MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2020

Case No. OI-10/2019

Subject : Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP, European Union, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, USA, Thailand, South Africa, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam and Malaysia.

A. BACKGROUND

F. No. 6/12/2019-DGTR.—

1. Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Antidumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) thereof, the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), received a written application from Indian Stainless Steel Development Association (ISSDA), M/s Jindal Stainless Limited, Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited and Jindal Stainless Steelway Limited (hereinafter referred to as the applicants or petitioners or domestic industry) on alleged dumping of Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), from People’s Republic of China, Korea RP, EU, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, USA, Thailand, South Africa, Mexico, UAE, Singapore, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as the subject countries) and requested imposition of anti-dumping duties on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries.

2. The Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the Applicants justifying initiation of Antidumping investigation, issued a public notice vide Notification No. 6/12/2019-DGTR dated 3rd July, 2019 in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules to examine and determine existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries, and to recommend the amount of antidumping 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, post receipt of the application, with regard to the subject investigation:

i. The Authority notified the Embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the Anti­dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigations in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra.

ii. The Authority sent a copy of the Initiation Notification to the Embassy of the subject countries in India, known producers/ exporters from the subject countries, known importers/ consumers/ users/ associations in India, other Indian producers and the domestic industry as per the addresses made available and requested them to make their views known in writing within 40 days of the Initiation Notification.

iii. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known producers/ exporters and to the Embassy of the subject countries in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules supra.

iv. The Embassies of the subject countries in India were also requested to advise the exporters/producers from the subject countries to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the producers/exporters was also sent to them along with the names and addresses of the known producers/ exporters from the subject countries.

v. 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:

1 Acerinox sc Malaysia 35 Mh Megah Maju Enterprise
2 Bahru Stainless Son Bho Ptd 36 Nantong Jindi Fastener Co. Ltd
3 Ok Corporation, South Korea 37 Ningbo Polairs Metal Products Co. Ltd
4 Elite optels (h.k.) Limited, China 38 Ningbo Tierslia Imp & Exp co Ltd
5 Evershining International (H.K) 39 Ningbo Yinzhou Gaudhi Metal Products Co Ltd
6 Excelvantage   Global Ltd, China 40 Oak Steel Limited
7 Five star Intl Group Ltd, China 41 Perfect Metal Fabrication co. Limited
8 Foshan Chuangshengdian Importand Export Co Ltd, China 42 Posco Daewoo Corporation
9 Foshan Gog Stainless Steel Co Ltd, China 43 Pt Imr Arc Steel Randuhardjo-Pungging
10 Foshan Hinato      ceramics   co. Ltd. China 44 Pt Imr Arc Steel Dusun Mojosarirejo
11 Foshan International Trade CO Ltd China 45 Pt. Bintang Asia Usahakawasan Industri
12 Foshan Realtime Import & Export Co China 46 Saera     Corporation     Ltd
13 Foshan Shunhengli Import &Export Co Ltd China 47 Samsung C and T Corporation
14 Foshan Teehoo Stainless Steel co. Ltd, China 48 Shandong Mengyin Huarun Imp&Exp Co Ltd
15 Foshan Yingfa Stainless Steel Co. Ltd china 49 Shandong Mengyin Huarun Impand   Exp. Co. Ltd
16 Global Steel, Rupublic Of Korea 50 Shenzhen One Touch Business Service Ltd
17 Gotoh & Co. Ltd.Japan 51 Sinosteel    Shenzhen Co.Ltd
18 Gs Global Corp Republic of Korea 52 Takara Trading Co Ltd
19 Guangzhou Eversunny Trading Co.Ltd China 53 Topbing International Industrial Limited
20 Guizhou   Zhongruixianghe        Supply Chain co. Ltd china 54 Toyota Tsusho Corporation
21 Hakko Trading CO LTd Japan 55 Uniexcel Ltd
22 Hongkong Winner Steel Co Ltd, China 56 Walsin Lihwa Corp.
23 Hyosung Corporation, Republic of Korea 57 Wuxi Baoya Metal Co Ltd
24 Hyundai Corporation, Republic of Korea 58 Wuxi Zhongzhixin Stainless Steel Co. Ltd
25 Jfe Shoji Trade Corporation, Japan 59 Xiamen Tancheng Import and Export Co Ltd
26 Jiangsu New Qiujing Stainless Steel Co. Ltd, China 60 Y Viet Company Limited
27 Dongsha N Jieyang Guangdong China 61 Yamasaki Metal and Co. Ltd
28 Jieyang De Bao Ming Stainless steel 62 Yc Inox Co Ltd
29 Jin Metal Korea Co. Ltd. 63 Yieh United Steel Corporation
30 Jin Yang Metal Co. Ltd 64 You Steel Co Ltd
31 Karl Steel Internationalcompany Limited 65 Yuan Long Stainless-Steel Corp
32 Kobayashi Shoji 66 Yuting Industrial Co. Ltd
33 Metal China Industrial Co. Ltd 67 Zhejiang Zhongda Yuantong Industrial Corporation
34 Metal One Corporation

vi. The Authority issued a corrigendum to the initiation notification dated 03.07.2020 and clarified the product under consideration in the initiation notification.

vii. The Authority through communication dated 15.07.2020 granted extension of time for filing comments on PCN.

viii. The Authority vide communication dated 14.08.2019, notified the PCN to be adopted for providing relevant information and extended the time for filing the questionnaire response. On 13th September, the Authority once again extended the date upto 30th September, 2019 to file questionnaire response.

ix. In response to the Initiation Notification, the following foreign exporters/producers responded and submitted questionnaire responses:

1. PT. Bina Niaga Multiusaha

2. PT IMR ARC Steel

3. IMR Metallurgical Resources AG

4. India Coke and Power Pvt Ltd

5. PT Ekasa Yad Resources

6. Eternal Tsignshan

7. Pt. Indonesia Guang Ching Nickle and Stainless Steel Industry (GCNS)

8. Golden Harbour International Pte Ltd

9. Pt Hanwa Indonesia

10. PT. Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (IRNC)

11. PT. Indonesia Tsingshan Stainless Steel (ITSS)

12. Recheer Resources Singapore PTE Ltd.

13. Schuang International Development Limited

14. PT. Sulawesi Mining Investment (SMI)

15. Stratus Steels DMCC

16. PT. Tsingshan Stainless Steel Indonesia

17. Walsin Lihwa Corporation (WALSIN)

18. Yieh Corporation Limited (YCL)

19. Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO)

20. Yieh Mau Corp (YMC)

21. Yuan Long Stainless Steel Corp (YLSS)

22. Outokumpu Nirosta GmbH

23. Outokumpu Press Plate AB

24. NIPPON STEEL Stainless Steel Corporation

25. Nippon Steel Corporation

26. JFE Steel Corporation,

27. Nippon Yakin Kogyo Co., Ltd.

28. Nippon Kinzoku Co., Ltd.

29. Daido Steel Co., Ltd.

30. Canox Corporation.

31. Goka Co., Ltd.

32. Honda Trading Corporation

33. Outokumpu Stainless Oy, Finland

34. Walsin Lihwa Corporation,

35. Yuan Long Stainless Steel Corporation,

36. Kobayashi Shoji K.K,

37. Outokumpu PSC Benelux B.V.

38. Outokumpu S.p.A, EMEA Reporting unit

39. Outokumpu Service center GmbH

40.  Outokumpu Stainless AB

41. Steel 568 Company Limited

42. Hyundai BNG Steel Co. Ltd.

43. EK Co Ltd

44. PL Special Steel Co Ltd

45. Shon International Co. Ltd.

46. AD Stainless Co. Ltd.

47. Global Steel

48. You Steel Co. Ltd.

49. SIJ ACRONI D.O.O.

50. Bahru Stainless Sdn Bhd

51. Columbus Stainless (Pty) Limited

52. Celerity Asia Trade Limited

53. DK Corporation

54. NIPPON KINZOKU-Malaysia

55. Acroni DOO

56. PT. Tsignshan Steel Indonesia

57. Hyosung TNC

58. Hyundai Corporation

59. Kim Troung Hung Steel Co. Ltd.

60. POSCO Asia Company Ltd.

61. POSCO International

62. POSCO, Korea RP

63. Samsung C&T Corporation

64.. POSCO VST Co. Ltd.

65. Acerinox Europa S.A.U-EU

66. Nikkin Steel Co., Ltd, Trader

67. Nippon Kinzoku (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd,

68. NS Stainless Corporation,

69. Ohmi Industries Ltd,

70. Sumitomo Corporation,

71. Sumitomo Corporation Global Metals Co. Ltd.

72. Toyota Tsusho Corporation

73. Yieh United Steel Corporation,

74. Yieh Corporation Limited and

75. Yieh Mau Corp

76. Aperam Stainless Europe

x. The Authority sent Importer’s Questionnaire to the following known importers/ users of subject goods in India, calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:

1. Accurate Steel 2. Home Zone Stainless Private Limited
3. Moonlight Tube Industries 4. Shakti Pumps India Limited
5. Amanat Steels Pvt. Ltd 6. Horizon Chutes Pvt
7. Naman Steel 8. Shree Ashapura Steel Centre
9. Aminox international 10. Hypro Engineers Pvt Ltd.
11. National peroxide limited 12. Shree Mahavir Steel
13. Ankur exports 14. Igp Engineers Private Limited
15. Navgrah fastners pvt ltd 16. Shree Ramdev Metal Mart
17. Anupam impex 18. Inco Steel
19. Navgrah fastners pvt. Ltd. 20. Shree Ramdev Steels Pvt.Ltd.
21. Montex stainless and alloys 22. Inox Stainless
23. Navpad steel centre 24. Shree Swangiya Metal Industries
25. Ashok metal corporation 26. J.Y. International
27. Navyug metal corporation 28. Shree Tube Mfg.Co.Pvt.Ltd.
29. Ashwin impex 30. Jagdamba Cutlery Private Limited
31. Nenava metal corporation 32. Shree Vallabh Metals
33. B.V.S. Overseas 34. Jaiman Metalloys Llp
35. Neptune Steel Impex 36. Shriram Handles
37. Balaji Impex 38. Jainex Steel & Metal
39. NG Industries 40. Siddhant Steel
41. Balaji Niryaat Private 42. Jay Laxmi Metal Corporation
43. Nickel Impex LLP 44. Siddhivinayak Steel
45. Bhalaria metal craft pvt ltd 46. Jayna Steel India
47. Numax steels 48. Silver Steels
49. Bharat Exports 50. Jewel Impex Pvt Ltd
51. Ohsung Electronics India Private Limited 52. Stainox Alloys Pvt Ltd
53. Bhavyadeep Impex 54. Jfe Shoji Trade India Private Limited
55. Om Gurudev Metals 56. Steel International Mahavir Darshan
57. Chanchal Metal & Tube 58. Kamal Metal Corporation
59. P.P. Impex (india) 60. Steel Line (India)
61. Chirag Udyog 62. Keshoram Industries
63. Pacific Metal Trading co 64. Steel Yard Overseas
65. Devdeep Steel Alloys 66. Keyur Kitchenware
67. Param Industries 68. Stride Industries LLP
69. Dhanera impex. 70. Kitchen Essentials
71. Paras Impoexpo Pvt Ltd. 72. Suchi Fasteners Pvt Ltd
73. Dhanera Metal Supply Corporation 74. Kraftwares (India) Private Limited.
75. Phoenix Foils Pvt. Ltd. 76. Suman Metalshop
77. Minox Metal Private Limited 78. Kunal Housewares Pvt.Ltd.
79. Posco-India Pune Processing Center Pvt. Ltd 80. Suncity Sheets Pvt Ltd
81. Divine Overseas Private Limited 82. Larsen & Toubro Limited
83. Rajesh Steel 84. Suncity Strips & Tubes Private Limited
85. Flange Forge India 86. Lubi Industries Llp
87. Rajguru Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 88. Sunder Impex Pvt Ltd
89. Forte Impex Pvt. Ltd. 90. M. P. Steel Centre
91. Ramani Steel House 92. Super Impex
93. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 94. Magppie International Ltd
95. Randen Engineering Pvt.Ltd. 96. Swastik Industries
97. Goodluck Metal Corporation 98. Mahaveer Stainless Steel
99. Riddhi Siddhi Impex 100. Trident Steel
101. Goodluck Steels 102. Mars Housewares
103. Welkin Infotech Private Limited 104. Uttam Steel Alloys Pvt Ltd
105. H. K. Impex Pvt. Ltd. 106. Maruti Suzuki India Limited
107. S S Impex 108. Vishal Steels
109. Him Enterprises 110. Maxim Tubes Company Pvt Ltd
111. Saneet Steelsa 112. Veena Steel Industries
113. Hindustan Inox Limited 114. Mayfair International
115. Saraswati Steel India 116. Victora Auto Pvt. Ltd
117. Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd 118. Metal One Corporation India Private Limited
119. Seth Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. 120. Vikram Metal [India]
121. Home Zone Metals Private 122. Milan Steel
123. Shah Foils Limited 124. Sun Mark Stainless Pvt. Ltd

xi. The following importers and users of the subject goods responded by filing questionnaire responses:

a. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

b. Saraswati Steel Ltd

c. Navnidhi Steel and Engg Pvt. Ltd.

d. NG Industries

e. Metal One corporation India Pvt Ltd

f. Marubeni Itochu Steel India Pvt. Ltd

g. JFE Shoji Trade Corporation

h. JFE Shoji Trade India Pvt Ltd

i. Outokumpu India Pvt. Ltd.

j. POSCO India Processing Center Pvt. Ltd.-Chennai

k. POSCO India Processing Center Pvt. Ltd.-Delhi

l. POSCO India Pune Processing Center Pvt. Ltd.

m. Ohsung Electronics India Pvt Ltd

n. Maruti Suzuki India Limited

o. Chromeni Steels Pvt Ltd

p. POSCO India Processing Center Pvt. Ltd.-Ahmedabad

q. Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd.

r. Remi Edelstahl Tubulars Ltd

s. Suncity Sheets Pvt Ltd

t. Suncity strips and tubes Pvt Ltd

u. Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd.

v. Keihin India manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.

w. Rahual ferromet & Engineering Pvt. Ltd

x. Inoxcva historically futuristic

xii. The initiation notification was also sent to the associations listed below:

a. Jagadhri Stainless Steel Re-Rollers Association

b. The Rajasthan Stainless Steel Re-Rollers Association

c. Stainless Stell Rollers Association

d. Wazirpur Industrial Estate Welfare Society

e. All India Stainless Steel Cold Rollers Associations

f. Association of Indian Medical Equipment Device

g. All India Stainless Steel Industry Association

h. Metal and Stainless Steel Merchants Association

i. Process Plant and Machinery Association of India

j. Delhi Stainless Steel Trade Association

k. Steel Furnace Association

xiii. Following parties have filed submissions during the course of the investigation:

a. Eternal Tsingshan Group and Pt. Indonesia Guang Ching Nickle and Stainless Steel Industry

b. Lubi Industries LLP

c. Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. and Suncity Strips & Tubes Pvt. Ltd.

d. Bindal Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd.

e. Eternal Tsingshan Group and Pt. Indonesia Guang Ching Nickle and Stainless Steel Industry

f. Stainless Steel Pipe and tubes Manufacturing Welfare Association

g. South India Stainless Steel pipe and tubes Manufacturers Association

h. Steel Furnace Association of India

i. Rajasthan Stainless Steel Re-rollers association

j. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.

k. Outokumpu Oyj

l. Kim Troung Hung Steel Co. Ltd.

m. Rudhra Impex

n. POSCO, Korea RP

o. Indian Stainless Steel Development Association

p. DOZCO (India) PVT ltd.

q. Stainless Steel Pipes & Tubes Manufacturers Association

r. Divine Impex

s. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

t. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.

u. KPV Impex

v. M.P. Industries

w. Navnidhi Steel & Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.

x. Process Plant and Machinery Association of India

y. DGFT Indonesia

z. Shree Ramdev Steels Pvt. Ltd.

aa. Shree Ramdev Steels Pvt. Ltd.

bb. Suraj Limited

cc. TBS Metal Pvt. Ltd.

dd. Tamil Nadu Stainless Steel Merchants and Manufacturers Association

ee. Outokumpu India Pvt. Ltd.

ff. Shiva Trading Co.

gg. All India Stainless Steel Importers Association

hh. Navnidhi Steel and Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.

ii. Metal & Stainless Steel Merchant’s Association

jj. Minox Metal Private Limited

kk. Non-Ferrous Metal Association

ll. Stainless Steel Merchant’s Association

mm. Meena Metal Impex Pvt. Ltd.

nn. Ramani Steel House

oo. Paxal Corporation

pp. All India Stainless Steel Industries Association

qq. Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd.

rr. NG Industries,

ss. Navnidhi Steel & Engg Co. Pvt. Ltd,

tt. Saraswati Steel (India)

uu. Shree Ramdev Metalex and MP Industries

vv. Rajasthan Stainless Steel Re-Rollers Association

ww. All India Stainless Steel Cold Rollers Association

xx. Columbus Stainless Steel

yy. Bahru Stainless Steel

zz. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.

aaa. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.

bbb. Emit Emmission Control Technologies Pvt Ltd

ccc. Eternal Tsingshan Group and Pt. Indonesia Guang Ching Nickle and Stainless Steel Industry

ddd. Remi Edelstahl Tubulars Ltd

eee. Delhi Stainless Steel Trade Association

fff. Special Steel Association of Japan

ggg. Japan Stainless Steel Association

hhh. Industeel Belgium S.A.S

iii. Industeel France S.A.S

xiv. Following parties filed comments with regard to the methodology to be adopted for making Product Control Number ( PCN) for the PUC in the subject investigation:

a. PT IMR ARC Steel Indonesia

b. POSCO VST

c. Outokumpu Oyj

d. SIJ Acroni d.o.o.

e. Ratnamani Metal & Tubes Ltd.

f. Eternal Tsingshan Group and Pt. Indonesia Guang Ching Nickle and Stainless Steel Industry

g. JFE Steel Corporation

h. Nippon Kinzoku Co., Ltd.

i. Daido Steel Co., Ltd

xv. The following associations and parties have filed letters supporting imposition of antidumping duty:

a. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)

b. Shah Alloys

c. Rajasthan Stainless Steel Re-Rollers Association

d. All India Induction Furnace Association

e. All India Stainless Steel Cold Rollers Association, ( Ahmadabad)

f. Jagadhri Stainless Steel Re- Rollers Association, Haryana

g. South India Stainless Steel Pipe and Tubes Manufacturer Association

h. Stainless Steel Welded Tubes & Pipes Manufacturers Association (Kolkata)

i. Stainless Steel Pipe and Tubes manufacturer Association

j. Stainless Steel Re-rolling Association, Delhi

k. Delhi Stainless Steel Trade Association

l. Wazirpur Industrial Estate Welfare Society

xvi. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested parties in the form of a public file kept open for inspection by the interested parties.

xvii. 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 past three years, and the period of investigation, which was received by the Authority. The Authority has relied upon the DGCI&S data for computation of the volume of imports and required analysis after due examination of the transactions.

xviii. The Non-Injurious Price (NIP) is 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 Antidumping Rules has been worked out so as to ascertain whether Antidumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.

xix. The Authority held an oral hearing on 15th October, 2019 to provide an opportunity to the interested parties to present relevant information orally in accordance to Rule 6 (6), which was attended by the representatives of domestic industry, members of various Stainless Steel Associations, representatives of exporters from various subject countries, importers and users. All the parties who presented their views in the oral hearing 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 allowed to submit their rejoinders thereafter.

xx. Due to change of the Designated Authority another oral hearing was conducted by the new Designated Authority on 12th December, 2019 in pursuance of the direction given in the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers’ Association (ATMA) Vs The Designated Authority in Civil Appeal 949 of 2006. The parties, who presented their views in the 2nd oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions. Due to another change of the Designated Authority another oral hearing was conducted by the new Designated Authority on 6th November 2020. The parties, who presented their views in the 3rd oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions.

xxi. The verification of the information provided by the domestic industry and other interested parties was carried out to the extent considered necessary. Only such verified information with necessary rectification, wherever applicable, has been relied upon by the Authority.

xxii. The Period of Investigation (POI) in the present investigation is April 2018 to March 2019 (12 months). The injury investigation period shall cover the periods 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and the period of investigation.

xxiii. The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, wherever found relevant, have been addressed by the Authority, in these final findings.

xxiv. 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 as 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.

xxv. 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.

xxvi. In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules, the essential facts of the investigation were disclosed to the known interested parties vide Disclosure Statement dated 11th December, 2020 and comments received thereon, considered relevant by the Authority, have been addressed in these final findings. The Authority notes that most of the post disclosure submissions made by the interested parties are mere reiteration of their earlier submissions. However, the post disclosure submissions to the extent considered relevant are being examined in these Final Findings.

xxvii. ‘***’ in this document represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.

xxviii. The exchange rate for the POI has been taken by the Authority as ₹ 70.82= 1 US$.

C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE

4. The product under consideration in the present investigation as defined in the notice of initiation is “Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel” excluding the following:

a. Hot rolled stainless steel of 304 grade and width up to 1650mm (with permissible tolerances) from China, Malaysia and Korea, wherein anti-dumping duty was recommended vide notification no 14/30/2013-DGAD, dated 9th March, 2015 and imposed vide customs notification No. 28/2015-Customs (ADD) dated 5th June, 2015.

b. Cold rolled stainless steel of 600 mm and above (with permissible tolerances) from China, Korea, EU, USA, Taiwan, Thailand, South Africa, except cold rolled stainless steel of more than 1250 mm having bonafide use as more than 1250 mm, wherein anti-dumping duty was recommended and imposed vide customs notification No. No. 14/2010-Customs, dated 20th February 2010. The said duties were recommended to be extended vide notification No. 5/04/2014-DGAD, dated the 12th October 2015 and were extended vide customs notification No 61/2015- Customs (ADD) dated 11th December 2015.

c. Blade Steel, also commercially known as razor blade grade steel used in production of razor.

d. Coin blank falling under 73269099 HS Code used in production of monetary coins.

Submissions made by the domestic industry

5. Submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to the product under consideration are as follows:

i. The product under consideration is “Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel”. The product scope excludes the following: (a) Hot rolled stainless steel of 304 grade and width up to 1650mm (with permissible tolerances) from China, Malaysia and Korea (b) Cold rolled stainless steel of 600 mm and above (with permissible tolerances) from China, Korea, EU, USA, Taiwan, Thailand, South Africa. (c) Blade Steel, or commercially known as razor blade grade steel used in production of razor and (d) Coin Blank falling under 73269099 used in production of monetary coins.

ii. . The scope of the product under consideration includes cold rolled stainless steel of more than 1250 mm having bonafide use as more than 1250 mm, which were expressly excluded from the scope of measures recommended vide notification no No.14/1/2014- DGAD, dated the 19th February, 2016 and imposed vide customs notification no 52/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 24th October, 2017

iii. Product under consideration can be transacted in a number of different forms, such as coils, sheets, plates, circles, strips or otherwise. All forms of the product are within the scope of the product under consideration.HR (Hot Rolled) and CR (Cold Rolled) flat rolled products of stainless steel constitute one product on the basis of following criteria

a. Production technology- The same production technology is employed for producing HR and CR. The applicants use Electric Arc furnace to produce both HR and CR. While different manufacturers globally may use different technology such as the Rotary Kiln Electric Furnace, but every producer uses the same technology for producing HR and CR forms of flat products of stainless steel.

b. Manufacturing Facilities/process- The manufacturing process used for HR and CR is same. The production process starts from the stage of raw materials mixing in desired proportion (considering SS scrap, MS scrap, Ferro chrome, ferro silicon etc as the raw materials) to Electric Arc Furnace. The first product in the process is slab. This slab is heated again in induction furnace and then rolled in hot condition. This process is termed as hot rolling. This hot rolled is annealed and pickled-to form Hot Rolled Annealed Pickled (HRAP) coil. The HRAP coil is either sold in the market or processed further into Cold Rolled Annealed Pickled (CRAP) coil. However, the HRAP sold in the market is largely processed further into CRAP by the buyer before eventual end consumption.

However, pproduction skills employed in producing HR and CR products is the same.

c. Degree of common production process and cost- Analysis of cost of production of HR and CR products (for the same PCN with sole difference of only HR-CR) would show that (a) majority of the costs incurred are common; (b) incremental costs incurred are grossly insufficient, having regard to overall costs. About 90% of the cost is incurred at the HR stage, while remaining 10% costs are incurred at CR stage. Thus, not only the production activities, but also cost incurred are largely up to the HR stage, with CR forming only incremental production activities.

d. Investment- A comparison of investment made in HR and CR would show that the incremental investment made in CR is only 7-10% of investment made up to HR stage. The capital employed at the stage of HR is INR *** Cr, while the same at the stage of CR is INR *** Cr.

e. HR and CR both are produced conforming to technical standards such as ASTM, EN, JIN, Josh, BIS, etc. The standards make no distinction between the HR and CR products. ASTM standards are most widely used & followed for Stainless Steel and reference is made to section 3,11,12 and 13 of ASTM 480-17 which provides for Standard Specification for General Requirements for Flat-Rolled Stainless and Heat Resisting Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip. Section 3 provides for terminology for various forms of flat rolled stainless steel, i.e., sheet, strip, plate. Section 11,12 and 13 specify finishes which further substantiates it. The standard does not differentiate between CR & HR within Sheets or within Plates. Similarly, ASTM A240 which is for SS Plate, Sheet & Strip for vessels & general applications, doesn’t differentiate mechanical test requirements between Stainless Steel in HR & CR

f. The cost and price of Hot rolled products and Cold rolled products move in tandem. Comparison of CR coils with HR coils & CR coils with HR plates of Stainless steel Flat products for various countries shows that whereas difference between CR Coils and HR coils is in the range of 3 to 9% the difference between CR coil and HR Plate was negative, which means the HR Plate is costlier than CR Coil. Similarly, data taken from Fastmarkets (Earlier Metal bulletin) for comparison of weekly price of Asian HR & CR for 12 months (December 2019-November 2020) also shows that the price difference between HR and CR has been in the range of 4-8% only

g. HR product sold by the petitioners, other domestic producers, and imported into India is largely processed into CR products and then consumed as CR product. To this extent, HR product sold by the industry is only an intermediate. Distinction between HR-CR would imply treating HR sold by domestic industry & consumed after processing as different from CR sold by the domestic industry.

iv. The issue of whether hot rolled and cold rolled products can both be within the scope of the subject goods has been considered by the Authority in CVD investigation which considered same scope of product under consideration from China. The scope of product under consideration was upheld by the Hon’ble CESTAT in the matter of M/s. Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India/DA, Anti-dumping Appeal No. 50003 of 2018. The party filed special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme court, where one of the grounds raised by them was that HRSS and CRSS are two distinct products and are commercially non-substitutable. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds in SLP to interfere with the order passed by the CESTAT and dismissed the appeal.

v. While about 80% of SS flat products are consumed only in CR form, the domestic industry has sold 48 % HR, which further implies that this HR sold by the domestic industry was also consumed as CR. The fact that significant part of HR sold by the domestic industry is consumed as CR itself shows that HR is in fact only an intermediate product. Thus, if the product is indeed divided into HR and CR products, then, it would not even be possible to precisely determine either consumption or economic parameters relating to industry.

vi. The SOP manual explains at para 3.9 that a single investigation should normally involve a single article and its like product. However, in certain circumstances, there could be situations where multiple like products are considered in an investigation to avoid subsequent circumvention or to make the ADD measure more effective. This situation arises when products are generally manufactured together or traded together or value addition between the products are nominal or product is traded in assembled/ semi-assembled/unassembled form. The present investigation qualifies within this criterion mentioned in the manual as (a) HR and CR are manufactured at same location and (b) the value addition from HR to CR is only 5-12%, (c) HR-CR needs be taken together in one investigation to avoid circumvention, as duty on HR but no duty on CR means substitution of imports from HR to CR. Similarly, duty on CR but no duty on HR means substitution of imports from CR to HR, and processing in India, (d) product is traded in assembled/semi-assembled/unassembled form (i.e., semi-finished stage), in as much as imports of HR happens whereas the product is consumed in CR form.

vii. HR and CR both have been considered in the scope of PUC. Petitioners also refer to the ADD imposed on imports of seamless tubes & pipes wherein the product under consideration included both hot rolled and cold rolled or cold drawn products.

viii. Reliance placed on Gujarat Industries & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise-I by various interested parties, is erroneous and misleading. The dispute in the matter of said case was under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, while the instant case is a dumping case. The latter is not in pari materia with the former. The concept of manufacture for the purpose of Central Excise includes incidental activity and even packing and repacking of goods. Extending this meaning to antidumping law will defeat the very purpose of anti-dumping law and the definition of like article and product under consideration. Under antidumping law, manufacture using raw materials should bring into existence a like article. Even otherwise this judgment was referred by the interested parties in the CESTAT and also before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal filed by M/s Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. The Hon’ble Tribunal despite taking note of this decision, concluded that HR and CR are one product and Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal against the Tribunal judgment.

ix. Cold rolled products are produced only when product hot rolled first are subjected to cold rolling. Cold rolling is done only to achieve desired thicknesses and finishes. However, desired technical specifications are achieved at the stage of hot rolling itself.

x. Considering of HR and CR as one product is not contrary to the past practice. Rather it is an already adjudged issue to include both HR and CR within the scope of PUC in one single investigation. It has been categorically held that since expenses involved at cold rolling stageare not so significant, and the substantial cost of production is on raw materials and utilities up to steel melting. Thus, the two are mere categories and can be included in the scope of product under consideration in one investigation.

xi. In a DRI Investigation against imports made by one of the exporters, wherein the competent Authority passed an order holding that the importer and exporter have evaded anti-dumping duties levied on Hot Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel of grade 304, it was concluded that the value addition from HR Black Coil to CR SS Coil is significantly less than 35%.

xii. Various raw materials like scrap, nickel, ferro alloys etc are melted to make stainless steel slab and thereafter cast into HR flat products which is a “substantial transformation”. Thus, the raw materials for HR and CR are the same and the production process up to this stage is the same. The process of further manufacturing merely brings in either some finishes or reduces the size or releases the stress in the product developed at the stage of HR production. The basic chemistry of the product however does not undergo any change after HR stage.

xiii. M/s Bahru Stainless, responding exporter from Malaysia, has also earlier stated that there is hardly any value addition in converting HR Coil to CR Coil, in the antidumping investigation concerning HR 304 from China, Malaysia and Korea RP.

xiv. MR research corroborates petitioner’s argument that under the family of flat products of Stainless Steel, hot rolled comprises only 19% and the rest i.e. 81% of flat product comprises of cold rolled. This means that 80% of hot rolled product is converted into Cold Rolled Product and thus hot rolled product is an intermediate for cold rolled producers.

xv. The specifications remain the same between HR and CR products. Only difference between the HR and CR product is in the fact that some products cannot be processed in hot conditions and must be processed in CR conditions. Therefore, in order to achieve the thickness and finish eventually required by the consumer, the product is required to be processed in cold conditions.

xvi. As regards past investigations, the petitioners refer to the following investigations wherein the Designated Authority in fact has undertaken combined investigations for intermediate and further processed products:

a. Seamless tubes & pipes – similar to the present case, both hot and cold rolled seamless tubes & pipes were considered as one product.

b. Solar Cells & Modules – Solar cells are processed further to produce module Thus, the scope of product included solar cells and modules made out of solar cells.

c. Glass Fibre- AR and CSM-Glass fibre is first produced either as Assembled Glass Roving (AR) or as Direct Glass Roving (DR). AR is processed further to produce CSM and all are covered under the product scope.

d. Fatty alcohols- Saturated Fatty Alcohols with carbon chain length of C12, C14, C16, and C18 including single, blends are produced first. Thereafter, products such as unblended are produced by combining/processing products which includes blends of a combination of carbon chain lengths, C12-C14, C12-C16, C12- C18, C-16-18 and C14-C16 and all these were part of product scope.

e. Choline chlorides-The product is first produced in liquid form, which can be either sold as it is, or processed further to make solid choline chloride

f. Persulphate-ammonium persulphate is used to make potassium and sodium persulphate

g. FKM and all three forms were included in the scope of product under consideration.

h. PTFE-PTFE resin is produced first. Thereafter, either it is used as it is or processed further to produce other moulding grades and fine powder, which is all covered in the scope.

i. Aluminium Foil-Aluminium Foil is produced first and thereafter it is either used as it is or processed further to produce printed or backed with paper, paper board, plastics or similar packing materials

j. Caustic Soda- Lye and Flake-caustic lye can be processed further to make solid caustic soda and both forms are covered under product scope

k. CPVC resin and compounds-Scope of PUC included resin and compound. CPVC resin can either be sold as it is or can be compounded and then sold in the market. CPCV resin and compound have however treated as one product.

xvii. The argument of the interested parties that the authority had considered both HR and CR as one product in CVD investigation, not in ADD investigation, holds no good because (a) if CVD decision cannot be applied to ADD case, there is no basis for applying a decision arising under excise law; (b) the objective and scope of the product under consideration cannot be contended as different under dumping and subsidy law, (c) the reasons given by the Authority while holding HR and CR as one product are quite important and relevant in considering that decision; (d) Authority has made a number of determinations where the product under consideration included a product type produced after processing another product type, both falling under the scope of the product under consideration.

xviii. The United States in various investigations has taken the same view and has observed that hot rolled and cold rolled constitute as one product. US has been conducting antidumping and anti-subsidy investigations since 1973 onwards and have imposed duty on various countries. In all these investigations the Commission has included both cold rolled and hot rolled in the scope as one product.

xix. The contention of other interested parties that the petitioner sells products only if minimum volume is booked is incorrect. The petitioners provided details of orders received for volumes far below than those mentioned by the interested parties..Thus, there is no condition of minimum order prescribed by the domestic industry.

xx. As regards width and thickness of the subject goods, the petitioners have sold products having thickness more than 80mm and width of more than 1650mm.

xxi. As regards the argument that domestic industry is not producing grades/types of PUC for which BIS license is not issued to them, it may be seen that Ministry of Steel has notified three BIS stainless steel standards namely IS 5522, IS 15997 and IS 6911 under the Quality Control Order (QCO). Ministry of Steel issues a list of grades outside the purview of QCO. This is updated every quarter and this is continuous and ever evolving process. Non-inclusion of certain grades/ product types within QCO does not mean that such grades are not being produced in the country. There are several grades produced and sold by the domestic industry which are not under BIS yet.

xxii. per Annex B of EN 10088/2 (European Standard Steel Number) in HR condition, IE finish refers to Hot Rolled heat treated, mechanically descaled materials. This is similar No1 / 2E finish of Jindal. The petitioners have offered like article. Petitioners have the latest technical capability to produce 2E finish and are regularly producing it.

xxiii. The product produced by the petitioner and respondent are targeted towards the same application/end use and the consumers are using the goods interchangeably, thus rendering the products as like article. While determining the like article, the Authority is required to take into account all the products which fall under the description of the product as long as the same are technically and commercially substitutable. The Authority had held earlier in the matter of imports of cold rolled flat products of stainless steel that difference in production process does not lead to product being different.

xxiv. Jindal is regularly producing CRAP (Cold Rolled Annealed and Pickled) above 4mm thickness.

xxv. Consumers’ preference or quality of a product cannot be a criterion to exclude a product type from the scope of levy of anti-dumping duty. Further, the products are produced as per laid down standards. Thus, the argument that the quality of the product produced by the domestic industry does not yield better result is flawed. Domestic industry has been producing these grades like 2760 and 904L regularly.

xxvi. There are many types of surface finishes on stainless steel. Some of these originate from the mill (Rolled finishes) and some are produced with processes like polished, brushed, blasted, etched and coloured finishes. A lot of MSMEs are also involved in making special finishes in India. The domestic industry is capable of making several finishes. These finishes may be made by any of the processes either in the mill or through separate processes. With very minor change in the pattern/ design, a new name is coined. Hence, practically there is no such finish which is not produced or cannot be produced in India. Even the PCN decided by the Authority does not segregate types of finishes and therefore finish is not a significant parameter for distinguishing types of the product.

xxvii. Petitioners deny the allegation that it has refused to sell low volume of Special finishes and grades used by the laminate industry and hence there is no justification to exclude Special finishes and grades used by the laminate industry. No evidence substantiating such claims has been provided by the interested parties. Since petitioners are producing comparable grades, these ought not be excluded from the scope of product under consideration.

xxviii. Petitioners have produced and sold precision strips throughout the injury period in sufficient volume.

xxix. It may be noted that most of the grades or their equivalents are produced in India. However, foreign producers tend to make minor chemistry tweaking and rename the grade. For example Outokumpu grade for which equivalent grades are being provided by the domestic industry are as follows:

Name of grade used by Outokumpu Equivalence in domestic industry
LDX 2101 UNS S 32101
COR 4622 UNS S 44330
SDX 100 UNS S 32760
2304 UNS S 32304
2507 UNS S 32750
4501 UNS S 32760
4828 1.4828
1.4509 441/EH1.4509,
253MA UNS S 30815
304L 304L
305 305
430Ti 1 430Ti
436L 436L

xxx. It is also a normal practice that, due to typical relation between end user and foreign producer, the consumers don’t try the material from domestic producers.

xxxi. As regards imports of patented product types, it is not established that the domestic industry cannot offer like article to these patented product types. The fact that these are patented does not per se imply that the domestic industry does not offer like article.

xxxii. Petitioners supply 441 grade as per ASTM UNS S43940 which contains higher Cr than JFE429EX and contains Nb and Si. 441 grade has similar range of Nb and Si as compared to JFE 429EX, with additional Ti content to improve weldability. So, JFE429EX is only an inferior grade than 441. However, if customer requires, JSL can supply material similar to JFE429EX grade. Improvement of r-bar value using hot rolling control process is well known. JSL is using this method for all the 400 series grades to improve r-bar value.

xxxiii. J441 grade is much better than JFE TF-1. However, if customer requires, JSL can supply material similar to JFE TF-1 grade. The domestic industry will provide what the consumer requires. Production in the present product is largely undertaken against an order placed by consumer.

xxxiv. JFE410DB is similar to 410DB being made in India and the domestic industry is supplying the same.

xxxv. Typical Chemistry of 445 is similar to JFE430CuN and it’s a regular grade. JSL has Tandem-CAL process in Jajpur unit by means of which higher roughness finish can be manufactured. Domestic industry is supplying the same.

xxxvi. Petitioners supply 436L grade as per UNS S43600 and SUS436L, which contains higher Cr than JFEMH1 and contains 0.75-1.25% Mo. Petitioner is supplying this grade to different Japanese customers and customers are satisfied with the product. However, if customer requires, domestic industry can supply material similar to JFE MH1 grade.

xxxvii. Ultra 725 LN, Forta FDX 27, Forta 2404, Core 4622, Ultra 654 SMO, S-Star, S-Star A and G-Star: Plastic mold steel, K-SF24: parts for injectors of automobiles, DSN9 used for exhaust gaskets of automobiles, Forward Series- these grades have not been produced by the Domestic Industry only because of limited requirement in the country and also because consumers are not willing to provide opportunity to the domestic industry. Any such exclusion will lead to widespread manipulation. A number of exclusion requests are of the product types that are sold by the domestic industry. In fact, petitioner has been a regular supplier to the automobile industry.

xxxviii. NK-430SD, NK-430MA, NK-436L-MN, NK-436LNB, NAS_255NM (N08926), NAS-840 and NAS 254N- the situation is same with these grades, these are not for the auto industry. All these grades can be developed by the domestic industry and requires minor variations. These have not been supplied for lack of orders, and not because of lack of capability.

xxxix. JFE409L, JFE432LTM, JFE436LT, JFE439L, JFE441 and JFE434LN2- As admitted by the interested party itself that these grades are being produced by the domestic industry, and thus should not be excluded from the scope of product under consideration. It has not been shown or substantiated how the comparable grades are not substitutable.

xl. 400 series is based on the cutting edge technology of Nippon. Mere difference in technology of a product type does not in itself justify exclusion from the scope of product under consideration.

xli. Petitioners manufacture 409L with very stringent control of C and N. 409L is better corrosion resistant than NSS HR-2 due to higher Cr content. Petitioners manufacture different grades with dual stabilization of Nb and Ti.

xlii. Petitioners manufacture 436L as per ASTM grade which is similar to NSS 436. Petitioners manufacture 432 which is similar to NSS 432. Petitioners manufacture grade 439 as per ASTM UNS S43932, with similar chemistry. Typical Chemistry of 409L is similar to NSS409M1.

xliii. JFE20-5USR, JFE18-3USR, NAS_335X(N08020) and NAS_800(N08810 N08811)- these four grades sought for exclusion are not being produced by the domestic industry because the consumers have not allowed any opportunity to the domestic industry to develop, produce and sell the product and comparable grades also don’t exist. Even upon agreement by the domestic industry for exclusion of these four products, any exclusion without specifying the foreign producer, application and Indian importers shall lead to significant evasion of duty.

xliv. The domestic industry does not require minimum threshold quantity to supply plates of width higher than 1500mm.

xlv. Stainless steel corresponding to grade UNS S32750 is a super duplex grade and is used in high corrosive areas. It is designated as ISS 2507 of IS 6911 and also reflected in the product brochure of JSL on its website.

xlvi. The applicants do not produce above 1650mm. However, the requirement in the country is very limited and the same can be met by other domestic producers. Any such exclusion will injure the Indian producers.

xlvii. The domestic industry domestic produces HR plates below 10mm as well as above 10mm.

C.1 Submissions made by other interested parties

6. Submissions made by other interested parties with regard to product under consideration are as follows:

i. Cumulation of more than one product in one investigation is not advisable. The language of WTO Article refers to “an article” indicating the necessity of considering a single product. Combining multiple products as one will lead to inaccurate and incorrect assessment of standing, dumping and injury.

ii. Upstream and downstream product should not be combined under one product under consideration. Significant value addition and processing is required for processing hot rolled to cold rolled product. Authority in past has considered separate analysis and assessment for intermediate and downstream product. Such step will create false equality between upstream and downstream manufacturers to the detriment of downstream manufactures. They get excluded because they import upstream product.

iii. In the case of Rubber Chemical, Penicillin-G and 6 APA, the Authority investigated two distinct products in the same investigation. The Authority took care to identify the individual sources from which such imports were entering and conducted the investigation based on an acknowledged difference of sources of imports.

iv. The Authority did consider hot rolled and cold rolled as one product in CVD investigation but the Authority should apply discretion in the present case for following reasons:

a. There are 15 subject countries in the present investigation. Even if one of the countries does not export any type of product under consideration, it will be subjected to ADD.

b. Designated Authority is required to examine whether each product type is exported from each of the subject country. Imports from all the subject countries cannot be cumulated for injury assessment. It will give distorted volume and injury assessment.

c. As per PCN wise data provided, share of ‘Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel’ is 90% or more in case of exports from 8 out of 15 subject countries. In case a separate investigation is done for Hot Rolled products, these 8 countries would not be subject countries for the investigation. The domestic industry was aware of this fact, hence enhanced the scope of product.

d. The domestic industry is also aware that no initiation would have been done for cold rolled products due to absence of material injury. JSL (Hisar) has accepted that they have done well in CRAP Products.

e. It is a settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.

v. HR and CR are distinct products and the same has been established in past cases of HR and CR Products in Gujarat Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise.

vi. In several investigations the product not manufactured by the domestic industry was excluded from the scope of product under consideration. Products not being produced by domestic industry should be excluded.

vii. The domestic industry has installed capacity for width upto 1650mm. However, their actual width available for supply in trimmed edge condition is 1600mm. Even for supplying 1600mm width, for coil/plate/sheet of grade TP/304/L and TP/316/L, they require 1 full heat quantity of 140 MT. For all other grades, 2 full heat quantity of 280 MT is needed. Domestic industry is capable of manufacturing PUC of thickness max upto 80mm.Thus thickness beyond 80mm should be excluded.

viii. Domestic industry is not producing grades/types of PUC for which BIS license is not issued to them. BIS issued exemption list of grades for import into India, which are not available/produced in India. e.g.: 200 Series Grade 201 J3 & 201 J1, JFE-MH1, Sandvik 20c & other (item 4, 14, 15, 56, 99, 112, 112) as well as SMO 254, SMO 652, Ultra 6XN, 317LN etc. was exempted from BIS and Ministry of Steel, as they are not available/produced in India. Even though Jindal’s website states that it is producing BA finish at Hisar, according to feedback received from end user industry, Jindal Steel is not capable of supplying BA finish material of necessary standard and quality.

ix. Finish HR 1E- is not produced by Jindal and not mentioned in their product catalogue. It should be excluded.

x. Cold rolled 2E finish- produced by Outokumpu Tornio, Finland has better surface finish compared to Jindal and other Indian producers.

xi. There are significant differences in production routes and conditions of material in 2E that Outokumpu Tornio produces on the one hand and Indian producers on the other.

xii. Cold rolled 2B finish>4mm thick-used in industries such as pharma, water, dairy etc. are not produced and supplied by the domestic industry.

xiii. Grade 904L, 904LN and 2760: 904L of the petitioners are priced lower than OTK. Despite OTK’s higher price, customers prefer material produced by OTK because of better results. Grade 904LN and 2760: 904L are not produced by petitioners.

xiv. 2B finish in 5mm thickness; 2BB/BA/2R; Austenite (M55); Bricks (M52); Croc Skin (M76); Diamonds (M22); Haze (M64); Ice Crystals (M45); Laser (M69); Leather Grain (M42); Linen (M25); Linen without Slubs (M28); Microlinen (M24); Sand Surface (M60); Square (M21); Deco Supermatt; Deco Microlon (wet, dry); Dry polished, brushed, Duplo (dry polished + brushed), No 6/2J; These products need to be excluded as the end user industry in India is likely to need these grades for ongoing and upcoming projects in coming years.

xv. Special finishes and grades used by the laminate industry: Indian producers refuse to supply low volumes. Therefore, grades such as SDX 100 and Ultra 6XN must also be excluded.

xvi. Precision strips are imported at high prices and hence could not have caused injury. Jindal steel does not have sufficient experience to produce these grades and also needs higher volumes to produce them.

xvii. Special grades such as 410, 393, 304 etc. used by the laminate industry must be excluded. Outokumpu uses specialised mill Avesta Press Plate to achieve stringent mechanical properties. These properties are not achieved in any local mill or any other global mill. Hence, Indian user relies on Outokumpu to supply this material. The volume of such specialized exports is in any case negligible.

xviii. Patented Products by the exporters from the subject countries, in terms of previous final findings No. 14/6/2008 DGAD dated 24.11.2009 should be excluded.

xix. Plate 30815 – Plate AISI 600 series including grades AISI 630, AISI 63 I, Euro Norm 1.4841, EN 1.48410 (Also known as AISI 314)- Plate Alloy 800 Series including grades UNS N08800, UNS N0881 l 7 UNS N08825, UNS N08020, UNS N08926, UNS N08367UNS 32750/32760 (as per Duplex) and Plate 31254 are not manufactured by the domestic industry.

xx. Exclusions need to be provided for the following grades on the ground that these are not produced by the domestic industry:

316 PLUS

Ultra 6XN

Ultra 725 LN

Forta FDX 27

Forta 2404

Core 4622

Ultra 654 SMO

S-Star, S-Star A and G-Star: Plastic mold steel

K-SF24: parts for injectors of automobiles

DSN9: used for exhaust gaskets of automobiles

Forward Series

NK-430SD

NK-430MA

NK-436L-MN

NK-436LNB

NAS_255NM (N08926)

NAS-840

NAS 254N

xxi. The following grades are not feasible to be produced by the domestic industry and for these even comparable grades do not exist and thus exclusion may be granted:

a. JFE20-5USR,

b. JFE18-3USR

c. NAS_335X(N08020)

d. NAS_800(N08810 N08811)

e. JFE429EX,

f. JFE-TF1,

g. JFE410DB,

h. JFE430CuN

i. JFE-MH- 1

xxii. Grades produced in India but not substitutable with grades exported by JFE Steel: JFE409L, JFE432LTM, JFE436LT, JFE439L, JFE441, JFE434LN2 should be excluded.

xxiii. 400 series based on the cutting-edge technology of Nippon should be excluded:

a. NSS HR-2,

b. NSS 436,

c. NSS 432,

d. NSS 439

e. NSS 409M1-

xxiv. JSSL should be excluded from scope of domestic industry and to that extent products supplied by JSSL, Cold rolled STS with width of 600mm or less and/or such grades, supplied by JSSL, should be excluded from PUC.

xxv. CR STS 441 and CR STS 304 (Cu) should be excluded from the scope of PUC.

xxvi. Defectives have been considered as product under consideration which are not comparable to prime products as also held in the matter of MDF.

C.2 EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY

7. The submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties with regard to the scope of the product under consideration and like article related issues have been examined and addressed hereunder.

110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART I—SEC. 1]

8. The product under consideration as noted in the initiation notice is “Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel”, excluding the following:

a. Hot rolled stainless steel of 304 grade and width upto 1650mm (with permissible tolerances) from China, Malaysia and Korea wherein anti-dumping duty was recommended vide notification no 14/30/2013-DGAD, dated 9th March, 2015 and imposed vide customs notification no. 28/2015-Customs (ADD) dated 5th June, 2015

b. Cold rolled stainless steel of 600 mm and above (with permissible tolerances) from China, Korea, EU, USA, Taiwan, Thailand, South Africa except cold rolled stainless steel of more than 1250 mm having bonafide use as more than 1250 mm, wherein anti-dumping duty was recommended and imposed vide customs notification No. 14/2010-Customs, dated 20th February, 2010. The said duties were recommended to be extended vide notification no. 5/04/2014-DGAD, dated the 12th October, 2015 and were extended vide customs notification no 61/2015- Customs (ADD) dated 11th December 2015.

c. Blade Steel, or commercially known as razor blade grade steel used in production of razor.

d. Coin Blank falling under 73269099 used in production of monetary coins.

9. The product under consideration falls under customs sub-heading nos. 7219 and 7220 of Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The customs classification is, however, indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.

10. The Authority notes that that the subject goods are being imported in various grades/sizes/forms. The applicants had proposed Product Control Numbers (PCNs) in order to make a PCN to PCN comparison. Considering the parameters that impact the associated costs and prices of the product, and after taking into account the submissions made by various interested parties, the Authority has adopted PCN methodology which was notified vide communication no. 6/12/2019-DGTR dated 14th August 2019. The PCN methodology adopted in the present investigation is as follows:

SN Description PCN Code
1 Product Type Hot Rolled 1
Cold Rolled 2
Hot Rolled Annealed & Pickled 3
Cold Rolled Annealed & Pickled 4
2 Grade of the Product 201 201
202 202
216 216
301 301
304 304
304L 304L
309 309
310/S 310/S
316 316
316L 316L
405 405
409 409
410 410
410S 410S
415 415
420 420
430 430
432 432
436 436
439 439
441 441
444 444
446 446
DUPLEX DUP
Others – please specify ORS
Special – please specify SPC
3 Form of the Product Coil 1
Sheet/Plate 2
Strips 3
Punched Coil 4
Reversing Mill Plate 5
Quarto Plates 6
Circles 7
Others-Please specify 8
4 Width of the Product Of a width below 600 MM 1
Of a width 600 MM or More but upto1250 2
Of a width more than 1250 MM but less than1650 3
Of a width more than 1650 MM 4
5 Thickness of the Product HOT ROLLED PRODUCTS
Of a thickness of less than 0.35 MM 1
Of a thickness of 0.35 MM and above but less than 0.56 MM 2
Of a thickness of 0.56 MM and above but less than 0.9 MM 3
Of a thickness of 0.9 MM and above but less than 3 MM 4
Of a thickness of 3 MM and above but less than 4.75 MM 5
Of a thickness of 4.75 MM and above but less than 10 MM 6
Of a thickness of 10 MM and above but not exceeding 14 MM 7
Of a thickness exceeding 14 MM 8
COLD ROLLED PRODUCTS
Of a thickness of less than 0.5 MM 9
Of a thickness of 0.5 MM and above but less than 1.0 MM 10
Of a thickness of 1.0 MM and above but 11
less than 3.0 MM
Of a thickness of 3.0 MM and above but less than 4.75 MM 12
Of a thickness of 4.75 and above but less than 14 MM 13
Of a thickness exceeding 14 MM 14
6 Finish of the Product No Special Finish 1
Special Finish – please specify 2

11. The basic process involved in the production of the product under consideration involves melting the raw materials, scrap (alloy and non-alloy) and ferro-alloys in an electric arc furnace, where powerful electric arcs start to melt the scrap and alloys. The output from the furnace is a slab. The hot rolling process of slab begins at the reheat furnace where the slabs are heated to between 1100 and 1300°C, depending on the stainless steel grade. The hot rolled products are softened (annealed) and descaled (pickled with acids). The production process is the same between HR and CR upto this stage. Further, the process upto this stage is quite significant, as compared to the process thereafter in terms of production efforts, plant & equipment and investment. The specifications of the product in terms of chemistry are frozen at the stage of steel melting, irrespective of whether it is a HR or CR stainless steel flats. The same raw materials are used for making HR and CR products. The costs incurred up to this stage forms substantial proportion of the total cost of production in manufacture of stainless steel flats, irrespective of whether it is hot rolled or cold rolled. Barring requirements such as thickness, finishes, most of the requirements of the end product are achieved at this stage itself. The product is either sold as hold rolled (after annealing and pickling), which is further cold rolled by the purchaser, or cold rolled by the producer. Cold rolling of the hot rolled stainless steel takes place in a cold rolling mill, which produces smooth, shiny, finished cold rolled stainless steel by cold rolling the HR steel.

12. The product under consideration includes both hot rolled and cold rolled stainless steel product. Various interested parties have contended that hot rolled flat products and cold rolled flat products are two different products and cannot be treated as one product under consideration. Information provided by the domestic industry shows that Hot Rolled (HR) products and Cold Rolled (CR) products can be treated as one PUC considering (a) both Hot rolled and Cold Rolled products are produced by the same production technology.; (b) Manufacturing facilities are the same upto the stage of Hot rolled Annealing pickling (HRAP). Majority portion of production activities is up to this stage. Further activities are minimal; (c) Essential raw material used for manufacture stainless steel flats i.e. stainless steel scrap, ferro-nickel, ferrochrome, are the same for both Hot rolled and Cold Rolled products.; (d) Majority of the costs/ investment is incurred/ made up to HR stage and only incremental cost/ investment is incurred/ made in cold rolling activity (g) Product specification is the same for both HR and CR products;

13. Similar arguments were raised by interested parties in the CVD investigation conducted on the certain hot rolled and cold rolled stainless steel flat products from China PR. The Authority had concluded in the said countervailing investigation conducted on hot rolled and cold rolled stainless steel flat products from China PR that hot rolled flat stainless steel products and cold rolled flat stainless steel products are two sub-categories of the broad stainless steel category and accordingly included both within scope of one product under consideration. The scope of the product under consideration in the present investigation is the same as the scope of the product under consideration in the referred CVD investigation.

14. The Authority further notes that M/s Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. filed appeal before Hon’ble CESTAT challenging the final finding in the aforesaid investigation on various issues including this one. After hearing the parties, the Hon’ble tribunal in the matter of M/s Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, upheld the determination of the Authority and held that Hot Rolled products and Cold Rolled products are rightly considered as one product. The relevant part of the CESTAT order is reproduced below

“We heard all sides of the case and perused the appeal record. On the first issue, regarding the scope of the subject goods, we note that the appellant made great emphasis on the distinction between the HR and CR steel products. Admittedly, the product under consideration is first produced in hot-rolled conditions and thereafter rolled in cold conditions. Various properties of the products are achieved either by right combination to the material at the time of melting of inputs in the furnace by processing in the plant. The producers of the said goods, both in China and in India, hold sufficient facilities to produce products of specifications as required by the consumers. We note that there is no legal requirement of internal homogeneity within the subject goods or for inter-se substitutability of various types of subject goods. The DA examined the production process and concluded that both HR and CR firms can be included for investigation. Even the Customs Tariff main heading did not specify the products for classification separately. It was also noted that substantial cost of production is on raw materials and utilities upto the stage of steel melting. Expenses involved at rolling stage, whether hot or cold, and are not so significant. The DI produces both HR and CR products in a wide range of shape, size and metallurgical composition as per requirement of the customer. The DA also relied on the scope of lesser principle in terms of WTO agreement on subsidies for countervailing measures. As such, we find no infirmity in considering the scope of the subject goods for the present investigation. ……..”

15. M/s Suncity Sheet Pvt. Ltd. had filed Civil Appeal No. 9126 of 2018 before Hon’ble Supreme Court against the CESTAT Final Order No. AD/A/51101/2018-CU(DB), dated 27-3-2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 9126 of 2018 filed by M/s Suncity Sheets Private Limited against the CESTAT Final Order No. AD/A/51101/2018-CU(DB), dated 27-3-2018 as reported in 2018 (364) E.L.T. 1010 (Tri. – Del.).. In view of above-said position, the Authority holds both Hot Rolled and Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Flat products as one product.

16. Interested parties have relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme court decision in the matter of Gujarat Industries & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise-I, Civil Appeal Nos. 5784-5788 of 2007. It is noted that the said decision pertains to an issue under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to adjudge liability towards payment of central excise duty. The Authority notes that this decision was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble CESTAT in the matter of M/s Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India/Designated Authority. The Hon’ble CESTAT however did not accept the contention of the party.

17. The Authority notes that cold rolled products are also hot rolled products only. scrap is melted to cast into slab. Thereafter, slab is hot rolled. Substantial production activities, and value addition takes place upto this stage. The product is further cold reduced to achieve desired thickness and finish. Thus, even though these products are called cold rolled products, the production process of these products is substantially slab casting and hot rolling. It is also noted that the chemistry and chemical composition of the product is decided at the steel melting stage itself. The product’s technical properties are most important and relevant. While finishing is done to enhance aesthetics, thickness is reduced to cater to end use application of product and product properties are frozen at hot rolling stage itself.

18. Interested parties’ argument that the decision of the Authority in the past considering hot rolled flat products and cold rolled flat products as one product under consideration is in the context of countervailing duty investigation and thus cannot be relied in the present anti-dumping case does not have merit as interested parties have not explained how scope of product under consideration differs in anti-dumping investigation and countervailing investigation in terms of identification of product under consideration.

19. It is noted that the US International Trade Commission ( USITC) in the investigation on stainless steel plate from Belgium, South Africa and Taiwan finally treated HR and CR stainless steel plate as one product. The USITC had observed that “……………. hot-rolled and cold-rolled stainless steel plate shared similar physical characteristics, chemical composition, and dimensions and also shared common channels of distribution and production processes. It further observed that the two products were used in most of the same corrosion-resistant applications and were substitutable for one another without further grinding and polishing. Because there was no clear dividing line between hot-rolled and cold-rolled stainless plate, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all stainless steel plate……. ”

20. It is further noted that there have been several instances in the past wherein different forms of a product, where one form was produced by processing another form of the product, have been considered as one article,

21. It is noted that the majority of the cost is incurred at the stage of mixing the raw materials, steel melting, and slab casting. The data provided by the domestic industry shows that for the same PCN, the difference in the cost of production of HR and CR products is marginal.

22. In so far as apple-to-apple comparison for calculation of dumping and injury margin is considered, it has been ensured by devising PCN methodology in the present case and conducting PCN wise analysis for dumping and injury margin determination.

23. Therefore, on analysis & examination of the arguments of the interested parties and the decision of Hon’ble CESTAT, the Authority holds that HR and CR stainless steel flat products do not form two different products and are required to be considered as one product under consideration for the present investigation.

24. The interested parties have sought exclusion of certain grades/ types/ variants/ finishes primarily on the grounds of (a) incapability of the domestic industry to produce them; (b) absence of production and sales by the domestic industry for such products; (c) lack of appropriate quality and (d) patented products. The Authority has carefully examined the arguments of the interested parties and the domestic industry in respect of the scope of the product under consideration and the like article produced by the domestic industry.

25. Examination of the production capacity and capability of the domestic industry reveals that the domestic industry has the capability to produce subject goods up to 1650mm width. Exclusion of certain types/grades of the product from the investigation is permissible where the imported product is not in commercial competition with the indigenous product and its import, therefore, would not cause any injury to the Domestic Industry.

26. Examination of production capacity and capability of the domestic industry reveals that it does not produce and sell subject goods beyond 80mm thickness. Domestic industry has also admitted during the course of investigation that it does not produce subject goods of width above 1650mm, while contending that other domestic producers do produce or can produce wider width product. The Authority however considers it appropriate to restrict width to 1650 mm and thickness to 80 mm.

27. The interested parties have sought a number of specific exclusions. However, for most of such grades, it is not even the claim of the interested parties that such grades are different so as to make them different products or are commercially or technically not substitutable with the products offered by the domestic industry. It is noted that the product concerned covers a wide variety of product types. It is for this reason that PCNs have been formulated to ensure fair and proper comparison.

28. A number of exclusions have been sought by interested parties. These exclusion requests have been examined on the basis of information on record, and dealt as under:

a. Certain exclusions are requested based on final finish and different types of surface finish on stainless steel eg. Finish HR 1E, Cold rolled 2E finish, Cold rolled 2B finish>4mm thick 2B finish in 5mm thickness; 2BB/BA/2R; Austenite (M55); Bricks (M52); Croc Skin (M76); Diamonds (M22); Haze (M64); Ice Crystals (M45); Laser (M69); Leather Grain (M42); Linen (M25); Linen without Slubs (M28); Microlinen (M24); Sand Surface (M60); Square (M21); Deco Supermatt; Deco Microlon (wet, dry); Dry polished, brushed, Duplo (dry polished + brushed), No 6/2J etc.The authority notes that such claims are not substantiated by credible scientific data pertaining to difference in quality limitation on formulation and end uses of merchandise or on physical characteristics as compared to the domestic product. It is also noted that there are various types of surface finish on stainless steel. Some of these originate from the mill (Rolled finishes) and some are produced after undertaking minor processes either in the plant itself or through a separate process.

b. The argument that because domestic industry does not have BIS license for certain grades, the same cannot be manufactured by the domestic industry and should thus be excluded does not hold merit as it is seen that BIS license only means that the entities have fulfilled the process and made products as per the laid down standard and does not suggest anything about the supply ability or actual supply of goods made by the parties. It is seen from the information on record that there are various grades sold by the domestic industry that are not covered under BIS.

c. The domestic industry has shown with evidence sale of certain product types sought to be excluded from the scope of product under consideration such as precision strips, grades with a Cobalt content < 0.2% (nuclear industry requirement), UR 254, UR 316LMo, UREA 316L, UR 16, VIRGO 17.4 PH, Soleil C5, Soleil A2, Soleil A4, Soleil 4003, CR STS 441 and CR STS 304 (Cu).

d. As regards the submission that “DUPLEX” or “Super Aus” is overly broad and there is no evidence that super austentic grades such as 904L (UR904L) and EN 1.4529 (UR 926) is being produced by the domestic industry, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has shown that duplex and super austentic grades are being sold by the domestic industry and duplex grades produced by the domestic industry have in fact been included in the BIS list as well.

e. As regards exclusions sought of certain grades, namely, JFE429EX, JFE410DB, JFE430CuN, JFE-MH- 1, NSS HR-2, NSS 436, NSS 432, NSS 439, NSS 409M1, it is noted that the domestic industry has provided evidences of sales made of equivalent grades having similar chemistry in terms of metallurgical composition. The Authority therefore does not find it appropriate to exclude these grades from the scope of the product under consideration.

f. It has been claimed that comparable grades for grades JFE409L, JFE432LTM, JFE436LT, JFE439L, JFE441, JFE434LN2 have been manufactured in India, but these are not substitutable. It is however seen that there is no submission substantiating the argument of non-substitutability.

g. There are various grades for which exclusions have been sought for which the domestic industry is not making similar or equivalent grade such as 316 PLUS UTRA 6XN, Ultra 725 LN, Forta FDX 27, Forta 2404 Core 4622, Ultra 654 SMO,S-Star, S-Star A and G-Star: Plastic mold steel, K-SF24: parts for injectors of automobiles, DSN9: used for exhaust gaskets of automobiles, Forward Series, NK-430SD, NK-430MA, NK-436L-MN, NK-436LNB, NAS_255NM (N08926) NAS-840, NAS 254N for auto sectors and UR28 (N08028), UR254 (S31254), UR367 (N08367), UR926 (N08926), UR4565 (S34565), UR31 (N08031), and UR66 (S31266), UR 65 (310LNAG), UR S1 (S30600), UR 16 (304LNAG), UREA 310MoLN (S31050), UREA 316L (S31603), NUCL 304 B4 (S30464) UR 32615 (S32615). The Authority notes that interested parties have not established that these are different products per se and that the domestic industry has not offered like article. The domestic industry has submitted that these grades pertain to the automobile sector and that they have been regular supplier to this sector. The domestic industry has further submitted that it has been prevented from making such grades due to lack of orders. Domestic industry has provided supportive evidence that they have technology to manufacture and supply such grades. Thus, the Authority does not find it appropriate to exclude these grades from the scope of the product under consideration.

h. It has been argued that certain grades such as 400 series based on the cutting edge technology, 2E product based on different production routes, SDX 100 and Ultra 6XN, Special grades such as 410, 393, 304, etc used by the laminate industry using specialised mill make the product different. It is noted in this regard that interested parties have not put any evidence on record to prove how their product is different from the product manufactured by the domestic industry. The Authority notes that similar arguments for exclusion of products on the grounds of difference in production process and quality were made in Anti-Dumping investigation concerning import of Cold Rolled Coils and the Authority held “……the Authority could appreciate that BAF only makes it an efficient process to get the quality end- product rather than a different end product demonstratively in terms of quality and technical terms…Hence, the Authority treats grades 409 and 409 L produced with BAF process as technically and commercially substitutable with the same produced by domestic industry without using BAF technology.” In the instant case also interested parties have not substantiated their claim that their process results in a product which is not technically and commercially substitutable with the product manufactured by the domestic industry. If the goods are manufactured for the same market and targets the same set of customers and the goods are technically and commercially interchangeable, mere difference in manufacturing facility does not justify exclusion of such products from the scope of product under consideration.

i. It has been argued that certain grades such as 301LN5, 309s, 2205, Duplex, 316Ti, Grade 904L, 904LN and 2760: 904L of OTK should be excluded as these grades are of higher quality. While contending higher quality, the interested parties have not established the alleged difference in quality and that how the same leads to a different product.

j. It has been argued that Plate 30815 – Plate AISI 600 series including grades AISI 630, AISI 63 I,

Euro Norm 1.4841 (EN 1.48410 (Also known as AISI 314)- Plate Alloy 800 Series including grades UNS N08800, UNS N0881 l 7 UNS N08825, UNS N08020, UNS N08926, UNS N08367UNS 32750/32760 (as per Duplex) – Plate 31254, quarto plates are not manufactured by domestic industry. The Authority notes that these grades cannot be excluded from the scope of PUC because domestic industry is producing similar/equivalent grades.

k. The domestic industry has admitted that it is not manufacturing following grades/types nor its equivalent grade. The Authority therefore excludes these grades/types from the scope of the product under consideration.

i. JFE20-5USR,

ii. JFE18-3USR

iii. NAS_335X (N08020)

iv. NAS_800 (N08810 N08811)

l. In the anti-dumping investigation on Cold rolled stainless steel of 600 mm and above, the Authority

recommended exclusion of following grades and the same are excluded from the scope of product under consideration in this investigation:

a. Grades AISI 420 high carbon, 443, 441, EN 1.4835, 1.4547, 1.4539, 1.4438, 1.4318, 1.4833 and EN 1.4509

b. Product supplied under Indian Patent No. 223848 in respect of goods comprising Low Nickel containing Chromium-Nickel Manganese-Copper Austenitic Stainless steel and representing Grades YU 1 and YU 4, produced and supplied by M/s Yieh United Steel Corp (Yusco) of Chinese Taipei (Taiwan).

29. On the basis of information and evidence on record, investigation conducted, and considering the submissions of the interested parties, the Authority holds that the product under consideration in the present investigation is “Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel” excluding the following:

a) Hot rolled stainless steel of 304 grade and width upto 1650mm (with permissible tolerances) from China PR, Malaysia and Korea RP, wherein anti-dumping duty was recommended vide notification no 14/30/2013-DGAD, dated 9th March, 2015 and imposed vide customs notification no. 28/2015-Customs (ADD) dated 5th June, 2015.

b) Cold rolled stainless steel flats of 600 mm and above from China PR, Korea RP, EU, USA, Taiwan, Thailand, South Africa, except cold rolled stainless steel of more than 1250 mm having bonafide use wherein anti-dumping duty was recommended and imposed vide customs notification no. 14/2010-Customs, dated 20th February, 2010. The said duties were recommended to be extended vide notification no. 5/04/2014-DGAD, dated the 12th October, 2015 and were extended vide customs notification no 61/2015- Customs (ADD) dated 11th December 2015.

c) Blade Steel, also commercially known as razor blade grade steel used in production of razor.

d) Coin blank falling under 73269099 HS Code used in production of monetary coins.

e) Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel of width more than 1650 MM having bonafide use as more than 1650 MM.

f) Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel of thickness greater than 80 MM.

g) Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel of grades/types JFE20-5USR, JFE18-3USR NAS_335X (N08020), & NAS_800 (N08810 N08811).

h) Product supplied under Indian Patent No. 223848 in respect of goods comprising Low Nickel containing Chromium-Nickel Manganese-Copper Austenitic Stainless steel and representing Grades YU 1 and YU 4, produced and supplied by M/s Yieh United Steel Corp (Yusco) of Chinese Taipei (Taiwan).

i) Nickel-based alloys grades such as N10276, N06022, N06625, N08825, N06601 and N06600

j) Grade S-Star, S-Star A and G Star, (b) DSN-9 used for exhaust gaskets of automobiles and (c) K-SF24 grade is used for “parts for injectors of automobiles”

D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING

D.1 Submissions made by the Domestic Industry

30. Submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to standing are as follows:

i. The petition has been filed by ISSDA, Jindal Stainless Limited (JSL), Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited (JSHL) and Jindal Stainless Steelway Limited (JSSL).

ii. Data of Jindal Steelway has not been considered for the purpose of determining standing nor included in the injury information. It has been added as a petitioner only and in case the Authority requires any information with regard to the processing carried out by the company (for instance making circles, Anti Finger Print 2. No.8 Mirror Finish, Embossing, Etching). This was done as the product is being imported in significant volumes in forms such as circles, Anti Finger, Mirror Finish, Embossing, Etching and it is necessary to impose ADD on these forms. JSSL was joined as applicant only to enable the Authority to seek any information that the Authority may consider appropriate and relevant.

iii. ISSDA has requested imposition of antidumping duty as an association of domestic producers. However, since JSL and JSHL have individually requested imposition of antidumping duty and have provided all relevant injury information with regard to the present investigation, role of ISSDA is limited only as an applicant. None of the domestic producers of the product and members of ISSDA have questioned the request for antidumping duty filed by ISSDA.

iv. Shah Alloys has also provided information relevant to injury assessment.

v. Various parties have demanded inclusion of CR manufactures as domestic manufacturers based on the same way Jindal Steelway has been added to the petition. However, Jindal Steelway’s production has not been included in gross Indian production. The production activities being undertaken by JSSL and these various producers are only incremental, and does not lead to substantial transformation of the product.

vi. Since Jindal Steelway’s input is already included in demand assessment, and further since these producers merely transform one form of the product into other, their production has not been included in quantifying total Indian production.

vii. The petition is supported by a number of producers/ associations whose members are engaged in manufacturing subject goods, primarily 200 series products. While these domestic producers may not be counted for the purpose of Indian production, standing and demand, yet, it may be noted that these domestic producers are also concerned with excessive, unwarranted, unnecessary, and above all dumped imports into the country. Since majority of HR sold by the domestic industry gets transformed into CR by these parties, dumping of the product adversely impacts these producers/processors as well.

viii. ISSDA is willing to provide any such information deemed necessary by the Authority in this regard. There is no requirement of filing information/ documents at the stage of filing of an application. There was an internal mail that was once circulated to certain law firms on the required documents for association, which even the Authority didn’t consider necessary so as to give it binding effect through trade notice. Mere placing such requirements in manual does not become binding on the public for their compliance. In any case, ISSDA members are not opposing the present application and ISSDA has support of its members for the present investigation and duties.

ix. Production of those companies who are processing HR into CR is not required to be added to determine gross production for the reason that input and output of these companies is part of product under consideration and these companies have sourced input either from domestic market or from import. Therefore, the same is already included in determining Indian production/demand.

x. It is settled principle that one production cannot be counted twice. If this production is already included as HR production in India, the same is not required to be added again. If production is considered on the basis of HR product imported into India and processed into CR, then, such a producer in any case becomes ineligible producer by virtue of the fact that its entire production is based on import of the product under consideration itself. Therefore, such a company in any case is required to be treated as ineligible domestic producer within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of AD Rules.

xi. If HR processed into CR is required to be added to determine Indian production, then, the HR processed into CR by the petitioners is also required to be added to determine Indian production.

This way petitioners continue to constitute a major producer of the product in the country and production by the petitioner meets the criterion of standing and the petitioner continues to constitute the domestic industry within the meaning of the rules. Thus, even if standing of HR and CR was to be determined separately, the petitioners would have passed the test.

xii. The Authority, in the CVD investigation of the subject goods from China had observed that since hot rolled and cold rolled steel are one product, the standing has to be seen considering total production of hot and cold rolled flat products of stainless steel.

xiii. Production of those producers who are buying hot rolled product either from the foreign or domestic suppliers and producing & selling cold rolled product is not required to be added to determine total Indian production in order to ensure that one volume is not accounted for twice.

xiv. Production of those producers who are buying hot rolled product from the Indian suppliers and selling cold rolled product in the market is already included in the production of hot rolled product.

xv. Production of those producers who are not producing cold rolled product from or imported hot rolled product or hot rolled product purchased domestically is required to be included in determining Indian production.

xvi. Even if the production of hot and cold rolled product is segregated, the petitioners still qualify the standing requirements separately for both HR and CR flat rolled products.

D.2 Submissions made by other interested parties

31. Submissions made by other interested parties with regard to domestic industry and standing are as follows:

i. JSSL is not qualified to be domestic producer, as it only processes and distributes PUC. In that regard reliance has been placed on SDH case. Thus, JSSL is to be removed.

ii. As per Trade Notice 13/2018 there are requirements to be followed by companies that are expressing support. The association of members manufacturing 200 series products that are supporting the petitioners, should be clearly identified and those not supporting should also be made transparent.

iii. As per JSHL Annual Report for 2017, 2018 and 2019, it has been observed that JSHL has purchased products from PT Jindal Indonesia.

iv. ISSDA has not provided requisite documents to qualify as petitioner.

v. The Authority determined separate standing for two products in Front Axle Beam and Steering Knuckles.

vi. While determining standing, the Authority needs to take into consideration the production of companies that are producing only Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Products to determine whether the production of petitioners constitutes major proportion in the total domestic production of ‘Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel.

vii. Production of standalone producers of Cold Rolled Stainless Steel, whether they import the upstream products or purchase it locally, should be included to calculate total production of ‘Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel’. Production activity of these entities is substantial as compared to one of the petitioner company Jindal Stainless Steelway Ltd. Excluding standalone producers of like product is against the WTO provision (EC Salmon Case).

D.3 EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY

32. The application has been filed jointly by ISSDA, Jindal Stainless Limited (JSL), Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited (JSHL) and Jindal Stainless Steelway Limited (JSSL). The applicant companies have submitted that they have a related producer in Indonesia, namely, PT Jindal Stainless, Indonesia, which is a producer of subject goods in Indonesia. However, the related producer has not exported the subject goods to India during the entire injury period. The applicant companies have not imported the subject goods from the subject countries nor are they related to any importer of the subject product in India. Jindal Stainless Steelway Limited (JSSL) is undertaking incremental activity only on the steel being produced by JSL and JSHL. The applicants have clarified that this company has been added only to assist the Authority to seek any information considered relevant to the present investigation and that its production has neither been included in Indian production, nor this company data has been included in injury information. It is noted that verified injury and costing information provided by JSL and JSHL only has been considered. It is thus clarified that the Authority has not considered JSSL as a part of the domestic industry in the present investigation nor it has been considered for purposes of determining standing of the domestic industry or injury determination. The scope of domestic industry for the purpose of Rule 2(b) covers the applicant companies JSL and JSHL only.

33. As regards the documentation requirements for filing of application by ISSDA, it is noted that the requirements would have been relevant if the application was filed only by the association without specific requests from some of the domestic producers in India. These requirements enable the Authority to establish that the application has indeed been filed on behalf of domestic industry, even though such domestic industry constituents have not individually and expressly supported the application. However, in a situation where the applicant is an association as well as some domestic producers, and where the standing of the application is based entirely on the data furnished by individual domestic producers filing application, the documentation requirements no longer remain relevant.

34. Following associations have supported the present investigation, members of whom are the producers of subject goods: –

a. Stainless Steel Re-rolling Association,

b. Stainless Steel Pipe and Tubes Manufacturer Association,

c. Wazirpur Industrial Estate Welfare Society

d. Delhi Stainless Steel Trade Association

35. Following domestic producers have individually supported the present investigation: –

a. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)

b. Shah Alloys Limited.

36. Production by the applicant companies JSL and JSHL accounts for a major proportion of Indian production. As

regards the argument that certain producers of cold rolled products have been excluded from the scope of the domestic industry, it is noted that the producers of cold rolled products merely transform one form of the subject goods into another form. Production by cold rolled producers who produce cold rolled products by procuring hot rolled products from domestic producers is already included in the production by the domestic producers of hot rolled products. Further, production of producers who are producing cold rolled products from imported hot rolled product are in any way ineligible domestic producers under Rule 2(b) by virtue of imports of the product under consideration. Therefore, production of cold rolled stainless steel flats, either from domestically procured or imported hot rolled stainless steel flats, has not been counted for calculating Indian domestic production for the reasons stated above.

37. Interested parties have argued that separate standing needs to be determined for hot rolled and cold rolled flat rolled products. The Authority notes that standing of the application is required to be determined with reference to the product under consideration and like article offered by the domestic producers. In the present case the product under consideration and like article includes both, hot and cold rolled flat products of stainless steel, as one product; and therefore, the standing of the applicants to file the present application is required to be seen considering total production of hot and cold rolled flat products of stainless steel. The same issue was raised by the interested parties and addressed by the Authority in the countervailing duty investigation on imports of certain Hot Rolled and Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Flat Products from China PR. The determination made in the said finding in this context holds good in the present investigation as well.

38. The Authority after examining the information on record and submissions made by interested parties has determined that JSL and JSHL constitutes “domestic industry” within the meaning of Rule 2(b) and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.

E. ISSUES ON CONFIDENTIALITY

E.1 Submissions made by the domestic Industry

39. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to confidentiality

i. The information in the petition contains data of two related companies, JSL and JSHL, and thus non-confidential petition should have been considered treating two-petitioner companies as de-facto one company. It should be considered that there is de-facto one petitioner company, as the two petitioners are part of one group only.

ii. Excessive confidentiality has been claimed by all the exporters. The response has been filed without complying with the provisions mentioned in the trade notice. Petitioners are also unable to offer comments on merits of the information filed because of grave deficiencies in the responses.

iii. Information of utmost importance have been completely claimed confidential thus preventing the domestic industry from offering any effective comments. Misleading and erroneous data have been filed in the response

iv. Exporters/producers should file a proper non-confidential version of the responses to enable reasonable understanding of the response filed by them on confidential basis.

E.2 Submissions made by other interested parties

40. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to confidentiality:

i. Applicant domestic industry comprises of three companies and therefore aggregate figures should have been disclosed regarding relevant economic parameters in accordance with Trade No. 10/2018.

ii. Nature of adjustments made on prices as per MEPS report is not disclosed. The manner in which PCNs were considered comparable not revealed. Normal value for OTK must be based on sales in domestic market as provided in the questionnaire response.

iii. Entire calculation for export price has been claimed confidential

E.3 EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY

41. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:

“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 subrule (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.

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 summarization is not possible.

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 authorise its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.”

42. Information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claims. 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 versions of the evidences submitted by various interested parties in the form of public file.

F. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS

F.1 Submissions made by the domestic industry

43. The domestic industry has made the following miscellaneous submissions:

i. This investigation warrants for retrospective duty because there is a history of dumping not just in India but globally. Dumping margin determined in the present case is too significant. There is significant dumping in a relatively short period and Global capacity of subject goods is significantly higher than the global demand.

ii. Imposition of countervailing duty led to decline in imports from China and increase in imports from other sources. Anticipating the measures, exporters have increased exports in huge quantities in the month of August. It is likely to further increase if measures are not invoked immediately.

iii. There is huge underutilized capacity in MSME sector in India. The surge in imports has already threatened their existence. Several units have closed down and many are contemplating closure.

iv. Because of price distortion created in the domestic market owing to dumped and subsidized imports even the producers in the organized sector such as SAIL and Shah Alloys are running their capacities at much low level.

v. The fact of low volume of exports from some countries is misleading, as their prices are lower/lowest for the PCNs exported. If volume and price of imports from different countries are compared on PCN to PCN basis, it will be evident that (a) the subject countries individually having low overall share in volume have very high share in volume in these PCNs where exports have been made, (b) these countries are majority suppliers in most of these PCNs, (c) the price at which goods have been exported are quite comparable to the price of other major countries suppliers in these PCNs.

vi. Mere non-filing of details in set format or not being clear about the legal provisions does not mean that MSME is not clear about the cause of injury. The prescribed formats being extremely complicated and difficulty of members (several) to present information in the same format has been repeatedly pointed out. Their letters to the Authority clearly reflect the abysmal misery suffered by the MSME sector.

vii. Injury to the Indian industry is on account of uninterrupted presence of cheap unfair imports. Surge of import has resulted in closure of several MSME units.

viii. The current pattern of import clearly shows the volume of imports despite all these duties. Imports of the product have in fact surged significantly in last 17 years despite these duties and existence of sufficient capacities in the country.

ix. The petitioner has filed a petition for ADD and not for safeguard duties. Further, in the context of negligibility test, Rule 14 (d) of AD Rules is applicable. Reliance has also been put on Article 5 (6) (f) of the WTO Agreement.

x. The impact of proposed ADD on the eventual end product would be negligible. The end products are not inter se interchangeable from the consumer’s point of view. The impact of the duty imposed would only be 0.15%-0.60% of value in auto industry, 0.45% of kitchen utensils, etc.

xi. Those transactions where the import price shows abnormally high price having regard to the description and type to the product has been treated as abnormal import transaction and marked ABPUC. If the import price reported in the transaction is substantially higher than the price at which the product type is transacted in Indian market, it must be considered that the import has happened for some other reason and such transactions must be excluded for the present purposes.

xii. The authority has considered import on the basis of DGCI&S import data and not on any other basis. The petitioner is unaware of the source referred by the interested party and therefore not in a position to comment on the same.

xiii. While initiating antidumping investigation the Authority found that there is a prima facie evidence showing dumping causing injury and similarly while initiating the anti-subsidy investigation, the Authority found prima facie evidence of subsidy granted by Indonesian government causing injury to the domestic industry. This, however, cannot be interpreted in the manner the interested party is projecting that ‘it is either dumping that is causing injury or it is either subsidy by Indonesian Govt. that is causing injury’. Both, dumping and subsidy, are ‘a fact’ that can be established from the information being provided to the Authority by all the interested parties.

xiv. Dumping and subsidy can both be a cause of injury to the domestic industry. Petitioners has claimed in the antidumping application as well that there are direct indirect subsidies being given to the Indonesian producers which is making them produce goods at artificially low prices. It is also, noteworthy that as per analysis of DGCI&S data for the month of August as made available, the imports from Indonesia is around 121,636 MT. Thus, imports have increased exponentially in post POI.

xv. Imports are not negligible. Rule 14 (d) and Annexure II of the Antidumping Rules is referred to and relied upon. The steel industry globally is undergoing a change. With new capacities being installed by various producers leading to addition of capacity in a market which was already suffering from surplus capacities and various jurisdictions restricting their domestic market, producers are looking for opportunities to export goods everywhere.

xvi. Most of the countries are forced to follow the prices being led by major players. It has been demonstrated that dumping margin and injury margin from each of the subject country is significantly positive. Further, the share of the imports of these countries in the respective PCN sold in the domestic market is significant.

xvii. There is no clause/provision requiring additional reason to be provided to conduct investigation against countries having share below 3% except for what is provided under the law. The only requirement under the Rules is to see whether the individual country having share below 3% of total imports are collectively forming more than 7% of imports

xviii. As regards contention that many of such sources do not even have a manufacturing base but even such countries are covered as subject countries, and that there are no such cases initiated by any other jurisdiction, petitioner strongly disputes such contention of the parties and is in fact surprised at the argument. It was the exporter concerned who provided relevant document claiming that the goods were indeed produced in the exporting country. Such being the case, it is not even open to the exporter and importer to now contend that the investigation is in respect of exporting countries not engaged in manufacturing. This clearly amounts to fraudulent practice by such parties who are claiming differently before the Designated Authority and before the Central Government.

xix. The authority has in the past conducted investigation and recommended ADD in respect of exporting countries even when there was no full fledged production in those countries.

xx. Imports from Australia, Brazil and Canada are merely 40MT, 90MT and 20 MT in absolute terms and 0.09%, 0.03% and 0.01% of total imports respectively. The country with lowest share included in the list of subject countries is Thailand with import volume of 835 MT and has been a regular exporter of subject goods throughout the injury period. Petitioners have also not included countries such as Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Turkey whose share in imports are equivalent to that of the countries named by the interested party. So the argument of the interested parties that exclusion of Brazil, Australia and Canada violates the MFN principle, is baseless.

xxi. It is highly misplaced argument that duties will lead the petitioner companies to have monopoly. It is also relevant to note that the effect of dumping to the domestic industry is largely in terms of price parameters. The Indian industry is hit by the dumped imports from subject countries. As stated elsewhere, the Indian capacity is of 4.7 million toms whereas the demand is only of 2.6 million tons.

xxii. History of dumping is established from the fact that dumping in one form or other form of subject goods have continued since 20020. Further China becoming a net exporter from being a net importer of subject goods has led to number of cases not just domestically but also internationally.

xxiii. The applicants have followed the guidelines issued by the Authority vide trade notice No.01/2018 and have provided hard copy of the sorted T/T DGCI&S data as is required.

xxiv. The interested parties have the liberty to procure DGCI&S transaction wise data and analyse the same and submit their claims to the Authority on the basis of their understanding of the PUC. The Authority will, after considering the information made available by all interested parties and also through its independent analysis, determine imports appropriately. Having made known the source of information and also the raw data of such information there is no ground to argue any violation of rights.

xxv. Import transactions wherein width has not been mentioned have been considered as part of PUC. The other interested parties may however quantify and substantiate to the contrary.

xxvi. There is no public information with regard to imports subject to ADD after circumvention order and imports not subject to ADD. Accordingly, in view of absence of information, petitioners have not segregated these imports. Relevant information in this regard is available either with the DG Systems or with interested parties. The authority may kindly ascertain the claims made by these parties from importers/consumers who have filed questionnaire response.

xxvii. The demand of the country is not met by the petitioner companies alone. The capacity with the Indian industry is 4.7 million tons as against the demand of 2.6 million tons. Capacity with the petitioner is being enhanced post POI. The plant is awaiting clearance for commercial operations and is expected to be operational in the immediate future. There is no alleged demand supply gap.

F.2 Views of other interested parties

44. The other interested parties have made the following miscellaneous submissions:

i. The observation in CVD Initiation notification shows that the alleged material injury to the domestic industry has been caused by the alleged subsidized imports from the subject country i.e. Indonesia which clearly disputes the tenability of present proceedings.

ii. Domestic industry claimed alleged dumping of subject goods from subject countries as the cause of injury when they had to file the application for antidumping duties and shifted the cause of injury to subsidized imports from Indonesia when they had to file the anti-subsidy duty application where POI and PUC remained the same in both the matters.

iii. India so far has not initiated any anti-dumping proceedings or imposed ADD on negligible imports but the present case is a deviation from such a position and what is provided under second limb of Rule 14 (d).

iv. Inclusion of so many countries with negligible imports is not supported with any reasoning for such inclusions in the present matter. Many of such sources do not even have a manufacturing base but even such countries are covered as subject countries. There are no such cases initiated by any other jurisdiction

v. Import prices from Brazil, Australia and Canada, are below the alleged injurious imports from subject countries. Exclusion of Brazil, Australia and Canada violates the MFN principle.

vi. Sampling of product types has no precedent in WTO practice. Petitioners have not provided reason on basis of which sampling can be done. A limited sampling will lead to lopsided selection. Thus, sampling should be rejected.

vii. Petitioner failed to discharge its onus to prove history of dumping which is likely to cause massive injury, for imposition of retrospective duty. Petitioner failed to provide any evidence of history of dumping and massive dumping in relatively short time.

viii. Any information which forms a part of the case record cannot be withheld from the interested parties subject to the provisions of the confidentiality. It would not be appropriate legally to give us only the hard copy of the data when the same is also available on record in excel format on which no confidentiality has also been claimed.

ix. Applicants have not provided the methodology to classify an import transaction as product under consideration in case width is not mentioned in the description

x. The applicants have not provided the methodology to apply the “Bonafide Criterion” while segregating the import transactions with width above 1250 mm as PUC or Non-PUC.

xi. Domestic industry comprising of JSL and JSHL, despite the assumption of operation at full capacity, is not in a position to cater to domestic demand. Contribution of three major producers with JSL and JSHL also results in demand supply gap of 9,22,000 MT. The projected demand is also going to rise. Thus, imports are necessary.

xii. Claims made by MSME should not be accepted by the Authority as MSME is not clear about the cause of injury. Further, they should adhere to the formats applicable to them.

xiii. The domestic industry has attempted to review its application for Safeguard duty.

xiv. It is unclear from the transaction wise sorted data what constitutes ABPUC.

xv. Import data provided by the domestic industry is inflated, Imports from the subject countries have not increased, further, if wrong transactions are removed from the import data, the imports from the subject countries will further reduce.

xvi. Excluded products have also been termed as product under consideration. The domestic industry should respond to the issue urgently and again provide T/T import data.

xvii. Total imports from Korea is 73,822 MT in POI in the petition whereas data procured from EXIM bank shows import volume from Korea RP is 28,182 MT under HS Code 7220 and 66, 566 MT under HS Code 7219. Since majority of imports under 7219 are already attracting duty and are excluded from the product scope, hence, total volume of imports from Korea cannot be 73,822 MT. Imports of HR 304 and CR products width greater than 1250 mm are only two categories of import under HS Code 7219. Substantial amount of import from Korea should be NPUC and the import volume should be equivalent to 28,182 MT.

F.3 Examination by the Authority

45. The Authority has examined miscellaneous issues, to the extent considered relevant, raised by the domestic industry and other interested parties as follows:

i. As regards contentions raised by the interested parties that initiation of CVD investigation against Indonesia shows that injury is on account of subsidized imports from Indonesia, the Authority notes that imports from Indonesia and other countries have increased in the POI and are at dumped and injurious prices causing injury to the domestic industry as is established from the analysis at relevant places. It is noted that the injury to the domestic industry could be through multiple sources and in fact it is relevant to segregate injury being caused due to other factors. There is nothing in law to bar conducting both ADD and CVD investigations simultaneously on imports of one product from the same source. The WTO does not bar imposing both ADD and CVD duties and the only bar is that the two cannot be imposed to account for the same situation of dumping and export subsidization.

ii. As regards the contention that imports from various countries are negligible and investigation has been incorrectly initiated against such source imports, it is verified at the stage of initiation that subject countries having less than 3% of import cumulatively accounted for 7% or more.

iii. As regards the contention that if measures are imposed, the Indian market will be closed to imports and it will adversely impact the downstream Industry, the Authority notes that the purpose of anti­dumping duty is only to create a level playing field and to provide relief to domestic industry due to injurious effect of dumping. The anti-dumping duty is not envisaged to provide undue protection to the domestic industry. Moreover, none of the interested parties have provided any evidence to show that imposition of duty against imports from the subject countries would be detrimental to the downstream industry.

iv. As regards the contention that excel file of transaction-by-transaction imports were claimed confidential by the domestic industry, the procedure for sharing and procuring import data has been laid down in the Trade Notice 07/2018 dated 15th March 2018. It provides that (i) the sorted import data relied upon by the domestic industry can be shared in hard copy & (ii) interested parties can seek authorization from the Authority for seeking raw transaction by transaction import data from DGCI&S. Hard copy of the sorted import data was made accessible to the interested parties based upon declaration/undertaking as per prescribed format. The interested parties who requested for procurement of import data from DGCI&S and provided undertaking as per Trade Notice 07/2018 were also granted authorization to obtain import data in excel file from DGCI&S. The Authority thus notes that the procedure now being applied is consistent, uniform across parties and investigations and provides adequate opportunity to the interested parties to defend their interests.

v. As regards the contention of the interested parties that imports are necessary in view of demand supply gap, the Authority notes that there are other domestic producers apart from the domestic industry and the production details considered for the Indian industry is comparable to the Indian demand. In any case, demand supply gap can only justify imports of goods, not the phenomenon of dumping.

vi. , The Authority has examined the import data procured from DGCI&S after appropriately considering the submissions made by interested parties on incorrect assessment of imports in the present determination.

G. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT (MET), NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DETERMINATION OF DUMPING MARGIN

G.1 Submissions made by the domestic Industry

46. The submissions made by the applicants with regard to normal value, export price and dumping margin are as follows:

i. There is particular market situation (PMS) in Indonesia which is affecting price comparison and thus the costs of the producers in Indonesia should be rejected. Tsingshan Group in Indonesia has benefited from significant subsidies in Indonesia.

ii. Subsidies (direct or indirect, explicit or implicit) exist in the form of subsidized funds (domestic and cross border), land at less than adequate remuneration, access to coal and ore at low prices, export restraints/restrictions on exports of ore concentrates leading to artificially low price of ore and coal in Indonesia, etc. These subsidies may not be fully captured under the Agreement of Subsidies & Countervailing Measures (ASCM).

iii. Input prices of subject goods are distorted in the Indonesian market and by virtue of the same, domestic selling prices are not reliable and hence not comparable to the export price. Therefore, the domestic price of the company in Indonesia cannot be adopted for determination of normal value.

iv. Petitioners have worked out the normal value for all the subject countries based on information available and where no information was available, normal value for China has been constructed based on cost of production of domestic industry.

v. Normal values for Japan, Taiwan, EU, Korea PR and USA have been determined based on the prices prevailing in these subject countries as per the MEPS Stainless Steel Review publication which reports domestic steel pricing data for flat and long product.

vi. Normal values for Thailand, South Africa, Singapore, Mexico, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Malaysia & UAE-have been determined on the basis of best estimates of cost of production, and after additions for selling, general & administrative expenses and reasonable profits, because there was no publicly available information.

vii. The selling price of PT Jindal Indonesia has been taken as normal value for Indonesia. Tsingshan Group in Indonesia is operating in a particular market situation, its cost of production is distorted due to distortions in input prices, the company is selling the product in domestic market under such situation that its prices are not appropriate for determination of normal value. In view of the same, neither the selling price nor the cost of production of the company is appropriate for determination of normal value.

viii. For calculation of export price, petitioner have relied upon transaction wise import data procured from DGCI&S.

ix. The dumping margin determined for each of the subject country is positive and above de minimis. The Authority has determined PCN and the Authority may kindly determine PCN wise dumping margin.

G.2 Submissions made by other interested parties

47. The submissions made by other interested parties with regard to normal value, export price and dumping margin are as follows:

i. In reference to petitioners proposing not to use actual domestic price of Indonesian producer as a normal value but to construct on outside records, it is submitted that GOI policies including in mining sector do not constitute PMS within Art. 2.2 of ADA. In EU-Dumping measures affecting Argentina and EU-Dumping measures affecting Indonesia, it was said that investigating authority cannot deviate from using actual record of producer provided it is in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAPP).

ii. The PUC as defined involves various inter se types with varying cost and price and it is important that the Authority carries out the calculations of dumping and injury in the present case on a PCN basis.

iii. MEPS prices are based on forecasts and not on prevailing prices in EU. There is no evidence that prices in MEPS are above cost of production.

G.3 EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY

48. The investigation was initiated in respect of imports of product under consideration from China PR, Korea RP, European Union, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, USA, Thailand, South Africa, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam and Malaysia.

49. Analysis of questionnaire response filed by various parties shows that significant material has been sold by these parties through affiliated or unaffiliated trading companies in Hong Kong, Singapore and UAE. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the exports from these countries are covered in the responses filed by producers from other subject countries and that subject goods exported from these countries are not manufactured in these countries. There is also no evidence to show the existence of production facility for manufacture of subject goods in these countries in any of its forms.

50. Accordingly, Authority holds that investigations in respect of Hong Kong, Singapore and UAE is not maintainable in the absence of any evidence of production of these goods in these countries. The investigations in respect of these countries is therefore terminated.

51. As regards imports from Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, USA and Vietnam, the authority notes that the volume of imports from the each of these countries is below 3%. Further, the cumulative volume of imports from Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, USA and Vietnam is below 7%. Rule 14 of the Rules provides that the Designated Authority shall terminate an investigation if it is determined that the volume of the dumped imports, actual or potential, from a particular country accounts for less than three percent of the imports of the like product, unless, the countries which individually account for less than three percent of the imports of the like product, collectively account for more than seven percent of the import of the like product. Since volume of imports from Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, USA and Vietnam cumulatively accounts for less than seven percent of the imports of subject goods in India, investigations in respect of Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, USA and Vietnam is also terminated.

52. In view of the above, the present investigation is limited to imports from China, European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan. These countries i.e. China, European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan shall only be hereinafter referred to as “subject countries”.

G.4 DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE

53. Under section 9A (1) (c), normal value in relation to an article means:

i. The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6), or

ii. When there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in 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);

54. The Authority notes that questionnaires were sent to known producers/ exporters in subject countries Following exporters and producers have responded in the present investigation and have filed questionnaire response. These questionnaire responses have been examined for their sufficiency for determination of individual dumping margin.

a. PT. Bina Niaga Multiusaha

b. PT IMR ARC Steel

c. IMR Metallurgical Resources AG

d. India Coke and Power Pvt Ltd

e. PT Ekasa Yad Resources

f. Eternal Tsignshan

g. Pt. Indonesia Guang Ching Nickle and Stainless Steel Industry (GCNS)

h. Golden Harbour International Pte Ltd

i. Pt Hanwa Indonesia

j. PT. Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (IRNC)

k. PT. Indonesia Tsingshan Stainless Steel (ITSS)

l. Recheer Resources Singapore PTE Ltd.

m. Schuang International Development Limited

n. PT. Sulawesi Mining Investment (SMI)

o. Stratus Steels DMCC

p. PT. Tsingshan Stainless Steel Indonesia

q. Walsin Lihwa Corporation (WALSIN)

r. Yieh Corporation Limited (YCL)

s. Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO)

t. Yieh Mau Corp (YMC)

u. Yuan Long Stainless Steel Corp (YLSS)

v. Outokumpu Nirosta GmbH

w. Outokumpu Press Plate AB

x. Outokumpu PSC Benelux B.V.

y. Outokumpu S.p.A, EMEA Reporting unit

z. Outokumpu Service center GmbH

aa. Outokumpu Stainless AB

bb. Steel 568 Company Limited

cc. Hyundai BNG Steel Co. Ltd.

dd. EK Co Ltd

ee. PL Special Steel Co Ltd

ff. Shon International Co. Ltd.

gg. AD Stainless Co. Ltd.

hh. Global Steel

ii. You Steel Co. Ltd.

jj. SIJ ACRONI D.O.O.

kk. BAHRU STAINLESS SDN BHD

ll. COLUMBUS STAINLESS (PTY) LIMITED

mm. Celerity Asia Trade Limited

nn. DK Corporation

oo. NIPPON KINZOKU-Malaysia

pp. Acroni DOO

qq. PT. Tsignshan Steel Indonesia

rr. Hyosung TNC

ss. Hyundai Corporation

tt. Kim Troung Hung Steel Co. Ltd.

uu. POSCO Asia Company Ltd.

vv. POSCO International

ww. POSCO, Korea RP

xx. Samsung C&T Corporation

yy. POSCO VST Co. Ltd.

G.5 Market economy Treatment and Normal value for China PR

Determination of Normal Value for producers and exporters in China PR

55. It is noted that none of the producers of subject goods in China PR have claimed market economy treatment. Therefore, the Authority has adopted the constructed normal value determined in terms of Para-7 to Annexure-1 to the Rules. As per the provisions of Para 7 of Annexure I, the normal value in China PR is required to be determined based on price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the export prices from such a third country to any other country, including India. However, if the normal value cannot be determined on the basis of the alternatives mentioned above, the normal value may be determined on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted to include a reasonable profit margin.

56. In the absence of any reliable price and cost details for the subject goods in any market economy third country, the Designated Authority has constructed the normal value for China PR on the basis of price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, to include a reasonable profit margin. The Normal Value for all the producer/exporters of the subject goods from China PR has accordingly been constructed and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

G.6 Determination of Normal Value for producers and exporters in Korea RP, Indonesia, Japan, EU, Malaysia & Taiwan

General Methodology for working out Normal Value

57. It was first determined whether the total domestic sales of the subject goods by the producers/exporters in these subject countries were representative when compared to exports of the subject goods to India. Thereafter, it was examined whether their sales are under ordinary course of trade in terms of Para 2 of the Annexure I to the Anti-dumping Rules. Wherever the producers/exporters have provided transaction wise details of sales made in home market and same has been accepted by the Authority, the said information has been relied upon to determine the normal value of the subject goods sold in their home market.

58. For conducting ordinary course of trade test, the cost of production of the product concerned was examined with reference to the information provided by the producers/ exporters and compared with domestic selling price to determine whether the domestic sales were in the ordinary course of trade or not. The authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of normal value for the cooperating producers/exporters where profit making transactions are more than 80%. and in cases, where profitable transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value.

59. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN/ grade, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

Korea RP

Normal Value for M/s Hyundai BNG Steel Co., Ltd (“Hyundai BNG”) Korea RP, (Producer)

60. During the POI, Hyundai BNG has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related and unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making transactions for particular PCN is more than 80%, then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable transactions for particular PCN is less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

61. Hyundai BNG has claimed adjustment on account of credit cost & inland freight and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for Hyundai BNG has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below

Normal Value for M/s POSCO and POSCO International Korea RP, (POSCO Group)

62. During the POI, POSCO Group has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related and unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making transactions for particular PCN is more than 80%, then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable transactions for particular PCN is less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

63. POSCO Group has claimed adjustment on account of packing cost, warehousing expenses, credit cost & inland freight and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for POSCO Group has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below

Normal Value for DK Corporation

64. During the POI, DK Corporation has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related and unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making transactions for particular PCN is more than 80%, then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable transactions for particular PCN is less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

65. DK Corporation has claimed adjustment on account of credit cost & inland freight and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for DK Corporation has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below

Japan

Normal Value for M/s JFE Steel Corporation (“JFE”) Japan, (Producer)

66. During the POI, JFE has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related and unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making transactions for particular PCN is more than 80%, then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable transactions for particular PCN is less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

67. JFE has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, storge cost, insurance and credit cost and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for JFE has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below

Nippon Steel Stainless Steel Corporation (NSSSC) Japan

68. During the POI, NSSSC has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related and unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making transactions for particular PCN is more than 80%, then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable transactions for particular PCN is less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

69. NSSSC has claimed adjustment on account of commission, rebate, claim and credit cost and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for NSSSC has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below

Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) Japan

70. During the POI, NSC has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related user only. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making transactions for particular PCN is more than 80%, then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable transactions for particular PCN is less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

71. NSC has claimed adjustment on account of credit cost and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for NSC has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below

Nippon Kinzoku, Japan (Nippon)

72. During the POI, Nippon has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related and unrelated parties. However, no resale details in Appendix-4C and 5 have been provided by Nippon. Therefore, Authority is unable to perform the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. Accordingly, the normal value for Nippon is determined on the basis of facts available.

Daido Steel Co.

73. The authority notes that Daido Steel Co. has submitted the exporters’ response claiming to be producer of subject goods and has informed that it has exported the subject goods through traders. However, the authority notes that Daido Steel Co. has not submitted any details about domestic sales and other costing information. With regard to exports to India, Daido Steel Co. has submitted only Appendix-3C. Therefore, the authority is unable to determine the normal value for Daido Steel Co. in the absence of any information and therefore rejects the response filed by Daido Steel Co. Accordingly, the normal value for Daido Steel Co. is determined on the basis of facts available.

Nippon Yakin Kingyo (NYK)

74. NYK has provided information pertaining to their domestic sales, exports to India and cost of production in the exporter’s questionnaire. NYK has claimed normal value on the basis of sales made in the domestic market. However, due to reasons given in subsequent paragraphs with regard to determination of export price, the Authority notes that individual dumping margin could not be determined for NYK. Therefore, normal value for NYK has not been determined on the basis of the information provided in exporter’s questionnaire response and the same has been determined on the basis of facts available.

EU

Normal Value for Outokumpu Stainless Oy, Outokumpu Stainless AB, Sweden, Outokumpu Nirosta GmbH, Germany, Outokumpu Pressplate AB, Outokumpu Spa Italy, Outokumpu PSC Benelux B.V. (“Outokumpu Group”)

75. During the POI, Outokumpu Group has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related and unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making transactions for particular PCN is more than 80%, then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable transactions for particular PCN is less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

76. Outokumpu Group has claimed adjustment on account of shipping cost, insurance and credit cost and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for Outokumpu Group has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Normal value for SIJ Acroni D.O.O, Slovania (Acroni)

77. During the POI, Acroni has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related and unrelated parties. It is seen that the company has sold significant volume of the product having width above 1650 mm in the Indian market, which has been excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. Therefore, all sales of product having width above 1650mm have been excluded from the calculations. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making transactions for particular PCN is more than 80%, then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable transactions for particular PCN is less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

78. Acroni has claimed adjustment on account of freight and other expenses and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for Acroni has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Malaysia

Normal value for Bahru Stainless Sdn. Bhd (“Bahru”)

79. During the POI, Bahru has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to related and unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. If profit making transactions for particular PCN is more than 80%, then the authority has considered all the transactions in the domestic market for the determination of the normal value and in cases, where profitable transactions for particular PCN is less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales have been taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Wherever there were no domestic sales or no profitable domestic sales of particular PCN, normal value was constructed based on the cost of production along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling & general costs and for profits.

80. Bahru has claimed adjustment on account of ocean freight, inland freight, insurance and credit cost and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for Bahru has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Indonesia

Normal Value for PT. Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (IRNC), PT. Indonesia Guang Ching Nikel and Stainless Steel Industry (GCNS) and PT. Indonesia Tsingshan Stainless Steel (ITSS) [“Tsingshan Group”]

81. It is noted that the producers in the group have sold the product under consideration in HR form to affiliated producers as well as unaffiliated producers in Indonesia. Further, these affiliated and unaffiliated producers have processed the HR form into CR and sold. The affiliated producer has sold the CR to affiliated trader in Indonesia, who has sold the product to unaffiliated customer in Indonesia. Since the producers have sold the product to affiliated traders, the selling price of the product under consideration by affiliated trader to unrelated customer has been considered as the selling price of the product. Further, this selling price has been adjusted for expenses incurred by the affiliated producer (in processing into CR) and trader, and a reasonable profit margin. The selling price for these sales through affiliated trader have been considered along with direct sales by the producers to unaffiliated customer in Indonesia. The weighted average price for each PCN has been adjusted for direct expenses incurred by the Tsingshan group companies to determine ex-factory selling price. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for Tsingshan group has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

PT. Bina Niaga Multiusaha (BNM)

82. During the POI, BNM has sold the subject goods in the domestic market to unrelated parties. However, no PCN is mentioned by BNM in Appendix-4A. Therefore, Authority is unable to perform the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. Accordingly, the Authority has not determined individual dumping margin and the normal value for BNM is determined on the basis of facts available.

Normal value for PT IMR ARC Steel, Indonesia (IMR ARC)

83. IMR ARC has provided information pertaining to their domestic sales, exports to India and cost of production in the exporter’s questionnaire response. IMR ARC has claimed normal value on the basis of sales made in the domestic market. However, due to reasons given in subsequent paragraphs relating to export price, Authority has not determined individual dumping margin for IMR ARC.

Taiwan

Walsin Lihwa Corporation, Taiwan (WLC)

84. WLC has provided information pertaining to their domestic sales, exports to India and cost of production in the exporter’s questionnaire response. WLC has claimed normal value on the basis of sales made in the domestic market. However, due to reasons given in subsequent paragraphs relating to export price, Authority has not determined individual dumping margin for WLC.

Yieh United Steel corporation, Taiwan (YUSC)

85. YUSC has provided information pertaining to their domestic sales, exports to India and cost of production in the exporter’s questionnaire response. YUSC has claimed normal value on the basis of sales made in the domestic market. However, due to reasons given in subsequent paragraphs relating to export price, Authority has not determined individual dumping margin for YUSC.

Yuan Long Stainless Steel corporation, Taiwan (YLSSC)

86. YLSSC has provided information pertaining to their domestic sales, exports to India and cost of production in the exporter’s questionnaire. YLSSC has claimed normal value on the basis of sales made in the domestic market. However, due to reasons given in subsequent paragraphs relating to export price, Authority has not determined individual dumping margin for YLSSC.

Normal value in case of non-cooperating producers/exporters from Korea RP, Indonesia, Japan, EU, Malaysia & Taiwan

87. The Authority notes that no other producer/exporter from Korea RP, Indonesia, Japan, EU, Malaysia, & Taiwan have responded in the present investigation. For all the non-cooperative producers/exporters from Korea RP, Indonesia, Japan, EU, Malaysia & Taiwan, the Authority has determined normal value at ex-factory level on the basis of facts available and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

EXPORT PRICE

Korea RP

Export Price for M/s Hyundai BNG Steel Co., Ltd (“Hyundai BNG”) Korea RP, (Producer) along with Traders

88. Hyundai BNG, a producer of the subject goods in Korea RP, has filed a questionnaire response along with its related /unrelated trading companies. These trading companies exported the subject goods to India manufactured by the Hyundai BNG during the POI. All of these Exporters/Traders have filed their Questionnaire responses with the Designated Authority.

89. Hyundai BNG has exported the subject goods to India directly to unrelated Indian importers. The exports are on FOB/CFR/CIF basis. Hyundai BNG has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, ocean freight, Port handling expenses, packing cost and credit cost and the same have been allowed. The export price has accordingly been determined for Hyundai BNG and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Export price for M/s POSCO and POSCO International Korea RP, (POSCO Group) and its traders.

90. POSCO Group filed questionnaire response along with its unrelated/related trading companies who have exported the subject goods to India manufactured by the POSCO Group. POSCO Group has also made direct/indirect exports to its related importers in India during the POI.

91. The export sales of POSCO Group directly and through its cooperating unrelated/related trading companies are on FOB/C&F basis. POSCO Group has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, ocean freight, handling charge, packing cost, bank charges and credit expenses and the same have been allowed. Accordingly, the export price has been determined for POSCO Group at ex-factory level and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Export Price for DK Corporation

92. DK Corporation, a producer of the subject goods in Korea RP, has filed questionnaire response. DK Corporation has exported the subject goods to India directly to unrelated Indian importers. The exports are on FOB/CFR/CIF basis. DK Corporation has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, insurance, ocean freight, Port handling expenses, packing cost, bank charges and credit cost and the same have been allowed. The export price has accordingly been determined for DK Corporation and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Japan

Export Price for M/s JFE Steel Corporation (“JFE”) Japan, (Producer) and its traders.

93. JFE filed questionnaire response along with its unrelated/related trading companies who have exported the subject goods to India manufactured by JFE. JFE has also made indirect exports to its related importers in India during the POI. Some of the traders have also exported the subject goods to related importers in India.

94. The export sales of JFE through its cooperating unrelated/related trading companies are on FOB/FAS basis. JFE has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, and credit expenses and the same have been allowed. Accordingly, the export price has been determined for JFE at ex-factory level and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Export Price for Nippon Steel Stainless Steel Corporation (NSSSC) Japan, (Producer) and its traders.

95. NSSSC filed questionnaire response along with its unrelated/related trading companies who have exported the subject goods to India manufactured by NSSSC.

96. The export sales of NSSSC through its cooperating unrelated/related trading companies are on FOB basis. NSSSC has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, commission and credit expenses and the same have been allowed. The authority notes that some of the traders have exported the subject goods to India at a price which does not cover for traders’ expenses. The authority has, therefore, made appropriate adjustments on account of traders’ expenses also. Accordingly, the export price has been determined for NSSSC at ex-factory level and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Export Price for Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) Japan, (Producer) and its traders.

97. NSC filed a questionnaire response along with its unrelated trading companies who have exported the subject goods to India manufactured by NSC.

98. The export sales of NSC through its cooperating unrelated trading companies are on FOB basis. NSC has claimed adjustment on account of credit expenses and the same have been allowed. The authority notes that some of the traders have exported the subject goods to India at a price which does not cover for traders’ expenses. The authority has, therefore, made appropriate adjustments on account of traders’ expenses also. Accordingly, the export price has been determined for NSC at ex-factory level and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Export Price for Nippon Kinzoku, Japan (Nippon)

99. As stated above, the Authority holds not to accept the exporter’s questionnaire response filed by the producer. Accordingly, the Authority has determined the export price for Nippon on the basis of facts available.

Export Price for Daido Steel Co.

100. As stated above, the Authority holds not to accept the exporter’s questionnaire response filed by the producer. Accordingly, the Authority has determined the export price for Daido Steel on the basis of facts available.

Export Price for Nippon Yakin Kingyo (NYK)

101. From the response filed by NYK, the Authority notes that the producer has exported the subject goods to India through unrelated trader namely M/s. Kanemasu. This trader has not filed their exporters’ questionnaire response in the subject investigation. Therefore, the Authority holds not to accept the response of NYK because the complete export chain for a significant portion of the exports made to India is not before the Authority. Accordingly, individual dumping margin has not been determined for NYK.

Export Price for Outokumpu Group and its traders

102. Producer and exporters from Outokumpu Group filed questionnaire response who have exported the subject goods to India manufactured by them. The export sales of Outokumpu Group were on CIF/FOB basis. Producers in Outokumpu Group have claimed adjustment on account of shipping, insurance and credit expenses and the same have been allowed. Accordingly, the export price has been determined for Outokumpu Group at ex-factory level and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Export Price for SIJ Acroni D.O.O, Slovania (Acroni)

103. Acroni , a producer of the subject goods in EU, has filed a questionnaire response. Acroni has exported the subject goods to India directly to unrelated Indian importers. The exports are on CIF basis. Significant sales reported by Acroni pertains to products which are beyond the scope of the product under consideration. Accordingly, the Authority has excluded all those exports and has determined export price for the company. Acroni has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, insurance, ocean freight and Port handling expenses and the same have been allowed. The export price has accordingly been determined for Acroni and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Malaysia

Bahru Stainless Sdn. Bhd (“Bahru”)

104. Bahru, a producer of the subject goods from Malaysia has filed questionnaire response. Bahru has exported the subject goods to India directly to unrelated Indian importers. The exports are on CIF basis. Bahru has claimed adjustment on account of inland freight, insurance, ocean freight, port handling expenses, commission and credit cost and the same have been allowed. The export price has accordingly been determined for Bahru and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Indonesia

Export Price for PT. Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (IRNC), PT. Indonesia Guang Ching Nikel and Stainless Steel Industry (GCNS) and PT. Indonesia Tsingshan Stainless Steel (ITSS) [“Tsingshan Group”] and its traders

105. Export price for Tsingshan group has been determined considering the eventual selling price by the Tsingshan group companies to Indian importers. The CIF export price has been adjusted for the expenses incurred from ex-factory to CIF in order to ascertain ex-factory export price. Separate export price has been determined for each PCN exported to India.

Export Price for PT. Bina Niaga Multiusaha (BNM)

106. As stated above, the Authority is unable to accept the exporter’s questionnaire response filed by the producer. Since the Authority is unable to determine individual normal value for BNM for the reasons elaborated hereinabove, the Authority has not determined individual export price and dumping margin for the BNM.

Export Price for IMR ARC

107. From the response filed by IMR ARC, the Authority notes that more than 30% of exports to India have been made through unrelated traders namely ***, ***,***, ***, ***, ***, ***.,***. These traders have not filed their exporters’ questionnaire responses in the subject investigation. Since the Authority is unable to determine individual export price for IMR ARC, the Authority has not determined individual dumping margin for IMR ARC.

Taiwan

Export Price for Walsin Lihwa Corporation, Taiwan (WLC)

108. From the response filed by the producer, the Authority notes that more than 30% of exports to India have been made through unrelated trader namely ***. This trader has not filed their exporters’ questionnaire responses in the subject investigation. Therefore, the Authority holds not to accept the response of WLC because the complete export chain for a significant portion of the exports made to India is not before the Authority. Since the Authority is unable to determine individual export price for WLC,the Authority has not determined individual dumping margin for WLC.

Export Price for Yieh United Steel corporation, Taiwan (YUSC)

109. From the response filed by the producer, the Authority notes that more than 30% of exports to India have been made through unrelated traders namely ***, *** ***, ***, ***, *** and ***. These traders have not filed their exporters’ questionnaire responses in the subject investigation. Therefore, the Authority holds not to accept the response of YUSC because the complete export chain for a significant portion of the exports made to India is not before the Authority. Accordingly, individual export price and dumping margin for YUSC has not been determined.

Export Price for Yuan Long Stainless Steel corporation, Taiwan (YLSS)

110. From the response filed by the producer, the Authority notes that more than 30% of exports to India have been made through unrelated traders namely ***, ***and***. These traders have not filed their exporters’ questionnaire responses in the subject investigation. Therefore, the Authority holds not to accept the response of YLSS because the complete export chain for a significant portion of the exports made to India is not before the Authority. Accordingly, individual export price and dumping margin for YLSS has not been determined.

Export Price in case of non-cooperating producers/exporters from Korea RP, Indonesia, Japan, EU, Malaysia, & Taiwan

111. The Authority notes that no other producer/exporter from Korea RP, Indonesia, Japan, EU, USA, Malaysia, & Taiwan has responded to the Authority in the present investigation. For all the non-cooperative producers/exporters from Korea RP, Indonesia, Japan, EU, Malaysia, & Taiwan, the Authority has determined export price at ex-factory level on the basis of facts available and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below. The information received from the DGCI&S has been used for the purpose. Price adjustments have been made on account of ocean freight, insurance, commission, port expenses, inland freight and bank charges to arrive at the net export price in respect of the said countries and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

Export price of all the producers and exporters from China PR

112. None of the producers/exporters from China PR have cooperated in the present investigation. In view of such non-cooperation, the Authority has determined the export price in respect of these countries on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules. The Authority has relied upon DGCI&S import data for the purpose of determining export price. Price adjustments have been made on account of ocean freight, insurance, commission, port expenses, inland freight and bank charges to arrive at the net export price in respect of the said countries and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.

H. Dumping Margin

113. Considering the normal value and export price determined, as elaborated above, the Authority has determined dumping margin, as below:

S. No Country Producer Net Export
Price (USD
per MT)
Dumping
Margin
Price
(USD per
MT)
Dumping
Margin %
Dumping
Margin %
Range
1. Korea RP M/s Hyundai BNG Steel Co., Ltd *** *** *** 0-10
2. Korea RP M/s POSCO and POSCO SPS, (POSCO Group) *** *** *** 10-20
3. Korea RP DK Corporation *** *** *** 10-20
4. Korea RP All Others *** *** *** 20-30
5. Japan Nippon Steel Stainless Steel Corporation *** *** *** 10-20
6. Japan Nippon Steel Corporation *** *** *** 20-30
7 Japan JFE Steel Corporation *** *** *** 10-20
8. Japan All Others *** *** *** 25-35
9. EU SIJ Acroni D.O.O, Slovania *** *** *** 0-10
10. EU Outokumpu Group *** *** *** 0-10
11. EU All Others *** *** *** 5-15
12 Malaysia Bahru Stainless Sdn. Bhd *** *** *** 30-40
13. Malaysia All Others *** *** *** 20-30
14 Indonesia PT. Indonesia Guang Ching Nikel and
Stainless Steel Industry (Tsingshan Group)
*** *** *** 10-20
15 Indonesia PT. Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome
Alloy (Tsingshan Group)
*** *** *** 0-10
16 Indonesia PT. Indonesia Tsingshan Stainless Steel
(Tsingshan Group)
*** *** *** 10-20
17 Indonesia Tsingshan Group *** *** *** 10-20
18 Indonesia All producers *** *** *** 20-30
19 China PR All producers *** *** *** 55-65
20 Taiwan All producers *** *** *** 25-35

I. METHODOLOGY FOR INJURY DETERMINATION AND EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK

I.1 Submissions made by the domestic industry

114. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:

a. Participating companies have provided relevant information in respect of like article to the extent feasible and separately available. However, in those situations where the information is not separately available in respect of the like article, because separate identification of that information is not reasonably available, information has been provided in respect of the narrowest group or range of products, which includes the like article and for which the necessary information is available and can be provided in consonance with the provisions of Annexure II.

b. Demand for the subject goods has increased throughout the injury period.

c. Imports from the subject countries have declined till 2017-18 and thereafter increased significantly in the POI. Further, imports in relation to production and consumption have also followed the same trend.

d. Imports from China had declined significantly post imposition of countervailing duties in 2017.

e. Imports from subject countries (excluding China) when compared to base year have now shown a significant increase in absolute terms and in relation to total imports, production of domestic industry, and sales of domestic industry. As stated earlier, imports post initiation of duties have intensified further.

f. Significant capacities created by PT ITSS in Indonesia is disproportionate to the domestic demand and is mainly targeted to global market. Further, the company is supported by significant government explicit/implicit, direct/indirect subsidies. Consequently, the cost of production is lower making the Indonesian producer the de-facto price setter in a number of markets, including India. As a direct corollary, other countries have been forced to follow this trend.

g. The price undercutting has been determined only for those import transactions whose landed price of imports is below selling price of the domestic industry, as the concern is against injurious imports, and not non-injurious imports. The petitioner in that reference had substantiated its argument by relying on WTO Report in the matter of European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil.

h. The petitioners request determination of price undercutting considering only those import transactions whose landed price of imports is below selling price of the domestic industry. However, even if price undercutting is determined on totality basis, the weighted average price undercutting is positive and significant positive during the investigation period.

i. The petitioners have determined price underselling and the same is significantly positive.

j. The price underselling should be determined only considering those import transactions which have occurred at a price below NIP of the domestic industry. The above-stated case of European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil, is also equally applicable for calculation of injury margin. In this context, reference is also made to Hon’ble Tribunal’s order in the matter of Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Limited vs. Designated Authority.

k. Prices of major inputs such as scrap, nickel, ferro alloys have increased over the injury period thus resulting in increase in direct costs over the injury period. In particular, between POI and preceding year, there has been significant increase in prices of inputs and resultantly the material costs.

l. The domestic industry has not been able to increase its selling price due to presence of dumped imports in the market, because of the price suppressing impact from import. The petitioners quantified prices suppression considering the increase in the input prices and increase in the selling prices.

m. The capacity with the domestic industry has remained the same over the injury period. Indian capacity for the product is sufficient to cater to the entire domestic demand and imports are entirely unnecessary for this reason. However, utilization of production capacities are significantly low in India. The capacity with the Indian industry is estimated at *** lac MT whereas the demand is around *** Lac MT.

n. The production and sales of the domestic industry has increased over the injury period. The same, however declined in the POI. Further, the domestic industry has not been able to take up the market which was expected to be vacated by Chinese suppliers post imposition of dumping and countervailing duties. Imports increased from present subject counties at dumped prices, preventing the domestic industry from increasing its sales to the extent of production and capacities.

o. The petitioners are exporting the subject goods at financial losses. The petitioners would not have undertaken these loss making exports, had there been a good market for the product in the country.

p. The profitability of the domestic industry improved till 2017-18. The same, however declined significantly in the POI;

q. The cash profits and return on investments have followed the same trend as that of profits.

r. The industry had hoped to improve its prices and profitability with the imposition of CVD. However, this remained short lived in view of dumping. The CVD on China was imposed in 7th September 2017 and the trends clearly show improvement before significant dumping started in the POI.

s. The industry was prevented from increasing its prices even to the extent of increases in input cost. The significant price suppression faced by the industry has led to significant deterioration in the profitability of the domestic industry. Thus, the price parameters of the domestic industry have been significantly impacted

t. Considering the Hon’ble Tribunal’s decision, in Acrylic Fibre Manufacturers v. Designated Authority, the decline in profits of the domestic industry cannot be regarded as inconsequential or insignificant. While profits, cash profits and ROI should have improved, given imposition of CVD on Chinese imports, the same has rather declined to negative levels.

u. Market share of domestic industry and domestic producers as a whole has not increased to the extent it should have increased with the imposition of CVD on China.

v. The productivity has improved. Despite improvement in productivity, the profitability of the domestic industry deteriorated.

w. Inventories with the Domestic Industry though declined but remains significant however a significant proportion of the production takes place against confirmed orders.

x. The domestic industry was expected to gain the market share vacated by China pursuant to CVD duties coming in place. However, imports from other countries and dumping being resorted by China has led to the adverse impact. Further, growth in terms of the price parameters has been negative in the POI.

I.2 Submissions made by other interested parties

115. Following are the submissions made by other interested parties with regard to Injury and causal link

a. Cumulation is inappropriate for two reasons: i) The product scope differs for different countries, due to the exclusions. ii) The conditions of competition between the imports from the EU and the other subject countries; and between the imports from the EU and the like domestic product.

b. Sources for production volumes in non-confidential indexed format, are not cited or provided. Jindal should be required to provide publicly available support for these figures. If adequate support is not provided in the confidential version, the case should be terminated.

c. Jindal is related to PT Jindal Stainless Indonesia, which is a member of the Jindal Group and it is possible Jindal also is an importer from its Indonesian affiliate; and hence, should be excluded from standing.

d. Most of the information in Annexure 3.2 (with the exception of certain grades and what the petitioners call “comparable PCNs”) has been deleted from the non-confidential version. The petitioner allegedly based its calculations on MEPS data, which are clearly non-confidential. The petitioner used other sources for products where no MEPS prices were available. The petition fails to provide any information on the source of this information, nor on the type of adjustments made to calculate the normal value; nor on the overall result of the calculations.

e. Petitioner failed to provide any disclosure of the export prices used in the calculation of dumping though the import data is open to the public.

f. Sample product types in its calculation of dumping has little or no precedent in the practice of WTO members, and is likely to distort dumping margin. There is no reason to engage in “sampling,” as DGTR has ample experience in analyzing data on steel products.

g. Insufficient disclosure concerning the adjustments made by the petitioners in order to convert export price (allegedly reported on CIF basis) to ex works level. Though petition does mention that certain adjustments were made, yet it fails to provide any explanation as to how these were calculated, except that they were based on petitioner’s own estimates. Such estimates cannot be confidential.

h. There has been no significant increase in the allegedly dumped imports; in fact, they have decreased both in absolute terms and relative to consumption in India.

i. Attempts have been made to explain the decrease in total imports by citing the imposition of ADD on Chinese imports. This is irrelevant.

j. It is WTO-inconsistent to initiate an investigation where there is a mismatch – i.e., the investigating authority removes a portion of the subject imports from its analysis. The DGTR must look at total imports from the targeted countries overall in order to assess the impact of imports on local producers as well as the overall state of the market.

k. Imports from the EU fell from 36,457 in 2015-2016 to 25,425 MT in the POI. This decrease is not related to imposition of ADD on Chinese imports. Import volumes from the EU have no basis for injury.

l. combined imports from all subject countries show the same declining trend.

m. Assuming the imports decreased on account of the imposition of AD duties on China, this is wholly irrelevant to the issue of injury and causation. As it is in this case, where imports decline sharply, it does not matter why this happened. All that matters is that it declined. Because the imports declined substantially, there is no basis to find that it caused injury by their volume.

n. Petitioner’s attempt to show undercutting is questionable. Petitioner has applied “zeroing”. “Zeroing” is inconsistent with the WTO AD Agreement. But for “zeroing,” undercutting by the EU would be low or non- existent (0-10%. Undercutting of zero, cannot be a cause of injury; and even where undercutting is in the range of 10%, this also would not be injurious in light of low and declining imports. As the “injury margin” range from the EU between 5 and 15% it is unlikely that price undercutting would be positive or significant.

o. The price level of EU imports provided by Jindal is artificially low (and undercutting overstated) because it has not included imports of OTK products of wide and special-grade products, that are high in price and Jindal does not produce.

p. There is no injury as the Petitioner’s total sales, profits, output, market share, sales realisation, employment and productivity, capacity utilisation. The petition also gives no evidence of “actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital or investments.”

q. If there is a Threat of Injury, it is from imports from China and Indonesia, but not from the EU.

r. Imports from the EU has dropped in recent times. There is no evidence of any freely disposable capacity or inventory build-ups as far as EU is concerned.

s. The petition focuses on Indonesia/China as far as threat is concerned and provides no information for including EU in the case.

t. There is lack of causation as there are counter-trends between the imports and the domestic industry’s performance.

u. Cash profit shows some decline, however cash flow is generally not just for PUC but for company as a whole and thus does not reflect the actual position

v. HRSS and CRSS are not single product. This is leading to incorrect analysis. The products are completely different, the cost and price is different.

w. The technology adopted by Tsingshan is completely different. The product quality also differs significantly.

x. Reason for decline in performance could be shutting down of petitioners’ plant in Vizag, as stated in JSHL’s 2017-18 Annual Report.

y. domestic industry suffered injury, if any, on account of the significant decline in the exports sales i.e., to the tune of 26% in the POI as compared to the immediately preceding year and 36% as compared to 2016-17.

z. The finance cost has been increased significantly from 100 (Indexed) in the base year to 113 (Indexed) during the POI. This apparently has impacted the performance of the applicants adversely.

aa. During the year 2017-18 M/s Jindal Stainless Limited received interest refund of *** crores. This fact is clearly mentioned in Note 23 of their Annual Report for the year 2017-18. Accordingly, we request the Authority to add back the same in the interest cost of the year 2017-18 for the purpose of proper trend analysis

bb. Reasons for decline in performance, if any, of domestic industry is due to: significant increase in interest payment on long term borrowings. JSL has exited corporate debt restructuring with effect from March 31, 2019. The aggregate liability on account of exit from CDR as on March 31, 2019 was determined Rs. ***. This is a onetime cost and could have resulted in decline in performance.

I.3 EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY

116. The Authority has taken note of the submissions made by the interested parties with regard to injury to the domestic industry and causal link examination. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties.

117. The present investigation, as mentioned above, is limited to imports from China, European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan only for the reasons stated. These countries i.e. China, European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan shall only be hereinafter referred to as “subject countries”.

I.4 Cumulative assessment

118. As per Annexure II para (iii) of the AD Rules which provides that in case imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to an anti-dumping investigation, the Designated 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 per cent expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three per cent of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than three per cent, the imports collectively account for more than seven per cent 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.

119. In this regard, the Authority observes as follows:

a. the margins of dumping from each of the subject countries are more than the limits prescribed above;

b. the volume of imports from each of the subject countries is more than the de-minimis limits prescribed;

c. cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate as the exports from the subject countries not only directly compete inter se but also with the like articles offered by the Domestic Industry in the Indian market.

d. imported and domestic product are being used interchangeably and there is direct competition between the domestic product and imported product.

120. In view of the above, the Authority considers it appropriate to cumulatively assess the effects of dumped imports of the subject goods from People’s Republic of China, Korea RP, EU, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia and Malaysia on the domestic industry in the light of conditions of competition between the imported product and like domestic product.

121. The Authority has taken note of the submissions made by the domestic industry and the other interested parties. Annexure II of the AD Rules provides for objective examination of both (a) the volume of dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in domestic market for the like articles; and (b) the consequent impact on domestic producers of such products. While examining the volume effect of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to examine whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. With regard to price effect of dumped imports, the Authority is required to examine whether there has been significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared to price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress the prices to a significant degree or prevent price increase which would have otherwise occurred to a significant degree.

122. The Authority has taken note of various submissions of 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.

I.5 Volume Effect of dumped imports and Impact on domestic Industry

i. Assessment of Demand

123. For the purpose of the present investigation, Authority has defined demand or apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of domestic sales of the Indian Producers and imports from all sources. The questionnaire response filed by the exporters from Japan shows higher volume of imports of subject goods as compared to the volume reported in DGCI&S and thus volume of imports for japan has been considered as per the questionnaire response examined. It is noted that the product under consideration is being imported into India both in cold and hot rolled conditions. Further, the product under consideration is being produced by the companies such as petitioners who are producing both hot and cold rolled product. Some producers of cold rolled product procure hot rolled either from the domestic market or from imports. Therefore, production and sales of these producers has not been counted to determine consumption of the product under consideration in India in order to avoid double accounting of one production. The demand so assessed is as follows:

Demand Unit 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 POI
Subject Countries including China MT 3,97,098 3,92,066 3,45,596 3,40,582
China PR MT 2,35,949 2,41,703 1,52,821 62,705
Other Countries MT 58,286 45,524 68,812 56,227
Countries/products attracting     ADD MT 39,435 30,839 34,829 59,232
Domestic industry MT *** *** *** ***
Domestic industry Index- MT 100 107 131 133
Other Indian Producers MT *** *** *** ***
Other Indian Producers Index- MT 100 101 110 110
Total Demand MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed Demand MT 100 102 114 115

124. It is seen that demand for the subject goods has increased consistently over the injury period including POI.

ii. Imports in absolute terms

125. With regard to volume of the subject 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 import volumes for the injury period are as under:

Import Volume-Total

Particulars Unit 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 POI
Subject Countries MT 3,97,098 3,92,066 3,45,596 3,40,582
China PR MT 2,35,949 2,41,703 1,52,821 62,705
Subject Countries-Without China MT 1,61,149 1,50,363 1,92,775 2,77,877
EU MT 36,457 32,584 30,221 25,425
Indonesia MT 93 4,024 8,601 76,102
Japan MT 45,244 49,323 56,491 45,014
Korea MT 35,491 38,255 65,681 73,822
Malaysia MT 28,793 11,321 6,413 30,698
Taiwan MT 15,071 14,857 25,367 26,817
Other Countries MT 58,286 45,524 68,812 56,227
Countries/products subject to ADD MT 39,435 30,839 34,829 59,232
Total MT 4,94,819 4,68,429 4,49,237 4,56,041

126. The Authority notes that imports from the subject countries as a whole has declined over the injury period. It is noted in this regard that countervailing duty has been imposed on imports from China PR in September 2017 and consequently imports declined from China PR. However, the volume of imports from China remains significant even after imposition of CVD. The investigation has shown that the dumping margin and injury margin in respect of imports from China are higher than the existing quantum of subsidy duty. The Authority, in order to make objective examination, has examined imports from subject countries by both, including and excluding China PR, from total imports of subject countries.

127. Imports from China PR have declined from 235,949 MT in the base year to 62,705 in the POI. However, imports from other subject countries have increased from 161,149 MT in the base year to 277,877MT in the POI, registering an increase of 72% over the base year. Thus, decline in imports from subject countries as a whole is due to imposition of countervailing duty on China PR. However, imports from subject countries other than China PR have increased significantly. Further, imports in absolute terms from China PR also remain significant in the POI despite imposition of countervailing duty measures.

iii. Import in relation to production and consumption

128. The Authority considered whether the imports of the product have shown an increase in relation to production or consumption in India. Table below shows the data in this regard.

Imports from Subject Countries (excluding China) in relation to Unit 2015-

16

2016-17 2017-18 POI
Indian Production % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 87 100 145
Consumption % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 91 105 150
Imports from Subject Countries (including China) in relation to
Indian Production % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 92 72 72
Consumption % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 97 76 74

129. The Authority notes that:

i. Imports from subject countries in relation to production and consumption shows a declining trend in view of decline in imports from China PR after imposition of countervailing duty.

ii. Imports (excluding China PR) in relation to Indian production and consumption shows an increasing trend in the POI.

iii. Imports from China shows a declining trend in relation to Indian production and consumption shows an increasing trend in the POI. However, the volume of Chinese imports in the POI was significant.

iv. It has been submitted by the domestic industry that imports are significant in relation to production and consumption, despite domestic producers having sufficient capacity to cater to the demand in India.

I.6 Price effect of subject imports and impact on domestic industry

130. 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 alleged 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 subject countries has been examined with reference to price undercutting, price underselling, 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 landed price of imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. The Authority has carried out the analysis of price undercutting and price underselling on PCN basis as there is significant variation in the per MT prices of various PCNs.

i. Price Undercutting

131. For the purpose of price undercutting analysis, the net selling price of the Domestic Industry has been compared with the landed value of imports from the subject countries. While computing the net selling price of the Domestic Industry all taxes, rebates, discounts and commissions have been deducted and sales realization at ex works level has been determined for comparison with the landed value of the dumped imports. For the purpose, considering the PCN adopted in the present investigation, the Authority has compared landed price of imports with the selling price of the domestic industry for comparable types. Thus, weighted average price undercutting has been determined after considering associated import volumes. Accordingly, the undercutting effects of the dumped imports from the subject countries works out as follows:

Price Undercutting

Country/Region Qty Avg. Landed Price Price Undercutting
MT Rs/MT Rs/MT % Range
CHINA 62,705 1,17,226 *** *** 10-20
EU 25,425 1,92,777 *** *** 0-10
INDONESIA 76,102 1,37,996 *** *** 0-10
JAPAN 45,014 1,05,089 *** *** 20-30
KOREA 73,822 1,36,404 *** *** 0-10
MALAYSIA 30,698 1,31,218 *** *** 10-20
TAIWAN 26,817 1,52,500 *** *** 0-10
Grand Total 3,40,582 1,34,098 *** *** 0-10

132. It is seen that the price undercutting from each of the subject countries is positive and significant. Imports of the product under consideration are undercutting the prices of domestic industry in the market.

ii.Price suppression and depression

133. In order to determine whether the dumped imports 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 to a significant degree, the Authority considered the changes in the costs and prices over the injury period. The position on the basis of the cost of sales and selling price furnished by the domestic industry is shown as per the table below

Particulars Unit 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 POI
Cost of sales Rs./MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 99 104 116
Selling price Rs./MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 106 118 129

134. It is seen that both, cost of sales as well as selling price has increased over the injury period. However, the selling price which was below the level of cost of sales upto 2016-17. However, the selling price fell below cost of sales once again during POI. Existence of positive price undercutting and increase in prices less than the increase in costs indicates that the imports were preventing the price increases that would have otherwise occurred in the market.

I.7 Economic Parameters relating to the Domestic Industry

135. The AD Rules require 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 these 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, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, performance of the domestic industry has been examined over the injury period.

i. Production, Capacity, Capacity Utilization and Sales

136. Position of the domestic industry over the injury period with regard to Production, Capacity, Capacity Utilization and Sales was as follows:

Particulars UOM 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 POI
Production MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 112 127 125
Capacity MT 16,00,000 16,00,000 16,00,000 16,00,000
Index 100 100 100 100
Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Index 100 112 127 125
Sales-Domestic MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 107 131 133
Sales-Export MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 133 126 100
Sales-Total MT *** *** *** ***
Index 100 112 130 126
Demand MT *** *** *** ***

137. Authority notes that-

a. Capacity with the domestic industry has remained constant over the injury period.

b. The production and sale of the domestic industry increased over the injury period. However, whereas the production increased by 12 index points in 2016-17 and 15 index points in 2017-18, it declined by 2 index points in the POI. Further, whereas sales increased by 7 index points in 2016-17 and 24 index points in 2017-18, it increased by only 2 index points in POI.

c. While capacity utilization of the domestic industry increased till 2017-18, it declined in POI.

d. Comparison of changes in demand, subject imports with production and domestic sales of the domestic industry shows that whereas the domestic industry was able to increase its production and domestic sales, the increase in imports (excluding China PR) is disproportionate to the increase in domestic sales by the domestic industry.

ii. Profitability, return on investment and cash profits

138. Position of the domestic industry over the injury period with regard to profitability, ROI and cash profit are as follows:

Particulars UOM 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 POI
Cost of Sales Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 99 104 116
Selling Price Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 109 118 129
Profit/ Loss Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 -19 9 -4
Profit/ Loss Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 -20 12 -5
Cash Profit Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 19 73 47
PBIT Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 76 133 107
Return    on      Capital

Employed

% *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 82 138 120

139. From the above information, the Authority notes that:

a. The domestic industry was into financial losses earlier. Antidumping duty was imposed on some products (on Hot Rolled Flat products of grade 304) in March 2015. Losses of the domestic industry however, turned into profit, though sub-optimal, in 2016-17. The ADD on products circumventing duty on imports of cold- rolled stainless steel flat products from certain countries was imposed in October 2017 and thereafter CVD was imposed on Chinese imports on 7th September 2017. These measures resulted in further recovery of the domestic industry with return on investment touching ***% in 2017­18. However, once again the domestic industry ran into financial losses in the POI on account of dumped imports.

iii. Market share

140. Position of the domestic producers over the injury period with regard to market share are as follows:

Particulars UOM 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 POI
Cost of Sales Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 99 104 116
Selling Price Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 109 118 129
Profit/ Loss Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 -19 9 -4
Profit/ Loss Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 -20 12 -5
Cash Profit Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 19 73 47
PBIT Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 76 133 107
Return  on  Capital Employed % *** *** *** ***
Indexed -100 82 138 120
China % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 100 57 23
Subject Countries-Without China % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 91 105 150
Other Countries % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 76 103 84
Countries/Products attracting ADD % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 76 77 130
domestic industry domestic Sales % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 105 114 115
Other Indian Producers % *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 99 97 95
Total Demand % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Indexed 100 100 100 100

141. It is seen that imports from subject countries (excluding China PR) increased over the injury period. With imposition of countervailing duties on subject goods from China PR, the market share of China PR has declined.

iv. Employment and wages

Particulars UOM 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 POI
Wages Rs Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 111 162 157
Wages Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 99 128 125
No of Employees MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 102 107 107
Productivity per Day MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 112 127 125

142. Employment and wages paid have increased over the injury period. Productivity has increased in terms of production per day during the injury period before registering decline in the POI.

v. Inventories

143. Position of the domestic industry with regard to Inventories is shown below:

Inventories UOM 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 POI
Opening MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 108 115 87
Closing MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 106 81 79
Average MT *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 107 97 83

144. It is seen that the level of average inventories with the domestic industry have declined in the POI. The inventories, however, remained significant.

vi. Growth

Particulars UOM 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 POI
Production % 12% 13% -1%
Sales % 7% 22% 2%
Capacity Utilization % 9% 11% -1%
ROI % 13% 4% -1%
Cash Profit % 119% 280% -35%

145. The growth in volume parameters as well as price parameters excluding sales quantity was negative during POI.

vii. Ability to raise capital investment

The Petitioner has submitted that ability to raise fresh investment are judged considering present and potential demand for the product under consideration. Long term viability of the product under consideration is dependent upon strong profitable business, which is impacted due to subject imports.

viii. Factors affecting domestic prices

146. The examination of the import prices from the subject countries, change in the cost structure, competition in the domestic market, factors other than dumped imports that might be affecting the prices of the Domestic Industry in the domestic market, etc. shows that the landed value of imported material from the subject countries is below the selling price and the cost of production of the Domestic Industry, causing price undercutting. It is also noted that the demand for the subject goods was showing increase during the injury period including the POI and therefore it could not have been a factor affecting domestic prices.

I.8 Magnitude of Injury and Injury Margin

147. Non-Injurious Price for the domestic industry has been determined on the basis of principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The NIP of the product under consideration has been determined by adopting the verified information/data relating to the cost of production for the period of investigation. The NIP has been considered for comparing the landed price of each PCN from each of the subject country for calculating injury margin. For determining NIP, the best utilisation of the raw materials by the domestic industry over the injury period has been considered. The same treatment has been carried out with the utilities. The best utilisation of production capacity over the injury period has been considered. The production in POI has been calculated considering the best capacity utilisation and the same production has been considered for arriving per unit fixed cost. 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 as pre-tax profit to arrive at the NIP as per procedure prescribed in Annexure-III. The non-injurious price for each PCN so determined has been compared with the landed prices of imports from the subject countries for comparable PCN to determine the injury margin as follows:

INJURY MARGIN

S. No Country Producer Landed Value (USD per MT) Injury Margin (USD per MT) Injury Margin % Injury Margin Range
1. Korea RP M/s Hyundai BNG Steel Co., Ltd *** *** *** 0-10
2. Korea RP M/s POSCO and POSCO International Korea RP, (POSCO Group) *** *** *** 0-10
3. Korea RP DK Corporation *** *** *** 5-15
4. Korea RP All Others *** *** *** 15-25
5. Japan Nippon Steel Stainless Steel Corporation *** *** *** 10-20
6. Japan Nippon Steel Corporation *** *** *** 0-10
7 Japan JFE *** *** *** 0-10
8. Japan All Others *** *** *** 15-25
9. EU SIJ Acroni D.O.O, Slovania *** *** *** 5-15
10. EU Outokumpu Group *** *** *** Negative
11. EU All Others *** *** *** 5-15
12. Malaysia Bahru Stainless Sdn. Bhd *** *** *** 10-20
13. Malaysia All producers *** *** *** 20-30
14. Indonesia PT. Indonesia Guang Ching Nikel and Stainless Steel Industry

(Tsingshan Group)

*** *** *** 0-10
15. Indonesia PT. Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (Tsingshan Group) *** *** *** 10-20
16. Indonesia PT. Indonesia Tsingshan Stainless Steel (Tsingshan Group) *** *** *** 20-30
17. Indonesia Tsingshan Group *** *** *** 20-30
18. Indonesia All producers *** *** *** 20-30
19. China PR All producers *** *** *** 20-30
20. Taiwan All producers *** *** *** 10-20

I.9 CONCLUSION ON INJURY

148. The performance of the domestic industry is summarized below:

a) While overall dumped imports from the subject counties have declined, dumped imports excluding Chinese imports have increased in absolute terms, in relation to production and consumption in India.

b) Production of the domestic industry increased till 2017-18 and declined in the POI, despite increase in demand and imposition of measures on other countries.

c) The domestic industry has been prevented from increasing its production and sales to the extent it could have on account of low priced dumped imports.

d) Dumped imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry.

e) While the domestic industry was not facing any suppressing or depressing effects till 2017-18, the domestic industry faced price suppression in the POI.

f) Imports are preventing the domestic industry from raising its prices even to the extent of cost of production, leading to financial losses.

g) While the performance of the domestic industry improved earlier , it has once again suffered financial losses and deterioration in cash profits and ROI in the POI.

I.10 OTHER KNOWN FACTORS AND CAUSAL LINK

149. As per the AD 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, so that the injury caused by these other factors may 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 factors other than dumped imports could have contributed to the injury to the Domestic Industry.

a) Volume and price of imports from third countries

150. Imports from other countries are at prices higher than import price from subject countries or low in volume, or are already subject to measures. Further imports from China PR are already attracting countervailing duty. The authority is also conducting a countervailing duty investigation against Indonesia. Thus, any other third country imports are not causing injury to the domestic industry.

b) Contraction in Demand

151. It is noted that the demand of the subject goods has increased consistently over the entire injury period. Thus, the injury to the Domestic Industry was not due to contraction in demand.

c) Development of Technology

152. The Authority notes that the investigation has not shown any material change in technology for production of the product, which could have caused injury to the domestic industry.

d) Performance of other products of the company

153. The Authority notes that the performance of other products being produced and sold by the Domestic Industry does not appear to be a possible cause of injury to the Domestic Industry, and the authority has only considered information for the PUC in its injury examination. The information on record shows that the domestic industry has earned profits before tax, cash profits, and return on investments in the products beyond the scope of the product under consideration. The Authority has however not considered the profits relating to products not under consideration, and has considered only performance relating to product under consideration only, as is mandatorily required to be seen in a trade remedy investigation.

Particular Unit 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Profit before tax
Product under consideration Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed (100) (17) 47 (19)
Domestic operations Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed (100) (20) 12 (5)
Export operations Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 50 365 (153)
Products not under consideration Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 80 84 110
Return on investment
Total for PUC % *** *** *** ***
Indexed (100) (250) (475) 150
Products not under consideration *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 42 37 47
Cash profits
Total for PUC Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed (100) 84 87 13
Products not under consideration Rs. Lacs *** *** *** ***
Indexed 100 89 122 171

e) Trade Restrictive Practices and Competition between the Foreign and Domestic producers

154. The import of the subject goods is not restricted in any manner and the same are freely importable in the country. The domestic producers compete with the landed prices of the subject goods. The price of the domestic industry is influenced substantially by the landed price of subject goods. Moreover, no 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 change.

f) Export performance

155. The domestic industry has made exports in the injury period. However, export profitability has been segregated and only profitability pertaining to domestic operations has been considered. The domestic industry contended that the significant loss making exports and injury suffered in exports is a result of lack of demand for the product in the domestic market. The domestic industry contended that the adverse performance in exports should be considered as a result of dumping of the product in the country.

J. CONCLUSION ON INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK:

156. The following parameters are relevant for injury and causal link determination:

a. Dumped imports from the subject counties have increased in absolute terms, in relation to production and consumption in India, when imports from China PR are excluded. However, the same have declined when considered subject countries as a whole. Further, the imports from China have declined.

b. Dumped imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry.

c. The price undercutting has prevented domestic industry from raising prices to the extent of cost increases.

d. Imports are preventing the domestic industry from raising its prices even to the extent of cost of production, leading to financial losses. The decline in profits has led to decline in cash profits/cash flows and return on investment;

e. Growth of the domestic industry has become negative in respect of a number of parameters because of dumping.

K. POST-DISCLOSURE SUBMISSIONS

Submissions made by the Domestic industry

157. Following are the submissions made by the domestic industry:

a. Tsingshan group is faced with particular market situation and the same view was taken by the European Commission in an ADD investigation concerning imports of Hot Rolled Steel. The commission also rejected the nickel price of the Indonesia producer on this ground. The commission did not find the sale of ITSS to be representative and less than 5% in domestic market. Since the Indonesian producers are export oriented, there is a possibility that the sales were not representative for the present investigation too specially when here is 9 month’s overlap between the POI of present and European investigation.

b. The European Commission, while determining the normal value for ITSS and GCNS, rejected the nickel price.

c. The European Commission had observed that Tsingshan did not disclose their relationship with input suppliers and the commission was unable to determine the relationship between the buyer and purchaser. Nothing has been disclosed by the Tsingshan group in the NCV response, the applicants suspects that they have hidden the related party information from the Authority also like EC case. Such information might have been suppressed deliberately or under direction

d. Comparison of performance of domestic industry of PUC and non-PUC shows that domestic industry’s performance has improved in non-PUC items. This clearly suggest that imports are affecting the performance of the DI and there is clear causal link between the dumped imports and injury to the domestic industry

e. Even though the domestic industry had agreed for exclusion of JFE20-5USR, JFE18- USR NAS_335X (N08020), & NAS_800 (N08810 N08811) grades, on revisiting the data it was found that barring JFE20-5USR, none of these product types have been imported into India. These grades should not be excluded.

f. Exclusion of Grades AISI 420 high carbon, 443, 441, EN 1.4835, 1.4547, 1.4539, 1.4438, 1.4318, 1.4833 and EN 1.4509 is based on the ongoing investigation of Cold Rolled Flat products and none of the parties have asked for these exclusions. The domestic industry is now making these products; hence these grades should not be excluded.

g. The domestic industry is offering equivalent grades of patented products; thus a grade should not be excluded on the sole ground that the product is patented. The Authority has done so in past in ADD investigation of Ceramic Roller and Safeguard investigation of Solar cell.

h. The Authority’s proposal to drop Singapore, Hong Kong and UAE needs to be reconsidered. The domestic industry is entitled to protection from imports from these countries even if the goods are originating from these countries. The domestic industry is entitled to protection even if the goods are partially being manufactured in subject country. The same argument was taken by the exporters of Malaysia in case of HR 304.

i. Exclusion of Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, USA and Vietnam from the scope of subject countries would have adverse consequences for the domestic industry. Stainless steel producers are highly aggressive all over the world and are subject to trade remedial measures across the globe. If duties are not imposed on these excluded countries, the domestic industry may continue to suffer injury

j. The dumping margin calculated by the applicants in the application based on the price prevailing in these countries are much higher than the dumping margin determined by the Authority. The same needs to be relooked.

k. One of the related company of Tsingshan group, Bintang Delapan Mineral, who has nickel mines and has established Sulawesi Mining Investment under a joint venture with Tsingshan group. SMI has capacity to produce 300 Lac MT nickel pig Iron per year.

l. Non filing of response by such a crucial related company, who produces nickel and nickel is one of the most important raw material for manufacturing the subject goods, is highly inappropriate. Specially, when they have participated in the parallel anti subsidy investigation.

m. Tsingshan has sold the subject goods in India through related importer Chromeni Steel and Suncity. In a situation where the goods have been sold to an affiliated importer, the export price is required to be constructed under Section 9A(1)(b).

n. Even in a situation where imported product has not been resold in a same situation as imported, the same is not sufficient to ignore those exports and consider the CIF import price.

o. The Authority anyway would have rejected the cost of Indonesian producers because there is particular market situation and the government controls the prices of coal, nickel and other ore. There are various export restriction schemes on coal and nickel and the prices of these goods are artificially low in Indonesian market.

p. PT IMR ARC and BNM do not manufacture Hot Rolled product. They either buy domestically or import. If bought domestically, there is only one producer, i.e., Tsingshan group or if they are importing the input, they themselves have admitted that they are importing from China. Stainless steel available in China is already at subsidized price. CESTAT in rubber Chemical case held that if raw material is bought from China and further processed into PUC, the price of raw material cannot be taken. In the present case, the input and output both is the subject goods. Thus, the input prices of these companies cannot be taken.

q. Two companies of Nippon have been given different margins. There should be one margin for one group.

r. The Authority may kindly examine the impact of dumped import on both domestic producers as a whole as well as domestic industry. The impact of dumped imports on domestic producers as a whole should be examined by considering macro-economic parameters. This is not only well provided under the law, but also is well practiced by other countries, such as EU. The findings issued by European commission is referred and relied on.

s. The injury parameters listed under the law is the minimum list of parameters and not the maximum list. The Designated Authority should examine all the other factors demonstrating injury such as (a) the fact that the domestic industry is in the process of recovering from the past ill effects of dumping and subsidised imports, (b) domestic industry being constrained to undertake less viable exports, (c) comparison of performance of “other products” and “product under consideration” shows ill effect of dumping.

t. To examine the suppressing or depressing effects of imports, in general the cost and price of the domestic industry are compared but that is not the true representative of the facts always. In a case where cost of raw material has increased in opposite to other cost, and the domestic industry is forced to reduce its price beyond reduction in cost, such comparison of cost and price may not give the clear picture. In the present case, the price moves in tandem with the raw material prices. The Authority, in order to examine the effect of suppression or depression, may kindly compare the movement of price of raw material and price raw material cost and price.

u. The price undercutting and injury margin should be considered only for those import transactions whose landed price of imports is below selling price of the domestic industry, as the industry’s concern is against injurious imports, and not non-injurious imports.

v. Domestic industry was earlier suffering from the effect of dumped and subsidized imports from China. After imposition of CVD measures and final findings of anti- circumvention case, the domestic industry was in the process of recovering from the ill effects of subsidized imports and resultantly the prices and ROI should have increased more than increase in the cost of sales. By the time the domestic industry recovered from the ill effects of past dumping and subsidized imports, the prices were suppressed in the POI.

w. Had the applicant companies individually produced based on the best utilization, it would have been able to increase its production by *** MT, but for dumped imports.

x. The NIP of the domestic industry has been determined considering gross production of the domestic industry as *** MT, as against actual production of *** MT. Thus, the Designated Authority has found that the domestic industry has under produced to the extent of *** MT. This fact has been adopted in NIP and ignored in injury analysis

y. Imposition of CVD duty should have resulted in improvement of sales and capacity utilization. On the contrary, the domestic industry has lost sales, production and capacity utilization.

z. The domestic industry is exporting the product at financial losses in spite of adequate demand in the domestic market.

aa. The price suppression faced by the industry has led to deterioration in the profitability of the domestic industry, by Rs. *** per MT, resulting in financial losses.

bb. The profitability of the domestic industry has improved by a significant amount of over Rs. *** crores because of reduction in interest liabilities.

cc. Macro parameters of Indian industry will show that two third of the stainless steel capacity is with MSME and their capacity utilization is worse than the applicants. The market share is stagnant.

dd. Imports are not necessary, there is no demand supply gap. There is sufficient capacity with Indian Industry and MSME and other producers are suffering the worst.

ee. PCN wise price comparison also shows that price is the sole parameter of competition. There is significant increase in imports. All the subject countries have significant freely disposable capacities. Raw material distortions created by Govt. policies in Indonesia coupled with huge surplus capacity is sufficient to take over entire global demand. Trade remedial measures has been imposed by several countries in the world including US, EU and China. Producers from subject countries are finding the Indian market attractive in prices.

ff. The imposition of antidumping measure on imports of product under consideration would be in the interests of domestic manufacturers. The measure would prevent further injury to the domestic producers.

gg. Imposition of antidumping measure would be in the interests of consumers as well. It is in the consumers’ interest to have a competitive domestic industry capable of supplying the product to the consumers in competition to fair priced imports

hh. The eventual impact on the cost of the end products is insignificant. While immediate consumers pass on and will pass on the cost increase/reduction to their consumers, and do not bear the cost increase, the impact on the eventual end product will not be unbearable.

158. Submissions made by various domestic producer associations supporting the imposition of duties is as follows:

a. The small-scale sector provides direct and indirect employment to 4.5 lakh people and use recycling waste scrap to produce fresh stainless steel.

b. Various reasons have led to many of these units making huge losses and some are even closing down. Today the situation is very critical. There is a large surplus capacity of stainless steel in our country but even then, there are huge imports especially from Indonesia, Korea, China etc. Because of the large surplus, these countries are able to sell at prices which are damaging the domestic industry.

c. Our members are all in the small-scale sector and their ability to survive this is limited. Already a few small-scale units have closed down and others are fighting for survival. Considering the gravity of the situation and given the fact that lakhs of workers are employed in this sector, there will be massive unemployment on closure of these units.

d. The most appropriate action is to impose appropriate duties and it is requested that this be imposed immediately to help the downstream industry. \

e. Manufacturers of cold rolled stainless steel coil and downstream product are suffering from imports from ASEAN countries which are highly low priced.

f. FTA with Korea and Japan are one sided and the producers are not able to any of these countries.

Submissions made by other interested parties

159. Following submissions have been made with regard to product under consideration:

a. The Authority has either overlooked or incorrectly assessed the detailed arguments made with respect to product under consideration. CESTAT order in M/s Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India was in context of a CVD investigation. The Authority in this CVD case itself had noted that since significant part of cost in making stainless steel is incurred at the hot rolled stage, thus, the effects of subsidies have come on the basis of hot rolled stage.”. Before the supreme court product scope was not even part of challenge.

b. HR and CR should not be treated as one product. The cold rolling process of HRS to become CRS requires technology and capital which means that HRS and CRS are not elastic from cross-elasticity of supply.

c. Aggregating HRS and CRS to become one single product in this investigation has led to misleading and incorrect analysis of causal relationship between import of the product under investigation and the alleged material injury claimed by the petitioners

d. The cost and price structure of the two products are totally distinct and therefore the equation of both is totally wrong for the purpose of causation analysis that relates to price (price undercutting, price depression and price suppression) and volume effect analysis. Reference is made to WTO Panel report in Biodiesel and China GOES case.

e. Bulk of the manufacturers do not manufacture them together, they are not traded together, and value addition is not nominal.

f. DGTR’s reliance on a USITC decision to justify inclusion of hot rolled and cold rolled products instead of the decision of the Apex Court of India in Gujarat Industries case is erroneous, unjustified and completely in disregard of the decision rendered by the Apex Court.

g. Producer like IMR purchases HR and manufactures CR, which shows that these are two products.

h. Based on factual information received from the EU industry, it appears that further product types should be excluded from the scope, as certain types are either not produced by the Indian domestic industry or the types produced do not meet specific requirements requested by Indian downstream users.

i. The circumstances in CVD and anti-dumping investigations are very different and thus there is no reason to calculate one dumping margin and one injury margin for a broad PUC. The USITC determination to consider HR and CR as like products is also a CVD investigation.

j. DK Corporation is grateful that the Authority accepted requests with regard to product under consideration, restricting width and thickness. DK Corporation reiterates all the submissions made in the previous hearing and it is requested that hot rolled and cold rolled products must be examined separately.

k. The total Import Data and Dumping Margin Calculation should be split correctly by each category-wise & supplier country, such as a) Stainless Steel HRAP Coils Width < 1650mm BELOW, b) Stainless Steel HR Plates (HRAP) Width <1520mm BELOW, c) Stainless Steel CR Coils Width above >600mm UP, d) Stainless Steel CR Strips Coils Width below <600mm BELOW and e) Grades: to be split with 200 Series, 300 series and 400 Series separately.

l. If a particular country has exported only stainless HR flat product, why they should be charged with anti­dumping duty on Stainless steel CR product and vice versa or If a particular mill from particular country has only sold stainless steel CR strips coils width <600mm below, which is again different product, why they should be charged with anti-dumping duty on stainless steel HR flat products, which has different HS code and different price.

160. Following submissions have been made on exclusion of PUC by Nippon:

a. The DGTR should exclude the products which has not been produced by the domestic industry even though the domestic industry may have the capability to produce in line with the past determinations.

b. JFE20-5USR, JFE18-3USR, JFE429EX, JFE-MH1, JFE-TF1, JFE410DB which have been recognized to fall outside the scope of the Steel and Steel Products identified by the Ministry of Steel (Technical Division) and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2018 materials do not compete with the products of the domestic industry. Petitioners have not provided any technical evidence or scientific literature on public file to prove production of products substitutable with JFE 429EX / JFE410DB / JFE430CuN / JFE-MH1 / JFE-TF1. In the absence of appropriate evidence, the Petitioners’ claim must be rejected, and the exclusion must be allowed. JFE409L, JFE432LTM, JFE436LT, JFE439L, JFE441, JFE434LN2 are not substitutable with the domestic industry products- automakers specifically choose this for factors regardless of the price difference: stable quality, technical service, bending property, weldability, yield ratio, formability,

c. No scientific literature is available in public file to prove production of products substitutable with NSS HR-2, NSS 436, NSS 432, NSS 439, NSS 409M1

d. “S-Star, S-Star A and G-Star: Plastic mold steel, K-SF24: parts for injectors of automobiles, DSN9: used for exhaust gaskets of automobiles, Forward Series, NK430SD, NK-430MA, NK-436L-MN, NK-436LNB, NAS_255NM (N08926) NAS-840, NAS 254N for auto sectors” have not been produced and capability / technology to manufacture and supply does not suffice for the domestic industry to oppose exclusion.

e. Petitioners have not provided any technical evidence or scientific literature to prove production of product identical to or substitutable to NSSSC 400 series based on cutting end technology in the POI.

f. The Authority should exclude S31254 from the scope of PUC.

g. The Authority should exclude NAS_254NM (N08367), NAS_255 (N08904), NAS_185N (S31254), NAS_74N (S32750), NAS_75N (S32760), NAS_825 (N08825), as the domestic industry is neither producing these nor substitutable grades.

h. The domestic industry does not produce following grades and therefore should be excluded

a. JFE TF-1 2.

b. NSSSC’s grades which are outside the purview of quality control order (HR-1, NCA-1, NSSS-4, NSSFHZ, NSSC410DE)

c. SUS304 4. SUS304L, SUS301L-DLT 6. NSS442M3 7. SUS301, SUS310S, SUS305, SUS316, SUS316L, SUS410, SUS410S, SUS430

i. K-SF24 grade is used for “parts for injectors of automobiles” and Daido is the only approved supplier of users in India. Since the domestic industry is not producing the same, it should be excluded.

j. Although the Domestic Industry manufactures 409L, the grade K-SF24 (which also falls under the broad umbrella of 409L) should be distinguished from 409L because it contains narrow-range control to C, Si, Mn, and S, which is required for the purpose of stability of magnetic properties and others by comparing the specification of K-SF24.

k. DSN-9 is used for exhaust gaskets (engine parts) of automobiles, which requires excellent high temperature properties such as hardness and tensile strength at high temperature. It was specifically developed by Daido to meet the requirement by submitting Honda R & D Technical Review. This grade is not included in the catalogues of Domestic Industry, and none of the grades in the catalogues of the Domestic Industry have the specifications required for the above application.

161. Following submissions have been made on exclusion of PUC by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd:

a. Locally procured stainless steel grade 409L has passed the quality test now. MSIL (Maruti Suzuki India Ltd) will use such locally manufactured Stainless Steel of grade 409L for MSIL’s future new vehicle model production. Till such time the locally manufactured Stainless Steel of grade 409L successfully completes the testing process, it cannot be considered as substitutable with Stainless Steel of grade 409L imported from Japan.

b. Reason for exemption of Stainless Steel of 444 grade -JFE-MH1, which is a special grade Stainless Steel, is that there is chemical composition difference in Cr and Mo content when compared to locally manufactured Stainless Steel of 444 grade as per IS 6911 and 02 specification. This grade of Stainless Steel is already exempted as it is not available as per IS norms.

c. Reason for exemption of Stainless Steel of 429 grade- Stainless Steel is denoted as JFE429EX which is a special grade Stainless Steel. There is a chemical composition difference in Co content when compared to locally manufactured Stainless Steel of 429 grade as per IS 6911 and 02 specification. This grade of Stainless Steel is already exempted as it is not available as per IS norms.

d. Reason for exemption of Stainless Steel of grades SUS436L, SUS439, SUS436J1L, SUS304L, JFETF1, NSSHR-1, NSSHR-2, SUS430 and SUS432- the locally manufactured Stainless Steel of grade 409L, which is the majorly used Stainless Steel grade in exhaust system of vehicles, has just been given approval and it is yet to be approved for the post durability test.

e. SUS436L, SUS439, SUS436J1L, SUS304L, JFE-TF1, NSSHR-1, NSSHR-2, SUS430 and SUS432 (which are also used in the exhaust system of vehicles in a lesser percentage) will be tested and then considered for localization after Stainless Steel of grade 409L is finally approved.

f. Currently, the locally manufactured Stainless Steel grades i.e., SUS436L, SUS439, SUS436J1L, SUS304L, JFE-TF1, NSSHR-1, NSSHR-2, SUS430 and SUS432 are under raw material level evaluation stage. Once these grades are successful at raw material level evaluation, these grades would then be tested for vehicle level durability test similar to the process followed for Stainless Steel of grade 409L. Therefore, the Stainless Steel grades imported from Japan i.e., SUS436L, SUS439, SUS436J1L, SUS304L, JFE-TF1, NSSHR-1, NSSHR-2, SUS430 and SUS432 should be exempted from imposition of anti-dumping duty till the time the locally manufactured similar grades actually complete the testing process

g. The price of imported Stainless Steel from Japan procured by MSIL is 5% – 7% higher than local manufactured Stainless Steel. Therefore, the price of imported Stainless Steel from Japan is not procured at dumped prices

162. The following grades that are Industeel’s trademarks should be excluded from the scope:

a. Products with width above 1650mm

b. Other product dimensions not produced by Jindal such as Hot-rolled coil above 12.7mm thick Plates below 11mm and above 80mm thick

c. Nickel-based alloys particularly, grades such as N10276, N06022, N06625, N08825, N06601 and N06600.

d. All duplex and super austenitic grades

e. Super Austenitic grades: [UR28 (N08028), UR254 (S31254), UR367 (N08367), UR926 (N08926), UR4565 (S34565), UR31 (N08031), and UR66 (S31266).]

f. Duplex grades: [UR2202 (S32202)1 ]

g. Heat – resistant grades: [SIRIUS 800 (N08800), SIRIUS 800H (N08810), SIRIUS 800H+ (N08811)]

163. Following exclusions have been sought by Stainless Steel Pipes and Tubes Manufacturers’ Association and POSCO:

a. The grades where domestic industry is not manufacturing ‘like article’ should be excluded. These includes “Grade 410DB”, and certain product grades included in list of imported grades of high volume are held to be outside the purview of the Steel Quality Control Order (13 August 2018) by the Technical Committee/Ministry of Steel. The grades excluded as per decision of technical committee are CR STS grade J3 STS grade JFE-410DB ; STS Coils grade J3; CR STS Circles grade J3; STS Strip grade 201J3; CR STS Steel Circles grade J1; STS grade JFE-MH1; Stainless Steel/ Alloy Steel Coil/ Strip grade Sandvik 20C / Sandvik Sanprint RP

b. The following grades should be excluded since they are not manufactured by the domestic industry Hot Rolled STS Grade 410B (IS equivalent of IS6911410S), Cold Rolled STS Grade 441 (IS equivalent of IS6911441); and Cold Rolled STS Grade 304Cu (IS equivalent of IS6911304S1).

c. The products grades solely manufactured by JSSL should also be excluded from product scope.

164. SIJ Acroni, Bahru stainless SDN BHD-Malaysia, Acerinox Europa S.A.U-EU, Ratnamani Metals Stainless Steel-(IMP), Remi Stainless Steel (IMP) have sought for exclusion of following grades from the scope of product under consideration:

a. The domestic industry has admitted that grade UNS S32750 is not within their product range. Therefore, this grade must be excluded from the product scope as evidence has been placed on record that the domestic industry cannot manufacture this grade.

b. The domestic industry’s capability to produce grade SA-240 Type 321 is limited to width 1250 mm only. Therefore, the Authority is requested to kindly exclude grade SA-240 Type 321 with width above 1250mm from the product scope

c. UNS N08xxx is the global classification for stainless steel with high nickel content. To avoid any issues during customs clearance, it is requested that the Authority may mention the following exclusions already granted along the “UNS” designation as follows:

i. N08020 or UNS N08020

ii. N08810 or UNS N08810

iii. N08811 or UNS N08811

d. Alloy 800 Series covered in HSN 7219/7220 comprises of several grades such as UNS N08800, UNS N08810, UNS N08811, UNS N08020, UNS N08926, UNS N08367. The domestic industry cannot produce any grade in this series. The Authority has already excluded N08020 (also called UNS N08020), N08810 (also called UNS N08810) and N08811 (also called UNS N08811) from the product scope as the domestic industry cannot manufacture. The Authority is requested to exclude the remaining grades in Alloy 800 series as well, namely, UNS N08800, UNS N08926 and UNS N08367 as the domestic industry cannot produce these grades as well.

e. Grade SA-240 Type 316 and UNS S32205, the domestic industry can only manufacture up to 1250mm width. Therefore, the Authority is requested to kindly exclude grade SA-240 Type 316 and UNS S32205 with width above 1250mm from the ambit of the investigation. Evidences in this regard have been placed on record.

f. At Paragraph 25(j) of the Disclosure Statement, the Authority has noted that AISI 630, among others, cannot be excluded from the scope of the PUC since the domestic industry is producing similar/equivalent grades. It is submitted that this grade of steel undergoes a process of ‘Precipitation Hardening’. There is no close equivalent of this grade as well. Therefore, it cannot be said that the domestic industry produces a similar or equivalent grade to AISI 630. It is submitted that AISI 630 is the grade of stainless steel used in the aerospace and defence sector. Therefore, the availability of this steel grade is critical in the country.

g. There are not more than 2 users of AISI 314 in India. The domestic industry does not supply this grade or its equivalent at all.

h. The domestic industry does not produce UNS S32750 or UNS S32760. The domestic industry has a strict minimum order quantity requirement for specific grades.

i. In the case of stainless-steel plates which are of thickness 12 mm and above, the assumption of circumvention is not reasonable. The prices of the plates increase substantially for heavier plates of higher width. Commercially, it would not make sense for an importer to import costlier products only to circumvent the anti-dumping duty.

j. The “bonafide” use clause should be limited only to coils and sheets only. That is because an importer and user that imports plates (which are of thickness 12mm and above) would never import a plate with such high thickness and widths above 1650mm only to cut the plate into lower widths. The term “bonafide” shall cause unnecessary burden on genuine users as it would lead to unnecessary delays during clearance of the goods from Customs.

k. The Authority is requested to split Para 26(e) of exclusion as follows, in order to ensure a reasonable exclusion to the PUC:

i. – Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel in coils/sheets of width more than 1650mm and thickness less than 12mm having bonafide use as more than 1650mm.

ii. – Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel in plates of width more than 1650mm.

l. For the production of various grades of steel, a BIS license is mandatory. For example, the production of grades AISI 314, UNS S32750, UNS S32760, UNS N08926 is not possible without obtaining a BIS License. The domestic industry had not supplied these grades during the period of investigation. Still these grades have not been excluded by the Authority from the scope of the PUC. Grades like 200 Series Grade 201 J3 & 201 J1, JFE-MH1, Sandvik 20c as well as SMO 652, Ultra 6XN, 317LN, and Stainless Steel Flat Products with Bright Anneal Finish are exempted from BIS since these products are not available in India.

m. The domestic industry is not producing product types/grades/variety for which BIS license no. is not issued to them. Product range on which the BIS license is issued is as per IS 15997, IS 5522 & IS 6911 to domestic industry for ‘Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel’.

n. The domestic industry’s capacities are limited to the production of plates in 1500mm width only. Their claim that they can produce plates of width up to 1650mm is incorrect. They can only manufacture plates up to 1500mm width only.

o. Ratnamani’s pipe manufacturing capacity is up to outer diameter 48″. The preference of all its customers internationally is single long seam welded pipes for their project requirements. For manufacturing single long seam welded pipes of outer diameter 48″, plates of width 3800mm are required. These plates are then turned into pipes which have a single seam weld.

p. Pipes of outer diameter more than 20″ in ‘single long seam’, plates above 1500 mm width are required

q. The domestic industry does not produce these grades – SS 304Cu, IS 430Ti, NSSC 439/441, UNS S31254. The domestic industry does not produce plates and coils above 8000 mm in length for all grades.

165. M/s Meenametal has sought exclusions for following grades:

a. BIS had issued the exemption list of grades for import into India, which are not available / not produced in India. Same should be excluded eg. 200 series Grade 201 J3 & 201 J1 and many others like STS HR Flat Product with Width >1650mm & Up.

b. Domestic industry can only produce above 10mm thickness not below that, Authority may exclude cold rolled and thickness below 10mm, as they are not produced in India.

166. Following submissions have been made with regard to standing and scope of the domestic industry :

a. The Authority has excluded Jindal Steelway from the domestic industry but have not excluded products specifically produced by Jindal Steelway from product scope.

b. The Authority is requested to record exclusion of JSSL from domestic industry in the final findings.

c. The Authority held that Steel Authority of India Limited and Shah Alloys Limited have individually supported the present investigation. The Authority has not given any finding on non-compliance with mandatory requirement to submit information in specified format by the supporting producers in terms of Trade Notice 13/2018 dated September 27, 2018 issued by the DGTR.

167. Following submissions have been made with regard to rejection of questionnaire response of Tsingshan Group:

a. For a group of four producers, it is not uncommon to have multiple exporters/ traders. The complete chain of the exports by the group was provided in detail in the questionnaire response filed by the group

b. The Authority seems to have overlooked information filed by the company after filing initial questionnaire response, correspondence and exchange of information including combined dumping margin sheet provided at the time of verification. The exporter has provided significant information through these supplementary responses.

c. The group sold material to only one related party i.e., Chromeni Steel Private Limited. Chromeni in its response has provided detailed information regarding imports in India through related parties including resale price. The two other companies having filed User’s questionnaire response and are not related to the group as per Trade Notice No. 9/2018, and further they are captive users of subject goods.

d. In EU Anti-dumping investigation concerning HR products, GCNS and ITSS was given individual dumping margin and duty.

168. Following submissions have been made by GOI (Govt. of Indonesia)

a. Responses by the exporters should not be rejected. If evidence or information is not accepted, the supplying party should be informed forthwith of the reasons and should have an opportunity to provide further explanations within a reasonable period.

b. GOI does not agree with the EU’s findings. Further, the European Commission followed the procedures under Article 2(5) of its Basic Regulation which is equivalent to Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Agreement.

c. Actual price should be used and the resort to the construction of normal value is not permissible under Article 2.28 of the Agreement. Article 2.2.1 also prohibits the use of benchmarking of the costs to determine normal value, provided that such records are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country and reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration.

d. In DS 529 A4 Copy Paper Australia against Indonesia, the Panel underlines the phrase “such sales do not permit a proper comparison” in Article 2.2 of WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement determining that even if the particular market situation was to exist, the actual domestic price is to be used to be compared with the export price if both permit proper comparison which is truly the case for Indonesian producers of the subject goods.

169. Following submissions have been made by Nippon:

a. There are certain sales made by Nippon Kinzoku through related traders in the domestic market. Resale price of the related traders is only relevant if the price from the producer to the related trader is considered to be not at arms’ length or artificially low for various reasons. Nippon Kinzoku’s sales in the domestic market have been made in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India. Further, a significant quantity of sales in the domestic market is profitable.

b. DGTR could easily have considered the profitable domestic sales made to the unaffiliated entities (which constitute a proportion of about 55% of total domestic sales)

c. As can be seen from the narrative portion of the questionnaire response prescribed by the DGTR, only traders are required to provide Appendix 5.

d. The affiliated and unaffiliated traders of Nippon Kinzoku who were involved in the domestic and exports channel of sales have filed Appendix 5.

e. Individual margins for Nippon Steel Stainless Steel Corporation, Nippon Steel Corporation, JFE Steel Corporation be given in the final finding based on the data filed by these producers and corresponding traders.

170. Following submissions were made by PT IMR ARC Steel:

a. The response cannot be rejected only on the ground of non-filing of questionnaire response by an unrelated trader. One of the unrelated parties namely Hyosung Inc Corporation had directly filed response.

b. Rule 17 (3) of the AD Rules, mandates individual dumping margin for known producer, the rule has not prescribed any threshold of exports reported to qualify for individual margin. Rule 17 (3) is in line with requirement of Article 6.10 of WTO AD Agreement. PT IMR ARC Steel and its related parties have made them known to the Authority and offered full cooperation.

c. The response filed by PT IMR ARC Steel has the data relevant for determination of normal value at ex-factory level and also export price at ex-factory level. Authority has the relevant data required to determine export price even if such other unrelated parties have not cooperated.

d. All the information and data required for determining export price was filed in the exporter questionnaire response and the Authority could have determined the export price.

e. Even if the export price is not acceptable, it should not lead to rejection of normal value and also individual margins to the company.

f. The 30% threshold mentioned in para 107 indirectly hints at the point that representation of about 70% exports by way of EQR is essential to get individual margin. The threshold so set is unreasonable.

171. Following submissions were made by POSCO:

a. POSCO has also claimed adjustments on account of billing adjustment, early payment discount, late payment interest income, terms of payment, ocean freight, insurance and warranty expense; which have not been mentioned in the DS.

b. The Authority has not clarified if the adjustment on account of duty drawback in arriving at export price for POSCO has been accepted or not.

172. Following submissions were made by Taiwanese producers:

a. The Authority rejected the questionnaire response on the ground that the unrelated exporters did not file questionnaire. The exporters insisted the unrelated traders to file response, but were not successful.

b. From Article 2.3 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, it transpires that when it appears to the investigating authority that export price is unreliable, in such cases export price may be constructed by the investigating authority inter-alia on the basis of price at which the imported products are first resold to an independent buyer. But the Authority has rejected the response. The Authority should have used the information provided in Appendix 3A and 3C.

c. Authority has the discretion to disregard information submitted by participating exporter in case unrelated trader through whom goods were exported to India does not provide relevant information. However, Trade Notice 5/2018 dated February 28, 2018 also requires the Authority to consider facts and circumstances of each case on merits before arriving at a decision.

173. Following submissions have been made with regard to Injury to the domestic industry:

a. The domestic industry has not suffered material injury. The Authority should examine imports and market share excluding China. The domestic industry’s price was more than cost in the POI. There is no price suppression and depression.

b. Production and sale of the domestic industry increased over the injury period. This is incorrect that increase in imports is disproportionate to increase in domestic sales. There are no mathematical formulae with which or proportion in which import or domestic sales should increase with increase in demand.

c. Exit from the CDR is permitted only on meeting specified targets set by financial institutions, which includes improved performance and profitability. Successful exit from the CDR framework itself is an evidence of improved performance of the petitioners and confirms there is no injury to them.

d. The volume of imports from the subject countries as a whole, has decreased in absolute as well as in relation to production and consumption.

e. Cumulative assessment of imports from EU is not justified. The distribution of the allegedly unfairly traded products is as important as the injury caused and should not lead to unfair effects on EU imports, which clearly show a different pattern. In fact, imports from the EU declined over the injury period by over 30%, while the imports from Indonesia and Korea have significantly increased.

f. The imports from the countries under AD duties increased by 50% in absolute terms, and by 30% in terms of market share over the POI. The prices of these imports and their impact on the domestic industry needs to be appropriately analyzed.

g. The cumulative injury assessment is not permissible when there are different products as well as from different sources. Annexure II, para (iii) permits cumulative assessment of injury with respect to a single product.

h. The disclosure statement has not disclosed mechanism for adjustment of CVD duties imposed on China with respect to certain part of product under consideration.

i. The cumulative analysis should be inclusive of data from China PR as well.

j. The industry norm for ROI of stainless-steel manufacturers is 5-7%. Further average ROI for the past 8 years for Arcelor Mittal is 2.94% and for Universal Stainless and Alloy products is 1.19%. ROI for JSL was 13.49%, much above global average. Thus, ROI of 22% is unreasonably high, which leads to skewed NIP calculation and erroneous injury margin. As per CESTAT observation in Bridgestone Tyre Manufacturing (Thailand) vs. Designated Authority, 22% ROI does not apply merely for every case.

k. The absence of injury results in broken causal link between alleged injury and the dumped imports, if any. There may be other factors as well, such as high interest payment and fluctuation in forex market inherent deficiencies of the applicants, existing corporate debt restructuring

l. In the event anti-dumping duty is imposed, same should be on reference price basis.

m. If imports from the EU are seen in particular, it would be seen that there is a substantial decrease in import volumes from the EU as well

n. From the ROI and PBIT of the domestic industry, it is clear that the domestic industry is continuing to reap high profits in the POI as well. Losses are only arising in PBT/Unit, which is implicit of the fact that the domestic industry has incurred high interest costs.

174. Following other miscellaneous issues have been raised by the interested parties :

a. All the processing activities of POSCO International have been demerged into a new company namely POSCO Steel Processing & Service (‘POSCO SPS’), which is a 100% subsidiary company of POSCO International. The Authority is requested to consider this development while finalising the dumping margin and the duty table.

b. The Authority should list names of all the 7 producers from the Outokumpu Group in the duty table. These are : i. Outokumpu Stainless Oy, ii. Outokumpu Stainless AB, iii. Outokumpu Nirosta GmbH, iv. Outokumpu Service Center GmbH, v. Outokumpu S.p.A, vi. Outokumpu PSC Benelux B. V. vii. Outokumpu Press Plate AB

c. The Authority has rightly noted that the imports from South Africa are de-minimis and therefore the investigation against imports from South Africa must be terminated in terms of Article 14 of the AD Rules.

d. If a fixed or ad-valorem duty is recommended by the Authority in the subject investigation, it may lead to the unfair imposition of duty on high value grades. It is requested that the Authority may impose PCN-wise reference price on the subject goods, which would be beneficial for both the domestic industry as well as the user industry.

Examination by the Authority

175. The Authority notes that most of the submissions by the domestic industry and interested parties are repetitive in nature. These submissions have already been examined at appropriate places in this finding. Further, the Authority has examined additional/new relevant submissions of the interested parties as under:

a. The interested parties have once again argued that the both hot rolled and cold rolled are distinct products and hence not be combined together for the purpose of this investigation. In this regard, it is noted that this issue has been examined at length by the Authority in the findings above and does not need to be dealt with further.

b. At the time of issuance of disclosure of essential facts, the Authority had noted that the questionnaire response filed by the Tsingshan group of companies was incomplete and inadequate to permit determination of individual dumping margin. Some deficiencies in the questionnaire response were noticed and brought out in the disclosure statement. The Tsingshan group however has responded to the disclosure statement and has submitted that the observations made in the disclosure statement does not take into account significant additional/supplemental information provided by the Tsingshan group after filing initial questionnaire response. The Tsingshan group submitted that questionnaire response should be read along with this significant additional/supplemental information provided. The Authority considered the questionnaire response and additional/supplemental information provided by the Tsingshan group and considers that it would be appropriate to grant individual dumping margin to Tsingshan group. The questionnaire response of the Tsingshan group has therefore been accepted for determination of individual dumping margin as mentioned in the relevant paras of the findings above.

c. As regards requests for exclusion of certain product types, the Authority notes that most of the interested parties have by and large reiterated their previous submissions, seeking exclusion on the grounds that have already been brought out on record earlier. While reiterating their request for exclusion, most of the submissions are without any evidence. It has been reiterated by the interested parties that since certain grades have not been produced by the domestic industry, mere capability to produce such grades would not be sufficient to disregard exclusion. It is noted that the Authority has included such grades not produced by the domestic industry where the domestic industry has provided equivalent or comparable grade. The Authority notes that since the domestic industry has produced an equivalent of these grades, there is no justification for exclusion of these grades. Further, examination of certain additional grades not covered or not reflected in Disclosure Statement is examined below:

d. As regards request for exclusion of Grade SA-240, Type 316 and UNS S32205, claiming that the domestic industry can only manufacture up to 1250mm width and thus these grades with width above 1250 mm should be excluded, it is noted that the width of the subject goods has already been covered up to 1650 mm based on the width up to which the domestic industry has produced and sold

e. As regards request for exclusion of Grades such as HR-1,NCA-1,NSSS-4,NSSFHZ, CR STS grade J3 STS grade JFE-410DB ; STS Coils grade J3; CR STS Circles grade J3; STS Strip grade 201J3; CR STS Steel Circles grade J1, Sandvik 20C / Sandvik Sanprint RP, STS grade JFE-MH1; Stainless Steel/ Alloy Steel Coil/ Strip grade on the grounds that these are outside the scope of quality control order , it is noted that the Authority has already noted in this finding that the fact that some products are not covered under quality control order does not mean that such products are not being produced by the domestic industry. The opposing interested parties have not given any evidence that these products are not manufactured by the domestic industry. Further, the domestic industry has provided evidence that they have produced and supplied comparable goods.

f. As regards request for exclusion of SUS304, SUS304L, SUS301L-DLT, NSS442M3, SUS301, SUS310S, SUS305, SUS316, SUS316L, SUS410, SUS410S, SUS430, it is noted that comparable grades are being produced by the domestic industry. The product brochure of the domestic industry itself shows that the product range of domestic industry includes these products.

g. As regards exclusion of Nickel-based alloys grades such as N10276, N06022, N06625, N08825, N06601 and N06600 is concerned, it is noted that the domestic industry has not shown evidence of production and sale of equivalent or comparable grade and thus these grades are excluded from the scope of product under consideration.

h. As regards the claim of Daido that following grades (a) S-Star, S-Star A and G Star, (b) DSN-9 used for exhaust gaskets of automobiles and (c) K-SF24 grade is used for “parts for injectors of automobiles” cannot be produced by the domestic industry and that even comparable grades have not been produced and sold by the domestic industry , it is noted that the domestic industry has not been able rebut this argument and thus the Authority considers that (a) S-Star, S-Star A and G Star, (b) DSN-9 used for exhaust gaskets of automobiles and (c) K-SF24 grade is used for “parts for injectors of automobiles” exported from Daiko is exempted from the scope of PUC.

i. As regards request for exclusion of grades like 200 Series Grade 201 J3 & 201 J1, Sandvik 20c (as well as SMO 654, Ultra 6XN, 317LN, and Stainless Steel Flat Products with Bright Anneal Finish on the grounds that these are exempted from BIS, it is noted that non-inclusion of certain grades/ product types in the BIS list does not mean that such grades are not being produced in the country. There are several grades produced and sold by the domestic industry which are not under BIS yet.

j. As regards the argument that product types produced by Jindal Steelways should be excluded, it is noted that the domestic industry during investigation has contended that the sole reason for adding Steelways as an applicant was to demonstrate that the industry produces and supplies these types. It is noted that the product supplied by Steelways is not a distinctly different product but only a different form of PUC made through an incremental process.

k. The domestic industry has argued that exclusion should not be granted for Grades AISI 420 high carbon, 443, 441, EN 1.4835, 1.4547, 1.4539, 1.4438, 1.4318, 1.4833 and EN 1.4509. The domestic industry has provided evidence of production and sale of such goods. It would therefore not be appropriate to exclude these product types from the scope of product under consideration.

l. Volmarsteiner Strasse has made comments on the scope of product under consideration for the first time seeking exclusion of certain grades. However, such exclusion request has been brought before the Authority at this late stage and the domestic industry has not had the opportunity to provide reply to the same. Furthermore, no information or evidence has been provided in support of the request for exclusions.

m. As regards the argument that threat of material injury has not been examined, it is noted that the domestic industry has suffered material injury and thus the threat of material injury has not been analysed.

n. The domestic industry has disputed exclusion of Hong Kong, Singapore and UAE from the scope of investigation. The Authority notes that questionnaire response filed by foreign producers shows that significant material has been sold through affiliated or unaffiliated trading companies in Hong Kong, Singapore and UAE. Since these exports have already been included in the volume of imports considered for the present determination, consideration of these countries separately would not be appropriate. The Authority notes in this regard that the cumulative export volumes reported by the responding Japanese producers (45, 014 MT) is higher than the volume of imports reported in DGCI&S data (30, 386 MT).

o. As regards the contention of POSCO International Ltd to change the name of the producer from POSCO International to POSCO SPS, considering the submissions made by the company, and having regard to the nature of change claimed by the company, the Authority considers it appropriate to specify name of the new entity as well in lieu of the name of the companies investigated by the Authority.

p. Authority notes that definitive countervailing duty is already applicable on imports of product under consideration from China PR and provisional countervailing duty is also applicable on imports of product under consideration from Indonesia. The Authority notes that when the product under consideration in anti­dumping investigation is already subject to countervailing duty, the Authority is required to ensure that (i) no article shall be subjected to both countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty to compensate for the same situation of dumping or export subsidization in accordance with Section 9B(1)(a) of the Customs Tariff Act and Article VI:5 of GATT 1994 & (ii) the anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty put-together should not exceed the injury margin because India follows a lesser duty rule, which provides that anti-dumping duty and/or countervailing duty will be equal to the injury margin if such injury margin is lesser than dumping margin and/or subsidy margin.

q. Therefore, to ensure compliance with both the aforementioned requirements, the amount of anti-dumping duty to be imposed in case of China PR and Indonesia is equivalent to the difference between the quantum of anti-dumping duty mentioned in Col No. 7 below and the countervailing duty payable, if any. If the anti­dumping duty is less than the countervailing duty payable, the differential amount would be in the negative and no anti-dumping duty shall be collected in such case.

L. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES

176. The Authority notes that the purpose of anti-dumping duty, 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. The interested parties have not established that imposition of duties is going to adversely impact the public interest.

177. It is recognized that the imposition of anti-dumping duty might affect the price levels of the product manufactured using the subject goods and consequently might have some influence on relative competitiveness of this product. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by the anti-dumping measure, particularly if the levy of the antidumping duty is restricted to an amount necessary to redress the injury to the domestic industry. On the contrary, imposition of antidumping measure would remove the unfair advantages gained by dumping practices, prevent the decline in the performance of the domestic industry and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of the subject goods.

M. CONCLUSIONS

178. After examining the submissions made by the interested parties and issues raised therein; and considering the facts available on record, the Authority concludes that:

a. There is substantial increase in imports of subject goods from subject countries in India excluding China which is attracting CVD duties. Imports are significant in the POI in absolute and relative terms including China.

b. The product under consideration has been exported to India from the subject countries below its normal value.

c. The Domestic Industry has suffered material injury.

d. Material injury has been caused by the dumped imports of subject goods from the subject countries.

N. RECOMMENDATION

179. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate opportunity was given to the domestic industry, Embassies of the subject countries, 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, the authority is of the view that imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty is required to offset dumping and injury. Therefore, Authority recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject countries.

180. In terms of provision contained in Rule 4(d) & Rule l7(l) (b) 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 for five (5) years from the date of the Notification to be issued by the Central Government, on all imports of goods described at Column 3 of the duty table, originating in or exported from European Union, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan. Since, product under consideration is already attracting definitive countervailing duty from China PR and provisional countervailing duty from Indonesia, the amount of definitive anti-dumping duty recommended to be imposed for five (5) years from the date of Notification to be issued by the Central Government on all imports from China PR and Indonesia is equivalent to the difference between the quantum of anti-dumping duty mentioned in Col No.7 below and countervailing duty payable, if any. If the anti-dumping duty is less than the countervailing duty payable, the differential amount would be in the negative and no anti-dumping duty shall be collected in such case

DUTY TABLE

SN Hea-ding Des-cription* Country of
origin
Country of
export
Producer Amo-unt Unit Curr-ency
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1. 7019 &

7020

Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Korea RP Any country
including
Korea RP
Hyundai BNG Steel
Co., Ltd
67 MT USD
2. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Korea RP Any country
including
Korea RP
i.    POSCO SPS

ii.   POSCO (POSCO Group)

155 MT USD
3. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Korea RP Any country
including
Korea RP
DK Corporation 259 MT USD
4. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Korea RP Any country
including
Korea RP
Any producer other than the one
mentioned in serial no 1, 2 and 3
370 MT USD
5. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Any country

other     than
Korea, China, European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and Taiwan

Korea RP Any 370 MT USD
6. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Japan Any country
including
Japan
NIPPON STEEL
Stainless Steel
Corporation
282 MT USD
7. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Japan Any country
including
Japan
Nippon Steel
Corporation
116 MT USD
8. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Japan Any country
including
Japan
JFE Steel
Corporation
67 MT USD
9. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Japan Any country
including
Japan
Any producer other

than the one
mentioned in serial

no 6, 7 and 8

374 MT USD
10. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Any country

other     than
Japan, Korea, China, European Union, Indonesia, Malaysia and Taiwan

Japan Any 374 MT USD
11. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
European
Union (EU)
Any country including EU SIJ Acroni d.o.o,
Slovenia
944 MT USD
12. 7019 &

7020

Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
European
Union (EU)
Any country including EU i)       Outokumpu Stainless Oy

ii)     Outokumpu Stainless AB

iii)    Outokumpu Nirosta GmbH

iv)    Outokumpu  Service     Center
GmbH

v)     Outokumpu
S.p.A.

vi)    Outokumpu PSC Benelux B.V.

vii)  Outokumpu Press Plate AB

NIL MT USD
13. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
European
Union (EU)
Any country including EU Any producer other than the one
mentioned in serial no 11 and 12
592 MT USD
14. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Any country other     than
Korea, China, European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and Taiwan
EU Any 592 MT USD
15. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Malaysia Any country
including
Malaysia
Bahru Stainless SDN BHD 237 MT USD
16. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Malaysia Any country
including
Malaysia
Any producer other
than the one
mentioned in serial
no 15
474 MT USD
17. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Any country
other than
Korea, China,
European
Union,
Indonesia,
Japan,
Malaysia and
Taiwan.
Malaysia Any 474 MT USD
18. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
China Any country
including
China
Any 454 MT USD
19. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Any country

other     than
Korea, China, European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and Taiwan

China Any 454 MT USD
20. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Taiwan Any country
including
Taiwan
Any 336 MT USD
21. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Any country
other than
Korea, China,
European
Union,
Indonesia,
Japan,
Malaysia and
Taiwan
Taiwan Any 336 MT USD
22. 7019 & 7020 Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Indonesia Any country
including
Indonesia
PT. Indonesia Guang
Ching Nikel and
Stainless Steel
IndustryPT. Indonesia Ruipu
Nickel and Chrome
Alloy;PT. Indonesia
Tsingshan Stainless
Steel(Tsingshan Group)
167 MT USD
23. 7019 &

7020

Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Indonesia Any country
including
Indonesia
Any producer other
than the one
mentioned in serial
no 22.
441 MT USD
24. 7019 &

7020

Flat Rolled
Products of
Stainless Steel*
Any country
other than
Korea, China,
European
Union,
Indonesia,
Japan,
Malaysia and
Taiwan
Indonesia Any 441 MT USD

* The product under consideration is “Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel” excluding the following:

a) Hot rolled stainless steel of 304 grade and width upto 1650mm (with permissible tolerances) from China PR, Malaysia and Korea RP, wherein anti-dumping duty was recommended vide notification no 14/30/2013-DGAD, dated 9th March, 2015 and imposed vide customs notification no. 28/2015-Customs (ADD) dated 5th June, 2015.

b) Cold rolled stainless steel flats of 600 mm and above from China PR, Korea RP, EU, USA, Taiwan, Thailand, South Africa, except cold rolled stainless steel of more than 1250 mm having bonafide use wherein anti-dumping duty was recommended and imposed vide customs notification No. 14/2010-Customs, dated 20th February, 2010. The said duties were recommended to be extended vide notification No. 5/04/2014-DGAD, dated the 12th October, 2015 and were extended vide customs notification No 61/2015- Customs (ADD) dated 11th December 2015.

c) Blade Steel, also commercially known as razor blade grade steel used in production of razor.

d) Coin blank falling under 73269099 HS Code used in production of monetary coins.

e) Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel of width more than 1650 MM having bonafide use as more than 1650 MM.

f) Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel of thickness greater than 80 MM.

g) Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel of grades/types JFE20-5USR, JFE18-3USR NAS_335X (N08020), & NAS_800 (N08810 N08811), N10276, N06022, N06625, N08825, N06601 and N06600

h) Product supplied under Indian Patent No. 223848 in respect of goods comprising Low Nickel containing Chromium-Nickel Manganese-Copper Austenitic Stainless steel and representing Grades YU 1 and YU 4, produced and supplied by M/s Yieh United Steel Corp (Yusco) of Chinese Taipei (Taiwan).

i) Grade S-Star, S-Star A and G Star, (b) DSN-9 and (c) K-SF24 grade exported from Daido Steel Co. Ltd.

j) Nickel-based alloys grades such as N10276, N06022, N06625, N08825, N06601 and N06600. O. FURTHER PROCEDURE

181. An appeal against these findings after its acceptance by the Central Government shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and Customs Tariff Rules, 1995.

B. B. SWAIN, Spl. Secy. and Designated Authority

More Under Custom Duty

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

January 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031