Glass Fibre (Chopped Strand Mat) from China under Anti-dumping Lens again
· Corning Alleges Circumvention of Import thru Thailand as Value Addition on Second Stage is Absent
· ASEAN Free Trade Agreement and Origin Certificate may Face the Fire
[Initiation Notification (Anti-Circumvention Investigation) dated 12 February 2018]
Subject: Initiation of anti- circumvention investigation concerning the alleged circumvention of anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of “Glass Fibre”, originating and exported from China PR vide Customs Notification No. 48/2016-Customs dated 1st September, 2016.
No7/25/2017 -DGAD: - Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter 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 thereof (hereinafter referred to as the Rules or AD Rules),
2. Whereas, the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), in a sunset review investigation, vide its Final Findings Notification No 15/10/2015-DGAD dated 6th July, 2016, had recommended the imposition of anti- dumping duty on the imports of Glass Fibre originating in or exported from China PR, and the Ministry of Finance, vide Customs Notification No. 48/2016-Customs (ADD) dated 1st September, 2016, had imposed the anti- dumping duty on the imports of Glass Fibre, originating in or exported from China PR.
3. Whereas, in terms of the Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, read with Rule 25 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, M/s Owens-Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner or the Domestic Industry), a major manufacturer of Glass Fibre in India, has filed a petition before the Authority alleging that Glass Fibre, which is the product subject to anti- dumping duty vide Customs Notification No. 48/2016-Customs (ADD) dated 1st September, 2016, is now being circumvented into India. Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co., Ltd produce glass chopped strands mats (CSM, a form of subject goods) from to circumvent the anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of Glass Fibre, originating in or exported from China PR.
Product Under Consideration
4. The product under consideration (PUC) in the present petition is “Chopped Strand Mat (CSM) produced by Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co, Thailand”.
5. The measures currently in force and which are allegedly being circumvented are the anti- dumping measures imposed by the Ministry of Finance vide Customs Notification No. 48/2016-Customs (ADD) dated 1st September, 2016 on the imports of Glass Fibre, originating in or exported from China PR.
Grounds for Initiation
6. The Petitioner claims that the circumvention of the anti- dumping duty levied on the imports of glass fibre originating in or exported from the subject country started after the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imports of Glass Fibre vide Customs Notification No. 30/2011 -Customs (ADD) dated 4th March 2011. This circumvention comes under the category of "product and country circumvention". The Petitioner has submitted that Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co., Ltd, a branch of Sichuan Weibo New Material Group Co., Ltd (China), was founded in 2012, just after imposition of anti-dumping duty on glass fibre from China PR. Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co., Ltd produce glass chopped strands mats (CSM, a form of subject goods) from glass roving (AR, also a form of glass fibre) imported from China and then export it to India. Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co., Ltd is the only glass fibre chopped strand mat unit in Thailand and does not have full- fledged production facilities in Thailand. CSM is the only sub type of glass fibre which requires a two stage processing. Other sub-type of glass fibre attracting anti-dumping duty does not involve two stage processing. Hence, CSM was the only product which could have been processed in Thailand and exported to India. The website of the exporter concerned itself encourages circumvention of anti-dumping duties. The volume of the imports of CSM from Thailand into India has increased and China has declined, since imposition of anti- dumping duty. Also exports of roving from China to Thailand has increased which clearly shows change in pattern of trade since imposition of anti-dumping duty. This circumvention is undermining the remedial effects of the anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of Glass Fibre originating in or exported from the subject country. Even after the imposition of anti- dumping duty on the imports of Glass Fibre originating in or exported from the subject country, the domestic industry continues to suffer injury on account of circumvention of anti-dumping duty through imports of Chopped Strand Mat (CSM) produced by Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co, Thailand.
7. Having satisfied itself on the basis of the prima facie evidence submitted by the domestic industry substantiating the need for an anti-circumvention investigation the anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of glass fibre originating in or exported from the subject country, the Authority has concluded that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to initiate an anti-circumvention investigation of the alleged circumvention of the anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of Glass Fibre originating in or exported from the subject country vide Customs Notification No. 48/2016-Customs (ADD) dated 1st September, 2016 in accordance with Section 9A(1A) of the Act, read with Rule 25 of Antidumping Rules, to investigate as to whether imports of Chopped Strand Mat (CSM) produced by Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co, Thailand are at dumped prices and are causing injury to the domestic industry and the need for extending anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of Glass Fibre originating in or exported from the subject country vide Customs Notification No. 48/2016-Customs (ADD) dated 1st September, 2016 to the imports of Chopped Strand Mat (CSM) produced by Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co, Thailand
8. The country involved in this circumvention investigation is Thailand.
9. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is April, 2016 – March, 2017. The injury investigation period will, however, cover the periods April’2013- March’14, April’2014–March’2015, April’2015-March’2016 and the POI.
Submission of Information:
10. The known exporter in the subject country, the Government of the subject country through its embassy in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the product shall be addressed 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
Department of Commerce, Jeevan Tara Building, 4th Floor
5, Parliament Street
New Delhi -110001
11. 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 by the Authority. 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.
12. Any information relating to the present investigation and any request for hearing 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 communication of initiation 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 Anti-Dumping Rules.
13. 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 regarding the need to continue or otherwise the Anti- dumping measures within 40 days from the communication of initiation of this Notification.
Submission of information on confidential basis
14. 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:
(a) one set marked as Confidential (with title, number of pages, index, etc.), and
(b) the other set marked as Non-Confidential (with title, number of pages, index, etc.).
15. 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 five (5) sets of each.
16. 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 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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
21. 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.
22. 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.