DGAD
Initiates Investigation on High Tenacity Polyester Yarn from China on Complaint
of SRF and Reliance
· Nylon Filament Yarn, POY,
Viscose Filament Yarn, Fully Drawn Polyester Yarn and Elastomeric Filament Yarn
from China Already in the Net
[DGAD Initiation Notification F.No.6/12/2017-DGAD
dated 15th June 2017]
Subject: Initiation of Anti-Dumping
Duty Investigation Concerning Imports of "High Tenacity Polyester
Yarn" Originating in or Exported from China PR.
M/s SRF Limited & Reliance
Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners' or 'applicants')
have filed an application (also referred to as petition) along with relevant
information 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, 1 995
as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the AD Rules) for initiation
of anti dumping investigation concerning imports of
'High Tenacity Polyester Yarn' (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods)
originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter also referred to as the subject country).
2. AND
WHEREAS, the Authority finds that sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping of the subject goods originating in
or exported from the subject cow1try, 'injury' to the domestic industry and
causal link between the dumping and 'injury' exists 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 the Rules 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.
A. Product
under consideration and like article
3. The
product under consideration in the present petition is "High tenacity
Polyester yarn" also known as polyester industrial yarn (PIY) or industrial
yarn (IDY) in market parlance. High Tenacity Industrial Grade yarn has various grades
depending on end application requirement such as Regular Adhesive Activated
(AA), Regular Adhesive Non activated (NON AA). High 
modulus
Low Shrinkage adhesive activated (HMLSAA), High modulus Low Shrinkage non
adhesive activated (HMLS NAA), Low Shrinkage (LS), Super Low Shrinkage (SLS),
Ultra Low Shrinkage (ULS), Dope Dyed Yam.
4. The
subject goods are used for manufacture of Tyre cord
fabric, Seat belt webbing, Geo Grid, Geo Strip, Slings, Ropes, Single Cord,
Coated fabric, Conveyor Belt fabric, Rubberized Hose, Fire Hose, Automotive
Hose, etc. Product under consideration is classified under Chapter 54 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under customs sub-heading 5402.2090.
5. The
customs classification is indicative only and in no
way it is binding upon the product scope.
B. Domestic
Industry & Standing
6. The
application has been filed by M/s SRF Limited and M/s Reliance Industries
Limited in India. Apart from the applicants there is one other known domestic
producer, namely, Fairdeal Jumbo Packaging Pvt. Ltd. The
production by the applicants constitutes 'a major proportion' of Indian
production of the like product. Further, one of the applicants, i.e., M/s SRF
Limited has imported the subject goods from the subject country, however it has
been submitted that the imports have largely been made under advance license
scheme to supplement different product lines. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. has
not imported the subject goods. Further, applicants are not related to any
importer or exporter of the subject goods. In the past, eligibility of an
applicant producer who has imported the subject goods has been considered based
on the quantum, nature and circumstances regarding imports made by the
applicant. In this case also, keeping i n view these
aspects, the Authority holds that the applicants constitute eligible domestic
industry in terms of Rule 2 (b) and satisfies the criteria of standing also in
terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules supra.
C. Like
Article
7. The
applicants have claimed that there is no known difference in product produced
by the applicants and exported from the subject country. Both products have
comparable characteristics in terms of parameters
such as physical & chemical characteristics,
functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution
& marketing and tariff classification, etc. The two are technically and
commercially substitutable and hence should be treated as 'like article' under
the Rules.
D. Countries
involved
8. China
PR is the only country involved in the present investigation.
E. Normal
value
9. The
applicants have claimed that China PR should be treated as a non-market economy
and has determined normal value in accordance with Para 7 and 8 of Annexure I
of the Rules. In view of the non-market economy presumption and subject to rebuttal
of the same by the responding exporters, normal value of the subject goods in
China PR has been estimated in terms of Para 7 of Annexure I to the Rules. The
applicants have determined the normal value based on cost of production in
India, by taking the international price of the major raw materials duly
adjusted with selling, general and administrative expenses.
F. Ex port Price
10. The export price has been claimed
by the applicants as the weighted average import price from the subject country
based on the transaction-wise import data from DGCIS. Price adjustments have
been claimed on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, inland
freight expenses, port expenses, bank charges to arrive at the net export
price.
G. Dumping Margin
11. The normal value has been compared
with the export price at ex-factory level. There is sufficient prima facie
evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in the subject country is
higher than the ex-factory export price, indicating, that the subject goods are
being dumped into the Indian market
by the exporters from the subject country. The dumping margins are estimated to
be above de minimis.
H. Evidence of Injury and Causal Link
12. 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, price
undercutting, price underselling and consequent significant adverse impact on profitability,
return on capital employed, cash flow, performance on account of capacity
utilization, sales and market share of the domestic industry. There is
sufficient prima facie evidence of 'material injury' being suffered by the
domestic industry caused by alleged dumped imports from the subject country to
justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation.
I. Initiation
of investigation
13. The
authority finds sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping of subject goods,
originating in or exported from the subject country; injury to the domestic
industry and causal link between alleged dumping and injury, to justify
initiation of anti-dumping investigation 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. Accordingly, the authority hereby initiates an
investigation into the alleged dumping and consequent injury to the domestic
industry in terms of Para 5 of the Rules.
J. Period
of investigation (POI)
14. The
period of investigation proposed by the applicants is October 2015 - September 2016,
however, the Authority has taken the period of investigation as April
2016-March 2017. The injury investigation period shall cover the periods
2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and the period of
investigation.
K. Submission
of Information
15. The
known exporters in the subject country, the Government of the subject country
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 Anti-Dumping & Allied
Duties, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce
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 (downloadable from the website of
the authority at wwvv.dgtr.gov.in) within
the time limit set out below.
L. Time
limit
17. Any
information relating to the present investigation and any request for bearing
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 Anti-Dumping Rules.
18. 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 the Antidumping
measures within 40 days from the date of initiation of this investigation
M. Submission
of Information on Confidential/Non-Confidential basis
19. 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.
20. 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 of the non-confidential version must
be submitted by all the interested parties.
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 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.
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 wanted 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 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.
N. Inspection
of Public File
25. 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.
O. N
on-cooperation
26. 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.