Product description – “pretilachlor in any of its form and its intermediate “2,6-diethyl-n-(2-propoxy ethyl) aniline” (also known as PEDA)”

HS Code – 3808 9199, 3808 9390, 3808 9910, 3808 9990, 2921 4290, 2922 1990 and 2922 2990

Countries Involved – China PR.

Applicant – M/s India Pesticides Limited.

Period of investigation – 1^st October 2022 to 30^th September 2023.

Injury margin – 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 and the period of investigation.

Margins and recommended duties:

Country	Producer	Dumping Margin (&)	Injury Margin (%)	Duty (USD/MT)
China PR	Anhui Futian Agrochemical Co., Ltd.	40-50	20-30	1,305.6
China PR	Inner Mongolia Lange Biotechnology Co., Ltd.	50-60	25-35	1,556.9
China PR	Lion Agrevo (Nantong) Co., Ltd.	55-65	20-30	1,246.9
China PR	Hangzhou Nutrichem Co., Ltd.	45-55	35-45	1,976.2
China PR	Capital Industry Construction Technology Co., Ltd.,/Shandong Qiochang Modern Agriculture Co., Ltd./QCC ShangHai Co., Ltd.,	45-55	25-35	1,591.2
China PR	Any other	60-70	35-45	2,017.9

Key Findings –

1. The application was filed by India Pesticides Limited which the sole producer of the like article in India.
2. Manufacturing of Pretilachlor Technical from PEDA is a single step process. The investment required to setup a plant for production of PEDA is significantly higher than that required to setup a plant for conversion of PEDA to Pretilachlor Technical.
3. While Pretilachlor Technical form contains the essential technical properties, the Pretilachlor Formulation form performs the eventual function intended to be performed by the product. The technology, plant & equipment, manpower, production skills are involved in production of Pretilachlor Technical. As far as, Pretilachlor formulation is concerned, the same is neither capital, nor manpower nor technology intensive process. It is just an incremental process of formulation.
4. The Authority determined that producers who are importing PEDA and manufacturing Pretilachlor Technical from the imported PEDA are importer of the product under consideration and hence such production cannot be treated as eligible Indian production for determination of eligibility as domestic industry.
5. The volume of subject imports in absolute terms declined in 2021-22, thereafter increased in 2022-23 and again declined in the period of investigation. Imports in relative terms have also declined. However, the decline in imports in relation to production is also attributable to the fact that the domestic industry has commenced commercial production in the base year of the injury period. As the domestic industry’s production increased, the imports declined in relation to production.
6. Imports of subject goods are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market, and the margin of undercutting is positive and significant in the period of investigation.
7. The imports are depressing the prices of the domestic industry in the domestic market.
8. The domestic industry’ production has increased in 2021-22, further increased in 2022-23 and thereafter declined in period of investigation. The current capacity utilization of the applicant is at a significantly low level.
9. The market share over the entire injury period is significantly below the demand that the domestic industry is capable of catering to.
10. The financial loss, cash loss and loss before interest of the domestic industry have intensified over the entire injury period. The domestic industry is operating with negative return on capital employed.
11. The level of inventories with the domestic industry increased over the injury period till 2022-23. Level of inventories have declined in the period of investigation because of suspension of production by the domestic industry.
12. Imposition of anti-dumping duties will have a negligible impact on the downstream industry and is in the larger public interest.
13. Given the nature of the product, industry and the extent of the injury caused by dumped imports, the Authority considers the imposition of anti-dumping duty for a period of five 5 years.