Imports of Sodium Nitrite from European Union-Mid-Term Review investigation initiated
Dated 11th December, 2017 | Copy of | Anti-Dumping Investigation Notification Sl.106 |
(Mid-Term Review Investigation)
Initiation of Mid-Term Review investigation concerning imports of
“Sodium Nitrite” originating in or exported from European Union.
Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also 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, as amended from time to time, (hereinafter also referred to as the Rules) thereof;
The original investigation
1. Whereas, having regard to the above Act and the Rules, the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority) initiated an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Sodium Nitrite (hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods or product concerned) originating in or exported from European Union and Taiwan, vide Notification No.54/1/2001-DGAD dated November 02, 2001. The Preliminary Findings were notified on February 01, 2002 and the same were imposed by Ministry of Finance vide Notification No.34/2002-Customs dated March 28, 2002. The Authority notified final findings on October 28, 2002 recommending definitive antidumping duty on the subject imports. The definitive anti dumping duties on the subject goods imported from both the name countries were imposed by the Department of Revenue vide Notification No.132/2002-Customs dated November 29, 2002.
The First Sunset Review
2. Subsequently, the Authority initiated sunset review investigations vide Notification No.15/6/ 2005-DGAD dated March 06, 2007 concerning imports from European Union (hereinafter also referred to as subject country). The Authority recommended continued imposition of definitive anti dumping duties on the subject imports from the subject country vide notification No.15/6/2005-DGAD, dated March 03, 2008 and Ministry of Finance extended definitive anti-dumping duty vide notification No.49/2008-Customs, dated the April 11, 2008 on all imports of the subject goods from the subject country.
The Second Sunset Review
3. Subsequently, the Authority initiated second sunset review investigations vide Notification No.15/1009/2012-DGAD dated March 23, 2013. The Authority recommended continued imposition of definitive anti dumping duties on the subject imports from the subject country vide Notification No.15/1009/2012-DGAD, dated May 12, 2014 and Ministry of Finance extended definitive anti-dumping duty vide notification No.37/2014-Customs, dated August 08, 2014 on imports of the subject goods from the subject country.
The other related Anti-Dumping Investigation
4. In addition to the anti-dumping duty on European Union, the subject goods imported from China are also attracting anti-dumping duty since the year 2000.
Request for initiation of Mid-Term Review
5. Deepak Nitrite Limited has submitted an application requesting for initiation of a review of the antidumping duties imposed on the imports of the subject goods from the subject country in accordance with section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 read with Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The applicant is an interested party as it is a producer of the like article in India. The applicant commands a major proportion in Indian production. The applicant has claimed that the circumstances that were prevalent during the period of investigation of the previous investigation have changed significantly leading to a situation where the existing anti-dumping duties are no longer effective and that there is need of enhancement of quantum of the anti-dumping duty in force.
Grounds for Review
6. The Applicant has submitted that the existing measures are insufficient to counteract the dumping which is causing injury; that significant volume of imports at dumped prices are entering India in spite of anti-dumping duty being in force; that the current imports from European Union are at significant dumped prices. The applicant has further submitted that the subject imports are causing significant price undercutting even at the existing levels of antidumping duty, the current injury margin is substantially higher than the current anti dumping duty in force.
7. The applicant 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 of the domestic industry for POI period. The estimation has been duly adjusted including selling, general and administrative expenses and profit.
8. The applicant has claimed determination of export price as the average import price from subject country on the basis of data procured from DGCI&S. For fair comparison between the normal value and export price, it is necessary to compare the two at the same level of trade. The export prices being calculated at the CIF level, have been adjusted for ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, port expenses, inland freight and bank charges.
9. 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 is higher than the ex-factory export price, indicating 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 de-minimis.
Injury and Causal Link
10. Information furnished by the applicant has been considered for assessment of injury to the domestic industry. The applicant 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, price undercutting and depression, price underselling and consequent significant adverse impact in terms of less profit as compared to the exports done by the applicant, low return on capital employed and piled up inventories. The injury margin has undergone change as a result of increased non-injurious price and decreased landed price. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the circumstances that were prevalent during the period of investigation of the previous investigation have changed significantly leading to a situation where the existing anti-dumping duties are no longer effective and that there is need for enhancement of quantum of the anti-dumping duty in force.
(i) Initiation of the Review
11. Whereas, having regard to the above Rules, the Authority finds sufficient prima facie evidence of changed circumstances leading to a situation where the existing anti-dumping duties are no longer effective and that there is need of enhancement of quantum of the anti-dumping duty in force; enhanced injury margin; injury to the domestic industry and causal link between the alleged dumping and injury, to initiate a mid-term review anti-dumping investigation of the final findings notified vide Notification No.15/1009/2012-dated May 12, 2014 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part I, Section I and the definitive duties imposed by the Central Government vide Notification No.46/2014 Customs (ADD) dated December 08, 2014 and the Authority hereby initiates an investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(A) of Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act 1995 read with Rule 23 of the Rules supra to review the need for continued imposition of the antidumping duties at enhanced level. The review will cover all aspects of Notification No.15/1009/2012 DGAD dated May 12, 2014.
(ii) PUC, Like Articles and Product Classification
12. The product under consideration in the present investigation is “Sodium Nitrite” in all its forms as it was in the previous investigations including the third sunset review investigation. This being a mid-term review, the present investigation covers the product covered in the previous investigation.
13. Sodium Nitrite is an inorganic chemical and is oxidizing and reducing agent. It is a white crystalline powder mostly used in pharmaceuticals industries, dye industries, lubricants, construction chemicals, rubber blowing agent, heat transfer salts, meat processing, textiles etc.
14. The product is classified under Customs Tariff heading 28.34.10 of the Customs Tariff Act. This classification is, however, indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.
15. The applicant has claimed that the goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the imported product in terms of parameters such as physical & technical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification. The applicant has claimed that subject goods produced by them and the subject goods imported from the subject country are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are using the two interchangeably. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the Authority treats the subject goods produced by the applicant in India as 'Like Article' to the subject goods being imported from the subject country.
(iii) Country/ies involved
16. The present investigation being a mid-term review on existing anti-dumping duty on imports from European Union, the country involved in the present investigation is European Union only (referred to as the “subject country”).
(iv) Proposed POI
17. The period of investigation for the purpose of the present review is Oct., 2016 to Sep., 2017 (12 months). The injury investigation period will however cover the periods 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and the POI.
(v) Submission of Information
18. The known producers and 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 (downloadable from the website of the Authority at (www.dgtr.gov.in) and manner prescribed within the time limit set out below.
(vi) Time Limit
20. 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 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.
(vii) Submission of information on confidential basis
22. In case confidentiality is claimed on any part of the questionnaire's 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.
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 five (05) 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.
(viii) Inspection of public file
28. 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.
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.
Addl. Secy. & Designated Authority
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
(Department of Commerce)
(Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties)