DGTR Recommends Anti-dumping Duty of US$ 34,027 per MT on Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) Film from China on Complaint of Garware Hi-Tech Films

[DGTR Final Findings Case No. AD(OI)- 15/2025 dated 12 June 2026]

DGTR Final Findings on TPU-based Surface/Paint Protection Film from China

1. Background and Initiation

· The investigation was initiated following an application by Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited, the sole Indian producer of TPU-based PPF, alleging dumping of TPU-based PPF from China at unfairly low prices, causing injury to the domestic industry.

· The period of investigation (POI) was Jan 2024–Dec 2024, with injury analysis covering Apr 2021–Mar 2024 and the POI.

2. Product Scope and Like Article

· The product under consideration (PUC) is TPU-based Surface/Paint Protection Film, primarily used in the automotive sector.

· Exclusion requests for certain variants (e.g., high optical clarity, colored, thick, or sunroof PPF) were rejected. The Authority found these are not technically or commercially distinct from the domestic product.

· Standalone uncoated/base TPU film is excluded from the scope.

3. Domestic Industry Standing

· Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited is recognized as the sole domestic producer and thus constitutes the domestic industry for this investigation.

4. Confidentiality and Data Handling

· The Authority accepted confidentiality claims for sensitive business data but ensured non-confidential summaries were available for understanding the case.

5. Sampling of Exporters

· Due to the number of cooperating Chinese exporters, the Authority used sampling to determine dumping margins for the largest exporters, with non-sampled cooperating exporters receiving weighted average margins.

6. Determination of Dumping and Injury

· The investigation found significant dumping margins (up to 300–350% for some exporters) and injury margins (up to 200–250%).

· Imports from China increased sharply (from 36 MT in 2021-22 to 492 MT in the POI), capturing a dominant market share (up to 65%).

· The domestic industry’s market share remained low despite being the sole producer, and it suffered persistent financial losses, negative cash profits, and negative return on capital employed.

· Price undercutting by Chinese imports was significant and persistent, suppressing and depressing domestic prices.

7. Causal Link and Non-Attribution Analysis

· The Authority found that the injury to the domestic industry was primarily due to dumped imports from China, not other factors like start-up costs, capacity expansion, or imports from other countries.

8. Public Interest Assessment

· The imposition of anti-dumping duty was found to be in the public interest, as it would not prevent fair-priced imports but would restore fair competition and support domestic manufacturing and employment.

· The impact on end-users (e.g., car buyers) was calculated to be limited (about 2.82% increase in total car cost if a 100% duty is applied to PPF).

9. Recommendations and Duty Table

· The Authority recommended definitive anti-dumping duties for five years on TPU-based PPF imports from China, with specific duty rates for named producers/exporters and a higher rate for others.

· Duties are to be applied per metric ton (MT) in USD, with the highest rate for non-cooperating or unlisted producers.

10. Conclusion

· The investigation concluded that dumped imports from China have caused material injury to the Indian domestic industry, and anti-dumping duties are necessary to offset this injury and restore fair competition.