Anti-dumping Investigation on Persulphates from Taiwan, Turkey and USA Initiated

[Ref: DGAD Initiation Notification No.14/9/2012-DGAD dated 28 September 2012]

Subject: Initiation of anti-dumping investigations on imports of ‘Peroxosulphates’ (also known as ‘Persulphates’) originating in or exported from Taiwan, Turkey and USA.

M/s Gujarat Persalts Pvt. Limited, M/s Calibre Chemicals Pvt. Limited, M/s VR Persulphates and M/s Yoyo Chemicals, have jointly 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 ‘Peroxosulphates’ (also known as ‘Persulphates’) (hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods) originating in or exported from Taiwan, Turkey and USA (hereinafter also referred to as the subject countries).

2. AND WHEREAS, the Authority finds 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

3. The application has been jointly filed by M/s Gujarat Persalts Pvt. Limited, M/s Calibre Chemicals Pvt. Limited, M/s VR Persulphates and M/s Yoyo Chemicals. The Applicants have claimed that they represent the domestic industry as they are the only domestic producers of the subject goods. As per information available on record, the Applicants account for the total Indian production of the subject goods and hence constitute the domestic industry in terms of the AD Rules.

Product under consideration and Like Article

4. The product involved in the original investigation was ‘Peroxosulphates’ (also known as ‘Persulphates’). This being a Sunset review investigation; therefore, the investigation covers the same product, as was covered in the original investigation. Persulphates are a group of closely related compounds. These are produced as Alkali Metal salts which include Ammonium Persulphates (APS), Potassium Persulphates (PPS) and Sodium Persulphates (SPS).

5. The Chemical Formula of these ‘Persulphates’ are, respectively, (NH4)2S2O8, K2S2O8, Na2S2O8. The three types of ‘Persulphates’ have the same end-uses as an initiator and oxidizing agent in the textile and chemical industries and one can be substituted for another. All three salts are one and same product. ‘Persulphates’ are used as an initiator and oxidizing agent in the textile and chemical industries.

6. ‘Persulphates’ are classified in Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under subheading 2833 40 and under subheading 28334000.

7. The domestic industry also produces ‘Persulphates’ having similar characteristics and specifications. No argument has been extended, by any interested party in the previous investigation, on the issue of product under consideration or like article. The present investigation is a Sunset review of the anti dumping duty earlier imposed. Therefore, the Authority considers that the product being manufactured by the domestic industry is ‘like article’ to the product under consideration as per the AD Rules.

Normal value for Taiwan, Turkey and USA

8. The applicant has estimated the normal values in respect of 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 is available in the public domain. The Authority has prima-facie estimated the normal values 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

9. The applicant has claimed export prices on the basis of data obtained from IBIS. Price adjustments have been allowed on account of Ocean Freight, Marine Insurance, Inland Freight and Port expenses to arrive at the net export price.

Dumping Margin

10. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence that the normal values of the subject goods in the subject countries 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

11. 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 suppression and decline in profitability, return on capital employed and cash flow for the domestic industries. There is sufficient evidence of the ‘injury’ being suffered by the applicant caused by dumped imports from subject countries to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.

Countries involved

12. The countries involved in this investigation are Taiwan, Turkey and USA.

Period of Investigation

13. The Period of Investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012. However, injury analysis shall cover the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & POI.

Submission of Information

14. 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:

Designated Authority Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties Department of Commerce Room No.240, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110107.

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

15. Any information relating to the present review 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.

16. 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 continue or otherwise the AD measures within 40 days from the date of initiation of this investigation.

Submission of information on confidential basis

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.