Polystyrene (Other than Expandable) from Iran,
USA, UAE, Malaysia plus Two Countries under Anti-dumping Investigation on
Complaint of Ineos Styrolution India and Supreme Petrochem
[Initiation Notification [Case No. (O.I.) 08/2019] dated 10 July
2019]
Subject: Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation
concerning imports of Polystyrene of all types except expandable Polystyrene
from Iran, Malaysia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, UAE and USA
F.
No. 6/10/2019-DGTR: M/s Ineos Styrolution India Limited,
Vadodara along with Supreme Petrochem Ltd, Mumbai (hereinafter also referred to
as the Petitioners or Applicants) has filed an application before the
Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) 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) for imposition of Anti-dumping duty on imports of
"Polystyrene of all types except Expandable Polystyrene” (hereinafter also
referred to as the subject goods or Product under consideration (PUC)) from
Iran, Malaysia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, UAE and USA (hereinafter also
referred to as the subject countries).
Product under consideration
2.
The product under consideration for the purpose of present investigation is "Polystyrene
of all types except expandable Polystyrene”.
3. Polystyrene is a versatile
thermoplastic polymer used to manufacture various consumer products.
Polystyrene can be moulded into various shapes, can be extruded to make sheets
and can be foamed. The major applications include appliances such as
Refrigerators and Air conditioners, stationary, household articles, extruded
insulation foam, electrical housings, toys and food packaging. The subject
goods are classified under chapter 39 “Plastics and Articles Thereof”. At
six-digit level, the goods are classified at 390319. It is also submitted that
the customs classification is indicative only and in no way, it is binding upon
the product scope.
Like Article
4. 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;
5. The petitioner has
submitted that subject goods produced by the petitioner company and the subject
goods imported from the subject countries are like articles. There is no known
difference between the subject goods exported from subject countries and that
produced by the petitioner. Subject goods produced by the domestic industry and
imported from 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.
Consumers can use and are using the two interchangeably. The two are
technically and commercially substitutable, and hence, should be treated as
‘like article’ under the Rules.
6. Therefore, for the
purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the
applicant in India are being treated as ‘Like Article’ within the meaning of
the Rule 2 (d) to the subject goods being imported from the subject countries.
Domestic
Industry & Standing
7. The Application has
been filed by M/s Ineos Styrolution India Limited, Vadodara and Supreme
Petrochem Limited, Mumbai as domestic producers of the product under
consideration. According to the applicants, they are the major producers of the
subject goods in India accounting 67% of the total production in India. The
applicants have certified that there are no imports of the product under
consideration by the applicants or any of its related party from the subject
countries. Apart from the applicants, there is only one other producer of the
subject goods in India, namely, M/s LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd.
8. The Authority,
therefore, determines that the applicants who presently hold a “major
proportion” of the total domestic production, constitute an eligible domestic
industry in terms of Rule 2 (b) and also satisfy the criteria of standing in
terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules.
Countries
involved
9. The countries
involved in the present investigation are Iran, Malaysia, Singapore, Chinese
Taipei, UAE and USA.
Normal Value
10.
The applicant has constructed the normal value of the subject goods from the
subject countries based on the spot prices of Polystyrene (separately for GPPS
and HIPS) published by ICIS LOR. Since the published prices are for South East
Asia, therefore, applicants have added only port charges in the ICIS prices for
constructing the normal value for Singapore. Further, for arriving at the
estimated prices prevailing in Iran, Malaysia and UAE, applicants have added
port charges, insurance and ocean freight charges from Singapore to Iran,
Malaysia and UAE respectively. For USA and Chinese Taipei, applicants have
relied upon the import data of Polystyrene sourced from ITC Trade Map. Since
these numbers are CIF prices, applicant have added port charges and applicable
basic customs duty to make the value paid or payable in USA and Chinese Taipei.
The Authority has, therefore, for the purpose of the initiation, decided to
proceed with the normal value as constructed by the petitioner.
Export Price
11.
The applicants have computed the export price on the basis of data published by
DGCI&S, Kolkata. Price adjustments have been claimed on account of
commission, ocean freight, port expenses, inland freight, marine insurance,
credit cost and bank charges. There is sufficient prima facie evidence with
regard to the net export prices claimed by the applicants.
Dumping Margin
12.
The normal value and the export price have been compared at ex-factory level,
which prima facie show significant dumping margin in respect of the subject
goods from the subject countries. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that
the normal value of the subject goods in the subject countries are 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.
Injury and Causal Link
13.
Information furnished by the applicants has been considered for assessment of
injury to the domestic industry. 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 in absolute terms and in
relation to production and consumption in India, price undercutting, price
underselling, capacity utilization, profitability, cash profits and return on
capital employed. Applicants have further submitted that there is threat of
material injury also. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of the ‘injury’
being suffered by the domestic industry caused by dumped imports from subject
countries to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.
Initiation of Anti-Dumping
investigations
14.
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.
Period of Investigation (POI)
15.
The period of investigation for the purpose of present investigation is from
1st January 2018 to 31st December
2018 (12 months). However, the injury investigation period will cover the data
of previous three years, i.e. 1st April
2015 to 31st March 2016, 1st
April 2016 to 31st March-2017, 1st April 2017 to 31st March-2018 and POI.
Submission of Information
16.
The exporters in the subject countries, their government through their
Embassies in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned and
the domestic industry 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, 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 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 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 publication of this
Notification. The information must be submitted in hard copies as well as 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.
i. one
set marked as Confidential (with title, number of pages, index, etc.), and
ii. 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 two (4) 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. The information which is 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 information or 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.