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 Articleto 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.