Updates

Final findings issued recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Caustic Soda from Japan, Iran, Qatar and Oman (16.12.2021)

Product description – Caustic Soda or sodium hydroxide, in all forms.

HS Codes – 2815 1110, 2815 1190 and 2815 1200    

Uses – Caustic soda is used as a raw material or as an auxiliary chemical in diverse industrial sectors such as pulp and paper, newsprint, viscose yarn and fibre, aluminium, cotton, textiles, soaps, detergent, dyestuff, pharmaceuticals, etc.

Countries involved – Japan, Iran, Qatar and Oman

Applicant – 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 Initiation – 17th December 2020

Period of Investigation – 1st October 2019 to 30th September 2020

Injury Period – 2017-18, 2018 –19 and 2019-20 and the period of investigation

Margins and proposed duty –

Country Producers Dumping Margin (Range) Injury Margin (Range) Proposed Duty (US$/DMT)
AGC Inc. 70-80 0-10 14.46
Hokkaido Soda Co. Limited 70-80 0-10 14.46
Japan Tosoh Corporation 70-80 0-10 24.60
Tohoku Tosoh Chemical Co. Limited 70-80 0-10 24.60
Kashima Chlorine and Alkali Co. Limited 70-80 0-10 11.82
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Limited 70-80 0-10 11.82
Any other producer and exporter 140-150 25-35 88.61
Iran Any producer and exporter 80-90 20-30 72.24
Oman Any producer and exporter 70-80 15-25 66.44
Qatar Qatar Vinyl Company Limited Q.P.J.S.C 20-30 0-10 8.32
Any other producer and exporter 30-40 0-10 20.09

Key Findings-

  1. The scope of product under consideration includes caustic soda lye and caustic soda solids, including flakes, prills and granules, which are just different forms of the same product.  
  2. The Authority noted that in light of significant production and sales, long-term commitment to domestic production and low volume of imports, Grasim Industries cannot be excluded from the scope of domestic industry by virtue of imports by a separate business segment.
  3. It was noted that since declaration of imports at the time of initiation would not merit exclusion of Grasim Industries from the scope of domestic industry based on facts, disclosure at a later stage would not have any adverse implications.
  4. In absence of any legal or operational control between Grasim Industries and Hindalco Industries, mere shareholding of less than 5% cannot be considered for determining relationship between Grasim Industries and Hindalco Industries and by extension, its subsidiary Utkal Alumina Limited.
  5. The definition of related party in relation to domestic industry under Rule 2(b) is different than the definition of related party in relation to foreign producers / exporters under Trade Notice 9/2018 and the same cannot be applicable interchangeably.
  6. The Authority noted that the responding producer from Iran under-reported their imports and considered imports made under the BIS license issued to the responding producer as imports made from Iran.
  7. It was noted that the period of investigation is not required to be determined in a manner to eliminate any injury suffered due to other factor during such period, such as Covid-19.
  8. The Authority rejected the questionnaire response filed by Arvand Petrochemicals from Iran due to delay in filing response as well as significant deficiency and inconsistency in the response. The normal value and export price was accordingly determined based on fats available.  
  9. It was noted that injury examination is to be carried out for domestic industry as whole and not for an individual constituent of the domestic industry and thus, the performance of only one producer is irrelevant.
  10. Participation of users allows them to provide information regarding the impact of duties on their operation and in absence of such participation, the Authority will determine impact on public interest based on information available before it.