MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
New Delhi, the 18th August, 2020
Subject : Initiation of Sunset Review Investigation concerning Anti Dumping Duty imposed on imports of “Front Axle Beam and Steering Knuckles meant for heavy and medium commercial vehicles” originating in or exported from China PR .
F. No. 7/26/2020-DGTR.— 1. M/s. Bharat Forge Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘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 also referred as the “Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred as the “Rules”), for sunset review of Anti-Dumping duty imposed on imports of “Front Axle Beam and Steering Knuckles meant for heavy and medium commercial vehicles” (hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods” or the “Products Under Consideration”), originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the “subject country”).
2. The Applicant has alleged likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping of subject goods, originating and exported from the subject countries and consequent injury to the domestic industry and has requested for sunset review, and continuation of the anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country.
3. The original investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from China PR was initiated by the Authority vide Notification No. 14/19/2008-DGAD dated 8th, December 2008 and vide customs notification No 50/2010-Customs dated 12th April, 2010 definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed for the period of five years.
4. The Authority initiated a first sunset review investigation on subject goods, originating in or exported from China PR vide Initiation Notification dated 13th June, 2014. Vide Final Findings Notification No.15/11/2014-DGAD dated 11th September, 2015, the anti-dumping duty was recommended to be continued for a further period of 5 years and the same were imposed vide Notification No. 49/2015-Customs(ADD) dated 21st October, 2015. The current anti-dumping duties are valid up to 20th October 2020.
Product under Consideration
5. The product under consideration in the present SSR application is “Front Axle Beam and Steering Knuckles meant for heavy and medium commercial vehicles”. The products are parts and accessories of medium and heavy commercial vehicles, whether forged or machined.
6. As per the original investigation and first sunset review investigation carried out by the Designated Authority earlier, product has been defined as under:
“The products under consideration are “Front Axle Beams (FAB) and Steering Knuckles (SK) used in medium and heavy commercial vehicles, whether forged or machined”. Front axle beam is a safety critical item as it carries the load of the vehicle and also keeps the steering in place. The function of the Front axle beam is to carry the front weight of the vehicle, to carry the horizontal and vertical loads on bumpy roads and acts as a cushion through spring leaves for a comfortable ride. The steering knuckle is a very critical component and fits on the axle beam through the arms to control the steering of the vehicle.”
7. The present investigation being a sunset review investigation, the product under consideration remains the same as in the previously conducted investigation. The subject goods fall under Chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff Act under subheading 87081090. However, the customs classification is only indicative, and is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.
8. The Applicant has claimed that the subject goods, which are being dumped into India, are identical to the goods produced by the participating companies. There are no differences either in the technical specifications, quality, functions or end-uses of the dumped imports and the domestically produced subject goods. 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 in India are being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being imported from the subject country.
9. The Application has been filed by M/s. Bharat Forge Limited who was also the petitioner in the original and first SSR investigation. The Applicant has also submitted a support letter from M/s Ramkrishna Forging Limited. The Applicant along with the supporter account for more than 50% of the total production of the subject goods in India.
10. On the basis of information available, the Authority notes that the Application has been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 2 (b) and Rule 5 (3) of the Rules.
Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping
11. The Applicant has submitted that China should be considered as a non-market economy and the normal value should be determined in terms of paragraph-7 of Annexure I of the Rules. The prices or constructed value of the product under consideration in the appropriate market economy third country or the prices from such third country to other countries, including India, has neither been made available by the Applicant nor is this information available with the Authority from any public source. In view of the same, the normal value has been determined by adopting cost of production in India as normated with due adjustment for SGA expenses and a reasonable profit at the rate of 5% on cost of production in accordance with Para 6(8) of the Rules.
12. The export price of subject goods for the subject country has been computed based on the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) transaction-wise import data. The expenses on account of Ocean freight, Marine Insurance and others have been reduced from their CIF export prices to determine the net export price.
13. Considering the normal value and export price determined as above, dumping margin has been determined, in accordance with Section 9A(1)(a) of the Act. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal of the subject goods in the subject country is higher than the exfactory export price, indicating, prima facie, that the subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the subject country.
Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury
14. The Applicant has claimed that the performance of the domestic industry is already fragile as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, inventories, cash profits and return on investment have deteriorated in the proposed POI. Further, the Applicant has claimed likelihood of injury in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duty, and furnished evidence with regard to significant surplus and unutilized capacities, export orientation, and low capacity utilization of the producers in the subject country, along with information on price undercutting from subject country. The Applicant has claimed that the cessation of anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury.
15. For the purpose of this investigation, China PR is the subject country.
Period of Investigation
16. The period of investigation (POI) will be from 1st April, 2019 to 31st March, 2020. The injury investigation period will cover the periods 1st April 2016-31st March 2017, 1st April 2017-31st March 2018, 1st April 2018-31st March 2019, and the POI.
17. The review investigation will cover all aspects of the final findings published vide Notification no. 49/2015-Customs (ADD) dated 21st October, 2015, recommending extension of antidumping duty on imports of subject goods from China PR. The Authority will also undertake likelihood analysis of dumping and injury.
18. 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.
Submission of Information
19. In view of the special circumstances arising out of COVID-19 pandemic, all communication should be sent to the Designated Authority via email at the email addresses email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org.
20. The exporters in the subject country, the Government of the subject country through its embassy in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the subject goods and the domestic industry are being addressed separately to submit relevant information in the form and manner prescribed within the time limit set out below.
21. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the prescribed form and manner within the time limit set out below.
22. Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is requested to make a non-confidential version of the same available to the other interested parties.
23. Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority via email at the email addresses mentioned above within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice as per Rule 6(4) of the Rules. It may, however, be noted that in terms of explanation of the said sub rule, the notice calling for information and other documents shall be deemed to have been received within 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.
24. 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.
Submission of information on confidential basis
25. 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 and the Trade Notices issued in this regard. Failure to adhere to the above may lead to rejection of the response/submissions.
26. 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: one set marked as Confidential (with title, number of pages, index, etc.), and the other set marked as Non-Confidential (with title, number of pages, index, etc.).
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 nonconfidential 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.
30. 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 summary form, it may disregard such information.
31. 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.
32. 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.
Inspection of Public File
33. 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.
34. In case any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may declare such interested party as non-cooperative and record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.
BIDYUT BEHARI SWAIN, Special Secy. and Designated Authority