Final Findings issued recommending continuation of anti-dumping duty on imports of Caustic Soda from China PR and Korea RP (29.10.2020)

Product description – Caustic Soda of all types originating in or exported from China PR and Korea RP. Caustic Soda is chemically known as NaOH or Sodium Hydroxide. It is an inorganic, soapy, strongly alkaline and odourless chemical.

HS Codes – 28151110, 28151190 and 28151200.

Uses – The product under consideration is used in various fields like manufacture of pulp and paper, newsprint, viscose yarn, staple fibre, aluminium, cotton, textiles, toilet and laundry soaps, detergent, dyestuffs, drugs and pharmaceuticals, petroleum refining etc.

Country involved – China PR and Korea RP.

Applicants – Alkali Manufacturers Association of India (AMAI) on behalf of its members, with DCW Limited, Grasim Industries Limited, Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Limited and SIEL Chemical Complex constituting domestic industry

Date of imposition of duty – The duties against the subject imports were levied vide Notification No. 142/2002-Customs, 26th December 2002, and extended vide Notification 137/2008–Customs, dated 26th December, 2008, Notification No. 42/2015- Customs (ADD), dated 18th August, 2015 and Notification No. 25/2020- Customs (ADD), dated 17th August, 2020. The present duties are applicable till 17th November, 2020.

Date of initiation – 7th January, 2020.

Period of investigation – April 2019 to December 2019.

Injury period – April 2016- March 2017, April 2017- March 2018, April 2018- March 2019 and the period of investigation.

Margins and proposed duty –

Country Producer Dumping margin (Range) Injury Margin (Range) Proposed Duty (US$/MT)
China PR Tianjin Dagu Chemical Co Ltd 0-10 Negative Nil
China PR Any other producer 10-20 50-60 48.39
Korea RP Hanwha Solutions Corporation Negative Negative Nil
Korea RP Any other producer 0-10 10-20 21.90

Key findings –

  1. The Authority or the applicants are not under any legal obligation to maintain the same scope of domestic industry during successive investigations.
  2. Even if the domestic industry has not suffered injury, the Authority needs to examine whether there is likelihood of recurrence of injury in the event of expiry of duty.
  3. Likelihood of continuation of dumping and injury to the domestic industry was evident from the continued dumping, increase in imports despite duties, significant freely disposable capacities with the exporters, planned further capacity expansion,  decline in exports from the subject countries and price attractiveness of the Indian market.
  4. The period of levy is not the relevant factor for determining whether there is a need for extension of duty.
  5. Residual duties were applied to exporters, which were allowed individual duties in earlier investigation, but have not cooperated during the present sunset review.