Product Description – The product under consideration is “Multi-layer Paperboard made of at least 51% white/virgin wood pulp, whether coated or uncoated”. It includes Folding Box Board (FBB), Solid Bleached Sulphate Board (SBS), Cup Stock Paper or Board and Liquid Packaging Board, all in the range of 140 to 450 GSM, and excludes the following:

1. Paperboards made out of more than 49% recycled/brown pulp or fibre per-se
2. Coated/uncoated cigarette boards
3. Two side coated artboard when imported for printing purposes
4. Four and more layered paperboard, either coated, uncoated or laminated with plastic material, aluminium, or other metal for liquid packaging material.

HS Codes – 4805 and 4810.

Uses – It is majorly used in the packaging sector for pharmaceuticals, FMCG products, food & beverages, electronics and high-end cosmetics. It is also used for printing of brochures, as book covers and in publishing industry. Multi-layer Paperboard (cup stock) is also used to manufacture disposable cups.

Countries Involved – China and Indonesia

Applicant – Indian Paper Manufacturers Association

Applicant domestic producers –

1. Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited (Formerly known as Century Textiles and Industries Limited)
2. Emami Paper Mills Limited
3. ITC Limited
4. JK Paper Limited
5. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited

Supporters – NR Agarwal Industries Limited and West Coast Paper Mills Limited

Period of Investigation – 1^st October 2024 to 30^th September 2025

Injury Period – 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and the period of investigation

Facts of the present case – The present application was filed by IPMA seeking anti-subsidy investigation into imports of the subject goods from China and Indonesia. The applicant alleged that the Government of China and the Government of Indonesia maintain 62 and 23 countervailable subsidy programs, respectively. It has been alleged that there is sufficient evidence showing that the exporters of the product under consideration have received subsidies in the form of grants, loans, guarantees, taxes, export credits, goods and services, or equity infusions, which provide countervailable benefit. The domestic industry has furnished prima facie evidence regarding material injury being caused by such subsidized imports. The domestic industry claimed that these imports have increased in absolute terms as well as compared to production and demand in India, and are being sold at prices lower than the selling price and cost of the domestic industry. The domestic industry has been forced to sell at prices below its cost.  Due to this, the domestic industry has incurred losses, cash losses and recorded a negative return on capital employed.