Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 136] NEW DELHI, MONDAY, MAY 27, 2024/JYAISHTHA 6, 1946
C.G.-DL-E-31052024-254461
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
FINAL FINDING
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2024
CASE NO. SSR-11/2023
Subject : Sunset review investigation of anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Chlorinated Polyvinyl
Chloride (CPVC) – Whether or not further processed into compound from China PR and
Korea RP.
F. No. 7/28/2023-DGTR.—Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as the “Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-
Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995 thereof, as amended from time to
time (hereinafter also referred to as “Rules”)
The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”) received an application from DCW Limited
(hereinafter referred to as the „applicant‟ or the “the domestic industry”) seeking initiation of a sunset review for
extension and modification of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride
(hereinafter to be referred to as “CPVC” or the “subject goods” or the “the product under consideration” or the
“PUC”), originating in or exported from China PR and Korea RP (hereinafter referred to as the “subject countries”).
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE.
1. The original anti-dumping investigation concerning the imports of the product under consideration from the
subject countries was initiated by the Authority vide Notification No. 06/03/2019-DGTR dated 28th March
2019. The Authority issued preliminary finding vide notification no. 06/03/2019-DGTR dated 12th July 2019
recommending imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of the product under consideration
from the subject countries for a period of 6 months. The Ministry of Finance vide Notification No. 33/2019-
Customs dated 26th August 2019 imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of the product under
consideration from the subject countries for a period of 6 months.
2. Thereafter, the final finding was issued vide Notification F. No. 06/03/2019-DGTR dated 19th February 2020
wherein the Authority recommended definitive anti-dumping duty for a period of 5 years. The anti-dumping
duty was imposed vide Notification No. 05/2020-Customs (ADD) on 7th March 2020. The said duties were
levied for a period of 5 years and are set to expire on 25th August 2024.
3. In terms of Section 9A (5) of the Act, any anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to
have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition. Further, Rule 23(1B) of the Rules
provides as follows:
“any definitive antidumping duty levied under the Act, shall be effective for a period not exceeding five
years from the date of its imposition, unless the designated Authority comes to a conclusion, on a review
initiated before that period on its own initiative or upon a duly substantiated request made by or on
behalf of the domestic industry, within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of that period,
that the expiry of the said anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping
and injury to the domestic industry”
4. In accordance with the above, the Authority is required to review, on the basis of a duly substantiated request
made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, as to whether the expiry of existing anti-dumping duty is likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
5. On the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the domestic industry, the Authority issued a public notice
vide notification no. 7/28/2023- DGTR dated 29th December 2023 published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating the subject investigation. The investigation was initiated in accordance with Section
9A (5) of the Act read with Rule 23 of the Rules to examine whether the expiry of such duty is likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry and if there is a need for continued
imposition of the anti-dumping duties.
6. The scope of the present review covers all aspects of the final finding no. 06/03/2019-DGTR dated 19th
February 2020, and notification no. 05/2020-Customs (ADD) dated 7th March 2020.
B. PROCEDURE
7. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
i. The Authority notified the embassy of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the present anti-
dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with sub-rule (5) of
Rule 5.
ii. The Authority issued a notification dated 29th December 2023, published in the Gazette of India
Extraordinary, initiating the sunset review anti-dumping investigation concerning the imports of the
product under consideration from the subject countries.
iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification dated 29th December 2023 to the embassy of the
subject countries in India, the known producers, and exporters from the subject countries, known
importers and users in India, and the other interested parties, as per the email addresses made available
by the domestic industry.
iv. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters and to the embassy of the subject countries in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of
the Rules.
v. The embassy of the subject countries in India was also requested to advise the exporters/producers from
its country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and
questionnaire was sent along with the names and addresses of the known producers/exporters of the
subject countries.
vi. The Authority sent exporter's questionnaire to the following known producers/ exporters in subject
countries in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
+----+-----------------------------------------------------+
| SN | Name of producer/exporters in the subject countries. |
+====+=====================================================+
| 1 | Everun Chemical Limited, China PR |
| 2 | Haitian Middle East Fze, China PR |
| 3 | Henan Buckton Industry and Commerce Co. Ltd., China PR |
| 4 | Jiangsu Lee And Man Chemical Limited, China PR |
| 5 | Kapsun Resources Corporation (Hk) Ltd, China PR |
| 6 | Maxwin Overseas Limited, China PR |
| 7 | Mitsui & Co., Ltd, China PR |
| 8 | Shandong Gaoxin Chemical Co. Ltd., China PR |
| 9 | Shandong Novista Chemicals Co., Lim, China PR |
| 10 | Shandong Pujie Rubber and Plastic, China PR |
| 11 | Shandong Xiangsheng New Materials, China PR |
| 12 | Shandong Yada New Material Co., Ltd, China PR |
| 13 | Texpo International Limited, China PR |
| 14 | Weifang Hota New Material Technology, China PR |
| 15 | Weifang Sundow Chemicals Co., Ltd., China PR |
| 16 | Winwell Industry Co., Ltd, China PR |
| 17 | Hanwha Solutions Corporation, Korea RP |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------+
vii. In response, only Hanwha Solutions Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Hanwha”) from Korea RP
has provided exporter questionnaire response. Additionally, its unrelated exporter SAR Overseas has
also filed exporter‟s questionnaire response in the prescribed format.
viii. The Authority send importer‟s questionnaire to the following known importers/users of the product
under consideration in India calling necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
+----+-----------------------------------------------------+
| SN | Name of users/importers of the product under consideration in India. |
+====+=====================================================+
| 1 | A.G. Import Hub |
| 2 | Ajay Industrial Corporation Limited |
| 3 | Apollo Pipes Limited |
| 4 | Astral Limited |
| 5 | Avon Plastic Industries Private Limited |
| 6 | Basil Prompt Vinyl Private Limited |
| 7 | Bothara Agro Equipments Private Limited |
| 8 | Finolex Industries Limited |
| 9 | HIL Limited |
| 10 | Hydraguard International Private Limited |
| 11 | Kapsun Resources Corporation |
| 12 | Kisan Irrigations and Infrastructure Limited |
| 13 | Kuntal Organics LLP |
| 14 | Lalitha Chem Industries Private Limited |
| 15 | Makwell Plastisizers Private Limited |
| 16 | Matrix Impex |
| 17 | Mayur Dyes & Chemicals Corporation Limited |
| 18 | Meet Marketing (India) Private Limited |
| 19 | Navyug Chemicals Private Limited |
| 20 | Omya India Private Limited |
| 21 | Pearl Precision Products Private Limited |
| 22 | Prayag Polymers Private Limited |
| 23 | Precision Sanitary Products Private Limited |
| 24 | Pushp Global Company Private Limited |
| 25 | Reva Polytech Private Limited |
| 26 | Rishabh Triexim LLP |
| 27 | Shreeji Impex |
| 28 | Signet Industries Limited |
| 29 | Sudhakar Irrigation Systems Private Limited |
| 30 | Supreme Industries Limited |
| 31 | Tyk Polymers Private Limited |
| 32 | Vahini Irrigation Private Limited |
| 33 | Vectus Industries Limited |
| 34 | Waterflow Piping System |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------+
ix. The following users/importers have filed questionnaire response.
+---+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Ashirvad”) |
| 2 | Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Lubrizol”) |
+---+-----------------------------------------------------+
x. The Authority also sent copies of initiation notification to the following association and sought their
comments:
+---+-----------------------------------------------------+
| SN | Name of producer/exporters in the subject countries. |
+====+=====================================================+
| 1 | All India Federation of Plastic Industries. |
| 2 | The All-India Plastic Manufactures Association (AIPMA) |
+----+-----------------------------------------------------+
xi. None of the above associations responded to the initiation notification.
xii. Foreign producers, exporters and other interested parties who have not responded to the Authority, or
have not supplied information relevant to this investigation, have been treated as non-cooperating with
interested parties.
xiii. The Authority issued an economic interest questionnaire to all the known producers and exporters,
importers, and the domestic industry. The economic interest questionnaire was also shared with the
administrative line ministry. Economic interest questionnaire was filed only by the domestic industry.
None of the other interested parties have filed the economic interest questionnaire.
xiv. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the submissions made by the various
interested parties. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website along with the
request therein to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other
interested parties.
xv. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is 1st July 2022 to 30th June
2023 (a period of 12 months) The injury analysis period covers 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020, 1st
April 2020 to 31st March 2021, 1st April 2021 to 30th June 2022 and the period of investigation.
xvi. Non-injurious Price (hereinafter referred to as „NIP‟) has been determined based on the cost of
production and reasonable profits of the subject goods in India, based on the information furnished by
the domestic industry on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure
III to the AD Rules so as to ascertain whether an anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin
would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
xvii. The Authority, during the course of the investigation, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the
information supplied by the interested parties, which forms the basis of this final finding, to the extent
possible and verified the data documents submitted by the domestic industry and the interested parties to
the extent considered relevant, practicable and necessary.
xviii. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested
parties to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 6th March 2024 in hybrid mode. The
parties that presented their views in the oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of the
views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. The parties shared their non-
confidential submissions with other interested parties and were advised to offer their rebuttals.
xix. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to the
sufficiency of such confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the
confidentiality claims wherever warranted and such information has been considered as confidential and
not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on
confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on
confidential basis.
xx. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts in this investigation which have formed the basis of
the final findings was issued to the interested parties on 12.05.2024 and the interested parties were
allowed time up to 18.05.2024 to comment on the same. The comments on disclosure statements
received from the interested parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant, in this final
finding notification.
xxi. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information
during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the
Authority has considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the present final finding on the
basis of the facts available.
xxii. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the interested
parties to the extent the same is supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present
investigation.
xxiii. “***” in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on a confidential basis
and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xxiv. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$=Rs 82.39.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1 Submission of the other interested parties.
8. The other interested parties have not made any submissions with regards to the product under consideration
and like article.
C.2. Submission of the domestic industry.
9. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under consideration
and like article:
a. The scope of the product under consideration in the present investigation is the same as defined in the
original investigation.
b. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 39, under sub-heading 39049010 &
39049090. However, despite having dedicated classification, the product under consideration is being
imported under various other sub-headings.
+----+-----------+-------+------------+------------+---------------+------------+
| SN | HS Code | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr'21-Jun'22 | *POI |
+====+===========+=======+============+============+===============+============+
| 1 | 39049010 | MT | 37,570 | 1,13,557 | 1,75,735 | 1,77,290 |
| 2 | 39049090 | MT | 2,672 | 6,258 | 13,111 | 16,740 |
| 3 | 39042100 | MT | 5,429 | 3,665 | 9,402 | 7,971 |
| 4 | 39041090 | MT | 11,792 | 6,119 | 5,199 | 1,631 |
| 5 | 39042200 | MT | 1,690 | 2,297 | 1,471 | 1,479 |
| 6 | 39043090 | MT | 12 | - | 3 | - |
| 7 | 39044000 | MT | 452 | - | - | 126 |
| 8 | 39045090 | MT | - | - | 124 | - |
| 9 | 39046990 | MT | 6 | - | - | - |
| 10 | 39049000 | MT | 83,293 | - | - | - |
| 11 | 39049010 | MT | 29,401 | 98,965 | 1,84,237 | 1,59,481 |
| 12 | 39049090 | MT | 2,236 | 7,126 | 21,980 | 24,813 |
+----+-----------+-------+------------+------------+---------------+------------+
| | Total | MT | 1,34,109 | 1,19,179 | 2,25,818 | 1,98,128 |
+----+-----------+-------+------------+------------+---------------+------------+
*POI 1st July 2022-30th June 2023.
c. Reference placed on Gujarat High Court in the case of Ajanta Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI, ruled that anti-dumping
duty cannot be charged unless all HSN codes are covered in the duty table.
d. Customs authorities prioritize notifications from the Ministry of Finance over final findings, so it's
crucial for duty tables to include all classifications. Failure to include relevant codes in customs
notifications could lead to evasion.
e. There have been no developments in the product and the product produced by the domestic industry
continues to remain like article to the imported product.
C.3. Examination by the Authority.
10. The present investigation is a sunset review investigation and the scope of the product under consideration
remains the same as defined in the original investigation. The product under consideration as defined in the
original investigation is reproduced hereunder-
“10. The product under consideration for the purpose ofthe present investigation is “Chlorinated
Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) - whether or not further processed into compound”.
11. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 39 of Customs Tariff Act. Import data
received from DGCI&S and DG Systems shows that the product has been imported under 39042110,
39042190, 39042210, 39042290, 39041090 and 39049000. The Customs classification is indicative only
and not binding on the scope of the present investigation.
11. Sample picture of the product is as below.
12. None of the interested parties have made any submissions on the scope of the product under consideration.
13. On the issue of inclusion of both CPVC resin and compound, the Authority had held as follows at the time of
original investigation.
“16. The Authority has examined the argument made by interested parties that CPVC resin and
compound are distinct products as both are produced in different stages of processing. Based on the
submissions made by the Applicant and the other interested parties, the Authority notes that CPVC resin
is an intermediate product which eventually is to be converted into compound for making pipes and
there is no other independent uses of CPVC resin. CPVC resin cannot be used as it is, and it has to be
compulsorily processed into compound for making it usable, a fact that has not been disputed by the
opposing interested parties. It is noted that difference in the cost of production and selling price is not
the only criterion to treat one product different from the other. Compound is nothing but further
processed form of CPVC resin to make it useable. It is also noted that compounding basically involves
mixing of additives with resin without any substantial manufacturing activity. Therefore, the process to
convert CPVC resin into compound is a mere incremental process and this process does not transform
the essential characteristics of the product, but merely makes it usable. The very fact that the process
involved in conversion of resin into compound does not lead to change in tariff code appears to suggest
that the process is incremental in nature. Even if additives are to be considered in computation of value
addition in the production phase between CPVC resin and compound, CPVC resin is the most expensive
ingredient used to produce Compound. Besides, the end-use markets for CPVC resin and compound,
are essentially the same. CPVC resin and compound possess the same chemical structure and, CPVC
resin imparts essential characteristic to compound. CPVC resin and compound possess the same
chemical structure and, CPVC resin imparts essential characteristic to compound. Most importantly,
submissions on record show that a lot of compound manufacturers in India are importing CPVC resin
and converting the same into compound. In view of this, exclusion of compound from purview of levy of
anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to direct export of compound from subject countries to India, thereby
nullifying the very purpose of entire exercise of imposition of anti-dumping duty. In view of the above,
the Authority holds that the scope of product under consideration in the present investigation includes
Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC), both in resin and compound form, as one article.”
14. Having regard to the final findings notified by the Authority and considering the submissions made by the
interested parties in the present investigation, the Authority confirms the same scope of the product under
consideration as was notified earlier. The product under consideration for the purpose of present final finding is
-
“Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) - whether or not further processed into compound”.
15. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under HS code
39049010 and 39049090. The Authority has examined the DG System‟s Transaction wise data and found that
the product under consideration has also been imported under 39041010, 39041020, 39041090, 39042100,
39042200, 39043090, 39044000, 39045090, 39046990 and 39049000 as well.
16. It is also noted that the customs classification is indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of
subject investigation.
17. The Authority notes that the product produced by the domestic industry are comparable to the imported goods
from the subject countries in terms of chemical characteristics, product specifications, technical specifications,
manufacturing process, and technology, functions and uses, pricing, distribution and marketing, and tariff
classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially interchangeable. Accordingly, the
Authority notes that the product produced by the domestic industry are „like article‟ to the product under
consideration imported from the subject countries in terms of Rule 2(d) of the Rules and the scope of the
product under consideration remains the same as defined in the original investigation.
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING.
D.1 Submission made by the other interested parties.
18. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the domestic industry and
standing:
a. Lubrizol along with Grasim Industries Limited is setting up a CPVC resin manufacturing unit with the
capacity of 1,00,000 MT to meet the growing demand for piping applications in neighboring countries.
The plant is expected to be operational by early 2025.
D.2. Submission made by the domestic industry.
19. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the domestic industry and
standing:
a. The application was filed by DCW limited and supported by Epigral Limited. There are no other
producers producing the product in the market during the period of investigation.
b. The domestic industry was being asked unreasonably lower price by the customers citing Chinese
prices. The domestic industry decided to purchase a small quantity of CPVC resin from the market to
check the import prices.
c. Imposition of the measures improved the performance of the domestic industry. The domestic industry
has fully established itself and has been producing to the optimum levels. Further, this has now
encouraged other domestic players to set up their plants for the product under consideration. The
domestic industry has also enhanced capacities for the product. The below table shows investment
already made or announced by now by Indian industry.
+----+-----------------------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+---------+
| SN | Particular | UOM | POI | *SSR POI | Current | 2025+ |
+====+=======================+=======+==========+===========+=========+=========+
| 1 | Number of producers | No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3+2 (EC)|
| 2 | Capacity | MT | 10,000 | 40,000 | 195,000 | 215,000 |
| 3 | Investment | Rs. | 300 | +200 | +1400 | > 2400 |
| | | (Crore)| | | | |
| 4 | Demand | MT | 130,000 | 235,000 | 240,000 | 252,000 |
+----+-----------------------+-------+----------+-----------+---------+---------+
*POI 1st July 2022-30th June 2023.
+---+---------------------+----------+-------------+-----------------------------+
| SN | Producer | Capacity | Investment | Status |
| | | (MT) | Rs. (Crore) | |
+====+=====================+==========+=============+=============================+
| 1 | DCW Limited | 10,000 | 300 | Started |
| 2 | Epigral Limited | 30,000 | 200 | Started |
| 3 | DCW Limited | 10,000 | 150 | Expected production in Q4 of 2023-24 |
| 4 | Epigral Limited | 45,000 | 300 | Expected production in Q4 of 2023-24 |
| 5 | Lubrizol | 1,00,000 | 1200 | Plant construction started |
| 6 | DCW Limited | 20,000 | 150 | Environmental Clearance pending |
+---+---------------------+----------+-------------+-----------------------------+
| | Total | 2,15,000 | > 2400 | |
+---+---------------------+----------+-------------+-----------------------------+
D.3. Examination by the Authority.
20. The Authority notes that the present application has been filed by DCW Limited. DCW Limited has certified
that it has not imported the product under consideration. The Authority has examined DG System‟s
transaction-wise data and found that there are no imports of the product under consideration by DCW Limited.
DCW Limited has further provided information that it purchased certain quantities of the CPVC resin from the
domestic market. The information regarding the purchase made by DCW Limited in absolute terms and in
relation to total imports is shown below.
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | Apr’21 to Jun’22 | *POI |
+====+==============================================+=======+==========+===============+==========+
| 1 | Purchase of CPVC resin | MT | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | DCW‟s production of CPVC resin | MT | *** | *** | *** |
| 3 | Share of purchase in production of CPVC resin| % | *** | *** | *** |
| 4 | Demand in India of CPVC resin | MT | *** | *** | *** |
| 5 | Share of purchase in demand | % | *** | *** | *** |
| 6 | Total imports into India of CPVC resin | MT | 1,19,179 | 2,25,818 | 1,98,128 |
| 7 | Share of purchase in total imports of CPVC resin| % | *** | *** | *** |
| 8 | Share of purchase in total imports of CPVC resin| Range | *** | *** | *** |
| 9 | Imports from China PR of CPVC resin | MT | 7,826 | 54,012 | 54,872 |
| 10 | Share of purchase in China imports of CPVC resin| % | *** | *** | *** |
| 11 | Share of purchase in China imports of CPVC resin| Range | *** | *** | *** |
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------------+----------+
*POI 1st July 2022-30th June 2023.
21. It is seen that the purchase of CPVC resin by the domestic industry is miniscule in volume. The Authority is
required to examine if the domestic industry has imported or purchased imported the product under
consideration in such large volumes and under such condition as to render such domestic producer ineligible.
22. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has undertaken substantial investment of Rs 100 crore to set up
its 2nd plant for the product under consideration and the plant has become operational. DCW Limited has also
submitted that it has plan to set up 3rd plant for the product. DCW Limited has provided reason of purchase of
small quantities of CPVC Resin from the domestic market. They have stated that the purchase was made just
to check the import prices of the product, owing to significant difference between the price being reported by
customers and the prices being reported in customs data. The domestic industry was being asked unreasonably
lower prices by the customers, citing Chinese prices. Therefore, the domestic industry decided to buy some
material from the market to test the business situation prevalent in the market. Based on the import price
examined below, it is seen that the reason given by the producer is justified. Therefore, the Authority concludes
that DCW Limited satisfies the requirement of Rule 2(b) of the Rules.
23. Epigral Limited (formerly known as Meghmani Finechem Limited) is a producer of the product in India.
Epigral Limited has started production in the period of investigation only. The company has supported the
application. Epigral Limited had a capacity of 30,000 MT in the period of investigation. Epigral Limited has
filed a letter stating that they have expanded capacity and commenced commercial production on their new
plant of 45,000 MT.
24. Lubrizol has participated in the present investigation as a consumer of the product under consideration. The
company has stated that is setting up a CPVC resin facility with a total capacity of 100,000 MT in Vilayat,
Gujarat with an intended investment of USD 150 million, which is likely to be commercialized by 2025.
25. There is no other producer of CPVC Resin in India in the period of investigation. While there are producers
who import CPVC Resin and convert the same into CPVC compound, they have not been considered as “the
domestic industry” within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) for the purpose of this law and in line with original
investigation. In the original investigation, the Authority had held as below: -
“23. There are few producers of CPVC compound who are buying CPVC resin either from DCW or
importing the resin and processing the same to manufacture CPVC compound for making pipes.
Companies who do not have manufacturing facilities for CPVC resin but are only compounders from
purchased CPVC resin (indigenously and/or imported), including Lubrizol India, have not been
considered as “the domestic industry” within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) for the reasons that (a) the
product under consideration in the present investigation is “Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) -
whether or not further processed into compound. The subject good, thus, is CPVC resin or CPVC resin
and compound. It is, thus, essential for the domestic producer(s) to be a manufacturer of CPVC resin,
whether or not they are into the business of compounding the resin, in order to be eligible, the domestic
industry and (b) the compounders sourcing CPVC resin domestically procure it only from DCW Ltd. on
account of it being the sole producer of CPVC resin and, hence, inclusion of their production quantity
would amount to double counting since production of DCW Ltd has already been taken into account.”
26. It is noted that the applicant is eligible domestic industry within the meaning of the Rule 2(b) and the
application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules, even though standing within the
meaning of Rule 5(3) is not required to be established in a sunset review initiated under Rule 23.
E. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS
E.1 Submission of the other interested parties.
27. The other interested parties have made following miscellaneous submissions:
i. Ashirvad has submitted that Rule 29 and Rule 30 provide for the procedure and process to be followed
for initiation and determination of anti-absorption. Sunset reviews are subject matter of Section 9A (5)
of the Act and Rule 23 of the Rules. These cannot be interchangeably used.
ii. Ashirvad has submitted that anti-absorption remedy should be a separate investigation under Rules.
iii. Ashirvad has submitted that since no injury is being suffered by the domestic industry, continuation of
duties through modification of form of duty is not justified nor substantiated.
iv. Ashirvad has submitted that trigger price or variable price as a form of duty shall ensure that the
domestic industry does not unfairly gain from the duty.
v. Ashirvad has submitted that it is not aware, involved or in any manner connected with any practices
pertaining to manipulation or evasion of import duty.
vi. Hanwha has submitted that the since the domestic industry has itself admitted that there are no instances
in the past where Korean producers adopted unfair practices. For Hanwha, prices to India, third
countries and in the domestic market in Korea are based on the price prevailing in the market. There
was hardly any variance in the prices.
vii. Hanwha has submitted that while the domestic industry has highlighted that share of traders in imports
has increased, majority of imports from Korea RP to India were made by the user industry and not by
trader.
viii. Hanwha has submitted that the initiation notification or questionnaire specifies that the exporter needs
to be provided information on POI within the previous 3 years. The accounting year for Hanwha
Corporation is a calendar year and information has been provided accordingly.
ix. Lubrizol has submitted that exporters from China PR have been circumventing duties by aligning
import price with benchmark level, misdeclaration of country of origin. There is huge difference
between price of duty free and duty paid imports.
x. Lubrizol has submitted that the number of traders exporting from China PR have increased from 14
trading companies in 2020 to 41 trading companies in 2023. Almost 1/3rd of the total exports is made
by new traders only.
xi. Lubrizol has submitted that the increasing participation of traders indicates some of kind of
arrangements in which a higher price for the product under consideration is reported which is then
adjusted with import price of other products.
xii. Lubrizol has submitted that the prices of CPVC originating from Korea RP have remained consistent
since 2020 and does not reflect various changes in the market in terms of increases in manufacturing
costs, energy, and freight costs.
E.2 Submission made by the domestic industry.
28. The domestic industry has made following miscellaneous submissions.
i. Large volumes of imports are being made by countries where there is no production of CPVC resin.
CPVC Resin is being exported from China PR and Korea RP to non-producing countries and from non-
production countries to India to circumvent the duties. The domestic industry had filed an anti-
circumvention application which was not initiated on the ground that there was no surge in the import
volumes.
ii. The domestic industry had filed an anti-absorption and an anti-circumvention application for
modification of form of duties. However, the investigation has not been initiated so far. The Authority
has in various past investigations, changed the form of duty from benchmark/reference price form to ad
valorem form of duty.
iii. Lack of participation of Chinese producers depicts their unwillingness to report actual prices at which
they are exporting the product under consideration. Chinese producers had participated in the original
investigation wherein volume of imports was only 34,000 MT but they have not participated in the
present investigation despite the volume increasing to 60,000 MT. They should be treated as non-
cooperative.
iv. Before the imposition of measures, all imports were made directly by users. However, post the
imposition of the measures, 30% of imports are being made by traders. 90% of imports by traders are
importing from the subject countries.
v. The number of traders rose from 7 in 2019-20 to over 60 during the period of investigation.
vi. The benchmark duty may have been justified initially due to a demand-supply gap, it is no longer
required as the domestic industry has been in existence for a long period and the demand-supply gap is
likely to be bridged. There is no need for benchmark form of measures and the same should now be
changed.
vii. Benchmark form of measure was not imposed with the intention to allow foreign producers to adjust
their prices. The Authority has historically used this approach when imports were necessary for meeting
domestic demand. Its purpose was to address varying degrees of dumping by collecting duty based on
the difference between benchmark and landed prices, not to facilitate price realignment by exporters.
viii. The injury period in the present investigation is 2019-20, 2020-21, Apr 2021- June 22 and the period of
investigation. However, in the questionnaire response filed by Hanwha, it has provided data for 2020,
2021, 2022 and the period of investigation. The data for the base year, i.e., 2019 has been withheld by
Hanwha Solutions Corporation.
ix. There is a large volume of imports of the product under consideration from countries in which there is
no production of CPVC resin or CPVC compound. CPVC resin is only being produced in China PR,
India, Japan, Korea RP, Thailand and United States of America. However, CPVC resin is being
imported from Colombia, Malaysia Nepal, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates. Further, CPVC compound
is being imported from Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, United Arab Emirates, Sri Lanka, Saudi
Arabia without any resin production.
x. It can be seen that there is a large volume of imports from countries where there is no production of
CPVC resin. CPVC in resin form is being exported from China and Korea to these countries where it is
either directly shipped or being converted into compound form and exported to India.
xi. If both resin and compound imported from China or Korea are subject to measures, it follows that resin
or compound imported from any country other than China PR and Korea RP should be subject to
measures, if the resin is of Chinese or Korean origin.
E.3 Examination by the Authority.
29. As regards the submission of the parties on the change in the form of duty, the Authority considers that form of
measures is required to be seen on a case-to-case basis. Neither Section 9A (5) of the Act nor Rule 23 of the
Rules prescribes or proscribes any particular form or modification of the form at the stage of review. The
Authority has in past several investigations modified the form of measures in a sunset review investigation
where the facts of the investigation so justified it.
30. In the original investigation, the anti-dumping measures were imposed in the form of benchmark. It was
attributable to the fact that there was a large present and potential demand and supply gap, the domestic
industry in that investigation was at a nascent stage. It has been in operation for a substantial period. Further,
the domestic industry has undertaken one expansion and has plans to undertake second expansion as well.
Epigral Limited has also set up two plants in India with a combined capacity of 75,000 MT. Further, third
producer Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Private Limited is also setting up a plant of 1,00,000 MT. The
table below shows present and potential capacities as provided by the domestic industry in this product.
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+------------+------------+---------+
| SN | Particular | UOM | OI POI* | SSR POI* | 2025+** |
+====+==============================================+=======+============+============+=========+
| 1 | Consumption | MT | *** | *** | 2,52,000|
| 2 | Demand met by other countries | MT | *** | *** | 37,000 |
| 3 | Net demand for India and subject countries | MT | *** | *** | - |
| 4 | Capacity in India | MT | 10,000 | 40,000 | 2,15,000|
| 5 | Demand met by dumped imports | MT | *** | *** | |
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+------------+------------+---------+
Source- *as per original and review final finding.
** as per domestic industry’s submission.
31. Therefore, circumstances which existed at the time of original investigation have materially changed now.
Further, the likely circumstances in nearly foreseeable future shall also be substantially different.
32. The Authority also notes that the submissions of various interested parties on significant difference in the
import price of duty free and duty paid imports, change in pattern of trade by increasing involvement of traders
and alignment of import price to benchmark form of measures.
33. The Authority notes that it has been contended by the domestic industry and other interested parties that CPVC
resin is being exported from China PR and Korea RP to other countries and the same is being thereafter either
directly shipped to India or converted into compound and then exported to India. The domestic industry has
submitted that there is no CPVC resin production in these countries. The Authority has examined the DG
Systems transaction wise data and found the below volume of imports of CPVC resin into India from countries
which are not producing CPVC resin.
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
| SN | Countries | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr'21-Jun'22 | POI |
+====+=====================+=======+==========+==========+===============+==========+
| 1 | United Arab Emirates| MT | 408 | 596 | 120 | 148 |
| 2 | Colombia | MT | - | - | 80 | - |
| 3 | Malaysia | MT | - | 45 | 18 | - |
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
Source – as per DG system’s data.
*POI 1st July 2022-30th June 2023.
34. The table below shows the volume of imports of CPVC Compound into India.
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
| SN | Countries | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr'21-Jun'22 | POI |
+====+=====================+=======+==========+==========+===============+==========+
| 1 | United Arab Emirates| MT | 1,413 | 3,788 | 4,709 | 1,691 |
| 2 | Sri Lanka | MT | 469 | 1,044 | 1,264 | 1,296 |
| 3 | China P RP | MT | 213 | 7 | 439 | 479 |
| 4 | Malaysia | MT | 623 | 1,807 | 1,241 | - |
| 5 | Colombia | MT | - | 100 | 208 | - |
| 6 | Mexico | MT | 35 | 177 | - | - |
| 7 | Saudi Arabia | MT | 11 | 137 | 11 | - |
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
Source – as per DG system’s data.
*POI 1st July 2022-30th June 2023.
35. The Authority notes that CPVC resin imports from non-subject countries but having country of origin as
subject countries will already be covered under the subject investigation and attract anti-dumping duty. With
regard to imports of CPVC compound into India from non-subject countries, having CPVC resin origin of
subject country-China PR, the domestic industry has not provided evidence to substantiate their claim.
F. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
F.1. Submission of the other interested parties.
36. The other interested parties have made the following submissions on normal value, export price and dumping
margin:
i. Hanwha has submitted that despite the anti-dumping measures in force in the form of reference price,
the export price by Hanwha is market driven and not influenced by the reference price duty.
ii. Hanwha has submitted that the domestic industry‟s claims of unreliable export price is true for China
PR but not for Korea RP. Further the monthly trend of raw material reported by the domestic industry
and export price to India is showing the same flow.
iii. Hanwha has submitted that it has engaged in dumping as it has exported the product under
consideration to India at prices higher than the domestic prices in Korea and the export price to other
countries.
iv. SAR has submitted that its prices are market driven and are in line with the international prices of the
subject goods.
v. SAR has submitted that its export price was more than 20% above the reference price notified by the
Authority in the original investigation.
F.2. Submission of the domestic industry.
37. The domestic industry has made following submissions on normal value, export price and dumping margin:
i. Since none of the producer from China PR have participated in the present investigation, the Authority
is required to determine normal value in terms of Para 7 of annexure I and consider normal value based
on the import price from Thailand.
ii. In the original investigation, six producers from China PR had participated and individual duties were
granted to them. However, in the present investigation, none of the producers or exporters participated.
This is despite a significant increase in the volume of imports from 34,000 MT in the original
investigation 60,000 MT in the present investigation.
iii. The domestic industry had claimed normal value based on the import price from Thailand. However, in
the initiation notification, the Authority considered normal value based on the price payable in India.
The hierarchy laid down in the rules is required to be followed.
iv. The per unit capital employed for the product is more than Rs *** per MT. If only 5% return is allowed
as reasonable return for normal value, it means a profit of Rs ***per MT which would mean a profit of
only ***%. No producer would want to invest if these are considered as prices in the market. Therefore,
profit for constructed normal value should be considered based on average profit margin of the domestic
industry.
v. Dumping margin based on the average import price from China PR and Korea RP is unreliable as the
import prices have remained around the level of benchmark irrespective of its input prices.
vi. It can be seen from the response filed by Hanwha that while the export price to other countries has
declined in the period of investigation, the export price to India has remained at the same rate. The
above clearly shows that the prices in the Indian market were aligned at the benchmark level.
vii. As regards the submission that import price from Hanwha was at market price, it cannot be considered
that the benchmark was the market price. Had the benchmark level been the market price, import price
from other countries too would have remained at the same level.
viii. The difference between duty-free import prices and duty-paid import prices was minimal before the
imposition of the anti-dumping measures. Shortly after the imposition of measures, producers from the
subject countries aligned their duty paid prices to the benchmark level. However, the price in the duty-
free market has remained significantly low. The table below illustrates the import prices of duty-free
and duty-paid imports.
+----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+------------+
| SN | Period | UOM | Duty Free| Duty paid | Difference |
+====+==========+=======+==========+===========+============+
| 1 | Dec-18 | Rs/MT | 88,755 | 89,600 | 845 |
| 2 | Oct-19 | Rs/MT | 86,789 | 1,02,680 | 15,891 |
| 3 | Nov-19 | Rs/MT | 85,680 | 1,18,078 | 32,398 |
| 4 | Jan-20 | Rs/MT | 85,424 | 1,32,740 | 47,316 |
| 5 | Mar-20 | Rs/MT | 89,100 | 1,36,242 | 47,142 |
| 6 | Apr-20 | Rs/MT | 93,147 | 1,42,143 | 48,996 |
| 7 | Aug-20 | Rs/MT | 92,459 | 1,46,625 | 54,166 |
| 8 | Sep-20 | Rs/MT | 88,179 | 1,54,653 | 66,474 |
| 9 | Oct-20 | Rs/MT | 1,22,394 | 1,52,713 | 30,319 |
| 10 | Nov-20 | Rs/MT | 98,274 | 1,49,274 | 51,000 |
| 11 | Dec-20 | Rs/MT | 1,31,135 | 1,39,773 | 8,638 |
| 12 | Jan-21 | Rs/MT | 1,08,104 | 1,47,241 | 39,137 |
| 13 | Feb-21 | Rs/MT | 1,10,242 | 1,44,098 | 33,856 |
| 14 | Mar-21 | Rs/MT | 1,05,023 | 1,41,014 | 35,992 |
| 15 | Apr-21 | Rs/MT | 1,17,290 | 1,52,321 | 35,031 |
| 16 | May-21 | Rs/MT | 1,30,370 | 1,46,420 | 16,050 |
| 17 | Jun-21 | Rs/MT | 1,30,030 | 1,47,548 | 17,518 |
| 18 | Aug-21 | Rs/MT | 1,29,001 | 1,40,675 | 11,674 |
| 19 | Sep-21 | Rs/MT | 1,30,390 | 1,38,950 | 8,560 |
| 20 | Sep-22 | Rs/MT | 1,53,966 | 1,64,636 | 10,670 |
| 21 | Nov-22 | Rs/MT | 1,28,030 | 1,69,365 | 41,335 |
| 22 | Jan-23 | Rs/MT | 1,08,463 | 1,52,581 | 44,118 |
| 23 | Feb-23 | Rs/MT | 1,11,105 | 1,50,900 | 39,795 |
| 24 | Apr-23 | Rs/MT | 1,14,120 | 1,57,262 | 43,143 |
| 25 | May-23 | Rs/MT | 1,02,277 | 1,62,887 | 60,609 |
| 26 | Jun-23 | Rs/MT | 1,00,917 | 1,75,596 | 74,678 |
+----+----------+-------+----------+-----------+------------+
Source – Domestic industry’s submission.
ix. Before the measures were imposed, the difference between duty free and duty paid imports was low.
However, post anti-dumping measures, the difference between the duty free and duty paid imports
gradually increased in the injury period and significant in the period of investigation (POI 1st July 2022-
30th June 2023). In fact, the gap has increased to as high as Rs 74,678 per MT.
x. The table below shows the monthly import price of raw material and CPVC resin for the period of
investigation. This shows that whereas the prices of CPVC were earlier aligned and should be aligned to
price of PVC resin, it is no longer so after the imposition of measures.
+----+---------+-------+-------+----------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| SN | Period | Month | UOM | CPVC Resin Price | Import Price PVC (RM) | Difference with | Difference with |
| | | | | China PR | Korea RP | $/MT | China $/MT | Korea RP $/MT |
| | | | | $/MT | $/MT | | | |
+====+=========+=======+=======+==========+==========+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1 | Pre Duty| Apr-19| $/MT | 1,188 | 1,222 | 910 | 278 | 291 |
| 2 | | May-19| $/MT | 1,186 | 1,181 | 886 | 299 | 283 |
| 3 | | Jun-19| $/MT | 1,142 | 1,189 | 862 | 280 | 328 |
| 4 | | Jul-19| $/MT | 1,179 | 1,195 | 867 | 312 | 320 |
| 5 | | Aug-19| $/MT | 1,183 | 1,173 | 876 | 307 | 283 |
| 6 | Post | Sep-19| $/MT | 1,306 | 1,308 | 887 | 419 | 414 |
| 7 | duty | Oct-19| $/MT | 1,422 | 1,205 | 898 | 524 | 304 |
| 8 | | Nov-19| $/MT | 1,633 | 1,213 | 890 | 743 | 316 |
| 9 | | Dec-19| $/MT | 1,633 | 1,461 | 879 | 754 | 593 |
| 10 | | Jan-20| $/MT | 1,846 | - | 858 | 988 | 619 |
| 11 | | Feb-20| $/MT | 1,837 | 1,467 | 845 | 992 | 613 |
| 12 | | Mar-20| $/MT | 1,827 | - | 853 | 974 | 553 |
| 13 | | Apr-20| $/MT | 1,848 | 1,439 | 861 | 987 | 554 |
| 14 | | May-20| $/MT | 1,917 | - | 874 | 1,043 | 589 |
| 15 | | Jun-20| $/MT | 1,892 | 1,595 | 762 | 1,130 | 853 |
| 16 | | Jul-20| $/MT | 2,000 | - | 733 | 1,267 | 872 |
| 17 | | Aug-20| $/MT | 1,933 | 1,751 | 756 | 1,177 | 968 |
| 18 | | Sep-20| $/MT | 2,076 | 1,752 | 826 | 1,250 | 929 |
| 19 | | Oct-20| $/MT | 2,053 | - | 895 | 1,158 | 872 |
| 20 | | Nov-20| $/MT | 1,990 | 1,754 | 963 | 1,027 | 812 |
| 21 | | Dec-20| $/MT | 1,873 | 1,451 | 1,074 | 799 | 430 |
| 22 | | Jan-21| $/MT | 1,988 | 1,799 | 1,184 | 804 | 645 |
| 23 | | Feb-21| $/MT | 1,953 | 1,800 | 1,283 | 670 | 490 |
| 24 | | Mar-21| $/MT | 1,915 | 1,798 | 1,342 | 573 | 419 |
| 25 | | Apr-21| $/MT | 2,028 | 1,809 | 1,316 | 712 | 411 |
| 26 | | May-21| $/MT | 1,958 | 1,879 | 1,431 | 527 | 392 |
| 27 | | Jun-21| $/MT | 1,988 | 1,842 | 1,540 | 448 | 242 |
| 28 | | Jul-21| $/MT | 1,926 | 1,844 | 1,542 | 384 | 369 |
| 29 | | Aug-21| $/MT | 1,871 | 1,890 | 1,467 | 404 | 533 |
| 30 | | Sep-21| $/MT | 1,872 | 1,871 | 1,318 | 554 | 561 |
| 31 | | Oct-21| $/MT | 1,999 | 1,867 | 1,450 | 549 | 426 |
| 32 | | Nov-21| $/MT | 2,146 | 1,872 | 1,588 | 558 | 286 |
| 33 | | Dec-21| $/MT | 2,366 | 1,892 | 1,731 | 635 | 327 |
| 34 | | Jan-22| $/MT | 2,420 | 1,847 | 1,826 | 594 | 267 |
| 35 | | Feb-22| $/MT | 2,327 | 2,050 | 1,685 | 642 | 490 |
| 36 | | Mar-22| $/MT | 2,383 | 2,303 | 1,570 | 813 | 764 |
| 37 | | Apr-22| $/MT | 2,432 | 2,181 | 1,542 | 890 | 642 |
| 38 | | May-22| $/MT | 2,320 | 2,095 | 1,550 | 770 | 492 |
| 39 | | Jun-22| $/MT | 2,407 | 2,417 | 1,529 | 878 | 844 |
| 40 | | Jul-22| $/MT | 2,394 | 2,141 | 1,444 | 950 | 750 |
| 41 | | Aug-22| $/MT | 2,192 | 2,181 | 1,321 | 871 | 1,022 |
| 42 | | Sep-22| $/MT | 2,047 | 2,165 | 1,137 | 910 | 1,110 |
| 43 | | Oct-22| $/MT | 1,989 | 2,195 | 993 | 996 | 1,214 |
| 44 | | Nov-22| $/MT | 2,034 | 2,145 | 946 | 1,088 | 1,226 |
| 45 | | Dec-22| $/MT | 1,894 | 2,143 | 873 | 1,021 | 1,276 |
| 46 | | Jan-23| $/MT | 1,835 | 2,090 | 805 | 1,030 | 1,296 |
| 47 | | Feb-23| $/MT | 1,816 | 2,019 | 836 | 980 | 1,138 |
| 48 | | Mar-23| $/MT | 2,157 | 1,958 | 882 | 1,275 | 1,010 |
| 49 | | Apr-23| $/MT | 1,892 | 2,021 | 921 | 971 | 1,082 |
| 50 | | May-23| $/MT | 1,963 | 1,905 | 890 | 1,073 | 1,053 |
| 51 | | Jun-23| $/MT | 2,110 | 1,885 | 858 | 1,252 | 1,048 |
+----+---------+-------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
Source – domestic industry’s claim.
xi. There is no co-relation between the raw material price movement and the import price from China PR. The
gap, which was around 300 $/MT prior to the imposition of measures, increased to 1000 $/MT when the duties
were place. However, as global trade was impacted by the freight issue, the PVC resin prices went up. But the
price of the product under consideration (CPVC resin) remained at the same level and the gap declined to
around 500 $/MT. In the recent period, as the freight issue normalized and the prices of the PVC declined, the
price of the product under consideration have remained at same level.
xii. The evidence clearly shows that the import price reported to the customs authorities are unreliable and there are
compensatory arrangements between the exporters and the importers.
xiii. Prior to the imposition of anti-dumping duty, practically entire imports were being made by the consumers in
India. However, post imposition of measures, a large number of traders have emerged and more than 90% of
the subject imports are by traders. Further, the traders are not sourcing the product from the other CPVC resin
producing countries despite their prices being in the same range (the volume of imports from subject countries
has increased, whereas the volume of imports from non-subject countries has remained at similar levels). The
increasing involvement of traders further highlights that the import prices cannot be relied upon.
xiv. The import price for the purpose of determination of dumping margin and injury margin must be considered
based on the import price in the duty-free market. Since the import price in the duty-free market is unaffected
by dumping, it can be considered as a basis of import price. Similar approach was undertaken by the Authority
in case of sunset review investigation concerning imports of Melamine from China PR.
F.3. Examination by the Authority.
F.3.1 Normal value and export price for China PR.
a. Normal value for China PR
38. 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 VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under
investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict 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 WTO 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.
(b) 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.
(c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a)
to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with
subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a
market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing
Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the
provision of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should
China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO member, that market 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."
39. It is noted that while the provision contained in Article 15 (a) (ii) have expired on 11.12.2016, the provision
under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO, read with obligation under 15 (a) (i) of the Accession Protocol require the
criterion stipulated in Para 8 of the Annexure I of the Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be
provided in the supplementary questionnaire on claiming the market economy status
40. As none of the producers from China PR have filed a questionnaire response, the normal value has been
determined in accordance with para 7 of Annexure I to the Rules which read as under:
“7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the
basis of the price or constructed value in 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 article, duly adjusted, if necessary, to
include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by
the designated the 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 the selection. Account shall also be taken within time limits;
where appropriate, of the investigation if any made in similar matter in respect of any other market
economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay
the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of
time to offer their comments.
8. (1) The term "non-market economy country" means any country which the designated the Authority
determines ds not operating on market principles of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of
merchandise in such country do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise, in accordance with the
criteria specified in subparagraph (3).
(2) There shall be a presumption that any country that has been determined to be, or has been treated
as, a non-market economy country for purposes of an antidumping investigation by the designated the
Authority or by the competent the Authority of any WTO member country during the three-year period
preceding the investigation is a non-market economy country. Provided, however, that the non-market
economy country or the concerned firms from such country may rebut such d presumption by providing
information and evidence to the designated the Authority that establishes that such country is not a non-
market economy country on the basis of the criteria specified in sub-paragraph (3).
(3) The designated the Authority shall consider in each case the following criteria as to whether: (a) the
decisions of the concerned firms in such country regarding prices, costs and inputs, including raw
materials, cost of technology and labour, output, sales and investment, are made in response to market
signals reflecting supply and demand and without significant State interference in this regard, and
whether costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values; (b) the production costs and financial
situation of such firms are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market
economy system, in particular in relation to depreciation of assets, other write-offs, barter trade and
payment vid compensation of debts; (c) such firms are subject to bankruptcy and property laws which
guarantee legal certainty and stability for the operation of the firms, and (d) the exchange rate
conversions are carried out at the market rate. Provided, however, that where it is shown by sufficient
evidence in writing on the basis of the criteria specified in this paragraph that market conditions prevail
for one or more such firms subject to anti-dumping investigations, the designated the Authority may
apply the principles set out in paragraphs I to 6 instead of the principles set out in paragraph 7 and in
this paragraph.
(4) Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub-paragraph (2), the designated the Authority may treat
such country as market economy country which, on the basis of the latest detailed evaluation of relevant
criteria, which includes the criteria specified in sub paragraph (3), has been, by publication of such
evaluation in a public document, treated or determined to be treated as a market economy country for
the purposes of anti-dumping investigations, by a country which is a Member of the World Trade
Organization.”
41. Para 7 lays down hierarchy for determination of normal value and provides that normal value shall be
determined on the basis of price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such
a third country to any other country, including India, or where it is not possible, on any reasonable basis,
including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like article, 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 Annexure-I.
42. At the stage of initiation, the Authority had determined normal value based on cost of production of the
domestic industry with reasonable addition for profit.
43. The Authority notes that none of the interested parties have provided any information with regard to domestic
price, constructed value or export price of the product in an appropriate market economy third country. The
Authority notes that it is required to select an appropriate country on the basis of information and evidence
brought on record by the interested parties. Since neither the domestic industry nor any other interested party
has provided any verifiable information, the normal value could not be determined on this basis of appropriate
market economy third country.
44. The Authority notes that in the original anti-dumping investigation, normal value was determined based on
import price from Thailand into India adjusted to arrive at ex-factory level. Therefore, the Authority finds it
appropriate to consider the same methodology in the present investigation as well. Accordingly, the Authority
has considered the import price from Thailand into India as a basis of normal value. Since the data reported is
at CIF level, adjustments have been made for ocean freight, inland freight, port expenses and bank charges.
Furthermore, a separate normal value has been determined for CPVC resin and CPVC compound.
b. Export price for China PR
45. Since none of the producer from China PR has participated, the net export price for China PR has been
determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net export price has been calculated
from the DG Systems transaction-wise data. Since the data reported is at CIF level, adjustments have been
made for ocean freight, marine insurance commission, inland freight, port expenses and bank charges.
Furthermore, a separate export price has been determined for CPVC resin and CPVC compound.
46. The domestic industry contended that the price of the duty paid imports is unreliable and is impacted by
benchmark form of measures, and therefore, the dumping margin should be determined only based on import
price of duty-free imports. The Authority notes that the claim of the domestic industry with regard to
unreliability of price of imports under duty paid category is undisputed by the Chinese producers (on account
of non-participation). In fact, the Korean producer, Lubrizol and Epigral has also supported the contention of
the domestic industry in this regard.
47. The Authority has determined dumping margin for the product under consideration as a whole and then
separately for duty free and duty paid imports considering the associated volumes.
F.3.2 Normal value and export price for Korea RP.
Normal value and export price for M/s Hanwha Solutions Corporation, Korea RP (Producer/Exporter)
and M/s SAR Overseas Ltd, U.K. (Unrelated Trader)
a. Normal value for M/s Hanwha Solutions Corporation, Korea RP
48. Hanwha Solutions Corporation, the producer from Korea RP has participated and provided the relevant
information. The normal value and export price for the producer are determined below.
49. The producer has reported domestic sales of *** MT and ***MT of CPVC resin and CPVC Compound
respectively in the period of investigation. The producer has claimed that all domestic sales are made to
unrelated parties and also submitted that CPVC compound was not exported to Indian market during the POI.
To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit
making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making
transactions is more than 80% of the total sales, then all the transactions in the domestic sales has been
considered for the determination of normal value and in cases where profit making transactions is 80% or less
of the total sales, then, profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the
normal value. In the present case since more than 80% of domestic sales are profitable, hence all the domestic
sales have been considered to determine the normal value.
50. Hanwha Solutions Corporation, Korea RP, has claimed adjustment on account of inland transportation, packing
expenses and credit cost and the same have been allowed by the Authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-
factory level for Hanwha Solutions Corporation, Korea RP, for CPVC resin has been determined and the same
is shown in the dumping margin table below.
b. Export price for M/s Hanwha Solutions Corporation, Korea RP
51. The producer has reported ***MT as exports of the product under consideration to India during the period of
investigation. The producer has claimed adjustment on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, credit cost,
commission, and inland transportation. Further, ***MT of exports have been made through the unrelated party
i.e., SAR overseas Ltd., which too has participated in the present investigation. The unrelated exporter has
claimed adjustment on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, credit cost, commission, and inland
transportation.
52. The Authority has undertaken desk verification and examined the claims made by the respondent. The claims
made have been accepted. Since there are no exports of CPVC compound from Korea RP to India in the period
of investigation, normal value and export price has been determined only for CPVC resin. The normal value
and export price so determined is given below in the dumping margin table.
c. Normal value and export price for others.
53. The normal value and the export price for non-cooperative producers/exporters from the Korea RP has been
determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The normal value and net export price
so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.3.3 Examination by the Authority.
54. Based on normal value and export price as determined above, the dumping margin has been determined below.
+----+-----------------------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------+-------+---------+
| SN | Particulars | Normal value | Export price | Dumping margin | | |
| | | $/MT | $/MT | $/MT | % | Range |
+====+=============================+==============+==============+=================+=======+=========+
| 1 | China PR | | | | | |
| A | Resin | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 |
| B | Compound | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 |
| 2 | Korea RP | | | | | |
| A | Hanwha Solutions Corporation| *** | *** | *** | *** | Negative|
| | Resin | *** | *** | *** | *** | Negative|
| | Compound | *** | *** | *** | *** | - |
| B | Any other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 |
| | Resin | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 |
| | Compound | *** | *** | *** | *** | - |
+----+-----------------------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------+-------+---------+
55. It is seen that dumping margin is positive in case of China PR but negative for the participating producer from
Korea RP.
G. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK.
G.1. Submission of the other interested parties.
56. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
a. Lubrizol has submitted that dumped imports have not only impacted the performance of the domestic
compound producer but have also impacted the fair priced imports from other countries.
b. Lubrizol has submitted that imports from the subject countries are at dumped price, and it would
severely affect the upcoming investments in India.
c. Lubrizol has submitted that the imposition of measures has led to improvement in domestic industry
performance and have reduced import volumes of the subject countries.
d. Lubrizol has submitted the increase in involvement of traders suggests that ongoing circumvention of
duties. Multiple instances where in different exporters having same addresses have exported the
materials.
e. Lubrizol has submitted the increase in exporter/trader is solely for the purpose of misdeclaration and
duty evasion by exporting countries having no manufacturing facilities.
f. Lubrizol has submitted that the pattern indicates that despite the presence of duties, the exporter/trader
have resorted to such measures, there is a likelihood if the duties ceased to exist, the same
exporter/trader can disrupt the Indian market stability.
g. Hanwha has submitted that there is no injury to the domestic industry. Thus, the application lacks any
merit or substance to claim continuation of anti-dumping duties on the ground of likelihood or presence
of injury or likelihood or presence of continuation of injury.
h. Hanwha has submitted that after imposition of anti-dumping measures, the domestic industry has made
bumper profits and all the performance parameters have experienced robust growth. Continuation of
duty will lead to undue advantage to the domestic industry and disadvantage to the users and consumers.
i. Astral has submitted that the domestic industry does not have the capacity to cater to the demand of
users and users demand is increasing. If the domestic industry is suffering from any injury, it is
restricted to the extent of capacity of the domestic industry.
G.2. Submission of the domestic industry.
57. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
i. Imposition of measures have improved the performance of the domestic industry who has been fully
established, has been producing to optimum levels. Further, the measures encouraged other producers to
set up manufacturing plants.
ii. The imposition of anti-dumping duty has had positive effects on the economic parameters of the
domestic industry. The domestic industry has been able to sell its entire production domestically at
profitable prices, leading to improved profitability and enhanced cash flow allowing it to invest in
further expansion.
iii. Despite a small market share, the domestic industry has secured better prices despite demand-supply
gap. With upcoming capacity expansions in India, price competition will intensify, potentially causing
financial losses and cash flow issues for Indian producers.
iv. The imports from the subject countries declined in 2020-21 due to imposition of anti-dumping duties in
2019 and decline in demand. The imports from the subject countries increased sharply in 2021-22 and
further increased in the period of investigation.
v. The imports from the subject countries have increased over and above the increase in demand.
vi. The domestic industry has received verbal communications from its customers of lower price quoted by
the exporters as compared to the price reported in the import data. While the price undercutting appears
to be negative, the import price in fact is lower than the prices of the domestic industry.
vii. The analysis of import prices, on an average basis, is not appropriate as the import prices are impacted
by the benchmark form of measures.
viii. The domestic industry has been able to charge adequate remunerative prices because of the presence of
the anti-dumping measures.
ix. The domestic industry has been able to sell its production in the domestic market and the inventory
lying with the domestic industry is not significant.
x. The volume of imports significantly increased in 2021-22 and in the period of investigation, the market
share of dumped imports has increased and is highest over the injury period.
xi. The same supplier and the same buyer are doing business for PVC and CPVC and the value of CPVC
has been overstated and value of PVC has been understated. The prices get adjusted thus, resulting in no
adverse impact to the buyers on account of customs duties.
xii. It does not even involve any forex law violation as the total of forex payments for CPVC and PVC resin
purchase remains the same. However, the Indian industry is adversely impacted.
xiii. The transaction-wise import statement shows that the price of the product under consideration is not
influenced by the prices of PVC, which is the raw material required to produce the product.
+----+---------+-------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| SN | Period | Month | UOM | CPVC Resin Price | Import Price PVC (RM) | Difference with | Difference with |
| | | | | China PR | Korea RP | $/MT | China $/MT | Korea RP $/MT |
| | | | | $/MT | $/MT | | | |
+====+=========+=======+=======+==========+==========+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1 | Pre Duty| Apr-19| $/MT | 1,188 | 1,222 | 910 | 278 | 291 |
| 2 | | May-19| $/MT | 1,186 | 1,181 | 886 | 299 | 283 |
| 3 | | Jun-19| $/MT | 1,142 | 1,189 | 862 | 280 | 328 |
| 4 | | Jul-19| $/MT | 1,179 | 1,195 | 867 | 312 | 320 |
| 5 | | Aug-19| $/MT | 1,183 | 1,173 | 876 | 307 | 283 |
| 6 | Post | Sep-19| $/MT | 1,306 | 1,308 | 887 | 419 | 414 |
| 7 | duty | Oct-19| $/MT | 1,422 | 1,205 | 898 | 524 | 304 |
| 8 | | Nov-19| $/MT | 1,633 | 1,213 | 890 | 743 | 316 |
| 9 | | Dec-19| $/MT | 1,633 | 1,461 | 879 | 754 | 593 |
| 10 | | Jan-20| $/MT | 1,846 | - | 858 | 988 | 619 |
| 11 | | Feb-20| $/MT | 1,837 | 1,467 | 845 | 992 | 613 |
| 12 | | Mar-20| $/MT | 1,827 | - | 853 | 974 | 553 |
| 13 | | Apr-20| $/MT | 1,848 | 1,439 | 861 | 987 | 554 |
| 14 | | May-20| $/MT | 1,917 | - | 874 | 1,043 | 589 |
| 15 | | Jun-20| $/MT | 1,892 | 1,595 | 762 | 1,130 | 853 |
| 16 | | Jul-20| $/MT | 2,000 | - | 733 | 1,267 | 872 |
| 17 | | Aug-20| $/MT | 1,933 | 1,751 | 756 | 1,177 | 968 |
| 18 | | Sep-20| $/MT | 2,076 | 1,752 | 826 | 1,250 | 929 |
| 19 | | Oct-20| $/MT | 2,053 | - | 895 | 1,158 | 872 |
| 20 | | Nov-20| $/MT | 1,990 | 1,754 | 963 | 1,027 | 812 |
| 21 | | Dec-20| $/MT | 1,873 | 1,451 | 1,074 | 799 | 430 |
| 22 | | Jan-21| $/MT | 1,988 | 1,799 | 1,184 | 804 | 645 |
| 23 | | Feb-21| $/MT | 1,953 | 1,800 | 1,283 | 670 | 490 |
| 24 | | Mar-21| $/MT | 1,915 | 1,798 | 1,342 | 573 | 419 |
| 25 | | Apr-21| $/MT | 2,028 | 1,809 | 1,316 | 712 | 411 |
| 26 | | May-21| $/MT | 1,958 | 1,879 | 1,431 | 527 | 392 |
| 27 | | Jun-21| $/MT | 1,988 | 1,842 | 1,540 | 448 | 242 |
| 28 | | Jul-21| $/MT | 1,926 | 1,844 | 1,542 | 384 | 369 |
| 29 | | Aug-21| $/MT | 1,871 | 1,890 | 1,467 | 404 | 533 |
| 30 | | Sep-21| $/MT | 1,872 | 1,871 | 1,318 | 554 | 561 |
| 31 | | Oct-21| $/MT | 1,999 | 1,867 | 1,450 | 549 | 426 |
| 32 | | Nov-21| $/MT | 2,146 | 1,872 | 1,588 | 558 | 286 |
| 33 | | Dec-21| $/MT | 2,366 | 1,892 | 1,731 | 635 | 327 |
| 34 | | Jan-22| $/MT | 2,420 | 1,847 | 1,826 | 594 | 267 |
| 35 | | Feb-22| $/MT | 2,327 | 2,050 | 1,685 | 642 | 490 |
| 36 | | Mar-22| $/MT | 2,383 | 2,303 | 1,570 | 813 | 764 |
| 37 | | Apr-22| $/MT | 2,432 | 2,181 | 1,542 | 890 | 642 |
| 38 | | May-22| $/MT | 2,320 | 2,095 | 1,550 | 770 | 492 |
| 39 | | Jun-22| $/MT | 2,407 | 2,417 | 1,529 | 878 | 844 |
| 40 | | Jul-22| $/MT | 2,394 | 2,141 | 1,444 | 950 | 750 |
| 41 | | Aug-22| $/MT | 2,192 | 2,181 | 1,321 | 871 | 1,022 |
| 42 | | Sep-22| $/MT | 2,047 | 2,165 | 1,137 | 910 | 1,110 |
| 43 | | Oct-22| $/MT | 1,989 | 2,195 | 993 | 996 | 1,214 |
| 44 | | Nov-22| $/MT | 2,034 | 2,145 | 946 | 1,088 | 1,226 |
| 45 | | Dec-22| $/MT | 1,894 | 2,143 | 873 | 1,021 | 1,276 |
| 46 | | Jan-23| $/MT | 1,835 | 2,090 | 805 | 1,030 | 1,296 |
| 47 | | Feb-23| $/MT | 1,816 | 2,019 | 836 | 980 | 1,138 |
| 48 | | Mar-23| $/MT | 2,157 | 1,958 | 882 | 1,275 | 1,010 |
| 49 | | Apr-23| $/MT | 1,892 | 2,021 | 921 | 971 | 1,082 |
| 50 | | May-23| $/MT | 1,963 | 1,905 | 890 | 1,073 | 1,053 |
| 51 | | Jun-23| $/MT | 2,110 | 1,885 | 858 | 1,252 | 1,048 |
+----+---------+-------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
Source – Domestic industry’s submission.
xiv. Because of the benchmark form of measures in place, the prices in the duty paid market are not
reflective of the aggressive pricing of the Chinese producers.
xv. The purpose of recommending anti-dumping duty in the form of benchmark duty is not to allow the
foreign producers to artificially align the prices to the benchmark and avoid payment of anti-dumping
duty. The purpose was to collect anti-dumping duty only to the extent of difference between import
price and the benchmark. In the present case, however, and particularly the Chinese producers aligned
their prices to benchmark form by artificially invoicing the product at a level where anti-dumping duty
was not payable.
xvi. It is the price of duty-free imports that represents the real import price during the present period of
investigation and the price that is likely to prevail in the market in the event of cessation of anti-
dumping duty.
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21-Jun’22 | POI |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+==========+===============+==========+
| 1 | CIF price duty free | Rs/MT | 86,214 | 1,13,908 | 1,35,601 | 1,08,953 |
| 2 | CIF price duty paid | Rs/MT | 87,929 | 1,46,239 | 1,74,450 | 1,62,639 |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
Source – Domestic industry’s submission.
xvii. The fact that the even the present imports are adversely impacting the price of the product in the market
gets fully established by the fact that the domestic industry has been forced to significantly reduce the
prices in the post period of investigation as would be seen from the table below.
+----+-----------------------+-------+-------------------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| SN | Month | UOM | Domestic industry price | Chinese import price| Raw material price|
+====+=======================+=======+=========================+=====================+===================+
| 1 | Jul-22 | $/MT | *** | 2,394 | *** |
| 2 | Aug-22 | $/MT | *** | 2,192 | *** |
| 3 | Sep-22 | $/MT | *** | 2,047 | *** |
| 4 | Oct-22 | $/MT | *** | 1,989 | *** |
| 5 | Nov-22 | $/MT | *** | 2,034 | *** |
| 6 | Dec-22 | $/MT | *** | 1,894 | *** |
| 7 | Jan-23 | $/MT | *** | 1,835 | *** |
| 8 | Feb-23 | $/MT | *** | 1,816 | *** |
| 9 | Mar-23 | $/MT | *** | 2,157 | *** |
| 10 | Apr-23 | $/MT | *** | 1,892 | *** |
| 11 | May-23 | $/MT | *** | 1,963 | *** |
| 12 | Jun-23 | $/MT | *** | 2,110 | *** |
| 13 | Jul-23 | $/MT | *** | 2,053 | *** |
| 14 | Aug-23 | $/MT | *** | 1,968 | *** |
| 15 | Sep-23 | $/MT | *** | 2,090 | *** |
| 16 | Oct-23 | $/MT | *** | 1,879 | *** |
| 17 | Nov-23 | $/MT | *** | 2,056 | *** |
| 18 | Dec-23 | $/MT | *** | 1,896 | *** |
+----+-----------------------+-------+-------------------------+---------------------+-------------------+
Source – Domestic industry’s submission.
xviii. Duty free imports show likely price undercutting in case of cessation of anti-dumping duty. The price of
duty-free imports is significantly below the selling price of the domestic industry. The imports will
undercut the prices of the domestic industry which will force the industry to reduce the prices.
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21-Jun’22 | *POI |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+==========+===============+===========+
| 1 | Domestic industry price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | CIF price duty free imports | Rs/MT | 86,214 | 1,13,908 | 1,35,601 | 1,08,953 |
| 3 | Price undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 4 | CIF price duty paid imports | Rs/MT | 95,184 | 1,58,303 | 1,88,842 | 1,76,057 |
| 5 | Price undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+-----------+
Source – Domestic industry’s submission.
*1st July 2022-30th June 2023
xix. The duty-free imports are not only undercutting the selling price of the domestic industry but also
undercutting the cost of the domestic industry.
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21-Jun’22 | *POI |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+==========+===============+===========+
| 1 | Cost of sales | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | CIF price duty free imports | Rs/MT | 86,214 | 1,13,908 | 1,35,601 | 1,08,953 |
| 3 | Cost undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 4 | CIF price duty paid imports | Rs/MT | 95,184 | 1,58,303 | 1,88,842 | 1,76,057 |
| 5 | Cost undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+-----------+
Source – Domestic industry’s submission.
*1st July 2022-30th June 2023
xx. If the domestic industry matches the duty-free import price, it will suffer from financial losses.
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21-Jun’22 | *POI |
+====+==============================================+=======+==========+==========+===============+===========+
| 1 | CIF price duty free imports | Rs/MT | 86,214 | 1,13,908 | 1,35,601 | 1,08,953 |
| 2 | CIF price duty paid imports | Rs/MT | 87,929 | 1,46,239 | 1,74,450 | 1,62,639 |
| 3 | Cost of sales | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 4 | Selling price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 5 | Profit/loss at duty free import price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+-----------+
Source – Domestic industry’s submission.
*1st July 2022-30th June 2023
xxi. The imports from the subject countries have increased in absolute terms and relative terms despite
existing anti-dumping duty. The imports will further increase if the measures are implemented.
xxii. The producers in the subject countries have excess capacities and are export oriented. The demand in
the Indian market will also increase. In the event of cessation of anti-dumping duty, these excess
capacities will be utilized for exports to India. The imports from the subject countries are likely to
further increase in absolute terms and relative terms if the measures are not extended.
xxiii. The import price of the duty-free imports clearly establishes that the imports are likely to undercut the
prices of the domestic industry to a significant extent.
xxiv. The present import price in the duty-free market will be the price at which the product will be imported
in the Indian market. This price is below the cost and selling price of the domestic industry and the
industry will be forced to meet these prices. If the domestic industry meets the import price, it will
suffer financial losses, deterioration in cash flows and return on investment.
G.3. Examination by the Authority.
G.3.1. Assessment of demand
58. The Authority has determined demand or apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of domestic
sales of CPVC resin and compound of the domestic industry, the supporter, and imports of resin and compound
from all sources. Since CPVC compound producers are sourcing their requirement of resin from either the
Indian industry or imports, their production and sales has not been considered to avoid double accounting.
+----+---------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21 - Jun 22 | *POI |
| | | | | | (A) | |
+====+=================================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | Sales of the domestic industry | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 117 | 133 | 137 |
| 2 | Sales of supporter | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 3 | Subject countries import | MT | 26,640 | 9,529 | 59,085 | 66,462 |
| A | China PR | MT | 14,491 | 7,826 | 43,210 | 54,872 |
| B | Korea RP | MT | 12,148 | 1,703 | 15,875 | 11,590 |
| 4 | Other countries import | MT | 1,07,469 | 1,09,650 | 1,21,570 | 1,31,665 |
| 5 | Total demand | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 91 | 135 | 157 |
+----+---------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
59. It is seen that as compared to 2019-20, the demand for the product under consideration declined in 2020-21
(due to Covid) but increased in 2021-22 and has further increased in the period of investigation. The demand
has increased over the injury period.
G.3.2. Volume effect of dumped imports
a. Imports in absolute and relative terms
60. The information on volume of imports in absolute terms and relative terms over the injury period and in the
period of investigation is as below.
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21 - Jun 22 | *POI |
| | | | | | (A) | |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | Subject imports | MT | 26,640 | 9,529 | 59,085 | 66,462 |
| a | China PR | MT | 14,491 | 7,826 | 43,210 | 54,872 |
| b | Korea RP | MT | 12,148 | 1,703 | 15,875 | 11,590 |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 36 | 222 | 249 |
| 2 | Non subject imports | MT | 1,07,469 | 1,09,650 | 1,21,570 | 1,31,665 |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 102 | 113 | 123 |
| 3 | Total imports | MT | 1,34,109 | 1,19,179 | 1,80,655 | 1,98,127 |
| 4 | Subject countries import in | | | | | |
| | relation to | | | | | |
| A | Indian Production | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 31 | 168 | 75 |
| B | Indian Demand | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 40 | 165 | 159 |
| C | Total Imports | % | 20% | 8% | 33% | 34% |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
61. It is seen that: -
a. The volume of subject imports declined in 2020-21 due to a decline in demand and outbreak of Covid-
19.
b. The volume of imports from the subject countries increased sharply in 2021-22 and has further
increased in the period of investigation.
c. The subject imports have increased in the period of investigation in absolute terms as well as in relation
to consumption and total imports.
d. The imports from subject countries have declined in relation to Indian production in the period of
investigation due to the fact that the domestic industry and other producer commenced commercial
production for the product under consideration in India.
62. The graph and table below show the trend of demand and imports from the subject countries over the injury
period. Considering the low capacity with the Indian industry and the huge demand in the country, it was
natural that the imports from all sources would have increased.
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21 - Jun 22 | *POI |
| | | | | | (A) | |
+====+=====================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | Subject imports | Indexed| 100 | 36 | 222 | 249 |
| 2 | Non-subject imports | Indexed| 100 | 102 | 113 | 123 |
| 3 | Demand | Indexed| 100 | 91 | 135 | 157 |
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
G.3.3. Price effect of dumped imports
63. With regard to the effect of dumped imports on prices, the Authority is required to consider whether there has
been a significant price undercutting by the 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 to a significant degree or prevent price
increases. which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. In this regard, a comparison has been
made between the landed value of the product from the subject countries and the average selling price of the
domestic industry, net of all rebates and taxes, at the same level of trade as the cost of sales.
a. Significant difference in price of imports in duty free market and duty paid market.
64. The domestic industry claimed that there is significant difference in the price of imports cleared in the duty paid
market and the duty-free market. The Authority notes that while the examination of imports is undertaken
considering the total imports cleared in duty free and duty paid market, however, considering that the present
anti-dumping measures were imposed in the form of benchmark form of duty, and the present investigation is a
sunset review investigation, it is appropriate to analyze imports separately in respect of imports cleared with
and without payment of customs duty. This is relevant and appropriate for the reason that since the form of
measure is benchmark, the imports are likely to attract anti-dumping measures only if the same are cleared
without payment of customs duty and landed price of imports is below the benchmark form of measure
imposed.
65. It is also noted that no interested party has disputed the claims of the domestic industry with regard to re-
alignment of import price. In fact, the responding exporter from Korea, and Lubrizol (who has imported from
non-subject sources) have also implicitly supported the claim of the domestic industry that the import prices
were aligned to the benchmark in those transactions where the imports were made after payment of basic
customs duty. If imports were made without payment of customs duty, in any case, the measure was also not
payable irrespective of the import prices.
66. Even though the domestic industry has lodged its own claim demonstrating difference between prices in
respect of duty free and duty paid imports, the Authority called DG systems data and has examined the same.
The table below shows the difference in the duty-free imports and the duty paid imports of CPVC resin
imported from China PR over the injury period. The comparison has been made at CIF level.
+----+----------+-------+--------------------------+------------------------+------------+
| SN | Period | UOM | CIF price of duty free imports | CIF price of duty paid imports | Difference |
+====+==========+=======+==========================+========================+============+
| 1 | Apr-19 | $/MT | No imports | 1,163 | NA |
| 2 | May-19 | $/MT | No imports | 1,169 | NA |
| 3 | Jun-19 | $/MT | No imports | 1,142 | NA |
| 4 | Jul-19 | $/MT | No imports | 1,174 | NA |
| 5 | Aug-19 | $/MT | 1,164 | 1,155 | 9 |
| 6 | Sep-19 | $/MT | 1,198 | 1,324 | -126 |
| 7 | Oct-19 | $/MT | 1,150 | 1,416 | -267 |
| 8 | Nov-19 | $/MT | 1,185 | 1,699 | -514 |
| 9 | Dec-19 | $/MT | No imports | 1,767 | NA |
| 10 | Jan-20 | $/MT | 1,188 | 1,846 | -658 |
| 11 | Feb-20 | $/MT | No imports | 1,901 | NA |
| 12 | Mar-20 | $/MT | 1,195 | 1,827 | -632 |
| 13 | Apr-20 | $/MT | 1,211 | 1,848 | -637 |
| 14 | May-20 | $/MT | No imports | 1,917 | NA |
| 15 | Jun-20 | $/MT | No imports | 1,892 | NA |
| 16 | Jul-20 | $/MT | No imports | 2,001 | NA |
| 17 | Aug-20 | $/MT | 1,219 | 1,933 | -715 |
| 18 | Sep-20 | $/MT | 1,184 | 2,014 | -830 |
| 19 | Oct-20 | $/MT | 1,254 | 1,957 | -703 |
| 20 | Nov-20 | $/MT | 1,310 | 2,008 | -698 |
| 21 | Dec-20 | $/MT | 1,472 | 1,965 | -492 |
| 22 | Jan-21 | $/MT | 1,460 | 2,003 | -543 |
| 23 | Feb-21 | $/MT | 1,494 | 1,953 | -459 |
| 24 | Mar-21 | $/MT | 1,426 | 1,921 | -495 |
| 25 | Apr-21 | $/MT | 1,561 | 2,028 | -466 |
| 26 | May-21 | $/MT | 1,743 | 1,941 | -198 |
| 27 | Jun-21 | $/MT | 1,752 | 1,955 | -203 |
| 28 | Jul-21 | $/MT | No imports | 1,926 | NA |
| 29 | Aug-21 | $/MT | 1,716 | 1,871 | -155 |
| 30 | Sep-21 | $/MT | 1,756 | 1,882 | -126 |
| 31 | Oct-21 | $/MT | No imports | 2,005 | NA |
| 32 | Nov-21 | $/MT | 1,933 | 2,155 | -222 |
| 33 | Dec-21 | $/MT | No imports | 2,354 | NA |
| 34 | Jan-22 | $/MT | No imports | 2,417 | NA |
| 35 | Feb-22 | $/MT | No imports | 2,390 | NA |
| 36 | Mar-22 | $/MT | No imports | 2,380 | NA |
| 37 | Apr-22 | $/MT | No imports | 2,443 | NA |
| 38 | May-22 | $/MT | No imports | 2,385 | NA |
| 39 | Jun-22 | $/MT | No imports | 2,396 | NA |
| 40 | Jul-22 | $/MT | No imports | 2,383 | NA |
| 41 | Aug-22 | $/MT | No imports | 2,164 | NA |
| 42 | Sep-22 | $/MT | 1,914 | 2,048 | -133 |
| 43 | Oct-22 | $/MT | No imports | 1,965 | NA |
| 44 | Nov-22 | $/MT | 1,478 | 2,031 | -552 |
| 45 | Dec-22 | $/MT | No imports | 1,895 | NA |
| 46 | Jan-23 | $/MT | 1,304 | 1,801 | -497 |
| 47 | Feb-23 | $/MT | 1,337 | 1,812 | -475 |
| 48 | Mar-23 | $/MT | 1,326 | 1,892 | -566 |
| 49 | Apr-23 | $/MT | 1,364 | 1,888 | -524 |
| 50 | May-23 | $/MT | 1,263 | 1,897 | -634 |
| 51 | Jun-23 | $/MT | 1,213 | 1,925 | -713 |
+----+----------+-------+--------------------------+------------------------+------------+
Source – DG System transaction wise data.
67. The Authority notes that there is a wide difference in the import price of CPVC resin from China in respect of
imports made without payment of customs duty and after payment of customs duty. There is no difference in
the product properties. It is also seen that the difference between the import price in the duty free and duty paid
imports increased sharply in the period of investigation. Further, while the price of duty-free imports fluctuated
over the injury period, the price of duty-paid imports has remained almost at the same level and around the
benchmark.
Source – DG System transaction wise data. Price - $/MT
68. The Authority also examined the trends in the price of major raw materials, i.e. PVC resin. It is noted that the
price of CPVC resin follows very closely the price of PVC resin. The table below shows the price movement of
PVC resin and import price of duty free, and duty paid imports of CPVC resin from China PR. It is seen that
the price of duty paid imports of CPVC resin has not moved in tandem with the price of PVC resin.
69. It is thus seen that the import price of duty paid imports has not moved in tandem with the input prices and is
influenced by the benchmark form of duty. The Authority therefore hold that it is the price of duty-free imports
that is relevant for the purpose of the present determination whether cessation of anti-dumping measures is
likely to lead to injury to the domestic industry. This is the price at which the product will be exported if the
measures are not continued.
70. The domestic industry has additionally provided copy of the DRI Order stating that it has found evidence of
higher than the actual value was being declared before the customs, and minimum or no anti-dumping duty was
being paid. The investigation is in process. Therefore, the Authority notes that the import price cannot be relied
upon.
71. It is noted that there are no imports of CPVC resin from Korea RP without payment of customs duty. Further,
there are no imports of CPVC compound from any subject countries in the duty-free market.
b. Price undercutting
72. The table below shows the price undercutting over the injury period.
CPVC Resin
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr'21-Jun'22 | *POI |
+====+=====================+=======+==========+==========+===============+==========+
| 1 | Price undercutting | | | | | |
| a | Subject Countries | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| b | China PR | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| c | Korea RP | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | Price undercutting | | | | | |
| a | Subject Countries | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| b | China PR | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| c | Korea RP | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 3 | Price undercutting | | | | | |
| a | Subject Countries | Range | 10-20% | (10-20)% | (0-10)% | (10-20)% |
| b | China PR | Range | 10-20% | (10-20)% | (10-20)% | (10-20)% |
| c | Korea RP | Range | 10-20% | (10-20)% | 0-10% | (10-20)% |
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
CPVC Compound
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr'21-Jun'22 | *POI |
+====+=====================+=======+==========+==========+===============+==========+
| 1 | Price undercutting | | | | | |
| A | Subject Countries | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| B | China PR | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| C | Korea RP | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | Price undercutting | | | | | |
| A | Subject Countries | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| B | China PR | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| C | Korea RP | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 3 | Price undercutting | | | | | |
| A | Subject Countries | Range | 0-10% | 0-10% | (0-10)% | (10-20)% |
| B | China PR | Range | 0-10% | 0-10% | (0-10)% | (10-20)% |
| C | Korea RP | Range | 10-20% | NA | NA | NA |
+----+---------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
73. It is seen that price undercutting is positive in the year 2019-20. This was the period when anti-dumping
measures were not in force for some period. Post the imposition of anti-dumping measures in the form of
benchmark measures, the landed price of imports is above the selling price of the domestic industry resulting in
negative price undercutting.
74. The domestic industry has submitted that the import price in the duty paid market cannot be relied upon for
comparison because of the alignment of imports to benchmark level by the producers and significant difference
in the duty free and duty paid import prices. Having examined the submission of the domestic industry and
found that the average import price in the duty-free imports is impacted by the benchmark form of measures,
the Authority has examined price undercutting for duty paid as well as duty free imports which is shown
below.
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | Price in respect of duty-free imports | Price in respect of duty paid imports |
+====+==============================================+=======+=============================+===========================+
| 1 | Domestic industry price (CPVC Resin) | Rs/MT | *** | *** |
| 2 | Landed price | Rs/MT | 1,18,262 | 1,80,207 |
| 3 | Price undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** |
| 4 | Price undercutting | % | *** | *** |
| 5 | Price undercutting | Range | 30-40 | Negative |
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
75. It is seen that while the price undercutting is negative in duty paid imports, the price undercutting is very
positive in case of duty-free imports.
c. Price suppression / depression
76. Comparison of cost of sales and selling price of the subject imports is given below:
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr'21-Jun'22 | * POI |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| A | CPVC Resin | | | | | |
| 1 | Cost of Sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 91 | 114 | 109 |
| 2 | Net Selling Price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 119 | 153 | 143 |
| B | CPVC Compound | | | | | |
| 1 | Cost of Sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 91 | 112 | 115 |
| 2 | Net Selling Price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 113 | 146 | 141 |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
77. The domestic industry has submitted that the anti-dumping measures have allowed the domestic industry to
fetch adequate remunerative prices. Therefore, the imports have not had any suppressing/depressing impact on
the prices of the domestic industry.
G.3.4. Impact on economic parameters of the domestic industry.
78. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure-II provides that an injury determination shall involve an examination
of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, ".... taking into account all relevant facts, including
the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent
effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles...". In considering the effect of the dumped
imports on prices, it is considered necessary to 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.
79. The Authority has taken note of the various submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested
parties on injury and causal link and has analyzed the same considering the facts available on record and
applicable laws. The injury analysis made by the Authority ipso facto addresses submissions made by the
domestic industry and other interested parties.
80. In consideration of the various submissions made by the interested parties in this regard, the Authority has
examined the current injury, if any, to the domestic industry before proceeding to examine the likelihood
aspects of dumping and injury.
a. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales.
81. Information on capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales over injury period is as follows:
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr21-Jun 22 (A) | *POI |
+====+==============================================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | Installed capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 2 | Capacity utilization | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 115 | 133 | 135 |
| 3 | Resin production | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 115 | 132 | 135 |
| 4 | Captive transfer to compound | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 190 | 246 | 178 |
| 5 | Compound production | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 189 | 244 | 187 |
| 6 | Domestic Sales | | | | | |
| a | Resin | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 97 | 102 | 123 |
| b | Compound | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 181 | 232 | 181 |
| c | Total for the product under consideration | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 117 | 133 | 137 |
+----+----------------------------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
82. It is seen that: -
a. The capacity of the domestic industry has remained the same over the injury period. The domestic
industry has been able to utilize its capacity.
b. With imposition of anti-dumping duty, the production, capacity utilization and domestic sales of the
domestic industry has increased.
c. The domestic industry commenced production after installing another plant having capacity of 10,000 MT
and has commenced production in its plant from October 2023. The domestic industry has also submitted
that it plans to set up another plant with a capacity of 10,000 MT.
b. Market share.
83. Information on market share of imports and the domestic industry over the period was as follows:
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Market share of | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21-Jun’22 | *POI |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | Domestic industry | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 129 | 99 | 84 |
| 2 | Supporter | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 3 | Subject countries import | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 40 | 165 | 153 |
| 4 | Other countries import | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 113 | 84 | 79 |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
84. It is seen that: -
i. The market share of imports from the subject countries has increased over the injury period.
ii. The domestic industry has been able to achieve market share it could have, having regard to its capacity.
iii. The market share of imports from the non-subject countries has declined.
85. The producers in the subject countries have been able to increase their market share despite the anti-dumping
measure in force. This was at the cost of non-subject imports, who have lost significant market share. The table
below shows the volume and market share of imports from subject as well as non-subject countries.
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Market share of | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21-Jun’22 | *POI |
| | | | | | (A) | |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | Imports from subject countries| MT | 26,640 | 9,529 | 59,085 | 66,462 |
| 2 | Imports from non-subject countries| MT | 1,07,469 | 1,09,650 | 1,21,570 | 1,31,665 |
| 3 | Market shares subject countries| % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 4 | Market share non subject countries| % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
86. It is noted that whereas absolute volume of imports from the non-subject countries was almost at the same level
as before over the injury period, volume of imports has shown increase only from the subject countries,
resulting in increase in their market. Market share of subject countries increased while the market share of non-
subject imports declined.
c. Profitability, cash profits and return on investment.
87. Information on profitability, return on investment and cash profits was as follows:
+----+-------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr'21-Jun'22 | *POI |
| | | | | | (A) | |
+====+===================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | Profit/(Loss) | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | -100 | 7114 | 10578 | 8499 |
| 2 | PBIT | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 258 | 314 | 255 |
| 3 | Cash Profit | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 249 | 317 | 266 |
| 4 | ROCE | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 280 | 420 | 380 |
+----+-------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
88. It is seen that the domestic industry was suffering losses in 2019-20. With the imposition of anti-dumping
duties in August 2019, the domestic industry has been able to fetch profitable prices, and their profitability has
improved. Resultantly, the domestic industry has been able to increase its profits, cash profit, PBIT and return
on capital employed.
89. The domestic industry has stated that as compared to the demand in India, it had limited capacity to sell.
Therefore, even when the actual import price was lower, the benchmark form of measures has allowed the
domestic industry to sell the volumes to the extent of its capacity and at desired prices.
d. Inventories.
90. Information on inventories is as follows:
+----+-------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr'21-Jun'22 | *POI |
+====+===================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | Opening inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | Closing inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 3 | Average inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 4 | Trend | Index | 100 | 57 | 61 | 68 |
+----+-------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
91. The inventories of the domestic industry have declined over the injury period. The domestic industry stated that
it has been able to sell its production in the domestic market and the inventory held is not significant.
e. Employment, wages and productivity
92. Information of productivity, employment and wages over the injury period is as under:
+----+-------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr’21-Jun’22 | *POI |
| | | | | | (A) | |
+====+=========================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | No of employees | Nos | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 98 | 98 | 100 |
| 2 | Salary & Wages | ₹ Lacs| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 92 | 92 | 112 |
| 3 | Productivity per day | MT/Days| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 113 | 130 | 135 |
| 4 | Productivity per employee| MT/Nos| *** | *** | *** | *** |
| | Trend | Index | 100 | 118 | 134 | 134 |
+----+-------------------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
* 1st July 2022-30th June 2023
93. The productivity of the domestic industry has improved over the injury period with increase in production. The
wages paid have increased as compared to the base year as well as in the previous year. The number of
employees has remained constant over the injury period.
f. Growth.
94. The domestic industry has reported that imposition of measures has allowed it to grow in both volume and
pricing accounts. However, profit/ loss, cash profit ROCE growth has declined in the period of investigation. It
is seen that the domestic industry has been able to utilize its capacities and sell the product at profits.
+----+-----------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | Apr'21-Jun'22 | *POI |
| | | | | | (A) | |
+====+=================+=======+==========+==========+=================+==========+
| 1 | Capacity | Y/Y | - | - | - | - |
| 2 | Production | Y/Y | - | 15% | 15% | 2% |
| 3 | Sales | Y/Y | - | 17% | 14% | 3% |
| 4 | Market share | Y/Y | - | -29% | -23% | -15% |
| 5 | Profit/loss | Y/Y | - | 7214% | 49% | -20% |
| 6 | Cash profit | Y/Y | - | 149% | 27% | -16% |
| 7 | ROCE | Y/Y | - | 230% | 35% | -7% |
+----+-----------------+-------+----------+----------+-----------------+----------+
*1st July 2022-30th June 2023
g. Ability to raise capital investment.
95. With the imposition of anti-dumping measures, the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment
has improved. The domestic industry has expanded its capacity in the post period of investigation by adding
another 10,000 MT capacity with investment of Rs 150 crores. Imposition of anti-dumping duties has led to
encouraged other producers to set up investment in India.
96. As submitted by the domestic producers, the measures also led to setting up of capacities by other producers as
can be seen in table below.
+---+---------------------+----------+-------------+-----------------------------+
| SN | Producer | Capacity | Investment | Status |
| | | (MT) | Rs. (Crore) | |
+====+=====================+==========+=============+=============================+
| 1 | DCW Limited | 10,000 | 300 | Existing |
| 2 | Epigral Limited | 30,000 | 200 | Started |
| 3 | DCW Limited | 10,000 | 150 | In operation from October, 23 |
| 4 | Epigral Limited | 45,000 | 300 | In operation from April, 24 |
| 5 | Lubrizol | 1,00,000 | 1200 | Plant construction started |
| 6 | DCW Limited | 20,000 | 150 | Environmental Clearance pending |
+---+---------------------+----------+-------------+-----------------------------+
| | Total | 2,15,000 | > 2400 | |
+---+---------------------+----------+-------------+-----------------------------+
h. Margin of dumping
97. It is seen that there is significant continued dumping of the subject goods in India from China PR in respect of
duty-free imports. Dumping margin in respect of Korea RP is negative.
H. CAUSAL LINK & NON-ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
98. As per the Rules, the Authority is required to, inter alia, examine any known factors other than dumped imports
which are injuring or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by these other
factors may not be attributed to the dumped imports. While the present investigation is a sunset review
investigation and causal link has already been examined in original investigation, the Authority examined
whether other known listed factors have caused or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry. It was
examined whether other factors listed under the Rules could have contributed or likely to contribute to the
injury suffered by the domestic industry.
a. Volume and price of imports from third countries.
99. It is seen that there were imports above de-minimis limits from other sources including European Union, Japan,
Thailand, and United States of America. The price of the imports from non-subject countries is significantly
higher. The table below shows the price of imports from non-subject countries in the period of investigation.
+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| Month | Non subject countries prices- | DI Prices- | Price Difference-₹/MT |
| | ₹/MT | ₹/MT | |
| | Resin | Compound | Resin | Compound | Resin | Compound|
+==========+=============+=============+=============+==========+=============+=========+
| Jul-22 | 1,77,214 | 2,60,689 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Aug-22 | 1,89,216 | 2,52,557 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Sep-22 | 1,78,003 | 2,65,268 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Oct-22 | 1,84,560 | 2,65,416 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Nov-22 | 1,92,816 | 2,60,655 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Dec-22 | 2,10,889 | 2,55,294 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Jan-23 | 1,95,301 | 2,45,666 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Feb-23 | 1,75,991 | 2,47,553 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Mar-23 | 1,76,390 | 2,29,841 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Apr-23 | 1,70,651 | 2,28,887 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| May-23 | 1,66,698 | 2,32,015 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Jun-23 | 1,65,182 | 2,37,510 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+----------+-------------+---------+
| Average | 1,81,766 | 2,49,772 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+----------+-------------+---------+
100. These imports have been consistently at higher prices. These imports have not impacted the performance of the
domestic industry in the past and do not appear likely to affect the performance of the domestic industry.
b. Contraction in demand and / or change in pattern of consumption.
101. The demand for the product under consideration has increased over the injury period. Further, the demand is
likely to increase more in future.
c. Trade restrictive practices.
102. The Authority notes that there is no trade restrictive practice.
d. Development of technology.
103. The Authority notes that technology for production of the product has not undergone any change.
e. Export performance.
104. The domestic industry has not exported the product.
f. Performance of other products.
105. The Authority has considered the data relating to the performance of the product under consideration only.
Therefore, performance of other products produced and sold by the domestic industry is not a possible cause of
the injury to the domestic industry.
I. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN.
106. The Authority has determined the non-injurious price for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid
down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The non-injurious price has been determined by
adopting the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the domestic industry. The non-
injurious price has been compared with the landed price of the product under consideration from the subject
countries for calculating injury margin. For determining the non-injurious price, the best utilization of the raw
materials and utilities and best utilization of production capacity has been considered. Extraordinary or non-
recurring expenses and/or assets have been excluded from the cost of production and/or non-injurious price. A
reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on average capital employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average
working capital) deployed for the product under consideration has been allowed for recovery of interest,
corporate tax, and profit to arrive at the non-injurious price as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules.
+----+-----------------------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------+-------+---------+
| SN | Particulars | NIP | Landed price | Injury margin | | |
| | | $/MT | $/MT | $/MT | % | Range |
+====+=============================+==============+==============+=================+=======+=========+
| 1 | China PR | | | | | |
| a | Resin | *** | *** | *** | *** | (0-10)% |
| b | Compound | *** | *** | *** | *** | (10-20)%|
| 2 | Korea RP | | | | | |
| a | Hanwha Solutions Corporation| *** | *** | *** | *** | (10-20)%|
+----+-----------------------------+--------------+--------------+-----------------+-------+---------+
136. It is seen that while the injury margin is marginally negative in case of duty-free imports, it is materially high
in case of duty-free imports. On a weighted average basis, it is seen that the injury margin is positive. The
Authority notes that the imports have continued to remain injurious for the domestic industry.
i. Third country export analysis.
137. Information with respect to third country dumping is given below.
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+---------------------+----------+
| SN | Particular | UOM | Hanwha | China PR (Annualised)| Total |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+=====================+==========+
| 1 | Total exports | MT | *** | 2,55,276 | 2,60,578 |
| 2 | Exports at dumped prices | MT | *** | 1,67,297 | 1,69,557 |
| 3 | % of dumped exports | % | *** | 66% | 65% |
| 4 | % of dumped exports | Range | 40-50% | 60-70% | 60-70% |
| 5 | Dumped exports in relation to Indian demand| % | 76% | |
| 6 | Dumped exports in relation to Indian demand| Range | 70-80% | |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+---------------------+----------+
138. It is seen that 40-50% of exports from Korea RP to third countries are at dumped prices. Similarly in case of
China PR, 60-70% exports are at dumped prices. When compared to the demand in India, these exports
cumulatively are around 80% of the demand.
139. Information with respect to third country injurious exports is given below.
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+---------------------+----------+
| SN | Particular | UOM | Hanwha | China PR (Annualised)| Total |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+=====================+==========+
| 1 | Total exports | MT | *** | 2,55,276 | 2,60,578 |
| 2 | Exports at injurious prices | MT | *** | 1,26,527 | 1,28,617 |
| 3 | % of injurious exports | % | *** | 50% | 49% |
| 4 | % of injurious exports | Range | 35-45% | 45-55% | 45-55% |
| 5 | Injurious exports in relation to Indian demand| % | 58% | |
| 6 | Injurious exports in relation to Indian demand| Range | 55-65% | |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+---------------------+----------+
140. It is seen that 30-40% of exports from Korea RP to third countries are at injurious prices. Similarly in case of
China PR, 50-60% exports are at injurious prices. When compared to the demand in India, these exports
cumulatively are 58% of the demand.
K. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST AND OTHER ISSUES
K.1. Submission of the other interested parties.
141. The other interested parties have made following submissions on Indian industry interest:
a. Ashirvad has submitted that the downstream products manufactured from the product under
consideration are used for transport of potable drinking water and is widely used in India. There is
grave importance to ensure that harmful products at cheap and low-quality prices are not restricted to
avoid any quality compromise or leakages of toxicity with the end products.
b. Ashirvad has submitted that there is a demand and supply gap in India which is forcing the users to
import.
c. Lubrizol has submitted that Lubrizol and Grasim Industries Limited are setting up capacity of 1,00,000
MT in India with an investment of USD 150 million. The anti-dumping measures are required to be
extended to safeguard the investments.
K.2. Submission of the domestic industry.
142. The domestic industry has made been following submissions on Indian industry interest:
a. Indian industry is expanding capacity and is expected to invest around $300 Million. Expiry of
measures will pose threat to the investment made or planned.
b. With new domestic players entering the CPVC market in India and existing producers expanding their
capacities, by 2025, the demand supply gap will be largely bridged. There is no need for the users to
resort to dumped imports as can be seen in table below.
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
| SN | Particular | UOM | POI | SSR POI | Current | 2025+ |
+====+=============================+=======+==========+==========+=========+=========+
| 1 | Consumption | MT | 1,30,000 | 2,35,000 | 2,40,000| 2,52,000|
| 2 | Being met by other countries| MT | 90,000 | 1,30,000 | 1,30,000| 37,000 |
| 3 | Net demand | MT | 40,000 | 1,05,000 | 1,10,000| - |
| 4 | Capacity | MT | 10,000 | 40,000 | 95,000 | 2,15,000|
| 5 | Demand met by dumped imports| MT | 30,000 | 65,000 | 15,000 | |
+----+-----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+---------+---------+
c. The domestic industry makes efforts towards for the development of the society, which neither the
exporters in the other countries nor the traders in India will make. In the period of investigation alone Rs
69 Lakhs were spent at the plant where the product is produced.
d. The performance of the downstream industry has improved after the imposition of the measures which
shows that the anti-dumping measures have not had adverse impact.
e. The price of pipe (downstream product) has remained same despite changes in the CPVC resin prices.
Prices of the downstream industry are not governed by prices of the product under consideration.
f. With a cost to make of Rs 225 per pipe, the selling price of the pipes is considerably higher, ranging to
around Rs 600. Pipe producers operate with high margins.
g. Consumers have paid a staggering more than Rs 8000 Crores higher in procuring resin and compound
from non-subject sources as compared to the price at which these were indeed available from subject
sources. This shows that the pipe manufacturers are happily buying the product at much high price from
non-subject sources despite availability of the product from China at much lower prices.
h. CPVC pipes are used in the upper middle-income group. The lower income group uses PVC based pipes
which are much lower priced. The PVC price is at least 2.5 times below the price of CPVC pipe.
Further, even the price of galvanized iron pipe is lower than the price of CPVC pipe.
i. The construction cost of a new house of around 1000 sq. is around Rs 18 lakh, the cost of CPVC pipes
and fittings is only Rs 15,000. The share of CPVC Pipe in the cost of construction is hardly 0.83%.
j. Even if the cost of CPVC pipe increases by Rs 1500 (10%), the impact on the construction cost will be
0.08%.
k. The above impact only considers the construction cost. The impact will be much lower when the cost of
land is considered. Land cost can be anywhere between 50% to 10 times of the construction cost.
l. The domestic industry is not only competing with the other domestic producers and subject countries
but also with non-subject countries Even if the imports from the subject countries are restricted, it would
not lead to the domestic industry monopoly in the Indian market.
m. The producers from subject countries operate with only one objective of maximization of profits and if
other markets offer better prices, they will shift their market. Whereas the domestic industry will keep
the consumers‟ interest in mind.
K.3. Examination of the Authority
143. The Authority issued gazette notification inviting views from all the interested parties, including importers,
consumers, and other interested parties. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the consumers to
provide relevant information with respect to the present investigation, including the possible effects of the anti-
dumping duties on their operations. The Authority sought information on, inter-alia, the interchangeability of
the product supplied by various suppliers from different countries, ability of the consumers to switch sources,
the effect of anti-dumping duties on the consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment
to the new situation caused by the imposition of the antidumping duties.
144. It is noted that the purpose of anti-dumping measures, 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. The Authority recognizes that the
continuation of the anti-dumping duties might affect the price levels of the product under consideration as well
as other downstream products manufactured by using the subject goods in India. However, fair competition in
the Indian market will not be reduced by the imposition of anti-dumping measures. On the contrary, the
continuation of anti-dumping measures would prevent the decline of the domestic industry that may ensue as a
consequence of low-priced imports from the subject countries and help maintain the wider availability of
choices to the consumers of the product under consideration.
145. The Authority had prescribed an economic interest questionnaire which was sent to all interested parties to this
review investigation. Only the domestic industry has responded to the economic interest questionnaire. The
domestic industry has supplied information related to the domestic industry as well as the user industry.
146. The Authority notes that the anti-dumping duties imposed in the past have led to the growth of the Indian
industry. Not only has the imposition of anti-dumping measures allowed the domestic industry to recover from
losses but has also stimulated other producers to setup plants in India. Prior to the imposition of measures, the
capacity in India was only 10,000 MT. However, as submitted by domestic producers, large number of
capacity expansions are planned in the country now as shown in the table below.
+---+---------------------+----------+-------------+-----------------------------+
| SN | Producer | Capacity | Investment | Status |
| | | (MT) | Rs. (Crore) | |
+====+=====================+==========+=============+=============================+
| 1 | DCW Limited | 10,000 | 300 | Existing |
| 2 | Epigral Limited | 30,000 | 200 | Started |
| 3 | DCW Limited | 10,000 | 150 | In operation from October, 23 |
| 4 | Epigral Limited | 45,000 | 300 | In operation from April, 24 |
| 5 | Lubrizol | 1,00,000 | 1200 | Plant construction started |
| 6 | DCW Limited | 20,000 | 150 | Environmental Clearance pending |
+---+---------------------+----------+-------------+-----------------------------+
| | Total | 2,15,000 | > 2400 | |
+---+---------------------+----------+-------------+-----------------------------+
147. It is seen that the total capacity in India will increase from 10,000 in 2018 to 2,15,000 in 2025. The value of
these investments is expected to be around Rs. 2,400 cr. ($300 Million). There is a likelihood of increase in
imports from the subject countries which could cause injury to the domestic industry if the measures are not
extended. Therefore, extension of anti-dumping measures is necessary to safeguard the interests of the
investments planned in the country.
148. It has also been claimed that there is a demand and supply gap in the country. However, the Authority notes
that the demand-supply gap does not justify dumping. The Indian industry is undertaking significant capacity
expansions which are likely to bridge the demand supply gap to large extent. It is also seen that there is large
volume of imports from the non-subject countries as well. The imports from non-subject countries are more
than the imports from the subject countries. Therefore, the supply of the consumers will not be restricted if the
measures are imposed.
149. As regards the impact of anti-dumping duty on the downstream industry, the consumers have set up their plants
considering fair market conditions. It cannot be construed that the operations of the consumers would become
unviable, merely because dumping is prevented by imposition of duty and fair competition is restored in the
market. Anti-dumping duties can create a level playing field for domestic producers, allowing them to compete
fairly and continue supplying the market.
150. The consumers have imported from subject as well as non-subject countries. The import price from non-subject
countries is higher than the import price from subject countries. This itself shows that the price of the
downstream product is inelastic to the price of resin or compound.
151. The domestic industry has additionally provided information on the impact of the anti-dumping measures on
the public at large. It has been submitted that in the construction cost of a house of around 1000 sq., the cost of
CPVC pipes and fittings is only Rs 15,000 which forms hardly 0.83% of the cost of construction (Rs 18 lakh).
Even if price of CPVC increases by 10%, the impact will be 0.08%.
L. POST-DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
K.1. Submission of the other interested parties.
152. The other interested parties have made the following comments on the disclosure statement:
a. Hanwha has submitted that the benchmark influenced prices were applicable to China PR not to
Hanwha and the domestic industry has itself admitted that there has not come across any instance in the
past, where it was informed of any unfair practice being adopted by the Korean producer.
b. Hanwha has submitted that there is no major variation between the selling price in Korea RP, export
prices to India and to third countries. If the export prices in India were influenced by the benchmark
form of duty, they should not have been in line with the domestic sales prices or with third country sales
prices.
+----------+-----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Month | Domestic Price | Export to | Export to | |
| | (Korea RP) | India | Third Country | |
+==========+=============================+==============+=======================+=====================+
| Jul-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Aug-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Sep-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Oct-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Nov-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Dec-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Jan-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Feb-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Mar-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Apr-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| May-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Jun-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
+----------+-----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
c. Hanwha has submitted that it has fully backward integrated plant and the product under consideration is
produced from the nascent stage of chlorine. The prices of the product under consideration are not
impacted by purchase/market price of PVC.
d. Hanwha has submitted that it sold the product under consideration under long term contracts. Even
when the prices of raw materials change the export price remains unaffected.
e. Hanwha has submitted that its installed capacity is 44,000 MT and not 60,000 MT as wrongly claimed
by the domestic industry.
f. Hanwha has submitted that despite the increase in capacity to 44000 MT, there is substantial decrease in
exports to India. The exports to India were at 30% of the total capacity of Hanwha.
g. Hanwha has submitted that the price of the product under consideration is highly volatile, and third
country export analysis should not be undertaken based on average prices.
h. Hanwha has submitted that during the original investigation, it was declared non-cooperative exporter
because of the minor reconciliation errors in costing information. There was no concealment or malafide
intention on the part of Hanwha.
i. Hanwha has submitted that the Authority has on many previous occasions have given individual
dumping margin/separate duty to the exporters in the sunset review investigation despite the fact that the
same exporters were categorized as non-co-operative or have not participated in the original
investigation.
j. Hanwha has submitted that the total capacity of subject goods of Korea RP is 44000 MT and about
***% is already utilized during the period of investigation, hence, idle capacity of Korea RP is less than
***% of the total Indian demand.
k. Lubrizol has submitted that the import prices from Korea RP are nearly at the level of the benchmark
price. As per producer price index (PPI) published by the Government of Korea RP during the same
period, the cost of manufacturing of the downstream product i.e., plastic pipes have increased
significantly in Korea RP.
l. The energy/fuel prices have increased by about 30% and the freight costs have surged multifold. Korean
producers are charging high prices for their domestic sales and exporting to India at low and dumped
prices.
m. SAR has submitted that its prices are market driven and are in line with the international prices of the
subject goods. Therefore, the allegations of the domestic industry as to the unreliable imports prices in
the case of exporter much less Korea RP are not true and are baseless.
n. Lubrizol has submitted that European Union may be considered as an appropriate market economy to
China for determination of normal value.
K.2. Submission of the domestic industry
153. The domestic industry has made following comments to the disclosure statement:
i. There is no correlation between import price of CPVC resin and PVC suspension resin (raw material) from
China. Since FOB level comparison eliminates the freight cost and freight had become abnormally high
time during 2021-22, comparison at FOB level is far more revealing than at CIF level.
ii. The difference between the price of imports in the duty-free segment and duty paid segment has further
increased in the post period of investigation and is as high as 1000$/MT.
iii. Nowhere during the course of the investigation has Hanwha claimed that the benchmark form of measures
was higher than its normal value and therefore, it was “forced” to export the product at these prices.
iv. Gap between CPVC resin and PVC suspension was very low before the measures were imposed. As the
post covid freight issue intensified, the prices of PVC suspension and CPVC resin went up. With the
situation normalized now, the price of PVC suspension has declined. However, the price of CPVC resin
has not undergone proportionate change.
v. If the constructed price of CPVC resin (based on price of PVC suspension from Korea RP) is compared
with actual price of CPVC resin, constructed price is significantly lower than the actual import price which
shows the artificial pricing by Hanwha.
vi. Hanwha is the sole producer/exporter from Korea and even though their response was rejected in the
original investigation, the export price and the landed price calculated by the Authority was based on their
exports. It should not be considered that the producer has participated for the first time in the sunset review
investigation. The producer had participated in the original investigation as well. The Authority had found
that the producer was exporting the product to the Indian market at dumped prices.
vii. Producer has admitted that it has expanded its capacity by 30,000 MT. Considering the total capacity of
60,000 MT, the domestic sales are less than 15,000 MT. 75% of the capacity, which amounts to 45,000
MT will eventually be used for export purposes. As these capacities became operational, the producer
started capturing the other markets.
+----+----------+-------+---------------+-------------------------+
| SN | Particulars| UOM | Exports to | Exports to rest of the world|
| | | | India | |
+====+==========+=======+===============+=========================+
| 1 | 2023-M10 | USD/MT| 1,545 | 1,733 |
| 2 | 2023-M11 | USD/MT| 1,867 | 1,620 |
| 3 | 2023-M12 | USD/MT| 1,880 | 1,805 |
| 4 | 2024-M01 | USD/MT| 1,868 | 1,290 |
| 5 | 2024-M02 | USD/MT| 1,873 | 1,075 |
| 6 | 2024-M03 | USD/MT| 1,846 | 1,085 |
+----+----------+-------+---------------+-------------------------+
viii. FOB price to the other countries have declined sharply whereas the export price to India has remained
constant which establishes that the export price of Hanwha to India was impacted by benchmark form of
measures and not market driven.
ix. If CPVC resin has come into non CPVC resin producing countries from China or Korea and has been
converted into CPVC compound, it is clearly subject to duty. The exporters and importers should be
required to establish the origin of CPVC resin in the CPVC compound exported from countries other than
China and Korea RP.
x. The domestic industry has only requested for extension of duration of anti-dumping duty and modification
of form of duty and not re-quantification of anti-dumping duty.
xi. As per Section 9A (5) of the Act and Rule 23 of the Rules, the only objective and purpose of a sunset
review is to determine, after examination of relevant factors, whether the period of imposition is needed to
be extended for a further duration of five years.
xii. If the Authority decides to extend the duration, the quantum or form of measure is not an automatic
proposition/ conclusion/ determination but has to independently determine and decide whether quantum of
anti-dumping duty should be the same as before, and whether the form will be the same as before.
xiii. If any party needs re-quantification of anti-dumping duty, the party is free to approach the Authority
through the provisions of review under the law. A sunset review is not the appropriate review to seek re-
quantification of anti-dumping duty.
xiv. The injury margin determined is negative only because of the benchmark form of measures. Otherwise,
dumping margin and injury margin is not only positive, but also very significant, as is established by duty
free category imports prices.
xv. WTO member countries, such as European Union (EU), USA, China, Argentina etc. extend the same
quantum of anti-dumping and do not re-quantify quantum in sunset review.
xvi. In the sunset review of Caustic Soda from Chinese Taipei, Indonesia and EU (excluding France), the
Authority determined a negative dumping margin for PT Asahimas & Tricon. Since there was likelihood of
duties, the Authority recommended same duties as determined in the 1st sunset review investigation.
xvii. In the sunset review investigation concerning imports of Viscose Staple Fibre, PT Asia Pacific did not
participate in the original and 1st sunset review investigation. The injury margin determined for the
producer in the second sunset review is negative. The Authority concluded that there is likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and recommended same duties for the producer as
determined in the 1st sunset review investigation.
xviii. While the anti-dumping duties are operative, no definitive inference can be drawn from the change in the
dumping margin and injury margin in these situations due to the fact that anti-dumping duty is in place.
xix. Re-quantification of duties is not appropriate as the Authority has already found that there is significant
difference in the duty free and duty paid imports and the importers have reported import prices at higher
than actual price. Further, because of the benchmark form of measures in force, the dumping margin
cannot be considered relevant to determine if the exporters have resorted to aggressive pricing.
xx. Re-quantification of duties is not appropriate as the Authority has already found that there is significant
difference in the duty free and duty paid imports and the importers have reported import prices at higher
than actual price. Further, because of the benchmark form of measures in force, the dumping margin
cannot be considered relevant to determine if the exporters have resorted to aggressive pricing.
xxi. Even in the original anti-dumping investigation, it had highlighted that the benchmark form of measures
will not serve the purpose as the exporters keep price of the product artificially high to avoid benchmark
form of anti-dumping duty. However, considering the huge demand supply gap at that time and the fact
that the domestic industry had just commenced commercial production, the Authority found it appropriate
to recommend anti-dumping duty.
xxii. The domestic industry has been in existence for a sufficiently long period now and new producers have
entered into the market. Conditions which existed at the time of original investigation have now ceased.
Therefore, there is no need for benchmark form of measures.
xxiii. Owing to the demand and supply gap, there were no aggressive price wars between the domestic industry
and the subject exporters. But the situation is unlikely to continue in the market, as significant capacities
are coming up in India. As the demand supply gap will be completely bridged soon, the price war will
start. The consumers will buy from the supplier who offers lower prices.
xxiv. The non-participating producers from the original investigation must be treated non-cooperative and
adverse facts must be applied and no separate anti-dumping duty should be granted.
L.3 Examination by the Authority
154. The Authority has examined the post disclosure submissions made by the domestic industry, and the other
interested parties and notes that some of the comments are reiterations which have already been examined
suitably and addressed adequately in the relevant paras of the disclosure statement. The issues raised for the
first time in the post disclosure comments/submissions by the interested parties and considered relevant by the
Authority are examined below.
155. As regard the submission of Lubrizol on European Union being considered as an appropriate market economy
country for China PR, the Authority notes that an appropriate market economy third country shall be selected
keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in question. However, no
information has been provided by any interested parties to establish European Union as an appropriate market
economy country.
156. As regards the submission of Hanwha that average normal value and non-injurious price should not be
considered for third country analysis because the prices of the product are very volatile in nature, the Authority
notes that Hanwha has not claimed any monthly price analysis in its questionnaire response. Hanwha has
requested monthly comparison for the first time in the comments to the disclosure statement. It is seen that
Hanwha itself has shown little variation in its export price to India, significant decline in export price to third
countries over the investigation period, and fluctuating trends in its domestic prices. Further, Hanwha has
provided monthly data which shows that whereas its export price to India and to the rest of the world were
earlier higher than domestic price, the gap reduced during the investigation period and reversed towards the
later part of the investigation period. In fact, by their own admission, its export price to rest of the world in last
six months of the period of investigation were lower than domestic prices. The Authority also considers that
the disclosure statement is not the relevant stage to make such significant claims, as it requires calling of
significant information and thereafter its elaborate examination and investigation. Above all, even if the request
of the exporter was to be considered, it is seen that Hanwha has not provided information on monthly cost of
production. The export price of Hanwha to India has not shown such material movement over the period of
investigation, as is seen in respect of export price to third countries. Further, it is seen that the domestic prices
were relatively stable, despite changes in export prices and variations in input costs. While on one hand
Hanwha has commented that the prices are volatile, it has also now claimed that exports are also under
contract. Such significant statements on the pricing methodology at the stage of comments to disclosure
statement casts significant doubts over the pricing methodology of the producer. Therefore, the submission
cannot be entertained.
157. As regard the contention that the prices of CPVC resin are not dependent on the prices of PVC suspension
resin, as the two products have different market and CPVC is produced from nascent stage of chlorine, the
Authority notes that it is undisputed that PVC suspension resin is the immediately preceding raw material for
CPVC resin. In the questionnaire response, Hanwha itself has recognized PVC suspension as the raw material.
The domestic industry however had made elaborate submissions and presented comparisons between CPVC
resin and PVC suspension in the application itself and highlighted it in the oral hearing and the written
submissions. It is also noted that the movements in CPVC prices in the domestic market, exports to India and
to the rest of the world does not show either a similar pattern, or a consistent trend. None of these prices have
moved in line with the export price of PVC suspension to India. The data also indicates relatively insulated
domestic market, but export price being influenced by some other factor.
158. Hanwha did not dispute the comparison in any of its previous submission and has disputed it for the first time
in the comments to the disclosure statement. The disclosure statement is not the relevant stage to advance such
major claims and make new claims on parameters that affect essential facts. The Authority also notes that the
prices of raw material and finished goods of the same producer should move in line unless the prices of one of
the products are impacted due to some factor. Therefore, a comparison with of CPVC resin with PVC
suspension will be appropriate.
159. As regards the submission that idle capacity with Hanwha is only 6% of the demand in India, the Authority
notes that the producer is already exporting 46% of its total sales to India. These sales were more than the
domestic sales of the domestic industry and Hanwha in the period of investigation. A significant share of its
exports is being sold to the Indian market showing the importance of India for the CPVC resin operations of
the producer. Further, the export price to other countries was significantly lower as compared to export price to
India. Therefore, cessation of measures will allow the exporter to divert their exports to India.
160. As regards the prices of Hanwha being aligned to benchmark level, the Authority notes that the information
provided by Hanwha itself shows that the export price to other countries has declined significantly over the
period of investigation. The export price to India in the period of investigation has remained above 1800 $/MT
but the export price to other countries has declined to below 1600 $/MT. The table below shows the submission
of Hanwha.
+----------+-----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Month | Domestic Price | Export to | Export to | |
| | (Korea RP) | India | Third Country | |
+==========+=============================+==============+=======================+=====================+
| Jul-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Aug-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Sep-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Oct-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Nov-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Dec-22 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Jan-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Feb-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Mar-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Apr-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| May-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
| Jun-23 | *** | *** | *** | |
+----------+-----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
161. The post period of investigation information provided by the domestic industry also shows that the export price
to other countries has declined to about 1000$/MT whereas the export price to India has remained at almost the
same level. Therefore, it cannot be considered that the export price to India is not impacted by the benchmark
form of measures.
162. As regards the submission that the export price to India was under long term contract, the Authority notes that
the claim has been made by Hanwha first time at this stage. Hanwha had claimed normal value and export
price based on date of invoice. No claim was made in the questionnaire response or during the verification to
take into account the pricing as per contract. In fact, while Hanwha has now claimed that it has exported under
long term contracts, in Part II of the questionnaire response it had stated as below.
16. What percentage of your firm’s sales of PUC to Indian customers are on a contract (per cent) vs. spot sales
(percent) basis? If you sell on a contract basis, please answer the following questions with respect to
provisions of a typical contract.
(a) What is the average duration of a contract?
(b) How frequently are contracts renegotiated?
(c) Does the contract fix quantity, price or both?
(d) Does the contract have a meet or release provision?
(e) What are the standard quantity requirements, if any?
(f) What is the price premium for sub-minimum shipments?
<Answer >
Since HSC’s all export sales to Indian customers are made on spot basis, this question is not applicable.
163. Hanwha has made different submissions for pricing methodology to different markets which casts doubts over
the reported export price to India.
164. As regards the submission that Hanwha should be given separate duty based on current margins, the Authority
notes that examination of the import price in the present review clearly shows that the same were impacted by
the benchmark form of measures. It will not be appropriate to recommend duties based on the dumping margin
and the injury margin of the present period. There are no imports of CPVC resin or compound from Korea RP
in the duty-free market, but the significant difference in prices in case of China highlights that the average
import price is impacted by the benchmark form of measures particularly when these prices have not moved in
line with raw material prices.
165. As regards the submission that Authority has on many previous occasions given individual separate duty to the
exporters in the sunset review investigation despite exporter categorized as non-co-operative in the original
investigation, it is noted that in the present investigation, there is a likelihood of dumping and injury, and hence
no anti-dumping duty based on current dumping and injury margin has been recommended. It is also noted that
Hanwha was an interested party, and had indeed participated in the original investigation.
M. CONCLUSION
166. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided, submissions made and the facts available before
the Authority as recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis of the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry, the Authority concludes that: -
a. The scope of the product under consideration is same as defined in the original investigation, i.e.,
Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) - whether or not further processed into compound. None of the
interested parties have made any submissions with regard to the scope of the product under
consideration, which justifies any modification to the scope of the product under consideration earlier
notified by the Authority.
b. The applicant was the sole producer in the original investigation. The applicant was the major producer
of the product under consideration in the present period of investigation, has sought extension of anti-
dumping duty, and modification of the form of measures on the basis of dumping margin and injury
margin that were determined by the Authority in the time of original investigations. The applicant
claimed that the import price in the present investigation period were highly unreliable due to the form
of measures. The applicant has therefore sought the modification of the form of measures.
c. Epigral Limited has established production capacity of 30,000 MT and has commenced commercial
production in the period of investigation. The company has further stated that it has enhanced its
production capacities to 75,000. The company has supported the present application and has sought
extension of anti-dumping duty, and modification of the form of measures.
d. Lubrizol has participated in the investigation and submitted that it is setting up a new plant of 1,00,000
MT of CPVC resin with an intended investment of USD 150 million. The producer has stated that it is
likely to commence commercial production in early, 2025.
e. The applicant constitutes domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the Rules and the application satisfies the
requirements under the Rules.
f. The CIF import price in case of imports cleared without payment of basic customs duty (“duty free
market”) is significantly below the imports cleared after payment of customs duty (“duty paid market”).
g. While the price of raw materials fluctuated, the import price from the subject countries did not move in
tandem with the input prices. The CIF import price has by and large remained aligned at the benchmark
levels.
h. The dumping margin for China PR is positive. The dumping margin for the participating producer from
Korea RP is negative. However, the CIF import price is impacted by the benchmark form of measures in
case of both the countries.
i. While dumping margin is positive both in respect of imports cleared without payment of customs duty
and imports cleared after payment of customs duty, there is very significant difference in the two
dumping margin. Dumping margin is significantly high in case of “duty-free imports”.
j. Considering the low capacity with the Indian industry and the huge demand in the country, it was
natural that the imports from all sources would have increased.
k. DRI found evidence that higher than actual value was being declared before the customs authorities
while getting the goods cleared, and minimum or no anti-dumping duty was being paid.
l. Post the imposition of anti-dumping measures in the form of benchmark measures, the landed price of
imports is above the selling price of the domestic industry, resulting in negative price undercutting.
However, this is due to benchmark form of duty. The price undercutting is significantly high in case of
imports reported under duty exemption scheme.
m. The benchmark form of measures has allowed the domestic industry to sell the volumes to the extent of
its capacity and at desired prices.
n. The domestic industry has expanded its capacity in the post period of investigation by adding another
10,000 MT capacity with an investment of Rs 150 crores. The domestic industry plans to further expand
its capacities.
o. The domestic sales in case of the participating producer from Korea RP are only between 20-30% of its
capacity which indicates that is has surplus capacities. Despite the same, the company is further
expanding its capacities.
p. More than 50% of the production in case of the participating producer from Korea RP is exported which
shows high share of export orientation.
q. Capacities in China PR are 157% and 119% of the demand in China PR of CPVC resin and compound
respectively which shows excess capacities with Chinese producers.
r. Despite huge excess capacities, the Chinese producers are undertaking further capacity expansion.
s. While the price undercutting is negative in case of “duty paid imports”, the price undercutting is
significantly positive in case of “duty-free imports”.
t. The CIF import price in case of imports cleared in “duty free market” is below the selling price and cost
of sales of the domestic industry.
u. 40-50% of exports from Korea RP and 60-70% of exports from China PR to third countries are at
dumped prices. These exports cumulatively are around 80% of the gross demand in India.
v. 30-40% of exports from Korea RP and 50-60% exports from China PR to third countries are at injurious
prices. These exports cumulatively are around 60% of the gross demand in India.
w. The anti-dumping duties in the past have allowed the domestic industry to grow and has also stimulated
other producers to setup plants in India.
x. The total capacity in India is 10,000 MT in 2018 which is expected to increase to 2,15,000 in 2025
with value of investment being around Rs. 2,400 crore ($300 Million).
y. The Indian industry is undertaking significant capacity expansions which are likely to bridge the
demand supply gap. There is large volume of imports from the non-subject countries as well.
z. Consumers have imported from the subject as well as non-subject countries and price from non-subject
countries is higher than the price from subject countries. This shows that the price of the downstream
product is inelastic to the price of resin or compound.
aa. The impact of anti-dumping duty on the end consumer is found insignificant.
bb. The investigation had not brought to light any considerations demonstrating that such continuation of
measures would not be in the public interest.
cc. There is a likelihood of dumping and likelihood of injury from the subject countries in an event of
expiry of measures and if the anti-dumping measures are not modified.
N. RECOMMENDATIONS
167. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate
opportunity was given to the domestic industry, exporters, importers and other interested parties to provide
information on the aspects of likelihood of continuation/recurrence of dumping and injury.
168. Having concluded that there is likelihood of continuation/recurrence of dumping and injury if the existing anti-
dumping measure are allowed to cease, the Authority is of the view that continuation of duration of duty is
required on the imports of the product under consideration from the subject countries. As regards the form of
measures, the Authority considers it appropriate to recommend modification of the form of measure and
impose fixed quantum of anti-dumping duty. The Authority examined the quantum of duty that should be
recommended which would mitigate the dumping/injury. The volume of dumped and injurious imports from
the subject country to India and to the rest of the world have been considered. Further, the surplus capacities
coupled with capacity expansions and the price to third countries have also been examined. Under the aforesaid
circumstances, the Authority considers it appropriate to recommend continuation of the anti-dumping measure
on the imports of the product under consideration from the subject countries which would address and mitigate
the likelihood of dumping and injury from the subject countries.
169. With regard to duty structure, keeping into account factual matrix of the case and having regard to contentions
raised and examination of the Authority on import price being aligned to benchmark level, it is deemed
appropriate to recommend a fixed form of anti-dumping measure. The DRI found that imports have been
reported at prices nearing benchmark price and have therefore, did not attract anti-dumping duty. This has
resulted in significant avoidance of anti-dumping duty and consequent loss of revenue to the government. In
order to determine the quantum of anti-dumping duty, the Authority has considered the dumping margin and
injury margin determined in the original investigation.
170. In view of above, the Authority thus considers it appropriate and necessary to recommend continuation of
definitive antidumping duty. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as established
hereinabove, antidumping duty equal to the amount indicated in Column (8) of the duty table given below is
recommended to be imposed from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the Central
Government, on all imports of the product under consideration, from the subject countries for a further period
of five (5) years.
Duty Table
+----+---------------------+-----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------------+-------------+
| SN | Tariff | Description | Country of | Country of | Producer | Specification | Amount |
| | Item | of goods | Origin | export | | | USD/MT |
+====+=====================+=============================+=====================+=====================+===========================+=============+=============+
| 1 | 39041010 | Chlorinated Polyvinyl | China PR | Any country | Any | CPVC resin | 790 |
| | 39041020 | Chloride | | including China PR | | | |
| | 39041090 | (CPVC) - | | | | | |
| | 39042100 | whether or not further | | | | | |
| | 39042200 | processed into | | | | | |
| | 39043090 | compound | | | | | |
| | 39044000 | | | | | | |
| | 39045090 | | | | | | |
| | 39046990 | | | | | | |
| | 39049010 | | | | | | |
| | 39049090 | | | | | | |
| 2 | | | China PR | Any country | Any | CPVC | 605 |
| | | | | including China PR | | compound | |
| 3 | | | Any country | China PR | Any | CPVC resin | 790 |
| | | | other than China PR | | | | |
| | | | and Korea RP | | | | |
| 4 | | | Any country | China PR | Any | CPVC | 605 |
| | | | other than China PR | | | compound | |
| | | | and Korea RP | | | | |
| 5 | | | Korea RP | Any country | Hanwha Solutions | CPVC resin | 593 |
| | | | | including Korea RP | Corporation | | |
| 6 | | | Korea RP | Any country | Hanwha Solutions | CPVC | 792 |
| | | | | including Korea RP | Corporation | compound | |
| 7 | | | Korea RP | Any country | Any producer | CPVC | 593 |
| | | | | including | | | |
| 8 | | | Korea RP | other than | Any producer | CPVC | 792 |
| | | | | mentioned above | | compound | |
| 9 | | | Any country | Korea RP | Any | CPVC resin | 593 |
| | | | other than China PR | | | | |
| | | | and Korea RP | | | | |
| 10 | | | Any country | Korea RP | Any | CPVC | 792 |
| | | | other than China PR | | | compound | |
| | | | and Korea RP | | | | |
+----+---------------------+-----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------------+-------------+-------------+
* Customs classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the product under consideration. If the
product is imported in any other code, the same is liable to anti-dumping duty.
O. Further Procedure
171. An appeal against the recommendation of the Authority shall lie before the Customs Excise the Act and
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.
ANANT SWARUP, Designated Authority
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
Login to read full text