Review Initiated on Pentaerythritol from
Taiwan
[Ref: No. 15/10/2010 DGAD dated 22nd June 2010]
Subject: Initiation of midterm review
investigation with regard to the anti-dumping duties in force involving the
imports of Pentaerythritol from Chinese Taipei
Whereas having regard to the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment
and Collection of Duty or Additional Duty on Dumped Articles and for
Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as AD Rules),
vide Notification No. 15/7/2006 DGAD dated 5th March 2008, the Designated
Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) notified its final
findings recommending definitive anti dumping duty on import of Pentaerythritol (herein after referred to as subject goods)
originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei (hereinafter referred to as
subject country).
And whereas, in the sunset review, the
anti dumping duty was imposed on the imports of subject goods vide Customs
Notification No. 55/2008 Customs, dated 28th April 2008.
2. M/s.
Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited have filed
an application before the Designated Authority (herein after referred to as the
Authority), the Petitioner has claimed that the anti dumping duty imposed
earlier is required to be reviewed in view of the fact that the dumping margin
and injury margin have materially changed since the last investigation.
3. Product
under consideration
The product under consideration is Pentaerythritol originating in or exported from Chinese
Taipei. Pentaerythritol is an organic chemical
classified under Customs sub heading No. 29054200 under Chapter 29 of the
Customs Tariff Act. Pentaerythritol finds application
in manufacture of Alkyd Resin, Rosin Esters, Plasticizers, Printing Inks,
Synthetic Rubber, Stabilizers for Plastics, Modified
drying oils, Detonators, Explosives, Pharmaceuticals, Core oils and Synthetic
Lubricants. This product is classified under Customs Tariff heading no. 2905.42
as per Indian Trade Classification. The Customs and ITC HS classifications are,
however, indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the present
investigation.
4. Grounds
for Review
The applicant
has claimed that the existing measure is no longer sufficient to counteract the
dumping which is causing injury. It has been further submitted that the product
continues to be imported into India at dumped prices, in spite of anti dumping
duty being in force. The imports are causing significant price undercutting
even at the existing levels. The applicant has further claimed that price
undercutting even after addition for the current anti dumping duties is higher,
which indicates intensive dumping by the exporters from the subject country. As
a result of dumping, the domestic industry is faced with significant price
underselling as well. It has been claimed that the quantum of the measure has
not been able to address the injuries caused to the domestic industry. The
petitioner has therefore argued that the measure is required to be suitably
enhanced. The petitioner has further argued that domestic industry has not been
able to improve its performance in spite of the existing anti-dumping duties
and the existing measure is no longer sufficient to address injury being caused
by continued dumped imports.
5. Initiation
The Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act 1995
and the Anti Dumping Rules made there under require the Authority to review
from time to time the need for continuance of anti-dumping duty. M/s. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited have filed a
petition substantiating the need for midterm review of the anti-dumping duty
imposed on the subject goods originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei and
have requested for enhancement/revision of the anti-dumping duty imposed on
subject goods under the above mentioned notifications. The Designated Authority
considers that midterm review of the anti dumping duty recommended would be
appropriate at this stage under the provisions laid down in Rule 23 of the
Rules supra.
6. Country
involved:
The Country involved in the present
investigation is Chinese Taipei.
7. Procedure
Having satisfied itself on the basis of
evidence submitted by domestic industry for review of the final findings
notified vide No. 15/7/2006 -DGAD dated 5.3.2008 and final duty imposed by
Notification No. 55/2008-Customs, dated 28.4.2008, the Authority hereby
initiates investigations to review whether continued imposition of anti dumping
duties in the present form and to the present extent of duty is necessary in
accordance with the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995 and Anti Dumping
Rules.
The review covers all aspects of
Notification No. 15/7/2006 -DGAD dated 5.3.2008.
8. Period
of investigation (POI):
The period of investigation (POI) for
the purpose of present investigation is 1st January, 2009 to 31st December,
2009. The injury investigation period will however, cover the period 2005-06,
2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 including the period of investigation.
9. Submission of
information:
The exporters in
the subject country and their government through their embassy/ representatives
in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned and the
domestic industry are requested to submit relevant information in the form and
manner prescribed and to make their views known to the:
The Designated Authority, Ministry of
Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of
Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties, (DGAD), Room No. 240, Udyog
Bhavan, New Delhi-110011
Any other interested party may also
make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the prescribed form and
manner within the time limit set out below.
10. 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 forty (40) 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 (40) forty
days from the date of the letter addressed to them.
11. Inspection
of public file
In terms of Rule 6(7), any interested party may inspect
the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by
other interested parties. 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 Authority may record its
findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such
recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.