Product Description: The product under consideration is ‘Untreated Fumed Silica’.

HS Codes: 2811 22 00, 2811 21 90, 2839 100, and 3404 90 90

Country involved: China PR

Exporter involved: Shandong Dongyue Silicone Material Co., Ltd.

Applicant: M/s Cabot Sanmar Limited

Date of initiation: 31^st December 2024

Absorption period: 1^st July 2023 to 30^th June 2024

Period of investigation in the original investigation: 1^st April 2019 to 31^st March 2020

Previous investigation involving the product: Anti-dumping duty on imports of Untreated Fumed Silica from China PR and Korea RP were recommended vide Notification No. 6/40/2020-DGTR dated 20^th September 2021. These were levied by the Ministry of Finance vide Customs Notification No. 66/2021-Customs (ADD), dated 11^th November 2021.

Margins and recommended duties:

Country	Producer	Dumping margin	Injury margin	Duty (US$/MT)
China PR	Shandong Dongyue Silicone Material Co., Ltd.	70-80%	50-60%	1,296

Key findings:

1. The scope of the product under consideration is ‘Untreated Fumed Silica’. The scope of the product under consideration and like article remains the same as defined in the original investigation.
2. The requirement under the Anti-Dumping Rules is for the applicant to file the application seeking initiation of anti-absorption investigation within two years (from the date of imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty) and not for initiation by the Authority within two years.
3. Rule 29(3) of the Anti-Dumping Rules allows flexibility in accepting applications beyond the two-year period in special circumstances.
4. Based on the data of the domestic industry, it was seen that the raw material cost has increased. The domestic industry had provided sufficient evidence to establish that there is an increase in the cost of production. The subject exporter did not claim market economy treatment and therefore its cost of raw material was not accepted.
5. While the raw material cost of the product had increased, thereby increasing the cost of production of the applicant in the absorption period in comparison to the original period of investigation, the export price of the subject exporter had declined in the same period.
6. The decline in export price is because of absorption of anti-dumping duties by the Chinese exporter and not because of any other factors.
7. The Authority is not required to re-determine normal value. Changes in normal value are required to be seen on the basis of methodology followed for determination of normal value at the time of original investigation.
8. Since the Chinese producer had not claimed market economy treatment at the time of original investigation, the Authority had determined normal value based on para-7 of Annexure-I of the Anti-Dumping Rules. Therefore, the Authority is required to follow the normal value earlier determined and the methodology followed at the time of original investigation.
9. The normal value in the present investigation has been determined by considering the normal value determined in the original investigation and duly adjusting it for appropriate changes.
10. The non-injurious price in the present investigation has been determined by considering the non-injurious price determined in the original investigation and duly adjusting it for appropriate changes.
11. The dumping margin and injury margin determined for the exporter are higher than that determined in the original investigation.
12. The facts on record clearly establish that the anti-dumping duty in force has been absorbed by the said exporter by reducing the price.