DGAD Initiates Investigation on Playing Cards from China on
Complaint of Parksons Plus Two Domestic Companies
[DGAD Initiation Notification No
14/43/2016- DGAD dated 30th March 2017]
Sub: - Initiation of anti-dumping
investigation concerning imports of “Playing
Cards” originating in or exported from China
PR.
1. M/s
Parksons Graphics Private Limited, M/s. Parksons Cartamundi Private
Limited and M/s T M Printers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as
“petitioner companies” or “the applicants”) 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)
have submitted an application for initiation of anti-dumping investigation and
imposition of antidumping duty on the imports of Playing Cards (hereinafter
referred to as the subject goods or the Product Under Consideration),
originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter also referred to as the
“subject country”).
2. And
whereas, the Authority prima facie 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
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.
Product under consideration
3. The
product under consideration for the purpose of present investigation is
‘Playing Cards’. Playing cards are a pack of 52 rectangular thin cards made of
paper or PVC, generally used for playing a variety of games. Playing cards have
a sequence of numbers and symbols such as diamonds, hearts, clubs, or spades on
the face, but an identical design on the reverse. A complete set of 52 playing
cards may be called a pack or a deck or a set.
4. The
PUC is used in playing various games of chance and skill. They are also used
for illusions, cardistry, building card structures, cartomancy and memory sport.
5. The
product under consideration is classified under Tariff item 9504 40 00 of the
Custom Tariff Act, 1975. The customs classification is indicative only and is
in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.
6. For
the purpose of analyzing import data, the Authority
has relied upon transaction wise import data available from the DGCIS.
Like Article
7. The
applicants have claimed that the subject goods being produced by the domestic
industry are similar to the subject goods being dumped into India. The
applicants have claimed that PUC produced by the applicants and imported from
the subject country are having comparable characteristics in terms of
parameters such as physical characteristics, manufacturing process &
technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution
& marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically
and commercially substitutable and hence should be treated as ‘like article’
under the Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the
subject goods produced by the applicants in India are being treated as ‘like
article’ to the subject goods being imported from the subject country.
Domestic Industry
8. The
Application has been filed M/s Parksons Graphics
Private Limited, M/s. Parksons Cartamundi
Private Limited and M/s T M Printers Private Limited. As per the information
available on record, the production of the aforesaid three producers
accounts for a major proportion of the total domestic production and is more
than 50% of Indian production. The Application has also been supported by seven
domestic producers namely, J M K Enterprises, Kagalwala
Packaging Pvt Ltd, L K M Enterprises, Nandi Printers Pvt Ltd, Ajanta Print
Arts, Bhatija Enterprises and T M Enterprises Pvt
Ltd.
9. The
Authority holds that the petitioner along with supporting domestic producers constitutes
an 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.
Country involved
10. The
present investigation is in respect of alleged dumping of the product under consideration
from China PR (referred to as the “subject country”).
Normal Value
11. The
petitioners have submitted that in absence of reliable information in the
public domain on domestic prices of the subject goods in the subject country,
the Normal Value in the subject country have been estimated on the basis of
cost of production; taking into account cost of raw material, cost of utilities
and conversion cost of domestic industry, duly adjusted on account of selling,
general & administration expenses, plus reasonable profit.
Export Price
12. The
applicants have determined the export price on the basis of weighted average
import price for the product under consideration from China PR based on the
transaction wise import data available from IBIS in India. However, the
Authority has also looked into transaction wise import data available from the
DGCIS. Price adjustments have been made on account of Ocean Freight, Inland
Freight, Ocean Insurance, Handling Charges and Non-Refundable VAT for the
subject country.
Dumping Margin
13. The
normal value and the export price have been compared at ex-factory level, which
shows significant dumping margin in respect of the subject country. There is
sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal values of the subject goods in
the subject country are significantly 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 country.
14. The
dumping margin is estimated to be significantly above de minimis.
Injury and Causal Link
15. The
applicants have claimed that they have suffered material injury and have
furnished evidence regarding the injury having taken place as a result of the
alleged dumping from the subject country in terms of increase in imports in
absolute terms and in relation to domestic production and domestic demand. The
dumping from the subject country has resulted in deterioration of sales,
production, capacity utilization, market share, inventories, profits, etc. of
the domestic industry.
16. The
applicants have also claimed adverse price effects as evidenced by price
undercutting and price underselling. The Authority considers that there is
sufficient evidence of ‘injury’ being suffered by the applicants caused by
dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject countru
to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.
Period of Investigation
17. The
period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is from April 2015
to September, 2016 (18 months ). The injury
investigation period will, however, cover the periods April 2012-March 2013,
April 2013-March 2014, April 2014-March 2015 and the POI.
Submission of information
18. The
known exporters in the subject country and its Government through its Embassies
in India, importers and users in India known to be concerned with the subject
goods and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable them to
file all the relevant information in the form and manner prescribed within the
time limit set out below.
19. Any
other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the
investigation in the form and manner prescribed within the time limit set out
below. The information/submissions may be submitted to:
The Designated Authority,
Directorate General of Anti-Dumping
& Allied Duties,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department of Commerce
Government of India
4th Floor, Jeevan
Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
20. 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
21. 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 the publication of initiation 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.
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
within forty days (40 days) from the date of the publication of initiation
notification. The information must be submitted in hard copies as well as in
soft copies.
Submission of information on confidential
basis
23. 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.).
24. 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 five (5) sets of each.
25. 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. For information which are 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.
26. 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.
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 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.
28. Any
submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or
without good cause statement on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on
record by the Authority.
29. 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
30. In
terms of Rule 6(7) of the AD Rules, any interested party may inspect the public
file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by other
interested parties.
Non-cooperation
31. 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.