Viscose Spun Yarn from China, Indonesia
and Vietnam – DGTR Initiates Investigation on Complaint of Indian Manmade
Yarn Manufacturers Association
[DGTR Initiation Notification (Case
No.OI-32/2019) dated 14.01.2020]
Initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports
of “Viscose Spun Yarn” originating in or exported from China PR, Indonesia and Vietnam.
F.No.
6/41/2019 -DGTR
1.
The Indian Manmade Yarn Manufacturers Association (hereinafter also referred to
as the “Applicant”) has filed an application before the Designated Authority
(hereinafter also 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 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”) for original Anti- Dumping
Duty investigation on imports of “Viscose Rayon Spun Yarn”, also known as
“Viscose Spun Yarn” or “VSY” (hereinafter referred to as “product under
consideration” or PUC or “subject goods”), originating in or exported from
China PR, Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam.
2.
The Applicant has alleged that material injury to the Domestic Industry is
being caused due to dumped imports from the said countries and has requested
for imposition of anti- dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods,
originating in or exported from the subject countries.
Subject Countries
3.
The Applicant has claimed injury due to dumped imports from China PR,
Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam. However, DGCI&S import data indicates that
the imports from Singapore is below de
minimus. Accordingly, the subject countries for the present investigation
are China PR, Indonesia and Vietnam.
Product under consideration
4.
The product under consideration for the purpose of the present investigation is
“Viscose rayon spun yarn containing 85% or more by weight of artificial viscose
staple fibre, other than sewing thread, not put up for retail sale, falling
under 55101110 and 55101210. The product under consideration can be either
single or multiple folded or cabled yarn”.
5.
VSY is mainly used for weaving or knitting for production of fabric for
eventual use in garments.
6.
The PUC is classified under Chapter 55 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. While the
prescribed classification of the product is 55101110 and 55101210, the PUC has
also been imported under 55101190, 55101290, 55109010 and 55109090. The Customs
classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the
investigation.
Like Article
7.
The Applicant has claimed that the subject goods, which are being dumped into
India, are identical to the goods produced by the domestic industry. There are
no known differences either in the technical specifications, quality, functions
or end-uses of the dumped imports and the domestically produced subject goods
and the product under consideration manufactured by the Applicant. The two are
technically and commercially substitutable and, hence, should be treated as
‘like article’ under the AD Rules. Therefore, the subject goods produced by the
Applicant in India are being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods
being imported from the subject countries.
Domestic Industry
8.
The Application has been filed by the Indian Manmade Yarn Manufacturers
Association on behalf of the domestic producers of the like articles. The
Applicant has claimed that neither they have imported the subject goods from
the subject countries nor are they related to any exporter or producer of
subject goods in the subject countries or any importer of the PUC in India. On the
basis of the information available, the Authority notes that the application
has been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry in terms of the
provisions contained in Rule 2 (b) and Rule 5 (3) of the Rules.
Basis of Alleged Dumping
i. Normal
value for China PR
9.
The Applicant has claimed that China PR should be treated as a non-market
economy and the normal value should be determined in terms of paragraph-7 of
Annexure I of the Rules. The Applicant has cited and relied upon Article
15(a)(i) of China’s Accession Protocol and stated that the Chinese producers
should be directed to show that market economy conditions prevail in the
industry producing the subject goods. The Applicant has claimed that Chinese
domestic costs and prices cannot be accepted unless the Chinese exporters pass
the tests of market economy. The Applicant has stated that for China normal
value should be determined in accordance with para-7 and 8 of Annexure I of the
Rules. In view of the above non-market economy presumption and subject to
rebuttal of the same by the responding exporters from China, normal value of
the Subject Goods in China PR has been estimated in terms of Para 7 of Annexure
1 to the Rules.
10.
The Applicant has claimed that Thailand may be taken as a market economy third
country for construction of normal value for China PR and has provided
information regarding price in Thailand. All interested parties are advised to
offer their comments on this issue within 30 days from the date of issuance of
initiation notification. Pending detailed examination of the claim of Thailand
as a surrogate country for China for this investigation, the Authority, for the
purpose of initiation of the present investigation, has taken the option of the
price payable in India for constructing normal value for the China PR. The
claim of the Applicant for choosing Thailand as an appropriate market economy
third country in this investigation would, however, be examined during the
course of investigation after obtaining the comments from interested parties on
this issue and evaluating them.
11.
Accordingly, normal value has been constructed for China for the purpose of
initiation, on the basis of cost of production in India, based on the cost of
most efficient domestic producer with selling, general and administrative
expenses, duly adjusted.
ii. Normal
value for Vietnam
12.
The Applicant has claimed Vietnam as non-market economy. Vietnam has however
been given market economy status by India. The Applicant has neither furnished
information in respect of domestic selling price of the subject goods in
Vietnam nor has suggested any appropriate country for taking export price of
subject goods from Vietnam to such a country for construction of normal value.
In absence of these options, the Authority has, for the purpose of initiation,
constructed the normal value for Vietnam on the basis of cost of production in India,
based on the most efficient domestic producer’s cost with selling, general and
administrative expenses, duly adjusted.
iii. Normal
value for Indonesia.
13.
The Applicant has provided information with regard to selling price of the
product in Indonesia. As per the evidence provided by the Applicant, the
Authority has considered normal value of Indonesia based on the domestic
selling price in Indonesia.
Export
price for China PR, Vietnam and Indonesia.
14.
The Authority has computed the export price for all the subject countries based
on DGCI&S transaction-wise data. Price adjustments have been made on
account of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, inland freight
expenses, port expenses, bank charges, and VAT (only for China).
15.
The normal value and the export price have been compared at ex-factory level,
which prima facie shows significant dumping margin in respect of the subject goods
from the subject countries. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the
subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the
subject countries.
Injury and Causal Link
16.
Information furnished by the Applicant has been considered for assessment of
injury to the domestic industry. The Applicant has 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, price undercutting, and price suppressing
effect on the domestic industry. The Applicant has claimed that its performance
has been adversely impacted in respect of production, sales and consequent
decline in profits, return on capital employed, and cash flow, as a result of
increase in imports of subject goods at a price below selling price and
non-injurious price for the domestic industry. There is sufficient prima facie
evidence that the injury exists and is being caused to the domestic industry by
dumped imports from subject countries.
Initiation of Anti-Dumping
Investigation
17.
On the basis of the duly substantiated written application by or on behalf of
the domestic industry, and having satisfied itself, on the basis of the prima
facie evidence submitted by the domestic industry, about dumping of the product
under consideration originating in or exported from the subject countries,
injury to the domestic industry and causal link between such alleged dumping and
injury, and in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules,
the Authority, hereby, initiates an investigation to determine the existence,
degree and effect of any alleged dumping in respect of the product under
consideration originating in or exported from the subject countries and to
recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate
to remove the injury to the domestic industry.
Period of Investigation
18.
The Applicant proposed the Period of Investigation (hereinafter also referred
to as “POI”) 01st April, 2019 – 31st September, 2019 (6 months). However,
the Authority has proposed the POI in the present investigation as 01st
April 2019 – 31st December 2019 (9 months). The injury
investigation period will cover the periods 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and POI.
Procedure
19.
Principles as given in Rule 6 of the Rules will be followed for the present
investigation.
Submission of Information
20.
The known exporters in the subject countries, their government through their
Embassy in India, the 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.
21.
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/ submission may be submitted to:
The Designated
Authority
Directorate General of Trade Remedies
Ministry of Commerce & Industry Department of Commerce
Government of
India
4th Floor,
Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street
New
Delhi-110001
22.
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
23.
Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent in writing
so as to reach the Authority at the address mentioned above within thirty days
from the date of receipt of the notice as per Rule 6(4) of the Anti-Dumping
Rules. It may, however, be noted that in terms of explanation of the said Rule,
the notice calling for information and other documents shall be deemed to have
been received within one week from the date on which it was sent by the Designated
Authority or transmitted to the appropriate diplomatic representative of the
exporting Countries. 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.
24.
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 within the above time limit.
Submission of information on
confidential basis
25.
The parties making any submission (including Appendices/Annexures 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.).
26.
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 four (4) sets of each.
27.
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.
28.
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, the 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.
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
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
32.
In terms of Rule 6(7) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, any interested party may
inspect the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence
submitted by other interested parties.
Non-cooperation
33.
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.