Sodium Hydrosulphite from China – Dumping Duty Cut by 2/3^rd After Mid-Term Review

[Customs Notification No. 133 dated 9^th December 2009]

Whereas in the matter of import of Sodium Hydrosulphite (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), falling under heading 2831 and 2832 of the First Schedule lo the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), originating in, or exported from the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the subject country), the designated authority in its preliminary findings vide notification No. 39/1/2000-DGAD dated the 2nd January, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated the 2nd January, 2001 had come to the conclusion that -

(a) Sodium Hydrosulphite originating in, or exported from, the People's Republic of China, had been exported to India below its normal value, resulting in dumping;

(b) the Indian industry had suffered material injury;

and had recommended imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country;

And whereas, on the basis of the aforesaid findings of the designated authority, the Central Government had imposed provisional anti-dumping duty on the subject goods, vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 28/2001-Customs, dated the 12th March, 2001, published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide G.S.R. No. 173(E), dated the 12th March, 2001;

And whereas, the designated authority, in its final findings vide notification No. 39/1/2000-DGAD, dated the 12th September, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated the 13th September, 2001, had come to the conclusion that-

(a) Sodium Hydrosulphite originating in, or exported from, the People's Republic of China, had been exported to India below its normal value, thereby resulting in dumping;

(b) the domestic industry had suffered material injury;

(c) the injury had been caused to the domestic industry by dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China;

(d) Even though one of the exporters, namely M/s Guangdong Zhongcheng Chemicals Co. Ltd. the People's Republic of China had expressed its willingness to give price undertaking, the designated authority could not explore the same as the exporter shown its unwillingness subsequently;

and had recommended the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country;

And whereas, on the basis of the aforesaid final findings of the designated authority, the Central Government had imposed final anti-dumping duty on the subject goods vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 114/2001-CUSTOMS, dated the 2nd November, 2001 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide G.S.R. No. 820(E), dated the 2nd November, 2001;

And whereas, the designated authority vide notification No. 15/16/2005-DGAD, dated the 5th October, 2005, has initiated Sunset review, in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 (51 of 1975), in the matter of continuation of anti-dumping duty on subject goods, originating in, or exported from, the subject country imposed vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No 114/2001-CUSTOMS, dated the 2nd November, 2001 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide G.S.R. No. 820(E), dated the 2nd November, 2001;

And whereas, the designated authority had requested for extension of antidumping duty on import of subject goods, originating in, or exported from, the subject country, in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995, pending the completion of the Sunset review;

And whereas on the basis of the aforesaid request of the designated authority, the Central Government had extended anti-dumping duty on the subject goods up to and inclusive of 11th March, 2007, vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 25/2006-CUSTOMS, dated the 10th March, 2006 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide G.S.R. No. 153(E), dated the 10th March, 2006;

And whereas, the designated authority, in its final findings in Sunset review vide notification No. 15/16/2005-DGAD, dated the 6th September, 2006, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated the 7th September, 2006, had come to the conclusion that-

(a) the subject goods had been exported to India from the subject country below its normal value resulting into dumping and there was likelihood of continued dumping of the subject goods, if anti- dumping from subject country Is withdrawn;

(b) the domestic industry continued to suffer material injury on account of the dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject country; and

(c) the authority considered it appropriate that anti-dumping duties was required to be imposed as modified in respect of imports from the subject country, as withdrawal thereof would lead to continuation of dumping and injury;

and had recommended continuation of anti-dumping duty, at specified rates in respect of imports of the subject goods, originating in, or exported from the subject country in order to remove injury to the domestic industry;

And whereas on the basis of the aforesaid final findings in Sunset review, of the designated authority, the Central Government had imposed final anti-dumping duty for a period of five years on the subject goods vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 108/2006-Customs, dated the 16th October, 2006 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide G.S.R. No., 641(E), dated the 16th October, 2006;

And whereas, the designated authority vide notification No. 15/21/2008-DGAD, dated the 1st October, 2008, has initiated Mid term review, in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the said (51 of 1975), and in pursuance of rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 in the matter of continuation of anti-dumping duty on subject goods, originating in, or exported from, the subject country imposed vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 108/2006-CUSTOMS, dated the 16th October, 2006 published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide G.S.R. No. 641(E), dated the 16th October, 2006;

And whereas the designated authority, in its final findings in mid-term review, vide notification No. 15/21/2008-DGAD, dated the 31st August, 2009, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, section 1, dated the 31st August, 2009, has come to the conclusion that-

i. The subject goods are entering the Indian market at dumped prices and dumping margins of the subject goods imported from the subject country is substantial and above de-minimis.

ii. The Authority notes that during the sunset review, the duty was recommended in the form of reference price. It has been the contention of the domestic industry that this product is landing in India almost at the reference price recommended during the sunset review and the duty should be in fixed form. In respect of export price, as noted at para 22/ 23 of the Disclosure statement, the petitioner has highlighted (based on the DGC&IS information and of China Customs data) that the prices at which the material has been reported for customs clearance (in India) are not the prices at which the goods have been exported from China. As per the DGC&IS data, the imports during POI were 2311 MT at C1F price of US Dollar 944.61 per MT whereas the China Customs shows FOB export price of US Dollar 755.37 per MT. After adjusting for ocean freight, insurance and other expenses, there still remains a gap of hundred plus US Dollar. Therefore, the domestic industry contended that the majority of the imports have landed at prices just to match the bench mark price. In view of this position, the DA notes that the duty in the form of reference price has not been able to provide the desired relief.

iii. Although the production capacity, production, and sales of the domestic industry have gone up and the profitability has become less negative during the POI vis-a-vis the base year, significant increase in import volumes at dumped prices has resulted in substantial price undercutting and price suppression. The situation of domestic industry continues to be vulnerable and dumped imports from the subject country continue to cause a substantial injury to the domestic industry. Should the present anti dumping duties be revoked, injury to the domestic industry is likely to continue and intensify.

and has recommended continued imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on modified rates on imports of the subject goods originating in, or exported from, the subject country;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act read with rules 18 and 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 108/2006-CUSTOMS, dated the 16th October, 2006, G.S.R, 641(E), dated the 16 October, 2006, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, on the basis of aforesaid finding and recomendation of the designated authority, hereby imposes on the subject goods, the description of which is specified in column (3) of the Table below, falling under tariff item or sub-heading of the First Schedule to the said Customs Tariff Act as specified in the corresponding entry in column (2), the specification of which is specified in column (4), originating in the country as specified in the corresponding entry in column (5),and exported from the countries as specified in the corresponding entry in column (6), and produced by the producers as specified in the corresponding entry in column (7), and exported by the exporters as specified in the corresponding entry in column (8), and imported into India, an anti-dumping duty at a rate which is equal to the amount as specified in the corresponding entry in column (9), in the currency as specified in the corresponding entry in column (11) and per unit of measurement as specified in the corresponding entry in column (10) of the said Table.

Table
SNo	Tariff Item	Description of Goods	Specification	Country of Origin	Country of Export	Producer	Exporter	Amount (in USD)	Unit of Measurement	Currency
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)
1.	2831 and 2832	Sodium Hydrosulphite	All Grades	Peoples Republic of China	Any	Any	Any	372.19	Metric tonne	US Dollar
2.	2831 and 2832	Sodium Hydrosulphite	All Grades	Any	Peoples Republic of China	Any	Any	372.19	Metric tonne	US Dollar

2. This notification shall remain in force upto and inclusive of the 15th October, 2011 unless the notification is revoked earlier. The anti-dumping duty shall be paid in Indian currency.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, "rate of exchange" applicable for the purposes of calculation of anti-dumping duty shall be the rate which is specified in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), issued from time to time, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and the relevant date for determination of the rate of exchange shall be the date of presentation of the bill of entry under section 46 of the said Customs Act.

[F.No. 354/6/2001-TRU (Pt.III)]