Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
ubZ fnYyh] 2 7 जसतम् ब र] 2023
No. 237] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDA Y, SEPTEMBER 27, 2023/ ASVINA 5, 1945
CG-DL-E-04102023-249095
CG-DL-E-04102023-249095
CG-DL-E-04102023-249095
CG-DL-E-04102023-249095
1 (2006 (196) E.L.T. 385 (SC)),
लागत *** *** ***
70-80
1) चीि िि. गण. एमटी 1,841 2,003 2,471 1,871
3) क ु ल आयात एमटी 2,072 2,181 2,663 2,166
ii. मांग % *** *** *** ***
iii. क ु ल आयात % 89 92 93 86
2) पहुंच मूल् य रू./प्रजत 3,80,425 3,79,897 3,94,105 4,43,452
100 101 105 108
100 93 91 94
40-50
1 32064990 ,
32061900,
32041759,
32041739,
32041720,
32041790,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES )
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi , the 27th September , 2023
(Case no. MTR -07/2022)
Subject: -Mid Term Review of anti -dumping duty imposed on the imports of "Natural mica -based pearl
industrial pigments excluding cosmetic grade" originating in or exported from China
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
F. No. 7/17/2022 -DGTR: —Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as “the Act”) and th e Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -
Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as “the Rules”) thereof.
1. The Designated Authority (h ereinafter also referred to as the “Authority”) received an application, on behalf of
Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the “applicant” or the “domestic industry”)
requesting initiation of a mid -term review investigati on of anti -dumping duty imposed on imports of natural mica
based pearl industrial pigments excluding cosmetic grade (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject goods” or the
“product under consideration”) to examine the need to re -evaluate and enhance th e anti -dumping duty levied
against imports of the subject goods exported by Fujian Kuncai Material Technology Company Limited,
originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject country”).
2. An anti -dumping investigation with respect to natural mica -based pearl industrial pigments excluding cosmetic
grade originating in or exported from China PR, was initiated on 9th May 2020 to examine the nature and extent of
dumping and its injurious effect on the domestic industry . The Authority vide its Final Findings No. 6/8/2020 -
DGTR, dated 8th June 2021 recommended imposition of definitive anti -dumping duties, which were given effect
vide Customs Notification No. 47/2019 – Customs (ADD), dated 26th August 2021 for a period of five y ears.
3. The present mid -term review was initiated in accordance with Section 9A of the Act, read with Rule 23(1A) of the
Rules. The Authority is required to review, based on a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of any
interested parties, as to whether the change in circumstances warrant modification of the existing anti -dumping
duty.
4. In view of the duly substantiated application with prima facie evidence and in accordance with Section 9A of the
Act, read with Rule 23 of the Rules, the Authority initiated a mid -term review investigation vide Notification No.
7/17/2022 -DGTR dated 30th September 2022. The scope of the review was enhanced to examine the need for
redetermination of the anti -dumping duty earlier extended on the subject goods from the subject country.
B. PROCEDURE
5. The procedure described below has been followed regarding the subject investigation:
a. The Authority vide Notification No. 7/17/2022 -DGTR dated 30th September 2022, published a public notice
in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating a mid -term review investigation concerning anti -dumping
duty imposed on the imports of the subject goods from the subject country.
b. The Authority sent a copy of the public notice to the Embassy of China in India, known producers and
exporters fro m the subject country, known importers, importer/user associations and other interested parties,
to inform them of the initiation of the subject investigation in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules.
c. The Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters, and to the Government of China, through its Embassy and to other interested parties who
made a request in writing in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules.
d. The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice initiating the mid -term review investigation to the known
producers / exporters in the subject country, and other interested parties and provided them an opportunity to
file response to the questionnaire in the form and manner prescribed with in time limit (including the extended
time limit), as prescribed in the initiation notification, and make their views known in writing in accordance
with the Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
e. The Authority forwarded copies of the notification and non -confidential ve rsion of the petition to the known
producers/ exporters.
f. The Government of China, through its Embassy in India was also requested to advise the exporters/producers
from its country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and
questionnaire sent to the known producers/exporters was also sent to the Embassy of China along with the
details of the known producers/ exporters from China in accordance with the Rule 6(5) of the Rules.
g. In response to the above notificati on, the following producers/exporters from the subject country have filed
response to the exporters’ questionnaire:
i. Fujian Kuncai Material Technology Co., Ltd.
ii. Zhejiang Coloray Technology Development Co., Ltd.
iii. Henan Lingbao New Materials Technology Co., L td.
h. The Authority forwarded a copy of the notification and questionnaires to the following known importers and
users of the subject goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the
Rules.
i. Asian Paints Limited
ii. R.C. Intern ational
iii. FX Pigments Pvt. Ltd.
iv. Kajal Chemicals
v. KPL International Limited
vi. Geochrome International
vii. Polychem Exports
viii. Kuncai International (India) Private Limited
i. In response to the above notification, following related importer filed response to importer/user questionnaire
responses.
i. Kuncai International (India) Private Limited
j. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st April 2021 to 31st March
2022 (12 months).
k. Transaction -wise imports data for the period of investigation and the preceding three years was procured
from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) and DG, Systems. The
Authority has relied upon the data of DGCI&S for calculating the volume and value of imports of the subject
goods in India and the data of DG, systems for comparison and reconciliation with the responses filed by the
exporters.
l. Further information was sought from t he applicant and responding exporters/importers to the extent deemed
necessary.
m. All the in terested parties were requested to e -mail non -confidential versions of their
submissions/responses/comments filed by them to all the other interested parties.
n. The non -injurious price (hereinafter referred to as “NIP”) has been determined based on the optimum cost of
production and reasonable profits of the subject goods in India, having regard to the information furnished by
the domestic industry in accordance with Gen erally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure
III to the anti -dumping Rules. Such non -injurious price has been worked out so as to ascertain whether the
anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic
industry.
o. 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 through video conferencing on 21st December 2022. The
parties, which prese nted their views in the oral hearing, were requested to file written submissions of the
views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. The parties shared their non -confidential
submissions with other interested parties and were advised to offer their rebuttals.
p. The submissions made by the interested parties, arguments raised, and information provided by various
interested parties during investigation, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered
relevant to the prese nt investigation, have been considered in this final finding.
q. The Authority, during the investigation, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the information supplied by the
interested parties, which forms the basis of this final finding, to the extent po ssible, and verified the
data/documents submitted by the domestic industry to the extent considered relevant and possible.
r. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to
sufficiency of the confidentia lity claims. 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 informa tion on confidential basis were directed
to provide sufficient non -confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.
s. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information
during investigat ion, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority considered such interested
parties as non -cooperative and recorded this final finding based on the facts available in accordance with the
Rule 6(8) of the Rules.
t. A disclosure statement cont aining the essential facts in this investigation which have formed basis of the final
finding was issued to the interested parties on 18th September, 2023 and the interested parties were given time
till 23rd September to comment on the same. The comments o n disclosure statement received from the
interested parties have been considered to the extent found relevant in this final finding.
u. ‘***’ in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so
considere d by the Authority under the Rules.
v. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 USD = 75.34
C. Product under consideration and Like article
6. The product under consideration in the original investigation was
"7. The product under consideration in the present investigation is "Natural Mica based Pearl Industrial
Pigments excluding cosmetic grade.”
8. The product under consideration is chemically titanium dioxide coated micananeous and lustrous
pearlescent pigment and is commer cially known in the marketplace as Titanium Dioxide or Iron Oxide coated
Mica Pearl Pigment or Pearl Lustre Pigments or Pearl Pigments. It is extensively used to impart colours and
other effects such described as certain inorganic pigments/colouring agents giving lustrous/ shinning frosted
effects, such pearlescent effects, metallic effects, for coating. inks and plastics application
C.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
7. Following submission have been made by the interested parties
i. The applicati on states 'natural mica -based pearl industrial pigments' as the subject product. It is requested that
the Authority clarify that the information provided in the application does not include cosmetic grade.
ii. The scope of the PUC cannot be increased in an MTR investigation to include cosmetic grade . Reference is
placed on Rule 23(1A), Notice of Initiation, and the written submissions of the applicant.
iii. Without disclosure of the source of the subject imports, the assumption that industrial grade being imported
as cosmetic grade seems to be a conjecture.
iv. The allegation made by the domestic industry is merely assumption as import prices have decreased by mere
9% which can be due to raw material fluctuation.
v. The domestic industry should have filed an anti -circumven tion application to cover the situation where an
article is being imported with altered description.
C.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
8. The subject goods are natural mica -based pearl industrial pigments excluding cosmetic grade. There are significant
imports of cosmetic grade being imported for industrial application. It is requested that the Authority clarify that
cosmetic grade for cosmetic application is exempted from the duty imposed.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
9. In the original investigation, the product under consideration was described as under:
"7. The product under consideration in the present investigation is "Natural Mica based Pearl Industrial
Pigments excluding cosmetic grade.”
8. The product under consideration is chemically titanium dioxide coated micananeous and lustrous
pearlescent pigment and is commercially known in the marketplace as Titanium Dioxide or Iron Oxide coated
Mica Pearl Pigment or Pearl Lustre Pigments or Pearl Pigments. It is extensively used to impart colours and
other effects such described as certain inorganic pigments/colouring agents giving lustrous/ shinning frosted
effects, such pearlescent effects, metallic effects, for coating. inks and plastics application
10. The product scope is the same as that in the origin al investigation. The following PCNs methodology considered in
the original investigation are adopted for the purpose of the subject investigation.
S.No. Non-Automobile Particle Size
1. Silver - 1 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D 50>30) - L
Special - X
2. Gold - 2 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D50>30) - L
Special - X
3. Iridescent - 3 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D50>30) - L
Special - X
4. Earth tones (Bronze/ Copper/ Maroon) - 4 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D50>30) - L
Special - X
5. Others - 5 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D50>30) - L
Special - X
Automobile application
1. Silver - 1 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D50>30) - L
Special - X
2. Gold - 2 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D50>30) - L
Special - X
3. Iridescent - 3 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D50>30) - L
Special - X
4. Earth tones (Bronze/ Copper/ Ma roon) - 4 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D50>30) - L
Special - X
5. Others - 5 Small (D50<17) - S
Regular (D50 between 17 -30)- R
Large (D50>30) - L
Special - X
11. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 32 of the Customs Tariff Ac t under the tariff code 3206 11.
12. It is also noted that since the imposition of anti -dumping duties, the subject goods are being imported under
different HSN codes apart from the dedicated code at 6 -digit level, namely, 32064990, 32061900, 32041759,
3204 1739, 32041720, 32041790 and 32071040. The Authority notes that the customs classification is only
indicative and is not binding on the scope of the product under consideration.
13. The present investigation is a mid -term review, limited in scope to examining the need for re -quantification of
dumping margin and injury margin, and modification of duty. The scope of the review does not include re -
examination of the product scope. Therefore, the scope of the product under consideration in the present review
shall be the same as that in the previous investigation.
14. The Authority notes the submissions of the interested parties regarding the scope of the product under
consideration. The cosmetic grade was excluded from the product under consideration in the origina l investigation
and the same is also excluded from the current investigation. Some of the interested parties have sought
clarification regarding exclusion. It is clarified that the cosmetic grade means Natural Mica based Pearl Industrial
Pigments. It is fu rther noted that this clarification does not tantamount to modification of product scope. There is
no change in scope of product under consideration.
15. The Authority notes that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported from Chin a 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 t echnically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are using the two
interchangeably. The same has not been disputed by other interested parties as well. In view of the same, the
Authority concludes that the goods produced by the domestic industry ar e like article to the product under
consideration imported from subject country.
16. The other interested parties have raised the issue that the domestic industry should have filed an anti -
circumvention application to cover the situation where an article is be ing imported with altered description. The
Authority notes that this is not a case of anti -circumvention as the articles are not being imported with altered
description rather the imports have increased under certain PCNs and decreased in the others.
D. Domes tic Industry and Standing
17. Rule 2(b) of the Anti -Dumping 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 there of in such case the term ‘domestic
industry’ may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers”.
18. The application has been filed by Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited, who is the sole producer of the product
under consideration in India. It is n oted that the applicant accounts for a major proportion of the total domestic
production. The applicant is neither related to subject Chinese producers or exporter nor importer of the subject
goods in India. Therefore, the Authority holds that Sudarshan Ch emical Industries constitute domestic industry
within the meaning of Rule 2(b) read with rule 5(3) of the Anti -Dumping Rules.
19. No submissions have been advanced by the applicant or the other interested parties with regards to the standing of
the domestic industry.
E. Scope of Review
E.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
20. Following submission are made by the other interested parties:
i. The scope of Rule 23(1A) is limited and does not empower the Authority to carry out limited review. No
limited review has been initiated by the Authority in the recent past. Reference is placed on Manual of
Operating Practises for Trade Investigations and closure letter issued in imports of Jute products on 28 March
2019.
ii. Rule 23(1A) only empowers the Authority to withd raw existing duties and not enhance under any
circumstances. Reliance cannot be placed on Indian Graphite Manufacturers Association v. Ministry of
Finance & Ors (13 April 2006) as the decision was limited to SSR investigation.
iii. Rule 23 (1A) does not bind th e Authority to initiate review limited to Kuncai as requested by the applicant.
The Authority is empowered under the provision to define the scope of the review. Considering the applicant
made no objection to the initiation against all producers/ exporters , the same cannot be challenged before the
Authority at present.
iv. Reliance on the OM dated 18 June 2019 by the applicant is misplaced as the same was issued in the context of
Rule 23 and not Rule 23(1A), The latter explicitly requires injury examination. Th e OM has to be read in the
context of the issue and cannot supersede the Rules. The Authority’s practice is not to initiate investigations
based on requests for limited review.
v. Reliance placed on mid -term review investigation on aluminium alloy road wheels from China PR dated 30
August 2022 is incorrect as the facts of the case is distinguished from the present investigation.
vi. Reliance placed on Rishiroop Polymers is incorrect as the ratio of the decision is only regarding the
withdrawal of duty which does not lead to the conclusion that the other parameters are not required to be
examined.
vii. The real reason for the applicant seeking to avoid redetermination of dumping or injury margin for other
producers is because they are facing quality issues, have limited production capability which makes it
necessary for them to import the product to retain their market share.
viii. Coloray and Lingbao does not dispute that Rule 23(1A) permits the Authority to conduct limited review. Rule
23(1A) permits the Authority to initiat e review against all producers from China PR. Reliance is placed on
WTO panel report in United States — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam
(WT/DS/429/R).
E.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
21. Following submission are made by the domes tic industry:
i. Changed circumstances in the POI warrant the need for re -quantification and enhancement of existing anti -
dumping duty in force on natural mica -based pearl industrial pigments excluding cosmetic grade exported
from Fujian Kuncai Material Techn ology Company Limited.
ii. Rule 23 (1A) read with OM dated June 18, 2019 permits limited review of dumping margin and injury
margin. Reliance is also placed on Rishiroop Polymers Pvt Ltd v . Designated Authority and Addl. Secretary2
and MTR investigation on imp orts of Aluminium Alloy Road Wheels from China PR , (dated 30th August
2022).
iii. Review of all other exporters shall cause prejudice to the non -participating Chinese producers and increase
burden on DGTR. No prima facie evidence is on record to show changed c ircumstances qua these exporters.
iv. Manual of Operating Practises for Trade Investigations cannot be cited in case of contradictions/ differences
as mentioned in Page xi of the Manual. It allows the Authority to recognise case -specific variations in
differe nt investigations and final decisions are to be made based on merits.
v. As regards the argument that Rule 23(1A) only empowers the Authority to withdraw duty, reliance is placed
on the CESTAT decision in Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd. v. Designated Authority (2010(253) ELT 564 (Tri -
Del.)) . It was held that the purpose for which the statute authorises the levy; it also has the incidental and
ancillary power to increase or reduce the same to make it fully effective against dumping.
E.3 Examination by the Authority
22. The present investigation was initiated as per Rule 23(1A), which, inter -alia, provides as follows:
“(1A) The designated authority shall review the need for the continued imposition of any anti -dumping duty,
where warranted, on its own initiative or upon request by any interested party who submits positive information
substantiating the need for such review, and a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the imposition of the
definitive anti -dumping duty and upon such review, the designated authority sh all recommend to the Central
Government for its withdrawal, where it comes to a conclusion that the injury to the domestic industry is not likely
to continue or recur, if the said anti -dumping duty is removed or varied and is therefore no longer warranted. ”
23. The Authority issued an Office Memorandum dated 18th June 2019 providing for review, which, inter -alia,
provides as follows:
“6. Any interested party, including domestic industry, can seek a review under rule 23 and 24 of AD and CVD
Rules respectively to alter the quantum or form of existing AD/ CVD duty. The changed circumstances which may
warrant a review may include changes in raw material prices, costs, duty structure, exchange rate etc. The
Authority would consider a fresh POI for such a review and e valuate all key parameters viz dumping margin or
subsidy margin, injury margin and landed value for this chosen POI. The modified AD/ CVD, including the form,
would be based on this comprehensive re -computation.”
24. The Authority notes that the present review has been initiated based on change in circumstances alleged by the
applicant. The present investigation is limited to examination of whether there has been a change in circumstances
which justify the modification of the quantum of anti -dumping duty. In th eir application, the applicant had alleged
the following;
a. There is significant shift in the product profile exported by the exporter to the Indian market.
The increase in costs on account of raw materials is not proportionately reflected in the increase i n the export
price.
b. The export price of some PCNs has increased less than raw material price increase.
c. The weighted average increase in export price for few PCN is negative, whereas the weighted average
increase in costs is positive.
25. Some of the intereste d parties have contended that the scope of Rule 23(1A) is limited and does not empower the
Authority to either carry out a limited review or enhance duties. It is noted that it has been the consistent practice
of the Authority to vary the duty rates by eit her reducing or enhancing or retaining the quantum of duty during a
mid-term review. The Authority notes that it has conducted reviews for re -quantification of duty under Rule 23 in
the past as well. One of such review, concerning imports of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) was challenged
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and was found consistent with the provisions of Rule 23 by the Apex Court .
26. 2 Further in the recent MTR investigation on imports of Aluminium Alloy Road Wheels from China PR, dated 30th
August 2022, the Authority has conducted review limited to re -examination of the dumping/injury margin.
Therefore, the present review cannot be considered to be beyond the provisions of Rule 23.
2 (2006 (196) E.L.T. 385 (SC)),
27. Further, the Designated Authority has vide Office Memorandum dated 18th June 2019, issued a guideline stating
that any interested party, including the domestic industry, could seek initiation of a review under Rule 23 to alter
the quantum or form of duty.
28. Further, Rule 23(1) mentions that "any anti -dumping duty im posed under the provision of section 9A of the Act,
shall remain in force, so long as and to the extent necessary, to counteract dumping, which is causing injury." The
meaning of the word "to the extent" means the duration or degree of duty. Further Rule 2 3(1) provides for “if the
said anti -dumping duty is removed or varied and is therefore no longer warranted”. Thus, this rule allows the
Authority to vary the degree (quantum) of duty.
29. In view of the foregoing, the Authority concludes that the scope of the present review is limited only to
examination of the need for re -determination of dumping margin/ injury margin for all exporters subjected to the
duties in the earlier investigation. The scope of such review is governed by the provisions of Rule 23, read with
Office Memorandum dated 18th June 2019.
30. The Authority notes that the applicant had sought review limited to M/s. Fujian Kuncai Material Technology Co.,
Ltd (Kuncai). The Authority refers to the WTO panel report in US – Shrimp II (Viet Nam) [WT/DS429 /R], wherein
it has been held that the Authority is vested with the discretion to undertake a review on an order -wise or on a
company -specific basis. Such decision depends on both the specific request made by the interested party and the
evidence submitte d by the party substantiating the need for a review.
31. In the present case, the request of the applicant for a limited review of duty imposed on only one exporter from
China based on the submitted evidence was not sustainable, as the changed circumstanced c laimed by the applicant
would also have affected the export price and cost of production of other exporters from China. The applicant had
not submitted any evidence as to why/how the changed circumstances are applicable only to Kuncai and not to the
other exporters of the subject goods from China PR. In light of the same, the Authority has undertaken the current
review of the duty for all exporters/producers after being satisfied that the change in circumstance including cost of
raw material and export pric e alleged by the applicant requires to be investigated for all producers/exporters in the
subject country.
32. With respect to the contention raised by the domestic industry that there has been increase in cost of raw materials
but there is no proportionate in crease in the export price, the Authority notes that as per the data submitted by the
domestic industry it is observed that increase in the price of raw material in certain PCNs is more than the increase
in the export price during the period of review in c omparison to period of original investigation. On further
analysis it is seen that the increase in average cost of major raw material used in the manufacturing of product
under consideration is more than the increase in average landed value of the product under consideration during
the period of review as compared to the period of original investigation.
33. The table below demonstrate the said trend:
Particulars 2020 -2021
(Rs./Kg) 2021 -2022 (POI)
(Rs./Kg) Increase/Decrease (%)
Cost of major raw
material *** *** ***
Indexed 100 124 20-30
Landed Value *** *** ***
Indexed1 100 112 10-20
The Authority after analysing the data concludes that increase in cost of major raw materials has impacted the
injury parameters which is detrimental to the interest of the d omestic industry. Therefore, there is a need to review
the dumping margin and injury margin.
F. Confidentiality
F.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
34. The applicant has claimed excessive confidentiality on the source of the import data. Reliance is placed on Mono
Ethylene Glycol from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and USA (27 October 2022) and CESTAT order in vitrified Tiles.
F.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
35. Non-disclosure of analysis on PCN and export data is due to the prohibition placed by Section 135AA of the
Customs Act read with Trade Notice 01/2022.The confidentiality claims of the domestic industry are in adherence
with Trade Notice 1/2013.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
36. With regard to confidentiality of the information, the Rule 7 of the An ti-dumping Rules provides as follows:
“Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rules (2), (3) and (7)of rule 6, sub -
rule(2) of rule12,sub -rule(4) of rule 15 and sub -rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received un der sub -
rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any
party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be
treated as suc h by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization
of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non -
confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not
susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why
summarization is not possible.
(3) Notwith standing anything contained in sub -rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for
confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information
public or to authorise its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.”
37. The Authority considers that any information which is by nature confidential or which is provided on a
confidential basis by the parties to an investigation shall, upon good cause shown , should be treated as such by the
Authority. Such information cannot be disclosed without specific permission of the party submitting it.
38. As regards import data filed in the application, the import data received from market intelligence sources cannot be
shared as publishing of such data is prohibited under Section 135AA of the Customs Act, 1962 “unless required so
to do under any law for the time being in force”. The data is being provided in the application in terms of the
provisions of Rule 5(2) read wi th the Trade Notice issued in this regard, specifying the application formats. Hence,
the confidentiality claim of the applicant on the import data has been accepted by the Authority.
39. Information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis wa s examined with regard to the sufficiency
of the confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever
warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other inte rested parties.
Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non -
confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority made available the non -
confidential version of the evidence submitted by the interested parties by directing the interested parties to share
the non -confidential version of their submissions with each other through e -mails.
40. Some of the interested parties have contended that the domestic industry has n ot shown good cause for
confidentiality. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has provided a justification table in the non -
confidential version of the petition. The Authority has accepted the confidentiality claimed by all the interested
parties after being satisfied about the same.
G. Miscellaneous
G.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
41. The following submissions have been made by the interested parties
i. Export details of the subject goods are not available in the public domain and circulat ion of the same is
violative of Section 135AA of the Customs Act. The applicant has not provided the source and authenticity of
the data submitted. The applicant has either filed fabricated information or the same has been procured
illegally.
G.2 Submissi ons of the domestic industry
42. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry -
i. The export details of the subject goods have been procured from market intelligence. The allegations made
by the respondent on the accuracy and veracity of the same is baseless.
G.3 Examination by the Authority
43. As regards the contentions on the export data submitted by the Domestic industry, the Authority notes that the data
provided by the domestic industry does not affect the findings of the Designated Authori ty as the Authority relied
on DGCI&S and DG system data.
H. Normal value, Dumping margin
H.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
44. The following submissions have been made by the interested parties
i. The average raw material cost per unit of the subject goods by Kuncai has declined and the export price
increased during the POI as compared to the POI of the original investigation.
ii. The domestic industry has failed to establish with evidence the extent of increase in the raw materials price.
The increase i n the raw material cost is applicable to all producers and hence the review should not be limited
to Kuncai.
iii. Zheijiang Coloray Technology Development Co., Ltd should not be granted individual duty. Reliance is
placed on TDI Review Investigation and Jute R eview Investigation.
H.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
45. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry.
i. There is a change in the product sales mix sold during the POI of the original investigation and the current
POI. PCN wise an alysis in the original investigation was undertaken which shows that change in the sales
mix of the current period of investigation has impacted the dumping and injury margin warranting a review
of Kuncai.
ii. Proportional increase in the export price is not c ommensurate to increase in cost of raw material. Rather,
there is a reduction in export price for certain PCN, despite increase in raw material cost.
iii. The Authority may determine normal value on the basis of cost of production, duly adjusted as done in the
original investigation.
iv. As regards the decline in raw material cost per unit of Kuncai, it is submitted that there is no relevance for the
same in the present investigation as Kuncai (China) is a non -market economy as determined in the original
investigati on.
v. Change in circumstance due to change in raw material cost cannot be assumed for all exporters as the same
has not been supported with evidence.
vi. The dumping duty should not be modified for other companies as no changed circumstances have been
establish ed for them.
H.3 Examination by the Authority
46. The Authority notes that none of the producers/exporters from China PR has filed the supplementary questionnaire
response to rebut the presumptions as mentioned in para 8 of Annexure – I of the Rules. Under the se
circumstances, the Authority has to proceed in accordance with para 7 of Annexure – I of the Rules as under.
“In case of imports from non -market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis if the
price or constructed value in the ma rket economy third country, or the price from such a third country to
other countries, including India or where it is not possible, or on any other reasonable basis, including the
`price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary, to include a
reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated
authority in a reasonable manne4 keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the
product in ques tion, and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of
selection. Accounts shall be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation made in any
similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be
informed without any unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and
shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments.”
47. The Authority notes that n o producer or exporter from China PR has submitted market economy treatment or
supplementary questionnaire response. The normal value computation for these producers/exporters are thus
required to be determined in terms of provisions of para 7 of Annexure -1 of Anti -Dumping Rules. The Authority
notes that under the provisions of para (7) of Annexure – I, the normal value may be determined on the basis of
price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price of exports from such a third c ountry to
other countries, including India. However, when such basis is not possible, only then the Authority can determine
normal value on any other reasonable basis, including the price paid or payable in India.
48. In the present case, none of the intereste d parties have claimed or provided information with regard to price or
constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price of exports from such a third country to other
countries, including India. Further, the domestic industry has not propos ed an alternate surrogate country for China
PR. In light of, the same, the Authority concludes that there is no sufficient information to consider application of
the first proviso of para 7 nor is any information available with the Authority for the same.
49. The Authority also notes that the trade map data of PUC exports to other countries does not have details about the
PCNs prescribed by the Authority. Also, the PUC does not have a dedicated HSN Code. Therefore, in absence of
sufficient information on export of PUC to other country, the Authority cannot adopt option 2 of para 7 .
50. The Authority, therefore, has determined normal value based on other reasonable basis. For this purpose, the
Authority has considered the cost of production of the domestic industry, with due adjustments, and a reasonable
addition of selling, general and administrative expenses, and profits.
H.4 Determination of the Export Price
51. The following producers/exporters from China PR have filed response to the Exporter’s questionnaire:
a. Fujian Kuncai Material Technology Co., Ltd
b. Zhejiang Coloray Technology Development Co., Ltd.
c. Henan Lingbao New Materials Technology Co., Ltd
a. Fujian Kuncai Material Technology Co., Ltd
Export Price
52. Fujian Kuncai Material Technology Co., Ltd. has directly exporte d *** MT subject goods to both unrelated and
related customers in India of an invoice value of US$ ***. The related importer has cooperated with the
investigation. To ensure that the related transactions are at arms -length, from the response filed by the re lated
importer, it is seen that the sales made by the importer shows profit. Accordingly, after allowing the adjustment on
account of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port, and other related expenses etc., the weighted
average ex -factory e xport price and weighted average landed value comes to *** US$ / MT and *** US$ / MT
respectively.
b. Zhejiang Coloray Technology Development Co., Ltd.
Export Price
53. During the period of investigation, Zhejiang Coloray Technology Development Co., Ltd. has dir ectly Exported
***MT of product under consideration to unrelated customers in India of an invoice value of US$ ***. After
allowing the adjustment on account of ocean freight, inland transportation, insurance, port, and other related
expenses etc., the weig hted average ex -factory export price and weighted average landed value comes to US$
***/MT and *** US$ / MT respectively.
c. Henan Lingbao New Materials Technology Co., Ltd
Export Price
54. During the period of investigation, Henan Lingbao New Materials Technol ogy Co., Ltd has directly exported
***MT of product under consideration to unrelated customers in India of an invoice value of US$ ***. After
allowing the adjustment on account of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port, and other related
expenses etc., the weighted average ex -factory export price and weighted average landed value comes to ***US$ /
MT and ***US$ / MT respectively.
d. Other non -cooperative exporters from China subject to investigations
55. The export price for non -cooperative produ cers/exporters who have not cooperated with the present investigation
is considered based on the import price available on record, considering the data provided by the cooperative
producers/exporters and imports into India, in accordance with Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The export price so
determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table.
Dumping Margin
56. The normal value, export price and dumping margin determined in the present investigation can be seen from the
table below. It would be seen that there is a change in dumping margin.
Dumping Margin Table
Producer/Exporter Normal Value
(USD/MT) Net Export
Price
(USD/MT) Dumping
Margin
(USD/MT) Dumping
Margin (%) Dumping
Margin
(Range)
Fujian Kuncai Material
Technology Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** 10-20
Zhejiang C oloray
Technology Development
Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 70-80
Henan Lingbao New
Materials Technology Co.,
Ltd *** *** *** *** 70-80
Non-cooperative producers/
exporters *** *** *** *** 90-100
I. Injury
I.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
57. The following submission are made by the other interested parties
i. The applicant has failed to meet the precondition of 'lasting nature of the changed circumstances' as
necessitated by the Manual of Operating Practises for Trade Remedy Investigations. Reliance is placed on
Carbon Black (dated 28 February 2013) and closure letter in TDI.
ii. The applicant has not suffered injury on accounts of subject imports as there has been 17% increase in the
installed capacity, 22% increase in capacity utilization, 40% increase in production, 32% increase in
domestic sales, 5.5% increase in export sales, increase in the domestic sales price, increase in productivity
per day by 40%.
iii. There is no causal link as there is increase in capacity, interest cost, depreciation and decline i n exports sales.
iv. Given the increase in interest cost, and depreciation, the Authority should make adjustment for cost incurred
as start -up costs, extra -ordinary costs, non -recurring cost, and excess depreciation.
I.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
58. The following submission are made by the domestic industry.
i. There is no requirement to show lasting nature of the changed circumstances as per the Anti -dumping
Agreement, AD Rules and the application proforma.
ii. The Authority’s practice is to examine lasting nature in the event of revocation of anti -dumping duty.
Reliance is placed on mid -term review on the imports of “4,4Diamino Stilbene2, 2 Disulphonic Acid”
(DASDA), originating in or exported from China PR (dated 26th September 2016).
iii. The changed circumsta nce alleged by the applicant is reflective of one year and has impacted the dumping
and injury margin previously determined. Hence, they are enough to show that the change is of lasting nature.
iv. As regards arguments on injury, it is submitted that the curre nt investigation is limited redetermination of the
dumping margin and injury margin previously determined and quantum of duties levied in the original
investigation.
I.3 Examination by the Authority
59. Some of the interested parties have claimed that the Auth ority should examine injury to the domestic industry. The
Authority notes that the present investigation was initiated to re - determine the quantum of anti -dumping duty
levied on all exporters from the subject country. The request of the applicant for a li mited review of duty imposed
on only one exporter from China.
60. Further, the domestic industry had not made any claims with regard to the injury being caused due to dumped
imports. The Authority notes that since the present investigation is limited mid -term review initiated for re -
quantification of anti -dumping duty levied on subject exporters from the subject country, the Authority has re -
quantified the dumping margin and injury margin imposed on the exporters in the original investigation. However,
the Aut hority has examined the injury parameters for a more comprehensive investigation.
61. Some of the interested parties have contended that the lasting nature of the changed circumstance has not been
established. The Authority has previously noted the following in 4,4Diamino Stilbene2, 2 Disulphonic Acid”
(DASDA), originating in or exported from China PR, dated 26th September 2016;
“The language of the rules concerning sunset review and midterm review has been deliberately kept different
so as to emphasize more o n the cautiousness of establishing the need for withdrawal. The emphasis on word
“not” likely in Rule 23 (1A) of AD Rules, signifies a higher and stringent obligation while examining
premature withdrawal of antidumping duty.”
62. The Authority notes that such stringent obligation arises only when examining premature withdrawal of the anti -
dumping duty. In addition, the Authority has initiated the present investigation after being satisfied of the prima
facie evidence submitted by the applicant. The Authority no tes that the applicant has substantiated the changed
circumstance by providing information for a period of one year.
63. The Authority has examined the injury information over the injury period. Having satisfied that the changed
circumstance alleged by the app licant is reflective of one year and has impacted the dumping and injury margin
previously determined, the Authority deems that they are enough to show that the change is of lasting nature. The
Authority notes the fact that the injury to the domestic indus try has continued over the entire injury period which
further shows that the changed circumstances are of lasting nature.
64. The Authority also notes that it is not necessary that all parameters of injury must show deterioration. Some
parameters may show dete rioration, while others may not. The Authority has examined the injury parameters
objectively considering the facts and arguments submitted by the domestic industry and other interested parties.
Further, since anti -dumping duties are in force on imports of the product under consideration, the Authority
considers that the impact of existing duties on the subject imports is required to be considered while examining the
injury to the domestic industry. The Authority has examined whether the existing measure is not sufficient to
counteract the dumping which is causing the injury.
I-4 Volume effect of dumped imports on the domestic industry
a. Assessment of demand/ apparent consumption
65. For the purpose of the present investigation, demand, or apparent consumption of the subject goods in India has
been defined as the sum of the domestic sales of the domestic industry in India and imports from all sources. The
demand so assessed is given in the table below:
SN Particulars Units 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
1 Sales of do mestic industry MT *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 93 91 125
3 Imports from China PR MT 1,841 2,003 2,471 1,871
4 Imports from other countries MT 231 178 192 294
5 Total demand/consumption MT *** *** *** ***
6 Trend Indexed 100 101 115 112
66. It is seen that the demand for the PUC has increased over the first three years of the injury period with a marginal
decline in the POI, as compared to the immediately preceding period. Overall, the demand has increased over the
injury period.
b. Import volume fro m the subject countries
67. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a
significant increase in the dumped imports from the subject country, either in absolute terms or relative to
production or consumption in India. The same is analysed as follows:
SN Particulars Units 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
1) China PR MT 1,841 2,003 2,471 1,871
2) Other countries MT 231 178 192 294
3) Total imports MT 2,072 2,181 2,663 2,166
4) Subject country in re lation to -
i. Indian production % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 117 165 85
ii. Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 108 117 91
iii. Total imports % 89 92 93 86
68. It is seen that:
a) The volume of imports from the subject countries have increased until 2020 -21 but has declined in the POI
due to imposition of anti -dumping duties in August 2021.The sales of the domestic industry has increased
during period of investigation as compared to the previous year.
b) Despite imposition of anti -dumping duties in exist ence, the imports from China PR holds major share in
Indian demand and total imports into India.
I-5 Price effect of dumped imports on the domestic industry
69. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on the prices of the domestic industry, it is req uired to be
examined whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to
the price of the like products in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or
prevent the price inc reases, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course. The impact on the prices
of the domestic industry on account of the dumped imports from the subject country has been examined through
price undercutting, price underselling, price suppressio n and price depression, if any. For the purpose of this
analysis, the cost of production, and net sales realization (NSR) of the domestic industry have been compared with
the landed price of the imports of the subject goods from the subject country.
a) Price undercutting
70. For the purpose of the price undercutting analysis, the net sales realization of the domestic industry has been
compared with the landed value of imports from the subject country. Accordingly, the undercutting effects of the
dumped imports fro m the subject country work out as follows:
SN Particulars Units 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
1) Net sales realisation Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
2) Landed Price Rs/MT 3,80,425 3,79,897 3,94,105 4,43,452
3) Price undercutting Rs/MT *** *** *** ***
4) Price un dercutting % *** *** *** ***
5) Price undercutting Range % 25-35 20-30 10-20 0-10
71. The Authority notes that the price undercutting is significant and positive despite the existence of the anti -dumping
duties.
b) Price suppression and depression
72. In orde r to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing the domestic prices and whether the effect of
such imports is to suppress such prices to a significant degree or prevent price increase which otherwise would
have occurred in normal course, the chang es in the costs and prices over the injury period, are examined as below:
SN. Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
1) Cost of Sales Rs. /MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 101 105 108
2) Selling Price Rs. /MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 93 91 94
3) Land ed Price Rs. /MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 100 104 117
73. It is seen that the landed price of imports from the subject country continues to be below the cost of sales of the
domestic industry. Consequently, the domestic industry is unable to increase its selling price even at the level of
cost in the year 2020 -21 and period of investigation, despite anti -dumping duties in existence. The dumped import
from subject country is supressing the prices of the domestic industry.
I-6 Economic Parameters of the dom estic industry
74. Annexure II to the Rules provides 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 ind ustry, 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. The various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed below. The Authority
has examined the injury parameters objectively considerin g various facts and arguments made by the interested
parties in their submissions.
a) Capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales
75. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales of the domestic industry over the injury period i s given
in the table below:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 117
Production MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 93 81 119
Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 93 81 102
Sales (Domestic) MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 93 91 125
76. It is seen that the capacity of the domestic industry has increased during POI. The production, capacity utilisation
and domestic sales have increased during POI. The increase is due to anti -dumping duty in existence.
b) Profitability, return on investment and cash profits
77. Profitability, return on investment and cash profits of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the
table below:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Profit/(Loss) per unit Rs./MT *** *** (***) (***)
Trend 100 6 -58 -54
Profit/Loss ₹ Lacs *** *** (***) (***)
Trend 100 6 -53 -68
Cash Profit per unit Rs./MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 48 14 9
Cash Profit ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 45 12 11
PBIT per unit Rs./MT *** *** (***) (***)
Trend 100 12 -35 -34
PBIT ₹ Lacs *** *** (***) (***)
Trend 100 11 -32 -43
Return on Capital Employed % *** *** (***) (***)
Trend 100 13 -49 -48
78. It is seen that:
a. The domestic indus try is suffering losses during POI despite anti -dumping duties in existence.
b. The domestic industry is unable to increase its cash profits, PBIT and ROI at levels achieved in 2018 -19 and
in 2019 -20. The return on investment of the domestic industry is bel ow 1% in 2020 -21. The domestic
industry is unable to improve its performance even after imposition of anti -dumping duties, due to imports
entering in the Indian market at an unfair price that current anti -dumping duties are unable to address.
c) Inventories
79. Inventory position with the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below:
Stock (Volume) Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Opening Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Closing inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Average Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 142 127 132
80. It is noted that the average inventory held by the domestic industry increased during the POI.
d) Employment, wages, and productivity
81. Employment, wages, and productivity of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
No of Employees Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 91 99 108
Productivity per day MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 100 75 125
Productivity per Employee MT/Nos. *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 100 85 108
Wages ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 116 92 119
82. It is seen that the number of employees, productivity and wages paid have increased during POI as compared to
previous year as well as base year.
e) Magnitude of dumping
83. Magnitude of dump ing is an indicator of the extent to which the dumped imports are causing injury to the domestic
industry. The data shows that the dumping margin determined against the subject country has increased as
compared to the previous investigation.
f) Ability to ra ise capital investment.
84. The domestic industry is suffering financial losses and has not been able to earn a positive contribution. Due to the
dumped imports, the operations of the industry have been adversely impacted.
I.7 Magnitude of Injury Margin
85. The Au thority has determined the non -injurious price for the domestic industry on the basis of the principles laid
down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The non -injurious price of the product under consideration
has been determined by adopting th e verified information/data relating to the cost of production for the period of
investigation. The non -injurious price has been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject country
for calculating the injury margin. For determining the non -injurious price, the best utilisation of the raw materials,
the utilities, and the production capacity by the domestic industry over the injury period have been considered in
order to nullify injury, if any, caused by the domestic industry by in efficient o f raw material and utilisation. It is
ensured that no extraordinary or non -recurring expenses were charged to the cost of production. A reasonable
return (pre -tax @ 22%) on the average capital employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working
capital) for the product under consideration was allowed as pre -tax return towards interest, profit, and taxes in
order to arrive at the non -injurious price as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules.
86. The landed price for the cooperative exporters has been determined on the basis of the data furnished by the exporters.
87. Based on the landed price and the non -injurious price determined as above, the injury margin for the
producers/exporters has been determined by the Authority and the same is provided in the ta ble below.
Injury Margin Table
Producer/Exporter NIP
(USD/MT) Landed Value
(USD/MT) Injury Margin
(USD/MT) Injury Margin
(%) Injury Margin
(Range)
Fujian Kuncai Material
Technology Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** 0-10
Zhejiang Coloray
Technology Development
Co., Ltd. *** *** *** ***
50-60
Henan Lingbao New
Materials Technology Co.,
Ltd *** *** *** ***
40-50
Non-cooperative producers/
exporters *** *** *** *** 60-70
J. NON -ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
88. The Authority is required to examine any known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same time are
injuring the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by these other factors may not be attributed to the dumped
imports. Factors which may be relevant in this respect include, inter alia , the volume and prices of imports not
sold at dumped prices, contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices
and competition between the foreign and the domestic producers, developments in technology and the export
performance and th e productivity of the domestic industry. It has been examined below whether the above said
factors other than dumped imports could have contributed to the injury to the domestic industry.
a. Volume and prices of imports from third countries
89. The imports from o ther countries are either at higher prices or at negligible levels.
b. Contraction in Demand
90. It is noted that demand has increased as compared to the base year.
c. Changes in the pattern of consumption
91. There have been no changes in the pattern of consumption.
d. Trade restrictive practises
92. There is no known trade restrictive practice.
e. Development in technology
93. None of the interested parties has furnished any evidence to demonstrate any change in the technology.
f. Export performance of the domestic industry
94. The Autho rity notes that the injury information examined relates only to the performance of the domestic industry in
terms of its domestic market.
g. Performance of other products of domestic industry
95. The Authority has considered data only in relation to the product under consideration
h. Productivity of the domestic industry
96. The domestic industry has provided the data relating to their productivity.
K. POST -DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
L.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
97. The following submission are made by the other i nterested parties
i. There are certain discrepancies in the calculations of the Coloray’s PCN -wise Landed Value whereby the
landed prices for certain PCNs appear to have been inadvertently interchanged.
ii. The Authority has not clarified which PCNs of the domes tic industry were selected for comparison with the
Coloray. The Authority must clarify the same as otherwise, it is a violation of the principle of natural justice.
iii. Neither has the petitioner made any submission regarding injury nor does the initiation not ification covers the
scope of the present review on injury faced by the petitioner. The Authority should not undertake injury
examination.
iv. It is a violation of natural justice for the Authority to have analysed the the petitioner’s data and allegations
regarding alleged injury without first having provided an opportunity to the other interested parties to
comment on the same.
v. The volume of the subject imports has decreased significantly during the POI and are insignificant even in
the injury period. The pet itioner has deliberately reduced its selling price to show adverse effects of the
subject imports.
vi. The petitioner’s capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales volume has increased during the
POI as compared to the injury period. Financia l losses suffered is attributed to increase in fixed assets and
depreciation costs.
vii. There is no causal link between dumped imports and injury, the domestic industry is suffering losses during
the POI in spite of anti -dumping duties in existence.
viii. The magnit ude of dumping has decreased substantially in the present review investigations as compared to
the original investigation, the Authority had determined the dumping margin of all other producers to be in
the range of 200 -300% whereas in the present mid -term review investigation, the margin is just 90 -100%.
ix. Rule 23(1A) does not empower the Authority to carry out a limited mid -term review. The same was held by
the Authority when closing the request for initiating a mid -term review of the anti -dumping duties im posed
on Jute products.
x. Change in the product profile in exports claimed by the applicant is misleading, fabricated, and based on
fudged information, or procured through illegal means as this detail/information: (a) is not available in public
domain, (b) i s not available in transaction -wise data, (c) were not provided by the applicant in its application,
and (d) is only available in the questionnaire response filed by the responding exporter.
xi. The applicant must disclose the source of export details, and if it is found to be procured through illegal
means, or fabricated, the investigation must be terminated.
xii. Rule 23(1A) empowers the Authority to only withdraw the duties (partial or complete) and not increase the
same under any circumstances.
xiii. The present inve stigation is without jurisdiction as the initiation notification nor the application provides
information as to how the changed circumstances are of lasting nature. The application is completely in
violation of the provisions of Rule 5 of the anti -dumping rules.
xiv. The claims made by the applicant regarding increase in the raw material and export price of the responding
exporter are wrong, misleading, fabricated and incorrect as: (a) the average raw material cost per unit of the
subject goods of the responding producer / exporter declined by 3.64% during the POI as compared to the
POI of the original investigation, and (b) the average export price of the responding exporter increased
significantly during the POI as compared to the POI of the original investigat ion i.e., by around 7%.
xv. Merely providing information for a period of one year does not substantiate that the changed circumstances
are of lasting nature.
xvi. Increasing duty will be against public interest as the applicant is the only producer creating monopo listic
situation, they are strongly export oriented and unable to meet the domestic demand resulting in demand
supply gap.
xvii. It is the consistent practice of the Authority to consider the nearest PCNs of the domestic industry for those
PCNs which were expor ted by the producers / exporters during the POI but not manufactured and / or sold by
the domestic industry in commercial quantities during the POI.
L.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
98. The following submission are made by the domestic industry.
i. The d omestic industry sought limited review against one exporter. Widening the scope of the
investigation without sufficient grounds and based on the hypothesis that the changed circumstance
claimed by the domestic industry is likely to have affected other expo rters is mere presumption.
ii. Examination of injury parameters is not warranted in a case limited to re -quantification of anti -dumping
duty levied in the original investigation.
iii. Lasting nature is established in cases filed for premature withdrawal of anti -dumping duties. None of the
exporters have disputed with evidence that the changed circumstances are not lasting in nature.
iv. All 9 HSN codes under which the product under consideration is being imported into India is to be
included within the duty table.
v. Exclusion in the current investigation is only of cosmetic grade for cosmetic application. Clarifying the
same does not amount to broadening the scope of the product under consideration.
vi. The volume of consumption of certain raw maw materials have varied over t he injury period. The
Authority is requested to not optimise them for NIP determination.
vii. NIP law provides for normation of consumption inefficiencies and not difference in consumption. The
Authority should give detailed findings if rejecting the claims of domestic industry regarding NIP.
viii. As the domestic industry has not supplied identical PCNs to those exported by the foreign producers, the
Authority should construct NIP for comparable PCNs and make due adjustments for differences in
physical characteristic s of the product. Reliance is placed on India's WTO proposal.
ix. The Authority should recommend residual duties to the producers/exporters who are non -cooperating in
the present investigation.
x. The domestic industry was never burdened with the responsibility t o evidence that changed circumstance
is applicable only to Kuncai at any stage of this investigation. It lies with the exporters who have
cooperated in the investigation to adduce the evidence.
L.3 Examination by the Authority
99. The Authority has examined t he post disclosure submissions made by the interested parties and notes that some of
the comments are reiterations which have already been examined suitably and addressed adequately in the relevant
paras of the final findings. The issues raised for the fir st time in the post -disclosure comments/submissions by the
interested parties and considered relevant by the Authority are examined below.
100. On the submissions made by the domestic industry regarding widening the review to include all exporters from the
subject country, the Authority notes that it is the prerogative of the Authority in deciding whether to extend the
scope of the review on an order -wise or on a company -specific basis. In the present investigation, the Authority
has undertaken the current revie w of the duty for all exporters/producers after being satisfied that the change in
circumstance including cost of raw material and export price alleged by the applicant requires to be investigated
for all producers/exporters in the subject country. Further , from the responses filed by the producers/exporter, the
Authority has been satisfied that the prices of the subject goods have not been aligned with the changes of cost of
production.
101. Both the domestic industry and respondents have contended that inju ry examination need not be conducted for an
investigation with limited scope, the Authority notes that even though the present investigation is limited mid -term
review initiated for re -quantification of anti -dumping duty levied on subject exporters from th e subject country, the
Authority has examined injury parameters to ascertain the lasting nature of the changed circumstances.
102. The other interested party has cited natural justice violation when stating that they were not afforded an
opportunity to comment on the injury parameters of the domestic industry until the stage of disclosure statement.
On the direction of the Authority, the domestic industry has duly submitted their injury formats and shared a non -
confidential version of the same as addendum to t heir application on 16 December 2022. The other interested
parties have been provided ample time to examine and provide their comments on the same. Further, the comments
on injury parameters have been addressed under the relevant headings.
103. The submissions regarding the inclusion of HSN codes in the duty table has been noted and the same has been
included in the table below.
104. All submissions made on the scope of Rule 23(1A), lasting nature, changed circumstance that resulted in the
initiation of the investig ation, the veracity of the export data submitted by the domestic industry, and public
interest and clarification on the product scope have already been addressed under the relevant headings.
105. As regards the issues raised by the domestic industry on the con struction of NIP for comparable PCNs and
adjustment for differences in physical characteristics and other issues on NIP determination. In this regard, firstly,
the Authority matched PCN to the PCN and wherever not matched, considered the nearest NIP for th ose PCNs
which are not produced by the domestic industry, as per DGTR consistent practice. It is also noted that the product
category /profile is same. The same methodology was adopted by the Authority in the original investigation.
106. As regards discrepancie s in the calculations of the Coloray’s PCN -wise Landed Value, the same has been
corrected for the purpose of the present findings.
107. As regards the argument on disclosure if PCNs of the domestic industry were selected for comparison with the
Coloray, the Aut hority has undertaken its consistent practice. Where the domestic industry has supplied the exact
similar PCN, the same has been considered for present determination. However, in cases where the import
quantities include some of the PCNs, which have not be en produced by the domestic industry during the period of
investigation, the non -injurious price or normal value for these PCNs have been computed based on the closest
PCN with due adjustments, if required.
L. INDIAN INDSUTRY’S INTEREST AND OTHER ISSUES
L.1 Submissions made by other interested parties
108. The following submission are made by the other interested parties
i. Enhancement of duty will be against the public interest as the applicant is export oriented, there is huge
demand -supply gap, and creates a monopo listic situation.
L.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
109. The following submission are made by the domestic industry.
i. As regards the contention on public interest, reference is placed on the analysis conducted by the Authority in
the original investigati on where it did not find any adverse impact of the duty on the consumers. Further,
there are no consumer/user participation in the current investigation.
L.3 Examination by the Authority
110. The Authority issued gazette notification inviting views from all the interested parties, including importers,
consumers, and other interested parties. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the consumers to provide
relevant information with respect to the present investigation, including the possible effects of enhancement of
existing anti -dumping duties on their operations. The Authority sought information on, inter -alia, the
interchangeability of the product supplied by various suppliers from different countries, ability of the consumers to
switch sources, the effect of anti -dumping duties on the consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the
adjustment to the new situation resulting from modified anti -dumping duties. None of the users or importers of the
product under consideration has responded to the initiation notification or filed response to the questionnaire.
111. It is noted that the purpose of anti -dumping duties, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic
industry by unfair trade practises of dumping so as to re -establish a situ ation of open and fair competition in the
Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. The Authority recognised that the modification of
the anti -dumping duties might affect the price levels of the subject goods as well as other downstre am products
manufactured by using the subject goods in India.
112. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by imposition of anti -dumping measures, but
would prevent the decline of the domestic industry that may ensue because of low -prices subject imports from
the subject country and help maintain the wider availability of choices to the consumers of the subject goods.
113. On the issue of monopolistic behaviours of the domestic industry, it is noted that the purpose of anti -dumping
duty i s to eliminate dumping which is causing injury to the domestic industry and to re -establish a situation of
open and fair competition in the Indian market. From the anti -dumping rules, it is not borne out that a company,
even if a monopoly, is prohibited fr om requesting the Authority for action against the unfair imports. In the instant
case, the fact that there is only one Indian producer of the product under consideration and non -imposition of anti -
dumping duty will adversely impact the indigenous producti on of the product concern and the fact that the impact
of anti -dumping duty is miniscule to the consumers of the product under consideration as noted in the final
findings of the original case, the Authority is of the view that the imposition of anti -dumpi ng duty will be in public
interest.
M. CONCLUSION
114. After examining various submissions of the interested parties with regard to product under consideration,
confidentiality, adequacy and accuracy of the application, questionnaire responses, scope of the invest igation, re -
quantification of dumping and injury margin, other factors allegedly causing injury to the domestic industry, the
Authority notes that it has appropriately dealt with the issues raised in the relevant paragraphs of these findings.
After examini ng the submissions made by the interested parties and issues raised therein and considering the facts
available on record, the Authority concludes that:
i. The product scope and the PCN methodology considered in the present investigation remains the same as d efined
in the original investigation. It is clarified that the exclusion from the product scope is Natural Mica based Pearl
Industrial Pigments excluding cosmetic grade.
ii. The subject goods do not have a dedicated code at 8 -digit level and is being imported under various HSN codes
which are covered within the scope of this findings.
iii. The applicant constitutes domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the Rules and the application satisfied the criteria
of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
iv. The scope of the present investigation is governed by provisions Rule 23(1A) read with the Office Memorandum
dated 18th June 2019 and is limited to re -determination of dumping/injury margin for all exporters subjected to
duties in the earlier investigation.
v. The dumpin g margins of the cooperating exporters are more than de minimus .
vi. The Authority has examined the injury parameters for a more comprehensive investigation even though the
present investigation is limited to re -quantification of anti -dumping duty levied in t he original investigation.
vii. The lasting nature of the changed circumstance has been duly established by the domestic industry.
N. RECOMMENDATION
115. The Authority notes that the mid -term review investigation was initiated and notified to all the interested parti es
and adequate opportunity was given to the domestic producers, exporters, importers and other interested parties to
provide positive information on the aspects of dumping, injury and causal link.
116. Having concluded that there is changed circumstance warra nting modification of the existing duties, the Authority
is of the opinion that the measure is required to be modified in respect of imports from China imposed vide
Customs Notification No. 47/2021 – Customs (ADD), dated 26th August 2021. Accordingly, defi nitive
antidumping duty as per amount specified in Col. 7 of the table below is recommended to be imposed from the
date of this notification till the remaining period of the duty that is upto 25.08.2026 which is imposed vide
Customs notification no. 47/202 1-Customs dated 26.08.2021 in the event of acceptance of these recommendations
by the Central Government, on all imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from China PR.
117. The landed value of imports for this purpose shall be assessable value a s determined by the Customs under
Customs Act, 1962 and applicable level of custom duties except duties levied under Section 3, 8B, 9, 9A of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Duty Table
SN Heading Description Country of
Origin Country of
Export Producer Amoun t Unit Currency
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 32064990,
32061900,
32041759,
32041739,
32041720,
32041790,
32071040 Natural Mica
based Pearl
Industrial
Pigments
excluding
cosmetic grade China PR Any
country
including
China PR Fujian Kuncai
Material
Technology
Comp any Limited 299 Per
MT US$
2 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Zhejiang Coloray
Technology
Development Co.,
Ltd. 2913 Per
MT US$
3 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Henan Lingbao
New Materials
Technology Co.,
Ltd 2353 Per
MT US$
4 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Any producer
other than serial
no 1 to 3 3144 Per
MT US$
5 -do- -do- Any
country
other than
China PR China PR Any Producer 3144 Per
MT US$
O. Further Procedure
118. An appeal against the ord er of the Central Government that may arise out of this recommendation shall lie before
the Customs, Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.
ANANT SWARUP , Designated Authority
Uploade d by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text