DGTR Initiates Investigation on Tin Mill Flat Rolled Steel Products
from EU, USA, Japan and Korea on Complaint of JSW Vallabh Tinplate and The
Tinplate Co.
[Initiation Notification (OI Case No.
7/2019) dated 28 June 2019]
Subject: Initiation of anti-dumping investigation
concerning imports of Coated/Plated Tin Mill Flat Rolled Steel Products
originating in or exported from the European Union, Japan, USA and Korea RP.
F.No.6/9/2019-DGTR:
M/s JSW Vallabh Tinplate Private Limited and M/s The Tinplate Company of India
Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘Petitioners’ or ‘Applicants’)
have 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 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 ‘Rules’) for imposition of
Anti-Dumping Duty on imports of Coated/Plated Tin Mill Flat Rolled Steel
Products (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject goods’ or ‘PUC’) from the European
Union, Japan, USA and Korea RP.
Product
under consideration
2.
The product under consideration (“PUC”) in the present investigation is tin
mill flat rolled steel products that are coated or plated with tin or chromium
/ chromium oxides, either on one side or both sides, whether lacquered and/or
printed or not. Tin mill flat rolled steel products include Tinplate as well as
Tin-free steel, which is also known as Electrolytic Tin Plate (ETP), Tin Free
Steel (TFS), Electrolytic Chromium Coated Steel (ECCS). The product under
consideration may be supplied in coil form or sheets / scrolls. The sheets /
scrolls may be supplied in various shapes including, but not limited to,
square, rectangle, circle or any other shape, with or without blanking.
3.
The product under consideration is generally used for versatile packaging solutions
including, but not limited to food packaging, i.e. edible oil, processed food,
fruits, vegetables, beverages, etc. as well as used for non-food packaging,
i.e. paints, chemicals, non-edible oil, geometry/compass box, shoe polish,
aerosol sprays, batteries, etc.
4.
The product under consideration is classified under tariff item 72101110,
72101190, 72101210, 72101290, 72105000, 72109010, 72121010, 72121090, 72125020,
72121010, 72125090 and 72259900 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However,
imports of the PUC have also been observed in certain other ITC HS codes viz. 72109090,
72107000, 72103090, 72255010, 72124000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
5.
The customs classification is indicative only and in no way binding upon the
scope of the product under consideration.
Like
Article
6.
Rule 2(d) with regard to like article provides as under: -
"like
article" means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to
the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of
such article, another article which although not alike in all respects, has
characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation;
7.
The Petitioners have submitted that the subject goods produced by them and the
subject goods imported from the subject countries are like articles. There is
no known difference between the subject goods exported from the subject
countries and those produced by the Petitioners. Coated/Plated Tin Mill Flat
Rolled Steel Products produced by the Petitioners and imported from the subject
countries are comparable in terms of essential product characteristics such as
physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process and technology,
functions and uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution and marketing
and tariff classification. Consumers can use and are using the two
interchangeably. The 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 subject goods produced by the
Petitioners are being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being
imported from the subject countries.
Domestic
industry and Standing
8.
The application has been filed by M/s JSW Vallabh Tinplate Private Limited and
M/s The Tinplate Company of India Limited, as domestic industry of the PUC.
According to the Petitioners, they are the major producer of the PUC in India,
account for 100% of total Indian production during the POI. The Petitioners
have certified that there are no imports of the PUC by the petitioners or any
of their related parties from the subject countries and they are not related
either to any exporter or producer of the PUC in the subject countries or any
importer of the PUC in India.
9.
Apart from the petitioners, there are two other known producers of the PUC in
India, namely, M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and M/s. GPT
Limited. Even though Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and GPT Limited
are producers of PUC in India, they did not produce the PUC during the proposed
POI
10.
The Authority, therefore, determines that the petitioners hold a “major
proportion” of the total domestic production and constitute an eligible
domestic industry in terms of Rule 2 (b) and also satisfy the criteria of
standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules.
Countries
Involved
11.
The present investigation is in respect of alleged dumping of the PUC from the
European
Union,
Japan, USA and Korea RP.
Normal
Value
12.
The Petitioners have constructed the normal value based on the price of
hot-rolled coils, which is the primary raw material for making the PUC, in the
subject countries and power prices prevailing in the European Union, USA and
Korea RP. Accordingly, the Petitioners have calculated the normal value based
on the following:
i. Raw materials:
Prices of hot-rolled coils prevailing in the subject countries during the POI
along with consumption norms of the most efficient Petitioner have been
adopted. Other raw material costs are based on the cost of the most efficient
Petitioner;
ii. Utilities cost:
Power prices prevailing in the European Union, USA and Korea RP along with
consumption norms of the most efficient Petitioner have been adopted. Power
cost for Japan is based on the cost of the most efficient Petitioner. Other
utilities cost is based on the cost of the most efficient Petitioner;
iii. Other conversion
cost: Other conversion cost is based on the cost of the most efficient Petitioner;
and
iv. Profit Margin:
Reasonable profit margin has been considered to work out the normal value.
For
the purpose of initiation, the constructed normal value is being adopted.
Export
Price
13.
The Petitioners have computed the export prices for the subject countries on
the basis of data published by DGCI&S, Kolkata. Price adjustments have been
claimed on account of ocean freight, inland freight, ocean insurance,
commission and bank charges. There is sufficient prima facie evidence with
regard to the net export prices claimed by the Petitioners.
14.
The normal values and the export prices for the subject countries have been
compared at ex-factory level, which prima facie show significant dumping
margins in respect of the subject goods from the subject countries. There is
prima facie evidence that the normal values of the subject goods in the subject
countries are higher than the ex-factory export prices, indicating that the
subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the
subject countries.
Injury
& Causal Link
15.
Information furnished by the Petitioners has been considered for assessment of
injury to the domestic industry. The Petitioners have 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 undercutting, price underselling,
profitability, cash profits and return on capital employed. There is sufficient
prima facie evidence of injury being suffered by the domestic industry caused
by dumped imports from the subject countries to justify initiation of an anti-
dumping investigation.
Initiation
of Anti-Dumping Investigation
16.
And whereas, the Authority prima facie finds that evidence of dumping of the
subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries; and
injury to the domestic industry and causal link between the alleged dumping and
injury exists to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation. The
Authority accordingly 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 anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove
the injury to the domestic industry.
Period
of Investigation
17.
The period of investigation (hereinafter referred to as “POI”) for the present
investigation is from 1st January
2018 to 31st December 2018 (12 months).
The injury investigation period will, however, cover the periods April
2015-March 2016, April 2016-March 2017, April 2017-March 2018 and the POI.
Submission
of information
18.
The known exporters in the subject countries and their governments through their
embassies in India, importers and users in India known to be concerned with the
subject goods and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable
them to file all the relevant information in the form and manner prescribed
within the time-limit set out below.
19.
Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the
investigation in the form and manner prescribed
within the time-limit set out below. The information/submission may be
submitted to:
The Designated Authority
Directorate General of Trade Remedies Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce
Government of India
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building,
5, Parliament Street
New Delhi-110001
20.
Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is required
to make a non-confidential version of the same available to the other parties.
Time-Limit
21.
Any information relating to the present investigation 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 the publication of this initiation
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 Rules.
22.
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 within forty days (40 days) from the date of the publication of this
initiation notification. The information must be submitted in hard copies as
well as in soft copies.
Submission
of information on confidential basis
23.
The parties making any submission (including Appendices/Annexures attached
thereto), before the Authority including questionnaire response, are required
to file the same in two separate sets, in case "confidentiality" is
claimed on any part thereof:
i.
One set marked as Confidential (with title, number of pages, index, etc.), and
ii.
Other set marked as Non-Confidential (with title, number of pages, index,
etc.).
24.
The “confidential” or “non-confidential” submissions must be clearly marked as
“confidential” or “non-confidential” at the top of each page. Any submission
made without such marking shall be treated as non-confidential by the
Authority, and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other interested
parties to inspect such submissions. Soft copies of both the versions will also
be required to be submitted, along with the hard copies, in four (4) sets of
each.
25.
The confidential version shall contain all information which is by nature
confidential and/or other information which the supplier of such information
claims as confidential. For information which is claimed to be confidential by nature
or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of other
reasons, 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.
26.
The non-confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential
version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (in
case indexation is not feasible) and summarised 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, the party submitting the confidential information may indicate
that such information is not susceptible to summary, and a statement of reasons
why summarisation is not possible must be provided to the satisfaction of the
Authority.
27.
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 if the
supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public
or to authorise its disclosure in generalised or summary form, it may disregard
such information.
28.
Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or
without good cause statement on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on
record by the Authority.
29.
The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for confidentiality of the
information provided, shall not disclose it to any party without specific
authorisation of the party providing such information.
Inspection
of Public File
30.
In terms of Rule 6(7) of the Rules, any interested party may inspect the public
file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by other
interested parties.
Non-cooperation
31.
In case where an interested party refuses access to, or 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
Government as deemed fit.