Dumping
Investigation Initiated on Morpholine from China, EU
and USA
[Ref: F.No.14/41/2010-DGAD dated 7th December 2010]
Subject:
Initiation of Anti-Dumping Duty investigation concerning imports of ‘Morpholine’ originating in or exported from China PR,
European Union and USA.
M/s. Balaji
Amines Ltd., has 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 AD Rules) for
initiation of Anti-Dumping Duty investigation concerning imports of ‘Morpholine’ (hereinafter also referred to as the subject
goods) originating in or exported from China PR, European Union and USA
(hereinafter also referred to as the subject countries).
2. AND WHEREAS, the Authority 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 the Rules 5
of the AD 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. Balaji
Amines Ltd. on behalf of the domestic industry. As per information available on
record, M/s. Balaji Amines Ltd. is the sole producer
of the subject goods in India. Thus, the production of M/s. Balaji
Amines Ltd. accounts for a major proportion of the total domestic production of
the like article and is more than 50% of Indian production of the like article.
The application thus satisfies the requirements of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of
the AD Rules.
Further, M/s. Balaji Amines Ltd. is proposed to be treated as “domestic
industry” within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules.
Product
under consideration
4. The product under consideration is ‘Morpholine’.
It has been stated that Morpholine is an extremely
versatile chemical and is used as a chemical intermediate in the rubber
industry, in corrosion control, and in the synthesis of a large number of
drugs. It is also used for crop protection agents, dyes and optical
brighteners. Morpholine is a solvent for a large
variety of organic materials, including resins, dyes and waxes. It can be used
as a catalyst.
Morpholine is used in the in toiletry and cosmetic products
at concentrations up to 5% (Cosmetic Ingredient). It can be use for in the
several direct and indirect food additive applications. Morpholine
is used as intermediates for rubber accelerators and as corrosion inhibitor in
steam boiler systems. It is used for optical brighteners in detergent
formulations. Morpholine derivatives are used in
rubber vulcanization, stabilization and the manufacture of special high-speed tyres. Morpholine may be released
during rubber processing. Morpholine has volatility
similar to water. Morpholine derivatives such as N-methylmorpholine
and N-ethylmorpholine
are used as Catalysts for the production of polyurethane foams. Morpholine derivatives are also used as analgesics and
local anesthetics, antibiotics, antimycotics and for
plaque control in dentistry. Morpholine is used in
several direct and indirect food additive applications. Morpholine
is used by the cosmetic industry also.
The product falls under
customs classification 2933.39.17. It has, however, been contended that Morpholine has been imported under several Customs
Tariff-head’s classifications. Thus, the Customs classification is indicative
only and is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.
Like Articles
5. 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 differences either in the technical specifications,
quality, functions or end-uses of the dumped imports and the domestically
produced subject goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable
and hence should be treated as ‘like article’ under the AD Rules.
Therefore, for the purpose
of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the applicant in
India is being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the
subject goods being imported from the subject countries.
Subject Countries
6. The countries/territory involved in the present investigation are China PR, European Union and USA.
Normal
value for China PR
The Applicant has submitted
that China PR is a NME. Further, Normal value could not be determined on the
basis of price or constructed value in a market economy third country by them
for the reason that the relevant information is not available to the Applicant.
It has been further submitted that India is an appropriate surrogate country
for Chinese producers. For the purposes of initiation, the Normal value claims
have been moderated by resorting to the Constructed method of determination of
Normal value for exporters/producers from China PR.
Normal value for EU and USA
7. The applicant has constructed the normal values in respect of
subject countries stating that neither they were able to get any documentary
evidence or reliable information with regard to domestic prices of the subject
goods in the subject countries nor the same are available in the public domain.
The Authority has prima-facie considered the normal value of subject goods in
subject countries on the basis of constructed values as made available by the
applicants for the purpose of this initiation.
Export Price
8. The applicant has claimed export prices on the basis of data
obtained from IBIS. Price adjustments have been allowed on account of Ocean
Freight, Marine Insurance, Inland Freight and Port
expenses to arrive at the net export price.
Dumping Margin
9. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence that the normal
values of the subject goods in the subject countries are significantly higher
than the net export prices, prima-facie indicating that the subject goods
originating in or exported from the subject countries are being dumped, to
justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.
Injury and Causal Link
10. 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, price undercutting, price suppression and decline in
profitability, return on capital employed and cash flow for the domestic
industries. There is sufficient evidence of the ‘injury’ being suffered by the
applicant caused by dumped imports from subject countries to justify initiation
of an antidumping investigation.
Period of Investigation
11. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present
investigation is 1st July 2009 to 30th June 2010 (12 months). The injury
investigation period will however cover the periods April 2006-March 2007,
April 2007-March 2008, April 2008-March
09, April 2009–March 2010 and the POI. For threat of material injury, the data beyond the
POI would also be examined.
Submission of information
12. The known exporters in the subject countries and their Governments
through their Embassies in India, importers and users in India known to be
concerned and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable
them to file all information relevant in the form and manner prescribed. Any
other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation
within the time-limit set out below and write to:
The Designated Authority,
Directorate General of
Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties,
Ministry of Commerce &
Industry,
Department of Commerce
Room No.243, Udyog Bhawan,
New Delhi -110107.
Time limit
13. 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 AD Rules.
Submission
of Information on Non-Confidential basis
14. All interested parties shall provide a
confidential and non-confidential summary in terms of Rule 7 (2) of the AD
Rules for the confidential information provided as per Rule 7 (1) of the AD
Rules. 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 information, such information is not susceptible
to summary; a statement of reason thereof is required to be provided.
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 authorise its disclosure in a generalised
or summary form, it may disregard such information.
Inspection
of Public File
15. 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
16. 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.