Final Finding issued recommending modification of the quantum of anti-dumping duty on imports of Glufosinate and its salts from China PR in an anti-absorption investigation. (01.09.2026)
Product Description- The product under considerationisGlufosinate and its salts, both in technical and formulation form.
HS Codes – The product under consideration does not have a dedicated classification. The product is imported under 38089193, 38089199, 38089391, 38089399, 38089912, 38089991 and 38089999.
Uses – Glufosinate is used in modern agriculture for weed control and versatility across various crops. The primary application is in row crop farming, where it is applied before or during plantation to suppress the unwanted vegetation.
Duty in force: originalanti-dumping duty imposed vide custom notification no. 09/2025-Customs (ADD) dated 8th May 2025, pursuant to Final Finding F. No. 6/19/2024-DGTR dated 10th February 2025.
Country involved- China PR
Applicants – Superform Chemistries Limited, UPL Limited, Astral Life India Limited, United Phosphorus (India) LLP, UPL Sustainable Agri Solutions Limited, and SWAL Corporation Limited
Period of absorption – 1st January 2025 to 30th September 2025 (9 months). 1st January 2023 to 31st December 2023 was the original period of investigation.
Margins and recommended Duties:
| China PR | Injury Margin (%) | Dumping Margin (%) | Duty (USD/MT) |
| Any producer – original investigation | 20-30 | 20-30 | 2,998 |
| Any producer – absorption period | 85-95 | 85-95 | 5,004 |
Key findings:
- The scope of the product under consideration remains the same as in the original investigation.
- Minimum import price and the anti-dumping duty are separate measures operating under different legal frameworks. The minimum import price merely masked the reduction in export prices at the Indian border and did not remedy the absorption of the anti-dumping duty.
- Three conditions specified under Rule 29(1) are alternative conditions.
- A decline in the export price to India without a commensurate decline in the cost of production is sufficient to establish absorption.
- The net export price declined by 46%, whereas the prices of the major raw materials declined by only 7.4%.
- Neither Section 9A(1B) nor Rule 29 prescribes any minimum volume for an absorption finding. The relevant consideration is the pricing behaviour of the exporters and whether such behaviour has rendered the existing anti-dumping duty ineffective.
- Rule 29 does not prescribe any minimum post-duty period for examining absorption. Since the transactions relied upon for determining the export price occurred after the imposition of duty on 8th May 2025, the inclusion of the earlier period did not invalidate the examination.
