Anti-dumping duty attaches to a producer, not a product

Most import duty is a property of the goods. Anti-dumping duty is not. Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides that where any article is exported by an exporter or producer from any country or territory to India at less than its normal value, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping. The words that do the work are exporter or producer. The margin is measured against a particular seller, and the notification that follows carries that seller's name.

What does anti-dumping duty actually attach to?

To a dumping margin computed for a specific seller. Section 9A(6A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides that the margin of dumping in relation to an article exported by an exporter or producer shall be determined on the basis of records concerning normal value and export price maintained, and information provided, by that exporter or producer, and that where the exporter or producer fails to provide those records the margin shall be determined on the basis of facts available. A producer that cooperated and a producer that did not are therefore assessed on different evidence, and end up in different rows of the same table.

That is why the duty cannot be read off a tariff schedule. It is read off the notification, and the notification describes the goods, the country of origin, the country of export and the producer. Section 9A(4) provides that the anti-dumping duty chargeable is in addition to any other duty imposed under the Act or any other law in force, so it sits on top of the ordinary stack rather than replacing anything in it. Import duty, the order of operations shows where it lands in the sequence.

What does a real duty table look like?

Take a published one. In the final findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Polytetrafluoroethylene, Case No. AD (OI)-19/2024, F. No. 6/21/2024-DGTR dated 19-09-2025, the Directorate General of Trade Remedies recommended duty on a single tariff line, 39046100, from China PR. The duty table has seven rows. Two named Chinese producers carry nil. One carries USD 2,884.01 per metric tonne. Another carries USD 5,206.75. Any producer other than the four named carries USD 5,933.70.

Same goods, same code, same country, and a spread from zero to nearly six thousand dollars a tonne decided entirely by which factory made the material. A buyer comparing two Chinese quotations on unit price alone is comparing the wrong number. The producer's name has to travel into the landed cost model at the moment the supplier is chosen, which is the argument landed cost at your gate, not the price on the proforma makes about every other component of the stack.

Which instrument creates the liability, and from when?

Two instruments in sequence. The Designated Authority records final findings under rule 17 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, normally within one year of initiation, extendable by six months in special circumstances. Rule 18(1) then provides that the Central Government may, within three months of publication of those final findings, impose the duty by notification. The recommendation is not the levy. Only the notification is.

Rule 20(1) provides that the duty takes effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. There are exceptions. Rule 20(2)(a) allows the definitive duty to be levied from the date a provisional duty was imposed where injury is found, and rule 20(2)(b), read with section 9A(3), allows a retrospective levy from ninety days before the provisional duty in the massive dumping cases that section describes, with a proviso that no duty is levied retrospectively on imports entered for home consumption before initiation of the investigation.

How long does a measure stay in force?

Five years by default, and longer by review. Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides that an anti-dumping duty shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of imposition, with a proviso allowing extension for a further period of up to five years on consideration of a review, that further period commencing from the date of the order of extension. A second proviso allows the duty to remain in force pending the outcome of a review initiated before expiry for a further period not exceeding one year. A third provides that a temporary revocation shall not exceed one year at a time.

Rule 23(2) of the 1995 Rules requires a review to be concluded within twelve months of initiation, and a proviso inserted with effect from 01-07-2021 requires such a review to be completed at least three months prior to expiry of the duty under review. The practical consequence for a buyer is that an expiry date is a date to diary, not a date to rely on. A sunset review can carry the measure across it.

What if your producer was never investigated?

There is a route, and it has a name. Rule 22 of the 1995 Rules provides that where a product is subject to anti-dumping duties, the Designated Authority shall carry out a periodical review to determine individual margins for exporters or producers in the exporting country who did not export to India during the period of investigation, provided they show they are not related to any exporter or producer subject to the duties. Rule 22(2) provides that the Central Government shall not levy duty under section 9A(1) on imports from such exporters or producers during the period of the review, but may resort to provisional assessment and seek a guarantee from the importer, and may levy retrospectively from the date the review was initiated if dumping is found.

Absent that review, the residual row applies. Rule 18(2) caps the duty on producers not individually examined by reference to the weighted average margin established for the selected exporters, disregarding zero margins and margins under two percent. In the PTFE table above, the residual row is the highest number on the page, which is the normal pattern.

Can the duty follow a change of sourcing?

It can, and the statute says so in terms. Section 9A(1A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides that where the Central Government is of the opinion that circumvention has taken place, by altering the description, name or composition of the article, by importing it unassembled or disassembled, by changing its country of origin or export, or in any other manner that renders the duty ineffective, it may extend the duty to such article or to an article originating in or exported from that country, from a date not earlier than the date of initiation of the inquiry.

Section 9A(1B), inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, deals with absorption: where the duty is rendered ineffective because the export price falls without a commensurate change in cost of production or in the price to other markets, the Central Government may modify the duty to counter that effect. A sourcing workaround built purely to leave a named producer behind is therefore a strategy with a statutory answer attached.

What can an importer do about duty paid above the actual margin?

Ask for it back, on the statutory route. Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides that where an importer proves to the satisfaction of the Central Government, on determination by an authorised officer, that it has paid anti-dumping duty in excess of the actual margin of dumping, the Central Government shall reduce the duty to that extent and the importer shall be entitled to a refund of the excess, with rule 21A of the 1995 Rules setting out the determination. Rule 21(2) separately provides that where the definitive duty is lower than a provisional duty already collected, the differential is refunded, and rule 21(1) provides that where it is higher the differential is not collected.

Two further boundaries are worth knowing. Section 9B(1)(a) provides that no article shall be subjected to both countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty to compensate for the same situation of dumping or export subsidisation. Section 9A(2A) provides that a notification under section 9A shall not apply to articles imported by a hundred percent export-oriented undertaking or a unit in a special economic zone unless made specifically applicable, or unless the article is cleared into the domestic tariff area or used in goods so cleared. An appeal against the determination lies to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 9C, accompanied by a fee of Rs 15,000 under section 9C(1A).

How do you check the position before you order?

In the order the notification is written in. Start with the eight digit tariff line, then the country of origin, then the country of export, which the PTFE table treats as separate columns for good reason, then the producer's exact legal name as it appears on the mill certificate rather than the trading name on the quotation. A producer whose name differs by a word from the row you matched is not that row. Then check whether the measure is inside its five year window under section 9A(5) and whether a review has been initiated.

This is the check Purser holds as a watchlist against a reader's own tariff lines, origins and named suppliers, so a quotation from a new factory raises the question while the purchase order is still a draft. Purser never submits to a government portal, and it never sends an outbound message without a recorded human approval event. It does not obtain a ruling, it does not file, and it does not replace the customs broker: the broker keeps the entry, and what changes is what reaches them.

Where to go from here

Trade remedy is one of the three eligibility questions settled at the purchase order, and the only one that shows up as a number rather than as a stoppage.

• The survey of all three gates. What stops a container at the port puts certification, trade remedy and origin in one place, with the lead time behind each.
• Where the duty lands in the stack. Import duty, the order of operations shows why the sequence, not the rates, produces the final figure.
• The cost question on the same order. Landed cost at your gate prices the fold, including a remedy component when one applies.
• What accreditation changes at the port. AEO, the tiers and what accreditation actually changes separates the procedural benefits from the financial ones.

Frequently asked questions

Why do two suppliers of the same goods carry different anti-dumping duty?

Because the duty is computed per seller. Section 9A(6A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides that the margin of dumping for an article exported by an exporter or producer is determined on that exporter's or producer's own records of normal value and export price, and on facts available where those records are not provided. The notification then lists producers by name, so the same HS code and the same country can carry nil for one factory and a substantial rate for another.

How long does anti-dumping duty stay in force in India?

Five years from imposition unless revoked earlier, under section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. A proviso allows extension for a further period of up to five years on consideration of a review, commencing from the date of the order of extension, and a second proviso allows the duty to continue pending a review initiated before expiry for up to one further year. Rule 23(2) of the 1995 Rules requires a review to conclude within twelve months of initiation.

What happens if my producer was not part of the investigation?

The residual row of the duty table applies unless a review is carried out. Rule 22 of the 1995 Rules requires the Designated Authority to conduct a periodical review to determine individual margins for exporters or producers who did not export to India during the period of investigation and are not related to those subject to the duties, and rule 22(2) provides that duty shall not be levied on them during that review, though provisional assessment and a guarantee may be required and duty may be levied from the date of initiation of the review if dumping is found.

Can anti-dumping duty be imposed retrospectively?

In limited circumstances. Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 allows a retrospective levy where there is a history of injurious dumping or the importer should have been aware of it, and injury is caused by massive dumping in a short time, but not beyond ninety days from the date of the provisional duty notification. Rule 20(2)(b) carries the same limit and adds a proviso that no duty is levied retrospectively on imports entered for home consumption before the investigation was initiated.

Can an importer recover anti-dumping duty paid above the real margin?

Yes, on a statutory route. Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides that where an importer proves, on determination by an officer authorised by the Central Government, that it paid anti-dumping duty in excess of the actual margin of dumping, the duty shall be reduced to that extent and the importer is entitled to a refund of the excess, with rule 21A of the 1995 Rules governing the determination. Separately, rule 21(2) requires refund of the differential where a definitive duty is lower than a provisional duty already collected.