The Directorate General of Trade Remedies has recommended continuation of anti-dumping duties on phthalic anhydride, an important industrial chemical used by sectors such as plastic, imported from Russia, for another five years, as it noted that its removal may hurt the domestic industry.

But, in case of Japan, it has suggested that the anti-dumping duties may be withdrawn as it was unlikely to cause injury to domestic producers. “Having concluded that there is likelihood of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry if the existing anti-dumping duty against imports from Russia is allowed to cease, the Authority is of the view that continuation of anti-dumping duty is required on the imports of the product... from Russia.

“However, cessation of anti-dumping duty on imports of the product...from Japan is not likely to lead to injury to the domestic industry,” the DGTR said in its recommendations. The DGTR, a body under the Commerce & Industry Ministry, added that it considered it appropriate to recommend continuation of existing quantum of anti-dumping duty, amounting to $159.43 per tonne, on imports of the chemical originating in Russia and/or exported from Russia for five years.

The anti-dumping duties on imports from Russia will be extended after the Finance Ministry notifies it.

Anti-dumping duties on Phthalic Anhydride from Russia and Japan were first imposed on December 4, 2015 through a Central Government notification on the basis of recommendations made by the designated authority following investigations into the matter. The amount of the duty imposed on imports originating in or exported from Japan was $126.17 per tonne while it was $159.43 per tonne for exports made from Russia.

The authority was then required to review whether the expiry of duty was likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

The review was initiated by the DGTR following applications made by IG Petrochemicals Limited, Thirumalai Chemicals Limited and SI Group India Private on behalf of the domestic industry. They alleged the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from Russia and Japan and consequent injury to the domestic industry. The companies requested for review and continuation of the anti-dumping duties.

Injury unlikely

After its review, the DGTR concluded that, “factors such as volume of imports over injury period, domestic consumption in Japan, the capacity utilisation of the Japanese producers over the period, show no likelihood of injury to the domestic industry in case the anti-dumping duty in force on imports from Japan is allowed to cease.

However, in case of Russia, it concluded that factors such as positive price undercutting, excess production over demand, idle production capacities in Russia, price attractiveness of Indian market, third country dumping show likelihood of dumping and injury to the domestic industry in case the anti-dumping duties on imports are allowed to cease.