Sodium Dichromate originating in or exported from Russia

Dated 4th July, 2017 | Copy of | Notification Sl.71 |

M/s Vishnu Chemicals Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’ or ‘applicant’) has filed an application (also referred to as petition) along with relevant information before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter 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 referred to as the AD Rules) for initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ‘Sodium Dichromate’ (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods) originating in or exported from Russia, South Africa, Kazakhstan and Turkey (hereinafter also referred to as the subject countries).

2. AND WHEREAS, the Authority finds that sufficient prima facie 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 dumping and ‘injury’ exists 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 the Rules 5 of the AD Rules, to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of antidumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the ‘injury’ to the domestic industry.

A. Product under consideration and like article

3. The product under consideration in the present petition is Sodium Dichromate’ also known as ‘Sodium Dichromate’ in anhydrous and di-hydrate form. Sodium dichromate is used as oxidizing agent for many organic synthesis and bulk drugs especially ibuprofen production. it is used in metal finishing industries, anti-corrosive applications, water treatment chemicals, pigments, paints etc. It is also used in manufacture of other chromium chemicals

4. Product under consideration is classified under Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under customs sub-heading 2841 3000. The customs classification is indicative only and in no way it is binding upon the product scope.

B. Domestic Industry & Standing

5. The application has been filed by M/s Vishnu Chemicals Limited in India. Two other domestic producers, namely, M/s Sri Kanakadurga Chromates (P) Ltd. and M/s Konark Chrome Chemicals Ltd have supported the petition. There are eight other known producers of the product under consideration in the country, namely, Siddhardha Chemicals, Nifty Chemicals, Jian Brothers, Jesons Chemicals, Divya Jyothi Chemicals, Harshon Chemicals, Shiva Chrome Chemicals (P) Ltd. and Lords Chemical. The production by the applicant constitutes ‘a major proportion’ of Indian production of the like product produced in India. Further, applicant has neither imported the subject goods, nor are they related to any importer or exporter of the subject goods. The applicant therefore constitutes “domestic industry” within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) and thus satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules supra.

C. Like Article

6. The applicant has claimed that there is no known difference in product produced by the applicant and exported from the subject countries. Both products have comparable characteristics in terms of parameters such as physical & chemical characteristics, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification, etc. The two are technically and commercially substitutable and hence should be treated as ‘like article’ under the Rules.

D. Countries involved and de minims limits

7. The country involved in the present investigation is Russia, South Africa, Kazakhstan and Turkey (hereinafter referred to as ‘Subject Countries’).

E. Normal value

8. The applicant has claimed that in absence of availability of reliable information in the public domain on domestic prices of the subject goods in the subject countries, the normal value in the subject countries has been estimated on the basis of best estimates of cost of production in the subject countries, considering major raw materials prices as per imports into India procured from DGCI&S, consumption norms of the applicant, and power prices as prevailing in the respective subject country.

F. Export Price

9. The export price has been claimed by the applicant as the weighted average import price from the subject countries based on the transaction-wise import data procured. Price adjustments have been claimed on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, inland freight expenses, port expenses, bank charges to arrive at the net export price.

G. Dumping Margin

10. 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, that the subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the subject countries. The dumping margins estimated are above de minimise.

H. Evidence of Injury and Causal Link

11. 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 and in relation to production and consumption, price undercutting, price suppression, price underselling and consequent significant adverse impact on profitability, return on capital employed, cash flow, performance on account of capacity utilization, sales and market share of the domestic industry. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of ‘material injury’ being suffered by the domestic industry caused by alleged dumped imports from the subject countries to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation.

I. Initiation of investigation

12. The authority finds sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping of subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries; injury to the domestic industry and causal link between alleged dumping and injury, to justify initiation of anti-dumping investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the ‘injury’ to the domestic industry. Accordingly, 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.

J. Period of investigation (POI)

13. The period of investigation is April 2016-March 2017 (12 months). The injury investigation period shall cover the periods April 2013-March 14, April 2014-March 15, April 2015-March 16 and the period of investigation.

K. Submission of Information

14. The known exporters in the subject countries, the Government of the subject countries through their 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.
Dqad.indiaciov.in

15. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the prescribed form and manner (downloadable from the website of the authority at www.dgtr.gov.in) within the time limit set out below.

L. Time limit

16. 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.

17. 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 impose the anti-dumping measures within 40 days from the date of initiation of this investigation.

M. Submission of Information on Confidential/Non-Confidential basis

18. 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.

19. 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 of the non-confidential version must be submitted by all the interested parties.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

N. Inspection of Public File

24. 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.

O. Non-cooperation

25. 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.

Sd/-
(Dr. Inder Jit Singh)
Additional Secretary & Designated Authority

F.No.6/4/2017-DGAD
Issued by:
Department of Commerce
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
(Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties)
New Delhi

The Dollar Business Bureau - Jul 06, 2017 12:00 IST
 
TDB Top