PVC suspension resin: DGTR proposes duties on China imports

The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) has issued preliminary findings dated 26 October 2026 in its investigation into PVC suspension resin imports from China. ICIS reported that the authority recommended provisional countervailing duties of USD 83.72 to USD 143.82 per tonne after finding that subsidised imports had caused material injury to Indian producers.

The DGTR notification identifies Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited, DCM Shriram Limited and DCW Limited as the applicants. The authority opened the investigation on 26 February 2026 under Section 9 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with the countervailing-duty rules governing investigations into subsidised imports and injury to domestic industry.

The recommendation is not an implemented levy. ICIS reported that the government’s decision on imposing the proposed duties remained pending and that the investigation would continue before DGTR issued final findings. DGTR’s case page separately records the publication of the preliminary findings on 26 October 2026.

Countervailing duties are intended to offset injury caused by subsidised imports, according to the World Trade Organization’s explanation of its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The WTO says an importing country must establish subsidised imports, injury to its domestic industry and a causal link between the two before imposing such a measure.

Price pressure and China’s response

According to ICIS’s account of the preliminary findings, DGTR concluded that Chinese PVC imports grew faster than Indian demand, undercut domestic prices and contributed to financial losses for Indian producers. ICIS reported that domestic producers cut selling prices by more than the decline in their costs, while inventories rose and profitability deteriorated.

The DGTR notification fixes the subsidy investigation period at 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025. Its injury examination covers 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and that investigation period. The findings therefore concern an earlier period of trade and industry performance, rather than imports during October 2026.

China disputed parts of the subsidy allegations before the investigation began, according to DGTR’s notification. The authority records that the Chinese government received India’s invitation for consultations on 9 January 2026, attended consultations on 20 January 2026 and submitted written comments.

DGTR says China denied the existence of certain programmes, denied that some alleged programmes had been used and disputed whether subsidies under some programmes exceeded a negligible level. The authority also records its view that China did not furnish prima facie evidence, meaning evidence sufficient at an initial examination, denying the programmes’ existence.

The WTO’s overview explains why the existence of government support alone does not settle a countervailing-duty case. Its subsidy definition requires a financial contribution by a government or public body that confers a benefit. The agreement’s disciplines also require specificity: support directed to an enterprise, industry or group of enterprises or industries, rather than support generally available across an economy.

Which PVC imports are covered

DGTR’s notification defines the product as suspension-grade homopolymer of vinyl chloride monomer, manufactured through suspension polymerisation, with K-value above 55 and up to 77. That specified range forms part of the product definition; the investigation does not cover every form of PVC.

The authority records exclusions for products including chlorinated PVC, cross-linked PVC, vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer, PVC paste or emulsion resin, mass-polymerisation PVC and PVC blending resin. PVC manufactured through emulsion, bulk-mass and micro-suspension polymerisation is also outside the stated scope.

According to DGTR, the product falls under customs heading 3904, principally tariff item 3904 10 20. The notification says the customs classification is indicative, not binding on product scope. Coverage therefore rests on the specified product description and exclusions, not the tariff code alone.

The applicants submitted that resin made through the ethylene and calcium-carbide routes was comparable and interchangeable, DGTR records. ICIS reported that the proposed duties cover both carbide-based and ethylene-based material where it meets the defined product scope.

The downstream relevance lies principally in rigid products such as pipes and fittings, according to ICIS, which links suspension PVC demand to construction, infrastructure and agricultural irrigation. Its Supply and Demand Database puts China’s share of Indian PVC imports at 29 per cent in 2022 and 48 per cent in 2025, rising to 52 per cent during January-August 2026. Those market figures provide context, but cover different periods from DGTR’s subsidy assessment.

Exporter assessment widened before the findings

DGTR changed its approach to assessing exporters shortly before issuing the preliminary findings. The notification records that, on 25 September 2026, it selected a sample of three producers or exporters, including their related parties, to determine individual subsidy margins.

After receiving comments, the authority withdrew that sampling decision on 5 October 2026 and decided to determine individual margins for 13 producers or exporter groups. DGTR says it considered the sample’s representativeness, the number of subsidy programmes under investigation and the production routes used by responding companies. The notification also records that certain responses were subsequently rejected; it should not be read as confirming acceptance of all 13 submissions.

Participation extended beyond producers. DGTR records importer or user questionnaire responses from Sandeep Organics Private Limited, RMG Polyvinyl India Limited and Wanhua International (India) Private Limited. The domestic industry and Tricon Dry Chemicals LLC responded to its economic-interest questionnaire.

The authority also corrected identifiers in the initiation notification. DGTR directs parties to use case number CVD (OI)-07/2025 and SETU application number CVD/OI/15122025/01 in further correspondence and submissions. Its case webpage retains the earlier SETU identifier, but the preliminary notification expressly supplies the correction.

ICIS reported that interested parties were invited to comment within 20 days of publication and that an oral hearing would precede final findings. DGTR’s notification states that information submitted by the domestic industry and responding producers will be verified, to the extent the authority considers necessary, before those findings are issued.