China fumed silica: DGTR publishes sunset review findings

The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) has published final findings dated 6 November 2026 in its sunset review of anti-dumping duties on untreated fumed silica originating in or exported from China. The Commerce Ministry’s notification, published in the Gazette of India, follows an application by Cabot Sanmar Limited seeking continuation of the protection.

The available opening pages of the final findings establish the review’s scope and procedural history but do not contain its concluding recommendation or duty table. They therefore do not establish whether DGTR has recommended a revised rate or a further period of protection.

The notification does, however, record that the existing duties were extended until 10 February 2027 under Finance Ministry Notification No. 19/2026-Customs (ADD). That extension is a separate measure from the newly published findings.

Why the review covers China, not South Korea

DGTR’s final-findings notification says the review began on 20 March 2026 to examine whether expiry of the duties would be likely to allow dumping and injury to the domestic industry to continue or recur.

A sunset review tests whether an existing anti-dumping measure remains necessary. As the notification explains, Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 generally limits a duty to five years unless it is withdrawn earlier. The provision allows the Central Government to extend it for a further period of up to five years where a review establishes the required likelihood of continued or recurring dumping and injury.

The original investigation covered both China and South Korea. The present application concerned only China, according to DGTR.

The authority said it did not initiate a review covering South Korean imports because there was no duly substantiated application addressing the likelihood of dumping and injury if those duties expired. That is a statement about the scope of this proceeding, not a finding that South Korean imports caused no injury.

DGTR’s initiation notification identified Cabot Sanmar as India’s sole producer of the product and accepted it as the domestic industry eligible to bring the application.

The product and the pricing test

The initiation notification defines the product as untreated fumed silica, a synthetic silica manufactured through a high-temperature gas-phase process. It distinguishes this process from the liquid-phase production used for other synthetic silicas.

DGTR said the product’s scope remained the same as in the original investigation. The notification identifies customs tariff subheading 28112200 but specifies that the classification is indicative rather than decisive: the product description determines the investigation’s coverage.

The authority also treated the domestically manufactured product as comparable to the imports under investigation. Its initiation notice records Cabot Sanmar’s submission that the products were technically and commercially substitutable.

For the preliminary dumping assessment, DGTR compared an adjusted export price with a benchmark called normal value. In this case, the authority used import prices from Japan, adjusted to a factory-level basis, to establish that benchmark for initiation.

The export-price calculation used import data from DG Systems, with adjustments sought for costs including ocean freight, insurance, handling and credit. Comparing prices at the factory level was intended to remove these additional costs from the comparison.

DGTR found sufficient preliminary evidence of a positive dumping margin to open the review. That initiation-stage assessment should not be confused with the concluding determination in the November findings.

What Cabot Sanmar put before the authority

According to the initiation notification, Cabot Sanmar submitted preliminary evidence that Chinese import volumes had increased both in absolute terms and relative to the market measures considered in its application.

The company also pointed to continued dumping, capacity expansion in China, domestic demand there that was low relative to capacity, and producers’ export orientation. It argued that removing the duties could suppress or depress prices and lead to injury.

DGTR considered the application sufficient to justify investigation. The initiation notice did not, by itself, establish all of the applicant’s arguments as final findings.

The authority examined imports during the investigation period from 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025. Its injury assessment also covered the financial years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25, according to the final-findings notification.

DGTR said it obtained transaction-level import information from DG Systems and relied on that data after examining the transactions.

Participation and the earlier duty revision

The final-findings notification records participation by Chinese producers and exporters, including Wacker entities and Shandong Dongyue Silicone Material Co., Ltd. It also lists Indian importers or users that registered as interested parties.

DGTR held an oral hearing on 7 July 2026 and required parties presenting views to follow them with written submissions. It also circulated an economic-interest questionnaire to assess the duties’ implications for the public interest and the wider economy.

The authority said non-confidential submissions were made available through its SETU portal. Information accepted as confidential was withheld from public disclosure.

The review follows an earlier proceeding concerning whether Shandong Dongyue’s pricing had absorbed the effect of the duty. DGTR’s August 2025 findings describe such a review as examining whether import prices or conditions have made an existing duty ineffective.

In that earlier proceeding, Shandong Dongyue argued that falling export prices reflected global market trends and oversupply rather than an intention to neutralise the duty, according to DGTR’s record of its submissions. The November 2026 notification recounts that the authority found absorption and recommended a revision, which the Finance Ministry implemented on 27 October 2025.

The distinction between a recommendation and an implemented levy matters here. The Finance Ministry’s original notification imposed the duties on 11 November 2021 after considering DGTR’s findings. Its subsequent extension notification, reproduced by TaxGuru and also cited in the November findings, keeps the existing measure in force through 10 February 2027 unless revoked, superseded or amended earlier.