DGTR Initiates Investigation on Flat Rolled
Stainless Steel Products from EU, China, USA plus 12 Countries on Complaint of
ISSDA and Jindal Steel
[Initiation Notification (Case No – 10/2019)
dated 3 July 2019]
Subject: Initiation of anti-dumping investigation
concerning imports of Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel from China PR,
Korea RP, European Union, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, USA, Thailand, South
Africa, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam and Malaysia.
[Corrigendum dated
11 July 2019 To Initiation Notification
No. 6/12/2019-DGTR
Dated 03.07.2019]
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel from
China PR, Korea RP, European Union, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, USA, Thailand, South
Africa, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam and Malaysia.
The
following corrections are made in the initiation notification having F. No. 6/12/2019 dated 03.07.2019.
1. In Para 7, “thickness
below 0.05 MM” is corrected to read as “thickness
below 0.5 MM.
2. In table at para 7, the width specified as “Width less than 600 MM, Width more than 600 MM” is corrected
to read as
“Width less than 600 MM, Width 600 MM or more”
3. In Para 22, “the need to continue or otherwise” is corrected to read as “the need to impose
or otherwise”.
F.
No. 6/12/2019-DGTR : Whereas Indian Stainless Steel
Development Association (ISSDA), M/s Jindal Stainless Limited, Jindal Stainless
(Hisar) Limited and Jindal Stainless Steelway Limited (hereinafter referred to as the applicants
or petitioners) filed an application before the Designated Authority
(hereinafter referred to as the Authority), on behalf of the domestic industry,
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 Rules), alleging dumping of Flat Rolled Products of
Stainless Steel (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), from People’s
Republic of China, Korea RP, EU, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, USA, Thailand, South
Africa, Mexico, UAE, Singapore, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Malaysia (hereinafter
referred to as the subject countries) and requested for imposition of
anti-dumping duties on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or
exported from the subject countries.
A.
Product under consideration (PUC)
2.
The product under consideration in the present application is “Flat Rolled
Products of Stainless Steel”, excluding the following:
a. Hot rolled
stainless steel of 304 grade and width upto 1650mm
(with permissible tolerances) from China, Malaysia and Korea, wherein
anti-dumping duty was recommended vide notification no 14/30/2013-DGAD, dated
9th March, 2015 and imposed vide customs notification no. 28/2015-Customs (ADD)
dated 5th June, 2015
b. Cold rolled
stainless steel of 600 mm and above (with permissible tolerances) from China,
Korea, EU, USA, Taiwan, Thailand, South Africa, except cold rolled stainless
steel of more than 1250 mm having bonafide use as
more than 1250 mm, wherein anti-dumping duty was recommended and imposed vide
customs notification no. No. 14/2010-Customs, dated 20th
February, 2010. The said duties were recommended to be extended vide
notification no. 5/04/2014-DGAD, dated the 12th
October, 2015 and were extended vide customs notification no 61/2015- Customs
(ADD) dated 11th December 2015.
c. Blade Steel, also commercially known as razor
blade grade steel used in production of razor.
d. Coin blank falling
under 73269099 HS Code used in production of monetary coins.
3.
The scope of the product under consideration includes cold rolled stainless
steel of more than 1250 mm having bonafide use as
more than 1250 mm, which were expressly excluded from the scope of measures
recommended vide notification no No.14/1/2014- DGAD, dated the 19th February,
2016 and imposed vide customs notification no 52/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 24th
October, 2017.
4.
The product under consideration is classified in
Chapter 72 under customs subheading no. 7219 and 7220 of the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975. All forms and specifications of the product under consideration
falling under 7219 and 7220, unless specifically excluded, are within the scope
of the present investigations.
B.
Like Articles
5.
The
applicants have claimed that the goods produced by the domestic industry are
like articles to the subject goods originating in or exported from subject
countries. It has been stated that there is no
significant difference in the subject goods produced by the applicants and
those exported from subject countries. The applicants have claimed that the two
are technically and commercially substitutable. For the purpose of present
investigation, the subject goods produced by the domestic industry are being treated as ‘like articles’ of the subject goods
imported from subject countries.
C.
Domestic Industry
6.
The application has been filed by Indian Stainless Steel Development
Association (ISSDA), Jindal Stainless Limited, Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited and Jindal Stainless Steelway
Ltd. As per the evidence available on record, production of the applicant companies
accounts for a major proportion of the total domestic production. The
applicants therefore satisfy the requirements of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of the
Rules and constitute an eligible domestic industry.
D. Product control
numbers (PCN)
7.
The applicants have proposed adoption of a product control number (PCN) for the
purpose of fair comparison between different types/forms of the product.
Applicants have proposed the PCN system on the basis of
rolling condition, grade, form of the product, width, thickness and finish,
considering Indian standards. Typical values suggested by the applicants are given below. the interested
parties can however provide any additional information deemed necessary and
appropriate for the purpose. Further, any comments with regard to the proposed
PCN system may be filed within 14 days from the date
of initiation of this investigation. Applicants have also clarified that hot
rolled products are not produced and sold in thickness below 0.5 MM 0.05 MM.
|
1 |
Condition |
HR,
CR, HRAP, CRAP |
|
2 |
Grade |
201,
202, 216, 204CU, 212-YKK, 253 MA, J4, J5, J6, J7, J8, JSLAUS, JSLU, JT, 301,
304, 309, 310, 316, 317, 321, 347, 405, 409, 410, 415, 420, 430, 432, 436,
39, 441, 444, 446, DUPLEX, 904 L, Super Aus |
|
3 |
Form |
Coil,
Plate, Sheet |
|
4 |
Width |
Width
less than 600 MM, Width 600 MM or more |
|
5 |
Thickness |
<0.5
MM, =>0.5 MM |
|
6 |
Finish |
Black,
No 1 HRAP, No 2B AND 2D CRAP Special (Scotch Brite, HL, NN, No 3 , No 4),
Tempered |
E.
Countries involved
8.
The countries involved in the present investigation are People’s Republic of
China, Korea RP, EU, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, USA, Thailand, South Africa,
Mexico, UAE, Singapore, Hongkong, Vietnam and
Malaysia.
F.
Normal Value
Normal
Value- China
9.
Applicants have claimed that China PR should be treated as a non-market economy
and have requested to determine normal value in accordance with Para 7 and 8 of
Annexure I of the Rules. . Normal value has been determined on
the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted, and after additions
for selling, general & administrative expenses and reasonable profits.
Normal value has been separately determined for different product types.
Normal
Value- Japan, Taiwan, EU, USA and Korea RP
10.
The
Applicants have submitted that they were not able to get any evidence of actual
sales transactions or quotation of producers in these countries. However,
evidence of prices prevailing in domestic market of Japan, Taiwan, EU, USA and
Korea RP is available as per the MEPS Stainless Steel Review publication
which reports domestic steel pricing data for flat and long products.
11.
These
prices have been considered as the price of the
product type most commonly sold. Normal value for other product types have been
assessed on the basis of price of commonly sold
product and after due adjustments for the cost differences based on available
information with regard to cost differences.
Normal
Value-Thailand, South Africa, Singapore, Mexico, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Malaysia
& UAE
12.
Applicants have submitted that there are no publicly available
information/evidence of transaction price or quotations of producers or
indicative price of subject goods in the domestic market of Thailand, South
Africa, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam and UAE. Applicants have also submitted that
efforts were made to get prices or quotations of producers
of the subject goods in the subject countries. However, the applicants has not
been able to get information/evidence of the price of subject goods in the
domestic market of these countries. MEPS Report also does not publish the price
of subject goods of these countries. Normal value in these countries has been
determined on the basis of best estimates of cost of
production, and after additions for selling, general & administrative
expenses and reasonable profits. Normal value has been separately determined
for different product types.
Normal
value for Indonesia
13.
Applicants
have claimed that it has a related party in Indonesia, namely, PT Jindal
Stainless, which procures hot rolled flat products from India at arm’s length
price and sells cold rolled flat products after processing in Indonesia. Normal
value has been determined on the basis of selling
price of cold rolled products in Indonesia after making necessary adjustments. Normal
value has been separately determined for different product types.
G.
Export Price
14.
The
Applicants have determined export prices on the basis of
DGCI&S transaction wise import data. The applicants have identified product
type (PCN) in the import data on the basis of available
information in the import data and its experience. Price adjustments have been
allowed on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, inland
freight expenses, port expenses, bank charges and non-refundable VAT (for
China) to arrive at the net export price.
H.
Dumping Margin
15.
Considering
the estimates of normal value and export price, dumping margin has been
determined for each import transaction. Weighted average dumping margin for the
product under consideration have been determined considering associated
weights. The resultant dumping margin are quite significant and much above de-minimus limits. There is sufficient evidence that the
normal values of the subject goods in the subject countries are significantly
higher than the net export prices, prima-facie, indicating that the subject
goods originating in or exported from the subject
countries are being exported at dumped prices, justifying initiation of
antidumping duty investigation.
I. Period of
investigation
16.
The
Period of Investigation (POI) in the present investigation is April 2018 to
March 2019 (12 months). The injury investigation period shall cover the periods
2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and the period of
investigation.
J.
Injury and Causal Link
17.
Information furnished by the applicants have 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 causing positive price undercutting and suppressing/depressing
effect on the domestic industry. The applicants have claimed that its
performance has been adversely impacted in respect of production, sales,
capacity utilisation, market share and consequent decline
in profits, return on capital employed, and cash flow during the POI, as a result of significant imports at a price below selling
price and non-injurious price for the domestic industry. There is sufficient
prima facie evidence of the injury being caused to the
domestic industry by dumped imports from subject countries to justify
initiation of an antidumping investigation
18.
The applicants have also claimed that imports are causing threat of material
injury, considering significant increase in imports in the POI (particularly
after excluding Chinese imports), significant positive price undercutting,
significant surplus capacities in subject countries, high export orientation of
producers in subject countries, trade remedial measures imposed by some countries
on some of the subject countries, significant capacity addition in Indonesia.
K.
Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation
19.
And whereas, the Authority prima facie finds that evidence of dumping of the
subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries; and
injury to the domestic industry and causal link between the alleged dumping and
injury exists to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation. The Authority
accordingly 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 anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to
the domestic industry.
L.
Submission of information
20.
The known exporters in the subject countries, the Government of the subject
countries through their 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 & Industry
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara
Building,
5 Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001
21.
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.
M. Time limit
22.
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 impose continue or otherwise the
Anti-Dumping measures within 40 days from the date of issue of letter by the
authority intimating initiation of the investigation.
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.
N.
Submission of Information on Non-Confidential basis
23.
In case confidentiality is claimed on any part of the questionnaire’s
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.
24.
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 (2) copies of the non-confidential version must be submitted by all the
interested parties.
25.
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.
26.
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.
27.
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.
28.
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.
O.
Inspection of Public File
29.
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.
P. Non-cooperation
30.
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.
Q.
Sampling
31.
In view of the potentially large number of exporting producers from the subject
countries involved in this proceeding and in order to complete the
investigation within the stipulated time limits, the Authority may limit the
exporter(s)/ producer(s) to be investigated to a reasonable number by selecting
a sample. The sampling shall be carried out, if
required, in terms of Rule 17(3) of the Rules.