined till Q4, 21 -22, and once again increased in Q1, 22 -23.
c. The market share of the non-subject imports declined steeply and significantly over the entire injury period.
c. Profitability, Cash profits, and Return on Capital Employed
110. The profit, profitability, cash profits, profit before interest (PBIT), and return on investment of the domestic
industry over the injury period has been analysed and found as shown in table below. Further, since the
domestic industry has commenced production in a new production facility, the Authority has analysed the
trends in profits, cash profits and return on capital employed – once on the basis of actual production and sale
during the period, and once considering normated cost of production in order to eliminate the effect of low -
capacity utilisation of the new production operations. The Authority considers in this regard that price
parameters considering actual cost of production, may show adverse position consid ering that the domestic
industry has commenced commercial production on a new production line and has achieved low -capacity
utilisation. Therefore, the Authority has additionally assessed price parameters by considering a capacity
utilisation of ***%.
On the basis of actual cost of production:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Profit before tax ₹ Lacs-Indexed
NA
-100
-154
-193
Cash profit ₹ Lacs-Indexed
NA
-100
-136
-173
ROI % - Indexed
NA
-100
-170
-225
On the basis of normated cost of production:
Particulars Unit 2019 -
20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Normated Cost of sales ₹/MT NA *** *** ***
Index 100 139 148
Selling price ₹/MT NA *** *** ***
Index 100 143 151
Profit/(Loss) per unit at
normated costs ₹/MT NA *** *** ***
Index (100) (22) (33)
Profit/(Loss) - total Rs. Lacs NA *** *** ***
Index (100) (963) (2,113)
Profit before Interest Rs. Lacs NA *** *** ***
Index (100) (1,542) (3,767)
Cash profit Rs. Lacs NA *** *** ***
Index 100 5,324
9,885
Return on Capital
Employed -NFA % NA *** *** ***
Trend (0-10) (0-10) (0-10)
111. It is seen that:
a. The domestic industry started selling the product at a price below actual and normated cost of sales.
Resultantly, the domestic industry suffered significant financial losses. Even when the domestic sales
increased over the injury period, the losses suffered by the domestic ind ustry also increased over the
period.
b. Even when the selling price increased over the injury period, the same were still not sufficient to permit
recovery of all costs. The domestic industry has suffered financial losses through the injury period and
even a t normated costs.
c. The domestic industry suffered cash losses throughout the injury period, extent of which increased over
the injury period.
d. The return on investment earned in the domestic sales has been negative throughout the injury period.
Further, the ROI deteriorated over the injury period. Further, the selling prices were insufficient to earn
positive return on capital employed, even at the levels of normated cost of production.
d. Inventory
112. The data relating to inventory position of the domestic industr y over the injury period and POI is given in the
table below:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Opening Inventory MT NA NA *** ***
Closing Inventory MT NA *** *** ***
Inventory MT-
Indexed NA 100 166 219
113. It is seen that level of inventories with the domestic industry increased significantly over the injury period.
The level of inventories are despite curtailed production and exports undertaken by the domestic industry, and
significant demand for the product in the Country. The domestic indus try was holding quite a low share in
Indian market and therefore held significant opportunity for disposing off its stocks.
e. Employment, Wages and Productivity
114. The position with regard to employment, wages and productivity of the domestic industry is as fol lows:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
No of employees Nos. - *** *** ***
Index 100 115 118
Salaries & Wages* ₹ Lacs - *** *** ***
Index 100 167 186
Productivity Per
Day MT/Day - *** *** ***
Index 100 1743 2321
*Figures as per actu al cost.
115. The Authority notes that the employment, wages and productivity has improved over the injury period.
f. Ability to raise capital investments
116. The domestic industry has made fresh investment in the PUC. However, the domestic industry has been unable
to achieve optimum level of production and capacity utilisation for the PUC, despite significant capacities in
the Country. The domestic industry is incurring financial losses, and losses in cash profits. The ROI has been
negative.
g. Growth
Growth Actual Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Capacity MT NA - 33% -
Production MT NA - 1,643% 33%
Sales MT NA - 4,247% 46%
Average inventory MT NA - 66% 32%
Market Share MT NA - 14% 9%
Profit (Loss) Rs Lacs NA - -54% -26%
Cash Profit Rs Lacs NA - -36% -27%
ROI % NA - -69% -33%
117. While increase in production, sales and utilisation is normal for a new industry, the actual performance
compared with projected performance shows that growth in terms of these volumes parameters is materially
below the projected level of operations. The growth in price parameters is also significantly negative and
adverse.
G. 3. 8. Comparison of Actual performance with projected performance
118. Since the domestic industry commenced commercial production only July 2020 and the data for the three
previous years of POI is not available, the Authority considers that it is necessary to compare the actual
performance achieved by the domestic industry with the performance projected while undertaking investment.
The table below shows the comparison of actua l performance with the projected performance of the domestic
industry.
Parameters Projected/Actual Unit 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Capacity Actual Projected MT *** *** ***
Actual MT *** *** ***
Capacity Actual Projected Index 100 100 100
Actual Index 100 133 133
Production Projected MT *** *** ***
Actual MT *** *** ***
Production Projected Index 100 133 142
Actual Index 100 1,743 2,321
Capacity Utilisation Projected % *** *** ***
Actual % *** *** ***
Capacity Utilisation Projected Index 100 133 142
Actual Index 100 1,307 1,740
Domestic Sales Projected MT *** *** ***
Actual MT *** *** ***
Domestic Sales Projected Index 100 133 142
Actual Index 100 4,347 6,361
Export Sales Projected MT *** *** ***
Actual MT - *** ***
Export Sales Projected Index 100 133 142
Actual Index - 100 128
Cost of Sales Projected ₹ /MT *** *** ***
Actual ₹ /MT *** *** ***
Cost of Sales Projected Index 100 97 97
Actual Index 100 139 148
Applicant's Selling Price Projected ₹ /MT *** *** ***
Actual ₹ /MT *** *** ***
Applicant's Selling Price Projected Index 100 100 100
Actual Index 100 143 151
Profit/Loss (PBT) Projected ₹ /MT *** *** ***
Actual ₹ /MT *** *** ***
Profit/Loss (PBT) Projected Index 100 139 145
Actual Index -100 -22 -33
ROI Projected % *** *** ***
Actual % *** *** ***
ROI Projected Index 100 188 217
Actual Index -100 -1,701 -4,394
119. It is seen that the performance achieved by the domestic industry in respect of various macro -economic
parameters, such as production, domestic sales, capacity utilisation, market share, profits, cash profits, ROI is
mate rially below the levels projected by the domestic industry. Further, the difference between the projected
performance and actual achieved is too significant. The domestic industry provided details of exports made by
the company. The company has claimed tha t it has undertaken exports to a number of countries such as EU,
Brazil, Columbia, Mexico, Turkey, Malaysia etc. Further, it is seen that the exports are at a price higher than
the price realised in the domestic market.
120. The interested parties argued that project report is not exclusively for PTBP and it was drawn in 2016. It is
noted in this regard that the project report referred to by the interested parties is the pre -feasibility report used
by the company for getting Environmental Clearance in 2016. The project report has investment projected for
the butyl phenol plant as a whole. This is however appropriate and natural considering a situation where a
company has decided to invest in four products (none of which were produced in the country before) and wh ich
fall in the same family of products (i.e., butyl phenols), involving high degree of similarities in plant &
equipment. Further, the Authority has considered investment in the PUC on proportionate basis based on the
capacity installed for all the four types of butyl phenols being produced by the domestic industry. It is also seen
that the project report deals with the market situation and projected performance for all the four types of butyl
phenols separately. Further, the input prices considered in the project report are based on the then prevailing
prices. However, the same has been appropriately adjusted for the actual input prices incurred by the petitioner
during the injury period.
121. It has also been contended that unexpected events such as the COVID -19 pandemic, extraordinary increases in
raw material prices, and geopolitical factors like the Ukraine conflict should also be adequately adjusted in the
project report. The interested parties have however not established how have these factors specificall y
impacted the present domestic industry and have not impact both the foreign producers and producers of other
commodities in India and globally. Factors such as COVID -19 pandemic, increases in raw material prices, and
geopolitical factors like the Ukraine conflict should have rather provided additional protection to the domestic
industry from low priced imports. Further, it is seen that the dumping margin in respect of cooperative
exporters are as high as ***%. Thus, it appears that whereas foreign produce rs protected their own domestic
markets and continued to charge remunerative and much higher prices in their own domestic market, they
resorted to aggressive dumping in the Indian market. The Authority also notes that non - consideration of
COVID -19 pandemi c has not affected the reliability of the project or operations of the domestic industry. The
domestic industry has one input captively sourced, whereas other major input (phenol) is not only available in
significant volumes within the Country, but also th ere are significant imports thus ensuring competitive
pricing. Further, any increase in raw materials and utility price because of Covid 19 or Ukraine Russia conflict
would have been a global phenomenon and not solely impacting the domestic industry. It has not been shown
that such factors, if any, had affected only the petitioner.
H. NON -ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
122. As per the Rules, the Authority, inter -alia, is required to examine any known factors other than the dumped
imports which at the same time are injuring t he domestic industry, so that the injury caused by these other
factors may not be attributed to the dumped imports. The factors which may be relevant in this respect include,
inter-alia, the volume and prices of the imports not sold at dumped prices, contr action in demand or changes in
the patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic
producers, developments in technology and the export performance and the productivity of the domestic
industry. It has been examined below whether factors other than dumped imports could have contributed to the
injury, which has resulted in the material retardation to the establishment of the domestic industry.
a. Volume and price of imports from third countries
123. The Author ity notes that there were significant imports from non -subject sources. However, with dumping
from the subject countries, imports from sources other than the subject countries declined significant in
absolute terms and in relation to consumption in India. Further, these were at de-minimis level in the POI.
SN Particulars POI
A Import volumes
1 Subject countries 9,420
2 Non subject countries 304
B Average import price
3 Subject countries 1,28,423
4 Non subject countries 1,44,836
b. Contraction of dema nd
124. The demand for the subject goods increased over the injury period, with some decline in the POI. It is seen
that the demand increased significantly in 2021 -22 and then declined in POI. However, demand has shown an
increase over the injury period with re spect to the base year. Further, subject imports were still catering to the
majority (***%) of the demand in the POI, despite commencement of production by the petitioner. Further, the
domestic industry holds a capacity of *** MT against established demand of *** MT in the POI.
c. Changes in pattern of consumption
125. There has been no known material change in the pattern of consumption of the product under consideration.
d. Trade restrictive practices and competition between the foreign and domestic producers
126. The im ports of the subject goods are not restricted in any manner and are freely importable in the country.
e. Developments in technology
127. The Authority notes that there has been no known material change in the technology for the production of the
product under cons ideration.
f. Export performance
128. The information provided has been considered only for domestic operations of the domestic industry.
I. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
129. 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 of the PUC has been determined by adopting the
information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the domestic industry. The NIP has been
compared with the landed price of the subject g oods from the subject countries for calculating injury margin.
For determining the NIP, the best quarterly utilization of the raw materials and utilities and best quarterly
utilization of production capacity has been considered. Extraordinary or non -recurr ing expenses and/or assets
have been excluded from the cost of production and/or NIP. A reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on average
capital employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working capital) deployed for the PUC has been
allowed for recovery of interest, corporate tax and profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure III of
the Rules.
130. Based on the landed price and NIP determined as above, the injury margin for producers/exporters as
determined by the Authority is provided in the table below:
SN
Producers/Countries NIP Landed price Injury margin
(INR/MT) (INR/MT) (INR/MT) % (Range %)
1 Singapore *** *** *** *** 10-20
2 Korea
SI Group Korea Ltd *** *** *** *** 10-20
Other producers/exporters *** *** *** *** 20-30
3 USA
SI Group Inc *** *** *** *** 50-60
Other producers/exporters *** *** *** *** 70-90
J. POST DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
J.1 Views of the other interested parties
131. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties:
i. The proposed det ermination with regard to reliability of export price is inappropriate for the reasons give
below.
a. The Authority’s observations and interpretation, that only the Authority can decide whether the NEP
is unreliable, and the exporter cannot claim the same; t he aspect of unreliability will be examined by
the Authority only in the cases where the exporter claims higher export price is incorrect. The Indian
legislature deemed it fit to not restrict the rights of any other interested party from claiming that thei r
export prices are unreliable, instead of making it completely the Authority’s prerogative.
b. It is the practice of the Authority not to rely on the prices between producer/exporter and importer
when they are associated entities unless otherwise proved by the foreign producer/exporter.
c. The law does not state that the prices would be unreliable only when the dumping margin is negative.
d. The claim of unreliability of export price being advanced only after the oral hearing is not correct.
The respondents in i ts submissions dated 25th April 2023 submitted that the prices to related importer
are not reliable and should not be considered for the purpose of export price calculations.
e. Error in the transfer pricing due to technical glitch in the systems was discove red and immediately
Spec ial Valuation Branch (“SVB”) was intimated vide a letter dated 26th September 2023. SVB will
prepare its Investigation Report and share the same with Port Customs Authorities. Subsequently, the
Port Customs Authorities will undertak e the final assessment of the bills of entry and will raise the
demand of additional duties along with the interest as per their understanding. This process generally
takes 6 to 8 months. SI Group has taken the necessary step to correct the transfer pricin g. It is the
custom authorities which will take the necessary steps to conclude this issue.
f. Even if the Authority constructs the export price to affiliate customer based on the pricing to
unaffiliate customer, the dumping margin is positive. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents
have malafide intentions not to show dumping. The question which arises is whether the injury
margin is more than the dumping margin or lower than the dumping margin after adopting the
construction of export price.
g. No prudent exporter will indulge in such practices to avoid the incidence of the anti -dumping duty.
There are heavy penalties and interest demands are raised by the custom authorities for such
practices.
h. By the time the Authority initiates the investigation, any exporter has already exported the PUC to
both related and unrelated customer in India which pertains to the POI. Therefore, the observation of
the Authority that the exporter in general will start misusing the Explanation (b) to Section 9A (1) is
practically not possible.
i. The error in the transfer pricing for the PUC did not occur only in the POI but started 3 years prior
and also impacted 3 other products exported by SI Korea and SI USA.
j. SI Group has even made the provision for the payment of the du ties along with the interest in their
accounting books. SI Group India will pay the demand raised by the customs authorities once the
assessment of BOEs gets finalized.
ii. The Authority must construct the export price for the transactions between affiliated party based on the
price to unaffiliated customers.
iii. The transfer pricing policy of SI Group for PTBP is also based on the comparable uncontrolled pricing
method which is nothing but the price to unaffiliated customer. Had there been no error, the transfer price
would have been the same price to affiliated customer as the price to unaffiliated customer.
iv. The landed price, along with the export price must be constructed in the present situation. It has been
consistent practice of the Authority to adjust the loss on resale by the related importer not only in the
export price but also in the landed price, in spite the fact that there is no provision in the law and the Rules
to adjust the landed value.
v. The market share of the domestic industry has improved to t he extent that in the post POI period, in the
2nd Quarter of Financial Year 2023 -24, their market share had reached to 79% (excluding the internal
transfer within SI Group) and 48% including the internal transfer within SI Group.
vi. The Authority is requeste d to kindly carry out a post POI data examination, especially for the period of
July 2022 to June 2023 to reach a conclusive decision with respect to material retardation.
vii. The productions lines for the 4 butyl phenols can be used interchangeably. This prov es that in case the
demand of other 3 butyl phenols increase, and it is more profitable for Vinati to sell these butyl phenols,
they can shift their focus to their production instead of catering to the demand of PTBP in India. This also
proves that the res pondents’ contention that with the amalgamation of Vinati with VAPL, Vinati will
divert its capacity of butyl phenols to cater to its captive consumption to manufacture further downstream
products if it is more profitable for them in the future leading to demand supply gap.
viii. The Authority has not examined the submissions made by the respondents and other interested parties that
as per Vinati’s annual report for FY 2019 -20, it has been manufacturing PTBP.
ix. The Authority has not provided any examination with r espect to the sanctity of the project report which is
crucial in the present investigation since Vinati may have shown a high profitability in the project report
on an assumption of higher -than-normal selling price realization. As project reports are gener ally prepared
for attracting higher valuations and investments into the company.
x. The Authority has not stated if any adjustments were made to the projected estimates to account for
unforeseen circumstances such as COVID -19 pandemic, extraordinary increase in raw material prices,
Ukraine war scenario etc.
xi. No adjustment has been made by the Authority on account of the volumes of estimated sales of the PUC
in the project report.
xii. Vinati themselves claimed that the impact of the anti -dumping duty, if imposed i s 0- 5% on the end -users.
It is unclear how the Authority has arrived at the conclusion that the impact on end -users will be less than
1%.
xiii. The subject goods are used in various end applications and all applications requires different
specifications and du e to this the price also differs significantly.
xiv. PTBP exported to affiliated company and to unaffiliates are of different specs and therefore prices are
different.
xv. The inability to produce and sales is directly linked to the technological constraint faced b y the domestic
industry, and therefore, making imports responsible for low production and sales is complete
unacceptable proposition.
xvi. Till the time the requested information / analysis is not carried out and fresh non -confidential version of
the disclosure statement is not issued, the whole analysis and purpose of issuance of disclosure statement
become frustrated.
J. 1. Views of the domestic industry
132. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i) The Authority should not reject the pr ice of the export sales to related party. The exporter has not
established how the prices are unreliable and have not even suggested an appropriate alternate
methodology. Instead, the exporter has pleaded ignoring those export transaction.
ii) The export pric e under the rules must be determined for cumulative exports made by the exporter and no
volume can be ignored for the purpose. Ignoring volume of sale to affiliated party in the present case
shall imply adopting negligible export volumes of the company, wh ich can itself be de-minimis in terms
of the total imports into India. This is all the more important in the situation where the company
concerned is the sole exporter of the PUC into India.
iii) NIP determined is too low. The basis of allocation considered fo r allocation of fixed expenses and net
fixed assets have not been disclosed. It transpires that expenses turnover has been considered on the
basis of actual sales volume and sales value and the expenses reported by the domestic industry have
been disregard ed.
iv) It was explained during the course of verification that the DGTR should either consider all data from
actual production & sale, or the DGTR should consider sales volume and sale values from the project
report (after due adjustment for changes necessar y due to raw material prices).
v) The imports have retarded the establishment of the domestic industry.
vi) Imposition of duty is in public interest and the duties does not have an adverse impact on the consumers.
The end customers of both the perfumery and resin industries are mostly consumed by the upper
sections of the society. Even if the miniscule effect of the consumers is to be considered, it only affects a
small section in the Indian economy who has much higher spending.
vii) It is a known fact that SI group im ports the subject goods for captive use and thus the low -priced
imports by SI group was making them extremely and unfairly competitive in the downstream industry
vis-à-vis other downstream producers.
viii) The domestic industry is yet to utilize its production c apacity to the optimum levels. With the imposition
of duties on the subject countries, the domestic industry would be able to achieve its optimum capacity
level and cater to the Indian market better. The importers will be able to switch suppliers in case o f
imposition of duties on the PUC. There are other countries which are producing the subject goods and
are also exporting to India, namely, Taiwan, China and Russia.
ix) The PUC consumption is in both the perfumery and resin segments, where the downstream pro ducers
are facing unfair competition from SI Group India. SI Group India is getting the product at highly
dumped prices. SI Group India is producing both fragrance and resin products and selling them in the
market causing competition to those producers who are sourcing PTBP from either domestic industry, or
other countries or from SI Group at a higher price.
x) Imposition of anti -dumping duty would take away the unfair advantage that was available to SI Group
India and would create fair market conditions not only in the PTBP market but also in the downstream
market.
xi) Having a domestic source of supply is a step towards making India self -reliant and Atma -Nirbhar . It is
very important for the customers to have a stable domestic supply available to maintain a heal thy and
reliant source of supply.
xii) Large section of the perfumery segment is exporting the downstream product, i.e., fragrance/perfume
and these producers are importing subject goods under the advance license.
xiii) There be no monopolist situation for the dom estic industry. The domestic industry is producing and
selling several products where they are the sole producer and anti -dumping duty was in place on imports
of several such products in the country. The non -imposition of duty would make the country solely
dependent on imports which harms the interest of the consumers. Imports are also coming from non -
subject companies who had been supplying significant volumes in the market. Further, anti -dumping
duty does not restrict the imports from subject countries an d merely regulate the imports.
xiv) Duty should be imposed for five years in US dollars. Indian Rupee has depreciated significantly which
has impacted the costs of the raw materials, utilities and other costs.
J.3 Examination by the Authority
133. The Authority ha s examined the post disclosure submissions made by the other interested parties and notes
that much of the comments are reiterations which have already been examined suitably and addressed
adequately in the relevant pages of the findings. Issues raised in the disclosure statement which have already
examined, have not been examined now.
134. As regards the contention that the practice of the Authority is not to rely on the prices between
producer/exporter and importer when they are associated entities , the Author ity notes that the argument
tantamount to a claim that the Authority shall invariably construct export price when the exporter and importer
are affiliated. However, there is no basis for such an interpretation of Section 9A(b).
135. As regards contention that the exporter in its submissions dated 25th April 2023 submitted that the prices to
related importer are not reliable and should not be considered for the purpose of export price calculations , the
Authority notes that even when the exporter made submission on 25th April, 2023, no steps whatsoever were
taken by the exporter and the importer to correct the irregularity till 26th September, 2023.
136. As regards the contention that the Spec ial Valuation Branch (“SVB”) was intimated vide letter dated 26th
September 2 023, the Authority notes that inordinate time has elapsed first between the alleged error and its
reporting to DGTR, and, thereafter, secondly between finalising questionnaire response & submissions before
the DGTR and reporting to SVB. The exporter has no t provided the relevant SVB documents and the
Authority is unaware of the claims made by the importer with regard to the price at which imports should be
assessed. The Authority notes that there were various prices in the investigation period and therefore it cannot
be considered that export price to the unaffiliated customers alone might be considered as appropriate price by
the SVB. The Authority is still unaware of the price that the customs authorities will eventually decide. While
the plausible correct ions to the export price in future may partially address the degree of dumping, in so far as
the question of injury to the domestic industry and injury margin is concerned, the same stands caused by the
exports already made. It was these export prices base d on which the Indian industry for the PUC and the
downstream industry suffered because of exports made by the exporter. Therefore, in any case, it is not
established why the Authority should not consider the prices reported by the producers in their expor ter’s
questionnaire response.
137. The Authority notes that the exporter has admitted that the dumping margin is quite significant even if
determined based on export price to affiliated customers. In so far as injury margin is concerned, in any case,
such inju ry has occurred by the price at which goods were invoiced to the Indian importer. The domestic
industry is not expected to get a better price from its customers, by contending that the prices reported by the
exporters to the importer were unreliable becaus e of affiliations, and same might be corrected after elapse of
such significant time.
138. The statement that t he error in the transfer pricing occur red not only in the POI but started 3 years prior and
also impacted 3 other products exported by SI Korea and SI USA shows that the Indian producers and
consumers of the products concerned and the downstream products have indeed suffered based on these prices
at which goods have been imported during relevant period.
139. As regards the contention that SI Group has even m ade the provision for the payment of the duties along with
the interest in their accounting books, the Authority notes that no such information is on record of the
Authority.
140. As regards the contention that the transfer price would have been the same price to affiliated customer as the
price to unaffiliated customer, the Authority notes that the injury to the domestic industry occurred by the
prices that were reported during the relevant period. Such injury cannot be remedied by such belated
correction of i mport transactions valuations.
141. As regards the argument that post POI data should be examined to determine material retardation, it is noted
that the injury information for the POI itself adequately shows the adverse impact of imports on the domestic
indust ry.
142. As regards the argument that the capacity of 4 butyl phenols can be used interchangeably, the Authority notes
that such interchangeability of production capacities by the applicant cannot be a routine activity . Further, in
any case the present capacit y of the domestic industry in itself is untilised, and is largely sufficient to meet the
demand of the product in the country. The domestic industry can cater to the existing demand. Further, even
assuming that there could be a potential situation of deman d supply gap, it is noted that there are other non -
subject country sources of supply available to the consumers and thus availability of the product will not be a
concern for the consumers. It is also noted that there are review provisions under the rules, which can be
invoked by the interested parties.
143. As regards the submission that Vinati’s annual report for FY 2019 -20 indicates that it had started production
of subject goods much earlier, it is noted from the excerpts of annual report of 2019 -20 that it stated that the
company is focusing on developing new process for production of butyl phenols. Further, annual report of
2020 -21 categorically stated that butyl phenol was introduced in financial year 2021.
144. As regards the argument that price realisations projected could be for higher valuation, the Authority notes
that the price realisations had been projected based on cost of goods, utilisation of capacity etc. Further, it is
also noted that the company has primarily funded the investment in butyl phenol products internally, without
relying on external sources like investors or banks.
145. As regards the argument that volume of sales has not been adjusted, the Authority notes that the projected
sales were based on the utilisation that can be achieved by the do mestic industry. The projected sales are
below the level of demand in the POI. Thus, there was no need for adjusting the projected sales of the
domestic industry. Further, even when demand declined from Q3 POI to Q4 of POI, the market share of
subject coun tries increased. Thus, the domestic industry has not been able to increase its market share despite
sufficient capacity and production.
146. As regards the argument that there are various different specifications of subject goods leading to difference in
cost and price, it is noted that the interested parties have not provided any evidence for the same.
K. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
K. 1. Views of the other interested parties
147. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties:
i) Imposition of anti -dumping duty in the present case would be against public interest. The domestic
industry has already been performing well and has secured a significant market. Therefore, there is no
need of imposition of anti -dumping duty.
ii) Increase in cos ts of PUC cannot be easily passed on to end consumers. The downstream industry is
sensitive to price, and any increase in costs would directly affect the cost of production of downstream
products, potentially leading to market loss and manufacturing diffic ulties.
iii) The imposition of anti -dumping duty would not only increase the cost of user industry but also impact
the end user.
iv) The downstream products are sold at prices that generate low margins. Any increase in costs could result
in loss of market as well a s the ability to continue manufacturing of downstream products.
v) The imposition of anti -dumping duty would create a monopoly for the domestic industry.
vi) The impact of the duty was calculated by the user industry to be around 6-8%
vii) SI Group India’s plant has been boosting employment in India from its inception. The construction and
establishment of the plant provided employment to hundreds of skilled and unskilled labours.
viii) Request the Authority to recommend the imposition of anti -dumping duty for a maximum peri od of 2
years if material retardation is established in the present investigation.
K. 2. Views of the domestic industry
148. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i) The consumers should have demonstrated that the cost increases were not passed on and rather absorbed.
ii) The impact of the anti-dumping duty on the end users is very negligible
iii) PTBCHA is largely exported and thus PTBP procured for PTBCHA is generally procured under
advance license and thus the imposition of duty will not have any impact on such sales. The consumers
of PTBPCHA are big players who can easily absorb any impact of increase in duty. Similarly, PTBP
constitutes significant part of Resin and thus they pass on the impact of increase in cost to downstream
products.
iv) The imposition of anti -dumping duty is to ensure that the imports enter the country at a fair price. There
be no monopolist situation for the domestic industry. The non-imposition of duty would make the country
solely dependent on imports which harms the int erest of the consumers.
v) Any increase in cost of fragrance/perfume is passed on to soaps, shampoos and detergent manufacturers
who are part of FMCG sector and cost of perfumery in their cost is minimal. The impact calculated is
between 0.05% on the perfumer y industry and 3.38% on resin industry.
vi) SI Group sought repeated protection from the Government on phenol, acetone and nonyl phenol. It is
really double standard that is being preached by the company – one as a domestic producer and one as a
consumer.
vii) The Authority should not consider the present case as an exception and should recommend duty for 5
years. The petitioner is facing significant losses and the imports are undercutting the prices of the
domestic industry. A duty levied for a shorter period of time would not be effective in addressing the
material retardation suffered by the domestic industry.
K. 3. Examination by the Authority
149. The Authority issued the initiation notification, inviting views from all interested parties including importers,
users and consumers. A questionnaire was also prescribed to allow various stakeholders, including domestic
industry, the users/ consumers and upstream input suppliers to provide relevant information with regard to the
present investigation, including the possible effect of anti -dumping duty on their operations. It is noted that
only SI Group India Private Limited, Eternis Fine Chemicals Limited, and Polymers and Polysols filed
response to the EIQ. Barring these three, none of the consumers of the PUC have made any submissions. It is
noted in this regard that consumer industry is not a small industry, and the present investigation is deemed to
be within their knowledge.
150. PTBP is used in the perfumery and rein industry. The consumption of PTBP is ***% in the perfumery industry
and ***% in resin industry. The table below shows consumption profile of the PUC in the downstream
industry.
SN Particulars Unit Soaps & detergents Resins
1 Consumption of PTBP MT/MT *** ***
2 Price increase in PTBP Rs/MT *** ***
3 Increase in cost of end product Rs/MT *** ***
4 Price of end product Rs/MT *** ***
5 Impact of anti-dumping duty % <1% <1%
151. The other interested have made submissions which have been examined by the Authority in the following
paragraphs.
152. The Authority notes that the purpose of imposition of anti-dumping duty is to remedy the situation of dumping
causing injury to the Indian industry, and establish a fair level playing field for the domestic industry. The
Rules provide that amount of duty levied is restricted to wha t is necessary to redress the injury to the domestic
industry and prevent the impact of unfair imports on the performance of the domestic industry. The application
of lesser duty rule makes thus ensures that the remedy to the Indian industry is limited.
153. Some of the interested parties have claimed that imposition of anti -dumping duty would lead to establishment
of the petitioner’s monopoly. The Authority notes that the petitioner has begun commercial production in July
2020 and before this period, India’s demand with respect to the PUC was being fulfilled through imports.
Whereas about ***% of the demand for the product was being met by non -subject imports during the base
year, the domestic industry presently occupies merely ***% of the market share and the r est is being catered
by imports.
154. Imposition of anti -dumping duty will not restrict the imports of the PUC and would only ensure that they
would enter into the Indian territory at fair price. The antidumping duty is meant to only prevent dumped
imports and provide remedy to the domestic industry whose growth has been materially retarded. A substantial
share of the market would still be catered by such imports.
155. The Authority notes that trade remedial measures are intended to restore equal competitive opportun ities in the
domestic market by ensuring level playing field to domestic producers through imposition of appropriate
duties against unfair imports of the subject goods. At the same time, the Authority is cognizant of the fact that
the impact of such duties , in general, are not limited to only the domestic producers of the PUC but can also
affect the users as well as consumers of the PUC. Further, imposition of duties may also lead to competition
issues within the country and the Authority takes note of the same.
156. The Authority notes that the impact of duties on the end -users and consumers of the like product in India shall
be minimal. The downstream industry which uses the subject goods are:
a. PTBCHA which is used by the perfumery industry to produce fragrance.
b. Resin which is used in the coating/ink/adhesive industry.
157. It is noted that the subject goods as such have no direct application/use and they are transformed to have an
application. The eventual end -product of PTBP in the perfumery industry is in soaps, de tergent, and shampoo.
158. PTBP is used in the production of PTBCHA (4 -tert-Butyl Cyclohexyl Acetate). The petitioner has claimed
that the approximate consumption of PTBP is PTBCHA is around 78%. The only use of PTBCHA is in
perfumery industry. The petitioner a lso submits that PTBCHA is largely exported and thus PTBP procured for
PTBCHA is generally procured under advance license and thus the imposition of duty will not have any impact
on such sales. The same has not been disputed by the other parties.
159. The Autho rity notes that the producers of PTBCHA pass on the changes in cost to their customer, i.e., producers
of the next product, i.e., fragrance/perfume, which is used by soaps, shampoos and detergent manufacturers
who are part of FMCG sector. However, the prod uct is not used in all kinds of soaps, shampoos and detergent
manufacturing. The product is used only in premium or high -end segment of soaps, shampoos and detergent
manufacturing. Further, the FMCG sector in India has been registering healthy growth. The calculations
provided by the domestic industry (other interested parties have not quantified impact of the proposed
measures on the eventual end product) shows that cost on account PTBCHA constitutes hardly ***% of the
cost of production of soaps, shampoos and detergent. Thus, even if the price of PTBP and consequently
PTBCHA increase by the quantum of anti -dumping duty (i.e., ***%), the same shall imply an increase in the
cost of production of soaps, shampoos and detergent by an amount in the region of *** %. Thus, imposition of
measures will not impact the cost of production of eventual end product and therefore would not adversely
impact relative competitiveness of the eventual end product.
160. In case of the resin industry, the petitioner claimed and the Auth ority notes that the approximate consumption
of PTBP in resin is around ***%. The consumption of resin is in production of Coating, ink and adhesive.
PTBP resin consumption in Coating, ink and adhesive is very minimal. Thus, there shall be no adverse impac t
of increase in cost of resin on these end products.
161. It is also been submitted by the domestic industry that a large section of the perfumery segment is exporting
the downstream product, and these producers are importing subject goods under the advance li cense. The
imports for export purposes in anyway will not attract anti -dumping duty.
162. The applicant is the sole and new producer of subject goods. Consumers were reliant only on imports prior to
the establishment of production capacities by the applicant. Having a domestic source of supply would make
the country self -reliant will give the customers a healthy and reliant source of supply.
L. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
163. Based on the submissions made, substantiated information provided by the interested partie s and the facts
available before the Authority as recorded and examined in the aforementioned paragraphs and on the basis of
determination of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry in the form of material retardation of
the establishment of the domestic industry, the Authority concludes the following:
i) The product under consideration is “Para -Tertiary Butyl Phenol” or “PTBP.” PTBP is also known as 4
tert butylphenol/ p tert butylphenol/ PTBP Chemical / para tert butyl phenol
ii) The applicant s tarted commercial production of the subject goods in July 2020. The subject goods are a
new product in the country in so far as its production in India is concerned.
iii) The subject goods exported from the subject countries and the article manufactured by the domestic
industry are ‘like article’ to each other in terms of Rule 2 (d) of the AD Rules, 1995.
iv) The petitioner is the sole producer of the product and accounts for 100% of the Indian production. The
petitioner satisfies the requirements stipulated under R ule 2 (b) of the AD Rules, 1995 and the petition
satisfies the standing requirements under Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules, 1995.
v) The present case is of material retardation to the domestic industry. The domestic industry is the sole
producer of the PUC and star ted production in July 2020. The capacity utilization has been in the range
of 25 -35%. There is no major overlap between the earlier established plant and the new plant. The
domestic industry is still in nascent stage and is in the process of establishing itself.
vi) The dumping margin of the subject goods from the subject countries and by responding
producers/exporters is positive and significant.
vii) The volume of imports from subject countries increased till 2021 – 22 and declined in the POI following
the moveme nt of demand. Imports increased despite commencement of production by the domestic
industry. The market share of the domestic industry during the POI has increased, but t he domestic
industry has captured the market share that was vacated by non -subject cou ntry imports.
viii) The landed price of imports is below the level of selling price of the domestic industry and is
undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. Further, the selling price is even below the normated
level of cost of sales throughout the inju ry period. The increase in the landed price of imports was much
lower than the increase in the cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry. The imports were
thus suppressing the prices of the domestic industry in the market.
ix) As regards the eff ect of such dumped on the economic parameters of the domestic industry, the
following conclusions were reached:
a. The performance of the domestic industry in terms of production, installed capacity, sales volumes
has improved during the POI as compared to th e base year, however, remains significantly below
the levels projected.
b. The petitioner is suffering significant financial losses in its profit/loss, PBIT, and ROI. Even when
the domestic sales increased over the injury period, the losses suffered by the do mestic industry
also increased over the period.
c. The average inventories of the applicant have increased during the POI as compared to the base
year.
d. The salary and wages, productivity per day, and productivity per employee has improved during
the POI as co mpared to the base year.
e. A comparison of the actual performance as against the projected performance of the domestic
industry shows that its actual production and profits have fallen short during the POI.
x) The domestic has suffered injury as a result of t he dumped imports. The injury margin is significant.
xi) The Authority has examined the submissions made by other parties on any other factors which could
have caused injury to the domestic industry. No other factor appears to have caused injury to the
domest ic industry. The Authority concludes that the injury in the form of material retardation to the
establishment of the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the subject
countries.
xii) The antidumping duty is in the public interest. Establi shment of the domestic industry will make the
country self -reliant and will give an alternate domestic supply to the consumers. The Authority has
quantified the impact of anti -dumping duty on the users. It is seen that the impact of the measures will
be <1 % considering the nature of the PUC being consumed. The Authority has additionally examined
the impact on the eventual downstream product, and it is seen that even if the user industry passes on the
cost of anti -dumping duty, the impact on the eventual end consumers will be insignificant. None of the
user industry has participating, indicating the user industry is not impacted. The imposition of anti -
dumping duty would not have any significant adverse impact on public interest.
164. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate
opportunity was given to the domestic industry, Embassies of the subject countries, exporters, importers and
other interested parties to provide positive information on the asp ect of dumping, injury and causal link.
Having initiated and conducted an investigation into dumping, injury and causal link in terms of Rules and
having established positive dumping margin as well material retardation to the establishment of the domestic
industry caused by such imports, the Authority is of the view that imposition of antidumping duty is
necessary.
165. Having regards to the lesser duty rule followed, the Authority recommends imposition of anti -dumping duty
equal to the lesser of the margin of dumping and the margin of injury so as to remove the injury to the
domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority recommends imposition of the anti -dumping duty on the imports
of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries, for a period of 5 years, from the date of
notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, equal to the amount mentioned in Column
7 of the duty table appended below.
Duty Table
Sl.
No. Heading Description Country of
Origin Country of
Export Producer Amount Unit Currency
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
29071940 Para-Tertiary
Butyl Phenol
(PTBP) Korea RP Any country,
including
Korea RP SI Group -
Korea Ltd. 208
MT USD
-do- -do- Korea RP Any country
including
Korea RP Any
producer
other than
(1) 357
-do- -do-
-do- -do- Any country
other than
Korea RP,
USA and
Singapore Korea RP Any 357
-do- -do-
-do- -do- USA Any country
including
USA SI Group
Inc. 790
-do- -do-
5.
-do- -do- USA Any country
including
USA Any
producer
other than
(4) 881
-do- -do-
6.
-do- -do- Any country
other than
Korea RP,
USA and
Singapore USA Any 881 -do- -do-
7.
-do- -do- Singapore Any country
including
Singapore Any 349
-do- -do-
8.
-do- -do- Any country
other than
Korea RP,
USA and
Singapore Singapore Any
-do- -do-
M. FURTHER PROCEDURE
166. An appeal against the determination of the Designated Authority in this fi nal 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 Government of India Press, Ring Road, May apuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text