New Delhi: The long-running anti-dumping investigation into imports of Titanium Dioxide (TiO₂) from China has entered a decisive new chapter, following a remand order by the Calcutta High Court that has forced the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) to reopen the case from a critical procedural stage.
The fresh proceedings, initiated in October 2025, have revived a high-stakes contest between domestic manufacturers and downstream users, with implications stretching far beyond pigment pricing into India’s broader industrial and strategic manufacturing ambitions.
The remand stems from the High Court’s September 22, 2025 order, which quashed the DGTR’s final findings dated February 12, 2025, as well as the consequent notification imposing anti-dumping duty in May 2025.
The court held that the authority had failed to properly apply Rule 7(2) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, which governs confidentiality and the obligation to provide non-confidential summaries (NCVs) of sensitive information.
Why the court intervened
The litigation was triggered by a challenge from the India Paint Association (IPA), which argued that key submissions made by the domestic industry, particularly a letter dated February 7, 2025, were accepted by the DGTR without insisting on non-confidential versions or testing the validity of confidentiality claims.
The High Court agreed that confidentiality under trade remedy law cannot be automatic. It ruled that the DGTR must actively examine whether information claimed as confidential is genuinely incapable of summarisation, and if not, must either seek disclosure or disregard the material altogether.
As a result, the entire determination, covering product scope, injury assessment and duty quantum, was sent back to the authority for reconsideration from the stage of IPA’s response, reopening issues that had earlier been considered settled.
Domestic industry pushes back
In detailed written submissions filed on January 5, 2026, domestic producers Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (KMML), Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (TTPL) and VV Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd. have mounted a robust defence of their confidentiality practices, arguing that the impugned information merely reiterated facts already on record and verified by the DGTR during on-site inspections.
According to the domestic industry, the February 7 letter did not introduce any new evidence but only reinforced that TTPL had produced and sold Rutile-Sulphate grade TiO₂ during the period of investigation. This fact, they argue, had already been substantiated through production flow charts, cost audits, trial balances, verified invoices and physical plant inspections conducted by DGTR officials.
The producers maintain that sales invoices and customer identities are universally recognised as business-sensitive information under DGTR trade notices and operating manuals. Trade Notice 1 of 2013 explicitly lists customer and supplier details as information whose disclosure could cause “significant adverse effect” on the submitting party, they argue.
Confidentiality norms under scrutiny
The remand has sharpened focus on how confidentiality is applied in India’s trade remedy regime. Domestic producers point out that exporters, importers and user industries routinely claim confidentiality over a wide range of data, including customer lists, pricing structures, channels of distribution and even entire adjustment methodologies.
In this case, the domestic industry has highlighted that even members of the IPA, including large multinational paint companies, claimed confidentiality over supplier names and transaction details in their questionnaire responses—claims that were accepted by the DGTR without objection.
The producers argue that applying a stricter standard only to domestic manufacturers would distort procedural parity and undermine the credibility of the investigation.
Product scope: sulphate vs chloride route
Beyond procedure, the remand proceedings have reopened substantive issues around product scope—particularly whether Rutile Titanium Dioxide produced via the sulphate route (R-S) should be treated as a “like article” to Rutile-Chloride (R-C) grades imported from China.
TTPL, the only Indian producer of Rutile-Sulphate TiO₂, has submitted extensive documentation showing that it has manufactured and sold R-S TiO₂ throughout the injury period. This includes evidence of sulphuric acid production and consumption—an unmistakable marker of the sulphate process—verified during DGTR inspections.
The domestic industry has further relied on international precedent, citing determinations by authorities in the European Union, Brazil and Saudi Arabia, all of which concluded that Rutile TiO₂ produced through sulphate and chloride routes constitutes a single product for anti-dumping purposes due to identical chemical composition, overlapping applications and interchangeability in end-use industries such as paints, coatings and plastics.
Representativeness of user claims questioned
A particularly sharp fault line in the remand proceedings concerns the representativeness claims made by the IPA. In its court filings and submissions before the DGTR, the IPA asserted that it represents nearly 90% of TiO₂ users in India.
Domestic producers have contested this claim with membership data, showing that IPA has around 353 members, compared with over 3,700 members collectively represented by other paint and coating associations across the country.
This challenge goes to the heart of the “public interest” test under trade remedy law—raising questions about whose costs and competitiveness should carry greater weight in policy decisions.
Is the duty too low?
Another critical issue revived by the remand is the adequacy of the non-injurious price (NIP) and the resulting anti-dumping duty quantum.
Domestic producers argue that the duty recommended in the earlier final findings was significantly lower than measures imposed by other jurisdictions, including the EU, Brazil and Saudi Arabia, despite similar findings of dumping and injury. They contend that suppressed import prices from China have kept Indian plants operating at sub-optimal capacity, inflating per-unit costs and eroding financial viability.
The submission warns that unless injury margins are recalibrated, India risks hollowing out its domestic TiO₂ base at a time when global supply chains are becoming more fragmented and geopolitically sensitive.
Strategic minerals and national interest
The stakes extend beyond pigments and paint formulations. KMML, one of the applicant companies, has linked the survival of its TiO₂ operations to its flagship Titanium Sponge Plant and Monazite Cracking Project—both of which are strategically significant for India’s defence, aerospace and nuclear sectors.
According to the domestic industry, sustained losses in TiO₂ could jeopardise these downstream capabilities, undermining the objectives of Atmanirbhar Bharat and India’s critical minerals strategy.
The DGTR is now tasked with walking a tightrope—balancing transparency with legitimate confidentiality, safeguarding domestic manufacturing without imposing disproportionate costs on user industries, and aligning its determinations with both domestic law and international practice.
The remand proceedings are expected to culminate in fresh disclosure statements and final findings, which could once again reshape India’s TiO₂ trade regime. Whatever the outcome, the case is likely to serve as a precedent on how confidentiality, public interest and strategic industrial policy intersect in India’s evolving trade remedy framework.
For an industry that sits at the crossroads of construction, manufacturing and national security, the DGTR’s next move will be watched far beyond the confines of pigment markets.