Flax Yarn of below 70 Lea Count
from China under Anti-dumping Probe on Complaint of Jaya Shree Textiles
[Initiation Notification - Case No. OI/3/2018 dated 07.02.2018]
Subject: Initiation
of Anti-dumping
investigation concerning
imports
of ‘Flax Yarn’ originating
in or exported from China
PR.
File No. 6/3/2018-DGAD: M/s. Jaya Shree Textiles (A
unit of Aditya
Birla Nuvo 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 Flax Yarn
of below 70 Lea
count (hereinafter
referred to as the “subject goods”)
originating in or
exported from China PR
(hereinafter referred
to the “subject country”).
Product under consideration
2.
The product under consideration for the purpose of present investigation is “Flax Yarn of below 70 Lea Count (43 Nm)”. Flax yarn of 70 and above lea is specifically excluded from the
scope of the product under consideration. Flax Yarn is a 100% linen yarn. It is a natural cellulosic
fiber with higher conductivity.
3.
The unit of measurement for the PUC in the present investigation is weight in MT. The
product under consideration is generally imported under HS code 5306 1090 and 5306 2090. However, import can also take place under other HS codes, therefore, it is clarified that the HS codes are only indicative and the product description shall prevail in all circumstances.
Like Article
4.
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;
5.
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
country. The two products are comparable
in terms of essential product characteristics such as
physical &
technical characteristics, product specifications, functions & uses, 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.
6.
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 country.
Domestic Industry
& Standing
7.
The Application has been filed by M/s. Jaya Shree Textiles (A unit of Aditya Birla Nuvo
Ltd.), who is the largest producer
of the subject goods in India. The applicant has also submitted support letters from M/s Linen Art Pvt. Ltd., M/s Golden Fibers and M/s Raymond Luxury Cottons Ltd.
who are the producers
or are in the process of production of the
subject goods.
8.
The Authority examined the petition and after noting the total production of the subject goods
in India, found that the production of the petitioner accounts for “a major proportion” in the
total Indian production of the product under consideration, thus the petitioner satisfies the standing and
constitutes Domestic Industry within the meaning of the AD Rules.
Country involved
9.
The present investigation
is in respect of alleged dumping
of the product under consideration from China PR (referred
to as the “subject country”).
Normal Value
10.
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 and
8 of
Annexure I of the
Rules.
11.
The petitioner has submitted that efforts were made to get information/evidence about
cost and prices of subject goods in the
domestic market of the subject country. In the absence of availability of reliable information in the public domain on domestic prices of the subject goods in
the subject country, the Normal value in the subject country
has been estimated on the basis of cost
of production, considering consumption norms
of the domestic industry for raw material and
utilities, duly
adjusted including selling, general and administrative expenses and profit. The Authority has prima-facie considered the normal value of subject goods in subject country
on the basis of constructed
values
as made available by the petitioner for
the purpose of this initiation.
12.
However, while submitting the questionnaire response producers/exporters may have to demonstrate prevalence of market condition related to manufacturing, production, and sales of subject good in the domestic market and in export to India
and
other countries. For
this
purpose, the producer/exporter,
may
clarify and
provide sufficient information on the following:
a. Decision in regard to price, cost, input including
raw material, cost of technology and labour, output, sales and investment, are without
significant state interference and whether cost
of major inputs substantially reflect
market
value.
b.
Production costs and financial situation does not suffer for any distortion.
c. The producer/exporter are subject to bankruptcy and property law which guarantees legal certainty and
stability for the
operation of the firms.
d.
Exchange rate conversions are carried
out at the market rate.
Export Price
13.
The petitioner has determined export price using import data from secondary source, i.e
Info
drive, to assess the volume
and
value of imports of subject goods in India. Price adjustments have
been claimed on account of commission, inland freight expenses, port expenses and bank charges, which has been
accepted for the purpose of initiation. The Authority will call for 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 in the course
of investigation.
Dumping Margin
14.
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 country 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 country. The dumping margin is estimated
to be above deminimus and
also substantial
for the subject country.
Injury and Causal Link
15.
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 country to justify
initiation of an antidumping investigation.
Initiation of anti-dumping
investigations
16.
And whereas, Authority prima facie finds that sufficient 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 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
17.
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
18.
The known exporters 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 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.
19.
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
20.
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.
21.
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
22.
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.
23.
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
such non-
confidential information. Two (2) copies of the confidential version and two (2) copies of the non-
confidential version
must
be submitted by all the interested parties.
24.
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.
25.
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.
26.
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.
27.
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
28.
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
29.
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.