Anti-dumping Investigation Concerning Imports of “Linear Low-Density Polyethylene” (LLDPE) originating in or exported fr

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 1

CASE No. AD (OI) – 23/2025

Government of India Department of Commerce Ministry of Commerce & Industry Directorate General of Trade Remedies

FINAL FINDINGS

Anti-dumping Investigation Concerning Imports of “Linear Low-Density Polyethylene” (LLDPE) originating in or exported from the State of Kuwait, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

Pictographic presentation of “Linear Low-Density Polyethylene” (LLDPE) 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 2 CONTENTS OF TABLE

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE ............................................................................... 4 A. PROCEDURE .............................................................................................................. 5 B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE ......................... 8 B.1 Views of other interested parties .................................................................... 8 B.2 Views of the domestic industry ....................................................................... 9 B.3 Examination by the Authority ............................................................................ 11 C. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING ................................. 15 C.1 Views of other interested parties ..................................................................

..... 11 C. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING ................................. 15 C.1 Views of other interested parties .................................................................. 15 C.2 Views of the domestic industry ..................................................................... 18 C.3 Examination by the Authority ...................................................................... 20 D. CONFIDENTIALITY ............................................................................................... 27 D.1 Comments of the other interested parties .................................................... 27 D.2 Comments of the domestic industry ............................................................. 27 D.3 Examination by Authority ............................................................................ 27 E. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS ...................................................................... 29 E.1 Comments of the other interested parties .................................................... 29 E.2 Comments of the domestic industry ............................................................. 29 E.3 Examination by the Authority ...................................................................... 29 F. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE, AND DUMPING MARGIN ................... 30 F.1 Comments of the other interested parties .................................................... 30 F.2 Views of the domestic industry ...........................................................................

of the other interested parties .................................................... 30 F.2 Views of the domestic industry ........................................................................... 32 F.3 Examination by the Authority ............................................................................ 32 F.3.1 Determination of Normal Value and Export Price ........................................ 39 G. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY .................................................................................... 48 G.1 Views of other interested parties ....................................................................... 48 G.2 Views of the domestic industry .......................................................................... 55 G.3 Examination by the Authority ........................................................................... 58 G.3.1 Cumulative assessment of injury ........................................................................ 58 G.3.2 Volume effect of the dumped imports ................................................................ 59 G.3.3 Price effect of the dumped imports ..................................................................... 63 G.3.4 Economic parameters of the domestic industry ................................................ 66 G.3.4 Overall assessment of injury................................................................................ 72 H. Non-attribution analysis and causal link ................................................................. 72 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

.................................................. 72 H. Non-attribution analysis and causal link ................................................................. 72 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 3 H.1 Factors establishing causal link .............................................................................. 76 I. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN ................................................................... 76 J. DUTY IMPACT ASSESSMENT.............................................................................. 78 Public interest and Domestic Industry Interest....................................................... 78 J.1 Views of other interested parties ........................................................................ 78 J.2 Views of the domestic industry ........................................................................... 79 J.3 Examination by the Authority ............................................................................ 79 K. POST-DISCLOSURE COMMENTS ....................................................................... 82 L. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 91 M. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 93 N. FURTHER PROCEDURE ........................................................................................ 95

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

.................................... 93 N. FURTHER PROCEDURE ........................................................................................ 95

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 4 To be published in Part-I Section I of the Gazette of India Extraordinary

F. No. 6/26/2025-DGTR Government of India Department of Commerce Ministry of Commerce & Industry Directorate General of Trade Remedies 4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001

Dated: 25.06.2026

FINAL FINDINGS

Subject: Anti-dumping Investigation Concerning Imports of “Linear Low-Density

Polyethylene” (LLDPE) originating in or exported from the State of Kuwait, Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

F. No. 6/26/2025-DGTR - Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to 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, framed thereunder, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred as the “AD Rules, 1995”): BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Chemicals and Petrochemicals Association of India (CPMA) (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant association”) filed an application, before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘Authority’) on behalf of Indian LLDPE Manufacturers, in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and AD Rules, 1995 for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Linear Low-Density Polyethylene” (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘product under consideration’ or the ‘PUC’ or the ‘subject goods’ or ‘LLDPE’) originating in or exported from the State of Kuwait (“Kuwait”), Malaysia, the Sultanate of Oman (“Oman”), the State of Qatar (“Qatar”), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“Saudi Arabia”) and United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), hereinafter collectively referred to as the “subject countries”.

anate of Oman (“Oman”), the State of Qatar (“Qatar”), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“Saudi Arabia”) and United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), hereinafter collectively referred to as the “subject countries”. Haldia Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as “HPL”) and HPCL-Mittal Energy Limited (hereinafter referred to as “HMEL”), collectively referred to as the “domestic industry” provided the injury information and Reliance Industries Limited has filed a support letter.

And whereas, in view of the duly substantiated application filed by the applicant, the Authority issued a public notice vide Notification No. 6/26/2025-DGTR dated 30th June 2025, published in the Gazette of India, initiating an anti-dumping investigation into imports of PUC from the subject countries in accordance with Rule 5 of the anti-dumping rules to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of the subject goods and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

mping of the subject goods and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 5 A. PROCEDURE

The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:

A.1 Initiation

i. The Authority notified the embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the present anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of AD Rules, 1995. ii. Further, pursuant to a request by the Government of United Arab Emirates for pre- initiation consultation under para 3 of Art. 7.2 of India-UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, a consultation was conducted with the Government of UAE on 29.06.2025.
iii. A request was made to DGCI&S and DG Systems to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of the subject goods for the injury period as well as the period of investigation. The Authority has relied on the DG Systems data for determination of the volume of imports and required analysis after due examination of the transactions. iv.

well as the period of investigation. The Authority has relied on the DG Systems data for determination of the volume of imports and required analysis after due examination of the transactions. iv. In accordance with Rule 6, upon examination of the application and finding prima facie evidence of dumping, injury, likelihood and causal link, the Authority issued a public notice dated 30th June 2025, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating the anti-dumping investigation concerning the imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. v. In accordance with Rule 6(2) of AD Rules, 1995, the Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the governments of the subject countries, through their embassies in India, known producers and exporters from the subject countries, known importers/users, the domestic industry, other Indian producers as well as other interested parties, as per the addresses made available by the applicant and requested them to make their views known in writing within the prescribed time limits.

A.2 Period of Investigation

vi. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st January 2024 to 31st December 2024 (12 months). The injury investigation period [IIP] covers a period of FY 2021-22, FY 2022-23, FY 2023-24 and the POI.

A.3 Circulation of non-confidential version of the application

vii.

r 2024 (12 months). The injury investigation period [IIP] covers a period of FY 2021-22, FY 2022-23, FY 2023-24 and the POI.

A.3 Circulation of non-confidential version of the application

vii. Pursuant to Rule 6(3) of AD Rules, 1995, the Authority furnished a copy of the non- confidential version of the application to the known producers/exporters and to the governments of the subject countries, through their embassies in India. viii. Pursuant to Rule 6(4), questionnaires were issued to known producers, exporters, importers, and users of the PUC in India to obtain necessary information, including details of normal value and net export price. A copy of the non-confidential version of the application was provided to other interested parties, wherever requested.

A.4 Participation by the interested parties

ix. The following producers/exporters from the subject countries have responded by filing questionnaire responses:

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

A.4 Participation by the interested parties

ix. The following producers/exporters from the subject countries have responded by filing questionnaire responses:

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 6 Kuwait Equate Petrochemical Co. (“Equate”) Malaysia No producer has participated from Malaysia Oman M/s OQ Polymer L.L.C. (“OQ Polymer”) OQ Marketing L.L.C. (“OQ Marketing”) Qatar Qatofin Company Limited Q.P.J.S.C (“Qatofin”) Qatar Chemical and Petrochemical Marketing and Distribution Company (Muntajat) Q.P.J.S.C (“Muntajat”) QatarEnergy Marketing (“QEM”) TotalEnergies Petrochemicals France - Qatar Branch Office (“Total Energies”) Saudi Arabia Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company ("Kemya") Arabian Petrochemical Company ("Petrokemya") Eastern Petrochemical Company ("Sharq") Jubail United Petrochemical Company ("United") Rabigh Refinery & Petrochemical Company (“RRPC”) Sadara Chemical Company (“Sadara”) Yanbu National Petrochemical Company ("Yansab") Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (“SABIC”) SABIC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (“SAPPL”) SPDC

ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.

Dow Saudi Arabia Product Marketing B.V. (“DSA”)

Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited (“DCP (S)”)

Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited, Dubai branch (“DCP (D)”)

Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. Dubai Branch (“DCIPL”) UAE Abu Dhabi Polymers Co. Ltd (“ADPCL”) Borouge PTE Ltd. SRJ Global F.Z.E.

x.

pore) Private Limited, Dubai branch (“DCP (D)”)

Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. Dubai Branch (“DCIPL”) UAE Abu Dhabi Polymers Co. Ltd (“ADPCL”) Borouge PTE Ltd. SRJ Global F.Z.E.

x. The following importers/users have responded by filing questionnaire responses:

i. SABIC Research and Technology Pvt. Limited (“SRTPL”) ii. ExxonMobil Company India Private Limited (“EMCIPL”)

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 7 xi. In response to the initiation notification, no association has participated or filed questionnaire submissions in the present investigation. All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association has made legal submissions which have been considered by the Authority. xii. A list of all interested parties that registered themselves within the prescribed timeline was uploaded on the website. All registered interested parties were directed to circulate the non-confidential version of all their submissions in the present proceedings with all other interested parties. xiii. An economic interest questionnaire was issued to all the known producers and exporters, importers, and the domestic industry. The economic interest questionnaire was also shared with the administrative line ministry. The economic interest questionnaire was filed only by the domestic industry. xiv.

the domestic industry. The economic interest questionnaire was also shared with the administrative line ministry. The economic interest questionnaire was filed only by the domestic industry. xiv. Foreign producers, exporters and other interested parties who have not responded, or have not supplied information relevant to this investigation, have been treated as non- cooperative.

A.5 Further procedure

xv. The non-confidential versions of the submissions filed by the various interested parties were made available to all participating interested parties. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website along with a request therein to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties. xvi. In accordance with Rule 6(6), the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present their views orally in a hearing held on 15th April 2026. The parties presenting their views in the oral hearing were directed to make written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions. xvii. In accordance with Rule 6(8), wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information in a timely manner during the course of the present proceedings, or has significantly impeded the investigation, such parties have been considered as non-cooperative and recorded the findings on the basis of the facts available. xviii.

the present proceedings, or has significantly impeded the investigation, such parties have been considered as non-cooperative and recorded the findings on the basis of the facts available. xviii. In accordance with Rule 7, the information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to the sufficiency of such confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the confidentiality claims have been accepted wherever warranted and such information has been considered as confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on a confidential basis. xix. In accordance with Rule 8, the accuracy of information and data provided by the domestic industry and interested parties were verified by the Authority during the course of the investigation to the extent considered relevant, practicable, and necessary. The verification of submitted data and documents forms the basis of the final finding and the Authority has relied on the verified data of the domestic industry for its analysis in the present proceedings. xx. The Authority vide para 5 of the initiation notification dated 30th June 2025 sought comments on the scope of the PUC within 15 days of initiation. The interested parties were further granted additional time to file comments on PUC and PCN (Product Control Number) methodology till 20th July 2025.

scope of the PUC within 15 days of initiation. The interested parties were further granted additional time to file comments on PUC and PCN (Product Control Number) methodology till 20th July 2025. The Authority, after considering the submissions made by the interested parties, vide notification dated 22nd August 2025, notified the final scope of PUC and PCN. All the interested parties were directed to file questionnaire responses in accordance with the PUC as finalized, within 15 days of 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 8 notifying the PCN methodology. At the request of some interested parties, the time limit was further extended to 12th September 2025. xxi. The non-injurious price has been calculated based on the optimum cost of production and cost to produce and sell the domestic like article in India, based on the information furnished by the applicants and having regard to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and as per the principles laid down in Annexure III of the AD Rules, 1995. xxii. The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, to the extent supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by the Authority, in this final findings. xxiii.

this investigation, to the extent supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by the Authority, in this final findings. xxiii. A disclosure statement dated 19.06.2025 was issued by the Authority, in accordance with Rule 16 of AD Rules, 1995, disclosing the essential facts under consideration in the matter relating to the present anti-dumping investigation. The comments to the disclosure statement received from all interested parties, to the extent found to be relevant and non-repetitive, have been considered in these final findings. xxiv. ‘***’ in this document, represents information furnished by an interested party on a confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the AD Rules, 1995. xxv. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = ₹ 84.58. B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE B.1 Views of other interested parties

The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties:

i. LLDPE is primarily of three types, based on the comonomer used during its polymerization, viz. C-4(Butene based), C-6(Hexene based) and C-8(Octene based). The applicants do not manufacture C-8 based LLDPE and had admitted the same during the oral hearing. Product scope cannot include products which are not produced and sold in commercial quantities. ii. C-8 based LLDPE has enhanced properties compared to standard LLDPE and commands a significant price premium over the base grades. iii.

ich are not produced and sold in commercial quantities. ii. C-8 based LLDPE has enhanced properties compared to standard LLDPE and commands a significant price premium over the base grades. iii. As C-8 based LLDPE has not been exported to India it cannot be subjected to anti- dumping duties. Accordingly, all C-8 based LLDPE must be excluded from the product scope. iv. As the C-4 and C-6 LLDPE produced by the applicants cannot individually directly substitute C-8 based LLDPE and only a combination of the two can substititute C-8 based LLDPE, it cannot be said that physical and chemical characteristics of C-4 and C-6 LLDPE are similar to those of C-8 based LLDPE. v. Production of C8 LLDPE by Reliance Industries Ltd., which is not a constituent of domestic industry, cannot provide the ground for including LLDPE within the scope of the PUC. It is not sufficient if only supporters to the investigation are manufacturing C-8 based LLDPE. Supporters should be part of the investigation in entirety. vi. In the absence of participation by other producers, the Authority cannot verify whether the other producers are manufacturing C-8 based LLDPE or not. vii. The applicants do not manufacture powder form of LLDPE and accordingly, the same should be excluded. HMEL’s grades M2024L and M5026L have high flow index however, the form and usage of such grades is different. As such, MG200024 and MG500026 (powder form for compounding) should be excluded from the scope of the PUC. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

x however, the form and usage of such grades is different. As such, MG200024 and MG500026 (powder form for compounding) should be excluded from the scope of the PUC. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 9 viii. The applicants’ claim that pellet and powder forms are interchangeable does not address the fact that the form and usage of the grades produced by the Respondents is different and accordingly, the same should be excluded from the scope of the PUC. ix. SABIC’s grades 6821NJ and 6318B which are C-6 based LLDPE must be excluded as they have higher tear and tensile strength, which is not produced by the domestic industry. x. The domestic industry has not countered the argument that there exists a substantial demand-supply gap in India for C6 LLDPE. It has neither provided grade-wise production or demand data. xi. There is significant price difference between non-metallocene grades N0118L / N0120L and metallocene grades (such as F0120LM / F0118LM / N0118LM / N0120LM). This price difference is as high as 15% on the basis of HMEL price circular. xii. Sadara is primarily engaged in the exports of Higher Alpha Olefin LLDPE (“HAO LLDPE”), whereas HMEL and HPL primarily produce C4 LLDPE. C4 based LLDPE is used for applications in plastic bags, grocery bags, secondary bags etc.

n the exports of Higher Alpha Olefin LLDPE (“HAO LLDPE”), whereas HMEL and HPL primarily produce C4 LLDPE. C4 based LLDPE is used for applications in plastic bags, grocery bags, secondary bags etc. whereas C6 and C8 based LLDPE are primarily used in high-performance applications with demanding requirements because of its significantly higher toughness, higher impact resistance and better heat seal properties, such as standup pouches (SUP), heavy duty shipping sacks (HDSS), powder/liquid sachet, pillow pouch, back sheet film for diaper/feminine hygiene etc. xiii. HAO LLDPE is a premium product, offering enhanced performance and command higher prices. Also, there is a substantial demand and supply gap for HAO LLDPE in India. xiv. Borstar® LLDPE grades “having MFI/MFR of 0.25 g/10min or lower (FB2230, FB1200 and FB1350) are produced using proprietary Borstar® bimodal technology. These have high molecular weight with bimodal molecular weight distribution and low melt flow ratio. They are not produced by the domestic industry in India. xv. These grades have superior mechanical properties which also provides a matt finish. It also allows production of thicker film sheets, that, is up to 2mm thickness. All this is not possible with the use of conventional LLDPE. Moreover, Borstar® LLDPE grades allow for easy write-on with excellent print registration and definition. This requirement is not met by conventional LLDPE produced by the domestic industry. xvi. Unlike the LDPE investigation, maximum density has not been prescribed.

print registration and definition. This requirement is not met by conventional LLDPE produced by the domestic industry. xvi. Unlike the LDPE investigation, maximum density has not been prescribed. Accordingly, the Authority should clarify the maximum density of LLDPE which is covered within the scope of the PUC.

B.2 Views of the domestic industry

The following submissions have been made on behalf of the domestic industry:

i. No importer or user has made a single submission concerning product exclusion or alleged that grades supplied by the domestic producers including the applicants are not comparable or are not technically/ commercially substitutable. ii. Since the recent Middle East crisis, the Indian producers have been the exclusive supplier to the user industry and meeting the Indian demand for all grades. In these facts, no exclusion is warranted. iii. Exclusion of C-8 based LLDPE and Higher Alpha Olefin (HAO) based LLDPE is not warranted as the applicant producers manufacture C4 and C6 Metallocene grades, which, when proportionately mixed, competes directly with C8 based LLDPE. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

LLDPE is not warranted as the applicant producers manufacture C4 and C6 Metallocene grades, which, when proportionately mixed, competes directly with C8 based LLDPE. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 10 iv. LLDPE used to manufacture standup pouches, heavy duty shipping sacks, liquid sachets are not manufactured by using any single monomer based LLDPE. Rather, a combination of butene and other grades are used to manufacture such products. v. The Indian industry does manufacture grades identical to or those that directly competes with C6, C8 LLDPE and Enhanced LLDPE being imported into India. HMEL has submitted invoices pertaining to C6 based LLDPE. Further, Reliance Industries Limited produces C8 based LLDPE. vi. HPL manufactures the PUC in compounded form. vii. The applicants have not only manufactured powdered form of LLDPE but also the pellet form of LLDPE and that competes directly with the powder form of LLDPE exported by SABIC. viii. With respect to exclusion of SABIC Grades MG200024 and MG500026, it is submitted that powder form is used by masterbatch manufacturers, who can either choose to import the powder form and add the additives by themselves or directly use the pellet form of LLDPE. Thus, the pellet form of LLDPE sold by applicants competes directly with the powder form of LLDPE exported by SABIC. ix. SABIC Grades 6821NJ and 6318BJ have not been imported into India and therefore, the question of exclusion of such grades does not arise.

irectly with the powder form of LLDPE exported by SABIC. ix. SABIC Grades 6821NJ and 6318BJ have not been imported into India and therefore, the question of exclusion of such grades does not arise. Regardless of this fact, it is submitted that HMEL produces similar and comparable grades. x. HMEL produces similar grades having similar characteristics, 6821NJ and 6318B, particularly tensile strength, which usually is the determinative factor. As such, if these grades were to be imported, they would directly compete with the grades being manufactured by HMEL. xi. While ADPCL and Borouge have pointed out minor technical differences between the products, no evidence has been provided to establish that the comparable grades available domestically are commercially non-substitutable. xii. Matte or gloss finish of the end product (film) is not an inherent characteristic of the subject goods, rather it depends on the finish desired by the processor itself, and the goods manufactured by the applicants’ or other Indian producers are also used for making matte- based films. xiii. Melt flow index does not play a significant role in the decision of the customers’ use of the subject goods, which is evident from the fact that applicant companies have sold their subject goods to the same customers, who use both imported and domestic products interchangeably. xiv. Proprietary technology cannot be a ground for exclusion when products manufactured by the Indian LLDPE producers and by Borouge are being used interchangeably and compete in the same market. xv.

. Proprietary technology cannot be a ground for exclusion when products manufactured by the Indian LLDPE producers and by Borouge are being used interchangeably and compete in the same market. xv. Metallocene and other high-performance-based grades are commercially referred to as metallocene grades, the technically name of such grades might be different as “Metallocene” is an exclusive trademark used by Exxon. xvi. Metallocene LLDPEs or high-performance LLDPEs are manufactured either through Metallocene catalysts or other metallocene family catalysts and therefore, must be classified as Metallocene Grade. xvii. Metallocene grades supplied by Abu Dhabi Polymers Company Ltd. and Borouge is traded under the name “Anteo”. Similarly, Sadara Chemicals supplies such goods under the names such as Dowlex 5400 G and classified them as high-performance LLDPE, whereas SABIC supplies them under the name SUPEER and mentions the same as metallocene xviii. The domestic industry had requested for clubbing of performance enhanced grades with Metallocene grades and no interested party has made any objections to the same. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

The domestic industry had requested for clubbing of performance enhanced grades with Metallocene grades and no interested party has made any objections to the same. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 11 xix. The Authority must verify whether exporters have correctly classified their product into the appropriate PCN category and ensure that high-performance or metallocene grades are classified under the metallocene category. xx. The demand is pre-dominantly for C4 based LLDPE which accounts for 80–90% of total demand and imports. The properties of C6 and C8 based LLDPE are same as the product manufactured by the applicants, the specific technical qualities can be achieved by combining C4 based LLDPE with Metallocene grades in appropriate proportion. xxi. The domestic industry, though not manufacturing C8-based LLDPE, produce C4 and C6 Metallocene grades, which when proportionately combined are technically and commercially substitutable with C8 based LLDPE. Other domestic producers, including Reliance Industries Ltd., which is part of the Indian industry and a supporter in the investigation, manufacture and sell C8-based LLDPE in commercial quantities. As per Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules, 1995, the domestic industry covers all domestic producers of the like article, not only the applicants before the DGTR. Since the objective of anti-dumping duties is to protect the entire domestic industry, C8-based LLDPE cannot be excluded from the product scope. xxii.

cle, not only the applicants before the DGTR. Since the objective of anti-dumping duties is to protect the entire domestic industry, C8-based LLDPE cannot be excluded from the product scope. xxii. The powder form of LLDPE is an intermediate product to which additives and pigments are added to make pellets. The domestic industry manufactures comparable grades in pellet form, which directly compete with the powder form exported by SABIC, as masterbatch manufacturers can use either form. xxiii. Other interested parties have submitted that products manufactured by applicants cannot be used for high-performance application. The said assertion is inaccurate. LLDPE used in the such applications are not manufactured from a single monomer but a combination of C4 based LLDPE and other grades such as C6 Metallocene Grade produced by the applicants or C8 based LLDPE manufactured by other Indian manufacturers. Therefore, goods manufactured by the applicants are substitutable with products exported by other producers. xxiv. No evidence is provided that comparable domestic grades are commercially non-substitutable or differ in price or cost. As per the definition of “like article,” goods need not be identical but need to have similar characteristics. Claims based on lower melt flow index from Borouge’s proprietary technology are irrelevant, as such products and domestic goods are used interchangeably by the same customers. xxv.

haracteristics. Claims based on lower melt flow index from Borouge’s proprietary technology are irrelevant, as such products and domestic goods are used interchangeably by the same customers. xxv. The domestic industry can produce LLDPE of any density within the Indian Standard range of 908.4 to 940.4 kg/m³, with applicants having produced up to 938 kg/m³ during the POI and capable of reaching 940.4 kg/m³ without any additional machinery changes.
xxvi. There exist significant price differences between Metallocene and Non- `Metallocene grades. The two grades were initially not separated due to negligible imports of Metallocene grades from the subject countries.

B.3 Examination by the Authority

The product under consideration as clarified through PUC/ PCN Methodology Notification dated 22nd August 2025 is as below:

“The product under consideration (hereinafter referred to as “PUC”) in the present investigation is Linear Low-Density Polyethylene, having 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

August 2025 is as below:

“The product under consideration (hereinafter referred to as “PUC”) in the present investigation is Linear Low-Density Polyethylene, having 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 12 density of 908.4 to 940.4 kg/m3 (hereinafter also referred to as “subject goods”).

LLDPE is a copolymer of ethylene and other alkenes such as butene, hexene or octene. This results in an essentially linear chain arrangement, with the comonomer (i.e. the butene, hexene or octene) forming short, regular chains on the main carbon backbone. It is a colourless, non- flammable, non-reactive solid with no odour. It is primarily used in raw material for plastic processing industry to make a variety of products such as packaging films, profiles, wire & cable, extrusion coating, rotational moulded, product, hi-low grades for injection moulding, master batches etc.”

The PUC is classified in Chapter 39 titled “Plastics and Articles thereof” under HS Codes 3901 40 10 and 3901 10 10. The customs classification is indicative and is not binding on the scope of the product under consideration.

Additionally, to address the price difference between Metallocene and Non-Metallocene Grades, at the request of the interested parties the following PCNs were adopted:

a. Metallocene Grades: LLDPE Grades produced using Metallocene catalyst. b. Non-metallocene Grades: Conventional LLDPE Grades produced using catalysts other than Metallocene.

S.No. Description Grades Code 1.

ades: LLDPE Grades produced using Metallocene catalyst. b. Non-metallocene Grades: Conventional LLDPE Grades produced using catalysts other than Metallocene.

S.No. Description Grades Code 1. LLDPE Grades produced using Metallocene as catalyst Metallocene Grades MPG 2. Conventional LLDPE Grades produced using catalyst other than Metallocene Non-Metallocene Grades NMG

The arguments made by the interested parties on the PUC and PCN methodology were examined carefully. It is noted that the claims have been primarily for exclusion of certain grades on the grounds that the domestic industry allegedly is not manufacturing the same or the grades produced by the applicants are technically or commercially not substitutable. The domestic industry on the other hand has refuted the submissions and claimed that products manufactured by them is interchangeably used by the same end users. They have claimed LLDPE of different monomers can be combined together to achieve the desired characteristics as the imported products. Further, the domestic industry has provided evidence of comparable grades being produced and sold by them in the Indian market by providing invoices and technical data sheet.

Exclusion of powder form of LLDPE: With regards to SABIC’s submissions concerning exclusion of powder grade LLDPE, it is noted that the domestic industry also manufactures powder form of LLDPE. The domestic industry has provided evidence in the form of sales invoices of powder form of LLDPE.

powder grade LLDPE, it is noted that the domestic industry also manufactures powder form of LLDPE. The domestic industry has provided evidence in the form of sales invoices of powder form of LLDPE. It is further noted that the powder form of LLDPE is 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 13 primarily used by masterbatch manufacturers for compounding processes in which additives and color pigments are melted and then mixed into LLDPE, and subsequently LLDPE pellets are manufactured. Thus, a user has option to either carry out the compounding process itself or the same may be carried out by the LLDPE manufacturers who directly manufacture LLDPE pellets for such user. Accordingly, as the domestic industry is manufacturing powder form of LLDPE and since pellet and powder form of LLDPE are merely two forms of LLDPE, the Authority has not excluded the powder form of LLDPE from the product scope.

Exclusion of Higher Alpha Olefin (“HAO”) based LLDPE: With regards to SABIC Group’s and Sadara’s request for exclusion of high alpha olefin, that is, C6 and C8 based LLDPE, it is noted that the domestic industry is indeed manufacturing C6 based LLDPE. With regards to C8 based LLDPE, the domestic industry has submitted that although it does not manufacture C8 based LLDPE, it is used in combination with other LLDPE monomers such C4 or C6 and the properties exhibited by C8 based LLDPE can be achieved by a combination of C4 and C6 metallocene grades.

e C8 based LLDPE, it is used in combination with other LLDPE monomers such C4 or C6 and the properties exhibited by C8 based LLDPE can be achieved by a combination of C4 and C6 metallocene grades. It is noted that none of the individual users have participated in the present investigation and the user Association, All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association has not objected to this claim of the domestic industry. It is further noted that none of the interested parties have also provided any evidence to contradict this claim of the domestic industry.

The Authority notes that SABIC Group has requested for exclusion of C8 based LLDPE also on the ground that domestic industry is not producing and selling such grades in commercial quantity. While the domestic industry does not manufacture C8 based LLDPE, it does manufacture C4 and C6 grades which they have claimed that when combined in certain proportions are technically and commercially substitutable with the imported C8 based LLDPE. The said assertion by the domestic industry has not been rebutted by the other interested parties. The applicant association has also submitted invoices for C8 based LLDPE which is being manufactured and sold by Reliance Industries Limited, supporter of the present investigation. Irrespective of the production of C8 based LLDPE by the supporter, the Authority notes that the properties of C8 based LLDPE can be achieved by a combination of C4 and C6 metallocene grades, and accordingly, has not excluded C8 based LLDPE from the product scope.

thority notes that the properties of C8 based LLDPE can be achieved by a combination of C4 and C6 metallocene grades, and accordingly, has not excluded C8 based LLDPE from the product scope.

Regarding the argument of Sadara that there exists a significant demand supply gap for C6 based LLDPE in India and that the domestic industry has not countered this argument or provided grade wise production or demand data, it is noted that the question of exclusion from product scope does not depend upon demand of subject goods in India, rather the same is decided based on whether the domestic industry is producing and selling like article to the goods being imported into India.

Exclusion of 6821NJ and 6318BJ Grades: With regards to exclusion of SABIC Group’s exclusion request for grades 6821NJ and 6318BJ, the Authority notes that admittedly these grades have not been exported to India. It is further noted that SABIC Group has requested exclusion of these goods primarily on the grounds that SABIC grades have a higher tear strength. On the other hand, the domestic industry has provided evidence of comparable grades sold by them. In this regard, the Authority recalls Rule 2(d) of AD Rules, 1995 which states:

““like article” means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such an article, another article 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such an article, another article 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 14 which although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation”

It is noted from the above definition that two products can be considered like articles to each other, not only when they are identical or alike in all respects but also when such articles have closely resembling characteristics. In the present case, both SABIC grades and domestically produced comparable grades have high tear strength. The Authority notes that while tear strength of these grades differ, such difference by itself does not make the products not like article to each other. It is further noted that the tear strength also depends upon the thickness of the film. It is further noted that these grades have not been imported into India since the demand for these products do not exist in India. Accordingly, the Authority has not excluded SABIC Grades 6821NJ and 6318BJ.

ted that these grades have not been imported into India since the demand for these products do not exist in India. Accordingly, the Authority has not excluded SABIC Grades 6821NJ and 6318BJ.

Exclusion of Borstar Grades: With respect to exclusion of Borstar Grades (FB2230, FB1200 and FB1350) manufactured through bimodal Borstar technology, ADPCL has argued that these grades have higher molecular weight and low melt felt rate (lower than or equal to 0.25 g/10 min) and that the domestic industry does not manufacture subject goods having melt flow rate lower than 1g/10 min. As stated above, it is not necessary that two products must be alike in all respects. Apart from the low melt flow index, the subject goods exported by ADPCL and the goods produced by the domestic industry have closely resembling characteristics. Accordingly, low melt flow index cannot be considered a ground for exclusion. It is further noted that each producer may have different production technology used in the production process depending upon the licensor of such technology. However, unless such production process lends an attribute leading to distinguishable physical / chemical characteristics, difference in production process itself cannot become a ground for exclusion of a product. In this regard, the Authority notes that ADPCL has not provided any evidence establishing that the LLDPE produced by ADPCL and LLDPE produced by the domestic industry are commercially or technically not substitutable.

notes that ADPCL has not provided any evidence establishing that the LLDPE produced by ADPCL and LLDPE produced by the domestic industry are commercially or technically not substitutable.

The Authority further notes that the ADPCL has submitted letters from certain domestic users to substantiate its claim that Borstar Grades have a specific end use application and that domestically produced goods cannot technically substitute the same. It is noted that none of these users have participated in the present investigation. The letters provided by them contain general information and similar sentences and phraseology. It is further noted that all these letters specifically rely on comparison with conventional C4 based LLDPE and do not address the quality or attributes of other LLDPE produced and supplied by the domestic industry. Whereas, Exhibit 3 provided by ADPCL as part of its submissions mention such characteristics for both metallocene and non-metallocene based LLDPE and not solely for conventional LLDPE. Accordingly, the Authority disagrees with ADPCL’s claim and has not excluded Borstar Grades.

There are no known differences between the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and those imported from the subject countries.

ADPCL’s claim and has not excluded Borstar Grades.

There are no known differences between the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and those imported from the subject countries. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry and the subject goods imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process and technology, functions and uses, product specifications, distribution and marketing, classification of the goods. The domestic industry has claimed that the subject goods, being imported into India, are identical to the goods produced by the domestic industry. There are no differences either in the technical specifications, quality, functions or end-uses of the dumped imports and the goods manufactured by the applicants. The goods produced by the domestic industry and the imported goods are technically and commercially substitutable and 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

rts and the goods manufactured by the applicants. The goods produced by the domestic industry and the imported goods are technically and commercially substitutable and 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 15 accordingly, the Authority holds these products to be ‘like article’ under Rule 2 (d) of the AD Rules, 1995. C. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING

C.1 Views of other interested parties

The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties:

i. The Petition contains insufficient evidence of injury for the purpose of initiation as required under Rule 2(b) and Art. 5.2 of AD Agreement and accordingly should not have been initiated. ii. The Petitioner has not relied on actual data but on estimated figures for total domestic production. If actual data is considered, the Petitioner may not be able to satisfy the standing requirements. iii. The Petitioner’s standing is vitiated on account of exclusion of ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. (“OPAL”) on the ground of it being a Special Economic Zone (“SEZ”) unit during the POI. Rule 2(b) or Rule 5 of AD Rules,1995 do not mandate exclusion of producer merely on account of being a SEZ unit. If OPAL is included as an eligible domestic producer, HPL and HMEL would not satisfy the requirement of Rule 5(3). iv.

5 do not mandate exclusion of producer merely on account of being a SEZ unit. If OPAL is included as an eligible domestic producer, HPL and HMEL would not satisfy the requirement of Rule 5(3). iv. OPAL’s exclusion from total domestic production is without sufficient justification as it had exited SEZ on March 08, 2025, and was part of the domestic tariff area at the time of filing of the application by the Petitioner.
v. Irrespective of whether or not OPAL was operating in SEZ, its production must be included within the total domestic production as it is established in India and during the POI sold almost 85-90% of its LLDPE in Indian domestic market. vi. Exclusion of OPAL artificially reduces the total eligible production and thus, inflates the share of HPL and HMEL in total domestic production.
vii. Based on the information provided in OPAL’s Annual Report, if OPAL’s production is included, the share of HPL and HMEL would fall below 25% threshold prescribed under Rule 5(3) of AD Rules, 1995. Accordingly, prior to reaching any conclusion regarding the fulfilment of Rule 5(3) of AD Rules, 1995, the Authority must verify the production and sales volume of all relevant domestic producers. viii. By seeking to exclude OPAL on the basis of its SEZ status, the Petitioner effectively disregards the economic reality that OPAL is a producer established in India that undertakes substantial production and sales of the PUC in the domestic market.
ix.

us, the Petitioner effectively disregards the economic reality that OPAL is a producer established in India that undertakes substantial production and sales of the PUC in the domestic market.
ix. The Authority in the previous investigations (Electrical Insulators and Solar Cells) has accepted SEZ units to be eligible to be part of the domestic industry.
x. This approach is also consistent with international practice. USITC in Large Residential Washers in the context of injury determination treated production in Foreign Trade Zones as domestic production. Similarly, the USITC in Microwave Ovens from Japan treated goods produced in Free Trade Zone as domestically produced goods. While these findings were determined in the context of injury analysis and not standing, the underlying principles remain the same. xi. European Commission normally treats producers operating in free zones as domestic producers for determination of standing and for definition of domestic industry. Free zones are part of the territory of the European Union pursuant to Article 243(1) of the Union Customs Code. xii. The SEZ framework does not prohibit domestic tariff area sales. Units operating in SEZs are permitted to supply goods to the domestic market, subject to applicable 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

i. The SEZ framework does not prohibit domestic tariff area sales. Units operating in SEZs are permitted to supply goods to the domestic market, subject to applicable 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 16 conditions, including duties and overall Net Foreign Exchange (“NFE”) requirements.
Importantly, the requirement to maintain positive NFE pertains to the overall operational performance of the unit and does not negate or restrict the fact of domestic sales. Accordingly, the mere fact that a producer operates within an SEZ cannot be basis to exclude it from the domestic industry where it undertakes substantial sales in the domestic market. xiii. As HPL and HMEL are not representative of domestic industry and do not even account for 25% of total Indian production (if OPAL production is included), the Authority should have rejected the Petition. xiv. HPL and HMEL account for 26.33% of domestic sales (excluding OPAL), while OPAL itself has significant production capacity, indicating that its inclusion would materially alter the standing analysis. xv. Indian LLDPE industry is not fragmented and therefore, a share of 25-35% may not be accepted as constituting major proportion. Further, such a proportion does not automatically satisfy the requirement of major proportion. There is no practical difficulty in obtaining greater information, and therefore, the application must be rejected. xvi.

ortion does not automatically satisfy the requirement of major proportion. There is no practical difficulty in obtaining greater information, and therefore, the application must be rejected. xvi. The standing of HPL and HMEL falls significantly below the standard laid down by Appellate Body in EC - Fasteners, particularly once production of OPAL along with other domestic producers is taken into consideration. Further, if data of other Indian producers is considered, injury parameters would undergo significant change. xvii. If the Authority accepts the proposed definition of the domestic industry as the limited subset of producers, it would assess injury against a minor and self-selected proportion of less than 20% of the relevant Indian industry, leading to a material risk of distortion and skew the injury analysis, particularly given the much larger share of production held by the other major producers of the PUC. xviii. The share of domestic industry’s production must serve as a “substantial reflection of the total domestic production” such that the definition of “domestic industry” does not skew or distort the injury determination. xix. The object and purpose of anti-dumping duty is to protect domestic industry as a whole or those producers who are representative of the domestic industry due to their substantial/major share in Indian production. Anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed to protect interest of selected companies.
xx.

cers who are representative of the domestic industry due to their substantial/major share in Indian production. Anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed to protect interest of selected companies.
xx. The Authority has failed to properly determine that the application has been filed “by or on behalf of the domestic industry”, as required under Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules. xxi. The Appellate Body in EC – Fasteners emphasized that “a major proportion” must represent a relatively high and genuinely representative share of total domestic production, assessed in light of all producers as a whole. It rejected the EU’s reliance on low shares such as 27% and even 36%, holding that such levels (particularly when derived from a self-selected or non-representative sample) do not meet the standard and distorts the injury analysis. xxii. The petitioners do not satisfy the separate requirement of major proportion under Rule 2(b) AD Rules, 1995. The minimum threshold for making an application under Rule 5(3) of AD Rules, 1995 cannot be extended to Rule 2(b). xxiii. The requirement of “major proportion” in Rule 2(b) is distinct from, and additional to, the 25% threshold under Rule 5(3). If a bare minimum share of 25–30% is accepted as sufficient in every case, the separate requirement in Rule 2(b) becomes redundant. xxiv. Para 4.9.11(iii) of Manual of Operating Practices does not create an absolute rule that every producer or group of producers who merely cross the bare threshold of 25% must be treated as constituting “a major proportion” of the total domestic production.

t create an absolute rule that every producer or group of producers who merely cross the bare threshold of 25% must be treated as constituting “a major proportion” of the total domestic production. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 17 xxv. The WTO Appellate Body in EC – Fasteners rejected equating the 25% threshold requirement for the purposes of ascertaining standing under Article 5.4 of the AD Agreement with the “major proportion” requirement and held it irrelevant for ascertaining “domestic industry” under Article 4.1 of the AD Agreement. xxvi. The Appellate Body explained that "a major proportion", should be understood as a proportion defined by reference to the total production of domestic producers as a whole. "A major proportion" of such total production will standardly serve as a substantial reflection of the total domestic production.
xxvii. Indeed, the lower the proportion, the more sensitive an investigating authority will have to be to ensure that the proportion used substantially reflects the total production of the producers as a whole. xxviii. While there is no strict numerical threshold for what constitutes a “major proportion”, the phrase has been understood to connote “important, serious or significant” proportion of total domestic production. Thus, the share of total production must serve as a “substantial reflection of the total domestic production” such that the definition of “domestic industry” does not skew or distort the injury determination.

hare of total production must serve as a “substantial reflection of the total domestic production” such that the definition of “domestic industry” does not skew or distort the injury determination. xxix. The Appellate Body in EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5) held that even a proportion of 36% of the total domestic production remains low, even in the context of the fragmented fasteners industry. xxx. The Authority must call for complete and verified data from all major domestic producers for the POI before proceeding further. The Petitioner’s claim is based on a limited segment of the industry, while producers accounting for a substantial share of India’s total capacity have not supported any allegation of injury. xxxi. The information supplied by Reliance Industries Limited is deficient as it does not comply with requirements set out in Trade Notice No. 05/2021 dated July 29, 2021.
xxxii. RIL has failed to provide documentary evidence for its installed capacity, domestic and export sales and accordingly, the same cannot be verified. Even if evidence has been provided subsequently, the information remains deficient at the stage of initiation and same must be rejected. xxxiii. RIL data is deficient and inconsistent with duplicate entries, making it unreliable. xxxiv. The subsequent filing of an updated support letter cannot cure the fundamental defect. The Petitioner did not transparently disclose the changes. xxxv. The Petitioner did not explicitly identify the changes made in the RIL support letter in its covering communication. xxxvi.

efect. The Petitioner did not transparently disclose the changes. xxxv. The Petitioner did not explicitly identify the changes made in the RIL support letter in its covering communication. xxxvi. The Petition claims that other Indian producers of LLDPE have supported the application, however, none of these producers have filed a support a letter in terms of Trade Notice 05/2021. xxxvii. The Authority must call for injury and cost data from other established Indian producers of the PUC referred to in the Petition, namely RIL, IOCL, GAIL, BCPL and OPAL to ensure that any injury assessment is representative of the domestic industry as a whole and not skewed by the inclusion of only some producers such as HMEL in this case. xxxviii. In absence of participation from other established players, the Authority cannot assess whether such players are earning profits or losses. The Authority should ask RIL to at least provide their figures for profitability. xxxix. The Authority in previous investigations such as Plain Medium Density Fibre Board (MDF) having thickness of 6mm and above has called for injury and cost related data from another producer related to the PUC. xl. The absence of any information from India’s largest producers can only be interpreted to mean that they are not facing any injury on account of subject imports, and their non- participation implies that they are not suffering injury. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

only be interpreted to mean that they are not facing any injury on account of subject imports, and their non- participation implies that they are not suffering injury. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 18 xli. RIL and IOCL are consistent users of trade remedial measures. In the absence of cooperation from RIL, IOCL, GAIL, BCPL and OPAL, the Authority should consider that these domestic producers of LLDPE are opposed to the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

C.2 Views of the domestic industry

The following submissions have been made on behalf of the domestic industry: i. The injury information for the present investigation has been provided by HPL and HMEL. As mentioned above, besides the co-applicants, there are 5 other producers of LLDPE, namely, Reliance Industries Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation, Gas Authority of India Ltd. Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd. and ONGC-Petro Additions Limited. It may be noted that during the POI and the injury period, ONGC-Petro Additions Limited functioned as a special economic zone unit and therefore could not be considered as a domestic industry. ii. Paras 4.19.21 and 4.19.23 of DGTR’s Manual of Operating Practices, clearly specify that units located in SEZ “are not be treated as domestic industry” and that “production of SEZ should not be included while estimating the total production of the country”. iii.

, clearly specify that units located in SEZ “are not be treated as domestic industry” and that “production of SEZ should not be included while estimating the total production of the country”. iii. The Authority in several recent cases such as Solar Cells, Industrial Laser Machines has considered SEZ based units as ineligible domestic producers and has treated sales of SEZ based producers as imports into India. iv. HPL and HMEL account for almost 25%-35% of total LLDPE production in India. As such, HPL and HMEL’s production constitutes a “major proportion” of total domestic production in India in terms of Rule 2(b) of AD Rules, 1995. The applicants submit that it is the Authority’s practice to consider production more than 25% of total eligible domestic production as “major proportion”. In this regard, the applicants rely on the explanation provided in Para 4.9.11 (iii) of DGTR’s Manual of Standard Operating Practices dealing with the test of major proportion. v. As admitted by the other interested parties, OPAL exited SEZ on March 08, 2025, 2 months after the end of the POI. Thus, OPAL’s entry into domestic tariff area happened post-facto completion of POI. vi. It is the Authority’s consistent practice of assessing the total eligible domestic production based on production carried out during the POI, just as dumping and injury is not based on post-POI fact. vii. In EC – Fasteners, the European Commission had issued questionnaires to approximately 318 known producers in the European Union, of which only 70 producers responded.

based on post-POI fact. vii. In EC – Fasteners, the European Commission had issued questionnaires to approximately 318 known producers in the European Union, of which only 70 producers responded. Out of these 70 producers, the Commission had rejected the responses of 25 producers on the ground that they had failed to provide adequate information.
viii. The Commission, ultimately therefore, defined on the basis of the remaining 45 producers, thereby restricting the scope of domestic industry to only those producers who were willing to be included in the sample and excluding certain producers who had otherwise provided relevant information, thus creating a risk of material distortion in injury analysis. ix. Moreover, the European Commission selected a sample of 6 domestic producers representing only 17.6% of the total Union production of the subject goods. This substantially narrowed the data coverage available for the injury analysis. x. Thus, EC – Fasteners decision was rendered in a situation where relevant producers were methodologically excluded and the sample represented only a limited proportion of total production. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

decision was rendered in a situation where relevant producers were methodologically excluded and the sample represented only a limited proportion of total production. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 19 xi. The Appellate Body in EC – Fasteners refrained from providing a minimum threshold but primarily proceeded on the basis that the investigating authorities should not exclude domestic producers through self-selection process, which would lower the data coverage and thereby introduce a material risk of distortion in the injury analysis. xii. It is submitted that neither the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement nor the Indian municipal laws provide any threshold for determining “major proportion”. xiii. Opposed to the facts in EC- Fasteners, where the sampled domestic producers constituted only 17.6% of total domestic production, in the present investigation, HPL and HMEL account for almost 25-35% of total LLDPE production in India. xiv. The Authority as a matter of practice as explained in Para 4.9.11 (iii) of DGTR’s Manual of Standard Operating Practices has considered production exceeding 25% as “major proportion” in terms of Rule 2(b) of AD Rules, 1995. xv. The 3 largest producers of LLDPE, accounting for more than 50% of Indian LLDPE production, have participated and submitted macroeconomic and price data.
xvi. The applicants have also provided estimated sales and volumetric parameters for other Indian producers.

ndian LLDPE production, have participated and submitted macroeconomic and price data.
xvi. The applicants have also provided estimated sales and volumetric parameters for other Indian producers. Accordingly, the question of introducing “a material risk of distorting the injury determination” does not arise in the present investigation. xvii. The application has further been supported by Reliance Industries Ltd., which has provided supporter data as required under the applicable trade notices. xviii. The CESTAT in Lubrizol (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Designated Authority 2005 (7) TMI 132, while explaining the term “major proportion” requirement held production accounting for 31% of total domestic production as major proportion. It further observed that “major proportion of total domestic production" cannot be viewed from the angle of solving a mathematical sum involving comparative measurements or size of different parts of a whole”. xix. The Authority in several of its past findings (Hot Rolled Flat Products of Alloy or Non- Alloy Steel dated 13.08.2025) has rejected to interpret “major proportion” as production exceeding 50% of total domestic production and construed the same as significant proportion. xx. The Authority in several investigations has considered domestic producers accounting for 25-35% percent of total domestic production as domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b) of AD Rules, 1995.

x. The Authority in several investigations has considered domestic producers accounting for 25-35% percent of total domestic production as domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b) of AD Rules, 1995. In PVC Suspension Grade Resin (Sunset Review), the Authority had held producers accounting for 30% of total production of subject goods in India as major proportion. xxi. The domestic industry submits that it has no objections or inhibitions to call data from other domestic producers. However, the non-participation of such producers in the present investigation should not constitute ground to deny relief to the domestic industry before the Authority. xxii. The Authority as part of the investigation procedure calls data from all producers. However, except RIL none of the other domestic producers have participated in the investigation, xxiii. The confidential version of RIL’s support letter was filed on record prior to the stage of initiation along with the application with all units of measurement and details of sales clearly identified in such letter as per the applicable trade notices. xxiv. Contrary to the facts urged by the other interested parties there has been no update in the RIL’s confidential support letter. xxv. The domestic industry constitutes major proportion in terms of Rule 2(b) of AD Rules, 1995 and therefore, the non-participation of other domestic producers does not prevent the Authority from examining the injury to the domestic industry before it. xxvi. The application has been filed by CPMA on behalf of Indian LLDPE producers.

her domestic producers does not prevent the Authority from examining the injury to the domestic industry before it. xxvi. The application has been filed by CPMA on behalf of Indian LLDPE producers. RIL has already filed its support letter with the Authority. Further, other members of CPMA, 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 20 IOCL and GAIL also supported the resolution to pursue appropriate trade remedial proceedings against the subject countries. Thus, Indian LLDPE producers have supported the allegation of injury. Moreover, subsequent to the initiation there has been no opposition from any of the domestic producers.

C.3 Examination by the Authority

Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules, 1995 defines domestic industry as mentioned below:

‘ domestic industry ’means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term ‘domestic industry ’may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers’.

The Authority notes that the application has been filed by CPMA on behalf of the Indian LLDPE Industry.

term ‘domestic industry ’may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers’.

The Authority notes that the application has been filed by CPMA on behalf of the Indian LLDPE Industry. Other interested parties have raised the following concerns regarding the standing of the domestic industry:

OPAL should have been included within the scope of total eligible domestic production

Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. and HPCL-Mittal Energy Limited do not represent major proportion of the domestic industry

a. OPAL should have been included within the scope of total eligible domestic production

Other interested parties have argued that OPAL, despite being a SEZ unit, is a LLDPE producer located in India and accordingly, the domestic industry in its application has incorrectly excluded OPAL from the computation of total eligible domestic production. They have also contended that other jurisdictions consider producers located in Free Trade Zone within the scope of total eligible domestic production. Further, it has been claimed that if OPAL is included within the scope of total eligible domestic production, HPL and HMEL’s production would not be sufficient to qualify as applicant within Rule 5(3) of AD Rules, 1995.

In this regard, the Authority notes that the scheme of the SEZ Act, 2005 clearly establishes that SEZ units are treated as territories outside the customs territory of India for authorized operations and are fundamentally export-oriented entities.

e of the SEZ Act, 2005 clearly establishes that SEZ units are treated as territories outside the customs territory of India for authorized operations and are fundamentally export-oriented entities. The Authority has already examined this issue in detail in prior proceedings and has recognized that SEZ units stand on a distinct legal and economic footing vis-à-vis producers operating in the Domestic Tariff Area (“DTA”).

Further, the Authority recalls Section 53 of the SEZ Act which expressly provides that an SEZ shall be deemed to be a territory outside the customs territory of India for the purposes of undertaking authorized operations. Further, Section 2(i) of the SEZ Act excludes SEZ areas from the definition of “Domestic Tariff Area”. The supplies from DTA units to SEZ units are treated as “exports”, and supply of goods from SEZ units to DTA units attracts customs duties, including anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, and safeguard duties under Section 30 of 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

and supply of goods from SEZ units to DTA units attracts customs duties, including anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, and safeguard duties under Section 30 of 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 21 the SEZ Act. The legal framework therefore consciously creates an economic and customs distinction between SEZ units and DTA producers.

It is further noted that as per section 53 of SEZ Act, 2005, SEZ is admittedly outside the custom territory of India, however, it is within the geographical territory of India. In light of the aforesaid, assuming but not admitting that OPAL, which is a production unit falling within SEZ, whose production is required to be taken into consideration to compute the overall Indian production, yet the collective output of the domestic producers supporting the petition constitutes ***% of the total production of the PUC produced by the domestic Industry expressing support for the petition; there is no domestic producer who is opposed to the petition.

The Authority notes that the definition of domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of AD Rules, 1995 must be interpreted harmoniously with the SEZ Act, 2005 and the customs framework governing SEZ operations.

uthority notes that the definition of domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of AD Rules, 1995 must be interpreted harmoniously with the SEZ Act, 2005 and the customs framework governing SEZ operations. Merely because an entity is incorporated in India or physically manufactures goods in India does not automatically render it part of the domestic industry for trade remedial purposes where the governing legal regime itself treats such entity as operating outside the customs territory of India. Further, the Authority in all its recent investigations has excluded SEZ units from the scope of the domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority has excluded OPAL from the computation of total eligible domestic production.

The Authority further notes that other interested parties have also contended that as OPAL exited SEZ on March 08, 2025, that is, after the POI, and was part of the DTA at the time of filing of the application, it should have been considered as part of the total eligible domestic production. The Authority disagrees with this submission of the other interested parties. The Authority notes that the POI of the present investigation is CY 2024. All determinations pertaining to dumping and injury are to be based on the information pertaining to the POI. During the POI, OPAL continued to be a part of the SEZ and was not a DTA unit. Accordingly, for computation of total eligible domestic production under Rule 2(b) of AD Rules, 1995, the production undertaken by OPAL cannot be considered as part of total eligible domestic production.

b.

for computation of total eligible domestic production under Rule 2(b) of AD Rules, 1995, the production undertaken by OPAL cannot be considered as part of total eligible domestic production.

b. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. and HPCL-Mittal Energy Limited do not represent major proportion of the domestic industry

Other interested parties have also contended that HPL and HMEL account for only 25%-30% of total production in India and as such do not account for total eligible domestic production. In this regard, other interested parties have relied on the decision of the Appellate Body in EC – Fasteners wherein the Appellate Body had held that domestic producers accounting for 27% of total domestic production did not constitute “major proportion” in terms of Art. 4.1 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping.

The Authority notes that in the Fasteners investigation, the European Commission, while defining the domestic industry in the Fasteners original investigation, had limited the definition of domestic industry to only such producers which were willing to be included in the sample. Subsequent to the initiation of the investigation, the Commission received information from 70 producers out of 318 known producers.

such producers which were willing to be included in the sample. Subsequent to the initiation of the investigation, the Commission received information from 70 producers out of 318 known producers. Thereafter, the Commission excluded 25 of these 70 producers from the scope of domestic industry definition, on the grounds that such producers expressed their unwillingness to be part of the sample, thereby, deliberately disregarded relevant information on record, and thus, introduced a material risk of distortion in injury 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 22 examination. In this regard, the Authority recalls the observations of the Appellate Body in EC – Fasteners:

“429. According to the European Union's explanation, the Commission excluded 25 of these 70 producers from the domestic industry definition for various reasons, one of which was the producers' expressed unwillingness to be part of the sample.577 However, as noted above, the sample of domestic producers is a smaller universe than the domestic industry, and the unwillingness to be part of the sample should not affect whether a producer should be part of the domestic industry. This is confirmed by the relevant facts in the fasteners investigation.
Specifically, the Commission selected six producers as part of the sample, obtained relevant information from them, and verified the information on their premises.

in the fasteners investigation.
Specifically, the Commission selected six producers as part of the sample, obtained relevant information from them, and verified the information on their premises. The Commission then used the information obtained from the sampled producers for its analysis of the "microeconomic" injury factors, but conducted its analysis of the "macroeconomic" injury factors on the basis of information obtained from all of the 45 producers included in the domestic industry definition. Thus, by including only those willing to be part of the sample in the domestic industry definition, the Commission's approach shrank the universe of producers whose data could have been used for part of the injury determination.
Even though, due to the fragmented nature of the fasteners industry, the practical constraints on obtaining information may justify the inclusion of a smaller proportion of domestic production in the domestic industry definition, the Commission's approach in excluding those who provided relevant information but were unwilling to be part of the sample was unrelated to, and cannot be justified by, such practical constraints.”

As can be noted from the Appellate Body’s observations, the European Commission restricted the definition of domestic industry to only such producers which were willing to be included in the sample.

s can be noted from the Appellate Body’s observations, the European Commission restricted the definition of domestic industry to only such producers which were willing to be included in the sample. By limiting the domestic industry coverage to only such producers the Commission “shrank the universe of producers whose data could have been used for part of the injury determination” as it excluded producers “who provided relevant information but were unwilling to be part of the sample”.

In contrast to the above facts, the present investigation was initiated based on the injury information data provided by Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. and HPCL-Mittal Energy Limited who account for more than ***% of total Indian production. Prior to the stage of initiation, the application was supported by Reliance Industries Limited, which provided information pertaining to installed capacity, production, value, and volume of domestic and export sales for the injury period. Subsequent to the initiation of the investigation, the Authority called for information via email dated 08.07.2025 from other domestic producers, namely Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Gas Authority of India Limited and Brahmaputra Cracker Polymer Limited and Reliance Industries Limited to provide the complete injury information. However, apart from Reliance Industries Limited, which provided information as a supporter of the investigation as per the applicable trade notices, none of the other producers responded to the same.

ever, apart from Reliance Industries Limited, which provided information as a supporter of the investigation as per the applicable trade notices, none of the other producers responded to the same. The Authority notes that non-participation by other domestic producers does not lead to a material risk of distortion. In this regard, the Authority recalls the Panel’s observation in China – Autos (US) wherein the following was observed:

“7.214. We find the US contention that MOFCOM's registration requirement introduced a material risk of distortion, as a process 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 23 capable of leading to self-selection among domestic producers in the definition of the domestic industry, to be unconvincing. We note that there are multiple steps that must be taken in AD and CVD investigations, and IAs face logistical constraints in this regard. In previous cases, panels and the Appellate Body have concluded that an IA must be allowed some flexibility in how it ensures an orderly conduct of its investigations, for instance by establishing deadlines for interested parties to come forward to be considered for inclusion in the domestic industry.336 We consider that the same need for flexibility justifies the use of a registration process, which essentially requires interested parties to come forward by a deadline and make themselves known to the IA to be considered part of the domestic industry.

s the use of a registration process, which essentially requires interested parties to come forward by a deadline and make themselves known to the IA to be considered part of the domestic industry. The mere fact that some producers may choose not to do so, i.e., "self-select" out of coming forward, to use the US terminology, does not, in our view, introduce a material risk of distortion in the IA's process of defining the domestic industry. In our view, merely that domestic producers might choose not to participate does not mean that the registration requirement leads to a definition of domestic industry inconsistent with Articles 4.1 and 16.1. Provided a registration strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of interested parties to participate in an investigation, and administrative efficiency, we see nothing in the relevant provisions that would preclude it.”

In the present investigation, the Authority did call for information from all domestic producers of the PUC, however, such information was not provided. Unlike the European Commission, the Authority has not disregarded any information which is available on record. The Authority further notes that there is no legal requirement that the applicants must constitute at least 50% of the total Indian production. As noted by the Panel in Argentina -Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil, “the reference to a major proportion suggests that there may be more than one “major proportion” for the purpose of defining “domestic industry””.

nti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil, “the reference to a major proportion suggests that there may be more than one “major proportion” for the purpose of defining “domestic industry””.

The Authority further notes that major proportion cannot be determined on the basis of mathematical calculation. In this regard, the Authority recalls the observations of the Hon’ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Lubrizol (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Designated Authority [2005 (187) E.L.T. 402 (Tri. - Del.), wherein, it was held that in order to constitute major proportion, it is not necessary that production of domestic industry before the Authority should exceed more than 50% of total production in the country.

““15.1 We may note here that the words “major proportion of the total production” in Rule 2(b) defining the ‘domestic industry’ are also capable of being construed so as to mean significant proportion or important part of the total production which may not necessarily exceed 50%. The word “major”, as per the Oxford Dictionary, means “important, serious or significant”. The word “proportion”, in the context, would mean share. Therefore, the expression “major proportion” would, in the context, of total production of domestic industry, mean significant or important share. Such an interpretation is clearly permissible and going by it, the share of the petitioner in total domestic production, being more than 31%, was undoubtedly a significant or important share i.e. a major proportion thereof.

learly permissible and going by it, the share of the petitioner in total domestic production, being more than 31%, was undoubtedly a significant or important share i.e. a major proportion thereof. The words “major proportion of total domestic production” cannot be viewed from the angle of solving a mathematical sum involving 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 24 comparative measurements or size of different parts of a whole. The phrase is used in the context of the production output of domestic producers and admits of a broad interpretation so as to take in its sweep collective output that constitutes a significant or important share of the total domestic production of the article by the producers engaged in the manufacture or engaged in any activity connected with the manufacture of such article, as contemplated by Rule 2(b)…”

The Authority further notes that the Appellate Body’s observations in EC – Fasteners is limited to only such circumstances wherein the Authority by way of registration process for domestic producers introduces a risk of material distortion. In this regard, the Authority recalls the findings of the Panel in China – Autos (US):

“7.220. … . Moreover, the Appellate Body noted that the IA had, in fact, identified and obtained information from more producers than the 45 it ultimately included in the domestic industry.

US):

“7.220. … . Moreover, the Appellate Body noted that the IA had, in fact, identified and obtained information from more producers than the 45 it ultimately included in the domestic industry. The Appellate Body concluded that by including in the domestic industry only those producers willing to be included in the sample, the IA's approach shrank the universe of producers whose data could have been used in making the injury determination.”

In the present case, the Authority upon initiation called for information from all domestic producers. Further, the question whether HPL and HMEL satisfy “major proportion” in terms of Rule 2(b) AD Rules, 1995 has also been assessed independently of Rule 5(3) of AD Rules, 1995. Accordingly, the Appellate Body’s observations in EC – Fasteners are not applicable to the present case.

The Authority further notes that information related to domestic producers that are outside the scope of the domestic industry is not relevant to evaluate the economic factors having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry. In this regard, the Authority recalls the observations of Panel in EC – Bed Linen, wherein it observed the following:

““6.182 However, our conclusion with respect to the second aspect of India's claim is different. As we have noted, the determination of injury has to be reached for the domestic industry as defined by the investigating authorities, in this case the 35 producers comprising the "Community industry" as defined by the European Communities.

y has to be reached for the domestic industry as defined by the investigating authorities, in this case the 35 producers comprising the "Community industry" as defined by the European Communities. In our view, information concerning companies that are not within the domestic industry is irrelevant to the evaluation of the "relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry" required under Article 3.4. This is true even though those companies may presently produce, or may have in the past produced, the like product, bed linen. Information concerning Article 3.4 factors for companies outside the domestic industry provides no basis for conclusions about the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry itself. If other present or former bed linen producers had been considered part of the domestic industry, the fact that some of them went out of business would be relevant to the evaluation of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry. But given that the European Communities defined the domestic industry as 35 producers of bed linen, information concerning other companies does not inform the evaluation of "factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry" under Article 3.4 of 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

nen, information concerning other companies does not inform the evaluation of "factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry" under Article 3.4 of 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 25 the AD Agreement, and thus cannot serve as the basis of findings regarding the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry.”

It has been this Authority’s consistent practice to consider major proportion as significant proportion and not just producers accounting for more than 50% of total domestic production.

Based on the information provided in the application, the following table represents the total eligible domestic production of subject goods in India:

Indian Production (MT) Name of Producer 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI Haldia Petrochemicals Limited (Applicant)

---

---

---

---

HPCL-Mittal Energy Limited (Applicant)

---

---

---

---

Reliance Industries Limited (Supporter)

---

---

---

---

Gas Authority of India Limited

---

---

---

---

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

---

---

---

---

Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited

---

---

---

---

Total Production 16,69,245 16,90,915 18,44,069 22,25,014 HPL and HMEL’s share in total production

---

---

---

---

Range 0-10 0-10 20-30 25-35 Applicants + Supporter

---

---

---

---

The Authority notes that other Indian interested parties have contested the total Indian production estimation provided by the domestic industry.

Applicants + Supporter

---

---

---

---

The Authority notes that other Indian interested parties have contested the total Indian production estimation provided by the domestic industry. In this regard, the Authority has recomputed the total eligible Indian production based on the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers data for the injury period including the POI1. The Authority has considered the total production reported in Report for FY 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. Further, given that the POI is not a financial year, the Authority estimated production for Jan’24 – Mar’24 and Apr’24 – Dec’24 by apportioning data for FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25, respectively. The Authority also referred to OPAL’s Annual Reports for the aforesaid periods and applied the same methodology to compute its sales. Further, inventory to turnover ratio was applied for arriving at production figures for OPAL. The production so assessed is as below:

Indian Production (MT)

1 https://chemindia.chemicals.gov.in/Publicationspdf/Statistics-at-a-Glance-2024.pdf
6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

elow:

Indian Production (MT)

1 https://chemindia.chemicals.gov.in/Publicationspdf/Statistics-at-a-Glance-2024.pdf
6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 26 Name of Producer 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI Haldia Petrochemicals Limited (Applicant)

---

---

---

---

HPCL-Mittal Energy Limited (Applicant)

---

---

---

---

Reliance Industries Limited (Supporter)

---

---

---

---

Other Indian Producers

---

---

---

---

OPAL

---

---

---

---

Total Production* 29,14,100 24,24,400 27,50,000 28,42,700 Total eligible production (Total production ex. OPAL) 22,81,600 17,91,900 22,32,500 22,30,325 HPL and HMEL’s share in total production

---

---

---

---

Range 0-10 0-10 20-30 25-35 Applicants + Supporter

---

---

---

---

Range 40-50% 60-70% 60-70% 70-80%

The Authority notes that the total production estimation provided by the domestic industry and the production estimated by the Authority based on the Report for the POI are in the same range. For the determination whether the domestic industry constitutes major proportion of the total eligible domestic production, the Authority has relied on the production figures based on the Report. Based on the same, the Authority notes that the share of HMEL and HPL’s production in total eligible production is ***%, which is in the same range as the share claimed by the domestic industry.

on the same, the Authority notes that the share of HMEL and HPL’s production in total eligible production is ***%, which is in the same range as the share claimed by the domestic industry.

The Authority further notes that HMEL and HPL are the second and third eligible largest producers of LLDPE (excluding OPAL) in India and account for 25%-30% of total Indian production. Further, along with the Supporter, HPL and HMEL account for ***% of total Indian production. Accordingly, the Authority considers that Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. and HPCL-Mittal Energy Limited constitute ‘major proportion’ in terms of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules, 1995. Further, the Authority has considered macroeconomic data pertaining to other producers mentioned in the Report.

Insofar as data concerning other domestic producers is concerned, the Authority called for complete injury information from all domestic producers of the subject goods as per the 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

data concerning other domestic producers is concerned, the Authority called for complete injury information from all domestic producers of the subject goods as per the 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 27 prescribed format through its mail dated 08.07.2025. The information called included information pertaining to sales, cost of production and profitability of the domestic producers. However, none of the other domestic producers provided such information to the Authority. The Authority only received a support letter from Reliance Industries Limited which was already filed with the Authority prior to initiation. It is also noted that neither the Authority nor the domestic industry can compel any domestic producer to submit information pertaining to injury parameters.

The Authority further notes that the applicants have not imported the subject goods from the subject countries. Moreover, the applicants are not related to any exporter of the subject goods in the subject countries or importer of the subject goods in India. Further, the production of the applicants’ accounts represents a significant and important proportion of the total eligible domestic production and thus accounts for a major proportion of the total eligible domestic production. Thus, the applicants constitute domestic industry as defined under Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules, 1995, and the application satisfies the requirement of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules, 1995.

plicants constitute domestic industry as defined under Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules, 1995, and the application satisfies the requirement of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules, 1995.

With respect to support letter filed by Reliance Industries Limited, the Authority notes that there is no difference between the letter filed at the stage of initiation and the letter circulated with the updated non-confidential version of the application. The domestic industry in the updated non-confidential version of the application only appropriately mentioned the unit of measurement therein based on the comments of the other interested parties. Accordingly, the Authority does not find any infirmity in the support letter.
D. CONFIDENTIALITY D.1 Comments of the other interested parties

The other interested parties made the following submissions in this regard:

a. The domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality. b. The Petitioner has claimed confidentiality over details of total Indian production of the PUC. c. The domestic industry has belatedly circulated the updated non-confidential version of the application. D.2 Comments of the domestic industry

The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry in this regard: a. The domestic industry has provided data as per Trade Notice 10/2018. b. The other interested parties are requesting to file certain information, which no longer form part of the application format.

D.3 Examination by Authority

as per Trade Notice 10/2018. b. The other interested parties are requesting to file certain information, which no longer form part of the application format.

D.3 Examination by Authority

With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of AD Rules, 1995 provides as follows:

   ‘Confidential information:  

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7)of rule 6, sub- rule(2) of rule12,sub-rule(4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 28 of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such information. (2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible.

on of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorise its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.’

Equate and RRPC have contended that the domestic industry has claimed confidentiality over total Indian production data in the application. The same has been disclosed by the Authority above.

With respect to disclosure of country-wise value and volume data, the Authority notes that the same has been disclosed by the domestic industry in the updated non-confidential version of the application.

Equate and Qatofin have contended that the domestic industry has circulated the updated non- confidential version of the application belatedly. The Authority notes that an updated non- confidential version of the application was circulated by the domestic industry on 11.04.2026 after Equate and Qatofin circulated their comments on confidentiality to the domestic industry for the first time on 09.04.2026. The updated petition mainly addresses the comments on confidentiality filed by the said exporters.

lated their comments on confidentiality to the domestic industry for the first time on 09.04.2026. The updated petition mainly addresses the comments on confidentiality filed by the said exporters. It is noted that circulation of non-confidential versions of submissions is incumbent upon the interested parties themselves. Subsequent to the circulation of comments on 09.04.2026, the domestic industry circulated the updated version of the non-confidential application to the interested parties including Equate and Qatofin. Thus, since the comments on confidentiality were circulated by Equate and Qatofin belatedly, to which the domestic industry responded on 11.04.2026. Accordingly, it cannot be considered that the domestic industry has circulated a belated response.

Other interested parties have claimed that the domestic industry has not conformed to the Trade Notice No. 10/2018 with respect to the non-confidential version of the application. In this regard, it is noted that the comments of the other interested parties were circulated to the domestic industry, subsequent to which the domestic industry has provided the country-wise import data (volume and value), capacity utilization in required format, aggregated volume of production of other Indian producers, adjustments made to normal value, and export price. The domestic industry has further submitted that other comments by the interested parties are no longer part of the application format pertaining to confidentiality.

value, and export price. The domestic industry has further submitted that other comments by the interested parties are no longer part of the application format pertaining to confidentiality.

The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 29 parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non- confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.

A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on DGTR’s website along with the request to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all other interested parties. E. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS

E.1 Comments of the other interested parties

The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties:

a. The initiation of investigation is against the spirit of India-UAE CEPA as imports from UAE have demonstrably declined during the POI.

b. The Petition contains inconsistent data and hence should be terminated.

E.2 Comments of the domestic industry

The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:

a.

b. The Petition contains inconsistent data and hence should be terminated.

E.2 Comments of the domestic industry

The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:

a. The domestic industry requests the Authority to disregard all legal and factual submissions made by All India HDPE Manufacturers Association and requests the Authority as it has neither filed any questionnaire response, nor has it filed any other submission/ document to establish its locus. b. The Association has not provided its complete list of members, its by-laws, minutes of meeting to demonstrate which members have authorized it to participate in the present proceedings. In absence of the same, no weight should be lent to the submissions made by the Association.

E.3 Examination by the Authority

The Authority notes that trade remedial investigations are initiated based on prima facie evidence of dumping, injury and causal link as required under AD Rules, 1995. It is further noted that decline in imports cannot constitute a reason to not initiate an investigation if the evidence in the application contained information concerning dumping, injury and causal link. The Authority, as stipulated under India-UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, carried out pre-initiation consultation with representatives from the Government of UAE and provided them the opportunity to present arguments which have been considered by the Authority in these final findings.

ation consultation with representatives from the Government of UAE and provided them the opportunity to present arguments which have been considered by the Authority in these final findings.

With regards to inconsistency in data contained in the application, the Authority notes that the final findings, disclosure statement and the initiation of investigation was based on data which was duly verified by the Authority from the accounting records of the domestic industry.

With respect to non-filing of user questionnaire by the All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association, the Authority notes that in line with its consistent practice and 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 30 keeping in view that no other Indian user has participated in the investigation, it has allowed and considered legal submissions from the association. F. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE, AND DUMPING MARGIN

F.1 Comments of the other interested parties

The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties concerning the determination of normal value, export price and dumping margin:

i. The petition did not contain sufficient evidence of dumping to justify initiation of investigation against Qatar and Kuwait. ii.

termination of normal value, export price and dumping margin:

i. The petition did not contain sufficient evidence of dumping to justify initiation of investigation against Qatar and Kuwait. ii. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it made any credible efforts to substantiate its claim that reliable information on prevailing prices in the State of Qatar , Kuwait and the other subject countries; or exports to third countries, were unavailable.
iii. LLDPE price indices and market assessments are widely published. In fact the Petitioner was aware that the Authority in previous investigation concerning LDPE from State of Qatar had found domestic sales prices to be representative. iv. The Authority must find that the petition did not contain accurate and adequate evidence of dumping. Accordingly, the investigation must be terminated. v. Where domestic prices are not available, the petitioner is required to rely either on export prices or cost of production in country of origin. There was no basis to estimate the normal value based on the costs of Indian producers. vi. Art. 5.2 of AD Agreement requires disclosure of benchmark for normal value used for calculation of dumping margin. The Authority should have rejected the petition as normal value was not based on either of the methods. vii. The applicant has not provided any basis for not considering the cost of production available in the country of origin and has also not explained why the costs of Indian domestic producers reflect the costs in the State of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman.

ring the cost of production available in the country of origin and has also not explained why the costs of Indian domestic producers reflect the costs in the State of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman. viii. The reference to related-party supply does not justify disregarding actual transfer prices without demonstrating that such transactions are not at arm’s length or that they do not reasonably reflect market value. ix. Separate dumping and injury margin must be computed for Rabigh Group, Kemya Group and Sadara Group from Saudi Arabia on the basis of their individual responses. x. Absence of dumping from UAE on similar products (LDPE) has been established in past investigation. xi. There is no particular market situation (PMS) in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate the existence of the same apart from general assertion. xii. The Authority recently in Monoethylene Glycol from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Singapore, observed that there was no direct evidence of PMS in Kuwait during the POI. xiii. The Authority in previous investigation against Saudi Arabia has refused to consider that PMS affects price comparability.
xiv. The Authority in LDPE investigation had determined that there was no raw material/ utility price distortion in UAE. xv. The Petitioner has made a sweeping and unsubstantiated allegation that the GCC is affected by PMS due to government intervention in the pricing of certain input materials and utilities, without providing any basis. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

tiated allegation that the GCC is affected by PMS due to government intervention in the pricing of certain input materials and utilities, without providing any basis. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 31 xvi. The Authority has rejected such misplaced assertions in the past investigations such as Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) from Iran and Qatar and Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and United States of America. Accordingly, such general and unfounded assertions of existence of PMS must be dismissed. xvii. The Panel’s decision in Australia – A4 Copy Paper requires the Petitioner to establish such a situation preventing proper comparison between domestic and export sales, in addition to PMS. xviii. RRPC should be awarded the weighted average rate determined for the SABIC Group. xix. RRPC was earlier held by Saudi Aramco and Sumitomo Chemical at 37.5% each, with the balance 25% held by public shareholders. Aramco acquired 22.5% additional stake in RRPC from Sumitomo in October 2025. RRPC and SABIC are under common control of SABIC. xx. The Authority had awarded RRPC duty applicable to SABIC Group in the recently concluded MEG investigation. xxi. The response of a cooperating producer/exporter cannot be rejected merely because another entity which exported a small portion of the producer’s product has not filed a questionnaire response. xxii.

response of a cooperating producer/exporter cannot be rejected merely because another entity which exported a small portion of the producer’s product has not filed a questionnaire response. xxii. Majority of export volume by RRPC was exported through SABIC and some quantity was exported through Sumitomo. With Aramco’s announcement of acquiring 22.7% share of 37.5% Sumitomo’s stake in RRPC, Sumitomo’s role became limited. xxiii. Even if the Authority considers that RRPC’s export chain is not fully on record on account of Sumitomo’s non-participation, it must still use the information that has been placed on record by the cooperating producer and the cooperating related entity to the extent that such information satisfies the requirements of Annex II. xxiv. RRPC has also furnished resale price information and profitability statement of Sumitomo as part of verification documents. Accordingly, non-participation of Sumitomo cannot be converted into grounds for rejecting RRPC’s entire questionnaire response. xxv. The Authority in Polystyrene and Acetone findings applied facts available only to the extent of non-cooperating sales channel. xxvi. The non-participation of related producer PrefChem from Malaysia is irrelevant for determination of anti-dumping duties for producers/exporters in Saudi Arabia. xxvii. The Authority in PVC Suspension Resin, Halobutyl-Rubber and Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber granted cooperating exporters an individual duty rate even when related producers from non-subject countries did not cooperate in the investigation. xxviii.

-Rubber and Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber granted cooperating exporters an individual duty rate even when related producers from non-subject countries did not cooperate in the investigation. xxviii. SHARQ is a 50-50 joint venture of SABIC and SPDC. Mitsubishi Corporation is not an affiliate of the SABIC group, rather Mitsubishi Corporation is a shareholder of SPDC. Under Trade Notice No. 09/2018 it cannot be said that Mitsubishi is related to either Sharq or SABIC. xxix. Mere relationship between 2 parties is not sufficient to establish control. The Authority in Anodized aluminium frames for solar panels/modules has held that examination must focus on whether one entity is “legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the latter”. xxx. Mitsubishi holds only 33.34% of SPDC’s share, whereas SPDC holds 50% of share of Sharq. Neither Sharq nor Mitsubishi holds more than 5% in Sharq and therefore, it cannot be said Mitsubishi and Sharq are related entities. xxxi. Sharq is 50:50 joint venture between SABIC and SPDC and none of them are in a position to legally or operationally exercise restraint or direction over Sharq and thus, they cannot independently exercise control over Sharq. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

none of them are in a position to legally or operationally exercise restraint or direction over Sharq and thus, they cannot independently exercise control over Sharq. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 32 xxxii. While SABIC and SPDC together can control Sharq, Mitsubishi is only a minority shareholder in SPDC and therefore cannot legally or operationally exercise restraint over SPDC. F.2 Views of the domestic industry

The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry concerning the determination of normal value, export price and dumping margin: i. The Authority must examine whether complete domestic and export sales channel has been reported by the participating exporters from the subject countries. ii. The non-confidential version of the SAPPL’s questionnaire response makes no reference to the fact that it has supplied subject goods manufactured by PRefChem to India. iii. It is unclear whether PRefChem goods supplied by SAPPL to India are actually goods originating in Malaysia or goods originating in Saudi Arabia which were subsequently traded through PRefChem and SAPPL and therefore, exported to India. iv. As is evident from SAPPL’s questionnaire, SAPPL has clearly stated that it has supplied goods manufactured only by producers in KSA. v. SABIC’s response also does not mention that it has supplied subject goods manufactured in other subject countries to India. vi.

at it has supplied goods manufactured only by producers in KSA. v. SABIC’s response also does not mention that it has supplied subject goods manufactured in other subject countries to India. vi. The only logical conclusion emanating from SAPPL and SABIC’s response is that goods exported from PRefChem, Malaysia are actually goods originating in Saudi Arabia which were traded and exported through PRefChem and SAPPL. vii. SABIC Group’s related producer, PRefChem in Malaysia, Sharq’s related exporter, Mitsubishi Corporation and Petro Rabigh’s related exporter Sumitomo Chemical Asia Pte. Ltd. has not participated in the investigation. viii. Para 12.20 of the Manual of Operating Practices clearly stipulates that responding producer has to file a complete response in respect of all related entities who are involved in exports of PUC for being considered cooperative and getting an individual dumping margin. ix. In view of the incomplete sales channel, the Authority should reject entirety of response of SABIC Group, including Sadara and Kemya.

F.3 Examination by the Authority

dumping margin. ix. In view of the incomplete sales channel, the Authority should reject entirety of response of SABIC Group, including Sadara and Kemya.

F.3 Examination by the Authority

Under section 9A(1)(c), the normal value in relation to an article means:

‘i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6), or

ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either:

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 33 (a)comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub- section (6); or the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6);

ticle in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6);

(b)Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transshipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.’

The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject countries, as well as to the appropriate diplomatic representative advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority within the prescribed time limit.

The following producers have participated in the investigation:

Country Name of Producer/ Exporter Producer-Exporter / Exporter Kuwait Equate Petrochemical Co. (“Equate”) Producer-Exporter Malaysia No producer has participated from Malaysia

Oman M/s OQ Polymer L.L.C. (“OQ”) Producer-Exporter OQ Marketing L.L.C.

ter Kuwait Equate Petrochemical Co. (“Equate”) Producer-Exporter Malaysia No producer has participated from Malaysia

Oman M/s OQ Polymer L.L.C. (“OQ”) Producer-Exporter OQ Marketing L.L.C. (“OQM”) Exporter Qatar Qatofin Company Limited Q.P.J.S.C (“Qatofin”) Producer-Exporter Qatar Chemical and Petrochemical Marketing and Distribution Company (Muntajat) Q.P.J.S.C (“Muntajat”) Exporter QatarEnergy Marketing (“QEM”) Exporter TotalEnergies Petrochemicals France - Qatar Branch Office (“TotalEnergies”) Exporter Saudi Arabia Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company ("Kemya") Producer-Exporter Arabian Petrochemical Company ("Petrokemya") Producer-Exporter Eastern Petrochemical Company ("Sharq") Producer-Exporter Jubail United Petrochemical Company ("United") Producer-Exporter Rabigh Refinery & Petrochemical Company (“RRPC”) Producer-Exporter Sadara Chemical Company (“Sadara”) Producer-Exporter Yanbu National Petrochemical Company ("Yansab") Producer-Exporter Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (“SABIC”) Exporter 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

emical Company (“Sadara”) Producer-Exporter Yanbu National Petrochemical Company ("Yansab") Producer-Exporter Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (“SABIC”) Exporter 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 34 SABIC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (“SAPPL”) Exporter SPDC Exporter ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (“EMAPPL”) Exporter

Dow Saudi Arabia Product Marketing B.V. (“DSA”) Exporter

Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited (“DCP (S)”) Exporter

Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited, Dubai branch (“DCP (S) (D)”)
Exporter

Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. Dubai Branch (“DCIPL”) Exporter UAE Abu Dhabi Polymers Co. Ltd (“ADPCL”) Producer-Exporter Borouge PTE Ltd. (“Borouge”) Exporter SRJ Global F.Z.E. Exporter

Other interested parties have contested the allegation of particular market situation against the subject countries. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has not placed sufficient evidence on record. Accordingly, the Authority has not examined the allegation, and no adjustment on account of particular market situation has been made either to the cost of production or normal value and export price.

Where an exporting producer has exported through multiple sales channels (enumerated below), the Authority has determined a weighted average normal value and compared with the weighted average export price of that exporter to determine the dumping margin.

sales channels (enumerated below), the Authority has determined a weighted average normal value and compared with the weighted average export price of that exporter to determine the dumping margin. Further, where an exporter has exported more than one PCN, dumping and injury margin has been determined PCN wise, and weighted average dumping and injury margin for the producer as whole has also been determined.

The Authority also notes that several related producers have also participated in the investigation. The Authority has determined individual dumping and injury margins for such producers and has also determined weighted average dumping and injury margin for the group. The final duty recommendation, if any, for all related producers would be based on the lower of the weighted average dumping or injury margin for the group. The following table represents the sales channel of the participating producers in the present investigation:

Sales Channel Producer Exporter 1* Exporter 2* Exporter 3*
Domestic Equate

UR customers Export Equate

UR customers Domestic OQ Polymers OQ Marketing

UR customers Export OQ Polymers OQ Marketing

UR customers Domestic Qatofin Muntajat

UR customers Qatofin QEM

UR customers Export Qatofin Muntajat

UR customers 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

lymers OQ Marketing

UR customers Domestic Qatofin Muntajat

UR customers Qatofin QEM

UR customers Export Qatofin Muntajat

UR customers 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 35

QEM

UR customers

Muntajat Total Energies

UR customers Domestic Petrokemya SABIC

UR customers Export Petrokemya SABIC SAPPL

UR customers Domestic Sharq SABIC

UR customers Export Sharq SABIC SAPPL

UR customers Sharq SPDC Mitsubishi

UR customers Domestic United SABIC

UR customers Export United SABIC SAPPL

UR customers Domestic Yansab SABIC

UR customers Export Yansab SABIC SAPPL

UR customers Domestic Kemya SABIC

Export Kemya SABIC SAPPL

UR customers Export Kemya EMCAP

UR customers Domestic RRPC SABIC

UR customers RRPC Sumitomo

UR customers RRPC

UR customers Export RRPC SABIC SAPPL

UR Customer RRPC Sumitomo

UR Customer Domestic Sadara SABIC

UR Customer Sadara DMS

UR Customer Export Sadara SABIC SAPPL

UR Customer Sadara DSA DCP (S)

UR Customer Sadara DSA DCP (S) DCIPL UR Customer Sadara DSA DCIPL

UR Customer Sadara DSA DCP(S) (D) UR exporters UR Customer Domestic ADPCL Borouge

UR Customer Export ADPCL Borouge

UR Customer ADPCL Borouge SRJ (UR Exporter)

UR Customer

*All exporters are related unless specifically mentioned that they are unrelated (UR Exporter).

Customer Export ADPCL Borouge

UR Customer ADPCL Borouge SRJ (UR Exporter)

UR Customer

*All exporters are related unless specifically mentioned that they are unrelated (UR Exporter).

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 36 68. The Authority notes that several producer-exporters, related and unrelated exporters, have participated in the present investigation. These producer-exporters have sold the subject goods both in their home market and exported to India through related party sales channels. During the course of investigation, the Authority found that in certain cases producers were selling at high prices to their related exporters and subsequently these related exporters were exporting the goods at dumped prices to India. Accordingly, as mandated under S.9(A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Authority has determined both normal value and export prices from the point of first resale to independent customers after deducting SGA expenses and profits of related exporters and SGA expenses of producers to determine the ex-factory value at the producer level.

In this regard, the Authority notes that all producers from Saudi Arabia namely, Kemya, Petrokemya, Sharq, United, RRPC, Sadara, and Yansab, are either controlled directly or indirectly by SABIC or Saudi Aramco, the majority shareholder (70%) of SABIC and thus, have been considered as related parties.

, United, RRPC, Sadara, and Yansab, are either controlled directly or indirectly by SABIC or Saudi Aramco, the majority shareholder (70%) of SABIC and thus, have been considered as related parties. The shareholding patterns are as follows:

Producer Shareholding Direct Shareholder Shareholding Shareholder of Direct Shareholder Kemya

---

SABIC

---

Saudi Aramco

---

Exxon Chemical Arabia Inc.

---

Petrokemya

---

SABIC

---

Saudi Aramco RRPC

---

Saudi Aramco

---

---

Sumitomo Chemical Co.

---

---

Public Shareholding

---

Sharq

---

SABIC

---

Saudi Aramco

---

SPDC

---

Mitsubishi Corporation United

---

SABIC

---

Saudi Aramco

---

General Organization for Social Insurance

---

Yansab

---

SABIC

---

---

Public

---

SAPPL

---

Saudi Aramco

---

Saudi Aramco Sadara

---

Excellent Performance Chemicals Company

---

Saudi Aramco

---

Dow Saudi Arabia Holding B.V.

---

Based on the above, the Authority has considered Kemya, Petrokemya, Sharq, United, RRPC, Sadara, and Yansab as related producers and form part of the same group, Saudi Aramco – SABIC Group. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

Authority has considered Kemya, Petrokemya, Sharq, United, RRPC, Sadara, and Yansab as related producers and form part of the same group, Saudi Aramco – SABIC Group. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 37

The Authority notes that the sales channel for two producers, namely Sharq and RRPC of the SABIC Group, is incomplete on account of non-participation of related exporters. With respect to Sharq, the Authority notes that Sharq has exported the subject goods through its related entity SPDC which in turn resold them to its related entity Mitsubishi Corporation (“Mitsubishi”), which has further exported to India. Mitsubishi has not participated in the present investigation. In view of Sharq’s incomplete sales channel, the domestic industry has claimed that Sharq’s questionnaire response should be rejected.

The Authority notes that as part of the questionnaire response, participating exporters are required to furnish information concerning export and domestic sales channels, including the fact whether any related or unrelated exporters were part of such sales channels. Further, the questionnaire requires non-producer related entities involved in the exports of the PUC to submit Part I, Part II along with Appendix-5. Further, in Appendix 3A, the Authority specifically requires the participating exporter to identify the relationship between the exporter and customer, that is, whether they are related or not, and the nature of the relationship.

hority specifically requires the participating exporter to identify the relationship between the exporter and customer, that is, whether they are related or not, and the nature of the relationship. This information is sought to ensure accurate determination of net export price, as there may be instances wherein the exporter’s related or unrelated exporter may be dumping. In the absence of accurate information concerning all export sales channels, the Authority would neither be able to determine the price at which the goods were finally exported to India nor the landed value of such goods in India.

In the present investigation, Sharq and SPDC did not provide a complete and accurate disclosure of their sales channel in their original questionnaire response filed on September 12, 2025. Specifically, SPDC omitted to even disclose in its narrative questionnaire response that it had made sales to India through its related party Mitsubishi. Furthermore, SPDC not only omitted to provide information pertaining to two columns namely, “If Related” (relationship between exporter and customer) and “what relationship” (nature of relationship”), but in fact deleted these columns altogether from Appendix 3A. Except SPDC, other entities of SABIC Group had reported these columns accurately.

As the questionnaire entails filing of comprehensive information, at times, inadvertent omissions can happen.

pt SPDC, other entities of SABIC Group had reported these columns accurately.

As the questionnaire entails filing of comprehensive information, at times, inadvertent omissions can happen. To rectify such omissions, vide email dated October 12, 2025, the Authority provided a second opportunity to all exporters and specifically requested the exporters to clarify the names of all related producers, exporters, and exporters who were engaged in the sales or production of the subject goods in their response (Question (h) of General Questions). Sharq and SPDC were also directed to complete their questionnaire response. However, in its response SPDC did not communicate to the Authority that its exports to India through Mitsubishi Corporation constituted related sales. Despite a specific question raised by the Authority, SPDC, in its revised appendices, once again failed to report export sales between SPDC and Mitsubishi as related party sales or to identify Mitsubishi Corporation as a related party. SPDC again in its questionnaire deleted the columns pertaining to relationship with its customer (Mitsubishi). Therefore, it follows that SPDC deliberately omitted information pertaining to its relationship with Mitsubishi.

The Authority further notes that Sharq has contended that Mitsubishi is not an affiliate of Sharq and that Mitsubishi does not control Sharq. In this regard, the Authority notes that prior to examining the relationship between Mitsubishi and Sharq, the Authority must examine the relationship between Mitsubishi and SPDC.

ot control Sharq. In this regard, the Authority notes that prior to examining the relationship between Mitsubishi and Sharq, the Authority must examine the relationship between Mitsubishi and SPDC. Mitsubishi holds 33.34% share in SPDC, and thus directly holds more than 5% of shares in SPDC and indirectly holds more than 5% share in Sharq. The Authority further recalls its recently concluded investigation concerning imports of 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 38 Mono ethylene Glycol, wherein it had held SPDC and Mitsubishi Corporation to be related, which was not contested either by Sharq or SPDC or Mitsubishi Corporation. The Authority has also perused the questionnaire response filed by Mitsubishi Corporation in that case and found that Mitsubishi Corporation had reported purchases from SPDC as related party purchases. In view of these facts, the Authority finds SPDC and Mitsubishi to be related to each other and Sharq to be indirectly related to Mitsubishi. Accordingly, the Authority has applied best information available to determine the export price and normal value of sales made by Sharq in terms of Rule 6(8) of AD Rules, 1995.

The Authority notes that SABIC Group has not disclosed non-participation of another related producer, namely PRefChem from Malaysia.

made by Sharq in terms of Rule 6(8) of AD Rules, 1995.

The Authority notes that SABIC Group has not disclosed non-participation of another related producer, namely PRefChem from Malaysia. While export transactions in Appendix 3A/ Appendix 3B of SAPPL and SABIC listed exports by PRefChem, in response to the questions in the supplementary questionnaire response, neither of them clarified non-participation of PRefChem (50% owned by Saudi Aramco and 50% by Petronas). On account of non- participation of PRefChem, the Authority has determined the dumping and injury margin for Malaysia based on best available information in terms of Rule 6(8) of AD Rules, 1995.

It is also noted that RRPC’s export sales channel is incomplete on account of the non- participation of its related exporter Sumitomo. RRPC has relied on this Authority’s findings in Polystyrene to claim that its response only to the extent of non-participation by its related exporter, should be rejected. The Authority notes that in Polystyrene, all related exporters of the exporter (Takht-e-Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh Petrochemical Company) had cooperated, and the Authority had determined the export price for unrelated exporters in terms of Rule 6(8) of AD Rules, 1995. RRPC has also relied on the Authority’s determination in Acetone, wherein it had applied best information for non-cooperating sales channel. The Authority notes that even in Acetone, the non-cooperating sales channel pertained only to unrelated exporters.

cetone, wherein it had applied best information for non-cooperating sales channel. The Authority notes that even in Acetone, the non-cooperating sales channel pertained only to unrelated exporters. Apposite to the facts in that case, in the present investigation, RRPC’s exports to India are made through only related parties, that is, SABIC and Sumitomo. Accordingly, neither of the findings mentioned above lends any support to RRPC’s argument for partial consideration of its response.

The Authority notes that RRPC in Section E of its questionnaire response while admitting that it had exported the PUC through both Sumitomo and SABIC, it did not file questionnaire response for Sumitomo, nor did it specify any reason for its non-participation. Vide email dated October 12, 2025, the Authority enquired about RRPC’s sales channels. RRPC in its response explained that in 2024 Saudi Aramco and Sumitomo had announced for acquisition of Sumitomo’s 22.5% share capital in RRPC by Saudi Aramco. However, the Authority notes that the acquisition was finally completed in October 2025 2 , that is, outside of the POI. Furthermore, even after the acquisition, Sumitomo continues to hold more than 5% share in RRPC and therefore remains related in terms of Trade Notice 9/2018 dated.

RRPC also explained that Sumitomo was no longer interested in business and that it was RRPC’s understanding that Sumitomo intended to exit the polymer business. The Authority notes that Sumitomo held significant shareholding in RRPC during the POI and thus remained a related party.

RRPC’s understanding that Sumitomo intended to exit the polymer business. The Authority notes that Sumitomo held significant shareholding in RRPC during the POI and thus remained a related party. As Sumitomo has not participated in the present investigation, the Authority notes that RRPC’s sales channel remains incomplete. While the Authority exercises discretion in case of non-related exporters, in case of involvement of related exporters, the same

2 https://www.aramco.com/en/news-media/news/2025/aramco-completes-acquisition-of-additional- stake-in-petro-rabigh
6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 39 relaxation cannot be extended as it would incentivize non-participation by related exporters with low export prices and thus, prevent the Authority from accurate determination of dumping. Accordingly, the Authority has determined the export price and normal value of RRPC in terms of Rule 6(8) of AD Rules, 1995.
F.3.1 Determination of Normal Value and Export Price

a) Normal Value for producers/exporters from Kuwait

Normal value for Equate Petrochemical Company (“Equate”)

Equate has reported domestic sales of ***MT in the POI. The producer has claimed that all domestic sales are to unrelated parties. The producer has claimed adjustments on account of insurance, inland transportation, credit cost, and any other deduction.

he extent that same could be verified and could be legally substantiated by Sadara has been considered by the Authority. The Authority used such cost to carry out the ordinary course of trade test. It is noted that all sales were found to be loss-making.

As Sadara’s all domestic sales were found to be loss-making, and as normal value for other producers in Saudi Arabia was available, the Authority relied on data of other cooperating producers in Saudi Arabia, for determination of Sadara’s normal value. The Authority has considered normal value of NMG PCNs of fully cooperating producers with highest domestic sales in volume terms in Saudi Arabia. The ex-factory normal value so determined has been mentioned in the dumping margin table below.

Normal value for Yansab

Yansab has reported domestic sales of ***MT in its domestic market. These sales have been through its related entity SABIC. Yansab has claimed adjustments on account of storage and transportation costs. SABIC has claimed adjustments on account of handling& packaging, documentation, storage, land transportation, and credit insurance. The Authority to the extent such claims could be verified from the documentary evidence provided by Yansab has accepted such adjustments in the normal value. The cost of production as claimed by Yansab to the extent that same could be verified and could be legally substantiated by Yansab has been considered by the Authority. The Authority used such cost to carry out the ordinary course of trade test.

e extent that same could be verified and could be legally substantiated by Yansab has been considered by the Authority. The Authority used such cost to carry out the ordinary course of trade test. is noted that more than 80% of domestic sales were found to be profitable, 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 44 accordingly, all sales have been considered for determination of normal value. The ex-factory normal value so determined has been mentioned in the dumping margin table below.

Normal value for non-cooperating producers.

The normal value for non-cooperative producers/exporters from the Saudi Arabia has been determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995. The normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.

Export price for producers / exporters from Saudi Arabia

Export Price for Kemya

Kemya has reported ***MT as exports of NMG PCN during the POI. Kemya has claimed that it has made only indirect exports through its related exporters namely, SABIC-SAPPL and EMCAP to India. Kemya has not claimed any adjustments in its response. Similar to normal value, the Authority found that except Kemya all other producers in Saudi Arabia which are related to Kemya and are using the same sales channel (through SABIC) have claimed selling and distribution expense. Kemya subsequently in its Supplementary Questionnaire Response also stated it did not bear any expenses in relation to exports.

hannel (through SABIC) have claimed selling and distribution expense. Kemya subsequently in its Supplementary Questionnaire Response also stated it did not bear any expenses in relation to exports. To verify whether such costs were borne by its related exporters, the Authority checked per unit adjustments claimed by SABIC for other producers and found that per unit expenses borne by SABIC for Kemya were in the same range as other producers. The Authority also noted that sales made to SABIC were not ex-factory but rather FOB transactions. The Authority also noted that Kemya was located in the same geographic region as its related producers and therefore, there was no reason for not reporting adjustments for selling and distribution expenses. As all other producers were bearing selling and distribution expenses in addition to which SABIC was also bearing expenses in selling such goods, the Authority also adjusted Kemya’s selling price by applying per unit rate reported in Appendix 3A of its related producers.

SABIC has claimed adjustments on account of rebates, port charges, ocean freight, handling and packing, documentation, extra port, other expenses, storage, take-in warehouse, bank charges, custom clearance, demurrage, insurance, war risk, land transportation, on/off loading and credit insurance. SAPPL has claimed adjustments on account of LC insurance premium, credit insurance, outsourcing fee, bank charges, and commission.

ar risk, land transportation, on/off loading and credit insurance. SAPPL has claimed adjustments on account of LC insurance premium, credit insurance, outsourcing fee, bank charges, and commission. EMCAP has claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, insurance, port and other related expenses, discount, credit cost, and canvassing commission. The Authority to the extent such claims could be verified from the documentary evidence has accepted such adjustments in the export price. The net export price so determined is shown in the table below.

Export Price for PetroKemya

PetroKemya has reported ***MT as exports of NMG PCN during the POI. PetroKemya has claimed that it has made only indirect exports through its related exporters namely, SABIC- SAPPL to India. PetroKemya has claimed adjustments on account of selling and distribution expenses. SABIC has claimed adjustments on account of rebates, port charges, ocean freight, handling and packing, documentation, extra port, other expenses, storage, take-in warehouse, bank charges, custom clearance, demurrage, insurance, war risk, land transportation, on/off loading and credit insurance. SAPPL has claimed adjustments on account of LC insurance premium, credit insurance, outsourcing fee, bank charges, and commission. The Authority to 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

d credit insurance. SAPPL has claimed adjustments on account of LC insurance premium, credit insurance, outsourcing fee, bank charges, and commission. The Authority to 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 45 the extent such claims could be verified from the documentary evidence has accepted such adjustments in the export price. The net export price so determined is shown in the table below.

Export Price for Sharq

Sharq has reported ***MT as exports of NMG PCN during the POI. Sharq has claimed that it has made only indirect exports through its related exporters namely, SABIC-SAPPL and SPDC-Mitsubishi. As mentioned above, Mitsubishi Corporation, Sharq’s related party has not participated in the present investigation. Accordingly, Sharq’s sales channel remains incomplete and therefore, the Authority has determined export price for Sharq based on the facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of AD Rules, 1995 and has considered the lowest export price of cooperating producers from Saudi Arabia. The net export price so determined is shown in the table below.

Export Price for United

United has reported ***MT of exports of NMG PCN during the POI. United has claimed that it has made only indirect exports to India through its related exporters namely, SABIC-SAPPL. United has claimed adjustments to export price on account on inland transportation.

ed has claimed that it has made only indirect exports to India through its related exporters namely, SABIC-SAPPL. United has claimed adjustments to export price on account on inland transportation. SABIC has claimed adjustments on account of rebates, port charges, ocean freight, handling and packing, documentation, extra port, other expenses, storage, take-in warehouse, bank charges, custom clearance, demurrage, insurance, war risk, land transportation, on/off loading and credit insurance. SAPPL has claimed adjustments on account of LC insurance premium, credit insurance, outsourcing fee, bank charges, and commission. The Authority to the extent such claims could be verified from the documentary evidence has accepted such adjustments in the export price. The net export price so determined is shown in the table below.

Export Price for Rabigh Refinery and Petrochemical Company

RRPC has reported ***MT of exports of NMG PCN during the POI. RRPC has claimed that it has made only indirect exports to India through its related exporters namely, SABIC-SAPPL and Sumitomo Chemical Asia Pte Ltd. As mentioned above, Sumitomo Chemical Asia Pte Ltd, RRPC’s related party, has not participated in the present investigation. Accordingly, RRPC’s sales channel remains incomplete and therefore, the Authority has determined export price for RRPC based on the facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of AD Rules, 1995 and has considered the lowest export price of cooperating producers from Saudi Arabia. The net export price so determined is shown in the table below.

ilable in terms of Rule 6(8) of AD Rules, 1995 and has considered the lowest export price of cooperating producers from Saudi Arabia. The net export price so determined is shown in the table below.

Export Price for Sadara Chemical Company

SCC has reported sales of ***MT of exports of NMG PCN during the POI. SCC has claimed that it has made only indirect exports to India through its related exporters namely, SABIC- SAPPL, Dow Saudi Arabia Marketing B.V., Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Limited, Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. – Dubai Branch and Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. Dubai Branch. SCC has claimed adjustments on account of inland transportation, port and other related expenses, packing cost, credit cost, and marketing fees. Dow Saudi Marketing B.V. has claimed adjustments on account of Freight Sadara to Dow Warehouse, Insurance, Warehouse Cost, Dow Pacific Singapore has claimed adjustments on account of Freight Saudi Arabia to Dow Warehouse, Insurance, Port and other related expenses. Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. – Dubai Branch has claimed 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

on account of Freight Saudi Arabia to Dow Warehouse, Insurance, Port and other related expenses. Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. – Dubai Branch has claimed 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 46 adjustments on account of insurance and credit cost. DCIPL has claimed adjustments on account of credit cost.

SABIC has claimed adjustments on account of rebates, port charges, ocean freight, handling and packing, documentation, extra port, other expenses, storage, take-in warehouse, bank charges, custom clearance, demurrage, insurance, war risk, land transportation, on/off loading and credit insurance. SAPPL has claimed adjustments on account of LC insurance premium, credit insurance, outsourcing fee, bank charges, and commission. The Authority to the extent such claims could be verified from the documentary evidence has accepted such adjustments in the export price. The net export price so determined is shown in the table below.

Export Price for Yansab

Yansab has reported sales of ***MT of exports of NMG PCN during the POI. Yansab has claimed that it has made only indirect exports to India through its related exporters namely, SABIC-SAPPL. Yansab has claimed adjustments to export price on account on inland transportation.

b has claimed that it has made only indirect exports to India through its related exporters namely, SABIC-SAPPL. Yansab has claimed adjustments to export price on account on inland transportation. SABIC has claimed adjustments on account of rebates, port charges, ocean freight, handling and packing, documentation, extra port, other expenses, storage, take-in warehouse, bank charges, custom clearance, demurrage, insurance, war risk, land transportation, on/off loading and credit insurance. SAPPL has claimed adjustments on account of LC insurance premium, credit insurance, outsourcing fee, bank charges, and commission. The Authority to the extent such claims could be verified from the documentary evidence has accepted such adjustments in the export price. The net export price so determined is shown in the table below.

Export price for non-co-operative exporters/producers.

The export price for non-cooperative producers/exporters from Saudi Arabia has been determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995. The net export price so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.

Normal Value for producers/exporters from UAE

Normal value for Abu Dhabi Polymers Company Limited (“ADPCL”)

ADPCL has reported domestic sales of ***MT in its domestic market. ADPCL has sold both NMG and MG PCNs in the domestic market. These sales have been through its related entity Borouge Pte Ltd. ADPCL has claimed adjustments on account of land transportation, warehouse and handling cost, credit cost, packing cost.

ic market. These sales have been through its related entity Borouge Pte Ltd. ADPCL has claimed adjustments on account of land transportation, warehouse and handling cost, credit cost, packing cost. The Authority to the extent such claims could be verified from the documentary evidence has accepted such adjustments in the normal value. Additionally, its related exporter, Borouge has claimed adjustments on account of credit cost and rebates given to customers. The cost of production as claimed by the ADPCL to the extent that same could be verified and could be legally substantiated by ADPCL has been considered by the Authority. The Authority used such cost to carry out the ordinary course of trade test. It is noted that more than 80% of domestic sales were found to be profitable, accordingly, all sales have been considered for determination of normal value. The ex-factory normal value so determined has been mentioned in the dumping margin table below.

Normal value for non-cooperating producers.

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

ation of normal value. The ex-factory normal value so determined has been mentioned in the dumping margin table below.

Normal value for non-cooperating producers.

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 47 115. The normal value for non-cooperative producers/exporters from UAE has been determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995. The normal value so

Export price for ADPCL

ADPCL has reported sales of ***MT of exports of NMG and MPG PCN during the POI. ADPCL has claimed that it has made only indirect exports to India through its related exporter Borouge Pte Ltd and unrelated exporter, SRJ Global FZE. ADPCL has claimed adjustments to export price on account of ocean freight and insurance, inland transportation, port warehousing and other expenses, credit cost and packing cost. Borouge Pte Ltd. has claimed adjustments on account of credit cost, fixed cost of India office and rebates. SRJ Global FZE has not claimed any adjustments. The Authority to the extent such claims could be verified from the documentary evidence has accepted such adjustments in the normal value. The net export price so determined is shown in the table below.

Export price for non-co-operative exporters/producers.

The export price for non-cooperative producers/exporters from UAE has been determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995. The net export price so

Dumping margin for related producers and Exporters

rs/exporters from UAE has been determined based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules, 1995. The net export price so

Dumping margin for related producers and Exporters

It is noted that in the subject investigation many cooperating producers and exporters are related to each other and form a group of related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider related exporting producers and exporters as one single entity for the determination of a dumping/ injury margin and thus determine one single dumping/injury margin for them. This is in particular because calculating individual dumping/injury margins might encourage circumvention of anti-dumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related exporting producers to channel their exports to India through the company with the lowest individual dumping/ injury margin.

In accordance with the above, related producers and exporters have been regarded as one single entity and attributed one single dumping/ injury margin calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping/ injury margins of the cooperating related producers and exporters.

F.3.2 Dumping Margin

The normal value, export price and dumping margin determined in the present investigation are as follows: Dumping Margin Table

Producer PCN Normal value
($/MT) Export Price ($/MT) Dumping Margin ($/MT) Dumping Margin (%) Dumping Margin (Range) Kuwait

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

argin Table

Producer PCN Normal value
($/MT) Export Price ($/MT) Dumping Margin ($/MT) Dumping Margin (%) Dumping Margin (Range) Kuwait

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 48 Equate Petrochemical Company NMG

---

---

---

---

10-20 Others All

---

---

---

---

20-30
Saudi Arabia

Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company ("Kemya") NMG

---

---

---

---

0-10 Arabian Petrochemical Company ("Petrokemya") NMG

---

---

---

---

0-10 Eastern Petrochemical Company ("Sharq") NMG

---

---

---

---

20-30 Jubail United Petrochemical Company ("United") NMG

---

---

---

---

0-10 Rabigh Refinery & Petrochemical Company NMG

---

---

---

---

20-30 Sadara Chemical Company NMG

---

---

---

---

0-10 Yanbu National Petrochemical Company ("Yansab") NMG

---

---

---

---

0-10 Saudi Aramco - SABIC Group NMG

---

---

---

---

10-20 Others All

---

---

---

---

20-30 Qatar

Qatofin Company Limited Q.P.J.S.C NMG

---

---

---

---

(10)-0 Oman

OQ Polymers L.L.C. NMG

---

---

---

---

0-10 Others All

---

---

---

---

10-20
UAE

Abu Dhabi Polymers Co. Ltd NMG

---

---

---

---

0-10 Abu Dhabi Polymers Co. Ltd MG

---

---

---

---

(10)-0 Abu Dhabi Polymers Co. Ltd Wt. Avg.

---

---

---

---

0-10 Others All

---

---

---

---

0-10
Malaysia

Any All

---

---

---

---

40-50

G.

MG

---

---

---

---

(10)-0 Abu Dhabi Polymers Co. Ltd Wt. Avg.

---

---

---

---

0-10 Others All

---

---

---

---

0-10
Malaysia

Any All

---

---

---

---

40-50

G. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY
G.1 Views of other interested parties

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 49 121. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with respect to injury and causal link: i. The existence or absence of a demand-supply gap is not determinative of injury, and the Petitioner’s ability to cater to Indian demand, does not discharge the Petitioner from its obligation to demonstrate adverse volume and price effects. ii. The Authority in Seamless Tubes and Pipes had terminated the investigation when major producer, Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, failed to provide information. iii. Imports from State of Qatar have fallen compared to 2021-22 and have declined by almost 65%. Such a dramatic decline rules out any claim of injury from the alleged dumped imports from the State of Qatar. In fact, imports from State of Qatar have started declining even prior to commencement of HMEL’s production. iv. While imports from State of Qatar fell steeply, domestic production increased drastically from 100 to 826 index points, whereas demand grew from 100 to 119 index points, thus clearly indicating that imports from State of Qatar did not have any adverse impact on the domestic industry. v.

rom 100 to 826 index points, whereas demand grew from 100 to 119 index points, thus clearly indicating that imports from State of Qatar did not have any adverse impact on the domestic industry. v. While imports from Kuwait increased in the POI by 153 index points, the domestic production and sales of the domestic industry sales and production increased by 826 and 798 index points. This demonstrates that the imports from Kuwait have not adversely affected the domestic production and sales of the Domestic Industry. vi. While volume of imports from Oman remained stable during the injury period, domestic industry’s sales and production have increased significantly. Imports from Oman have contracted substantially while share of domestic industry has increased significantly. vii. UAE’s share in total demand has declined in the POI and there is no effective increase in volume of imports from UAE. viii. The Petition contains no evidence of increase in volume of subject imports either in absolute terms or in relative to production or consumption in India. ix. The Petition appears to contain inflated volume of imports from Oman compared to the actual data supplied by the exporter and corresponding third-party data available in public domain. The Authority is requested to verify the same prior to undertaking injury analysis.
x. The Petitioner has relied on end point comparisons without examining intervening trends.

in public domain. The Authority is requested to verify the same prior to undertaking injury analysis.
x. The Petitioner has relied on end point comparisons without examining intervening trends. As recognised in Russia – Anti- Dumping Duties on Light Commercial Vehicles, an endpoint to end-point comparison may mask intervening developments and produce a distorted picture of trends.
xi. Further as per European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil, investigation must take into account the actual intervening trends in each of the injury factors and indices rather than just a comparison of end-points. xii. Volume of imports from subject countries has not shown a consistent increasing trend but have declined from 528,590 MT in 2022-23 to 485,524 MT in 2023-24 and further again to 415,013 MT in the POI, a fall of over 21 percent in volume from 2022-23.
xiii. The Petition does not explain how declining imports caused injury to the domestic industry. xiv. The Petitioners have been the only beneficiary of the increased Indian demand. The declining share of imports shows that such imports have not impacted the sales of the Petitioners and Indian Industry as a whole. xv. The decline in import volumes coinciding with increase in volume of imports clearly establishes that there is no sustained injurious import pressure. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

as a whole. xv. The decline in import volumes coinciding with increase in volume of imports clearly establishes that there is no sustained injurious import pressure. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 50 xvi. The growth in Petitioners’ sales in more than growth in Indian demand. If imports have declined on account of HMEL’s production, it shows that HMEL has been able to replace imports from the subject countries. xvii. Petitioners’ sales have increased by 698% in the POI. Subject imports from the subject countries have adjusted to domestic supply. xviii. Issues relating to price effect and profitability are separate and unrelated to volume effect. Lack of volume injury is evident from the fact of substantial increase in Petitioners’ sales and their market share along with the decline in market share of subject imports declined after FY 2022-23. xix. Imports increased only between 2021-22 and 2022-23 and have thereafter declined. Imports from the subject countries have declined significantly by 32 index points compared to previous year. xx. The total share of subject imports was merely 15% in the POI, whereas the market share of Petitioner has increased from 3% in the base year to 22% in the POI. xxi. The reliance on selective data-points to allege an increase in import volumes is misplaced and does not establish adverse volume effects. xxii.

ed from 3% in the base year to 22% in the POI. xxi. The reliance on selective data-points to allege an increase in import volumes is misplaced and does not establish adverse volume effects. xxii. The Petitioner cannot rely on a general decline in the market share of other Indian producers to claim injury to themselves as other domestic producers have not provided data. xxiii. As per the Appellate Body’s decision in China – GOES, the Authority must go beyond identifying relevant trends in prices and demonstrate that the subject imports have “explanatory force” for the occurrence of such trends. Application of this standard to the present investigation demonstrates a lack of correlation between the landed value of imports and the Petitioner’s selling price. xxiv. As per the Appellate Body’s decision in EC – Bed Linens and Thailand H-Beams, the investigating Authority is required to examine all relevant factors and positive developments in key parameters cannot be disregarded. xxv. The data contained in the Petition shows that the performance of the Domestic Industry has remained stable or improved over the injury period. xxvi. The attempt to disregard improvements in volumetric parameters on the ground that earlier data pertains only to HPL is misplaced. xxvii. The domestic industry has not provided any evidence that imports have displaced domestic production or prevented utilization of available capacity, accordingly there is no injury to the domestic industry. xxviii.

ustry has not provided any evidence that imports have displaced domestic production or prevented utilization of available capacity, accordingly there is no injury to the domestic industry. xxviii. HMEL did not exist in the base year and therefore comparing injury parameters of domestic industry in the POI with base year is economically and logically flawed. xxix. Installed capacity, production, capacity utilization, and sales have sharply increased over the injury period and in the POI.\ xxx. Domestic industry has expanded capacity by more than 200%, increased production by 726%, increased domestic sales by nearly 698% and massively expanded its workforce, wages and productivity. xxxi. Having relied on HMEL’s commissioning of new capacity to explain import trends when convenient, the applicant companies cannot selectively attribute the same trend to dumped imports for the purpose of asserting financial injury. xxxii. The domestic industry has increased its sales by 300% over the injury period. This growth indicates that financial health of domestic producers in the PUC has been good, otherwise HMEL would not have decided to invest in the PUC market. xxxiii. Productivity, wages, and employment have improved steadily, indicating rapidly expanding industrial activity and improved operational efficiency. xxxiv. The attempt to disregard improvements in volumetric parameters on the ground that earlier data pertains only to HPL, is misplaced. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

oved operational efficiency. xxxiv. The attempt to disregard improvements in volumetric parameters on the ground that earlier data pertains only to HPL, is misplaced. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 51 xxxv. The Petitioner has admitted decline in import volumes in 2023–24, which coincides with the commencement of HMEL’s production, demonstrating that imports have adjusted in response to increased domestic supply. xxxvi. the Domestic Industry has relied on aggregate country-wise data and does not rebut the Respondents’ exporter-specific case that Sadara Group’s exports to India declined in the POI as compared to the base year and preceding year. xxxvii. No adverse volume effect can be attributed to Sadara Group on the basis of country- level data. xxxviii. A situation where the domestic industry expands capacity, retains or improves its market share, and continues to sell significant volumes in the domestic market cannot be said to constitute volumetric injury. xxxix. Petition does not contain adequate and accurate evidence on the effect of prices on the domestic industry. xl. Petitioners have failed to furnish price undercutting data for entirety of injury period. There was marginal price undercutting in the POI.
xli. Price undercutting has not prevented the Petitioner from increasing its market share. xlii. Export price of Sadara is 20-30% higher than the prices indicated in the Petition.

ng in the POI.
xli. Price undercutting has not prevented the Petitioner from increasing its market share. xlii. Export price of Sadara is 20-30% higher than the prices indicated in the Petition. Sadara is therefore not undercutting the prices of the domestic industry and is not causing any adverse effect on the domestic industry. xliii. Landed value of UAE is highest amongst the subject countries and therefore, no injury is attributable to imports from UAE. Price undercutting from UAE is extremely low and negligible. xliv. The landed price of subject countries has remained more or less stable during the injury period, with decline registering only in the POI, which was on account of aggressive pricing of the domestic industry. xlv. HPL and HMEL provide after-sales incentives to the domestic producers and such after sale discounts must be removed while computing alleged price undercutting. xlvi. The quantum of price undercutting can be ascertained only once complete information including after sales rebates is provided to the Authority. xlvii. DGTR must examine monthly price variations particularly after HMEL began production of PUC. xlviii. The Petitioners have been able to increase/ decrease their selling price in line with the increase/decrease in cost of sales. Subject imports from the subject countries have neither depressed nor suppressed prices of the Petitioners. Price suppression/ depression, if any, is on account of aggressive pricing by the Petitioners. xlix.

rts from the subject countries have neither depressed nor suppressed prices of the Petitioners. Price suppression/ depression, if any, is on account of aggressive pricing by the Petitioners. xlix. The Petitioner reduced domestic selling prices in FY 2023-24 even when import prices remained stable, and the reduction in import prices in the POI followed the Petitioner’s earlier price reduction. l. Petitioner’s submission that it was selling at losses is not relevant for establishing price undercutting, as such losses are due to its own cost movement and commercial strategy. li. Domestic industry increased its prices in the POI even though landed prices of subject imports fell in the POI. lii. The Petitioners reduced their selling prices by 19% in FY 2023-24 from FY 2022-23 while the landed price of imports remained at the same level. Thus, the exporters were forced to reduce their prices due to predatory and aggressive pricing by the Petitioners. liii. Price suppression and depression movements are on account of other macroeconomic, industry-factors and commissioning of HMEL’s newly commissioned plant, and not due to imports. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

ression and depression movements are on account of other macroeconomic, industry-factors and commissioning of HMEL’s newly commissioned plant, and not due to imports. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 52 liv. Petitioners’ selling prices have moved in line with their own cost of sales and not in line with the landed price of imports. lv. The marginal decline in Petitioners’ selling prices in the POI follows an exceptional price increase in 2021-22 and decline in price is a result of market correction rather than downward pressure from imports. lvi. While landed value declined by 1% in 2022-23, the domestic industry increased its selling price by 11%. Despite there being no change in landed value in FY 2023-24, the Petitioners reduced their selling price by 19%. Furthermore, even though the landed value declined in the POI, the Petitioner was able to increase its prices by 11%. lvii. HPL, in its Annual Report for FY 24-25 stated it has witnessed strong growth of 8% in LLDPE, thus, clearly admitting no injury.
lviii. Imports from Qatar constitute 1% market share in the POI and therefore, it cannot influence domestic selling price and in fact, follows the prices set by the domestic industry. lix. If exporters sold the PUC at dumped prices into India and were undercutting the prices, import volumes would have increased, instead of declining. lx.

e prices set by the domestic industry. lix. If exporters sold the PUC at dumped prices into India and were undercutting the prices, import volumes would have increased, instead of declining. lx. The market share of imports has consistently remained within the range of 10-20% whereas the market share of domestic industry has increased from 0-10% to 20-30%. Similarly, share of Indian LLDPE industry has also recovered in the POI.
lxi. Imports from the subject countries are maintaining a relatively small and stable share; such limited import penetration cannot be considered to have caused adverse volume effect. lxii. The Petitioners enjoy a market share of 22%, with domestic players having share of 83% in the POI. lxiii. Petitioners’ market share has increased from 3% in the base year to 22% in the POI, which indicates that there is no injury to the Petitioners. lxiv. The Petitioner was making profits in the base year, and the loss in FY 2022-23 was on account of 25% increase in cost of sales. The Authority should investigate whether such losses were on account of intrinsic factors or internal inefficiencies. lxv. Any price effects claimed by the applicant cannot be attributed to imports but rather to pricing decisions, capacity adjustments, and cost dynamics acknowledged by the Applicant. lxvi. The applicants have admitted that the price decline commenced around the time HMEL started production. Thus, addition of new capacity coincided and likely contributed to losses to the applicants. lxvii.

plicants have admitted that the price decline commenced around the time HMEL started production. Thus, addition of new capacity coincided and likely contributed to losses to the applicants. lxvii. The Authority should compare HMEL’s performance with its projected performance in project report and verify if HMEL’s losses were truly unforeseen. lxviii. The Petitioner’s depreciation and interest cost substantially increased by 82% and 41% respectively. lxix. The domestic industry has been earning negative returns since the base year when imports were at their lowest level in the base year, therefore, no injury is attributable to imports. lxx. The domestic industry seeks to ignore improvements in production, capacity utilisation and sales in the later years and attributes it to the entry and ramp-up of HMEL. However, deterioration in financial parameters despite the entry of new producer is relied upon to claim injury. lxxi. The domestic industry is relying upon favourable trends and disregarding adverse trends without context, resulting in a distorted and unreliable injury analysis. lxxii. The alleged deterioration in financial parameters is on account of initial pricing pressures, higher fixed costs, higher input costs and start up-operation, stabilisation challenges. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

rioration in financial parameters is on account of initial pricing pressures, higher fixed costs, higher input costs and start up-operation, stabilisation challenges. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 53 lxxiii. Despite increase in selling price between FY 2021-22 and 2022-23, the applicants’ profitability declined sharply. lxxiv. Despite decline in cost of sales, applicants continue to incur losses. Therefore, these alleged losses are not commensurate with movements in import prices and cannot be attributed to the alleged dumping. lxxv. The domestic industry’s losses peaked in 2023-24 exactly when HMEL’s plant was commissioned. If improvements in volume parameters are attributable to HMEL’s entry, then alleged deterioration in financial parameters must also be considered on account of the same.
lxxvi. While import prices of Qatar remained stable in 2022-23, and import prices of Kuwait increased slightly, the PBIT of domestic industry significantly declined during that period.
lxxvii. Despite decline in prices of imports from Qatar during the POI, domestic industry’s PBIT has improved. If import prices from Qatar were causing injury to the domestic industry, its PBIT should have declined. lxxviii. While prices for Kuwait declined marginally in the POI, the domestic industry decline in PBIT was far greater. Accordingly, injury is not due to imports from Kuwait. lxxix.

have declined. lxxviii. While prices for Kuwait declined marginally in the POI, the domestic industry decline in PBIT was far greater. Accordingly, injury is not due to imports from Kuwait. lxxix. Despite increase in prices of exports from Oman since 2022-23, domestic industry’s PBIT has declined. Thus, injury is not attributable to Oman’s import prices. lxxx. If exporters from Oman intended to dump the PUC into India, import volumes should have instead increased as prices fell. lxxxi. The increase in cost of sales of Petitioner’s prices was on account of increase in energy and feedstock prices globally as has been accepted in HPL’s Annual Report. lxxxii. The cost differences between HMEL and HPL are not minor but significant and inconsistent with normal industry behaviour. lxxxiii. The financial loss claimed by the domestic industry is self-inflicted and is on account of initial capital investments, which is evident from the sharp increase in interest cost and depreciation. lxxxiv. The reduction in per unit losses during the POI accompanied with increased sales and market share is inconsistent with the allegation of injury due to subject imports. lxxxv. Petitioners’ losses increased in FY 2022-23, even though it selling price increased by 11 index points. lxxxvi. The fact that domestic industry remains in loss after removal of interest cost does not mean that injury is due to subject imports.
lxxxvii.

selling price increased by 11 index points. lxxxvi. The fact that domestic industry remains in loss after removal of interest cost does not mean that injury is due to subject imports.
lxxxvii. The losses can be on account of low-capacity utilization, high fixed overhead absorption, product mix issues, higher operating costs, pricing pressure arising from its own marketing strategy, and internal competition with existing domestic producers. lxxxviii. The inventories have increased due to commencement of production by HMEL. lxxxix. The increase in the average inventory is not on account of the subject import which commands only 15% share in the Indian market and has been declining throughout the injury period. The Petitioners are keeping healthy inventory ready at their disposal to cater to the increasing domestic and global demand of the PUC. xc. The Petition contains insufficient evidence on causation between the alleged dumping and injury to the domestic industry. No explanation has been provided on how the alleged dumped imports had “explanatory force” for any allegedly negatively trending injury factors. xci. Indian producers of PUC face an inherent cost disadvantage due to usage of naptha as a raw material, whereas producers in other countries use ethane, which has a lower cost of production. xcii. The cash cost of producing ethylene using Ethane as a cracking route is approximately 240-250 $/MT in Saudi Arabia. Natural advantage regarding availability of raw 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

i. The cash cost of producing ethylene using Ethane as a cracking route is approximately 240-250 $/MT in Saudi Arabia. Natural advantage regarding availability of raw 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 54 material and the selection feedstock efficiencies is an inherent advantage for the producers of PUC in Saudi Arabia when compared with Indian producers. xciii. The applicant companies’ financial performance was influenced by internal commercial and structural factors, rather being driven by dumped imports. xciv. HMEL and HPL are fundamentally different in terms of operational maturity, scale, and cost behaviour, and therefore cannot be aggregated without distorting the analysis. xcv. HMEL was in its first year of operations during 2023-24, therefore, its cost cannot be expected to be highly efficient. xcvi. While cost of sales of domestic industry declined by 16% in the POI, HPL’s cost of sales declined only by 5%, indicating that the cost reduction is primarily driven by HMEL, a first-year producer, rather than any genuine improvement in cost of established producer.
xcvii. HMEL’s newly commissioned plant has outperformed HPL in terms of cost efficiency, which questions the reliability and representativeness of the cost data relied upon by the Petitioner. xcviii. The divergent performance amongst the domestic industry indicates that the alleged injury is driven by company-specific factors unrelated to imports. xcix.

relied upon by the Petitioner. xcviii. The divergent performance amongst the domestic industry indicates that the alleged injury is driven by company-specific factors unrelated to imports. xcix. The magnitude of losses is disproportionate to the movement in selling prices alone and persists even during periods when the cost of sales was at moderate levels. c. HMEL incurred losses during the first year due to initial inefficiencies linked with startup costs, which were reduced in the POI despite the allegations of dumping, price undercutting. HMEL was in operationalization stage during the injury period, therefore, injury is not due to imports from the subject countries. ci. The staggering increase in interest cost and depreciation fully explains the domestic industry’s financial position. These are natural consequences of a large capital expansion and not effects of imports. cii. Publicly available credit ratings and HMEL itself confirm that the dominant cause of HMEL’s financial distress is the commissioning of its US$ 3 Billion GGSPAP petrochemical project. ciii. HPL continues to incur losses, despite decline in import volumes, which are attributable to its high cost of production. civ. Injury is not due to imports from State of Qatar but due to other subject countries. cv. Injury is not due to imports from Kuwait, Oman but due to other subject countries such as Saudi Arabia and UAE, whose volumes have increased substantially, both in absolute and relative terms. cvi.

njury is not due to imports from Kuwait, Oman but due to other subject countries such as Saudi Arabia and UAE, whose volumes have increased substantially, both in absolute and relative terms. cvi. Imports from Kuwait have increased only marginally compared to significant surge from other subject countries. cvii. Injury is not attributable to UAE as imports from subject countries other than UAE has increased even though no comparable FTA benefit exists from these subject countries. cviii. Injury is due to weakened global consumption as recognized by HPL in its Annual Report. Further, HPL in its Annual Report 2023-24, has claimed that the domestic market has faced immense loss due to the inventory build-up on account of the commissioning and stabilization of one of the largest petrochemical plants in India. cix. HMEL, being a new entrant, has resorted to aggressive pricing to compete with established players. cx. HPL has suffered injury due to shutdowns undertaken during COVID-19. cxi. The Authority cannot simply apply Annexure III to HMEL as it started production in August 2023 and is not an established producer. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

s undertaken during COVID-19. cxi. The Authority cannot simply apply Annexure III to HMEL as it started production in August 2023 and is not an established producer. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 55 cxii. It is the consistent practice of the Authority that in the case of a newly established domestic industry, optimization of capacity should be done on the basis of available data, read with projections in the project report. cxiii. For optimum utilization of raw material and utilities, only the best utilization of the established producer, HPL, ought to be considered, and HMEL’s NIP should not be overstated.

G.2 Views of the domestic industry

The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the injury and causal link;

i. India currently has a dedicated capacity of around 31 lakhs MT for LLDPE against a demand of around 29 lakhs MT. Thus, there is no demand supply gap in India, and Indian manufacturers can cater to the entirety of Indian demand. ii. As FY 2021-22 and 2022-23 data pertains only to HPL, volumetric data in the years FY 2023-24 and CY 2024 show an apparent improvement and may be misinterpreted to suggest that there is no injury to the domestic industry. In contrast to the volumetric parameters, financial parameters show significant price injury during the entirety of the injury period. iii.

uggest that there is no injury to the domestic industry. In contrast to the volumetric parameters, financial parameters show significant price injury during the entirety of the injury period. iii. The other interested parties have mostly examined individual subject countries price and volume movement against other countries and domestic industry’s injury parameters to allegedly demonstrate that there has been no injury to the domestic industry on account of such exports. iv. Such examination is entirely incorrect in view of the principles of cumulative assessment laid down under AD Rules, 1995. v. Despite about 25% increase in Indian production capacity, the market share has declined and that of the subject imports has increased. Thus, Indian Industry is also facing volumetric injury despite having adequate capacity to cater to entirety of Indian demand. vi. Imports of subject goods from the subject countries have increased significantly compared to the base year. vii. The decline in import volumes from 2023-24 is on account of commencement of production by HMEL. Between the base year and the POI, while imports have increased by 48%, the demand has only increased by 19%. viii. The demand for the subject goods has increased throughout the injury period. The growth rate of imports has surpassed growth rate of demand.
ix. Due to dumped imports from the subject countries, the domestic industry has not been able to adequately benefit from the growth in Indian demand, despite its best efforts to increase its sales, even at non-remunerative prices.

e subject countries, the domestic industry has not been able to adequately benefit from the growth in Indian demand, despite its best efforts to increase its sales, even at non-remunerative prices. x. Other interested parties have failed to appreciate that whenever a new producer enters a market, after undertaking substantial investment, it cannot be expected to keep its capacities idle. Being a new entrant, it would at least attempt to partly recover its fixed cost, so as to remain viable. xi. HMEL’s plan to set up LLDPE production facility has been in effect since 2017. HMEL commenced commercial LLDPE production in August 2023. The data pertaining FY 2021- 22 and FY 2022-23 pertains only to HPL. Thus, once HMEL commenced production, the volumetric parameters such as production, sales etc., are bound to exhibit an upward trajectory. xii. Import prices are undercutting domestic prices by a very significant margin. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

rameters such as production, sales etc., are bound to exhibit an upward trajectory. xii. Import prices are undercutting domestic prices by a very significant margin. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 56 xiii. The domestic industry is facing undercutting even when it is selling at losses. xiv. The domestic industry was indeed forced to provide post-sales discounts in face of the low-price dumped imports exported by the subject countries. xv. Indian users quote prices offered by the subject countries while negotiating with the domestic industry against which the domestic industry has no option but to give discounts to make sales in the domestic market. xvi. The evidence of post-invoicing discounts provided by the association does not in any manner weaken the case of domestic industry, but rather strengthens it, showing the economic reality and the price pressure exerted by the imports from the subject
countries, forcing the domestic industry to further reduce its prices. xvii. Due to decline in landed value of subject imports, the domestic industry has been forced to sell below its cost, clearly evidencing price depression. xviii. The decline in prices commenced from the period as soon as HMEL started production. xix. While the domestic industry’s market share has increased in the POI compared to previous years, the increase has been achieved by selling the subject goods at non- remunerative prices in India. xx.

While the domestic industry’s market share has increased in the POI compared to previous years, the increase has been achieved by selling the subject goods at non- remunerative prices in India. xx. Compared to the base year, while the market share of Indian Industry has declined, the market share of subject countries has increased. xxi. The injury to the domestic industry is evident from the fact that despite significant addition in the domestic production capacity, the market share of the subject imports has increased during the POI, while that of the Indian industries has gone down. xxii. The domestic industry has been able to increase its market share only by making non- remunerative loss-making sales significantly below its cost. However, despite their loss-making sales, Indian Industry could not increase their share in Indian demand. xxiii. The domestic industry’s profitability is in red and has been earning cash losses, a negative PBDIT and accumulating negative returns on capital employed during the POI. xxiv. The domestic industry has not only been earning losses but also has negative PBDIT and cash losses which are examined after removing interest elements. Thus, no injury cannot be attributed to HMEL’s recent commencement of production. xxv. The increase in NFA during 2023-24 arose solely on account of capitalization of HMEL’s LLDPE plant upon commencement of commercial production, pursuant to investment decisions and capital expenditure that had been planned and undertaken much earlier, in 2017.
xxvi.

ation of HMEL’s LLDPE plant upon commencement of commercial production, pursuant to investment decisions and capital expenditure that had been planned and undertaken much earlier, in 2017.
xxvi. Such historical capitalization cannot be construed as evidence of the domestic industry’s present financial capacity to undertake fresh investments. xxvii. HMEL’s losses have reduced in the POI on account of it becoming more efficient in terms of reducing its cost of sales. However, despite a decline in cost of sales, HMEL continued to make sales below its cost, leading to significant losses.
xxviii. Even if the impact of depreciation and interest cost is removed, on account of its commencement of production during the injury period, HMEL was still making cash losses during the POI. xxix. Where the domestic industry has been unable to earn reasonable returns or even recover its costs during nearly fifteen months of production, its capacity to mobilize funds and undertake future capital investments stands materially impaired. xxx. The domestic industry has access to raw materials used in the production of PUC at internationally competitive prices.
xxxi. It may be noted that most of the natural gas and other feedstock prices are controlled by respective governments of the subject countries. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

competitive prices.
xxxi. It may be noted that most of the natural gas and other feedstock prices are controlled by respective governments of the subject countries. 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 57 xxxii. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia compensates Aramco, the feedstock supplier to Petro Rabigh and other SABIC Group producers, to compensate the losses made by Aramco in selling feedstock at government regulated prices. xxxiii. Similar pricing difference was found by the Authority in case of Kuwait concerning supplies of ethane by Kuwait Petroleum Corporation to Equate and The Kuwait Olefins Company. xxxiv. Indian producers access raw materials at internationally competitive prices, producers in Saudi Arabia and other subject countries rely on distorted input prices by their governments. Thus, the inherent advantage is not of geographic location, rather it is of distorted input price regime. xxxv. Naphtha-based production process is an inherent feature of the domestic industry and that non-attribution analysis is not required to be conducted for factors which are inherent features of the domestic industry. xxxvi. The other interested parties are assuming, without evidence, that a first- year plant must necessarily exhibit inefficiencies.
xxxvii.

hich are inherent features of the domestic industry. xxxvi. The other interested parties are assuming, without evidence, that a first- year plant must necessarily exhibit inefficiencies.
xxxvii. The other interested parties have failed to appreciate that while HMEL may be a new producer for LLDPE, it is an established entity in polymer business for more than a decade and has sufficient technical know-how to address any start up and stablilisation issues xxxviii. During the injury period, HMEL was able to quickly achieve a capacity utilization of almost 65%-75% within a span of 8 months and thus was able to stabilize its production.
xxxix. During the POI HMEL achieved a capacity utilization of around 80-90%, which in itself is clear evidence of its technical competence, operational efficiency, and successful stabilisation of production. xl. The Authority in Melamine had held wherein the domestic industry has been in production for a sufficient period of time and wherein it has achieved a high-capacity utilization during the POI, the impact of startup effects is sufficiently covered. xli. For a product such as LLDPE, where the predominant component of cost is raw material, operational efficiency is more appropriately assessed through raw material consumption norms, which are at comparable levels for both producers. xlii. HMEL’s lower cost of sales is primarily attributable to lower fixed cost per unit resulting from higher production volumes and higher capacity utilisation.

parable levels for both producers. xlii. HMEL’s lower cost of sales is primarily attributable to lower fixed cost per unit resulting from higher production volumes and higher capacity utilisation. By contrast, HPL has been incurring losses due to sustained dumped imports since 2022-23, which have adversely impacted its production levels and prevented optimal utilisation of capacity. xliii. The price-suppressing effect of dumped imports from the subject countries has depressed HPL’ s output of LLDPE, thereby increasing fixed cost absorption per unit and, consequently, its overall cost of sales. xliv. After undertaking substantial capital investment, it was commercially imperative for HMEL to ramp up production to stabilise operations, optimise capacity utilisation, and achieve efficient absorption of fixed costs. In capital-intensive petrochemical operations, rapid scale-up post-commissioning is both normal and necessary to attain operational equilibrium. xlv. The present investigation is related to unfair trade practices of exporters from the subject countries. For past several years, Indian domestic LLDPE market has been charactersied with several domestic producers and internal competition amongst domestic producers is an inherent feature of the domestic market.

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

DPE market has been charactersied with several domestic producers and internal competition amongst domestic producers is an inherent feature of the domestic market.

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 58 G.3 Examination by the Authority

Rule 11 of the AD Rules, 1995 read with Annexure II to the AD Rules, 1995 provides that injury determination shall involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on the domestic producers of such articles. In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the AD Rules, 1995.

ity utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the AD Rules, 1995.

G.3.1 Cumulative assessment of injury

Article 3.3 of the WTO agreement and para (iii) of Annexure II of the AD Rules, 1995 provides that in case where imports of subject goods from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigations, the Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that: a. The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than two percent expressed as a percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three percent (or more) of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than three percent, the imports collectively account for more than seven percent of the import of like article, and b. Cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported article and the like domestic articles.

Accordingly, the Authority has terminated the investigation against Qatar and Qatar has not been considered as part of the subject countries for the purpose of injury examination. Subsequent to the issuance of disclosure statement, interested parties pointed out that imports from Kuwait and Oman were less than 3% and collectively accounted for less than 7% of total imports into India.

to the issuance of disclosure statement, interested parties pointed out that imports from Kuwait and Oman were less than 3% and collectively accounted for less than 7% of total imports into India. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 14 of AD Rules, 1995, they requested for termination of investigation against Kuwait and Oman on grounds of non-fulfillment of criteria laid down in Para (iii)(a) of Annexure – II to AD Rules, 1995. The Authority notes that at the stage of initiation, imports from Kuwait, Oman and Qatar were found to be dumped and together they constituted more than 7% of total quantum of imports into India. However, subsequent to negative dumping margin determination for Qatar, the collective volume for countries accounting for less than 3% of dumped imports has fallen below 7%. Accordingly, the Authority hereby terminates investigation against Kuwait, Oman and Qatar.

The imports of subject goods from Qatar, Kuwait and Oman have been considered as part of imports from other countries.

The Authority notes that: 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

ar.

The imports of subject goods from Qatar, Kuwait and Oman have been considered as part of imports from other countries.

The Authority notes that: 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 59 a. The subject goods are being dumped into India from the subject countries. The margin of dumping from each of the other subject countries, is more than the de minimis limits prescribed under AD Rules, 1995. b. Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate as the imports from the subject countries not only directly compete with the like articles offered by each of them but also the like articles offered by the domestic industry in the Indian market.

In view of the above, the Authority considers that it is appropriate to assess the cumulative effect of dumped imports of the subject goods from subject countries.

The Authority notes OQ Polymers has claimed that imports from Oman have remained stable during the injury period and accordingly, cannot be a cause of injury to the domestic industry. The Authority notes that none of the interested parties have submitted any claim for non- cumulation of imports from any of the subject countries. Further, as stated above, the conditions for cumulative assessment of imports have been fulfilled. Accordingly, the Authority considers that individual import volume and pricing trends from the individual subject countries are not required to be examined.

of imports have been fulfilled. Accordingly, the Authority considers that individual import volume and pricing trends from the individual subject countries are not required to be examined.

Further, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, where the constitution of the Indian domestic producers has undergone significant change during the injury period, the Authority has considered, for the purpose of injury analysis, the verified information pertaining to the domestic industry, the supporter to the investigation, and the Indian industry as a whole, wherever such information was available and could be duly verified.

G.3.2 Volume effect of the dumped imports

a) Assessment of demand / apparent consumption

The Authority for the purpose of the present investigation has estimated the demand for the subject goods in India based on the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers’ Report for FY 2024- 253 and FY 2023-244. Upon perusing the demand provided in the Report, the Authority noted that the imports figures considered in computation of demand in the Report did not match the actual quantum of imports made during the injury period. Accordingly, the Authority adjusted imports figures considered in the Report, with the DG System import data for computing Indian demand. Further, given that the POI is a calendar year, the Authority prorated the adjusted demand based on the report for FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 to arrive at the demand for the POI.

The demand so determined is provided in the table below.

the Authority prorated the adjusted demand based on the report for FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 to arrive at the demand for the POI.

The demand so determined is provided in the table below. Assessment of Demand Particulars Unit 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI Subject countries MT 1,60,803 2,73,231 2,83,797
2,36,986
Index MT 100
170
176
147

3 https://chemicals.gov.in/sites/default/files/inline-files/Glance-2025_1.pdf 4 https://chemindia.chemicals.gov.in/Publicationspdf/Statistics-at-a-Glance-2024.pdf 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 60 Malaysia MT 6,017 19,092 48,600 26,739 Saudi Arabia MT 76,614 1,60,171 1,47,038 1,16,418 United Arab Emirates MT 78,172 93,968 88,160 93,829 Other Countries MT 3,70,200 6,07,483 5,88,368
4,79,863
Total Imports MT 5,31,004 8,80,714 8,72,165 7,16,849 Sales of the domestic industry MT

---

---

---

---

Index MT 100 152 511 798 Sales of Supporter MT

---

---

---

---

Index MT 100 104 99 106 Sales of domestic industry + Supporter MT

---

---

---

---

Index MT 100 108 133 164 Sales of Other Domestic Producers MT

---

---

---

---

Index MT 100 72 76 72 Total Sales of Indian Industry MT

---

---

---

---

Index MT 100 84 95 102 Total Demand/Consumption MT 33,78,651 32,65,325 35,74,741 36,31,353 Index MT 100 97 106 107

Total Sales of Indian Industry MT

---

---

---

---

Index MT 100 84 95 102 Total Demand/Consumption MT 33,78,651 32,65,325 35,74,741 36,31,353 Index MT 100 97 106 107

It is seen that demand for the subject goods in India after initially declining in FY 2022-23, has consistently increased over the remaining injury period, including the POI. Compared to the base year, subject imports from the subject countries increased by 47 % in the POI. During the same period, demand for the subject goods in India increased by 7%. It is also noted that subsequent to HMEL’s commencement of operations in FY 2023-24, the domestic industry’s sales increased significantly in FY 2023-24 and the POI as compared to FY 2022-23 and the base year. However, despite about 25% increase in Indian capacities, there has been no commensurate increase in the sales of the Indian industry which have remained almost at the same level as the base year.

b) Import volumes from the subject countries

As regards the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant increase in the volume of dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India.

rts, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant increase in the volume of dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. The import volume of the subject goods from the subject countries and the share of the dumped imports during the injury investigation period are as follows: Particulars UOM 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI Malaysia MT 6,017 19,092 48,600 26,739 Saudi Arabia MT 76,614 1,60,171 1,47,038 1,16,418 6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 61 United Arab Emirates MT 78,172 93,968 88,160 93,829 Subject Countries MT 1,60,803
2,73,231
2,83,797
2,36,986
Non-subject Countries MT 3,70,200
6,07,483
5,88,368
4,79,863
Total Imports MT 5,31,004 8,80,714 8,72,165 7,16,849 Total demand MT 33,78,651 32,65,325 35,74,741 36,31,353 Trend Index 100
97
106 107
Imports in relation to:

Domestic Industry production %

---

---

---

---

Range % 50-60%
80-90%
40-50%
20-30% Domestic Industry +Supporter's production %

---

---

---

---

Range % 10-20%
20-30% 20-30% 10-20% Total Indian Production % 7% 15% 13% 11% Range % 0-10% 10-20% 10-20% 10-20% Demand % 5% 8% 8% 7% Range

0-10% 0-10% 0-10% 0-10% Total Imports
%
32% 36% 36% 35%

From the above, the Authority notes that: a. Imports of subject goods have increased in the POI compared to the base year. b.

0-10% 0-10% 0-10% Total Imports
%
32% 36% 36% 35%

From the above, the Authority notes that: a. Imports of subject goods have increased in the POI compared to the base year. b. Imports from the subject countries accounted for 35% of total imports into India during the POI. c. Compared to FY 2022-23, in FY 2023-24 and the POI, there has been a decline in the volume of subject imports in absolute terms as well as relative to domestic production. It is noted that the decline in volume of imports coincides with the commencement of production by HMEL in FY 2023-24. The overall quantum of subject imports from the subject countries has increased in the POI as compared to the base year. d. The Authority further notes that with HMEL’s capacity addition in FY 2023-24, total Indian production should have increased in the POI and given the growing demand, should have surpassed the production levels of the base year. However, despite almost 25% increase in installed capacity, the Authority notes that total Indian production in the POI is below the production levels in the base year.

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

ver, despite almost 25% increase in installed capacity, the Authority notes that total Indian production in the POI is below the production levels in the base year.

6/26/2025-DGTR I/131883/2026

(Case No. AD (OI) – 23/2025) FINAL FINDINGS Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) - 62

e. Furthermore, despite the said capacity addition, dumped imports relative to Indian production increased by 50% in the POI. f. The Authority notes that imports from the subject countries have declined in the POI compared to FY 2023-24 and FY 2022-23. As can be noted from the chart below, this decline first occurred subsequent to commencement of production by HMEL in Q2 of FY 2023-24. However, thereafter, the imports increased and continued to remain at significantly high levels.

Qatofin and RRPC have argued that the Petition does not contain any evidence of increased volumes either in relative or absolute terms. As can be noted from the table a