Anti-dumping Investigation Initiated on Acrylic Fibre from Egypt on Complaint of Indian Acrylics and Pasupati Acrylon

Background: The Anti-dumping duty on Acrylic Fibre from Japan, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belarus, Mexico, Taiwan, Turkey, Hungary, European Union, UK, Germany, Brazil, Bulgaria, USA, Thailand, Korea RP is already in place.

[Anti-dumping Initiation Notification No. 14/18/2013 DGAD dated 24^th February 2014]

Subject: Initiation of Anti-Dumping Duty investigation concerning imports of ‘Acrylic Fibre’ originating in or exported from Egypt

M/s Indian Acrylics Ltd., Chandigarh and M/s Pasupati Acrylon Ltd., Delhi have filed a petition 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, 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the AD Rules) for initiation of anti dumping investigation concerning imports of ‘Acrylic Fibre’ (hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods) originating in or exported from Egypt (hereinafter also referred to as the subject country). M/s Indian Acrylics Ltd., Chandigarh and M/s Pasupati Acrylon Ltd., Delhi have provided relevant information on alleged dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country.

2. AND WHEREAS, the Authority finds that sufficient evidence of dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country; 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 hereby initiates anti dumping investigation into the alleged dumping, and consequent injury to the domestic industry in terms of Rule 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.

Domestic Industry & Standing

3. The Petition has been filed by M/s Indian Acrylics Ltd., Chandigarh and M/s Pasupati Acrylon Ltd., Delhi. The petitioners have claimed that they have neither imported the subject goods from the subject country in the POI nor they are related to any exporter or importer of the product in subject country. There were two more producers of the product under consideration in India namely M/s. Vardhman Acrylics Limited and Consolidated Fibres & Chemicals Limited. M/s. Vardhman Acrylics Limited has supported the petition. However, M/s. Consolidated Fibres & Chemicals Limited underwent liquidation in 2008 and, therefore, is not in operation at present. As per information available on record, production of the petitioner companies is 73% of the total Indian production in the POI. Further production of the petitioners and the supporter together account for 100% of the total Indian production. Petitioners therefore, satisfies the standing and constitute Domestic Industry within Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of Anti Dumping Rules.

Product under consideration

4. The product under consideration is Acrylic Fibre of all types, whether grey or dyed (hereinafter referred as subject goods). Acrylic Fibre can be acrylic staple fibre, acrylic tow or acrylic top. Acrylic staple fibre, acrylic tow and acrylic top are known as Acrylic Fibre in the commercial parlance. The only difference between acrylic staple fibre and acrylic tow is the difference in length. In case length is more than 2 Meters, it is known as tow and in case of cut lengths, it is known as staple fibre. Acrylic Fibre is a long chain of synthetic polymer composed of at least 90% by weight of Acrylonitrile units (major raw material for production). Acrylic Fibre has application in day-to-day human life. Acrylic Fibre has a variety of applications in apparel, household and industrial areas.

5. Acrylic Fibre is classified under Chapter 55 of the Customs Tariff. The Customs classification is, however, indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the proposed investigation.

Like Article

6. Petitioners have claimed that there is no known difference between the subject goods exported from the subject country and that produced by the domestic industry. Acrylic Fibre produced by the domestic industry and imported from subject country is 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 have used the two interchangeably. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. Therefore for the purpose of present investigation the subject goods produced by the applicant in India are being treated as like article to the subject goods being imported from subject country

Subject Country

7. The country involved in the present investigation is Egypt.

Normal Value

8. The petitioners have claimed that in the absence of any evidence of price of subject goods in the domestic market of subject country, they have adopted constructed cost method for calculation of normal value based on the estimates of cost of production in India, duly adjusted. International price of raw materials, conversion & other cost of the domestic industry and reasonable profit margin have been considered to determine normal value.

Export Price

9. The petitioners have claimed export prices on the basis of data obtained from DGCI&S. Price adjustments have been allowed on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, bank charges, port expenses and handling charges to arrive at the net export price. There is sufficient evidence of export price of subject goods in the subject country.

Dumping Margin

10. The petitioners have provided sufficient evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in the subject country is higher than the net export price, prima-facie, indicating that the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country is being dumped into India to justify initiation of anti dumping investigation.

Injury and Causal Link

11. Information of petitioners has been considered for assessment of injury to the domestic industry. The Petitioners 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, significant price undercutting, price underselling, price depression and consequent significant adverse impact in terms of production, capacity utilization, domestic sales volumes, inventories, market share, profits, return on capital employed, and cash flow for the domestic industry. There is sufficient evidence of the injury suffered by the domestic industry caused by dumped imports from subject country to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.

Period of Investigation (POI)

12. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is April 2012-September 2013 (18 months). However, for the purpose of injury investigation, the period will cover the data of previous three years, i.e. April 2009-March 2010, April 2010-March 11, April 2011-March 2012 and the POI.

Submission of information

13. The known exporters in the subject country and their Governments through their Embassies, importers and users in India known to be concerned and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable them to file all information relevant in the form and manner prescribed. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation within the time-limit set out below and write to:

The Designated Authority,

Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties,

Ministry of Commerce & Industry,

Department of Commerce,

Room No 240, Udyog Bhawan,

New Delhi -110107

Time limit

14. Any information relating to this investigation should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the above address not later than 40 days from the date 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.

15. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of interest) in the instant matter and file their questionnaire’s responses and offer their comments to the domestic industry’s application regarding the need to impose anti-dumping measures within 40 days from the date of initiation of this investigation.

Submission of Information on Non-Confidential basis

16. 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.

17. Information supplied without any mark 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 each of the confidential version and the non-confidential version must be submitted.

18. 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.

19. 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, party submitting the confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible of summary; a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible, must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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.

Non-Cooperation

23. 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 record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Governments as deemed fit.