Dumping
Investigation Initiated on CR Steel Narrows, 200 Series having Width below 600 mm from
China, UAE and USA
[Ref:
F.No.14/21/2010-DGAD dated 16th August 2010]
Subject: Initiation of Anti-dumping
investigation concerning imports of Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Flat Products
of 200 series having width below 600 mm originating in or exported from China
PR, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and USA
M/s Hisar Metal Industries Ltd., M/s Quality Foils
(India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s JSL Ltd. have filed an application 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 Rules) for initiation of Anti-Dumping investigation concerning imports of
Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Flat Products of 200 series having width below 600
mm originating in or exported from China PR, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and
USA (hereinafter referred to as subject countries).
2. AND
WHEREAS, the Authority finds that sufficient evidence of dumping of the subject
goods by the subject countries, ‘injury’ to the domestic industry and causal
link between the 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 the Rules 5 of the said 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
application has been filed by M/s Hisar Metal Industries Ltd., M/s Quality
Foils (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s JSL Ltd. These producers have provided
information relevant to the present investigation. The production of the
applicant companies constitutes more than 50 % of total Indian production. The
Authority has determined that (a) production of the applicant companies
constitutes a major proportion in Indian production and; (b) the application
has been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry.
4. The
Authority after examining the above, prima facie determines that the applicants
constitute domestic Industry within the meaning of the rule 2(b) read with 2(d)
and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 of
the Rules.
Product under consideration
5. The
product under consideration is ‘Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel of
200 series having a width of less than 600mm including all austenitic grades
having nickel content of less than 6%’.
6. The
subject goods are used for manufacture of kitchen wares, white goods (consumer
durables), hand-rails, process equipments, pipes & tubes, automotive components,
industrial fabrication, etc.
7. The
subject products are classified under Chapter Heading 7220.20.10, 7220.20.21,
7220.20.22, 7220.20.29, 7220.20.90, 7220.90.10, 7220.90.21, 7220.90.22,
7220.90.29 and 7220.90.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Customs
classification is indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the
present investigation.
Like Articles
8. The
applicant has claimed that the goods produced by them are “like articles” to
the goods originating in or exported from the subject countries. There are no
differences either in the technical specifications, quality, functions or
end-uses of the dumped imports and the domestically produced subject goods. The
subject goods produced by the domestic industry and the imports from subject
countries are comparable and technically & commercially substitutable.
Therefore, for the purpose of investigation, Cold Rolled Flat Products of
Stainless Steel of 200 series of the description mentioned above by the
applicants are being treated as like articles to the subject goods being
imported from subject countries within the meaning of the Anti Dumping Rules.
Countries involved
9. The
countries involved in the present investigation are China PR, United Arab
Emirates (UAE), and USA.
Dumping
Normal Value
10. The
applicants have claimed that China PR is being treated as non-market economy
and therefore, for the present investigation China is to be treated as
non-market economy. The normal value for China under such a situation ought to
be determined in accordance with Para 7 of Annexure I of the Anti Dumping
Rules. The applicants have proposed Japan as an appropriate market economy
third country for the determination of normal value. They have further stated
that the applicants were not able to get any documentary evidence or published
information for prices in Japan and therefore constructed the normal value for
China. For UAE and USA, the applicants have also constructed the normal values
stating that they were not able to get any documentary evidence or reliable
information with regard to domestic prices in the subject countries nor the
same are available in the public domain.
11. For the
purpose of initiation, the Authority has prima-facie considered the normal
value of subject goods in subject countries as claimed by the applicant.
Export Price
12. Since
import data from DGCI&S is not available for the whole Period of
Investigation, as stated by the petitioner, the export prices have been claimed
on the basis of transaction-wise import data obtained from Cybex Exim Solutions
Pvt. Limited. Adjustments have been claimed on ocean freight, marine insurance,
port handling and commission to arrive at the export price at ex-factory level.
The Authority notes that there is sufficient prima facie evidence of the net
export price for the subject goods from the subject countries.
Dumping Margin
13. There is
sufficient evidence that the normal values of the subject goods in the subject
countries are significantly higher than the net export prices indicating
prima-facie that the subject goods are being dumped by the exporters from the
subject countries. Normal value and export price have been compared at
ex-factory level which shows significant dumping margin in respect of subject
countries.
Injury and Causal Link
14. The
petitioner has furnished information on various parameters relating to material
injury. The applicant has furnished prima facie evidence regarding the injury
having taken place as a result of the alleged dumping from subject countries in
the form of fall in profitability, return on capital employed, cash flow,
market share, effect on domestic prices and significant price undercutting and
price underselling. There is sufficient prima-facie evidence of the material
injury being suffered by the domestic industry and the same is being caused by
dumped imports from subject countries.
Period of Investigation
15. For the
purpose of initiation, the Authority has considered the information provided
for the period 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2009 (12 months). However, for
purpose of the present investigation, period of investigation (POI) is taken
from 1st January 2009 to 31st March 2010 (15 months). The injury period
will however cover the periods April, 2006-March, 2007, April, 2007-March, 08
April, 2008–March, 2009 and the POI.
Submission of information
16. The
exporters and importers known to be concerned and domestic industry are being
informed separately to enable them to file all information relevant in the form
and manner prescribed. Any other party interested to participate in the present
investigation may write to:
The Designated Authority
(Directorate General of
Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties)
Government of India
Ministry of Commerce
& Industry
Department of Commerce
Udyog Bhavan, New
Delhi-110011.
Time limit
17. 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 publication of this notification. If no information is received within the
prescribed time limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority
may record their findings on the basis of the facts available on record in
accordance with the Rules supra.
Submission of Information on Non-Confidential basis
18. All
interested parties shall provide a confidential and non-confidential summary in
terms of Rule 7 (2), for the confidential information provided as per Rule 7
(1) of the Rules supra. The non-confidential version or non-confidential
summary of the confidential information should be in sufficient detail to
provide a meaningful understanding of the information to the other interested
parties. If in the opinion of the party providing such information, such information
is not susceptible to summary; a statement of reason thereof is required to be
provided.
19. Notwithstanding
anything contained in para above, 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 a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.
Inspection of Public File
20. 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.
21. All
interested parties shall provide a confidential and non-confidential summary in
terms of Rule 7 (2), for the confidential information provided as per Rule 7
(1) of the Rules supra.
22. 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.