Acetone from Korea, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia – Sunset Review Initiated on Complaint of HOCL, Deepak Phenolics and SI Group
[Initiation Notification (Case No. SSR 03/2019) dated 7 August 2019]
Sub: - Initiation of Sunset Review investigation concerning imports of Acetone from Korea RP, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia.
1. File No. 7/9/2019-DGTR: Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and thereafter (hereinafter 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 referred as the Rules), the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of “Acetone” (hereinafter referred as the subject goods), originating in or exported from Korea RP , Taiwan and Saudi Arabia (hereinafter collectively referred to as the subject countries).
2. Whereas, the original investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the Russia and Korea RP was initiated by the Authority. However, the Authority vide Notification No.14/13/2006 dated 14th March, 2008 terminated the investigation concerning the subject goods, originating in or exported from Russia. Thereafter, Final Finding Notification was issued by the Authority vide Notification No. 14/13/2006-DGAD dated 9th May, 2008 recommending imposition of definitive duty against imports from Korea RP. On the basis of recommendations made by the Authority in the final findings, definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed vide Notification No.75/2008-Customs dated 10th June, 2008. A review investigation was carried on thereafter and the Authority recommended continued imposition of duty on imports from Korea RP. The Ministry of Finance extended definitive anti-dumping duty vide Notification No. 05/2015-Customs (ADD) dated 18th February, 2015.
3. Whereas, the original investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the Taiwan and Saudi Arabia was initiated by the Authority and thereafter, Final Finding Notification was issued by the Authority vide Notification No. 14/16/2012-DGAD dated 22nd January, 2015 recommending imposition of definitive duty. On the basis of recommendations made by the Authority in the final findings, definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed vide Notification No. 13/2015-Customs (ADD) dated 16th April, 2015.
4. Whereas, SI Group India Pvt. Ltd, Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited and Deepak Phenolics Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioners’) have filed a combined review petition for continued imposition of Anti-dumping duty on imports of Acetone from Korea RP, Saudi Arabia & Taiwan, in accordance with the Act and Rules.
5. Whereas, based on the facts and data, the Authority is of the opinion that there is a need to review for continued imposition of the duties in force in respect of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the Korea RP, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia.
A. Product under Consideration
6. The product under consideration in the petition is the same as the original investigations, which was defined as follows in the final findings-
“12.The product under consideration (PUC) in the original investigation as well as the present SSR investigation is Acetone. It is a basic organic chemical produced in single grade. It is a colour less liquid with an agreeable ether-like odour. It is used in numerous organic syntheses either as solvent or as an intermediate. It is used in manufacture of bulk pharmaceuticals, agro-chemicals, dyestuffs, certain explosives and downstream chemicals. Acetone is specifically used in manufacture of Isophorone, Diacetone, Alcohol, Methyl Methacrylate and Bisphenol A. Besides this, it is used in manufacture of certain rubber chemicals or Oxy Acetylene Cellulose Acetate.”
7. Since the investigation being a sunset review investigation, product under consideration remains the same as defined in the previously conducted investigation. Further, no significant developments have taken place over the period.
B. 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. Petitioners have claimed that there is no known difference in the subject goods produced by the Indian industry and exported from subject countries. Subject goods produced by the Petitioners and imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of physical & technical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are using the two interchangeably.
10. The scope of the product under consideration has been kept the same as was considered by the Designated Authority at the time of previous final findings. Subject goods produced by the petitioner companies are being treated as ‘like article’ to that being imported from the subject countries for the purpose of the present review investigation.
C. Domestic Industry
11. The petition for initiation of sunset review is being jointly filed by SI Group India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited and Deepak Phenolics Ltd. The production of petitioner companies is 100% of Indian production of the subject goods in the Country, as there are no other producers of the subject goods in India.
12. On the basis of information furnished, the Authority notes that the petitioner companies have made imports of the subject goods from the subject countries during the POI, however, the same are under duty free scheme, as well as for seed marketing purposes and also, are not significant in quantity to affect the domestic market situation. Therefore, the Authority has considered the petitioner companies as Domestic Industry within the meaning of the Rule 2(b) of the Rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules supra.
D. Initiation of Sunset Review Investigation
13. Whereas, in view of the duly substantiated application filed and in accordance with Section 9A (5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Anti-dumping Rules, the Authority hereby initiates a Sunset review investigation to review the need for continued imposition of the duties in force in respect of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries and to examine whether the expiry of existing duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Domestic Industry.
E. Subject Countries
14. The duties are in force against Korea RP, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia. In view of the evidence on record with regards to existence of dumping and continuance and likelihood of injury, the scope of the present sunset review investigation will cover Korea RP, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia.
F. Period of investigation
15. The period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019 (12 Months) and the injury investigation period is from April 2015 to March 2016, April 2016 to March 2017 and April 2017 to March 2018 and POI. Further, the data beyond POI will also be examined to determine the likelihood of dumping and injury.
16. The review will cover all aspects of the final findings published vide Notification No. 14/16/2012-DGAD dated 22nd January, 2015 recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Acetone from Taiwan and Saudi Arabia and all aspects of the final findings published vide Notification No. No.15/13/2013-DGAD dated 4th December, 2014 recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Acetone from Korea RP. The Authority would also undertake likelihood analysis of dumping and Injury as required.
17. The provisions of Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Rules supra shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in this review.
H. Submission of Information
18. The known exporters in the subject countries, the Government of the subject countries through its 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 Department of Commerce
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building
5, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001
19. 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.
I. Time Limit
20. 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 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.
21. 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.
J. Submission of Information on Confidential Basis
22. 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 and accompanied with soft copies.
23. 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 two (02) copies of the non-confidential version must be submitted by all the interested parties.
24. 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.
25. 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 6 susceptible to summarization; a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.
26. 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.
27. 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
K. Inspection of Public File
28. In terms of rule 6(7) of the Rules, any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidences submitted by other interested parties.
29. 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.