Product description – Aniline.

HS Code – 2921 41 10.

Uses – Aniline is a basic organic chemical, essential for vital industries such as drugs, pharmaceuticals, dyes and dye intermediates.

Country involved – China PR.

Applicant – NOCIL Limited.

Date of initiation – 12^th December 2022.

Period of Investigation – 1^st July 2022 to 30^th June 2023.

Key findings –

1. Application was filed by NOCIL Limited requesting initiation of a mid-term review to examine if there is a need for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty.
2. Mere comparison between the price of a single raw material and product under consideration is insufficient to justify withdrawal of anti-dumping duty.
3. Authority examined the degree of dumping in the present period, performance of the domestic industry and the likelihood of injury to the domestic industry to ascertain whether the changed circumstances were of lasting nature to justify removal of anti-dumping duties.
4. Authority considered data for all the parameters in the period of investigation and the post period of investigation period. The performance of the domestic industry during the period of investigation alone was found to be insufficient to conclude whether the anti-dumping duty can be withdrawn.
5. Authority noted that in a situation where a business enterprise has an option to sell a product in the market or captively consumes the same, and the business enterprise decides to sell the input in the market rather than captively consuming it shows that the production and sale of such input in the market was more profitable than consumption in downstream product.
6. Another domestic producer filed a letter and claimed that it has recently commenced production of the product under consideration in India. However, the request of the company to register as an interested party was not received in 40 days of initiation. In compliance with the Trade Notice 11/2018 the data of the other producer was not considered for the present investigation.
7. Response was filed by two producers from China PR. The Authority found that the exports of both the producers were at dumped prices. However, injury margin for one of the producers (which had participated in the original investigation) was found to be negative.
8. The injury margin in respect of one of the producers from China PR (new producer which was not given individual duty in the original investigation) was higher than the existing quantum of anti-dumping duty. Since it was earlier subject to residual duty, and the volume of its exports were low, Authority found it not appropriate to determine individual duty for the producer.
9. Authority found that the changed circumstances identified by the applicant were not of lasting nature. While the performance of the domestic industry improved in the period of investigation, it has deteriorated in the post period of investigation.
10. The Authority found that there is a likelihood of injury to the domestic industry in case of cessation of duties.
11. The Authority has therefore, recommended continued imposition of measures.