Loading...
Loading...
Law Update
Quick note
Below is the official summary and the reference document preview. Use âOpen PDFâ for full screen view.
Indian businesses importing borosilicate bowls, baking dishes, casseroles, storage containers and similar kitchen glassware from China now have an important trade-remedy development to examine.
The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) has completed its anti-dumping investigation into Borosilicate Table and Kitchen Glassware originating in or exported from China PR. The investigation began through a public notice dated 30 September 2025 after an application alleging dumping and resulting injury to the domestic industry.
In its Final Findings dated 24 September 2026, DGTR concluded that the investigated goods were being exported to India at dumped prices. It also found that these imports had materially retarded the establishment of the Indian domestic industry.
DGTR has therefore recommended an anti-dumping duty. But there is an important distinction for importers: The Final Findings are a recommendation, not the Central Government customs notification that actually brings the duty into force.
That difference affects shipment planning, landed-cost calculations and customs compliance.
| Particular | Details |
| Authority | Directorate General of Trade Remedies |
| Department | Department of Commerce |
| Ministry | Ministry of Commerce and Industry |
| Case | AD (OI)-28/2025 |
| File No. | 6/31/2025-DGTR |
| Document | Final Findings |
| Final Findings Date | 24 September 2026 |
| Product | Borosilicate Table and Kitchen Glassware |
| Subject Country | China PR |
| Applicant | Borosil Limited |
| Nature of Case | Original anti-dumping investigation |
| Period of Investigation | 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 |
| Main Finding | Dumping and material retardation |
| Duty Status in this Document | Recommended by DGTR |
| Recommended Duration | Five years from the relevant Central Government notification |
| Recommended Duration | Importers, exporters, manufacturers, distributors and procurement teams |
This is not a general duty on every glass product imported from China. Applicability depends on the product description, exclusion list, origin, export country, producer and the eventual operative notification.
DGTR's conclusion is built around four findings.
First, the Authority found that the subject goods were exported from China PR to India at dumped prices and that the dumping margins were positive and significant.
Second, the Indian producer was treated as a new domestic industry at the stage of establishment.
Third, DGTR found that imports from China had materially held back the establishment of that industry.
Fourth, after looking at other possible causesâsuch as demand conditions, start-up operations, seasonality, third-country imports and the applicant's own importsâthe Authority said those factors did not break the causal link between dumped imports and material retardation.
This matter because an anti-dumping case cannot rest on low import prices alone. DGTR has to connect dumping with the legally recognised injury suffered by the domestic industry.
Not merely because the Final Findings have been issued.
This is probably the most important point for an importer reading the document.
DGTR has recommended the duty. Paragraph 148 of the Final Findings says that the recommended anti-dumping duty should apply from the date of the notification to be issued by the Central Government and remain in force for five years.
So these dates should not be mixed up:
| Date/Event | Five-year period |
| DGTR Final Findings date | Date on which the investigation findings were issued |
| Central Government notification date | Relevant for actual levy, subject to the terms of that notification |
| Five-year period | Recommended to run from the government notification referred to by DGTR |
An importer should therefore not calculate duty simply by taking 24 September 2026 as the effective date.
The relevant customs notification should be checked separately before making a final duty assessment.
An anti-dumping duty is a trade-remedy measure.
It is considered where imported goods are sold into India at prices lower than the normal value determined under the applicable anti-dumping framework, and those dumped imports cause the type of injury recognised by law.
It does not mean that goods from a particular country are automatically banned.
Imports can continue, but additional duty may apply to goods falling within the notified scope.
For an Indian importer, the practical question therefore becomes:
Does this exact product fall within the duty scope, and if yes, which rate applies to this exact producer and shipment?
That is where product-level Import Compliance Services and proper customs review become more important than simply checking a tariff heading.
The investigation has been conducted under:
Customs Tariff Act, 1975
This is the principal legislation under which anti-dumping measures are imposed in India.
Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995
These rules deal with matters such as:
The investigation was initiated under the Anti-Dumping Rules after DGTR received the domestic industry's application alleging dumping and consequent injury.
The Product Under Consideration is described as:
Borosilicate Table and Kitchen Glassware, also referred to as Borosilicate Tableware and Kitchenware.
The scope covers products used for:
The document gives examples such as:
The product list is important, but it is not meant to be exhaustive.
DGTR took the view that borosilicate kitchen and table glassware is sold in many shapes and under different commercial names. Therefore, a product does not automatically fall outside the scope simply because its exact marketing name is missing from the illustrative list.
Some products are expressly kept outside the scope.
| Product | Status |
| Jars | Excluded |
| Carafes | Excluded |
| Tea/Coffee Kettles | Excluded |
| Water/Juice Jugs | Excluded |
| Water Bottles | Excluded |
| Round Storage Jars | Excluded |
| Square Storage Jars | Excluded |
| Oil Dispensers | Excluded |
This exclusion list should be checked carefully before duty is assumed.
A product may be made from borosilicate glass and still fall outside the investigated scope if it matches one of the express exclusions.
This distinction can easily create confusion in actual imports. A storage container remains within the identified product scope, while certain storage jars are expressly excluded. Interested parties argued that this distinction was unclear because both types of products can be used for storing food.
DGTR disagreed.
The Authority considered storage containers and storage jars to be different products because of differences in their physical form and commercial description. DGTR also noted that the domestic industry produced and sold storage containers but did not produce the excluded storage jars. For importers, the lesson is practical: an invoice description such as âborosilicate food storage productâ may not be sufficient to understand anti-dumping exposure.
A proper classification review should examine what the article actually is.
The Final Findings identify the following tariff items:
HS/Tariff Item
But DGTR has made one point very clear: the customs classification is only indicative.
The final duty determination is linked to the description of the Product Under Consideration, not simply to whether a shipment uses one of these tariff codes. That makes Customs Classification Consulting useful where a tariff heading includes both covered and non-covered products.
An importer may see 7013 4200 on a customs document and immediately assume that anti-dumping duty applies.
That can be risky.
The reverse assumption can also be risky.
The more sensible review is:
Step 1: Identify the exact product
Check material, form, use and commercial description.
Step 2: Compare it with the PUC
Does the article fit within the Borosilicate Table and Kitchen Glassware?
Step 3: Check the exclusions
Could it fall into one of the specifically excluded categories?
Step 4: Check tariff classification
Confirm the correct eight-digit tariff item.
Step 5: Check origin and producer
Both can affect the anti-dumping rate.
Step 6: Check the operative notification
The customs notification ultimately controls the duty that Customs will enforce.
A proper Import Compliance Consultant should therefore review the complete transaction rather than answer applicability from a single HS code.
DGTR also used a Product Control Number, or PCN, methodology.
A PCN helps the Authority compare commercially relevant product types while calculating prices, dumping and injury.
Two product groups were ultimately maintained:
| PCN | Description |
| 01 | Borosilicate Table and Kitchen Glassware with packing but without lids and accessories |
| 02 | Borosilicate Table and Kitchen Glassware with packing, lids and accessories |
During the proceedings, parties sought additional PCNs based on different product forms, packing arrangements and technical characteristics.
DGTR did not accept every suggested category.
For example, a request was made for a separate PCN for glassware supplied without packing but with lids. DGTR said the interested party had not shown a material cost difference sufficient to justify creating a separate PCN. The Authority explained that a PCN is meant to capture economically meaningful differences, not every possible commercial variation.
Borosil Limited was treated as the sole Indian producer of the like article. That issue was not straightforward because Borosil had itself imported the subject goods.
Some interested parties argued that a company importing the same goods should not be allowed to represent the domestic industry. DGTR examined that argument under Rule 2(b).
The Authority said that importing the subject goods does not automatically remove a domestic producer from the definition of domestic industry. The surrounding facts have to be considered.
Why Borosil's Own Imports Did Not Disqualify It
DGTR examined what those imports represented commercially.
The Authority recorded that Borosil had established the first domestic manufacturing facility for the subject goods with an investment of around âč150 crore.
It also found that the company's main commercial commitment had shifted toward domestic manufacturing rather than continued importing and resale.
According to the findings, the imports were used to supplement the product range while production capability and product moulds were still being developed. Those imports later stopped.
DGTR therefore allowed Borosil to constitute the domestic industry.
This was a case-specific finding. It should not be read as saying that every domestic producer that imports an investigated product will always remain eligible.
The basic dumping comparison involves:
Normal Value vs Export Price
If the properly determined normal value is above the export price to India, a dumping margin may arise.
In this investigation, DGTR determined the normal value for China PR under the methodology applicable under Annexure I to the Anti-Dumping Rules.
For Anhui Deli Industrial Glass Co., Ltd., export price was determined using the verified response submitted during the investigation.
For other producers and exporters, DGTR used facts available.
The Authority's final conclusion was that the goods had been exported to India at dumped prices and that the dumping margins were positive and significant.
This phrase is central to understanding the investigation.
Many anti-dumping cases concern an established domestic industry whose profits, sales, market share or prices deteriorate because of dumped imports.
This case was different.
The Indian producer had only started commercial production during the Period of Investigation.
So DGTR examined whether dumped imports had materially held back the establishment of the new industry.
That is what âmaterial retardationâ means in this context.
The question was not simply:
Did an established company make less profit than last year?
Instead, DGTR looked at whether the new industry was being prevented from reaching the sales, price, capacity and financial performance reasonably connected with its establishment.
DGTR concluded that subject imports represented around 40â50% of Indian demand during the Period of Investigation.
Their quarterly movement was also relevant.
The Authority noted that although imports initially declined, they increased sharply in the final quarter.
DGTR found an increase of almost 80% in Q4 even though demand had declined.
This weakened the argument that higher imports were simply a response to stronger seasonal demand.
Price undercutting tells us whether imported goods are landing in India at prices below the comparable selling price of the domestic producer.
DGTR calculated undercutting by comparing the domestic industry's net sales realisation with the landed import price.
The weighted-average landed price recorded in the investigation was âč1,89,621 per MT, while several domestic figures remained confidential.
The published price-undercutting range was:
| Product Group | Price Undercutting Range |
| Glassware with packing but without lids/accessories | 20â30% |
| Glassware with packing, lids and accessories | 60â70% |
| Weighted Average | 40â50% |
DGTR described the undercutting as positive and significant.
These two terms often appear together, but they are not identical.
Price Depression
This refers to pressure that pulls the domestic selling price downward.
Price Suppression
This refers to a situation where a domestic producer cannot raise its selling price enough to recover rising or existing costs.
DGTR found both effects in this case.
The Authority observed that the landed price of the subject imports was below the domestic industry's cost of sales and selling price. It also concluded that the domestic industry was unable to recover its cost in the market.
The Authority did not base its conclusion on one financial number.
It looked at production, sales, price, inventory, losses, cash flow and returns.
According to DGTR's conclusions:
| Indicator | Finding |
| Subject imports | 40â50% of demand during POI |
| Final-quarter imports | Increased by 78% |
| Price undercutting | Significant |
| Domestic sales | 44% below projected level |
| Domestic selling price | 17% below projected level |
| Inventories | Accumulated |
| Profit position | Financial losses |
| Cash position | Cash losses |
| Return on capital employed | Negative |
| Dumping margin | Positive and significant |
| Injury margin | Positive and significant |
DGTR considered these factors together and concluded that dumped imports materially retarded the establishment of the domestic industry.
To calculate injury margin, DGTR determined a non-injurious price and compared it with the landed price of imports.
For that exercise, the Authority examined factors including:
Several underlying figures are confidential and shown as ***.
The public injury-margin ranges are:
| Producer | Injury Margin Range |
| Anhui Deli Industrial Glass Co., Ltd. | 15â25% |
| Any other | 45â55% |
DGTR also stated that start-up-related high costs were not mechanically loaded into its non-injurious price calculation.
That was one of the major objections raised.
A new production facility can naturally face:
If these issues were actually responsible for the losses, attributing everything to dumped imports would be misleading.
DGTR therefore considered the issue separately.
The Authority said the domestic industry had achieved projected capacity utilisation and cost-of-sales performance and that its non-injurious price methodology neutralised high costs attributable to start-up operations.
DGTR consequently did not accept start-up inefficiency as an explanation that broke the causal link.
DGTR considered whether the domestic industry's situation could be explained by factors unrelated to imports from China.
These included:
The Authority concluded that none of these known factors broke the causal link between the dumped imports and material retardation.
This non-attribution analysis matters because anti-dumping duty should not be used to compensate a domestic business for problems caused by unrelated commercial factors.
Yes.
Interested parties raised concerns that anti-dumping duty could reduce competition or create a monopoly.
DGTR did not accept that argument.
The Authority said anti-dumping duty does not prohibit imports but seeks to ensure that imports enter at fair prices.
It also stated that the domestic industry had enough capacity to meet domestic demand and that no evidence showing an adverse impact on end consumers had been placed on record.
DGTR therefore concluded that the proposed measure was not against the larger public interest.
This should still be read carefully. The conclusion does not mean that every distributor or retailer will see no cost impact. Actual commercial impact will depend on supplier rates, contracts, margins and the eventual operative duty.
The recommended rates are producer-specific.
| Origin | Export Country | Producer | Any other producer |
| China PR | Any country including China PR | Anhui Deli Industrial Glass Co., Ltd. | USD 703/MT |
| China PR | Any country including China PR | Any producer other than the above | USD 1,526/MT |
| Any country other than China PR | China PR | Any other producer | USD 1,526/MT |
The rates are recommendations in the Final Findings. DGTR has recommended that they apply for five years from the Central Government notification referred to in paragraph 148.
The difference between USD 703/MT and USD 1,526/MT is substantial.
That means an importer needs to know who actually manufactured the goods.
It is not enough to identify:
The actual producer must be established where a producer-specific rate is being relied upon.
This is why an Anti-Dumping Duty Compliance Consultant may review the producer, exporter, country-of-origin papers, commercial invoice and the operative customs notification together rather than looking at each record separately.
The lower individual rate is not simply available because a shipment is said to be connected with Anhui Deli Industrial Glass Co., Ltd.
DGTR has attached an invoice condition.
To use the individual rate, the Final Findings require presentation to Customs of a valid commercial invoice carrying the prescribed manufacturer declaration.
The declaration broadly confirms:
For procurement teams, this should be handled before shipment.
Waiting until the consignment reaches an Indian port may create avoidable classification or duty disputes.
The Final Findings say that where the prescribed invoice is not presented, the âAny otherâ rate specified in the duty table will apply.
That makes invoice compliance financially relevant.
For a business expecting the USD 703/MT individual rate, incomplete documentation could materially change the expected landed cost if the higher USD 1,526/MT category becomes applicable.
An Import Documentation Services review can therefore be commercially useful before dispatch, especially where purchase contracts assume a particular duty rate.
No such assumption should be made.
The duty table separately deals with:
Country of origin and country of export are not the same thing.
Changing the shipping route does not automatically change the origin of a product.
Businesses should maintain proper origin records and avoid using routing arrangements as a substitute for a genuine origin analysis.
The immediate concern for importers is not paperwork alone. It is cost.
1. Landed Cost May Change- The recommended duty is expressed in USD per MT. That means heavier shipments can face a larger absolute duty amount.
2. Supplier Selection May Need Review- A producer with an individual rate could create a different landed-cost position from another supplier.
3. Product Mix Matters
A shipment may contain:
Treating the entire consignment, the same way may lead to incorrect duty assumptions.
4. Documentation Needs More Attention- Producer identity and invoice wording can directly affect rate eligibility.
5. Purchase Contracts May Need Updating- Contracts should clearly address responsibility for:
Businesses buying imported borosilicate kitchenware from Indian importers may also see changes upstream.
Possible effects include:
These are possible commercial outcomes, not legal requirements.
The Final Findings do not establish that retail prices must increase by a particular amount.
For Chinese suppliers, documentation becomes more important once producer-specific duty rates are involved.
A manufacturer supplying the Indian market should keep consistency between:
Where a lower producer-specific rate is available, an inconsistency in records could create a dispute over whether that individual rate applies.
Before filing the Bill of Entry, the customs or regulatory team should confirm:
A good Customs Compliance Consultant should be able to explain why a particular rate applies, not merely quote the number.
Procurement should not wait for goods to arrive before raising anti-dumping questions.
Before the purchase order is finalised, check:
Product
Is it definitely within or outside the covered description?
Producer
Who physically manufactured the goods?
Origin
Where were the goods manufactured?
Duty Rate
Does the supplier qualify for an individual rate?
Invoice Format
Can the supplier issue the required declaration?
Commercial Terms
Who bears additional duty if the expected customs treatment changes?
Landed Cost
Does the purchase still make commercial sense after duty?
These questions can prevent a low purchase price from becoming an unexpectedly high landed cost.
Some issues deserve attention before shipment.
Checking Only the HS Code
The tariff items are expressly described as indicative.
Assuming Every Storage Product Is Treated the Same
Storage containers and excluded storage jars have different treatment under the defined product scope.
Confusing Exporter and Producer
An exporter may not be the manufacturer entitled to an individual rate.
Ignoring the Invoice Declaration
The lower producer-specific rate comes with a documentation condition.
Treating the DGTR Recommendation as the Customs Notification
The Final Findings and the operative duty notification serve different legal functions.
Ignoring Origin
Country of export does not automatically establish country of origin.
Using Old Duty Information
Trade-remedy measures may later be amended, reviewed or challenged. The latest operative customs notification should be checked before clearance.
| Check | What the Business Should Confirm | Team |
| Product description | Exact product name and construction | Procurement |
| Product scope | Covered or expressly excluded | Compliance |
| HS classification | Correct 8-digit tariff item | Customs |
| Country of origin | Actual manufacturing origin | Compliance |
| Country of export | Exporting jurisdiction | Logistics |
| Producer | Actual manufacturer | Procurement |
| Anti-dumping rate | Individual or âAny otherâ | Compliance |
| Commercial invoice | Correct producer and shipment details | Accounts/Imports |
| Declaration | Required wording/signature available | Compliance |
| Government notification | Current operative duty position | Legal/Customs |
| Landed cost | Duty incorporated into costing | Finance |
| Records | Complete supporting documents retained | Customs |
For businesses importing or planning to import borosilicate table and kitchen glassware, the next steps are fairly practical.
First, map the product range
Prepare a list of imported SKUs and divide them into:
Second, review classification
Confirm the eight-digit HS code, but do not use it as the only test.
Third, map every overseas supplier to the actual manufacturer
A trader and manufacturer should not automatically be treated as the same entity.
Fourth, check origin and export route separately
The duty table treats origin and export country as separate fields.
Fifth, review invoices before shipment.
If an individual producer rate is expected, check whether the required declaration can actually be provided.
Sixth, recalculate landed cost.
Procurement decisions made without the possible anti-dumping duty may no longer reflect the real cost of import.
Seventh, verify the Central Government notification
Do this before treating the DGTR recommended rates as operative customs duty.
Anti-dumping matters often look simple from a duty table. Actual shipment-level application can be different.
One importer may have a clearly covered baking dish. Another may import a storage product that needs closer review against the exclusion list. A third may source through a trading company while expecting a producer-specific rate.
Corpseed's Import Compliance Services can support businesses with these practical checks.
Product Scope Assessment
Corpseed can assist importers in comparing their actual product description with the Product Under Consideration and express exclusions.
Customs Classification Consulting
The team can support review of the relevant eight-digit tariff classification while keeping in mind that the DGTR document treats tariff codes as indicative.
Anti-Dumping Duty Applicability Review
This can cover:
Producer-Specific Rate Assessment
Where an individual duty is available, Corpseed can assist businesses in reviewing whether the shipment and producer documents match the conditions attached to that rate.
Import Documentation Services
Commercial invoices, origin documents, supplier details and other import records can be reviewed before customs filing.
Import Regulatory Consulting
Businesses importing multiple product variants can obtain regulatory support to separate covered goods from excluded or uncertain goods.
Ongoing Trade Compliance Support
Where imports are recurring, businesses can maintain product-wise duty and documentation controls rather than reviewing the issue from scratch for every consignment.
For importers dealing in borosilicate table or kitchen glassware, using professional Import Compliance Services before shipment can help identify product scope, classification, origin, producer and documentation issues before they become customs-clearance problems.
DGTR's Final Findings concern Borosilicate Table and Kitchen Glassware originating in or exported from China PR.
The Authority found dumping, positive and significant dumping margins and material retardation to the establishment of the domestic industry.
The product scope is broad, but jars, carafes, tea/coffee kettles, water/juice jugs, water bottles, round storage jars, square storage jars and oil dispensers are expressly excluded.
DGTR has recommended USD 703/MT for Anhui Deli Industrial Glass Co., Ltd. and USD 1,526/MT for the relevant âAny otherâ categories.
The individual producer rate is linked to a prescribed commercial invoice declaration.
The tariff codes listed in the Final Findings are indicative; product description remains central to scope.
Most importantly, the DGTR Final Findings should not be confused with the Central Government notification that gives effect to the duty. DGTR recommends that the measure run for five years from that government notification.
Document Preview
Embedded reference document
Related
Explore more updates from the same department.