Gazette Tracker
Gazette Tracker
Register
Ministry of Commerce and Industry DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES

PF of ADD of Aluminium foil from China PR

Issue Date: 28 August 2024 Published: 30 August 2024
Gazette ID: CG-DL-E-30082024-256760 Download PDF Official source ↗
Back to Feed
Cite this gazette 

                    
                

            

        


        
        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                
                Core Purpose
            

            
DGTR preliminary findings in the anti-dumping investigation into imports of aluminium foil (up to 80 micron) from China PR.

        

        

        
        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    
                
                Detailed Summary
            

            
The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Commerce), issued Preliminary Findings dated 28th August 2024 in Case No. AD(OI)-31/2023, F. No. 06/35/2023-DGTR, concerning an anti-dumping investigation into imports of "aluminium foil up to 80 micron, excluding aluminium foil below 5.5 micron for non-capacitor application" originating in or exported from China PR, under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The investigation, initiated via public notice dated 21st March 2024, followed an application by domestic producers including M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., M/s Shyam Sel & Power Ltd., M/s Shree Venkateshwara Electrocast Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ravi Raj Foils Ltd., M/s GLS Foils Product Pvt. Ltd., and M/s LSKB Aluminium Foils Pvt. Ltd. It references a prior original investigation initiated vide Notification No. 14/06/2015-DGAD dated 15th December 2015 (duty imposed via Customs Notification No. 23/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 16th May 2017); a first sunset review initiated vide Notification No. 7/27/2021-DGTR dated 16th September 2021 whose recommended continuation was not accepted by the Ministry of Finance, causing duties to lapse after 15th May 2022; and a related mid-term review on aluminium foil from Thailand initiated vide Notification No. 7/3/2024-DGTR dated 29th March 2024. The period of investigation is 1st October 2022 to 30th September 2023, with an injury analysis period covering 2019-20, 2020-21, and 1st April 2021 to 30th September 2022 (annualized).

        

        

        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                
                Full Text
            

            
            

                
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 220] NEW  DELHI,  WEDNES DAY , AUGUST  28, 2024 /BHADRA  6, 194 6
CG-DL-E-30082024-256760

76071999, 76071991, 76071995, 76071910, 76071994, 76071993  और 76071992  के अंतगात

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
76072010, 76071110, 76071999, 76071991, 76071995, 76071910, 76071994, 76071993

थाइलैंड  मी. टि  18,043  16,244  36,085  27,007

‘23)
थाइलैंड  मी. टि  18,043  16,244  36,085  27,007
अन्य देि  मी. टि  20,098  19,202  16,729  5,255
‘23)
खपत % *** *** *** ***

‘23)

‘23)
क्षमता  मी. टि 53,756  67,910  1,15,073  1,32,140
उत्पादि  मी. टि 27,843  34,452  57,492  69,572

भारत में मांग  मी. टि  1,45,726  1,46,510  1,76,366  1,96,266

औसत  मी. टि  1,283  1,314  3,129  5,146

*** *** *** *** 10-20

76071999, 76 071991, 76071995, 76071910, 76071994, 76071993 और ' 76071992

.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. 7607119
0,
7607209
0,

.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0,
7607111
0,
7607199
9,
7607199
1,
7607199
5,
7607191
0,
7607199
4,
7607199
7607199

.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND  INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce )
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE  REMEDIES )
NOTIFICAT ION
New Delhi, the  28th August , 2024
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Case  No. AD(OI) -31/2023
Subject:  Preliminary Findings – Anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of “Aluminium foil upto 80
micron, excluding aluminium foil below 5.5 micron for non -capacitor application” originating in or
exported from China PR.
F. No. 06/35/2023 - DGTR .—Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as amended from time to time
(hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -dumping
Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter referred as the ‘AD Rules’ or the ‘Anti -dumping Rules’ or the ‘Rules’).

A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., M/s Shyam Sel & Power Ltd, M/s Shree Venkateshwara Electrocast Pvt. Ltd.,
M/s Ravi Raj Foils Ltd., M/s GLS Foils Product Pvt. Ltd., and M/s LSKB Aluminium Foils Pvt. Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the "applicants" or the "petitioners") filed an application, in the form and manner
prescribed before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the "Authority") in accordance with
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Anti -Dumping Rules, for initiation of an anti -dumping investigation and
imposition of anti -dumping duty on imports of “aluminium foil upto 80 micron, excluding aluminium foil
below 5.5 micron for non -capacitor application” (hereinafter also referred to as the “aluminium foil” or
“subject goods” or the “product under consideration”) originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter
also referred to as the "subject country").
2. The Authority had earlier conducted an original anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of
"aluminium foil ranging from 5.5 micron to 80 micron" originating in or exported from China PR which was
initiated vide Notification no. 14/06/2015 -DGAD dated 15th December, 2015. The Authority recommended
imposition of definitive duty vide Notification no. 14/06/2015 -DGAD, dated 10th March, 2017. The Ministry
of Finance (MoF) thereafter imposed duties vide Customs Notification No. 23/2017 -Customs (ADD), dated
16th May, 2017.
3. The Authority later conducted the first sunset review investigation which was initiated vide Notification no.
7/27/2021 -DGTR dated 16th September, 2021. The Authority notified the final findings  recommending
continuation of duty vide Notification no. 7/27/2021 -DGTR dated 14th March, 2022. The Ministry of Finance,
however, did not accept the recommendation accordingly, the duties ceased to exist after 15th May, 2022.
4. Based on an application filed by the domestic industry, the Authority recommended imposition of anti -
dumping duty vide final finding no. 06/21/2020 -DGTR dated 18th June, 2021, on imports of “aluminium foil
below 80 microns” from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and China PR (excluding aluminium foil 5.5 -80
microns from China PR). This recommendation was accepted by Ministry of Finance vide Customs
Notification no. 51/2021 -customs (ADD) dated 16th September., 2021. This duty continues to exist till date
and upto 15th September, 2026. The present applicants have also submitted an application requesting re -
evaluation of dumping and injury margins. Accordingly, the Authority has initiated a mid -term review of
anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of "Aluminium foil below 80 microns" from Thailand, vide
notification no. 7/3/2024 -DGTR dated 29th March 2024. This investigation is underway.
5. The applicants again approached the Authority, after expiry of duty on "Aluminium foil ranging from 5.5
micron to 80 micron" from China PR , submitting that post expiry of duties, the subject imports have again
started to enter the Indian market at dumped prices in huge volumes and resultantly causing material injury to
the domestic industry. The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima facie  evidence submitted by the
applicants, issued a public notice vide Notification No. 06/35/2023 - DGTR dated 21st March, 2024, initiating
the subject investigation in accordance with Rule 5 to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged
dumping and to recommend the amount of anti -dumping duty which if levied, would be adequate to remove
the alleged injury to the domestic industry.
B. PROCEDURE
6. The procedure described below has been followed with regards to this investigation:
i) The Authority notified the embassy of the subject country in India about the receipt of the present anti -dumping
application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Anti -Dumping
Rules.
ii) The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima facie  evidence submitted by the applicants, vide notification
no.06/35/2023 -DGTR dated 21st March, 2024 published a public notice in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
initiating an anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the subject country.
iii) The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice along with the questionnaires to the embassy of the subject
county in India, all known exporters, importers and users (whose details were made available by the applicants)
and gave them the opportunity to make their views known in writing in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the anti -
dumping rules.

iv) The Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the application to the known exporters and the
embassy of the subject country in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the anti -dumping Rules. A copy of the
application was also provided to the other interested parties, as requested.
v) The Authority sent questionnaire to elicit relevant information to the following known producers/exporters in the
subject country in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD rules:
SN Producer/ Exporter
1.  Dingsheng Aluminium Industries Hong Kong Trading
2.  Dong Guan Kai Yuan Plastication Technology Co. Ltd.
3.  Fengcheng Huaqiang Machinery Co. Ltd.
4.  Henan Mingtai Technology Development Co. Ltd.
5.  Guangzhou Mywow Decor Co. Ltd.
6.  Luoyang Longding Aluminium Industries Co. Ltd.
7.  M Kunshan Aluminium Co. Ltd.
8.  Shandong Mingda Packing Product Co. Ltd.
9.  Jiangyin Bondtape Technology Corporation
10.  Hugematic Industries Co. Ltd.
11.  Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint -Stock Co. Ltd.
12.  Jiangsu Fengyuan Aluminium Master Technology Co. Ltd.
13.  Ms Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co. Ltd.
14.  Peixian Fengyuan Import and Export Rade Co. Ltd.
15.  Qingdao Donghai Aluminium Co. Ltd.
16.  Shandong Deli Aluminium Technology Co. Ltd.
17.  TJPFTZ L.X. International Trading Co. Ltd.
18.  Victory Food Specialities FZE
19.  Wuxi Myriad Corporation
20.  Hebei North China Aluminium Co. Ltd.
21.  Xiamen Kolysen Packaging Integration Co Ltd
22.  Yunnan Haoxin Aluminum Foil Co. Ltd
23.  Zhangzhou Banruo Import Export Co. Ltd.
24.  Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co. Ltd.
25.  Dingsheng Aluminium Industrial Co. Ltd.
26.  Xiamen Xiashun Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd.
27.  Jiangsu Alcha Aluminium Co. Ltd.
28.  Arconic (Kunshan) Aluminium Products Co., Ltd
vi) Following producers/exporters from the subject country have filed the exporter’s questionnaire response or made
any submissions:
SN Responding Producer/ Exporter
1.  ATEC New Material Industry Co. Limited

SN Responding Producer/ Exporter
2.  Daching Enterprises Ltd.
3.  Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co. Ltd.
4.  Hangzhou Dingsheng Import and Export Co. Ltd.
5.  Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co. Ltd.
6.  Henan Mingsheng New Material Technology Co. Ltd.
7.  Henan Mingtai Technology Development Co. Ltd.
8.  Inner Mongolia Lian Shen New Energy Co. Ltd.
9.  Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint Stock Co. Ltd.
10.  Jiangsu Fengyuan Aluminium Master Technology Co. Ltd.
11.  Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. (HK) Ltd.
12.  Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. Ltd.
13.  Kunshan Aluminium Co. Ltd.
14.  Longding Global (Singapore) PTE Ltd.
15.  Luoyang Longding Aluminium Industrial Co. Ltd.
16.  Luoyang Wanji Aluminium Processing Co. Ltd.
17.  Peixian Fengyuan Import and Export Trade Co. Ltd.
18.  Shangdong Deli Aluminium Technology Co. Ltd.
19.  Shanghai Sunho Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd.
20.  Sunho New Materials Technology Co. Ltd.
21.  Tetra Pak Beijing Company Limited
22.  Tetra Pak Global Supply SA
23.  Tetra Pak Jurong Pte Ltd.
24.  Xiamen Xiashun Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd.
vii) Questionnaires were also sent to the following known importers/users of the subject goods in India seeking
necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules:
SN Importer/ User  SN Importer/ User
1.  Ace Overseas  2.  Merino Industries Ltd.
3.  Aar Dee Industries  4.  Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd.
5.  Ajanta Pack Mart Pvt Ltd  6.  Mohan Mutha Polytech Pvt. Ltd.
7.  ACG Pharmapack Pvt. Ltd.  8.  Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
9.  Aero Incorporation  10.  Montex Glass Fibre Ind Pvt. Ltd.
11.  Air India Ltd.  12.  Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd.
13.  DB International  14.  Nobel Chocolatz
15.  Alstone Industries Pvt. Ltd.  16.  Oswal Extrusion Ltd.

SN Importer/ User  SN Importer/ User
17.  Alufoil Products Pvt. Ltd.  18.  Parikh Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
19.  Alutech Packaging Pvt. Ltd.  20.  Polybond Insulation Pvt. Ltd.
21.  Ansapack Pvt. Ltd.  22.  Pragya Flexi Film Industries
23.  Asawa Insulation Pvt. Ltd.  24.  Printmann Offset Pvt. Ltd.
25.  Ashoka Tessiles  26.  Purity Flex Pack Ltd.
27.  Audax Protective Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.  28.  R S Foils Pvt. Ltd.
29.  Av Enterprises  30.  Radhika Exports Corporation
31.  Balaji Packaging Company  32.  Raheja Polymers & Chemicals
33.  Bilcare Ltd.  34.  Ram Kishore Nagarmal Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
35.  Essel Thermoware Pvt. Ltd.  36.  Raviraj Foils Ltd.
37.  Essel Propack Ltd.  38.  Rockdude Impex Pvt. Ltd.
39.  Futuristic Marketing Solutions  40.  Royal International
41.  G L S Films Industries Pvt. Ltd.  42.  S L Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
43.  Gajra Glass Fibre Pvt. Ltd.  44.  Sanwariya Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
45.  Geep Industries India Pvt. Ltd.  46.  SAPL Steel LLP
47.  GK Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.  48.  Satnam Print N PAC
49.  Greenberry Foils India Ltd.  50.  Sharbin International
51.  Gujarat Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd.  52.  Shell N Tube Pvt. Ltd.
53.  Heena Roto Prints  54.  Shree Mahavir Sales Corporation
55.  Hind Foils LLP  56.  Shree Rama Multitech Ltd.
57.  Hind Global  58.  Siddhee Products Pvt. Ltd.
59.  Homemade Bakers India Ltd.  60.  Silver Foils Pvt. Ltd.
61.  Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd.  62.  Sipla Solutions
63.  Inox India Pvt. Ltd.  64.  SMV Impex
65.  International Traders  66.  SNS Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
67.  Jash Packaging Co.  68.  Sorich Foils Ltd.
69.  Flora Industries  70.  Sparsh Packagings Pvt. Ltd.
71.  International Traders  72.  Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd.
73.  Jindal India Ltd.  74.  Sri Venkateshwara Coil Mill Pvt. Ltd.
75.  Jupiter Laminators Pvt. Ltd.  76.  Sterlite Technologies Ltd.
77.  Kap Cones Pvt. Ltd.  78.  Super Packagings
79.  Kinjal Impex  80.  Suvjay Industries India LLP
81.  ITC Ltd.  82.  Synthiko Foils Ltd.
83.  Kanodia Technoplast Ltd.  84.  Tania Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd.
85.  KH Exports India Pvt. Ltd.  86.  TCPL Packaging Ltd.

SN Importer/ User  SN Importer/ User
87.  Kflex India Pvt. Ltd.  88.  ZAF Overseas LLP
89.  Kinjal Impex  90.  The Supreme Industries Ltd.
91.  Kuloday Udyog  92.  Thermal Engitech Pvt. Ltd.
93.  Mahavir Paper Trading Co.  94.  Thermoplast Pvt. Ltd.
95.  Lily Pins Pvt. Ltd  96.  Viva Composite Panel Pvt. Ltd.
97.  Mahesh Metalloys Pvt. Ltd.  98.  Trafomec India Pvt. Ltd.
99.  Malindi Retail Pvt. Ltd.  100.  Trendz International
101.  Marudhar Industries Ltd.  102.  True Value International
103.  Maruti Paper India Company  104.  Uflex Ltd.
105.  Masters India Pvt. Ltd.  106.  Unitech Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.
107.  Mazda Agencies  108.  United Breweries Ltd.
109.  Medicap Healthcare Ltd.  110.  U.P. Twiga Fiberglass Ltd.
111.  Shrinath Rotopack Pvt. Ltd.  112.  Vishal Containers Ltd.
viii) Following importers/user have filed the importer’s questionnaire response or made any submissions:
SN Responding Importer/user
1.  Amcor Flexibles India Private Limited
2.  Asawa Insulations Pvt Ltd
3.  Caprihans India Ltd.
4.  Dalfo Flexicap Pvt. Ltd.
5.  Eminent Trade and Export Pvt. Ltd.
6.  Indian Flexible Packaging & Folding Carton Manufacturers Association
7.  Jewel Packaging P Ltd.
8.  Jil Pack
9.  Montage Enterprises Private Limited
10.  Nagreeka Indcon Products (P) Ltd.
11.  Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited
12.  Paharpur 3P Pvt. Ltd.
13.  Paramount Universal Pvt. Ltd.
14.  Ram Kishore Nagarmal Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
15.  Rockdude Impex Pvt. Ltd.
16.  Silver Foils Pvt. Ltd.
17.  Suvjay Industries India LLP
18.  Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd.
19.  UFLEX Limited
20.  ACG Pharmapack Pvt. Ltd.

ix) The period of investigation for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st October, 2022 to 30th September,
2023 (12 months) (hereinafter referred to as the “period of investigation” or “POI”). The injury analysis period
included the period of investigation and the preceding years, 2019 -20, 2020 -21, 1st April 2021 - 30th September
22 (annualized).
x) The Authority vide para 7 of the initiation notification dated 21st March, 2024 granted an opportunity to the
interested parties to present their comments on the scope of the product under consideration and product control
number (PCN) within 15 days of initiation which ended on 5th April., 2024. All the submissions made by the
interested parties with regard to the scope of the product under consideration or for the construction of PCN,
within the stipulated time period, were considered. Accordingly, the Authority vide notification dated 6th June,
2024, proceeded to clarify the scope of the PUC and PCNs, as proposed in the initiation notification.
xi) The Authority issued an economic interest questionnaire (EIQ) to all interested parties and the concerned
ministry. Response to EIQ has only been submitted by the domestic industry.
SN Responding Exporter/Importer
1.  ATEC New Material Industry Co. Limited, Hong Kong
2.  Dalfo Flexipack Pvt. Ltd.
3.  Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hongkong) Trading Co. Limited
4.  Eminent Trade & Export Pvt. Ltd.
5.  Hangzhou Dingsheng Import & Export Co. Ltd.
6.  Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co. Ltd.
7.  Inner Mongolia Lian Sheng New Energy Material Co. Ltd.
8.  Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint -Stock Co. Ltd.
9.  Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. (HK) Limited
10.  Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. Ltd.
11.  Longding Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
12.  Luoyang Longding Aluminium Industries Co. Ltd.
13.  Nagreeka Indcon Products (P) Ltd.
14.  Paramount Universal Pvt. Ltd.
15.  Rockdude Impex Private Limited
16.  Shandong Deli Aluminium Technology Co. Ltd.
17.  Shanghai Sunho Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd.
18.  Silver Foils Private Limited
19.  Sunho New Materials Technology Co. Ltd.
20.  Suvjay Industries India LLP
21.  Tetra Pak Beijing Company Limited
22.  Tetra Pak Global Supply SA
23.  Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd.
24.  Tetra Pak Jurong Pte Ltd.
xii) The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to the
sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever
warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested

parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide
sufficient non -confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.
xiii) The Authority sought further information from the producers to the extent deemed necessary. The desk
verification of the data provided by the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered necessary for
the purpose of the present investigation.
xiv) A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website along with the request to all of them to
email the non -confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties along with the
investigation team.
xv) The Non -Injurious Price (NIP) has been determined based on the cost of production and cost to make and sell the
subject goods in India based on information furnished by the domestic producers on the basis of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules so as to ascertain whether anti -dumping
duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
xvi) The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all interested parties up to
this stage, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present
investigation. The Authority will further examine the evidentiary documents submitted by the interested parties
subsequent to preliminary findings, which will form the basis for conclusions at the time of final findings.
xvii) Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information during
the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has recorded
its observation on the basis of the facts available.
xviii)  *** in this preliminary finding represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis, and
so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xix) Exchange rate considered for the POI for conversion of USD to Indian Rupees is 1 USD = Rs.  83.21.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
7. The product under consideration (hereinafter also referred to as the “PUC”) as defined at the stage of initiation
was as follows:
2. The product under consideration in the present application is "aluminium foil" (hereinafter also referred to
as "subject goods" or "product under consideration" or "PUC"), excluding the following:
i. Aluminium foil below 5.5 microns from China PR  for non -capacitor applications.  Aluminium foil
for capacitors applications' below 5.5 microns is within the scope of the product under consideration.
This was specifically excluded in the anti -dumping duty investigation conducted on "aluminium foil 80
microns and below originating in or exported from China PR, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia."
ii. Ultra -Light Gauge Converted foil meant for use in insulation, spices packing' thermal fluid lines
covering and tea bags application - Ultra Light Gauge Converted foil is an aluminium foil having
thickness of 5.5 micron to 7 micron and is backed with kraft paper & scrim, or glass cloth, whether
plain or printed for use in insulation, spices packing, thermal fluid lines covering and tea bags
application.
iii. Etched or formed aluminium foils meant for electrolytic capacitor - Etched or formed aluminium
foils is aluminium foil meant to be used in the manufacture of electrolytic capacitor.
iv. Aluminium composite panel meant for facade cladding and signage applications - Aluminium
composite panel is a non -aluminium core (often PE) bonded between two thin layers of aluminium, for
use in facade cladding and signage.
v. Clad with compatible non clad aluminium foil - Clad with compatible non clad aluminium foil is a
corrosion -resistant aluminium sheet formed from aluminium surface layers metallurgically bonded to
high-strength aluminium alloy core material for use in engine cooling and air conditioner systems in
automotive industry; such as radiator, condenser, evaporator, intercooler, oil cooler and heater.
vi. Aluminium foil for beer bottle - aluminium foil of 10.5 micron with rough surface and perforated
whether printed or not; to be used in beer bottle.

vii. Aluminium - manganese - silicon based and/ or clad aluminium - manganese silicon -based alloys,
whether clad or unclad - with post brazing yield strength greater than 35 MPA, falling under tariff
heading 7607 for use in heat exchangers including radiators, charge air coolers, condensers, oil
coolers, heater cores, evaporators, heat ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and parts
thereof.
viii. Adhesive tapes
ix. Colour coated aluminium foil
8. Aluminium foil is used extensively for protection, storage, and preparation of foods and beverages. It is used
as a packaging material, for conservation and preservation of edible and food products.
9. The product under consideration is classified under subheading 7607 of the Customs Tariff Act. Imports of the
subject goods are entering into India under the following codes 76071190, 76072090, 76072010, 76071110,
76071999, 76071991, 76071995, 76071910, 76071994, 76071993 and 76071992.  The customs classification
is indicative and is not binding on the scope of the product under consideration.
10. The applicants have proposed the following product control numbers (PCNs), in the application filed:
SN Type of Foil  Micron Range  Bare / Converted
1 Alu Alu Stock  45-60 Bare Foil
2 House Foil  8 - 22 Bare Foil
3 Light Gauge (LG)  7 - < 20 Bare Foil
4 Medium Gauge (MG)  20-60 Bare Foil
5 Semi Rigid Container (SRC)  30 - 80 Bare Foil
6 Ultra -Light Gauge Bare  5.5 - <7 Bare Foil
7 Battery Foil  9 - 20 Bare Foil
8 Capacitor  4.5 - 20 Bare Foil
9 Any other Bare Foil (Not falling within 1 -8)  Bare Foil
10 Cigarette Foil  < = 7  Converted
11 House Foil Converted  8 - 22 Converted
12 SRC Converted  30 - 80 Converted
13 Medium Gauge (MG) Converted  20-60 Converted
14 Light Gauge (LG) Converted  7 - < 20 Converted
15 Battery Foil Converted  9 - 20 Converted
16 Alu Alu Converted/ laminated  45-60 Converted
17 Any other converted Foil
(Not falling within 10 -16)  Converted
11. The parties were requested to offer their comments on the PUC and propose PCNs, if any, within 15 days of
circulation of the non -confidential version of the application filed before the Authority.
12. The comments on the scope of PUC and PCN methodology were received from various interested parties after
the initiation notification was issued., A meeting was also held on 8th May 2024 to discuss the PUC and PCNs
with the interested parties.

C.1 Views of the other interested parties
13. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the scope of the
product under consideration and like article:
a. The PUC has been defined without any reference to the thickness of the product. There is overlapping of
scope of the PUC in this investigation with previous investigation.
b. The PUC scope is only upto 80 microns, as PCNs proposed have thickness ranging up to 80 microns,
and Tariff heading 7607 only includes Aluminium foil less than 200 microns. Further, foil above 80
microns already attracts duty after investigation on FRP, and should be excluded.
c. Present investigation is simply a re -investigation of the previous sunset review investigation, therefore,
foil below 5.5 and above 80 microns is not within the scope of the PUC. The same should be expressly
noted in the definition of the PUC by the Authority.
d. Further , ADD is already imposed on aluminium foil below 5.5 microns therefore, the present
investigation cannot cover this within its scope of the PUC.
e. In the original investigation “alu alu laminate” and “aluminium foil for capacitors application below 5.5
microns” were excluded. Since there is no change from the original investigation, these two should be
excluded.
f. Even if foil for capacitor is included, range for PCN should be 4.5 -20 micron. If capacitor foil below 5.5 -
micron foil is not within the scope, then PCN should be 5.5 -20 micron.
g. Micron range for cigarette foil is mentioned as ‘<=7’. However, foil below 5.5 micron is already subject
to ADD. Therefore, PCN should be modified to “5.5 -7 micron”.
h. Clad Aluminium fin strips is classified under 7606, and the PUC is classified under 7607. The thickness
of imported strip is between 0.23 mm – 0.30 mm (230 micron to 300 micron). Whereas as per customs
description of 7607, it includes thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.2 mm.
i. As per exclusions defined in the initiation notification, clad aluminium fin strips used for automotive
industry is already excluded. There is no domestic supply of this product, hence clarify that clad
aluminium fin strips is not included in the scope of the PUC. Alternately, modify clause 2(v) and (vii) of
initiation notification stating that this “clad aluminium fin strips” under heading 7606 used for
manufacture of fin tubes for use in steam condensers of dry cooling in industrial applications, is
excluded.
j. Alu alu foil stock (45 -60 microns) as well as light gauge foil, should be excluded, as there is only one
supplier of the product in India. There is lack of capacity in India to fulfil demand of this product. The
quality being supplied by Indian producers is of sub -standard quality.
k. The product polyurethane coated aluminium foil (“PU coated aluminium foil”) with colour on either side
or both sides”, is not produced in India and has no substitutes. Indian producers are not equipped with
machinery for lacquer coating. The product being imported is priced substantially above the average
import price of aluminium foils. It is used for manufacturing insulated panels. Hence, the Authority has
been requested to exclude polyurethane coated aluminium foil with colour on either one side or both.
l. Micron ranges specified  in PCN proposed at para 5, are limited and do not cover all possibilities for
certain products like house foil and SRC. A PCN should be created to include any micron range not
covered in the table, ensuring comprehensive coverage for transactions involving these products. For
example range proposed for SRC is only 30 -80, whereas there can be other microns for SRC. Hence,
PCN should be devised to accommodate any range of micron other than 30 -80 concerning SRC.
m. Aluminium foil of alloy grade 8021, is a special grade foil critical for pharmaceutical packaging due to
its unique properties. It has no substitute available for ensuring health and hygiene standards. Hindalco,
is the sole producer and meets only 30% of the domestic demand, falling short of quality standards.
Domestic converters require specific thickness and width which is not supplied by Hindalco. There is a
risk of monopoly, supply shortage, and medicine price hikes. Therefore, this should be excluded as it has
specialized application, there is demand -supply gap, limited imports, and potential impact on industry
and prices.

n. In case of aluminium foil made from alloy AA8011 and AA8079, it has been argued that the domestic
industry is a mere converter of foil stock imported from China PR. The domestic industry converts foil
stock with minimal value addition, leading to price distortions in convert ed foils. Most of the pharma
customer products are registered with specific foil imported from particular supplier currently. Change in
raw material grade or manufacturing process is critical – direct impact on end user’s product. Unable to
switch to domestic product or offset additional costs.
o. Ultra -light gauge aluminium foil of 6.3 micron, should be excluded as the domestic industry does not
produce it and hence cannot claim injury. If included within scope, requested to prescribe reference price
form of duty even if fixed duty is recommended on other aluminium foil.
p. The domestic producers lack capacity and quality to fully satisfy demand. Imports of ultra -light gauge
aluminium foil from China PR are necessary until Hindalco's new capacity becomes operational, likely
post-2026.
q. The domestic producers fail to meet Tetra Pak's carbon emission standards due to coal -based energy
sources , unlike Chinese producers shifting towards renewable energy.
r. PCN and the scope of the investigation should be used to determine only products which are produced
and sold by the applicants. Users often rely on imports when the Indian producers are unable to supply
specific material in adequate volume.
s. Users rely on imports because the domestic industry focuses on large volume products and are not able
to cater to buyers of specific products with lower volumes.  Scope of the PUC should be based on
products supplied in commercial volumes by the domestic industry during the POI.
C.2 Views of the domestic industry
14. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article:
a. Scope of the PUC suggested in the application and subsequently notified in the notice of initiation, should be
continued, and kept as it is, there is no need for modification, whether enlargement or curtailment.
b. Definition of the PUC may explicitly refer to the range of thickness. As agreed by all parties during the
discussion, definition may be kept as “aluminium foil upto 80 microns, excluding aluminium foil below 5.5
micron for non -capacitor application”. Further, other products, as described above are also excluded. Only such
aluminium foil below 5.5 micron for non -capacitor application are excluded which are subject to measures
through final findings no. 6/21/2020 - dated 18th June 2021.
c. As regards exclusion of “polyurethane coated aluminium foil with colour on either one side or both sides” and
confirming exclusion of “coated aluminium foil – either one side or both sides, irrespective of colour, shape or
coating”; the domestic industry has submitted that the same is already covered under clause (ix). However, the
Authority may provide specific clarification/confirmation.
d. In respect of exclusion of light gauge foil, the domestic industry has submitted that it is an established producer
of light gauge foil. The same has been part of scope of the PUC in previous investigations as well. Inclusion of
this product has never been contended by any party previously. Comments of respondent that the domestic
industry does not produce this product, a blatantly false statement. This request for exclusion is baseless and
devoid of any evidence.
e. As regards exclusion request for alu alu laminate, present investigation is a fresh investigation and scope of the
PUC is different from previous investigation. In the previous investigation, Indian industry was not producing
alu alu laminate. Several producers such as Alutech  Packaging P. Ltd., and Green Berry Foils India  Ltd., are now
producing it.
f. Similar to alu alu laminate, foils for capacitors were excluded from the scope of the PUC in the previous
investigation as the Indian industry was not producing it. In the present investigation, several Indian producers
are producing it. Accordingly, it has been included in the scope of the PUC. Further, as capacitor foil was
excluded from the investigation on “aluminium foil below 80 microns from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and
China PR”. Therefore, capacitor foil below 5.5 micron from China PR is not attracting duty. Thus, thickness
range in the PCN defined for capacitor foil has been proposed as 4.5 -20 micron.

g. The domestic industry is in agreement with the submission on cigarette foil, that the PCN range suggested should
be amended to “5 -.5-7”, as against proposed range of “below 7 microns”.
h. The domestic industry has agreed to exclusion and specific clarification sought with regard to “clad aluminium
fin strips (Alloy 4343/3003 -H24), and “polyurethane coated aluminium foil with colour on either side or both
sides”.
i. As “alu alu foil stock” is produced and supplied by Hindalco industries Ltd., therefore they have made the
following submissions:
• Hindalco has competence to produce and sell substantial quality of alu alu stock/foil. Speculation regarding
monopolistic situation are unsubstantiated since Anti -Dumping Laws provides the sole producer with the
trade remedial measure i.e., imposition of anti -dumping duty. It encourages domestic producers to invest in
equipment and technology to meet user’s need, provides level playing field, ensures a fair price, and does
not prevent imports from any country.
• Demand -supply gap cannot be a factor for not imposing anti -dumping duty as it does not prevent the imports
but ensures the imports are fairly priced. Even otherwise, figures provided by interested party are not
accurate as demand shown is inflated and figures did not match Hindalco’s domestic sales and imports of
alu alu stock/foil.
• It has supplied alu alu stock/foil to various consumers such as interested party (UFLEX), and only a nominal
quantity of the said product was rejected due to quality issues out of the total supplies made to UFLEX.
Additionally, Hindalco referred to a catena of judgements by CESTAT as per which quality issues cannot
be a concern for not imposing anti -dumping duty.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
15. The product under consideration is manufactured from foil stock. Foil stock is produced by rolling ingot. In other
words, aluminium flat rolled products (FRP) are rolled further into foils. It may be rolled into foil or consumed as is,
or printed/laminated (also called backed) with paper, board, plastic or other packaging materials. Aluminium foils
may be printed either by the producers or by converters or by end consumers.
16. Aluminium foil is used for protection and storage of foods and beverages, pharmaceutical packaging etc. It is used as
a packaging material, for conservation and preservation of edible and food products.  Aluminium foil is a non -toxic
material.  It is also a good thermal conductor and usually quite malleable. Major applications of aluminium foil are in
the following:
a. pharmaceuticals industry packing medicines
b. food industry for packing processed foods
c. cigarette industry for wrapping cigarettes
d. tobacco packing (Gutkha)
e. beer bottles.
17. The Authority considers as follows with regard to issues/exclusion requests raised by the interested parties.
18. Foil thickness - As regards contentions of other interested parties, that the definition of the PUC must define thickness
being covered, the Authority has revisited the definition and clarified the definition as “Aluminium foil upto 80
microns, excluding aluminium foil below 5.5 micron for non -capacitor application”.
19. Light gauge foil - As regards the exclusion sought on light gauge foil is concerned the Authority notes that there have
been multiple investigations on imports of aluminium foil. The position of Indian industry as producer of light gauge
foil is settled and undisputed. There are no claims corroborated with evidence in the present investigation to support
their request for exclusion. Therefore, the Authority does not agree with exclusion sought for this product.
20. “Alu alu laminate” and “aluminium foils for capacitors” - With respect to submissions alleging that “alu alu laminate”
and “aluminium foils for capacitors” should be excluded from the scope of PUC, as they had been excluded
previously as well, the Authority notes that the facts of the present investigation are not the same as the previous
ADD investigation on aluminium foil from China PR. In the previous investigation conducted by this Authority,
these products were excluded from the purview of the investig ation, as the Indian industry was not producing these

products at that point of time. However, since then, various new producers have started producing the subject goods.
Further, the production range by the existing producers has also enhanced. The Indian industry has now commenced
production and sales of these products.
21. Alu alu foil stock of thickness ranging from 45 – 60 microns  – With regard to exclusion of “alu alu foil stock of
thickness ranging from 45 – 60 microns” , it is noted that admittedly, Hindalco industries Ltd (Hindalco) is
producing the like article within the said thickness range. And it has supplied the subject goods with similar
characteristics to the product imported into India. As per evidence submitted on record, Hindalco routinely supplies
this product to various other consumers including Uflex. It is noted that foreign producers can continue to bridge the
gap if any, so long as it is exported at un -dumped and/or non -injurious prices. It is also noted that this product has
been within the scope of the PUC in both the previous investigation on “aluminium foil 5.5 to 80 micron from China
PR”, and the ongoing mid -term review investigation on aluminium foil below 80 microns from Thailand.
22. Cigarette foil - Both, the applicants and other interested parties, are in agreement with the submission on modification
of micron range of cigarette foil. The Authority is also in agreement with the suggestion of the parties, and
accordingly the PCN range for cigarette foil has been amended to “5.5 -7” vide Notification dated 06.06.2024, as
against “below 7 microns”, defined in the initiation notification.
23. Aluminium foil of alloy 8011, 8021 and 8079 - It is noted that aluminium foil from alloy 8021, is in fact “alu alu
stock”, and the Authority has already examined and addressed submissions herein above. As regards aluminium foil
of alloy 8011 and 8079, it is noted that in aluminium foil, majority of raw material is aluminium itself, alloys form
an insignificant portion in the chemistry of aluminium foil. Different producers, and different products use these
alloys interchangeably, by tweaking the chemistry to achieve certain characteristics. Therefore, parameters that are
to be achieved for any product type, and the alloys being used for it may vary from producer to producer. The
respondents made a fine distinction on certain alloys that may be of specific usage to a producer, and not a standard
specification/chemistry for a product type. The scope of investigation cannot be varied on such a fine distinction of
certain factors, such as alloys especially since the same is being interchangeably used by different producers for any
of the product types within the same PUC. Thus, there is no need for exclusion of aluminium foil of alloy 8011,
8021 and 8079 .
24. Ultra - light gauge foil - With regard to exclusion sought of ultra - light gauge (ULG) foil, it is seen that the domestic
industry produces and sells ULG foil and hence there is no justification for exclusion of ULG Foil.
25. Ultra -light gauge aluminium foil of 6.3 micron - With respect to exclusion of ultra -light gauge aluminium foil of 6.3
micron produced by Hindalco, the Authority notes that the domestic producers are established producers of ULG of
various thicknesses, including 6.3 micron. Notwithstanding the same, exclusion request sought due to domestic
producers lacking capacity and quality to fully satisfy demand, cannot be accepted. As has already been noted herein
above, foreign producers can certainly fill the gap in the country by bringing the product at a fair price. Moreover, as
has been admitted by the party in their submissions, capacities in India are being expanded and will be operational in
near future.
26. After thorough examination of the various comments on the scope of the PUC and the PCN methodology that were
received from the interested parties as well as the domestic industry after the PUC -PCN hearing held on 8th May
2024, the Authority clarified the scope of the PUC and the PCN methodology and the notify the same vide
notification (hereinafter referred to as the “Scope Notification”) dated 6th June 2024, is as follows:
The product under consideration in the present application is "aluminium foil upto 80 micron, excluding
aluminium foil below 5.5 micron for non -capacitor application" (hereinafter also referred to as "subject
goods" or "product under consideration" or "PUC"), excluding the following:
i. Aluminium foil below 5.5 microns from China PR for non -capacitor applications - ‘aluminium foil
for capacitors applications' below 5.5 microns is within the scope of the product under consideration.
This was specifically excluded in the anti -dumping duty investigation conducted on "aluminium foil 80
microns and below originating in or exported from China PR, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia."
ii. Ultra -light gauge converted foil meant for use in insulation, spices packing' thermal fluid lines
covering and tea bags application - Ultra light gauge converted foil is an aluminium foil having
thickness of 5.5 micron to 7 micron which is backed with kraft paper and scrim, or glass cloth,
whether plain or printed for use in insulation, spices packing, thermal fluid lines covering and tea
bags application.

iii. Etched or formed aluminium foils meant for electrolytic capacitor - etched or formed aluminium
foils is aluminium foil meant to be used in the manufacture of electrolytic capacitor
iv. Aluminium composite panel meant for facade cladding and signage applications - Aluminium
composite panel is a non -aluminium core (often PE) bonded between two thin layers of aluminium, for
use in facade cladding and signage.
v. Clad with compatible non clad aluminium foil - Clad with compatible non clad aluminium foil is a
corrosion -resistant aluminium sheet formed from aluminium surface layers metallurgically bonded to
high-strength aluminium alloy core material for use in engine cooling and air conditioner systems in
automotive industry and industrial applications; such as radiator, condenser, evaporator, intercooler,
oil cooler and heater.
vi. Aluminium foil for beer bottle - aluminium foil of 10.5 micron with rough surface and perforated
whether printed or not; to be used in beer bottle.
vii. Aluminium - manganese - silicon based and/ or clad aluminium - manganese silicon -based alloys,
whether clad or unclad - with post brazing yield strength greater than 35 MPA, falling under tariff
heading 7607 and 7606, for use in heat exchangers including radiators, charge air coolers,
condensers, oil coolers, heater cores, evaporators, heat ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems and parts thereof.
viii. Adhesive tapes
ix. Colour coated aluminium foil -either one side or both sides, irrespective of colour, shape or coating.
x. Polyurethane coated aluminium foil - either one side or both sides, irrespective of colour, shape, or
coating.
SN Type of Foil  Micron Range  Bare /
Converted  PCN Codes
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 Alu Alu Stock/Foil  45-60 Bare Foil  ASBF
2 House Foil/Home Foil  8-22 Bare Foil  HFBF
3 Light Gauge (LG)  7- < 20 Bare Foil  LGBF
4 Medium Gauge (MG)  20-60 Bare Foil  MGBF
5 Semi Rigid Container (SRC)  30-80 Bare Foil  SRBF
6 Ultra -Light Gauge Bare  5.5- <7 Bare Foil  UGBF
7 Battery Foil  9-20 Bare Foil  BFBF
8 Capacitor  4.5 – 20 Bare Foil  CFBF
9 *Any other Bare Foil (not falling within S.No.1 -8)   Bare Foil  OFBF
10 Cigarette Foil  5.5-7 Converted  CFCF
11 Alu Alu Converted / laminated  45-60 Converted  ASCF
12 House/home Foil Converted  8-22 Converted  HFCF
13 SRC Converted  30-80 Converted  SRCF
14 Medium Gauge (MG) Converted  20-60 Converted  MGCF
15 Light Gauge (LG) Converted  7-<20 Converted  LGCF
16 Battery Foil Converted  9-20 Converted  BFCF

SN Type of Foil  Micron Range  Bare /
Converted  PCN Codes
17 Any other converted Foil (Not falling within S.No.
10-16)   Converted  OFCF
27. The product under consideration is classified under subheading 7607 of the customs Tariff Act. Imports of the subject
goods are entering into India under the following codes 76071190, 76072090, 76072010, 76071110, 76071999,
76071991, 76071995, 76071910, 76071994, 76071993 and' 76071992. The customs classification is indicative and
is not binding on the scope of  the product under consideration.
28. The Authority notes that the like article produced by the domestic industry and the product under consideration
imported from the subject country is comparable in terms of physical and chemical characteristics, functions and
uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution and marketing, and tariff classification of the goods. The goods
produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject country are like articles in terms of the Rules. The
two are technically and commercially substitutable. The Authority provisionally holds that the subject goods
produced by the domestic industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from the subject
country within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Anti -dumping Rules.
D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1 Views of the other interested parties
29. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the domestic industry and its
standing:
i. The six producers who constitute the domestic industry have been self -selected with no justification.
ii. No representative and conclusive assessment of injury is possible with the current domestic industry.
D.2 Views of the domestic industry
30. The applicants have made the following submissions with regard to the domestic industry and its standing:
i) The application has been filed by M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., M/s Shyam Sel & Power Ltd, M/s Shree
Venkateshwara Electrocast Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ravi Raj Foils Ltd., M/s GLS Foils Product Pvt. Ltd., and M/s LSKB
Aluminium Foils Pvt. Ltd.
ii) Other domestic producers namely, ESS DEE Aluminium Ltd., Sparsh Industries Pvt. Ltd, SRF Altech Ltd. and
Trefoil Packaging Pvt Ltd. have communicated their support to the application filed.
iii) GLS first declared that it imported the product under consideration in the POI. However, it is clarified that such
declaration was an error. The imports by GLS were of aluminium flat rolled product (“FRP”), which is the raw
material used in making the PUC.
iv) The applicant companies have not imported the subject goods from the subject country.
v) The applicants production constitutes a ‘major proportion’ of the total Indian production and satisfies the
requirements of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules.
D. 3 Examination by the Authority
31. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules defines the domestic industry as under:
"(b) "domestic industry " means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like
article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a
major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to
the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the
term 'domestic industry ' must be construed as referring to the rest of the producers"
32. The present application has been filed by M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., M/s Shyam Sel & Power Ltd, M/s Shree
Venkateshwara Electrocast Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ravi Raj Foils Ltd., M/s GLS Foils Product Pvt. Ltd., and M/s LSKB
Aluminium Foils Pvt. Ltd .

33. M/s GLS Foils Product Pvt. Ltd. initially declared self -imports of the subject goods from subject country and later
clarified that the declaration was incorrect. It imported aluminium flat rolled product (“FRP”), which is the raw
material of the subject goods. Its related parties, namely, GLS Elopak Private Limited and GLS Films Industries
Private Limited have imported the subject goods. Details of such imports has been provided and have been
independently examined from the DG Systems data. It is noted that the imports made by the related parties is
miniscule and insignificant in absolute and relative terms. Thus, the Authority notes that since the imports are
negligible, it does not affect the eligibility of the applicant company to be treated as “domestic industry” in terms of
ADD Rules.
34. The remaining applicant companies have not imported the subject goods and are neither related to an importer or
exporter thereof.
35. The application filed by the above mentioned six companies has been supported by the following companies:
i. ESS DEE Aluminium Ltd.
ii. Sparsh Industries Pvt. Ltd
iii. SRF Altech Ltd.
iv. Trefoil Packaging Pvt Ltd.
36. The Authority sent communication to other domestic producers informing them about the initiation of such
investigation. However, no response has been received from these other producers. Further, no evidence has been
brought on record by the other interested parties to show that other domestic producers are not suffering injury.
37. In view of the information on record and issues examined as above, the Authority provisionally determines that the
applicant companies constitute “domestic industry” within the meaning of the Rule 2(b) of Anti -Dumping Rules. It
is further noted that the production by the applicants account for a major proportion in total Indian production.  The
application thus, satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the ADD Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1 Views of the other interested parties
38. None of the other interested parties have made any submissions with regard to confidentiality .
E.2 Views of the domestic industry
39. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to confidentiality :
i) Many respondents have not disclosed affiliated companies, names of shareholders, details of the company such
as telephone and fax numbers.
ii) Sample domestic and export sales documents have been undisclosed. While documents itself may be
confidential, the list of documents submitted has not been disclosed.
E.3 Examination by the Authority
40. The Authority made available the non -confidential version of the information provided by the various parties to all the
other interested parties as per Rule 6(7).
41. With regard to confidentiality of the information, Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:
“7. Confidential Information:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub -rule (2) of rule 12, sub -rule
(4) of rule 15 and sub -rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub -rule (1) of rule 5, or
any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of
investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by
it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party
providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the interested parties providing information on confidential basis to
furnish nonconfidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such

information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of
reasons why summarisation is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request
for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the
information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such
information.”
42. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regards to sufficiency of
such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such
information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, the
parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient nonconfidential version of the
information filed on confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all interested parties have claimed their
business -related sensitive information as confidential.
F. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
43. A large number of producers and exporters of the subject goods from China PR submitted questionnaire responses. In
view of large number of producers & exporters, the Authority decided to resort to sampling in the present
investigation in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17(3). Based on the questionnaire responses filed before the
Authority, the following three companies were chosen for individual dumping margin determined. The Authority
vide email dated 13th August 2024, notified the interested parties of the selection of following three companies and
their associated exporters and affiliated producers/exporters as for determination of individual dumping margin. The
Authority also informed the interested parties that these producers alongwith their associated exporters were
proposed to be considered for determination of individual dumping margin. The selection was done on the basis of
the largest percentage of the volume of exports to India from China PR during the investigation period, and
considering number of producers that can be investigated for individual determination of dumping margin. The
Authority also, invited comments from the interested parties with regard to selection of sampled producers, and
comments received were taken into account for the purpose of determining sampled producers/exporters from
subject country.
F.1 Views of the other interested parties
44. The submissions made by the interested parties are briefly as under
i) Jiangsu Fengyuan Aluminium Master Technology Co. Ltd. requested that the company should be included in
the list of sampled producers, as it has exported a maximum quantity representing a 4% share of the total
subject imports and is the only exporter that has supplied ultra -light gauge bare aluminium foil in the POI.
ii) Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. Ltd. and Xiamen Xiashun Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd. requested that
these companies along with their related companies and associated exporters be included in the list of sampled
producers.
iii) Henan Mingsheng New Material Technology Co. Ltd. requested its inclusion on the ground that its related
entity has filed a questionnaire response.
iv) Rule 17(3) allows selection of ‘reasonable number’ of interested parties as sampled producers and limiting the
present investigation to only 3 sampled producers is unnecessary.
v) In the past, the Authority has chosen 10 producers to be sampled in cases such as Jute products viz. - Jute
Yarn/Twine (multiple folded/cable and single), Hessian fabric, and Jute sacking bags  from Bangladesh and
Nepal, as well as Solar Cells whether or not assembled in modules  from China PR, Taiwan, and Malaysia.
vi) Zhongji Group and Xiashun Group contended that subject goods supplied by them are different from the
ordinary aluminium foil supplied by other producers from the subject country, as these companies have
supplied specialised aseptic foil.
vii) The Authority should consider not just export volume but also the nature of the product or product type
exported to India.
viii) Only few global suppliers such as Zhongji Group and Xiashun Group can deliver aluminium foil with the
required specifications. Consumers require ultra -light gauge aluminium foil of 6.3 microns and 9 microns with
width of upto 1650 mm as well as comply with further technical requirements.

ix) The domestic industry in India has limitations and is unable to fulfil the requirements of the consumers. The
Respondents will be at a disadvantage if not granted an individual dumping margin.
x) Second proviso to Rule 17(3) of the AD Rules provides for the possibility of determining individual dumping
margins for producers who are not sampled if such examination is not burdensome and if such producer has
submitted the necessary information.
xi) No request for sampling was made by the applicants at the time of application, neither did the initiation
notification contain any request for filing of quantity and value information by the exporters for sampling
purposes.
xii) The decision to carry out sampling is not based on any request filed by the domestic industry and is
unreasonable and belated.
xiii) Substantial volume of the PUC exported by Kunshan Aluminium Co. Ltd. and hence if not included in the
sampled group, will be unrepresentative of total imports.
xiv) The Authority is requested to verify and document the range of PCNs exported by each sampled entity, to
ensure that the product categories within the PUC is not inadvertently excluded or underrepresented.
xv) CIF prices of Kunshan Aluminium Co. Ltd. is more than the average CIF value of imports reported by the
domestic industry and hence substantiates that sampling will be detrimental to the interests of the non -sampled
producers/ exporters.
xvi) Due to low priced exports of sampled producers/exporters, there will be higher dumping margins, leading to
higher duties. Importers and users will have to bear the burden of existing duties on imports of FRP as well as
the subject goods.
xvii) Authority in the recently concluded case on Resin Bonded Thin Wheels from China PR didn’t carry out
sampling even with 28 responding producers/exporters and there is no undue burden on the Authority.
xviii)  Dingsheng Group should form part of sampled group as the volume of exports is high, and that of Jiangsu
Dingsheng New Materials Joint Stock Co. Ltd. alone is higher than some of the sampled producers.
xix) The Authority in the past in the case of solar cells and glazed/unglazed porcelain/ vitrified tiles has considered
related producers along with associated exporters/ traders as a single entity for the purpose of sampling.
xx) Duties have been in force for an elongated period of time through various investigations.
xxi) Since the Ministry of Finance did not impose duties in the last sunset review investigation on aluminium foil,
no fresh recommendation is to be issued for another five years. If such recommendation is issued, this will
indicate disregard for the decision of the Ministry of Finance and will lead to uncertainty and unpredictability
in international trade.
xxii) Trade remedy measures are meant to be temporary and if measures are imposed in the present investigation,
measures would effectively be permanent.
F.2. Views of the domestic industry
45. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i. 14 companies have filed questionnaire responses as per the interested party list, which is a high number to
permit individual determination.
ii. Given low volumes of exports by certain parties, it is obvious that their product profile and exports pattern is
not representative of exports into India, in terms of both product profile and time period.
iii. In the past, Chinese producers who have had negligible export volumes in the POI, after getting individual
lower duty, increased the supply to the Indian market.
iv. Global norm in sampling is to consider at most three companies:
a. In ceramic tiles from India, Europe originally considered two companies and refused to extend
sampling size to three companies even following aggressive representations from the company at
number 3.

b. In wood pulp from Canada, the MOFCOM refused to individually determine dumping margin for
the company at number 3 even though the companies in the first three places were exporting almost
equal volume.
c. In ceramic tiles and sanitarywares, the GCC sampled three companies while keeping a reserve of 2
companies, as is the standard of practice in the GCC.
d. The USA considers more than two companies as ‘unduly burdensome’. In the matter of quartz
surface from India, out of 50 companies considered, investigation and determination of dumping
margin was carried out only for two companies, the results of which were extended to the others.
v. Filing of questionnaire response on voluntary basis cannot be grounds to determine individual dumping
margin.
vi. Exports of niche grade or special products cannot be grounds for inclusion in the sampled group as such
supply would indicate that the response and the data of the company would not be representative of the
responding companies and imports from China PR.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
46. The Authority considers that there are a large number of producers from China PR who have filed questionnaire
responses.
47. Following producers/exporters have filed questionnaire response in this investigation:
i. Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co. Ltd.
ii. Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint Stock Co. Ltd.
iii. Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co. Ltd.
iv. Hangzhou Dingsheng Import and Export Co. Ltd.
v. Inner Mongolia Lian Shen New Energy Co. Ltd.
vi. Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. Ltd.
vii. Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. (HK) Ltd.
viii. Luoyang Longding Aluminium Industrial Co. Ltd.
ix. Longding Global (Singapore) PTE Ltd.
x. Sunho New Materials Technology Co. Ltd.
xi. Shanghai Sunho Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd.
xii. Shangdong Deli Aluminium Technology Co. Ltd.
xiii. ATEC New Material Industry Co. Limited
xiv. Tetra Pak Beijing Company Limited
xv. Tetra Pak Global Supply SA
xvi. Tetra Pak Jurong Pte Ltd.
xvii. Xiamen Xiashun Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd.
xviii.  Daching Enterprises Ltd.
xix. Peixian Fengyuan Import and Export Trade Co. Ltd.
xx. Jiangsu Fengyuan Aluminium Master Technology Co. Ltd.
xxi. Henan Mingsheng New Material Technology Co. Ltd.
xxii. Henan Mingtai Technology Development Co. Ltd.
xxiii.  Luoyang Wanji Aluminium Processing Co. Ltd.
xxiv. Kunshan Aluminium Co. Ltd

48. Since the number of producers who have filed response is high, the case has been analysed whether the Authority
should resort to sampling of foreign producers in order to determine individual dumping margin.
49. It is noted that while the Authority shall determine individual dumping margin in respect of all those
producers/exporters who have filed questionnaire responses, in a situation where a large number of producers/
exporters have filed questionnaire responses, the Authority may resort to sampling by limiting the response to a
limited number of producers. The Rules provides as follows in this regard.
17(2)(iv) The designated authority shall determine an individual margin of dumping for each
known exporter or producer concerned of the article under investigation:
Provided that in cases where the number of exporters, producers, importers or types of articles
involved are so large as to make such determination impracticable, it may limit its findings either
to a reasonable number of interested parties or articles by using statistically valid samples based
on information available at the time of selection, or to the largest percentage of the volume of the
exports from the country in question which can reasonably be investigated, and any selection, of
exporters, producers, or types of articles, made under this proviso shall preferably be made in
consultation with and with the consent of the exporters, producers or importers concerned :
Provided further that the designated authority shall, determine an individual margin of dumping
for any exporter or producer, though not selected initially, who submit necessary information in
time, except where the number of exporters or producers are so large that individual examination
would be unduly burdensome and prevent the timely completion of the investigation.
50. The Authority considered the volume of exports by the responding producers/exporters. The Authority also considered
exports made by affiliated producers/exporters. It is seen that after considering exports made by these producers
either directly or through related or unrelated traders and exports made by the Chinese producers who are related to
these producers that the companies who were notified as sampled companies command the highest volume of
exports to India.
51. As regards the contention that the Authority has undertaken individual determination of dumping margin for much
larger number of producers or exporters in the past in other investigation, the Authority notes that the fact that a
large number of producers were investigated in the past does not imply that the Authority is barred from resorting to
sampling in the present case.
52. As regards the request for inclusion of exporters who supplied the goods produced by sampled producers, it is
clarified that the Authority has included all those companies who are exporters of the good produced by the sampled
companies.
53. As regards the request for inclusion of producers who are affiliated to the sampled producer, it is clarified that the
Authority has included all those companies who are affiliated producers of the sampled company.
54. As regards the request for inclusion on the grounds that the company has supplied speciality products or the product
profile forming part of the sample should be comprehensive, the Authority notes that there is no such obligation
under Rule 17(3).
55. The Authority notes that the fact of supply of a speciality grade does not justify inclusion of such company for
individual determination. Further, the Authority has specified a PCN. So long as a product type falls within a PCN
and the domestic industry has supplied the same, it is not established that the imported product was speciality
product.
56. It is noted that the sampling rules in particular allows the Authority to limit individual determination to a number of
product types. This implies that it is not necessary that the Authority considers a sample in such a manner that all the
products supplied to India get included within the sample. In fact, any such contention implies that the Authority
cannot resort to sampling by considering limited number of product types. However, Rule 17 in particular allows the
Authority to limit individual determination to limited number of product types.
57. In view of the above, it is considered that number of producers/ exporters from China PR is unduly large to permit
individual determination of dumping margin. Further, it is considered that the number of producers for individual
determination should be restricted to only three producers, and all their associated exporters. Accordingly, the

Authority confirms that individual determination of dumping margin and injury margin has been limited to
following companies and their associated/affiliated producers/exporters.
a. Sunho New Materials Technology Co. Ltd.
b. Henan Mingtai Technology Development Co. Ltd
c. Dingsheng Group
58. The Authority notes that the submission of Dingsheng Group stating that the volume of exports is higher than some of
the sample producers. The export volume has been re -examined; it was found that there was export of the subject
goods produced by other related producers of Dinsheng Group which were not accounted in the earlier
determination for sampling purpose.
59. Accordingly, the Authority has accorded individual dumping margins to all the sampled producers. For the non -
sampled producers, weighted average dumping margin of the sampled producers has been accorded. The non -
sampled producers are as under:
i. Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. Ltd.
ii. Luoyang Longding Aluminium Industrial Co. Ltd.
iii. Shangdong Deli Aluminium Technology Co. Ltd.
iv. Xiamen Xiashun Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd.
v. Jiangsu Fengyuan Aluminium Master Technology Co. Ltd.
vi. Luoyang Wanji Aluminium Processing Co. Ltd.
vii. Kunshan Aluminium Co. Ltd.
60. Some of the exporters has contended that they should have also been selected in the sample, the Authority notes that
'sampling' provision, authorizes the Authority to 'limit their examination' in one of two ways: (i) 'to a reasonable
number of interested parties or products by using samples which are statistically valid on the basis of information
available at the time of the selection', or (ii) 'to the largest percentage of the volume of the exports from the country
in question which can reasonably be investigated. The Authority as per information available on record has selected
the three (3) producers along with their associated exporters for determination of individual dumping margin, on the
basis of the largest percentage of the volume of the exports to India from China PR during the investigation period.
Further there is no requirement under the Rules that any particular threshold percentage will demonstrate that the
volume of exports accounted for by the selected producers is 'representative' of anything. Thus, the Authority
provisionally selected the three producers along with their associated exporters for determination of individual
dumping margin.
61. As regards the argument that antidumping duties should not be imposed when the Ministry of Finance had not
extended the duties in the sunset review investigation, the Authority notes that there is no legal basis for such a
claim. It is noted that the present investigation is a fresh antidumping investigation, covering different period as
considered in the sunset review investigation. The AD Rules does not provide for a cooling off period in which an
aggrieved party is not allowed to apply for trade remedial measures. There is no legal basis for the argument of the
interested parties that by undertaking the present investigation, the Authority will be disregarding the decision of the
Ministry of Finance. The Authority has initiated the subject investigation after prima facie  satisfaction that cessation
of measures on China PR has led to increase in imports and are causing material injury to the domestic industry
having regard to the Customs Tariff Act and Antidumping Rules.
G. ASSESSMENT OF DUMPING AND DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND
DUMPING MARGIN
G.1 Views of the other interested parties
62. Following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to the normal value, export price and
dumping margin:
i) Averaging out the individual dumping margin of each PCN will lead to false results as the price of certain kinds
of technical foil is on the higher side due to its quality and performance. In case of heavy difference, item wise
dumping margin should be considered.

G.2 Views of the domestic industry
63. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to normal value, export price and
dumping margin :
i) China PR should be considered a non -market economy, in line with the position taken by the Authority in
previous cases, and by the investigating authorities in other countries. Chinese producers' cost and price cannot
be relied upon for determination of normal value.
ii) The Authority shall follow Para 1 – 6 of Annexure I for the determination of normal value only if the responding
Chinese companies establish that their costs and price information is such that individual normal value and
dumping margin can be determined. If the responding Chinese companies are not able to demonstrate that their
costs and price information can be adopted, the Designated Authority shall reject the claim of individual
dumping margin.
iii) Paragraph 1 to 6 of Annexure I of the Rules does not apply for computation of normal value for imports from
China PR, unless a producer/exporter shows with sufficient evidence that he is operating under market economy
conditions. As a result, normal value for China PR has to be determined in terms of Para 7 of Annexure I of the
Rules.
iv) Chinese producers are required to be treated as companies operating under non -market economy environment
and the Authority may proceed to determine the normal value on the basis of Para 7 of Annexure -I.
v) Lastly, the applicants also calculated normal value based on estimate of cost of production i.e. considering the
costs of the domestic industry in India, duly adjusted to include selling, general and administrative costs of the
domestic industry by adding reasonable profits, after addition for selling, general and administrative expenses
and reasonable profits.
vi) Export price has been determined considering the volume and value of imports for the proposed period of
investigation as per data procured from market intelligence sources in view of non -availability of DGCI&S data.
Price adjustments have been claimed on a conservative basis for the purpose of fair comparison.
vii) Considering the normal value calculations suggested, the dumping margins have been calculated. The dumping
margins so calculated are not just above the de -minimis level but also quite significant.
G.3 Examination by the Authority
64. Under Section 9A(1)(c) of the Act, normal value in relation to an article means:
i.  the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when meant for consumption
in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -
section (6); or
ii. when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the
exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the
sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper
comparison, the normal value shall be either -
(a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or
territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -
section (6); or
(b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for
administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules
made under sub -section (6):
Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and
where the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export or such article is not
produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal
value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.
65. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject country, as well as to the
appropriate diplomatic representative advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed by
the Authority within the prescribed time limit.
66. The normal value and export price for all producers/ exporters from the subject country have been determined as
below.

G.3.1 Normal value
67. 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 Tariffs
and Trade 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 YI 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 comparison 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, production and sale of that product, the
importing WO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining
price comparability;
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic
prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy
conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and
sale of that product.
(iii) In proceedings 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, the importing WTO Member may then use methodologies
for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing
terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such
methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and
conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China.
(iv) 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 Countervailing Measures.
(v) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market
economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member's
national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event; the provisions of
subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish,
pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a
particular industry or sector, the nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply
to that industry or sector. "
68. The applicants have relied upon Article 15(a)(i) of China's the Accession Protocol as well as para 7 of the Annexure I.
The applicants have claimed that producers in China PR must be asked to demonstrate  that market economy
conditions prevail in their industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of
the product under consideration. It has been stated by the applicants that in case the responding Chinese producers
are not able to demonstrate that their costs and price information are market -driven, the normal value should be
calculated in terms of provisions of Para 7 and 8 of Annexure - I to the Rules.
69. It is noted that while the provision contained in Section 15 (a)(ii) has expired on 11.12.2016, the provision  under
Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO Anti -dumping Agreement read with the obligation under Section 15(a)(i) of the Accession
Protocol require criterion stipulated in paragraph 8 of Annexure I of the Rules to be satisfied through the
information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire on claiming market economy treatment.
70. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded as per the information made available by some of the domestic
producers on the cost of production of the subject goods with due addition of SGA and profits. Upon initiation, the
Authority advised the producers/ exporters in China PR to respond to the notice of the initiation and provide
information relevant to the determination of their market economy status. The Authority sent copies of the
supplementary questionnaire to all the known producers/ exporters for rebutting the presumption of a non -market
economy in accordance with criteria laid down in Para 8(3) of Annexure -I to the Rules and furnish relevant detailed
information. The Authority also requested the Government of China PR to advise the producers exporters in China
PR to provide the relevant information.

71. None of the exporters/producers contested the non -market economy status of China. Thus, in view of the above
position and in the absence of rebuttal of the non -market economy presumption by any Chinese exporting company,
the Authority considers it appropriate to treat China PR as a non -market economy country in the present
investigation and proceeds with para 7 of Annexure -I to the Rules for determination of normal value in case of
China PR
72. Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules reads as under:
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 where 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 selected 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. Accounts 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 aforesaid selection of the market economy third
country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments.
73. Para 7 lays down a hierarchy for the determination of normal value and provides that the normal value shall be
determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country or the price from such a
third country to other countries, including India or where it is not possible, 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. Thus, the Authority notes that the normal value is required to be determined having regard to the
various sequential alternatives provided under para 7. There is no evidence of price or constructed value prevailing
in a market economy third country brought forward by any interested party. Apart from the subject country in the
present investigation, imports into India from other countries not attracting antidumping duties are low in volume.
Thus, imports into India from the market economy third country could not be considered for determination of
normal value.
74. Therefore, the Authority has determined the normal value for the subject imports in China PR as “price actually
payable in India” as stipulated in para 7 of Annexure – I to the AD Rules, 1995. It has been computed based on the
cost of production of the domestic industry, with reasonable addition for selling, general and administrative
expenses, and profits. The normal value so determined is given below in the dumping margin table.
G.3.2 Export Price
A) Dingsheng Group (Sampled)
M/s Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint -Stock Co. Ltd., (“Jiangsu Dingsheng”),
M/s Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co. Ltd., (“Hangzhou Five Star”)
M/s. Inner Mongolia Lian Sheng New Energy Material Co. Ltd. (“Inner Mongolia”)
M/s Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co. Ltd.  (“Dingsheng HK”)
M/s Hangzhou Dingsheng Import and Export Co. Ltd.  (“Dingsheng I&E”)
75. M/s Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint -Stock Co Ltd (“Jiangsu Dingsheng”), Inner Mongolia Lian Sheng New
Energy Material Co., Ltd (“Inner Mongolia”) and M/s Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co Ltd (“Hangzhou Five
Star”) are related companies engaged in manufacturing of the subject goods in China PR. Jiangsu Dingsheng, Inner
Mongolia and Hangzhou Five Star have exported the subject goods through related trading companies, M/s
Hangzhou Dingsheng Import & Export Co., Ltd (“Dingsheng I&E”) and M/s Dingsheng Aluminium Industries
(Hongkong) Trading Co., Limited (“Dingsheng HK”). Jiangsu Dingsheng has also exported some quantity of subject
goods directly to India. All the five companies, namely, Jiangsu Dingsheng, Inner Mongolia, Hangzhou Five Star,
Dingsheng I&E and Dingsheng HK have provided the relevant information in the prescribed exporters questionnaire
format along with relevant PCN wise information.
76. The Authority notes that Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint -Stock Co Ltd (“Jiangsu Dingsheng”) is a producer
and exporter of the subject goods from China PR. It has exported *** MT directly to India and *** MT indirectly
through Dingsheng I&E and *** MT indirectly through Dingsheng HK during the POI.

77. Similarly, the Authority notes that Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co Ltd (“Hangzhou Five Star”) is a producer of
the subject goods from China PR. It has exported *** MT of the subject goods indirectly through Dingsheng I&E
and *** MT through Dingsheng HK during the POI. Further, Inner Mongolia have produced and exported *** MT
through Dingsheng HK during the POI. All these exports were made to unrelated customers in India.
78. The producers/exporters have claimed adjustments i.e. ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other
related expenses, bank charges and credit cost and the same have been provisionally allowed by the Authority for
the purpose of preliminary findings . However, the submissions made by the producers/exporters would further be
examined during the course of the investigation for the purpose of final findings. The ex -factory export price as
determined is given in the dumping margin table.
B) Sunho Group (Sampled)
M/s. Sunho New Materials Technology Co. Ltd.  (“Sunho New Materials”)
M/s Shanghai Sunho Aluminum Foil Co. Ltd. (“Shanghai Sunho”)
79. Sunho New Materials and Shanghai Sunho are related producers of subject goods in China PR. Sunho New Materials
has exported the subject goods to unrelated customers in India through its related producer/exporter, Shanghai
Sunho. Shanghai Sunho has exported the subject goods directly to unrelated customers in India, including those
manufactured by itself and Sunho New Materials.
80. It is noted that during the POI, M/s Sunho New Materials Technology Co., Ltd. has produced and exported *** MT of
subject goods to unrelated customers in India through its related producer/exporter, Shanghai Sunho.
81. Shanghai Sunho has produced and exported *** MT of subject goods to unrelated customers in India directly.
Shanghai Sunho and Sunho New Materials have provided relevant PCN wise information in the prescribed exporter
questionnaire format.
82. It is also noted that Shanghai Sunho has exported minor quantities of subject goods to unrelated customers in India,
which were manufactured by other unrelated Chinese producers/exporters. These other unrelated Chinese
producers/exporters have not filed exporter questionnaire response. Therefore, the Authority has considered only
those export transactions to India which were manufactured by Shanghai Sunho and Sunho New Materials for
determining ex -factory export price and landed value.
83. The responding producers/exporters have claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, insurance, inland
transportation, port and other related expenses, credit cost and bank charges which have been allowed by the
Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings subject to detailed verification. The ex -factory export price as
determined is given in the dumping margin  table  below.
84. The submissions made by the producer/exporter would further be examined during the course of the investigation for
the purpose of final findings. Accordingly, the net export price at ex -factory level has been determined after
allowing for the following adjustments - ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related
expenses, credit cost, and bank charges. The net export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin
table below.
C) Mingtai Group (Sampled)
M/s. Henan Mingtai Technology Development Co. Ltd.
M/s. Henan Mingsheng New Material Technology Co. Ltd.
85. M/s. Henan Mingsheng New Material Technology Co. Ltd. (“Henan Mingsheng”) and M/s Henan Mingtai
Technology Development Co. Ltd. (“Mingtai Technology”) are producers and exporters in the subject country and
have exported the subject goods to India. Both producers/exporters have provided the relevant information in the
prescribed exporters questionnaire format.
86. As per the response filed by Henan Mingsheng, it is noted that it has produced and exported *** MT indirectly
through M/s Henan Mingtai Technology Development Co. Ltd. to India during the POI.
87. Similarly,  it is noted that M/s Henan Mingtai Technology Development Co. Ltd. (“Mingtai Technology”) has
produced and exported *** MT of subject goods directly to India during the POI.
88. The Authority has seen that the volume reported by the exporter and the volume reported in the DG Systems data is
comparable. The submissions made by the producer/exporter would further be examined during the course of the
investigation for the purpose of final findings. Accordingly, the net export price at ex -factory level has been

determined after allowing for the following adjustments - ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and
other related expenses, credit cost, and bank charges. The net export price so determined is mentioned in the
dumping margin table below.
a. Non-cooperating producers/exporters
89. The Authority has determined the export price for non -cooperating producers/ exporters from China PR after
considering the volume and value of imports based on data of the sampled producers. Adjustments have been
made for ocean freight, inland transportation, insurance, handling charges, commission, and bank charges. The
export price so determined is stated in the below – mentioned dumping margin table.
G.3.3 Determination of Dumping margin
90. The Authority has compared the PCN wise ex -factory export price to India with the corresponding PCN wise normal
value to determine the PCN wise dumping margin. The table below shows the weighted average ex -factory export
price, weighted average normal value and weighted average dumping margin of the producers after taking into
account the PCN exported to India  during  the POI.
Non-sampled cooperative category of producers/exporters
91.  The Authority has considered the weighted average dumping margin evaluated on the basis of individual dumping
margins for the producers/exporters of the sampled category. This weighted average dumping margin has been
accorded to the non -sampled category of producers/exporters of subject goods and has been mentioned in the table
mentioned below.
Dumping margin for related producers and Exporters
92. It is noted that in the subject investigation many cooperating producers and exporters are related to each other and
form a group of related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider related exporting
producers and exporters as one single entity for the determination of a dumping margin and thus to establish one
single dumping margin for them. This is in particular because calculating individual dumping margins might
encourage circumvention of antidumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related exporting
producers to channel their exports to India through the company with the lowest individual dumping margin.
93. In accordance with the above, related producers and exporters have been regarded as one single entity and attributed
one single dumping margin which was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins of
the cooperating related producers  and exporters.
94. Considering the normal value and export price determined, as explained above, it is provisionally determined that the
dumping margin is more than the de-minimis  limit prescribed under the Rules.
Dumping Margin Table
Company  Normal value  Export
price  Dumping
margin  Dumping
margin
USD/MT  USD/MT  USD/MT  % Range
Henan Mingtai Technology Development
Co., Ltd
*** *** *** *** 20-30
Henan Mingsheng New Material
Technology Co. Ltd.
Sunho New Materials Technology Co. Ltd.
*** *** *** *** 10-20
Shanghai Sunho Aluminum Foil Co. Ltd.
Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint -
Stock Co. Ltd.
*** *** *** *** 10-20
Inner Mongolia Lian Shen New Energy
Co. Ltd.
Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co. Ltd.
Non sampled cooperative producers  *** *** *** *** 10-20
Non-Cooperative Producers/Exporters  *** *** *** *** 50-60

H. EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
H.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
95. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regard to injury and causal  link:
i) Cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry increased in the POI. This increase has been substantial
for users.
ii) PCN data shows that price decline has not occurred for products which are being imported. Product types of the
domestic industry is not directly competing with the imported products.
iii) Price effects claimed by the domestic industry could be due to internal competition between the Indian producers
and not the landed price of the imports. The Authority should check price information of Indian producers to
gauge real reasons behind the price effect.
iv) The domestic industry performed well on both price and volume parameters. Volume parameters like capacity,
capacity utilization, production, sale increased during the POI. There has been substantial growth in market share
and Indian users are waiting to buy from Indian producers. Capacity additions were also made during the POI
and in the immediate previous year.
v) The domestic industry’s profits did well at operational level. Cash profits were generated, and employment level
increased during the POI. The applicants have failed to show injury.
vi) The Authority should consider a lower ROCE while calculation of NIP as the subject goods are widely used in
households. ADD driven inflation should be avoided in larger public interest.
vii) The Authority should ensure that the import quantity of the nine items excluded from the PCN is deducted from
the total quantity of foil imported from China. Further ensure that the total quantity of imports is revised/reduced
when more items are excluded from the course of the investigation.
viii) Quantity imported through EOU, SEZ and Advance Duty -Free License should be deducted as these imports do
not have to comply with BIS requirements.
ix) Although the domestic industry has claimed heavy loss and grave injury, the same is not reflected in the petition.
x) Cost of sales of the domestic industry should have declined with the corresponding decline in raw material
prices.
xi) Negative PBT is attributable to significant increase in depreciation and interest cost during the injury period and
not due to imports.
xii) There is significant inter se competition between the domestic producers as the number of producers have
increased as compared to the sunset review investigation.
xiii) The domestic industry has effectively requested that material retardation as well as material injury be assessed as
out of 6 producers in the domestic industry, four are new. The Authority cannot conduct assessment of material
injury as well as material retardation as it would be inherently contradictory.
H.2 Submissions made by the domestic industry
96. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal  link:
i) Demand for the subject goods has steadily increased during the injury period, including in the POI. Imports
from the subject country have surged ever since the cessation of duties in May 2022. Imports have also
increased in relation to both production and consumption in India.
ii) Since 2015, there has been an increase in capacities by existing and new producers. The Indian producers
have sufficient capacities to meet the Indian demand, and imports in such significant volumes are not
necessary.
iii) The landed price of imports from China PR has been below the selling price of the Indian industry
throughout the injury period. The price undercutting is positive.

iv) In the POI, both, cost of sales and selling price declined. However, the decline in selling price is much higher
than the decline in cost of sales and has led to significant depressing effect on domestic industry’s prices in
the POI.
v) Imports  in the POI were made at prices that were barely above the level of cost of sales but below the
domestic industry’s selling price. The imports have resulted in significant depressing effect on the prices of
the applicant domestic industry.
vi) The installed capacity, production and sales have increased over the injury period. However, these levels are
much below that of the domestic industry would have gained in the absence of dumping, particularly
considering the capacity addition. In the POI, had the applicants not reduced their prices to be able to
compete with imports, these trends of production, utilisation and consequent sales, would have seen a much
adverse impact.
vii) Capacity utilization has declined over the injury period. While this is additionally because of new capacity
addition, the domestic industry would not have faced this decline in capacity utilization, had there been no
dumping by the Chinese producers.
viii) Market share of the imports from the subject country has increased significantly in the POI. The market share
of the subject imports is around 2 times in the POI compared to that in the base year.
ix) Market share of the domestic industry, and of the domestic producers as a whole has declined in the POI,
despite increasing capacities, and entrance of new producers.
x) PBIT, cash profits and ROI increased in the year prior to POI but declined thereafter.  The domestic industry
once again suffered financial losses in the POI.
xi) Employment, salary and wages, and productivity have increased over the injury period.
xii) Salary per employee declined over the period. Further, salary & wages per unit of production has steeply
declined over the period. However, despite decline in salary & wages cost per unit of production, profitability
of the domestic industry declined in the POI as compared to previous year.
xiii) The domestic industry comprises of new producers who have begun production in the year prior to the POI
and are at a nascent stage of production. The companies and few supporters have made such significant
investments considering the fair market situation that was prevalent in the Indian market. However,
considering the current prices at which imports are entering the Indian market, these companies have been
prevented from achieving projected level of performance. The Authority may kindly consider the actual
performance of these companies and compare the same with the projections drawn while making
investments.
xiv) Growth of the domestic industry in terms of volume parameters was adverse and negative in respect of price
parameters in the POI.
xv) The dumping margins are not only more than de minimis  but also significant.
xvi) There is threat of material injury from the subject imports. The is a significant rate in increase in import. The
increase in POI as compared to preceding year is 162%. Further, this increase in imports is despite fresh
capacities in India.
xvii) There are freely disposable capacities in the subject country. The International Aluminium Institute (IAI) as
reported on Reuters, has stated that the Chinese annualised production run -rate has increased by 2.1 million
metric tons since March 2023 and registered a fresh all -time high of 42.4 million tons in August 2023. China
registered growth of 2.5% in January -August, while the rest of the world lagged with more modest growth of
0.5%.
xviii)  Circumvention investigation have been initiated by other authorities. The exporters or producers in China
have circumvented duties earlier imposed on China, as is evidenced by EU taking action on imports from
Thailand.
xix) Dumping from Thailand producers is largely by the producers owned by Chinese foil producers.
xx) The shifting  of dumping from one source to other and from one product to other shows that the Indian market
is a favourite destination for Chinese producers. There is also a potential of product shifting, as in the past
with imposition of duties on China, imports of the subject goods started to increase from other sources viz.
Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.

xxi) The volume of subject imports has increased significantly during the POI.
xxii) Imports  are causing price undercutting. Resultantly, the volume of imports has increased significantly.
xxiii)  The price undercutting is causing suppressing/depressing effects on the prices in the market.
xxiv)  The suppressing/depressing effect on the prices in the market is causing significant financial losses, decline
in cash profits and ROI.
xxv) The capacity utilisation of the applicants have declined, despite an increase in demand.
xxvi)  The increase in volume of dumped imports has resulted in decline in market share of the domestic industry.
xxvii)  Imports  in excess of demand -supply gap increased significantly. This has prevented utilisation of production
capacities in the country.
xxviii)  The prices at which imports are entering the Indian market i.e. even below cost has prevented the domestic
industry from raising prices in proportion to the increase in costs. Resultantly, the domestic industry is being
compelled to sell below costs, and thereby suffer immense losses.
xxix)  The imports from third countries are higher in prices or insignificant in volumes and are thus not causing
injury to the domestic industry.
xxx) There has been an increase in demand of the product over the proposed injury period.
xxxi)  The technology and production process for producing the product under consideration has not undergone any
significant development. The domestic industry has recent technology for production of the product.
xxxii)  The pattern of consumption with regard to the product under consideration has not undergone any change.
xxxiii)  There is no trade restrictive practice, which could have contributed to the claimed injury to the domestic
industry.
xxxiv)  Information has been provided only in respect to the domestic operations of the domestic industry. There are
no exports made by the domestic industry during the entire injury period.
xxxv)  The injury information provided relates solely to the performance of product under consideration and is the
only relevant information for the present purpose .
H.3 Examination by the Authority
97. The Authority has taken note of the submissions made by the interested parties and has examined various
parameters in accordance with the Rules after duly considering the submissions made by the interested parties. The
injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto  addresses the various submissions made by the
interested parties.
98. 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 the domestic producers of such articles. In considering the effect of the dumped imports on
prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped
imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to
depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a
significant degree. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India,
indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume,
inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in
accordance with Annexure II of the Rules.
99. It is noted that post expiration of duty earlier imposed on the subject goods, the volumes of subject imports at
dumped prices increased significantly and resultantly the applicants’ performance was adversely impacted. The
injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto  addresses the various submissions made by the
interested parties. However, the specific submissions made by the interested parties, and considered relevant, are
addressed by the Authority as below:
100. With regard to the arguments made by the other interested parties regarding material injury and material
retardation co -existing, the Authority notes that material injury and material retardation can be examined

simultaneously. However, in the present investigation, the Authority has examined only material injury with
respect to the domestic industry.
101. As regards the contention of the interested parties that imports made under duty exemption scheme should be
excluded while conducting injury analysis, it is a consistent practice of the Authority not to exclude such imports
for conducting injury analysis. The Authority in the past has examined similar issues in various cases and have
held that the imports made under duty exemption scheme cannot be considered to have not affected the price in the
domestic market. An advance license/authorisation holder has a choice either to import the inputs on a duty -free
basis or procure the same from indigenous sources by using the mechanism of advance release order. Further, the
consumers not having advance authorisation can import the material after payment of customs duty instead of
buying from the Indian industry. The Indian industry thus faces benchmarking effects of such imports on their
prices. If the Indian industry quotes prices much higher than the likely landed price of imports by buyers who do
not have advance authorisation, the consumers are likely to shift to imports after payment of customs duty. The
purpose of injury analysis is to examine and capture the effect of dumped imports on the domestic industry.
Therefore, it would not be reasonable to exclude duty free imports for the purpose of injury analysis. Import under
advance license is a benchmark for the price at which goods can be imported by a consumer after payment of taxes
and duties. It would not be appropriate to consider that imports made under advance license do not cause injury to
the domestic industry. It is however clarified that the Authority has added customs duty even in case of duty -free
imports, even though the same were not paid by the users.
H.3.1 Assessment  of demand/ apparent consumption
102. The Authority has defined, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand, or apparent consumption of the
subject goods in India as the sum of domestic sales of the applicants and imports from all sources. The demand for
the PUC is as follows:
Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep.
‘22 (Annl.)  POI (Oct.
‘22-Sept. ‘23)
Sales of domestic industry  MT *** *** *** ***
Trend  Indexed  100 118 171 200
Sales of supporters  MT - - *** ***
Trend  Indexed  - - 100 343
Sales of other producers*  MT *** *** *** ***
Trend  Indexed  100 115 106 88
Subject country China PR  MT 22,213  16,844  20,612  61,745
Trend  Indexed  100 76 93 278
Imports from other countries dumping  MT 23,925  18,359  37,257  27,033
Trend  Indexed  100 77 156 113
Thailand  MT 18,043  16,244  36,085  27,007
Indonesia  MT 3,410  1,530  994 19
Malaysia  MT 2,472  586 177 7
Other Countries  MT 20,098  19,202  16,729  5,255
Trend  Indexed  100 96 83 26
Total Indian Demand  MT *** *** *** ***
Trend  Indexed  100 101 121 135
*As per market intelligence as provided by the applicants

103. It is seen that the demand for the product under consideration have consistently increased over the injury period,
including in the POI. Imports from the subject country has increased 2.78 times during the POI as compared to the
base year.
H.3.2 Volume  effect of dumped imports on domestic industry
a) Imports in absolute and relative terms
104. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a
significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or in relation to production or consumption in
India. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied upon the transaction -wise data from DG
Systems.  The Authority has considered the data based on the finalised PUC and PCN of the subject goods. The
import volumes of the subject goods and share of the same during the injury investigation period are as follows:
Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep. ‘22
(Annl.)  POI (Oct.
‘22-Sept. ‘23)
Imports Volume
Subject Country China PR * MT 22,213  16,844  20,612  61,745
Imports from other countries
dumping  MT 23,925  18,359  37,257  27,033
Thailand  MT 18,043  16,244  36,085  27,007
Indonesia  MT 3,410  1,530  994 19
Malaysia  MT 2,472  586 177 7
Other Countries  MT 20,098  19,202  16,729  5,255
Total Imports Volume  MT 66,235  54,405  74,598  94,033
Subject imports in relation to
Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep. ‘22
(Annl.)  POI (Oct.
‘22-Sept. ‘23)
Total imports  % 34 31 28 66
Trend  Indexed  100 92 82 196
Production  % *** *** *** ***
Trend  Indexed  100 67 67 196
Consumption  % *** *** *** ***
Trend  Indexed  100 75 77 206
• DG System
105. It is seen that:
a. Imports from the subject country have increased over the injury period with significant increase registered in the
POI. Subject imports in the POI are around three times of the volume in the base year. This surge in imports
occurred despite the fact that the Indian industry is expanding capacities and a number of new producers have
already entered and are entering the market.
b. Imports from other countries attracting duties also remain significant.
c. Imports in relation to Indian production and consumption has shown significant increase in the POI.
d. Subject imports increased in relation to the total imports of the product in India.

H.3.3. Price effect  of dumped imports on domestic industry
106. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is required to be analysed whether there has been a
significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to the price of the like product in India,
or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which otherwise
would have occurred in normal course.
107. Accordingly, the impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of dumped imports of the subject goods
from the subject country has been examined with reference to price undercutting and price suppression/depression,
if any. For the purpose of this analysis the cost of sales and the net sales realization (NSR) of the domestic industry
have been compared with the landed price of the subject imports from the subject country.
a. Price undercutting
108. In order to determine whether the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market, price
undercutting has been worked out by comparing the landed price of the subject imports with the selling price of
the domestic industry during the injury period. For the purpose, the Authority notes that there is significant
difference in the prices of different types of the product under consideration. Therefore, the Authority has
compared landed price of imports with the selling price of the domestic industry for comparable types. Thus,
weighted average price undercutting has been determined after considering associated import volumes. This
comparison showed that during the period of investigation, the subject goods originating in the subject country
were imported into the Indian market at prices which were lower than the selling prices of the domestic industry. It
is thus noted that imports of the subject goods were undercutting the domestic prices and margin of undercutting is
shown as per the table below:
Particulars  Unit  POI
Selling price  ₹/MT ***
Landed price  ₹/MT 3,42,099
Price undercutting  ₹/MT ***
Price undercutting  % ***
Price undercutting %  Range  0-10
109. The imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry.
b. Price Suppression or Depression
110. For the purpose of analysing price suppression and depression in the domestic market, the applicants have
provided information about (a) cost of sales, (b) domestic selling price as is given in the table below.
Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep. ‘22
(Annl.)  POI (Oct. ‘22 -
Sept. ‘23)
Cost of Sales  ₹/Kg *** *** *** ***
Trend  Indexed  100 100 131 139
Selling Price  ₹/Kg  *** *** *** ***
Trend  Indexed  100 103 153 143
Landed Price  ₹/Kg 215 219 358 342
Trend  Indexed  100 102 167 159
111. It is seen that the cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry have increased over the injury period. The
cost of sales increased in the POI as compared to the previous year by Rs. ***/Kg, whereas, selling price declined
by Rs. ***/Kg in the POI. It is seen that the movement of selling price has followed the movement of the landed
price. The decrease in selling price in the POI as compared to the preceding year is not proportionate to the
decrease in landed price in the POI as compared to the previous year. It is also noted that the applicants have filed

an application seeking enhancement of duties on Thailand whose imports remain significant despite imposition of
duties. The Authority is, in parallel, undertaking a mid -term review investigation.
H.3.4. Economic Parameters of the domestic industry
112. Annexure II to the Rules provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic
industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a
bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share,
productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of
the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,
growth and the ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, various injury parameters relating to the domestic
industry are discussed herein below.
113. The performance of the applicants in the POI has been compared with its performance in the base year.
a) Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilization and Sales
114. The Authority has considered the capacity, production, capacity utilization and sales volume of the domestic
industry over the injury period.
Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep. ‘22
(Annl.)  POI (Oct.
‘22-Sept.
‘23)
Capacity  MT 53,756  67,910  1,15,073  1,32,140
Trend  Indexed  100 126 214 246
Production  MT 27,843  34,452  57,492  69,572
Trend  Indexed  100 124 206 250
Capacity utilization  % 52% 51% 50% 53%
Trend  Indexed  100 98 96 102
Domestic sales  MT 24,363  28,837  41,758  48,692
Trend  Indexed  100 118 171 200
Export sales  MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed  100 192 541 779
115. It is seen that:
a. Demand for the PUC has increased over the injury period. Resultantly, a number of companies set up fresh
capacities. The applicant companies namely, Shyam Sel & Power Limited, LSKB, GLS commenced production
in the year prior to the POI while the capacity with the domestic industry has increased over the injury period.
b. The installed capacity and production have increased over the injury period. Domestic sales have also followed
the same trend and increased over the injury period. However, these levels are below the levels that the domestic
industry would have gained in the absence of dumping, particularly considering the capacity additions.
c. Capacity utilization remains low over the injury period.
b) Market Share in Demand
116. The market  share  of the subject imports and the domestic industry over the entire injury period was as follows:
Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep. ‘22
(Annl.)  POI (Oct. ‘22 -Sept. ‘23)
Domestic industry  % 17 20 24 25
Trend  Indexed  100 118 142 148
Supporters  % 0 0 1 3
Trend  Indexed  - - 100 308
Other Producers  % 38 43 33 25

Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep. ‘22
(Annl.)  POI (Oct. ‘22 -Sept. ‘23)
Trend  Indexed  100 114 88 65
Indian industry  % 55 63 58 52
Trend  Indexed  100 115 106 95
Subject Country -China PR  % 15 11 12 31
Countries attracting ADD  % 16 13 21 14
Other Countries  % 14 13 9 3
Demand in India  MT 1,45,726  1,46,510  1,76,366  1,96,266
Installed capacities in India  MT 1,46,973  1,68,790  2,12,733  2,89,735
Demand -supply gap  MT 1,247  22,280  36,367  93,469
117. It is seen that the market share of the domestic industry increased over the injury period. However, the market
share of China PR, which was 11% and 12% in the year preceding the POI, increased significantly and sharply to
31% in the POI. The applicants have submitted that the market share of the domestic industry and the Indian
industry should have increased at least to the extent market was vacated by other countries earlier resorting to
dumping.
c) Profitability, Cash profits, and Return on Capital Employed
118. The profit, profitability, cash profits, profit before interest (PBIT), and return on investment of the domestic
industry over the injury period has been analysed as follows:
Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep. ‘22
(Annl.)  POI (Oct. ‘22 -
Sept. ‘23)
Profit/Loss  ₹/Mt (***)  (***)  *** (***)
Trend  Indexed  -100 -65 124 -87
PBIT  ₹ Lacs  (***)  (***)  *** (***)
Trend  Indexed  -100 -51 299 -103
PBIT per unit  ₹/MT (***)  (***)  *** (***)
Trend  Indexed  -100 -41 140 -41
Cash Profit  ₹ Lacs  (***)  *** *** ***
Trend  Indexed  -100 133 1,329  39
Cash Profit per unit  ₹/MT (***)  *** *** ***
Trend  Indexed  100 107 625 16
Return on Capital
Employed  % (***)  (***)  *** (***)
Trend  Indexed  -100 -50 133 -54
119. It is seen that:
a. The domestic industry was incurring losses in the base year and second year. It is recalled that anti -dumping
was earlier imposed on the subject goods from China PR. Imposition of such duty led to shift in imports from
Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and China PR. The Authority recommended imposition of anti -dumping duty
on these countries on 18th June, 2021 and this recommendation was accepted by MoF on 16th Sept., 2021.
Thus, the domestic industry was suffering injury on account of dumped imports from other sources during
this period. Imposition of duty on such sources led to some improvement in 2021 -22 and the period April -
September 2022. With cessation of ADD on China PR, profitability of the domestic industry has, however,
very steeply declined in the POI. The domestic industry is once again suffering financial losses.
b. Cash profits, profit before interest, profit before interest & depreciation, and return on capital employed have
shown the same trend as that of profits. Performance of the domestic industry improved on these accounts in

April 21 - September 22 period and declined steeply in the POI. The domestic industry earned negative return
on capital employed.
d) Inventory
120. The data relating to inventory position of the domestic industry over the injury period and POI is given in the
table below:
Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep.
‘22 (Annl.)  POI (Oct. ‘22 -
Sept. ‘23)
Opening  MT *** *** *** ***
Closing  MT *** *** *** ***
Average  MT 1,283  1,314  3,129  5,146
121. The Authority notes that average level of inventories with the domestic industry has increased over the injury
period.
e) Employment, Wages and Productivity
122. The position with regard to employment, wages and productivity of the domestic industry is as follows:
Particulars  Unit  2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep.
‘22 (Annl.)  POI (Oct.
‘22-Sept.
‘23)
No of employees  Nos. 877 902 1,792  1,831
Trend   100 103 204 209
Salaries & Wages  ₹ Lacs  *** *** *** ***
Trend   100 99 163 183
Productivity Per day  MT/Day  88 97 194 188
Trend   100 110 221 214
123. The Authority notes that the number of employees and wages paid increased over the injury period.  This is
because of increase in capacities and number of producers in the Indian market. Productivity of the employees
increased till April 21 - September 22 period and declined thereafter in the POI.
f) Growth
124. The information with respect to growth of the applicants is given below:
Particulars  Unit  2020 -21 Apr. ‘21 -Sep. ‘22
(Annl.)  POI (Oct. ‘22 -
Sept. ‘23)
Production  %  24   71   16
Domestic Sales  %  18   45   17
PBIT    59   444   -130
Cash Profit - Rs. Lacs  %  233   900   -97
Return on Capital
Employed  % 3% 12% -13%
125. It is seen growth in terms of volume parameters has been positive and negative in terms of price parameters.
g) Magnitude of Dumping and Dumping Margin
126. It is seen that dumping  margin from the subject country is not only more than  de-minimis  but also significant.

I. NON -ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS (OTHER FACTORS)
127. The Authority examined whether other factors listed under the anti -dumping Rules could have caused injury to the
domestic industry. The Authority examined known factors other than the dumped imports and ascertain whether
these are at the same time have been injuring the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by other factors, if
any, is not attributable to the dumped imports. Factors which are relevant in this respect include, inter alia , the
volume of subject goods not sold at dumped prices, contraction in demand or changes in the pattern of
consumption, trade restrictive practices, changes in technology, the export performance of the domestic industry
and the productivity of the domestic industry.
a) Volume and prices of imports from third countries
128. It is seen that the imports of the product under consideration from other countries are either attracting duties or the
volume is insignificant. The domestic industry has sought enhancement of duties -imposed on Thailand and the
Authority is undertaking mid -term review investigation against imports from Thailand. Therefore, imports from
other countries are not a cause of material injury suffered by the domestic industry.
b) Contraction in Demand
129. The demand has consistently increased throughout the injury period. Thus, possible decline in demand is not the
cause of injury.
c) Changes in pattern of consumption
130. There are no changes in the pattern of consumption for the product under consideration over the injury period that
could have caused injury to the domestic industry.
d) Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices
131. The investigation has not shown any change in the conditions of competition or any trade restrictive practices.
e) Developments in Technology
132. No evidence has been brought forward to show that t here are no significant changes in technology.
f) Export performance of the domestic industry
133. The information provided has been considered for domestic operations of the domestic industry.
g) Performance of other products
134. The domestic industry has provided the injury data for the PUC and the same has been adopted by the Authority
for the purpose of injury analysis. Performance of other products produced and sold by the domestic industry have
not been considered.
Factors establishing causal link
135. Analysis of the performance of the domestic industry over the injury period provisionally shows material injury to
the domestic industry. The causal link between dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry is
established on the following grounds:
i. Imports have increased in absolute terms and have remained significant in relative terms. Imports have
increased despite increase in capacity and production in the country.
ii. Landed price of the subject imports is below the selling price of the domestic industry and also below the
cost of sales in the POI and has caused price depression.
iii. While market share of the domestic industry increased by 3% in the POI as compared to the previous year,
market share of the subject country increased steeply by 18% even with new players entering the domestic
market.
iv. The domestic industry has not been able to increase production and sales to the level that would be
reasonable had there been an absence of dumping, commensurate with the addition of new capacities.
v. Inventories of the domestic industry has been on the rise and has increased significantly in the POI.

vi. The domestic industry’s profitability and return on capital employed has been adversely affected. The
domestic industry made profits in April 21 - Sept 22 which turned into losses in the POI. Cash profits has
declined steeply in the POI and ROI also became negative.
136. The above analysis indicates that the domestic industry is suffering material injury due to increased dumped
imports of the PUC into India from the subject country. There exists a causal relation between the increase in
dumped imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country and the material injury
suffered by the domestic industry.
J. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
137. The Authority has determined the NIP for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in the Rules
read with Annexure III, as amended. The NIP of the product under consideration has been determined by adopting
the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the domestic industry. The NIP has been
considered for comparing the landed price from the subject country for calculating injury margin. For determining
the NIP, the best utilisation of the raw materials and utilities has been considered over the injury period. Best
utilisation of production capacity over the injury period has been considered. Extraordinary or non -recurring
expenses have been excluded from the cost of production. A reasonable return (pre -tax @ 22%) on average capital
employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the product under consideration was
allowed as pre -tax profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure III to the Rules.
Injury Margin for related producers and Exporters
138. It is noted that in the subject investigation many cooperating producers and exporters are related to each other and
form a group of related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider related exporting
producers and exporters as one single entity for the determination of a injury margin and thus to establish one
single injury margin for them. This is in particular because calculating individual injury margins might encourage
circumvention of antidumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related exporting producers
to channel their exports to India through the company with the lowest individual injury margin.
139. In accordance with the above, related producers and exporters have been regarded as one single entity and
attributed one single injury margin which was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the injury
margins of the cooperating related producers  and exporters.
140. Based  on the landed price and the NIP determined as above, the injury margin as provisionally determined by the
Authority  is provided in the table below.
Injury Margin
Company  Non-Injurious
Price  Landed Price  Injury Margin  Injury
Margin  range
USD/MT  USD/MT  USD/MT  %
Henan Mingtai technology development
Co., Ltd.  *** *** *** ***
10-20 Henan Mingsheng New Material
Technology Co. Ltd.
Sunho New Materials Technology Co.
Ltd.  *** *** *** ***
10-20
Shanghai Sunho Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd.
Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint -
Stock Co. Ltd.  *** *** *** ***
10-20 Inner Mongolia Lian Shen New Energy
Co. Ltd.
Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co. Ltd.,
Non sampled cooperative producers  *** *** *** ***  10-20
Non-Cooperative Producers/Exporters  *** *** *** *** 30-40

K. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
K.1 Views of other interested parties
141. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regards to public interest :
i) The Authority has imposed several duties on aluminium foil from China PR on continuous basis but the domestic
industry still wants needs protection.
ii) There have been new entrants in the market and many more are under pipeline.
iii) Due care should be ensured to prevent the creation of monopoly.
iv) The final cost of the product will be higher with duties imposed. The price of the product, with duty amount
added, will lead to affordability issues for the end consumers. Subject goods are a daily use product ultimately
used in every household.
v) Cost of production for goods such as aluminium foil containers will increase with duties. 80 -85% of the cost of
production is the subject goods and the duties will have adverse impact on such production.
vi) Consumers will have to import even with the addition of duties to ensure constant availability of goods for which
an exorbitant price will be charged by the domestic producers.
vii) The domestic industry lacks adequate quality required by the downstream users of the subject goods in India,
thereby necessitating imports.
viii) If duties are imposed, it will adversely affect downstream producers and lead to inability to source the subject
goods with good product quality, lead times, and impact the ability of downstream producers to meet the
customer’s demands.
ix) Cost of downstream finished goods would increase, making the Indian downstream industry unviable. Imports of
finished goods from other countries would increase and cause injury to the flexible packaging industry in India.
K.2 Views of the domestic industry
142. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regards to public interest :
i) It is in the interest of consumers to have a market with fairly priced products powered by a domestic industry that
can compete with the imports.
ii) Encouraging domestic manufacturing activities in India is essential to aid its role in becoming a manufacturing
powerhouse. Domestic production will further boost employment and increase the GDP of the country.
iii) Imposition of anti -dumping duties is essential to ensure a level playing field and prevent India from becoming
solely import reliant on the product.
iv) The applicant companies are a multi -product company. If the performance of one of the business divisions of the
applicant companies encounters severe setbacks, it will inevitably affect other divisions within the company as
well. Therefore, the viability of this product is of utmost importance for the entire ecosystem of the applicant
companies.
v) The cost on account of aluminium for a consumer is miniscule. The downstream user of the subject goods are
industries using aluminium foil for protection, storage, and preparation of foods and beverages, pharmaceutical
packaging etc. The Authority in the previous sunset review investigation held that no material increases in the
price of the product either by domestic industry or Chinese producers.
vi) The domestic industry has quantified the impact of proposed duties in the present investigation. On an average
for different end users, the impact is ranging from 0.026 – 4.36%.
vii) The subject goods imported from China PR were previously subject to anti -dumping measures. There is no
public information to show that the previously imposed measures had any adverse impact on the end consumer.
viii) The Indian industry has grown significantly since the imposition of the earlier duties. They have made significant
investment and expanded capacities because the government previously remedied dumping and provided a level
playing field by imposing duties on the imports from China PR. As against demand -supply gap in the past, the
Indian industry now has surplus capacities.

ix) The aluminium industry of India produces the second -highest volume of aluminium and its products in the
world. The aluminium production of the Indian companies contributes nearly 2% of India’s GDP.
x) Aluminium foil is an eco -friendly alternative to plastic bottles which are major contributors to pollution.
Aluminium foil is a non -toxic material which does not embrittle at extreme temperatures, reflects almost all
radiant heat. It is also a good thermal conductor and usually quite malleable.
K.3 Examination by the Authority
143. The Authority notes that the purpose of imposition of anti -dumping duty, in general, is to eliminate injury caused
to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re -establish a situation of open and fair
competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest  of the country. Imposition of anti -dumping
measures does not aim to restrict imports from the subject country in any way. Trade remedial investigations are
intended to restore equal competitive opportunities in the domestic market by ensuring a level playing field for
domestic producers by the imposition of appropriate duties against trade distorting imports. At the same time, the
Authority is aware that the impact of such duties is not limited to only the domestic producers of the PUC but also
affects the users and consumers of the PUC. Moreover, the imposition of duties may introduce competition
concerns domestically but can concurrently stimulate the emergence of new producers within the country.
144. The Authority issued initiation 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 any possible effects of anti -dumping duty on their
operations.  Information was sought on, inter -alia, interchangeability of the product supplied by various suppliers
from different countries, ability of the domestic industry to switch sources, effect of anti -dumping duty on the
consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to the new situation caused by imposition of
anti-dumping duty.
145. The opposing interested parties have not provided any quantifiable and/or verifiable information on the likely
impact of anti -dumping duty on the downstream industry and end customers. However , the domestic industry has
submitted quantifiable and verifiable information on the impact of duty to end consumers. On an average for
different end users, the impact is ranging from 0.026 – 4.36%.
a. Pharmaceutical Blister Pack – 0.026%
b. Pharmaceutical Strip Pack – 0.073%
c. Pharmaceutical Alu Alu Stock:
i. Blistor foil – 0.022%
ii. Alu Alu – 0.046%
iii. Telma 40 – 0.068%
d. Flexible packaging – 0.071%
e. Housefoil – 3.5%
f. SRC – 4.36%
146. None of the previously concluded investigations did the consumers contend that the duties had any adverse impact
on their operations or referenced to any increased cost or hardship caused to them by the duties that were imposed
earlier.
147.  The Authority notes that new capacities 64230 MT has been introduced. Also, it is noted that the Indian industry
holds capacity more than entire demand for the subject goods in the country. The total Indian capacity of 2,89,735
MT is more than established demand of 1,96,266 MT in the POI.
148. The Authority notes that the volume of imports from the subject country has increased significantly in the POI.
The increase in imports from the subject country has adversely impacted the market  share of the domestic industry.
Further, it is also noted that the Indian Industry hold sufficient capacity to meet the demand in the country and
there is no demand supply gap. It is also in the interest of the user industry to have sources of supply of subject
goods within the Indian territory for prompt and short -term delivery of the subject goods. It is also in the long -term
interest of the user industry to maintain multiple sources of supply.

L. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
149. Based  on the submissions made, information provided and facts available before the Authority as recorded above
and on the basis of the above analysis of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry, the Authority
concludes the following:
i. The scope of the product under consideration is “aluminium foil upto 80 microns, excluding
aluminium foil below 5.5 micron for non -capacitor application” originating in or exported from China
PR.
ii. The subject goods are classified under the customs sub -headings 76071190, 76072090, 76072010,
76071110, 76071999, 76071991, 76071995, 76071910, 76071994, 76071993 and' 76071992.
iii. The application has been filed by M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., M/s Shyam Sel & Power Ltd, M/s
Shree Venkateshwara Electrocast Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ravi Raj Foils Ltd., M/s GLS Foils Product Pvt. Ltd.,
and M/s LSKB Aluminium Foils Pvt. Ltd. The applicants constitute domestic industry, under Rule
2(b) of the Rules and satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3).
iv. The combined capacities and production of these domestic producers during the POI was 1,32,140
MT and 69,572 MT respectively, as against known Indian capacity and production of 2,89,735 MT
and 1,26,495 MT. These companies thus collectively command about 45% of capacity and 54% of
production in the POI.
v. The present petition has been supported by ESS DEE Aluminium Ltd., Sparsh Industries Ltd., SRF
Altech Ltd., and Trefoil Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
vi. The subject goods exported from China PR and the article manufactured by the domestic industry are
‘like article’ to each other in terms of Rule 2 (d) of the AD Rules, 1995. As per the data on record, the
defined domestic industry can produce and supply all kinds of product types that have been imported
into India.
vii. In order to ensure fair comparison between domestic and imported products and for establishing
dumping, the Authority has adopted a PCN system and established dumping margin and injury
margin by considering PCN wise data.
viii. The product under consideration has been exported to India at a price below the normal value,
resulting in dumping. The dumping margin is not only above de-minimis  level but also significant.
ix. Imports from the subject country constitute a majority of the total imports into India throughout the
injury period, and almost 66% in the POI. Further, the volume of subject imports increased over the
injury period, especially in the POI.
x. Subject imports have captured 30% of the Indian market despite the applicants having sufficient
capacity to meet the domestic demand. The rise in Chinese imports was far sharper compared to the
increase in demand. The overall increase in consumption was 106% in the POI compared to the base
year, the imports increased by 178% and Indian producer’s sales increased by 29% only.
xi. The imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. The price undercutting has led to
price depression suffered by the domestic industry.  The domestic industry has been forced to reduce
the selling price more than the cost of production.
xii. The capacity, production and domestic sales volume have increased over the injury period.
xiii. The market share of the subject country has increased over the injury period.
xiv.  Despite applicants holding sufficient capacity to cater to the existing demand , the domestic industry
barely holds a share of 55% in the Indian market.
xv. Increase in imports in the POI has resulted into losses to the domestic industry. The cash profit, ROI
have declined steeply in the POI.
xvi. The average inventories of the applicants have increased significantly in the POI.
xvii. The dumped imports have adversely affected the growth of the  domestic industry in respect of both
volume and price parameters.

xviii. The Authority has examined the submissions made by other parties on any other factors which could
have caused injury to the domestic industry. No other factor has caused injury to the domestic
industry. The Authority provisionally concludes that the material injury suffered by the domestic
industry has been caused by the dumped imports from the subject country.
xix. The Authority had prescribed an economic interest questionnaire which was sent to all interested
parties to this investigation. The domestic industry has also provided a quantification of the potential
impact of the duty. The Authority has quantified the impact of anti -dumping duty on the consumers. It
is seen that the impact of the proposed measures will be minimal.
150. Having initiated and conducted the investigation into dumping, injury, and causal link in terms of the provisions
laid down under the Anti -Dumping Rules, the Authority  is of the view that imposition  of the provisional anti -
dumping duty is required to offset the dumping and consequent injury. The Authority considers it necessary to
recommend imposition of the provisional anti -dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods originating in or
exported from the subject country.
151. Having regards to the lesser duty rule followed, the Authority recommends imposition of provisional anti -dumping
duty equal to the lesser of the margin of dumping and the margin of injury so as to remove the injury to the
domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority  recommends imposition of provisional anti -dumping duty on the
imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country, equal to the amount mentioned in
Col. 7 of the duty table appended below, to be issued in this regard by the Central Government. The landed value
of the imports for this purpose shall be the assessable value as determined by the Customs under Customs Act.
1962 and applicable level of the customs duties except duties levied under Section 3, 3A, 8B, 9, 9A. of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
DUTY TABLE
SN Heading/
sub-
heading  Description
of goods  Country
of origin  Country
of export  Producer /
exporter  Amount  Unit of
measurement
(MT)  Currency
(USD)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. 76071190,
76072090,
76072010,
76071110,
76071999,
76071991,
76071995,
76071910,
76071994,
76071993
and'
76071992*  “Aluminium
foil upto 80
microns,
excluding
aluminium
foil below
5.5 micron
for non -
capacitor
application”  China
PR Any
Country
including
China PR  Henan
Mingtai
technology
development
Co. Ltd.   653 MT USD
Henan
Mingsheng
New
Material
Technology
Co. Ltd.  **
Excluding
the
following
2 do do China
PR Any
Country
including
China PR  Sunho New
Materials
Technology
Co. Ltd.   619 MT USD
Shanghai
Sunho
Aluminum
Foil Co. Ltd.
3 do do China
PR Any
Country
including
China PR  Jiangsu
Dingsheng
New
Materials 632 MT USD

SN Heading/
sub-
heading  Description
of goods  Country
of origin  Country
of export  Producer /
exporter  Amount  Unit of
measurement
(MT)  Currency
(USD)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joint -Stock
Co. Ltd.
Inner
Mongolia
Lian Shen
New Energy
Co. Ltd.
Hangzhou
Five Star
Aluminium
Co. Ltd.
4 do do China
PR Any
Country
including
China PR  ***Non -
Sampled
Cooperative
Producers   633 MT USD
5 do do China
PR  Any
Country
other
than
Subject
country  Any
Producer
other than
SN 1,2, 3 &
4  873 MT USD
6 do do Any
Country
other
than
Subject
country  China PR  Any  873 MT USD
*Note -Customs classification is only indicative, and the determination of anti -dumping duty shall be
made as per the description of the PUC
** Excluding the following -
i.  Aluminium foil below 5.5 microns from China PR for non -capacitor applications - ‘Aluminium foil
for capacitors applications' below 5.5 microns is within the scope of the product under consideration.
This was specifically excluded in the anti -dumping duty investigation conducted on "aluminium foil 80
microns and below originating in or exported from China PR, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia."
ii. Ultra -Light Gauge Converted foil meant for use in insulation, spices packing' thermal fluid lines
covering and tea bags application - Ultra Light Gauge Converted foil is an aluminium foil having
thickness of 5.5 micron to 7 micron which is backed with kraft paper and scrim, or glass cloth,
whether plain or printed for use in insulation, spices packing, thermal fluid lines covering and tea
bags application.
iii. Etched or formed aluminium foils meant for Electrolytic Capacitor - Etched or formed aluminium
foils is aluminium foil meant to be used in the manufacture of Electrolytic Capacitor
iv. Aluminium composite panel meant for facade cladding and signage applications - Aluminium
composite panel is a non -aluminium core (often PE) bonded between two thin layers of aluminium, for
use in facade cladding and signage.
v. Clad with compatible non clad aluminium foil - Clad with compatible non clad aluminium foil is a
corrosion -resistant aluminium sheet formed from aluminium surface layers metallurgically bonded to
high-strength aluminium alloy core material for use in engine cooling and air conditioner systems in

automotive industry and industrial applications; such as radiator, condenser, evaporator, intercooler,
oil cooler and heater.
vi. Aluminium foil for beer bottle - aluminium foil of 10.5 micron with rough surface and perforated
whether printed or not; to be used in beer bottle.
vii. Aluminium - manganese - silicon based and/ or clad aluminium - manganese silicon -based alloys,
whether clad or unclad - with post brazing yield strength greater than 35 MPA, falling under tariff
heading 7607 and 7606, for use in heat exchangers including radiators, charge air coolers,
condensers, oil coolers, heater cores, evaporators, heat ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems and parts thereof.
viii. Adhesive tapes
ix. Colour coated aluminium foil -either one side or both sides, irrespective of colour, shape or coating.
x. Polyurethane coated aluminium foil - either one side or both sides, irrespective of colour, shape, or
coating.
***List of non -sampled companies
1) Shandong Deli Aluminium Technology Co. Ltd
2) Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., Ltd.
3) Luoyang Longding Aluminium Industries Co. Ltd.
4) Xiamen Xiashun Aluminium Foil Co. Ltd.
5) Jiangsu Fengyuan Aluminium Master Technology Co. Ltd.
6) Luoyang Wanji Aluminium Processing Co. Ltd.
7) Kunshan Aluminium Co. Ltd.,
152. The landed value of imports for the purpose of this notification shall be assessable value as determined  by the
Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and includes all duties of customs except duties under
Sections 3, 8B, 9, 9A of the said Act.
M. FURTHER PROCEDURE
153. The procedure  as below would be followed subsequent to notifying the preliminary findings:
i. All the interested parties are invited to make their views, on preliminary findings, known at the time of oral
hearing.
ii. The Authority would hold oral hearing in terms of Rule 6(6) to give an opportunity to all the interested parties to
present their views relevant to the investigation followed by written submissions.
iii. The date of the oral hearing would be announced on the DGTR website (dgtr.gov.in).
iv. The Authority would conduct further verification to the extent deemed necessary.
v. The Authority would disclose the essential facts as per the Anti -Dumping Rules before notifying the final findings.
ANANT SWARUP, 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.

                

                
                
                
            

            
        


        
        

        
        
        

            

                

                    
                        
                    
                

                

                    
Never miss important gazettes

                    
Create a free account to save gazettes, add notes, and get email alerts for keywords you care about.

                

                Sign Up Free
            

        

        

        
        

        
        
        

            Create free account to save & get alerts →
        

        

        
        
        

            

                
                    
                    
                
                More from Ministry of Commerce and Industry
            

            

                
                

                    
                        Publication of notification in respect of Delta Electronics India Private Limited for Electronic Hardware and Software including Information Technology and Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone at Kurubarapalli, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu, for addition of an area of 1.14 hectares thereby making resultant area as 12.10 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of Notification in respect of Brahmani Infratech Limited for IT ITES SEZ at Mamidipalli Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, for Full denotification of 60.70 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of notification in respect of Rackbank Datacenters Private Limited for IT ITES SEZ at Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, for addition of an area of 2.708437 hectares thereby making resultant area as 5.412488 Ha
                    
                    09 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Corrigendum to Public Notice No 27 2026 2027 dated 20 08 2026 regarding Modalities for Application and Distribution of TRQ for Import of 10 Lakh MT of Raw Sugar and one time conversion from Advance Authorisation AA Scheme to Tariff Rate Quota TRQ Scheme
                    
                    07 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of notification Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation for Apparel Park at Khokhra, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, for partial denotification of 15.59989 Ha out of 20.41491 Ha.
                    
                    03 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Modalities for Application and Allocation of Balance Quantity under TRQ Scheme for Import of 10 Lakh MT of Raw Sugar reg
                    
                    02 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Publication of the Notification for Development Commissioner of SEZs Recruitment Rules, 2026
                    
                    01 Sep 2026
                

                
                

                    
                        Amendment in the Export Policy of Wheat Flour and related products regarding
                    
                    27 Aug 2026
                

                
            

            

                View all Ministry of Commerce and Industry gazettes →