Anti-dumping Investigation on Motor Vehicles Alloy Road Wheels from China, Korea and Thai Initiated on Complaint of Single Manufacturers Synergies Castings

[F.No. 14/7/2012-DGAD dated 10^th December 2012]

Subject: Initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Cast Aluminum Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels used in Motor Vehicles, whether or not attached with their accessories, of a size in diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches, originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand.

Whereas, the Aluminum Association of India, on behalf of one of its member companies namely M/s-Synergies Castings Limited (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), 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 Rules), alleging dumping of “Cast Aluminum Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels used in Motor Vehicles, whether or not attached with their accessories, of a size in diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches”, originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand, for initiation of anti-dumping investigation and for levy of anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries.

2. AND WHEREAS, the Authority finds prima facie 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 Rule 5 of the Anti-dumping Rules, to determine the existence, degree and effect of any 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.

Product under Consideration

3. The product under consideration in the present application is “Cast Aluminum Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels(ARW) used in Motor Vehicles, whether or not attached with their accessories, of a size in diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches”, originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand.

4. Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels (ARW) are produced in various sizes/diameters. The product under consideration covers only ARWs of a size in diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches used in motor vehicles. ARWs other than 12 inches to 24 inches diameter are out of the product scope. The goods include finished or semi-finished ARWs whether unpainted, painted or chrome plated. The main function of ARWs is that they are fitted on motor vehicles to enable vehicle movement. Wheels for Motor Vehicles are generally made of Steel or Aluminium Alloy. As claimed by the applicant Alloy Wheels are new generation product and are widely capturing market in India because of their superior features over the steel wheels. Steel wheels are not included in the product scope. ARWs are classified under Chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under customs sub-heading No. 8708.70 under the description “Road wheels and parts and accessories thereof”. However, the customs classification is indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of this investigation.

Domestic Industry Standing

5. The application has been filed by Aluminium Association of India on behalf of one of its member companies namely M/s-Synergies Castings Limited. As claimed by the applicant there is two other producers of the product under consideration in India. The production of the applicant accounts for “a major proportion” in the total production of the product under consideration in India. The Authority, therefore, determines that the applicant constitutes domestic industry within the meaning of the Rule 2 (b) and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules supra.

Like Article

6. 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. The two are technically and commercially substitutable and hence should be treated as ‘like article’ under the Anti-dumping Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the applicant in India are being treated prima facie as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being imported from the subject countries.

Countries Involved

7. The countries involved in the present investigation are China PR, Korea RP and Thailand.

Normal Value

8. The Applicant has claimed that China PR should be treated as a non-market economy and the normal value should be determined in accordance with para-7 and 8 of Annexure-I to the Rules. The applicant has claimed normal value on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted; stating that consideration of cost or price in a market economy third country is not available. The Normal value claimed by the applicant has been considered for the purpose of initiation. In view of the above non-market economy presumption and subject to rebuttal of the same by the responding exporters, normal value of the subject goods in China PR has been estimated in terms of Para 7 of Annexure 1 to the Rules.

9. The applicant has submitted that they could procure a price list from one of the producers in Korea RP and the same is relied upon for normal value in case of Korea RP.

10. The applicant did not provide actual evidences of price of subject goods in the domestic market of Thailand even though they submitted that all possible efforts were taken. Since any such authentic and credible information could not be collected for Thailand, the normal value is constructed by considering the Aluminium prices on the basis of prices governed by London Metal Exchange and electricity rate of Thailand.

Export Price

11. Export price of the subject goods from the subject country has been estimated by considering transaction-wise import data as provided by the applicant from International Business Information Services. Price adjustments have been made on account of port expenses, inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, bank commission & credit cost to arrive at the net export price. There is sufficient evidence of the export prices of the subject goods from the subject countries to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.

Dumping Margin

12. Normal value and export price have been compared at ex-factory level, which shows prima facie significant dumping margin in respect of the subject countries. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in the subject countries are significantly 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. The dumping margins are estimated to be above de minimis.

Injury and Causal Link

13. 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 and decline in profitability, return on capital employed and cash flow for the domestic industry. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of the ‘injury’ being suffered by the applicant caused by the dumped imports from subject countries to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation.

Period of Investigation

14. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is from July 2011 to June 2012. However, for the purpose of analyzing injury, the data of previous three years, i.e. April 2009 to March2010, April 2010 to March 2011, April 2011 to March-2012 and the period of investigation (POI) has been considered.

Submission of Information

15. The known exporters in the subject countries and their Governments through their Embassies in India, importers and users in India known to be concerned and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable them to file all relevant information in the form and manner prescribed. Any other interested party may also make its submissions, relevant to the investigation, within the time-limit set out below and write to:

The Designated Authority,

Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties,

Ministry of Commerce & Industry,

Department of Commerce

Room No.240, Udyog Bhawan,

New Delhi -110011.

Time Limit

16. Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the above address not later than 40 days from the date of publication of this notification. The known exporters and importers, who are being addressed separately, are however required to submit the information within 40 (forty) days from the date of the letter addressed to them separately. If no information is received within the prescribed time limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record their findings on the basis of the ‘facts available’ on record in accordance with the Anti-dumping Rules. It may be noted that no request, whatsoever, shall be entertained for extension in the prescribed time limit.

Submission of Information on Non-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 confidential information.

Inspection of Public File

23. In terms of Rule 6(7), the Designated Authority maintains a public file. Any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by the 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 Government as deemed fit.