MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)

INITIATION NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 1st September, 2021

(Case No. : MTR – 1/2021)

Subject: Initiation of mid-term review investigation concerning imports of “Aluminium Alloy Road Wheels” originating in or exported from China PR

F. No. 7/12/2021-DGTR.—1. JJF Castings Limited, Maxion Wheels Aluminium India Private Limited and Steel Strips Wheels Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the “Applicants”) have filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the “Authority”) as domestic industry of the like article in India, in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also 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 also referred to as the “Rules”) for initiation of mid-term review investigation concerning imports of “Aluminium Alloy Road Wheels” (hereinafter also referred as “product under consideration” or “PUC” or “subject goods”), originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter also referred to as “subject country”).

2. The Applicants have submitted that there is a need to re-evaluate and enhance the anti-dumping duty levied against imports of subject goods when exported by the Dicastal Group, comprising of CITIC Dicastal Co Limited, SMX Dicastal Wheel Manufacture Co., Limited, Qinhuangdao Daikaxinglong Wheel Manufacturing Co., Limited, Qinhuangdao Xinglong Wheels Co Limited and Binzhou Movever Dicastal Wheel Co Limited. Further, the Applicants have also submitted that since the Designated Authority had resorted to sampling in the earlier investigation and the anti-dumping duty for the following producers were determined on the basis of the margins for the Dicastal group, the duties for the following also needs to be enhanced.

a. Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co., Limited

b. Shandong Shuang Wang Aluminium Industry Co., Limited

c. Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co., Limited

A. Background of previous investigation

3. The Designated Authority recommended anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium alloy road wheels from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand vide final findings F. No. 14/7/2012 – DGAD dated 9th June 2014, which was levied vide Notification No. 21/2015 – Customs (ADD) dated 22nd May 2015.

4. Thereafter, after expiry of a period of five years, the Authority conducted sunset review and vide final findings F. No. 7/31/2018 – DGTR dated 29th March 2019, and recommended continuation of anti-dumping duties. The Designated Authority, however, determined the quantum of anti-dumping duties afresh, and the modified quantum of duties were given effect vide Notification No. 17/2019 – Customs (ADD) dated 9th April 2019. The Applicants have requested for enhancement of the anti-dumping duties levied vide Notification No. 17/2019 – Customs (ADD) dated 9th April 2019.

B. Product under consideration

5. The present investigation being a mid-term review, the scope of the product under consideration is the same as that in previous investigations. The product under consideration is:

“Cast Aluminum Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels (ARW) used in Motor Vehicles, whether or not attached with their accessories, of a size in diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches”

6. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff Act under the tariff code 8708 70 00. The customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on the scope of the product under consideration.

C. Like article

7. The Applicants have claimed that the subject goods exported to India are identical to the goods produced by them. Subject goods produced by the Applicants are comparable to the imported goods from the subject country in terms of technical specifications, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable and should be treated as ‘like article’ under the Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the Applicants are being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being imported from the subject country

D. Domestic industry

8. The application has been filed by JJF Castings Limited, Maxion Wheels Aluminium India Private Limited and Steel Strips Wheels Limited, as domestic producers of the like article in India. The domestic producers constitute a major proportion of the total domestic production, and therefore, constitute domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules.

E. Grounds for review

9. The applicants have claimed that there is a need for re-evaluation of dumping margin and injury margin for the Dicastal Group, due to the following.:

a. The Authority determined the margins for all non-sampled producers on the basis of only one exporting group, that is, the Dicastal Group.

b. The Authority determined margins and recommended anti-dumping duty on goods produced by Dicastal Group and unaffiliated producer, that is, Binzhou Movever Dicastal Wheel Co. Ltd, considering them one entity. However, separate margins should be determined for the related and unrelated entities. Duty on Dicastal Group as producer and as exporter is the same.

c. The product is such that the consumer approves the source of the product, the design, the mould, the manufacturing premises; and the supplier has to undertake moulding for the purpose of the order. Therefore, customers usually consider long-term business.

d. In negotiating orders, the Applicants have alleged that Dicastal is supplying the product at significantly lower prices than that being reported to the Customs.

e. The major importer for Dicastal Group in the previous investigation and at present is Ford India. However, the Ford Group has a number of entities globally and the procurement is managed centrally from China. The applicants have contended that this has resulted in special relationship between Dicastal and Ford, and the same has allowed the two to enter into a compensatory arrangement, rendering export price unreliable. The export price is required to be constructed as provided under Section 9A of the Act.

f. The applicants have highlighted the non-cooperation by Ford in the previous investigation, in terms of providing the necessary documentation.

The Applicants have therefore, claimed that there is a need for enhancement of anti-dumping duties levied.

F. Initiation  

10. On the basis of the duly substantiated written application by the domestic producers of the like article in India, and having satisfied itself, on the basis of the prima facie evidence substantiating dumping need for a mid-term review of anti-dumping duty earlier imposed on the subject goods originating in or exported from China PR, and in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 23(1A) of the Rules, the Authority, hereby, initiates a mid-term review to examine the need for enhancement in the quantum of the anti-dumping duty earlier extended on subject goods from China PR.

G. Subject Country

11. The scope of the present mid-term review is confined to the subject goods originating in or exported from China PR.

H. Period of Investigation (POI)

12.    The period of investigation (POI) in the present investigation is 1stJanuary 2020 to 31st March 2021 (15 months).

I. Procedure  

13. The review would be limited to the dumping margin and injury margin determined and quantum of duties levied vide final findings F. No. 7/31/2018 – DGTR dated 29th March 2019 and Notification No. 17/2019 – Customs (ADD)

14. The provisions of Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Rules supra shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in this review

J. Submission of Information

15. In view of the special circumstances arising out of COVID- 19 pandemic, all communication should be sent to the Designated Authority via email at email address [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] It should be ensured that the narrative part of the submission is in searchable PDF/ MS Word format and data files are in MS Excel format.

16. The known producers/exporters in the subject country, Government of the subject country through their Embassy in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the subject goods and the domestic producers 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.

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.

K. Time Limit

19. Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent to the Designated Authority via email at the email addresses [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice as per the Rule 6(4) of the Rules. It may, however, be noted that in terms of explanation of the said Rule, the notice calling for information and other documents shall be deemed to have been received one week from the date on which it was sent by the Designated Authority or transmitted to the appropriate diplomatic representative of the exporting country. 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 within the above time limit.

L. Submission of information on confidential basis

21. Any party making any confidential submission or providing information on confidential basis before the Authority, is required to simultaneously submit a non- confidential version of the same in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules. Failure to adhere to the above may lead to rejection of the response / submissions.

22. The parties making any submission (including Appendices/Annexures attached thereto), before the Authority including questionnaire response, are required to file Confidential and Non-Confidential versions separately.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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 summarized 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 summarization is not possible must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.

26. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied the request for confidentiality is not warranted or if the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in generalized or in summary form, it may disregard such information.

27. 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.

28. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for confidentiality of the information provided, shall not disclose it to any party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.

M. Inspection of Public File

29.  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. The modality of maintaining public file in electronic mode is being worked out.

N. Non-cooperation

30. 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.

ANANT SWARUP, Designated Authority

More Under Custom Duty

Leave a Comment

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

Search Posts by Date

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930