MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2020
Case No. AD (OI)- 38/2020
Subject: Initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Calcined Gypsum Powder originating in or exported from Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE
No. 6/45/2020-DGTR.—M/s. Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the „Petitioner‟or “Applicant”) has filed an application seeking initiation of anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of Calcined Gypsum Powder from Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”).
2. The Applicant has alleged that material injury to the Domestic Industry is being caused due to dumped imports from Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE, and has requested for imposition of anti- dumping duty on the imports of the Calcined Gypsum Powder from these countries.
A. Product under consideration
3. The product under consideration in the present application is “Calcined Gypsum Powder or Gypsum plaster”(hereinafter also referred to as “subject goods”or “product under consideration”or “PUC”). The subject goods are also known as Plaster of Paris, Gypsum Stucco and Stucco Powder”. Gypsum Rock is chemically called Calcium Sulphate Dihydrate (CaSO4. 2 H2O), which when heated in controlled way it loses 1.5 water (H2O) from its crystal structure to become stucco or gypsum plaster which is chemically known as Calcium Sulphate Hemihydrate. The subject goods are majorly used for levelling Plaster in building applications, Decorative building elements like cornices & POP sheets, etc.
4. The subject products are classified under Chapter Heading 25 “Mineral products: Salt; Sulphur; earths and stone; plastering materials, lime and cement”of the Customs Tariff Act. The classification at the 8-digit level is 25202010. However, goods are coming under other heads of 25 also. It is also noted that the custom classification is indicative only and in no way, it is binding upon the product scope and the product description prevails in circumstances of conflict.
B. Like Article
5. The Applicant has claimed that there is no known difference between the subject goods exported from the subject countries and that produced by the domestic industry. Subject goods produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of essential product characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. Consumers use the two interchangeably. The Applicant has further claimed that the two are technically and commercially substitutable and, hence, should be treated as like article under the Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the Applicant in India are being treated as “Like Article” to the subject goods being imported from the subject countries.
C. Domestic Industry & Standing
6. The application has been filed by M/s Saint Gobian India Pvt Ltd. (SGIPL), who is the major producer (53%) of the Calcined Gypsum Powder or Gypsum plaster in India. M/s Saint Gobian India Pvt Ltd. further submitted that in the present case producers of the subject goods are from fragmented industry consisting of a large number of small producers across the country. However, three companies accounting 14% also supported the application filed by SGIPL. The Authority has also received letter supporting the application from All Rajasthan Gypsum Plaster Industries Association. The Applicant has further stated that, it is not practically possible to collect data relating to production from each individual producer, due to nature and size of industry. It is further submitted that there are no published records of the gross domestic production of the product in India and such information is also not collated by any governmental or market research agency however, as per their information, they account for major producers of the subject goods in India. The petitioner has also certified that there are no imports of the product under consideration by the petitioner or any of its related party. Further, they are also not related to any importer of the subject goods in India. Therefore, the Authority has considered the Applicant as Domestic Industry within the meaning of the Rule 2(b) of the Rules, and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules supra.
D. Basis of alleged dumping
(a). Normal value
7. The Applicant has submitted that they have not been able to get any reliable information in relation to the prices prevailing in the subject countries. Further, information about imports of the subject goods into subject countries or exports to other countries was also not available in the public domain for the POI. Therefore, applicant had submitted the normal value information, based on 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 applicant has considered minimum export price of raw Gypsum from Oman on the basis of the Administrative Decision No. 264/2016 dated 19.12.2016 published by Public Mining Authority, Sultnate of Oman. Since Oman is part of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), minimum export price of raw gypsum from Oman is considered as raw material price of raw Gypsum for other subject countries also. It is further submitted that it is practically not feasible to obtain any information for Iran as their information is not in public domain and the problem is getting accentuated due to the sanctions against them. Considering these factors and the fact that Iran being in the same geographical region (Middle East) as that of Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE, minimum export price of raw gypsum from Oman will be the most appropriate and reasonable benchmark price of raw gypsum for Iran also for the purpose of initiation of the investigations. Therefore, minimum export price of raw gypsum from Oman was also considered for computing normal value for Iran. Interest cost has been considered based on the prevailing interest cost in the subject countries. Other conversion cost and administrative, selling and general costs is based on the experience of the applicant. Accordingly, the constructed normal value for the subject goods in the subject countries has been determined. There is sufficient prima facie evidence for the normal value claimed for the subject goods from subject countries.
(b). Export Price
8. The Authority has computed the export prices for the subject countries based on Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) transaction-wise import data. Adjustments have been made for ocean freight, marine insurance, port expenses, bank charges, commission, credit cost and handling charges.
(c). Dumping Margin
9. The normal value and the export price have been compared at ex-factory level, which prima facie shows dumping margin is above the de-minimis level and is significant in respect of the PUC from Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the PUC from the subject countries is being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE.
E. Injury & Causal Link
10. Information furnished by the Applicant has been considered for assessment of injury to the domestic industry. The Applicant has furnished prima facie evidence regarding the injury having taken place as a result of the alleged dumping, resulting in increased volume of dumped imports in absolute terms and in relation to production and consumption in India, price undercutting, and price suppressing effect on the domestic industry. The Applicant has claimed that their performance has been adversely impacted in respect of market share, inventories and decline in profits, return on capital employed, and cash flow, as a result of increase in imports of product under consideration at a price below selling price and non-injurious price for the domestic industry. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of material injury being caused to the domestic industry by dumped imports from subject countries to justify initiation of anti-dumping investigation.
F. Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation
11. On the basis of the duly substantiated written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry, and having satisfied itself, on the basis of the prima facie evidence submitted by the domestic industry, substantiating dumping of the product under consideration originating in or exported from the subject countries, injury to the domestic industry and causal link between such alleged dumping and injury, and in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, the Authority, hereby, initiates an investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping in respect of the product under consideration originating in or exported from the subject countries and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry.
G. Subject countries
12. The present investigation is in respect of alleged dumping of the PUC from Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE.
H. Period of Investigation
13. The period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020 (12 months). The injury period under investigation will, however, cover the periods April 2016 to March 2017, April 2017 to March-2018, April 2018 to March 2019, and the period of investigation (POI)
14. Principles as given in Rule 6 of the Rules will be followed for the present investigation.
J. Submission of information
15. In view of the special circumstances arising out of COVID-19 pandemic, all communication should be sent to the Designated Authority via email at email address [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] It should be ensured that the narrative part of the submission is in searchable PDF/ MS Word format and data files are in MS Excel format.
16. The known producers/exporters in the subject countries, Government of the subject countries through their Embassies in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the subject goods and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable them to file all the relevant information in the form and manner prescribed within the time-limit set out below.
17. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the form and manner prescribed within the time-limit set out below.
18. Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is required to make a non-confidential version of the same available to the other parties.
19. Interested parties are further advised to keep a regular watch on the official website of the Designated Authority http://www.dgtr.gov.in/ for any updated information with respect to this investigation.
K. Time Limit
20. Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent to the Designated Authority via email at the email addresses [email protected], [email protected]gov.in, [email protected] and dd12- [email protected] within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice as per the Rule 6(4) of the Rules. If no information is received within the prescribed time-limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available on record in accordance with the Rules.
21. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of interest) in the instant matter and file their questionnaire responses within the above time limit.
L. Submission of Information on Confidential basis
22. Any party making any confidential submission or providing information on confidential basis before the Authority, is required to simultaneously submit a non-confidential version of the same in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules. Failure to adhere to the above may lead to rejection of the response / submissions.
23. The parties making any submission (including Appendices/Annexures attached thereto), before the Authority including questionnaire response, are required to file Confidential and Non-Confidential versions separately.
24. The “confidential”or “non-confidential”submissions must be clearly marked as “confidential”or “non-confidential”at the top of each page. Any submission made without such marking shall be treated as non-confidential by the Authority, and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other interested parties to inspect such submissions.
25. The confidential version shall contain all information which is by nature confidential and/or other information which the supplier of such information claims as confidential. For information which is claimed to be confidential by nature or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of other reasons, the supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information as to why such information cannot be disclosed.
26. The non-confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (in case indexation is not feasible) and summarized depending upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed. The non-confidential summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information furnished on confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, the party submitting the confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible to summary, and a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.
27. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or if the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.
28. Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or without good cause statement on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on record by the Authority.
29. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for confidentiality of the information provided, shall not disclose it to any party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
M. Inspection of Public File
30. In terms of Rule 6(7) of the Rules, any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by other interested parties. The modality of maintaining public file in electronic mode is being worked out.
31. In case any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may declare such interested party as non-cooperative and record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.
B. B. SWAIN, Spl. Secy. & Designated Authority