NOTIFICATION NO. 47/1/2001- DGAD DATE 05/09/2002
Anti-Dumping Investigations concerning imports of Poly- Isobutylene originating in or exported from European Union, Brazil, Japan, Korea R P, Singapore and Thailand.No.47/1/2001- DGAD - Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995; thereof:
A. PROCEDURE
1. The Procedure described below has been followed:
(i) The Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) notified preliminary findings vide Notification No. 47/1/2001-DGAD dated the 12th December, 2001 with regard to Anti Dumping investigations concerning imports of Poly-Iso-Butylene from European Union, Brazil, Japan, Korea R.P., Singapore and requested the interested parties to make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of its publication:
(ii) The Authority forwarded a copy of the Preliminary Findings to known interested parties, who were requested to furnish their views, if any, on the Preliminary Findings within forty days of the date of the letter;
(iii) The Authority also forwarded a copy of the Preliminary Findings to the Embassies of subject countries in New Delhi with a request to furnish their views on the Preliminary Findings:
(iv) The Authority held a public hearing on 28th February. 2002 to hear the interested parties orally, which was attended by representatives of the domestic industry, importers and exporters. The parties attending the public hearing were requested to file written submissions of views expressed orally. The written submissions thus received from interested parties have been considered by Designated Authority in this finding;
(v) The Authority made the public file available to all interested parties containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by various interested parties, for inspection, upon request;
(vi) Arguments raised by interested parties before announcing of Preliminary Findings, which have been brought out in the Preliminary. Findings notified earlier have not been repeated herein for sake of brevity. However, arguments raised by the interested parties have been appropriately dealt with in the Preliminary Findings and/or these findings;
(vii) In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules supra, the essential facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed to known interested parties and comments received on the same have also been duly considered in these findings;
(viii) Investigation was carried out for the period starting from 1st April, 2000 to 31st August, 2001;
(ix) **** in the Notification represents information furnished by interested parties on confidential basis and so considered by Authority under the Rules.
B. VIEWS OF PETITIONERS. EXPORTERS. IMPORTERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND EXAMINATION BY AUTHORITY:
2. VIEWS OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY:
(i) ON DUMPING:
Only two exporters/producers responded to the Designated Authority. Exporter from European Union, BASF, has merely advanced arguments. No factual information in the form and manner prescribed has been filed by the exporter. None of the other exporters except Daelim from Korea has responded to the Designated Authority. The Domestic Industry has supported the determination of dumping and dumping margin by the Designated Authority done in the preliminary findings and requested the Designated Authority to confirm the preliminary findings in this regard. Other responding exporter from Korea RP i.e. M/s. Daelim has not filed any Non-Confidential summary of the response. Hence, they are unable to comment over the response filed by the exporter and claims made by the company. However the Domestic Industry has submitted that it is found from the preliminary findings that the exporter itself has accepted that there was significant dumping margin in respect of exports made by the company. The comments filed by the company clearly points towards dumping prices at which the material has been exported by the company. It is relevant to point out in this regard that comparison of export price to India with export price to other countries is of no relevance when the exporter has viable domestic sales.
The Domestic Industry further requested that in case of dumping from EU, none of the exporter have cooperated. Substantial imports from France alone are entering the country at very low price which is below the Non Injurious Price. In line with the practice of the Designated Authority where an exporter has cooperated the Authority has determined dumping margin and / or injury margin in case of other non cooperative exporter on the basis of lowest export price of the cooperative exporter. In the instant case when non of the exporters has cooperated with the Designated Authority, the dumping margin and/or injury margin be determined on the basis of these low priced imports rather than weighted average export price.
(ii) ON INJURY:
(a) The information with regard to various parameters relating to the Domestic Industry clearly establish that the Domestic Industry has suffered material injury
(b) The injury to the Domestic Industry is required to be examined cumulatively from all sources dumping the material in India, as .the criteria laid down in Annexure II to the Rules is fully satisfied.
(c) The imports from the subject countries have increased in absolute terms as well as in relation of production and consumption of Poly-Iso-Butylene in India.
(d) Market share of imports from subject countries in total imports as well as demand of Poly-Iso-Butylene in India has increased.
(e) With use of Poly-Iso-Butylene being made mandatory in 2 stroke engine oils, demand of Poly-Iso-Butylene increased significantly. However, the exporters from the subject countries increased their dumping practices.
(f) Till 1999-00, production and sales of the domestic industry increased due to increase in demand. However, in 2000-2001 as also rest part of Period of Investigation, production of the Domestic industry declined significantly due to decline in sales. In fact, significant decline in sales forced the Domestic Industry to curtail the production.
(g) The Landed Price of imports from subject countries were much below the selling prices or and Non Injurious Price, resulting in consumers switching over to imported products. The Domestic Industry was not able to sell its product, resulting in significant increase in stocks with the company. While the storage facilities with the Domestic Industry was full and the company was forced to resort to outside storage of material, the company had to resort to cut in production to tide over the difficulty of storing the material.
(h) The cost of production of the Domestic Industry increased, whereas, the Domestic Industry was not able to increase its selling price proportionately. Thus, the imports prevented the Domestic Industry from effecting legitimate price increase.
(i) The imports were causing severe price suppression/depression in the Indian market.
(j) The Domestic Industry was forced to face severe financial losses, as the selling prices were inadequate to recover the cost of production.
(k) The return on investment were negative for the Domestic Industry.
(I) The Domestic Industry faced severe cash flow problems.
(m) The petitioner has concluded that Domestic Industry suffered material injury from the dumped imports. Further, the imports were causing threat of further material injury, as the exporters are holding huge capacities, the price undercutting was severe (as is evident from the prices offered to IOC in the open tender) and rate of increase of imports was rather significant and steep.
(iii) OTHER ISSUES
a. While the interim duty is already in US$, the final duties may also be recommended in terms of US$ only, so that erosion in the quantum of protection does not take place on account of changes in the exchange rate.
b. The reference price determined by the Designated Authority do not provide due relief to the Domestic Industry and the reference price should be reviewed and revised upward.
c. No duties have been recommended in case of imports from EU andThailand in the preliminary findings. The petitioner has submitted that the export price from these countries were at injurious level. Accordingly, they have requested the Designated Authority to apply the practice of determination of export price in case of non cooperative exporters in case of these two countries, which would establish that the imports from these countries were also at injurious levels.
d. The submissions made by Lubrizol can not be considered as submissions made by Oil Companies. There is neither any authorization by other companies nor other companies have signed the representation filed by Lubrizol. Lubrizol is not even an Oil Company. Thus, entire submissions made by Lubrizol under the cover of Oil Company are with misrepresentation of facts.
e. None of the interested parties who have filed these submissions have filed questionnaire response. It is clearly abuse of liberty granted to an interested party to participate in such an investigation, wherein the interested party does not file factual information and rather resorts to mere statements.
f. Inability of the petitioner or domestic industry to meet full demand of the product in the Country is not a prerequisite to seek Anti Dumping Duty on unfairly priced dumped imports. Hon'ble CEGAT has upheld this view in a number of investigations. In the appeal relating to EPDM Rubber, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that in case domestic industry is not in a position to meet the requirement i.e. demand, it does not mean that the material should be permitted to be dumped in the Indian market.
g. The Indian industry can meet present actual demand of PIB in India and is in a position to meet increased demand also with further debottlenecking. The Indian industry is at present producing more than 2000 MT per month, which is sufficient to meet entire actual demand of PIB in India.
h. The Indian Capacity of PIB was much more than demand in India. Effective April 1998. Government of India made use of Poly Iso Butylene in all 2-stroke engine oils mandatory, which resulted in sudden spurt in demand Poly Iso Butylene in India. Considering the same, even before the Indian Producers could gear them up for the increased demand of the consumers, the foreign producers who were already holding high capacities found it quite lucrative to sell huge volumes in the Indian market. While such exports are not to be condemned, the same can not be allowed at dumping prices, particularly when this causes injury to the domestic industry.
i. The argument that the landed price of imports from Singapore is higher than non-injurious price (and, therefore. there is no in jury from Singapore) is factually incorrect. The information provided to the Designated Authority shows that the landed price of the material being exported from Singapore is lower than NIP of the domestic industry.
j. These interested parties have very conveniently ignored the Open Tender floated by IOCL. The exporters and producers from some of the subject countries had quoted prices in the global tenders floated by Indian Oil Corporation. Separate prices were quoted for the deliveries to be made at Trombay, Chennai and Calcutta. The prices quoted in the tender no. COM/GT/IF/Lube dated 27th April, 2001 for procurement of 5200 MT subject product opened on 19th July, 2001 clearly shows that the prices quoted by these exporters were significantly below the prices offered by the domestic industry and their selling price.
k. The statement of the opposing interested parties is contrary to their own statements at various places made in their submissions. It has been stated that the Indian industry can not meet demand of PIB, therefore, they have no option but to import even at higher prices. Should there be shortage of the product in the Country, the domestic industry would not have been forced to hold very high level of stocks and still lower the capacity utilization of the plant. Nor would have the domestic industry charged lower than the price of the imported product, as alleged by these interested parties.
l. Arguments of the interested parties that the domestic industry was selling below the landed price of imports is not correct as most of the consumers are in Public Sector, who are obliged to procure their material on the basis of lowest price quotation. Further, these companies took price quotations from the Indian Producers also. Such being the case, it is unbelievable that these companies placed orders at prices, which were higher than lowest price. Naturally, these companies found the landed price of imports lower than the prices offered by the domestic industry.
m. The opposing interested parties have referred to a decision of WTO Dispute Settlement Body regarding injury parameters. The Petitioner has drawn a - to para (iv) of Annexure II of Indian Anti-Dumping Rules. The Designated Authority is required to look towards decisive factors, which would guide Designated Authority in giving a finding of injury. The Designated Authority is required to evaluate only all relevant parameters. Those parameters which are not relevant or which does not show injury in the opinion of the domestic industry are not required to be brought out in the findings. The petitioner has. also referred to Rule 12 (and 17) of the Rules, which states that the Designated Authority is required to record relevant ,consideration for injury determination and main reasons leading to determination. With regard to decision of Dispute Settlement Body of WTO, the petitioner has submitted that the Designated Authority is conducting investigations in accordance with Indian Anti Dumping Rules. The decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body is not binding on the Designated Authority.
n. Argument is raised by the opposing interested parties that the petitioner capacity is 5500 MT per annum (as given in their Balance Sheet) and not 7500 MT as mentioned in the petition. It is submitted in this connection that a technical audit of petitioner plant was earlier done by M/s. Kvaerner Powergas India Pvt. Limited, According to the technical audit report, petitioner can produce 7500 MT PIB. Hence capacity has been taken as 7500 MT in the petition. It is also relevant to point out that against a capacity of 7500 MT, the petitioner actually achieved a best production of 6111 MT in the year 1999-00.
o. Selling price is one of the parameters relevant to injury to the domestic industry. Mere increase in selling price does not mean "any injury". The increase in selling price has to be seen alongwith the increase in the cost of production. In the instant case, cost of production of the domestic industry `increased more than increase in selling prices as is also evident from the table below:-
| Rs. Pmt | 1998-99 | 1999-00 | 2000-01 | 2001-02 |
|---|
| Cost of production | 100 | 107.50 | 129.04 | 122.29 |
| Selling Price | 100 | 116.31 | 123.50 | 113.90 |
| Profit/Loss | 100 | 386.67 | -46.51 | -143.88 |
Note: Indexed figures
It is evident from the above that the domestic industry was prevented from effecting legitimate price increases by the dumped imports.
p. Reference to the BIFR is irrelevant and out of context. A BIFR Company does not mean that the company is closed or unviable. It is also relevant to point out that the company is not BIFR due to its Poly Iso Butylene operations. The company is BIFR due to other products of the company. The Company continues to produce end sell Poly Iso Butylene efficiently in the domestic market. The marketl is, however, now threatened by the exporters from the subs.
C. VIEWS OF IMPORTERS, EXPORTERS & OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
3. MIS. MOHINI ORGANICS PVT. LIMITED:
M/s. Mohini Organics Pvt. Limited, one of the small scale unit using PIB as a raw material, has submitted that:-
(a) Anti Dumping Duty levied on the PIS be withdrawn forthwith in view of the price competitiveness end to make them more competitive for the finished product. Since there is no Anti Dumping Duty on the final products manufactured from PIB hence there is more possibility-of the import of final product where the PIB is one of the inputs. Thus the Indian Manufacturers of these final products will. be out in the competition.
(b) The manufacturers of the PIB under PSU's be instructed to supply the material to SSI sector at the same price at what they are supplying to the other PSU's of bulk customers.
(c) The manufacturers of PIB under PSU's be instructed to maintain the continuity and ensure the regular supplies to the SSI unit for their requirements.
D. JOINT REPRESENTATION BY OIL INDUSTRY MEMBERS:
4. Following members of Oil Industry have represented that the Anti Dumping Duty on Poly-Iso-Butylene should not be recommended
1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai,
2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai,
3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai,
4. IBP Company Ltd., Calcutta,
5. Castrol India Ltd., Mumbai,
6. Lubrizol India Pvt., Ltd., Mumbai.
Arguments raised in the representation are discussed as under:-
(i) As against a total Indian demand of about 35000 MTPA, the Domestic Industry could supply only between 18800 MTPA (at 90% capacity utilisation) to 24000 MTPA (at 115% capacity). There will be a short fall of a minimum of 11000 MTPA which may go up to 14120 MTPA depending upon the capacity utilisation of the Domestic Industry.
(ii) The average CIF price of exports from Singapore was Rs.36.45 per Kg which is higher than the average CIF price of Rs.35.33 per Kg. from Thailand. Since the CIF price is higher, landed value of exports from Singapore could not have been lower than that of Thailand therefore anti dumping duty imposed against imports from Singapore may be withdrawn immediately.
(iii) It appears that the Authority had calculated the export price for Singapore based on DGCIS statistics plus the price quoted to IOCL, in a tender. According to our information, there were two tenders floated by IOCL. The first tender was opened an 22.3.2000 and the order was placed during the investigation period. In this tender, the price from Singapore was much higher and Singapore did not get any order at all. Hence, there was no export price at all under this tender as no sales were at all effected. The next tender was opened on 8.6.2001 but the order was placed in Oct., 2001 much after the Period of Investigation. In any case, in this tender the Domestic Industry obtained the order and Singapore was not even figuring in the list. Hence the export price for Singapore, should be based only on DGCIS statistics and at that price, the landed value is higher than the Non-Injurious Price.
(iv) In an injury analysis, Designated Authority is required to evaluate all the 15 factors specified in Paragraph (iv) of Annexure II to the anti dumping rules. However, in this case, the authority has evaluated only 8 of the 15 mandatory factors. In the Cotton-Type Bed Linen case Government of India argued before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body that all the .15 factors are mandatory and should be evaluated by the European Commission in an anti dumping investigations. WTO Dispute Settlement Body agreed with the argument and decided the case accordingly. It is surprising that Government of India has not followed what it has itself championed for Preliminary Findings is defective as the authority has not evaluated all the 15 factors.
(v) According to the Preliminary Findings sales realization during the Period of Investigation has increased. Therefore, the domestic sales price have not fallen during the Period of Investigation indicating absence of price effect.
(vi) Comparing the closing stock at the end of two periods is not a correct evaluation of this factor. The evaluation is not proper. The decision of the authority that the domestic industry has suffered injury on this factor is wrong as the Authority has not looked at the average inventory holding through out the year.
(vii) In terms of paragraph 5 of Annexure II of Anti dumping Rules, the Designated Authority is required to examine any known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same time are injuring the Domestic Industry. The rules provide that injury caused by such factors must not be attributed to the dumped imports. Therefore, the authority should have taken into account the effect of these factors while evaluating the injury. The authority should have made the required adjustments in respect of each of the above factors while determining the Non-Injurious Price of the Domestic Industry.
(viii) There is a wide variation between the cost structures of the petitioner company and other domestic producers of PIB in India. The inability of the petitioner to operate as efficient as other domestic producers is one of the major causes of their injury and such inefficiency cannot be attributed to the increased imports.
(ix) The petitioner company is a BIFR company. The costs of such a sick company cannot be representative of the domestic producers in India, who are non-BIFR companies.
(x) The reference price should be fixed at the CIF level. If the reference price is fixed on landed value basis, and the anti dumping duty is levied as the difference between this reference price and the actual landed value of goods, the changes in customs duty rates occurring after the period of investigation are not considered.
(xi) There is no injury either to the Petitioner or to the Domestic Industry as the local manufacturers were operating at 100% capacity utilisation during the period of investigation and even prior to the investigating period.
(xii) The market share of imports will depend upon the availability of right quality and quantity of Poly-Iso-Butylene from local manufacturers. Due to inability of the petitioner to appropriately source its raw material supply, there are several occasions, when the petitioner as well as other domestic manufacturers had conveyed their inability to supply the desired quantity of Poly-Iso-Butylene.
(xiii) The petitioner has brought in irrelevant issue about the dumping practices whereas the domestic manufacturers of Poly-Iso-Butylene are not in a position to fulfill country's demand. Just because there is import of Poly-Iso-Butylene and that too, to fulfill the gap between demand and supply, it is incorrect on the part of the Petitioner to state that the exporters have increased their dumping practices.
(xiv) The Petitioner has incorrectly stated that there is a decline in sales and hence. the Domestic Industry is forced to curtail production. The petitioner has produced 5745 MT and sold 5396 MT of Poly-iso-Butylene during the year 2000-01 as is conveyed in the Report of Directors addressed to Shareholders.
E. VIEWS EXPRESSED BY EXPORTERS:
5. M/s. Daelim Industrial Company limited, one of the exporters from Korea has submitted as under:-
(a) There is no evidence that the domestic industry has suffered material injury. The exporter has claimed that they have quite a competitive advantage with the economy of scale, the quality of products and its own technology over the PIB producers in India. Therefore, the production cost of M/s. Daelim Poly-Iso-Butylene is lower than Indian producers. The exporter has submitted that 35% of Indian custom duty is for protecting local Poly-IsoButylene producers with small-scale plant. Their exporting price to India during the Period of Investigation was higher than production cost, around 6%. The net, profit of 6% is normal in comparison with international business for commodity petrochemicals which has below 10% net profit generally Poly-Iso-Butylene is commodity chemical, not a specialty.
(b) The Designated Authority determined that the petitioner was the lowest priced would result in significant loss to the domestic industry due to significantly lower prices quoted by the exporters in the tender floated by IOCL. According to the Article 2.1 of WTO ADA (Anti Dumping Agreement), the goods, which are introduced into the commerce of another country, are considered for anti dumping. Using tender price to - calculate export price for goods which has not yet been introduced into the commerce of India may violate the Article afore mentioned.
(c) The naphtha price during the Period of Investigation was increased around 42% compared to previous year. Therefore, the profit loss of petitioner was caused by just their high production cost with increase of feed stock price, not imported goods. Daelim .also suffered from net profit loss at that time because international Poly-Iso-Butylene price was not increased.
F. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY:
6. The Designated Authority has considered all submissions made by the interested parties on merits and in accordance with the Rules. However, certain important issues raised by the petitioners/exporters and other interested parties have been examined by the Authority as under:-
(i) With regard to the argument that domestic competition is reason of injury, the Authority notes that the argument is not only unsubstantiated but also contrary to other submissions made by the consumers. It is argued by the consumers that the Domestic Industry is not in a position to meet the demand. In a situation where the demand is more than the domestic production the internal competition cannot cause injury.
(ii) The Authority notes that the incidence of the Anti Dumping Duty has been restricted to lower of dumping margin and injury margin. While it is recognized that composition of the anti dumping duty may affect the price level of the product related competitiveness of the producers and consumers would not be very adversely affected, particularly when the amount of anti dumping duty has been restricted to what is considered to be absolutely necessary to address the injury to the Domestic Industry.
(iii) With regard to the argument that offer made in .a tender can not be used as the supplies were made beyond the investigation period and that the Rules provide for invoking action goods which have been imported into India, the Authority notes that anti dumping action can be invoked against goods "introduced” into the commerce of the Country". The meaning of the word "introduced" can not be restricted to "imports in the investigation period". Firm and irrevocable offer made by a company in a tender tantamount to introducing the goods in the commerce of the Country. The Authority notes that as a result of such participation in the tender by the exporters and prices quoted by them, the Indian Producers have suffered injury, as the purchasers in such cases would place orders normally on the basis of lowest price quoted. It would be relevant to mention here that the offer made in the t ender by the exporter at dumped prices has resulted in loss of contract to the Domestic Industry and has caused injury. The fact that the deliveries may be made outside the investigation period is of little relevance.
(iv) With regard to the issue relating to cost inefficiency of the Domestic Industry as compared to other manufacturers of Poly-Iso-Butylene in India, the Authority examined the cost structure of the petitioner company in detail and a comparison of the cost of production of M/s. Kothari with M/s. Kochi Refineries was made. M/s. Kochi Refinery vide their letter dated 26.9.2001 had made the following submissions:
(a) Their Poly-Iso-Butylene plant made a net loss of about 40% of the total turn over of Poly-Iso-Butylene in the financial year 2000-2001.
(b) In spite of steep rise in the input cost during 2000 where as they were forced to reduce their price far below the cost of production so as to match the landed price of the imported product to sustain operation of the plant.
(c) M/s. KRL was forced to reduce the prices by around 10% in the year 2000 to match with the prices offered by foreign venders in the tenders floated by major oil industry company in India.
(d) Their plant operation had to be stalled for nearly a month due to poor off take of the finished product in the year 2000.
(v) In addition M/s. Kochi Refineries submitted the detailed break up of cost of production in format CI and CII which showed that the cost of production at M/s. Kochi Refineries was substantially higher than the cost of production of Poly-IsoButylene at M/s. Kothari. However this information was insufficient to assess the Non Injurious Price . It was further observed that subsequent to this information, in the joint representation , the consumers submitted another set of costing information of M/s Kochi, which was found to be substantially different than claimed by M/s Kochi earlier. Evidently , cost claimed in the joint representation is not based on actual expenses incurred by M/s Kochi. The argument that cost of production is lower therefore, cannot be accepted.
(vi) The argument that the landed cost from Singapore is higher than the Non Injurious Price is factually incorrect since the landed price of exports from Singapore in the investigation period was US$ **** which is lower than the Non Injurious Price determined by the Authority.
(vii) With regard to the ability of the Domestic Industry to meet the demand it- is clarified that the ability of the Domestic Industry to meet full demand is not a pre condition to recommendation of Anti Dumping Duty. The imports would continue at fair prices even after imposition of anti dumping duty. Imposition of Anti Dumping Duty would in no way affect the supplies of the product in the Indian Market.
(viii) The Authority notes that it is not necessary that the dumping margin final assessed by the Authority cannot be more than the dumping margin claimed by the petitioners. The dumping margin determined by the Authority is based on the evidences collected by the Authority 1 during the course of investigation from all interested parties whereas the dumping margin assessed by the petitioners in the anti dumping petition is based on the information available with them.
(ix) The Authority notes that the capacity shown in the Annual Report does not reflect an effective capacity of the petitioner. The Authority has found that the petitioner has the effective capacity of 7,500 MTs. The same has been considered not only for assessing the capacity utilisation for the Period of Investigation but also for the previous years.
(x) With regard to the argument that there is an increase in the sales realization during the Period of Investigation as compared to the previous year and hence there is no price effect, the Authority notes that increase in selling price per se does not mean no injury as the increase in the selling price is to be seen alongwith in the increase in the cost of production. In the present case, the increase in the cost of production is more than increase in the selling price. The same has been claimed by other manufacturers of PIB namely M/s. Kochi Refineries Ltd. and M/s. IPCL.
7. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLES:
(a) The product involved in the present investigation is Poly-Iso-Butylene also known as PIB or Poly-Iso-Butene (also referred as subject goods hereinafter) originating in or exported from European Union, Brazil, Japan, Korea RP, Singapore and Thailand. Poly- Iso-Butylene is a Synthetic Hydrocarbon Polymer manufactured, by polymerization of C4 Olefins stream consisting mainly Iso-butene. Poly-Iso-Butylene finds application in various fields like Lube Oil additives, Cable Filling Compounds, Rubber Modifiers, Leather Chemicals, 2T Oil Formulations, Oil Insulators Adhesives etc. Present investigation covers all forms of Poly- Iso-Butylene.
(b) Poly-Iso-Butylene is classified under Customs sub heading No. 3902.20 under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The Authority confirms the Preliminary Findings on product under consideration.
G. LIKE ARTICLE:
8. Rule 2(.d) of the Anti-Dumping Rules specifies that "Like Articles" means an Article which is identical or alike in all respects to the product under investigation or in the absence of such an Article, another article, having characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under examination.
(a) VIEWS OF IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS:
(i) M/s Indian Additive Ltd., Chennai, one of the importers of the subject goods, has submitted on Like Article that they are importing HR. Poly-Iso-Butylene ( Highly Reactive Poly Iso Butylene). As per the importer HR Poly-Iso-Butylene and Poly-Iso-Butylene are entirely different from each other both physically and chemically. They have claimed that even the manufacturing technology is different and is not currently available to any of the Indian manufacturers.
(ii) M/s Indian Additives Limited has further submitted that being the licensee under the technology agreement with Chevron Oronite to use their brand name (OLOA) (Oronite Lubricating Oil Additive) they are not allowed to use any raw material, which is not approved by them. Currently, only HR PI B is approved for manufacture of OLOA and is forbidden from using any other type of PI B. The importer has further stated that it is in their long term interest to use indigenously manufactured HR PIB as and when any Indian manufacturer is willing to step in.
(b) VIEWS OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY:
(i) There is no known difference in Poly-Iso-Butylene produced by the Indian industry and Poly-Iso-Butylene exported from the subject countries. Poly-Iso-Butylene produced by the Indian industry and imported- from the subject countries are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process and technology, functions and uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution and, marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are using the two interchangeably. Poly-Iso-Butylene produced by the petitioner is a like article to Poly-Iso-Butylene imported from the subject countries in accordance with the anti-dumping Rules.
(ii) With regard to claim of BASF and Indian Additives Limited that they export/import HRPIB and the same is a different product, Domestic Industry has submitted that the statement of the export/importer is incorrect. HR Poly-Iso-Butylene is nothing but a type of Poly-Iso-Butylene. which is product under consideration in the present investigation (the same has been imported in India) HR Poly-Iso-Butylene and Poly-Iso-Butylene are like article, and the two are technically and commercially substitutable. The two have been technically and commercially substituted by the consumers in India. One of the importers, Indian Additives Limited was all along using PIB produced by the domestic industry and is now using HR Poly-Iso-Butylene.
(iii) Indian, Additives Limited is understood to be importing HR PolyIso-Butylene due to their agreement with the supplier who has significant holding in Indian Additives Limited and not due to any issue concerning technical or commercial substitutability.
(iv) The petitioners have claimed that the Poly-Iso-Butylene produced and sold by them and those imported from the subject countries are being used inter changeably by the customers in India.
9. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY:
In the Preliminary Findings the Authority held that Poly-Iso-Butylene being produced by the domestic industry and those being imported from the subject countries has similar physical and chemical characteristics, product specification, functions and uses. Both can be used interchangeably and thus are commercially and technically substitutable and therefore, are like articles within the meaning of the Rules. With regard to HR PIB, the Authority notes that HR Poly-Iso-Butylene is a type of Poly-Iso-Butylene. The company using HR PIB was earlier using PIB.. The company itself has claimed that they are using HR Poly-Iso-Butylene, as they are not allowed to use any other product by their foreign affiliate. It is not even the argument of -the company that they cannot technically use Poly- Iso-Butylene. Moreover, the Domestic Industry is required to produce "like article" and not "identical article". The Authority, therefore, confirms the Preliminary Findings that the HR PIB and PIB are like article.
In view of the above, the Authority holds that the goods produced by the Domestic Industry are like article to the goods imported from the subject countries.
10. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY:
As per Rule 2(b) of the Anti Dumping Rules. "domestic industry means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in which case such producers shall be deemed not to form part of domestic industry." Further Rule 5(3) of the Anti Dumping Rules states that Designated Authority shall not initiate any investigations pursuant an application made under sub rule (1) unless it determines on the basis of an examination of the degree of support for, or opposition to the application expressed by domestic producers of the like product that the application has been made by or on behalf of the Domestic Industry provided that no investigation shall be initiated if domestic producers expressly supporting the application account for less than 25% of the tots, production of the like article by the Domestic Industry .
11. VIEWS OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY:
On the issue of standing of the Domestic Industry the petitioner have submitted that they account for a major proportion of Indian production of Poly-Iso-Butylene. Further, Kochi, one of the producers of the subject goods (who has also supported ,the petition and requested for imposition of anti-dumping duty) is a company related to one of the importers (BPCL). Hence, production of Kochi is required to be excluded from eligible production. M/s. IPCL (who is selling Poly-IsoButylene produced by MPL and GPL) has supported the petition. The petitioner, therefore, satisfies the standing of the Domestic Industry in accordance with the Rules.
12. VIEWS OF IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS:
M/s Daelim, one of the exporters of subject goods from Korea has submitted that the petitioner has insisted that BPCL (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited) should be excluded from the scope of the Domestic Industry for captive consumption. However, KRL (Kochi Refineries Limited) also participated in tender from HPCL (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) on April, 2001 even though BPCL has acquired KRL on 2000. Therefore, the petitioner who represents below 25% of total Poly-Iso-Butylene production in India cannot be construed as Domestic Industry.
13. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY:
The petition has been filed by M/s. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Limited, Manali, Chennai alleging dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from EU, Brazil, Japan, Korea R.P., Singapore and Thailand . The petitioner accounts for more than 25% of the Domestic production during the Period of Investigation of the subject goods in India . The argument of M/s Daelim that the petitioner accounts for less than 25% of domestic production is factually incorrect. M/s Kochi Refineries Ltd., and M/s Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., (IPCL) have submitted their support to the petition for imposition of Anti Dumping Duty on the import of the subject goods from the subject countries . M/s Kochi Refineries and M/s Maharashtra Polybutene have even provided information relating to their cost of production. The Authority in the Preliminary Findings held that the petitioner fulfils the requisite criteria to represent the. domestic industry, as required under Rule 5(a) and (b) and Rule 2(b). In response .to the Disclosure Statement of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited has submitted that the representations made by M/s. Kochi Refinery Ltd. earlier were made by them as an individual manufacturer: With effect from 26th March, 2001 M/s. BPCL has taken control of M/s. KRL. However, the Authority holds that M/s. Kochi Refinery Ltd. is a separate legal entity and at no point of time during the course of investigation they have expressly withdrawn support to the petition.
Subsequent to the Preliminary Findings M/s Maharashtra Polybutene has also provided information relating to the cost of production through M/s IPCL. The Authority observes that the cost of production claimed by M/s Maharashtra Polybutene was higher than the cost of production claimed by the petitioner. However the same was not considered as the information submitted was insufficient for determining the Non Injurious Price. Accordingly, the Authority holds that the petitioner satisfies the criteria of standing to file the petition in terms of rule 5(3)(a) of the rules supra. The Authority also considers this petitioner company as Domestic Industry within the meaning of rule 2(b) supra.
H. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN:
14. Under Section 9A(1)( c), normal value in relation to an article means:-
(i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section(6): or
(ii) When there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either:-
(a) Comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or
(b) The cost of production of the same article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under, sub-Section(6); Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transshipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country, of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.
The Authority provided opportunity to the exporters from subject countries to. furnish information relevant to the investigations and offer comments, if any, in accordance with the Section cited above. The Authority wrote to the Embassies/High Commissions of subject countries in India also.
15. TERRITORY OF EUROPEAN UNION:
(a) NORMAL VALUE:
The Authority notes that none of the exporters/producers from the Territory of European Union have provided the information as per the prescribed questionnaire. M/s. Bayer, Germany has however offered comments, which have been considered in the Preliminary Findings .
The Normal Value was determined at the time of Preliminary Findings of the investigations on the basis of the constructed cost of production of Poly-Iso-Butylene as provided by the petitioner. The Authority adopts the same for Final Findings. Accordingly, the Normal Value of Poly-Iso-Butylene for all exporters from Territory of European Union has been taken at US$ **** per MT.
(b) EXPORT PRICE:
None of the exporters from Territory of European Union has submitted details of export price in reply to the Questionnaire. The Authority had adopted the export price based on DGCI&S, Calcutta statistics in the Preliminary Findings. Ocean freight, insurance, inland freight, port charges and commission to the extent of ****, ****, ****. **** and **** $/MT respectively based on the claim of the petitioner has been considered. The Ex-factory export price in the Period of Investigation thus works out to **** $/MT.
16. BRAZIL
(a) NORMAL VALUE:
The. Authority notes that the none of the exporters/producers from Brazil has provided the information as per the prescribed questionnaire.
The Normal Value was determined at the time of Preliminary Findings of the investigations on the basis of the constructed cost of production of Poly-Iso-Butylene as provided by the petitioner. The Authority adopts the same for Final Findings also. Accordingly, the Normal Value of Poly-Iso-Butylene for all exporters from Brazil has been taken at US$ **** per MT. ,
(b) EXPORT PRICE:
None of the exporters from Brazil has submitted details of export price in reply to the Questionnaire. The Authority had adopted the export price based on DGCI&S, Calcutta statistics in the Preliminary Findings. Ocean freight, insurance, inland freight, port charges and commission to the extent of ""**, ****.****,**** and **** $/MT respectively based on the claim of the petitioner is has been considered. The Ex-factory export price in the Period of Investigation thus works out to **** $/MT
17. JAPAN
(a) NORMAL VALUE:
The Authority notes that none of the exporters/producers from Japan has provided the information as per the prescribed questionnaire.
The Normal Value was determined at the time of Preliminary Findings of the investigations on the basis of the constructed cost of production of Poly-Iso-Butylene as provided by the petitioner. The Authority adopts the same for Final Findings. Accordingly. the Normal Value of Poly- Iso-Butylene for all exporters from Japan has been taken at US$ **** per MT.
(b) EXPORT PRICE:
None of the exporters from Japan has submitted details of export price in reply to the Questionnaire. Based on the claim of the Petitioner the Authority has determined the weighted average export price on the basis of the prices offered by the exporters from Japan to M/s Indian Oil Corporation and the export statistics based on DGCI&S, Calcutta for the Period of Investigation . The Authority has adopted ocean freight, insurance, inland freight, port charges and commission to an extent of ****, ****, ****. **** and **** $/MT respectively based on the claim of the petitioner. The Ex-factory export price in the Period of Investigation thus works out to **** $/MT.
18. KOREA R.P.
M/S. DAELIM CORPORATION . SEOUL ,KOREA.
(a) NORMAL VALUE
The Authority notes that only one exporter/producer from Korea R. P. has provided the requisite information as per the prescribed questionnaire. M/s Daelim has provided invoice wise details of sales of the subject goods in Korea R.P. during the Period of Investigation. On the basis of the cost of production details claimed by the exporters, sales in the Domestic markets are above the cost of production and are therefore considered to be in the ordinary course of trade for the purpose of preliminary findings. For the Preliminary Findings the Authority had considered the adjustment as indicated by exporter/producer in their reply to the questionnaire. The Authority has considered the same for the Final Findings also. The weighted average Ex-factory domestic selling prices comes to **** US$/MT in Period of Investigation.
(b) EXPORT PRICE:
The Authority notes that M/s Daelim has provided the transaction wise details of export sales to India of the subject goods during the Period of Investigation. The exporter/producer has indicated in the sales price structure for export to India various adjustment of export price viz, discounts/commission, packing, inland freight, ocean freight, shipping charges etc. The Authority for, the purpose of preliminary findings had considered the adjustments as indicated by the exporter/producer. The Authority has considered the same for the purpose of Final Findings also. The weighted average ex-factory export price for the subject goods to India comes to **** $/MT
19. OTHER EXPORTERS/PRODUCERS OF KOREA R.P.
(a) NORMAL VALUE
As no other exporter/producer from Korea R. P. has provided the information, the Authority had adopted the weighted average domestic sales price as indicated by other cooperating exporter for assessing the normal value. The Authority has considered the same for the purpose of Final Findings also.
(b) EXPORT PRICE:
The Authority has adopted the least of the export price to India as provided by the cooperative exporter from Korea R. P. without any adjustment on ocean freight, insurance, commission etc. The ex-factory export price in the Period of Investigation comes to **** US$/MT.
20. SINGAPORE
(a) NORMAL VALUE
The Authority notes that the none of the exporters/producers from Singapore has provided the information as per the prescribed questionnaire.
The Normal Value was determined at the time of Preliminary Findings of the investigations on the basis of the constructed cost of production of Poly-Iso-Butylene as provided by the petitioner. The Authority has adopted the same for Final Findings . Accordingly, the Normal Value of Poly-Iso-Butylene for all exporters from Singapore has been taken at US$ **** per MT.
(b) EXPORT PRICE:
None of the exporters from Singapore has submitted details of export price in reply to the Questionnaire. Based on the claim of the Petitioner the Authority has determined the weighted average export price on the basis of the prices offered by the exporters from Singapore to M/s Indian Oil Corporation and the export statistics based on DGCI&S, Calcutta for the Period of Investigation . The Authority has adopted ocean freight, insurance, inland freight, port charges and commission to an extent of ****, ****, ****. **** and '`*** $/MT respectively based on the claim of the petitioner. The Ex-factory export price in the Period of Investigation thus works out to **** $/MT.
21. THAILAND
(a) NORMAL VALUE:
The Authority notes that none of the exporters/producers from Thailand has provided the information as per the prescribed questionnaire.
The Normal Value was determined at the time of Preliminary Findings of the investigations on the basis of the constructed cost of production of Poly- Iso-Butylene as provided by the petitioner. The Authority has adopted the same for Final Findings . Accordingly, the Normal Value of Poly-Iso-Butylene for all exporters ,from Thailand has been taken at US$ **** per MT.
(b) EXPORT PRICE:
None of the exporters from Thailand has submitted details of export price in reply to the Questionnaire. The Authority has adopted the export price based on DGCI&S, Calcutta statistics. Ocean freight, insurance, inland freight, port charges and commission to an extent of **** **** **** **** and **** $/MT respectively based on the claim of the petitioner. The Ex-factory export price in the Period of Investigation thus works out to **** $/MT.
I. DUMPING-COMPARISON OF NORMAL VALUE AND EXPORT PRICE
22. The rules relating to comparison provides as follows:-
(a) "While arriving at margin of dumping, the Designated Authority shall make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value. The comparison shall be made at the same level of trade, normally at ex-works level, and in respect of sales made at as nearly possible the same time.
(b) Due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which affect price comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sales, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences which are demonstrated to affect price comparability"
(c) The Authority followed the consistent policy of adopting the principles governing the determination of Normal Value , Export Price, and Margin of Dumping as laid down in Annexure I of the anti dumping rules. Based on the Normal Values and Export Prices as indicated above the Authority assessed the Dumping Margins in case of all exporters from the subject countries as given in the table below:-.
| COUNTRY-WISE EXPORTERS/PRODUCERS | NORMAL VALUE ($/MT) | EXPORT PRICE ($/MT) | DUMPING MARGIN (%) |
|---|
| KOREA R.P. |
| (i) M/S.DAELIM CORPORATION LTD., | **** | **** | 15.72% |
| (ii) ALL OTHER EXPORTERS/PRODUCERS | **** | **** | 46.29% |
| ALL EXPORTERS/PRODUCERS FROM |
| (i) TERRITORY OF EUROPEAN UNION | **** | **** | 18.03% |
| (ii) BRAZIL | **** | **** | 44.63% |
| (iii) JAPAN | **** | **** | 57.23% |
| (iv) THAILAND | **** | **** | 19.09% |
| (v) SINGAPORE | **** | **** | 34.36% |
The above Dumping Margins are above the de-minimus limits.
J. INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK:
23. Rule 11 of Anti Dumping Rules reads as follows:
"Determination of Injury:
(i) In the case of imports from specified countries, the Designated Authority shall record a further finding-that import of such article into India causes or threatens material injury to any established industry or materially retards the establishment of any industry in India;
(ii) The Designated Authority shall determined the injury to Domestic Industry, threat of injury of Domestic Industry, material retardation to establishment of Domestic Industry and a causal link between dumped imports of injury, taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume if dumped imports their effect on price in the domestic market for lime articles and the consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles and in accordance with the principles set out in Annexure- II to these rules.
24. The principles for determination of injury set out in Annexure-II of the Anti-Dumping Rules lay down that-
(i) A determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of both (a) the volume of dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like article and (b) the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products.
(ii) While examination the volume of dumped imports, the said Authority shall consider whether there has been a significant increase ire the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. With regard to the effect of the dumped imparts on prices as referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 the Designated Authority shall consider whether there has been a significant price under-cutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increase which otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree.
(iii) For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry as production, capacity utilisation, sales quantum, stock, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II(iv) of the rules supra.
K. CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT OF INJURY
25. (a) Annexure II (iii) under Rule 11 supra further provides that "in case where imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to Anti Dumping investigation . the Designated Authority . will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports , only when it determines that the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than two percent expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three percent of the imports of the like article or where the export of the individual country is less than three percent ,the imports cumulatively accounts for more than seven percent of the imports of like article, and cumulative assessment of the imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported article and the like domestic articles"
(b) The Authority notes that the margin of dumping and quantum of imports from subject countries are more than the limit prescribed above. Cumulative assessment of the effect of the imports from Territory of European Union, Brazil, Japan, Korea R.P., Singapore and Thailand are appropriate since the export prices from these countries were directly competing with the prices offered by the Domestic Industry in the Indian market and displacing, domestic producers here.
26. All economic parameters affecting the Domestic Industry as indicated above such as production capacity utilisation, sales volume etc. have been examined as under:-
(a) QUANTUM OF IMPORTS AND MARKET SHARE:
The information with regards to quantum of imports of Poly-Iso-Butylene has been based on information published by DGCI&S, Calcutta. The Authority notes that the market share of imports of the subject goods from the subject countries cumulatively was 73.60% during 1999-2000. The same has increased to 86.62% during the Period of Investigation. The total imports have increased by about 13% during the Period of Investigation over 1999-00.
(b) PRODUCTION:
The total production of petitioner company of subject goods during 1999-00 was 6111 MT decreased to 5648 MT (Annualised basis) during the Period of Investigation representing a decrease of about 7.58%.
(c) SALES VOLUME:
Total sales volumes of petitioner company during 1999-00 was 6392 MT, which decreased to 5217 MT (annualised basis) during the Period of Investigation showing a decrease of about 18.38%.
(d) CAPACITY UTILIZATION:
The petitioner attained an average capacity utilisation of 81.48% in the year 1999-00, which decreased to 75.31 % during the POI.
(e) SALES REALISATION:
The average sates , realisation of petitioner companies from sale of subject goods in domestic market during the year 1999-00 was Rs. **** per MT, which increased to Rs. **** per MT in 2000-01 representing an increase of 5.26%. However the average sales realisation during the last five months of the period of investigation decreased to ****. This shows a steep decline of domestic sales realisation with in the Period of Investigation itself. However it has further been observed that the average Cost of Production of the subject goods has increased during the Period of Investigation over 1999-00 by RS. **** per Mt. Accordingly the increase in sales realisation during the Period of Investigation has not compensated the increase in cost of production during the same period over the last year.
(f) PROFITABILITY:
It has been observed that the petitioner was earning a net profit of Rs. **** per MT of subject goods during 199.9-00. However during the Period of Investigation, the petitioner incurred a loss of Rs.**** per MT from the subject goods.
(g) EVIDENCE OF LOST CONTRACT
The Domestic Industry would loose contracts due to significantly lower prices quoted by the exporters in the tender floated by M/s Indian Oil Corporation. Even the sole tender wherein the petitioner is lowest priced would result in significant 'loss to the Domestic Industry.
(h) CLOSING STOCK
Closing stock of the Domestic Industry during the Period of Investigation over 1999-2000 has increased from **** Mt to **** Mt. showing an increase of 351 %.
(i) CASH FLOW
The development of domestic industry's cash flow generated by the manufacturing activities of PIB is similar to the profitability of the domestic industry. Cash flow of the domestic industry have severely decreased with the erosion of the profits.
(j) RETURN ON INVESTMENTS
The return on investment as a relation between the net profit of the domestic industry for PIB follow negative trend due to losses made by the domestic industry on each kg of product sold.
(k) FACTORS AFFECTING DOMESTIC PRICES:
The landed value of imported material is significantly below the cost of production and fair sailing price of the domestic industry causing price suppression and depression in the Indian market.
(I) MAGNITUDE OF MARGIN OF DUMPING:
The dumping margin from the subject countries is not only more than deminimus but also very significant. Therefore the impact of dumping margin on the domestic industry is significant.
(m) GROWTH
The price at which the domestic industry has been forced to sell its produce are un-remunerative prices and domestic industry is making loss on each kg of PIB. sold in domestic market. Therefore. the all petitioner company shows negative growth with regard to product under consideration.
(n) WAGES
Wages per employee of the domestic industry which were increasing, declined in the investigation period resulting into depression in the employees with regard to their future and employees are in search of newer employment. In this regard a representation has been received from the employees of the company.
(o) EMPLOYMENT
Employment levels of the domestic industry remains constant, however, losses to the domestic industry resulted into depression in the employees with regard to their future and employees are in search of newer employment.
From the above, it is evident that the domestic industry have suffered material injury form the dumped imports.
L. CAUSAL LINK:
27. (a) In the Preliminary Findings the Authority after careful examination of the cost of production of the Domestic Industry arid the landed value of the exports from subject countries noted that in case of Territory of European Union (EU), and Thailand the average landed vale of exports during the Period of Investigation was more than the Non Injurious Price worked out for the Domestic industry .Accordingly no causal !ink was established Between the exports from these countries and the material injury caused to the Domestic Industry: The Authority noted that Poly-Iso-Butylene has been exported to India from remaining countries namely; Brazil, Japan, Korea R. P. and Singapore at a price below its Normal Value. The Authority confirms its findings in this regard in the Final Findings also.
(b) The Authority holds that the weighted average export price in US$ terms from the subject countries as reported by the DGCI&S and as quoted in the tender floated by the Indian Oil Corporation has significantly declined. The petitioner company suffered a decline in sales price within the period of investigation itself inspite of increase in cost of production. The petitioner company was selling the subject goods at a profit earlier were able to sell the same in domestic market during the period of investigation only at substantial losses. In spite of decline in the selling price . the production and sales volumes of the Domestic Industry declined, as a direct result of imports from the subject countries. All these parameters cumulatively indicate that the petitioner company has suffered material injury and the injury to petitioner companies has been caused due to dumped imports of subject goods.
M. INDIAN INDUSTRY'S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES:
28. (a) The purpose of Anti Dumping Duties. in general, is to eliminate dumping which is causing injury to the petitioner company and to re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country.
(b) The Authority recognizes that the imposition of Anti Dumping Duties might affect the price levels of the products manufactured using the subject goods and consequently might have some influence on relative competitiveness of these products. However, fair competition on the Indian market will not be reduced by the Anti Dumping measures, particularly if the levy of the Anti Dumping Duty is restricted to an amount necessary to redress the injury to the petitioner company. On the contrary, imposition of Anti Dumping measures would remove the unfair advantages gained by dumping practices, would prevent the decline of the petitioner companies and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of Poly- Iso-Butylene imposition of Anti Dumping measures would not restrict imports from the subject countries in any way. and. therefore, would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers.
N . CONCLUSIONS:
29. It is seen, after considering the foregoing, that:
(a) Poly-Iso-Butylene originating in or exported from subject countries have been exported to India below Normal Value, resulting in dumping;
(b) The Indian industry has suffered material injury on account price under-cutting, price suppression and significant increase in the volume of dumped imports of subject goods from Brazil, Japan, Korea RR and Singapore-,
(c) The injury has been caused cumulatively by the dumped imports from Brazil, Japan, Korea R.P. and Singapore;
30. It is considered necessary to impose definitive Anti-Dumping Duty, on all imports of Poly-Iso-Butylene originating in or exported from Brazil, Japan. Korea RP and Singapore .
31. It was considered whether a duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove the injury. The average landed price of the imports, for the purpose, was compared with the Non-injurious price of the petitioner company, determined for the period of investigation. Wherever the difference was less, than the dumping margin, a duty lower than the dumping margin is recommended. Accordingly. the Authority recommends definite Anti Dumping Duty equal to the difference between the amount indicated in column (2) below and the landed value of imports be imposed on all grades of subject goods originating in or exported from Brazil, Japan, Korea RP and Singapore falling under Chapter 39 or any other Chapter of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
COUNTRY-WISE EXPORTERS/ PRODUCERS
(1) | AMOUNT IN US$ PER MT
(2) |
|---|
| (i) M/S. DAELIM LTD., KOREA R.P. | 1037.77 |
| (ii)ALL OTHER EXPORTERS/PRODUCERS | 1037.77 |
| ALL EXPORTERS/ PRODUCERS FROM |
| (i) TERRITORY OF EUROPEAN UNION | N.A. |
| (ii) BRAZIL | 103,7.77 |
| (iii) JAPAN I | 1037.77 |
| (iv) THAILAND | N.A. |
| (v) SINGAPORE | 1037.77 |
32. Landed value of imports for the purpose shall be the assessable value as determined by the customs under the Customs Act. 1962 and all duties of customs except Additional duty of Customs levied under Section 3, 3A, 813, 9 and 9A of the Customs Tariff Act. 1975.
33. Subject to the above, the Authority confirms the Preliminary Findings dated 12t" December, 2001.
34. An appeal against this order shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Gold(Control) Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Act, supra.
Sd/-
L. V Saptharishi, Designated Authority
Issued by:Government of India
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi
Presented by eximkey.com