DGTR Initiates
Investigation on Aluminium and Zinc Coated Flat Products from China, Vietnam
and Korea on Complaint of JSW Steel
[Initiation
Notification - Case No. (O.I.) 04/2019 dated 2 April 2019]
Subject:
Initiation of Anti-dumping investigation on the imports of “Aluminium and Zinc
coated flat products” originating in or exported from China PR, Vietnam and
Korea RP.
F.
No. 6/4/2019-DGTR: M/s JSW Steel coated Products Limited, (hereinafter referred
to as “petitioner/Applicant”) has filed an application 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 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 initiation of anti-dumping investigation and imposition of
anti-dumping duty concerning imports of flat rolled product of steel, plated or
coated with alloy of Aluminum and Zinc, from China PR, Vietnam and Korea RP
(hereinafter also referred to as the ‘subject countries’).
Product under consideration
2. The
product under consideration (PUC) for the purpose of present investigation is:
“Flat rolled product of
steel, plated or coated with alloy of Aluminium and Zinc. This alloy of
Aluminium and Zinc may contain one or more additional elements which in
individual or in combination shall not exceed 3% by weight.”
3. The
PUC may be in coil form or not in coil form whether or not plain, corrugated or
in profiled form. The PUC may be skin-passed / processed on temper-mill or non-skin-passed
whether or not surface treated with or without additional non- metallic
coating. PUC may be supplied in various trade names including but not limited
to Alu-Zinc, Al-Zn, Zinc Aluminum, Aluminum Zinc, Zincalume, Galvalume
etc.
4. The
PUC offers resistance to corrosion, and is used in many applications and
sectors including but not limited to infrastructure projects, solar power
projects, roofing, walling decking, cladding and framing, white goods and
appliances, furniture and substrate for colour coated
steel.
5. PUC
does not include the following products: -
i. Flat rolled steel products coated with Zinc
without addition of Aluminium;
ii. Flat rolled
color coated steel products
6. The
PUC falls under tariff items 72106100, 72125090, 72259900 and 72269990 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The PUC is also being imported
under other Customs Tariff Items 72101290, 72103090, 72104900, 72106900,
72107000, 72109090, 72121090, 72122090, 72123090, 72124000, 72169910, 72255010,
72259100, 72259200, 72269930 etc. The customs classification is indicative only
and is in no way binding on the scope of the present
investigation.
Like Article
7. Rule
2(d) with regard to like article provides as under: -
"like article"
means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article
under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such
article, another article which although not alike in all respects, has
characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation;
8. The
petitioner has submitted that the PUC produced by the petitioner company and
the PUC imported from the subject countries are like articles. There is no
known difference between the PUC exported from subject countries and that
produced by the petitioner. PUC produced by the petitioner and imported from subject
countries 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 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.
9.
Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods
produced by the petitioner in India are being treated
as ‘Like Article’ within the meaning of the Rule 2 (d) to the subject goods
being imported from the subject countries.
Domestic Industry & standing
10.
The Application has been filed by M/s JSW Steel Coated
Products Limited, as domestic industry of the product under consideration.
According to the Petitioner, they are the major producer of the PUC in India,
account for more than 60% of the total production in India. The petitioner has
certified that there are no imports of the product under consideration by the
petitioner or any of its related party from the subject countries and they are
not related either to any exporter or producer of the
PUC in the subject countries or any importer of the PUC in India.
11.
Apart from the petitioner, there are three other producers of the PUC in India,
namely, M/s. Tata BlueScope Steel Private Limited, M/s. Tata Steel BSL Limited
and M/s. Asian Colour Coated Ispat
Limited. M/s However, M/s. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited has not produced the PUC from 2017 onwards.
12.
The Authority, therefore, determines that the petitioner
who presently holds a “major proportion” of the total domestic production,
constitutes an eligible domestic industry in terms of Rule 2 (b) and also
satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules.
Countries involved
13.
The countries involved in the present investigation are China PR, Vietnam and Korea
RP.
Normal Value
14.
The petitioner has claimed that China PR and Vietnam should
be treated as a non-market economy countries and normal value in case of
China PR and Vietnam should be determined in accordance with para-7 of Annexure
I of the Rules. The petitioner has claimed normal value for the two countries on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted.
15.
The Petitioner has also submitted that there are significant market distortions
prevailing in the steel industry in China PR due to significant state
influence, etc. The petitioner has requested the Authority not to accept the
costs and prices prevailing in China PR for determining the normal value unless
producers/ exporters in China PR are able to demonstrate that their costs and
prices are not distorted. The Petitioner has also
submitted that European Commission in its recently published report has
examined the market distortions that exist in specific sectors in China PR and
has found that there exists countrywide market distortions related to land,
energy, capital, raw materials and labour in China
PR.
16.
Accordingly, while submitting the questionnaire response producers/exporters
from China PR and Vietnam have to demonstrate prevalence of market condition
related to manufacturing, production, and sales of subject good in the domestic
market and in export to India and other countries. For this purpose, the
producer/exporter from China PR and Vietnam, 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 producer/exporter
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.
17.
Further, the petitioner has constructed the normal value for Korea RP based on
the domestic price of Hot Rolled Coil prevailing in Korea RP and other raw
material cost, conversion cost and other expenses as incurred by the Applicant
in India duly adjusted for reasonable profit. The Authority has,
therefore, for the purpose of the initiation, decides to proceed with the
normal value as constructed by the petitioner.
Export Price
18.
The applicant has computed the export price on the basis of
data published by DGCI&S, Kolkata. Price adjustments have been claimed on
account of ocean freight, marine insurance and port handling expenses, inland
freight, bank charges, commission/traders profit, and non-refundable VAT (in
case of China PR only). There is sufficient prima facie evidence with regard to
the net export prices claimed by the petitioners.
Dumping Margin
19.
The normal value and the export price have been compared
at ex-factory level, which prima facie show significant dumping margin in
respect of the subject goods from the subject countries. There is sufficient
prima facie evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in the subject
countries is 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 countries.
Injury and Causal Link
20.
Information furnished by the petitioner has been considered
for assessment of injury to the domestic industry. The petitioner 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
suppression, price underselling, capacity utilization, profitability, cash
profits and return on capital employed. There is sufficient prima facie
evidence of the ‘injury’ being suffered by the domestic industry caused by
dumped imports from subject countries to justify initiation of an antidumping
investigation.
Initiation of Anti-Dumping
investigations
21.
And whereas the Authority prima facie finds that sufficient evidence of dumping
of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries;
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
Period of Investigation
22.
The period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is from 1st October 2017 to 30th September 2018. The injury
investigation period will, however, cover the periods
April 2015-March 2016, April 2016-March 2017, April 2017-March 2018 and the
POI.
Submission of information
23.
The known exporters in the subject countries and their Government through their
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.
24.
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 Trade
Remedies, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Government
of India
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New
Delhi-110001
25.
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
26.
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 Rules.
27.
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
28.
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.).
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
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.
32.
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.
33.
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.
34.
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
35.
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
36.
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.
File
No. 6/4/2019-DGTR