DGAD Initiates Dumping Investigation on Meta-Phenylene Diamene-4-Sulphonic Acid (MPDSA)
from China on Complaint of Chamunda Inds., Matrushakti and Varahi Intermediates
· Normal Values Compiled
[Initiation
Notification dated 24.01.2018]
Subject:
Initiation of Anti-Dumping investigation concerning imports of “Meta-Phenylene Diamene-4-Sulphonic Acid (MPDSA)” from People’s
Republic of China
F.
No. 06/35/2017- DGAD – M/s Chamunda Industries, Matrushakti Industries and Varahi
Intermediates (hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicants’) have filed a
petition before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the
Authority) 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 imposition of Anti-dumping
duty on imports of Meta- Phenylene
Diamene-4-Sulphonic Acid (MPDSA) (hereinafter referred to as the “subject
goods”) originating in or exported from People’s Republic of China (hereinafter
referred to the “subject country”).
Product under Consideration
2.
The product under consideration is Meta Phenylene Diamine 4 Sulphonic Acid
(hereinafter also referred to as “MPDSA” or the “subject goods” or the “product
under consideration”). MPDSA is a greyish white crystal odourless
powder/cake. It has three variants such as MPDSA (Free Acid), MPDSA (Sodium
Salt) & MPDSA (Acetyl). It functions as a chemical, and also used as
intermediate for dyestuff products.
3.
The product under consideration is generally classified under Chapter 29 of the
Customs Tariff Act under sub heading 2922 29 26. It is clarified that the HS
codes are only indicative and the product description shall prevail in all
circumstances.
Like Article
4.
The applicants have submitted that the subject goods produced by them and the
subject goods imported from the subject country are like articles. There is no
known difference between the subject goods exported from the subject country
and that produced by the applicants. The product concerned produced by the
domestic industry and imported from subject country are 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 can use and are using the two interchangeably. 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 and Standing
5.
The Petition has been filed by M/s Chamunda
Industries, Matrushakti Industries and Varahi Intermediates, as domestic industry of the product
under consideration. The applicants’ share in Indian production of product
under consideration is 56.75% during the proposed POI. Apart from the
applicants, there are seven more companies manufacturing the subject goods in
India - Benzo Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., Blue Ark Industries, Anmol Dyestuff
Pvt. Ltd., Pratik Dyes & Intermediaries, Rakesh Chemical Industries, Umiya Chem Intermediates and
Classic Industries.
6.
The applicants have certified that they have neither imported the subject goods
during the entire injury period and proposed period of investigation nor are
related to any of the exporters or importers of the subject goods. Since the
production of the applicants accounts for “a major proportion” in the total
production of the product under consideration in India, the applicants satisfy
the standing and constitute Domestic Industry within the meaning of the Rules.
Countries Involved
7.
The present investigation is in respect of alleged dumping of the product under
consideration from People’s Republic of China.
Normal Value
8.
The applicants have claimed that China PR should be treated as a non-market
economy country and its normal value be determined in accordance with Para 7
and 8 of Annexure I of the Rules. demonstrate
prevalence of market condition related to manufacture, production, and (sales
of subject good in the domestic market and in export to India and other
countries. For this purpose, the producer/exporter, may clarify and provide sufficient
information on the following:
a.
Decision in regard to price, cost, input including raw material, cost of
technology and labour, output, sales and investment,
are without significant state interference and whether cost of major inputs
substantially reflect market value.
b.
Production costs and financial situation does not suffer from any distortion.
c.
The producers/exporters are subject to bankruptcy and property law which
guarantees legal certainty and stability for the operation of the firms.
d.
Exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate.
10.
The applicants have submitted that efforts were made to get
information/evidence about cost and prices of subject goods in the domestic
market of the subject country. In the absence of availability 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 has been estimated on
the basis of cost of production, considering consumption norms of the domestic
industry for raw material and utilities, duly adjusted including selling,
general and administrative expenses and profit. The Authority has prima-facie
considered the normal value of subject goods in subject country on the basis of
constructed values as made available by the applicants for the purpose of this
initiation.
Export Price
11.
The applicants have determined the ex-factory export price on the basis of data
procured from Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics
(hereinafter also referred to as DGCI&S) and has made adjustments on
account of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, port expenses, inland freight and bank charges.
Dumping Margin
12.
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 value of the subject goods
in the subject country is 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.
Injury and Causal Link
13.
The applicants have furnished information on various parameters relating to
injury. The applicants have claimed that domestic industry has suffered
material injury from dumped imports exemplified as also relative to the
production and consumption in India, decline in import prices of the subject
goods, significant price undercutting, price depression, financial losses,
return on investments, cash flow. With regard to consequent impact of the
imports on the domestic industry, it is noted that performance of the domestic
industry has deteriorated in respect of parameters such as profits; return on
capital employed and cash profits. The domestic industry is suffering
significant financial losses, cash losses and negative return on investments.
14.
The applicants have also claimed that imports have spurted from China PR.
Applicant has therefore claimed that the imports are threatening material
injury to the domestic industry. Applicant has submitted that there is
significant increase in imports, decline in import price, significant price
undercutting, price depression as grounds for claiming
threat of material injury to the domestic industry from subject imports.
Initiation of the Anti-Dumping Investigation
15.
And whereas, the Authority prima facie finds that sufficient evidence of
dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject
country; material injury to the domestic industry and causal link between the
alleged dumping and injury exist to justify initiation of an anti- dumping
investigation and accordingly, 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 of the subject goods originating from the subject country and
to recommend the amount of antidumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate
to remove the ‘injury’ to the domestic industry.
Period of Investigation
16.
The petitioners have proposed 2016-17 as the period of investigation for this
investigation. However, in order to have more recent data, the Authority has
decided the period of 15 months (April, 2017 to June, 2017) as the period of
investigation. The injury investigation period will, however, cover the periods
April 2013 – March 2014, April 2014 – March 2015, April 2015 – March 2016 and
the POI.
MPSDA on
Dumping from China – POI Extended to April 2016 to June 2017
[Corrigendum
Notification dated 5 Feb 2018]
Subject:
Initiation of Anti-dumping duty investigation concerning imports of "Meta
Phenylene Diamene-4-Sulphonic Acid (MPDSA)"
originating in or exported from People's Republic of China.
F. No.06/35/2017-DGAD: Having regard to
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 lnjury) Rules,
1995, as amended from time to time, (hereinafter
also referred to as the Rules) thereof, the Designated Authority has issued the
Initiation Notification, vide notification No. 06/35/2017- DGAD dated
24.01.2018 in respect of subject Anti-dumping investigation.
Para
16 of the notice of initiation is substituted as under:
"The petitioners have proposed 2016-17
as the period of investigation for this investigation. However, in order to
have more recent data, the Authority has decided the period of 15 months
(April, 2016 to June, 2017) as the period of investigation. The injury
investigation period will , however, cover the periods
April 2013- March 2014, April 2014- March 2015, April 2015 - March 2016 and the
POI."
Submission of Information
17.
The exporters in the subject country, their government through their Embassy in
India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned and the domestic
industry 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
18.
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 make a non-confidential version of the same available to the other
parties
Time Limit
19.
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 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 AD Rules.
20.
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 publication of this Notification.
The information must be submitted in hard copies as well as soft copies.
Submission of information on confidential basis
21.
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.
22.
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 two (2) sets of each.
23.
The confidential version shall contain all information which are by nature
confidential and/or other information which the supplier of such information
claims as confidential. The information which is 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.
24.
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.
25.
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.
26.
Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or
without a good cause statement on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken
on record by the Authority.
27.
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
28.
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
29. 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.