Specialty SPVC Imports Excluded from Anti-Dumping Probe

Centax Editorial Board

June 20, 2025

• 4 min. read

Case Details: Epigral Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 31 Centax 186 (Guj.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Bhargav D. Karia & D.N. Ray, JJ.
S/Shri Mihir Joshi, Learned Senior Advocate with Dhaval Shah, Learned Advocate for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Kamal Trivedi, Balbir Singh, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Learned Senior Advocates, N. Venkatraman, Learned ASG with Ankit Shah, with Rajesh Sharma with Ms Gargi Vyas with, Vinay Bairagra with Utshav Shukla, Ms Gargi Vyas with Rajesh Sharma, Learned Advocates, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was an importer who challenged the preliminary finding issued by the Designated Authority (DA) during the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning the import of specialty grades of Polyvinyl Chloride Suspension Resins (SPVC) having ‘K’ values of 57 and 65, used in manufacturing Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride Resin (CPVC). The importer had requested exclusion of these specialty SPVC grades from the Product Under Consideration (PUC), contending that the domestic industry (DI) had never produced such grades and that the imported SPVC was neither technically nor commercially substitutable or interchangeable with the grades produced by the DI. The DA, however, compared the bulk density and porosity of SPVC resins manufactured by the DI with those imported, and concluded that the imported specialty grade SPVC was:

(a) technically and commercially substitutable;

(b) usable interchangeably for general purposes; and

(c) not unique to CPVC use.

Based on this, the DA treated the goods manufactured by the DI as ‘like articles’ to the imported product. This concept of ‘like articles’ is crucial because, under Rule 2(d) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty) Rules, 1995, anti-dumping investigation can only proceed if the domestic product is ‘like’ the imported product, i.e., identical or closely resembling it in all essential respects. The importer disagreed with this conclusion and relied upon Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, which similarly defines ‘like product’ as one that is alike in all respects to the PUC or, in the absence of such a product, another product with closely resembling characteristics. The importer argued that the specialty SPVC it imported did not meet this test and therefore had to be excluded from the PUC. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the Designated Authority’s finding, treating the imported specialty grade SPVC resins as ‘like articles’ to the grades produced by the domestic industry, was unsustainable under Rule 2(d) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty) Rules, 1995. It observed that the DA had failed to define the PUC at the initiation stage and had accepted the DI’s claims without independently verifying whether the imported product was technically or commercially interchangeable. It noted that the DI had not identified the specific SPVC grade used by the petitioner and failed to demonstrate its suitability for manufacturing CPVC resin used in potable water piping.

The Court further held that the burden to prove that ‘like articles’ were manufactured in India rested solely on the DI and could not be shifted to the importer. The DA’s approach, it held, lacked the necessary evidentiary standard and procedural rigor as prescribed under Rule 2(d) and the Manual of Operating Practices for Trade Remedy Investigations. Accordingly, the Court directed the DA to exclude from the PUC all imported specialty grade SPVC resins that were neither produced by the domestic industry nor technically or commercially substitutable.

List of Cases Cited

Alembic Ltd. v. Union of India — 2013 (291) E.L.T. 327 (Guj.) — Relied on [Para 86]
Alkali Manufacturers Assn. of India v. Designated Authority, Dadas — 2016 (332) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 64]
Andhra Petro Chemicals v. Union of India — 2018 SCC Online Hyd 1914 — Referred [Para 56]
Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Designated Authority — 2021 (376) E.L.T. 263 (Del.) — Referred [Paras 64, 68]
Commissioner v. G.M. Exports — 2015 (324) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 64]
Designated Authority v. Andhra Petrochemicals Limited — 2020 (373) E.L.T. 740 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 59, 64]
Designated Authority v. Sandisk Internatinal Ltd. — 2017 (347) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 64]
Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu v. Suman Agarwal — (2024) SCC Online SC 2615 — Referred [Para 64]
Epigral Ltd. Union of India — R/Special Civil Application No. 15221 of 2024, decided on 22-10-2024 by Gujarat High Court — Referred [Paras 12, 13]
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Designated Authority, Dgadad — 2016 (334) E.L.T. 339 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 66]
Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India — 2003 (158) E.L.T.A225 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 64]
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2003 (157) E.L.T. 138 (Del.) — Referred [Paras 57, 64, 68]
Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. v. Designated Authority Ministry of Finance — 2006 (195) E.L.T. 146 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 66]
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. — (2022) 16 SCC 1 — Referred [Para 64]
Meghani Organics Ltd. v. Union of India — 2011 (267) E.L.T. 440 (Guj.) — Relied on [Para 85]
Merino Panel Products Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (334) E.L.T. 552 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 66]
Nirma Ltd. v. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. — 2012 (281) E.L.T. 321 (Mad.) — Relied on [Paras 50, 86]
Nirma Ltd. v. Union of India — 2017 (346) E.L.T. 328 (Guj.) — Relied on [Paras 50, 86]
Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority — 2006 (202) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 64]
Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Designated Authority — 2006 (196) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 64]
Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Designated Authority and Additional Secretary — 2006 (196) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 64]
Saint-Gobain Glas India Ltd. v. Union of India — 2009 (240) E.L.T. 495 (Del.) — Referred [Para 58]
Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India — 2000 (118) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 64, 68]
Shri Cheran Synthetics India Ltd v. Union of India — W.A. No. 1400 of 2009, decided on 7-10-2009 — Referred [Para 64]
Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. v. Designated Authority — (2017) SCC Online Del 9412 — Referred [Para 64]
Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India — 2008 (224) E.L.T. 519 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 64]