What India's aluminium-foil decision shows about keeping an anti-dumping duty alive

India's Directorate General of Trade Remedies has recommended that anti-dumping duties on aluminium foil of 80 micron and below, in place since 2021, continue for a further five years. The decision is a clean illustration of how an expiry review works — and of the evidentiary case a Pakistani applicant would have to build.

The duties cover imports from China, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, at recommended rates reported between USD 93.53 and USD 976.99 per tonne. The recommendation now goes to India's finance ministry for a final decision.

What the authority found, and why it matters

DGTR found that dumped imports had depressed the domestic industry's profitability; that imports remained significant despite the duties in force; and that producers in the exporting countries were export-oriented and likely to raise volumes if the duties lapsed.

Those three findings are not incidental. They map onto the elements of the expiry test. Imports persisting despite a duty go to the likelihood that dumping would continue or recur. Spare capacity and export orientation go to what would happen if the measure were removed. Continuing pressure on profitability goes to injury.

The same test in Pakistani law

An anti-dumping duty imposed by the National Tariff Commission is terminated not later than five years from imposition, or from the most recent review under section 59 that covered both dumping and injury (section 58(1) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015).

It survives beyond that point only through the mechanism in section 58(3): a review initiated before the date of expiry, either on the Commission's own initiative or on a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic industry within forty-five days of the public notice of impending termination — that notice itself being required not later than ninety days before expiry by section 58(2). The Commission must determine that expiry would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The duty remains in force pending the outcome.

The test is prospective and conjunctive, and it tracks Article 11.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The authority asks what would be likely to happen if the duty went, and both dumping and injury must be likely to continue or recur.

A note on the Pakistani foil case, and what it is not

The National Tariff Commission has an anti-dumping investigation open on Alu Alu Foil (cold forming foil and tropical foil) from China, A.D.C. No. 76/NTC/2026/AAF, initiated on an application filed on 30 June 2026 by a domestic producer. The investigated product is classified under PCT headings 7607.1990 and 7607.2000. The period of investigation for dumping is 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, and for injury 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2026.

It is worth being precise about the relationship between the two cases, because they are easily conflated. Alu Alu foil is a cold-forming laminate used principally in pharmaceutical blister packaging. The Indian measure concerns aluminium foil of 80 micron and below — a broader, general-purpose product family. These are not the same product, they do not serve the same market, and the Indian findings are not evidence about the Pakistani investigated product.

What the Indian decision does offer is procedural. It is a worked example of the reasoning an expiry review requires, available at a moment when the Pakistani case on a related foil product is at its outset.

The lesson for a producer already holding a duty

A sunset review is a fresh evidentiary exercise, not an automatic renewal. The case for continuation — current import data, exporters' capacity, the state of the domestic industry's financial indicators — has to be assembled and filed, and the forty-five-day window runs from a notice published up to ninety days before the duty is due to expire. The work has to begin well before that.

For an importer, the position is the symmetrical one. The expiry review is the point at which a measure can be brought to an end, and in most cases it is the only such point for five years.

Sources: DGTR final findings as reported in the financial press, to be confirmed against the DGTR notification; NTC, notice of initiation, A.D.C. No. 76/NTC/2026/AAF, Alu Alu Foil; Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, sections 58 and 59.

This note is general commentary and not legal advice. Statutory references and time limits should be verified against the governing instruments and the documents in your own matter. Please read our full disclaimer.