← Archive
IN FORCE Trade remedies

Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Sodium Hydrosulphite” originating in or exported from China PR and Kor

Reliability

In force — no superseding record on file.

Document text

To be published in Part-I Section I of the Gazette of India Extraordinary

|

F. No. No. 7/10/2026-DGTR Government of India Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Directorate General of Trade Remedies) 4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001

Dated: 20" March 2026

INITIATION NOTIFICATION (Case No. AD (SSR) - 06/2026) SETU ID - (AD/SSR/006/2026)

Subject: Sunset review of anti-dumping duty on imports of Sodium Hydrosulphite from China PR.

  1. Silox India Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘applicant’) has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘Authority’), in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred as the ‘Act’) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘Rules’), for initiation of sunset review of anti-dumping duties on imports of “Sodium Hydrosulphite” (hereinafter also referred to as “subject goods” or “product under consideration”) originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the “subject country”). The applicant has alleged that in case of cessation of duties, there is a likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry. The applicant has requested for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject country.

|

  • A. BACKGROUND

of dumping and injury to the domestic industry. The applicant has requested for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject country.

|

  • A. BACKGROUND
  1. The Authority initiated an anti-dumping investigation into imports of product under consideration from China PR and Korea RP vide Notification F. No. 6/35/2020-DGTR, dated 16"" September 2020. The Authority issued its final findings on 14" September 2021, recommending imposition of duties. The anti-dumping duties were imposed vide Notification No. 71/2021-Customs, dated 17" December 2021. The current anti-dumping duties on imports from China PR and Korea RP will expire on 16" December 2026.

|

1

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION

  • The product under consideration in the present investigation is the same as defined in the original investigation, which is as follows —

  • “7. The product under consideration in the present investigation is “Sodium Hydrosulphite”, whether produced using Zinc or Sodium Formate, is also known as “Hydrosulphite Concentrate” or “Sodium Dithionite” or “Sodium Hydrosulfite” or “SHS”. It is a white or grayish white powder, free from visible foreign particles with pungent odour. Its crystalline chemicalformula is Na2S20s. 8. The product under consideration is produced using either “Zinc Process” or “Sodium Format Process”. The former process involves reaction ofzinc dust with

crystalline chemicalformula is Na2S20s. 8. The product under consideration is produced using either “Zinc Process” or “Sodium Format Process”. The former process involves reaction ofzinc dust with

  • sulphur dioxide and converting the resultant zinc salt to sodium hydrosulphite in the presence ofcaustic soda and soda ash. The latter process involves the reaction of caustic soda and sulphur dioxide with sodium format in a methanol solution to produce sodium hydrosulphite.”

    1. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 28 of Schedule I to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under tariff codes 2831 1010 and 2832 1020 . The Customs classification mentioned above is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of the product under consideration for the present review.
  1. The applicant has not proposed any Product Control Number (PCN) methodology at the present stage. The parties to the present investigation may provide their comments on the scope of the product under consideration and propose PCNs (with justification), if any, within 15 days from the date of initiation of this investigation.
  • C. LIKE ARTICLE

e their comments on the scope of the product under consideration and propose PCNs (with justification), if any, within 15 days from the date of initiation of this investigation.

  • C. LIKE ARTICLE
  1. The applicant has claimed that there are no significant differences in the product produced by it and that imported from the subject country. The product produced by the applicant is comparable to the product under consideration imported from the subject country in terms of technical specifications, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The applicant has submitted that the subject goods can be produced using zinc route or sodium formate route. However, the applicant has claimed that there are no differences in the goods produced using both routes. The Authority in the original investigation has already noted that the goods produced using both the routes are same and are used interchangeably. Further, the Authority also noted that the product produced by the applicant and the imported product under consideration are technically and commercially substitutable. Therefore, for the purpose of the present review, the product produced by the applicant is being treated as ‘like article’ to the product under consideration being imported from the subject country.

2

| |

D. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

  1. The application has been filed by Silox India Private Limited. The applicant has claimed that it has not imported the subject goods from the subject country. Further, the applicant has submitted that it is not related to any exporter in the subject country nor to any importers in India. Other than the applicant, there are 4 other known producers of the subject goods. The application has been supported by two other producers, namely, Demosha Chemicals Private Limited and Gulshan Chemicals Private Limited.

  2. On the basis of the information available, the Authority notes that the applicant accounts for a major proportion of the total domestic production in India, and thus, constitutes domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules. Further, it is noted that the application satisfies the requirements of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.

  • E. PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION
  1. The applicant has proposed 1* October 2024 to 30" September 2025 (12 months) as the period of investigation. The Authority has considered the period proposed by the applicant as the period of investigation for the present review. Accordingly, the injury period will cover the period 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and the period of investigation.
  • F. SUBJECT COUNTRY
  1. The subject country for the purpose of the present review is China PR.

  • G. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING

  • i. Normal value

d of investigation.

  • F. SUBJECT COUNTRY
  1. The subject country for the purpose of the present review is China PR.

  • G. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING

  • i. Normal value

  1. The applicant has claimed that in terms ofArticle 15 (a) (i) of China’s Accession Protocol, the normal value for Chinese producers may be determined based on the domestic selling price or costs prevailing in China PR, only if the responding Chinese producers demonstrate that their cost and price information are based on market driven principles and allow for fair comparison in terms of Paras | to 6 ofAnnexure I to the Rules, failing which, the normal value for the Chinese producers must be determined as per Paras 7 and 8 of the Rules.

  2. In the present case, the applicant has claimed that price of exports of subject goods from European Union to other countries including India should be considered for determination of normal value. However, the applicant has not sufficiently justified the basis of considering EU as appropriate third country. Accordingly, for the purpose of the present initiation, the normal value has been determined based on price paid or payable in India, plus reasonable profits.

|

==> picture [2 x 10] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> |<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

3

= a

ii. Export price

| | |

onable profits.

|

==> picture [2 x 10] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> |<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

3

= a

ii. Export price

| | |

  1. The export price for the subject goods has been computed based on the DGCI&S transaction-wise import date. Adjustments have been made on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, bank charges, port expenses, handling charges, inland freight, credit costs and inventory carrying costs to determine the net export price.

iii. Dumping Margin

  1. The normal value and the export price have been compared at the ex-factory level, which primafacie shows that the dumping margin is above de-minimis level and is significant in respect of the product under consideration. Thus, there is primafacie evidence that the product under consideration has continued to be dumped in the Indian market.
  • H. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY
  1. The applicant has claimed that it has not suffered injury due to the anti-dumping duties in force. The volume of imports from the subject country have declined over the injury period due to the current duties. As a result, the domestic industry has been able to sell its goods at remunerative prices and has been able to increase its market share.

declined over the injury period due to the current duties. As a result, the domestic industry has been able to sell its goods at remunerative prices and has been able to increase its market share.

  1. However, the applicant has claimed that there is likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry if the duties are allowed to expire. In this regard, the applicant has submitted that the exporters from China are unable to export the subject goods at fair prices evident from the insignificant volume of imports, such producers have a consistent history of dumping, and that, the subject imports have, in the past, increased in the absence of anti-dumping duties. Further, the applicant has claimed that the exporters from China PR are exporting the subject goods to other third countries at dumped and injurious prices. Additionally, the producers in China PR have large production capacities, and India remains a price attractive market for such producers. In the event of subject goods being diverted to India, the domestic industry would be forced to match the prices of such imports and face heavy losses.

  2. There is prima facie evidence demonstrating likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry in the event of cessation of the current anti-dumping duties.

I. INITIATION OF SUNSET REVIEW

  1. On the basis of the duly substantiated application filed by the applicant, and having satisfied itself, on the basis of the prima facie evidence substantiating the likelihood of continuation/ recurrence of dumping and injury, and in accordance with Section 9A(5) of the Act read with Rule 23 (1B) ofthe Rules, the Authority hereby initiates a sunset review

|

investigation to review the need for continued imposition of the duties in force in respect of the subject goods, originating in or exported from subject country to examine whether the expiry of existing anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.

  • J. PROCEDURE

  1. The sunset review investigation will cover all aspects of the final findings published vide Notification F. No. 6/35/2020-DGTR, dated 14" September 2020, recommending the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country.

  2. The provisions of Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the Rules shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in this review.

  • K. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION

from the subject country.

  1. The provisions of Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the Rules shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in this review.
  • K. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION

  1. All the interested parties are required to register themselves on SETU Portal (https://setu.dgtr.gov.in). All communications and submissions from the interested parties shall be uploaded on the SETU portal under their registered name and corresponding case ID (AD/SSR/006/2026). It should be ensured that the narrative part of the submission is in searchable PDF/MS-Word format and data files are in MS-Excel format.

  2. The known producers/exporters in subject country, the government ofthe subject country through its Embassy in India, and the importers and users in India who are known to be associated with the product under consideration are being informed separately to enable them to file all the relevant information within the time limits mentioned in this initiation notification. All such information must be filed in the form and manner as prescribed by this initiation notification, the Rules, and the applicable trade notices issued by the Authority.

  3. Any other interested party may also make a submission relevant to the present investigation in the form and manner as prescribed by this initiation notification, the Rules, and the applicable trade notices issued by the Authority within the time limits mentioned in this initiation notification.

form and manner as prescribed by this initiation notification, the Rules, and the applicable trade notices issued by the Authority within the time limits mentioned in this initiation notification.

  1. Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is required to make a non-confidential version of the same available to the other interested parties.

  2. The interested parties are further advised to keep a regular watch on the official website of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies at www.dgtr.gov.in and SETU portal(https://setu.dgtr.gov.in) for any updated information with respect to this investigation. Interested parties are directed to regularly visit the website of DGTR

eee j

(https://www.dgtr.gov.in/) to stay apprised with the further developments in the subject investigation and remain informed regarding notices that may be issued from time to time regarding questionnaire formats, PCN methodology, PCN discussion/meeting schedule, notice of oral hearing, corrigendum, amendment notifications, and other such information.

L. TIME LIMIT

to time regarding questionnaire formats, PCN methodology, PCN discussion/meeting schedule, notice of oral hearing, corrigendum, amendment notifications, and other such information.

L. TIME LIMIT

  1. Any information relating to the present investigation should be uploaded on the SETU portal (https://setu.dgtr.gov.in) under their registered name and corresponding case ID (AD/SSR/006/2026). Both versions of each submission, the confidential version (CV) and the non-confidential version (NCV) must be uploaded in the respective designated columns within 37 days from the date on which the non-confidential version of the application filed by the domestic industry would be circulated by the Authority or transmitted to the appropriate diplomatic representative of the exporting country as per Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules, 1995. If no information is received within the stipulated time limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record its findings based on the facts available on record and in accordance with the Rules.

  2. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of interest) in the instant matter and file their questionnaire responses within the above time limit as stipulated in this notification through SETU portal only.

  3. The 15 day period to file comments on the scope of PUC/PCN Methodology shall run concurrently with the time limit mentioned in para 25 above ofthis initiation Notification.

SETU portal only.

  1. The 15 day period to file comments on the scope of PUC/PCN Methodology shall run concurrently with the time limit mentioned in para 25 above ofthis initiation Notification.

  2. Extension due to Modification of PUC/PCN: An extension of time by 15 days shall be granted if the Authority, through a subsequent notice, modifies the PUC, and PCN that was not previously proposed or is different from the initiation notification. This extension of 15 days shall be granted from date of such notification of modified PUC and PCN. Extension oftime by 15 days stated in this paragraph is not applicable in instances where there is no change in the PUC, and PCN methodology after initiation of investigation. Requests for a further extension of time, beyond the 15-day extension (if granted), will ordinarily not be considered except in case of exceptional circumstances, in line with the Rule 7(4) of the AD Rules.

  3. Any request for an extension must be submitted by the concerned parties through the SETU portal at least one day before the original deadline specified in paragraph 25 above. Requests submitted after this time will not be considered.

==> picture [3 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> ;<br>|<br>j<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

M. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON CONFIDENTIAL BASIS

  1. Where any party to the present investigation makes confidential submissions or provides information on a confidential basis before the Authority, such party is required to simultaneously submit a non-confidential version of such information in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules and in accordance with the relevant trade notices issued by the Authority in this regard. Failure to adhere to the above may lead to rejection of the response/submissions.

  2. The parties making any submission (including Appendices/ Annexures attached thereto), before the Authority including questionnaire responses, are required to file confidential and non-confidential versions separately.

  3. Such submissions must be clearly marked as ‘confidential’ or ‘non-confidential’ at the top of each page. Any submission that has been made to the Authority without such markings shall be treated as ‘non-confidential’ information by the Authority, and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow other interested parties to inspect such submissions.

  4. The confidential version shall contain all information which is, by nature, confidential, and/or other information, which the supplier of such information claims as confidential. For the information which is claimed to be confidential by nature, or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of other reasons, the supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information as to why such information cannot be disclosed.

s claimed because of other reasons, the supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information as to why such information cannot be disclosed.

  1. The non-confidential version of the information filed by the interested parties is required to be a replica of the confidential version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (where indexation is not possible) and such information must be appropriately and adequately summarized depending upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed. The non-confidential summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information furnished on a confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, the party submitting the confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible to summary, and a statement of reasons containing a sufficient and adequate explanation as to why such summarization is not possible, must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.

|

| | |

  1. The interested parties can offer their comments on the issues of confidentiality within 7 days from the date of circulation of the non-confidential version of the documents.

|

  1. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or if the supplier of the information is either unwilling to

ey :

the nature of the information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or if the supplier of the information is either unwilling to

ey :

  • make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.
  1. Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or a sufficient and adequate cause statement in terms ofRule 7 of the Rules, and appropriate trade notices issued by the Authority, on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on record by the Authority.

==> picture [2 x 14] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> i<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

  • N. INSPECTION OF PUBLIC FILE
  1. All non-confidential versions of submissions made by any interested party will be accessible to other interested parties through their respective login on the SETU portal.

O. NON-COOPERATION

  1. Incase any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or within the time stipulated by the Authority in this initiation notification, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may declare such interested party as non-cooperative, record its findings based on the facts available and make such recommendations to the Central Government as it deems fit.

Amitabh Kumar Designated Authority

==> picture [1 x 12] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> |<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

8

Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.

Subject

Sunset review of anti-dumping duty on imports of Sodium Hydrosulphite from China PR.

Analysis

No analysis generated for this document yet (analysis runs over brief docs + on-demand). Run build_analysis.py --ids 24907 --apply.

Citation copied