Proposed Anti-Dumping Duty on Melamine Raises Concern the Panel Industry

The up to 250% anti-dumping duty on Melamine proposed by the DGTR has created significant concern across the entire plywood and panel industry, including the laminate sector. However, the proposal is currently awaiting approval from the Ministry of Finance. However, the industry, already struggling with rising prices of chemicals such as phenol and urea, has started assessing the likely impact of the DGTR proposal on its production costs.

At present, GSFC is the only major Melamine producer in India, and its production is able to meet only a limited portion of the country’s total requirement. As a result, the industry has to meet around 80% of its Melamine requirement through imports.

In such a situation, the industry believes that increasing the cost of raw materials across the entire sector merely to benefit one domestic company would be unfair and against the broader interests of the industry. Such a move could increase costs for manufacturers and ultimately affect the competitiveness of the plywood, laminate and panel sectors.

In this context, various industry associations, under the leadership of FIPPI, have expressed their opposition to the proposal by sending emails to the Ministry of Finance. These include: ILMA;HPMA;PPMA;SOPMA;AIPLI; SIPMA; DNPMAI; WBIA-UP; PMWA-UP.

Key arguments

1. One producer vs. thousands of users: GSFC, a Gujarat government-promoted company, is the sole domestic Melamine producer. Thousands of mostly MSME plywood, laminate, MDF, particle board and resin units employing lakhs of workers depend on the input. Protecting one producer cannot justify raising costs for all of them.
2. GSFC is not an injured party: Melamine is only one of many GSFC products. Its FY 2025-26 results show operating revenue of Rs. 10,827 crore and PAT of Rs. 652 crore (up 14%). Its Industrial Products segment EBIT rose from Rs. 56 crore to Rs. 200 crore, the highest in four years. GSFC is also pushing Melamine exports for better realisations.
3. Domestic supply can’t meet demand: GSFC’s Melamine-IV line has a capacity of 40,000 TPA, while India imported over 1,00,000 MT from China in 2024 alone. Duty would not close this gap and would only raise costs. GSFC has reportedly denied supply to downstream manufacturers who raised concerns in earlier proceedings, so a sole supplier could also become a “gatekeeper.”
4. Duty would favour foreign plywood: China supplies over 60% of world Melamine trade, including to Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia, the main plywood and panel exporters to India. Their manufacturers would keep buying Melamine cheaply while Indian manufacturers pay 50-60% more. The result would be cheaper imported finished goods, often at concessional FTA duty, and Indian units would lose domestic and export markets. This is an inverted duty structure that harms “Make in India.”
5. Injury and causation not established

• Price undercutting is negative.
• GSFC’s domestic and export prices fell almost equally, reflecting a global price cycle.
• The base year 2021-22 was a peak year.
• The production fall coincided with the suspension of two older plants totalling 15,000 MT.