NTC decision in soda ash case draws criticism

The National Tariff Commission's (NTC) final determination in the soda ash dumping investigation has triggered criticism from the downstream industrial consumers and trade stakeholders, who describe the injury determination as legally flawed, economically unsustainable and contrary to the commission's established practice.

The respondents, including the Soap Manufacturers Association, chemical manufacturers, International Silicate and the Pakistan Glass Manufacturers Association, contended that they highlighted the allegations in their comments on the Statement of Essential Facts issued by the NTC and reiterated their concerns during meetings with the commission.

However, according to the respondents, the NTC proceeded with the final determination without addressing or taking notice of the allegations, which raised questions about the credibility and impartiality of the proceedings.

According to the stakeholders, the NTC attempted to portray the threat of material injury whereas no actual material injury was suffered by the applicants – Lucky Core Industries and Olympia Chemical.

They alleged that the commission appeared tilted towards the applicants, making the case for threat of material injury by stretching facts and figures beyond reasonable limits. Being a quasi-judicial authority, "the NTC is expected to remain neutral and uphold its credibility".

Industry representatives contended that the facts were fundamentally inconsistent with the finding of threat of material injury and instead demonstrated a healthy and expanding domestic industry.

They alleged that the commission ignored compelling evidence showing that the decline in sales, inventories, cash flows or capacity utilisation resulted from weak domestic demand, global market conditions, voluntary export reallocation and the domestic industry's own commercial decisions, "rather than dumped imports".

They were of the view that the threat of injury had been wrongly attributed to dumped imports just to make a case for anti-dumping duty. One of the most controversial aspects of the determination, according to the respondents, was the construction of the non-injurious price. NTC adopted a 10% profit assumption, despite reportedly using a 5% benchmark in numerous previous anti-dumping investigations.