Anti-dumping Investigation on Di Methyl Formamide (DMF)
from China, Germany, and Saudi Arabia Initiated on Complaint of Balaji Amines
Ltd
[Initiation Notification dated 22 January 2018]
Subject: Initiation of Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ‘Di Methyl Formamide’
(DMF) originating
in or exported from China
PR, Germany
and Saudi
Arabia.
File No. 6/37/2017-DGAD: M/s Balaji Amines Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the 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
‘Di Methyl Formamide’ (DMF) (hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods”) originating in
or exported from China PR, Germany and Saudi Arabia (hereinafter referred to the “subject countries”).
2.
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.
Product under consideration
3.
The product under consideration for the purpose of present investigation is “Di Methyl
Formamide (DMF)”. It is a colorless, high boiling polar aprotic
solvent with a characteristic
odor. It is stable
on heating and under its distillation temperature range and is freely miscible
with water, alcohols, ethers, ketones, ester, carbon disulfide
and
chlorinated and aromatic hydrocarbons.
4.
The PUC is used as a solvent in pharmaceuticals
manufacturing,
Acrylic
Polymers manufacturer and pesticides formulations. It is used as a feedstock for synthesis of derivatives of DMF.
5.
The product under
consideration is classified under Chapter 29 of
the Customs Tariff Act. The PUC has a specific HS code 2921 1110 under Chapter 29 of
Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is clarified that the HS codes are only indicative and the product description shall prevail in all
circumstances.
Like Article
6.
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;
7.
Petitioner has claimed that there is no known difference in the subject goods produced by the Indian industry and the product under consideration produced and exported from the subject
countries. The two products are 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. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by
the petitioner in India are being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being imported from
the subject countries.
Domestic Industry
& Standing
8.
The Application has been filed by M/s Balaji Amines Ltd., who is presently the only producer of subject goods in India. As per the information available on record, there were
2 producers in India namely M/s Rashtriya Chemical &
Fertilizers Ltd. and M/s Balaji Amines, however, M/s RCF has closed their production. M/s Balaji
Amines Ltd. have not imported the PUC from the subject countries and are not related either to any exporter or producer of the PUC in the subject countries or
any importer of the PUC in India.
9.
The Authority, therefore, determines that the petitioner who presently holds 100% share of 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 supra.
Countries involved
10. The present investigation is in respect
of alleged dumping
of the product under consideration from China PR, Germany and
Saudi Arabia (referred
to as the “subject countries”).
Normal Value
11.
Petitioner has claimed that China should be treated as a non-market economy and normal
value in case of China should be determined in accordance with para-7 of Annexure I of the
Rules. The petitioner
has
claimed normal value on the basis of cost of production in India, duly
adjusted; stating
that consideration of cost or price in a market economy third countries is not available at
this stage.
12.
Further, the Petitioner has also constructed the normal value for Germany and Saudi
Arabia on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted on the grounds as they were neither able to get any
documentary evidence from published sources, nor reliable information with regard to domestic prices of the subject goods in the said countries.
13.
The Authority has, therefore, constructed the normal value for all exporters/producers from subject countries based on raw material prices and consumption norms of the domestic
industry, estimates of conversion costs, selling, general and administrative
expenses and
reasonable profit margin for the purpose of
this initiation.
Export Price
14.
The petitioner has determined export price using import data from secondary source, i.e Export
Genius, to assess the
volume and value of
imports of subject goods in India. Price
adjustments have been claimed on account of Ocean freight, Marine insurance, Inland freight,
D/O Charges, Handling
& clearing charges, which
has been accepted
for the purpose of initiation. The Authority
will call or the data from DGCI&S during the course of investigation.
Also the Authority would like to rely on data of exporter in case the same are furnished and verified.
Dumping Margin
15.
The normal value has been compared with the export price at ex-factory level. There is
sufficient prima facie evidence that
the normal value of the
subject goods in the subject countries are 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. The dumping margin is
estimated to be
above deminimus for all the subject
countries.
Injury and Causal Link
16.
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. 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
17.
And whereas, 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 Para 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 (POI)
18.
The period of investigation (POI) is from 1st October
2016 to 30th September 2017.
However, for the purpose of analyzing
injury, the data of previous three years, i.e. Apr’14-
Mar’15,
Apr’15-Mar’16, Apr’16-Mar’17
and the period
of investigation will be considered.
Submission of Information
19.
The known exporters in the subject countries, the Government of the subject countries through its embassy in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the product are being addressed separately
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,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building,
5 Parliament Street, New
Delhi -110001.
20.
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 below. Any
party making any confidential submission before the Authority is required to submit a non-confidential version of the same
to be made available to the other
parties.
Time Limit
21.
Any information relating to the present review 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 publication 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.
22.
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 date of initiation of this investigation.
Submission of information
on confidential basis
23.
In
case confidentiality is claimed
on any part of the questionnaire response/ submissions,
the same must be submitted in two separate sets (a)marked as Confidential (with title, index,
number of pages, etc.) and (b) other set marked as Non- Confidential (with title, index, number of
pages, etc.). All the information
supplied must be clearly marked as either “confidential” or “non-confidential” at
the
top of each page and accompanied
with soft copies.
24.
Information supplied without any
confidential marking shall
be treated as non-
confidential and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other interested parties to inspect
any
5 such non-confidential information.
Two (2) copies of the confidential version and two (02)
copies of the non-confidential version
must be submitted by all the interested parties.
25.
For
information claimed as confidential, 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 and/or why summarization
of such information is not possible.
26.
The non-confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential version with the
confidential information preferably
indexed or blanked out /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, parties submitting the
confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible to summarization;
a statement of reasons why
summarization is not possible must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.
27.
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 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.
28.
Any
submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or without a good cause statement on the confidentiality claim may
not be taken on record by the Authority. 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
29. In terms of rule 6(7) of the Rules,
any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential version
of the evidences
submitted by other
interested parties.
Non-cooperation
30.
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 declare such interested party as non-cooperative and record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such
recommendations
to the Central Government as
deemed fit.
F.No.6/37/2017-DGAD