Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 344] NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2024/ PAUSHA 3 , 1946
CG-DL-E-28122024-259674
ग. कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 80-90
ख. कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 0-10
क. कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 60-70
ख. कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 30-40
क.
ख. कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 40-50
क. सभी *** *** *** *** 40-50
वववरि यूओएम 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
6 नॉवे रु/एमटी 75,247 71,720 1,33,251 92,502
2 ताइवान एमटी 11,402 1,325 11,048 13,060
6 नॉवे एमटी 281 3,062 1,465 4,416
1 पवषयिेश एमटी 43,310 14,333 49,874 67,575
ख मांग % *** *** *** ***
1 चीनपीआर *** 1,04,664 *** *** 0-10
2 ताइवान *** 1,06,354 *** *** 0-10
3 थाईलैंड *** 1,09,802 *** *** 0-10
6 नॉवे *** 1,00,134 *** *** 10-20
7 औसत *** 1,08,057 *** *** 0-10
1 चीनपीआर *** *** *** 10-20%
2 ताइवान *** *** *** 10-20%
3 थाईलैंड *** *** *** 0-10%
6 नॉवे *** *** *** 10-20%
7 कुल *** *** *** 0-10%
20 2020-
21 2021-
3 नकिलाभ ₹ लाख *** *** *** ***
(आरओसीई ) % *** *** *** ***
2 त्रबिी % (***) *** ***
7 नकिलाभ % *** *** (***)
ग कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 60-70
ख कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 40-50
क कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 40-50
ख कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 40-50
ख कोई अन्य *** *** *** *** 30-40
ख सभी *** *** *** *** 40-50
60110160Demand for the product under consideration
Expiry of ADD
1 39041010,
39041020,
39041090,
39042100,
39042200,
39043010,
39043090,
39049000,
39044000,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce )
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES )
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi. the 24th December, 2024
Case No. – AD(OI) – 16/2023
Subject: Anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of “Poly Vinyl Chloride Paste
Resin” originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP, Malaysia, Norway, Taiwan
& Thailand.
F. No. 6/17/2023 -DGTR: - Having regard to the Customs T ariff Act, 1975, as amended from
time to time (hereafter also referred to as “the Act”) and the Customs T ariff (Identification,
Assessment and Collection of Anti -Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of
Injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as “ AD Rules”);
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Chemplast Sanmar Limited (“hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant’ or the ‘domestic
industry’) had filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘ Authority’) in accordance with the Customs T ariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act’) as amended from time to time and the Anti -dumping Rules, 1995 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Rules”), for the initiation of an anti -dumping investigation concerning
imports of ‘Poly Vinyl Chloride Paste Resin’ (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘product
under consideration’ or the ‘subject goods’ or the ‘PUC’) from China PR, Korea RP,
Malaysia, Norway, T aiwan and Thailand (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘subject
countries’).
2. The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima facie evid ence submitted by the domestic
industry , issued a public notice vide Notification No. 06/17/2023 -DGTR dated 30th
September 2023, published in the Gazette of India – Extraordinary, initiating the subject
investigation in accordance with the Section 9A of th e 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 injury.
3. In response to the initiation notification, the following producers/exporters from the subject
countries registered themselves as interested parties. However, questionnaire responses were
not filed by all producers. The position is noted below.
SN Subject country Producer/Exporter Response
1 China PR CNSIG Jilantai Chlor -Alkali Chemical Co., Ltd Not filed
China Salt Chemical Trading Co., Ltd Not filed
CNSIG Inner Mongolia Sodium Industry Co., Ltd. Not filed
CNSG Jilantai Polymer Materials Co., Ltd. Not filed
Tianwei Chemical Co. Ltd. Not filed
Grand Dignity Industrial Co. Ltd Filed
Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co., Ltd Filed
Ordos Junzheng Energy & Chemical Industry Co. Ltd Not filed
Linkland Enterprise Shanghai Co., Ltd Filed
Shenyang Chemical Co. Ltd Filed
2 Korea RP LG Chem Ltd Not filed
Hanwha Solutions Corporation Filed
3 Malaysia Kaneka Paste Polymers Sdn. Bhd. Filed
4 Norway Inovyn Europe Ltd Filed
5 Taiwan Formosa Plastics Corporation Filed
6 Thailand TPC Paste Resin Co., Ltd Filed
Thai Polyethylene Co., Ltd Filed
4. The following importers/users in India have registered themselves as interested parties.
However, questionnaire responses were not filed by all users. The position is mentioned
below.
SN Registered importers/users Response
1 AC Polycoaters Private Limited Filed
2 Aritas Vinyl Private Limited Not filed
3 Arora Vinyl Private Limited Filed
4 AV Unicoaters Private Limited Not filed
5 Beeta Poly Coats Private Limited Not filed
6 Delite Collections Private Limited Not filed
7 Jasch Industries Limited Not filed
8 Klassik Lamitex Private Limited Filed
9 Marvel Vinyls Limited Not filed
10 Mayur Uniquoters Limited Filed
11 Polynova Industries Limited Filed
12 Premier Poly film Limited Not filed
13 Prerna Rex Private Limited Not filed
14 RMG Polyvinyl India Limited Not filed
15 Shiv Polymers Not filed
5. Pursuant to initiation of the investigation, sufficient opportunity was given to the interested
parties to provide relevant information and defend their interests, and on the basis of
information and evidence on record and having regard to the act and the rules, the Authority
issued preliminary findings on 26th April 2024, provisionally concluding that product under
consideration has been exported from the subject countries at price s below respective normal
value s, thus resulting in dumping of the goods. Th e domestic industry has suffered material
injury and the injury to the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports. The
Authority recommended imposition of provisional anti -dumping duty on all imports of the
product under consideration from the subject countries.
6. The Authority notified the interested parties about the following procedure that was to be
followed subsequent to issuance of preliminary findings.
i. Comments were invited by all interested parties on the preliminary findings within 30
days of issuance of such findings.
ii. It was notified that an oral hearing will be conducted in terms of Rule 6(6) of the
Anti -Dumping Rules.
iii. Further verification deemed ne cessary will be conducted.
iv. Essential facts would be disclosed prior to issuance of the final findings.
7. A copy of the preliminary findings was sent to Central Government for their consideration
of the same for imposition of interim anti -dumping duty.
8. The preliminary recommendations were accepted by the Ministry of Finance and vide
notification 09/2024 dated 13th June 2024 interim measures were imposed for a period of 6
months.
B. PROCEDURE
9. Post issuance of the preliminary finding, the following procedure has been adopted:
a. The Authority received comments on the preliminary findings by various interested
parties, which have been adequately considered in the present final findings.
b. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to the
interested parties to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 13th August
2024. Subsequently, in view of the change of the Designated Authority, another public
hearing was held on 13th September 2024. All the interested pa rties who had attended
the oral hearing were provided an opportunity to file written submissions, followed by
rejoinders, if any.
c. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation which have
formed the basis of the final findings w as issued to the interested parties on 30th
November, 2024 and the interested parties were allowed time up to 6th December,
2024 to comment on the same. The submissions made by the interested parties,
arguments raised, and information provided post issuanc e of the preliminary findings ,
the comments to disclosure statement received from the interested parties have been
considered, to the extent found relevant , non -repetitive and supported with evidence
in this final finding s notification .
d. The preliminary fin dings form an integral part of these final findings. It is clarified
that for the sake of brevity, procedural details, arguments presented by the interested
parties, and the preliminary determinations arrived at whether directly or by necessary
implication in the preliminary findings and which have not been contested by any
party, are not reiterated in these final findings . Accordingly, the preliminary findings
should be regarded as a complementary component of these final findings , forming a
cohesive part of the factual and procedural record and should be read in conjunction
with the present final findings.
e. The Authority satisfied itself with the accuracy of the information supplied by the
interested parties which form the basis of these final findings to the extent possible.
The Authority has verified the data / documents submitted by the interested parties to
the extent considered relevant and necessary.
f. On the spot verification were carried out at the premises of the applicant, where
various claims made by the applicant were verified and supporting information, to the
extent considered relevant, was collected.
g. V erification of the exporters was also conducted and claims made were verified and
supporting information, to the extent considered relevant, was collected. Physical
verification was conducted at the premises of the participating producers from Korea
RP and Thailand. For other participating producers, desk verification was carried out.
h. '***’ in this document represents information furnished by an in terested party on a
confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under Rules 7 of Rules .
i. The exchange rate for the period of investigation (April 2022 – March 2023) adopted
by the Authority is 1 US$=Rs 81.06
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE A RTICLE
10. The Authority, in its preliminary findings, defined the product under consideration as
follows:
“3. The product under consideration for the present investigation is 'Poly Vinyl
Chloride Paste Resin', also known as Emulsion PVC Resin.
4. PVC Paste Resin is produced using vinyl chloride monomer and is usually sold in
the form of white/off -white powder. The PUC is primarily used for manufacturing
artificial leather and the other uses of the product are in the manufacturing of rexene,
coated fabrics, tarpaulins, conveyer beltings, toys, automotive sealant, adhesives, and
gloves.
5. The following products are excluded from the scope of the PUC:
a) Production under consideration with a K value below 60K
b) PVC Blending Resin
c) Co -polymers of P VC Paste Resin
d) Battery separator resins
6. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 39 of the Customs
T ariff Act, 1975 under subheading 390410 of the T ariff classification and has a
dedicated classification under ITC HS Code 39041010 . The customs classification is
indicative only and not binding on the scope of the product under consideration for
the proposed investigation.
C.1 Submissions made on behalf of the opposing interested parties.
11. The opposing interested parties have made t he following submissions with respect to the
product under consideration and like article:
a. Inovyn Europe Ltd requested exclusion of a special type of eco -friendly PVC paste
resin with the proprietary name ‘Biovyn,’ which is made entirely from renewable
carbon feedstock and is certified by an external auditor as complying to RSB
(Roundtable on Sustaina ble Biomaterials) standards.
b. PVC -1510 and PVC -16 should be excluded from the product scope as the equivalent
grades supplied by the domestic industry allegedly do not meet the necessary
requirements.
c. Existence of several specialty grades of the product can be identified by special
functional properties, such as low -fogging, anti -gelation, high filler acceptance, air
release etc. PCNs be formulated for these alleged specialty grades.
d. Submissions regard ing product scope and PCN were not addressed in the preliminary
findings. The delay in filing of the submissions on scope of the product under
consideration may be condoned and for the submissions to be accepted.
e. Reliance must be placed on BIS standards f or PCN. BIS has established eight
standards for eight different grades of PVC paste, and that this establishes the existence
of materially different grades of PVC paste.
f. BIS standards classify the product into 8 grades based on K value, inherent viscosity,
apparent viscosity under specified conditions and volatile matter content in line with
the relevant internationally recognized test methods. This establishes the insufficiency
of the present PCN methodology, which is based only on K value.
g. The grades man ufactured by the domestic industry are not comparable with the
imported product on many important counts and there is no substitutability between
the two on many core parameters.
h. The only concern of the applicant behind inclusion of speciality grades is t he potential
risk of circumvention. Mere apprehension of the applicant regarding possible
circumvention cannot justify overlooking the legal obligation that the scope must
encompass like products only.
i. Considering BIS’ statutory mandate, technical expertis e and the judicial deference
accorded to it, it is clear that the recommendations of the BIS cannot be disregarded or
overlooked by any regulatory authority.
j. Applicant is certified to manufacture only 4 out of the 8 grades enlisted under the BIS
Standard. Applicant’s production for Grade 2 exceeds 90% of its total production.
k. Users mostly import the product with K -values higher than 75 which are the high K -
value specialty grades specifically designed for specialized applications/ end -use. The
applicant cann ot manufacture the product with a K -value greater than 85.
l. Polynova Industries Ltd. requested the applicant to provide the requisite product with
pseudoplastic and thixotropic behaviour to meet the specific demands of their
automotive customers. However, o ne month after this request was made, the applicant
suggested use of Grade 120. Grade 120 failed to meet the necessary viscosity
parameters
m. There is lack of substantial commercial production of grades 121, 120 and 128 of the
applicant.
n. Applicant’s product is manufactured using the old technology of 1960s and does not
possess the requisite technology to meet the stringent low fogging standards.
o. Imported speciality grade, specifically designed for low fogging to be used in
automotive applications, commands a higher price in the market.
p. IIT Delhi did not possess a fogging machine or the requisite technical equipment for
such testing and in the absence of the same, any report for testing samples cannot be
relied upon.
q. India is not self -sufficient in producing th ese products, the mandatory BIS
certification and anti -dumping duties will negatively impact imports and the
downstream industry, leading to a significant demand -supply gap.
r. Chemplast has suppressed the existence of IS 17658:2021 - Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Homopolymers — Specification concerning subject goods.
s. Automobile OEMs adhere to the international standard ISO 6452 for testing the
fogging requirements and have prescribed a specification of a minimum Fog Number
as per SAEJ1756 by Photometric method. The product supplied by the applicant does
not meet the required viscosity.
t. The applicant has claimed that specialty grades of PVC paste resin can substitute
general -purpose grades which is not correct. Specialty -grade products with higher costs
and prices ar e not even a technical substitute for general -purpose grades.
u. In order to qualify as a ‘like product’ or a ‘like article’, the product must either exhibit
complete similarity to the product under consideration or possess characteristics
closely resembling those of the product under consideration. The product supplied by
the applicant is not a like article to the imported product.
v. The applicant has claimed that its grade CP 120 is substitutable for PVC 370 HD,
INOVYN PVC P 1412, INOVYN PVC P 11, INOYVN PVC P 15, PVC 367 NK and
INOVYN PVC P 1510. All the six grades identified by the applicant are not substitute
with each other and not used in same application.
w. PSH 25 and EH60 are critical for the automotive industry and are not produced by
Chemplast or any other domestic producer.
C.2 Submission s made by the domestic industry .
12. The domestic industry made the following submissions with regard to the scope of the
product under consideration and the like article:
a. The sole basis for excluding Biovyn from the product scope is its non -substitutability
with the domestic like article on account of the signif icantly higher price of Biovyn.
Therefore, the exclusion should be made subject to a price benchmark.
b. The domestic industry is supplying goods equivalent to grades PVC -1510 and PVC -16
of Inovyn, the properties of which are compliant with the relevant Indi an standard IS
17658 and the fogging values have been tested and found comparable in the technical
evaluation conducted by the panel at IIT Delhi.
c. PVC -16 has only been imported in sample quantities during the period of
investigation. As regards exclusion of PVC -1510, o nly miniscule quantities of PVC -
1510 have been imported in the period of investigation, at prices marginally higher
than those of the ‘normal’ grades supplied by the domestic industry at the time. This
rebuts the notion that it is a special ity grade.
d. The issue of special properties such as low fogging, anti -gelation etc and whether they
constitute distinct grade s has been raised several times in previous investigations
concerning the product. It was ultimately referred for technical evaluation to a panel at
IIT Delhi. The conclusion of the evaluation was that properties such as ‘low fogging ’
do not constitute a separate product or grade, and that the goods supplied by the
domestic industry are capable of meeting these requirements.
e. Demarcation of PCNs or exclusion from product scope of the so -called specialty
grades has not been sought by the participating producers and exporters from the
subject countries , which shows that producers worldwide do not recognize them to be
distinct grades.
f. Special properties can be achieved by simple additives and modification of process
control parameters with out the need for any special equipment, additional investment
or any significant difference in cost and price.
g. BIS standards identify eight grades of the product and do not identify any specialty
grades. Out of the eight grades identified by the BIS standard, Chemplast
manufactures seven of them, with the eighth grade not being produced due to lack of
demand.
h. Mere existence of different grades does not call for formulation of separate PCNs
unless there are differences in cost and price.
i. The import volume for the so -called specialty grades is very low and these grades
represent a small share of the total imports of the product into the country.
j. The goods manufactured by the domestic industry are technically and functionally
substitutable with the subject imports. Therefore, all imports, including the so -called
specialty grades, are capable of replacing the goods pr oduced by the domestic industry
and it is highly likely that exclusion of these grades will lead to importers shifting to the
grades so excluded to evade duties, rendering the duties ineffective.
k. The so-called speciality grades are fully capable of substituting the other grades, if the
relative price difference of these so -called specialty grades becomes lower than the price
of normal grades. Imposition of anti -dumping duty on normal grades and possible
exclusion of these special ty grades would lead to redundant & futile exercise, as
consumers would merrily switch over to these so -called specialty grades for their
normal applications .
l. There is hardly any grade which is imported and like article of which is not offered by
the domes tic industry.
m. Even when BIS is a technical specification of the product, the BIS does not specify any
specialty grade. BIS identifies only 8 grades for the product.
n. Out of 8 grades specified in BIS , the domestic industry is already producing 7 grades.
Even the 8th grade not produced by the domestic industry is only because of limited
demand for the product in the country.
o. None of the participating foreign producers have demanded a separate PCN for any
specialty grade. The p articipating foreign producers have not identified the product
with clear technical specifications & attributes and hence the Authority is requested to
not consider any need for exclusion or PCN for the same.
p. A perusal of transactions -wise import data shows that there is nothi ng in the
descriptions which allow identification of specialty grade. Interested parties should be
called upon to establish the import volume of these so -called specialty PVC .
q. No technical property of these products has been identified in such a manner tha t the
same can be recognized, identified and verified by customs.
r. As recognized by DGTR in mid -term review concerning “Welded Stainless Steel Pipes
and Tubes” from China PR and Vietnam, if the product itself is not clearly
identifiable, its exclusion cannot be considered.
C.3 Examination by the Authority .
13. The submissions made by the opposing interested parties and the domestic industry
regarding the product under consideration and the like article have been examined and
addressed hereunder.
a. PCN methodology.
14. The Authority invited comments on the scope of the PUC and PCN methodology from the
interested parties within the stipulated deadline. Based on submissions made by opposing
parties, a meeting was held regarding the scope of the product under consideration and the
need for PCNs on 1st December 2023. The interested parties which filed comments prior to
the meeting were given an opportunity to make submissions justifying the PCN
methodology proposed by them. The interested parties were informed that the Author ity
will not seek any further comments after the meeting and the decision on the PCN
methodology will be based on the information on record . Wherever clarifications were
required, the Authority asked the interested parties to provide relevant information.
15. The Authority has already examined the submissions made by the exporters/producers with
regards to the PCN methodology in the preliminary findings .
16. As far as certain users are concerned, the Authority notes that despite widespread awareness
through a gazette notification and direct communication on October 20, 2023, outlining
procedures and deadlines, including the November 4, 2023 deadline for PCN comments, the
users' failed to register as a n interested party or submit comments within the stipulated
timeframe. Even after the Authority published a notice on November 29, 2023, scheduling a
meeting on PUC/PCNs for December 1, 2023, the user industry only made a request for
registration late in t he evening of November 30, 2023. This request, submitted well beyond
the deadline and following the announcement of the PCN meeting, was justified merely by
an assertion of having ‘inadvertently missed ’ the registration deadline. Hence, t he comments
on the PUC/PCNs by these users were not considered in formulation of the PCN
methodology since these users did not adhere to the timelines prescribed by the Authority.
17. The Authority , in view of the comments received within the stipulated timelines adopt ed the
PCN methodology as given below for the preliminary findings. It was notified to the
interested parties vide communication dated 18th January 2024 which was published on
DGTR’s website.
S. No. PCN Parameter Range Code
1 K-value 60-70 MEDIUM
2 Above 70 HIGH
18. The Authority notes that the users subsequently filed comments on PUC/PCNs post the
meeting. The same have been examined by the Authority while recording the present final
findings.
19. The user industry has claimed that the PCN methodology was accepted at the behest of the
applicant. The users have submitted that the PCN methodology should include parameters
like viscosity, gelation, air release, high filler adaptability, etc.
20. The Auth ority notes that in the present investigation, the applicant did not propose any
PCN methodology. The proposal for the PCN methodology was given by the participating
producers. Therefore, the contention that the PCN methodology was accepted as per the
dome stic industry’s inputs is incorrect.
21. The users suggested PCN methodology based on technical literatures of the leading
manufactures which show that aforementioned parameters are very important for choosing
appropriate PVC paste resin. The users have , in their written submission s, submitted that the
rationale behind PCN request was to demonstrate that the domestic industry did not
produce certain grades and therefore, these can be excluded.
22. The Authority notes that none of the participating producers/exporters from the subject
countries have requested for PCN methodology based on parameters suggested by the user
industry. Also, no information has been brought forward to show that cost differs on these
factors. PCNs are framed on factors which lead to difference in cost of the product.
23. The Authority further notes that certain interested parties have conflated the issue of BIS
standards with PCN methodology. BIS has been referred to show that product under
consideration is categor ised into 8 grades with different K -values, inherent viscosity, apparent
viscosity, and volatile matter and therefore, there is a need for detailed PCNs. They have
claimed that the applicant is certified to manufacture only 4 out of the 8 grades listed und er
the BIS Standard and that the information on BIS was not provided in the application and
has been deliberately concealed from the Authority .
24. The Authority notes that the primary objective of adopting PCN methodology in trade
remedy investigations is to accurately account for variations in cost and price across different
grades within the PUC. This approach ensures a fair and an apple -to-apple comparison
between the subject goods and the domestic like product, enabling a proper reflec tion of
price differences in the determination of the dumping margin and injury margin. BIS
standards serve purposes which are distinct from the objectives of trade remedial
investigations.
25. The Authority accordingly hold s that the PCN methodology framed i n the present
investigation and notified on 18th January 2024 is appropriate .
b. Whether e xclusion of the Biovyn produced by Inovyn Europe Ltd. can be subjected to a
benchmark price ?
26. In the preliminary finding s, it was held that t he brand “Biovyn ” produced by Inovyn Europe
Ltd. was outside the scope of the product under consideration and the anti -dumping duties
were not required to be collected on such imports .
27. The domestic industry disputed the exclusion of brand “Biovyn” produced by Inovyn
Euro pe Ltd. without price benchmark. The domestic industry has placed reliance on the
anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of nylon filament yarn.
28. Inovyn has placed reliance on the anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of
"Elastomeric Filament Yarn" originating in or exported from Singapore wherein brand
‘Lycra’ was excluded from the scope of the product under consideration, as it is specialised
and fine quality product manufactured under process control conditions and price was
higher than other competing brands of elastomeric filament yarns.
29. The Authority has examined the submissions made by Inovyn and the domestic industry .
None of the parties have disputed that BIOVYN is a high price grade. Based on the
information on record, it is seen that the price of BIOVYN is at least [ *** ] times higher than
the price of the domestic industry and the import price of other grades.
30. It is further noted that BIOVYN is a low -carbon product made from 100% renewable carbon
feedstock and its production process is specialised. Admittedly, there has been no production
of BIOVYN by the domestic industry in the POI. Also, as per the import data it is noted that
there have been no imports of BIOVYN in the POI.
31. Inovyn has further submitted that the production of BIOVYN by INOVYN is duly certified
by third -party auditors, in accordance with the “RSB Global” (Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials) certification system.
32. On account of the above mentioned differences, t he Authority is of the view that the
BIOVYN is not a like product within the meaning of Anti -Dumping Rules .
33. The Authority therefore notes that brand BiovynTM produced from renewable/bio feedstock
and accompanied by an acceptable proof of sustainability is excluded from the scope of the
investigation .
c. Whether applicant produces a small subset of wide range of PVC paste resins ?
34. It has been contended by the other interested parties that the applicant is not undertaking
significant production of PVC paste of K value more than 75 and the users mostly import
the product under consideration with K -values higher than 75.
35. The Authority in this regard notes that in the total demand of PVC paste resin, the share of
imports of product s more than 75 K-is not significant and stands at [***%]. The Authority
notes that the applicant has also supplied more than 75 K -value product in the domestic
market. Therefore, the contention of the user industry that they are forced to import because
of the lack of production of the applicant does not hold to be true.
d. Whether applicant’s product have required viscosity, anti -gelation and anti -fogging property
and whether the product with these properties is imported at high prices ?
36. It has been contended by the other interested parties that the product supplied by the
applicant does not possess anti -gelation, anti -fogging and other properties. The issue was
examined in the sunset review investigation concerning imports of the same product
originating in or exported from Korea RP, T aiwan, China PR, Malaysia, Thailand, Russia
and European Union wherein t he Authority had held as follows: -
31. As regards the contention that the Fogging and K -V alue of PVC paste resin is an
indicator of quality of resin , the Authority notes that the domestic industry has
disputed this claim. It has been submitted by the domestic industry that K -V alue
essentially represents the molecular chain of the product and is not reflective of the
quality of the product per se. A per usal of the emails filed by the members of the
LCPMA and the response thereto by M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. has not shown any
refusal by the domestic industry to produce and sell the low fog PVC paste resin. In
fact, the domestic industry has contended tha t no order of any commercial quantity to
supply low fog PVC paste resin has been placed with them by any user in the past. It
has been further submitted that they have the capability to manufacture low fog PVC
paste resin, should any order of commercial si gnificance be placed with them. The
domestic industry has provided relevant documents showing that the company
was provided relevant technology to produce different kinds of paste resin by
its technology supplier and that its technology supplier is undispu tedly
producing and selling low fogging resin. It has been further submitted by the
domestic industry that members of the LCPMA are using anti -fogging
agents/additives while manufacturing the leather cloth to meet specific end -
use applications.
34. With regard to the persistent contention of LCPMA that the Designated
Authority could order a test report from an independent authority, the matter was
examined and after taking into account the contention of the various interested parties
comprising o f domestic industry and LCPMA, it was decided to examine their samples
by IIT Delhi especially about the fact whether the domestic industry makes products
belonging to K value higher than 78 and also if their products have low fogging
characteristics. It i s mentioned that both the parties were asked to send the samples
and based on sample results which was duly conveyed to both the parties, it was noted
after examination of samples reports ( including the conclusions given by the above
institution) that dom estic industry samples of subject goods included PVC paste resin
carrying higher K value ( of more than 78) while none of the samples of the LCPMA
had K values higher than 78, and all the samples (from both parties) had low fogging
characteristics. In view of the above, the Authority holds that the contention of
LCPMA that the domestic industry does not produce those grades of PVC paste resin
having K value above 78 and low fogging characteristics is not correct. On the
contrary, the test results provided b y IIT, Delhi have confirmed that the
domestic industry has produced those grades of PVC paste resin having low
fogging characteristics and K value above 78 .
37. It was found by IIT Delhi that the product supplied by the applicant has the required anti -
fogging properties. The domestic industry has submitted that product under consideration
of same K V alue can yield different viscosities in different plastisol s by using different
types/quantum of plasticisers and/or applying different shear while mixing. This process of
making plastisol is undertaken by the paste resin consumers , and not by the paste resin
producers.
38. Based on similar lines, Inovyn has requested exclusion of PVC -1510 and P VC-16 from the
scope of the investigation. The Authority has examined the transaction wise data. It is seen
that there are only two transactions of PVC -1510 which has been imported by one importer.
The import price of PVC -1510 is significantly low. Likewise, it is seen that there is only one
transaction of PVC -16 and the import is miniscule.
39. The Authority has also examined the transaction wise import data to see the price trend of
various grades over the period of investigation. It is seen that there is no material difference in
the price of various grades over the period of investigation. If the contention of the other
interested parties is to be accepted, the import price would have shown variation between
different grades . Therefore, the contention of the users does not hold merit.
40. In view of the aforementioned , the Authority concludes the following scope of the product
under consideration:
“The product under consideration for the present investigation is 'Poly Vinyl Chloride
Paste Resin', also known as Emulsion PVC Resin.
PVC Paste Resin is produced using vinyl chloride monomer and is usually sold in the
form of white/off -white powder. The PUC is primarily used for manufacturing
artificial leather and the other uses of the product are in the manufacturing of rexene,
coated fabrics, tarpaulins, conveyer beltings, toys, automotive sealant, adhesives, and
gloves.
The following products are excluded from the scope of the PUC:
a) Production under consideration with a K value below 60K
b) PVC Blending Resin
c) Co -polymers of PVC Paste Resin
d) Battery separator resins
e) BiovynTM produced from renewable/bio feedstock and accompanied by an
acceptable proof of sustainability
41. As per the information available on record, the Authority notes that the product produced
by the domestic industry is like article to the product under consideration imported from the
subject countries. The product produced by the domestic industry is comp arable to the
goods imported from the subject countries in terms of physical & chemical characteristics,
manufacturing process & technology, functions and uses, product specifications, pricing,
distribution & marketing, and tariff classification of the goo ds. The two are technically and
commercially substitutable. The consumers have used and are using the two interchangeably.
Thus, the Authority concludes that the product manufactured by the domestic industry
constitutes the like article to the subject good s being imported into India from the subject
countries in the terms of Rule 2(d).
D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1 Submission s made on behalf of the opposing interested parties .
42. The opposing interested parties have made the following submissions on the issue of the
domestic industry and standing of the domestic industry .
a. As per T rade Notices 13/2018 and 14/2018, a ny producer supporting an investigation
is required to submit a complete response in the prescribed formats. It was argued that
since Finolex Industries Limited has not filed a response in the present investigation, it
cannot be considered as a ‘supporter’ .
D.2 Submission s made on behalf of the domestic industry .
43. The applicant has made the submissions regarding the scope of domestic industry and
standing post the issuance of the preliminary finding. :
a. The Authority vide T rade Notice 04/2021 dated 16th June 2021 allowed supporters
to express support after giving information on capacity, produ ction and sales.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
44. In the preliminary finding, the Authority had noted as follows:
19. The Authority notes that the applicant, M/s Chemplast Sanmar Limited, together with
the supporter, M/s Finolex Industries Limited, constitute 100% of the total Indian
production.
20. It is also seen that the applicant has not imported the product under consideration.
Further, it is not related to any producer/exp orter from the subject countries and is not
related to any importer of the subject goods in India.
21. Therefore, the Authority preliminarily concludes that the applicant, M/s Chemplast
Sanmar Limited, constitutes the ‘domestic industry’ within the meanin g of Rule 2(b) of the
Rules and considers that the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule
5(3).
45. The Authority notes that on a reading of the Rules along with T rade Notices 13/2018,
14/2018 and 4/2021, a producer can submit limited information in order to qualify as an
eligible supporter, as provided in T rade Notice 4/2021. Finolex Industries Limited has
complied with this requirement.
46. Chemplast Sanmar Limited alone accounts for a major proportion of Indian production,
even without the support of Finolex Industries Limited. Therefore, the Authority hold s that
the applicant satisfies the requirement of standing under Rule 5 and constitutes domestic
industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b).
E. CONFIDENTIALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
E.1 Submissions made on behalf of the opposing interested parties.
47. The opposing interested parties have made the following submissions on confidentiality .
a. Certain information that has been disclosed in indexed form in the application, such as
the applicant’s cost of sales and net sales reali zation but has been completely redacted
in the preliminary finding.
b. The non -confidential version of the application does not give a ‘reasonable
understanding’ of the allegations made therein, as required by Rule 7 of the ADD
Rules. Specifically, it was alleged that the non -confidential version of the application
does not co ntain any information in Section VI.
c. There are discrepancies between the data in the preliminary findings and the original
petition, raising concerns over the accuracy of the investigation. Any updated data
should have been shared in a non -confidential ve rsion per Rule 7 of the AD Rules,
allowing interested parties to comment.
d. The confidential calculation of dumping margin for the participating producers was
not disclosed by the Authority despite methodological or data -level changes made in
the application.
E.2 Submissions made on behalf of the domestic industry .
48. The domestic industry made the following submissions on confidentiality .
a. Disclosure of information such as normal value and export price is made under Rule
16 whereas the preliminary finding is issued under Rule 12. There is no requirement
of disclosure of information under Rule 12.
E.3 Examination by the Authority
49. With regard to the non -disclosure of dumping margin, it is noted that the Authority is under
obligation to disclose all essential facts under consideration in terms of Rule 16 of AD Rules,
1995. Accordingly, the confidential calculation pertaining to individual participating
producers/ exporters is being disclosed to respective producers/exporters .
50. With regard to the disclosure of information and allegations of excessive confidentiality in
the application, it is the established practice of the Authority to treat costing information of
the domestic industry as conf idential. T rade Notice 10/2018 does not require disclosure of
costing information of the domestic industry.
51. As regards discrepancies in the data, the Authority notes that the applicant had relied on the
‘DGCI&S published data ’ in its application. However, the Authority has considered the
imports as per the DGCI&S transaction wise data. Therefore, the volume of imports and
demand in Ind ia have undergone change and the same were accordingly recorded in the
preliminary findings . Similarly, it is noted that while the applicant in its application had
reported the selling price trends based on gross sales values, the preliminary findings as w ell
as the disclosure statement have recorded the same based on net sales realizations (NSR).
F. NORMAL V ALUE, EXPORT PRICE & DUMPING MARGIN
F.1 Submissions made on behalf of the opposing interested parties.
52. The opposing interested parties have submitted as follows with regard to normal value and
export price:
a. FPC Ningbo has requested for reconsideration of its request for market economy
treatment .
b. FPC Ningbo does not have any restrictions on its operations of foreign exchange .
c. FPC Ningbo produces steam mainly by itself for the production of product under
consideration.
d. Water and electricity and some of the steam, are purchased from the affiliated group
company at arm’s length prices, i.e., market prices.
e. FPC Ningbo acquires the key raw material, VCM (Vinyl Chloride Monomer), from
other countries at international prices.
f. FPC Ningbo is a limited liability company with 100% foreign investment.
g. The 15 -year period provided in the Accession Protocol of C hina to WTO has expired
and therefore Chinese firms are now entitled to market economy treatment.
h. T aiwan may be considered as the appropriate surrogate country based on the data of
Formosa Plastics Company of T aiwan which has participated in the present
investigation .
i. Para 7 of Annex I to the ADD Rules prescribes a hierarchy, pursuant to which the
most appropriate option for constructing normal value is in a market economy in a
third country.
j. The domestic selling price reported by Hanwha is support ed by Hanwha ’s actual
invoice s, its accounting system and is reconciled with the audited financial statement .
k. The applicant has referred to the anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of
Rubber Chemical in support of its submission to reject the normal value of Hanwha.
According to Hanwha the reference is flawed as in that investigation, Kumho was
procuring raw material "6PPD" from China which is a non -market economy and
therefore, the normal value was rejected. However, in the present investigation,
Hanwha has not purchased raw material from China PR.
F.2 Submissions made on behalf of the domestic industry .
53. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regard to normal value and export
price:
a. Even though the provisions of Article 15(a)(ii) have expired, WTO members are
required to consider domestic prices or costs in China PR only if the producers und er
investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry
producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of
that product as per Article 15(a)(i), which the Chinese producers in the present case
have not shown.
b. No verifiable evidence of the actual selling price or cost in a market economy third
country is available for determining normal value for China PR.
c. Even when the producer from Norway has participated in the present investigation, it
has refrained from filing a questionnaire response. This was because the producer was
aware that the actual dumping resorted by the producer was higher than the claims of
the applicant.
d. Dumping is an admitted fact in the present investigation, and it is incon trovertible that
the product is being dumped into the Indian market. The normal value and net export
price have been determined for each exporter based on the response filed by that
exporter.
e. Hanwha has a history of suppressing facts from the Authority as the Authority has in
original and sunset review investigation concerning imports of CPVC found large
number of concerns.
f. If the dumping margin of Hanwha is negative, it implies that Hanwha has claimed a
normal value that is in the same range or lower than the export price. The product
under consideration has been imported in the Korean market at a price of at least 40%
higher than the price reported by Hanwha and hence the price in the Korean market
are higher than the normal value claimed by Hanwha.
g. Hanwha has a capacity of around 90,000 MT and the domestic sales are only about
30% of the capacity. Hanwha would be willing to sell as much volume as possible in
Korean market.
h. No consumer would import so significant volume s of material into Korean marke t if
Hanwha Solutions Corporation itself has been holding significant capacities and has
been selling significant volumes .
i. The normal value is defined as the comparable price in the ordinary course of trade of
the like article in the market of the exportin g country when meant for consumption
where each word has a definite meaning.
j. 'Normal value' must be determined with reference to a comparable price. In this
context, "comparable price" refers to the price of similar articles sold under similar
circumstance s, regardless of the manufacturer of the product.
k. The manual also provides that ‘sales at a loss’ is not the only factor for deciding
whether sales are in the ordinary course of trade or not.
l. In cases where the selling price of the product is artificially low or is at abnormal
(aberrational) level, the selling price of the producer cannot be considere d to be in
ordinary course of trade.
m. Appellate Body in US – Hot -Rolled Steel considered that a sales transaction may not
be in ordinary course of trade even in absence of any common ownership.
n. Appellate body in US – Hot Rolled Steel also opined that whethe r the sales price is
higher or lower than the 'ordinary course' price, and irrespective of the reason why the
transaction is not 'in the ordinary course of trade' , investigating authorities must
exclude, from the calculation of normal value, all sales which are not made 'in the
ordinary course of trade'.
o. The Authority has the discretion to rely on any available material that reflects the
comparable value of the articles in question, meaning that it is not obligated to
consider the material submitted by the interested party.
p. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Designated Authority V ersus Haldor T opsoe
A/S held that the statute has nowhere put a restriction on the investigating authority.
On the contrary, a perusal of the said provisions clearly show that the ‘normal value’
will have to be determined with reference to comparable price, the word ‘comparable
price ’ in the context can only be with reference to the price of similar articles sold
under similar circumstances irrespective of the manufacturer.
q. The Authority had in the case of anti -dumping investigation concerning import of
Rubber Chemicals viz. MBT, CBS, TDQ, PVI and TMT originating in or exported
from China and PX 13 (6PPD) from China and Korea RP had found that the
domestic price of a producer from Korea RP was materially lower than the import
price into Korea RP. The Authority had then considered normal value based on the
weighted average basis.
r. The raw material value reported by Hanwha should be examined to ascertain whether
the value of Eth ylene and VCM reported by the producer reasonably and
appropriately reflects market values.
s. Export and import price of ethylene in Korea RP are USD/MT 963 and USD/MT
1,049 respectively. Export and import price of EDC in Korea RP are USD/MT 775
and USD/MT 899 respectively.
t. In case the Authority finds that there is a difference in the cost claimed by Hanwha
and the price of the raw materials prevailing in the Korean market, the producer
should be called upon to demonstrate how its cost is significantly lowe r.
u. Hanwha has claimed that accounting system is designed to collect all costs incurred at
the manufacturing facilities and recognize the costs as part of the cost of
manufacturing. The cost of primary raw material is already reflective of the fair market
value as well.
v. Hanwha Solutions Corporation and Formosa Plastics Corporation have claimed
packing cost as adjustment in even the domestic market selling price. The producers
should be called upon to demonstrate how their products are packed in the domestic
market and the export market. Unless it is demonstrated that additional packing is
undertaken for the domestic market, adjustment in the domestic selling price should
not be allowed.
w. Formosa Industries (Ningbo) has claimed adjustment in the export price for country
of origin and bank charges. However, no such adjustment has been claimed by
Shenyang or its exporters. If Shenyang has not reported adjustment of charges for
country -of-origin certificate and bank charges, it is clear suppression of fact s by the
producer which requires the complete response to be rejected.
x. TPC Paste Resin Co., Ltd has claimed tax refund as adjustment in the calculation of
export price. The details of the tax refund have been claimed completely confidential
which has preve nted the applicant from offering meaningful submissions . The
exporter has claimed a negative price adjustment on export price . There is however no
basis for making claim for price adjustments on account of tax refunds.
y. FPC has claimed that water, electrici ty and steam have been purchased at market
prices. Steam and electricity forms more than 20% of the total cost of the product
under consideration. The market prices in China PR are itself impacted by the non -
market economy conditions. This in itself is suf ficient to show that the producer’s cost
is impacted.
z. FPC has claimed that has been claimed that raw material has been imported at
international prices. However, it has not been shown how import price of VCM is not
impacted by the non -market economy condit ions.
aa. FPC producer has also not shown how its land and building prices are not impacted by
the non -market economy conditions. It has also not been shown if the plant was
completely set up by the entity or purchased from a Chinese entity.
F.3 Examination by the Authority.
54. Under section 9A(1)(c), the normal value in relation to an article means:
i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when
meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in
accordance with the rules made under sub -section (6), or
ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the
domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the
particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the
export ing country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the
normal value shall be either:
(a)comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting
country or territory or an appropriate third country as deter mined in accordance with
the rules made under sub -section (6); or
the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable
addition for administrative, selling, and general costs, and for profits, as determined in
accordan ce with the rules made under sub -section (6);
(b)Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the
country of origin and where the article has been merely transshipped through the
country of export or such article is not pro duced 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.
55. The Authority notes that the following exporters of the subject goods have filed exporter’s
questionnaire responses: -
a. Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co., Ltd, China PR.
b. Grand Dignity Industrial Co. Ltd, China PR
c. Shenyang Chemical Co. Ltd., China PR.
d. Linkland Enterprise Shanghai Co., Ltd, China PR.
e. M/S Hanwha Solution Corporation, Korea RP.
f. Kaneka Paste Polymers SDN BHD, Malaysia.
g. Formosa Plastics Corporation, T aiwan.
h. Thai Polyethylene Co., Ltd, Thailand.
i. TPC Paste Resin Co., Ltd, Thailand.
F.3.1 Sales pattern of participating producers from the subject countries.
56. The domestic industry has submitted that China PR was earlier a net importer of the
product under consideration. The Covid outbreak had led to increase in the demand for the
PVC based gloves which resulted into significant capacity expansion i n China. However, as
the demand of gloves eased down, the domestic demand of PVC paste resin declined
significantly in China.
57. It has also been claimed that the demand supply situation has been further aggravated due to
the decline in the demand of textile/apparel in China (zero Covid policy) and other
European countries (due to inflation issues).
58. In order to examine the submiss ion made by the domestic industry, the Authority has
examined the response filed by the participating producers. The table below shows the
domestic sales of all the participating producers based on the response filed by them.
SN Particular UOM 2019 2020 2021 POI
1 Formosa Industries
(Ningbo) Co. Ltd. MT *** *** *** ***
T rend 100 105 113 113
2 Shenyang Chemical Co. Ltd. MT *** *** *** ***
T rend 100 79 77 72
3 M/S Hanwha Solution
Corporation MT *** *** *** ***
T rend 100 112 97 91
4 Kaneka Paste Polymers SDN
BHD MT *** *** *** ***
T rend 100 365 86 96
5 Formosa Plastics
Corporation MT *** *** *** ***
T rend 100 86 62 55
6 TPC Paste Resin, Ltd MT *** *** *** ***
T rend 100 102 94 94
59. It is seen that the domestic sales of all the producers have declined over the injury period. The
decline in the domestic sales corelates with the submission of the domestic industry.
F.3.2 Normal value and export price for China PR.
F.3.2.a Normal value for China PR
Market Economy Status for Chinese Producers
a. Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co., Ltd, China PR.
60. Formosa Industrial Co. Ltd, China PR. has filed a questionnaire response and has claimed
MET treatment .
61. Article 15 of China’s Accession Protocol in WTO provides as follows: "Article VI of the
GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on
T ariffs and T rade 1994 ("Anti -Dumping Agreement") and the SCM Agreement shall apply
in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the
following:
(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the
Anti -Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese
prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not
based on a strict c omparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the
following rules:
(i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy
conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the
manufacture, prod uction and sale of that product, the importing WTO Member
shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining
price comparability;
(ii) The importing WO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict
compariso n with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under
investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the
industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and
sale of that product.
(b) In pro ceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when
addressing subsidies described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant
provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special
difficulties in that application, th e importing WTO member may then use
methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into
account the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not
always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying suc h methodologies,
where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing
terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing
outside China.
(c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance
with subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices and shall
notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee
on Subsidies and Countervai ling Measures.
(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO
Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be
terminated provided that the importing Member's national law contains market
econom y criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provision of
subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition,
should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO
member, that market econom y conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector,
the nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that
industry or sector."
62. It is noted that while the provision contained in Article 15 (a) (ii) have expired on
11.12.20 16, the provision under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO, read with obligation under 15 (a)
(i) of the Accession Protocol require the criterion stipulated in Para 8 of the Annexure I of
the Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be provided in the sup plementary
questionnaire for claiming the market economy status.
63. At the stage of the preliminary findings , the Authority did not accept the market economy
treatment claimed by the producer. Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co., Ltd, China PR (also
referred to as Formosa Ningbo) has claimed that it has provided all the information in the
form of Questionnaire Response and supplementary response in the form of MET Response
as required by the Authority. Formosa Ningbo claimed that MET s hould be granted
primarily for the following reasons :
a. Formosa Ningbo does not have any restrictions on its operations of foreign exchange
b. Formosa Ningbo produces steam mainly by itself for the production of product under
consideration.
c. Water and electricity and some of the steam, are purchased from the affiliated group
company at arm’s length prices, i.e., market prices.
d. Formosa Ningbo acquires the key raw material, VCM (Vinyl Chloride Monomer),
from other countries at international prices.
e. Formosa Ningbo is a limited liability company with 100% foreign investment
64. The Authority notes that the market economy treatment cannot be granted solely based on
the factors claimed by the producer. In this regard, the Authority notes that in order to grant
a market economy treatment, it is also required to be seen if the entity has procured land,
financing, capital goods, raw material and utilities at market price and without any
interference from the government.
65. The Authority notes that the constitution of China permits engagement with the non -
public sector. As per Article 11 of the Constitution, the State is assigned the role of an
interventionist that goes beyond protecting the rights and interests of the non -public sector
and the State shall ‘encourage, support, and guide ’ their development. Article 15 of the
Constitution directly states that the country practices socialist market economy and makes it
clear that the same is done by variety of different instrumen ts such as incentivizing and
restricting to guide the economy. Therefore, merely because an entity is not controlled by
the Chinese government, it does not imply that it is free from any government intervention
being located in China .
66. The Authority notes that Formosa Ningbo in its questionnaire response has claimed that it
procures electricity , steam and water from unrelated entit ies. It is seen that steam, electricity
and water form around [ ***%] of the total cost of the product under consideration of the
Chinese producer. No evidence has been provided to show that the prices of these inputs
are free from any government interference.
67. The cost of sales claimed by Formosa Ningbo has been compared with the cost of sales
claimed by the other Chinese producer - Shenyang Chemical Co. Ltd. The cost of sales
claimed by Formosa Ningbo is lower than the cost of sales claimed by Shenyang Chemical
Co. Ltd. which has not filed any MET claim.
68. The authority considers that F ormosa Ningbo has not conclusively established that the
prices of inputs relating to utilities are reflective of market price. Further, it is noted that the
exporter has provided no information to establish that the investment made by the company
in acquiring land , plant & machineries was not distorted due to possible state interference in
this regard. The Authority considers that these parameters have direct bearing on the
eventual cost of production.
69. It is also seen that the company has borrowed some loan from within China. The exporter
has not provided any informati on to demonstrate that the cost incurred on this account are
reflective of market rates.
70. It is thus noted that the information provided by the exporter does not conclusively establish
that the decisions of the company regarding prices, costs and inputs, including cost of
output, sales and investment, are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and
demand and without significant State interference in this regard.
71. The Authority has therefore decided not to grant market economy treatment to FPC.
b. Shenyang Chemical Co. Ltd., China PR.
72. Shenyang Chemical Co. Ltd., China PR has filed a complete questionnaire response. The
producer has exported directly as well as through exporter Linkland Enterprise Shanghai
Co., Ltd. The producer has not claimed market economy treatment and therefore, its cost
and selling price are not relevant .
73. The following producers from China had registered as interested parties in the investigation
but have not filed any response. Therefore, these producers have been treated as non -
cooperative.
a. CNSIG Jilantai Chlor -Alkali Chemical Co., Ltd
b. China Salt Chemical Trading Co., Ltd
c. CNSIG Inner Mongolia Sodium Industry Co., Ltd.
d. CNSG Jilantai Polymer Materials Co., Ltd.
e. Tianwei Chemical Co. Ltd.
f. Ordos Junzheng Energy & Chemical Industry Co., Ltd
74. Under Annexure -I, Para 7 of the Rules, the normal value for non -market economy would be
determined as:
“7. In case of imports from non -market economy countries, normal value shall
be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in the market
economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other
countries, including India or whe re it is not possible, or on any other reasonable
basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product,
duly adjusted if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate
market economy third country shall be sel ected by the designated authority in a
reasonable manner, [keeping in view the level of development of the country
concerned and the product in question], and due account shall be taken of any
reliable information made available at the time of selection. A ccounts shall be
taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation made in any
similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties
to the investigation shall be informed without any unreasonable delay the
afores aid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a
reasonable period of time to offer their comments.”
75. The applicant has claimed that China PR should be treated as a non -market economy and
the normal value should be determined in term s of paragraph 7 of Annexure -I of the Rules
and claimed normal value based on its own cost of production.
76. Formosa Ningbo has claimed that the normal value can be determined based on the price of
its related producer from T aiwan - Formosa Plastics Corpora tion . The Authority notes that
while F ormosa Ningbo has suggested consideration of T aiwan as a surrogate market
economy country, it has not provided any information how T aiwan is an appropriate market
economy country, particularly when T aiwan is also subje ct to investigation . An appropriate
market economy third country can only be selected keeping in view the level of development
of the country and the product. Since no ne of the interested party has provided information
in this regard, and further since T aiwan is subject to investigations, the normal value cannot
be determined on this basis.
F.3.2b Export price for China PR.
a. Export price for Formosa Industries (Ningbo) Co., Ltd,
77. The producer has reported *** MT of value *** USD as exports of the product under
consideration to India during the period of investigation. The producer has claimed that it
has directly exported the product to India and no other related/ unrelated pa rty is involved in
the export of the product under consideration.
78. The producer /exporter has claimed various adjustment s to the export price . The Authority
conducted a desk verification of the information provided by the producer.
Additional/supplementary information was sought to the extent deemed necessary. Only
such verified information with necessary rectification, wherever applicable, has b een relied
upon for the purpose of th ese final findings . The net export price so determined is shown in
the table below.
b. Export price for Shenyang Chemical Co. Ltd
79. The producer has reported *** MT of value *** USD as exports of the product under
consideration to India during the period of investigation. The producer has claimed that it
has directly exported the product to India as well as through another unrelated exporter. The
unrelated exporter has filed questionn aire response.
80. The producer /exporter have claimed various adjustments to the export price. The Authority
conducted a desk verification of the information provided by the Chinese producer.
Additional/supplementary information and clarifications were sought to the extent deemed
necessary. Only such verified information with necessary rectification , wherever applicable,
has been relied upon for the purpose of th ese final findings . The net export price so
determined is shown in the table below.
c. Export price for non -cooperative exporters/producers
81. The export price for non -cooperative produ cers/exporters from China PR 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 below.
F.3.3. Normal value and export price for Korea RP.
82. Hanwha Solution Corporation, Korea RP has filed a questionnaire response from Korea . It
has been reported that there is no other producer in Korea RP which produces the product
under consideration.
83. The Authority notes the submissions of the applicant regarding rejection of the claims of the
normal value by Hanwha.
84. The Authority in this regard notes as unde r:
Section 9A (6A) states as under:
“The margin of dumping in relation to an article, exported by an exporter or
producer, under inquiry under sub -section (6) shall be determined on the basis of
records concerning normal value and export price maintain ed, and information
provided, by such exporter or producer.
(emphasis added)
Provided that where an exporter or producer fails to provide such records or
information, the margin of dumping for such exporter or producer shall be
determined on the basis of facts available”.
85. The provision above makes it clear that the Authority has to determine the dumping margin
based on the records maintained by the producer/exporter unless such a producer/exporter
fails to provide the information as sought by the Authority.
86. In the facts o f the present case, M/s Hanwha Solutions Corporation has participated in the
investigation, filed its exporters questionnaire response, fully cooperated with the Authority
in the verifications and has supplied all the relevant documents to establish the cl aims of
normal value.
87. In such a scenario, where a producer/exporter has maintained its records and corroborated
the information filed with the records maintained by it, the Authority has no occasion to
doubt the veracity of the records maintained by such producer/exporter.
88. It is further noted that domestic industry has placed reliance on Halder T opsoe vs DA.
However, the primary issue in the above -mentioned case due to which the prices reported by
the concerned exporter/producer was not accepted was because of the reason that the
concerned producer/exporter did not supply the information with regard to export price to
third country as solicited by the Authority to establish its claim and the Authority proceeded
under Rule 6 (8) of the Anti -dumping Rules,1995.
89. In the circumsta nces of the present case, no such situation has arisen that would warrant the
application of the principle established in Halder T opsoe. Consequently, invoking the
precedent set in that case would neither be justified nor hold merit in this context.
90. It is pertinent to mention that Annexure -1 to the Anti -dumping Rules, 1995 also prescribes
for:
“The designated authority while determining the normal value, export price and
margin of dumping shall take into account inter alia, the following principles –
1. T he elements of costs referred to in the context of determination of normal value
shall normally be determined on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer
under investigation, provided such records are in accordance with the generally
accepted accounting principles of the exporting country, and such records reasonably
reflect the cost associated with production and sale of the article under
consideration”
91. The above provision also emphasizes that the Authority can only reject the information fil ed
by the producer/exporter with regard to normal value and export price in a situation where
either the records maintained by the producer/exporter are not as per GAAP or such records
do not reasonably reflect the cost associated with production and sale of the PUC.
92. In the facts of the present case, the Authority could not find such reasons as mentioned in
the above paragraph.
93. In view thereof, the Authority has accepted the records maintained by the producer/exporter
and has determine the margin of dumping as mentioned below.
F.3.3a Normal value for Korea RP.
a. Normal value for responding producer - Hanwha Solution Corporation, Korea RP
94. The producer has reported domestic sales of *** MT having a value of *** KR W in the period
of investigation. The producer has claimed that all domestic sales are to unrelated parties.
95. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with
exports to India. To determine the normal value, the Autho rity conducts the ordinary course
of trade test to determine profit -making domestic sales transactions with reference to the
cost of production of the subject goods, on a PCN -wise basis. If profit -making transactions
are more than 80% of the total sales, t hen all the transactions in the domestic sales are
considered for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable
transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken into consideration for
the determination of the normal value.
96. The producer has claimed various adjustments to normal value. The Authority conducted
on the spot as well as desk verification of the information provided by Hanwha .
Additional/supplementary information and clarifications were sought to the extent deemed
necessary. Only such verified information with necessary rectification, wherever applicable,
has been relied upon for the purpose of these final findings .
97. For the ab ove producer/ exporter in the present case, *** % domestic sales are profitable in
case of high grade and *** % domestic sales are profitable in case of medium grade. Hence
only the profitable domestic sales have been considered to determine normal value. The
normal value so determined is given below .
a. Normal value for non -cooperating producers.
98. The normal value for non -cooperative producers/exporters from the Korea RP has been
determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value so
determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.3.3b Export price for Korea RP.
a. Export price for responding producer – M/S Hanwha Solution Corporation
99. The producer has reported *** MT having a value of *** USD as exports of the product under
consideration to India during the period of investigation. The producer has claimed that it
has directly exported the product to India and no other related/unrelated party is involved in
the export of the product under consi deration.
100. The producer /exporter has claimed various adjustments to the export price. The Authority
conducted on the spot as well as desk verification of the information provided by Hanwha.
Additional/supplementary information and clarifications were sought to the extent deemed
necessary. Only such verified information with necessary rectification, wherever applicable,
has been relied upon for the purpose of these final findings . The net expo rt price so
determined is shown in the table below.
b. Export price for non -co-operative exporters/producers.
101. The export price for non -cooperative producers/exporters from Korea RP 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 below.
F.3.4 Normal value and export price for Malaysia.
102. Kaneka Paste Polymers SDN BHD from Malaysia has filed the questionnaire response with
the Authority.
103. The Authority notes that subsequently Kaneka, Malaysia has extended a price undertaking
to the Authority. As part of this undertaking, the producer has agreed to revise its export
prices to India and to provide all reasonable and relevant information that the Designated
Authority may consider necessary to monitor compliance with the terms of the undertaking.
104. In accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules (Suspension or T ermination of Investigation
Pursuant to Price Undertaking), the Designated Authority may suspend o r terminate an
anti-dumping investigation if the exporter of the article under investigation furnishes a
written undertaking to revise the prices of the product under consideration so as to eliminate
the injurious effects of dumping.
105. The price undertaking offered by Kaneka, Malaysia was shared with the domestic industry
for its comments and acceptance in terms of the parameters stipulated in the undertaking.
Upon acceptance of the said price undertaking by the domestic industry, it was further
examined by the Authority, and the price undertaking has been accepted in terms of Rule 15
of the Rules. Consequently, the Authority has not determined definitive dumping and
injury margins for Kaneka, Malaysia. No anti -dumping duties shall apply to export s of the
product under consideration made by Kaneka, Malaysia while the undertaking remains in
effect and is adhered to.
106. In the event of any violation of the undertaking by Kaneka, Malaysia, the Authority reserves
the right to recommend to the Central Gov ernment the levy of appropriate anti -dumping
duties. Such recommendations may be based on the information available during the present
investigation or any additional information brought to the notice of the Authority from
appropriate sources. Anti -dumping duties recommended in the event of a violation shall be
applied retrospectively from the date of such violation or withdrawal of the undertaking.
107. Furthermore, the Designated Authority may, suo motu or upon a request from the exporter,
the domestic indust ry, importers, or any other interested party, periodically review the need
for the continuation of the undertaking. The terms of the price undertaking shall remain co -
terminus with the duration of any anti -dumping duties imposed by the Central Government
through the applicable notification and shall be subject to review as provided under the
relevant provisions of the Anti -Dumping Rules.
108. In the event that the Central Government does not accept the price undertaking, the
Designated Authority shall separatel y intimate the Central Government regarding the
quantum of anti -dumping duty to be imposed and the effective date of its levy.
109. Subject to the conditions of this undertaking, the preliminary findings earlier notified by the
Authority with regard to the imp osition of provisional duties on Kaneka, Malaysia are
hereby confirmed.
F.3.4a Normal value for Malaysia.
b. Normal value for responding producer - Kaneka Paste Polymers SDN BHD
110. Owing to the acceptance of the price undertaking extended by Kaneka Paste Polymers SDN
BHD and acceptance of the same by the Authority in terms of the Rule 15 of the Rules, the
normal value for the said producer/exporter has not been determined.
c. Normal value for non -cooperating producers.
111. The normal value for non -cooperative pr oducers/exporters from the Malaysia has been
determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value so
determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.3.4b Export price for Malaysia
a. Export price for responding producer - Kaneka Paste Polymers SDN BHD
112. Owing to the acceptance of the price undertaking extended by Kaneka Paste Polymers SDN
BHD and acceptance of the same by the Authority in terms of the Rule 15 of the Rules, the
export price for the said producer/exporter has not been determined.
b. Export price for non -co-operative exporters/producers.
113. The export price for non -cooperative producers/exporters from Malaysia 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 below.
F.3.5 Normal value and export price for Taiwan.
114. Formosa Plastics Corporation has filed a questionnaire response from T aiwan.
F.3.5a Normal value for Taiwan.
a. Normal value for responding producer - Formosa Plastics Corporation
115. The producer has reported domestic sales of *** MT having a value of *** NTD in the period
of investigation. The producer has claimed that all domestic sales are to unrelated parties .
116. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with
exports to India. To determine the normal value, the Autho rity conducts the ordinary course
of trade test to determine profit -making domestic sales transactions with reference to the
cost of production of the subject goods, on a PCN -wise basis. If profit -making transactions
are more than 80% of the total sales, t hen all the transactions in the domestic sales are
considered for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable
transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken into consideration for
the determination of the normal value.
117. The producer has claimed various adjustments to the normal value. The Authority
conducted a desk verification of the information provided by Formosa.
Additional/supplementary information and clarifications were sought to the extent deemed
necessary. Only such verified information with necessary rectification, wherever applicable,
has been relied upon for the purpose of these final findings.
118. For the ab ove producer/ exporter in the present case, *** % domestic sales are profitable in
case of high grade and *** % domestic sales are profitable in case of medium grade. Hence
only the profitable domestic sales have been considered to determine normal value. The
normal value so determined is given below.
b. Normal value for non -cooperating producers.
119. The normal value for non -cooperative producers/exporters from T aiwan has been
determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value so
determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.3.5b Export price for Taiwan.
a. Export price for responding producer Formosa Plastics Corporation
120. The producer has reported *** MT having a value of *** USD as exports of the product under
consideration to India during the period of investigation. The producer has claimed that it
has exported the product through unrelated exporter. The unrelated exporter has filed the
questionnaire response.
121. The producer /exporter have claimed various adjustments to the export price. The Authority
conducted a desk verification of the information provided by Formosa.
Additional/supplementary information and clarifications were sought to the extent deemed
necessary. Only such verified information with necessary rectification, wherever applicable,
has been relied upon for the purpose of these final findings . The net export price so
determined is shown in the table below.
b. Export price for non -co-operative exporters/producers.
122. The export price for non -cooperative producers/exporters from T aiwan 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 below.
F.3.6 Normal value and export price for Thailand.
123. TPC Paste Resin Co., Ltd has filed the questionnaire response from Thailand.
F.3.6a Normal value for Thailand .
a. Normal value for responding producer - TPC Paste Resin Co., Ltd
124. The producer has reported domestic sales of *** MT having a value of *** THB in the period
of investigation. The producer has sold the product in the domestic market to a related party
which has further sold the goods in the domestic market. The related trader has participated
and filed the questionnaire response.
125. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with
exports to India. To determine the normal value, the Authority conducts the ordinary course
of trade test to determine profit -making domestic sales transactions with reference to the
cost of production of the subject goods, on a PCN -wise basis. If profit -making transactions
are more than 80% of the total sales, then all the transactions in the d omestic sales are
considered for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable
transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken into consideration for
the determination of the normal value.
126. The Authority con ducted on the spot as well as desk verification of the information
provided by TPC . Additional/supplementary information and clarifications were sought to
the extent deemed necessary. Only such verified information with necessary rectification,
wherever ap plicable, has been relied upon for the purpose of these final findings. The
producer has claimed various adjustments to the normal value. The Authority has , however,
only allowed th ose adjustments as it has deemed fit as per its consistent practice.
127. For the above producer/ exporter in the present case, *** % domestic sales are profitable in
case of high grade and *** % domestic sales are profitable in case of medium grade. Hence
only the profitable domestic sales have been considered to det ermine normal value. The
normal value so determined is given below .
b. Normal value for non -cooperating producers.
128. The normal value for non -cooperative producers/exporters from Thailand has been
determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net normal value
so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.3.6b Export price for T hailand .
a. Export price for responding producer - TPC Paste Resin Co., Ltd
129. The producer has reported *** MT having a value of *** USD as exports of the product under
consideration to India during the period of investigation. The producer has exported
through the related trader which has filed a response to questionnaire .
130. The producer /exporter has claimed various adjustments to the export price. The Authority
conducted on the spot as well as desk verification of the information provided by TPC.
Additional/supplementary information and clarifications were sought to the extent deemed
necessary. Only such veri fied information with necessary rectification, wherever applicable,
has been relied upon for the purpose of these final findings . The net export price so
determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
b. Export price for non -co-operative exporters/producers.
131. The export price for non -cooperative producers/exporters from Thailand 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 mar gin table below.
F.3.7 Normal value and export price for Norway .
132. M/s. Inovyn Norge AS and M/s Inovyn Europe Limited from Norway had registered as
interested party. However, the producer and exporter did not file any questionnaire
response. The producer ha s only requested for exclusion of BIOVYN grade from the scope
of the product under consideration. Since the producer has not filed any questionnaire
response claiming an individual dumping and injury margin , therefore, the producer has
been treated as non -cooperative to that extent.
F.3.7.a Normal value for Norway .
133. The normal value for Norway has been determined based on facts available in terms of Rule
6(8) of the Rules. The normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin
table below.
F.3.7.b Export price for Norway
134. The net export price for Norway 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 below.
F.3.8 Dumping margin.
135. Based on the normal value and export price determined above, the dumping margin for the
participating and non -participating producers is determined as below: -
SN Particular Normal
value Net export
price Dumping
margin Dumping
margin Dumping
margin
USD/MT USD/MT USD/MT % Range (%)
1 China PR
A Formosa Industries
(Ningbo) Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** 60-70
B Shenyang Chemical
Co. Ltd. *** *** *** *** 20-30
C Any other *** *** *** *** 80-90
2 Korea RP
A M/S Hanwha
Solutions
Corporation *** *** *** *** De-
minimis
B Any other *** *** *** *** 0-10
3 Malayasia
a Any other *** *** *** *** 60-70
4 Taiwan
a Formosa Plastics
Corporation *** *** *** *** 20-30
b Any other *** *** *** *** 30-40
5 Thailand
a TPC Paste Resin
Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** 30-40
b Any other *** *** *** *** 40-50
6 Norway
a All *** *** *** *** 40-50
G. INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
G.1 Submissions made on behalf of the opposing interested parties .
136. The opposing interested parties have submitted as follows on the issue of injury and causal
link:
a. The imports are happening due to the huge demand -supply gap in India.
b. The exporters have been able to increase their prices from Rs 75,047/MT in 2019 -20
to Rs 1 ,00,872/MT in the period of investigation. The domestic industry cannot
reasonably claim injury when prices of imports have increased .
c. Various parameters of the domes tic industry, such as installed capacity, capacity
utili zation, domestic sales, number of employees, productivity per day and average
capital employed show that the domestic industry is not suffering any injury.
d. Price undercutting was only examined for the period of investigation and not for the
entire injury period. Further, they contended that the application simply alleges the
existence of ‘positive and significant’ price undercutting, without disclosing country -
wise undercutting even as ranged figures.
e. Any injury being caused to the domestic industry is attributable to Chinese imports
and not to imports from Thailand .
f. The domestic industry’s cost of sales increased significantly in the period of
investigation despite a global decline in cost of raw materials.
g. The applicant has in its annual reports and quarterly earnings have claimed that the
real cause for the decline in profits is the increase in energy costs due to the conflict in
Ukraine.
h. The dumping margin determined for Hanwha Solutions Corporation in the
preliminary finding s was negative. Therefore, these exports were at un -dumped p rices.
Injury analysis is carried out for only dumped imports. Therefore, exports made by
Hanwha should have been excluded from the injury analysis.
i. While the costs of key raw materials like ethylene, ethylene dichloride and vinyl
chloride monomer have se en a substantial reduction, the corresponding selling prices
of the product under consideration have only experienced a slight decrease .
j. Chemplast has high costs related to legacy issues and it is aiming to earn super profit it
earned in 2021-22 by making a false case of financial injury. ROI must be compared
to what it earned on 19 -20 and it is applicant’s inability to earn more than this and
cannot be remedied by DGTR.
k. The applicant earned abnormal profits in past and the profits have normalized n ow.
Even after normalization, the net profits during the POI were Rs . 145 crore which was
much higher than the profits in the year 2019 -20.
l. Exporters increased their prices so significantly on account of demand and supply gap
in the country and the users h ave been at the receiving end of such increasing prices.
m. Cause of injury is on account of inefficiencies, adoption of old technology and
purchase of raw material at long terms contract basis.
n. While the applicant has claimed increase in the cost of product ion, the raw material
price has declined by around 425$/ MT over the injury period. The decline in the raw
material price has also been admitted by the applicant.
o. The applicant has performed very well at the company level and any losses on other
counts should not be attributed to subject goods. Even at the company level, the cost
of Chemplast is high and the reason for such high cost must be investigated.
p. There are significant differences in the data recorded in the preliminary findings and
the data previously placed on record by the applicant. The revised data of the applicant
must be circulated.
q. The price undercutting of the subject goods on account of the imports must be looked
at for the entire injury perio d.
r. The decline in the performance is attributable to rising energy costs due to the Russia -
Ukraine war and overall inflationary pressures.
s. The alleged injury can be attributed to the high interest cost on loan taken by the
applicant for capacity expansion.
t. The a pplicant suffered decline in profits in 2021 -22 as well and there was no dumping
in 2021 -22, the negative growth price and/or profit parameters should be attributed to
the internal inefficiencies .
u. The applicant has in annual reports quoted that the r aw material prices have declined.
v. The applicant has projected a very healthy narrative of growth and profitability in its
prospectus.
w. The price increase in 2020 -21 and 2021 -22 was attributed to covid pandemic and the
prices have restored to a normal level.
x. A comparison between the imported raw material price of the applicant and the selling
price of the applicant shows that the raw material price has declined at a much higher
rate as compared to the s elling price of the applicant to users.
y. The applicant has claimed that there is no injury due to imports from European
Union and Japan. If the injury margin for these countries is negative, the price of some
of the subject countries is higher than the pric e from European Union and therefore
these countries cannot be a cause of injury.
z. Despite a portion of period of investigation falling in the COVID lockdown period,
the applicant has performed extremely well on all the injury parameters .
G.2 Submissions made on behalf of the domestic industry .
137. The domestic industry has submitted as follows on the issue of injury and causal link:
a. Earlier China was a net importer of the product under consideration. However, due to
the increased demand for PVC -based gloves during COVID, the Chinese producers
expanded their capacity significantly.
b. As the pandemic abated, demand for PVC -based gloves a lso declined. Further, there is
a general decline in demand for textile apparel in China (due to the zero -COVID
policy) and in Europe (due to the impact of inflation on the demand). The decline in
demand has impacted the operations of the exporters.
c. The la nded price of the subject imports has not moved in step with the variable cost .
Till 2021 -22, the landed price was above the cost of sales and there was no dumping.
However, since then, exporters have resorted to aggressive pricing.
d. Imports in 2019 -20 and 2020 -21 were below the domestic industry’s cost of sales.
However, there were remedies through the anti -dumping dut ies that w ere in force at
the time.
e. Due to the nature of the production process and costs associated with plant
shutdown, keepin g capacities idle is not a commercially viable option. Therefore, any
producer would prefer lowering prices over suspending production. As a result, the
real form of injury being suffered is price injury, not volume injury.
f. Imports are undercutting the pr ices of the domestic industry by a significant margin.
g. The domestic industry maintains a price list for its products which is periodically
revised based on the prices of imports. In the period of investigation, there was a 40%
increase in the number of pri ce revisions as compared to previous years .
h. The l anded prices are below the cost of sales of the domestic industry , leading to losses.
i. The dumped imports are having a depressing effect on the domestic industry ’s prices.
j. The contribution earned is negative. The domestic industry is not just sustaining losses
on fixed costs, but on every additional unit produced.
k. The domestic industry has suffered financial losses, cash losses and negative return on
capital employed.
l. The productivity and capacity utilization of the domestic industry have not declined.
While employment and wages are not dependent on the performance of the product,
the future of employment is dependent on the performance of the product.
m. The dum ped imports have adversely affected the capacity of the domestic industry to
raise capital and earn a return on the capital employed.
n. Considering the growing demand for the product in India, the domestic industry has
undertaken capacity expansion of 43,000 MT. These decisions were taken when the
market conditions were fair and remunerative with no dumping. However, dumping
of the product has impaired the expansion plans of the domestic industry. Planned
expansion of further 37,000MT has been shelved.
o. Suspension of production in itself is a significant cost to the industry because of the
continuous nature of the production process involve d. Shutting down production not
only implies shutting down the plant of PVC Paste, but also adversely impacts the
plants of EDC, VCM, power and steam.
p. Injury suffered by the applicant is restricted to price parameters as suspension of
production is an unvi able cost for the industry.
q. There has been a significant decline in the price of imports over the period of
investigation and the price undercutting is required to be examined on a monthly basis
r. Neither the volume of sales of the applicant, nor the export volume of different
respondent companies are uniformly spread over the period and therefore average price
undercutting will show a distorted picture.
s. The period of investigation in the present investigation is 2022 -23 which does not
coincide with any Covid period .
t. Cost on account of loans taken for capacity expansion have not been included in the
costs and profits reported.
u. There is no obligation for determining price undercutting for the injury period. The
price undercutting should be determined only for the period of investigation.
G.3 Examination by the Authority
138. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall
involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, ‘ … taking
into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on
prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on
domestic producers of such articles… ’.
139. In considering the effect of the dumpe d imports on prices, it is considered necessary to
examine whether there has been significant price undercutting of the domestic like article by
the dumped imports, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a
significant degre e or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a
significant degree.
140. Further, it is not necessary that all parameters of injury must show decline for there to be a
positive determination of injury. Some parameters may show injury wh ile the others may
not. The Authority considers all injury parameters and then arrives at a conclusion as to
whether the domestic injury has or is likely to be injured by the dumped imports.
141. It has been submitted by the interested parties that the applicant’s volume parameters have
not shown any decline. The interested parties have also relied on the annual reports of the
applicant wherein the applicant has attributed the increasing producti on and sales to the
growing demand for the product. The Authority notes the submission of the applicant that
because of the nature of the production process involved, suspension of the production in
itself is a significant cost to the industry and any PVC paste producer will prefer to continue
to produce and sell at lower prices rather than suspend its production.
142. As regards the submission that the import price has declined in line with the decline in the
raw material price, the Authority has compared the global average export price of ethylene
with the import price of the PUC.
143. Based on the above comparison, the Authority notes that from 2020 -21 to the period of
investigation, while ethylene prices showed fluctuations —declining in 2020 -21, rising in
2021 -22, and marginally declining during the investigation period —the import prices of the
PUC exhibited sharper variations, increasing disproportionatel y in 2021 -22 and declining
significantly during the investigation period and have not been commensurate with the
decline in ethylene prices.
144. The other interested parties have also contended that the price of the product is cyclic in
nature and the prices are returning to a normal level. It has been stated that ethylene prices
are declining and therefore, decline in the ethylene prices is causing decline in the import
price. The Authority notes that it has found positive dumping in the period of investigation
in the preliminary findings . Therefore, the contention that the import price decline is merely
because of decline in the raw material price cannot be accepted.
145. The interes ted parties have also contended that the increase in the cost can be due to the
capacity expansion undertaken by the applicant as the interest cost for loan would have
increased. During the verification, the applicant clarified that the expansion happened in the
post period of investigation and no interest cost for the expansion has been added to the cost
of production for the period of investigation. The table below shows the interest cost of the
applicant.
Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 2022 -23
Interest cost Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 341 151 32
Interest cost Rs lakhs *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 331 152 34
146. It is seen that the interest cost of the applicant has declined. Therefore, the claimed injury
cannot be attributed to the expansion undertaken by the applicant. The Authority also notes
that the profit before interest is negative in the period of investigation.
Cumulative assessment of imports
147. 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 determ ines that:
a. The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is
more than two percent expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the
imports from each country is three percent (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
b. Cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the conditions
of competition between the imported article and the like domestic articles.
148. The Authority notes that:
a. Imports from China, Korea, Malaysia, Norway, T aiwan and Thailand are at dumped
prices.
b. The margins of dumping from each of the subject countr ies are more than the de
minimis limits prescribed under the Rules.
c. The imports from these countries are above the de minimis limits prescribed under the
Rules.
149. In order to ascertain whether cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in
light of the conditions of competition between the imported article and the like domestic
articles, the following parameters have been examined:
a. Products supplied by different parties are like articles and are comparable in properties.
b. Domestically prod uced products and the imported products are interchangeable.
c. There is direct competition between the domestic product and the imported product
and inter -se between the imported products.
d. Consumers are using domestic material and imported material interchangeably and
the exporter and the domestic industry have sold the same product to same set of
customers.
e. Import price from the subject countries have moved in tandem.
150. The import price from the subject countries (CIF basis) is given below:
SN Countries UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 2022 -23
1 China P R Rs/MT 69,490 91,909 1,39,949 96,687
2 Taiwan Rs/MT 75,503 97,081 1,21,759 98,249
3 Thailand Rs/MT 78,750 97,277 1,43,935 1,01,433
4 Korea Rp Rs/MT 78,542 82,299 1,48,664 1,02,615
5 Malaysia Rs/MT 77,243 80,137 1,31,790 1,06,569
6 Norway Rs/MT 75,247 71,720 1,33,251 92,502
151. It is seen that the import price from the subject countries have moved in tandem with each
other. The import price in the period of investigation have increased as compared to the base
year. Further, as compared to the immediately preceding year, the import price has declined
in the period of investigation.
152. The table below shows the import volumes from the subject countries over the injury period.
SN Countries UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 2022 -23
1 China P R MT 12,182 1,127 15,560 19,359
2 Taiwan MT 11,402 1,325 11,048 13,060
3 Thailand MT 8,162 6,168 9,752 10,462
4 Korea Rp MT 6,380 1,104 5,111 10,143
5 Malaysia MT 4,904 1,546 6,938 10,135
6 Norway MT 281 3,062 1,465 4,416
153. It is seen that the import volume s from the individual subject countries has moved in tandem
with each other. When the demand declined in 2020 -21, the imports from all the subject
countries (barring Norway) declined. The import volume from the subject countries have
increased in the period of investigation as compared to the immediately preceding year which
shows the degree of competition between the imports from various sources.
154. The Author ity has examined the transaction wise import data and found that the consumers
have imported from the subject countries interchangeably. Furthermore, the domestic
industry and the exporters have sold the same product to same set of customers. The
domestic producers and exporters from the subject countries sell the like product to the same
category of customers and both are competing in the same market. Both products are being
used by the consumers interchangeably.
155. In view of the above, the Authority considers it appropriate to cumulatively assess the effects
of dumped imports of the product under consideration from the subject countries on the
domestic industry.
G.3.1 Assessment of the demand
156. The Authority has determined the demand or apparent consumption of the product in
India as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry, the supporter and imports from
all sources .
SN Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Sales of Domestic Industry MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 97 101 107
2 Sales of other Indian Producers MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 92 68 62
3 Imports from Subject Countries MT 43,310 14,333 49,874 67,575
Trend Indexed 100 33 115 156
4 Import from other countries MT 29,871 28,026 15,041 13,766
Trend Indexed 100 94 50 46
5 Total Demand/Consumption MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 78 92 105
157. It is has been submitted by the applicant that the total demand decreased in 2020 -21
compared to base year due to the outbreak of COVID -19. The demand has posted a steady
increase after 2020 -21.
G.3.2 Volume effect of dumped imports .
158. The effect of the volume of dumped imports from the subject countries has been examined
to ascertain whether imports have increased either in absolute terms or in relation to
production or consumption in India.
159. The volume of imports from various countries in absolute terms and in relation to
production and consump tion is as under:
SN Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 The subject countries MT 43,310 14,333 49,874 67,575
2 Subject imports in relation to:
a Indian production % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 36 116 149
b Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 43 125 149
c Total Imports % 59% 34% 77% 83%
160. It is seen that the imports of the product under consideration declined in 2020 -21 compared
to the base year as the demand declined. However, with the increase in the demand in 2021 -
22, the imports also increased. The imports have further increased in the period of
investigation. The imports from the subject countries have increased in absolute terms and in
relation to production, consumption and total imports. It is also seen that the imports have
increased with the increase in demand and supply gap in the country.
G.3.3Price effect of dumped imports
161. With regard to the effect of dumped imports on prices, the Authority is required to consider
whether there has been significant price undercutting by the allegedly dumped imports as
compared to the price of the like product in India or whether the effect o f such imports is
otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases. which otherwise
would have occurred, to a significant degree. In this regard, a comparison has been made
between the landed value of the product from the subj ect countries and the average selling
price of the domestic industry, net of all rebates and taxes, at the same level of trade. The
prices of the domestic industry were determined at ex -factory level.
i. Price undercutting
162. The Authority compared the landed price of imports with the net sales realisation of the
domestic industry.
SN Particulars Net Sales
Realisation
Rs/MT Landed
Price
Rs/MT Price
Undercutting
Rs/MT Price
Undercutting
Rs/MT Price
Undercutting
Rs/MT
1 China PR *** 1,04,664 *** *** 0-10
2 T aiwan *** 1,06,354 *** *** 0-10
3 Thailand *** 1,09,802 *** *** 0-10
4 Malaysia *** 1,15,361 *** *** Negative
5 Korea RP *** 1,11,075 *** *** Negative
6 Norway *** 1,00,134 *** *** 10-20
7 Average *** 1,08,057 *** *** 0-10
163. It is seen that barring Malaysia and Korea RP, landed price of imports is below the prices of
the domestic industry. However, the landed price of the subject countries as a whole is below
the selling price of the applicant. Hence, the s ubject imports are undercutting the selling
price of the domestic industry.
164. Further, since PCN s have been determined by the Authority in the subject investigation, the
price undercutting has been examined at PCN level as well which is given below.
SN Particulars High Medium Total Range
1 China P RP *** *** *** 10-20%
2 T aiwan *** *** *** 10-20%
3 Thailand *** *** *** 0-10%
4 Malaysia *** *** *** 0-10%
5 Korea RP *** *** *** 0-10%
6 Norway *** *** *** 10-20%
7 T otal *** *** *** 0-10%
165. The Authority notes that the price undercutting is positive for all subject countries.
ii. Price suppression/depression
166. The table below shows the changes in the cost of sales, selling price and landed price of
imports.
SN Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Cost of sales ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
2 Selling price ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
3 Landed Price ₹/MT 82,027 95,316 1,48,693 1,07,186
Changes
4 Cost of sales ₹/MT - *** *** ***
5 Selling price ₹/MT - *** *** ***
6 Landed Price ₹/MT - *** *** ***
Trend
7 Cost of sales Index 100 106 140 148
8 Selling price Index 100 121 160 113
9 Landed Price Index 100 116 181 131
167. It is seen that in the year 2019 -20, the landed price of imports was below the cost of sales and
selling price of the domestic industry. In 2020 -21, the cost of sales has increased by around
Rs *** per MT (6 index points). The selling price increased by Rs *** (21 index points). This
was due to the increase in the landed price of imports. In the year 2021 -22, the cost of sales
and selling price further increased.
168. In the period of investigation, while the cost of sales has increased by Rs *** per MT, the
selling price has declined. The decline in selling price was due to the decline in the landed
price of imports. The imports were undercutting the cost of sales as w ell as the selling price
of the domestic industry.
169. Therefore, the Authority notes that that selling price of the domestic industry has been
depressed in the period of investigation .
G.3.4 Economic parameters related to the domestic industry
i. Capacity, capacity utilisation, production and domestic sales
170. The following table shows capacity, production, capacity utilisation, domestic sales, export
sales by the domestic industry over the injury period.
SN Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 100
2 Production MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 91 99 105
3 Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 91 99 105
4 Domestic Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 97 101 107
5 Export sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 1,383 423 113
171. It is seen that:
a. The capacity with the domestic industry has remained constant throughout the injury
period. However, it has been stated that the domestic industry has expanded capacity
in the post period of investigation. The domestic industry has increased its capacity b y
43,000 MT.
b. The production and domestic sales of the domestic industry declined in 2020 -21 due
to decline in demand. The production and domestic sales have increased thereafter.
c. The exports of the domestic industry have declined and are insignificant in volume
over the injury period.
ii. Inventories
172. The following table shows the opening, closing and average inventory of the domestic
industry during the injury period.
SN Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Opening inventory MT ***
*** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 252 17 45
2 Closing inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 7 18 31
3 Average Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 76 17 35
173. It is seen that the closing inventory was high in the initial years of the investigation due to
COVID shutdowns. The closing inventory declined in 2020 -21 and has increased thereafter
in the POI .
iii. Market share
174. The following table shows market share distribution in the Indian market over the injury
period.
SN Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Share of the domestic industry % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 125 110 102
2 Share of other producers % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 119 73 59
3 Share of the subject countries % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 43 125 149
4 Share of other countries % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 121 55 44
175. It is seen that the market share of the domestic industry increased in 2020 -21 but has
declined in the period of investigation. The market share of the subject countries declined in
2020 -21 when the imports declined but has increased thereafter . The increa se in the market
share of the subject countries could be attributable to the demand and supply gap.
iv. Profit/loss, cash profit and return on capital invested .
176. The information regarding profitability is given below: -
SN Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Profit/ (loss) ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 227 293 -125
2 Profit/ (loss) ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 220 296 -134
3 Cash Profit ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 192 254 -102
4 Profit before Interest and Tax
(PBIT) ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 253 253 -84
5 Return on Capital Employed
(ROCE) % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 258 217 -77
177. It is seen that:
a. The profitability of the domestic industry improved till 2021 -22 but has declined
thereafter. The domestic industry has suffered financial losses in the period of
investigation.
b. The domestic industry has also suffered cash losses and negative return on capital
employed.
v. Employment, wages and productivity.
178. The information regarding employment, wages and productivity is given below: -
SN Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 No. of employees Nos. *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 96 102 105
2 Salaries & Wages ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 87 84 94
3 Productivity per day MT/Days *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 91 99 105
4 Productivity per employee MT/Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 95 97 100
179. It is seen that the number of employees has increased steadily over the injury period. The
wages paid declined in 2020 -21 and 2021 -22 but increased thereafter. The productivity has
moved in line with the production. The domestic industry has stated that third pl ant will
come up if the performance of the product is reasonable enough to justify return.
vi. Growth.
180. The information regarding growth is given below: -
SN Particulars UOM 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Production % (***) *** ***
2 Sales % (***) *** ***
3 Profit/(Loss) per unit % *** *** (***)
4 Inventory % (***) (***) ***
5 Market Share % *** (***) (***)
6 Profit Before Tax % *** *** (***)
7 Cash Profit % *** *** (***)
8 Profit Before Interest and Tax % *** *** (***)
9 Return on Investment (ROI) % *** (***) (***)
181. It is seen that that volume parameters showed a negative growth in the 2020 -21 when the
demand declined. The price parameters showed a positive growth in 2020 -21. The year 2021 -
22 has seen a positive growth in almost all the parameters except return on inv estment and
inventory. The period of investigation has seen a negative growth in all the price parameters.
The volume parameters have not shown a negative growth.
vii. Ability to raise capital investment.
182. The domestic industry is in losses and operating at ne gative returns at capital employed.
Therefore, the Authority holds that dumping of the product under consideration in the
Indian market has impacted the ability to raise capital investment of the domestic industry.
viii. Margin of dumping.
183. The margin of dumping may be an indicator of the extent to which the dumped imports can
cause injury to the domestic industry. The dumping margin is positive for all countries ,
ix. Factors affecting prices of the domestic industry .
184. It is seen that barring the domestic industry, there is one other producer of the product in
India which has supported the application. The capacity of the other producer is quite low
considering the demand in the country. Therefore, the other producer can not be a factor
which has affected the prices of the domestic industry.
185. It is also seen that the landed prices are below the cost and selling price of the domestic
industry. The landed price imports are depressing the prices of the domestic industry as a
result of which the domestic industry has suffered financial losses.
H. NON -ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS.
186. As per the Rules , the Authority , inter -alia, is required to examine any known factors other
than the dumped imports which at the same time are injuring the domestic industry , so that
the injury caused by these other factors may not be attributed to the dumped imports. The
factors which may be relev ant in this respect include, inter -alia, the volume and prices of the
imports not sold at dumped prices, contraction in the demand or changes in the patterns of
consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and
domestic pr oducers, developments in technology and the export performance and the
productivity of the domestic industry . It has been examined below whether factors other
than dumped imports could have contributed to the injury.
a. V olume and price of imports from third countries.
187. In addition to the subject countries, imports above de-minimis limits are from European
Union and Japan.
a. It is seen that the imports from Japan have declined in the period of investigation.
Furthermore, the import price from Japan is highe r than the import price from the
subject countries and the selling price of the domestic industry. Therefore, imports
from Japan could not have been a cause of injury suffered by the domestic industry.
b. It is seen that the imports from European Union have not shown any particular trend
over the injury period. When the imports from the subject countries declined in the
year 2020 -21, the imports from European Union increased. While the imports from
European Union have increased in the period of investiga tion, they are lower as
compared to their level in 2019 -20 and 2020 -21. Further, it is also seen that the import
price from European Union is relatively higher as compared to the import price.
Therefore, imports from European Union could not have been a ca use of injury
suffered by the domestic industry.
b. Contraction in the demand
188. There has been a constant rise in the demand of the product concerned throughout the
injury period. Therefore, decline in the demand is not a possible reason of injury to the
domes tic industry.
c. Pattern of consumption
189. No significant change in the pattern of consumption has come to the knowledge of the
Authority, nor any interested party has made any submission in this regard.
d. Conditions of competition
190. There appears to be no such conditions of competition or trade restrictive practices that can
be a cause of the claimed injury to the domestic industry.
e. Developments in technology
191. There appears to be no developments in technology, which could have caused injury to the
domestic industry.
f. Export performance of the domestic industry
192. The price and profitability in the domestic and export market has been segregated by the
Authority for the purpose of present injury assessment. Therefore, the analysis on inju ry is
not misrepresentative due to possible inclusion of export performance.
193. It is seen that there are no other factors which could have caused material injury to the
domestic industry.
I. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN.
194. The Authority has determined the non -injurious price for the applicant s on the basis of
principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The non -injurious
price has been determined by adopting the information/data relating to the cost of
production provided by the applicant s. The non -injurious price has been compared with the
lande d price of the product under consideration from the subject countries for calculating
injury margin. For determining the non -injurious price, the best utilization of the raw
materials , utilities and production capacity over the injury period including POI has been
considered. Extraordinary or non -recurring expenses and/or assets have been excluded from
the cost of production and/or NIP. A reasonable return (pre -tax @ 22%) on average capital
employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working capi tal) deployed for the
product under consideration has been allowed for recovery of interest, corporate tax and
profit to arrive at the non -injurious price as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules.
SN Particular NIP Landed
price Injury
margin Injury
margin Injury
margin
USD/
MT USD/
MT USD/
MT % Range
1 China PR
a Formosa Industries
(Ningbo) Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** 50-60
b Shenyang Chemical Co.
Ltd. *** *** *** *** 10-20
c Any other *** *** *** *** 60-70
2 Korea RP
a M/S Hanwha Solutions
Corporation *** *** *** *** 30-40
b Any other *** *** *** *** 40-50
3 Malayasia
a Any other *** *** *** *** 40-50
4 Taiwan
a Formosa Plastics
Corporation *** *** *** *** 40-50
b Any other *** *** *** *** 40-50
5 Thailand
a TPC Paste Resin Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** 20-30
b Any other *** *** *** *** 30-40
6 Norway
a All *** *** *** *** 40-50
J. ISSUES OF THE INDIAN INDUSTRY
J.1 Submissions made on behalf of the opposing interested parties .
195. The opposing interested parties have submitted as follows on the issue of Indian industry.
a. There is a huge demand supply gap, and the users are forced to import the product.
b. Anti -dumping duty were imposed on the product in the past as well and the
protection b y way of such measures were not utilized by the domestic industry to
expand their capacity even by this time .
c. It is the inability of the domestic industry to supply all the required grades in required
quantity that forces the users to import.
d. Several thousand end users in India are mostly in MSME category and the imposition
of anti -dumping duty will adversely impact them.
e. Government of India is in the process of implementing mandatory standard
certification requirement on PVC Paste Resin which will create a non -tariff barrier.
Anti -dumping duty should be imposed keeping in mind the BIS standard proposed.
f. The imposition of anti -dumping duty and BIS will give monopoly to the applicant.
g. Impact calculations of the domestic industry are based on flawed suppositions. The
domestic industry assumed the average price of a pair of footwear to be INR 1,000,
which is significantly higher than average.
h. Slippers and shoes are available for doorstep delivery on prominent online retail
platforms starting from INR 51 and INR 200 respectively. An anti -dumping duty of
20% will increase the cost of production of footwear by 5 -10%.
i. The goods supplied by the domestic industry are of inferior quality, as ev idenced by
their near -zero exports. The domestic industry is unable to export to other markets as
international customers are not willing to buy their product.
j. The applicant has never expanded its capacity despite so many years of protection.
k. While prelim inary findings take into consideration footwear price of Rs 1000, these
are available at price of Rs 51.
l. The preliminary findings have referenced the price of Rs. 75,000 for a sofa set, which
is beyond the affordability of the average Indian citizen.
m. This estimation considered for impact calculation does not reflect the economic
realities of a nation where the majority of citizens cannot afford such high -priced
items.
n. The applicant cannot provide the quality of the product required by the downstream
indust ry.
o. The view taken by the Authority in the preliminary finding that the user industry is a
pass -through industry is not correct.
J.2 Submissions made on behalf of the domestic industry .
196. The domestic industry has submitted as follows on the issue of Indian industry.
a. The domestic industry has undertaken capacity addition of 43,000 MT at a cost of Rs
350 Crore and is further undertaking capacity expansion of 35,000 MT. This will
significantly bridge the demand and supply gap.
b. The impact of 20% increase in the price of PVC Paste on end products will be
insignificant. The impact in case of top segment c ar, footwear and sofa set will be
0.03%, 0.15% and 0.15% only.
c. Synthetic leather is used only in high segment cars and not in case of low segment cars.
Similarly, a consumer with a smaller pocket to spend on sofa will either buy a sofa with
an average qual ity of synthetic leather wherein the share of the product under
consideration is low or buy a sofa made out of fabric material only. Therefore, the
impact of anti -dumping duty will not be felt by people with low paying capacity.
d. The domestic industry has n ever taken the complete benefit of anti -dumping duties.
Considering the duties in force in the past, the landed price including anti -dumping
duty was higher than the selling price of the Indian industry.
e. Duties have been imposed on the product in the past. Such imposition did not have
any adverse impact at the time. Further, even the expiry of the duties failed to have a
positive effect. The demand for the product has grown consistently even when the
duties were in force.
f. The competitiveness of the downstream industries is unlikely to be impacted as
exports of downstream products have remained consistent from the period when
duties were in force to when duties expired.
g. Profi ts of the downstream industry move independently of the price of PVC paste .
The profits earned from sales of artificial leather increased even when the price of
PVC paste increased.
h. The downstream industry is a pass -through industry.
i. For artificial leather fabrics, the share of the product under consideration in the total
cost is only 22%.
j. The CIF import price from the subject countries was Rs 1,33,427 per MT in 2021 -22.
Even after considering the anti -dumping measures, the landed pric e of imports will not
increase to that level.
k. The product supplied by the domestic industry has a lower lead time as compared to
the imported product. In fact, the average sea freight time from the subject countries
ranges from 10 to 22 days.
l. The duty will not lead to a supply shortage as the domestic industry is undertaking
capacity additions and the product under consideration is also imported from non -the
subject countries at non -dumped prices.
m. The domestic indust ry has *** MT plant of ethylene di -chloride and the entire
production is consumed in the product. If the plant of the product under
consideration is shutdown or production is suspended, it will adversely affect the
ethylene di chloride plant as well.
n. Impos ition of duty will create a level playing field and allow the domestic industry to
compete in the market on fair terms and salvage their sharply deteriorating financial
standing.
o. The purpose of anti -dumping duties is also recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. The Designated Authority [2006 (202) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.)]
wherein it was highlighted the role played by the anti -dumping law help in helping
achieve India’s national aim of creating a modern, highly industrialized, powerful state.
p. The a pplicant has been consistently expanding capacities in view of growing demand
in the country. From 2008 -09, the capacity has increased from 34KT to 109 KT.
q. 12 users registered as interested parties in the present investigation but onl y the
following 5 users have filed response. No response has been filed by the 7 producers.
This is despite 2 of these entities being listed entities.
r. 5 users have filed economic interest questionnaire. However, none of the users have
provided quantified i mpact of anti -dumping duty.
G.3 Examination by the Authority .
197. The Authority underscores that the primary objective of anti -dumping duties is to rectify the
injury inflicted upon the domestic industry by the unjust trade practices of dumping,
thereby fostering an environment of open and equitable competition in the Indian market.
The recommendation, if any, of anti -dumping measures is not designed to curtail imports
from the subject countries arbitrarily. Rather, it is based on a detailed analysis regarding
dumping, injury and the causal link between the two and is a mechanism to e nsure a level
playing field. It is crucial to note that the essence of fair competition in the Indian market
will remain unscathed by the presence of such measures. Far from diminishing competition,
the anti -dumping measures serve to prevent the accrual of unfair advantages through
dumping practices. It safeguards the consumers' access to a broad selection of the product
under consideration . Thus, anti -dumping duties are not a hindrance but a facilitator of fair -
trade practices.
198. The Authority issued initia tion notification inviting views from all the interested parties,
including importers, consumers and others. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire
for the users/ consumers to provide relevant information about the present investigation
including an y possible effects of anti -dumping duty on their operations. The Authority
issued gazette notification inviting views from all the interested parties, including importers.
consumers and other interested parties. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for
the consumers to provide relevant information with regard to the present investigations,
including effect of an antidumping duty on their operations. The Authority sought
info rmation on interchangeability of the product supplied by various suppliers from
different countries, ability of the domestic industry to switch sources, effect of anti -dumping
duty on the consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjust ment to the new
situation caused by imposition of anti -dumping duty.
199. The following users registered themselves as an interested party in the present investigation.
SN User/importer of the product under consideration in India
1 AC Polycoaters Private Limited
2 Aritas Vinyl Private Limited
3 Arora Vinyl Private Limited
4 AV Unicoaters Private Limited
5 Beeta Poly Coats Private Limited
6 Delite Collections Private Limited
7 Jasch Industries Limited
8 Klassik Lamitex Private Limited
9 Marvel Vinyls Limited
10 Mayur Uniquoters Limited
11 Polynova Industries Limited
12 Premier Poly film Limited
13 Prerna Rex Private Limited
14 RMG Polyvinyl India Limited
15 Shiv Polymers
200. The Authority has examined the submissions made by all the interested parties.
201. The user industry has contended that the anti -dumping measures will have an adverse impact
on them. However, the user industry has not provided any impact of anti -dumping duty on
their operations and have also not established that they will not be able to pass on the impact
on the cost on to the downstream industry.
202. The Authority notes that though in the event of imposition of anti -dumping duties the price
level of product in India may be affected but fair competition in the Indian market will not
be reduced by such anti -dumping measures. On the contrary, the anti -dumping measures
may m itigate the unfair advantage gained by dumping practices, which would arrest the
decline of the domestic industry both material injury and would help maintain availability of
wider choice to the consumers of subject goods.
203. As regards the submission on hug e the demand and supply gap, the Authority notes that the
domestic industry has already undertaken capacity expansion of 43,000 MT at a cost of Rs
350 Crore. The domestic industry has additionally submitted that they ha ve plans to further
expand capacity b y 35,000 MT but currently the same has been deferred on account of
dumping. The domestic industry is currently catering to around ***% of the demand for the
product in India. With the expansion already undertaken, it will be able to cater more than
***% th e demand in the country. It is also seen that there is another producer catering to the
demand in India and imports happening from various other sources as well.
204. The Authority also notes that the demand -supply gap in the country does not bar the
domestic industry from seeking redressal from dumped imports, nor it justify exports at
dumping prices. As held by the CESTAT in the matter of DSM Idemitsu Limited vs.
Designated Authority, the demand -supply gap does not justify dumping. The foreign
producers can always meet the Indian the demand by selling the product at un -dumped
prices. Even after the imposition of anti -dumping duty, the imports are not restricted in the
country.
205. It is also seen that the imports of the product under consideration in the past we re attracting
anti-dumping duty. Based on the information on record, it is seen that despite there being
anti-dumping duty, the demand for the product had continued to increase. While the
demand decline in 2020 -21, it was due to the Covid outbreak.
Source – EIQ filed by the domestic industry .
206. The domestic industry has provided the impact of anti -dumping duty on the eventual end
product. The domestic industry has provided the following impact.
SN Final downstream good Car (Top model in
mid segment car) Footwear Sofa set
1 Cost of end product 11,00,000 1,000 75,000
2 Share of leather cloth in total cost 0.68% 3.50% 3.33%
3 Share of PVC paste in total cost 0.15% 0.77% 0.73%
4 Impact of 20% anti -dumping duties 0.03% 0.15% 0.15%
Source – EIQ filed by the domestic industry .
207. The user industry has submitted that prices considered by the Authority are very high. The
user industry submitted that ‘a quick search on online retailer amazon.in shows that
6080100120140160Demand for the product under consideration
Expiry of ADD
footwears in the form of slippers are available for door delivery for a price starting Rs 51
onwards and footwears in the form of shoes are available for door delivery for a price starting
Rs 200 onwar ds inclusive of taxes ’ but the Authority considered Rs 1000 as the price. The
Authority , in this regard notes that the users have failed to mention about the material of
such Rs 51 slippers. The same search would show that slippers at such prices are not m ade
from PVC paste but from rubber. Therefore, the aforementioned submission is misleading .
The user industry has not provided any impact of anti -dumping duty on their operations.
208. The Authority notes that 5 users filed questionnaire response. It is seen that the share of the
product under consideration forms 20 -30% share in the cost of sales of the other interested
parties. The anti -dumping duties recommended in the preliminary finding ranged from as
low as 41$/MT in case of Korea RP to as high as 600 $/M T. Even if 20% anti -dumping duty
is considered, the impact in the cost will be around 4 -5%. The user industry has not
established that it cannot pass on the increase in the cost of product. Further, it has also not
been shown how past duties impacted them.
209. The domestic industry has additionally claimed that the price of the product was higher in
past, and the prices have declined only in the recent period. Even if anti -dumping duty of
20% is considered, the price including anti -dumping duty will be lower tha n the price in the
past. Therefore, when the past high prices did not have any adverse impact on the users, the
measures will also not have any adverse impact.
K. POST DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
K.1 Post disclosure submissions made on behalf of the opposing inte rested parties.
210. The following comments have been filed on the disclosure statement by the other interested
parties: -
a. There is difference in the data for import volumes, landed price and demand as
recorded in the preliminary finding and the disclosure statement.
b. Customer Category Price Adjustment and Lot Size Adjustment have not been allowed
in the normal value calculation for Thai Polyethylene Co. Ltd. and TPC Paste Resin
Co. Ltd.
c. The decline in landed prices during the investigation period is significantly influenced
by a normalization of freight costs in 2022 -23. Movement of the product under
consideration prices will not mirror ethylene prices exactly, as other factors, also
significantly infl uence the final landed price.
d. QCO will effectively restrict imports of PVC Paste Resin from all countries including
China PR. Since these measures are likely to restrict the imports of subject goods in
near future, there is no requirement of additional bar rier to trade in form of anti -
dumping duty on the very same subject goods.
e. Request have been made by the parties for physical verification of technical
capacities/capabilities of the applicant to produce specialty grade PVC paste resin at
their premises by the Authority but no details in this regard is provided in the
disclosure .
f. The Authority has noted that the applicant manufactures seven of them, with the
eighth grade not being produced due to lack of demand. If the applicant has the
capability to manuf acture all 8 grades as per BIS, then it should have obtained BIS for
all the 8 grades.
g. The Authority has observed that there are minor import quantities of INOVYN PVC
P1510 and INOVYN PVC P16, and that there are no material price differences of
various gra des of E -PVC imported over the period of investigation . Price difference
between products is not the sole basis to assess whether the product under
consideration and domestically produced grades are like articles .
h. Inovyn requests that “TM” may be added to the word Biovyn in the final findings.
i. Cost of production for Formosa Plastics Corporation requires a revisit as several
adjustments have been disallowed. It has been stated that chlorine, a by -product in
caustic soda production, incurs negligible or negat ive costs globally, as confirmed by
SCI99 and CMA data. Failure to consider this adjustment has le d to inflation of
dumping margins unfairly.
j. FPC T aiwan has stated that the Authority has considered packing cost in calculation
of cost of production for unde rtaking 80: 20 test. This has resulted in the comparing
the unpacked domestic sales with cost of packed product distorting the cost and price
comparisons.
k. 22% return on capital employed should not be allowed. Consistent practice of 22%
continues to ignore the evolving economic realities that impact the profitability and
sustainability of the domestic industry.
l. T aiwan should be considered as a surrogate country for determining the normal value
for China PR. FPC Ningbo and FPC T aiwan are comparable with each other in terms
of raw material policies, quality control standards, maintenance of accounts etc.
m. FPC Ningbo should be granted market economy status as all the conditions required
for granting non -market economy treatment are fulfilled.
n. As per Section 9 A, the Authority is required to determine dumping margin based on
the records and information provided by the producer or exporter, provided such
records are maintained and made available.
o. If the producer or exporter fails to supply the requested records or information, only
then can the Authority rely on the “facts available” approach.
p. The Authority can only reject information submitted by a producer or exporter
regarding normal value and export price if the records are either inconsistent with
GAAP or fail to reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of
the product under consideration.
q. Only 4000 to 5000 MT is imported by Korean users. Hence, Hanwha is not in any
pressure to sell more goods in Korean market, when more that 85% of th e Korean
demand is met by Hanwha itself.
r. The imported product in Korea RP is of much higher price because this type of
product cannot be supplied by Hanwha. The speciality nature, inclusion of ocean
freight and other custom clearance expenses in comparison with the Hanwha’s
domestic price.
s. Rising demand for PVC Paste Resin —from 139 KT to 163 KT in FY 2022 -23—
cannot be met by domestic producers. Planned expansions remain unfulfilled,
necessitating imports. Imports are essential for supporting downstream MSME s and
industries. Failure of the applicant to expand capacity undermines claims of injury and
confirms the critical role of imports in meeting demand
t. The disclosure statement is silent on the specific aspects which were verified during
the on -the-spot veri fication.
u. The BIS were taken after the period of investigation , a post -POI development, and
cannot be considered for concluding whether the applicant had the requisite capacity
to manufacture these grades during the period of investigation.
v. The users are o nly importing the speciality grades which are not produced by the
applicant. These grades are imported at a higher price and are not like article to the
imported product.
w. The Authority has noted in the disclosure statement that user industry has not
provid ed any information on account of cost difference on account of viscosity,
gelation, air release, etc. The user industry does not have access to specific pricing data.
The Authority should have demanded this from the participating producers.
x. The observation that the applicant has produced and supplied product with K value
more than 75 is erroneous. The user industry is unaware about any such sale made by
the applicant.
y. On the reference to the sunset review investigation where it was found that applicant’s
product had specialised properties, each anti -dumping investigation pertains to a
distinct period of investigation and thus, the findings from an earlier investigation are
not directly applicable to the present investigation due to differing timeframes and
evolving market dynamics.
z. Authority must disclose applicant’s data on grade -wise sales, along with invoices,
demonstrating the supply of low -fogging grades for automotive applications during
the period of investigation.
aa. The IS 17658: 2021 standard should se rve as the guiding criterion for determining the
product characteristics of the product under consideration . The IS 17658: 2021
supersedes the previous finding of the Authority and the IIT Delhi report.
bb. Authority has not considered the comments of user on the confidentiality claimed by
the applicant on the profitability figures. The annual report of the users reflect huge
profits whereas the applicant is claiming losses. Detailed segment -wise profit must be
examined data to ensure a transparent and accurate injury analysis.
cc. Duties are projected to escalate raw material costs by 4 –5%, reducing competitiveness,
increasing downstream imports, and risking job losses in MSMEs. Anti -dumping
duties will create mo nopolistic practice which will favour domestic producers,
undermining economic stability and employment.
K.2 Post disclosure submissions made on behalf of the applicant.
211. The following comments have been filed on the disclosure statement by the applicant: -
a. Merely because a certain grade has not been imported during the period of
investigation is not reason enough for that grade to be excluded from the product
scope. Dutie s have been imposed in the past on grades that have not been imported in
the period of investigation.
b. The very fact that the producer has participated in these proceedings and has sought ex
ante exclusion of the grade indicates that they intend to export the product to India in
the future.
c. In international markets, especially for commodity products, prices may change at any
time. Therefore, without the guarantee of a price benchmark, any price differential
between Biovyn and the grades manufactured by the applicant is like a line drawn in
water.
d. The request for a price benchmark must be considered on balance of probabilities.
There is a clear possibility that Biovyn may cause injury to the applicant in the future.
e. Hanwha has a related user of the product u nder consideration *** which buys the
product under consideration from the produc er. Hanwha has concealed such a
significant information in its questionnaire response shows the mala fide intentions of
the producer.
f. Hanwha has supressed information that its related exporter - Hanwha Chemical
Corporation has also exported the product under consideration. *** and *** have also
exported the product under consideration.
g. The Authority is requested to disclose (a) the volume of exports exported by suppliers
other than Hanwha Solutions Corporation and (b) their treatment in the export price
calculation for Hanwha Solutions Corporation.
h. Since Hanwha Solutions Corporation is the only supplier of the product from Korea
RP, it implies that the exported product is produced by Hanwha Solutions
Corporation and hence the aforementioned exports by other suppliers are nothing but
exports of Hanwha Solutions Corporation .
i. Since the p roducer has concealed the information with regard to the exports made by
the related entity, adverse facts are required to be applied on the transactions exported
through the related entity.
j. The applicant requested examination of the normal value reported by Hanwha
Solution Corporation. This was necessary to examine whether the value of Ethylene
and VCM reported by the producer reasonably and appropriately reflects market
values. The disclosure statement issued by the Authority is completely silent in this
aspect.
k. Hanwha Solutions Corporation and Formosa Plastics Corporation have claimed
packing cost as adjustment in even domestic selling price. The packing in both the
markets is very different. For the domestic market, there is only one packing. However,
in the export market, there are two forms of packing. Only the secondary packing of
pallets was required to be adjusted in the calculation of net export price.
l. The applicant had requested the Authority to direct exporters to demonstrate how
their products a re packed in the domestic market and the export market. The
disclosure statement issued is silent on this aspect.
m. Hanwha Solutions Corporation has a related entity in India which is acting as an
agency for the producer and was required to file a response.
n. As per articles of association of the company the Indian entity has listed agency service
as one of its key operations. The Indian entity performs the functions such as
identi fying agent s, facilitate sales, taking offers, provision of sales support, provi sion of
logistical services in respect of some of the customers.
o. In the anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of CPVC from China and
Korea, Hanwha had filed response along with its related entity in India. When the
producer had shown the Indian en tity as a related entity performing marketing
operations in that investigation, there is no reason for the Authority to not consider
that the entity performs the same function in the present case.
p. The Indian entity has reported significant amount as receipt against services from its
parent company Hanwha Solutions Corporation. The related entity was required to
file a response, and the adjustments were required to be made for these selling expenses
and reasonable profits for Hanwha Solutions Corporation.
q. The exporter has misled the Authority in the questionnaire response by suppressing
material facts. If the exporter can suppress such vital facts about the Indian market, it
is quite possible that the su ppressions are far more in respect of information pertaining
to the Korean entity.
r. The requirement for related entity to file a response has been made clear in the Manual
of Operating Practice for T rade Remedy Investigations.
s. Complete responses in respec t of related entities involved in the sales process are
required for accurately determining the cost of sales. If these entities are involved in the
sales process, then the costs incurred by them forms a part of the cost of
sales/constructed export price a nd must be accounted for accordingly.
t. Related parties were required to file response in (a) Pre -sensitized Positive Offset
Printing Plates from Bulgaria, China, Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea and (b)
Circular Weaving Machines.
u. In the anti -dumping in vestigation concerning imports of Circular Weaving Machines,
the adjustment was carried out despite the fact that the company was not engaged in
direct sales activities.
v. In the anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of Non -Woven Fabric from
Malaysia , Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and China, the Authority had rejected
the response filed by one of the producers for, inter alia, failure to disclose existence of
marketing office in India.
w. Related trader and importers are required to file response if they are directly or
indirectly involved in exports of product under consideration to India. In the absence
of information, the Authority is required to apply adverse facts.
x. Hanwha Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. performs its agency business only for Hanwha
Solu tions Corporation. The entire revenue of Hanwha Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. is
receipts from Hanwha Solutions Corporation. The expenses incurred by Hanwha
Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. charged from Hanwha Solutions Corporation should be
allocated on the product un der consideration considering the total exports made by
Hanwha Solutions Corporation.
y. Adjustments should also be made for the profits earned by Hanwha Solutions
Corporation.
z. It is also the practice of other investigating authorities to require related par ties
involved in the sales process to furnish all information, including expenses incurred
towards sales.
aa. The USDOC asks information for all related parties from the country of export,
country of import (US) and even third countries are required to file c omplete
information if they are involved in the sales process. Similarly, in case of European
Union, the information is required to be provided in respect of each step in the sales
negotiation process, from the first point of contact with the customer up t o and
including any after -sale price adjustments.
bb. It has been stated in the undertaking given by Kaneka that the undertaking shall take
effect 3 months from the date of acceptance by the Authority. The three month
timeline mentioned by Kaneka has no legal basis. It may be notified that that the
undertaking shall take effect from the date the recommendations are accepted by the
Ministry of Finance.
K. 3 Examination by the Authority.
212. 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 addressed to the extent deeme d necessary in
the relevant paragraphs of these final findings. For the sake of brevity, the Authority has
refrained itself from repeating the responses to such issues in this post -disclosure
examination. However, any new issues raised for the first time i n the post -disclosure
submissions, as well as those previously addressed but deemed by the Authority to require
further examination, are examined and addressed hereunder.
213. The Authority has carefully considered the comments filed by various interested part ies
regarding the product control number (PCN) methodology, the scope of the product under
consideration (PUC), and the role of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) standards, including
assertions relating to the Quality Control Order (QCO), Chemplast’s produc tion
capabilities, and specialty grades of PVC Paste Resin. The Authority observes the following
for these submissions:
On the alleged conflation of BIS Standards with PCN methodology:
214. The Authority reiterates its pre -disclosure position that the objectives of the PCN
methodology and BIS standards are distinct and serve different purposes. The BIS standards,
as stipulated under IS 17658:2021, prescribe technical specifications and qualit y parameters
for PVC Paste Resin. These standards are intended to regulate product quality in the
domestic market and ensure compliance for consumer safety and technical use. In contrast,
the PCN methodology is a tool adopted in trade remedial investigatio ns to enable fair
comparison of prices and costs across different grades of the product under consideration. By
adopting PCNs, the Authority ensures a like -to-like comparison between the imported
subject goods and the domestic like product, which is critic al for determining the dumping
margin and injury margin.
215. The fact that products are categorized into eight grades under BIS standards does not
automatically necessitate their exclusion from the PUC. The existence of different grades
does not alter the fu ndamental nature of PVC Paste Resin as a single product. The PCN
methodology adopted by the Authority ensures a fair comparison across grades, and the
scope of the PUC remains appropriately defined to include all grades of PVC Paste Resin
that share essent ial physical and chemical characteristics. The PCN methodology adequately
accounts for variations in cost and price, thereby addressing the concerns of fair comparison
raised by interested parties. Thus, the reliance on BIS categorization to argue for excl usion of
grades is misplaced and irrelevant to the present investigation.
On QCO implementation and its implications for anti -dumping duties:
216. The arguments advanced by interested parties regarding the impending Quality Control
Order (QCO), effective Dec ember 24, 2024, are premature and lack merit. While it is correct
that the QCO mandates BIS compliance for all producers, including foreign exporters, the
implementation of QCO and its impact on imports are beyond the scope of the present anti -
dumping inve stigation. T rade remedial measures, including anti -dumping duties, are
imposed to address unfair trade practices and to remedy injury caused to the domestic
industry. The imposition of a QCO does not automatically eliminate the need for anti -
dumping duties , as QCO compliance does not address issues of dumping, price
undercutting, or injury to the domestic industry.
217. Moreover, QCO compliance is a future regulatory requirement and its implementation
cannot form the basis for precluding trade remedial measures under the current
investigation. The Authority cannot pre -emptively assume that the dumped imports will
cease up on the QCO coming into effect, nor can it disregard evidence of injury caused
during the period of investigation. The possibility of future compliance by foreign producers
cannot be a basis to deny relief to the domestic industry suffering present injury. Therefore,
the assertion that QCO implementation would render anti -dumping duties unnecessary is
unfounded .
On the exclusion of certain grades including speciality grades and production
capabilities of domestic industry:
218. The Authority notes the submissi ons by interested parties seeking exclusion of grades having
K value of more than 75, INOVYN PVC P1510, INOVYN PVC P16 as well as specialty
grades of PVC Paste Resin and the contentions regarding production capabilities of the
domestic industry . In this regard, t he Authority observes the following :
a) The applicant has provided a list of grades supplied by it that are comparable to the
imported products. The fact that the applicant’s product is BIS approved further
establishes the likeness between the its products and the product imported from subject
countries.
b) It has been stated that the users are importing only speciality grades which are at high
prices. The Authority has examined the transaction wise import data to see the price
trend of various g rades over the period of investigation. It is seen that there is no material
difference in the price of various grades over the period of investigation. If the
contention of the other interested parties is to be accepted, the import price would have
shown variation between different grades.
c) The users have also stated that the y primarily import product of K value more than 75
from the subject countries and the same is not supplied by the applicant. The Authority
notes that t he applicant has sold significan t quantities *** MT of its grades PVC Resin –
121 and PVC Resin – 128 which have K value more than 75 and are BIS approved as
well .
d) Secondly regarding the specialty grades cited by few interested parties, the Authority
notes that these grades have not been demonstrated to constitute a distinct product
segment requiring exclusion. The arguments presented lack sufficient evidence to prove
that these specialty grades are so unique in nature and use that they fall outside the
broader scope of PVC Paste Resi n or merit exclusion from the scope of PUC. Hence,
the Authority, in the instant investigation, finds no legal or technical basis for narrowing
the scope of the PUC.
On the use of the IIT Delhi report:
219. The Authority acknowledges the submissions regarding the alleged obsolescence of the 2013
IIT Delhi Report. However, it is important to note that the IIT Delhi report is one piece of
evidence among many considered during the investigation. The introduction of BIS
standards in 2021 does not invalidate the relevance of earlier technical studies. The
Authority’s determination is based on a holistic evaluation of all evidence. The arguments to
disregard the IIT Delhi report are therefore without merit.
220. The Authority has carefully considered the post -disclosure comments raised by the domestic
industry against Hanwha Solutions Corporation (HSC) and has the following observations
and findings based on the facts, records, and submissions made during the investigation
process:
On the allegation of concealment of (i) relationship with domestic user ***, (ii)
export volumes by other suppliers and (iii) and non -disclosure of such export
volumes and their treatment in export price calculations for Hanwha
221. The Authority has examined the above allegation s and notes as under:
a) The domestic industry has not provided any credible evidence to demonstrate a
relationship between *** and HSC or to substantiate the claim of " mala fide intent."
Therefore, the Authority finds no merit in the allegation.
b) For the allegations of exports done through few more entities and concealment of the
same, the Authority, based on the data/information submitted by HSC, notes that HSC
has directly e xported the subject goods during the period of investigation.
c) Export price calculations are based solely on verified data provided by HSC and
supported by corresponding documents. Therefore, the request for disclosing
confidential export volume data ca nnot be entertained.
On the alleged concealment of exports made through Hanwha Chemical
Corporation Hanwha Corporation
222. The domestic industry alleges that Hanwha Chemical Corporation exported the product
under consideration, and that HSC suppressed this information. The Authority finds as
follows:
a) Hanwha Solutions Corporation was formerly known as Hanwha Chemical
Corporation, as evidenced by Gazette Notification No. 3/2021 -Customs (ADD) dated
28.01.2021. The change in corporate nomenclature does not constitute suppression or
concealment.
b) Regarding the exports allegedly made through Hanwha Corporation, HSC has placed
on record relevant export documents which clearly demonstrate that all exports during
the period of investigatio n were made directly by HSC and not by any other related or
unrelated entity.
On the allegation of applying adverse facts due to concealment by related entity :
223. The domestic industry has urged the Authority to apply adverse facts to transactions made
through HSC’s related entities. The Authority observes the following in this regard:
a) As established above, there is no evidence to suggest that exports were routed through
any undisclosed related entity.
b) Section 9A(6A) of the Custo ms T ariff Act, 1975, mandates application of adverse facts
only when an exporter fails to provide the required records or information. In the present
case, HSC has cooperated fully, and its submissions have been verified by the Authority.
c) Therefore, the demand for applying adverse facts to HSC’s transactions is unjustified
and does not hold merit.
On examination of normal value and inputs like Ethylene and VCM
224. The domestic industry contends that the normal value reported by HSC should be examined
to ve rify whether the values of key inputs, such as Ethylene and Vinyl Chloride Monomer
(VCM), reasonably reflect market values. The Authority notes:
a) HSC has provided a detailed breakdown of its production cost, including the costs of
key raw materials like Ethylene and VCM. These costs have been examined and verified by
the Authority during the verification process.
b) The domestic industry has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the reported
input values are inconsistent with prevailing market con ditions.
c) In the absence of any contrary evidence, the Authority finds no basis to reject the
reported normal value or input costs filed by HSC.
On adjustments to packing costs for domestic and export markets
225. The domestic industry argues that secondary pallet packing costs in export markets should
be adjusted to ensure a fair comparison. The Authority finds as follows:
a) As regards the submission of the domestic industry that Hanwha incurs additional costs
in exports compared to domestic sales, where simpler packing is used and therefore the
Authority should adjust only secondary pallet packing costs in order to ensure fair
comparison between domestic and export prices, it is noted that HSC has provided the
evidences regarding the adjustments cla imed in domestic sales (Appendix -4A) and
Exports to India (Appendix -3A) with regard to packing cost. It is further noted that
Rule 9A 6A of the Customs T ariff Act, 1975 states as under:
9A Where any article is exported by an exporter or producer from any
country or territory (hereinafter in this section referred to as the exporting
country or territory) to India at less than its normal value, then, upon the
importation of such article into India, the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, impose an anti -dumping duty not
exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to such article.
6A The margin of dumping in relation to an article, exported by an exporter
or producer, under inquiry under sub -section (6) shall be determined on
the basis of records concerning normal value and export price
maintained, and information provided, by such exporter or producer :
Provided that where an exporter or producer fails to provide such records or
information, the margin of dumping for such exporter or producer shall be
determined on the basis of facts available.
(emphasis added)
b) Therefore , Section 9A 6A is clear that unless and until the producer or exporter fails to
provide any record or information, the Authority cannot arbitrarily apply the facts
available. Additionally, the domestic industry has not provided any evidence to support
its claim that HSC incurs different packaging costs for domestic and export sale. In the
facts and circumstances of the current investigation, the contention of the domestic
industry to adjust only secondary packaging cost in order to ensure fair comparison
between domes tic and export prices by HSC cannot be accepted.
On adjustments related to India office of Hanwha:
226. The Authority notes that Hanwha , in its questionnaire response, has duly informed about
the Hanwha India office and hence the question of suppression of information does not
arise. It has been further submitted that all the PUC exported to India during POI was
directly sold and shipped by Hanwha to unrelated importers in India. Additionally, Hanwha
Korea has already paid brokerage/agency commission on all such exports to India in Korea
itself. The adjustment for the same has already been claimed in the response filed by Hanwha
and verifi ed by the Authority .
227. The Authority has carefully examined the issue of discrepancies raised by the interested party
regarding data in the preliminary findings. In response, the Authority conducted a
comprehensive review, addressing both the specific issue s raised therein and any other
potential anomalies to ensure data accuracy. The disclosure statement and these final
findings reflects the updated data regarding import volumes, landed price and demand after
due rectifications.
228. As regards MET treatment for FPC Ningbo, the Authority notes that the market economy
treatment cannot be granted solely based on the factors claimed by the producer. Formosa
Ningbo has not shown how the procurement of land, financing, capital goods, raw ma terial
and utilities are at market price and without any interference from the government.
229. As regard considering T aiwan as a surrogate country, the Authority notes that the issue has
already been addressed in the disclosure statement. An appropriate market economy third
country can only be selected keeping in view the level of development of the country and the
product. No information has been provided to establish how T aiwan is an appropriate
market economy country, particularly when T aiw an is also subject to investigation.
230. With regard to submission of interested parties for consideration of return of 22% for
determination of non -injurious price is not appropriate. The Authority notes that the return
of 22% on capital employed is applied in all cases as per the consistent practice of the
Authority. While it has been stated that 22% return on capital employed is not appropriate,
the other interested parties have failed to provide any other reasonable calculation
methodology.
231. As regards the comments on demand and supply gap, the Authority notes that the purpose
of anti -dumping duties is not to restrict imports but to ensure that the product is supplied at
fair prices. Even after the imposition of anti -dumping duty, the imports are not restri cted in
the country. CESTAT in the matter of DSM Idemitsu Limited vs. Designated Authority, the
demand -supply gap does not justify dumping. The foreign producers can always meet the
Indian demand by selling the product at un -dumped prices.
232. The Authority notes that interested parties have made contradictory submissions. While it
was earlier contended that the import price declined because of the decline in price of
ethylene, it has now been stated that the PVC and ethylene prices will not mirror as there a re
other factors as well which influence the prices. While the interested parties have claimed the
existence of other factors, no corroborative evidence has been brought forward. On the
contrary, the Authority has found that the export price from the subje ct countries is
significantly below the respective normal values showing that the decline in the import price
is attributable to dumping.
233. As regards profits in the annual report, t he applicant is a multi -product company which is
engaged in the production of a number of products. The Authority has examined the
complete cost of production of the applicant as per the records maintained. The Authority
has satisfied itself that such records are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting
principles and reas onably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the
product under consideration.
234. The Authority notes the contention of the interested parties with regard to the increase in
their cost of production due to anti -dumping duties . It is recognized that the imposition of
anti-dumping duty might affect the prices in the domestic market. However, the anti -
dumping measures will provide a level playing field and promote fair competition in the
market. The import price of the product has decline d significantly in the period of
investigation and the landed price of imports after addition of anti -dumping duty will still be
lower than the prices in 2021 -22.
L. CONCLUSION
235. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided, and submissions made by the
interested parties and facts available before the Authority, as recorded in the above findings,
and on the basis of above analysis of the dumping, injury and causal link to the domestic
industry, the Authority concludes as follows:
a. The product under consideration for the present investigation is 'Poly Vinyl Chloride
Paste Resin', also known as Emulsion PVC Resin. Product under consideration with a
K value below 60K, PVC Blending Resin, Co -polymers of PVC Paste Resin, Battery
separato r resins, BiovynTM produced by Inovyn are outside the scope of the product
under consideration.
b. The product supplied by the applicant is a like article to the imported product.
c. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, constitutes ‘the domestic industry’ within the meaning of
Rule 2(b) of the Rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of
Rule 5(3).
d. Considering the normal value and export price for the product under consideration,
the dumping m argin s for the product under consideration from the subject countries
have been determined, and the margins are significantly positive.
e. The dumping margin for Hanwha Solutions Corporation has been found to be de-
minimis.
f. The examination of the imports of the product under consideration shows that the
volume of dumped imports from the subject countries have increased in the period of
investigation. The imports have increased in both absolute terms and in relation to
production and consumption.
g. The import price is below the selling price of the domestic industry resulting in price
undercutting.
h. The import price has not moved in line with the cost of production which has
prevented the domestic industry from increasing its prices in line with the increase in
the cost of production.
i. The domestic industry has not suffered injury on volume parameters. The production
and sales of the domestic industry have improved. The injurious impact of the
dumped imports is felt on the price parameters.
j. The domestic industry is incurring financial losses, cash losses and a negative return on
capital employed.
k. The dumping of the product under consideration has adversely affected the expansion
plans of the domestic industry.
l. The Authority has examined the submissions made by ot her parties on any other
factors which could have caused injury to the domestic industry. No other factor
appears to have caused injury to the domestic industry. The Authority concludes that
material injury suffered by the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped
imports from the subject countries.
m. Imposition of anti -dumping duty would not affect the availability of the product to
the customers. The imports of the product under consideration will continue to
happen at fair prices .
n. The Authority has quantified the impact of anti -dumping duty on the users. It is seen
that the impact of the recommended measures on the eventual end consumers will be
insignificant.
o. The product has been investigated in past and the demand for the product has grown
consistently when the measures were in force. No information has been brought
forward to show that the imposition of measures had an adverse impact on users.
M. RECOMMENDATIONS
236. The Authority notes that investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and
adequate opportunity was given to the domestic industry, exporters, importers, and other
interested parties to provide positive information on the aspect of dum ping, injury, causal
link, and impact of recommended measures. Having initiated and conducted the
investigation into dumping, injury, and causal link in terms of provisions laid down under
the anti -dumping rules, the Authority is in view that imposition of anti-dumping duty is
required to offset the dumping and injury. The Authority considers it necessary and
recommends imposition of an anti -dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the
subject countries.
237. Having regard to the lesser duty rules followed by the Authority, the Authority recommends
imposition of anti -dumping duty equal to the lesser of margin of dumping and margin of
injury so determined in these findings for the period under investigation, so as to remove the
injurious effects of the dumpe d imports on the domestic industry. Accordingly, anti -
dumping duty as indicated in Column 7 of the duty table given below, is recommended to be
imposed on all imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject
countries, for a period of f ive years from the date of issue of the notification of imposition of
provisional duty by the Central Government vide Notification No. 09/2024 -Customs
(ADD) dated 13th June 2024.
238. Kaneka Paste Polymer SDH BHD, Malaysia, has given a price undertaking to the Designated
Authority and ha s agreed not to sell the product under consideration either directly or
through intermediaries, to India at prices that have been accepted by the Authority. The
Authority considered the price undertaking given by Kaneka. Further, comments were
sought from the affected domestic industry. The domestic industry has accepted the price
undertaking with certain reservations. The reservations expressed by the domestic industry
were addressed by Kaneka. The Authority , therefore , has accepted the price undertaking
offered by Kaneka. Accordingly, exports made by Kaneka shall be covered under undertaking
and no anti-dumping duties are proposed to be imposed on exports made by Kaneka. The
price undertaking shall take effect from the date on which the Central Government decides
to implement the present final findings. The validity of the price undertaking would be co -
terminus with the duration of the anti -dumping duties imposed by the Central Government
and shall be subject to review as per the applicable provisions under the Rules. The said
undertaking will not apply to (i) sales to importers holding advance licenses or (ii) sales to
export -oriented units. The company shall provide relevant information to the Authority to
establish that the said price undertaking is not being violated. Therefore, the imports of
Kaneka Paste Polymer SDH BHD will not attract any anti -dumping dut ies. The Authority
shall periodically review the exports made by the company and ascertain that the sa id price
undertaking is being fully complied. Appropriate action, in accordance with the Rules, shall
be taken in the event of any violation of the undertaking .
Duty Table
SN Sub Heading or
Tariff Item Description
of Goods Country of
origin Country of
Export Producer Duty
($/MT)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 39041010,
39041020,
39041090,
39042100,
39042200,
39043010,
39043090,
39049000,
39044000 and
39049090 ## 'Poly Vinyl
Chloride
Paste Resin’,
also known
as Emulsion
PVC Resin # China PR Any country
including
China PR Formosa
Industries
(Ningbo)
Co., Ltd. 595
2 Do do China PR Any country
including
China PR Shenyang
Chemical
Co., Ltd. 248
3 Do do China PR Any country
including
China PR Any
producer
other than
SN 1 and 707
SN 2
mentioned
above
4 Do do Any country
other than
China PR,
Korea,
Malaysia,
T aiwan,
Thailand and
Norway China PR Any
producer 707
5 Do do Korea RP Any country
including
Korea RP Hanwha
Solutions
Corporation NIL
6 Do do Korea RP Any country
including
Korea RP Any
producer
other than
SN 5
mentioned
above 89
7 Do do Any country
other than
China PR,
Korea,
Malaysia,
T aiwan,
Thailand and
Norway Korea RP Any
producer 89
9 Do do Malaysia Any country
including
Malaysia Any
producer 516
10 Do do Any country
other than
China PR,
Korea,
Malaysia,
T aiwan,
Thailand and
Norway Malaysia Any
producer 516
11 Do Do T aiwan Any country
including
T aiwan Formosa
Plastics
Corporation 247
12 Do do T aiwan Any country
including
T aiwan Any
producer
other than
SN 1 1
mentioned
above 373
13 do do Any country
other than
China PR,
Korea,
Malaysia,
T aiwan,
Thailand and
Norway T aiwan Any
producer 373
14 Do do Thailand Any country
including
Thailand TPC Paste
Resin Co.,
Ltd. 343
15 Do do Thailand Any country
including
Thailand Any
producer
other than
SN 1 4
mentioned
above 421
16 Do do Any country
other than
China PR,
Korea,
Malaysia,
T aiwan,
Thailand and
Norway Thailand Any
producer 421
17 Do do Norway Any country
including
Norway Any
producer 495
18 Do do Any country
other than Norway Any
producer 495
China PR,
Korea,
Malaysia,
T aiwan,
Thailand and
Norway
#The following products are excluded from the scope of the product under consideration
a) PUC with a K -value below 60K
b) PVC Blending Resin
c) Co -polymers of PVC Paste Resin
d) Battery separator resins
e) BiovynTM produced from renewable/bio feedstock and accompanied by an acceptable proof of
sustainability
## The customs classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the product under
consideration.
239. Subject to the above, the preliminary findi ngs recommended by the Authority vide
notification no. 6/17/2023 -DGTR dated 26th April, 2024 are hereby confirmed.
N. FURTHER PROCEDURE
240. An a ppeal against the determination of the Designated Authority that may arise out of th ese
final findings shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service T ax Appellate T ribunal in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act .
DARPAN JAIN , Designated Authority
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text