ISLAMABAD: The National Tariff Commission’s (NTC) final ruling in Pakistan’s anti-dumping investigation into soda ash imports has come under fire from downstream industries and trade associations, which allege the decision ignored key evidence, departed from established practice and relied on an unsubstantiated finding of “threat of material injury.”
Respondents, including the Soap Manufacturers Association, Colgate International, Chemical Manufacturers, International Silicate and the Pakistan Glass Manufacturers Association, said they had repeatedly raised legal and technical objections in response to the Commission’s Statement of Essential Facts, during consultations and through written submissions before the final determination. They claim the Commission failed to address those objections in its final ruling.
The stakeholders argue that the Commission imposed anti-dumping duties despite finding no evidence of actual material injury to domestic producers, Lucky Core Industries Limited and Olympia Chemical Limited. Instead, they say the ruling was based solely on a projected threat of future injury.
According to the respondents, the domestic producers controlled more than 95% of Pakistan’s soda ash market, remained profitable throughout the period of investigation, increased installed production capacity by nearly 20% and described their soda ash business as “resilient” in their annual reports. They argue these indicators are inconsistent with a finding that the industry faced a genuine threat of injury.
The respondents further contend that lower sales, inventories, cash flow and capacity utilization resulted from weaker domestic demand, global market conditions, export reallocations and business decisions by local producers rather than dumped imports. They allege the Commission failed to establish a clear causal link between imports and the alleged threat of injury.
Another key objection relates to the Commission’s calculation of the Non-Injurious Price (NIP). According to the respondents, the Commission adopted a 10% profit margin instead of the 5% benchmark used in several previous anti-dumping cases, without providing adequate justification. They argue the higher margin inflated the injury calculation and led to steeper anti-dumping duties.
The respondents also cited World Trade Organization jurisprudence, including the Pakistan–BOPP Films (UAE) dispute, arguing that investigating authorities are required to explain how the evidence supports their findings rather than simply presenting data before reaching conclusions.
The ruling has renewed criticism of the Commission’s decision-making process, with industry groups questioning the consistency, transparency and impartiality of the anti-dumping investigation.
