Carbon Black from Korea Rep. under Anti-dumping
Lens on Complaint of Two Domestic Producer
[Ref: Anti-dumping
Initiation Notification F.No.14/9/2014-DGAD dated 9th February 2015]
Subject:
Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation concerning
imports of ‘Carbon Black used in rubber applications’, originating in or exported
from Republic of Korea.
Having regard to
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and thereafter (hereinafter
also referred 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 also referred as
the Rules);
2. WHEREAS, M/s Phillips Carbon Black Limited
and M/s Hi-Tech Carbon (hereinafter also referred to as the applicants) have
jointly filed an application on behalf of the domestic industry before the
Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) in
accordance with the Act and the Rules, alleging dumping of “Carbon Black used
in rubber applications” (hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods),
originating in or exported from Republic of Korea (hereinafter also referred to
as the subject country), and injury to the domestic industry. They have
requested the Authority to initiate anti-dumping investigations against the imports
of the subject goods from the subject country and impose anti-dumping duty.
3. AND WHEREAS, the Authority finds that prima
facie evidence of dumping of subject goods by the subject country, injury to
the domestic industry and causal link between the dumping and injury exists.
The Authority hereby initiates an antidumping investigation into the alleged
dumping, and consequential injury to the domestic industry in terms of the Rule
5 of the Anti-dumping 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.
Domestic Industry
& Standing
4. The application has been filed by M/s.
Phillips Carbon Black Limited and M/s. Hi-Tech Carbon who constituted the
domestic industry in the earlier investigations. As informed by the applicants,
there are three other producers of subject goods in India namely M/s.
Continental Carbon India Limited, Himadri Chemicals
and Industries Limited and M/s Good luck Carbon Black Pvt.
Ltd. These domestic producers have neither supported nor opposed the present
petition. From the petition it is noted that the applicant industries’
production accounts for 79.27 % of the production of the subject goods in
India, hence constituting a major proportion in Indian production, as per the
Rules.
5. As submitted by the applicants, none of the
applicant companies have imported the subject goods from the subject country.
It has been further submitted that Phillips Carbon Black Limited is not related
to any exporter or importer of the subject goods. However, Hi-Tech Carbon
belonging to Aditya Birla Group has related company
in the subject country, involved in the production and export of subject goods.
It has been further informed that the said related company in the subject
country has exported an insignificant volume of subject goods to India during
the POI. Considering the exports made by the related company as insignificant,
the Authority considers Hi-Tech Carbon, along with Phillips Carbon Black
Limited, as domestic industry, within the meaning of Rule 2(b) and considers
the petition as satisfying the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 of the
Rules supra
Product under
Consideration and Like Article
6. The product under consideration in the
present investigation is Carbon Black used in rubber applications (excluding
Thermal Black and Carbon black grades meant for semi conductive compound applications).
Carbon Black is an inorganic chemical used in the production/processing of
rubber (including tyres) as reinforcing filler. Carbon Black is also known as
acetylene black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, thermal black, and
noir de carbone. Carbon Black can be divided into two
categories rubber and non-rubber applications. Carbon Black for rubber
applications is the Carbon Black that is used in production/processing of
rubber (including tyres), as a reinforcing filler. The present investigation is
in respect of Carbon Black used in rubber applications only. Carbon Black used
in non-rubber applications, such as inks in copiers and computer printer
cartridges, paints, crayons and polishes and thermal black and carbon black
grades meant for semi conductive compound applications are not within the scope
of the present investigation.
7. The subject goods fall under Chapter 28 of
the Customs Tariff under Subheading No.28030010. However, the customs
classification is indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the
present investigation.
Like Article
8. 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;
9. The applicants have claimed that the goods
produced by them are “like articles” to the goods originating in or exported
from the subject country. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry
and imports from subject country are similar in terms of physical &
chemical characteristics, functions & uses, product specifications,
pricing, distribution & marketing, tariff classification, etc. Subject goods
produced by the domestic industry are identical to the imported subject goods in
terms of essential product properties. Therefore, for the purpose of
investigation, the subject goods produced by the applicant are being treated as
like articles to the subject goods imported from subject country within the
meaning of the Rules.
Country Involved
10. The country involved in the present
investigation is Republic of Korea.
Normal value
11. The applicants have submitted that despite
their efforts to get information/evidence of price of subject goods in the
domestic market of subject country, they have not been able to get such
information. The applicants have therefore constructed normal value for Korea
RP on the basis of cost of production in India after making due adjustments for
the major inputs at international prices and profits at 5% of cost of sales.
The applicants have determined separate normal value for different grades and for
each of the quarters of the period of investigation. The Normal value claimed
by the applicants has been considered for the purpose of initiation of the
present investigation.
Export Price
12. The applicants have claimed export price for
the product under consideration based on the basis of imports data procured
from secondary source i.e. IBIS to assess the volume and value of imports into
India. Export price of the subject goods from the subject country has been
estimated by considering transaction-wise import data as provided by the
applicants, after allowing price adjustments as claimed by the applicants, for
the purpose of initiation of the present investigation.
Dumping Margin
13. The normal value has been compared with the
export price at ex-factory level and it has been found that the normal value of
the subject goods in the subject country is higher than the ex-factory export
price, indicating, that the subject goods are being dumped into the Indian
market by the exporters from the subject country. The dumping margin is
estimated to be above de minimis.
Injury and Causal
Link
14. The applicants 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, price undercutting, price
underselling, price suppression and decline in profitability, return on capital
employed, cash flow, etc. of the domestic industry. There is prima facie
evidence of ‘injury’ being suffered by the domestic industry caused by dumped imports
from the subject country to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.
Period of
investigation
15. The applicants have proposed the Period of
Investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation as 1st April,
2013 – 30th March, 2014 (12 Months). For making required analysis based on more
updated data, the Authority has determined the Period of Investigation (POI)
for the purpose of the present investigation as 1st April, 2013 – 30th September,
2014 (18 Months). However, injury analysis shall cover the years as 2010-11,
2011-12, 2012-13 and the POI.
Initiation
16. The Authority finds that sufficient prima
facie evidence of dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from
the subject country, ‘injury’ to the domestic industry and causal link between
the dumping and ‘injury’ exist to justify initiation of an anti-dumping
investigation. Therefore, the Authority hereby initiates an investigation into
the alleged dumping, and consequent injury to the domestic industry in terms of
the Anti-dumping 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.
Submission of
Information
17. The known exporters in the subject country,
the Government of the subject country through its embassy in India, the
importers and users in India known to be concerned with the subject goods 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:
Government of
India
Ministry of
Commerce and Industry
Department of
Commerce
Directorate
General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building
5, Parliament
Street, New Delhi – 110001
18. 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 make a non-confidential version
of the same available to the other parties.
Time Limit
19. Any information relating to the present
investigation 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 publication of this 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 Anti-dumping Rules.
20. 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.
Submission of
information on confidential basis
21. In case confidentiality is claimed on any part
of the questionnaire 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.
22. 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. Two (2) copies of the confidential version and
five (05) copies of the non-confidential version must be submitted by all the
interested parties.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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.