Industry Accuses NTC of Ignoring Evidence in Soda Ash Case

Industries and trade associations have slammed the National Tariff Commission’s (NTC) final determination in the anti-dumping soda ash case, calling it contrary to the Commission’s established practices.

The respondents said they had raised their concerns in response to the Statement of Essential Facts, reiterated them during meetings with the Commission and submitted detailed written objections before the final ruling. They claim the Commission failed to address these objections, raising questions about the transparency and impartiality of the investigation.

According to the stakeholders, the Commission concluded that the domestic industry faced a threat of material injury despite finding no evidence of actual material injury to the applicants, Lucky Core Industries Limited and Olympia Chemical Limited.

The respondents argue that the domestic producers controlled more than 95% of the local market, remained profitable throughout the period of investigation, expanded production capacity by around 20% and described their soda ash business as “resilient” in their annual reports. They contend that these indicators contradict the Commission’s conclusion that the industry faced a credible threat of injury.

The stakeholders further allege that declines in sales, inventories, cash flow and capacity utilization were driven by weak domestic demand, global market conditions, export reallocations and commercial decisions made by local producers rather than by dumped imports. They argue that these factors were overlooked to justify the imposition of anti-dumping duties.

Another major point of contention is the Commission’s calculation of the Non-Injurious Price (NIP). According to the respondents, the Commission applied a 10% profit margin, compared with the 5% benchmark it has reportedly used in several previous anti-dumping investigations. They argue that no adequate explanation was provided for the higher margin, which they claim inflated the injury margin and led to higher anti-dumping duties.

Regulators are generally expected to explain any departure from established methodologies. The respondents argue that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the change, raising concerns about the consistency and objectivity of the determination.

The respondents also cited World Trade Organization jurisprudence, including the Pakistan–BOPP Films (UAE) dispute, arguing that investigating authorities are required to clearly explain how the available evidence supports their conclusions rather than simply reproducing data.

The final determination has renewed concerns among some industry stakeholders over the Commission’s decision-making process and handling of anti-dumping investigations.