Product Description: N-(1,3 dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (PX-13 or 6PPD)

HS Code: The product under consideration is classifiable under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the subheading 3812 39.

Countries involved: China PR, European Union, Korea RP and Kingdom of Thailand

Applicant: NOCIL Limited

Date of Initiation: 28^th March 2025.

Period of Investigation: 1st October 2023 to 30^th September 2024

Injury period: 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and the period of investigation.

Margins and recommended duties:

Final Finding:

1. The product under consideration is N-(1,3 dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (PX-13 or 6PPD), an anti-degradant used primarily in the tyre and non-tyre rubber industry to enhance resistance against ozone, oxidation, heat ageing and weathering.
2. China PR was treated as a non-market economy, as no Chinese producer established market economy conditions. Accordingly, the normal value for China PR was determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
3. The Authority rejected the reported domestic prices/costs of Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. for determining normal value because the principal raw material, 4-ADPA, constituted a significant proportion of the production cost and was sourced entirely from China PR, a non-market economy. The Authority held that the cost of this input was distorted and therefore did not reasonably reflect market-based costs.
4. The Authority observed that Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. sourced all its 4-ADPA from Sennics Co., Ltd., through a special relationship, through which the raw materials were given at a significantly lower price. Therefore, the prices were not determined at arm’s length and the prices were rejected.
5. The Authority reaffirmed its consistent practice of rejecting Kumho’s distorted 4-ADPA costs, noting that no material change in circumstances had occurred and that this methodology had already been upheld by the CESTAT and the Supreme Court, thereby attaining finality.
6. The Authority rejected Kumho’s reported cost of 4-ADPA and instead determined its cost using the international import price of 4-ADPA from the EU during the POI, with appropriate adjustments for ocean freight, insurance, and inland freight. The remaining production costs of PX-13 as reported by Kumho were accepted, and the revised cost of sales was used for the ordinary course of trade test.
7. The Authority rejected the transfer price of 4-ADPA reported by Sennics (Thailand) Co., Ltd. for purchases from its related subsidiary, Sennics Co., Ltd., China PR, on the ground that it did not reasonably reflect the actual cost of production of PX-13. A
8. Accordingly, the reported cost of 4-ADPA was not adopted for determining the cost of production, while all other elements of the company’s claimed production cost were accepted.
9. The investigation established that imports of PX-13 from China PR, the European Union, Korea RP and Thailand were being dumped into India, with positive dumping margins for all subject countries.
10. The Authority found that dumped imports increased significantly during the injury period and captured market share at the expense of the domestic industry, adversely affecting domestic production and sales.
11. The dumped imports caused significant price undercutting, price suppression and price depression, preventing the domestic industry from recovering its costs and earning reasonable profits.
12. The domestic industry suffered material injury, reflected in deterioration of profitability, return on capital employed, cash profits and other key economic parameters during the period of investigation.
13. After examining other possible causes of injury, the Authority concluded that no factor other than the dumped imports was responsible for the material injury suffered by the domestic industry, thereby establishing a clear causal link.
14. The Authority found that although certain user industries claimed that anti-dumping duties would adversely affect their operations, they failed to provide verifiable evidence demonstrating any material impact on consumers or downstream industries.
15. The domestic industry established that the product under consideration constituted only a small proportion of tyre production costs and that the cumulative impact of anti-dumping duties on all relevant raw materials was merely 0.7% of tyre costs. Accordingly, the Authority concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would have a negligible impact on downstream industries while remaining necessary to ensure fair trade practices.
16. The Authority found that the decline in domestic sales during the period of investigation affected both the domestic industry and other domestic producers, coinciding with increased dumped imports from the subject countries.
17. It further observed that other domestic producers were relatively less affected because they sourced dumped 4-ADPA from China, giving them a cost advantage over the domestic industry.
18. Accordingly, the Authority rejected the contention that the injury resulted from internal inefficiencies or competition from other domestic producers and concluded that the Indian industry as a whole had suffered material injury due to dumped imports of the subject goods.
19. The Authority held that the existence of a parallel anti-dumping investigation on 4-ADPA did not diminish the finding that dumped imports of PX-13 had caused material injury to the domestic industry.
20. While duties on 4-ADPA could improve capacity utilisation and marginally reduce PX-13 production costs, the Authority found that such indirect benefits would not adequately remedy the injury caused by dumped PX-13 imports.
21. Based on the findings of dumping, injury and causal link, the Authority recommended the imposition of anti-dumping duties for a period of five years on imports of PX-13 originating in or exported from China PR, the European Union, Korea RP and Thailand to remove the injury caused to the domestic industry.