Met Coke from Australia and China in
Anti-dumping Investigation on Complaint of Gujarat NRE Coke, Saurashtra Fuel and Others
·
Authority
Accepts Complainant Claim that Domestic Coal Price not available in Australia
·
Action
against Japan Terminated on 14 May 2004 on Request of Domestic Industry
·
Earlier
Action against China Expired on 20.01.2009 after Failure of Sunset Review
[Anti-dumping Initiation Notification
No.14/9/2015-DGAD dated 30th December 2015]
Sub: - Initiation of anti-dumping
investigation concerning
imports of “Low Ash Metallurgical Coke” originating in or exported from
Australia and China PR.
M/s Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers
Association (IMCOM), on behalf of the domestic producers in India, namely, M/s Saurashtra Fuels Pvt. Ltd., M/s
Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd., M/s Carbon Edge Industries Ltd., M/s Bhatia Coke and
Energy Ltd. and M/s Basudha Udyog Pvt. Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner companies’ or “the applicants”) in
accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to 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 to as the Rules) has submitted an
application for initiation of anti-dumping investigation and imposition of anti dumping duty on the imports of alleged dumping of Low
Ash Metallurgical Coke (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods or Met
Coke or the Product Under Consideration), originating in or exported from
Australia and China PR (hereinafter also referred to as the subject countries).
2. And
whereas, the Authority prima facie finds 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 Rule 5 of the 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.
Product under consideration
3. The
product under consideration in the present investigation is Low Ash
Metallurgical Coke (Met Coke).The product under consideration does not include
other Metallurgical Coke with high ash content which is in excess of 18%. Low
Ash Met Coke is produced by destructive distillation of coking coal in the
absence/regulated presence of oxygen at high temperatures (ranging between 1100
to 1350 degree centigrade) causing the coal to soften, liquefy and then
re-solidify into hard but porous lumps. Met Coke is a form of carbon along with
some mineral and residual volatile material. Met Coke is used as a primary fuel
in industries where a uniform and high temperature is required in kilns or
furnaces. Met Coke is used in various industries including pig iron, foundries,
ferro alloys, chemical, integrated steel plants and
others. Met Coke is normally produced and sold in terms of weight expressed in
KG or MT. The subject goods are classified under Custom Headings 27040030.
Although, the subject goods classified under the Chapter Heading 27040030, the
subject goods are also being imported in other Customs Headings i.e. 27040090,
27040010, 27040020 etc. The Customs classification is indicative only and is in
no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.
Like Article
4. The
applicant has claimed that the subject goods being produced by the domestic
industry are similar to the subject goods being dumped into India. The
applicant has claimed that Met Coke produced by the applicants and imported
from the subject countries are having comparable characteristics in terms of
parameters such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing
process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications,
pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The
two are technically and
commercially substitutable and hence should be treated as ‘like article’ under
the Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject
goods produced by the applicants in India are being treated as ‘Like Article’
to the subject goods being imported from the subject
countries.
Domestic Industry
5. The
Application has been filed by Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers
Association (IMCOM) on behalf of the domestic producers of Low Ash
Metallurgical Coke in India, namely, Saurashtra Fuels
Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd., Carbon Edge
Industries Ltd., Bhatia Coke and Energy Ltd. and Basudha
Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Further,
the Applicant has stated the present application is filed by or on behalf of
the manufacturers who are marketing / selling their production of Met Coke. It
is stated that there are two different categories of producers of Met Coke in
India, i.e., manufacture of Met Coke for captive use and manufacture of Met
Coke for marketing / sales. The manufacturers who are producing Met Coke for
their captive use are being excluded from the purview of the current
investigation as their production is not in competition with the imported
goods. Further, the economics of producers for captive consumption and of
producers for sale are very different. The former saves on the costs of
marketing sales, inventory etc. The applicant has stated that there are some
steel manufacturers who produce Met Coke for their captive consumption. The
Applicant has provided the details of the names of the steel producers as
available having production of Met Coke for captive consumption, namely, Steel
Authority of India Limited, Tata Steel Ltd., JSW Steel Ltd., Jindal Steel &
Power Ltd., Bhushan Steel Ltd., Jayaswal
Neco Industries Ltd., Rashtriya
Ispat Nigam Ltd., Bhushan
Power and Steel Ltd., Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Usha Martin Ltd. The Applicant has also provided the
details from their respective annual reports for the above companies that there
are either no sales of Met Coke by the major captive producers or the sales are
negligible by some of the producers as compared to their total production of
captive Coke. In this regard, the Authority has seen from the evidence on
record that prima facie these companies are primarily using Met Coke for their
captive consumption and in some cases, their domestic sales are negligible as
compared to their total production of captive Coke. Therefore, the captive
producers are being treated as a separate category of producers and have been
excluded from the purview of the current investigation while determining the
domestic industry.
6. As
per the information available on record, the production of the aforesaid five
producers, i.e., Saurashtra Fuels Pvt.
Ltd., Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd., Carbon Edge Industries Ltd., Bhatia Coke and
Energy Ltd. and Basudha Udyog
Pvt. Ltd accounts for a major proportion of the total
domestic production and is more than 50% of Indian production. The Application
has also been supported by three domestic producers, namely, Jindal Stainless
Ltd., Shree Arihant Trade Links India Pvt. Ltd. and Ennore Coke Ltd.
7. The
application, thus, satisfies the requirements of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of the
Antidumping Rules with regard to standing of the aforesaid five domestic
producers and that they are
treated as “domestic industry” within the meaning of Rule 2(b) supra.
Countries involved
8. The
countries involved in the present investigation are Australia and China PR.
Normal Value
9. The
applicant has claimed that China PR should be treated as a non-market economy
country and has determined the normal value in accordance with Para 7 and 8 of
Annexure I of the Rules. In terms of Para 8 in Annexure 1 to the Rules, it is
presumed that the producers of the subject goods in China PR are operating
under non-market economy conditions. In view of the non-market economy
presumption and subject to rebuttal of the same by the responding exporters,
the normal value of the subject goods in China PR has been estimated in terms
of Para 7 of Annexure 1 to the Rules. The applicant has determined the normal
value based on cost of production in India, duly adjusted with selling, general
and administrative expenses and reasonable profit.
10. As
regards the normal value for Australia, the Applicant has submitted that efforts
were made to get the information/evidence of the price of the subject goods in
the domestic market of the subject country. However, the Applicant was not able
to get such information. The Authority has, therefore, constructed the normal
value for Australia on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted.
Export Price
11. The
applicant has claimed export price for the product under consideration for both
the subject countries based on the transaction wise import data available from
IBIS in India. Price adjustments have been made on account of customs handling
& clearance charges in India, inland freight, ocean freight, custom
handling & clearance charges and non-refundable portion of VAT (only for
China PR).
Dumping Margin
12. The
normal value and the export price have been compared at ex-factory level, which
show significant dumping margin in respect of the subject countries. There is
sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal values 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. There is
sufficient evidence of the significant dumping margins to justify initiation of
antidumping investigation.
Injury and Causal Link
13. The
applicant has claimed that it has suffered material injury and has furnished
evidence regarding the injury having taken place as a result of the alleged
dumping from the subject countries in terms of increase in imports in absolute
terms and in relation to domestic production and domestic demand. The dumping
from the subject countries has resulted into deterioration in sales,
production, capacity utilisation, market share, inventories, number of
employees, wages, profits, return on capital employed, cash profit etc. of the
domestic industry.
14. The
applicant has also claimed adverse price effects as evidenced by price
suppression and price undercutting. The Authority considers that there is sufficient
evidence of ‘injury’ being
suffered by the applicants caused by dumped imports of the subject goods from
the subject countries to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.
Period of Investigation
15. The
period of investigation (POI) is from April, 2014 to June, 2015 for the purpose
of the present investigation. The injury investigation period will, however,
cover the periods April 2011 - March 2012, April 2012-March 2013, April
2013-March 2014 and the 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 with the
subject goods and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable
them to file all the relevant information in the form and manner prescribed
within the time limit set out below. Any other interested party may also make
its submissions relevant to the investigation in the form and manner prescribed
within the time limit set out below. The information/submissions may be
submitted to:
The Designated Authority,
Directorate General of Anti-Dumping &
Allied Duties,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department of Commerce
Government of India
4th Floor, Jeevan
Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
17. 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
18. 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
days (40 days) from the date of the publication of initiation 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 AD Rules.
19. 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 within forty days (40 days) from the date
of the publication of initiation notification.
The information must be submitted in hard copies as well as in soft copies.
Submission of information on confidential
basis
20. The
parties making any submission (including Appendices/Annexure attached thereto),
before the authority including questionnaire response, are required to file the
same in two separate sets, in case "confidentiality" is claimed on
any part thereof:-
(a) one set marked as Confidential (with title, number of pages,
index, etc.), and
(b) the other set marked as Non-Confidential (with title, number
of pages, index, etc.).
21. The “confidential” or “non-confidential”
submissions must be clearly marked as “confidential” or “non-confidential”
at the top of each page. Any submission made without such marking shall be treated as
non-confidential by the Authority and the Authority shall be at liberty to
allow the other interested parties to inspect such submissions. Soft copies of
both the versions will also be required to be submitted, along with the hard
copies, in five (5) sets of each.
22. The
confidential version shall contain all information which is by nature
confidential and/or other information which the supplier of such information
claims as confidential. For information which are claimed to be confidential by
nature or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of other
reasons, 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.
23. The
non-confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential
version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (in
case indexation is not feasible) and 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 to summary, and a statement of reasons why summarization is not
possible, must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.
24. 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 if 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.
25. 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.
26. 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) of the AD Rules, any interested party may inspect the public
file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by other
interested parties.
Non-cooperation
28. 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.