MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
New Delhi, the 24th September, 2019
[Case No: 15/2019]
Subject: Initiation of Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Electronic Calculators originating in or exported from Malaysia.
F. No. 6/22/2019-DGTR.- Whereas M/s. Ajanta LLP (formerly known as M/s. Ajanta Private Limited) (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), on behalf of the domestic industry, in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), alleging dumping of Electronic Calculators (hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods”), originating in or exported from Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as the “subject country”), for initiation of anti-dumping investigation and for levy of anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country.
2. AND WHEREAS, the Authority finds sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from subject country, and injury to the domestic industry, and causal link between the dumping and injury and hereby initiates an investigation into the alleged dumping, and consequent injury to the domestic industry in terms of the Rule 5 of the Anti-dumping Rules, to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry. M/s. Ajanta LLP (hereinafter also referred to as the “Petitioner” or “Applicant”) has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) for imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Electronic Calculators (hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods” or “PUC”) from Malaysia.
Product under consideration
3. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Electronic Calculators. An electronic calculator is a small and portable electronic device used for performing arithmetic operations and certain other mathematical functions. Simple numeric operations include basic arithmetic such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Complex mathematical functions include exponential operations, roots, logarithms, trigonometric functions, and hyperbolic functions, etc. and include all its commercial/trade parlance names.
4. The product under consideration for the present investigation is ‘Electronic Calculators of all types’, excluding the following:
a. Calculators with attached printers, commonly referred to as printing calculators
b. Calculators with ability to plot charts and graphs, commonly referred to as graphing calculators
c. Programmable calculators
5. The product under consideration is classified under tariff item 8470 1000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
6. Rule 2(d) with regard to like article provides as under: –
“like article” means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation;
7. The Applicant has submitted that the subject goods produced by them and the subject goods imported from the subject country are like articles. There is no known difference between the subject goods exported from the subject country and those produced by the Applicant. Electronic Calculators produced by the Applicant and imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of technical characteristics, functions and uses, distribution and marketing, pricing and tariff classification. Consumers can use and are using the two interchangeably. The two are technically and commercially substitutable and hence should be treated as ‘like article’ under the Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the Applicant are being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being imported from the subject country.
Domestic industry and Standing
8. The application has been filed by M/s. Ajanta LLP, the producer of the product under consideration in India. From the available information, the Authority prima facie notes that the production of subject goods produced by the domestic producer accounts for “a major proportion” of total production of the product under consideration in India. The Authority, therefore, prima facie determines that the Applicant constitutes domestic industry within the meaning of the Rule 2 (b) of Rules, and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the Rules.
9. The present investigation is in respect of alleged dumping of the PUC from Malaysia.
10. The Applicant has constructed the normal value in respect of subject country stating that neither they were able to get any documentary evidence or reliable information with regard to domestic prices of the subject goods in the subject country nor the same are available in the public domain. The Authority has prima-facie considered the normal value of subject goods in subject country on the basis of constructed values as made available by the Applicant for the purpose of this initiation.
11. The Applicant has computed the export price for the subject country on the basis of data published by DGCI&S, Kolkata. Price adjustments have been claimed on account of ocean freight, inland freight, ocean insurance, commission and bank charges. There is sufficient prima facie evidence with regard to the net export prices claimed by the Applicant.
12. The normal values and the export prices for the subject country has been compared at ex-factory level, which prima facie show significant dumping margins in respect of the subject goods exported from the subject country. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal values of the subject goods in the subject country were higher than the ex-factory export prices, indicating that the subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the subject country.
Injury & Causal Link
13. Information furnished by the Applicant has been considered for assessment of injury to the domestic industry. The Applicant has furnished evidence regarding the injury having taken place as a result of the alleged dumping in the form of increased volume of dumped imports in absolute terms and in relation to production and consumption in India, price undercutting, price underselling, profitability, cash profits and return on capital employed. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of injury being suffered by the domestic industry caused by dumped imports from the subject country to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation.
Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation
14. And whereas, the Authority prima facie finds that there is sufficient evidence of dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country; and injury to the domestic industry and causal link between the alleged dumping and injury exists to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation, the Authority hereby initiates an investigation into the alleged dumping, and consequent injury to the domestic industry in terms of Rule 5 of the Anti-Dumping Rules 1995, to determine the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the ‘injury’ to the domestic industry.
Period of Investigation
15. The period of investigation (hereinafter referred to as “POI”) for the present investigation is from 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019 (12 months). The injury investigation period will, however, cover the periods April 2015-March 2016, April 2016-March 2017, April 2017-March 2018 and the POI.
Submission of information
16. The known exporters in the subject country and their government through their embassy in India, importers and users in India known to be concerned with the subject goods and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable them to file all the relevant information in the form and manner prescribed within the time-limit set out below.
17. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the form and manner prescribed within the time-limit set out below. The information/submission may be submitted to:
The Designated Authority
Directorate General of Trade Remedies
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce
Government of India
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street
18. Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is required to make a non-confidential version of the same available to the other parties.
19. Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the address mentioned above not later than forty days (40 days) from the date of the publication of this initiation notification. If no information is received within the prescribed time-limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available on record in accordance with the Rules.
20. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of interest) in the instant matter and file their questionnaire responses and offer their comments to the domestic industry’s application within forty days (40 days) from the date of the publication of this initiation notification. The information must be submitted in hard copies as well as in soft copies.
Submission of information on confidential basis
21. The parties making any submission (including Appendices/Annexures attached thereto), before the Authority including questionnaire response, are required to file the same in two separate sets, in case “confidentiality” is claimed on any part thereof:
i. One set marked as Confidential (with title, number of pages, index, etc.), and
ii. The other set marked as Non-Confidential (with title, number of pages, index, etc.).
22. The “confidential” or “non-confidential” submissions must be clearly marked as “confidential” or “non-confidential” at the top of each page. Any submission made without such marking shall be treated as non-confidential by the Authority, and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other interested parties to inspect such submissions. Soft copies of both the versions will also be required to be submitted, along with the hard copies, in four (4) sets of each.
23. The confidential version shall contain all information which is by nature confidential and/or other information which the supplier of such information claims as confidential. For information which are claimed to be confidential by nature or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of other reasons, the supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information as to why such information cannot be disclosed.
24. The non-confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (in case indexation is not feasible) and summarised depending upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed. The non-confidential summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information furnished on confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, the party submitting the confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible to summary, and a statement of reasons why summarisation is not possible must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.
25. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or if the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorise its disclosure in generalised or summary form, it may disregard such information.
26. Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or without good cause statement on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on record by the Authority.
27. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for confidentiality of the information provided, shall not disclose it to any party without specific authorisation of the party providing such information.
Inspection of Public File
28. In terms of Rule 6(7) of the Rules, any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by other interested parties.
29. In case where an interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.
SUNIL KUMAR, Addl. Secy. & Designated Authority