[
ISLAMABAD:
The All Pakistan Glass Manufacturers Association (APGMA) has urged the National Tariff Commission (NTC) to reconsider its methodology in the ongoing anti-dumping investigation concerning soda ash imports from Turkiye and Kenya, arguing that the commission has adopted an unjustified profit assumption while calculating the “non-injurious price”.
In a representation to NTC, APGMA Secretary General Dawoodur Rasheed stated that the commission’s preliminary determination in the anti-dumping case No 69/2025/NTC/SA applied an estimated profit margin of 10% of the cost to make and sell, without providing any supporting rationale, methodology, or factual basis. According to APGMA, the NTC has historically and consistently adopted a 5% profit margin in previous anti-dumping investigations while constructing the non-injurious price. The association contends that the sudden adoption of a 10% profit rate represents a significant departure from the established practice and could materially affect the calculation of injury margins in the current investigation.
In this regard, when contacted, Atif Iqbal, Executive Director of the Organisation for Advancement and Safeguard Industrial Sector (OASIS), confirmed that in the ceramic tiles anti-dumping case, it remained a regular practice of the National Tariff Commission that a normal profit margin of 5% was adopted for calculating the non-injurious price in cases of tiles as well as many other sectors.
The association submitted a comparative record of previous anti-dumping cases, including investigations involving polyester staple fibre, hydrogen peroxide, cold-rolled steel coils, PVC flooring, chlorinated paraffin wax, and cefadroxil, where the commission reportedly used a 5% profit benchmark.
APGMA noted that the soda ash investigation was the first disclosed case in which a higher profit assumption of 10% had been applied. Dawoodur Rasheed emphasised that a reasonable profit rate of 5%, consistent with the commission’s past practice, would be sufficient to address any alleged injury to the domestic industry while ensuring fairness and transparency in the injury margin calculation process. He maintained that the domestic industry had not suffered material injury warranting such an elevated profit assumption.
APGMA requested the commission to review and revise the preliminary determination to ensure consistency with its established precedents and to maintain confidence in Pakistan’s trade remedy framework.