Sunset Review for Anti-dumping Continuation on Sewing Machine Needle from China on Altek Needles Request

[Anti-dumping Duty Notification F. No. 15/2/2016-DGAD dated 10^th June 2016]

Sub: Initiation of Sunset Review for investigation of Anti-dumping Duty imposed on imports of Sewing Machine Needle originating in or exported from China PR.

Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and thereafter (hereinafter also 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 also referred as the Rules), the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of “Sewing Machine Needle” (hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods), originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the subject country).

2. Whereas, The Designated Authority had originally initiated investigations and then recommended imposition of definitive anti dumping duties vide notification No.14/10/2010-DGAD, dated the 6th May, 2011 and Ministry of Finance imposed definitive anti-dumping duty vide notification No. 50/2011-Customs, dated 22^nd June, 2011 on all imports of subject goods originating in or exported from China PR.

3. Whereas, M/s. Altek Beissel Needles Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) has filed a petition for initiation of Sunset Review for continuation of Anti-dumping duty on the imports of Sewing Machine Needles or Needles (hereinafter referred to as subject goods) from China PR. The petitioners have provided relevant information in the application. The petition contains prima facie evidence for extension of antidumping duty on the subject goods from subject country.

Country involved

4. The country involved in this investigation is China PR.

Product under consideration and Like Article

5. The product under consideration is Sewing Machine Needles. The scope of the product under consideration includes sewing machine needles meant for both household and industrial purposes in various sizes and point style (normal, ball point, leather point etc.). Sewing Machine Needles are classified under Chapter 84 of Custom Tariff Act under the sub-heading 8452.30. The customs classification is however, indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.

6. Sewing Machine Needle is fitted into a sewing machine and used for sewing a number of products. Needles are used for a large variety of applications, important among them being sewing of garments, embroidery and leather. Besides, there are a number of other applications such as furnishings, doll making, book sewing, vehicle seat covers etc.

7. Proposed investigations being review of existing anti dumping duty, the scope of the product under consideration in the proposed investigation shall remain the same as the scope of the product under consideration in the final findings earlier notified.

8. Petitioners have submitted that there is no known difference in subject goods exported from subject country and that produced by the Indian industry. Both the products have comparable characteristics in terms of parameters such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification, etc. The petition filed is the for the review, continuation and enhancement of the quantum of anti dumping duty in force, and the issue of like article has already been dealt with in the original investigation. Further, the Authority has already held in the original investigation that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the subject goods imported from the subject country.

Domestic Industry & Standing

9. The petition is being filed by M/s Altek Beissel Ltd., Kelambakkam. Other known producer, M/s. TVS Sewing Needles Limited suspended operations long back. M/s. Schmetz India Private Ltd. and M/s. Groz Beckert Asia Private Ltd. are also producers of Sewing Machine Needles. Petitioner has submitted that the production of the abovementioned companies should not be included in Indian production for the purpose of calculation of standing and these companies should be excluded from the scope of “Domestic manufacturers” since these companies are exporting their entire production to their German parent company.

10. Thus, the petitioner accounts for 100% share of Indian production. Petitioner has submitted that they have not imported the product under consideration from the subject country during the proposed POI. In view of the above, it is seen that the petitioner satisfies the standing and constitutes "Domestic Industry" within the meaning of the Anti Dumping Rules.

Initiation of Sunset Review

11. WHEREAS, in view of the duly substantiated application filed and in accordance with Section 9 A (5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Anti-dumping Rules, the Authority hereby initiates a Sunset review investigation to examine whether the expiry of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.

Period of Investigation

12. The period of investigation (POI) is January 2015 – December 2015 (12 months) for the purpose of present investigation. The injury investigation period will however cover the periods April 2012-March 2013, April 2013-March 2014, April 2014 - March 2015 and the POI. The data beyond POI may also be examined to determine the likelihood of dumping and injury.

Procedure

13. The present sunset review covers all aspects of the final findings of the original investigation published vide Notification No. 14/10/2010-DGAD dated the 6^th May, 2011 (final findings of the original investigation).

14. 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.

Submission of Information

15. The known exporters in the subject country, the Government of the subject country 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:

Government of India

Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Department of Commerce

Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties

4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building

5, Parliament Street,

New Delhi – 110001

16. 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.

Time Limit

17. 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 issuance of such letter. Any other interested party, whose address is not available, may also submit comments/information within 40 days from date of publication of this notification.

Submission of information on confidential basis

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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, 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

Inspection of public file

24. 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.

Non-cooperation

25. 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.