Reliance, DCW and Others Complain of Dumping of PVC Suspension Grade
Resin from EU and Mexico
China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
Thailand and USA Already in Duty Net w.e.f 23.01.2008
[Ref:
DGAD Initiation Notification No.14/1012/2012-DGAD dated 5
October 2012]
Subject: Initiation of Anti-Dumping investigation
concerning imports of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Suspension Grade Resin from
European Union and Mexico.
M/s
DCW Limited (DCW), Chemplast Sanmar
Limited (Chemplast), Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL)
and DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. (DCM), have filed
an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
petitioners or applicants) in accordance with the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 as
amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the 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 investigations concerning imports of
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) grade Suspension Resin (hereinafter referred to as the
subject goods) originating in or exported from European Union and Mexico
(hereinafter also referred to as the subject countries). Product under
consideration
1.
The Product under consideration in the present investigation is homopolymer of vinyl chloride monomer (suspension grade),
where various polymer chains are not linked to each other, falling under
customs classification no. 3904, known as PVC suspension resin. The product
under consideration excludes specialty PVC suspension resins such as
cross-linked PVC, chlorinated PVC (CPVC), vinyl chloride – vinyl acetate
copolymer (VC-VAc), PVC paste resin and PVC blending
resin. The product under consideration has been referred to as “Poly Vinyl
Chloride (PVC) Resin Suspension Grade” or “PVC Suspension Resin” or “the
subject goods”).
2.
The petitioners have submitted that the product under consideration does not
have dedicated HS Code and the imports are cleared under different HS Codes
falling under 3904. The customs classification is indicative only and in no way
binding on the scope of the present investigation.
Domestic Industry & Standing
3. The petition has been jointly filed by DCW Limited (DCW), Chemplast Sanmar Limited (Chemplast), Reliance Industries Ltd (Reliance) and DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. (DCM). M/s Finolex
Industries Limited, the sole other known producer of the subject product in
India has supported the petition. The petitioners have stated that none of the
petitioner companies except DCM Shriram Consolidated
Ltd have imported the product under consideration during period of
investigation. Further they have submitted that petitioner
company who is importing the subject goods is not resorting to imports
in order to benefit from dumping. Thrust of this petitioner company has not
turned to imports. The company’s thrust continues to be on own production.
4. The Authority has examined the matter and holds that none of
the Petitioner companies are a trader per se and have not resorted to imports
in order to take advantage of dumping. The focus of the petitioner companies
continues to be that of a producer of the subject goods. The Authority after
examining the information on record determines that the applicant companies
constitute domestic Industry within the meaning of the Rule 2(b) and the
application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules
supra.
Like Articles
5. The Petitioners have claimed that the product produced by them
is a like article to the product imported from the subject countries in terms
of physical and technical characteristics, manufacturing process and
technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution
& marketing, and tariff classification of the goods. The two are
technically and commercially substitutable, and consumers use the two
interchangeably. Subject goods produced by the petitioners are being treated as
‘like article’ to the goods being imported from the subject countries for the
purpose of the present investigation.
Subject Countries
6. The present application has been filed in respect of alleged
dumping of the product under consideration from European Union and Mexico
(hereinafter referred to as subject countries).
Normal value
7. The petitioners have for the purpose of determining normal
value for European Union and Mexico referred to the prices quoted in the
Harriman Chemsult report. For European Union, the
petitioners have considered the price quoted for Benelux (Belgium, Netherland
and Luxemberg), France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK.
Petitioners have determined month-wise normal value by considering the average
of the highest and the lowest price given in the report. Further, the
petitioners have claimed that the prices in some of the months of the
investigation period were significantly below the cost of production and have
additionally determined normal value considering cost of production for those
months where the sales are claimed to be below estimates of cost of production.
The selling price of the product during the relevant months
have been compared with the estimates of cost of production for those
months.
8. The petitioners have also determined normal value on the basis
of estimates of cost of production of the foreign producers by considering
international price of VCM, estimates of the conversion cost and overhead
costs. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of normal value of the subject
goods in the subject countries/territory.
Export Price
9. The export price has been determined as the weighted average
import price from subject countries based on the transaction wise import data
provided by the International Business Information Services (IBIS). Price adjustments
have been claimed on account of sea freight, marine insurance, port expenses,
inland freight, bank charges and commission to arrive at the net export price.
In view of significant variation in the prices with time period, the
petitioners have determined separate export price for each of the months of the
proposed investigation period.
Dumping Margin
10. In view of the significant variation in the prices over the
time period, the petitioners have determined separate dumping margin for each
month of the investigation period.
11. Petitioners have provided sufficient evidence that the normal
values of the subject goods in the subject countries/territory are
significantly higher than the net export prices, prima-facie, indicating that
the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries are
being dumped, to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.
Injury and Causal Link
12. The petitioners have claimed that domestic industry has
suffered material injury by way of adverse price effects as evidenced by price
undercutting and price suppression leading to deterioration in profits to
negative levels, decline in return on capital employed and cash profits, etc. .
The petitioners have claimed that the material injury has been caused due to
the dumped imports from the subject countries. The Authority considers that
there is sufficient prima facie evidence of ‘injury’ caused to the domestic
industry by dumped imports from subject countries/territory to justify
initiation of an anti-dumping investigation.
Initiation of Anti Dumping
Investigations
13. The Designated Authority, in view of the foregoing paragraphs,
holds 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 Rule 5 of the AD Rules, to determine the existence, degree and
effect of any alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty,
which if levied would be adequate to remove injury to the domestic industry.
Period Of Investigation (POI)
14. The Period of Investigation for the purpose of the present
investigation is 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012 (12 months). However, the
period for injury examination would cover periods from 1st April 2008 to the
end of the POI i.e. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12(POI).
Submission of Information:
15. The known exporters in the subject countries, the government
of the subject countries through its embassy in India, the importers and users
in India known to be concerned with the product are being addressed separately
to submit relevant information in the form and manner prescribed and to make
their views known to the Authority at the following address:
Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Directorate
General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties Department of Commerce Room No.243, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110107.
16. Any other interested party may also make its submissions
relevant to the investigation in the prescribed form and manner within the time
limit set out below.
Time Limit
17. Any information relating to the present investigation and any
request for hearing should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at
the address mentioned above not later than forty days (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 its findings on the basis of the facts available on record in
accordance with the AD Rules.
18. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate
their interest (including the nature of interest) in the instant matter and
file their questionnaire’s responses and offer their comments to the domestic
industry’s application regarding the need to impose anti-dumping measures
within 40 days from the date of initiation of this investigation.
Submission of information on confidential basis
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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.