Sodium
Chlorate from Canada, China and EU in Anti-dumping Investigation on Gujarat Alkalies Complaint
[Anti-dumping Initiation Notification F.
No.14/13/2015-DGAD dated 12th May 2016]
Subject: Initiation of Anti-Dumping Duty
investigation concerning imports of “Sodium Chlorate” originating in or exported
from Canada, People’s Republic of China and EU.
1. M/s
Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Limited and Teamec Chlorates Limited (hereinafter referred to as
‘petitioner’) have filed an application (also referred to as petition) 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 AD Rules) for initiation of anti-dumping investigation
concerning imports of “Sodium Chlorate” (hereinafter referred to as subject
goods or product under consideration) originating in or exported from Canada,
People’s Republic of China and EU (hereinafter referred to as subject
countries).
2. AND
WHEREAS, the Authority finds that sufficient prima facie 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 dumping and
‘injury’ exists justifying 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 Rule 5 of the AD Rules,
to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping and to
recommend the amount of antidumping duty, which if levied would be adequate to
remove the ‘injury’ to the domestic industry.
Domestic Industry & Standing
3. The
petition has been filed by the petitioner i.e. M/s Gujarat Alkalies(GACL) and Chemicals
Limited and Teamec Chlorates Limited (TCL)
(hereinafter also referred to as the domestic industry), as producers of the
subject goods in India. Petitioners are the only two producers of the subject
goods in India.
4. It is
also noted that petitioners have neither imported the product under
consideration, nor are they related to an importer or exporter of the product
under consideration. The petition has therefore been made by and on behalf of
the domestic industry and it satisfies the requirements of ‘standing’ under
Rule 5 of the AD Rules. Further, the Petitioners constitute ‘Domestic Industry’
in terms of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules.
Product under consideration
5. The
product under consideration in the present petition is "Sodium
Chlorate", an inorganic compound with the chemical formula NaClO3. Sodium
Chlorate is a white crystalline hygroscopic powder readily soluble in water. It
decomposes above 300 °C to oxygen and sodium chloride.
6. The
normal commercial unit of measurement for the product under consideration is
kilograms. It is quoted on the basis of weights, and sold in kilograms or MT
universally.
7. Subject
goods are classified under Chapter 28 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the
subheading 2829 11 00. The customs classification is indicative only and is in
no way binding on the scope of the proposed investigations.
Like Articles
8. The
petitioner has claimed that the product manufactured by the domestic industry
and the subject goods imported into India from the subject countries are like
articles within the meaning of the Anti-dumping Rules. There is no known
difference between the subject goods imported from the subject countries and
that produced by the domestic industry. The subject goods produced by the
domestic industry and imported from the subject countries are comparable in
terms of essential product characteristics such as physical & chemical
characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses,
product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff
classification of the goods. The consumers can use and are using the two interchangeably
and are technically and commercially substitutable. After examination, the
Authority concludes that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry
are like article to that imported from the subject countries. Therefore, for
the purpose of present investigation the subject goods produced by the
applicant in India are being treated as like article to the subject goods being
imported from subject countries.
Subject Countries
9. The
countries involved in the present investigation are Canada, People’s Republic
of China and EU.
Normal value
10. The
petitioners have claimed normal value of the product under consideration in
subject countries on the basis of the constructed normal value in accordance
with section 9A (1) (C), Customs Tariff Act, 1975. For China, treated as a
non-market economy, normal value has been computed on the basis of the cost of
production of raw-material, consumables, utilities as per the Indian cost of
production and referencing best practices.
11. For
European Union and Canada, the power cost prevailing in these countries also
appropriately correlated with the least cost of power based on natural gas
conversion has been adopted along with conversion costs as per Indian cost of
production. The authority has considered the normal value of product under
consideration as computed in the subject countries in accordance with rule 9A
(1) (c) as a reasonable normal value based on prime facie evidence. The
authority has constructed the normal value in according with rule 9 (5) A for.
The subject countries.
Export Price
12. The
petitioner has claimed export price for product under consideration based on
secondary source i.e. IBIS data. Adjustments on export price have been claimed
and referenced on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, inland
freight expenses, port expenses and bank charges. The net export price has been
referenced on the basis of the above export price and adjustments.
Dumping Margin
13. There is
sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal values of the subject goods in
the subject countries are higher than the net export prices, prima-facie
indicating that the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject
countries are being dumped from the subject countries.
Injury and Causal Link
14. The
petitioner has provided evidence regarding material injury as a result of the
alleged dumping from subject countries in terms of increase in imports in
absolute terms, deterioration in profitability, return on capital employed etc.
The petitioner has also claimed adverse price effects evidenced by price
depression and suppression. The Authority considers that there is sufficient
evidence of ‘injury’ being suffered by the petitioners caused by alleged dumped
imports of subject goods from the subject countries.
Period of Investigation (POI)
15. The
Domestic Industry has proposed the period of investigation for the present
investigation as 1stOctober 2014 to 30thSeptember 2015(12 months). However, the
Authority has extended the same by 3 months thereby considering the modified
POI as 1.10.2014 to 31.12.2015, to undertake the analysis on most recent data.
For the purpose of injury investigation, the period will cover the data of
previous three years, i.e.2012- 2013, 2013- 2014, 2014 - 2015 and the Period of
Investigation (POI).
Submission of information
16. 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
information relevant 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,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce
Directorate General of Anti-Dumping& Allied
Duties
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara
Building, Parliament Street
New Delhi – 110001
Time limit
17. Any
information relating to this 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. 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 AD Rules.
18. All
interested parties are therefore advised to intimate their interest (including
the nature of interest) in the instant matter regarding the need to impose
anti-dumping measures within 40 days from the date of initiation of this
investigation. The comments to the domestic industry’s petition and filing of
questionnaire may be done within 40 days of the date of letter being sent
separately to the known interested parties.
Submission of Information on Non-Confidential basis
19. 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 “nonconfidential” at the top of each page.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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 nonconfidential 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.
23. 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.
24. Any
submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or
without a good cause statement on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken
on record by the Authority.
25. 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
26. In terms
of rule 6(7) any interested party may inspect the public file containing nonconfidential version of the evidence submitted by other
interested parties.
Non-cooperation
27. 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.