Anti-dumping duty investigation concerning imports of Polystyrene from Iran, Malaysia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, UAE and USA
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 12th June 2020
CASE No. (OI) 08/2019
FINAL FINDINGS
Subject: Anti-dumping duty investigation concerning imports of Polystyrene from Iran, Malaysia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, UAE and USA – Final Findings.
F. No. 6/10/2019-DGTR.— A. BACKGROUND
Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act’) and the 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 also referred to as ‘the Rules’) thereof;
1. M/s Ineos Styrolution India Limited (ISIL) and Supreme Petrochem Limited (SPL), (hereinafter also referred to as Applicants) have filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the “Authority”) in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the “Act”) and the 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 also referred to as the “Rules”) for imposition of Anti-dumping duty on imports of “Polystyrene of all types except expandable Polystyrene” (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject goods” or PUC) from Iran, Malaysia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and United States of America (USA) (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject countries”).
2. The Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a Notification No. 6/10/2019-DGTR dated 10th July, 2019, published in the Gazette of India, initiating the subject investigation in accordance with Rule 5 of the above Rules to determine existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from subject countries, and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry.
B. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described herein below has been followed by the Authority with regard to the subject investigation:
i. The Authority, under the above Rules, received a written application from the Applicants on behalf of the Domestic Industry, alleging dumping of ‘Polystyrene of all types except expandable Polystyrene’ from the subject countries.
ii. The Authority notified the Government of the subject countries, through its embassies in India about the receipt of the anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigations in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra.
iii. The Authority issued a notification dated 10th July, 2019 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from subject countries.
iv. A copy of the public notice was forwarded by the Authority to all known exporters of the subject goods, the Governments of the subject countries through their embassies in India, and other interested parties about the initiation of the subject investigation in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules.
v. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known producers/exporters, and to the Government of the subject countries, through its embassies and to other interested parties who made a request therefore in writing in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules supra. A copy of the non-confidential version of the application was also made available in the public file and provided to other interested parties, wherever requested.
vi. The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice initiating anti-dumping investigation to the known producers / exporters in the subject countries, and other interested parties and provided them an opportunity to file response to questionnaire in the form and manner prescribed within time limit as prescribed in the initiation notification or extended time limit, and make their views known in writing in accordance with the Rule 6(4) of the Rules. The Authority sent Exporter’s Questionnaire to the following known producers/exporters to elicit relevant information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
a. M/s Takht-e-Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh Petrochemicals Company, Iran.
b. M/s Tabriz Petrochemical Co., Iran
c. M/s Mohebbespar Eide Goster Petrochemical, Iran
d. M/s Petrochemical Commercial Company, Iran
e. M/s M.G. Polymers FZC, UAE
f. M/s Total, USA
g. M/s America Styrenics, USA
h. M/s Petrochemicals (M) Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
i. M/s Denka Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore
j. M/s TPSC Asia Pte. Ltd., Singapore
k. M/s Kaofu Chemical Corp., Chinese Taipei
l. M/s Taita Chemical Co. Ltd., Chinese Taipei
vii. The Governments of the subject countries, through their embassies in India were also requested to advise the exporters/producers from their countries to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the known producers/exporters was also sent to the Embassy/High Commission of subject countries along with the names and addresses of the known producers/ exporters from the respective subject countries.
viii. In response to the notification, following producers/exporters responded by filing Exporter’s Questionnaire responses.
a. Takht-e-Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh Petrochemical company, (TJPAPC), Iran
b. Formosa Chemicals &Fibre Corp. (FCFC), Chinese Taipei
c. Petrochemicals (M) SDN BHD, Malaysia
d. Eastern Trading International FZE, UAE
e. Golden International FZE, UAE
f. Millennium Trading (FZE), UAE
ix. The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice initiating anti-dumping investigation along with Importer’s Questionnaire to the following known importers/users/user associations (whose names and addresses were made available to the authority) of subject goods in India and advised them to make their views known in writing within the time limit prescribed by the Authority in accordance with the Rule 6(4):
i. 21 Century Polymers
ii. A Royal Touch (India) Private Limited
iii. Ace Extrusions Pvt. Ltd.
iv. Advait Enterprises
v. AKJ India
vi. B B Styro Extrusion Pvt. Ltd.
vii. Dream Plast India Pvt. Ltd.
viii. Elite Industries
ix. Essel Kitchenware Ltd.
x. Excellent Polyvinyl Pvt. Ltd.
xi. Formulated Polymers Ltd
xii. G M Polyplast Pvt. Ltd
xiii. M. Pens International Pvt Ltd
xiv. Gourishanker Polymers
xv. Growth Prospects
xvi. Gujarat Pickers Industries Ltd.
xvii. Gurukrupa Plastics
xviii. Isha Plast Impex Pvt. Ltd.
xix. Laser Shaving (I) Pvt. Ltd.
xx. Mainetti India Pvt. Ltd.
xxi. Mehta Plastic
xxii. MG Polyplast Industries Pvt. Ltd.
xxiii. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.
xxiv. Perfect Polymers
xxv. RKG Polyplast Pvt. Ltd.
xxvi. Sabic Innovative Plastics India (P)
xxvii. Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd.
xxviii. Shri Tirupati Industries
xxix. Sigma Plastochem Pvt. Ltd.
xxx. Sunil Polymers
xxxi. Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd.
xxxii. Surja Plastics xxxiii. Tarsons Products Pvt. Ltd.
xxxiv. Vaibhav International Pvt. Ltd.
xxxv. Vishesh Polyimpex Pvt. Ltd.
xxxvi. Witteneia Multitrading Pvt. Ltd.
x. The Authority sent Importer’s Questionnaire to the following known Associations of subject goods in India for circulation & calling necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
a). ASSOCHAM
b). FICCI
c). CII
xi. In response to the above, following importers/users have filed their submissions/representations in the above matter:
a). Growth Prospects
b). Gurukrupa Plastics
c). M G Polyplast Pvt. Ltd.
d). Surja Plastics
xii. The Authority made available non-confidential versions of the evidence presented by the interested parties in the form of a public file kept open for inspection by the interested parties as per Rule 6 (7).
xiii. Request was made to the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of subject goods for the injury period. The Authority has relied upon the DGCI&S data for computation of the volume and value of imports and required analysis after due examination of the transactions. The Authority also obtained data from DG-Systems, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) for POI to correlate quantum of exports from specified exporters to validate the responses filed, to the extent feasible.
xiv. The Non-injurious Price (NIP) based on the optimum cost of production and cost to make & sell the subject goods in India based on the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules has been worked out so as to ascertain whether Anti-Dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the Domestic Industry.
xv. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is from 1st January 2018 to 31st December 2018 (12 months). However, the injury investigation period covers the data of previous three years, i.e. April 2015 to March 2016, April 2016 to March 2017, April 2017 to March 2018 and the POI.
xvi. Further information was sought from the applicants and other interested parties to the extent deemed necessary. On the spot verification of the data provided by the domestic industry and other interested parties was carried out to the extent considered necessary for the purpose of the present investigation.
xvii. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority also provided opportunity to all interested parties to present their views orally in a hearing held on 18th October 2019. Subsequently, another oral hearing was held on 12th December 2019 in view of the change of the Designated Authority, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers’ Association (ATMA) vs. Designated Authority, in Civil Appeal No. 949 of 2006 on 7th January 2011. All the parties who attended and presented their views in the oral hearings were requested to file written submissions of their views expressed orally. The parties were also advised to collect written submissions made by the opposing parties and were provided an opportunity to submit their rejoinders thereafter. The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, wherever found relevant, have been addressed by the Authority, in this disclosure statement.
xviii. In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules Supra, the essential facts of the investigation were disclosed to the known interested parties vide disclosure statement dated 6th April 2020, and considering the present situation due to COVID-19, sufficient time to all interested parties was granted to enable them to provide comments on the disclosure statement. Comments received thereon, considered relevant by the Authority, have been addressed in these final findings. The post-disclosure submissions, to the extent considered relevant, are being examined in these Final Findings.
xix. Wherever an interested party has refused access to, or has otherwise not provided necessary information during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the views/observations on the basis of the facts available.
xx. ‘***’ in these Final Findings represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis, and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xxi. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = Rs. 69.25
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
4. The product under consideration as defined in the initiation notification for the purpose of present investigation is “Polystyrene of all types except expandable Polystyrene”. Polystyrene is a versatile thermoplastic polymer used to manufacture various consumer products. Polystyrene can be moulded into various shapes, can be extruded to make sheets and can be foamed. The major applications include appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners, stationery, household articles, extruded insulation foam, electrical housings, toys and food packaging.
C.1. Submissions by the Domestic Industry
5. Following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regards to the product under consideration:
a. The product under consideration is “Polystyrene of all types except expandable Polystyrene”. The subject goods are mainly available in two types, viz., General Purpose Polystyrene (GPPS) and High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS). GPPS is a clear, crystal and transparent polymer which has excellent light transmission properties, low haze and mouldability. GPPS is used for making stationery products, beads, bangles, transparent sheets for POP displays, medical apparatus, extruded foam for insulation and foam for food packaging. HIPS is rubber modified Polystyrene which is opaque having good impact strength, flexibility, gloss and environmental stress crack resistance properties.
b. The subject goods are mainly used for appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners, stationery, household articles, extruded insulation foam, electrical housings, toys and food packaging. The subject products are classified under chapter 39 – “Plastics and Articles thereof”. At six-digit level, the goods are classified at 390319. According to the Domestic Industry, there is no difference in the subject goods produced by them and that imported from the subject countries. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry and the subject goods imported from subject countries are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process and technology, functions and uses, product specifications, distribution and market & tariff classification of the goods.
c. The Domestic Industry had never intended to cover those products which are neither produced by them nor substitute their product range. The Domestic Industry has further submitted that despite specific instructions of the Designated Authority during oral hearing to all interested parties to provide technical specification of the grades which they want exclusion, none of the interested parties had provided any evidence in their written submission.
d. The Domestic Industry has submitted that they have defined the product under consideration in most precise manner and provided all the details. Therefore, the contention of the interested parties about product scope is incorrect.
e. The Domestic Industry has produced PUC having Melt Flow Index equal to or greater than 3 and viscosity below 3. Moreover, the Domestic Industry has produced all the grades of the subject goods and they are capable of producing any grade / type of the subject goods, required by the user industry.
f. The Domestic Industry has submitted that the imports of PUC in irregular shapes, lumps, and granules are like article to the PUC and therefore, cannot be excluded. Further, the customers of such imports and even end use of such imports are same and interchangeable.
g. None of the interested parties have provided any evidence relating to technical specification of the products which according to them should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration in writing, despite specific instructions of the Designated Authority. In view thereof, the Domestic Industry has requested the Authority to reject the request of exclusions in the product scope.
C.2. Submissions made by the producers/exporters/other interested parties
6. The other interested parties have made the following submissions on the product under consideration.
a. The product definition defined by the Domestic Industry is vague and needs to be properly defined.
b. The Domestic Industry produces/ sells polystyrene having Melt Flow Index equal to or greater than 3. However, the imports also include those having viscosity below 3. There is no like article for this import and must be excluded from the scope.
c. The blocks of irregular shapes, lumps, granules need to be excluded as Domestic Industry is not supplying these and they are priced lower than the normal subject goods. They have further contended that because of imports of above items, imports from USA are coming at low prices.
C.3. Examination by the Authority
7. The product under consideration in the present investigation as per the initiation notification is “Polystyrene of all types except expandable Polystyrene”. The subject products are classified under chapter 39 “Plastics and Articles Thereof”. At six-digit level, the goods are classified at 390319.
8. Polystyrene is a versatile thermoplastic polymer used to manufacture various consumer products. Polystyrene can be moulded into various shapes, can be extruded to make sheets and can be foamed. The major applications include appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners, stationery, household articles, extruded insulation foam, electrical housings, toys and food packaging.
9. As regards exclusion of certain products from the scope of the product under consideration, it is noted that Domestic Industry has submitted invoices indicating the fact that they have produced and sold Melt Flow Index equal to or greater than 3 and products having viscosity below 3. It is further noted that none of the interested parties have provided any evidence to substantiate their request for exclusion.
10. As regards the contention of the interested parties that imports from USA are coming at low prices, it is noted that the price of the main raw material i.e., Styrene Monomer is cheaper in USA in comparison to other subject countries. Therefore, the apprehension of the interested parties about low prices import from USA has been appropriately considered in the analysis.
11. The subject goods are mainly available in two types, viz., General Purpose Polystyrene (GPPS) and High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS). GPPS is a clear, crystal and transparent polymer which has excellent light transmission properties, low haze and mouldability. GPPS is used for making stationery products, beads and bangles, transparent sheets for POP displays, medical apparatus, extruded foam for insulation and foam for food packaging. HIPS is rubber modified Polystyrene, which is opaque having good impact strength, flexibility, gloss and environmental stress crack resistance properties.
12. As regards the exclusion of certain grades, it is noted that the Domestic Industry has provided the evidence of their supply during the POI. It is further noted that none of the interested parties provided the necessary technical specifications or any other conclusive evidence for non-supply of such grades. The Domestic Industry has further submitted that they are producing and capable of producing all the grades of subject goods as per the requirements of the user industry. In view thereof, the Authority confirms that there is no merit in the claim of exclusion of the specific grades / types of the product under consideration.
13. With regard to like article, Rule 2(d) of the Rules provides as under:
“like article” means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation;
14. After considering the information on record, the Authority is of the view that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry are comparable to the product under consideration in terms of chemical characteristics, functions & uses, product specifications, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. Thus, the Authority is of the view that subject goods produced by the Applicants/ Domestic Industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from subject countries in accordance with the Rules. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are using the two interchangeably.
15. Thus, the Authority holds that the subject goods produced by the Domestic Industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from subject countries within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Rules.
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1. Submissions by the Domestic Industry
16. The following submissions made by the Domestic Industry are as follows:
i. The application has been filed by M/s Ineos Styrolution India Limited (ISIL) and Supreme Petrochem Limited (SPL) for imposition of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods from the subject countries. The Applicants are major producers of the subject goods in India and, therefore, have clear standing to constitute domestic industry within the ambit of the Rules.
ii. Applicants have not imported the subject goods from any of the subject countries during the POI. Applicants are also not related (either directly or indirectly) to any exporter or importer of product under consideration in the subject countries. Thus, the applicants are eligible Domestic Industry under Rule 2(b) of the Rules.
D.2. Submissions made by the producers/exporters/other interested parties
17. None of the other interested parties have made submissions on the standing of the Domestic Industry.
D.3. Examination by the Authority
18. Rule 2 (b) of the Rules defines Domestic Industry as under:
“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 such case the term ‘domestic industry’ may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers.”
19. The application in the present case has been filed by ISIL and SPL, who are major producers of domestic like product producing and supplying commercial quantities in the domestic market. They have provided detailed information for investigation in the matter of imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject countries.
20. It is noted that the production of the two applicants constitutes nearly 66% of the total Indian production. Moreover, the only other Indian producer has also not opposed the investigation for imposition of anti-dumping duties on the subject imports from subject countries. The Applicants have also certified that they are neither related to exporters or importers nor they have imported the subject goods. Accordingly, the Authority holds that that the Applicants have satisfied the requirement of standing under Rule 5(3) of the Rules and constitute ‘Domestic Industry’ (DI) in terms of Rule 2(b) of the Rules.
E. ISSUES RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1. Submissions by the Domestic Industry
21. Various submissions made by the Domestic Industry with regard to confidentiality claims of the exporters/importers and other interested parties are as follows:
i. In relation to the submissions of the interested parties that the Domestic Industry has not provided combined Format-H of costing formats, it is submitted by the Domestic Industry that they have provided all the formats as per existing trade notice. Moreover, non-confidential version is required to be given when such information is amenable to summarization. As regards the costing formats, it is the established practice of the DGTR that that the costing formats are by nature confidential and the same are not amenable to summarization. Accordingly, the Trade Notice on confidentiality also does not envisage submission of non-confidential version of the costing formats.
ii. It is also submitted by the Domestic Industry that they have provided all the information as per the relevant Trade Notice. Moreover, they have provided the non-confidential version of the combined Proforma-IV to enable other interested parties to offer their comments on the status of the Domestic Industry. Domestic Industry has further submitted that Format H is part of new costing formats and therefore by nature confidential. It is further submitted that the Domestic Industry had only claimed business sensitive information as confidential, which is in accordance to the practice of the Authority. On the contrary, none of the producers / exporters and importers had provided the proper non-confidential version of their response.
iii. The responding exporters have failed to fulfill their obligations under the Indian law by not providing the meaningful summary of the response to exporters’ questionnaire. Domestic Industry has also requested to reject the responses of the so-called cooperative exporters as they have failed to provide the information about their related party in India.
E.2. Submissions made by the producers/exporters/other interested parties
22. The various submissions made by the producers / exporters / importers / other interested parties during the course of the present investigation with regard to confidentiality and considered relevant by the Authority are as follows:
i. The application suffers from excessive confidentiality. The application provides absolutely no information with respect to volume related information also.
ii. The Authority vide Trade Notice No 2 of 2018 dated 1st February 2018 prescribed revised and new formats for submitting injury data for the domestic applicants and it is essential for the Domestic Industry (DI) seeking anti-dumping duties to provide injury data in the said format as per the unambiguous instructions in the said trade notice. The applicants have not provided injury parameters in the prescribed Format-H combined for the domestic industry. The case ought not to have been initiated in the absence of information in prescribed Format-H and accuracy and adequacy check envisaged under Rule 8 appears to be vitiated in the present case as the case was initiated without ensuring the injury data in the prescribed Format-H for the domestic industry as whole.
iii. Furthermore, in proforma IV-A data pertaining to opening stock, closing stock, investments, net worth, and capital investment for expansion have not been provided.
iv. It is also submitted that the non-confidential version of the petition fails to meet the standards laid down in Rule-7 of the Rules and Trade Notice No 1/2013 dated December 09, 2013 issued by the Authority.
v. The Domestic Industry has claimed excessive confidentiality and filed an incomplete petition. In response to Section-VI (Costing information) of the petition, the domestic industry has not furnished any information at all. The domestic industry has replied to all questions raised in Part-VI of the Petition “enclosed as Annexure 12/13/14” but nothing has been provided in non-confidential version of these formats. The applicant is required to show reasonable justification for its claim but has failed to do so.
Merely giving a statement that “business information and hence claimed as confidential” is not enough, they should provide an appropriate reason for claiming it confidential.
E.3. Examination by the Authority
23. Various submissions made by the Applicant as well as other interested parties during the course of the investigation with regard to confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant by the Authority, have been examined and addressed as follows:
24. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the information provided by various interested parties to all interested parties through the public file containing non-confidential version of evidences submitted by various interested parties for inspection as per Rule 6(7).
25. With regard to confidentiality of information Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:
“7. Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarisation is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.”
26. As regards the contentions with regard to confidentiality of information, it is noted that information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by various interested parties in the form of public file. The information related to imports, performance parameters and injury parameters of domestic industry has been made available in the public file. Business sensitive information has been kept confidential as per practice. The Authority notes that any information which is available in the public domain cannot be treated as confidential.
F. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
F.1. Normal Value
F.1.1. Submissions by the Other Interested Parties
27. The following submissions have been made by other interested parties:
i. Determination of normal value and dumping margin should be based on the information provided by the exporters/producers from the subject countries.
ii. Assumptions made by the Domestic Industry regarding normal value are not acceptable as such assumption would not be representative due to factual conditions in the subject countries.
iii. The Domestic Industry had exaggerated the deductions in the export price and same should not be used for the any calculations whatsoever.
iv. Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp. has submitted that they are selling meager quantity of ***% to their related entity in Chinese Taipei, which has been captively consumed by the latter in Chinese Taipei. The related entity M/s Nan Ya Plastics Corporation has also submitted a letter stating that they have consumed the said subject goods for production of downstream engineering plastics. Therefore, there is no question of non-supply of resale price from related parties. It is further submitted by the exporter that their office in India, as claimed by the Domestic Industry has not been operational during the POI.
F.1.2. Submissions by the Domestic Industry
28. The domestic industry has made the following submissions:
i. The Domestic Industry has proposed normal value in the subject countries on the basis of best information available with them for the purpose of the initiation. Moreover, meaningful information was also provided in the non-confidential version of the response.
ii. The Domestic Industry has relied upon import data procured from DGCI&S for computing export price for the subject countries. Further, the data pertaining to adjustments claimed in the export price i.e., ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, inland freight expenses, port expenses and bank charges to arrive at ex-factory export price are fully supported by backup documents and same have been appropriately disclosed to the other interested parties.
iii. The questionnaire responses filed by producers/exporters are grossly deficient and not filed in terms of the latest trade notice.
iv. Domestic Industry has also requested the Authority to scrutinize the data of importers to find the real landed value of the subject goods, as it believes that exporters from subject countries are giving post sales discounts.
v. The Domestic industry has requested to call for import data from Directorate General of Systems & Data Management (DG systems) to cross-check the responses made by exporters and importers. Domestic industry has also requested to reject the responses of the exporter, if the data filed by producers / exporters does not match the data received from Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S).
vi. No submission on behalf of Formosa Chemicals & Fiber Corp. (hereinafter referred to as FCFC) can be taken on record unless proper authorization is on record. It is further argued that FCFC has not provided the information of their related entity in India. In view thereof, the Domestic Industry has requested the Authority that the submission made on behalf of FCFC should not be taken on record. It is also requested that since the related party of FCFC involved in local sales has not participated in the investigation, therefore response of FCFC should not be accepted.
vii. The response of producer from Malaysia cannot be accepted, as they have filed incomplete response. Further, it is submitted that their linked exporter has not participated in the investigation. In view of incomplete responses and non-participation of their linked exporter, Domestic Industry requested for rejection of their response.
F.1.3. Examination by the Authority
29. Under Section 9A(1)(c) of the Act, normal value in relation to the 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 the 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 said 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.
30. As regards the submissions of the Domestic Industry that FCFC has not provided complete response of their related party engaged in the sale of subject goods in Chinese Taipei, it is noted that these sales are a meagre ***% of the total domestic sales and therefore, does not materially affect the normal value determination. In any case, FCFC has, in their response, submitted that their related party has used this meagre quantity for captive consumption in Chinese Taipei and therefore, there is no resale price available for these sales of such meagre quantity. It is also noted the related entity M/s Nan Ya Plastics Corporation has also confirmed that they have consumed the said subject goods for production of downstream engineering plastics.
31. As regards the submission of the Domestic Industry that FCFC has a related party office in India, it is further noted by the Authority from the available information that FCFC has no operational office in India during the POI.
32. As regards the incomplete response filed by Producer from Malaysia, it is noted that the producer from Malaysia has not filed complete response as per prescribed format even after providing two extensions of time to file complete response. It is further noted that their linked exporter has also not filed the exporters’ questionnaire response and therefore, its response has not been accepted for grant of individual dumping margins.
33. The Authority during the process of investigation has analysed and determined normal value, export price and dumping margin from the information submitted by cooperating producers from subject countries and their exporters, which were subsequently examined and verified by the Authority.
34. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known exporters from subject countries, advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed. Following producers/ exporters have filed the prescribed questionnaire responses:
a. Takht-e-Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh Petrochemical company, (TJPAPC), Iran (Producer and Exporter)
b. Eastern Trading International FZE, UAE (Exporter)
c. Golden International FZE, UAE (Exporter)
d. Millennium Trading (FZE), UAE (Exporter)
e. Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation (FCFC), Chinese Taipei (Producer and Exporter)
f. Petrochemicals (M) SDN BHD, Malaysia (Producer – held to be non-cooperating by the Authority for the reasons given above)
F.1.3.1. IRAN
F.1.3.1.1. Normal value in case of M/s Takht-e-Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh Petrochemical Company (TJPAPC), Iran
35. From the exporters’ questionnaire response filed by the producer from Iran i.e., TJPAPC, it is noted that they have exported the subject goods to India through three related exporters namely Golden International FZE, UAE (Exporter), Millennium Trading FZE, UAE, (Exporter), and Eastern Trading International FZE, UAE (Exporter). It is also noted from the response that during the POI, the company has sold *** MT in domestic market to various unrelated parties. In order to determine the normal value, the Authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to cost of production of subject goods. In case profit making transactions are more than 80% then the Authority considers all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value. Where the profitable transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken into consideration for the determination of normal value. Based on the ordinary course of trade test, all profitable domestic sales have been taken into account for determination of normal value, since the profitable sales were less than 80% by volume. Accordingly, normal value for M/s Takht-e-Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh Petrochemical Company has been determined and is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.1.3.1.2. Export price in case of M/s Takht-e-Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh Petrochemical Company, Iran(Producer) through Golden International FZE, UAE, (Exporter) Eastern Trading International FZE, UAE, and Millennium Trading (FZE), UAE.
36. The subject goods of *** MT produced by Takht-e-Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh Petrochemical Company, Iran (Producer) (hereinafter referred to as “TJPAPC”)were exported to India through three related exporters namely Golden International FZE, UAE(hereinafter referred to as “Golden”) (*** MT exported), Millennium Trading FZE, UAE, (hereinafter also referred to as “Millennium”)(*** MT exported), and Eastern Trading International FZE, UAE ( hereinafter also referred to as “Eastern”)(*** MT exported). All three related exporters have filed the Exporter Questionnaire Responses. The responses filed by related exporters represent more than 70% of subject goods produced and exported to India by the concerned producer.
37. In the exporter’s questionnaire response of M/s Golden International FZE, the company declared that during the POI, out of the total *** MT export sales to India, *** MT (*** %) was exported directly to India by M/s Golden and *** MT (***%) was exported indirectly to India through further unrelated traders and these unrelated traders have not submitted their respective exporter questionnaire responses containing the requisite necessary information of the said *** MT quantity. The Authority while calculating the export price for the producer has considered verified actual data of the exporter M/s Golden for ***% of the quantity (*** MT) shipped directly to India by M/s Golden for which complete chain of responses has been submitted with the Authority. Further, the exporter M/s Golden in its EQR has claimed adjustment on account of freight, container charges, commission and misc. expenses and the same have been accepted after necessary verification.
38. With respect to the determination of export price, the Authority notes the provisions enshrined in Explanation (b) to sub-section (1) and subsection 6A of Section 9A of the Act which are as follows:
“(1) Explanation (b) “export price”, in relation to an article, means the price of the article exported from the exporting country or territory and in cases where there is no export price or where the export price is unreliable because of association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or a third party, the export price may be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported articles are first resold to an independent buyer or if the article is not resold to an independent buyer, or not resold in the condition as imported, on such reasonable basis as may be determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6).
…
…
(6A) Provided that where an exporter or producer fails to provide such records or information, the margin of dumping for such exporter or producer shall be determined on the basis of facts available.”
Further, Rule 6(8) of the Rules provides as under in this regard:
“(8) In a 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 its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as it deems fit under such circumstances.”
39. In view of the above provision, as regards the export price of ***% of the quantity (*** MT) for which complete chain of responses containing the requisite necessary information have not been submitted to the Authority, export price of this quantity has been calculated based on the facts available, in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules and in terms of Section 9A (6A) of the Act. The Authority has used the facts available for determination of net export price and landed value with respect to ***% of the quantity (*** MT) which was exported by M/s Golden, UAE and produced by M/s TJPAPC, Iran.
40. Accordingly, the export price for M/s TJPAPC, Iran (Producer) has been determined based on the weighted average export price of direct exports for which complete information in the chain for exports to India has been provided and indirect exports to India for which complete chain of information has not been provided. The export price so determined have been used for determining the weighted export price of the producer M/s TJPAPC.
41. M/s Eastern Trading International FZE, in their exporter’s questionnaire response has declared that during the POI, *** MT being ***% of the quantity was shipped directly to India. The Authority has calculated export price based on the verified data of exporter. The exporter has claimed adjustment on account of freight, container charges, commission and misc. expenses and the same have been accepted after necessary verification. The export price so determined has been used for determining the weighted export price of the producer M/s TJPAPC.
42. In the exporter’s questionnaire response, M/s Millennium Trading (FZE), UAE, declared that during the POI,***MT being ***% of the quantity was shipped directly to India. The Authority has calculated export price based on the verified data of exporter. The exporter has claimed adjustment on account of freight, container charges, commission and misc. expenses and the same have been accepted after necessary verification. The export price so determined has been used for determining the weighted export price of the producer M/s TJPAPC.
F.1.3.1.3. Normal value in case of other producers from Iran
43. It is noted that no other producer/exporter from Iran has cooperated in the present investigation. In view of the non-cooperation, the Authority has determined the Normal Value for other producers/exporters based on best facts available, which is calculated and mentioned in the dumping margin table.
F.1.3.1.4. Export price of other producers from Iran
44. It is noted that no other producer/exporter from Iran has cooperated in the present investigation. In view of such non-cooperation, the Authority has determined export price for such other producers/exporters based on facts available, which is mentioned in the dumping margin table.
F.1.3.2. CHINESE TAIPEI
F.1.3.2.1. Normal value in case of M/s Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp. (FCFC), Chinese Taipei
45. From the data filed by the Cooperating producer and exporter from Chinese Taipei i.e., FCFC, it is noted that they have exported the subject goods directly to India. The questionnaire response has been examined and it is noted that the respondent has provided domestic sales price details of the subject goods in respective Appendix with proper costing data for mandatory tests. It is noted that M/s. Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp, Chinese Taipeihas exported *** MT of subject goods to India during POI at a CIF value of US$ ***. As regards normal value, the Authority notes that ***MT has been sold in the domestic market at a price of *** US$/MT. In order to determine the normal value, the Authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to cost of production of subject goods. In case profit making transactions are more than 80% then the Authority considers all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value. Where the profitable transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken into consideration for the determination of normal value. Based on the ordinary course of trade test, profitable domestic sales have been taken into account for determination of normal value, since the profitable sales were less than 80% by volume. The adjustments claimed by FCFC have been verified and accepted to the extent found correct. The Normal Value of FCFC so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.1.3.2.2. Export price in case of M/s Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp. (FCFC), Chinese Taipei
46. In the exporter’s questionnaire response, the Company stated that during the POI they directly exported *** The data was crossed checked with the DGCI&S data and found to be in order. The sample invoices has been checked and the data filed by them has been accepted. The Authority has accepted the adjustment as claimed by the exporter on account of inland freight, overseas freight, marine insurance, credit cost, packing charges, commission, brokerage and port charges etc. after necessary verification. Accordingly, the export price determined is provided in the dumping margin Table below.
F.1.3.3. MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE, UAE and USA
F.1.3.3.1. Normal value for all producers and exporters from Malaysia, Singapore, UAE and USA
47. It is noted that there is no response from any producer from Malaysia, Singapore, UAE and USA in this subject investigation. In view of the non-cooperation, the Authority has determined the Normal Value for all producers in these four subject countries based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules and in terms of Section 9A (6A) of the Act. For the determination of normal values for producers of Malaysia, Singapore and USA, the price of the major raw material i.e. Styrene Monomer has been considered based on the price in their respective countries as culled out from the World Trade Atlas, and the other conversion costs based on the facts available. Further, in the absence of data of UAE in World Trade Atlas, the normal value for producers of UAE has been determined based on information available from data of the cooperating producer and exporter from Iran. The constructed normal values for these four countries so determined/considered have been mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.1.3.3.2. Export price for all producers and exporters from Malaysia, Singapore, UAE and USA
48. Since there is no response from any producer/exporter from Malaysia, Singapore, UAE and USA, the export prices for all the producers/exporters from these countries have been determined on the basis of information available on record. The Authority has made adjustments on account of ocean freight, overseas insurance, port expenses, inland freight, bank charges and credit cost as claimed by the Domestic Industry in order to arrive at the net export price at ex-factory level. Accordingly, the net export price at ex-factory level in case of all producers of subject goods from Malaysia, Singapore, UAE and USA has been determined and is as mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
F.1.3.4. DUMPING MARGIN
F.1.3.4.1. Dumping margin for related producers and Exporters
49. It is noted that in the subject investigation, cooperating producer from Iran is supplying through related exporters and form a group of related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider related exporting producers and exporters as one single entity for the determination of a dumping margin and thus to establish one single dumping margin for them. This is in particular because calculating individual dumping margins might encourage circumvention of anti-dumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related exporting producers to channel their exports to India through the company with the lowest individual dumping margin.
50. In accordance with the above, cooperating producer from Iran i.e. TJPAPC and their related exporters from UAE are regarded as one single entity and attributed one single dumping margin which was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins of the cooperating related producer and exporters.
F.1.3.4.2. Determination of Dumping Margin
51. The Dumping Margin for the subject goods has been determined by comparing normal value and net export price at ex-factory level for the subject goods. The Authority has determined the dumping margin both grade-wise (for GPPS and HIPS separately) and consolidated them for the PUC as a whole, and the same is given in the table below:
| Country | Producer | Grade of Polystyrene | Exports to India |
Normal Value/ CNV | Export Price | Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin |
| MT | USD per MT |
USD per MT |
USD per MT |
% | |||
| Iran | Takht-e‑ Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh eletrochemicalcompany |
GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 60 – 80 | ||||||
| Other producers and exporters | GPPS | – | – | – | – | – | |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 60 – 80 | ||||||
| Chinese Taipei | Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp. |
GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 0 – 20 | ||||||
| Other producers and exporters | GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 20 – 40 | ||||||
| UAE | All producers | GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
–
| Country | Producer
and exporters |
Grade of Polystyrene | Exports to India |
Normal Value/ CNV | Export Price | Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin |
| MT | USD per MT |
USD per MT |
USD per MT |
% | |||
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 40 – 60 | ||||||
| Malaysia | All producers and exporters | GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 0 – 20 | ||||||
| Singapore | All producers and exporters | GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 20 – 40 | ||||||
| USA | All producers and exporters | GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 40 – 60 |
G. METHODOLOGY FOR INJURY ASSESSMENT AND EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
G.1 Submissions made by the Domestic Industry
52. The following are the injury related submissions made by the domestic industry during the course of the present investigation and considered relevant by the Authority:
i. Imports of the product under consideration from the subject countries have shown increase over the years with a significant increase in POI. Imports have also shown increase in relation to production and consumption in India.
ii. Market share of the subject countries in demand has become significant in POI. Subject countries have not only taken the share of Domestic Industry but also of other countries in a short span of time. Market share of the Domestic Industry has decreased in the POI as compared to the base year.
iii. With reduction in the prices by the foreign producers, the only choice available to the Indian producer is to either realign their prices with the changes in the import prices or to lose orders and hence the market share reduced during the entire injury investigation period.
iv. Domestic industry prices reflect the effect of the prices that are being offered by the exporters in the domestic market. The Domestic Industry also firmly has contended that exporters are giving post sales discount to Indian customers to make their offer more attractive to them. Domestic Industry has requested to insist upon the importer to provide factual information about their contracts with their foreign suppliers and also with their customers along with the payment receipts to ascertain the actual import price.
v. The price underselling, price undercutting is positive and substantial. Further, the Domestic Industry is suffering from price depression as they are not able to increase its prices to reasonable terms.
vi. Performance of the domestic industry has steeply deteriorated in terms of profits. In fact the profitable situation of the Domestic Industry has turned into losses and return on investments and cash profits have also followed the same trend.
vii. The decline in profitability of the domestic industry was due to significant increase in the import volume at non-remunerative prices from subject countries.
viii. The increase in selling price was lower than the increase in cost of production and thus the dumped imports are creating price suppression effect on the domestic industry.
ix. The domestic industry has suffered material injury in connection with dumping of subject goods from the subject countries. Further, the domestic industry is threatened with continued injury, should the present condition continue.
x. In relation to the submissions of the interested parties that imports from USA are coming at lower price as compared to other countries, it is submitted by the Domestic Industry that imported product from USA are directly competing with them. Moreover, conditions of cumulative assessment are fully satisfied.
G.2 Submissions made by the producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties
53. The following are the injury related submissions made by the producers/exporters/ importers/other interested parties during the course of the present investigation and considered relevant by the Authority.
i. In terms of Annexure-II to the Rules, cumulative assessment of imports from more than one country is permissible only when it is appropriate in light of conditions of competition. Similar position is also stipulated in there in Article VI of GATT, 1994. In view thereof, importers requested that imported products from USA are not similar, and therefore, cumulative assessment should not be permissible as long as imported products from USA are considered.
ii. The Indian Industry market share is already more than 90% of the total demand of the country and the Domestic Industry is just trying to enjoy a dominant position. They are operating as cartel and at certain times of the year, they control the production, supply and sale of the PUC thereby creating artificial scarcity and maintaining high prices.
iii. There is already NIL rate of customs duty on import the principal raw material for the Domestic Industry i.e. Styrene Monomer with full duty exemption from ASEAN countries and Korea. Other countries also have an effective rate of duty of mere 2.5%. Since there is already protection of duty enjoyed by the DI, further protection is not justified.
iv. The Domestic Industry is not suffering any injury, as their balance sheet is showing significant profits.
v. The real cause for the alleged injury, if any, to the applicant is not dumping of the subject goods but the ban on single-use plastic products and variation in the prices of the major raw material. This fact is also acknowledged in the Annual Reports.
vi. The imports from the subject countries have no negative impact on the performance of the Domestic Industry.
vii. The claim of injury is based on imports of PUC irrespective of forms whereas the DI only sells PUC in granular form. This fact is also clear from the lower landed value of such items. Hence injury analysis should have been done of PUC in granular form only and not for lumps and other non-granular forms and hence should have been excluded.
viii. That there is no price undercutting, price underselling, price suppression and depression and therefore, the claim of the Domestic Industry of any injury on account of imports from subject countries should be rejected.
ix. The inability of the domestic industry to meet the domestic demand has resulted in the increase in imports to fulfil the rise in consumption.
G.3 Examination by the Authority
54. The Authority has taken note of the arguments and counter-arguments of the all the interested parties with regard to injury to the Domestic Industry. The injury analysis so made by the Authority hereunder addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties.
I. Cumulative assessment
55. Annexure-II para (iii) of the Rules provides that in case where imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigations, the Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that:
a. 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 (or more) of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than three percent, the imports collectively account for more than seven percent of the import of like article, and
b. Cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported article and the like domestic articles.
56. The Authority notes that:
a. The subject goods are being dumped into India from the subject countries. The margins of dumping from each of the subject countries are more than the de minimis limits prescribed under the Rules.
b. The volume of imports from each of the subject countries is individually more than 3% of the total volume of imports.
c. Cumulative assessment of the effects of import is appropriate as the exports from the subject countries not only directly compete with the like articles offered by each of them but also the like articles offered by the domestic industry in the Indian market. It is noted that the consumers who are buying from the domestic industry are also importing from amongst the subject countries.
57. As regards the issue of cumulative assessment in terms of para (iii) of the Annexure-II of the Rules, it is noted that the imports from subject countries fully satisfy the criteria of para (iii) of the Annexure-II. Therefore, the contention of the other interested parties about cumulative assessment are not correct.
58. In view of the above, the Authority considers it appropriate to cumulatively assess the effects of dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject countries on the domestic industry.
59. As regards the contention of the Domestic Industry about post-sales discount being given by the exporters to Indian importers, it is noted that the Domestic Industry has not provided any evidence to further substantiate its claim. Moreover, the Authority has also not found any verifiable and credible evidence of such discounts / rebates, during the course of the investigation.
60. As regards the contention of the interested parties about dominant position of the Domestic Industry and that they are operating in cartel, it is noted that none of the interested parties has provided any evidence or information to substantiate their claim.
61. As regards the fact that injury to domestic industry, if any, is on account of ban on single use plastics, it is noted from the records that during the POI, there is no blanket ban on single use plastic in all the states, and any blanket ban on single-use plastic products might have similar impact on the imports also. Therefore, the alleged ban has little relationship with dumping of subject goods, and injury to domestic industry.
62. With regard to the benefit to the Domestic Industry concerning imports of raw material at concessional rates, it is noted that the same has been duly considered in the injury analysis and in the calculation of NIP. Therefore, contention of the other interested parties has been appropriately taken into account.
63. As regards the profitability of the Domestic Industry, it is noted that the Applicants are multi-product companies and to compare profitability of the companies with profitability of the product under consideration is incorrect and also not in line with the jurisprudence available on this subject. Further, the Authority is required to examine the performance of the Domestic Industry in respect to domestic like product and not for the company as a whole. Accordingly, the Authority has analyzed the data for this investigation also. Therefore, the contention of the other interested parties based on total profitability of the company is not correct.
64. As regards the issues of no price undercutting, price underselling, price suppression and depression, it is noted that the same are addressed in the subsequent paragraphs while making injury analysis.
65. Rule 11 read with Annexure-II of the Rules provides that an injury determination shall involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, “…. taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles….” In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. 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 such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, stock, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure-II of the Rules. The Authority has taken note of various submissions of the domestic industry and the exporters / importers / traders / users on injury to the domestic industry and has analyzed the same considering the facts available on record and applicable laws. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties.
II. Volume Effect of Dumped Imports
i. Assessment of Demand
66. For the purpose of the present investigation, demand or apparent consumption of the subject goods has been defined as the sum of domestic sales of the Applicants and imports from all sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table below:
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | Jan 18 to Dec 18 (POI) |
| Imports from Iran | MT | 450 | 886 | 6267 | 6440 |
| GPPS | MT | 292 | 795 | 5873 | 6350 |
| HIPS | MT | 158 | 91 | 394 | 90 |
| Imports from UAE | MT | 1162 | 2417 | 2639 | 11630 |
| GPPS | MT | 1094 | 1808 | 2538 | 11351 |
| HIPS | MT | 68 | 609 | 101 | 279 |
| Imports from USA | MT | 322 | 1780 | 3550 | 3501 |
| GPPS | MT | 322 | 1780 | 3138 | 3077 |
| HIPS | MT | 0 | 0 | 412 | 424 |
| Imports from Malaysia | MT | 1889 | 2891 | 3652 | 1903 |
| GPPS | MT | 202 | 526 | 667 | 204 |
| HIPS | MT | 1687 | 2365 | 2985 | 1699 |
| Imports from Singapore | MT | 5915 | 6315 | 4922 | 2974 |
| GPPS | MT | 4530 | 4142 | 3728 | 2159 |
| HIPS | MT | 1385 | 2173 | 1194 | 815 |
| Imports from Chinese Taipei | MT | 7177 | 5941 | 5558 | 3589 |
| GPPS | MT | 5991 | 2962 | 3612 | 2461 |
| HIPS | MT | 1186 | 2979 | 1947 | 1128 |
| Total Imports from Subject Countries | MT | 16915 | 20230 | 26588 | 30037 |
| Imports from Other Countries | MT | 4975 | 3768 | 3102 | 2175 |
| Total Imports | MT | 21891 | 23998 | 29690 | 32212 |
| Sales of Domestic Industry | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 87 | 93 | 89 |
| Sales of Other Domestic Producers | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Trend | 100 | 87 | 93 | 89 |
| Total Domestic Sales | MT | 235225 | 224343 | 234021 | 225475 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 95 | 99 | 96 |
| Demand | MT | 257116 | 248341 | 263711 | 257687 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 97 | 103 | 100 |
67. It is noted from the above table that the demand of the subject goods has marginally increased in the POI as compared to the base year.
ii. Imports volumes and share of the imports from subject countries
68. With regard to the volume of dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. The volume of imports of the subject goods from the subject countries have been analyzed as under –
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| Imports from Subject Countries | MT | 16915 | 20230 | 26588 | 30037 |
| Imports from Other Countries | MT | 4975 | 3768 | 3102 | 2175 |
| Total Imports | MT | 21891 | 23998 | 29690 | 32212 |
| Total Production | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Imports from Subject countries in relation to | |||||
| Production | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 130 | 182 | 213 |
| Consumption | % | 7% | 8% | 10% | 12% |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 110 | 137 | 177 |
| Total Imports | % | 77% | 84% | 90% | 93% |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 116 | 121 |
69. From the above table, it is noted that-
a. Imports of subject goods from the subject countries have increased significantly during the injury period in absolute terms.
b. The imports from the subject countries have increased significantly in relation to total imports and consumption in India.
iii. Price Effect of Dumped Imports on the Domestic Industry
70. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is required to be analyzed whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared to the price of the like products in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course. The impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of the dumped imports from the subject countries has been examined with reference to the price undercutting, price suppression and price depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis, the cost of production, Net Sales Realization (NSR) and the Non-Injurious Price (NIP) of the Domestic industry have been compared with the landed cost of imports from subject countries.
a. Price Undercutting
71. In order to determine whether the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market, the Authority has compared landed price of imports with net sales realization of the domestic industry (both for GPPS and HPPS, and consolidated for the PUC) as below:
Subject Country: Iran
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| GPPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 97,473 | 86,907 | 97,686 | 99,759 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 89 | 100 | 102 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 117 | 127 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | 0 – 20 | (20) – 0 | 0 – 20 |
| HIPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 83,493 | 92,217 | 74,964 | 112,547 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 110 | 90 | 135 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 117 | 126 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 20-40 | 0 – 20 |
| Consolidated for PUC | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 92,564 | 87,452 | 96,257 | 99,937 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 94 | 104 | 108 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 106 | 115 | 124 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 |
Subject Country: UAE
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| GPPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 79,229 | 82,434 | 98,153 | 107,317 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 104 | 124 | 135 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 117 | 127 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 |
| HIPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 77,170 | 94,742 | 86,115 | 100,777 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 123 | 112 | 131 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 117 | 126 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 20-40 | 0 – 20 |
| Consolidated for PUC | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 79,109 | 85,535 | 97,692 | 107,160 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 123 | 135 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 110 | 117 | 127 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | 0-20 | 0-20 | 0-20 | (20) – 0 |
Subject Country: USA
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| GPPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 61,516 | 75,852 | 78,753 | 81,248 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 123 | 128 | 132 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 117 | 127 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | 20-40 | 0-20 | 20-40 | 20-40 |
| HIPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | – | – | 70,134 | 73,102 |
| Trend | Indexed | – | – | 100 | 104 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | – | – | 100 | 108 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | – | – | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | – | – | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | – | – | 40-60 | 40-60 |
| Consolidated for PUC | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 61,516 | 75,852 | 77,753 | 80,261 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 123 | 126 | 130 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 118 | 128 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | 20-40 | 0-20 | 20-40 | 20-40 |
Subject Country: Malaysia
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| GPPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 64,442 | 75,330 | 82,173 | 84,898 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 117 | 128 | 132 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 117 | 127 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | 20-40 | 0-20 | 0-20 | 20-40 |
| HIPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 95,364 | 99,837 | 111,724 | 117,133 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 105 | 117 | 123 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 117 | 126 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 |
| Consolidated for PUC | |||||
| Import Quantity | MT | 1,889 | 2,891 | 3,652 | 1,903 |
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 92,057 | 95,378 | 106,327 | 113,678 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 104 | 116 | 123 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 116 | 126 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | 0-20 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 |
Subject Country: Singapore
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| GPPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 87,201 | 90,463 | 98,369 | 110,546 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 104 | 113 | 127 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 117 | 127 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 |
| HIPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 89,536 | 100,468 | 108,463 | 114,036 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 112 | 121 | 127 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 117 | 126 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | 0-20 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 |
| Consolidated for PUC | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 87,748 | 93,906 | 100,818 | 111,502 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 107 | 115 | 127 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 110 | 117 | 127 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 | (20) – 0 |
Subject Country: Chinese Taipei
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| GPPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 84,502 | 90,081 | 96,408 | 105,930 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 107 | 114 | 125 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 117 | 127 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | (20) – 0 |
| HIPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 98,787 | 85,470 | 94,452 | 116,006 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 87 | 96 | 117 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 117 | 126 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | 0 – 20 | 0 ± 20 | (20) – 0 |
| Consolidated for PUC | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 86,863 | 87,769 | 95,723 | 109,097 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 101 | 110 | 126 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 117 | 130 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | 0-20 | 0-20 | (20) – 0 |
Subject Countries as a whole
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| GPPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 84,433 | 86,135 | 94,073 | 1,02,270 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 102 | 111 | 121 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 108 | 117 | 127 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 |
| HIPS | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 93,769 | 94,424 | 1,01,526 | 1,10,946 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 101 | 108 | 118 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 117 | 126 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 0 ± 20 |
| Consolidated/ PUC | |||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 86,908 | 89,502 | 96,044 | 1,03,55 1 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 103 | 111 | 119 |
| Domestic Selling Price | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 110 | 117 | 126 |
| Price Undercutting | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Undercutting | % Range | (20) – 0 | 0-20 | 0-20 | 0-20 |
Note: The import quantity and landed Value of all subject countries except Iran is as per DGCIS data. However, the GPPS import quantity as reported by the Iran’s responding and cooperating exporter is more than the quantity reported in DGCIS data. Therefore, the GPPS import quantity as reported by the Iran’s responding and cooperating exporter, and duly verified, have been considered for import quantity and Landed Value calculation of Iran.
72. It is noted that the landed value from the subject countries is below the selling price of the Domestic Industry during the POI and preceding two years. It is further noted that, as part of the cumulative assessment of effect of dumped imports, the price undercutting is positive from the subject countries as a whole during the period of investigation.
b. Price Suppression and Depression
73. In order to determine whether the imports from the subject countries are suppressing or depressing the domestic prices and whether the effect of such imports is to suppress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases which otherwise would have occurred in normal course, the Authority considered the changes in the costs and prices over the injury period, as given below:
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| Consolidated for PUC | |||||
| Landed Value from Iran | Rs/MT | 92,564 | 87,452 | 96,257 | 99,937 |
| Landed Value from UAE | Rs/MT | 79,109 | 85,535 | 97,692 | 1,07,160 |
| Landed Value from USA | Rs/MT | 61,516 | 75,852 | 77,752 | 80,261 |
| Landed Value from Malaysia | Rs/MT | 92,058 | 95,378 | 1,06,328 | 1,13,677 |
| Landed Value from Singapore | Rs/MT | 87,747 | 93,906 | 1,00,8 18 | 1,11,503 |
| Landed Value from Chinese Taipei | Rs/MT | 86,862 | 87,769 | 95,723 | 1,09,096 |
| Landed Value from Subject Countries | Rs/MT | 86,922 | 89,510 | 96,592 | 1,03,55 1 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 103 | 111 | 119 |
| Net selling price of Domestic Industry | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 117 | 125 |
| Cost of Sales | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 103 | 116 | 131 |
74. From the above table, it is noted that the landed value of imports from the subject countries was below the selling price of the Domestic Industry in the POI and preceding two years. As the net selling price of the domestic industry has increased steadily during the injury period, there is no price depression for the domestic industry. However, since the selling price of the subject goods has not increased in proportion to the cost of sales of the subject goods, the domestic industry is facing price suppression on account of lower import prices of subject goods from subject countries.
c. Price Underselling
75. The Authority has also examined price underselling if any, suffered by the domestic industry on account of dumped imports of subject goods from the subject countries. It is noted that the landed value of imports of subject goods from subject countries is significantly below the non-injurious price of the domestic industry resulting in price underselling.
| Particulars | UoM | Subject Countries as a whole |
Iran | UAE | USA | Mal aysia | Sin gapore | Chinese Taipei |
| GPPS | ||||||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 102,270 | 99,759 | 107,317 | 81,248 | 84,898 | 110,546 | 105,930 |
| NIP | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Underselling | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Underselling | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Underselling | % Range | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 20-40 | 20-40 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 |
| HIPS | ||||||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 110,946 | 112,547 | 100,777 | 73,102 | 117,133 | 114,036 | 116,006 |
| NIP | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Underselling | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Underselling | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Underselling | % Range | 0 – 20 | 0-20 | 0 – 20 | 60-80 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 |
| Consolidated for PUC | ||||||||
| Landed Value | Rs/MT | 103,551 | 99,937 | 107,160 | 80,261 | 113,678 | 111,502 | 109,096 |
| NIP | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Underselling | Rs/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Underselling | % | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Price Underselling | % Range | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 40-60 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 | 0 – 20 |
Note: The import quantity and landed Value of all subject countries except Iran is as per DGCIS data. However, the GPPS import quantity as reported by the Iran’s responding and cooperating exporter is more than the quantity reported in DGCIS data. Therefore, the GPPS import quantity as reported by the Iran’s responding and cooperating exporter, and duly verified, have been considered for import quantity and Landed Value calculation of Iran.
iv. Economic Parameters of the Domestic Industry
76. Annexure-II to the Rules requires that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of the consequent impact of dumped imports on domestic producers of such products. With regard to consequent impact of dumped imports on domestic producers of such products, the Rules further provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. The various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed herein below:
a. Sales Volume and Value:
77. The sales volume and value of the Domestic Industry is given in the table below:
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| Sales Quantity | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 87 | 93 | 89 |
| Sales Value | Rs. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 95 | 109 | 113 |
| Sales Price | Rs./MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 117 | 128 |
78. It is noted from the above table, that the sales volume of the Domestic Industry has decreased significantly in the POI as compared to the base year.
b. Production and Capacity Utilization:
79.The details of production and capacity utilization are given in the table below:
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| Capacity | MT | 362000 | 362000 | 362000 | 362000 |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Production | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 92 | 86 | 83 |
| Capacity Utilization | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 91 | 86 | 83 |
80. It is noted from above table that the Domestic Industry have sufficient capacity to cater the need of the domestic demand. However, the capacity utilization has gone down significantly during the injury period.
c. Market share:
81. The details of imports, domestic sales and the market share of the domestic industry is as below:
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | PO! |
| Imports from Subject Countries | MT | 16915 | 20230 | 26588 | 30037 |
| Imports from Other Countries | MT | 4975 | 3768 | 3102 | 2175 |
| Total Imports | MT | 21891 | 23998 | 29690 | 32212 |
| Sales of Domestic Industry | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Sales of Other Domestic Producers | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Total Domestic Sales | MT | 235225 | 224343 | 234021 | 225475 |
| Demand | MT | 257116 | 248341 | 263711 | 257687 |
| Share in Demand | |||||
| Imports from Subject Countries | % | 6.58% | 8.15% | 10.08% | 11.66% |
| Imports from Other Countries | % | 1.93% | 1.52% | 1.18% | 0.84% |
| Total Imports | % | 8.51% | 9.66% | 11.26% | 12.50% |
| Domestic Sales | % | 9 1.49% | 90.34% | 88.74% | 87.50% |
82. From the above, it is noted that:
a. Imports of the subject goods from the subject countries have increased in the POI as compared to the previous years.
b. Market share of the domestic industry has decreased during the period of investigation over the base year despite a stagnant demand over the same period. However, during the same period the market share of the subject goods from subject countries has almost doubled.
d. Productivity:
83. The productivity of the Domestic Industry is given in table below:
| Particulars | Unit | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | POI |
| Production | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Production | Indexed | 100 | 92 | 86 | 83 |
| Employees | No. | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Employees | Indexed | 100 | 96 | 93 | 87 |
| Productivity/employee | MT/No. | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Productivity/employee | Indexed | 100 | 95 | 93 | 96 |
| Production/Day | MT/Nos | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 92 | 86 | 83 |
84. It is noted from the above table that the productivity in terms of total production per employee has declined marginally in the POI as compared to the base year due to lesser laying-off of workforce (100 to 87 indexed) as compared to the comparatively higher decrease in production (100 to 83 indexed). Ceteris paribus, the productivity of the domestic industry has not undergone any significant change during the period of investigation as compared to the base year.
e. Inventories:
85. The inventory of the subject goods is shown in the following table.
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| Average Inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 153 | 140 | 93 |
86. From the above table, it is noted that the inventory has increased consistently during the injury period, except a decline during the POI.
f. Employment and Wages:
87. The position with regard to employment and wages is given in table below:
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| Employees | Nos | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 96 | 93 | 87 |
| Wages | Rs. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 102 | 108 | 105 |
| Wages/employee | Rs./annum | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 105 | 116 | 121 |
88. It is noted from above table that the number of the employees has significantly reduced during the POI as compared to the preceding years. However, wages paid to the employees has increased, although such increase in wages paid has been commensurate to the increase in wages in the country in general.
g. Profitability:
89. The Profits, return on investment and cash flow of the domestic industry has been examined as below:
| Particulars | UoM | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | POI |
| Selling Price | Rs./MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 117 | 128 |
| Cost of Sales Price | Rs./MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 103 | 116 | 131 |
| Profit & Loss | Rs. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 235 | 141 | 30 |
| Profit & Loss | Rs./MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 269 | 153 | 33 |
| Cash Profit | Rs./MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 202 | 124 | 45 |
| Capital employed | Rs. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 149 | 150 | 126 |
| PBIT | Rs. Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 210 | 132 | 36 |
| Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 141 | 88 | 28 |
90. As noted earlier, due to the dumped and low-priced imports, the performance of the domestic industry has been adversely affected in the period of investigation. This is essentially on account of the dumped imports from the subject countries coming at lower prices due to which the domestic industry has been forced to reduce its prices to match the low prices of imports. This price pressure on the Domestic Industry has adversely affected the profitability of the Domestic Industry which has declined significantly during the POI. The ROCE has also significantly reduced during the POI as compared to the base year
h. Growth
91. There was negative growth of the domestic industry in terms of sales and production in the POI as compared to the base year. Similarly, profits, cash profit as well as ROI reduced significantly during the injury period from reasonably profitable situation during the base year despite no decrease in demand. The Domestic industry has contended that they were not able to achieve the same due to the presence of the dumped imports from subject countries.
i. Magnitude of Dumping margin:
92. Magnitude of dumping margin is an indicator of the extent to which the dumped imports can cause injury to the domestic industry. The data shows that the dumping margin determined against the subject countries are above de minimis and significant.
j. Ability to raise Capital Investment:
93. The Authority notes that the performance of the domestic industry has deteriorated considerably and dumping of the product under consideration may adversely impact the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment.
k. Factors affecting domestic prices:
94. The examination indicates that the demand in India for the subject goods is not a limiting factor for the growth of the domestic industry. The import prices from the subject countries are directly affecting the prices of the domestic industry in the domestic market. It is also noted that the landed value of subject goods from the subject countries are below non-injurious price of the domestic industry. Further, landed prices of subject goods from subject countries have suppressed prices of the Domestic Industry. The imports of the product under consideration from countries other than subject countries are negligible and are not claimed to be injuring the domestic industry. The Demand for the product in this industry has not declined, and, therefore, could not have been a factor responsible for price suppression faced by the domestic industry. Thus, main factor affecting the adverse impact on the domestic industry is the landed prices of subject goods from subject countries.
G.4 Conclusions on material injury
95. An examination of the various parameters of injury along with the volume and price effects of imports reveals that there is an increase in the volume of imports of subject goods from the subject countries during the injury investigation period in absolute terms as well as in relation to the total imports, domestic production and total demand in the country. With regard to price effect, it is noted that imports of the subject goods from the subject countries are undercutting the selling price of the domestic industry. The domestic industry has also suffered price suppression on account of dumped imports of subject goods from subject countries as selling price of subject goods has not increased in line with increase in cost of sales of subject goods during the injury period. With regard to impact of volume and price effect on the domestic industry, it is noted that sales, production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry has been adversely affected. Further, it is also noted that profitability of the domestic industry has been adversely affected on account of dumped imports of subject goods from the subject countries.
G.5 Magnitude of Injury Margin
96. The Authority has determined Non-Injurious Price (NIP) for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure-III to the Rules, as amended from time to time. The NIP of the domestic like product has been determined by adopting the verified information/data relating to the cost to make and sell for the period of investigation. The NIP of the domestic industry has been worked out in accordance with Annexure-III to the Rules. For determining NIP, the best utilization of the raw materials by the domestic industry over the injury period has been considered. The same treatment has been done with the utilities. The best utilization of production capacity over the injury period has been considered. The production in POI for NIP purpose has been calculated considering the best capacity utilization and the same production has been considered for arriving at per unit fixed costs. It is ensured that no extraordinary or non-recurring expenses were charged to the cost of production. A reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on average capital employed (i.e. Average Net Fixed Assets plus Average Working Capital) for the product under consideration was allowed for recovery of interest, corporate tax and profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure-III and being consistently followed in anti-dumping investigations by the Authority. The non-injurious price so determined has been compared with the landed prices of imports of the concerned product at same level from the subject countries to determine the injury margin. The injury margin has been computed grade-wise (i.e. separately for GPPS and HIPS) and weighted average (considering the respective export quantities from each cooperative producer/ exporter or from each country of each of the two grades) of the same for PUC and the same is as under:
| Country | Producer | Grade of Polys tyrene |
Exp orts to India |
Non- Injur ious Price |
Landed Value | Injury Margin | Injury Mar gin % and range
% |
| MT | USD/MT | USD/MT | USD/MT | ||||
| Iran | Takht-e‑ Jamshid Pars Assalouyeh Petrochemic al company |
GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 0 – 20 | ||||||
| Other producers and exporters |
GPPS | – | – | – | – | – | |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 20 – 40 | ||||||
| Chinese Taipei | Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corp. |
GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 0 – 20 | ||||||
| Other producers and exporters |
GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 20 – 40 | ||||||
| UAE | All producers and exporters |
GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 0 – 20 | ||||||
| Malaysia | All producers and exporters |
GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 0 – 20 | ||||||
| Singapore | All producers and exporters |
GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 0 – 20 | ||||||
| USA | All producers and exporters |
GPPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| HIPS | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Weighted Average | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| Range % | 40 – 60 |
G.6 Non-Attribution Analysis
97. As per the Rules, the Authority, inter alia, is required to examine any known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same time are injuring the domestic industry, and the injury caused by these other factors must not be attributed to the dumped imports. Factors which may be relevant in this respect include, inter alia, the volume and prices of imports not sold at dumped prices, contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and the productivity of the domestic industry. It has been examined below whether any known factors other than dumped imports could have contributed to the injury to the domestic industry.
i. Volume and price of imports from third countries
98. The imports from the countries other than the subject countries are not significant in volume terms so as to cause or threaten to cause injury to the Domestic Industry. It is noted that imports from other countries are negligible in volume during the POI. Thus, it cannot be said that imports from other countries are causing such injury to the domestic industry.
ii. Export Performance
99. It is noted that the injury information of domestic industry examined by the Authority is for its domestic operations only, to the extent the same could be segregated. Therefore, any possible decline in volume or price of exports could not have caused such injury to the Domestic Industry.
iii. Development of Technology
100. None of the interested parties have furnished any credible and reliable evidence to demonstrate significant changes in the technology that could have caused injury to the domestic industry. It is further noted that technology for production of the product concerned has not undergone any material change. Thus, development in technology is could not be a factor causing such injury to the domestic injury.
iv. Performance of other products of the company
101. The Authority has considered injury information only in relation to the product under consideration of the domestic industry. Therefore, the effect of performance of other products being produced and sold by the domestic industry have been removed from the injury analysis. Hence, the performance of other products being produced and sold by the Domestic Industry does not appear to be a possible cause of such injury to the domestic industry.
v. Trade Restrictive Practices and Competition between the Foreign and Domestic producers
The import of the subject goods is not restricted in any manner and the same are freely importable in the country. No credible and reliable evidence has been submitted by any interested party to suggest that the conditions of competition between the foreign and the domestic producers have undergone any material/ substantive change. Therefore, it does not appear to be a possible cause of such injury to the domestic industry.
vi. Productivity of the Domestic Industry
103. It is noted that the productivity of the domestic industry remained more or less in the same band and therefore, it does not appear to be a possible cause of such injury to the domestic industry.
vii. Contraction in Demand and Changes in pattern of consumption
104. It is noted that the demand of the subject goods has not decreased in the POI as compared to the base year of the injury period. Thus, it is concluded that the injury to the Domestic industry could not be due to contraction in demand.
G.7 Conclusion by the Authority on injury and causal link
105. It is thus noted that listed known other factors do not show that the Domestic Industry could have suffered injury due to these other factors. The Authority examined whether the dumping of the product has caused injury to the domestic industry.
a. Imports of the subject goods from the subject countries have increased both in absolute terms and in relation to production and consumption in India over the entire injury period.
b. The dumped imports of subject goods from the subject countries have taken over a significant market share of the domestic industry. In fact, the share of domestic industry in total demand has consistently decreased from 2015-16 to POI due to a 75% increase in market share of the dumped imports from the subject countries.
c. The selling price of the Domestic Industry for the subject goods has increased during the injury investigation period, however, the selling price of the subject goods has not increased in proportion to the increase of the cost of sales of the subject goods. Thus, the domestic industry is facing price suppression on account of lower import prices of the subject goods from the subject countries.
d. The imports of the subject goods from the subject countries have been undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market. Resultantly, the domestic industry has been forced to reduce its prices. The price suppression suffered by the domestic industry is primarily because of dumping of the product in the country.
e. The price suppression and price undercutting along with significant increase in the volume of dumped imports from subject countries has, thus, resulted in significant deterioration in profits, cash flow and return on investments of the domestic industry.
106. Therefore, the Authority concludes that the domestic industry suffered material injury due to dumped imports.
H. POST-DISCLOSURE SUBMISSIONS
H. I. Views of the Domestic Industry after the Disclosure Statement
107. The Authority may confirm its proposals made in the disclosure statement regarding scope of product under consideration, standing of the Domestic Industry, dumping analysis and injury analysis in the final findings.
108. The onus of substantiating the claim of exclusion of certain forms/ types of PUC with sufficient evidence lies with the party claiming such exclusion. No such reliable and material evidence carrying detailed technical parameters of these desired exclusions from the scope of PUC have been placed by any of interested parties to help the Authority to reach to a conclusion that aforementioned ‘forms/ types’ of the PUC are not like articles and are not technically and commercially substitutable. Further, in the subject investigation, different forms and shapes of the product under consideration do not make any difference in either the technical properties or the end use of the product.
109. The correspondence with FCFC in relation to their sales of subject goods to their related party should be provided to the Domestic Industry. In any case, in the absence of response from related party, response of FCFC should be rejected.
H. II Submissions by producers/exporters/importers and other interested parties
110. The Authority while calculating the dumping margin has used adverse facts against them which is highly unfair and illegal. It is further submitted that only some unrelated parties have not responded in the investigation on whom neither the related trader nor producer from Iran exercise any control. Therefore, use of adverse facts in the above context shall amount to penalizing cooperating parties for no fault of theirs.
111. The adverse facts considered by the Authority for M/s. Golden International FZE and TJPAPC have not been disclosed. It is further submitted that denial of such information vitiates the opportunity to comment on the reasonableness of such approach. They requested the Authority to reconsider this aspect of adoption of adverse facts.
112. The non-confidential version of the petition was not in the form and manner prescribed by the Trade Notice. It is further submitted that the Domestic Industry has not provided Format-H in the non-confidential version of the petition.
113. The failure to grant an extension by the Designated Authority has seriously prejudiced the right of defense in the investigation by the cooperative importers. They have also submitted that the disclosure statement is the first and only opportunity available to the parties, to respond to the essential facts ascertained by the Authority, in the course of the investigation. Therefore, it is a critical stage in the investigation process and failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to interested parties, is not only a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, but also in contravention of the statutory provisions.
114. M/s. LG Polymers India Ltd (LG Polymers), which caters to about a 1/3rd of the demand in India, has shut down its operations due to an accident which has significantly reduced the supply of the product available in India. In the petitions, the rated capacity of the machines has been given, however, the actual production capacity is much less, as the machines cannot operate beyond 80% of rated capacity. In view thereof, importers have requested the Authority to not impose any duty on the subject goods. The users have further submitted that Polystyrene constitutes more than 75% of the cost of sheets, and, therefore, the impact of the anti-dumping duty on the cost of sheets will be significant. They expect substantial import of sheets in case of levy on polystyrene, and other downstream products.
115. The Authority has incorrectly defined the product scope by not excluding melt flow index below MFI 3. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that Domestic Industry is producing subject goods below MFI 3. It has been reiterated that product scope was vague and not properly defined.
116. The Authority has incorrectly determined the dumping margin as the Authority has not excluded lumps and other forms from the scope of the subject goods. Certain importers have further raised objection on the dumping margin range disclosed in the disclosure statement, as the same is more than what had been claimed by the Domestic Industry in its application. It is further argued that how DGTR can give more protection than what is claimed in the petition.
117. The Authority has not disclosed World Trade Atlas (WTA) data to the interested parties. Since the normal value is based on WTA data, it should have been disclosed to the interested parties for their comments. It is further submitted that the normal value used by the Authority in the disclosure statement is more than that of ICIS LOR, which is beyond the imagination of the users. Moreover, the Authority has added exorbitant profits while computing normal value.
118. Issue related to cumulative assessment of injury is not warranted as landed value of imports from USA is significantly lower. Further the landed value from USA is higher than the selling price of the Domestic Industry.
119. Imports from Malaysia and Taiwan constitutes negligible percentage of the demand of the subject goods in India. It is further submitted that besides low volumes, their landed value is higher than the selling price of the Domestic Industry. In view therefore, Domestic Industry is not suffering any injury.
120. Domestic Industry is not suffering any injury and as even according to the examination of the Authority in the disclosure statement, there is mere decline in the profits of the Domestic Industry. Further there is no causal link also between injury to the Domestic Industry and imports from the subject countries.
121. There is a clear inverse relation between movement in landed price of imports and performance of the DI on core metrics. It is further submitted that Domestic Industry did not suffer any injury during the POI and, therefore, this case needs to be terminated.
122. The Authority should analyze post POI period also in order to establish the injury to the Domestic Industry. It is further submitted that in post POI period, Domestic Industry has earned good profits.
123. The domestic producers in India enjoy dominant position and sell the subject goods in cartel. At certain times, domestic producers restrict the supply of the subject goods. However, the Authority has not dealt with these submissions in the disclosure statement.
H. III. Examination by the Authority with regard to post disclosure comments
124. The Authority notes that most of the submissions by parties are repetitive in nature and have been examined and addressed in the disclosure statement and in the foregoing parts of the present findings. The findings above deal with all such arguments of the domestic industry and other interested parties. However, the Authority has examined these submissions herein below to the extent relevant and not addressed elsewhere.
125. As regards the issue of injury parameters, the Authority has carried out the analysis under the respective headings while making an assessment and examination of injury and causal link.
126. In relation to the submissions of the interested parties that the Authority has not granted sufficient time to provide comments on the disclosure statement, it is noted that the Disclosure was issued on 6th April 2020 requesting for comments by 25th April 2020. However, appreciating the prevalent difficulties from the lockdown emanating from COVID-19, the Authority granted various extensions eventually till June 1 to provide comments on the disclosure statement to those parties who requested extension. In fact, request for extension was approved to both importers despite the fact that all other interested parties had provided their comments by April 25, 2020. Further, it is also noted that anti-dumping investigation is a time bound investigation and requires examination of various issues which is time consuming. Despite this fact, in view of the hardships faced by the interested parties due to lockdowns in COVID-19 situation, sufficient time was provided to all the requesting interested parties for making comments. Accordingly, the Authority ensured that no prejudice should be caused to any interested party on this account.
127. As regards the issue of industrial accident that happened at LG Polymers, the Authority notes that the incident has occurred much after the POI and has no bearing on the outcome of the instant investigations as the Authority is required to analyze the facts and performance/ injury parameters pertaining to only the POI. In any case, the applicant domestic producers have sufficient unutilized capacity and inventory to cater to the Indian demand. The Authority notes that, even at 80% to 85% of their capacity utilization, they can adequately cater the current Indian demand. The Authority reiterates that importers / users are free to import the subject goods at fair price from any country, as the purpose of the anti-dumping duties is not to restrict the imports, but to create a level playing field at fair prices in the Indian market.
128. As regards the contention of exclusion of subject goods having Melt flow index less than 3 MFI and of different shapes of the subject goods, it is noted that the Domestic Industry during the verification of the information has provided invoices of the subject goods manufactured and sold by them of melt flow index below 3 MFI. They further explained that different shapes do not make the product different, as ultimately the end use of the product irrespective of shape is same. Domestic Industry has submitted that technical information related to product including MFI is also available on their website. On the contrary, it is noted that opposing interested parties failed to provide evidence to prove their contention of exclusion and difference in subject goods due to different shapes. In view thereof, the Authority confirms the product scope as mentioned in the disclosure statement.
29. As regard the contention of the interested parties in relation to incorrect computation of normal value, dumping margin and non-disclosure of WTA data in the disclosure statement, it is noted that the Authority has used WTA data to establish price of the major raw material i.e., Styrene Monomer, for computing normal value for those subject countries from where no producer / exporters had participated in the investigation. It is further noted that the observation of the Authority, relating to lower prices of Styrene Monomer in USA, was also based on the price comparison of WTA data vis-à-vis other countries. It is further noted that none of the interested parties has assisted the Authority in this context and therefore, the Authority has to proceed in terms of the Rule 6(8). In relation to the contention of the interested parties that the Authority has wrongly increased the dumping margin vis-à-vis the dumping margin claimed by the applicant in its application, the Authority notes that the Authority in the final findings has worked out normal value, export price and dumping margin based on the verified information made available by cooperative exporters and the Domestic Industry during the course of the investigation. The Authority is required to evaluate the correct dumping margin and injury margin and not restrict itself to the claim made in the application.
130. As regards the issue of lower share of imports from Malaysia and Taiwan in relation to demand in the country, it is noted that the Authority is required to examine the percentage of imports from subject countries in relation to total imports in India and not the demand. Further, the issues relating to injury and causal link have been appropriately dealt in the relevant section of the final findings.
131. As regard the submission of the exporters that the Authority cannot use adverse facts while computing their dumping margin and non-disclosure of such adverse facts vitiates their opportunity to comment on the reasonableness of such approach, the Authority notes the following provisions in this regard:
(a) Rule 6(8) of the Rules provides as under:
“(8) In a 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 its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as it deems fit under such circumstances.”
(b) Further, Paragraph 7 of Annex II pursuant to Article 6.8 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement provides as under:
“…….It is clear, however, that if an interested party does not cooperate and thus relevant information is being withheld from the authorities, this situation could lead to a result which is less favourable to the party than if the party did cooperate.”
132. For the portion of export quantity for which complete chain of responses containing the requisite information have not been made available to the Authority, the individual dumping margin for such producers/exporters has been computed considering the above provisions.
133. As regards the submission of the importers that there is cartel in the Indian market and domestic producers restrict the supply of subject goods as they are in the dominant position, the Authority notes that neither any evidence in this regard was placed on the record in support of this claim nor the Authority found any evidence of the same during the course of the investigation.
134. As regards the issues raised by the interested parties with respect to the non-submission of Format H by the Domestic Industry in the non-confidential version of its application as per the Trade Notice, it is noted that the Format-H is part of the new costing formats introduced by the Authority and, therefore, is confidential, by nature.
I. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES.
135. The Authority recognizes that the imposition of anti-dumping duties might affect the price levels of the product in India. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by the anti-dumping measures. On the contrary, imposition of anti-dumping measures would remove the unfair advantages gained by dumping practices, prevent the decline of the Domestic Industry and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of the subject goods.
136. The Authority notes that the imposition of the 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 end user. The end user could still maintain two or even more sources of supply. The purpose of anti-dumping duties, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. Imposition of anti-dumping measures would not affect the availability of the subject goods to the consumers.
J. CONCLUSION
137. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided, and submissions made by the interested parties and facts available before the Authority as recorded in these final findings and on the basis of the above analysis, the Authority concludes that:
a. The product under consideration has been exported to India from the subject countries below its associated normal value, thus resulting in dumping.
b. The Domestic Industry has suffered material injury due to dumping of the product under consideration from the subject countries.
c. The material injury has been caused by the dumped imports from the subject countries.
K. RECOMMENDATION
138. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate opportunity was given to the exporters, importers and other interested parties to provide positive information on the aspect of dumping, injury and causal link. Having initiated and conducted the investigation into dumping, injury and causal link in terms of the provisions laid down under the Rules and having established positive dumping margin as well as material injury to the domestic industry caused by such dumped imports, the Authority is of the view that imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty is required to offset dumping and injury. The Authority, therefore, considers it necessary and recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject countries in the form and manner described hereunder.
139. In terms of provision contained in Rule 17(1) (b) read with Rule 4(d) of the Rules, the Authority recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty equal to the lesser of margin of dumping and the margin of injury, so as to remove the injury to the Domestic Industry. Accordingly, definitive anti-dumping duty equal to the amount mentioned in Column 7 of the duty table below is recommended to be imposed from the date of the Notification to be issued by the Central Government, on all imports of subject goods originating in or exported from subject country.
Duty Table
| S. No | He ading/ Sub-Hea ding | Des crip tion of Goods | Country of Origin |
Country of Export |
Pro ducer | Duty Am ount | Cur rency | Unit |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 1. | 3903* | Poly styrene of all types except expa ndable Poly styrene | Iran | Any Country including Iran | Takht-e-Jamshid Pars Assa louyeh Petro chemical company | 183 | US $ | MT |
| 2. | -DO- | -DO- | Iran | Any Country including Iran |
Any pro ducer other than at serial no. 1 | 309 | US $ | MT |
| 3. | -DO- | -DO- | Any Country other than subject countries** |
Iran | Any | 309 | US $ | MT |
| 4. | -DO- | -DO- | Chinese Taipei | Any Country including Chinese Taipei |
Formosa Che micals & Fibre Corp. |
39 | US $ | MT |
| 5. | -DO- | -DO- | Chinese Taipei | Any Country including Chinese Taipei |
Any pr oducer other than at serial no. 4 | 296 | US $ | MT |
| 6. | -DO- | -DO- | Any Country other than subject cou ntries** |
Chinese Taipei | Any | 296 | US $ | MT |
| 7. | -DO- | -DO- | United Arab Emirates | Any Country including United Arab Emirates |
Any | 78 | US $ | MT |
| 8. | -DO- | -DO- | Any Country other than subject cou ntries** |
United Arab Emirates |
Any | 78 | US $ | MT |
| 9. | -DO- | -DO- | United States of America | Any Country including United States of America |
Any | 474 | US $ | MT |
| 10. | -DO- | -DO- | Any Country other than subject coun tries** |
United States of Am erica |
Any | 474 | US $ | MT |
| 11. | -DO- | -DO- | Malaysia | Any Country including Malaysia |
Any | 54 | US $ | MT |
| 12. | -DO- | -DO- | Any Country other than subject countries** |
Malaysia | Any | 54 | US $ | MT |
| 13. | -DO- | -DO- | Singapore | Any Country including Sin gapore |
Any | 35 | US $ | MT |
*Custom classification is only indicative, and the determination of the duty shall be made as per the description of PUC. The PUC mentioned above should be subject to above Anti-dumping duty even when it is imported under any other HS code.
** Subject countries are Iran, Malaysia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and United States of America (USA)
L. FURTHER PROCEDURE
140. An appeal against the orders of the Central Government that may arise out of this recommendation shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.
BHUPINDER S. BHALLA, Addl. Secy. & Designated Authority
