The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) received an application from Nirma Limited and Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited (hereinafter

REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India EXTRAORDINARY PART I-Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 92] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2025/ CHAITRA 5, 1947 F. No. 6/05/2024-DGTR MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce) (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES) FINAL FINDINGS New Delhi, the 26th March, 2025 CASE NO- AD (OI)-05/2024 Subject: Final findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Linear Alkyl Benzene” (LAB) originating in or exported from Iran and Qatar. F. No. 6/05/2024-DGTR A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 1. The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) received an application from Nirma Limited and Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the “applicants" or the "domestic industry") in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “AD Rules" or the "Rules”) requesting initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Linear Alkyl Benzene”(LAB), (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject goods", "LAB" or the "product under consideration") originating in or exported from Iran and Qatar (hereinafter also referred to as the "subject countries"). 2. And whereas, based on a duly substantiated application filed with sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping and injury due to imports from subject countries filed by the applicants, the Authority issued a public notice vide notification No 6/05/2024-DGTR dated 29th March 2024, published in Part-I Section-I of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating the subject investigation in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read 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 to the domestic industry. B. PROCEDURE 3. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the subject investigation: a. The Authority notified the Embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of present application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the AD Rules. b. The Authority issued a notification vide No 6/05/2024-DGTR dated 29th March, 2024 published in the in the Part-I Section-I of Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating an anti- dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. с. In accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules, the Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the Embassies of the subject countries in India, the known producers and exporters from the subject countries, known importers / users in India as well as other interested parties, as per the addresses made available by the applicants. The interested parties were asked to provide relevant information in the form and manner prescribed in the initiation notification and make their submissions known in writing within the time limit prescribed in the initiation notification. d. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application filed by the applicant to the known producers/exporters, known importers/users and to the embassies of the subject countries in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules. e. The embassies of the subject countries in India were sent a copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the producers/exporters with the request to advise the exporters/producers from their country to submit their responses to the questionnaire within the time limit prescribed by the initiation notification. f. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the issues of confidentiality claimed by the domestic industry within 7 days of the circulation of the non- confidential version of the document filed before the Authority. g. The Authority also issued an economic interest questionnaire (hereafter referred to as “EIQ") to the interested parties seeking inputs on the economic impact of the proposed duties. h. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in the subject countries to elicit relevant information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules: i. Iran Chemical Industries Investment Co. ii. Qatar Chemical and Petrochemical Marketing and Distribution Company (Muntajat) Q.P.J.S.C. i. In response to the initiation notification, the following producers/exporters of the product under consideration from subject countries have registered as an interested party and filed questionnaire responses. i. Qatar Chemical and Petrochemical Marketing and Distribution Company (Muntajat) Q.P.J.S.C ii. SEEF Limited, Qatar iii. Iran Chemical Industries Investment Co. iv. Alkyne Trading LLC v. Cluster Trading LLC vi. Erbium Trading LLC vii. Safe Chemical FZE viii. Bisotun Petrochemical Company j. Bisotun Petrochemical Company, a producer from Iran, filed a letter clarifying that they did not export to India during the period of investigation. k. The Authority sent questionnaire to the following known importers / users of the subject goods in India in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules. i. A.R. Stanchem Pvt. Ltd. ii. A.R. Sulphonates Private Limited iii. Abdos Consumer Care Limited iv. Advance Surfactants India Limited V. Anand Chemicals vi. Barkur Surfactants Pvt. Ltd. vii. Bharathi Soap Works viii. Bhaskar Venkatesh Products Pvt. Ltd. ix. Cymose Products Χ. Devi Cropscience Pvt. Ltd. x1. Fashion Suiting (P) Limited xii. Fena Private Limited xiii. Flora Laboratories xiv. Gora Mal Hari Ram Ltd. XV. Hipolin Limited xvi. Hi-Tech India xvii. ISRO Products xviii. Kishore Sons Detergents Pvt. Ltd. xix. Lingam Chemical Industries XX. Man Chemicals xxi. Muthukani Industries xxii. National Soaps Company xxiii. New India Detergents Limited xxiv. Orchid Chemicals XXV. Power Soaps Ltd. xxvi. Prabu Soap Works xxvii. Raceme Products xxviii. Raja Chemical Works xxix. Rajaram Group of Industries XXX. Reino Industrial Organics Pvt. Ltd. xxxi. Sabari Detergents xxxii. Saci Chem xxxiii. Sakthi Traders xxxiv. Shanti Nath Detergents (P) Limited XXXV. Shree Unicon Organics Private Limited xxxvi. Shree Pushpam Industries xxxvii. Shiva Soap Works xxxviii. Shriram Bharat Chemicals & Detergents (P) Ltd. xxxix. Shunmuga Industries xl. Skill Dyechem xli. Sree Manakula Vinayaga Chemicals xlii. Standards Surfactants Ltd. xliii. Silver Chemicals xliv. S. Kumars Detergents Pvt. Ltd. xlv. S.S Enterprises xlvi. Vardaan Detergent Private Limited 1. The following importers/users have registered themselves as interested parties: i. Sai Fertilizers & Phosphates Pvt. Ltd. ii. A.R. Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. iii. Laxmi Agro Industrial Consultants & Exporters Ltd. iv. KLJ Resources Limited m. The following importers/users have submitted questionnaire responses to the Authority: i. Sai Fertilizers & Phosphates Pvt. Ltd. ii. A.R. Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. iii. Laxmi Agro Industrial Consultants & Exporters Ltd. iv. KLJ Resources Limited n. The following users/importers associations have registered themselves as interested parties: i. All India Federation of Soaps, Detergents and Homecare Products' Manufacturers (“AIFSDHPM") ii. Bengal Soaps & Detergents Manufacturers Welfare Association 0. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st October 2022 to 30th September 2023 (12 months). The injury investigation period covers the periods 1st April 2020 – 31st March 2021, 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022, 1st April 2022 – 31st March 2023 and the period of investigation. p. The DG System & DGCI&S were requested to provide transaction-wise details of the imports of the subject goods for the injury investigation period. The same were received by the Authority and considered at the stage of initiation of the investigation as well as for the final findings. q. Interested parties were provided 15 days' time from the date of circulation of intimation letters, to file their comments on the scope of product under consideration (PUC) and product control numbers (PCN) methodology. No comments or submissions were received from interested parties on the scope of PUC and PCN methodology. Therefore, the Authority vide notification having No 6/05/2024-DGTR dated 3rd June, 2024 notified the scope of PUC and also notified that no PCN methodology was adopted. r. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present their views orally regarding the subject investigation in a public hearing held on 12th November, 2024. The interested parties who presented their views in the oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. The interested parties were further directed to share the non- confidential version of the written submissions with the other interested parties. S. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the "NIP") has been determined based on the cost of production and reasonable return on capital employed for the subject goods in India, based on the records maintained by the domestic industry on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules, 1995 so as to ascertain whether anti-dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry. t. The information submitted by the domestic industry has been examined and verified during on site-verification to the extent deemed necessary and has been relied upon for the present findings. u. The examination and verification of the information submitted by the cooperating producers/exporters from the subject countries was also carried out to the extent deemed necessary and have been relied upon for the purpose of the present findings. v. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested parties on mutual basis in the manner prescribed through Trade Notice no. 01/2020 dated 10th April, 2020. The information/submissions provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis were examined concerning the sufficiency of such confidentiality claims. w. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the interested parties at this stage, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation. Χ. Wherever an interested party has refused access to, or has otherwise not provided necessary information during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the views/observations on the basis of the facts available. y. In accordance with Rule 16 of Rules Supra, the essential facts of the investigation were disclosed to the known interested parties vide disclosure statement dated 13th March, 2025 and comments received thereon, considered relevant by the Authority, have been addressed in these final findings. z.'***' in this disclosure statement represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules. aa. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = Rs. 83.21. C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE 4. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration was defined as- “3. The product under consideration in the present petition is “linear alkyl benzene”. It is commonly known as linear alkyl benzene or LAB in the commercial parlance. The product under consideration includes mixed alkyl benzenes, and specifically excludes mixed alkyl naphthalenes. 4. LAB is an organic compound with the formula C6H5CnH2n+1. Typically, 'n' ranges between 10 and 16. It is a colourless and doorless liquid, and is slightly soluble in water. It is considered to be a flammable chemical product. Commercially available LAB is a mixture of substances composed of a benzene ring attached to a single chain of carbon atoms. As such, various isomers are possible since the benzene ring may be positioned at all carbons of the alkyl chain except the terminal carbon." C.1. Submissions by other interested parties 5. The other interested parties did not submit any comments on the scope of the product and PCN methodology. However, the other interested parties argued that the product imported from Iran was a different commodity as it had high molecular weight and was inferior in quality in comparison with the quality standards laid down by the Government of India. C.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 6. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the product under consideration and like article: i. There are no known differences in the product produced by the domestic industry and the product imported from the subject countries. ii. Contrary to claims of other interested parties, Tamilnadu Petroproducts and Indian Oil Corporation Limited produce LAB of high molecular weight. iii. The product produced by Indian producers is technically and commercially interchangeable with the imported product and no evidence was submitted by the interested parties to show that there is a difference between the products. iv. No PCN methodology is required in the facts of the present case. C.3. Examination by the Authority 7. The Authority has examined the comments made by interested parties as above. It is noted that the opportunity to make comments on the scope of product under consideration and PCN methodology was provided to all interested parties through notice of initiation. None of the interested parties commented on the scope of the product under consideration and PCN methodology. Accordingly, the Authority has considered the same scope of the product under consideration, as defined in the notice of initiation. The product under consideration is defined as follows: “3. The product under consideration in the present petition is “linear alkyl benzene”. It is commonly known as linear alkyl benzene or LAB in the commercial parlance. The product under consideration includes mixed alkyl benzenes, and specifically excludes mixed alkyl naphthalenes. 4. LAB is an organic compound with the formula C6H5CnH2n+1. Typically, ‘n' ranges between 10 and 16. It is a colourless and odorless liquid, and is slightly soluble in water. It is considered to be a flammable chemical product. Commercially available LAB is a mixture of substances composed of a benzene ring attached to a single chain of carbon atoms. As such, various isomers are possible since the benzene ring may be positioned at all carbons of the alkyl chain except the terminal carbon.” 8. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 38 of Schedule I to the Customs Tariff Act, under the dedicated tariff code 3817 00 11. Accordingly, the Authority has considered the above-mentioned tariff code for the purpose of the present investigation. The customs classification is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of product under consideration. 9. The interested parties were advised to file comments on PCN methodology within 15 days of circulation of non-confidential version of documents filed. The interested parties agreed that there was no need for adoption of a PCN methodology, and accordingly, the Authority has not considered a PCN methodology in the present investigation. 10. Some of the other interested parties have contended that the product imported from Iran does not meet the quality standards of the Government of India, due to their high molecular weight. On the other hand, the domestic industry contended that TNPL and Indian Oil Corporation Limited produce LAB of high molecular weight. The Authority notes that the interested parties in their comments to scope of PUC and PCN methodology made no submission regarding the need for product differentiation based on molecular weight. Based on the same, the Authority had concluded that there was no need for a PCN methodology. It is only at the oral hearing stage that the interested parties have alleged that there are different grades of the product, based on molecular weight. The domestic industry in their submission, has clarified that the domestic producers have also produced LAB with a high molecular weight. The matter has been examined, and it is noted that the foreign producers have not demonstrated that the product with high molecular weight does not have comparable characteristics with the domestically produced product. The domestic industry has also submitted that the imported and domestic product is consumed for the same use and are technically & commercially interchangeable and were interchanged, which has not been disputed by the foreign producers. In view of the foregoing, the Authority does not find merit in the contention that the product imported from Iran is not comparable to that supplied by the domestic industry. 11. On the basis of the information on record, the Authority holds that there is no known difference in the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject countries. The Authority notes that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers use the two interchangeably. The other interested parties have also not disputed that the goods produced by the domestic industry are comparable to the imported goods. In view of the same, the Authority concludes that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from the subject countries. D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING D.1. Submissions by other interested parties 12. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to the scope of domestic industry and standing: i. The two major producers of the subject goods i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Reliance Industries Limited have not neither supported nor participated in the subject investigation, despite having provided data in previous investigations. ii. The applicants do not constitute major proportion of the Indian industry as they do not account for more than 50% of the total Indian production. iii. The production of the applicants is very low, with Nirma using a significant share of its capacity for captive consumption. The Manual of Operating Practices for Trade Remedial Investigations acknowledges that information should be sought from non-participating producers, especially where any major producer has not furnished detailed information. iv. Reliance India Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited have nationwide production and sales, and thus provide better case studies of direct competition with subject imports. V. Non-inclusion of such producers in the injury analysis would skew the analysis in the present investigation. vi. In previous cases such as PVC Suspension Resin and Plain Medium Density Fibre Board, the Authority sought data from major producers for examination. The same approach should be adopted in the present case as well. vii. Reliance by the domestic industry on various past findings of the Authority with regards to the non-participation of other major producers is misplaced. D.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 13. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the scope of domestic industry and standing: i. The application has been filed by Nirma Limited and Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited. There are two other domestic producers of the subject goods i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Reliance Industries Limited that has not opposed the subject investigation. ii. The applicants are not related to any exporter of the subject goods in the subject countries or importers of the dumped goods in India. iii. The production quantity of the applicants is higher than the individual capacity of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Reliance Industries Limited. iv. The applicants account for a major proportion of the total Indian production and hence constitute 'domestic industry' under Rule 2(b) of the Rules. v. Reliance was placed on several investigations particularly Lubrizol (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Designated Authority [2005 (187) E.L.T. 402 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein CESTAT held that it is not necessary that the production by the applicant must exceed 50% of the total Indian production. The applicants accounting for 31% of the Indian production also constitutes major proportion within the meaning of Rule 2(b). vi. Rule 2(b) does not require whole of the Indian industry to be applicants before the Authority. The applicants cannot compel any specific producer to participate in an investigation. There may be more than one major proportions, but the applicants must constitute one of them, as held by WTO in Argentina – Poultry and followed by the Authority in various cases. Such requirement is satisfied in present case. vii. The Authority, in a number of investigations, has determined that applicants constituting 30- 35% of the total Indian production are eligible to constitute domestic industry. viii. The financial performance of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Reliance Industries Limited and their participation in the previous investigations is not relevant in the subject investigation since the Authority is only required to examine injury caused to the domestic industry by analysing the information provided by the domestic industry and is not obligated to examine the performance of every domestic producer in the country. D.3. Examination by the Authority 14. Rule 2(b) of the 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 article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry' may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers”. 15. The application has been filed by Nirma Limited and Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited. The applicants have not imported the product under consideration and are not related to any exporter or importer of subject goods in India. In view of the same, the Authority finds that it is eligible to constitute domestic industry under the provisions of Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. There are two other producers of the subject goods namely, Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Reliance Industries Limited. The production of each producer of the subject goods is as below. +--------------------------+------------+---------------------+ | Party | Production | Share in production | +==========================+============+=====================+ | Applicants | *** | 43% | +--------------------------+------------+---------------------+ | Other domestic producers | *** | 57% | +--------------------------+------------+---------------------+ | Total | *** | 100% | +--------------------------+------------+---------------------+ 16. The interested parties have emphasized that information must be sought from other domestic producers not participating in the investigation. In this regard, the Authority notes that the applicants constitute a major proportion of the total Indian production. The share of the applicants in Indian production is more than 40% (43%), which is significantly high. There is no legal requirement that the applicants must constitute at least 50% of the total Indian production. As noted by the Panel in Argentina -Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil, “the reference to a major proportion suggests that there may be more than one “major proportion" for the purpose of defining "domestic industry""". It is also noted that the Authority is only required to examine whether the applicants meet the requirements of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules. The Authority or the domestic industry cannot compel a party to participate in the investigation. 17. Further, the WTO Panel Report, in EC - Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India, observed that the information related the domestic producers that are outside the scope of the domestic industry is not relevant to evaluate the economic factors having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry. “6.182 However, our conclusion with respect to the second aspect of India's claim is different. As we have noted, the determination of injury has to be reached for the domestic industry as defined by the investigating authorities, in this case the 35 producers comprising the "Community industry" as defined by the European Communities. In our view, information concerning companies that are not within the domestic industry is irrelevant to the evaluation of the "relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry" required under Article 3.4. This is true even though those companies may presently produce, or may have in the past produced, the like product, bed linen. Information concerning the Article 3.4 factors for companies outside the domestic industry provides no basis for conclusions about the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry itself. If other present or former bed linen producers had been considered part of the domestic industry, the fact that some of them went out of business would be relevant to the evaluation of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry. But given that the European Communities defined the domestic industry as 35 producers of bed linen, information concerning other companies does not inform the evaluation of "factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry" under Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, and thus cannot serve as the basis of findings regarding the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry.” 18. The Authority notes that even if Reliance Industries Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited are not the applicants, it does not preclude the Authority from examining whether the applicants before it, which constitute a major proportion, have suffered injury. 19. In view of the above, the Authority concludes that the applicants constitute domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the Rules. Further, it is held that the application satisfies the requirements of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. E. CONFIDENTIALITY E.1. Submissions by other interested parties 20. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regards to confidentiality: i. The domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality regarding write-up of production process, volume and value of production of other Indian producers. ii. The domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality regarding interest and finance cost and total PBIT, and adjustments made to calculate net export price. iii. The applicants have failed to show good cause for such confidentiality claimed. E.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 21. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regards to confidentiality: i. The other interested parties have claimed complete confidentiality regarding all adjustments for normal value and export price comparability. ii. The producers / exporters have violated Trade Notice 10/2018 by claiming confidentiality regarding broad stage-wise production process and names of related parties engaged in production and sale of product under consideration. iii. The information available in the public domain has also been claimed confidential. The producer, SEEF has claimed confidentiality regarding purchase of raw material from related parties, even though the same is available in public domain in Annual Report 2018 of then Qatar Petroleum (holding company of SEEF). iv. The other interested parties have filed their comments on confidentiality, more than two months after the expiry of the deadline, making their submissions time-barred. v. The domestic industry has justified the confidentiality claimed by it. vi. Contrary to claim of parties, write-up on production process has been provided in the application. vii. The actual information of other domestic producers cannot be disclosed, since there are only two other producers. The domestic industry has provided details of total Indian production. viii. The interest cost and PBIT per unit has been provided as indexed information. ix. The applicants were not authorised to disclose the evidence with regard to adjustments made to calculate net export price, as it was procured from third parties. E.3. Examination by the Authority 22. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by various parties to all the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7) of the Rules. 23. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of Anti-dumping Rules provide as follows: “Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7)of rule 6, sub-rule(2) of rule12,sub-rule(4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such information. (2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the requeqst for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorise its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.” 24. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, the parties provided information on a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non confidential versions of the information filed on a confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all interested parties have claimed their business- related sensitive information as confidential. F. MISCELLANEOUS F.1. Submissions by other interested parties 25. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties: i. The quality of Iranian imports is not approved by the Government of India as Iranian producers did not have BIS license during the POI, resulting into no imports from Iran during the end of POI. Thereafter, only 7 manufacturers including Qatar and Iran certified by the BIS. ii. In previous investigation into the same product, the Authority had noted that the injury margin for Saudi Arabia was negative at the stage of initiation itself, and thus, excluded Saudi Arabia. However, no such determination made at the stage of initiation in the present case. F.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 26. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry. i. The producers from both the subject countries have received BIS licenses with respect to LAB. Iranian producers have also received BIS license after period of investigation. ii. Since LAB is not sold at retail level, All India Federation of Soaps, Detergents and Homecare Products' Manufacturers do not have any standing to participate in the investigation as per Rule 6(5). iii. As held by CESTAT in ATMA v. Designated Authority, any association willing to participate as an interested party must establish its credentials by submitting necessary documents as per Trade Notice F. No. 14/44/2016-DGAD. The participating User's association has failed to submit the required documents. iv. Since the domestic industry did not request inclusion of Saudi Arabia or Thailand as subject countries, there is not requirement to record an observation with regards to inclusion or exclusion of such countries. F.3. Examination by the Authority 27. Regarding the claim of the domestic industry, regarding participation of users; the Authority notes that the members of the associations are users of the product under consideration. Therefore, the Authority has considered the submissions made by them. 28. With regards to the claim of the other interested parties the Authority did not make a determination regarding the injury margin for Saudi Arabia at the stage of initiation as done in the previous case, it is noted that in the previous investigation, the domestic industry had filed an application against imports from Iran, Qatar, China and Saudi Arabia. Since the Authority observed that the injury margin for imports from Saudi Arabia was negative, the Authority decided to not initiate the investigation against such imports and made an observation to that effect in the initiation notification. However, in the present case, the domestic industry has not filed an application with respect to imports from Saudi Arabia. Further, there were no allegations of dumping and injurious imports from countries other than subject countries. Accordingly, there is no requirement to determine and make an observation with respect to the injury margin from Saudi Arabia. G. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DETERMINATION OF DUMPING MARGIN G.1. Submissions by other interested parties 29. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to the normal value, export price and dumping margin: i. The applicants did not provide details of their efforts to determine domestic sales prices, prices of exports to third countries and cost of production in the subject countries for determination of normal value. ii. The domestic sales in Qatar are more than 5% of exports to India, in ordinary course of trade and thus, ought to be considered to determine normal value. iii. The subject goods originating in Iran have been considered as originating in UAE in the DG System data. Such imports should be considered to be of Iranian origin, as evident from the documentation provided. iv. In light of the decision of the Appellate Body in EU – Biodiesel and Ukraine – Ammonium Nitrate, the applicants defaulted in calculating the normal value on the basis of the cost of production of the applicants instead of the country of origin, Iran. v. Calculating normal value based on cost of production of the applicants is inappropriate as the applicants do not have vertical integration and thus, incur high costs. vi. The normal value for Iran can be calculated based on domestic sales provided in the responses. vii. The domestic industry has failed to provide any evidence to show that purchase of inputs by SEEF from its affiliates was not at arm's length. viii. As already demonstrated in the response, the exporters have purchased inputs from affiliates at arm's length prices, in line with internationally published prices. Such prices cannot be disregarded. ix. The argument of particular market situation is belated, having been made at an advanced stage of the investigation. Allowing such an argument at this stage would be contrary to principles of natural justice. Further, no evidence has been provided of such particular market situation. Χ. The applicants have not explained how mere existence of government ownership or supply of feedstock by government owned supplier would lead to particular market situation, or how such particular market situation would prevent proper comparison, as required by the Panel Report in Australia-Copy Paper. xi. The evidence of adjustments made to calculate net export price has not been provided. xii. The applicants failed to substantiate their claim that the exporters from subject countries are engaged in post-invoicing discount. xiii. Contrary to the claims of the domestic industry, Muntajat India is not involved in the sales channel for the product under consideration. xiv. Dumping and injury margin should be based on the information filed by the cooperating producers. xv. The applicants have claimed dumping and injury margin on quarterly basis, they have not provided data with regard to cost and price for determination of non-injurious price on quarterly basis. xvi. There is no prescribed format for furnishing response by a producer with no exports. The observation that Bisotun Petrochemical has not exported to India directly or indirectly in the period of investigation, should be recorded in the finding. xx. Iranian exporters are taking contrary stand before different government authorities, having declared goods of Iranian origin as goods originating in UAE, which affects the reliability of the information submitted. xxi. There is a need to verify the export prices of the responding exporters with respect to post invoice discounts. In this regard, the sales documents of the exporters must be verified. xxii. The Authority is not required to record the name of each exporter that has not exported the subject goods. The exporter may file a new shipper review at a later stage. G.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 30. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the normal value, export price and dumping margin: i. Dumping and injury margin should be determined on a quarterly basis, owing to significant fluctuations in the raw material prices as well as import prices and volumes, as per the Authority's practice in the past. ii. The weighted average export price will be significantly different from the actual prices prevailing in the market due to significant changes in subject import prices over the period of investigation. iii. The domestic industry has provided its information on a quarterly basis and the dumping and injury margin provided in the petition were also on a quarterly basis. iv. The Authority has undertaken quarterly or monthly analysis in numerous investigations due to significant price fluctuations in prices and costs during the period of investigation. v. There is no legal requirement for comparison of imports only on the basis of averages, and considering the market dynamics, comparison can be quarterly or monthly. vi. The Authority may verify the information submitted by the exporters, and if found accurate, the same may be used for determination of dumping margin for the exporters. vii. For initiation of investigation, the applicants are only required to give information for prima facie satisfaction of the Authority, as held by the CESTAT in ATMA v. DA. Thus, the applicants submitted the best available information for calculation of dumping margin. viii. Comparison of weighted average export price and normal value as well as weighted average landed price with non-injurious price for the period of investigation, would not result in a fair comparison as per Article 2.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. ix. There exists a particular market situation in the subject countries with respect to the prices of LAB and the prices of the raw materials. Χ. There is a significant presence of state-owned or state-controlled suppliers of LAB and its feedstock in the Qatar market, which has distorted the prices of LAB and the feedstock in the market. xi. The sole responding producer of LAB from Qatar is owned and controlled by Qatar Energy, a state-owned public corporation. Further, such producer has procured feedstock from Qatar Energy, indicating the presence of government in the market. xii. The responding producers from subject countries have also procured major inputs from their affiliated parties and thus, unless the producers can establish that the purchases were at arm's length, the cost of production of such producers must be adjusted based on the market prices of such inputs. xiii. There is a need to examine the role of Muntajat India Limited, an affiliate entity of SEEF and Muntajat located in India. In case the entity is involved in the sales or marketing of LAB, the export price must be adjusted with respect to such activities. xiv. The responding producer and exporter from Qatar have claimed excessive confidentiality with respect to related parties engaged in production or sale of LAB, production process, adjustments claimed for normal value and export price and information related to purchase of major raw materials. xv. The volume of sales within Qatar does not form the basis of claim of particular market situation by the domestic industry. xvi. Distortion in input prices due to government price regulation leads to distortion in cost of production and domestic price but does not impact export prices which are in competition with global producers. Thus, the distortion in input prices prevents proper comparison of domestic and export price. xvii. Contrary to the argument of other interested parties, the Authority can consider out-of-country prices for determination of cost of production, after reasonably adjusting the same to represent the cost of production in the country, as observed by the WTO Appellate Body in EU- Biodiesel. xviii. The claim for particular market situation in Iran is not solely based on low domestic sales, but on factors affecting prices and price of inputs. xix. The law does not prescribe any deadline for alleging the existence of particular market situation. In any case, the domestic industry raises allegations during the hearing, giving an opportunity to all interested parties to submit their responses. G.3. Examination by the Authority 31. As per Section 9A(1)(c) of the Act, the normal value in relation to an article means: (i) the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when destined for 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 to an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or (b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub- section (6): Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transshipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin. 32. The domestic industry has claimed that there exists a particular market situation in Qatar and Iran with respect to the product under consideration. It has been claimed that the suppliers of LAB in both countries are owned and / or controlled by the government, directly or indirectly. Further, the suppliers of the inputs for the product under consideration are also owned and / or controlled by the government. As a result, particular market situation has been created in the subject countries. However, the domestic industry has not provided any evidence in support of its claim that such particular market situation exists in Qatar and Iran. Accordingly, the Authority is not examining this claim of the domestic industry. 33. With regards to the contention of other interested parties that normal value and export price for the producers / exporter shall be determined based on the information provided by the producers / exporters in the questionnaire response, the Authority notes that information provided by the producers / exporters in their questionnaire responses is appropriate and thus, normal value has been determined based on the price of subject goods when destined for consumption in the domestic market. 34. As regards the submissions of the interested parties that the normal value at the stage of initiation was not appropriate, it is noted that under Article 5.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, the Authority may initiate an investigation based on the application filed by the domestic industry. Further, Article 5.2 of the Agreement provides that such application must contain “information as is reasonably available to the applicant". Accordingly, the applicants submitted application demonstrating dumping margin based on the information that was reasonably available to them. Further, at the time of initiation, the Authority is only required to prima facie satisfy itself of the evidence regarding dumping, injury and causal link between the two. The nature of evidence required for the purpose of initiation may not be of the same quality as required for final imposition of duty. Therefore, the Authority does not find that the evidence provided by the applicants with regard to determination of normal value was not appropriate. However, the Authority has now determined normal value for all responding producers based on the questionnaire responses filed by them. 35. With regards to the contention that the dumping margin and the injury margin must be determined on a quarterly basis, it is noted that during the period of investigation, there were no imports from Iran for two quarters. Further, the prices of the raw materials and the landed price of the subject fluctuated significantly during the period of investigation. In order to ensure a fair comparison as prescribed under Article 2.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, the Authority has determined normal value, export price and the landed price on a quarterly basis. G.3.1 Determination of normal value G.3.1.1. Normal value for Iran a) Normal value for Iran Chemical Industries Investment Co. 36. Iran Chemical Industries Investment Co. (ICIIC) has sold ***MT of the subject goods in the domestic market during the period of investigation, whereas it has exported ***MT of the subject goods to India through four unrelated exporters. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. ICIIC has sold the subject goods to unrelated customers in the home market, except for some sales to Commercial and Port Services of Iran Co., who is identified as a related end user of the subject goods and not a trader of the subject goods. Information concerning total sales made by ICIIC in the home market have been furnished on record. Accordingly, the Authority has determined the normal value based on the sales of the subject goods in the domestic market by ICIIC. To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of the subject goods. It is noted that more than 80% of domestic sales are profitable. Accordingly, all domestic sales by ICIIC have been considered to determine the normal value. ICIIC has not claimed any price adjustments since the domestic sales have been made on ex- factory basis. Thus, the normal value at ex-factory level for ICIIC has been determined and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table. b) Normal value for other producers/exporters from Iran 37. Normal value for all other non-cooperative producers and exporters from Iran has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table. G.3.1.2 Normal value for Qatar a) Normal value for SEEF Limited (producer) 38. Based on the data filed by M/s SEEF Limited, the producer and its associated exporter i.e. M/s Qatar Chemical and Petrochemical Marketing and Distribution Co. (Muntajat) Q.P.J.S.C. filed Questionnaire Response. The exporter and producer have an agreement on grant of exclusive selling rights to M/s Qatar Chemicals and Petrochemical Marketing and Distribution Co. (Muntajat) Q.P.J.S.C., the exporter, as per an agreed marketing fee formula for sales of all quantity of subject goods produced by M/s SEEF Ltd. to all destinations viz domestic market, India and countries other than India. It is noted that ***MT of subject goods were sold in the domestic market during the POI. 39. To determine the normal value, the Authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test. The domestic sales were found to be in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. The Authority also determined if there were profit-making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of the subject goods. If the profitmaking transactions are more than 80%, all transactions in the domestic sales are to be considered for the determination of normal value and in cases where profitmaking transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are to be taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there are no profitable domestic sales transactions normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with the reasonable profit. 40. The adjustments claimed on account of insurance, credit cost, bank charges, marketing fees and SGA expenses of Muntajat have been accepted by the Authority. 41. Accordingly, the normal value at ex-factory level for SEEF has been determined and the same is shown in the dumping margin table. b) Normal value for other producers/exporters from Qatar 42. Normal value for all other non-cooperative producers and exporters from Qatar has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table. G.3.2 Determination of export price G.3.2.1. Export price for Iran a) Export price for Iran Chemical Industries Investment Co. 43. Exporter Questionnaire Response has been filed by Iran Chemical Industries Investment Co (ICIIC), a producer of subject goods from Iran along with unaffiliated exporters based in UAE namely Erbium Trading LLC (formerly Known as Rubiks Trading LLC), Alkyne Trading LLC, Cluster Trading LLC and Safe Chemicals FZE. 44. ICIIC is a limited liability company established in the year 1984 in Iran and is a producer of subject goods. ICIIC has not exported the subject goods directly to India and the entire export has been made through the unrelated exporters named above and to unrelated importers in India. 45. During the POI, ICIIC has sold ***MT of subject goods to India indirectly through the unrelated exporters as above. The responses filed by the producer and the corresponding exporters were subjected to desk verification. However, it was noted that the exporters were not able to furnish supporting documents to substantiate their claimed net export price. The Authority notes since the exporter could not furnish such information even after ample opportunities having been provided. Thus, the Authority is not in a position to accept the export price claimed by ICIIC and its exporters. In view of the same, export price in case of subject goods exported by ICIIC has been determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table. b) Export price for other producers/exporters from Iran 46. The export price for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of Iran has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table. G.3.2.2 Export price for Qatar a) Export price for SEEF Limited 47. The Authority notes that SEEF has exported through its associated exporter i.e. M/s Qatar Chemical and Petrochemical Marketing and Distribution Company. (Muntajat) Q.P.J.S.C a total quantity of ***MT, to Indian customers. The Authority has considered the data filed by SEEF and Muntajat for calculating the export price. 48. The adjustments claimed on account of shipping cost, ocean insurance, port charges, bank charges, credit cost and marketing fees have been allowed by the Authority. In addition, the Authority made adjustments to the export price on account of SGA expenses of Muntajat on the sales of the PUC to arrive at the ex-factory export price at the producer's level. 49. Accordingly, the net export price for SEEF has been determined based on the weighted average export price to India and the same is shown in the dumping margin table. b) Export price for other producers/exporters from Qatar 50. The export price for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of Qatar has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table. G.4. Determination of dumping margin 51. The normal value, export price and dumping margins determined in the present investigation for all the subject countries are as follows – +-------+---------+--------------------------------+---------------+--------------+-------------------+--------+---------+ | S. No | Country | Name of Producer | Normal Value | Export price | Dumping Margin | DM (%) | DM Range| | | | | ($/MT) | ($/MT) | (DM) ($/MT) | | | +=======+=========+================================+===============+==============+===================+========+=========+ | 1. | Iran | Iran Chemical Industries | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 | | | | Investment Co. | | | | | | | | | Any other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+---------------+--------------+-------------------+--------+---------+ | 2. | Qatar | SEEF Limited | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 | | | | Any other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+---------------+--------------+-------------------+--------+---------+ H. INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK H.1. Submissions by other interested parties 52. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to injury and causal link: i. Cumulative assessment of injury is not appropriate since there is a huge price difference between the import prices from Iran and Qatar. ii. There has been only marginal increase in imports from Qatar over the injury period, indicating that imports from Qatar cannot be a reason of injury to the domestic industry. iii. There is no volume injury to the domestic industry due to imports from Iran, as there were no imports from Iran during the last two quarters of the period of investigation as the producers did not have BIS certification. The imports from Qatar have remained same during the last three quarters of the period of investigation. iv. Imports from Qatar have declined in 2022-23, when the duties were allegedly revoked, while total imports increased by 31 points. Such a decline was despite increase in demand. Imports from Iran declined in period of investigation compared to the base year. Thus, there is no increase in imports in absolute terms. v. The price of the subject goods has moved in tandem with downstream demand. Prices declined in Asia in latter half of 2022, due to high prices in the first half and over-saturated inventories with downstream users. However, the prices increased between July and September 2023 due to increase in demand, and cost support provided by ethylene prices. Prices in India declined by 16% in first quarter of 2023 due to feeble industrial demand. vi. The prices of the subject imports from Qatar declined on account of decline in prices of benzene. vii. The applicants have not provided price undercutting for entire injury period, which is required as per Trade Notice 5/2021. viii. There is no price suppression or depression since price of imports from Qatar has increased every year compared to the base year. Even though selling price of domestic industry and landed price increased, the profitability of the domestic industry deteriorated, which may be attributable to the rising raw material prices. ix. While the applicants have claimed that the mark-up over raw material cost has declined, such decline cannot be attributed to imports. It is an admitted position that the applicants face higher raw material costs and that raw material prices have increased. However, price of imports has also increased. Χ. There is a need to verify the cost of sales of the applicants as international prices of kerosene and benzene reduced, but cost of sales of the domestic industry did not decline. xi. The economic parameters of the domestic industry in terms of sales value, selling price, salaries and wages, and net fixed assets were healthier in the period of investigation than the base year, despite the anti-dumping duty in force in the base year. xii. There appears to be no correlation between the alleged injury and the prices of imports. xiii. Despite claims of injury, TPL is currently in the process of expanding its production capacity from *** MT to *** MT. TPL also has plans to expand its caustic soda production. Nirma has also acquired stake in Stericon Pharma Limited, Glenmark Life Sciences. xiv. The volume of imports from subject countries is only 60 KT which constitute only 4% of the domestic demand. The remaining volume is imported for production of exported goods. Such a negligible volume cannot cause injury to the domestic industry. Even if duty is imposed, the domestic industry would continue to struggle because of significant imports from other countries. xv. Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited caters to the demand of Southern Indian market, whereas the imports from Qatar are made in northern and western Indian markets, thus, such imports do not cause injury to Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited. xvi. Losses of the domestic industry can be attributable to high crude oil prices, affecting the cost of raw material upstream value chain of the product. Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited has also acknowledged the impact of high crude prices in its annual report for 2022-23. xvii. The injury to the domestic industry is on account of competition with other Indian producers. xviii. There are significant imports from Saudi Arabia, and the product is largely homogenous, thus, there is no rationale for higher prices of imports from Saudi Arabia. Moreover, in its annual report for 2022-23, Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited expressed concern regarding the increase in imports from Saudi Arabia. xix. Exclusion of Thailand from the scope of subject country is not appropriate and breaks causal link in view of the following. a. Such exclusion is discriminatory and violates the provisions of Rule 19 of the Anti- Dumping Rules. b. There is no evidence to show absence of injury and dumping from Thailand. It is possible that imports from Thailand are the sole cause of injury. с. The price difference between the imports from Iran and that from Thailand is less than 2%, with landed price of imports from Iran being higher than the landed price from Thailand. d. The price of imports from Thailand has declined over the period of investigation at a rate higher than the price of imports from Iran. e. The imports from Thailand have been prevalent throughout and increased during the period of investigation, while the subject imports declined consistently within the period of investigation. f. The share of imports from Thailand in total imports is higher than the share of imports from Iran. XX. The prices of imports from Saudi Arabia and Thailand were as low as the subject imports and thus, could also have been a cause of injury to the domestic industry. xxi. The domestic industry has acknowledged in its annual report that global competitors for the product are profitable, indicating their poor performance is due to highly depreciated plants which led to operational inefficiencies and increased maintenance requirements. xxii. The plant of Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited was under maintenance for *** days, which impacted its profitability and production. xxiii. The applicants have not shared the actual or meaningful summary of volume losses due to shutdowns. xxiv. Since the applicants are dependent upon backward integrated producers, Reliance India Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the domestic industry is at a significant disadvantage. Thus, injury may be due to inefficiencies and feedstock issues. XXV. As opposed to the submissions by the domestic industry, reliance on judgement RIL vs. Designated Authority with regard to backward integration is not appropriate as the issue addressed was regarding incorrect calculation of non-injurious price based on actual cost of production in a captive plant, and not injury determination. xxvi. As held in Viscose Staple Fibre case, a return of 22% is considered irrespective of the age of investments as a consistent practice. Similarly, in Sodium Cyanide, a return of 22% was considered, irrespective of the plant being depreciated. Therefore, the non-injurious price should be determined based on a return of 22% in accordance with various decisions of Tribunal and the Manual of Operating Practices. xxvii. When the quantity of utilization of raw materials differs due to costing reasons, instead of only using the actual cost of utilization during the period of investigation, the Authority should consider the best utilization of both utilities taken together to ensure utilization inefficiencies are not unfairly attributed to the subject imports. xxviii. The increase in net fixed assets, without an increase in capacity, can have the impact of artificially inflating the non-injurious price. xxix. The claim that only the actual costs for raw material and utility consumption during the period of investigation should be considered is not tenable as per the law. Only the period of investigation cannot be considered for determination of non-injurious price. The Rules does not limit the analysis to the best utilization of raw materials in cases where the domestic industry has been injured due to inefficient utilization. H.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 53. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the injury and causal link: i. The provision for cumulative assessment under the Rules is a mandatory provision and the conditions set therein are met in the present case. ii. The subject imports have caused material injury to the domestic industry. iii. The volume of subject imports increased significantly after the expiry of the anti-dumping duties imposed on subject imports from Qatar and Iran in April 2022. iv. The share of imports from the subject countries have increased over the injury period and the rate of increase in the subject countries was much higher than other imports. v. The volume of imports has increased by 48%, which is higher than the increase in the rate of demand. vi. The volume of imports has increased by 54% in relation to production and by 45% in relation to consumption over the period. vii. Subject imports accounting for 9% of the demand cannot be considered insignificant. viii. Increase in the cost of domestic industry are due to increase in the prices of inputs, but the same are not reflected in the import prices. ix. In 2020-21, the imports were priced 51% higher than the cost of raw materials, but were priced only 8% above the cost of raw materials consumed during the period of investigation, preventing the domestic industry from increasing its prices commensurate with the increase in raw material cost. Χ. The domestic industry was forced to reduce its prices during the period of investigation below its cost to compete with the imports. xi. As per Trade Notice 5/2021, Proforma IV-A and IV-B do not require the domestic industry to provide price undercutting. Regardless, the domestic industry has provided price undercutting for the period of investigation. xii. The landed price of imports was even below the cost of the domestic industry. xiii. During the period of investigation, both the cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry reduced. However, with the decline in landed price, the decline in selling price was higher than the decline in cost of sales. xiv. The subject imports were priced lower than the imports from non-subject countries. While the prices of the other imports were above the cost of sales of the domestic industry, the subject imports were priced lower than the cost. xv. The capacity of the domestic industry remained stable throughout the injury period while the production and capacity utilization declined over the injury period. xvi. The increase in volume of domestic sales was because the domestic industry reduced its prices below its cost and compromised on its profitability to maintain its volume parameters. xvii. The domestic industry had a market share of ***% in 2020-21, which declined to ***% in the period of investigation. xviii. With the loss of market share, the domestic industry faced accumulation of inventories which increased by 110% when compared to 2020-21. xix. The domestic industry was earning sufficient profits till 2021-22 when the duties were in force. During 2022-23, the profits declined sharply due to excessive dumping and the situation aggravated during the period of investigation which led to significant losses. XX. The profits per unit declined by 103% as compared to the base year. The cash profits also declined by 97% as compared to the base year and 75% as compared to the previous year. xxi. Since the plants of Nirma Limited and Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited are 27 and 40 years old respectively, their substantial depreciation does not warrant a high capital employment and the meagre profits earned also show a very high return on capital employed. xxii. The return on investment earned was almost nil. xxiii. The interest coverage ratio of the domestic industry has declined compared to previous years despite significant decline in the interest burden. xxiv. There exists a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry. XXV. Nirma is located in western India and can cater to northern and western markets. In any case, importers are importing goods in west and selling in south, thereby shipping dumped goods across India. xxvi. Contrary to the claims of other parties, Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited announced capacity expansion considering long term business plans in 2021, when there was no dumping. Further, capacity expansion by Nirma related to non-subject goods. xxvii. The production process used by Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited is cost-efficient. Further, high cost of energy and feedstock are factors inherent to domestic industry, which have not changed over the injury period. xxviii. Injury to the domestic industry must be examined as it exists and factors inherent to the industry cannot be considered as causing injury, as held in the case of Nippon Zeon Co. Ltd. vs. Designated Authority, and accepted by the Authority in various investigations. xxix. All major plants for LAB across the globe are older plants, including that of SEEF and ICIIC which are 21 and 34 years old. XXX. The other interested parties have not highlighted any development in technology, which would result in the technology of the domestic industry becoming outdated. xxxi. Contrary to the claims of other parties, the domestic industry was able to utilize its capacities exceedingly well during the injury period, which shows that plants are not depreciated. Further, the domestic industry has submitted injury information after excluding the effect of shutdowns. xxxii. Increase in net fixed assets of domestic industry was on account of purchase of new machinery for captive power unit and thus, did not affect production capacity. xxxiii. The subject imports must be one of the causes of injury and not the only cause of injury, as held in EC - Tubes and Pipes, U.S. – Hot-Rolled Steel Products and U.S. – Salmon. xxxiv. The imports from Thailand are priced higher than the subject imports, and the difference is equivalent to the price undercutting suffered by the domestic industry. XXXV. Contrary to claims of other parties, imports of LAB from Thailand attract 5% duty under the India-ASEAN FTA and 10% surcharge. xxxvi. Imports from Thailand must be compared with the subject imports as whole and not with imports from Iran. Regardless, imports from Thailand were priced higher than imports from Iran in 2 months and were comparable for one month. xxxvii. Since the subject countries are price setters in the market, imposition of duty on subject goods would result in price correction of other imports also. xxxviii. The user industry must show evidence to prove their claim that they have imported subject goods from Saudi Arabia at same or similar prices. xxxix. Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited expressed concerns regarding imports from Middle East, Thailand and China generally, but specifically highlighted injury due to imports from subject countries in its annual report. xl. Contrary to the claims of the other interested parties, the fact that the domestic industry is not backward integrated like other Indian producers is not the cause of injury. xli. In the case of Reliance Industry Limited vs DA, the Supreme Court held that that law does not allow for discrimination between integrated and non-integrated companies, as such discrimination would be to the detriment of small plants with no backward integration. xlii. Contrary to the claims of interested parties, the decision in RIL v. DA regarding the manner in which concerns of domestic industry as a whole must be examined, is equally applicable in the context of both injury and non-injurious price. xliii. The determination of injury margin must be based on quarterly analysis because it will not be a fair comparison of non-injurious price and landed price calculated on annual basis due to absence of imports from Iran in second half of period of investigation. xliv. Para 3 of Annexure III prevails over provisions of Para 4 of Annexure III, since the former requires the Authority to determine non-injurious price based on cost of production of domestic industry, while Para 4 provides that the Authority may examine if inefficiencies in utilization has caused injury to the industry and the same may be nullified. Mechanical use of lowest utilization in each case would nullify the intention of law makers. xlv. Contrary to the claim of the other interested parties, Annexure-III provides that a reasonable return must be allowed on capital employed. It is the well-established practice of CESTAT and Authority to allow for a return other than 22% where there is evidence supporting the same. xlvi. The plants of domestic industry are significantly depreciated, and allowing only a return of 22% would be adverse for the industry. The domestic industry achieved high returns in absence of dumping and the same should be allowed. H.3. Examination by the Authority 54. The Authority has examined the arguments and counter arguments of the interested parties with regard to injury to the domestic industry. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties. H.3.1 Cumulative Assessment of imports 55. Article 3.3 of WTO agreement and Para (iii) of Annexure II of the AD provide that in case where imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigation, the Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that: i. 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 (or more) of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than three percent, the imports collectively account for more than seven percent of the import of like article, and ii. A cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports 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 articles. 56. As regards to the contention of the other interested parties that the imports from Qatar and Iran cannot be cumulatively analyzed due to the differences in the volume and prices of the goods, it is noted that the volume of imports from both Qatar and Iran is more than 3% of the total imports and such imports are being dumped into the country. The product under consideration imported from Qatar has same physical and chemical characteristics as subject goods imported from Iran and that produced by the domestic industry and vice versa. As regards the contention that there is a difference in the price of imports from Qatar and Iran, the Authority further notes that Article 3.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement as well as Para (iii) of Annexure II expressly provides the conditions to be satisfied before conducting a cumulative analysis of the imports from all subject countries. Such provisions do not require the Authority to undertake a country-wise analysis of prices as condition prior to such cumulation. 57. In view of the above, the Authority notes that: i. The subject good are being dumped into India from the subject countries. The margins of dumping from each of the subject countries are more than de minimis limits prescribed under the Rules. ii. The volume of imports from each of the subject countries is individually more than 3% of the total volume of imports. iii. Cumulative assessments of the effects of imports are appropriate as the exports from the subject countries not only directly compete with the like articles offered by each of them but also the like articles offered by the domestic industry in the Indian market. 58. Accordingly, the Authority proposes that it would be appropriate to cumulatively assess the effects of dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject countries on the domestic industry. 59. Rule 11 of the Anti-dumping Duty Rules, 1995 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...”. 60. In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, stock, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure-II of the Rules. 61. The submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties during the course of investigation with regard to injury and causal link and considered relevant by the Authority are examined and addressed below under the relevant parameters. 62. The Authority notes that it is not necessary that all parameters of injury show deterioration. Some parameters may show deterioration, while some others may not. The Authority considers all injury parameters for assessing the financial parameters of the domestic industry. The Authority has examined the injury parameters objectively considering the facts and arguments submitted by the domestic industry and the other interested parties. H.3.2 Volume effect of the dumped imports on domestic industry a) Assessment of demand/ Apparent consumption 63. For the purpose of the present investigation, the Authority has defined demand or apparent consumption of the product under consideration in India as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry and other Indian producers and imports from all sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table below. +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +===========================+=======+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | Iran | MT | 100 | 6066 | 42481 | 23,542 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Qatar | MT | 34215 | 40823 | 39518 | 52,878 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Imports from Subject Countries| MT | 34,315 | 46,889 | 81,999 | 76,420 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 137 | 239 | 223 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Imports from other countries| MT | 2,05,518| 2,27,119| 2,49,128| 2,17,543| +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 111 | 121 | 106 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Total imports | MT | 2,39,832| 2,74,009| 3,31,127| 2,93,962| +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 114 | 138 | 123 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Imports in relation to | | | | | | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Domestic production | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Demand (excluding captive)| % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Total Imports | % | 14.31 | 17.11 | 24.76 | 26.00 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 64. It can be seen that the demand for PUC has increased over the injury period with the demand peaking in 2022-23 and declining marginally in POI. b) Volume effect of the dumped imports 65. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +===========================+=======+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | Subject imports | MT | 34,315 | 46,889 | 81,999 | 76,420 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 137 | 239 | 223 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Iran | MT | 100 | 6066 | 42481 | 23542 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Qatar | MT | 34215 | 40823 | 39518 | 52878 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Imports from other countries| MT | 2,05,518| 2,27,119| 2,49,128| 2,17,543| +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 111 | 121 | 106 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Total imports | MT | 2,39,832| 2,74,009| 3,31,127| 2,93,962| +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 114 | 138 | 123 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Imports in relation to | | | | | | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Domestic production | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Demand (excluding captive)| % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Total Imports | % | 14.31 | 17.11 | 24.76 | 26.00 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 66. It is noted from the above table that: i. The volume of subject imports has increased, in absolute terms as well as in relative terms, over the injury period. ii. The share of subject imports has increased in the total imports over the period. Further, the subject imports have increased at a higher rate than the increase in imports from other countries. iii. The subject imports in relation to production and demand (excluding captive) have increased over the injury period and declined in POI. H.3.3 Price effect of dumped imports 67. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is required to be analyzed whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to the price of the like products in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course. The impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of the dumped imports from subject countries has been examined with reference to price undercutting, price suppression and price depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis, the cost of production and net sales realization of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed price of imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. a) Price undercutting 68. For the purpose of price undercutting analysis, the selling price of the domestic industry has been compared with the weighted average import price from the subject countries. As noted above, the Authority has calculated the landed price for the subject countries on a quarterly basis. Accordingly, the price undercutting of the dumped imports from the subject countries has been determined on a quarterly basis as below. +-------------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | POI Q1 | POI Q2 | POI Q3 | POI Q4 | POI | +===================+============+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | Net Sales Realisation | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Landed Price | ₹/MT | 1,29,893| 1,23,772| 1,46,454| 1,36,601| 1,34,935| +-------------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Price Undercutting| ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Price Undercutting| % | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Price Undercutting| Range | 20-30 | 15-25 | Negative| 1-10 | 5-15 | +-------------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 69. It is noted that the subject imports were undercutting the domestic prices in three quarters of the period of investigation. b) Price suppression/depression 70. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing or suppressing the domestic prices and whether the effect of such imports is to suppress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increase which otherwise would have occurred in normal course, the changes in the costs and prices during the injury period is examined in the table below: +-----------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +=================+============+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | Cost of Sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 160 | 228 | 208 | +-----------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Selling Price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 144 | 170 | 153 | +-----------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Landed Price | ₹/MT | 82,184 | 1,32,723| 1,48,490| 1,34,935| +-----------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 161 | 181 | 164 | +-----------------+------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 71. It is noted that the landed value of the imports was significantly lower than the selling price of the domestic industry throughout the injury period. While both the cost of sales and the selling price of the domestic industry increased till 2022-23, the increase in selling price was not in line with the increase in cost. While the cost of sales and the selling price of the domestic industry declined in the period of investigation, the decline in selling price was much higher as the landed price also declined in this period. Over the injury period, while the cost of sales of the domestic industry increased by 108%, the selling price increased by only 53% in order to compete with the imports. Thus, it is seen that subject imports have depressed the prices of the domestic industry and have prevented price increase, which otherwise would have occurred. H.3.4 Economic parameters of the domestic industry 72. Annexure II to the Rules require that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of the consequent impact of dumped imports on the domestic producers of such products. With regard to consequent impact of dumped imports on the domestic producers of such products, the Rules further provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on capital employed or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, performance of the domestic industry has been examined over the injury period. 73. The Authority has examined the injury parameters taking into account various facts and arguments made by the interested parties. a) Production, capacity, capacity utilization and sales 74. The performance of the domestic industry with regard to capacity, production, sales and capacity utilization over the injury period was as below +-------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +===================+==========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | Capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | +-------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Production | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 98 | 92 | 91 | +-------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Capacity utilization| % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 100 | 93 | 93 | +-------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Domestic sales | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 96 | 87 | 93 | +-------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 75. It is noted that: a. The installed capacity of the domestic industry has remained stable throughout the injury period. b. The production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry have declined over the injury period. As compared to the base year, the production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry declined by ***% and ***% respectively. с. The domestic sales of the domestic industry declined consistently till 2022-23 but increased in the period of investigation when compared to previous year (2022-23). However, the domestic sales have declined over the injury period. d. The domestic sales during the period of investigation were lower than the sales volume in the first two years of the injury period, when anti-dumping duties were in force. b) Market share 76. Market share of the domestic industry and the imports is shown in table below: +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +===========================+=======+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | Including captive | | | | | | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Domestic industry | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 93 | 81 | 88 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Other producers | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 96 | 91 | 94 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Subject imports | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 131 | 218 | 211 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Imports from other countries| % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 106 | 111 | 100 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Excluding captive | | | | | | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Domestic industry | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 92 | 79 | 88 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Other producers | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 96 | 90 | 94 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Subject imports | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 131 | 217 | 210 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Imports from other countries| % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 106 | 110 | 100 | +---------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 77. The Authority notes that the market share of the domestic industry declined from ***% in 2020-21 to ***% in the period of investigation. On the other hand, the market share of the subject imports has increased over the injury period. While the market share of the domestic industry has increased in the period of investigation when compared with preceding year (2022-23), the same is attributed to the fact that the domestic industry has significantly reduced their prices in order to sell in the market. The overall market share of the Indian industry has also declined over the injury period. c) Inventories 78. Inventory position with the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below: +-----------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +=================+=======+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | Opening Inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Closing Inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Average inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 99 | 234 | 202 | +-----------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 79. The Authority notes that – a. The average inventories of the domestic industry have increased significantly over the injury period, having increased by 102% as compared to 2020-21. b. While the average inventories declined in the period of investigation when compared with preceding year 2022-23, the applicants have claimed that such decline is on account of the domestic industry reducing its prices to regain its market share. d) Employment, wages and productivity 80. The Authority has examined the information relating to employment, wages and productivity of the domestic industry over the injury period as given in the table below: +-------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +=========================+==========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | No. of employees | Nos. | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Salaries & Wages | Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 108 | 121 | 129 | +-------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Productivity per employee | MT/Nos | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 107 | 85 | 90 | +-------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Productivity per day | MT/Days | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 98 | 92 | 91 | +-------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 81. It is seen that the number of employees of the domestic industry has declined over the injury period, while the salaries paid have increased during the same period. The productivity of the domestic industry has declined over the period. e) Profitability, cash profits and return on capital employed 82. Profitability, cash profits and return on investment of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below: +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +============================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | Cost of sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 160 | 228 | 208 | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 144 | 170 | 153 | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Profit/(loss) before tax | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 100 | 9 | (3) | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Profit/(loss) before tax | ₹. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 96 | 8 | (2) | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Cash profits | ₹. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 97 | 13 | 4 | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Return on investment | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 85 | 8 | 1 | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | PBIT (Profit before Interest &| ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | Tax) | | | | | | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Indexed | Index | 100 | 97 | 11 | 2 | +----------------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 83. It is noted that that – a. The domestic industry earned sufficient profits during till 2021-22. However, the profitability of the domestic industry declined in 2022-23. The domestic industry suffered significant losses in the period of investigation as it reduced its prices in order to recover its market share. b. During the period of investigation, the profitability of the domestic industry deteriorated by 103% as compared to the base year. с. The domestic industry has also suffered deterioration in cash profits over the period. The cash profits declined by 96% as compared to the base year and 72% as compared to the previous year. d. The domestic industry has faced a significant decline in its return on investment. While the domestic industry earned a healthy return till 2021-22, its return on investment declined in 2022-23 and was almost nil in the period of investigation. f) Growth 84. The growth of the domestic industry in terms of capacity, production, domestic sales, profits, cash profits and return on capital employed is as per the table below: +--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +==========================+=======+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | Production | MT | -2% | -6% | -1% | | +--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Domestic sales | MT | -4% | -10% | 7% | | +--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Profit/Loss before tax | Rs/MT | 0% | -91% | -128% | | +--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Cash Profits | Rs Lacs| -3% | -87% | -72% | | +--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Return on capital employed| % | -15% | -91% | -86% | | +--------------------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 85. It is noted that the volume and profitability parameters have witnessed a declined over the period. However, the profitability parameters of the domestic industry have witnessed a sharp decline in the period of investigation. The profits, cash profits and return on capital employed of the domestic industry have declined. g) Impact on ability to raise capital investment 86. The domestic industry has submitted that it has suffered a decline in its profitability and its interest coverage ratio has also declined over the period. The interested coverage ratio of the domestic industry has declined despite a significant decline in the interest costs. +-----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +=======================+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | PBIT | ₹ Lakhs | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Interest Cost | ₹ Lakhs | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Interest coverage ratio| Times | 12.24 | 17.30 | 3.65 | 0.40 | +-----------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 87. The domestic industry has also submitted that against a significant investment of almost ₹ *** crores, the domestic industry has practically earned no returns. Further the domestic industry has submitted that setting up a plant for production of subject goods would require an investment of ₹ *** lakhs per MT. However, at present profitability, the domestic industry would be unable to recover such investment. Even considering the highest returns earned by the domestic industry during the injury period, it would be able to earn a return of only 3% on fresh investments. 88. The other interested parties have claimed that despite claims of injury, Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited is expanding its production capacity from *** MT to *** MT. Further, is also planning to expand its caustic soda production. It has also been claimed that Nirma Limited has also acquired stake in Stericon Pharma Limited, Glenmark Life Sciences. In this regard, the domestic industry has clarified that the expansion of production capacity for the subject goods was planned and executed at the start of the injury period, when the domestic industry was not suffering injury. With regards to the other expansion plans, such plans do not relate to the subject goods and are thus, not the subject of the present investigation. h) Factors affecting prices 89. It is noted that the domestic industry has not been able to increase its prices in relation to the increase in cost of sales. The subject imports have forced the domestic industry to sell the goods below cost. Further, the subject imports have significantly undercut the domestic prices, creating a strain on the prices of domestic industry, which has resulted in a decline in profitability. Thus, the subject imports have affected the prices of the domestic industry. i) Magnitude of dumping margin 90. It is noted that the subject goods are being dumped into India and the dumping margin is positive and significant. H.3.5 Overall assessment of injury 91. Based on the submissions of all parties, the examination of imports of the subject goods and the performance of the domestic industry clearly shows that – a. The volume of imports has increased significantly over the injury period. While the imports were low till 2021-22, the volume of imports increased significantly thereafter. b. The volume of imports in relation to domestic production and consumption has increased over the injury period. с. The volume of imports has increased over the injury period as against increase in demand. d. The subject imports were significantly undercutting the prices of the domestic industry during the period of investigation. e. While the cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry increased over the period, the increase in the cost of sale was higher than the increase in selling price. f. The subject imports depressed the prices of the domestic industry and prevented price increases which otherwise would have occurred. g. The production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry declined over the period. h. The domestic industry faced significant accumulation of inventories over the period. i. The domestic industry earned sufficient profits till 2021-22, but its profitability declined in 2022-23 and it earned significant losses in the period of investigation. J. The domestic industry faced significant decline in its cash profits and it earned almost zero return on its capital employed. k. The subject imports have impacted the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment and have jeopardized the current and any future investments for the subject goods. H.3.6 Magnitude of injury margin 92. 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. 93. With regards to the arguments of the other interested parties and the domestic industry concerning the return on capital employed which is to be considered for determination of NIP, it is noted that as per the consistent practice of the Authority, 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. 94. Based on the above, the Authority has determined a quarterly NIP for the domestic industry. Accordingly, a comparison has been made between the landed value of all the cooperating producers and NIP of the like articles produced by domestic industry for each quarter of the period of investigation. Based on the landed price and Non-Injurious Price determined as above, the injury margin for producers/exporters as determined by the Authority is provided in the table below: +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+--------+---------+ | S. No | Country | Name of Producer | Non-Injurious| Landed Price| Injury Margin | IM (%) | IM Range| | | | | Price ($/MT) | ($/MT) | (IM) ($/MT) | | | +=======+=========+================================+==============+=============+===============+========+=========+ | 1. | Iran | Iran Chemical Industries | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 | | | | Investment Co. | | | | | | | | | Any other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+--------+---------+ | 2. | Qatar | SEEF Limited | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 | | | | Any other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+--------+---------+ I. NON-ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS AND CAUSAL LINK 95. The Authority examined whether other factors listed under the Anti-dumping Rules could have caused injury to the domestic industry. As per the Rules, the Authority, inter alia, is required to examine any known factors other than dumped imports which are injuring the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by these other factors may not be attributed to the dumped imports. The Authority examined whether factors other than dumped imports could have contributed to the injury to the domestic industry. a) Volume and value of imports from third countries 96. The Authority notes that other than the subject imports, there are significant imports from Saudi Arabia and Thailand. The other interested parties have contended that the injury to the domestic industry is not due to the subject imports since the subject imports account for a very low share in the total imports and injury is likely on account of imports from Saudi Arabia and Thailand which are also priced low. In this regard, it is noted that the price of imports from Saudi Arabia are higher than the subject imports and the selling price of the domestic industry. Thus, such imports cannot be cause of injury to the domestic industry. 97. With respect to imports from Thailand, the Authority notes that the imports from Thailand were priced above the subject imports. Thus, injury to the domestic industry is not likely on account of such imports. b) Contraction in demand 98. It is noted that the demand for the subject goods has increased over the period and thus, injury caused to the domestic industry cannot be attributed to possible contraction in demand. c) Changes in the pattern of consumption 99. It is noted that there is no change in the pattern consumption of the subject goods, which could have caused injury to the domestic industry. d) Trade restrictive practices and competition between the foreign and domestic producers 100. The imports of the subject goods are not restricted in any manner and are freely importable in the country. e) Development in technology 101. The Authority notes that there has been no known material change in the technology for the production of the product under consideration. f) Export performance of the domestic industry 102. It is noted that the domestic industry has not exported the subject goods during the injury period. Thus, the injury is not account of the exports. g) Performance of other products 103. The Authority has considered segregated data for product under consideration for injury analysis. Thus, performance of other products produced and sold by the domestic industry is not a possible cause of the injury to the domestic industry. h) Imports concentrated in one region 104. The other interested parties have argued that imports from Qatar are made in the northern and western markets, while Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited caters to southern market and thus, such imports cannot be a possible cause of the injury to the domestic industry. However, it is noted that the other applicant, Nirma Limited, is located in Gujarat and is catering to the western market as well. In any case, there is no restriction in the movement of the subject goods across the country and thus, the dumped imports can be sold across the country. i) Depreciated plants of the domestic industry 105. It has also been contended by the other interested parties that injury to the domestic industry is due to their highly depreciated plants, which required high maintenance and shutdowns. In this regard, the domestic industry has submitted that all plants across the globe are more than 20 years old, with very limited new investments. The Authority notes that the fact that the plants of the domestic industry are old and depreciated is a factor that is inherent to the industry and has remained unchanged. Thus, the Authority is not required to conduct a non-attribution analysis for factors inherent to the domestic industry. Such position was taken by the Appellate Body in European Union – Anti-dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina [DS473/AB/R]. “7.522. Argentina primarily takes issue with the EU authorities' conclusion that the structure of the EU industry was not a cause of injury. The two factors, namely lack of vertical integration and lack of access to raw materials, identified by Argentina, essentially are inherent features of the EU domestic industry that, according to Argentina, render it less competitive than the Argentine producers. In our view, however, this line of argument is premised on a misreading of Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and its various paragraphs, including Article 3.5. The concept of injury envisaged by Article 3 relates to negative developments in the state of the domestic industry. Article 3 is not intended to address differences in the structure of the domestic industry as compared to that of the exporting Member. Rather, it is clear from the text of Article 3.5 and from its indicative list of such "other factors" – which all pertain to developments in the situation of the domestic industry – that the authority is not required to conduct a non-attribution analysis with respect to features that are inherent to the domestic industry and have remained unchanged during the period considered by the investigating authority for purposes of its injury analysis." 106. Thus, the fact that the plants of the domestic industry are depreciated, which is a factor inherent to the applicants, cannot be a cause of injury to the domestic industry. j) Backward integrated plants of other producers 107. It has also been contended by the other interested parties that the domestic industry is not backward integrated, while the other Indian producers like RIL and IOCL are. As a result, while RIL and IOCL have not suffered injury, the domestic industry has. It is noted that the lack of vertical integration in the production process cannot be held against any producer. Further, the law does not allow the Authority to discriminate between plants which are vertically integrated and those that are not, in its injury analysis. This position was clearly established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Limited vs Designated Authority, [(2006) 10 SCC 368]. The court held that the law does not allow for any discrimination between the integrated and non-integrated companies and that such discrimination would inevitably result in the peril of the small plants with no backward integration. “The approach adopted by the DA, in our opinion, will lead to a situation where an artificial discrimination will be created between the integrated and non-integrated companies to the peril of the small plants with no backward integration (backward integration means a factory which also produces its own raw materials, etc.). In such situations, the result will be that the companies with no backward integration will suffer adversely. In our opinion, this was neither envisaged under the law nor can be considered as a desired result. The anti-dumping legislation is meant for protection of the domestic industries as a whole against unfair practice of dumping, irrespective of whether they are backwardly integrated or not." 108. Therefore, the fact that the plants of the domestic industry are not backward integrated cannot be considered as a cause of injury. 109. Having determined that the aforementioned factors have not caused injury to the domestic industry, the Authority notes that injury to the domestic industry has been caused due to the following factors. a. There is dumping of the subject goods from the subject countries. b. The volume of imports has increased over the injury period, in absolute terms and in relation to the domestic production and consumption. с. The subject imports have entered the market at significantly low prices, creating a strain on the prices of the domestic industry. d. The subject imports were undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in each quarter of the period of investigation, forcing the domestic industry to reduce its selling prices to compete with the imports, even below its own costs. e. The domestic industry was unable to increase its selling price equal to the increase its cost of sales as the landed price of imports did not increase commensurately. f. The dumped imports depressed the prices of the domestic industry and prevented price increase which otherwise would have occurred. g. The production, capacity utilization and domestic sales volume of the domestic industry declined over the injury period. h. The market share of the domestic industry declined while the market share of the subject imports increased. i. The profitability parameters of the domestic industry have witnessed a sharp decline over the injury period, and the industry suffered significant losses and cash losses. j. The domestic industry earned very low returns during the period of investigation and such returns were practically nil. k. The imports have adversely impacted the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment as the domestic industry is practically earning no returns on its current investment. J. INDIAN INDUSTRY'S INTEREST AND OTHER ISSUES J.1. Submissions by other interested parties 110. The submissions made by the other interested parties with regards to Indian industry's interest are as follows: a.Imposition of anti-dumping duty will adversely impact retail consumers of personal hygiene products as it did in the past. Post the imposition of anti-dumping duty in 2017, there was shortage of the subject goods in India and the domestic producers increased their selling prices which significantly impacted the MSME sectors which suffered losses due to such increase. b. 10% increase in LAB prices can lead to 8-9% increase in LABSA, leading to an overall increase by 32 million USD, which will benefit LAB producers at the expense of consumers. c.LAB constitutes 35-45% of the cost of production for detergents. Any increase in selling price of LAB will have significant impact on the detergent manufacturers. The impact of 10% anti- dumping duty is more than 3.8% on the downstream industry, which works on small margins. d. The detergent manufacturers did not reduce prices when price of soda ash and LAB reduced as they were suffering losses even after reduction in raw material prices. With increase in prices of soda ash and LAB, the users were force to adjust their formulations by reducing the use of Soda Ash and Lab in order to reduce the effect of high prices. At the time such prices declined, the old formulations were restored by the user industry. e. The downstream industry is much bigger than the LAB industry in terms of providing employment. Thus, imposition of duties would negatively impact a bigger industry at the cost of benefitting only two small producers. f. The claim that major users have not participated and hence, there is no impact on users is not supported by any evidence. All India Federation of Soaps, Detergents and Homecare Products is an association of more than 10000 plus users and has participated. g. There is a significant demand-supply gap in the country, with capacities of only 450 KT as against demand of 700 KT. Though the demand is growing, no capacity expansion is being undertaken for the product under consideration. h. The users are unable to purchase from Indian industry due to supply shortages. i. The international supply of LAB is also likely to be restrained as Indorama (USA), Sasol (USA), Qatar, Cepsa (Spain) and ISU (Korea) are planning shutdowns. Further, supplies have been pre-planned and no additional products are available for sale. J. The imposition of Quality Control Order has reduced the overall imports into the country, since only 7 manufacturers have been certified by the BIS. This has restricted imports from other sources of the subject goods. k. Imposition of duties six months after expiration of duties previously in force indicates continual protectionism to an inefficient domestic industry, which is against fair competition and adversely affects the user industry. 1. Imposition of anti-dumping duty will lead to increase in cost of personal hygiene products for retail consumers. m. The detergent manufacturers are exporting detergent under India-ASEAN FTA at prices below the price of downstream industry. Any increase in price of raw material for detergent will make the Indian manufacturers totally uncompetitive. n. A large number of users have filed submissions, through All India Federation of Soaps, Detergents and Homecare Products, against the imposition of present findings and removal of duties in the previous case. 0. Imposition of duties would result in monopolistic conditions in the LAB market. J.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 111. The submissions made by the domestic industry with regards to Indian industry's interest are as follows: a. There is no demand-supply gap in the Indian market and in fact, the Indian industry as whole has excess capacity when compared to the Indian demand. b. It has been a well settled principle that imports are inevitable where there is a demand-supply gap, but the same cannot be a justification for dumping. с. The subject goods can be imported from other countries such as China, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, and Thailand. d. Imposition of duties would have negligible impact on the downstream industry, since a 5% increase in price of LAB would result in increase in prices of downstream products by less than 1%. e. The interested parties have deliberately overstated the impact of the duties on downstream users by adding a profit margin on the duty component as well for each party in the distribution channel. f. A mere increase of 1% in the price cannot render the large detergent industry as uncompetitive against imports. g. The prices of detergents have not moved in tandem with the prices of LAB and thus, there is no indication that the imposition of duties would adversely impact the prices of detergents. h. Imposition of duties would lead to fair market situation, resulting in domestic product being favoured over imports, thereby restricting outflow of foreign exchange. i. LAB is used to manufacture laundry, utensils, household cleaning products and thus, its essential that the production of the product must be done in India. j. There is a need to maintain a level playing field to safeguard fresh investments being made by the Indian industry. k. A healthy domestic industry is in the interest of the users, so that they are not completely reliant on imports and at the mercy of the exporters, who might exploit them. 1. Expiry of duties on LAB have not showed any significant improvement in the performance of LABSA industries, implying the absence of any adverse impact of the duty. m. The LABSA industry is only a pass-through industry and they invariably pass on any price changes to their downstream users. n. The users did not raise any concerns regarding the duties between 2017-2022. 0. The domestic industry cannot be faulted for seeking remedy against unfair dumping. Further, there is a difference of 2.5 years between imposition of previous and proposed duties. p. LAB is majorly consumed by large, organized sector companies such as Procter & Gamble, Hindustan Unilever, Nirma Limited, RSPL, Fena, Jyothi Labs, etc. and not by the MSME sector. q. The domestic industry is unable to fully commit to significant investments as the payback period based on current profitability would be more than two decades. J.3. Examination by the Authority 112. The Authority notes that the purpose of anti-dumping duty, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. Imposition of anti-dumping measures does not aim to restrict imports from the subject countries in any way. The Authority recognizes that the imposition of anti-dumping duties might affect the price levels of the product in India. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by the imposition of anti-dumping measures. On the contrary, imposition of anti-dumping measures would ensure that no unfair advantages are gained by dumping practice, prevent decline of the domestic industry and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of the subject goods. 113. The Authority considered whether imposition of anti-dumping shall have any adverse impact on the interest of the public. In order to determine such impact, the Authority weighed the impact of the imposition of duties on the availability of the goods in the Indian market, the impact on the users of the product as well as the domestic industry and the impact on the general public at large. This determination is based on the submissions and evidence submitted over the course of the present investigation. 114. The Authority issued initiation notification inviting views from all interested parties, including importers, consumers and others. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the users/ consumers to provide relevant information with regard to present investigation, including any possible effects of anti-dumping duty on their operations. 115. The domestic industry has submitted that imposition of the anti-dumping on the subject imports would not have any adverse effect on the downstream users. It has been claimed that based on the consumption of product under consideration considering the consumption factors and the current prices of detergent and of the product under consideration, an increase in the price by 5% would result in an increase in the price of downstream products by less than 1%. As can be seen from the table below, imposition of duty of 5% would result in an increase of only 0.58% in the cost for the downstream users. Thus, the imposition of anti-dumping duty would have negligible impact on the users. +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------+--------+ | S. No.| Particulars | Unit | Values | +=======+=========================================+=======+========+ | A | Standard solid detergent product | kg | 1 | +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------+--------+ | B | Current market price of the detergent | ₹ / kg| 140 | +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------+--------+ | C | Quantity of LAB used | per kg| 0.12 | +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------+--------+ | D | Current market price of LAB | ₹ / kg| 135 | +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------+--------+ | E | Cost of LAB used in detergent | ₹ | 16.20 | +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------+--------+ | F | Percentage increase post imposition of duty| % | 5% | +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------+--------+ | G | Increase in cost of LAB used in detergent| ₹ | 0.8 | +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------+--------+ | H | Impact of anti-dumping duty on downstream users| % | 0.58% | +-------+-----------------------------------------+-------+--------+ 116. Further, the domestic industry has also submitted that the prices of the ultimate downstream product, that is detergent, have not moved in line with the price of LAB and other raw materials. In this regard, the domestic industry has submitted the price movement of detergent, LAB and the other raw material, Soda Ash. 117. It is noted that the prices of detergents increased when the prices of Soda Ash and LAB increased. However, the prices of detergents remained stable when the prices of Soda Ash and LAB declined. Thus, the prices of the downstream industry have not moved in tandem with the prices of LAB and Soda Ash. In such a situation, even if the imposition of duties results in marginal increase in the price of LAB, it would have no impact on the downstream producers. 118. Some interested parties have contended that the imports are inevitable due to the demand-supply gap in India and they would be forced to pay higher price for the imports. The Authority notes that the demand-supply gap is not a justification for dumping in India. Even if there is a demand-supply gap in the country, it is necessary that the product is available at fair prices. The imposition of the anti- dumping duty will not hamper the availability of the product under consideration but will ensure that the same is available at the fair prices. In fact, the re-establishment of fair competition in the market may encourage further investment, which would help further bridge the demand-supply gap. 119. Further, the domestic industry has submitted that the product can also be imported from other countries such as China, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain and Thailand, along with sourcing the goods domestically. On the other hand, it is noted that there are 4 producers of the subject goods in the country. If the current situation persists, the viability of the operations of the domestic industry may be impacted. Therefore, to ensure continued availability of the domestic product, it is necessary that the domestic producers remain viable at fair prices. 120. The other interested parties have also stated that there is no rationale for imposition of duties merely six months after expiry of the anti-dumping duties. The Authority notes that the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement or the Anti-dumping Rules do not prescribe any timeline or gap period between the expiry of duties and re-imposition of duties. Further, imposition of duties pursuant to the present investigation would be almost 3 years after the expiry of previous duties, during which the domestic industry has suffered injury. 121. It has also been claimed that the size of the downstream industry is much larger than the LAB industry and it would not be fair to the downstream industry if duties are imposed. It is noted that the size of the industry cannot be factor of consideration on whether duty should be imposed or not. The Authority has noted that the domestic industry has suffered injury due to the dumped imports. Further, it is also noted that imposition of duties would have marginal impact on the costs of the downstream industry, regardless of its size. K. POST-DISCLOSURE COMMENTS K.1. Submissions by other interested parties 122. The following post-disclosure comments have been made by the other interested parties: a. The LAB imported from Iran is of inferior quality and has consistently failed to meet BIS certification standards, leading to a complete halt in imports from Iran in the last two quarters of the POI. Any alleged injury cannot be attributed to Iranian imports. b. The export price for ICIIC and its exporters must be determined based on the response filed. ICIIC was unable to furnish evidence in support of claimed export price due to unforeseen border tensions. However, the exporter is willing to submit any evidence required. с. The adjustments to the export price must be based on response filed, to the extent verifiable. d. The domestic industry is not representative of actual production of LAB as it does not include the two largest producers of LAB; and also, does not include any backward-integrated producers. e. The Authority does not appear to have sought any information from or sent a questionnaire to RIL and IOCL, as has been done in past cases. f. Inclusion of RIL and IOCL is essential to provide a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of Indian industry's overall health and ensure that injury is not determined for only a subset of the industry. g. The Authority must re-examine the impact of imports from Saudi Arabia and Thailand and whether such imports have caused injury to the domestic industry, even if the applicants have not made any allegations in their application. h. There is a discrepancy in the import volumes as cited by the petitioner and that used by the Authority in the disclosure statement. While the petition showed a decline in imports from Qatar, the disclosure statement records an increase in such imports. i. The increase in imports from Qatar is temporary, and is a result of the implementation of the Quality Control Order for LAB, which has restricted imports from other countries. j. The Disclosure Statement does not contain a non-confidential summary of the domestic production share of the applicants, number of employees and PBIT. The Petitioners have not disclosed complete data in accordance with Trade Notice 10/2018. Excessive confidentiality has been claimed, and vital production and sales-related information has been withheld, limiting the ability of interested parties to respond meaningfully. k. Price undercutting should be examined for the period of investigation as a whole and not for each quarter. 1. The subject imports, particularly from Qatar have not suppressed the prices of the domestic industry. m. Domestic industry's pricing challenges and decline in volume parameters stem from its own operation inefficiencies, since their plants are old and depreciated. n. There appears to be no correlation between the imports prices and the profitability of the domestic industry. 0. The repeated submissions regarding the self-inflicted nature of the cost-price gap of the Petitioners has not been acknowledged or taken on record. Their cost of sales did not fall in line with raw material prices, while their selling prices remained artificially low due to internal market competition. p. The user association disagrees with the calculation presented in the Disclosure Statement on the alleged negligible impact of ADD. The cost impact is far more significant for MSME manufacturers, whose detergent prices are in the range of ₹60–₹70/kg, not ₹140/kg as assumed. q. With a consumption factor of 0.12 and a 10% ADD, the actual impact on the final product cost for MSME users exceeds 3.8%, making operations unsustainable for smaller manufacturers. r. The demand-supply gap in India is growing. With demand nearing 7,00,000 MT and limited domestic production capacity, the user industry cannot meet its needs without imports. Most alternative sources cited are unable to export to India due to BIS restrictions. S. While the judgement in the case of Reliance Industries Limited vs Designated Authority states that non-integrated producers should not be discriminated against, it also states that the Authority must conduct injury analysis for industry as whole. K.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 123. The following post-disclosure comments have been made by the domestic industry: a. Captive inputs have not been valued at its full cost of production and instead, the lowest of the raw material and utilities, and highest utilization of capacities has been considered for determination of non-injurious price. b. Optimization of cost of captive inputs is beyond the scope of the provisions of Annexure – III of the Anti-dumping Rules, as well as the past practice of the Authority. с. In an affidavit submitted by the Authority before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Authority admitted that where captive input is transferred on cost, such cost as recorded in the books is considered for determination of non-injurious price. Similar position was taken by the Authority in the Minutes of DGTR meeting conducted on 29th December 2015. d. In the past, in the case of Potassium Carbonate from EU, Korea RP, China PR and Taiwan, and PTFE from Russia, the Authority considered the cost of production of captive inputs shall be based on actual records of the domestic industry. e. There are no inefficiencies in the utilization of the utilities over the period, as the domestic industry reduced its consumption of one utility in favour of the other, to achieve cost reduction. Such shift was made deliberately in view of availability of the utilities, market conditions, and cost effectiveness. f. Allowing a return of only 22% is inappropriate since plants of both the domestic industry are very old and depreciated. Further, the domestic industry achieved very high returns in the past when there was no dumping and as such, the average of returns earned in the past must be considered. g. Injury to the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports and not by any other known factors. h. Imposition of duty would not restrict imports, and imports from subject countries can continue at fair prices, to bridge any demand-supply gap. i. Planned shutdowns are routine for all industries engaged in production of chemicals and allied products, such as LAB, and such shutdowns are not unique to the present period. Further, no evidence has been submitted to show that planned shutdowns in the past have created a shortage of the product. j. Any supply shortages caused have been due to unforeseen circumstances, which are beyond the control of the domestic industry. k. The downstream users, which belong to the large-scale organized sector, are not likely to be affected by the imposition of the duty, since such users were not impacted in the past as well. 1. Imposition of duties is not likely to create any monopolistic situation in the Indian industry, since there are multiple producers. Further, no monopoly was created in the past when duties were imposed. K.3. Examination by the Authority 124. The Authority has examined the post-disclosure submissions made by the interested parties. It is observed that the majority of these submissions are reiterations of arguments and contentions that have already been examined and are therefore, addressed to the extent deemed necessary in the relevant paragraphs of these final findings. For the sake of brevity, the Authority has refrained from repeating responses to such issues in this post-disclosure examination. However, any new issues raised for the first time in the post-disclosure submissions, as well as those previously addressed but deemed necessary to examine further are addressed hereunder. 125. With regards to the contention of other interested parties regarding alleged inferior quality of imports from Iran and their failure to meet BIS standards, the Authority notes that the same has already been acknowledged and addressed in the section regarding product under consideration. Therefore, the Authority does not find merit in the contention that the product imported from Iran is not comparable to that supplied by the domestic industry. Further, with respect to the contention that considering the above imports from Iran had stopped in the last two quarters and the same cannot have caused injury to the domestic industry, the Authority notes that for the purpose of injury analysis, the Authority is required to assess the impact of dumped imports over the entire POI. Further, to ensure fair temporal comparison of effect of dumped imports to the injury, the Authority has determined the dumping and injury margin for each quarter of the POI. Consequently, Iranian imports, where present, have been taken into account for the relevant period. 126. With respect to the argument of the producer from Iran and their exporters regarding consideration of their export price, the Authority notes that sufficient time and opportunity was provided to the exporters to furnish the required evidence in support of their claimed export price. Since anti- dumping investigation is a time-bound exercise, the Authority is unable to grant any more opportunities to the parties for submission of further evidence. As regards the adjustments to the export price, the Authority has made adjustments only to the extent such claims were verifiable based on the information on record, in line with the consistent practice followed in earlier investigations. 127. The contention of other interested parties that injury is caused by imports from Thailand and Saudi Arabia, the Authority notes that while no specific allegations were made in the petition regarding these countries, the Authority has conducted an assessment of the overall import situation, including price levels and volumes from non-subject countries. However, anti-dumping investigations are directed towards countries against whom prima facie evidence of dumping and injury is provided in the application. The current investigation has been initiated based on substantiated claims regarding the subject countries. Further, as already noted by the Authority hereinabove, the imports from Saudi Arabia and Thailand were priced above the subject imports. 128. On the representativeness of the domestic industry, the Authority notes that the petitioners meet the standing requirements under the Rules. The Authority published the initiation notification in Gazette of India and its official website for the sake of participation of all the interested parties including other domestic producers. Further, the Authority duly informed other domestic producers of the subject goods in India regarding the initiation of the present investigation. However, no submissions or responses were received from RIL and IOCL. Further, it is noted that the non-participation of other domestic producers does not invalidate the standing of the domestic industry, since their domestic production constitutes a major proportion of the total Indian production, as required under Rule 2(b) of the Rules. 129. With regard to the contention of interested parties regarding difference in import volume trend, the Authority notes that for purpose of findings, the Authority has relied on transaction wise import data from DG Systems. Therefore, slight fluctuations in the trend of import volume can be attributed to the same. 130. As regards the contention of the domestic industry regarding normation/optimization of captively produced raw material, the Authority notes that the non-injurious price is required to be determined as per Annexure-III of Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. For determining non-injurious price, the data relating to the elements of cost of production for the period of investigation are considered. The best utilization of raw materials, utilities over the past three years and the period of investigation, which are used directly or indirectly to manufacture the product under consideration are considered to determine the cost of raw material and utilities applying the rate at period of investigation. This process is adopted in order to nullify injury, if any, caused to the domestic industry by inefficient utilization of raw materials and utilities. As far as normation/optimization of cost of captively produced raw materials is concerned, the Authority notes that the cost of all the raw materials used for PUC as well as for captively produced raw material are determined as per the methodology explained above and there is no separate methodology for determination of the cost of captively produced raw material. 131. With regards to the arguments of the other interested parties and the domestic industry concerning the return on capital employed which is to be considered for determination of NIP, it is reiterated that as per the consistent practice of the Authority, 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. 132. As regards the submission of domestic industry on efficient utilization of utilities by changing utility mix, the Authority notes that in order to determine the cost of utility, the best utilization of utilities over the past three years and the period of investigation are considered at the rate of period of investigation. This exercise is carried out based on the information/data for the period of investigation and injury period submitted by the domestic industry and duly verified by the Authority. The methodology adopted for determining efficient utilization of utility is as per the Annexure-III of Anti- Dumping Rules, 1995, which is consistently applied. 133. With respect to contention regarding self-inflicted nature of the cost-price gap of the petitioners, the Authority re-iterates that cost of sales has increased from 100 index points to 208 index points where as the selling price of the domestic industry increased from 100 index points to 153 index points which is not a commensurate increase when compared with cost of sales. 134. Submissions on excessive confidentiality and inadequate non-confidential summaries have been examined. The Authority notes that petitioners have provided non-confidential versions of the information to the extent feasible, and confidentiality claims in accordance with Rule 7 of the Anti- Dumping Rules have been accepted. 135. With respect to the contention of interested parties regarding demand supply gap, the Authority notes that the imposition of duty does not prohibit imports, and if there exists a demand supply gap, imports may continue at fair prices to bridge the gap. The objective is not to restrict supply, but to ensure a level playing field for the domestic producers. 136. With respect to contention regarding examination of price undercutting quarterly, the Authority notes that there were fluctuations in the prices of LAB in the POI and the Authority adopted a similar approach in the previous investigation concerning the product under consideration. Therefore, the Authority deemed it fit to examine price undercutting on quarterly basis. However, a weighted average of the quarterly price undercutting has been determined for assessing the overall price- undercutting in POI. 137. The user industry has argued that the Authority has calculated the impact of imposition of ADD on downstream product priced at Rs. 140 per kg, which is much higher than the price prevailing in the market. In this regard, the Authority notes that based on the information available and for the duty based on injury margin, the impact of such duty on the downstream product priced in the range of Rs. 60-70 per kg may also not be significant. L. CONCLUSION 138. Based on the submissions made, information provided, and facts available before the Authority as recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis and consequent injury to the domestic industry, the Authority concludes the following: i. The scope of product under consideration is "Linear Alkyl Benzene" originating in or exported from Qatar and Iran. ii. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 38 of Schedule I to the Customs Tariff Act, under the dedicated tariff code 3817 0011. iii. The application has been filed by Nirma Limited and Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited. The applicants constitute domestic industry, under Rule 2(b) of the Rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3). iv. The subject goods are exported from Qatar and Iran 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. v. The product under consideration has been exported to India at a price below the normal value, resulting in dumping. The dumping margin is above de-minimis level and significant. vi. The volume of subject imports has increased, in absolute terms as well as in relative terms, over the injury period. vii. The share of subject imports has increased in the total imports over the period. Further, the subject imports have increased at a higher rate than the increase in imports from other countries. viii. The subject imports in relation to production and demand (excluding captive) have increased over the injury period and declined in POI. ix. The subject imports were undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in three quarters of the period of investigation. Χ. The subject imports have suppressed and depressed the prices of the domestic industry. xi. The production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry have declined over the injury period. As compared to the base year, the production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry declined by ***% and ***% respectively. xii. The sales of domestic industry have overall declined over injury period with a slight increase in the POI. xili. The market share of the domestic industry declined from ***% in 2020-21 to ***% in the period of investigation. On the other hand, the market share of the subject imports has increased over the injury period. xiv. The average inventories of the domestic industry have increased significantly over the injury period, having increased by 102% as compared to 2020-21. xv. During the period of investigation, the profitability of the domestic industry deteriorated by 103% as compared to the base year. xvi. The domestic industry has also suffered deterioration in cash profits over the period. xvii. Imports at dumped prices have adversely impacted the growth of the domestic industry. xviii. No other factor appears to have caused injury to the domestic industry. It is noted that domestic industry has suffered material injury as a result of the dumped imports of the subject goods from subject countries. xix. Imposition of anti-dumping duties are in the larger public interest. M. RECOMMENDATIONS 139. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all the interested parties and adequate opportunity was given to them to provide information on aspect of injury, causal link, and impact of measures. Having initiated and conducted the investigation in terms of the provisions of anti-dumping investigations as laid down under the Anti-Dumping Duty, Rules, the Authority has reached a conclusion that the duty should be imposed on subject goods. Accordingly, the Authority recommends imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports of the product under consideration. 140. Further, having regard to the conclusion reached with regard to imports of product under consideration under HS Code 3817 00 11, the Authority recommends collection of anti-dumping duties on imports of the product under consideration, falling under this code. 141. 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 definitive anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries, equal to the amount mentioned in Col. 7 of the duty table appended below, to be issued in this regard by the Central Government for a period of 5 (five) years from the date of notification to be issued in this regard. DUTY TABLE +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+--------+-------+----------+ | S.N. | Heading | Description | Country | Country | Producer|Amount| Unit | Currency | | | | | of origin | of export | | | | | +=======+=========+================================+==============+=============+=========+======+========+==========+ | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | +=======+=========+================================+==============+=============+=========+======+========+==========+ | 1. | 3817 00 | Linear Alkyl Benzene# | Iran | Iran | Iran Chemical| 14 | MT | USD | | | 11* | | | | Industries | | | | | | | | | | Investment | | | | | | | | | | Co. | | | | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------+------+--------+----------+ | 2. | -do- | -do- | Iran | Any country,| Any other| 54 | MT | USD | | | | | | including | than (1)| | | | | | | | | Iran | | | | | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------+------+--------+----------+ | 3. | -do- | -do- | Any country,| Iran | Any | 54 | MT | USD | | | | | other than | | | | | | | | | | Iran and | | | | | | | | | | Qatar | | | | | | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------+------+--------+----------+ | 4. | -do- | -do- | Qatar | Qatar | SEEF | 31 | MT | USD | | | | | | | Limited | | | | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------+------+--------+----------+ | 5. | -do- | -do- | Qatar | Any country,| Any other| 62 | MT | USD | | | | | | including | than (4)| | | | | | | | | Qatar | | | | | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------+------+--------+----------+ | 6. | -do- | -do- | Any country,| Qatar | Any | 62 | MT | USD | | | | | other than | | | | | | | | | | Qatar and | | | | | | | | | | Iran | | | | | | +-------+---------+--------------------------------+--------------+-------------+---------+------+--------+----------+ *Note-Customs classification is only indicative, and the determination of anti-dumping duty shall be made as per the description of the Product under consideration. # The product is commonly known as Linear Alkyl Benzene or LAB in the commercial parlance. The product under consideration includes mixed alkyl benzenes, and specifically excludes mixed alkyl naphthalenes. 142. The landed value of imports for the purpose of this notification shall be assessable value as determined by the Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and includes all duties of customs except duties under Sections 3, 8B, 9, 9A of the said Act. N. FURTHER PROCEDURE 143. An appeal against the determination of the Designated Authority in these final findings shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act/Rules. DARPAN JAIN, Designation Authority