Flexible Slabstock Polyol from Australia, EU and Singapore under Anti-dumping Investigation on Complaint of Manali Petrochemicals

[Ref: Initiation Notification No.14/01/2013-DGAD dated 12^th July 2013]

Subject: Initiation of Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Flexible Slabstock Polyol, originating in or exported from Australia, EU and Singapore

M/s Manali Petrochemicals Ltd., has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped articles and for Determination of injury) Rules, 1995 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the AD Rules) for initiation of Anti-Dumping Duty investigation concerning imports of Flexible Slabstock Polyol (hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods) originating in or exported from Australia, EU and Singapore (hereinafter referred to as the subject countries).

And whereas, the Authority finds prima-facie that sufficient evidence of dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries, ‘injury’ to the domestic industry and causal link between the alleged dumping and ‘injury’ exist to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation; the Authority hereby initiates an investigation into the alleged dumping, and consequent injury to the domestic industry in terms of the Rules 5 of the AD Rules, to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of antidumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the ‘injury’ to the domestic industry.

Domestic Industry & ‘Standing’

2. The Application has been filed by M/s. Manali Petrochemicals Ltd on behalf of the domestic industry. As claimed by M/s. Manali Petrochemicals Ltd, they are the sole producer of the subject goods in India and therefore constitute the domestic industry within the meaning of the Rules 2 (b) and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules supra.

Product under consideration

3. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Flexible Slabstock Polyol, a polymer, originating in or exported from the subject countries. The subject product is a clear viscous liquid of molecular weight 3000-4000, manufactured by polymerization of propylene oxide and ethylene oxide with a triol chain starter. It is a polyether and on reaction with catalysts and additives yields polyurethane foams used in upholstery, mattresses, pillows, bolsters, transport seating and packaging. Flexible Slabstock Polyol is transported in tankers or stored in steel drums (hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods”) from Australia, EU and Singapore. It is classified under the category “Plastics and articles thereof” in Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and further under 3907.20 as per International Trade Classification. The classification, however, is only indicative and in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.

Like Article

4. The applicant has claimed that the subject goods, which are being dumped into India, are identical to the goods produced by the domestic industry. There are no differences either in the technical specifications, quality, functions or end-uses of the dumped imports and the domestically produced subject goods and the product under consideration manufactured by the applicant. The two are technically and commercially substitutable and hence should be treated as ‘like article’ under the AD Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the applicant in India are being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being imported from the subject countries.

Countries involved

5. The countries/territory involved in the present investigation are Australia, Singapore and EU.

Normal Value

6. Normal Value for Australia, EU and Singapore: The applicant has constructed the normal value in respect of these subject countries stating that neither they were able to get any documentary evidence or reliable information with regard to domestic prices of the subject goods in the subject countries nor the same are available in the public domain. The Authority has prima-facie considered the normal value of subject goods in subject countries on the basis of constructed values as made available by the applicants for the purpose of this initiation.

Export Price

7. The applicant has claimed export prices on the basis of data obtained from EximNet BBS. Price adjustments have been allowed on account of Ocean freight, marine insurance, inland transportation, commission, port handling and port charges etc. to arrive at the net export price. There is sufficient evidence of the export prices of the subject goods from the subject countries to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.

Dumping Margin

8. Normal value and export price have been compared at ex-factory level, which shows prima facie significant dumping margin in respect of the subject countries. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in the subject countries are significantly higher than the ex-factory export price, indicating, prima facie, that the subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the subject countries. The dumping margins are estimated to be above de minimis.

Injury and Causal Link

9. The applicant has furnished evidence regarding the ‘injury’ having taken place as a result of the alleged dumping in the form of increased volume of dumped imports, price undercutting, price underselling, price suppression and decline in profitability, return on capital employed, cash flow, market share, production, capacity utilization etc. of the domestic industry. There is sufficient evidence of ‘injury’ being suffered by the domestic industry caused by dumped imports from subject countries to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.

Period of Investigation

10. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is 1st January 2012 to 31st December 2012 (12 months). However, for the purpose of analyzing injury, the data of previous three years, i.e. April 2009 to March2010, April 2010 to March 2011, April 2011 to March-2012 and the period of investigation (POI) has been considered.

Submission of information

11. The known exporters in the subject countries and their Governments through their Embassies/Economic and Cultural Centre in India, importers and users in India known to be concerned and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable them to file all information relevant in the form and manner prescribed. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation within the time-limit set out below and write to:

The Designated Authority,

Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties,

Ministry of Commerce & Industry,

Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan,

New Delhi -110107

Time limit

12. Any information relating to this investigation should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the above address not later than 40 days from the date of publication of this notification. If no information is received within the prescribed time limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record their findings on the basis of the ‘facts available’ on record in accordance with the AD Rules.

Submission of Information on Non-Confidential basis

13. All interested parties shall provide a confidential and non-confidential summary in terms of Rule 7 (2) of the AD Rules for the confidential information provided as per Rule 7 (1) of the AD Rules. In case confidentiality is claimed on any part of the questionnaire’s response/submissions, the same must be submitted in two separate sets (a) marked as Confidential (with title, index, number of pages, etc.) and (b) other set marked as Non-Confidential (with title, index, number of pages, etc.). All the information supplied must be clearly marked as either “confidential” or “non-confidential” at the top of each page.

14. Information supplied without any mark shall be treated as non-confidential and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other interested parties to inspect any such non-confidential information. Two (2) copies each of the confidential version and the non-confidential version must be submitted.

15. For information claimed as confidential; the supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information as to why such information cannot be disclosed and/or why summarization of such information is not possible.

16. The non-confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out/summarized depending upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed. The non-confidential summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information furnished on confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, party submitting the confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible of summary; a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible, must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.

17. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.

18. Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or without a good cause statement on the confidentiality claim may not be taken on record by the Authority. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for confidentiality of the information provided; shall not disclose it to any party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.

Inspection of Public File

19. In terms of rule 6(7) any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential versions of the evidence submitted by other interested parties.

Non-cooperation

20. In case any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Governments as deemed fit.