DGAD Initiates Investigation on Phosphorus Pentoxide
(P2O5) from China on Complaint of Sandhya Dyes &
Chemicals
· Normal Value Construction
Allowed
[DGAD Initiation Notification F.NO
14/47/2016-DGAD dated 17th March 2017]
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation
concerning imports of Phosphorus Pentoxide or P2O5,
originating in or exported from China PR
M/s Sandhya
Dyes & Chemicals Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the applicant/domestic
industry/petitioner) have filed an application/petition before the Designated
Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) in accordance with
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also
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 also referred to as the Rules) for initiation of anti-dumping
investigation and imposition of anti dumping duty
concerning imports of Phosphorus Pentoxide
(hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods), originating in or exported
from China PR (hereinafter also referred to as the subject country).
2. And whereas, the Authority prima
facie finds that sufficient evidence of dumping of the subject goods,
originating in or exported from the subject country, ‘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 Rules, to determine the
existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping and to recommend the quantum of
antidumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the „injury‟
to the domestic industry.
A. Domestic Industry & Standing
3. The petition has been filed M/s Sandhya Dyes & Chemicals Ltd by as the domestic
industry of the subject goods in India.
4. As per the evidence available on
record, the production of the applicant company constitutes “a major
proportion” of the domestic production since it is the sole producer of the
subject goods in the Country. The Authority, therefore, determines that the
applicant company constitutes eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule
2 (b) of the Anti Dumping Rules and the application
satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules supra.
B. Product under Consideration
5. The product under consideration for
the purpose of present investigation is “Phosphorous Pentoxide”.
6. P2O5 is is
also known as Diphosphorous Pentoxide,
Phosphorus(V) oxide, Phosphoric anhydride, Tetraphosphorus is decaoxide, Tetraphosphorus decoxide.
Phosphorus pentoxide is a white, microcrystalline,
light weight powder which is produced by the combustion of elemental phosphorus
in an excess of oxygen. Phosphorus pentoxide is the
anhydride of orthophosphoric acid, H3PO4. It is very
hygroscopic and is converted by water to H3PO4 via intermediates.
7. The product under consideration is
classified under Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Act. The PUC has a specific
HS code 28091000 under Chapter 28 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The customs
classification is indicative only and in no way it is binding upon the product
scope.
8. For the purpose of analyzing the imports data, the Authority has relied upon
transaction wise DGCI&S data.
C. Like Article
9. The applicant has claimed that there
is no known difference between the subject goods exported from subject country
and that produced by the domestic industry. As submitted by the applicant, the
product under consideration produced by the domestic industry and imported from
subject country are comparable in terms of essential product characteristics
such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process &
technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution
& marketing and tariff classification of the goods. Consumers can use and
are using the two interchangeably. The applicant has further claimed that two
are technically and commercially substitutable and, hence, should be treated as
“like article‟ under the Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present
investigation, the Authority treats the subject goods produced by the
applicants in India as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being imported from
the subject country/territory.
D. Country involved
10. The present investigation is in
respect of alleged dumping of the product under consideration from China PR
(referred to as the “subject country”).
E. Normal Value
11. The petitioners have submitted that
in the absence of availability of reliable information in the public domain on
domestic prices of the subject goods in the subject countries the Normal values
in the subject countries have been estimated on the basis of cost of
production; taking into account prevailing international prices of raw
materials and cost of utilities in subject countries, conversion costs of the
domestic industry, duly adjusted on account of selling, general&
administration expenses, plus reasonable profit.
F. Export Price
12. The export price has been claimed
by the applicants as the weighted average import price from subject country
based on the transaction-wise import data obtained from a secondary source,
IBIS. Price adjustments have been made on account of Ocean Freight, Marine
insurance, Commission, Inland Freight expenses, Port expenses and Bank charges
to arrive at the net export price at ex-factory level.
G. Dumping Margin
13. The normal value has been compared
with the export price at ex-factory level. There is sufficient prima facie
evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in the subject country are
higher than the ex-factory export price, indicating, that the subject goods are
being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the subject country.
The dumping margins are estimated to be above de minimis.
H. Injury and Causal Link
14. Information furnished by the
applicant has been considered for assessment of injury to the domestic
industry. 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 in absolute terms and in relation to production and
consumption, price undercutting, price underselling and consequent significant
adverse impact in terms of decline in production, sales, market share,
inventories. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of the „material injury‟
being suffered by the domestic industry caused by dumped imports from subject
country to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.
I. Period of Investigation
15. The Period of Investigation (POI)
proposed by the applicant is from July 2015 – June 2016 (12 months) However,
for enabling the Authority to make required analysis on the basis of more
updated data, the Authority has fixed the POI as 1st July 2015 to 30th
September 2016 (15 Months). The injury investigation period will however cover
the periods 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and period of investigation.
J. Submission of information
16. The known exporters in the subject
country, the Government of the subject country 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:
The Designated Authority,
Directorate General of Anti-Dumping
& Allied Duties,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department of Commerce
4th Floor, Jeevan
Tara Building, 5 Parliament Street,
New Delhi -110001.
17. 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.
K. Time limit
18. 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 Anti-dumping Rules.
19. All the interested parties are
hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of interest) in
the instant matter and file their questionnaire responses and offer their
comments to the domestic industry’s application regarding the need to impose
the Antidumping measures within 40 days from the date
of initiation of this investigation
L. Submission of Information on
Non-Confidential basis
20. 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.
21. Information supplied without any
confidential marking shall be treated as nonconfidential
and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other interested parties to
inspect any such non-confidential information. Two (2) copies of the
confidential version and five (05) copies of the non
confidential version must be submitted by all the interested parties.
22. 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.
23. 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, parties submitting the confidential information may indicate
that such information is not susceptible to summarization; a statement of
reasons why summarization is not possible must be provided to the satisfaction
of the Authority.
24. 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.
25. 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
M. Inspection of Public File
26. In terms of rule 6(7) any
interested party may inspect the public file containing nonconfidential
versions of the evidence submitted by other interested parties.
N. Non-cooperation
27. 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 declare such interested party as non-cooperative and record its findings on
the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the
Central Government as deemed fit.