Review Initiated on Pentaerythritol from Taiwan

[Ref: No. 15/10/2010 DGAD dated 22nd June 2010]

Subject: Initiation of midterm review investigation with regard to the anti-dumping duties in force involving the imports of Pentaerythritol from Chinese Taipei

Whereas having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Duty or Additional Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as AD Rules), vide Notification No. 15/7/2006 DGAD dated 5th March 2008, the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) notified its final findings recommending definitive anti dumping duty on import of Pentaerythritol (herein after referred to as subject goods) originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei (hereinafter referred to as subject country).

And whereas, in the sunset review, the anti dumping duty was imposed on the imports of subject goods vide Customs Notification No. 55/2008 Customs, dated 28th April 2008.

2.     M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited have filed an application before the Designated Authority (herein after referred to as the Authority), the Petitioner has claimed that the anti dumping duty imposed earlier is required to be reviewed in view of the fact that the dumping margin and injury margin have materially changed since the last investigation.

3.     Product under consideration

The product under consideration is Pentaerythritol originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei. Pentaerythritol is an organic chemical classified under Customs sub heading No. 29054200 under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act. Pentaerythritol finds application in manufacture of Alkyd Resin, Rosin Esters, Plasticizers, Printing Inks, Synthetic Rubber, Stabilizers for Plastics, Modified drying oils, Detonators, Explosives, Pharmaceuticals, Core oils and Synthetic Lubricants. This product is classified under Customs Tariff heading no. 2905.42 as per Indian Trade Classification. The Customs and ITC HS classifications are, however, indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.

4.     Grounds for Review

The applicant has claimed that the existing measure is no longer sufficient to counteract the dumping which is causing injury. It has been further submitted that the product continues to be imported into India at dumped prices, in spite of anti dumping duty being in force. The imports are causing significant price undercutting even at the existing levels. The applicant has further claimed that price undercutting even after addition for the current anti dumping duties is higher, which indicates intensive dumping by the exporters from the subject country. As a result of dumping, the domestic industry is faced with significant price underselling as well. It has been claimed that the quantum of the measure has not been able to address the injuries caused to the domestic industry. The petitioner has therefore argued that the measure is required to be suitably enhanced. The petitioner has further argued that domestic industry has not been able to improve its performance in spite of the existing anti-dumping duties and the existing measure is no longer sufficient to address injury being caused by continued dumped imports.

5.     Initiation

The Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act 1995 and the Anti Dumping Rules made there under require the Authority to review from time to time the need for continuance of anti-dumping duty. M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited have filed a petition substantiating the need for midterm review of the anti-dumping duty imposed on the subject goods originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei and have requested for enhancement/revision of the anti-dumping duty imposed on subject goods under the above mentioned notifications. The Designated Authority considers that midterm review of the anti dumping duty recommended would be appropriate at this stage under the provisions laid down in Rule 23 of the Rules supra.

6.     Country involved:

The Country involved in the present investigation is Chinese Taipei.

7.     Procedure

Having satisfied itself on the basis of evidence submitted by domestic industry for review of the final findings notified vide No. 15/7/2006 -DGAD dated 5.3.2008 and final duty imposed by Notification No. 55/2008-Customs, dated 28.4.2008, the Authority hereby initiates investigations to review whether continued imposition of anti dumping duties in the present form and to the present extent of duty is necessary in accordance with the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995 and Anti Dumping Rules.

The review covers all aspects of Notification No. 15/7/2006 -DGAD dated 5.3.2008.

8.     Period of investigation (POI):

The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is 1st January, 2009 to 31st December, 2009. The injury investigation period will however, cover the period 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 including the period of investigation.

9.     Submission of information:

The exporters in the subject country and their government through their embassy/ representatives in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned and the domestic industry are requested to submit relevant information in the form and manner prescribed and to make their views known to the:

The Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties, (DGAD), Room No. 240, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi-110011

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.

10.   Time limit

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 (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.

11.   Inspection of public file

In terms of Rule 6(7), any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by other interested parties. 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.