DGTR: Final findings listed in mica pigments sunset review

The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) has listed final findings with a publication date of 21 October 2026 in its sunset review of anti-dumping duty on Chinese natural mica-based pearl industrial pigments, excluding cosmetic grade. The review examines whether allowing the duty to expire would lead to continued or renewed dumping and injury to India’s domestic industry.

The DGTR’s case page establishes the new listing, but not the recommendation contained in it. The available substantive document is an August 2026 disclosure statement, which sets out facts under consideration rather than a final decision. It therefore does not establish whether the authority ultimately recommended continuing, changing or ending the duty.

According to that disclosure statement, the Ministry of Finance had extended the existing duties by three months, until 25 November 2026, through Notification No. 09/2026 dated 22 May 2026. That documented extension is distinct from the October final-findings listing.

What the sunset review covers

The DGTR’s disclosure statement identifies Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited as the applicant seeking continued anti-dumping protection. It says the authority initiated the sunset review through a notice dated 5 March 2026, published in the Gazette of India.

The product under review is natural mica-based pearl industrial pigments from China. Cosmetic-grade products are expressly excluded. The proceedings concern this defined category, not all mica products or all pigment imports.

The disclosure statement cites Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with Rule 23 of the anti-dumping rules, as the basis for the review. It explains the test: whether expiry of the duty would be likely to cause dumping and injury to continue or recur, and whether continued duties are needed.

This makes a sunset review different from an initial investigation. The question is not simply whether imports were dumped in the past, but whether protection remains warranted when an existing measure approaches its expiry.

From the original duty to the present review

The DGTR’s disclosure statement traces the proceedings to an original investigation initiated on 9 May 2020. The authority recommended duties in final findings dated 8 June 2021, followed by the Ministry of Finance’s Notification No. 47/2021-Customs (ADD).

That Finance Ministry notification records the original findings: the goods had been exported below normal value, causing dumping; the domestic industry had suffered material injury; and a causal link existed between the dumped imports and that injury. These were findings from the original investigation, not conclusions established by the available material about the latest review.

The notification imposed duties for five years from publication in the Official Gazette, unless revoked, superseded or amended earlier. It specified producer-dependent amounts in US dollars per metric tonne, payable in Indian currency. This was a product-specific import charge rather than a prohibition on imports.

The measures subsequently changed. According to the DGTR’s disclosure statement, Sudarshan sought a mid-term review, alleging changed circumstances and a need to increase duties. The authority initiated that review on 30 September 2022 and later recommended an increase after finding changed circumstances.

The disclosure statement says the Ministry of Finance implemented the amendment through Notification No. 13/2023-Customs (ADD), dated 22 November 2023. The original notification’s rates therefore should not be presented as the rates applicable after that amendment.

Paint companies and Chinese exporters participated

The disclosure statement records participation beyond the applicant. Chinese producers and exporters registered as interested parties included Rika Technology Company Limited and Fujian Kuncai Material Technology Company Limited.

On the Indian user and importer side, the registered parties included Berger Paints India Limited, Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited and Kuncai International India Pvt. Ltd. The Indian Paint Association also registered.

Registration establishes participation, not a particular position on retaining duties. The available passages do not set out these companies’ substantive arguments or quantify the effect of duties on their costs.

The DGTR nevertheless sought evidence on the wider economic consequences. Its disclosure statement says it issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire to assess public interest and the impact of duties on the wider economy. Responses came from the domestic industry, Berger Paints and Kansai Nerolac.

The authority also records that an oral hearing took place on 16 July 2026. Parties presenting oral arguments were directed to submit them in writing, followed by replies to other parties’ submissions.

The evidence period and the disclosure’s limits

For the review, the DGTR examined the period from 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025. Its injury assessment also covered the financial years beginning in April 2022, April 2023 and April 2024, according to the disclosure statement.

The authority says it obtained transaction-level import data from the Directorate General for Systems and Data Management and examined those transactions before using them in its analysis. It also says it verified information supplied by the applicant and other interested parties to the extent considered necessary.

The August document contains a consequential qualification: reproducing a fact, argument or submission does not mean the authority has accepted or rejected it. The DGTR said it would consider responses on their merits before reaching a final determination.

Although the document’s running header refers to final findings, its title and operative text identify it as a disclosure statement. The October listing is therefore evidence of a later procedural development, but the recommendation on future duties remains unresolved in the available source text.