(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2020
Case No. SSR-21/2020

Subject: Initiation of Sunset review investigation concerning imports of “Methyl Acetoacetate” from China PR.

F. No. 7/40/2020-DGTR.- M/s Laxmi Organics Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant’) has filed an application seeking initiation of sunset review investigation concerning imports of “Methyl Acetoacetate” (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject goods’ or ‘product under consideration’) originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject country’) before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the “Authority”) in accordance with Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (herein also referred to as the “Act”) and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Antidumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter also referred to as the “Rules”).

1. The Applicant has alleged likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country and consequent injury to the domestic industry, and have requested for review and continuation of the Anti-Dumping duty (ADD) imposed on the imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country.

A. Background

2. The original anti-dumping investigation was initiated in 2015 concerning imports of subject goods from China PR and USA. The Authority recommended imposition of anti-dumping duties concerning imports of Methyl Acetoacetate from China PR and USA vide Notification No 14/07/2014-DGAD dated 1st April, 2016 which was imposed by the Ministry of Finance vide Notification No. 22/2016- Customs (ADD) dated 3 1st May, 2016.

3. The Applicant has not sought extension of anti-dumping duties on imports of subject goods from USA stating that as there is no evidence of likelihood of dumping and injury from USA.

B. Product under Consideration (PUC)

4. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Methyl Acetoacetate. The product under consideration defined in the original investigation is as follows:

“. The product under consideration in the present petition is Methyl Acetoacetate. Methyl Acetoacetate (also known as MAA/MAAE/AAME) is a Diketene based Ester or aceto-acetate. The chemical formula of MAA is C5H8O3 and at 99% purity, it is a clear liquid with a colourless appearance. Methyl Acetoacetate is classified in Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act under the subheading 29183040, as ‘Methyl Acetoacetate ”. Though the product under consideration has dedicated customs classification under the Customs Tariff Act, on analyzing the import data, it has been observed that the product under consideration is being imported under various other codes as well such as 29146990, 29153910, 29153940, 29153990, 29183090, 29331990, 29410090 and 29189900. Therefore, the customs classification is indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the investigation.”

5. It has been contended that no significant developments have taken place over the period. The present investigation being a sunset review investigation, product under consideration remains the same as defined in the original investigation.

C. Like Article

6. The Applicant has claimed that there is no significant difference in product produced by the applicant and exported from the subject country. Both products 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.

7. The Designated Authority, in the original investigation held that the product being imported and the product being manufactured by the domestic industry are like article. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the applicant is being treated as ‘Like Article’ to the subject goods being imported from the subject country.

D. Domestic Industry and Standing

8. The Application has been filed by M/s Laxmi Organics Industries Limited and is the sole producer of product under consideration in India. The Applicant has certified that they have neither imported the subject goods from the subject country nor are related to any exporter or producer of subject goods in the subject country or any importer of the PUC in India.

9. As per the evidence on record, the Authority notes that the Applicant constitutes eligible domestic industry in terms of Rule 2 (b), and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules supra.

E. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

Normal Value for China PR

10. The Applicant has claimed that China PR should be treated as a non-market economy and the normal value should be determined in terms of paragraph-7 of Annexure I of the Rules. The normal value has been determined under the provision stipulated under Para 7 of the Annexure 1 of the Rules i.e. considering the price from market economy third country to other countries, including India. The Applicant has proposed Switzerland as a market economy third country for China PR.

11. The Applicant has also provided normal value on the basis of price actually paid or payable in India for the like product which has been determined by considering cost of production in India, after addition for selling, general & administrative expenses and reasonable profits. The claim for the normal value is found appropriate for the purpose of initiation.

F. Export Price

12. The Authority has computed the export price for subject goods for the subject country 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, and commission. There is sufficient prima facie evidence with regard to the net export prices claimed by the Applicant.

G. Dumping Margin

13. Considering the normal value and export price determined as above, dumping margin has been determined, in accordance with Section 9 A( 1 )(a) of the Act. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in the subject country is higher than the ex-factory export price, indicating, prima facie, that the subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the subject country.

H. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping and Injury

14. Information furnished by the Applicant has been considered for assessment of injury to the domestic industry. Information provided by the applicant shows that the volume of imports continues to increase at dumped and injurious price. It is also noted that the Performance of the domestic industry has improved in view of Anti-dumping duty in place. The Applicant has provided information with regard to continued increase in dumped imports, significant dumping margin, existing surplus capacities, price undercutting and vulnerability of the domestic industry as factors establishing likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and recurrence of injury to the domestic industry should anti-dumping duty is allowed to lapse. The information provided by the applicant, prima facie, shows continuation of dumping of subject goods from subject country, and likelihood of injury to domestic industry in case of cessation of the Anti-dumping duty.

I. Initiation of Sunset Review Investigation

15. 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 substantiating the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry, in accordance with Section 9A (5) of the Act, read with Rule 23(1B) of the Rules, the Authority, hereby, initiates a Sunset review investigation to review the need for continued imposition of the duties in force in respect of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country and to examine whether the expiry of existing Anti-dumping duties are likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Domestic Industry.

J. Subject Country

16. The subject country for this investigation is China PR.

K. Period of Investigation (POI)

17. The period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020 (12 Months). The injury investigation period will cover the periods 1st April 2016- 31st March 2017, 1st April 2017- 31st March 2018, 1st April 2018- 31st March 2019 and the POI.

L. Procedure

18. The review investigation will cover all aspects of the Final Findings published vide Notification No. 14/07/2014-DGAD dated 1st April, 2016 recommending extension of Anti-Dumping Duty on imports of Ofloxacin from China PR. The Authority will also undertake likelihood analysis of dumping and injury as required.

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

M. Submission of Information

20. 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,, and

21. The known producers/exporters in the subject country, their Government through their Embassy 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Interested parties are further advised to keep a regular watch on the official website of the Designated Authority for any updated information with respect to this investigation.

N. Time Limit

25. Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent to the Designated Authority via email at the email addresses,, and within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice as per Rule 6(4) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. It may, however, be noted that in terms of explanation of the said Rule, the notice calling for information and other documents shall be deemed to have been received within one week from the date on which it was sent by the Designated Authority or transmitted to the appropriate diplomatic representative of the exporting country. If no information is received within the prescribed time limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available on record in accordance with the Rules.

26. 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.

O. Submission of information on confidential basis

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

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. The confidential version shall contain all information which is by nature confidential and/or other information which the supplier of such information claims as confidential. For information which are claimed to be confidential by nature or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of other reasons, the supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information as to why such information cannot be disclosed.

31. 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.

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

33. 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.

34. 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.

P. Inspection of Public File

35. 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.

Q. Non-cooperation

36. In case where an interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.

B. B. SWAIN, Spl. Secy. & Designated Authority

More Under DGFT

Leave a Comment

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

Search Posts by Date

October 2020