Loading...
Loading...
Law Update
Quick note
Below is the official summary and the reference document preview. Use “Open PDF” for full screen view.
A Clear Float Glass importer reading the latest DGTR findings needs to understand one thing first: the outcome is different for Malaysia and Indonesia.
The Directorate General of Trade Remedies issued its Final Findings on 28 September 2026 in Case No. CVD(OI)-05/2025, covering imports of Clear Float Glass originating in or exported from Indonesia and Malaysia.
DGTR closed the investigation against Indonesia because its import volume stayed below the statutory negligibility threshold. Malaysia remained in the case. After examining the subsidy programmes, import prices, domestic-industry performance and other possible causes of injury, DGTR recommended countervailing duty on covered Malaysian imports.
The recommendation is producer-specific. The rates range from 8.58% to 15.66% of CIF value, depending on the producer and trade route. Importers therefore cannot treat this as a single flat duty for every Malaysian shipment.
The document is not simply about whether glass is imported from Malaysia. Applicability depends on the product description, thickness, producer, country of origin, country of export, and invoice documentation.
The investigation began after four Indian producers approached DGTR:
They alleged that Clear Float Glass imported from Indonesia and Malaysia was benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports were causing injury to the Indian industry.
DGTR initiated the investigation through Notification No. 6/36/2025-DGTR dated 29 September 2025. The purpose was not merely to check whether subsidies existed. DGTR also had to determine whether those subsidies resulted in injury to the domestic industry and whether a countervailing duty would be justified.
Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The countervailing duty investigation operates under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. A countervailing duty is not the same as an ordinary customs duty. It is a trade-remedy measure used where subsidised imports are found to cause injury to a domestic industry.
Countervailing Duty Rules, 1995
The investigation also follows the Customs Tariff rules dealing with identification, assessment and collection of countervailing duty on subsidised articles and determination of injury.
These rules govern matters such as:
WTO SCM Agreement
DGTR also referred to the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
The basic question under this framework is not simply whether a foreign government offers an incentive. DGTR has to examine whether there is a financial contribution, a benefit, and sufficient specificity for that support to be countervailable.
What Clear Float Glass Is Covered?
The product covered by this investigation is:
Clear Float Glass of nominal thickness from 4 mm to 12 mm, both inclusive, with nominal thickness determined according to BIS 14900:2000, as amended.
DGTR records its use in sectors such as:
The Authority also found that the imported goods and the Clear Float Glass produced by the Indian industry were technically and commercially comparable.
For an importer, this means the first question should not be: "What HS code is on the invoice?" The better question is: "Does the imported product match DGTR's written description?"
DGTR has specifically addressed downstream processing.
The Final Findings state that activities such as:
do not remove the goods from the scope if the glass, when first produced through the float process, matched the product description.
This matters where an importer purchases glass that has already gone through finishing operations outside the country where it was originally manufactured.
The fact that further processing took place elsewhere does not by itself settle whether the product is covered.
The findings also give a product-specific clarification on origin.
For this investigation, DGTR connects origin with the country where the soda-lime-silica glass is first:
Later finishing or fabrication in another country does not automatically alter that treatment for the findings.
Importers dealing with multi-country supply chains should therefore verify the actual manufacturing location rather than relying only on the final processing country.
HS Codes Mentioned in the Findings
DGTR refers to Chapter 70 for glass and glassware and identifies 70051090 at the eight-digit level during the product-scope discussion.
The duty table refers to the following headings:
7003, 7004, 7005, 7007, 7008, 7009, 7013, 7015, 7016, 7018, 7019 and 7020.
However, there is an important qualification.
The customs classification is only indicative.
The written description of the product controls the scope.
An importer should therefore avoid two opposite mistakes:
DGTR accepted the four applicant companies as the domestic industry. According to the findings, they represented around 85% of Indian production of the subject goods during the Period of Investigation. DGTR also recorded that the applicants had not imported the subject goods from the investigated countries and were not related to the concerned exporters or Indian importers.
This satisfied the standing requirement for the investigation.
This distinction is central to the whole case.
DGTR found that Indonesian imports accounted for 3.40% of total imports of the like product into India during the Period of Investigation.
For a developing country, the relevant individual threshold was 4%.
DGTR also checked the collective share of developing countries individually below the 4% mark. That figure was 5.897%, which remained below the relevant collective threshold of 9%.
Because both thresholds remained below the prescribed levels, DGTR terminated the investigation against Indonesia under Rule 16(1)(d).
What this means
For Indonesia:
This point must be worded carefully.
The outcome does not mean DGTR concluded that Indonesian producers received no subsidies.
It means the Indonesian leg of the investigation ended because the import volume was negligible under the rule.
Malaysia's import volume was above the relevant threshold.
DGTR therefore continued the detailed examination and reviewed information relating to:
That examination resulted in separate subsidy margins for the participating producers.
Since Indonesia was no longer part of the investigation, there was no need to combine Indonesian and Malaysian imports for the injury assessment. DGTR therefore examined the effect of Malaysian imports alone. This is another reason why the outcome should not be described simply as "duty on Clear Float Glass from Indonesia and Malaysia." Only Malaysia remained subject to the final duty recommendation.
DGTR examined the programmes on a programme-by-programme basis.
Broadly, the Authority looked at:
Only after those questions were examined did DGTR work out the resulting subsidy margin. This is why every programme mentioned during the investigation did not automatically become part of the final duty rate.
The mix of programmes differed from one producer to another.
The programmes reflected in the final producer-specific calculations included:
Natural Gas at Less Than Adequate Remuneration
DGTR examined Malaysia's regulated natural-gas pricing arrangement.
The Authority concluded that natural gas supplied under the relevant framework constituted government or public-body provision of goods and that a measurable benefit arose for relevant participating producers.
Land at Less Than Adequate Remuneration
DGTR examined land made available to the participating producers and compared the consideration with appropriate benchmarks.
Where DGTR found that land had been provided below adequate remuneration, the resulting benefit became part of the subsidy calculation.
Investment Tax Allowance
The Authority examined tax deductions available for approved qualifying investment.
Where the allowance reduced tax otherwise payable and met the legal test for specificity, it was treated as government revenue foregone.
Reinvestment Allowance
This issue arose during the investigation and was examined using the producer's own financial and tax records.
Industrial Building Allowance
The allowance applied to qualifying industrial-building expenditure and was included where the relevant producer had received the benefit.
Accelerated Capital Allowance
This involved accelerated deduction/depreciation for qualifying assets.
Import Duty Exemptions
DGTR examined exemptions covering items such as raw materials, machinery and spare parts.
Sales Tax Exemptions
Certain producers had received sales tax benefits on eligible raw materials, packaging or equipment.
A proper reading of the findings also requires looking at what DGTR did not countervail.
Electricity
The Authority reviewed published industrial tariffs, electricity bills and consumption records. DGTR concluded that the applicable electricity tariffs did not provide a specific countervailable benefit to the participating producers. So no amount was added to the subsidy margin on account of electricity.
Northern Corridor Income-Tax Exemption
DGTR examined an income-tax exemption available under the Northern Corridor framework in the case of Jinjing Technology Malaysia. Although the programme existed and the exemption was in force, the producer's tax records showed that no tax was actually foregone during the relevant year. The subsidy margin under that programme was therefore nil for the POI.
Buyer Credit Guarantee
DGTR also examined the alleged buyer-credit guarantee programme. The Authority found that the record did not establish the necessary countervailable benefit and therefore did not include an amount under that programme.
Programmes Not Used During the Period of Investigation
DGTR separately identified a number of schemes that the participating Malaysian exporters did not use during the POI. These included programmes such as Market Development Grant, Science Fund, Techno Fund, Inno Fund, Export Credit Refinancing, Pioneer Status and several export-promotion and SME incentives.
The important distinction is:
Not used during the POI does not necessarily mean legally incapable of being countervailable.
DGTR found no benefit had been received by the participating producers during the relevant period, so it did not need to make a final countervailability finding for those programmes.
DGTR found that none of the Malaysian margins were below the applicable de minimis threshold. The lowest margin was 8.58%.
The programmes reflected in Xinyi Energy Smart's overall rate included:
The individual programme rates are largely confidential in the published findings and appear as but the overall margin is public.
Kibing Group's calculation covered a wider mix of benefits, including:
Again, the programme-level numerical amounts remain confidential, while the total subsidy margin is published.
Jinjing Technology Malaysia's final margin included:
Its overall subsidy margin was the lowest among the three participating producers at 8.58%.
Companies that did not participate in the investigation did not provide producer-specific information that could support an individual margin.
DGTR therefore calculated a residual subsidy margin of 15.66% based on facts available and the programme-level findings for cooperating producers. This residual rate is particularly important for Indian importers buying from producers other than the three named companies.
DGTR Also Had to Prove Injury
A subsidy finding alone does not complete a countervailing duty case. DGTR also had to determine whether the Indian industry was suffering material injury and whether the subsidised imports from Malaysia were responsible for that injury. The Authority reviewed both volume and financial indicators.
Price Undercutting
DGTR found that Malaysian imports were entering at prices below the comparable prices of the domestic industry. During the POI, the findings refer to price undercutting in the 30-40% range.
Price Depression
Domestic selling prices came under downward pressure.
Price Suppression
The domestic industry was unable to increase prices enough to recover higher production costs. DGTR noted a particularly telling gap: the domestic industry's cost of sales increased by 43%, while its selling price fell by 7%.
That divergence formed an important part of the injury analysis.
The Authority concluded that the domestic industry suffered material injury during the Period of Investigation.
The injury was reflected in:
DGTR also recorded that the industry's financial position worsened despite growth in some volume indicators. That matters because trade-remedy injury is not decided by looking at production or sales volume alone.
One of the arguments raised during the investigation was that the Indian industry's problems could have resulted from its own capacity expansion.
DGTR partly accepted this point.
The Authority recognised that expansion can increase:
Those effects were not attributed to Malaysian imports.
However, DGTR found that capacity expansion could not explain why domestic selling prices fell while costs rose.
The findings also refer to:
DGTR therefore concluded that subsidised imports still had an independent injurious effect.
After separating the effect of other factors, DGTR concluded that subsidised Malaysian imports caused material injury to the domestic industry.
The reasoning included the relationship between:
lower-priced imports → domestic price pressure → weaker profitability → inventory build-up and lower capacity utilisation.
DGTR specifically stated that the injurious effects of other known factors had been separated and distinguished.
These two terms are easy to mix up.
Subsidy Margin
This measures the countervailable benefit received by the foreign producer/exporter.
Injury Margin
This looks at the level relevant to removing injury suffered by the domestic industry. DGTR compared the two for each Malaysian producer. In every relevant case, the subsidy margin was lower than the injury margin. That leads to the next important part of the decision.
Under the lesser duty approach, DGTR recommends the lower of:
Here, the subsidy margins were lower.
Therefore, the recommended duty rates correspond to the subsidy margins rather than the higher injury margins. This is why the final recommended rates are 11.61%, 11.44%, 8.58% and 15.66%.
The country-of-export column should not be skipped while reading this table. A Malaysian-origin product exported through another country can still fall within the recommended treatment.
Likewise, the table also contains a row dealing with goods of non-Malaysian origin exported from Malaysia.
The recommended duty is ad valorem.
That means it is calculated as a percentage of the relevant CIF value.
CIF stands for:
The exact customs valuation should follow the applicable customs provisions and the final implementing notification.
Importers should therefore avoid making final landed-cost calculations purely from the DGTR recommendation.
This part is especially important for importer compliance.
DGTR states that the individual duty rates for the named producers are conditional upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice containing the prescribed producer declaration. The declaration must identify the producer and confirm that the quantity covered by the invoice was manufactured by that producer. If the required invoice is not presented, the rate applicable to all other producers is to apply. For an importer, this can make the difference between a producer-specific rate and the 15.66% residual rate.
A Minimum Import Price for Clear Float Glass was also raised during the investigation.
Some interested parties argued that an additional countervailing duty could result in over-remediation.
DGTR rejected that argument.
DGTR's position was that the MIP was introduced after the POI and did not alter the subsidy and injury findings already established on verified data.
This is where published content needs to be careful.
DGTR has recommended the duty.
The Final Findings themselves should not be written as though they automatically brought the levy into force.
The recommendation states that the definitive anti-subsidy duty should apply for five years from the date of publication of the official Central Government notification.
So until the implementing notification is separately verified, the safer wording is:
Not:
For companies importing regularly, a pre-shipment import compliance services review can be far less disruptive than dealing with classification, origin or duty disputes after the shipment reaches customs.
The tariff headings are indicative. Product description still matters.
A trader may sell the goods without being the actual producer. The producer identity matters for the individual rate.
Three named producers have separate recommended rates.
Without the required commercial invoice declaration, the individual producer rate may not be available under the recommended structure.
Cutting or polishing in another country does not necessarily settle the origin question.
Businesses should verify the operative Central Government customs notification separately.
The immediate concern for importers is likely to be cost certainty.
If the recommended CVD is notified, landed cost can vary significantly depending on the producer. An importer sourcing from Jinjing at an 8.58% recommended rate may face a very different cost position from an importer sourcing from an unnamed producer at 15.66%.
That makes supplier identification commercially important, not merely a paperwork exercise.
Procurement teams may need to review:
The three cooperating Malaysian producers obtained their own margins because they participated in the investigation and provided information that DGTR examined. Other producers fall under the residual recommended rate. This may affect how Malaysian suppliers price shipments to Indian customers and how Indian buyers compare sourcing options.
However, any commercial impact will ultimately depend on the legally effective government notification and market response.
For Indian Clear Float Glass producers, the recommended countervailing measure is designed to offset the subsidy advantage and injury identified by DGTR.
The intended effect is to reduce the price distortion found during the investigation.
It would still be incorrect to say the measure guarantees:
Those outcomes depend on demand, energy cost, finance cost, competition and other market factors.
These sectors may feel the effect indirectly because Clear Float Glass is used as an input.
If covered Malaysian imports become more expensive after a final levy, buyers may need to:
The effect will not necessarily be the same for every user because not every glass product is within the defined 4 mm-12 mm Clear Float Glass scope.
Step 1: Identify the Exact Product
Obtain technical specifications and confirm whether it falls within the written product description.
Step 2: Confirm Thickness
Check whether the nominal thickness falls between 4 mm and 12 mm.
Step 3: Check Manufacturing Origin
Identify where the glass was first produced through the float process and annealed.
Step 4: Identify the Producer
Do not rely only on the exporter or supplier name.
Step 5: Match the Producer to the Duty Table
Check whether the producer is Xinyi, Kibing, Jinjing, or another producer.
Step 6: Review the Commercial Invoice
If an individual rate is being relied upon, check the prescribed producer declaration.
Step 7: Verify the Final Government Notification
Confirm whether the recommendation has been implemented and whether the final notification retains the same rates and conditions.
Step 8: Update Landed-Cost Calculations
Only after the applicable legal position is confirmed should procurement teams finalise duty assumptions.
Trade-remedy cases are different from normal customs classification work. A shipment may involve the correct HS code but still face a problem if the product scope, producer identity, origin, or documentary condition is not properly checked.
Corpseed's Import Compliance Services can support importers with:
Businesses sourcing Clear Float Glass from Malaysia can use an import compliance consultant to check the product, producer, origin and applicable trade-remedy position before a shipment is finalised.
This is particularly useful where a supply chain involves a manufacturer in one country, a trader in another country and shipment to India through a third location.
Document Preview
Embedded reference document
Related
Explore more updates from the same department.