ADD imports of Isobutylene Isoprene Rubber IIR exported from China PR Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore and the United States of America

3856 GI/2024 (1) REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India CG-DL-E-03072024-255126 EXTRAORDINARY PART I—Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 170] NEW DELHI, SUNDAY, JUNE 30, 2024/ASHADHA 9, 1946 MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce) (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES) FINAL FINDINGS New Delhi,:the 29th June, 2024 Case No.–AD(OI) – 05/2023 Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber” (“IIR”) originating in or exported from China PR, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United States of America. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE F. No. 6/05/2023-DGTR.—Having regards to the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also 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 thereof, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the “Rules or AD Rules”), Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) for initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber” (hereinafter referred to as the “subject goods” or the “product under consideration” or “PUC” or “IIR”) originating in or exported from China PR, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the “subject countries”). The Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a public notice vide Notification No. 6/05/2023-DGTR dated 30th June 2023, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating an anti-dumping investigation in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, 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 alleged injury to the domestic industry. A. PROCEDURE 1. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the subject investigation: a. Pursuant to the initiation of the investigation, and after providing due opportunity to the interested parties to provide relevant information and defend their interests, and on the basis of information and evidence on record, having regard to the Anti-Dumping Act and the Rules, the Authority issued preliminary findings dated 16th April 2024, provisionally concluding that the product under consideration has been exported from the subject countries at a price below their normal value, thus, resulting in dumping of the subject goods, the domestic industry has suffered material injury due to such dumping and injury to the domestic industry has been caused by such dumped imports. The Authority recommended the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. b. The Authority notified the interested parties about the following procedure that was to be followed subsequent to issuance of preliminary findings. i. Comments were invited by all interested parties on the preliminary findings within 30 days of publication of such findings. ii. It was notified that an oral hearing will be conducted in terms of Rule 6(6) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. iii. Further verification deemed necessary will be conducted. iv. Essential facts would be disclosed prior to the issuance of the final findings. c. A copy of the preliminary findings was sent to the Central Government for its consideration of the same for imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty. d. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 24th May 2024. The parties, who presented their views in the oral hearing, were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. e. The submissions made by the interested parties, arguments raised and information provided by various interested parties during the course of the investigation, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by the Authority in these final findings. f. It is expressly clarified that the preliminary findings form an integral part of this final findings. These final findings should be read along with the preliminary findings issued earlier. The procedure followed, arguments raised by the interested parties, examined explicitly or implicitly dealt in the final findings and determination earlier made which have not been disputed by interested parties are not being repeated in these final findings. The preliminary findings should be deemed to be incorporated in the present final findings to the extent the same is not inconsistent with the present final findings. g. The Authority satisfied itself with the accuracy of the information supplied by the interested parties which forms the basis of these final findings to the extent possible and verified the data/documents submitted by the interested parties to the extent considered relevant and necessary. h. The Authority sought further information from the other interested parties to the extent deemed necessary. The verification of the data provided by the other interested parties was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the purpose of the present investigation. The Authority has considered the verified data of the of the other interested parties in its analysis in the present case. i. On-the-spot verification was carried out at the premises of the domestic industry, both at the factory and office, where various claims made by the domestic industry were verified and supporting information, to the extent considered relevant, was collected. The verification included examination of the production process, manufacturing facilities, facilities of IIR and HIIR, production of different products, etc. B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE 2. The Authority considered the following as the scope of the product under consideration in the preliminary findings. “The product under consideration in the present investigation is Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber (“IIR”) which is a synthetic rubber, commonly used to manufacture inner tubes for tyres and other high-pressure tubes. The scope of the product under consideration excludes food-grade IIR used as an ingredient in the production of chewing gum. IIR has applications in the tube and tyre inner liners, which form an integral part of the pneumatic tyre manufacturing process. It is also used in diaphragms, gaskets, wire and cable insulations, liners, O-rings, seals, weather stripping, and bottle closures. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 40, under tariff code 40023100 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on the scope of the present investigation.” B.1. VIEWS OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES 3. The submissions of the other interested parties with regard to the product under consideration and like article post the issuance of preliminary findings are as follows: i. The regular grade of IIR for bladder application must be excluded as the applicant’s product has not been approved for manufacturing tyre curing bladder. ii. The domestic industry is not able to supply the specialised grades for use in bladders. The imported grades can be used for manufacturing bladders, which allow curing of 330-340 tyres, while that made from domestic grades can produce about 260 tyres. The domestic industry has never offered the sale of such specialized grades to users and has only manufactured normal grades. iii. An end-use-based exemption can be provided for the specialized grades to be used for manufacturing bladders to allay any chances of circumvention. iv. The applicant cannot produce speciality grade as it does not have the plant and equipment. Such grades are a combination of mooney viscosity and unsaturation level. Even if applicant can produce low mooney and unsaturation levels, it does not mean that it can produce combinations required. The specification sheets relied upon by the Authority has not been shared by any other interested party. v. Imports of a product type is not a legal requirement for the exclusion of such product. The legal standard for inclusion is actual production and sales and not the ability. vi. Even if there was no demand in the Indian market, there was demand in foreign markets, but the applicant has not given evidence that speciality product has been produced and supplied in the export market. vii. The difference in usage of specialty grades and regular grades must be examined. Exxon’s product has a higher mooney retention index. The RSEPL’s regular grade has higher unsaturation content which impacts the processing safety and aging characteristics of the product. The Authority should seek third party lab reports and analyse the said parameters. viii. Claim of domestic industry that the scope of the product under consideration is already frozen and cannot be changed at such a subsequent stage is incorrect. As can be seen from the notification finalizing product scope in HIIR, the scope can be amended/ modified at a subsequent stage. A mere notice on scope and PCN methodology, which is not a gazetted document, and is not notified to all affected parties does not bind the Authority. ix. As opposed to the contention of the applicant, the time limit to file in the initiation notification refers to questionnaire response and there is no legal bar for filing injury submissions post-filing of such response. B.2. VIEWS OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 4. The submissions of the domestic industry with regard to the product under consideration and like articles post issuance of the preliminary findings are as below: - i. No new facts have been put on record by the other interested parties and the product scope considered in the preliminary findings may be finalized. ii. Submissions requesting the exclusion of tyre curing bladder were belated and must be rejected. The comments filed on product scope within the time period by ATMA did not include a request for exclusion. The domestic industry has produced and sold such products in both domestic and export market. iii. Invoices issued for IIR does not show their usage in either tubes and or tyre-curing bladders and there is no way to ascertain if IIR is consumed for tubes or tyre-curing bladders. iv. The interested parties have not provided evidence that the product produced by the domestic industry are not of suitable quality. Such allegations are made with ill intent as the domestic industry has sold IIR for bladder manufacturing to the satisfaction of its customers. v. Request for exclusion of speciality grades on the presumption of future demand cannot be considered as a ground for exclusion. The domestic industry can also cater to such new demand in the future. vi. A product type can be excluded only if such product type is imported in India and the domestic industry has not supplied like article. This has been established by the Authority in a number of past investigations such as that on Seamless Tubes and Pipes, SDH Equipment and Coated / Plated Tin Mill Flat Rolled Steel Products. The CESTAT upheld the findings of the Authority in SDH Equipment. vii. As opposed to the contention of the other interested parties, the applicant’s set-up is recent and there is no doubt that it is a new entrant which is facing dumping since its establishment. viii. There is no obligation on the domestic industry to demonstrate that it supplied the product in the export market. ix. In case demand for the product arises in future and the domestic industry is unable to supply the same, the other interested parties are free to approach the Authority for a mid-term review. B.3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY