Dumping Investigation Initiated on Azodicarbonamide
from China
[Ref:
F. No. 14/7/2010- DGAD dated 16th April 2010]
Subject: Initiation
of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Azodicarbonamide
(ADC) originating in or exported from China PR.
Whereas M/s Demaco Polymers Ltd.
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as applicant) has filed an application
before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), in
accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 (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 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), alleging dumping of
Azodicarbonamide (ADC) (herein after referred to as
subject goods) originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred
to as “subject country”) and requested for initiation of Anti Dumping
investigation for levy of the anti dumping duties on the subject goods.
1. Product
under Consideration
The product under consideration in the present
application is Azodicarbonamide (ADC) which is also
known as blowing agent or foaming agent. Modified blowing agent which contains
2 -5% of ADC is outside the purview of the product under consideration. The
subject goods is used as a blowing and foaming agent
in PVC industry, Rubber Industry etc.
The subject goods are being imported under Chapter 29
and 38 of the Customs Tariff Act under subheading 29270090, 29420090 and
381200890 under the Indian Trade Classification (based on Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System).The petitioner has, however claimed that the
product under consideration does not have any dedicated customs classification
code and are being imported under various other Customs sub-headings
. However , the customs classification is
indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of this investigation.
2. Domestic
Industry Standing
The application has been filed by M/s. Demaco Polymers Ltd., New Delhi. Further, the application has
been supported by four other manufacturer namely, M/s.
Sri Dwarka Dheesh (Pvt)
Ltd., (formerly known as M/s. SAS Polymers Pvt. Ltd.), M/s. Sharma Brothers
Pvt. Ltd., M/s. S.S. Blowchem Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.
Haryana
Polymers Ltd. On the basis
of information available the Authority notes that the applicant company
constitutes a major proportion in the Indian production. The Authority,
therefore, determines that the applicant constitutes domestic Industry within
the meaning of the Rule 2 and the application satisfies the criteria of
standing in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules supra.
3. Country
Involved
The country involved in the present investigation is
People’s Republic of China.
4. Like Article
The applicant has claimed that there are no known
differences in the subject goods produced by the petitioner and exported from
China PR. Both products have comparable characteristics in terms of parameters
such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process &
technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution
& marketing and tariff classification, etc. The goods produced by the
domestic industry are comparable to the imported goods from China PR in terms
of essential product properties. The goods offered by the domestic industry are
like article to the goods imported from China PR.
5. Normal
Value
The applicant has claimed that China PR should be
treated as Non Market Economy and therefore the Normal value should be
determined in accordance with Para 7 and 8 of Annex-I of the AD Rules. The
applicant has submitted that they have not been able to get the sufficient
information regarding market economy third country for determination of Normal
value in case of China PR. Thus, the applicant has claimed the Normal value on
the basis of constructed cost of production, including selling general and
administration expenses and profits. The Authority may however adopt an
appropriate third country for the purpose of the above determination and notify
the interested parties in due course. There is sufficient prima facie evidence
with regard to normal value claimed by the petitioner.
6. Export
Price
Export price of the subject goods from the subject
country has been estimated by considering transaction-wise import data from
IBIS. Adjustments have been made on account of ocean freight, marine insurance,
commission, and port expenses in the exporting country to arrive at ex-factory
export price. There is sufficient prima facie evidence with regard to export
price claimed by the petitioner.
7. Dumping
Margin
Normal value and export price have been compared at
ex-factory level, which shows significant dumping margin in respect of the
subject country. There is
sufficient
prima facie evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in China PR is
significantly higher than the ex-factory export price, indicating, prima facie,
that the subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by exporters
from the subject country. The dumping margins are estimated to be above de
minimis.
8. Injury
and Causal Link
The applicant has furnished information on various
parameters relating to material injury. Analysis of the information shows that
imports from subject country have increased in the period of investigation in
absolute term as also in relation to production and consumption in India.
Various economic parameters like the loss in market share, significant decline
in the profitability of the domestic industry, significant deterioration in
return on investment and cash profit, prima facie, indicate collectively that
the domestic industry has suffered material injury on account of dumped imports
of subject goods from China PR. In fact, various economic parameters relating
to the domestic industry shows that loss in absolute term increased during the
injury period
9. Initiation
of Anti Dumping Investigations
In view of the above the Authority finds that
sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping of the subject goods from the
subject country , injury to the domestic industry and causal link between the
dumping and injury exist and therefore the Authority , in terms of Rule 5 of
the Anti Dumping Rules hereby initiates an investigation into the alleged
dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry, to determine the
existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping and recommend the amount of
anti dumping duty , which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to
the domestic industry .
10. Period
of Investigation (POI)
The period of Investigation for the purpose of the
present investigation is 1st October 2008 to 30th September
2009 (12 months). The injury investigation period will, however, cover the
period 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and the POI.
11. Submission
of Information
The producers/exporters in the subject country, Government
through the Embassy, importers in India known to be concerned with this
investigation and the domestic industry are being addressed separately to
submit relevant information in the form and manner prescribed and to make their
views known to the Designated Authority at the following address:
The Designated Authority
Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department of Commerce,
Government of India,
Room No. 250A, Udyog Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110011.
Any other interested party may also make its
submissions relevant to the investigation within the time limit set out below.
12. Time
Limit
Any information relating to the present investigation
should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the address mentioned
above not later than 40 (forty) days from the date of publication of this
notification. The known exporters and importers, who are being addressed
separately, are however required to submit the information within forty days
from the date of the letter addressed to them separately. If no information is
received within the prescribed time limit or the submitted information is
incomplete, the Designated Authority may record it’s
findings on the basis of the facts available on record in accordance with the
Rules .It may be noted that no request, whatsoever, shall be entertained for
extension in the prescribed time limit.
13.
Submission
of Information on Non-Confidential Basis
In terms of Rule 6(7) of the Rules, the interested
parties are required to submit non-confidential summary of any confidential
information provided to the Authority and if in the opinion of the party
providing such information, such information is not susceptible to
summarization, a statement of reason thereof, is required to be provided. In
case where an interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide
necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the
investigation, the Designated Authority may record findings on the basis of
facts available and make such recommendations to the Central Government as
deemed fit.
14. Inspection
of Public File
In terms of Rule 6(7), the
Designated Authority maintains a public file. Any interested party may inspect
the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted
by the interested parties.