Jute Sacking Bags originating in or exported
Dated 1st January, 2018 | Copy of | Anti-Dumping Investigation Notification Sl.1 |
Case No. NSR-03/2017
(New Shipper Review)
Initiation of New Shipper Review under Rule 22 of the Anti-Dumping
Rules for determination of individual dumping margin for M/s Janata
Jute Mills Limited (Producer) in the case of Anti-dumping duty
imposed on “Jute Products” viz–Jute Yarn/Twine (multiple folded/
cabled and single), Hessian Fabric and Jute Sacking Bags originating
in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal.
M/s. Janata Jute Mills Limited (Producer) (hereinafter referred to as “Janata”), a producer of the subject goods from Bangladesh has filed an application in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended from time to time 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 referred to as the AD Rules) before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) requesting for determination of their individual dumping margin in the matter of anti-dumping duties levied on imports of “Jute Products” originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal. The said duties were imposed vide Final Findings Notification No.14/19/2015-DGAD dated 20th October, 2016 and Customs Notification No.01/2017–Cus (ADD) dated 5th January, 2017 and
Customs Notification No.11/2017-Cus (ADD) dated 3rd April, 2017 in the original Anti-Dumping case.
1. The present investigation relates to proposed exports of Jute Products by M/s Janata Jute Mills Limited (Producer and Exporter) specifically Jute Sacking Bags in terms of the application filed before the Authority in accordance with the Act and the AD Rules.
INITIATION OF REVIEW IN RESPECT OF NEW PRODUCER/EXPORTER
2. Rule 22 of Anti-Dumping Rules states as under:
22. Margin of Dumping, for exporters not originally investigated- (1) “If a product is subject to antidumping duties, the designated authority shall carry out a periodical review for the purpose of determining individual margins of dumping for any exporters or producers in the exporting country in question who have not exported the product to India during the period of investigation, provided that these exporters or producers show that they are not related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country who are subject to the antidumping duties on the product.”
(2) The Central Government shall not levy anti-dumping duties under sub-section (1) of section 9A of the Act on imports from such exporters or producers during the period of review as referred to in sub-rule (1) of this rule:
Provided that the Central Government may resort to provisional assessment and may ask a guarantee from the importer if the designated authority so recommends and if such a review results in a determination of dumping in respect of such products or exporters, it may levy duty in such cases retrospectively from the date of the initiation of the review.”
These AD Rules thereby require the Authority to initiate review for the purpose of determining individual margin of dumping for any exporter or producer in the exporting country in question who has not exported the subject goods to India during the period of investigation of the earlier investigations and that the petitioner/s is/are not related to any of the exporters and producers in the exporting country who are subjected to the anti-dumping duty. M/s. Janata Jute Mills Limited (producer cum exporter) have provided necessary information as required under Rule 22 of AD Rules. The Authority, having been prima facie satisfied that the conditions as prescribed under Rule 22 of AD Rules are met with, hereby decides to initiate a New Shipper Review investigation for determination of their individual dumping margin in relation to the anti-dumping duties levied on dumped imports of Jute Products originating in or exported from Bangladesh
and Nepal in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Authority vide Final Findings Notification No.14/19/2015-DGAD dated 20th October, 2016 and Customs Notification No.01/2017–Cus (ADD) dated 5th January, 2017 and Customs Notification No.11/2017–Cus (ADD) dated 3rd April, 2017 in the original Anti-Dumping case.
3. The Authority recommends provisional assessment on all exports of the subject goods made by M/s Janata Jute Mills Limited till this review is completed, in accordance with Rule 22 of the AD Rules and having regard to Customs Notification No.01/2017–Cus (ADD) dated 5th January, 2017 and Customs Notification No.11/2017–Cus (ADD) dated 3rd April, 2017.
PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION:
4. The period of investigation for the purpose of the present review is 1st January, 2017 to 30th June, 2018.
SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION:
5. The Known interested parties are being informed separately to enable them to submit relevant information in the form and manner prescribed and to make their views known to the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, 4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi -110001. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation to the above Authority in the prescribed form and manner within the time limit set out below.
6. All information relating to this review should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the above address not later than forty days from the date of completion of the Period of investigation/ Review as stated in para 4 above. 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 before the Authority in accordance with the AD Rules.
SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON CONFIDENTIAL BASIS.
7. 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.
8. Information supplied without any mark 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 each of the confidential version and the non-confidential version must be submitted.
9. 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.
10. 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, party submitting the confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible of summary, a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible, must be provided to the satisfaction of the Designated Authority.
11. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the information submitted. If the Designated 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.
12. 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 Designated Authority. The Designated 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:
13. In terms of Rule 6(7) of Anti-Dumping Rules, any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by other interested parties.
14. In case where as 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 such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.
Additional Secretary & Designated Authority
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce
(Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties)