DGTR Recommends Anti-Dumping Duty of US$72 per 1000 Pieces of Mobile Covers from China on Complaint of All India Mobile Covers Manufacturers Association (AIMCMA) on behalf of Domestic Industries

Ø Mobile Covers, excluding those made of Askin Aramid fibre

[DGTR Final Findings Case No. – AD (OI) – 13/2025 dated 24.09.2026]

· Case Background and Initiation: The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, issued its final findings on 24 September 2026 regarding the anti-dumping investigation of Mobile Covers originating in or exported from China PR. The investigation proceeded from an application filed by the All India Mobile Covers Manufacturers Association (AIMCMA) on behalf of its member entities.

· Product Under Consideration (PUC): The scope encompasses protective mobile phone cases, shells, and covers available in various designs and colors. Following submissions from interested parties, "Askin Aramid Cases" (Aramid Fiber Material) were explicitly excluded from the final scope as they are not produced in India. Specialized non-yellowing polycarbonate cases were kept within the scope.

· Highly Fragmented Domestic Industry: The Indian mobile cover industry primarily consists of a large number of widely scattered Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), largely concentrated in Rajkot, Gujarat, alongside Delhi NCR and Maharashtra. Seventeen member companies provided comprehensive data, accounting for 47% of total Indian production (increasing to 69% including supporting companies).

· Timelines and Data Sampling: The Period of Investigation (POI) spans 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 (12 months), with an injury examination period tracking back to April 2021. Due to the fragmented nature of the industry, the DGTR utilized a sample of four domestic producers (Balaji Inmould, Pavansut Plastopack, Ugam Industries, and Ugam Manufacturing) to determine the Non-Injurious Price (NIP) and injury margins.

· Dumping and Injury Determinations:

o Cooperating Exporters: Two Chinese producers (Dongguan Qiangshuo Technology Co. Ltd. and Dongguan Longcheng Leatherware Co. Ltd.) cooperated fully. Their individual dumping and injury margins were determined to be negative, meaning no anti-dumping duty applies to their qualified exports. However, they represented a negligible 0.05% of total imports.

o Non-Cooperative Exporters: The remaining 99.95% of Chinese exporters failed to cooperate. Their dumping margins (range of 360-380%) and injury margins (range of 280-300%) were determined to be positive and highly significant based on facts available.

· Severe Material Injury and Price Distortions: The DGTR confirmed that the domestic industry suffered material injury directly caused by Chinese dumping. While overall Indian demand grew 2.5 times over the injury period, Chinese imports flooded the market, increasing their market share from 2% to 51%, while the Indian industry's share dropped from 98% to 49%. The landed price of Chinese imports crashed steeply over the injury period (indexed from 100 down to 12), leading to significant price undercutting (330-340% range in the POI) and acute price suppression. This caused a sharp decline in domestic profitability parameters, an accumulation of average inventories (indexed up to 326), and forced multiple local manufacturers to shut down operations completely.

· Negligible Impact on Public Interest: Because mobile covers are a direct consumer end-use product and do not serve as inputs for any downstream manufacturing industry, the DGTR noted that the implementation of anti-dumping duty would have zero cascading industrial effect. The quantified financial impact of the duty on end consumers is estimated to be less than 1% (specifically 0.93).

· Final Duty Form Recommendation: Rejecting an ad-valorem structure because import transactions spanned wildly diverse price tiers, the Authority decided that a fixed quantum of duty (specific duty) is required to provide stable protection and prevent under-invoicing or duty absorption. A definitive anti-dumping duty is recommended for a period of five years for all non-cooperative entities to re-establish fair market competition.