MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 30th March, 2021
Case No. AD-SSR-13/2020
Subject : Sunset review investigation concerning imports of “Normal Butanol” from European Union, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and United States of America.
F. No. 7/29/2020–DGTR.—Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to time 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 thereof;
A BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. The Andhra Petrochemicals Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the “Applicant” or “petitioner” or “domestic industry” or “DI”) has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the “Authority”), in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter 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 referred to as the “Rules” or “AD Rules”) for sunset review of anti-dumping duty levied on the imports of Normal Butanol (hereinafter referred as the “subject goods” or “product under consideration” or “PUC”), originating in or exported from European Union, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and United States of America. (hereinafter referred to as the “subject countries”).
2. The applicant has alleged likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping of subject goods, originating or exported from the subject countries and consequent injury to the domestic industry and has requested for review and continuation of the anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries.
3. Section 9A(5) of the Act, inter alia, provides that anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on expiry of five years from the date of such imposition and the Authority is required to review whether the expiry of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. In accordance with the above, the Authority is required to review, on the basis of a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, as to whether the expiry of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
4. Rule 23(1B) of the Rules provides as follows:
“…any definitive anti-dumping duty levied under the Act shall be effective for a period not exceeding five years from the date of its imposition, unless the Designated Authority comes to a conclusion, on a review initiated before that period on its own initiative or upon a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic industry within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of that period, that the expiry of the said anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.”
5. Based on the substantiated application with prima facie evidence of likelihood of dumping and injury filed on behalf of the domestic industry in accordance with Section 9A(5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Anti-dumping Rules, the Authority initiated the sunset review investigation vide Notification No. 7/29/2020-DGTR (AD-SSR-. 13/2020) dated 31st August, 2020 and to examine whether the expiry of the said duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry and whether there is a need for continued imposition of antidumping duty in respect of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries.
6. Earlier, the Authority initiated an antidumping investigation in respect of imports of Normal Butanol from European Union, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and United States of America on 20th November, 2014 and after conducting the investigation recommended imposition of definite duty vide Final Findings Notification No. 14/4/2013-DGAD dated 19th February, 2016. On the basis of recommendations made by the Authority in the final findings, definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed by the Central Government vide Notification No. 13/2016-Customs (ADD) dated 13th April 2016 for 5 years.
B PROCEDURE
7. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
a. The Authority issued a Notification dated 31st August 2020, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the subject countries.
b. 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/users and the domestic industry as per the addresses made available by the applicant and requested them to make their views known in writing within 30 days of the initiation notification in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the AD Rules. The time limit to file information was extended first upto 20th October 2020, then upto 10th November 2020 and thereafter a final extension was granted by the Authority upto 24th November 2020.
c. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known producers/exporters, known importers and to the embassy of the subject countries in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the AD Rules.
d. The Embassy 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.
e. The Authority sent exporter’s questionnaire to the following known producers/ exporters in the subject countries, whose details were made available by the applicants, to elicit relevant information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
i. M/s Oxea GmbH, Germany.
ii. M/s Zak S.A UL, Poland
iii. M/s Perstorp Oxo AB, Sweden
iv. M/s BASF Lampertheim GmbH, Germany.
v. M/s EIF Atochem S.A
vi. M/s Arkema Corporation, France
vii. M/s Zak Zak Lily, Poland.
viii. M/s Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn Bhd, Malaysia
ix. M/s Sasol Middle East FZCO, South Africa
x. M/s Grupa Azoty Kędzierzyn, Poland.
xi. M/s Oltchim S.A., Romania.
xii. M/s Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat, Russian Federation
xiii. M/s INEOS Oxide (Oxochemie), Belgium
xiv. M/s Sibur Khimprom, Austria
xv. M/s Dow Optimal Chemicals Sdn. Bhd, Malaysia
xvi. M/s Dow Chemical Gmbh, Germany
xvii. M/s Unipetrol, AS
48 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART I—SEC.1]
xviii. M/s Eastman Chemical, Singapore
xix. M/s Eastman Chemical Asia Pacific Private Limited, Singapore
xx. M/s Dow Chemicals, USA
xxi. M/s Eastman Chemical Company, USA
xxii. M/s Oxea Corporation
xxiii. M/s ICC Chemical Corporation, USA
xxiv. M/s BASF, USA
xxv. M/s Tex Mark Chemicals, USA
xxvi. M/s INEOS, USA
xxvii. M/s Sasol, North America
f. The following producers/exporters have filed questionnaire response: –
i. M/s Petronas Chemicals Marketing (Labuan) Ltd., Malaysia and M/s Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
ii. M/s BASF PETRONAS Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia
g. The Authority forwarded a copy of the Initiation Notification to the following known importers/users/user associations, whose names and addresses were made available to the authority, of subject goods in India and advised them to make their views known in writing within the time limit prescribed by the Authority in accordance with the Rule 6(4):
i. M/s. KLJ Plasticizers Limited
ii. M/s PCL Oil & Solvents Limited
iii. M/s API Industrial Corporation
iv. M/s Rachana Plasticizers
v. M/s Visen Industries Limited
vi. M/s Micro Inks Private Limited
vii. M/s Alkyl Amines Chemicals Limited
viii. M/s Lalitha Chem Industries Private Limited
ix. M/s Deepak Nitrite Limited
x. M/s Payal Polyplast Private Limited
xi. M/s Dorfketal Speciality Private Limited
xii. M/s Anushakti Chemicals and Drugs Limited
xiii. M/s C J Shah & Company
xiv. M/s Ramniklal S Gosalia & Company
xv. M/s Haresh Petrochem Private Limited
xvi. M/s Hazel Mercantile Limited
xvii. M/s Kundan Rice Mills Limited
xviii. M/s Daga Global Chemicals Limited
xix. M/s Pon Pure Chemical India Private Limited
xx. M/s Petrochem Middle East Private Limited
xxi. M/s KLJ Resources Private Limited
xxii. M/s Asian Solvochem Private Limited
xxiii. M/s Yug International Private Limited
xxiv. M/s Ankita Chemical Corporation Limited
xxv. M/s Apra Enterprises
xxvi. M/s Overseas Polymer Private Limited
xxvii. M/s Ketul Chem Private Limited
xxviii. M/s Balmukund Chemicals Private Limited
xxix. M/s Paras Dyes and Chemicals Private Limited
xxx. M/s Jagriti Plastics Limited
xxxi. M/s Surabhi Enterprises Private Limited
xxxii. M/s Sanjay Chemicals Private Limited
xxxiii. M/s Supreme India International Private Limited
xxxiv. M/s Buneesha Chem Private Limited
xxxv. M/s Nutan Chemicals Private Limited
xxxvi. M/s Plastichem Industrial Corporation
xxxvii. M/s Dev Chemicals
xxxviii. M/s Triveni Chemicals Private Limited
xxxix. M/s Tulsi Chemicals
xl. M/s AB Enterprises
h. The following importer/users have filed questionnaire response: –
i. BASF India Limited
ii. Payal Polyplast Private Limited
iii. KLJ Resources Limited
iv. KLJ Plasticizers Limited
i. Eastman Chemical Company and Indian Plasticizer Manufacturers Association have filed submissions during the course of investigation.
j. Exporters, foreigner producers and other interested parties who have not responded to the Authority, or not supplied information relevant to this investigation, are treated as non-cooperating interested parties.
k. Information provided by 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.
l. The interested parties were asked vide notification dated 31st December 2020, to share the non-confidential version of the responses, submissions and evidence presented by them with the other interested parties.
m. The period of investigation for the purpose of the present investigation has been considered from April, 2019 to March, 2020 (POI). The injury investigation period has been considered as the period from April 2016 to March 2017, April 2017 to March 2018 and April 2018 to March 2019 and period of investigation.
n. Additional/supplementary information was sought from the applicants and other interested parties to the extent deemed necessary. Verification of the data provided by the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the purpose of the investigation.
o. The Non-injurious Price (NIP) is based on the cost of production and cost to make and 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 AD Rules. It has been worked out so as to ascertain whether duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
p. Information obtained from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) on transaction-wise import data for the past three years, and the period of investigation has been adopted for determination of volume and value of imports of product concerned in India.
q. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to all interested parties to present their views orally in the oral hearing held on 19th February 2021 which was attended by various parties. The oral hearing was held through video conferencing in view of the special circumstances arising out of the COVID- 19 pandemic. All the parties who presented their views in the oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of these views, in order to enable opposing interested parties to file rejoinders thereafter, if any.
r. A Disclosure Statement containing the essential facts in this investigation which would have been formed the basis of the Final Findings was issued to the interested parties on 16.03.2021 and the interested parties were allowed time upto 23.03.2021 to comment on the same. The comments on Disclosure Statement received from the interested parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant, in this Final Findings Notification.
s. 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 this Final Findings Notification on the basis of the facts available.
t. *** in this Final Findings Notification represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis, and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
u. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority during the POI for the subject investigations is 1 US$= Rs. 71.65
C SCOPE OF PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
8. The product under consideration in this investigation is Normal Butanol. Normal Butanol is a primary alcohol with a 4-carbon structure and molecular formula C4H9OH. Normal Butanol is an excellent solvent for acid-curable lacquers and baking finishes derived from urea, melamine or phenolic resins. A large part of N-Butanol is converted into derivatives for use as solvents in coating industries and printing inks. Normal Butanol also finds application as extractant in production of drugs and natural substances, additive in polishes and cleaners, solubilizer in the textile industry, additive in deicing fluids, anti-icing additive in gasoline, humectant for cellulose nitrate, feedstock in the production of glycol ethers and flotation aids (Butyl Xanthate) and as starting material for the production of Butyl mono Carboxylates, Butyl Acetate, Butyl butyrate.
9. The product is classified under Customs Tariff heading No. 29051300. However, the said Customs classification is indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.
C.1 Submissions of the domestic industry
10. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regard to product under consideration and like article:
i. Since the present investigation is a sunset review investigation, the scope of product under consideration remains the same as in the original investigation.
ii. The domestic industry is producing a like article to product under consideration.
C.2 Submissions of other interested parties
11. The other interested parties have not made any submissions with regard to product under consideration and like article.
C.3 Examination by Authority
12. The product under consideration in the original investigation as well as in the present sunset review is N-Butanol. In the previous investigation, the product under consideration was defined as under and the Authority has considered the same scope of the product under consideration for the present purposes:
The product under consideration is Normal Butanol. Normal Butanol is a primary alcohol with a 4-carbon structure and molecular formula C4H9OH. Normal Butanol is an excellent solvent for acid-curable lacquers and baking finishes derived from urea, melamine or phenolic resins. A large part of N-Butanol is converted into derivatives for use as solvents in coating industries and printing inks. Normal Butanol also finds application as extractant in production of drugs and natural substances, additive in polishes and cleaners, solubilizer in the textile industry, additive in deicing fluids, anti-icing additive in gasoline, humectant for cellulose nitrate, feedstock in the production of glycol ethers and flotation aids (Butyl Xanthate) and as starting material for the production of Butyl mono Carboxylates, Butyl Acetate, Butyl butyrate.
13. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are using the two interchangeably. In view of the same, the product under consideration produced by the domestic industry is treated as like article to the product under consideration imported from subject countries.
D SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
14. Rule 2(b) of the AD rules defines domestic industry as under:
“(b) “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term, ‘domestic industry’ may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers.”
D.1 Submissions of domestic industry
15. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to standing and scope of the domestic industry: –
i. Applicant is the sole producer in India.
ii. Applicant has not imported the subject goods and is not related, either directly or indirectly, to any exporter in the subject countries or any importer of the dumped article in India.
iii. Application satisfies the requirement of the Rules.
iv. On the submission that HPCL is also engaged in the production of subject goods, the domestic industry submits that as per the applicant‘s information HPCL is not engaged in the production and sale of subject goods till POI.
D.2 Submissions of other interested parties
16. Following submissions have been made by other interested parties with regard to standing and scope of the domestic industry:
i. Applicant has claimed to be the sole producer. However, HPCL is engaged in the production of subject goods during the POI.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
17. The present application has been filed by M/s The Andhra Petrochemicals Limited. From the information on record, it is noted that HPCL is not engaged in the production or sale of subject goods currently. The applicant is the sole producer in India and has provided relevant information as per the prescribed format. The applicant is eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules. The application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
E MISCELLENEOUS SUBMISSIONS
E.1 Submissions of domestic industry
18. Following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry: –
a. All the participating producers and exporters have claimed excessive confidentiality in their responses as they fail to comply with the requirements laid down by the Authority.
b. Response to most of the questions in the questionnaire have been claimed completely confidential and no meaningful summary has been provided.
c. Responding producers and exporters have failed to comply with the requirements of the Trade Notice 10/2018 dated 7th September 2018 and have claimed information available in public domain as confidential.
d. Domestic industry has provided detailed reason for every information which has been claimed confidential and contrarily the responding producers and exporters have claimed confidentiality on the ground of business sensitive information.
e. Name of source from which capacities in the subject countries has been obtained is provided as a footnote in the application and Trademap data and Eurostat data are part of the non-confidential application.
f. All the economic parameters considered by Authority for purpose of arriving at the determination of injury have been provided in non-confidential version in compliance with trade notice 10/2018 dated 7th September 2018.
g. KLJ Resources Limited, Payal Polyplast Private Limited and KLJ Plasticizers Limited are consumer of the product under consideration and therefore were required to file User questionnaire response. However, they have filed importer questionnaire response.
h. The parties have filed incorrect response as they were clear that providing desired information could create very inconvenient position for them about their contentions of unbearable burden of duty on them.
i. Authority is requested to not hold that any argument advanced by the importers without filing the required relevant questionnaire response.
j. Anti-dumping duties are necessary because of significant capacity expansions being undertaken in India. In presence of significant dumped imports in market, any producer who would set up capacities would suffer in the market.
k. The expansions being undertaken in India will be significant to ensure the demand of the subject goods in India.
l. Demand and supply gap does not justify dumping. Producers in the exporting country are free to export their product to the Indian customers.
m. Mere fact that importers are forced to pay duties is not a sufficient justification to not protect the domestic market from the dumped imports.
n. The goods imported at Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad Airport are primarily sampled goods with very insignificant quantity and high price. Since these goods are not traded goods, there is no reason to consider them for the purpose of injury analysis.
o. Domestic Industry does not enjoy any premium even when protection was given in the form of applicable duty. The market is influenced by the market suppliers and not the actual producer.
p. M/s OQ Chemicals GmbH, Germany had participated in the original investigation but failed to respond in the review investigation and therefore shall be treated as non-participating. Also the Authority should recommend only one residual category for all imports from European Union, South Africa, Singapore and United States of America.
E.2 Submissions of other interested parties
19. The other interested parties have made following miscellaneous submissions: –
a. Domestic industry has resorted to excessive confidentiality as it has not followed the trade notice and not provided confidentiality reasoning.
b. Source of paid information considered on capacity in the subject countries has not been disclosed by the domestic industry.
c. The domestic industry has claimed Eurostat and Trademap data as confidential.
d. Information such as capacity, demand and domestic sales are already in the public domain, yet the information has been claimed confidential.
e. Importers have to engage in imports since domestic industry is unable to bridge the huge demand supply gap and exporters charge highest prices from Indian buyers. Importers are also forced to pay duty.
f. Instead of fixed anti-dumping duty, duties can be incorporated on ‘trigger price‘ or ‘variable‘ basis. Imposition of fixed anti-dumping duty gives an unfair and arbitrary protection to domestic industry.
g. The Annual Reports of the applicant are dubious as same language has been used in them over the years.
h. Applicant has a history of claiming trade remedial measures as both products are currently attracting anti-dumping duty.
i. Duties have met their purpose as situation of reasonable profits has been arrived at for domestic industry. Section-9A of the Customs Tariff Act is an exception to the general rule and continuation of duties can be only in cases it is absolutely necessary to give an extended protection based on the strict application of the likelihood test.
j. The applicant has not provided any justification for exclusions of imports of subject goods landed at Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad airport or excluded on the premise that the prices are abnormal.
k. It is a settled principal as per the case of Kesoram Rayon v. Designated Authority, 2018 (359) ELT 475 (Del.) that a sunset review is not required to be initiated compulsorily.
l. Eastman has not exported the subject goods during the POI as well as the injury period due to non-remunerative prices offered by the Applicant and other suppliers in Indian market. Even though Eastman has not exported the subject goods during the POI as well as the injury period, the Company is participating in the present investigation, being a known producer/exporter of subject goods listed by the Applicant and thereby constitutes as an interested party in terms of the Anti-dumping Rules.
m. Since Eastman has not exported the subject goods, it is understood that the Authority cannot determine the individual rate of duty. However, it should be noted and recorded in the Final Findings by the Authority that Eastman has not exported the subject goods during the POI and, therefore, eligible to file a new shipper review application (as and when required) for determination of the individual rate of duty in terms of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rule 23 of the Anti-dumping Rules.
n. The Applicant has a history of availing trade remedial measures on Ethyl Hexanol as well as the Normal Butanol over the last twenty-three years. Therefore, it is inconceivable that a foreign producer and/or exporter can continue to dump goods to India for such a long duration and continue suffering losses in revenue.
o. As per the annual report of the Domestic Industry for the POI, it is noted that the company has been able to sell subject goods to the extent of 98.5 percent of the total production. KLJR is only an importer and has filed the response in the correct IQR format as prescribed by the Authority.
p. The claims of upcoming capacities have been declined by the Authority in cases like Melamine.
E.3 Examination by the Authority
20. Submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties with regard to confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed accordingly. The Authority notes that the information provided by all the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. All interested parties have claimed their business-related sensitive information as confidential.
21. The Authority notes that domestic industry and other interested parties have provided non-confidential version of all the information that is relevant for the purpose of present investigation.
22. The Authority notes that the current investigation was initiated on the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by the Applicant. Therefore, the claim that the application does not satisfy the requirement of the law is incorrect.
23. On the submission that there is a demand and supply gap in India which is the reason for increase in imports, the Authority notes that the ground for seeking extension of antidumping duty is not import per se, but the price at which import has been made and its effect on the domestic industry in respect of its parameters such as selling price, profits, cash profits and return on investment. Imposition of anti-dumping duty provides a level playing field and does not prevent fair competition in the market.
24. The interested parties have claimed that the extension of duties will have an adverse impact on the downstream industry. The domestic industry has provided information with respect to revenue and profits of users including users other than those which are participating in the present investigation. It is seen that the profits of the revenue and the profits of the users have increased over the years which shows that the users have not been impacted by the anti-dumping duty. The interested parties have not provided any calculations or evidence to support the submission and show adverse impact.
25. As regards the contention of the parties about the form of duty, the Authority notes that as per the Rules, the mandate of the Authority is to determine the existence, degree and effect of the 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. The Authority has determined the form of duty after evaluating all facts relevant for the present investigation.
26. As regards the submission on extension of duties, Authority notes that as per Rule 23 of Rules and Section (A) of the Act, there is no restriction on the period for which the duty can be imposed. The only condition necessary for extension of duties is whether cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The anti-dumping duty can be extended for a period as long as necessary to counteract dumping or likely dumping causing injury or likely to cause injury.
F DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
F.1 Normal Value
27. Under Section 9A (1)(c) of the Act, 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 countries or territory as determined in accordance both 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 countries or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exploring countries 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 countries or territory or an appropriate third countries as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6): or
b. the cost of production of the said article in the countries of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6):
Provided that in the case of import of the article from a countries other than the countries of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the countries of export or such article is not produced in the countries of export or there is no comparable price in the countries of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the countries of origin.
F.2 Submissions of domestic industry
28. The submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to normal value, export price and dumping margin are as follows: –
a. Prices of producers are confidential information and hence are not available in the public domain.
b. Significant variation in the export prices from the subject countries to different countries makes the export prices unreliable for considering as normal value.
c. Producers in the subject countries are dumping production in global market and exports are not reliable and may not be a true reflective of the normal value.
d. Normal value can be derived on the basis of estimates of cost of production.
e. Claims of dumping from Singapore and United States of America are unchallenged as there is no participation from the countries.
f. Continued dumping when duties are imposed itself establishes likelihood of dumping in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duty.
g. Prices of both Propylene and Naphtha have declined in the period of investigation but the landed price has declined sharply. The foreign producers do not keep their prices in tandem with the input prices and resort to dumping.
h. On the submission of considering trade journals, CESTAT decision on prices published in trade journals expressly talks about consideration of trade journals under Rule 6(8) for the purpose of issuance of final finding by the Authority. The CESTAT decision does not bar on domestic industry to rely on prices in trade journal for determination of normal value.
i. Exports to third countries also appear to be priced below estimates of cost of production and the producers in the subject countries are dumping their products in the other markets.
j. The adjustments claimed in the export price are based on estimates and as per consistent practice of the Authority.
F.3 Submissions of other interested parties
29. The submissions made by the other interested parties with regard to normal value, export price and dumping margin are as follows: –
a. Contention of domestic industry that exporters should establish there is no likelihood of continued dumping is deprived of merit.
b. It cannot be stated that the subject countries are dumping in other countries unless export price in other countries is compared with normal value in the said exporting country.
c. Domestic industry has resorted to zeroing by only relying on exports which are allegedly dumped. Such an approach is contrary to WTO principles as per the panel in EC- Bed linen and US-Zeroing (EC) case.
d. Applicant has not provided any evidence for claiming deductions on the export price.
e. As per decision in case of Secretary (Revenue), GOI vs. Dyestuffs Manufacturers Association of India which was also affirmed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India, Authority cannot rely on the price published in the trade journals.
f. As per Designated Authority v. M/s Haldor Topsoe, normal value is required to be determined on a sequential order. While the information regarding export price from the subject countries is available, the applicant has still has not relied on it.
g. The methodology provided by the Domestic Industry for segregation of DGCI&S import data has excluded the imports of subject goods landed at Mumbai, Delhi, and Hyderabad Airport, also the basis to categorize certain import transactions as abnormal product under consideration or abnormal rate has not been explained.
h. It is unclear from the table showing exports below Indian prices and normal value that for which time period such data has been produced.
i. Dumping margin and injury margin should be determined based on the exporter questionnaire responses filed by the producer Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd. and the exporter Petronas Chemicals Marketing (Labuan) Ltd.
F.4 Examination by Authority
30. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject countries, advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority. The following producers/exporters from the subject countries have filed exporter’s questionnaire response: –
a. M/s Petronas Chemicals Marketing (Labuan) Limited, Malaysia and Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia.
b. M/s BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia.
F.4.1 Normal value and export price determination for European Union
31. None of the producers/ exporters from European Union has participated in the investigation. Accordingly, the normal value has been determined on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The Authority has determined normal value on the basis of best estimates of cost of production of the subject goods, duly adjusted for selling, general & administrative expenses, with the addition of reasonable profit margin @ 5%. The normal value so determined is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
32. Export price has been determined on the basis of facts available. For the purpose, information provided by the DGCI&S has been considered. Further, price adjustments have been carried out on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland freight, bank charges, port expenses and commission on the basis of facts available. The ex-factory export price so determined is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
F.4.2 Normal value and export price determination for Malaysia
i. BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
33. BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia (BPC) is a Malaysian based joint venture between BASF SE, Germany and Petroliam National Berhad (Petronas), Malaysia, under its subsidiary Petronas Chemicals Group (PCG).
Normal value
34. Based on the information furnished in the EQ responses, the Authority notes that BASF PETRONAS Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as ―BASF / Exporter‖) is a producer of the subject goods. The exporter has exported the subject goods in the Indian market to its related company, namely, BASF India Ltd., which has also filed the questionnaire response.
35. It is noted that the exporter has not sold the subject goods in the domestic home market during the POI. The exporter has claimed normal value based on its cost of production. The Authority notes that in a situation where there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country, the normal value shall be either comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory to an appropriate third country or 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. The Authority has therefore considered it appropriate to determine normal value in the present case on the basis of cost of production data furnished by the exporter plus a reasonable profit margin and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.
Export price
36. It is noted that BASF exported *** MT of the subject goods to India during the POI. The Authority has verified the responses of exporter and BASF India Ltd. BASF, Malaysia has claimed adjustment on accounts of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, credit cost, bank charges and the same have been allowed by the Authority.
37. It is noted from the response that producer/exporter has exported *** MT to India through its related entity namely M/s BASF India to customers in India. From the response filed by related importer, it is seen that the sales made by importer shows losses and therefore, the Authority has made appropriate adjustment on account of SGA expenses incurred by related importer, in arriving at ex-factory export price. Accordingly, the ex-factory export price is calculated and mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
ii. Petronas Chemicals Marketing (Labuan) Limited, Malaysia and Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
38. A joint response has been filed by Petronas Chemicals Marketing (Labuan) Limited (PCML) and Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd. (PCD). During the period of investigation, PCD is the producer in Malaysia and PCML is engaged in procuring all the raw materials for production of PUC and getting the PUC manufactured under the tolling arrangement with PCD. PCML finally sells the manufactured PUC in domestic and export markets. Earlier PCD was buying all raw materials and manufacturing the PUC on its own account. Hence, it was the full-scale manufacturer of PUC. After manufacture, it sold the PUC directly / indirectly through another related entity PETRONAS Chemicals Marketing Sdn. Bhd. (‗PCMSB‘) to domestic and export markets. With effect from April 2018, PCML procures the raw materials and gets its product manufactured from the related affiliate company on the basis of a tolling arrangement on payment of a tolling fee.
Normal value
39. During the POI, PCML has sold *** MT of the subject goods for *** US$ 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. The Authority noted that if profit making transactions are more than 80%, all transactions in the domestic sales are being considered for the determination of normal value and in cases profit making transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are being taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. Accordingly, normal value at ex-factory level for PCD has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.
Export price
40. It is noted that PCML exported *** MT of the subject goods produced by PCD to India during the POI. For arriving at the ex-factory export price, the Authority has considered the expenses incurred by the exporter. Accordingly, adjustments on account of bank charges, ocean freight, port and related expenses and credit cost have been adjusted from the invoice price. Accordingly, the ex-factory export price is calculated and mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
iii. Other producers
41. The normal value and export price for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of Malaysia is determined as per facts available considering the data provided by cooperating producer and same is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
F.4.3 Normal value and export price determination for Singapore
42. None of the producers/exporters from Singapore has participated in the investigation. Accordingly, the normal value has been determined on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The Authority has determined the normal value on the basis of best estimates of cost of production of the subject goods, duly adjusted for selling, general & administrative expenses, with the addition of reasonable profit margin @ 5%. The normal value so determined is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
43. Export price has been determined on the basis of facts available. For the purpose, information provided by the DGCI&S is considered. Further, price adjustments have been carried out on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland freight, bank charges, port expenses and commission on the basis of facts available. The ex-factory export price so determined is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
F.4.4 Normal value and export price determination for South Africa
44. None of the producers/ exporters from South Africa has cooperated in the investigation. Accordingly,
the normal value has been determined on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The Authority has determined the normal value on the basis of best estimates of cost of production of the subject goods, duly adjusted for selling, general & administrative expenses, with the addition of reasonable profit margin @ 5%. The normal value so determined is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
45. Export price has been determined on the basis of facts available. For the purpose, information provided by the DGCI&S is considered. Further, price adjustments have been carried out on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland freight, bank charges, port expenses and commission on the basis of facts available. The ex-factory export price so determined is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
F.4.5 Normal value and export price determination for United States of America
46. Eastman Chemical Company, producer from USA filed injury submission only, however, the exporters questionnaire response was not filed since it has not exported the subject goods during the POI and injury period. Barring Eastman Chemical Company, none of the producers/ exporters from United States of America has participated in the investigation. Accordingly, the normal value is determined on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The Authority has determined normal value on the basis of best estimates of cost of production of the subject goods, duly adjusted for selling, general & administrative expenses, with the addition of reasonable profit margin @ 5%. The normal value so determined is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
47. Export price has been determined on the basis of facts available. For the purpose, information provided by the DGCI&S is considered. Further, price adjustments have been carried out on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland freight, bank charges, port expenses and commission on the basis of facts available. The ex-factory export price so determined is mentioned in the Dumping Margin Table below.
F.4.6 Calculation of dumping margin
48. The normal value, ex-factory export price and dumping margin determined in the present investigation for all the subject countries are as follows: –
Dumping Margin Table
Dumping Margin Table
| SN | Particulars | Normal Value(USD/MT) |
Export price(USD/MT) |
Dumping margin(USD/MT) |
Dumping margin –% |
Dumping margin – range |
| 1 | European Union | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
| 2 | Malaysia | |||||
| a | M/s BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 |
| b | Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
| c | Any other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
| 4 | South Africa | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
| 5 | Singapore | *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20 |
| 6 | United States of America | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
49. It is seen that the dumping margin is positive in respect of both the cooperating producers/exporters from Malaysia. Further, dumping margin is positive in respect of other subject countries.
G METHODOLOGY FOR INJURY DETERMINATION AND EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
50. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure-II provides that an injury determination shall involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, “…. taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles… “. In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.
51. Rule 23 of the Rules provides that the provisions of Rule 6,7,8,9,10,11,16,18, 19 and 20 shall apply mutatis mutandis in case of a review. The Authority in its examination has evaluated the injury parameters which are required under Rule 11 and Annexure II of the Rules and has also examined as to whether the expiry of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
G.1 Submissions of domestic industry
52. The submissions of the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal link are reproduced herein below: –
a. Imports in relation to production declined till 2018-19 and have increased sharply in the proposed period of investigation.
b. Imports in relation to consumption and in total imports from the subject countries have increased over the injury period.
c. Landed price of imports is below the selling price of the domestic industry.
d. Imports from European Union occurred only in the month of May 2019 and comparison of imports prices with domestic industry selling price for that month would show that the imports are undercutting the prices of domestic industry.
e. Domestic prices have moved in tandem with the import prices and imports have resulted in price depression.
f. Market share of domestic industry increased till 2018-19 but declined in the period of investigation whereas that of imports from the subject countries have increased continuously.
g. Performance of domestic industry improved till 2018-19 as the landed price of the imports increased.
h. Profits of the domestic industry increased upto 2018-19 when it was recovering from the ill-effects of dumping.
i. Cash profits and the return on investment have also been impacted in the period of investigation.
j. Inventory with the domestic industry reduced till 2018-19 but increased sharply thereafter in the period of investigation.
k. Domestic industry showed signs of positive growth upto the previous year in various parameters but growth has become negative in both volume and price parameters in the period of investigation.
l. Cessation of the anti-dumping duties is likely to jeopardize any future plans of capacity expansion despite there being opportunity to enhance its capacity due to huge demand for the subject goods in the country.
m. Landed price of imports has significantly declined in the period of investigation and is much below the selling price and cost of sales of the domestic industry. The decline is far more than the decline in the raw material costs.
n. Decline in production and sales of the domestic industry can be attributed to the lack of availability of raw material but decline in profits, cash profits and ROI is primarily due to price decline far steeper than cost decline.
o. Fact of low production on account of shortage of raw material is evident from Q-15 and the Annual Report of the company. Both were filed with the application.
p. Only reason as to why there has been no capacity expansion is because of the inadequate profits earned over last 10 years as import prices have continuously remained below the selling price and the cost of sales.
q. Domestic industry‘s prices are determined by import prices and raw material prices. With increase in import prices and decline in volume in 2018-19, domestic industry was able to raise its prices to an optimum level.
r. 2018-19 happens to be the period where the impact of dumped imports in the domestic market was negligible and the same period should be used as benchmark for analysing the performance of the domestic industry.
s. Claimed methodology of considering low priced imports for injury analysis has been approved by Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India and WTO in matter of European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil.
t. Domestic industry is claiming injury from the low-priced imports only. There are significant exports from the countries which are priced below the fair selling price and net selling price of domestic industry.
| SN | Particulars | Imports below NSR (MT) | Total Imports (MT) |
Share of imports below NSR |
| 1. | European Union | 3,000 | 3,000 | 100% |
| 2. | Malaysia | 8,235 | 8,235 | 100% |
| 3. | Singapore | 8,986 | 8,986 | 100% |
| 4. | South Africa | 10,362 | 13,431 | 77% |
| 5. | USA | 12,560 | 12,593 | 100% |
Source: DGCI&S Data
u. The production of the PUC depends upon the availability of raw materials. One of the raw materials (i.e., propylene) cannot be transported easily and hence has to be taken from the next-door plant. The Domestic Industry depends upon Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (‗HPCL‘) (a public sector undertaking in India) for securing propylene. In view of the same, volume injury has not been claimed by the Domestic Industry.
v. There is no reason to exclude 2018-19 from the injury analysis. Rather, 2018-19 happens to be the period where the impact of dumped imports in the domestic market was negligible and the same period should be used as benchmark for analysing the performance of the domestic industry. It is indeed surprising that the foreign producers are now contending that their prices were abnormal. If foreign producers were aware that these were abnormal prices, why did they even charge these prices?
w. The supply of propylene happens mostly through pipelines. It is for this reason that almost all the producers globally have propylene suppliers nearby their oxo-alcohol plants. While the product can be transported through other ways as well, the cost of transport is very high which makes it uneconomical for the domestic industry. The propylene price of HPCL is mostly based on international LPG price and to a certain extent on Crude Oil Price.
x. In the event of drastic fall in prices of raw material, the duties will get levied even on undumped imports. Similarly, if the price of raw material increase, the producers will still be able to dump without paying duties. Such being the case, imposition of duty on trigger price basis will not serve the purpose for both domestic industry and the users. Although the product can be transported through other ways as well, the cost of transport is very high which makes it uneconomical for the domestic industry.
G.2 Submissions of other interested parties
53. The submissions of the other interested parties with regard to injury and causal link are reproduced herein below:
a. Plant of domestic industry was shut down in Quarter 4 and the imports were necessary to meet the increasing demand.
b. There is negative price undercutting throughout the injury period which shows that there was no adverse price-effect caused by imports.
c. Domestic industry has recorded an overall robust performance in all key parameters such as profits, cash profits, ROCE, etc.
d. Domestic industry is not suffering from price suppression or depression due to subject imports. Positive and high rate of increase in PBIT per unit shows that the selling price is much above the cost of sales.
e. Fall in price of subject goods is due to fall in price of Naptha and Propylene witnessed in the global market. The applicant was forced to reduce its prices due to decline in global price of imports.
f. Domestic industry has concealed information with regard to shortage of raw material which impacted the production.
g. Imports from USA were only in six months in the period of investigation and injury analysis shall be only on quarterly or monthly basis.
h. Imports from Malaysia cannot be culminated as they have declined continuously and their prices are also significantly high.
i. Domestic industry has not expanded its capacity inspite of increasing demand in the country.
j. Performance of the domestic industry is solely determined on supply of raw material and not on the existence or absence of anti-dumping duties.
k. There was a significant drop in raw material prices in the second quarter of 2018-19 and surge in prices of the subject goods due to stringent supply of the subject goods in the Q3 and Q4. Therefore, data for 2018-19 is required to be ignored as they are outliners. Mere analysis of the year 2018-19 with period of investigation does not give a correct picture.
l. The performance in the product does not show injury as the demand has increased and the overall feasibility of the Indian market is positive with BPCL commissioning an Oxo-Alcohol plant.
m. Production of the domestic industry was stalled for 7 months due to unviability of raw material.
n. Domestic industry made super abnormal profits in the earlier years and the profits have only normalized in the period of investigation.
o. Trend in the selling price of domestic industry and landed price of subject goods from subject countries is virtually identical and there is no impact of the landed price on the selling price of the domestic industry.
p. The increase in the volume of imports during the period of investigation was purely on account of the huge demand-supply gap in the country.
q. On perusal of data reported in the Annual Reports, the data submitted on production and capacity utilisation in the non- confidential application is incorrect and misleading.
r. Domestic industry has been able to sell majority of its production and, therefore, they are not facing any issues in selling its production.
s. Rule 11 is mutatis mutandis applicable in the case of sunset review. Therefore, it is compulsory to establish causal link between the alleged dumping and injury.
t. Injury to the domestic industry is due to absence of backward integration in its plant and inherent cost advantage due to use of Naptha instead of natural gas, shut down of plant and high prices of Naptha.
u. Authority should examine status of various other issues which had a bearing on performance of domestic industry in the past such as procurement and pricing of raw material at high prices and increased imports from non-subject countries.
v. Domestic industry has made no mention of the propylene pricing and leeway they have in its pricing. The raw material supply is inconsistent and is at prices which are not linked to compete with international prices of the raw material.
w. Domestic industry is over dependent on HPCL for raw material while there are other producers of Propylene in India. It has intentionally not sourced the raw material and the claim that Propylene cannot be ‗easily transported‘ is erroneous.
x. Month wise inventory needs to be examined as the subject goods are a liquid product and as such inventories are managed at lower levels but can be filled up in tanks in the interim to perpetuate speculation.
y. Therefore, either a fixed quota be imposed or in the alternative, duty be imposed on the margin of the injury, i.e., on the difference between the landed price and the NIP.
z. M/s Petronas Chemicals Derivatives SDN Bhd. And M/s Petronas Chemicals Marketing (Labuan) Ltd., maintain a minimal level of inventory depending upon the demand for the product, they have not exported any quantities of PUC to India in the Post-POI period (April 2020-September 2020).
aa. The injury suffered by domestic industry is purely on account of their own insufficiency, managerial decisions as well as other factors beyond the alleged dumping by the subject countries.
bb. There is no negative effect with respect to ―cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments‖ as all such parameters have seen consistent improvement in the injury investigation period. This increase in wages and salary has been unaccounted for by the Domestic Industry.
cc. In terms of Anti-dumping agreement as well as the Anti-dumping rules, price injury itself is not the determinative factor while assessing the need for imposition of the duties or continuation of duties. It is an admitted fact that the Domestic Industry is not suffering any volume injury.
dd. Dumping has two components, viz., normal value and export price. It cannot be stated that the subject countries are dumping in other countries unless the export price in the other countries is compared with the computed normal value in the said exporting country. It is reiterated that no such exercise has been carried out by the Domestic Industry.
ee. The Domestic Industry itself agreed during the hearing that Financial Year 2018-19 has shown abnormal performance indicators. Thus, the same is liable to be excluded for proper comparison in the instant investigation.
ff. The proposed addition to capacities in India is a clear indicator of the healthy outlook of the industry.
G.3 Examination by Authority
54. The Authority has taken note of the submissions made by the interested parties. Annexure-II of the Anti-Dumping 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. The Authority has examined the current injury, if any, to the domestic industry before proceeding to examine the likelihood aspects of dumping and injury on account of imports from the subject countries.
55. According to Section 9(A)(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition, provided that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time-to-time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period of five years and such further period shall commence from the date of the order of such extension.
56. The Authority notes that it is not necessary that all parameters of injury show deterioration. Some parameters may show deterioration, while some others may not. The Authority has considered all injury parameters and, thereafter, concludes whether injury to the domestic industry continues, or recur, in case the antidumping duty is ceased. The Authority has examined the injury parameters objectively considering the facts and arguments submitted by the domestic industry and other interested parties.
57. As regards the submission that the Domestic Industry‘s costs are higher as its plant is not backward integrated or it is dependent on sole supplier for its raw material, it is noted that it is a well settled stand of the Authority that the domestic industry is required to be seen as it exists and not operating under ideal conditions (Nippon Zeon Co. Ltd. v. Designated Authority, 1997(96) ELT 126(Tri).
58. On the submission that the decline in prices is due to change in global market supply, it is seen that the fall in import price in the period of investigation is more than the fall in price of raw material.
59. The Authority has taken note of various submissions made by the Domestic Industry and other interested parties on injury and causal link and analysed the same considering the facts available on record and applicable laws. The injury analysis made by the Authority in the succeeding preceding paras ipso facto addresses submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties.
F.3.1 Assessment of demand
60. The Authority has determined demand or apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry and imports from all sources.
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | POI |
| 1 | Imports from subject countries | MT | 28,184 | 33,521 | 35,377 | 46,245 |
| 2 | Imports from other countries | MT | 27,541 | 20,034 | 13,403 | 12,379 |
| 3 | Domestic sales of applicant | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 163 | 191 | 142 | |
| 4 | Total demand/consumption | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 107 | 105 | 111 |
61. It is seen that the demand of the subject goods increased in 2017-18, declined marginally in 2018-19 and then again increased in the period of investigation. Demand of the subject goods has increased over the injury period.
F.3.2 Volume effect of dumped imports.
i. Import volume and share of subject countries.
62. The effects of the volume of dumped imports from the subject countries as well as imports from other countries have been examined by the Authority.
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | POI |
| 1 | Subject countries | MT | 28,184 | 33,521 | 35,377 | 46,245 |
| a | European Union | MT | 1,000 | 2,271 | 2,026 | 3,000 |
| b | Malaysia | MT | 17,259 | 13,516 | 12,957 | 8,235 |
| c | Singapore | MT | 2,951 | 9,971 | 11,954 | 8,986 |
| d | South Africa | MT | 6,901 | 7,677 | 7,875 | 13,431 |
| e | USA | MT | 73 | 87 | 565 | 12,593 |
| 2 | Other countries | MT | 27,541 | 20,034 | 13,403 | 12,379 |
| 3 | Total | MT | 55,726 | 53,555 | 48,780 | 58,625 |
| 4 | Subject countries import in relation to- | |||||
| a | Indian Production | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 85 | 72 | 125 | |
| b | Demand | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 111 | 119 | 147 | |
| c | Total Imports | % | 51% | 63% | 72% | 79% |
63. It is seen that the volume of dumped imports of subject goods increased consistently over the injury period in absolute terms. Whereas imports from subject countries increased consistently, imports from rest of the world declined consistently. Imports from the subject countries have increased in the period of investigation in absolute terms as well as in relation to production, consumption and total imports. The Authority notes that there was a curtailment of production by the domestic industry due to short supply of key raw material.
F.3.3 Price effect of dumped imports.
64. In terms of Annexure II (ii) of the Rules, the Authority is required to consider the effect of the dumped imports on domestic prices in terms of price undercutting, price underselling, price suppression and price depression, if any.
a. Price undercutting
65. With regard to the effect of dumped imports on prices, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared to the price of the like product in India or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. In this regard, a comparison has been made between the landed value of the product from the subject countries and the average selling price of the domestic industry, net of all rebates and taxes, at the same level of trade. The prices of the domestic industry were determined at ex-factory level.
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | POI |
| 1 | Net Sales Realisation | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| 2 | Subject Countries as a whole | |||||
| a | Landed Price | ₹/MT | 48,530 | 59,746 | 73,795 | 59,146 |
| b | Price Undercutting | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| c | Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| d | Price Undercutting | Range | 0-10% | 0-10% | 0-10% | 0-10% |
| 3 | European Union | |||||
| a | Landed Price | ₹/MT | 52,585 | 66,853 | 75,988 | 64,593 |
| b | Price Undercutting | ₹/MT | (***) | (***) | (***) | (***) |
| c | Price Undercutting | % | (***) | (***) | (***) | (***) |
| d | Price Undercutting | Range | (0-10) % | (0-10) % | (0-10) % | (0-10) % |
| 4 | Malaysia | |||||
| a | Landed Price | ₹/MT | 48,087 | 59,651 | 72,748 | 59,040 |
| b | Price Undercutting | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| c | Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| d | Price Undercutting | Range | 0-10% | 0-10% | 0-10% | 0-10% |
| 5 | Singapore | |||||
| a | Landed Price | ₹/MT | 50,325 | 57,328 | 74,190 | 59,295 |
| b | Price Undercutting | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| c | Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| d | Price Undercutting | Range | 0-10% | 0-10% | 0-10% | 0-10% |
| 6 | South Africa | |||||
| a | Landed Price | ₹/MT | 47,190 | 59,610 | 74,067 | 59,188 |
| b | Price Undercutting | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| c | Price Undercutting | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| d | Price Undercutting | Range | 0-10% | 0-10% | 0-10% | 0-10% |
| 7 | USA | |||||
| a | Landed Price | Z/MT | 1,51,368 | 1,78,169 | 77,778 | 57,764 |
| b | Price Undercutting | Z/MT | (***) | (***) | (***) | *** |
| c | Price Undercutting | % | (***) | (***) | (***) | *** |
| D | Price Undercutting | Range | (60-70) % | (60-70) % | (0-10) % | 10-20% |
66. It is seen that price undercutting in respect of all the subject countries as a whole is positive, and individually, in the case of European Union it is marginally negative and for remaining subject countries it is positive.
b. Price Suppression/Depression
67. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are suppressing or depressing the domestic prices and whether the effect of such imports is to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases which otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree, the Authority examined the changes in the costs and prices over the injury period and compared the same with the landed price of imports.
68. It is seen that the cost of sales and selling price of domestic industry and landed price of imports increased till 2018-19, and the quantum of increase in landed price of imports and selling price of the domestic industry was higher than the quantum of increase in cost of the domestic industry. However, in the period of investigation, cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry and landed price of imports have declined. Further, decline in landed price of imports is far higher than decline in selling price and cost of sales of the domestic industry. It is thus seen that the domestic industry is keeping it prices in accordance with the import price and imports from subject countries have significantly depressed the prices of the domestic industry in the period of investigation.
c. Price underselling
69. The Authority further examined the Non-Injurious Price (NIP) and landed value of imports during the POI.
| SN | Country | NIP | Landed Value | Underselling | Underselling | Underselling |
| Rs./MT | Rs./MT | Rs./MT | % | Range | ||
| 1 | European Union | *** | 64,593 | *** | *** | 0-10 |
| 2 | Malaysia | *** | 59,040 | *** | *** | 10-20 |
| 3 | Singapore | *** | 59,295 | *** | *** | 10-20 |
| 4 | South Africa | *** | 59,188 | *** | *** | 10-20 |
| 5 | USA | *** | 57,764 | *** | *** | 10-20 |
70. It is seen that price underselling is positive in case of all the subject countries.
F.3.3 Impact on economic parameters of the domestic industry
71. Annexure – II to the Anti-Dumping Rules requires that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products. The Anti-Dumping Rules further provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry should include an objective evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity: factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed herein below.
a. Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilization and Sales
72. The Authority has considered capacity, production, capacity utilization and sales volume of the domestic industry over the injury period.
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | POI |
| 1 | Capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 101 | 101 | 101 | |
| 2 | Production | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 139 | 174 | 131 | |
| 3 | Capacity Utilisation | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 138 | 172 | 130 | |
| 4 | Domestic sales | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 163 | 191 | 142 |
73. It is seen that:
a.The production, sales and capacity utilization of the domestic industry has increased till 2018-19 but declined in the period of investigation.
b. The domestic industry has operated with idle capacities throughout the injury period.
b. Market share of the domestic industry in demand.
74. The effects of the dumped imports on the market share of the domestic industry have been examined.
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | POI |
| 1 | Domestic industry | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 152 | 182 | 128 | |
| 2 | Imports from Subject Countries | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 111 | 119 | 147 | |
| 3 | Imports from Other Countries | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 68 | 46 | 40 |
75. It is seen that market share of the domestic industry increased till 2018-19 but declined in the period of investigation. Share of imports from subject countries has increased continuously over the injury period. The Authority notes that the decline in the market share of the domestic industry is also due to lower production on account of short supply of key raw material.
c. Inventories
76. Average inventory with the domestic industry has been examined.
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | POI |
| 1 | Average inventory | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 103 | 24 | 43 |
77. It is seen that the average inventory level of the domestic industry increased marginally in 2017-18,
declined in 2018-19 and increased in the period of investigation.
d. Profit or loss, cash profits and return on investment.
78. Performance of the domestic industry has been examined in respect of profits, cash profits and return on capital employed.
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | POI |
| 1 | Cost of sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 101 | 115 | 113 | |
| 2 | Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 121 | 147 | 127 | |
| 3 | Profit / Loss (PBT) | ₹/MT | (***) | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | (100) | 157 | 288 | 56 | |
| 4 | Profit / Loss (PBT) | ₹ Lacs | (***) | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | (100) | 256 | 550 | 80 | |
| 5 | Cash profits | ₹ Lacs | (***) | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | (100) | 900 | 1,750 | 530 | |
| 6 | Profit before Interest & Tax (PBIT) | ₹ Lacs | (***) | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | (100) | 741 | 1,394 | 202 | |
| 7 | Profit before Depreciation, Interest & Tax (PBDIT) | ₹ Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 1,785 | 3,135 | 929 | |
| 8 | Return on capital employed | % | (***) | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | (100) | 645 | 1,084 | 173 |
79. Authority has examined the profitability of the domestic industry over the injury period. It is seen that:
a. Domestic Industry was in losses in the base year and its profitability increased thereafter. The profits increased till 2018-19. However, the profits have declined in the period of investigation.
b. Whereas the landed prices were below the cost of sales in the base year, the same were higher in the subsequent two years. In the period of investigation, the landed price of imports was again below the cost of sales. The applicant claims that since the domestic industry is pricing its product in comparison to import price, it was facing financial losses in 2016-17 and was able to earn and thereafter improve its profits in 2017-18 and 2018-19 with the increase in the landed price of imports beyond the increase in costs. However, significant decline in the import price in the period of investigation far beyond the decline in cost of sales has led to significant decline in the profits in the period of investigation.
c. Cash profits show the same trend as that of profits. Domestic industry was in cash losses in the base year but its cash profits increased thereafter. The cash profits increased till 2018-19 and declined sharply in the period of investigation.
d. Domestic industry had negative ROI in the base year. The same improved thereafter till 2018-19.
e. The interested parties have submitted that the profits of the domestic industry have increased significantly in 2018-19. It is however seen that the selling price of the domestic industry shows the pattern as is seen in the imports. The import price increased significantly in 2017-18 and 2018-19, far beyond the increase in cost of sales. It is also seen that profits of the domestic industry have declined sharply in period of investigation as compared to 2018-19 and 2017-18.
e. Employment, wages and productivity
80. The situation of the domestic industry with regard to employment, wages and productivity was examined.
| SN | Particulars | Unit | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | POI |
| 1 | No of employees | Nos | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 105 | 113 | 113 | |
| 2 | Salary & wages | ₹ Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 111 | 122 | 270 | |
| 3 | Productivity per day | MT/Day | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 139 | 174 | 131 | |
| 4 | Productivity per employee | MT/Nos | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 133 | 153 | 116 |
81. It is seen that employment levels and wages of domestic industry have increased over the injury period. The productivity of the domestic industry increased till the preceding year but declined in the period of investigation.
f. Growth
82. Examination of growth parameters of the domestic industry during the injury period is shown below–
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | POI |
| 1 | Production | Y/Y | 39% | 25% | -24% |
| 2 | Domestic Sales | Y/Y | 63% | 17% | -26% |
| 3 | Profit/(Loss) per unit | Y/Y | 257% | 83% | -80% |
| 4 | Inventory | Y/Y | 3% | -77% | 77% |
| 5 | Market Share | Y/Y | 52% | 20% | -30% |
| 6 | Profit/(Loss) in Rs Lakhs | Y/Y | 356% | 115% | -85% |
| 7 | Cash Profit in Rs Lakhs | Y/Y | 1000% | 94% | -70% |
| 8 | PBIT in Rs Lakhs | Y/Y | 841% | 88% | -86% |
| 9 | ROI % | Y/Y | 745% | 68% | -84% |
83. It is seen that while the growth of the domestic industry was positive in 2017-18 and 2018-19, the domestic industry has recorded a negative growth in the period of investigation.
g. Magnitude of dumping
84. It is seen that the dumping margin in the imports from the subject countries is positive.
h. Ability to raise fresh investment
85. The applicant has submitted that the profitability of the domestic industry has been impacted by dumped imports in past and considering the significant capital investment being undertaken in the country by various producers, protection against the dumped imports is necessary.
i. Factors affecting domestic prices
86. It is seen that there is significant percentage of the dumped imports that are preventing the domestic industry from increasing its prices.
j. Observations on injury
87. Considering various parameters relating to material injury, it is seen that overall performance of the domestic industry improved significantly till 2018-19 and deteriorated in the period of investigation.
The volume of subject imports increased significantly in absolute terms and in relation to production & consumption in India. The domestic industry was operating with idle capacity over the injury period. However, in the period of investigation, the domestic industry faced some raw material supply constraints from HPCL, leading to curtailed production. The Authority has thus considered that the deterioration in production, capacity utilization, sales and market share in the POI is not fully due to imports and is substantially due to curtailed production as a result of input unavailability. In the earlier years, the import prices and consequently selling price of the domestic industry increased more than increase in the cost of sales. However, in the period of investigation import prices and consequently selling price of the domestic industry declined far disproportionately when compared with the costs. Resultantly, profits, cash profits and ROI of the domestic industry improved till 201819 and the same declined sharply in the period of investigation.
k. Magnitude of injury margin
88. The Authority has determined the NIP for the Domestic Industry on the basis of principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The NIP of the PUC has been determined by adopting the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the domestic industry and duly certified by the practising accountant for the POI. The NIP has been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject country for calculating injury margin. For determining the NIP, the best utilisation of the raw materials and utilities has been considered over the injury period. Best utilisation of production capacity over the injury period has been considered. Extraordinary or non-recurring expenses have been excluded from 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 PUC was allowed as pre-tax profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules and being followed.
89. Based on the landed price and NIP determined as above, the injury margin for producers/exporters as determined by the Authority is provided in the table below:
| SN | Particulars | NIP | Landed price |
Injury margin |
Injury margin |
Injury margin |
| (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | % | range | ||
| 1 | European Union | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 |
| 2 | Malaysia | |||||
| a | M/s BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
| b | Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd. | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
| c | Any other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
| 4 | South Africa | *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20 |
| 5 | Singapore | *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20 |
| 6 | United States of America |
*** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20 |
H CAUSAL LINK
90. As per the AD Rules, the Authority, inter alia, is required to examine any known factors other than dumped imports which are injuring or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by these other factors may not be attributed to the dumped imports. While the present investigation is a sunset review investigation and causal link has already been examined in original investigation, the Authority examined whether other known listed factors have caused or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry. It was examined whether other factors listed under the AD Rules could have contributed or are likely to contribute to the injury suffered by the domestic industry.
a. Volume and price of imports from third country
91. The volume of imports above di-minimis limits are from Taiwan and United Arab Emirates and are at prices which are at same level as compared to price of imports from subject countries. However, the present investigation being a sunset review investigation, the scope of subject countries cannot be expanded. Further, the import volumes from other countries have shown a decline over the injury period, whereas import volumes from the subject countries have shown an increase.
b. Contraction in Demand and / or Change in Pattern of Consumption
92. Demand of the subject goods has increased as compared to base year. The demand declined marginally in the year 2018-19 but increased again in the period of investigation. However, the capacity of the domestic industry is significantly below the demand in India. Therefore, changes in demand could not have contributed to the injury to the domestic industry.
c. Development of Technology
93. The Authority notes that technology for production of the product has not undergone any change. Developments in technology are, therefore, not a possible factor of injury.
d. Trade restrictive practices
94. The Authority notes that there is no trade restrictive practice which could have caused injury to the domestic industry.
e. Export performance
95. The domestic industry is not into export operations and, therefore, it cannot be a cause of injury.
f. Performance of other products
96. The Authority has considered segregated data only relating to performance of the product under consideration. Therefore, performance of other products produced and sold by the applicant is not a possible cause of the injury to the domestic industry in this investigation.
I LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY
97. In a review investigation, the Authority has to determine whether the subject goods are continuing to enter or likely to enter the Indian market at dumped prices and whether injury to the domestic industry is likely to continue or recur due to these dumped imports if the duty is removed.
I.1. Submissions by domestic industry
98. The submissions of the domestic industry with regard to likelihood of injury are herein below: –
a. Significant exports from subject countries to other countries are at prices lower than prices prevailing in the Indian market and, therefore, expiry of duties will provide them an opportunity to divert their exports to India in order to maximise profits.
b. Significant exports to third countries are at dumped and injurious prices. Cessation of duties will allow these producers to divert their exports to India.
c. India is an important market for the producers in the subject countries, as established by the share of exports to India in overall exports from these countries.
d. Capacities in the subject countries are higher than domestic demand forcing these producers to look for markets outside domestic market.
e. China PR was a primary market for these producers but with significant capacities coming up in China, exports from these countries to China have declined sharply.
f. China PR has imposed anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods from Malaysia and United States of America.
g. Brazil has also extended anti-dumping duty on imports from United States of America and has imposed duty on imports from South Africa.
h. Price undercutting even after considering anti-dumping duty is positive.
i. Over the years, imports from subject countries have held a significant share in the market.
j. Exporters from subject countries should establish on the basis of their information that dumping is unlikely to continue, intensify or recur in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duties.
k. Significant exports have been made at prices below the selling price and non-injurious price of the domestic industry.
l. The post period of investigation till May, 2020 was affected by COVID-19 as a nation-wide lockdown imposed in March, 2020. Performance in the post period of investigation is likely to be representative of country wide lockdown in India.
I.2 Submissions by other interested parties
99. The submissions of the other interested parties with regard to likelihood of injury are reproduced herein below: –
a. Domestic industry is required to establish that there are freely disposable capacities that can be diverted into India.
b. Domestic industry is required to prove that there is likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in event of cessation of duty which cannot be shifted to exporters. Contention that exporter should establish no likelihood of continued dumping is deprived of merit.
c. Data for the post period investigation is required to be examined. In sunset review of Viscose Filament Yarn from China PR, Authority noted that likelihood of injury cannot be established as post period of investigation data was not provided.
d. Facts of the case are similar to Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duty imposed on imports of Digital Offset Printing Plates from China PR where the Authority recommended discontinuation of anti-dumping duty levied on product under consideration.
e. Performance of the domestic industry has improved significantly in the post period of investigation.
f. Malaysia cannot be set to be dependent on India as only 13% exports of total exports from Malaysia are to India.
g. The volume of imports from Malaysia has continuously decreased from 17,259 MT in 2016-17 to 8,235 MT in the POI. Malaysian imports should not be cumulated and there is no significant rate of increase of dumped imports as per paragraph (vii) of Annexure II of the AD Rules. Imports from other major countries (Taiwan and UAE) which are not even being investigated was high in comparison to Malaysia. There is no likelihood of injury to the domestic industry from Malaysia.
h. Mere existence of surplus capacities is not sufficient to establish likelihood or recurrence of injury.
i. Respondents have no reason to shift the exports to India since the producers already now have established market in third countries.
j. Comparison of capacities with average exports of last 10 years cannot clearly demonstrate that there are excessive capacities.
k. Applicant has not provided any information on the parameters listed para (vii) Annexure II of the Rules. As per decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nirma Limited vs. Union of India, threat parameters are mandatorily required to be examined in case of sunset review.
l. ―Surplus‖ refers to idle capacities left over after meeting domestic demand and global demand. Average exports of countries in the last 10 years cannot clearly demonstrate that there are excessive capacities with the producers.
m. In the matter of Plain Gypsum Plaster Board from China RP, Indonesia, Thailand and United Arab Emirates, none of the interested parties had provided verifiable evidence and information with regard to existing surplus capacities, and consequent likelihood of increased dumped exports to Indian market and, therefore, the claim was disregarded.
n. In the matter of Indian Spinners Association vs Designated Authority, Tribunal held that the existence of surplus production capacity cannot be taken as posing a clearly foreseen and imminent threat of injury.
o. Since the duty has been in force for 5 years, respondents have already found alternative markets for exporting the product under consideration and had made arrangements contractual or otherwise with the importers or users in those third countries. There is no incentive to shift to India.
p. The determination/examination for undertaking likelihood analysis should be based on Post POI data, as also held in recently concluded anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Wire Rod of Alloy or Non-Alloy Steel originating in or exported from China PR.
I.3. Examination by Authority
100. The Authority has examined the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury considering the requirement laid down under Section 9A (5), Rule 23 and parameters relating to the threat of material injury in terms of Annexure – II (vii) of the Anti-dumping rules, and other relevant factors brought on record by the interested parties.
101. The present investigation is a sunset review of duties imposed on the imports of subject goods from European Union, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and the United States of America. Under the Rules, the Authority is required to determine whether cessation of existing duty is likely to lead to continuance or recurrence of injury to the domestic industry. Further, the Authority has also examined other relevant factors which could have a bearing on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry.
102. In accordance with the practice of the Authority, the third country exports have been examined to see the pricing behaviour of the producers in the subject countries. Further, the Authority has also examined if the exports to other countries are at prices injurious to the domestic industry and at prices below the Indian prices to examine the likely increase in imports to India in event of cessation of duties.
103. The Authority has not conducted any examination of the post period of investigation data as the same has been impacted by shutdown caused by the Covid-19 situation, and also because the current volume of imports in itself is sufficient to make likelihood determination.
I.3.1 Capacities in subject countries
104. The applicant has provided global figures of demand and capacity and claimed that global capacities are significantly higher than the demand and, therefore, the producers will always look for markets to export in order to utilize their idle capacities. As per the Applicant, the same applies for the producers in the subject countries as well. In the absence of specific information with regard to the capacities and demand in the subject countries, the Authority has considered information available on record.
| SN | Region | Capacity in
2019 |
Demand in 000 Tonne | |||
| 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2035 | |||
| 1 | Asia | 2040 | 3,018 | 3,677 | 4,382 | 5,168 |
| 2 | Africa | 1,50 | 42 | 48 | 58 | 63 |
| 3 | Middle East | 3,36 | 160 | 164 | 184 | 218 |
| 4 | Central & Eastern Europe | 185 | 123 | 138 | 160 | 189 |
| 5 | North America | 1225 | 938 | 1,058 | 1,201 | 1,346 |
| 6 | South & Central America | 40 | 66 | 69 | 78 | 91 |
| 7 | Western Europe | 750 | 776 | 843 | 934 | 1,034 |
Source: – Capacity in the above table has been taken from ICIS Chemical Business 2019 and demand is from Market Analytics: Oxo Alcohols – 2018 by Nexant.
I.3.2 Export orientation
105. Applicant has provided information with respect to capacities in the subject countries and average exports undertaken by them in last 10 years.
| SN | Country | Capacity (MT/year) | Average Exports in last 10 years |
Export as % of capacity |
| 1 | European Union | 10,25,000 | 52,840 | 5% |
| 2 | Malaysia | 2,72,000 | 1,04,433 | 38% |
| 3 | Singapore | 55,000 | 32,681 | 59% |
| 4 | South Africa | 1,50,000 | 1,41,785 | 95% |
| 5 | USA | 12,30,000 | 1,60,867 | 13% |
Source: – Capacity in above table has been taken from ICIS Chemical Business 2019 and exports from European Union as per Eurostat and exports from other countries as per Trademap.
106. It is seen that for barring European Union, more than 10% of the capacity has been used for the export purposes. It is also seen that exports as a percentage are significantly high for Malaysia, Singapore and South Africa.
I.3.3 Third country dumping
107. Table below shows volume of exports to third countries during period of investigation at prices below normal value.
| SN | Particulars | Unit | European Union |
Malaysia | Singapore | South Africa |
USA |
| 1 | Volume of exports below normal value | MT | 9,957 | 34825 | 9,801 | 132,802 | 98,066 |
| 2 | Volume of exports above normal value | MT | 1,518 | 28513 | 1,518 | 2,028 | 13,525 |
| 3 | Total exports to third countries | MT | 11,475 | 63,338 | 11,319 | 134,830 | 111,592 |
| 4 | % of exports below normal value |
% | 87% | 55% | 87% | 98% | 88% |
| 5 | % of exports in demand in India below normal value | % | 13% | 47% | 13% | 178% | 131% |
| Range | 10-20% | 40-50% | 10-20% | 170-180% | 130-140% |
Source: – Exports from European Union as per Eurostat and exports from other countries as per Trademap.
108. The third countries export volumes which are below the normal value are significant in relation to third countries exports of respective countries and also significant in terms of demand in India.
109. The table below shows volume of exports by the participating producers to third countries (to unrelated customers) at dumped prices.
| SN | Particulars | Unit | M/s BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. | M/s Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd. |
| 1 | Volume of exports below normal value | MT | *** | *** |
| 2 | Volume of exports above normal value | MT | *** | *** |
| 3 | Total exports to third countries |
MT | *** | *** |
| 4 | % of exports below normal value | % | 29% | 100% |
| % | 20-30% | 90-100% |
Source: – Questionnaire Response from the responding producers and exporters.
110. From the above tables it is seen that significant exports from the subject countries to third countries are at dumped prices.
I.3.4 Continued dumping
111. The table below shows the dumping margin in case of previous investigation and current investigation. It is seen that the dumping of subject goods from the subject countries has continued and is significant.
| SN | Country | Dumping margin in original investigation |
Dumping margin in current investigation |
| 1 | European Union | 15-20% & 30-35% | 20-30% |
| 2 | Malaysia | 0-5%, 10-15% & 15-20% | 0-10%, 30-40%, 30-40% |
| 3 | Singapore | 10-15% | 10-20% |
| 4 | South Africa | 10-15% | 30-40% |
| 5 | USA | 20-25% | 30-40% |
I.3.5 Price attractiveness
112. The domestic industry has submitted the volume of exports in respect of subject countries to third countries at prices below the Indian prices as illustrated in table below:
| SN | Particulars | Unit | Europe | Malaysia | Singapore | South Africa |
USA |
| 1 | Volume of exports below Indian Prices | MT | 1,309 | 62,568 | 8,732 | 132,662 | 82,121 |
| 2 | Volume of exports above Indian Prices | MT | 10,166 | 770 | 2,588 | 2,168 | 29,470 |
| 3 | Total exports to third countries |
MT | 11,475 | 63,338 | 11,319 | 134,830 | 111,592 |
| 4 | % of exports below Indian Prices | % | 11% | 99% | 77% | 98% | 74% |
| 5 | % of exports in demand in India below Indian Prices | % | 2% | 84% | 12% | 177% | 110% |
| Range | 0-10% | 80-90% | 10-20% | 170-180% | 100-110% |
Source: – Exports from European Union as per Eurostat and exports from other countries as per Trademap.
113. The third countries export volumes which are below the Indian prices are significant in relation to third countries exports of respective countries and also significant in terms of demand in India.
114. The table below shows volume of exports by the participating producers to third countries (to unrelated customers)
| SN | Particulars | Unit | M/s BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. | M/s Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd. |
| 1 | Volume of exports below Indian prices | MT | *** | *** |
| 2 | Volume of exports above normal Indian prices | MT | *** | *** |
| 3 | Total exports to third countries |
MT | *** | *** |
| 4 | % of exports below Indian prices | % | 100% | 2% |
| 90-100% | 0-10% |
Source: – Questionnaire Response from the responding producers and exporters.
115. From the above tables it is seen significant exports from the subject countries to third countries are at prices below Indian prices.
I.3.6 Injurious exports
116. Table below shows volume of exports in respect of subject countries to third countries at prices below NIP.
| SN | Particulars | Unit | Europe | Malaysia | Singapore | South Africa |
USA |
| 1 | Volume of exports below NIP | MT | 1,825 | 62,872 | 9,747 | 132,664 | 92,278 |
| 2 | Volume of exports above NIP | MT | 9,650 | 466 | 1,572 | 2,166 | 19,313 |
| 3 | Total exports to third countries |
MT | 11,475 | 63,338 | 11,319 | 134,830 | 111,592 |
| 4 | % of exports below NIP | % | 16% | 99% | 86% | 98% | 83% |
| 5 | % of exports in demand in India below NIP | % | 2% | 84% | 13% | 177% | 123% |
| Range | 0-10% | 80-90% | 10-20% | 170-180% | 120-130% |
Source: – Exports from European Union as per Eurostat and exports from other countries as per Trademap.
117. The table below shows volume of exports by the participating producers to third countries (to unrelated customers) at prices below the NIP of the domestic industry.
| SN | Particulars | Unit | M/s BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. |
M/s Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd. |
| 1 | Volume of exports below NIP | MT | *** | *** |
| 2 | Volume of exports above NIP | MT | *** | *** |
| 3 | Total exports to third countries | MT | *** | *** |
| 4 | % of exports below NIP | % | 100% | 5% |
| Range | 90-100% | 0-10% |
Source: – Questionnaire Response from the responding producers and exporters.
118. The applicant has submitted that there are significant exports to third countries which are at prices below the non-injurious price of the domestic industry. In an event the duties are not extended, the producers in the subject countries will divert these goods to India since the prices in Indian market are lucrative for them.
119. The table below shows that the volume of imports is below the non-injurious price of the domestic industry.
| SN | Particulars | Imports below NIP (MT) |
Total Imports (MT) |
Share of imports below NIP |
| 1 | European Union | 3,000 | 3,000 | 100% |
| 2 | Malaysia | 8,235 | 8,235 | 100% |
| 3 | Singapore | 8,986 | 8,986 | 100% |
| 4 | South Africa | 13,431 | 13,431 | 100% |
| 5 | USA | 12,560 | 12,593 | 100% |
Source: DGCI&S transaction wise import data.
I.3.7 Imports during the present injury period
120. It is seen that the imports have increased over the period of investigation inspite the anti-dumping duty in force. Though the increase in imports was imminent due to increasing demand in India and demand-supply gap, the concern is about significant percentage of these imports below the non-injurious price of the domestic industry and the net selling price of the domestic industry.
I.3.8 Loss of market for the producers in the subject countries
121. The applicant has claimed that China was a primary market for the producers in subject countries. However, significant capacities have been set up in China in the recent years due to which the producers have lost China as a market. The table below shows exports from the subject countries to China in last 10 years.
| SN | Year | European Union |
Malaysia | Singapore | South Africa |
United States of America |
| 1 | 2010-11 | 47,625 | 76,956 | 40,085 | 63,750 | 59,545 |
| 2 | 2011-12 | 28,419 | 73,275 | 32,864 | 40,870 | 89,542 |
| 3 | 2012-13 | 32,577 | 62,270 | 34,979 | 34,360 | 55,912 |
| 4 | 2013-14 | 8,039 | 34,733 | 24,951 | 28,040 | 31,067 |
| 5 | 2014-15 | 26 | 25,558 | 9,001 | 16,780 | 80 |
| 6 | 2015-16 | 3,064 | 12,809 | 6,856 | 26,678 | 8,291 |
| 7 | 2016-17 | 563 | 35,108 | 11,476 | 33,893 | 32,437 |
| 8 | 2017-18 | 3,887 | 6,742 | 11,532 | 25,432 | 20,261 |
| 9 | 2018-19 | 46 | 6,754 | 3,004 | 32,330 | 11,153 |
| 10 | POI (2019-20) | 1,222 | 19,459 | 5,458 | 37,085 | 20,352 |
122. It is seen that the exports from all the subject countries have declined significantly over the years. The producers in the subject countries will, therefore, try to search for alternative markets to utilise surplus capacities.
123. The applicant has also stated that China has imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of the subject goods from Malaysia and United States of America. Further, Brazil has imposed anti-dumping duties on imports from South Africa in December, 2016 and extended duties on the imports from United States of America. The Authority notes that such investigations show the tendencies and practices of the producers/exporters from subject countries to dump goods in third countries and the likelihood of diversion of such exports to India if the existing duties were allowed to expire.
J POST-DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
124. The Authority issued a disclosure statement on 16.03.2021 disclosing essential facts of the case and inviting comments from all the interested parties. The post-disclosure submissions have been received from the interested parties. Majority of the issues raised have already been raised earlier and also addressed appropriately. Additional submissions to the extent deemed relevant have been examined as under.
J.1 Submissions of the Domestic Industry
125. There is a need to protect the present and future investments in the industry, so that capacity in India will be higher than the demand in India which will make the imports unnecessary. Companies such as BPCL Kochi, Saudi Aramco and Abu Dhabi National Oil Co, Reliance Industries Limited, BASF SE along with Adani, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) are lined with fresh investments in India for Oxo-Alcohol.
126. There is a significant difference in the dumping margin of the two responding producers in case of Malaysia (M/s BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd, Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd.).
127. As per the information provided with respect to import price for both the producers of Malaysia, it is seen that overall, there is hardly a difference of Rs. 4 per Kg in the import price into India.
128. When two producers are operating under the same market economy conditions, the normal value of Petronas should be applied to BASF. Therefore, the Authority should consider the selling price of Petronas, and in the alternative, compare the cost of production of the two producers. In case there is significant difference between the cost of production between the two producers, the Authority should reject the cost of M/s BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn Bhd and apply the adverse facts and consider normal value on the basis of domestic selling price of Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd.
129. The fact that the importer is selling at losses clearly shows the importance of Indian market for the producer. The adjustment is confirmatory with the past practice of the Authority where net ex-factory price was adjusted, such as in case of, ―Anti-dumping investigation concerning the imports of Toluene DiIsocyanate from European Union, Saudi Arabia, Chinese Taipei and United Arab Emirates‖.
130. The imposition of duties had no adverse impact on either the consumers or public in large, as various capacity expansions have been planned in the country in recent years, domestic industry has grown since the imposition of anti-dumping duties, and the financial statements have shown that the duties have not had any adverse impact of duties.
131. It has been the anti-dumping duties in force which have paved the way for various capacity expansions in the country showing that the duties have been in public interest.
132. It is impossible that foreign producers have no idea with regard to capacity and demand in their domestic market. It is a clear suppression of facts and should be treated as wilful non-cooperation.
133. Domestic industry has referred to decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the matter of Holder Topsoe and stated that the observation of this Court was with reference to a proceeding in a court of law and is equally applicable to the investigation conducted by the Authority in which it has the duty of appreciating evidence placed before it and also has the statutory authority of drawing adverse inference in the circumstances enumerated in Rule 6(8) of the Rules.
134. Considering nature of production process, producers of Oxo Alcohol can interchangeably utilise production capacities of 2-ethyl hexanol for production of Normal Butanol and vice versa.
135. Producers in the subject countries can utilise their idle capacities for 2 Ethyl Hexanol for production of Normal Butanol as well.
| SN | Region | Capacity in 2019 (000 Tonne) |
Demand in 2020 (000 Tonne) |
||||
| NBA | 2EH | Total | NBA | 2EH | Total | ||
| 1 | Asia | 2,040 | 3,703 | 5,743 | 3,018 | 3,255 | 6,273 |
| 2 | Africa | 150 | – | 150 | 42 | 10 | 52 |
| 3 | Middle East | 336 | 195 | 531 | 160 | 178 | 338 |
| 4 | Europe | 935 | 960 | 1,895 | 899 | 485 | 1,384 |
| 5 | America | 1,265 | 1,370 | 2,635 | 1,004 | 587 | 1,591 |
| Total | 4,726 | 6,228 | 10,954 | 5,123 | 4,515 | 9,638 | |
136. The fact that one of the responding producers exports entire production and has no sales in the domestic market, shows that capacities are in excess of demand and the producers are heavily export oriented.
137. Anti-dumping duty is redressal of unfair price discrimination by producers in other countries, which is injurious to the industry in India and is not a protection to the industry.
138. Financial statements of the company as a whole for period in first half of 2021-22 will show improvement but the same is on a company level. Profits of the domestic industry have continued to remain impacted.
J.2 Submissions of other interested parties
139. The producer in the present investigation is Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn Bhd or PCD. The goods produced by PCD are marketed by PCML. However, the name of the producer is incorrectly mentioned as Petronas Chemicals Marketing (Labuan) Limited or PCML in the dumping and injury margin tables.
140. Under the normal value paragraph for the Respondents, the facts relating to some other entity namely PT Petro Oxo Nusantara, Indonesia have been mentioned.
141. The Authority has determined the normal value and dumping margin for the Respondents on a flawed basis, as the Authority has computed the net ex-factory export price and normal value for the respondents on a weighted average basis for the POI. They should be modified on the basis of alternative methodologies permitted under Annexure-1 to the AD Rules.
142. The Turnaround time and consequent shutdown is a statutory requirement under Malaysian law. As is clearly evident, during this period, the costs were abnormally high and were not reflective of the normal costs of production of PUC by the Respondents. The Authority has considered the abnormal weighted average cost of USD *** /MT to compute the profitable domestic sales of the Respondents which makes the dumping margin as abnormally high and not reflective of normal fact situation. The effect of these abnormally high costs during the turnaround time should be removed while calculating the weighted average costs and the dumping margin.
143. The Authority should normate the cost of production as was done by the Authority in the original investigation.
144. There had been a constant downward trend during the period of investigation in the global prices of PUC and that‘s why computing the dumping margin on the basis of weighted average basis would give skewed and distorted results. Dumping margin should be determined on transaction-to-transaction basis.
145. The injury margins determined by the Authority effectively penalizes the participating producers and incentivizes non-participation.
146. Since the NIP is constant, the injury margin of Malaysia should have been in the same range as that of South Africa and Singapore. For the USA, it must have been higher than Malaysia as its landed price is lower.
147. As per the market information the producers in subject countries (for instance, Eastman Chemicals in Singapore and Sasol in South Africa) also follow the international price trends while exporting to India. Hence, for this reason also, there should not have been any differences in the landed values and injury margins for Respondents and non-participating producers.
148. The Authority has relied on Annexure-II of the AD Rules for the determination of injury. However, the Authority has ignored that paragraph (vii)(a) of the same annexure also provides that there should be ―a significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importation‖.
149. A mere analysis of the year 2018-19 with the POI does not give a correct picture. The analysis of 2018-19 with the POI needs to be coupled with an analysis of the end-point-to-end-point comparison of the 2016-17 (base year) with the POI to get the true picture of the economic performance of the domestic industry during the entire injury investigation period.
150. Authority is required to adjust the non-injurious price and other economic parameters for injury as well as causal link analysis as was done in Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ‘Purified Terephthalic Acid‘), originating in or exported from China PR, European Union, Korea RP, and Thailand.
151. The Authority has not assessed Eastman‘s request of taking a record, that the company has not exported the subject goods during the POI and therefore, eligible to file a new shipper review application (as and when required) for determination of the individual rate of duty in terms of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (‘Act‘) and Rule 23 of the Anti-dumping Rules (‘AD Rules‘).
152. No examination has been undertaken by the Authority regarding the imports of subject goods at Mumbai, Delhi, and Hyderabad Airport, the same was not taken into account for the evaluation of volume and price injury.
153. While determining the normal value for the USA, the Authority has noted that none of the producer/exporters from the USA participated in the investigation, however, this statement is incorrect as Eastman Chemical Company, a producer from the USA participated in the investigation, however, the exporter‘s questionnaire response was not filed since the company has not exported the subject goods during the POI as well as during the injury period.
154. Despite the fact that the Export price [for the USA] has been determined on the basis of facts available, the Authority has not recorded the computed export price in the Disclosure Statement and claimed the same as confidential.
155. Since the facts available adopted by the Authority for computation of ex-factory export price are non-confidential, the Authority is requested to reflect data of export price, price adjustments, and ex-factory export price in the Final Findings.
156. The Authority has undertaken a limited examination of injury to the Domestic Industry occurred on account of the shortage of raw material, the Authority has failed to analyze the impact of the same on the economic parameters of the Domestic Industry.
157. The Authority in the anti-dumping final findings concerning imports of Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA), originating in or exported from China PR, European Union, Korea RP, and Thailand issued vide N.No.14/7/2013-DGAD has adjusted the adverse impact of other factors while computing the NIP, whereas the Authority in the present investigation has not adjusted the impact of production curtailment on NIP and other factors, despite acknowledging that the same adversely impacted production, capacity utilization, sales, market share, and other economic parameters.
158. The Authority ought to have adjusted the impact of raw material shortage by extrapolating data of the Domestic Industry for all the injury parameters.
159. There is no proper information nor sufficient time provided to the respondents along with all the details of the calculation of the SGA expenses to enable them to offer their meaningful comments.
160. The apportionment of the total expenses of the importer to PUC on sales revenue basis is wrong and will lead to absurd results.
161. The importer is engaged both in the manufacturing as well as trading (high sea sales) of the products. The SGA expenses for the trading activity are significantly lower as compared to the SGA expenses for manufacturing activity as costs like service cost, employee cost for manufacturing, storage cost, loading and unloading etc. are not incurred for trading sales (high sea sales). The company is also engaged in high sea sales, which is evidenced from the fact that the bill on entry is filed directly by the customer and not by the importer. The complete set of sample invoices were already filed with the Authority as a part of the verification documents.
162. The PUC falls in the Petrochemicals (CP) division. Accordingly, the expenses of the Petrochemicals (CP) division were allocated to PUC on the following basis: a) The cost of CP division has been allocated to PUC on the basis of the number of orders processed. b) The total cost apportioned to PUC is then allocated to PUC from Malaysia on the basis of sales revenue.
163. It may also be noted that the BASF India Limited has not received any communication from the Authority regarding SGA at any stage of the investigation. No opportunity was provided to the importer to justify its claim regarding SGA of PUC (Malaysia).
164. There are only two producers of the subject goods in Malaysia and both have cooperated. Accordingly, it is incorrect to conclude that the specific information with regard to the capacities and demand are not available.
165. The Authority has not clarified that for carrying out the exporter specific analysis whether the actual normal value of the exporter has been considered or not.
166. It is not mentioned by the Authority in the disclosure statement that it has found pattern of export prices, which cannot be taken into account appropriately by the use of weighted average-to-weighted average or transaction-to-transaction comparison.
167. The purpose and object of the Appendices in the End User Questionnaire are to examine the impact on the end users. Therefore, it is incorrect for the hon‘ble Designated Authority to conclude that no data was provided by the End Users to establish or calculate the impact.
168. If the DI produce and supply the subject goods in adequate quantity imports will sharply reduce and in that case all the likelihood parameters considered as of now will become irrelevant.
169. Thus, the focus while examining the likelihood should be on the internal issues of the DI and no ADD should be continued if the challenge of the DI is only their internal issues and the facts of the present case shows the DI is vulnerable to their own issues and not imports.
J.3 Examination by the Authority
170. The Authority has examined post disclosure statement comments by the domestic industry and other interested parties including re-iterations which have already been examined suitably and addressed adequately in the relevant paragraphs of these final findings. The issues raised in the post disclosure comments/submissions by the interested parties and considered relevant by the Authority are examined below:
i. On the submission raised by the domestic industry on normal value of BASF, the normal value of BASF has been taken in accordance with the consistent practice of the Authority.
ii. Domestic industry has stated that the producers of 2 EH can utilize their production facilities for the production of normal butanol and the capacities in India should be compared cumulatively. It would be seen that the cumulative capacities globally are higher than the demand in India.
iii. On the submission of other interested parties to adjust the non-injurious price of the domestic industry due to loss of production owing to shortage of raw material, Authority notes that there was no complete shutdown of plant of the applicant due to raw material unavailability. There was continuous production by the applicant although with lower rate of production. In any case, the Authority has adequately normated the capacity of the applicant for the purpose of calculation of non-injurious price. Further, Authority determined the profit, cash profits and ROI of the domestic industry after adjusting the production to account for loss of production due to raw material shortage and found that the data still shows material decline in profit, cash profits and ROI of the domestic industry in the POI. It is evident that the decline in profit, cash profits and ROI is largely due to price and not due to loss of production. The decline in profit, cash profits and ROI due to shutdown is quite nominal.
iv. It has been stated that the information with regard to capacity and demand for Malaysia was provided by the responding producers. It is seen that out of the 5 subject countries, there has been active participation from Malaysia only. Therefore, information with respect to capacity and demand for the other subject countries is not available with the Authority. Authority has considered capacity and demand for Malaysia alone and the same is shown below. It is seen that the capacities in Malaysia are significantly higher than the demand in the country and one of the producers has used its entire production for export operations only.
| SN | Particular | Quantum in MT |
| 1 | Capacity in Malaysia | *** |
| 2 | Domestic sales | |
| a | BASF Petronas Chemicals Sdn. Bhd. | *** |
| b | Petronas Chemicals Derivatives Sdn. Bhd. | *** |
| 3 | Surplus capacity | *** |
Source: – Domestic sales taken from the response filed by the responding producers.
v. The Authority has examined the price attractiveness, third country dumping and injurious exports as per consistent methodology for such analysis.
vi. On the comments made on injury analysis done by comparison with only the preceding year, the Authority has examined the performance of the domestic industry over the injury period. It is seen that the performance of the domestic industry has deteriorated in comparison to preceding year as well as year prior to preceding year. Comparison with base year shows that the performance in the POI was better than the base year. The conclusion drawn by the Authority with regard to likelihood is however based on the performance in the POI, considering that the same is most appropriate to consider the likely situation in the event of cessation of ADD.
vii. Submission of Petronas with regard to the name has been adequately taken care.
viii. On the submission that duties can be fixed in the form of ‘trigger price‘ or ‘variable basis‘, the Authority considers that fixation of trigger duty shall not serve the purpose stated by the party. Further, the Authority has concluded need for extension of duty on the grounds of likelihood of injury to the domestic industry. Such being the case, the Authority considers appropriate to extend the existing duties, in the same form and quantum as was in force.
ix. For the purpose of examination of export orientation, Authority has compared the capacity with exports of last 10 years to ensure that exports of sufficient representative years are considered for the analysis.
x. The Authority has examined the goods imported at Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad Airport and found that these are primarily sampled goods with very insignificant quantity and high price. It is further noted that these goods are not traded goods, there is no reason to consider them for the purpose of injury analysis.
xi. Authority considers that sufficient time and opportunity has been provided to the interested parties to offer meaningful comments on the disclosure statement and calculation of ex-factory export price.
xii. As regards contention of BASF, Authority notes that the questionnaire very clearly requires the responding parties to provide all documents and source material along with response. The party has however failed to provide any such information while filing questionnaire response. The contention of the interested party that no opportunity has been provided to the importer is without any basis. On the contrary, the questionnaire itself very clearly specifies the requirements and the interested party has failed to adhere to these requirements.
xiii. As regards the contention that determination of dumped, injurious or price attractive volumes based on individual transactions is inappropriate and is flawed, the Authority notes that the methodology adopted by the Authority is the consistent with the practice of the Authority. While stating that the methodology is flawed, the party has not established the same. The purpose of the analysis is to quantify the volume of exports to third countries which could be diverted to India in the event of cessation of ADD. The responding exporter has provided no document to substantiate that it is unlikely to divert its third country exports to India if they are likely to get a better price in the Indian market in the event of cessation of ADD. Reference to Annexure-I is inappropriate in this regard. Annexure-I is relevant to determination of current dumping. Authority has however followed this methodology for determination of likelihood of dumping and consequent injury in the event of cessation of ADD.
xiv. As regard Petronas claim to normalise the cost, the Authority notes that the Rules provides for cost adjustment for expenses incurred during start-up operations in case of new production facilities. However, the situation of start-up operations did not arise in present case.
xv. The Authority notes that whereas one exporter has contended determination of dumping margin on the basis of weighted average, one exporter has contended determination of dumping margin on transaction-to-transaction basis. However, the mere fact that the prices have seen downward trend does not imply that weighted average methodology is inappropriate.
xvi. As regards Eastman contention, the Authority notes that the objective of present investigation is not examination of whether the exporter is eligible for new shipper review. The exporter is free to make its claim in accordance with the law in the event of extension of present ADD.
K INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
171. 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.
172. 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 anti-dumping 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.
L CONCLUSION
173. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided and submissions made and facts available before the Authority as recorded in the above findings and on the basis of the above analysis of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry, the Authority concludes that:
i. There is continued dumping of the subject goods from subject countries and the imports are likely to enter the Indian market at dumped prices in the event of expiry of duty.
ii. Though the performance of the domestic industry has improved till 20l8-19 from the base year, its performance has suffered deterioration within the POI, and thus, the domestic industry remains vulnerable due to dumping of the subject goods from the subject countries. Therefore, there is likelihood of injury in the event of expiry of duty.
iii. The information on record shows likelihood of continuation/recurrence of dumping and injury in case the anti-dumping duty in force is allowed to cease at this stage. The data analysis shows that the entire volume of imports of the subject goods into India from all the subject countries is below the non-injurious price of the domestic industry and that significant volume of exports by the subject countries as well as the participating producers from the subject countries to the third countries is below the non-injurious price of the domestic industry, indicating strong likelihood of diversion of exports of the subject goods from the countries to India if the existing anti-dumping measure ceases to exist.
M RECOMMENDATIONS
174. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate opportunity was given to the domestic industry, exporters, importers/users and other interested parties to provide information on the aspects of dumping, injury and the causal link and likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. 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 continued imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty is required on subject goods from subject countries.
175. Under these circumstances, the Designated Authority considers it appropriate to recommend continuation of existing quantum of anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods from subject countries. The Authority, thus, considers it necessary to recommend continuation of existing definitive anti-dumping duty imposed vide Notification no. 13/2016-Customs (ADD) dated 13-042016. Therefore, anti-dumping duty equal to the amount indicated in Col 7 of the duty table given below is recommended to be imposed from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, on all imports of subject goods, as detailed in column 3 of the duty table, from subject countries for a further period of five years.
DUTY TABLE
S.N. |
*Subheading/ Tariff Item |
Descri-ption
|
Country
|
Country of
|
Produ-cer |
Duty Amount |
Unit of Measure-=ment |
Curr-ency |
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
(8) |
(9) |
1) |
29051300 |
NormalButanol or―N-ButylAlcohol‖ |
Euro-peanUnion |
AnycountryincludingEurop-eanUnion |
Any |
46.27 |
MT |
US$ |
2) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
Any other than the subject countries |
Euro-pean Union |
Any |
46.27 |
MT |
US$ |
3) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
Malaysia |
AnycountryincludingMalaysia |
M/s PETRO-NAS Chemi-cals Derivati-ves Sdn. Bhd. |
51.42 |
MT |
US$ |
4) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
Malaysia |
AnycountryincludingMalaysia |
M/s BASF PETRO-NAS Chem-icals
|
26.59 |
MT |
US$ |
5) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
Malaysia |
AnycountryincludingMalaysia |
Any otherthanproducer atS. No. 3 & 4 |
149.31 |
MT |
US$ |
6) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
Any other than the subject countries |
Malaysia |
Any |
149.31 |
MT |
US$ |
7) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
Singapore |
Anycountryinclu-dingSinga-pore |
Any |
35.66 |
MT |
US$ |
8) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
Any other than the subject countries |
Singa-pore |
Any |
35.66 |
MT |
US$ |
9) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
SouthAfrica |
Anycountry inclu-ding South Africa |
Any |
13.24 |
MT |
US$ |
10) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
Any other than the subject countries |
SouthAfrica |
Any |
13.24 |
MT |
US$ |
11) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
USA |
AnycountryincludingUSA |
Any |
24.16 |
MT |
US$ |
12) |
-Do- |
-Do- |
Any other than the subject countries |
USA |
Any |
24.16 |
MT |
US$ |
176. Landed value of imports for the purpose of this Notification shall be the assessable value as determined by the Customs under the Customs Act, l962 (52 of 1962) and includes all duties of customs except duties under sections 3, 8B, 9 and 9A of the customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time.
N FURTHER PROCEDURE
177. 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.
