DGTR Initiates
Investigation on Flexible Slabstock Polyol
from Saudi Arabia and UAE on Complaint of Manali Petrochem
·
Australia, EU, Singapore and Thailand
Already in the Anti-dumping Net
[Initiation Notification (Case
No. OI - 14/2019) dated 18 September 2019]
Subject: Initiation of an Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Flexible
Slabstock Polyol originating in or exported from the Kingdom
of Saudi
Arabia
and
United Arab Emirates (UAE).
1.
File No.6/20/2019-DGTR: Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in
1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Customs Tariff (Identification,
Assessment and Collection of Duty or Additional Duty
on Dumped Articles and for
Determination
of Injury) Rules, 1995
(hereinafter referred
to as
AD Rules).
2.
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 investigation concerning imports of Flexible
Slabstock Polyol (hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods) originating in or exported from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) (hereinafter referred to as the subject countries).
A. Product under consideration
3.
The product under consideration in the present investigation is Flexible slabstock polyol.
The
subject product is a clear viscous liquid polymer
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”).
4.
The subject goods are 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.
B. Like Article
5.
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.
C. Domestic Industry & ‘Standing’
6.
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 major 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.
D. Countries involved
7.
The countries involved in the investigation are Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United
Arab Emirates (UAE)
(hereinafter referred to as the subject countries).
E. Normal value
8.
The Petitioners have claimed that they were not able to obtain
reliable information
in relation to prices of
subject goods in the subject countries. The
normal value has been constructed based on raw material cost, conversion cost and other
expenses as per best available information.
F. Export Price
9.
The Petitioners have claimed
export
price on the basis of data
published by DGCIS. Price adjustments have been claimed of account of ocean freight, marine
insurance, inland
transportation, port handling and clearance charges, commission,
credit cost.
G. Dumping Margin
10.
The normal value and the export price have been compared at ex-factory level, which
prima facie show dumping margin in respect of the subject goods from the subject
countries. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal value of the subject
goods in the subject countries is 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.
H. Injury and Causal Link
11.
Information
furnished by the petitioner has been considered for assessment of injury to the domestic industry. The petitioner 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 in India, price suppression, price underselling, capacity
utilization, profitability, cash profits and return on capital
employed. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of the ‘injury’ being suffered by
the domestic industry caused by dumped imports from subject countries to justify initiation of
an antidumping investigation.
I. Initiation of Anti-Dumping
investigation.
12.
And whereas the Authority prima facie 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 Rule 5
of the Rules, to determine the existence, degree
and effect
of alleged dumping and
to recommend the amount
of antidumping duty,
which if levied, would be adequate to remove the
‘injury’ to the domestic industry.
J. Period of Investigation
13. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is 1st
April 2018
to 31st March 2019 (12 months). However, for the purpose of analyzing injury, the data of
previous three years, i.e. April 2015 to March2016, April 2016 to March 2017,
April 2017 to March-2018 and the
period
of investigation (POI)
has been considered.
K. Submission of information
14. The known exporters in the subject countries, the Government of the subject countries through their 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 Trade Remedies,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce
4th Floor,
Jeevan Tara Building,
5 Parliament Street,
New
Delhi -110001.
15. 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. Any party making any
confidential submission before the Authority
is required to submit a non-confidential version
of the same to be made available to the other parties.
L. Time Limit for Registration
of Interested Parties and Filing
of Response
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 responses and offer their
comments to the domestic industry’s application regarding
the need to continue or otherwise the Anti-dumping
measures within 40 days from the date of initiation of this
investigation.
17. 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 issuance of such
letter.
Any other
interested
party, whose
address is not available, may also submit comments/ information
within 40 days from date
of publication of this notification.
M. Submission of Information on Non-Confidential
basis
18. 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.
19. Information supplied without
any confidential marking 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. Four (4)
copies of the confidential version and two (04) copies
of the non-confidential
version must be submitted
by
all the interested parties.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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.