China Origin Aluminium Radiators, Aluminium Radiator Sub-Assemblies and Core including CKD or SKD in Anti-dumping Investigation on Complaint of Banco Products, Baroda
[Anti-dumping Initiation Notification F. No. 14/24/2015-DGAD dated 1st January 2016]
Subject: Initiation of Anti-Dumping Duty investigation concerning imports of “Aluminium Radiators, Aluminium Radiator Sub- Assemblies and Aluminum Radiator Core” originating in or exported from China.
M/s Banco Products (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’ or “ the applicant”) has filed an application (also referred to as petition) 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 “Aluminium Radiators, Aluminium Radiator Sub- Assemblies and Aluminum Radiator Core, including in CKD or SKD conditions, for use in used/on road vehicles and generator sets, excluding aluminum radiators meant for use in new automobiles” (hereinafter also referred to as subject goods) from China PR (hereinafter also referred to as subject country).
2. AND WHEREAS, the Authority finds that sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country, injury to the domestic industry and causal link between the dumping and injury exists to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation. The Authority hereby initiates an investigation into the alleged dumping, and consequent injury to the domestic industry in terms of the Rule 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 Banco Products (India) Ltd. As per the details furnished, the applicant accounts for a major proportion of the total domestic production of the subject goods constituting more than 69% of Indian production. On the basis of available information the Authority notes that the applicant company constitutes a major proportion in Indian production. The Authority, therefore, determines that the applicant constitutes domestic industry within the meaning of the Rule 2 (b) and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules supra.
Product under consideration
4. The product under consideration in the present petition is “Aluminium Radiators, Aluminium Radiator Sub -Assemblies and Aluminum Radiator Core, including in CKD or SKD conditions, for use in used/on road vehicles and generator sets, excluding aluminum radiators meant for use in new automobiles”. Aluminium Radiators are classified in Chapter 87 under customs subheading no. 87089100 of Schedule I of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, the said Customs classification is indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.
5. The petitioner has submitted that there is no known difference in product produced by the petitioner and exported from the subject country. Both products have comparable characteristics in terms of parameters such as physical characteristics, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification, etc. Comparison of essential product properties in respect of domestic product and imported product would show that the goods produced by the domestic industry are identical to the imported goods in terms of essential product properties.
6. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the applicant in India are being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being imported from the subject country.
7. The country involved in the present investigation is China PR
8. In view of the Non-market economy claims by the petitioner the Authority has prima facie considered the Constructed Normal Value in China, based on cost of manufacturing the subject goods, in terms of Para 7 & 8 of the Annexure 1 to the said Rules as amended. However, the individual exporters may rebut this presumption and the Authority shall examine the market economy claims of individual exporters in terms of the relevant Rules.
9. The petitioner has submitted that even though the product under consideration has a dedicated customs classification, the information published by the DGCIS could not be adopted for determination of volume and value of imports of product concerned in India as segregation of subject goods for various vehicles was not possible. The petitioner has procured transaction-wise information on imports of the product under consideration from IBIS. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of export price of the subject goods in the subject countries. During the course of investigation, the Authority will also analyse transaction-wise import data from Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics (DGCI&S).
10. 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
11. The applicant has claimed that they have suffered material injury and have furnished evidence regarding injury having taken place as a result of the alleged dumping from subject countries in terms of increase in imports in absolute terms, decline in production, sales, capacity utilization, deterioration in profits, and return on capital employed and cash profit etc. The applicant has also claimed adverse price effects as evidenced by price suppression. The Authority considers that there is sufficient evidence of ‘injury’ being suffered by the applicant caused by dumped imports of subject goods from subject country to justify initiation of an antidumping investigation.
Period of Investigation
12. The period of investigation for the present investigation is from 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015. However, the injury investigation period will cover the periods April 2011-March 2012, April 2012 to March 2013, April 2013 to March 2014 and the Period of Investigation (POI).
Submission of information
13. 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,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce
Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street
14. 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
15. 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 nonconfidential 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.
16. 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
17. 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.
18. 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.