Product description –Toluene di-isocyanate (TDI) is an organic compound with the formula CH3C6H3 (NCO)2. Two of the six possible isomers are commercially important: 2,4-TDI (CAS: 584-84-9) and 2,6-TDI (CAS: 91- 08- 7). 2,4-TDI is produced in the pure state, but TDI is often marketed as 80/20 and 65/35 mixtures of the 2,4 and 2,6 isomers respectively. The PUC in the present investigation concerns TDI having isomer content in the ratio of (80:20) and any other grades are beyond the scope of product under consideration.

HS Code – 29291020

Uses – Production of Flexible Polyurethane Foam, Furniture cushion, Industrial Gaskets, Protective pads for Sports & Medical use, Automobiles: Seats, Furniture, Lining, Sun visors etc., packing: Electronic items, Frozen Foods, Medicines, Audio-video Computer CD’s etc.

Country involved – China PR, Japan and Korea RP.

Applicant – Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited

Date of imposition of duty – 5th June, 2017. Present duties are applicable till 27^th September, 2022.

Date of initiation – 27^th August 2021

Period of Investigation –1^st April 2020 to 31^st March 2021

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

Margins and proposed duty –

Country	Producers	Dumping Margin	Injury Margin	Duty (USD/KG)
China PR	Covestro Polymers (China) Co., Limited	0-10	30-40	0.26
China PR	Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd.	20-30	10-20	0.26
China PR	Any other	30-40	80-90	0.26
Korea RP	Hanwha Solutions Corporation	20-30	30-40	0.22
Korea RP	BASF Company Limited	Negative	0-10	0.31
Korea RP	Any other	60-70	90-100	0.44
Japan	Any	20-30	50-60	0.15

Key Findings –

1. Interested parties’ request for exclusion of BHT free TDI from scope of product under consideration on the ground that it was not produced by domestic industry was rejected by the Authority.
2. Dumping of subject goods continued from subject countries except for M/s Hanwha Solutions Corporation, Korea.
3. Even though the volume of imports from subject countries declined they were found to be significant for extension of duties.
4. Same duties were recommended for extension as imposed in the original investigation.
5. Though two producers who did not participate in the original investigation,  responded in the review investigation, they were not given individual duty.
6. Dumping margin for one of the participating producers was found to be negative yet duties same duties have been recommended for extension.