Full Text
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल.- 33004/99 REGD. No. D. L. -33004/99
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 238] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2023/ ASVINA 5, 1945
CG-DL-E-04102023-249125
75.37 ह ।
84569090, 8462290, 84798999, 85152190, 85158090 दर 90132000 के
84622920, 84798999, 85152190, 85158090, दर 90132000 के अंतगात आयाजतत
एल00150,
ह :-
(%)
*** *** *** *** 50-60
*** *** *** *** (30-
*** *** *** *** 130-
*** *** *** *** 100-
*** *** *** *** 110-
जववरण यूओएम 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
कुल सं. 4,265 4,501 4,708 7,299
जववरण यूओएम 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
चीन िन.गण. सं. 3,327 3,624 3,808 6,027
कुल आयात सं. 3,894 4,165 4,274 6,779
% *** *** *** ***
मिीन *** *** *** *** 40-50
जववरण यूओएम 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
जववरण यूओएम 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
जववरण यूओएम 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
जववरण यूओएम 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
जववरण यूओएम 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
आरओसीई % *** *** *** ***
जववरण यूओएम 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
उत्पािन % -14.15% 23.30% 17.05%
मालसूची % 41.67% 11.76% 0.00%
पीबीआई ी लाख रु . % -206.03% 116.82% -1187.78%
नकि लाभ % -279.68% 113.88% -1335.58%
आरओसीई % -11.21% 16.99% -29.01%
(%)
*** *** *** *** (40-
*** *** *** *** 30-
*** *** *** *** 130-
*** *** *** *** 110-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 84561100,
84569090,
84622920,
84798999,
85152190,
85158090
40.05%
80.65%
भी 135.98%
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department Of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
FINAL FINDING
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2023
Case No. ADD (OI) – 07/2022
Subject: Anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of “Industrial Laser Machines,
used for cutting, marking, or welding” originating in or exported from China PR.
F. No. 06/07/2022 -DGTR. —A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) filed an
application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") in
accordance with Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) as
amended from time to time and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and
Collection of Antidumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury)
Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Anti -Dumping Rules” or “Rules”) for
initiation of an anti -dumping investigation and subsequent imposition of anti -dumping
duty on the imports of “Industrial Laser Machines, used for cutting, marking, or welding”
(hereinafter referred to as the “product under consideration” or the “PUC” or the “subject
goods”) from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the “subject country”). The application
is supported by Lastronics Technology Priva te Limited, Proteck Machinery Pvt. Ltd. and
Messers Cutting System India Private Limited.
2. The Authority on the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by the domestic
industry, issued a public notice vide Notification No. 6/7/2022 -DGTR dated 29th
September 2022 in the Gazette of India Extraordinary initiating the investigation in
accordance with Section 9A of the Act read w ith 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 countr y and to recommend the amount of anti -dumping duty,
which if levied, would be adequate to re move the alleged injury to the domestic industry.
A. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described herein below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
i. The Authority notified the Embass y of the subject countr y in India about the receipt of
the present ant i-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in
accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Rules.
ii. The Authority issued a public notice dated 29th September 2022 published in the
Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating an anti -dumping inve stigation concerning the
imports of the subject goods from the subject countr y.
iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the Embass y of the subject
countr y in India, the known producers, and exporters from the subject countr y, known
importers/users and the domestic industry as well, as per the available information . The
interested parties were advised to provide relevant information in the form and manner
prescribed and to make their submissions known in writing within the pre scribed time -
limit.
iv. The Authority also provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the application to
the known producers/exporters and to the Embass y of the subject countr y in India in
accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules.
v. The Embass y of the subject countr y in India w as also requested to advise the
exporters/producers from their countr y to respond to the questionnaire within the
prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the
producers/exporters was also sent along with the names and addresses of the known
producers/exporters from the subject countr y.
vi. The Authority sent exporter’s questionnaires to the following known
producers/exporters in the subject countr y in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules: -
i. Chongq ing Zixu Machine Works
ii. Foshan Beyond Laser Technology Co. Ltd.
iii. GD Hans Yueming Laser Group Co. Ltd.
iv. Glorystar Dongguan Glorystar Laser
v. Hans Songu Intelligent Equipment Co. Ltd.
vi. HSG Laser Co. Ltd.
vii. Jiangsu Jinfangyuan C NC Machine Co. , Ltd.
viii. Jiangsu Yawei Chuangkeyuan Laser Equipment Co. Ltd.
ix. Jinan Acme CNC Equipment Co. Ltd.
x. Liaocheng Jingwei Laser Equipment Co. Ltd.
xi. M S Morn Laser Technology Co. Ltd.
xii. M S Shandong Oree Laser Technology
xiii. Maven Laser Automation Co. Ltd.
xiv. Shandong Hongniu Laser Equipment Co. Lt d.
xv. Shandong Leapion Machinery Co. Ltd.
xvi. Shenzhen Dapeng Laser Technology Co. Ltd.
xvii. Shenzhen Lei Kang Machinery Equipment Co. Ltd.
xviii. Wuhan Optical Valley Laser Equipments Co. Ltd.
xix. Zhejiang Guangxu Numerical Control Equipment Co.
vii. In response to the above notification, the following producers/exporters have submitted
the exporter questionnaire responses:
A. Han’s Group
i. GD Han’s Yueming Laser Group Co. , Ltd.
ii. Han’s Laser Smart Equipment Group Co., Ltd.
iii. Han’s Laser Technology Industry Group Co. , Ltd.
iv. Han’s MP Las er Technology Co. , Ltd.
v. Suzhou Songu Intelligent Equipment Co. , Ltd.
vi. Han’s Laser Technology Co., Ltd .
B. Yawei Group
i. Jiangsu Yawei Machine -Tool Co. , Ltd.
ii. Jiangsu Yawei Chuangkeyuan Laser Equipment Co. , Ltd.
C. Trumpf
i. Trumpf (China) Co., Ltd.
ii. Jiangsu Jinfangyuan CNC Machine Co. , Ltd.
iii. Trumpf Werkzeugmaschinen SE+ Co. Ltd.
D. HSG
i. HSG Laser Co. , Ltd
ii. Jinan Hongshi Laser Technology Co., Ltd
E. Bystronic Group
i. Bystronic Laser AG
ii. Bystronic (Tianjin) Laser Lt d
iii. Bystronic ( Shenzhen ) Laser Technology Co., Ltd
iv. Bystronic Laser India Pvt Ltd
F. Jinan Bodor Group
i. Jinan Bodor CNC Machine Co., Ltd
ii. Bodor Laser India Pvt Ltd
G. Shandong Oree
i. Jinan Oree Laser Technology Co. , Ltd
ii. Shandong Oree Laser Technology Co. , Ltd
H. Gweike
i. Gwe ike Tech Co. Ltd
iii. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known importers/users of the subject
goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the
Rules: -
i. ADK Engineering Solutions
ii. Agile Machineries Pvt Ltd
iii. Angel India Cad Cam Pvt Ltd
iv. Apollo Tyres Limited
v. Arihant Maxsell Technologies Private Limited
vi. Arihant Maxsell Technologies Private Limited
vii. Autogen India Private Limited
viii. Chirag International
ix. Divine Techno Engineers
x. Force Motors Limited
xi. Global India Automotive Pvt. Ltd.
xii. Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co Ltd
xiii. Involute Technologies Pvt Ltd
xiv. Laser Technologies Pvt Ltd
xv. Lubi Electronics
xvi. Mahavir Impex
xvii. Meera Laser Solutions Private Limited
xviii. Mikronix Calibration Centre
xix. Mtech Laser India Private Limited
xx. Narola Gems
xxi. Pusan Automation
xxii. SAI ARC India Private Limited
xxiii. Schneider Electric India Pvt Limited
xxiv. Shivam Jewels
xxv. Sigma Mechotronics Pvt Ltd
xxvi. SPR Technologies
xxvii. Star Laser Technology
xxviii. Suttatti Enterprises Private Limited
xxix. Tata Steel Limited
xxx. Truetzschler India Pvt Ltd
xxxi. Uflex Limited
xxxii. Venus Jewel
xxxiii. Z-Agi Agricultural Equipment India Priv ate Limited
iv. In response to the above notification, the following importers/users have submitted the
questionnaire responses:
i. Angel India Cad Cam Pvt. Ltd.
ii. Apex Machinery Technology
iii. Electronica Hitech Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd.
iv. Laser Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
v. Meera Laser Solution Pvt Ltd.
vi. Sarika Engineers
vii. Sharda Engineers
viii. SPR Technologies
ix. Trumpf (India) Pvt. Ltd.
v. In response to the above notification, the China Chambers of Commerce for import and
export of machinery and electronic products have submitted injury submission:
vi. The Authority specified proposed Product Control Number (PCN) for fair comparison
of the PUC in the Initiation Notification s dated 29th September 202 2.
vii. The Authority invited comments from the interested parties on the proposed PCN and
thereafter held a hearing on 14th November 202 2 to finalise PCN methodology . All the
parties who presented their views in virtual meeting were requested to file written
comments.
viii. After considering the arguments made by the interested parties in virtual meeting and
the written comments filed thereafter , the Authority notified final PCN methodology on
13th December 2022.
ix. Interested parties were requested to file the questionnaire response in accordance with
the PCN notified upto 28th December 2022. Thereafter, an extension was granted upto
11th January 2023 upon request made.
x. The Authority made available non -confidential version of the evidence presented by
various interested parties through e -mail to the interested parties.
xi. The Authority issued Economic Interest Questionnaire to the Chinese Embassy, all the
known exporters, importers, and the domestic industry. The Economic Interest
Questionnaire was also shared with the Administrative Line Ministry.
xii. The Authority called upon DG Systems to provide transaction -wise details of imports
of the subject goods for the injury period. The Authority has relied upon DG Systems
data for the computation of the volume of imports and its analysis after due
examination of the transactions.
xiii. Non-Injurious Price (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIP’) has been determined based on the
cost of production and reasonable profits of the subject goods in India, based on the
information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules so as to ascertain whether
anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury
to the domestic industry.
xiv. The information/data submitted by t he domestic industry has been verified to the extent
deemed necessary and relied upon for the purpose of these findings. Information was
sought from the domestic industry and the other interested parties to the extent deemed
necessary. The Authority has al so conducted physical verification of the domestic
industry . The Authority has also verified the data of the responding exporter s from the
subject country through desk verification.
xv. The period of investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘POI’) for the purpose of the
present investigation is 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022 (12 months). The injury
examination period has been considered as the period from 2018 -19, 2019 -20, 2020 -21
and the POI.
xvi. The Authority held an oral hearing in hybrid mode on 26th May, 202 3 to provide an
opportunity to all the interested parties to present information orally in accordance with
Rule 6(6). All the parties who presented their views in the oral hearing were requested
to file written submissions in order to enable the opposing in terested parties to file
rejoinder thereafter.
xvii. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined
with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority
has accepted the confidentialit y claims wherever warranted and such information has
been considered as confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties.
Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to
provide sufficient non -confident ial version of the information filed on confidential
basis.
xviii. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation which have
formed the basis of the final findings was issued to the interested parties on 7th
September 2023 and the int erested parties were allowed time up to 15th September
2023 to comment on the same. The comments to disclosure statement received from the
interested parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant, in this final
finding notification.
xix. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided the
necessary information during the course of the present investigation, or has
significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as
non-cooperative a nd recorded the present preliminary findings on the basis of the facts
available.
xx. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all
the interested parties to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considere d
relevant to the present investigation.
xxi. ‘***’ in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on
confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xxii. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the prese nt investigation is 1 US $= Rs
75.37.
B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
4. The product under consideration (hereinafter also referred to as the “PUC”) as defined at
the stage of initiation was as follows:
3. The product under consideration in the present application is “Industrial Laser
Machines, in fully assembled, SKD or CKD form, used for cutting, marking, or welding
operations”. The scope of the PUC includes Laser Cutting Machines (LCM), Laser
Marking Machines (LMM), and Laser Welding machines (LWM).
4. These machines are used for cutting, marking, or welding on metal/non -metal
surfaces. Depending on the specific end -use application of the PUC, the power of the
laser used in the PUC can range from 3 watts to 40 kilowatts. All laser industrial
machines used for purposes other cutting, marking, or welding are excluded from the
scope of the PUC.
5. The product under consideration is classified under chapter 84, 85 and 90 under
tariff headings 84561100, 84569090, 8462290, 84798999, 85152190, 85158090 and
90132000. The customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on the scope
of the present investigation.
C.1 Submission made by the interested parties
5. The interested parties have made the following submission with respect to the product
under consideration and like article :
a. Product types which were not produced by the petitioner during the POI should be
excluded from the scope of the PUC. Even till date, the petitioner lacks the capability to
produce them. It is the consistent practice o f the Authority to limit the scope of the PUC
to goods actually manufactured by the domestic industry.
b. The Authority is requested to exclude the following product types from the scope of the
PUC since the petitioner lacks the capacity and capability to produce it.
Double headed LCMs,
Protective film LCMs,
LCMs with a power range of less than 500W.
2 D LCM with laser source power more than 15 KW,
Large size gantry type LCM,
LCM combination with punching machine.
Fully automated coiled sheet fiber laser
Product types with lasers
Laser cutting machines with laser power more than 15KW .
c. The investigation effectively has three different PUCs with different technical
properties, specifications, end -uses, and average CIF price. Separate examination
should be done by the Authority for all the parameters .
d. SLTL might not have standing to file the application for anti-dumping duty on laser
cutting machine . SLTL is trying to achieve indirectly what it can’t directly. The fact that
some type of industrial laser mach ine not included in PUC shows the product is not one
category. ADA and AD Rules does not restrict product type -wise standing assessment.
e. The scope of the PUC is broad, which does not allow a representative assessment of
material injury. Panel Report in EC – Farmed Salmon from Norway is relied on. Hence,
separate injury examination has to be undertaken for LCM, LMM, and LWM. SLTL
might not be able to show material injury for LCM alone. It is not disputed that the
imports of LMM and LWM have no impact on the domestic industry of LCM.
f. The Authority is requested to examine the PCNs of the machines imported by the
petitioner. If the same PCNs are imported, it can mean they are not produced by the
domestic industry a nd hence, should be excluded from scope of the PUC.
g. The domestic industry must disclose the complete details of machines it has imported.
The scope of the investigation should exclude the products imported by the domestic
industry as importing of parts evidenc e the domestic industry ’s inability to manuf acture
those parts.
h. There is no clear definition of the type of machines considered as Semi-Knocked Down
(“SKD”) and Completely Knocked Down (“CKD”). Inclusion of CKD shall also
include components resulting in investigation of goods not part of the current
proceeding.
i. The three machines involved in the present investigation, but they are different product
as the end use and industry is different:
The price of each type of machine is significantly different from other products.
The machines are produced ind ependent of each other. A producer of one type of
machine does not have to produce the other type of machines.
The function of each machine is different from other machines. Therefore, the
product is not technically and commercially substitutable with eac h other.
The user industry application of the machines and the users are different.
j. The decisions of EC- Salmon, EC -Fasteners and Huawei Technologies are not
applicable as the nature of the product under consideration is significantly different in
compar ison to the nature of the PUC. The common denominator that is laser in 3
different machines is flawed as no commonality can be drawn between the laser
machine merely by virtue of laser component.
k. The PUC is the industrial laser machine and other laser mac hine. However, the
domestic industry has not itself included other types of laser machine within the scope
of the PUC such as laser engraving machines, laser bending machines, laser drilling
machines and laser cleaning machines.
l. Laser cutting machines, la ser marking machines and laser wielding machines are not
manufactured together. All known producers in India are not involved in the production
of all three types of lasers cutting machines.
m. There is a significant difference in terms of import price betwee n the three laser
machines. The difference between the three products is not arising out of being in
finished form or unassembled form. Thus, none of the possible justifications that permit
clubbing of different products as one PUC are applicable.
n. As per t he initiation notification, the PCN proposed shows machines with laser power
above 500 watts. The Authority is requested to clarify if the machines with laser power
less than 500 watts are excluded from the scope of investigation. Machines with less
than l ess than 500 watt s have different usage as compared to machine with more than
500 watt s.
C.2 Submission made on behalf of the domestic industry
6. The following submission s have been made on behalf of the domestic industry with
respect to the product under consideration and like article :
i. The PUC in the present investigation is “Industrial Laser Machines”, in fully
assembled, SKD, or CKD form, used for cutting, marking, or w elding operations.
ii. Interested parties have argued that inclusion of LMM ( laser making machines), LWM
(laser welding machines) and LCM ( laser cutting machines) would make the PUC
broad. The Anti -dumping Agreement or Rules do not provide any guidelines on ho w
and in which manner a PUC should be defined.
iii. There is no requirement under the law or rules that the product types within the scope
of the PUC must be internally homogenous. In any case, LCM, LMM and LWM are
internationally homogenous and one product. All these machines are fundamentally
laser systems.
iv. The Industrial Laser Machine primarily consists of a laser which generates laser
power. A laser consists of a laser source and a laser head. The laser source generates
the laser beam, while the head is de signed for specific operations like cutting,
marking, or welding. Different laser strengths are used based on the desired laser
power for various applications.
v. The additional components of a machine, like the bed and controller, are meant to
assist the pr imary product, which is the laser. The size of the bed varies based on the
application, with larger beds for cutting machines and smaller beds for marking
machines. In welding machines, both options are possible. Despite these variations
which are necessar y to suit the end application, these machines cannot be considered
dislike. All “Industrial Laser Machines” are considered one product and internally
homogeneous.
vi. The Authority has identified these codes 84561100, 84569090, 84622920, 84798999,
85152190, 85 158090, and 90132000 under which 95% of imports were made during
the POI. Further, there are several other codes under which a minor volume of the
PUC is being imported. Thus, the Authority in the proposed duty table must include
all the HS codes under whi ch the imports are being made.
vii. Certain product types not produced by the domestic industry should not be excluded
from the PUC scope due to the following reasons:
a. As subject goods are normally made -to-order, supplying of the product would not
arise in cas e the domestic industry is not approached for offer nor made know of
the requirement. Hence for examination, the Authority must consider (a) whether
the domestic industry was even approached for material, (b) whether the domestic
industry was even made kno wn about the requirement, (c) manufacturing and
sales by the domestic industry over its operational history.
b. The product type if substitutable with those manufactured and sold by the
domestic industry .
c. The product type is not in demand during the POI, cons idering how the subject
goods are normally made to order. If production of a more complex or a higher
range product type is done, then it per say means that there exists ability to
produce less complex or lower range product types.
viii. The respondent is making blank requests for exclusion of product type from the scope
of the PUC without identifying the particular product type.
ix. Components (Bed and controlled for the laser) were never considered for preparing
the information on various injury parameters. Hence, exclusion of components has no
impact on injury parameters.
x. The primary difference between different types of machines is laser head. A mere
replacement of a cutting head would allow a consumer to use machines for different
purposes.
xi. As regards the contention that the domestic industry did not produce the PCN
imported by it, none of the imported machines were sold without further processing.
The imported machines could not be sole as it is and they were processed to the form
that can b e sold in the market.
xii. The term semi -knocked down (SKD) and completely knocked down (CKD)” is from
Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Harmonized System issued
by the World Customs Organization (WCO). The term "SKD/CKD form" refers to an
article that is incomplete or unfinished but retains the essential characteristics of the
complete article. Importing a standalone component does not qualify as importing the
Product Under Consideration (PUC) in its SKD/CKD form .
C.3. Examination by the Authority
7. The product under consideration in the present investigation was defined as “Industrial
Laser Machines , in fully assembled, SKD or CKD form, used for cutting, marking, or
welding operations. It was stated that the scope of the PUC includes Laser Cutting
Machines (LCM), Laser Marking Machines (LMM), and Laser Welding machines (LWM).
It was further stated th at these machines are used for cutting, marking, or welding on
metal/non -metal surfaces, and depending on the specific end -use application of the PUC,
the power of the laser used in the PUC can range from 3 watts to 40 kilowatts. All laser
industrial machi nes used for purposes other than, cutting, marking, or welding are
excluded from the scope of the PUC.
Laser Cutting Machine
Laser Marking Machine
Laser Welding Machine
8. Laser cutting , welding, or marking machines are essentially machines which have laser
source as the base product and which performs the function of emitting laser required for
cutting, welding, marking or any other operations. The laser source is so controlled (in
respect of amo unt of laser density, i.e., brightness and exposure time) that it can perform
the function of welding, cutting, marking or any other application. Further, the amount of
laser light is controlled by use of different power of laser. The amount of light event ually
is relevant to the amount of material that can be welded, marked, or cut. Depending on the
object where cutting, marking, or welding operations are required to be performed,
different kinds of laser sources are used. Different laser source merely differs in terms of
the amount of laser light and the manner in which the laser light will be emitted by the
source. Producers normally buy laser from producers who specialise in making lasers.
Since the object can be of different kinds of material such as plastic, wood, glass, fabric or
metal, the amount of light required to cut, weld or mark would differ. Accordingly, the
machines are produced in many sizes to accommodate different size and type of objects.
Further, the object may be of varying size. Depe nding on the size of the object, the product
is supplied in different bed sizes. Further, the machine can perform in two ways – either
the machine will move on with the object, or the object will move along with the machine.
Thus, different kinds of laser machines are nothing but one product which essentially
perform the function of emitting laser light in a controlled manner. Further it emits light in
such a manner that it can produce the desired result of cutting, welding or marking on
different kinds and variety of objects. In view of the same, the Authority conclude s that
different kinds of laser machines constitute one article.
9. Mere fact that the machine may perform the function of welding, cutting, or marking does
not render these as different product s. These different end applications are merely an end
result of the manner in which the laser light is emitted by the machine. Further, different
types of machines merely differ in terms of amount of laser power generated or the bed
type and size. These di fferences however do not render these products as different
products.
10. With regard to like articles, Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules provides as under: -
"like article " means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article
under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article,
another article which although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely
resembling those of the articles under investigation ;
11. The submission s made by the interested parties and the domestic industry with regard to
the product under consideration have been examined and addressed hereunder . The
interested parties ha ve raised number of issues with regard to the scope of the PUC in the
present case. It has been contented that the scope of the PUC is too wide and includes
different types of laser machines, which have significantly different cost, price, and end
use. Further, interested parties have sought exclusion of many product types from the
scope of the PUC on the grounds that the domestic industry does not produce and supply
the product in the desired product type, or, the quality of the product produced and
supplied by the domestic industry is different. The arguments of interested parties have
been examined by undertaking on the spot verification at the premises of the domestic
industry and calling relevant information from the parties.
12. The Authority has adopted certain broad principles for the purpose of exclusion of
products of certain grades/specifications from the scope of the PUC. One such principle is
whether the specification/grade/production process/production technology pleaded by the
interested parties’ results in a different product in terms of physical and technical
characteristics whereby the distinctiveness of the product can be established with clarity
and precision. The second principle is whether the domestic industry claimed through their
product production or product profile/ broacher as manufactur er of these grades , whether
the domestic industry is manufactur ed/suppl ied such distinctive items at all during the POI
or prior to the POI or in the past and whether the domestic industry capability to provide
the product. Thirdly, whether the product sup plied by the domestic industry is comparable
to the product proposed/considered for exclusion and in such a case whether any evidential
scientific literature or any other technical evidence has been established by the domestic
industry.
a. Whether e ach mach ine should be seen differently
13. It is noted that the product under consideration for the purposes of the present
investigation is Industrial Laser Machine. The dumping and injury analysis has been done
for Industrial Laser Machine as a whole. Different type s of Industrial Laser Machine are
comparable in term of essential product characteristics including physical, production
technology, manufacturing process, plant & equipment, functions & usage, etc. Different
product types are laser systems used for indust rial purposes . While different industrial
laser machines have different specific end applications, it is however seen that they
essentially have same fundamental laser systems and thus perform the same function , i.e.,
acting as a laser source . The laser source can perform the function of cutting, welding or
marking, depending on the way the laser source is used . The product can be produced with
varieties of laser sources, depending on the quantum of laser energy required . It is also
seen that other compon ents (such as bed size) are used depending on the object on which
the machine has to perform the operation. Different categories/types are therefore
developed to meet specific end-user requirements. Since it is a capital good and custom er
made product, the design of the industrial laser machines is as per the end use
requirements. Therefore, different types of industrial laser machines constitute one article,
and it would not be appropriate to exclude product types, if the domestic industr y is
manufacturing or has the capability of producing the like article to the product being
imported into India.
14. Industrial laser machines are manufactured in various sizes and capacities described
in terms of bed size, laser source and power. The domesti c producers as well as the foreign
producers manufacture different types of industrial laser machines with different bed size,
laser source, power, and different additional features . The machines with different
capacities are used for cutting, welding, and marking operations . Machines produced by
the producers in the subject country and machines produced by the domestic industry are
technically and commercially substitutable.
b. Inclusion of p roduct types which were not produced by the petitioner
15. Since the product is a custom er-made product, the domestic industry has supplied
machines as per the customer requirements. There may be many types/sizes/
dimensions, which may be manufactured in China and not exported to India. If such
types or form of PUC and are in commercial competition with like article and can cause
injury to the domestic producer they can be covered by the scope of the product under
consideration. It is noted that the product is a custom er-made product . The domestic
industry produces all types machines, which may not be imported. Similarly, all types of
machines imported may not be produced by the domestic industry. Therefore, only on
the basis of non -production of particular product type, exclusion cannot be granted.
16. The claim of interested parties with regard to exclusion of specific product types has
been examined hereinbelow
i. Double headed LCMs – The domestic industry has provided evidence of sale of
multi -functional machines like machines performing both cutting and wielding
operations, 3 -in-1 machines, double headed LCM etc. Therefore, the same cannot be
excluded from the product scope.
ii. Machines having weight more than 10 MT, Machine with robotic arm, Master
oscillator power amplifier LWM – The domestic industry has provided evidence of
its sales of these products and therefore, the products cannot be excluded.
iii. Protective film LCMs – Protective film LCM is nothing but just an added safety
feature to the machines. During the physical verification, it was seen that the
domestic industry can produce LCM with protective films. Therefore, the exclusion
cannot be provided.
iv. LCMs with a power range of less than 500 watt - The domestic industry has
submitted evidence that they manufacture and sell machines of laser power as low as
20 watt and as high as 6000 watts in the period of investigation itself and has got
orders to supply machine of 20,000 watt. Therefore, the contention cannot be
accepted.
v. 2 D LCM with laser source power more than 15 KW - It is seen from the import data
that there are no imports of machines having laser power more than 10 000 watt .
Further the domestic industry has shown order of machine having laser power of
20000 watt . Therefore, the contention of the interested parties cannot be accepted.
vi. Machines having 2d or 3d axis and large size gantry type LCM - The domestic
industry claimed through their product brochure as manufacturer of these grades.
Similarly, types of machines such as handheld machines, Bevel LCM, Mini tube
LCM, 3 chuck tube LCM, heavy tube LCM, 3+1 chuck tube LCM, sheet + tube
LCM, LCM auto sheet loader, machine with automation, protective film LCM, fully
automatic coiled sheet fibre laser are manufactured and supplied by the domestic
industry as is evident from their brochures.
vii. LCM combination with punching machine - If the product type is imported as an
Industrial laser machine, the same is covered under the scope of the product under
consideration . Since these machines are in commercial competition with like article
and can cau se injury to the domestic producer and therefore these machines are
covered in the scope of the product under consideration.
viii. The machines are used for cutting, marking, or welding on metal/non -metal surfaces.
Depending on the specific end -use application o f the PUC, the power of the laser
used in the PUC can range from 3 watts to 40 Kilowatts. All laser industrial
machines used for purpose other than cutting, marking, or welding are excluded
from the scope of the PUC.
ix. Machines of specific bed size: several interested parties have argued exclusions of
machines with specific bed sizes to be excluded on the ground that the domestic
industry is not manufacturing the bed of particular sizes and machines with
particular laser power. It is noted that the size of t he bed is prepared through
fabrication process. It is not necessary for the domestic industry to manufacture bed
size of all dimensions. The domestic industry has manufactured machines with a bed
size of 24 sq. mtr. Since the process of manufacturing bed size is fabrication,
different bed sizes can easily be made. The difference in bed size pleaded by the
interested parties does not results in a different product in terms of physical
characteristics and chemical composition or technology.
c. Exclusion or inc lusion of components.
17. As regards arguments if components are included or excluded from the scope of product
under consideration, it is clarified that components are excluded from the scope of
investigation.
d. Meaning of SKD and CKD machines.
18. As regards meaning of SKD and CKD, the Authority considers that the same is a well
understood term. SKD shall mean a laser machine which is not fully assembled, but is
transacted as a laser machine with all essential components not fitted and the machine is
not ready to use. CKD for the purpose shall mean an article in its incomplete or unfinished
form and has the essential character of the complete article. Hence, a standalone
component shall not amount to import of the PUC in its SKD/ CKD form. However, if all
the c omponents are transacted in such a manner that it merely requires assembly operation
in India, such transaction would amount to transaction in CKD condition and shall be
within the ambit of the PUC , even if such transaction does not take place in single
consignment .
19. In view of the above , the Authority conclude s not to modify the scope of the product under
consideration as defined in the initiation notification.
e. Customs classification in which the product is being imported .
20. The Authority has examined the DG Systems data and found that t here is no dedicated
classification under the Customs Tariff Act. The product has been imported under HS
codes - 84561100, 84569090, 84622920, 84798999, 85152190, 85158090 and 90132000
codes . The customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on the scope of the
present investigation .
21. After considering the information on record, the Authority concludes that there is no
known difference in the product under consideration exported from subject country and
the product produced by the domestic industry. The subject product produced by the
domestic industry are comparable to the product under consideration imported from
China . The product supplied b y the domestic industry and the imported product are similar
in terms of characteristics such as physical & technical , functions & uses, product
specifications, distribution & marketing, and tariff classification of the goods. The two are
technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are using the imported product
and the product supplied by the domestic industry interchangeably.
22. Thus, the Authority concludes that the subjec t product produced by the applicant domestic
industry is like article to the product under consideration, in accordance with the AD
Rules.
Product Control Number ( PCN )
23. The Authority specified proposed Product Control Number (PCN) for the purpose of fair
comparison of different types of the PUC , in the Initiation Notification dated 29th
September 202 2. The Authority invited comments from the interested parties on the
proposed PCN and thereafter held deliberations with the interested parties on 14th
November 2022 to finalise the PCN methodology. All the parties who presented their
views at the time of deliberations were requested to file their submissions in writing .
24. Submission made by the interested parties.
i. Specific watt/Kw are an essential param eter along with the size of the machine and
should be considered as a PCN parameter.
ii. Origin of fibre laser and Enclosure (cover) should be considered as a PCN parameter.
iii. Technology base should be considered as a PCN parameter.
iv. Type of laser source should be considered as a PCN parameter.
25. Submission made by the domestic industry .
i. Mere existence of some difference in the product in itself does not justify including
the same in framing PCN.
ii. Analysis of import data does not show that the parameters proposed by the other
interested parties are mentioned anywhere in the import data.
iii. Analysis of product literatures of number of producers does not show that the
Authority can verify these parameters from those product catalogues.
26. After conside ring the submissions made by the interested parties, the Authority notified
following PCN methodology on 13th December 2022 for the purpose of undertaking fair
comparison between different types of products under consideration .
Criteria Values PCN Code
Category/ Type of
machine Laser Cutting Machines (LCM) C
Laser Marking Machines (LMM) M
Laser Welding Machines (LWM) W
Laser power Power of the laser in watts (W), expressed in
five-digit form with the prefix ‘L’ L00100, L00150,
L01000, etc.
Bed size 3000mm x 1500mm B1
4000mm x 2000mm B2
6000mm x 2000mm B3
6000mm x 2500mm B4
8000mm x 2500mm B5
12000mm x 2500mm B6
Others (to be defined by respondent) B7, B8, etc
Model of laser
source IFA C1
IPG C2
MAX C3
Raycus C4
Others (to be defined by respondent) C5, C6, etc.
Type of laser
cutting head CO2 laser X
Fibre laser Y
Number of axes 2D 2D
3D 3D
C. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1. Submission made by other interested parties
27. Following submissions have been made by interested parties with regard to the scope of the
domestic industry and its standing :
i. Supporters have not filed data as per Trade Notice 14/2018. Hence, the support should
be rejected in accordance with Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules. In the absence of such
information, the Authority will not be able to examine if they are facing injury and the
existence of a causal link.
ii. Apart from those identified in the application, the like article is produced in India by
(i) Mansoori Weldarc India Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s Rua nmi Technology (Joy Laser brand),
(iii) M/s Dhanlaxmi Laser Technology, (iv) Dolphin Laser Machine Pvt. Ltd., (v)
Starlase Systems Pvt. Ltd., and (vi) M/s Sunny Machineries. Only 1 of the 13
producers have come forward to claim injury.
iii. Petitioner’s share in Indian production would be 20 -25% and would not constitute
“major proportion”. None of the producers except for Dolphin Laser Machine (4
machines) has imported the PUC from China PR. Even their import is lesser than the
domestic industry . Hence, production by all of them should be considered for standing
determination.
iv. The other Indian producers could account for up to 90% of the total production of the
PUC.
v. The share of SLTL in total Indian production can be discerned to be approximately
40% and barely qualify as a major proportion.
vi. Prakash Laser and Messer Cutting Systems India Pvt. Ltd. are other producers of the
product in India. Though Messers registered as a supporter, their production was not
considered to determine the total production.
vii. The Authority is requested to verify the reason for continuous imports of the PUC by
the domestic industry over the years.
viii. There is no clarity on whether production of SEZ unit has been included for analysis
of standing and economic parameters. It is settle d that SEZ cannot be considered
constituent of the domestic industry as per Rule 2(b).
ix. The applicant should not be exempt from the criteria for determining domestic
industry merely because they are MSME. The domestic industry should provide
MSME certificat e to validate the claim and identify the law which provides them such
exception.
x. The domestic industry accounts for only 23% of the total production in India. The
growth of the domestic industry in production is only 35% as compared to the 50%+
increase in other domestic producers.
xi. The Authority should examine information of all domestic producers to understand
the market dynamics and impact of imported goods. Reliance is also placed on AD
investigation of Polyester Staple Fiber from China, Indonesia, Mala ysia, and
Thailand.
xii. The information on record of 8 known producers shows that the domestic industry
does not have required standing.
D.2. Submission made by the domestic industry
28. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to standing
and scope of the domestic industry:
i. The present application is filed by Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited (STLT)
supported by Messer Cutting System India P vt Ltd, Lastronics Technology Private
Limited and Protek Machinery Pvt Ltd. The entire industry belongs to MSME sector.
Some of the MSME companies have a turnover of Rs 10 Cr or less.
ii. The Authority undertook separate standing determination in the investigation
concerning imports of (i) Front Axle Beam and Steering Knuckles, (ii) Penicillin and
(iii) Rubber Chemical, however, they were not with respect to various product types
within the scope of the PUC but various PUCs within the same investigation. The
present investigation involves a single PUC. There is no law or practice of the
Authorit y to permit separate standing determination.
iii. The p roduction of the PUC by (i) Mansoori Weldarc India Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s Ruanmi
Technology (Joy Laser Brand), (iii) M/s Dhanalaxmi Laser Technology, (iv) Dolphin
Laser Machine Pvt. Ltd. and (v) Starlase Systems Pvt. Ltd. need not be considered for
determining domestic industry standing as they are only resellers of the product in
India. Further, the import data shows that Dolphin Laser Machine and Starla se
Systems have imported substantial volume of the subject goods from China during the
period of investigation .
iv. Despite the initiation of the investigation and gazette notification, none of the alleged
producers have shown interest. Additionally, the importers failed to provide an
estimate of production of alleged producers.
v. The final finding of Solar Cells and Modules referred by interested parties is contrary.
As per domestic industry, there is no explicit exclusion of SEZs or EOUs from the
scope of the domestic industry . Even if the Authority excluded th e production of the
subject goods in SEZ unit, the domestic industry still has sufficient standing.
vi. The domestic industry had imported 18 machines from the subject country in the POI.
The share of imports of the domestic industry is only 0.3% of subject im ports during
the POI and is insignificant. Out of the 18 machines imported, 9 were sold after
processing in the POI. Hence, the share of the imported machines in the domestic
sales of the domestic industry is merely 3.6%.
vii. The domestic industry has requeste d other producers to file support letter to the
petition to the Authority directly. The domestic industry is not in possession of the
support letter as it contains confidential information.
viii. V olume of production are estimates based on market information. Th e Authority may
substitute the estimates with the actual production volumes of supporters as per the
letter filed with the Authority for the purpose of determination of standing of the
domestic industry .
ix. The Authority has previously considered domestic producers as supporters without
requiring detailed information as per Trade Notice 14/2018 . MSMEs find it
burdensome to provide detailed information as per Trade Notice 14/2018.
D.3. Examination by the Authority .
29. The submission made by the interested parties and domestic industry with regard to the
standing and scope of the domestic industry have been examined and addressed hereunder:
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 p roducers are related to the exporters or
importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case
the term ‘domestic industry’ may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers ”.
a. Alleged existence of large number of other producers in India.
30. As regards the arguments of other interested parties on existence of more domestic
producers, the Authority sent a communication to these other domestic producers
identified by the interested parties , via email, on the email id s provided by the se other
interested parties. In response to the email, only one company , Dolphine Laser Machine
responded providing estimated figures of its capacity, production, percentage of their
domestic sales and percentage of imports from China PR. The company further stated that
they support imposition of anti -dumping duties on Industrial laser machines. However, the
company has stated that they import 60% of their production . In view of high share of
imports as compared to their own production , the Authority considers that the company
cannot be considered eligible domestic producer for the purpose of Rule 2(b). Further their
production far exceeded their capacity, which further showed that the production reported
includes imports made by them . The annual report of the company shows total turnover of
the company as Rs. 1.9 crores during the POI, which does not justify their sales volumes .
The Authority considers that imports made by a company and sold in the domestic market
is already included in t he import volumes and demand determined. Therefore, for the
purpose of the present investigation, the Authority has not consider ed the data of the said
company.
b. Non-compliance of support letter with trade notice 13/2018 .
31. The other interested parties have contended that the letters filed by the supporters should
be disregarded , as these do not comply with requirements laid down vide Trade Notices
13/2018 and 14/2018. The Authority considers that while Trade Notices 13/2018 and
14/2018 require s a domestic producer to provide certain information, the mere fact that a
party supporting the imposition of AD measures without providing that information is
insufficient to hold that the party has not supported the measures. Any such interpretation
would be violative of the Rules. Further , the Authority vide Trade Notice 4/2021 dated
16th June, 2021 has allowed supporters to express support after giving information
concerning capacity, production, and sales. The supporters in the prese nt case have already
supplied such information. Therefore, the Authority has considered the support expressed
by these companies.
c. Inclusion of production of SEZ unit in the standing determined .
32. As per SEZ Act -2005 the "Domestic Tariff Area" means the whole of India (including the
territorial waters and continental shelf) but does not include the areas of the Special
Economic Zones. Hence, the SEZ units are considered to be deemed to be outside DTA
area. The production o f SEZ units ha s therefore not been considered in the determination
of total Indian production for the purpose of standing.
d. Imports made by the applicant.
33. It has been contended that the applicant has imported the product under consideration from
the subject country during the POI. It has been submitted by the petitioner that out of the
imported machines, *** machines were further processed and then sold in the domestic
market. Th e Authority notes that the volume of import s made by the petitioner is
insignificant (***% in relation to total imports into India and ***% in relation to total
demand in India and ***% of its total domestic sales ), were processed after sales .
Production h as remained the core activity of the petitioner. The imports made by the
petitioner are not such in volumes as to disentitle them from being treated as eligible
domestic industry.
34. The application has been filed by M/s. Sahajanand laser Technology Limited. The
Authority has received support letter from Lastronics Technology Private Limited, Proteck
Machinery Pvt Ltd. and Messers Cutting System India Private Limited , wherein their
capacity, production, and domestic sales have been declared. The applicant has submitted
production volume of the other Indian producers as per market intelligence.
35. No other information has been brought forward by the interested parties on total
production in India. Therefore, the Authority has relied on the information provided by the
petitioner , wherever the same has not been provided by a domestic producer . It is seen that
the production by the applicant constitutes a major proportion of the production of the like
article in India. Further, the applicant together with supporters account for 50-60% of the
total domestic production of the like article in India. Production of the petitioner alone
accounts for 40-50% of Indian production. The applicant has cer tified that they are not
related to any exporter or producer of the subject goods in the subject country or an
importer in India either directly or indirectly within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of anti-
dumping rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3)
read with Rule2(b) of the anti-dumping rules.
36. On examination of the material on record as above, and considering the legal provisions,
the Authority hold that the applicant constitute s domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b) of
the anti-dumping rules and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule
5(3) of the Rules.
D. ISSUES RELATED TO CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1. Submission made by the other interested parties
37. Following submissions have been made by other interested parties in regard to
confidentiality claimed by them and the domestic industry :
i. The p etitioner has not disclosed source of import data and the method of segregation.
Non-disclosure of the source of data is a violation of natural justice principles. The
CESTAT order in All India Laminated Fabrics Manufacturers Association v.
Designated Authority is relied on.
ii. The applicant has not provided DGCI&S data. The Authority has also not called for
the same. The applicant has been allowed to bypass the mandatory requirements of
DGCI&S T data in the checklist.
iii. No information regarding the economic parameters of other producers, including 3
supporters have been provided.
iv. No support letters allegedly submitted by other companies have been circulated with
the NCV petition. The respondent is unaware if these supporters have met the
requirements laid under the Trade Notice.
v. The domestic industry has not provided the declaration of the imports and their
relationship w ith the importer or exporter of the subject goods for the whole injury
period. They have only provided the import information of the POI and the subject
country. The volume of imports submitted by the petitioner has also been marked as
confidential.
vi. The domestic industry has not disclosed any source of the production of other
domestic producers and no evidence has been attached in support to their production
data. The domestic industry has failed to provide information of all the domestic
producers of the s ubject goods.
vii. There is no detail of the share of the domestic industry in ranges. The domestic
industry has provided the share in percentage for all the years in trends which has no
meaning.
viii. The domestic industry has not provided any details regarding PCN -wise export price
neither any PCN -wise details were given regarding the injury and costing information.
ix. ROCE and profit/loss information has been marked as confidential whereas no
information has been provided related to price underselling and injury margi n.
E.2. Submission made by the domestic industry
38. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry in regard to
confidentiality:
i. Bystronic Laser Ltd, Bystronic Laser AG, Jinan Bodor CNC Machine Co. Ltd.,
Shenzhen DNE Laser Science and Technology Co., Ltd have failed to comply with the
Trade Notice 10/2018 as they failed to provide performance parameters in trend.
Despite the letter filed by the domestic industry regarding gross violation of the
confidentiality rule, these parties have failed to revise the performance parameters.
ii. The comments on the confidentiality made by other interested parties must be rejected
as it is at a belat ed stage. As per initiation notification, the Authority has given the
opportunity to other interested parties to make comments, but they failed to provide.
iii. The domestic industry has complied with the requirement of the Trade Notice
10/2018. The information in trends is sufficient NCV of the confidential information
as per the practice of the Authority.
iv. Various interested parties have failed to fully respon d to the various questions
regarding business activity, the product under consideration specification and channel
of marketing of the questionnaire issued by the Authority.
v. Despite information being available on the public domain, the interested parties have
claimed financial statements, corporate address, date of incorporation, product list,
etc. of the company as confidential.
vi. To the number of questions, the interested parties have claimed complete
confidentiality under the pretext of business proprietary information. However, such
claim does not support their claims.
vii. The interested parties who made c onfidentiality claims were inconsistent with their
own response. These claims were not intended to protect business proprietary
information but rather to prevent the domestic industry from making similar
submissions.
viii. The domestic industry has relied on market field research since they were not
authorized to collect DGCI&S import data. The checklist is for the Authority and not
for interested parties.
E. 3. Examination by the Authority
39. Various submissions have been made by the applicants as well as the other interested
parties during the course of the investigation with regard to confidentiality, to the extent
considered relevant by the Authority , have been examined below.
40. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of the Anti -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 rule 12, sub -rule (4) of rule 15 and subrule (4) of
rule 17, th e copies of applications received under 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 such by it and no such information shall be disclosed
to any other party without specific authorisation of the party providing such
information.
(2) The designated Authority may require the parties providing information o n
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
summ arisation is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding 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 generalised or summary form, it may disregard such information. ”
41. The Authority considers that any information which is by nature confidential (for
example, because its disclosure would be of significant competit ive advantage to a
competitor or because its disclosure would have a significantly adverse effect upon a
person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person acquired the
information), 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 Author ity. Such
information cannot be disclosed without specific permission of the party submitting it.
42. The Authority has considered the claims of confidentiality made by the applicant and the
other interested parties and on being satisfied about the same, the Authority has allowed
the claims on confidentiality . The Authority made available to all the interested parties the
non-confidential version of evidence submitted by various interested parties for
inspection.
43. As regards the contention that the domestic i ndustry has not disclosed the information
regarding the imports made by it over the injury period, the Authority notes that the
information has been disclosed in the proforma IV A submitted to the Authority, which
has been shared with the other interested parties.
e. Confidentiality claims of the exporters.
44. With regard to the contentions of the domestic industry concerning the excess
confidentiality claimed by the responding foreign producers / exporters, it is noted that
the Authority has examined the confidentiality claims made by the responding foreign
producers/ exporters and on being satisfied the Authority has accepted the confidentiality
claims, wherever warranted.
f. Non-disclosure of the Import data.
45. As regards import data filed in the application, the Authority notes that import data
received from market intelligence sources cannot be shared. The data is being provided in
the application in terms of the provisions of Rule 5(2) read with the Trade Noti ce 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. The domestic industry
has anyways shared the import data with the Authority. Further, the Authority has adopted
transaction wise DG System import data and the present facts has been disclosed on the
basis of import data called by the Authority. The other interested parties can offer their
comments on the import data
g. Methodology adopted on dis closure of non -confidential information by
petitioner
46. The Authority notes that a petitioner is required to disclose the information as per trade
notice 10/2018. The petitioner has complied with the requirement of the trade notice on
disclosure of informati on in the non -confidential application shared with the other
interested parties. The Authority has examined the confidentiality claims made by the
domestic industry , and on being satisfied , the Authority has accepted the confidentiality
claims.
h. Support letter.
47. The Authority notes that Lastronics Technology Private Limited, Proteck Machinery Pvt.
Ltd. and Messers Cutting System India Private Limited have filed support letter to the
Authority and have given information on production and sales. The fact that these
producers had participated and supported the investigation was known to the interested
parties as they were already included in the registered list of interested parties issued by
the Authority . These support letter contains information on the production and sales.
Being a single company specific information, this is confidential in nature and cannot be
disclosed. Even if these producers would have circulated the letter in non -confidential
information, the entire data w ould have remained confidential. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the non -sharing of the letter has impeded the investigation.
E. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSION
F.1. Submission made by the other interested parties.
48. Following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties:
i. The domestic industry has requested sampling to improve chances of higher rate of
anti-dumping duty in the form of weighted average duty for non -sampled producers/
exporters. No sam pling has been notified as per the deadline in the Manual.
ii. Even if sampling is adopted, individual margin for non -sampled companies is
desirable. Hence, sampling will become redundant. When a questionnaire response
has been filed and desk verification cond ucted, there is no valid reason for not
granting individual rate.
iii. It is unlikely that sampled producers/ exporters with largest export volume have
exported representative quantities of all possible PCNs or closely resembling PCNs.
Hence, the dumping margin and injury margin determined would be unrepresentative
of all other non -sampled producers/ exporters.
iv. The discretion to conduct sampling is vested with the Authority as under Article 6.10
and the petitioners cannot influence or propose sampling for the in vestigation.
Sampling, if required by the Authority should be done only in consultation and with
consent of the concerned exporters, producers and importers. Introduction of sampling
in the final stages of investigation is violative of WTO laws, and princi ples of natural
justice.
v. The sampling is unwarranted. No consultation has been held with the responding
exporters with regards to sampling. The exporters have provided all the information in
their questionnaire response. Thus, sampling is unreasonable in t he present
investigation.
vi. Whereas the petitioner states that there are no known associations of domestic
producers of like article in India, the relevancy of support letter provided from Indian
Machine Tools Manufacturer Association (IMTMA) is questionable.
vii. Despite IMTMA’s claims of importing around 40 -50% of laser machines per year, the
lack of support by its members to the petition or filing separate data supporting the
domestic industry ’s claims raise doubts about the credibility of the letter.
viii. The NCV of comprehensive analysis on the large -scale imp ort of industrial laser
machines prepared by IMTMA should be placed on record for scrutiny.
ix. Even on imposition of anti-dumping duty , the importers and users would prefer to
import Chinese machines due to quality reasons .
x. Machines supplied by the petitioner faces serious qualitative issues . Customers have
filed two cases, even though the cases were rejected, they were not rejected for
reasons concerning the plaintiff’s grievance regarding the quality of machines.
xi. The rejection rate of petitioner’s machines is higher whereas that of Chinese
producers is negligible. The Authority should examine the rejection rates and reasons
for rejection. Grievances on account of precision, speed, accuracy, performance, life
of machine, and frequent brea kdown have been aired against goods produced by the
petitioner. The Chinese producers has high scale of production and meet required
industrial standards.
xii. The petitioners have alleged the creation of documents without any evidence to prove
their allegatio ns. The allegation made by the petitioners with regards to verification
documents is inappropriate
F.2. Submission made by the domestic industry.
49. Following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i. The interested parties mentioned below have failed to provide NCV of the
questionnaire response filed by them. The Authority must therefore consider them as
non-cooperative.
a. Wuhan Raycus Fiber Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
b. Jiatai International Company (India)
c. Wila CNC India Pvt. Ltd.
d. Vee M Automation Technology
e. S&T Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
f. Premier United Pvt. Ltd.
g. SMT Innovative
h. Daksh Enterprises
i. Sahil Technocrats
j. Upanal CNC Pvt. Ltd.
k. Shree Ram Enterprises
l. Meera Laser Solution Pvt. Ltd.
ii. Additional submissi ons made by interested parties with regards to reply to sampling
request, preliminary submissions and comments on the petition must be disregarded
on account on failure to file NCV .
iii. The level of cooperation from the producers/exporters from the subject co untry is
very large. Despite the large number of participants, they collectively constitute only
about 13%. This shows that major exporters are not even cooperating in the present
investigation.
iv. Several importers acting as traders in the Indian market hav e cooperated with the
present investigation but remain unable to quantify the impact of anti-dumping duty .
v. The application filed by domestic industry was found to be duly substantiated with the
import data. The import data submitted by the domestic industr y solely pertains only
to the PUC. USITC in the investigation of NRSC from India, initiated an injury
investigation based on the import data filed by the applicant.
vi. In the present investigation, eight group companies have participated. From the NCV
EQR the domestic industry has identified that there are more than 15 export sales
channels .
vii. The PCN in the present investigation is an elaborate PCN. Correct identification of
PCN is a major task. Thus, correct identification is a highly time consuming and
elabor ate task. Further, it is very easy to distort determination of dumping margin by
reporting a PCN which will minimise the dumping margin and injury margin.
viii. There is a need for sampling in the present investigation, as the verification of 20
producers/expor ters from the subject country where PCN is involved would be
extremely difficult.
ix. Some interested parties have argued that 8 months have already been lapsed, sampling
at this stage would be belated. However, Rule 17(3) of ADD rules does not define any
stage at which the sampling must be undertaken. Further, Rule 17 titled final finding.
Hence, sampling relates to final finding.
x. Chinese laser machine sector is growing dramatically. From the response it could be
seen that four entities started exports to India in the injury period and three entities in
the period of investigation. Out of them one has started production of the subje ct
goods.
xi. Certain importers were registered as interested parties, filed preliminary submissions,
and post oral hearing written submissions but failed to file importer questionnaire
response.
xii. Supreme Technology and China Chamber of Commerce have filed writ ten
submissions. However, they are not in the list of registered interested parties.
xiii. The other interested parties have not provided any evidence with regard to poor
quality of the subject goods produced by the domestic industry . The domestic industry
is in the market for more than 2 decades, if there would have been serious quality
issue, the domestic industry would have been eliminated from the market. Further,
during the POI, the domestic industry has undertaken exports to USA and UK.
xiv. Claim made by importers regarding high rejection rate of the domestic industry
machine. However, they are only able to provide evidence for only two rejections.
Out of which one is due to their own misuse and for other the domestic industry has
duly compen sated the customers.
xv. The respondents have not stated a single incident where the domestic industry has
failed to provide evidence of where the Authority has failed to carry out proper
scrutiny of the evidence. Only after substantiated evidence, the Author ity has initiated
the investigation.
xvi. The domestic industry has provided import data for last 8 years in order to show how
Chinese imports have taken over the Indian market. There is no law or rule that limit
the Authority’s examination of the volume of su bject imports only to three years.
Moreover, the domestic industry never claimed 8 years of injury period.
xvii. The requirement of the application proforma is to provide information of known
producers in India. The domestic industry has provided information as per their best
knowledge.
xviii. There is no dedicated association of the subject goods in India. Indian Machine Tools
Manufacturer Association (IMTMA) is an umbrella association which includes
producers of other products as well. There is no bar for an umbrella association
supporting a case.
xix. Ther r espondent has not provided any evidence to show the domestic industry has
undertaken capacity expansion in 2017. The domestic industry has dedicated 10% of
its revenue to R&D. However, this is neither abnormal nor any cause of injury. In an
industry like the laser machinery industry, such investment in R&D is the norm.
F.3. Examination by the Authority
50. With regards to the submissions made by the interested parties that the domestic industry
has not brought any substantive evidence to provide the condition for initiation of anti-
dumping investigation and the investigating Authority has not carried out app ropriate
scrutiny of facts, the Authority notes that the applicant had provided sufficient
information that meets the required conditions for initiation of the present anti-dumping
investigation. The investigation was initiated after satisfying that suffic ient evidence as
required under Rules was available justifying the initiation.
51. Regarding sampling of the exporters, the Authority has not conducted sampling in the
present investigation.
52. Regarding the arguments on support by Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers’ Association
(IMTMA ) it has been submitted that IMTMA is not a dedicated association for the
product under consideration. There are more than 450 members of the association.
IMTMA is an association of Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers and the refore, will
contain large number of the producers of other types of products as well. Not all the
members are producers of the product under consideration. IMTMA has supported the
imposition of anti -dumping duties on imports of the product under considera tion as an
association . The Authority notes that IMTMA is entitled to make representations, even if
all their members are not producers of the product under consideration.
53. As regards the argument on quality of the product under consideration, it is noted that the
opposing interested parties have provided two instances of rejection during the injury
period , where as the domestic industry has sold machines more than 800 machines.
Further out of two instances, domestic industry contended that one instance was because
of improper use of machine by the customer or user . The fact that qualities may be
different, does not imply that the imported product s and the domestic are not like articles.
54. As regards level of cooperation by (a)Wuhan Raycus Fiber Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
(b)Jiatai International Company (India) (c) Wila CNC India Pvt. Ltd. (d) Vee M
Automation Technology (e) S&T Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (f) Premier United Pvt. Ltd. (g)
SMT Innovative (h) Daksh Enterprises (i) Sahil Technocrats (j) Upanal CNC Pvt. Lt d. (k)
Shree Ram Enterprises , it is noted that these parties have not filed importer questionnaire
response. Therefore, the Authority has considered them as non -cooperative in the present
investigation to that extent .
F. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING
MARGIN
G.1. Views of other interested parties
55. The submissions made by the other interested parties on determination of normal value,
export price and dumping margin are as follows:
i. The Authority is requested to compute individual dumping margin based on verified
information taken on record.
ii. Even if all Chinese producers/ exporters cooperated, number of export transactions is
not too large for examination to be impractical. There is no burden to determine
normal value for each parti cipating producer/ exporter since none or almost none have
requested market economy treatment.
iii. The domestic industry has erroneously claimed that prices from surrogate country are
unavailable. The technical specifications and prices of all products are dis played on
Manufacturer’s e -commerce platform.
iv. The constructed normal value on the domestic industry ’s cost of production is
unreliable as the dumping is artificially created by the domestic industry relying on its
own unhealthy cost of production.
v. The peri od for determining the domestic prices or costs of the Chinese producers not
being a market economy has ended on 11th December 2016 as provided in the
Protocol of Accession of WTO. Normal value for the Chinese producers should be
determined on the domestic prices and costs of the subject goods.
vi. The domestic industry has violated the procedure to be followed as per the Indian
Anti-Dumping rules by not making the interested parties aware of the third country
selected for determining the normal value for Chin ese producers.
vii. There are no laws or practices of the Authority to only rely on commercial invoice and
bill of entry and cannot rely on other documents. All the minute characteristics of the
product cannot be mentioned in the commercial invoice or bill of e ntry.
viii. The Authority must give a clear finding stating that all the information found on the
commercial invoices of the domestic industry. In past investigations wherein complex
PCN’s is involved, the Authority has considered various documents for verifica tion.
ix. The documents like purchase orders, proforma invoice, product brochures,
commercial invoices, etc. are valid documents based on which PCNs have been
verified in the past investigations.
x. The general practice of the industry is that there is referenc e to product brochures and
other advertising material during sales and not all the details are mentioned in the
commercial invoice.
G.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry
56. The following submissions are made by the domestic industry with regard to
determination of normal value, export price and dumping margin are as follows:
i. The producers or exporters did not file the MET response questionnaire. Therefore,
the normal value should not be determined on the basis of their domestic sales, rather
as per Para 7 of Annexure I of the AD rules.
ii. The authority must determine normal value based on Para 7 Annexure I of AD rules.
Further, the export price may be determined based on exporters’ data only after being
satisfied with the accuracy and adequacy of the d ata.
iii. The domestic industry provided information that was available to them and appeared
reasonable to them. The respondent failed to provide evidence of the price in the
surrogate country even after claiming that information on price of the subject goods in
the surrogate country ar e available online.
iv. It is a consistent practice of the Authority to determine normal value on the basis of
cost of production of the domestic industry for non -market economies in case no
alternative evidence is available.
v. China is treated as a non -market economy by virtue of Article 15 of the Accession
Protocol. As per Article 15(d), only Article 15(a)(II) shall expire on 11th December
2016 and not Article 15(a)(I). Therefore, the Authority can only consider domestic
prices or costs in China if the produc ers under investigation can clearly show that
market economy conditions prevail.
vi. The domestic industry has not considered any third country for the determination of
normal value for Chinese producers.
G.3. Examination by the Authority
57. Under section 9A(1)(c), normal value in relation to an article means:
(i) the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when
destined for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in
accordance with the rules made und er sub -section (6); or
(ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the
domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular
market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting
country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value
shall be either –
(a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the
exporting country or territory to an appropriate third country as determined in
accordance with the rules made under sub -section (6); or
(b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with
reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as
determined in accordance with the rules made under sub - section (6):
Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country
of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the country of
export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable
price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its
price in the country of origin.
58. Article 15 of the China’s Accession Protocol with the WTO provides as follows:
“Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti -Dumping Agreement") and the
SCM Agreement shall apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a
WTO Member consistent with the following:
"a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti -
Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or
costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict
comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules:
i. If the producers under investigation can clearly show that my conditions prevail in the
industry produci ng the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale
of that product, the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the
industry under investigation in determining price comparability;
ii. The importing WTO Member may u se a methodology that is not based on a strict
comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation
cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing
the like product with regard to manuf acture, production and sale of that product.
b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing
subsidies described in Articles l4(a), l4(b), I4(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the
SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application,
the importing WTO Member may then use methodologies for identifying and measuring
the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing terms and
conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In
applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should
adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and
conditions prevailing outside China.
c) The impo rting WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with
subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices and shall notify
methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measure s.
d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member,
that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated
provided that the importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as
of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire
15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the
national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in
a particular industry or sector, the non -market economy provisions of subparagraph (a)
shall no longer apply to that industry or sector."
59. It is noted that while the provisions contained in Article 15(a)(ii) have expired on
11.12.2016. However , the provisions under Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO read with
obligation under 15 (a) (i) of the Accession protocol require the criterion stipulated in
para 8 of Annexure I of India's AD Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to
be provided in the supplementary questionnaire for claiming the market economy status.
60. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded as per the information given by the
applicant. Upon initiation, the Authority advised the producers/ exporters in China PR to
respond to the notice of initiation and provide information relevant to determination of
their market economy status. The Authority sent copies of the supplementary
questionnaire to all the known producers/ exporters for rebutting presumption of non -
market economy in accordance with criteria laid down in Para 8(3) of Annexure -I to the
Rules and furnish relevant detailed information. The Authority also requested
Government of China PR to advise the producers/ exporters in China PR to provide the
relevant information. The following producers/ exporters have co-operat ed in this
investigation by filing the questionnaire response:
A. Han’s Group
i. GD Han’s Yueming Laser Group Co., Ltd.
ii. Han’s Laser Smart Equipment Group Co., Ltd.
iii. Han’s Laser Technology Industry Group Co., Ltd.
iv. Han’s MP Laser Technology Co., Ltd.
v. Suzhou Songu Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd.
vi. Han’s Laser Technology Co., Ltd.
B. Yawei Group
i. Jiangsu Yawei Machine -Tool Co. , Ltd.
ii. Jiangsu Yawei Chuangkeyuan Laser Equipment Co. , Ltd.
C. Trumpf
i. Trumpf (China) Co., Ltd.
ii. Jiangsu Jinfangyuan CNC Machine Co. , Ltd.
iii. Trumpf Werkzeugmaschinen SE+ Co. Ltd.
D. HSG
i. HSG Laser Co. , Ltd
ii. Jinan Hongshi Laser Technology Co., Ltd
E. Bystronic Group
i. Bystronic Laser AG
ii. Bystronic (Tianjin) Laser Ltd
iii. Bystronic (Shenzhen) Laser Technology Co., Ltd
iv. Bystronic Laser India Pvt Ltd
F. Jinan Bodor Group
i. Jinan Bodor CNC Machine Co. , Ltd
ii. Bodor Laser India Pvt Ltd
G. Shandong Oree
i. Jinan Oree Laser Technology Co. Ltd
ii. Shandong Oree Laser Technology Co. Ltd
H. Gweike
i. Gweike Tech Co. Ltd
61. None of the exporters/producers have claimed market economy treatment . Thus, in view
of the above position and in the absence of rebuttal of the non -market economy
presumption by any Chinese exporting company, the Authority, consider it appropriate to
treat China PR as a non -market economy country in the present investigati on and
consider to proceed with para 7 of Annexure -I to the Rules for determination of normal
value in case of China PR.
G.5. NORMAL VALUE FOR CHINA PR
62. The Authority notes that no evidence has been provided by the domestic industry or other
interested parties on prices in market economy third countries. Some of the interested
parties have argued that the technical specifications and prices of all products are
displayed on Manufacturer’s e -commerce platform and therefore prices of surrogate
country should be considered for normal value determination. However, no evidence is
provided by any of the interested parties identifying PCNs for a surrogate country. The
global trade data also could not be used to consider price from a market economy third
country in view of the fact of various PCNs involved. Thus, normal value based on such a
third country to other countries including India could not be determined.
63. Therefore, the Authority has determined the normal value for the subject imports in China
as per the “price actually paid or payable in India” as stipulated in para 7 of Annexure – I
to the AD Rules, 1995. It has been computed based on the cost of producti on of the
domestic industry, duly adjusted, and with reasonable addition for selling, general and
administrative expenses, and profits. The normal value has been determined PCN wise
for a fair comparison. The weighted average normal value on the basis of q uantities of
exports of various PCN by the respective producer exporter is shown in the dumping
margin table below. Since different exporters have supplied different products, the normal
value determined for different exporters are not inter -se comparable.
G.6. EXPORT PRICE OF EXPORTERS
a. Hans Group
64. GD Han’s Yueming Laser Group Co. , Ltd., Han’s Laser Smart Equipment Company
Group Ltd., Han’s Laser Technology Industry Group Co. , Ltd., Han’s MP Laser
Technology Co. , Ltd., and Suzhou Songu Intelligent Equipment Co. , Ltd. and Han’s
Laser Technology Co., Ltd., an importer (herein after referred to as Hans Group) have
filed questionnaire response as the producer s of the subject goods. These producers are
related to each other and therefore, the Authority has calculated weighted average
dumping margin. These producers have filed complete questionnaire response. These
producers have claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance etc.
The Authority has undertake n desk verification and examined the claims made by them.
On being satisfied with respect to the claims made, the Authority has allowed them.
Accordingly, the net export price at ex -factory level for these producers have been
determined as shown below.
b. Yawei Group
65. Jiangsu Yawei Machine Tool Co. Ltd. and Jiangsu Yawei Chuangkeyuan Laser
Equipment Co. Ltd. (herein after referred to as Yawei Group) have filed questionnaire
response as the producer of the subject goods. Both the producers are related to each
other and therefore, the Authority has calculated weighted average dumping margin .
These producers have filed complete questionnaire response. These producers have
claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance etc. The Authority has
undertaken desk verification and examined the claims made by them. On being satisfied
with respect to the claims made, the Authority has allowed them. Accordingly, the net
export price at ex -factory level for these producers have been determined as shown bel ow
table .
c. Trumpf (China) Co., Ltd.
66. Trumpf (China) Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Jinfangyuan CNC Machine Co., Ltd. and Trumpf
Werkzeugmaschinen SE+ Co. Ltd. (herein after referred to as Trumpf Group) have filed
questionnaire response as the producer of the subject goods. First b oth the producers are
related to each other and therefore, the Authority has calculated weighted average
dumping margin. The producers have filed complete questionnaire response. The
producer has claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance etc. The
Authority has undertaken desk verification and examined the claims made by them. On
being satisfied with respect to the claims made, the Authority has allowed them.
Accordingly, the net export price at ex -factory level has been determined as shown below
table.
d. HSG Group
67. HSG Laser Co. Ltd. and Jinan Hongshi Laser Technology Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred
to as HSG Group) have filed questionnaire response as the producer of the subjec t. Both
the producers are related to each other and therefore, the Authority has calculated
weighted average dumping margin These producers have filed complete questionnaire
response. These producers have claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine
insurance etc. The Authority has undertaken desk verification and examined the claims
made by them. On being satisfied with respect to the claims made, the Authority has
allowed them. Accordingly, the net export price at ex -factory level for these p roducers
have been determined as shown below table.
e. Bystronic Group
68. Bystronic (Tianjin) Laser Ltd., Bystronic Laser AG, and Bystronic ( Shenzhen ) Laser
Technology Co., Ltd , and Bystronic Laser India Pvt Ltd (herein after referred to as
“Bystronic Group”) have filed questionnaire response as the producer of the subject
goods. Three producers and Bystronic Laser India Pvt Ltd (trader) are related to each
other and therefore, the Authority has calculated weighted average dumping margin.
These producers have f iled complete questionnaire response. These producers have
claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland transportation,
bank charges and credit cost. The Authority has undertaken desk verification and
examined the claims made b y them. On being satisfied with respect to the claims made,
the Authority has allowed them. Accordingly, the net export price at ex -factory level for
these producers have been determined as shown below table.
f. Jinan Bodor Group
69. Jinan Bodor CNC Machine Co. , Ltd., and Bodor Laser India Private Limited an importer
(herein after referred to as “Jinan Bodor Group”) have filed questionnaire response as the
producer of the subject goods. The produce r has filed complete questionnaire response.
The producer ha s claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance,
inland transportation, bank charges and credit cost. The Authority has undertaken desk
verification and examined the claims made by them. On being satisfied with respect to
the claims made, the Authority has allowed them. Accordingly, the net export price at ex -
factory level for this producer has been determined as shown below table.
g. Shandong Oree
70. Jinan Oree Laser Technology Co. , Ltd. and Shandong Oree Laser Technology Co. , Ltd.
(herein after referred to as “Shandong Oree”) have filed questionnaire response as the
producer of the subject goods. Both the producers are related to each other and therefore,
the Authority has calculated weighted average dumping margin. These producers have
filed complete questionnaire response. These producers have claimed adjustments on
account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland transportation, bank charges and credit
cost. The Authority has undertaken desk verification and examined the claims made by
them. On being satisfied with respect to the claims made, the Authority has allowed them.
Accordingly, the net export price at ex -factory level for these producers have been
determined as shown below table.
h. Gwe ike
71. Gwe ike Tech Co., Ltd. has filed questionnaire response as the producer of the subject
good s. The producer has filed complete questionnaire response. These producers have
claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland
transportation, bank charges and credit cost . The Authority has undertaken desk
verification and examined the claims made by them. On being satisfied with respect to
the claims made, the Authority has allowed them. Accordingly, the net export price at ex -
factory level for these producers have been d etermined as shown below table.
G.7. DETERMINATION OF DUMPING MARGIN
72. The dumping margin determined for each co -operating producers/ exporter based on PCN
wise constructed normal value and net export price, is determined as follows:
S
N Group
Producers/Exporters CNV
($/Unit
) EP
($/Uni
t) DM
($/Unit) DM% DM
range
(%)
1 Hans
Group GD Han’s Yueming Laser
Group Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 30-40 Han’s Laser Smart Equipment
Group Co., Ltd.
Han’s Laser Technology
Industry Group Co., Ltd.
Han’s MP Laser Technology
Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Songu Intelligent
Equipment Co., Ltd.
Yawie
Group Jiangsu Yawei Machine -Tool
Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 50-60 Jiangsu Yawei Chuangkeyuan
Laser Equipment Co., Ltd.
3 TRUMP
F Group TRUMPF (China) Co., Ltd.
*** *** *** *** (30-40) Jiangsu Jinfangyuan CNC
Machine Co., Ltd.
4 HSG
Group HSG Laser Co., Ltd
*** *** *** *** 50-60 Jinan Hongshi Laser
Technology Co., Ltd
5 Bystroni
c Group Bystronic Laser AG
*** *** *** *** 30-40 Bystronic (Tianjin) Laser Ltd
Bystronic (Shenzhen) Laser
Technology Co., Ltd
6 Jinan
Bodor
Group Jinan Bodor CNC Machine
Co., Ltd
*** *** *** *** 130-140
7 Shandon
g Oree Jinan Oree Laser Technology
Co. Ltd *** *** *** *** 100-110 Shandong Oree Laser
Technology Co. Ltd
8 Gweike Gweike Tech Co., Ltd
*** *** *** *** 110-120
9 Residual Other than column no.1 to 8 *** *** *** *** 160-170
G. EXAMINA TION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
H.1. Submissions made by other interested parties .
73. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury
and causal link:
i. The domestic industry has presented data and assessed injury for a period of 8 years
to artificially demonstrate injury . Authority must limit injury an alysis to 3 years.
ii. The Authority has the discretion to consider one like article or each article as a
separate like article. For each like article, the Authority should identify the domestic
industry as well. NIP should also be calculated for each like article.
iii. The a pplicant requested exclusion of components from the scope of the PUC, it is not
clarified if the exclusion has any impact on injury.
iv. The increase in manufacturing at domestic industry ’s SE Z unit should be considered
as exports not domestic sales.
v. The imports by the petitioner should be adjusted from total imports while undertaking
injury analysis.
vi. The Authority must examine if the methodology followed by the petitioner for
determining capac ity is reasonable, and this methodology must also be disclosed to
the interested parties.
vii. Reason for increase in import volume is because the industry does not have the
capability to meet the domestic demand.
viii. While demand increased in the POI, the domesti c sale and market share of petitioner
declined, while that of other Indian producers increased.
ix. The fact that one of the supporters, Messer Cutting System India Pvt. Ltd. opened
second manufacturing unit in 2019 shows imports were not to displace the mark et.
x. The Authority should reject claim for price undercutting as price undercutting data has
not been provided for the entire injury period.
xi. The petitioner was able to increase/ decrease its selling price without influence of
landed value. The year -on-year analysis shows absence of price suppression and
depression. Also, no price suppression exists as the cost of sales has reduced more
than the net sales realization.
xii. The Authority should not consider price underselling for evaluating injury in light of
the G ujarat High Court order in Nirma Lt. v. Union of India.
xiii. There is no injury on account of productivity and employment as they showed an
increase .
xiv. Though the applicant claimed their domestic sale is miserably low compared to
demand in India, their production and sales have increased despite the imports. The
decline in losses during the injury period shows the improved performance of the
applicant.
xv. Also, if Q1 of POI is excluded from the period of investigation considering covid
lockdowns, the performance will show further improvement. The p etitioner’s PBDIT
has improved from a negative position.
xvi. Injury to the domestic industry is because of uncompetitive products, market
conditions, high expenditure on R&D.
xvii. As per the applicant’s annual report, the profitability of the applicant was highest in
the POI. Low profitability as claimed in general can be attributed to capacity
expansion undertaken in 2017, high expenditure on R&D, excessive assets under
charge.
xviii. Increase in inventory has to be examined as a proportion of sales as held by CESTAT
in Bridge Stone case. The inventory might be just a handful since the machines are
made to order. The inventory could also be because of delay in delivery due to end of
financial year.
xix. Further, temporary accumulation of inventory can be attributed to COVID -19, force
majeure, and prevailing global recession than evidence of injury.
xx. The import data submitted by the domestic industry shows an 87 -index point
increase in i mports which should be seen with a substantial 74 index point increase
in domestic sales by other producers.
xxi. Other factors such as Covid -19, Ukraine -Russia War, force majeure, currency
depreciation (Rupee -US Dollar variation), internal problems and subdued demand
for Company ’s product have caused injury .
xxii. Causal link analysis by examining correlation of volume and price undercutting and
petitioner’s economic performance has not been done.
xxiii. The petition shows that average capital employed and fixed assets have declined
whereas installed capacity is constant. This anomaly should be examined by the
Authority.
xxiv. Considering 22% return on capital employed is inflated especially during the era of
global recession. The Authority may consider ROCE in the range of 12 -15%. The
CESTAT orders in Bridge Stone Tyre Manufacturing & others vs. Designated
Authority and Hyosung Corporation vs. Designated Authority are relied on.
Practice followed by the EU is also cited.
xxv. If the other domestic producers would have suffered the inj ury, they would have
participated in the present investigation.
xxvi. The production of Lastronics has increased 4 times in the POI as compared to the
base year.
xxvii. The profitability has improved in the last two years. Even if the profitability been
impacted, the re is no correlation between the profitability of the domestic industry
and imports from the subject country.
xxviii. The inventory trend of the domestic industry is in accordance with the trend of the
domestic sales movement.
xxix. It is not necessary that the product needs to be homogenous, but the product scope
must be to a like article and assessment of injury to be done based on like article. In
the present investigation, the Authority has not conducted alike product analysis.
Thus, singular injury determina tion cannot be made. The Authority is bound to
determine individual injury for each individual product comprising the PUC.
H.2. Submission made by the domestic industry
74. The domestic industry party has made the following submissions with regard to injury
and causal link:
i. The injury suffered is not only limited to the domestic industry but also affects other
Indian producers. The surge in Chinese imports started before the base year of the
injury period in 2017 -18.
ii. The subject imports have increased in absolute terms as well as in relative to
production and consumption in India in the POI compared to the base year and the
previous year.
iii. The market share of the subject impor ts has increased over the injury period and POI
while that of the domestic industry has declined in the POI compared to the previous
year and base year.
iv. The domestic industry has been unable to increase their production, capacity
utilisation, and domestic sales in relation to the capacity at its disposal and the
demand in India.
v. The domestic industry is suffering financial losses, cash losses, negative PBIT, and
negative returns in the POI.
vi. The inventories of the domestic industry have increased in the PO I compared to the
base year.
vii. The domestic industry has seen negative growth on major injury parameters.
viii. The ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment has significantly
declined.
ix. The subject imports are undercutting, underselling, and de pressing the prices of the
domestic industry.
x. The profit, according to the annual report of the domestic industry is due to the
production of diamond processing equipment, special purpose machine and RF
absorbers. These machines are earning good profits an d is NPUC in the present
investigation.
xi. Neither any law nor past practice of the Authority shows that the Authority has any
discretion to undertake segmented analysis of the PUC; the ADA and the AD Rules
require a wholistic examination of the PUC. The inve stigations relied on by the
importers involve multiple ‘products under consideration’ as opposed to ‘a product’
under consideration.
xii. The increase subject imports are not because of the demand -supply gap, but because
of dumping. Injury suffered by the domes tic industry is not limited to the injury
period and POI. The domestic industry has suffered injury prior to the investigation
period.
xiii. The domestic industry alone has the capacity to meet 18% of the Indian demand. The
market share of the domestic industry in the POI is merely 3%. The Indian industry
can meet a larger share of the demand and increase capacities in reasonable time.
xiv. Dumping is analyzed only with respect to the imports in the POI. Hence price
undercutting is also required to be examined only for the same period.
xv. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Ltd. Vs. Union of India deals with
interim review and the imposition of anti -dumping duties. Interim review
investigations allow for duty extension even with a negative injury margin, unlike
original investigations.
xvi. The importers have incorrectly analyzed the CESTAT decision in Bridge Stone Tyre
Manufacturing (Thailand) v. Designated Authority. The CESTAT did not state that
inventory must be assessed solely based on domestic sales trends. It only mentioned
that mere increased inventory could be linked to higher domestic sales, which the
Authority did not consider in that investigation.
xvii. The PBDIT of the domestic industry improved in 2020 -21 but declined in POI.
PBDIT was so low that the retur n on capital employed was negative in the POI. Other
economic parameters show the existence of injury.
xviii. A year -on-year examination of volume and price parameters need not result in direct
correlation in every market. It is typical of certain markets to sho w a delay in the
cause and effect.
xix. As per AD rules, a decline in profit indicates injury. In the present investigation, the
domestic industry is suffering from financial losses thus, it is irrelevant whether the
losses increased or declined.
xx. The domestic industry has calculated the dumping and injury margin on weighted
average basis. Though the price undercutting was calculated on an average basis, a
calculation on weighted average basis will not yield a different result.
xxi. The imports made by the domestic industry is insignificant. Hence exclusion of those
imports would not affect the injury examination.
xxii. The Authority may consider actual figures to ascertain the total imports. The increase
in Chinese imports which might be seen for other Indian producers i s meaningless
since they together command merely 4% market share and operate with severely
underutilized capacities.
xxiii. The sales from the SEZ unit of the domestic industry have been completely excluded
for the purpose of injury examination.
xxiv. The other inter ested parties is seeking Authority to change the practice of allowing
22% returns in all situation. Even in the case of Eximcorp India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Designated Authority, the CESTAT refuse to interfere in the Authority practice.
xxv. The domestic industry has fi led information on PCN -wise export price with the
Authority. The domestic industry is not required to provide PCN wise injury
information.
xxvi. Information on ROCE and profit/loss of the domestic industry has been provided as
trends in Proforma IV -A of the app lication as per Trade Notice 10/2018. Further, NCV
application also consist of injury margin.
xxvii. The respondent failed to identify other factors which are causing injury to the
domestic industry other than subject imports.
xxviii. Arguing that the Indian industry is facing injury due to competition from other
producers is baseless as the subject imports command more than 80% of the Indian
demand.
xxix. Even if the average capital employed in the base year were to remain the same
throu ghout the injury period, it remains a fact that the domestic industry is earning
negative returns in the POI .
xxx. The Ukraine -Russia conflict commenced in February 2022, i.e., just a month before
the end of the POI. The respondent cannot attribute any remote g lobal event as a
factor contributing to the injury to the domestic industry .
H.3. Examination by the Authority
75. The Authority has taken note of the arguments and counter arguments of the interested
parties on injury. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto
addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties. However, the specific
submissions made by the interested parties are addressed by the Aut hority as below .
i. Claim for separate Injury analysis for each product separately .
76. The opposing interested parties have contended that a separate injury analysis must be
conducted for LCM, LWM and LMM , treating them as different products. The Authority
notes that , having already examined above that the all the three products types are one
single product under consideration, it would not be appropriate to examine injury for all
the three kinds of machines separately. There is no requirement under law or in
jurisprudence that all the subsets / types or sub -sets of the PUC should be homogenous
for them to be covered under the same PUC and the same investigation. Further in the
present investigation, all the items covered within the scope of this investigation
constitute one product. Thus, there is no requirement to undertake separate injury
analysis.
j. Adequa cy of return for determination of non-injurious price
77. As regards submission of the applicant and other interested parties concerning
methodology of determination of NIP, the Authority notes that relevant guidelines in this
regard is well laid down under Annexure III of Anti -dumping Rules. The Authority has
consistently allowed 22% return on capital employed, and the s ame has been adopted in
the present case as well.
k. Claims of Injury due to the other factors.
78. As regards the submission of opposing interested parties that alleged injury to the
domestic industry is due to the other reasons and there is no injury as per s tatements in
the annual reports of the domestic industry, the Authority notes that the injury analysis
carried out hereunder is self -explanatory . It is also seen that the petitioner in the present
case is a multi -product company and performance as per the financial statements . Further,
no evidence is provided by the interested parties on how the other factors listed by them
are causing injury to the domestic industry.
79. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall
involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, "...
taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their
effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such
imports on domestic producers of such articles. . ." . In considering the effect of the
dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a
significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with th e price of the
like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to
a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a
significant degree. For the examination of the impact o f the dumped imports on the
domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as
production, capacity utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales
realization, the magnitude, and margin of dumping, etc . have been considered in
accordance with Annexure II of the Rules.
H.3.1. Volume effect of dumped imports on domestic industry
a. Assessment of Demand
80. The Authority has determined the demand or the apparent consumption of the product in
India as the sum of the domestic sales of all Indian producers, and the imports from all
the sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table below:
Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22
Domestic Sales of Applicant No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 83 109 124
Sale of Supporter No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 71 86 143
Sales of other producers No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 106 135 164
Import from subject country No 3,327 3,624 3,808 6,027
Trend Index 100 109 114 181
Import from other countries No 567 541 466 752
Trend Index 100 95 82 133
Total No 4,265 4,501 4,708 7,299
Trend Index 100 106 110 171
81. It is seen that there is an increase in the demand throughout the injury period and in the
POI. It is seen that the demand increased more than 70% compared to the base year.
However, the applicant sales increased only 24% compared to the base year and imports
increased by more than 80% . In absolute terms, whereas the demand increased by more
than 3000 machines, the imports increased by 2700, sales of the domestic industry
increased by ***, whereas sales of Indian industry as a whole increased by only ***
machines.
b. Import volume and share of subject country.
82. With regards to the volume of dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider
whether there has been a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute
terms or relative to the production or the consumption in India. Summarized position is as
follows.
Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22
China PR No 3,327 3,624 3,808 6,027
Trend Index 100 109 114 181
Other Countries No 567 541 466 752
Trend Index 100 95 82 133
Total Imports No 3,894 4,165 4,274 6,779
Trend Index 100 107 110 174
Subject Imports in Relation to
Indian production % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 114 97 125
Indian consumption % 80% 82% 83% 84%
Trend Index 100 103 104 105
83. It is seen that –
a. The volume of imports from the subject country has increased throughout the injury
period and in POI. The subject imports constitute 90% of the total imports of the
subject goods into India in the POI.
b. The imports from the subject country increased in relation to the Indian production
and the Indian consumption in the POI as compared to base year as well as the
previous year.
c. The subject imports constitute very significant proportion in demand for the product
in the country.
H.3.2 Price effect of the dumped imports
84. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on the prices, it is required to be analysed
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 the prices or prevent the price increase, which otherwise would
have occurred in the normal course.
85. Accordingly, the Authority has examined the impact on the pri ces of the domestic
industry on account of the dumped imports from the subject country with reference to the
price undercutting and price suppression/ depression, if any. For the purpose of this
analysis, the cost of production and the selling price of the domestic industry have been
compared with the landed price of imports of the subject goods from the subject country.
a. Price undercutting .
86. The Authority has calculated price undercutting on PCN level and thereafter determined
price undercutting for the PUC as a whole . The Authority however notes that the product
description in the DG Systems data did not allow complete identification of PCN in the
entire import data. Therefore, it was not possible to calculate price undercutting for the
entire import volume s. Since large number of producers from China PR have participated
and have given PCN wise information, the Authority has calculated price undercutting
based on the data of the responding producers from China PR .
Particulars Landed price Selling
price Price
Undercutting Price
undercutting % Price
undercutting
(range)
USD/
machine *** *** *** *** 40-50
87. It is seen that the price undercutting is significant and positive .
b. Price suppression/ depression
88. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing the domestic prices , or,
whether the effect of such imports is to suppress such prices to a significant degree and
prevent price increase s which otherwise would have occurred in normal course, the
changes in the costs and prices over the inj ury period, are examined as below:
Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22
Cost of Sales ₹ Lacs/No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 103 93 92
Selling Price ₹ Lacs/No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 95 96 83
Landed Price ₹ Lacs/No 10.67 11.18 9.22 11.48
Trend Index 100 105 86 108
89. It is seen that whereas both costs and prices have declined over the injury period, the
decline in the selling price was more than the decline in the costs. T he landed price of the
imports has consistently been significantly below the cost and the selling price of the
domestic industry. While , a comparison of import price with the domestic industry cost
and price on weighted average basis may not be appropriate considering the vide range of
PCNs involved , the Authority notes that the fact that the PCN wise undercutting is
positive to the extent of 40-50% shows that the imports have forced the domestic industry
to reduce its price beyond the decline in the costs .
H.3.3 Economic parameters of the domestic industry .
90. Annexure II to the Rules provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped
imports on the domestic industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of
all the relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the ind ustry,
including actual and potential decline in the sales, profits, output, market share,
productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic
prices, the magnitude of the margin of the dumping; actual and potential n egative effects
on the cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth and the ability to raise the
capital investments. Accordingly, various injury parameters relating to the domestic
industry are discussed below:
i. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sale
91. The Authority has analysed capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales
of the domestic industry over the injury period.
Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22
Installed Capacity No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 100 100 100
Production Volume No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 86 106 124
Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 87 106 135
Domestic Sales No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 83 109 124
92. It is seen tha t the capacity of the domestic industry has remained constant throughout the
injury period and in the POI. The production and sales of the domestic industry has
increased with the increase in demand. However, the volumes of production and sales are
significan tly lower as compared to the capacity and demand in India . The capacity with
the domestic industry is much lower than demand for the product in India. Despite the
same, the capacity utilization of the domestic industry has remained low throughout the
injury period.
ii. Market Share
93. The Authority has examined the effect of the dumped imports on the market share of the
domestic industry and other Indian producers as under.
Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22
Domestic Industry % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 78 99 72
Sale of Supporter % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 68 78 83
Sales of other producers % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 100 122 96
Indian industry as a whole % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 86 106 82
Imports from China % 78% 81% 81% 83%
Trend Index 100 103 104 106
Import from other countries % 13% 12% 10% 10%
Trend Index 100 90 74 77
94. It is seen that the market share of the domestic industry has declined over the injury
period, whereas the market share of the subject country has increased and is more than
80% of the total demand. The market share of other countries, other Indian producers and
domestic industry is low througho ut the injury period.
iii. Inventories
95. The inventory position with the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the
table below :
Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22
Average Inventory No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 142 158 154
96. It is seen that the inventories with the domestic industry have increased over the injury
period . As regards the contention that the product is a custom er-made product and the
increase in the inventory should be seen in that context, during the physical verification ,
it was seen that certain standard machines are manufactured without orders and are
offered as “readily available for sale ” by the domestic industry. Therefore, it cannot be
said that entirety of the production is against orders. The domestic industry produces both
against orders and against inventories considered normal market requirements. T he
increase d inventory are machines lying in stock which are to be sold after receipt of
orders.
iv. Profitability, cash profits and return on capital employed .
97. Performance of the domestic industry has been examined in respect of profitability,
profits, cash profits, PBIT, and return on investment.
Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22
Cost of Sales ₹ Lacs/No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 103 93 92
Selling price ₹ Lacs/No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 95 96 83
PBT (Profit before Tax) ₹ Lacs/No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index -100 -233 -47 -248
PBIT (Profit before Interest &
Tax) ₹ Lacs/No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index -100 -370 47 -453
Cash Profit ₹ Lacs/No *** *** *** ***
Trend Index -100 -459 48 -526
ROCE % *** *** *** ***
Trend Index -100 -390 49 -700
98. It is seen that -
a. The domestic industry has been suffering from losses throughout the injury period and
in the POI.
b. The domestic industry suffered financial losses, negative PBIT, cash losses and
negative return on capital employed in the POI.
c. The return on capital employed was negative throughout the period of investigation
except in the year 2020 -21.
99. The interested parties contended that the financial results of the domestic industry shows
that the domestic industry is in profits. The Authority however notes that the domestic
industry produces a number of other types of machines. The domestic industry has sold
those machines at a profit, leading to overall profits at company level. The domestic
industry stated that there was no material dumping happening in those products.
100. The Authority also notes costs on account of raw materials alone constitutes a very
significant proportion of sales price. The adverse performance of PUC and better
performance of other products is established by the ratio of sales to raw material costs
itself.
v. Employment, wages and productivity
101. The situation of the domestic indust ry with regard to employment, wages and
productivity was examined.
Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22
No of employees Nos. *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 83 104 108
Salaries & Wages ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 78 88 95
Productivity per day Nos. *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 86 106 124
Productivity per employee Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Index 100 103 102 115
102. It is seen that the number of employees with the domestic industry has increased over the
injury period. Productivity per day and productivity per employee has improved over the
period . Wages paid has declined as compared to base year , but has increased as compared
to previous year. The domestic industry has submitted that these parameters are not
reflective of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry. It is also seen that
the salary & wages do not form a material part of the selling price.
vi. Growth
103. The growth of the domestic industry in terms of the production, the capacity , domestic
sales volume, the inventories, the profits, the cash profits, the market share and the return
on investment is as per given table below –
Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Production % -14.15% 23.30% 17.05%
Domestic Sales % -17.24% 31.55% 13.57%
Profit / Loss per unit ₹ Lacs % -132.75% 79.90% -429.34%
Inventory % 41.67% 11.76% 0.00%
PBIT ₹ Lacs % -206.03% 116.82% -1187.78%
Cash Profit % -279.68% 113.88% -1335.58%
ROCE % -11.21% 16.99% -29.01%
104. It is seen that the growth of the domestic industry was negative in most of the injury
parameters during the POI.
vii. Magnitude of dumping
105. Magnitude of dumping 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 as a whole is above the de minims level and is
very significant.
viii. Abilit y to raise capital investment.
106. It is seen that the domestic industry has faced financial losses, cash losses and a negative
return on the capital employed throughout the injury period , which has weakened its
ability to raise the capital investment.
H.3.4 Analysis of Injury
107. The examination of the imports of the subject goods and the performance of the domestic
industry clearly shows that the volume of the dumped imports from the subject country
has increased in absolute terms as well as in relation to production and consumption in
India. The Chinese imports constitute a very significant share in Indian consumption. The
imports from the subject country are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. The
price undercutting has led to depressing eff ects on the prices in the market, as seen from
the decline in the domestic industry more than the cost declines. Production, capacity
utilization, sales of the domestic industry has remained low throughout the injury period.
The domestic industry and India n industry as a whole have lost market share. Further,
share held by the domestic industry and Indian industry as a whole in demand for the
product has remained very low throughout the injury period, whereas share of Chinese
imports is quite significant. T he Indian industry is gradually heading towards extinction.
The domestic industry has been suffering financial losses, cash losses and negative return
on investments throughout the injury period.
I. CAUSAL LINK
108. As per the Rules, the Authority, inter alia, i s required to examine whether any known
factors other than the dumped imports 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 in clude, 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 of and competition between the foreign and the
domestic producers, developments in t echnology and the export performance and the
productivity of the domestic industry. It has been examined below whether the factors
listed under the Rules could be the cause of injury suffered by the domestic industry.
a. Volume and prices of imports from third countries .
109. The imports from China PR constitutes 88% of the total imports of the subject goods into
India in the POI. The imports from other countries are either at higher prices or
insignificant volumes. Imports from other countries cannot be consid ered to have caused
injury to the domestic industry.
b. Contraction in demand and/or change in pattern of consumption .
110. The Authority notes that there is no contraction in demand during injury period. On the
contrary, overall demand for subject goods has shown significant growth during the
injury period. The Authority further notes that the domestic industry is unable to ut ilize
its capacity to the extent of available demand due to dumped imports.
c. Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices
111. The Authority notes that the investigation has not shown any change in conditions of
competition, or the trade restrictive practices are responsible for the claimed injury to the
domestic industry.
d. Development in technology
112. No evidence has been brought forward by any interested parties that developments in
technology could be the cause of injury to the domestic industry.
e. Export performance of the domestic industry
113. The Authority has considered the injury data for the domestic operations separately for
the injury analysis. Therefore, the export performance of the domestic industry is not th e
cause of the injury to the domestic industry.
f. Performance of other produ cts
114. The Authority has considered data relating to the performance of the subject goods only.
Therefore, the performance of the other products produced and sold by the domestic
industry is not a possible cause of the injury to the domestic industry.
J. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
115. The Authority has determined the non -injurious price (NIP) for the domestic industry on
the basis of the principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended.
The NIP of the PUC has been determined by adopting the information/data relating to the
cost of production provided by the domestic industry and duly certified by the practicing
accountant for the period of investigation. The NIP has been considered for comparing
the landed price from the subject country for calculating injury margin. For determining
the NIP, the best utilization of the raw materials and utilities has been considered over the
injury period. Best utilization of production capacity over the injury period has been
considered. Extraordinary or non -recurring expenses have be en excluded from the cost of
production. A reasonable return (pre -tax @ 22%) on average capital employed (i.e.,
average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the PUC was allowed as pretax
profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure I II of the Rules and being followed.
116. Based on the landed price and NIP determined as above, the injury margin for the
producers/ exporters as determined by the Authority is provided in the table below . The
injury margin has been determined by comparing th e NIP with the landed price of
imports, by undertaking PCN to PCN analysis :
S
N Group Producers/Exporters NIP
($/Unit) LV
($/Uni
t) IM
($/Unit) IM% IM
Range
(%)
1 Hans
Group GD Han’s Yueming Laser
Group Co., Ltd.
*** *** *** *** 20-30 Han’s Laser Smart
Equipment Group Co., Ltd.
Han’s Laser Technology
Industry Group Co., Ltd.
Han’s MP Laser
Technology Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Songu Intelligent
Equipment Co., Ltd.
Yawie
Group Jiangsu Yawei Machine -
Tool Co., Ltd.
*** *** *** *** 40-50 Jiangsu Yawei
Chuangkeyuan Laser
Equipment Co., Ltd.
3 TRUMPF
Group TRUMPF (China) Co., Ltd.
*** *** *** *** (40-50) Jiangsu Jinfangyuan CNC
Machine Co., Ltd.
4 HSG
Group HSG Laser Co., Ltd
*** *** *** *** 20-30 Jinan Hongshi Laser
Technology Co., Ltd
5 Bystronic
Group Bystronic Laser AG
*** *** *** *** 20-30 Bystronic (Tianjin) Laser
Ltd
Bystronic (Shenzhen) Laser
Technology Co., Ltd
6 Jinan
Bodor
Group Jinan Bodor CNC Machine
Co., Ltd
*** *** *** *** 70-80
7 Shandong
Oree Jinan Oree Laser
Technology Co. Ltd *** *** *** *** 80-90 Shandong Oree Laser
Technology Co. Ltd
8 Gweike Gweike Tech Co., Ltd
*** *** *** *** 80-90
9 Residual Other than column no.1 to 8 *** *** *** *** 130-140
117. It is seen that , barring one cooperating producer, injury margin in respect of the
cooperating producer s as well as all other producers is positive.
K. POST DISCLOSURE SUBMISSIONS
K.1. Submission made by other interested parties
118. Post disclosure comments made by other interested parties are as follows:
i. The Authority has rejected exclusion requests made on the grounds that domestic
industry produce s a particular product. The d omestic industry has to show that
whether the specific product types have been produced and sold by the domestic
industry during the period of investigation . Mere competency to produce a product
type is not sufficient for its inclusion .
ii. Whether a machine imported in CKD fo rm will be included only if the consignment
includes all parts that provide essential character to the product under consideration
and if it so, which part provides essential character to the product under
consideration.
iii. Date of submission of support lette rs should be clarified by the Authority. They
should be rejected if they were filed at belated stage, i.e., after 11th Jan 2023
(timeline for submission of EQR). In the initiation notification the Authority stated
that other supporter i.e., Proteck & Lastr onics and Messers Cutting System Private
Limited have provided details of production, capacity, and domestic Sales. However,
there is no such details present in the petition shared with the interested parties.
iv. The other producers are doing extremely well as they have not supported nor came
forward for the present investigation. Four other producers have neither supported
nor opposed the initiation.
v. In order to determine whether the imports by petitioner are insignificant, the
Authority should consider imports for each machine type, i.e., cutting, marking, and
welding, instead of clubbing all the three machines under one category.
vi. The Authority is requested to disclose the methodology for compar ing PCN s if a
machine with a particular PCN was not manufactured by the domestic industry.
vii. Trumpf and Jiangsu are producers related to each other. They should have been
assigned a single weighted average dumping margin rather than separate .
viii. PCN wise underc utting is not relevant for arriving at conclusions regarding price
suppression or depression. Price suppression/depression requires separate analysis
and cannot be determined merely on the basis of price undercutting.
ix. Subject imports do not have price supp ressing or depressing effect. The a pplicant
was able to increase/decrease its selling price without influence of the landed value.
x. The economic impact must be analysed in relation to net profits of users and not
revenue.
xi. Names of the HSG Laser Co., Ltd., Jinan Hongshi Laser Technology Co., Ltd and
Gweike Tech Co Ltd are required to be corrected .
xii. The d omestic industry imports its raw materials from China PR and the cost of
production used to determine normal value is not at significant variance with the cost
of production of producers from China PR. Normal value and dumping margin for
each PCN has been estimated by the respondents based on raw material price of 3
major components sourced from market intelligence enclosed with the disclosure
comments. The dumping margin estimated is negative.
xiii. The overly high dumping margin and injury margin is due to high normal value
and NIP determined based on the cost of production of the domestic industry and
inappropriate PCN to PCN comparison. Lack of disclosure on t he PCN
comparison methodology has prevented respondents from providing their
comments on the appropriateness of the same.
xiv. The respondents again request the Authority to consider the data of other Indian
producers alongside the applicant’s data. This will ensure an accurate assessment
of injury. This has been done by the Authority in the past as can be seen in the
Anti-dumping investigation of Polyester Staple Fiber from China PR, Indonesia,
Malaysia, and Thailand .
xv. Reasons for substantial revision of criti cal parameters such as ‘cost of sales per
unit’, ‘net sales realisation per unit’ and ‘profit/loss per unit’ of the domestic
industry must be disclosed.
xvi. As the product under consideration is capital goods, the form of duty imposed
should be ad -valorem to uniformly impact all varieties of the product under
consideration.
xvii. The d omestic industry does not have the capacity to meet the demand in India, the
duty should be recommended for only 2 ye ars.
xviii. Shenzhen DNE is not part of Jinan Bodor Group as stated in the disclosure. They
are a related trader of Bystronic Group. It is requested that the same be rectified in
the final finding.
xix. The fact about the domestic industry showing orders of machine h aving laser
power of 20000W is disclosed for the first time in the disclosure and no evidence
was put to record.
xx. PCN wise comparison undertaken by the Authority is incorrect.
xxi. No production details or support letter has been submitted in the petition of th e
supporter ‘Messers cutting system Private Limited’ and ‘Proteck & Lastronics ’
xxii. In the normal value calculation, the Authority has missed the export details of
Bystronic Shenzhen DNE in calculation of Bystronic Group resulting in reduction
of export price and landed value by 20%.
xxiii. The MSME certificate should be provided by the domestic industry including the
law which states that rules and regulations of Anti -dumping should be foregone
for MSME.
K.2. Submission made by the domestic industry.
119. Post disclosure comments made by the domestic industry are as follows:
i. The domestic industry has requested disclosure of non-confidential version of the
verification report of the participating exporters, communication exchanged with
exporters, and any informat ion filed by exporters post filing of initial questionnaire
response.
ii. The quantity and value reported by the responding exporters from the subject country
is required to be matched with quantity and value reported in transaction wise import
data.
iii. In case t he quantity and value reported by the responding exporter does not match
with the transaction wise import data, such exporter must be considered non -
cooperative, and their response rejected.
iv. The following registered interested parties must be considered no n-cooperative as
they have failed to file the questionnaire response within prescribed time limits: (i)
Jiatai International Company (India), (ii) Wila CNC India Pvt. Ltd., (iii) Vee M
Automation Technology, (iv) S&T Engineering Pvt. Ltd., (v) Premier Unit ed Pvt.
Ltd., (vi) SMT Innovative, (vii) Daksh Enterprises, (viii) Sahil Technocrats, (ix)
Upanal CNC Pvt. Ltd., (x) Shree Ram Enterprises, (xi) Meera Laser Solution Pvt.
Ltd., (xii) Wuhan Raycus Fiber Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
v. Only reliable and quantifiable information on record on the impact of the anti-
dumping duty is provided by the domestic industry. This investigation has had no
user participation, and the importers have not provided any quantifiable information.
vi. The imposing of anti-dumping duty would n ot adversely affect end users or
downstream industries as the product under consideration is a capital good and any
impact of the duty would be spread across the life of the PUC.
vii. Ad-Valorem form of duty must be recommended as: (a) the product involves many
models and types that have considerable variances in associated costs and prices, (b)
the product is a capital good and is manufactured in accordance with
specifications/requirements, and (c) to avoid any circumvention.
viii. The Authority must recommend anti-dumping duty for a period of 5 years as the
applicant and other producers belong to the MSME sector, and the need for recovery
as the Indian Industry has been suffering from dumping for a long period.
K.3. Examination of the Authority
120. The Authority has examined the post disclosure submissions made by the other 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 findings. Issues
raised in th e disclosure statement which have already been examined have not been
considered now. The issues raised for the first time in the post -disclosure
comments/submissions by the interested parties and considered relevant by the Authority
are examined below.
121. Submissions on the incorrect names of the interested parties have been duly incorporated
in the final finding.
122. As regards the contention of no information of production of all types of goods on
domestic industry’s website and the inclusion of goods based o n the capability to
produce, the Authority notes that the product under consideration is produced largely
based on order. There may be products which the domestic industry can produce but did
not produce only because of the absence of orders. The product u nder consideration
comes in wide range of different sizes, laser power, bed size etc. It may be possible that
the domestic industry would have produced machine similar to the imported product with
some minor differences in product characteristics. The inte rested parties have not shown
that some party has placed an order on the domestic industry and the domestic industry
regretted supply against the same claiming technical incapability. In a situation where a
product is produced and sold in a large number of types/forms/varities, the Authority does
not consider that the domestic industry should have produced and supplied each
type/form/varity of the product. The Authority is of the view that the domestic industry
should have the capacity and capability to pro duce such a good s. In fact, the Authority
has routinely determined injury margin where the Authority found that all forms of the
products produced by the domestic industry were not imported into the country, and
similarly, all forms of the products were not produced and supplied by the domestic
industry. The Authority in fact has notified its methodology for determination of the
injury margin in such cases by specifying that the injury margin in such c ases shall be
determined by considering a near similar product type and making adjustments for the
differences in characteristics. Therefore, merely only on the basis of non -production of
particular product type during the POI, exclusion cannot be granted , particularly in a case
like the present which involves capital goods. Based on the facts of the case and the
nature of the product involved, what is required to be considered is if the domestic
industry is capable of producing the required product.
123. As regards the contention on the form and duration of duty, the same have been duly
considered based on the facts of the case. The Authority has in past recommended anti -
dumping duty for a period less than 5 years having regard to facts & circumstances of
those cases. The domestic industry in the present case has been in existence for a long
time. There are large number of producers in the market. The share of imported product
in the domestic market is high. The facts of the case justify recommendation of duty for 5
years in order to allow fully recovery of the Indian industry.
124. It has been contended that the fact that the domestic industry can produce machine having
laser power of 20000W has been disclosed for the first time in the disclosure statement.
Pursuan t to the written submissions filed by the other interested parties wherein it was
said that the domestic industry cannot provide machines with laser power of 20000 Watt,
the domestic industry had in its rejoinder submissions provided evidence of its capaci ty to
produce the machine with the desired laser power. The fact has been disclosed to all the
parties in the disclosure statement and comments were invited. However, the interested
parties have not provided any evidence to dispute it.
125. As regards to the r equest for determination of normal value based on records kept by
Gweike Tech Co. Ltd., the Authority notes that the respondent has not filed market
economy questionnaire response to rebut the presumptions as mentioned in para 8 of
Annexure - I and under th ese circumstances. Therefore, the contention cannot be accepted.
126. As regards the date of submission of the support letters, the support letters were received
before the initiation of the investigation and their names have been considered in the
initiation notification itself. It has also been contended that the informati on regarding the
production and sales of the other supporters were not disclosed to the interested parties.
The Authority has disclosed the names of the participating producers in the initiation
notification itself and the trend of their domestic sales in the disclosure statement.
127. It has been contended that the Authority should examine performance of other producers
as well and not for the other producers which have supported the application. Based on
the WTO decisions and the Rules, a 25% share in total Indian production can be
considered a "major proportion" in the case of a fragmented industry. The applicant in the
present case satisfies the requirement of standing in terms of anti -dumping r ules. The
Authority may also examine the trend of performance of supporters as well. However, the
supporters in the present investigation have provided information only with respect to
capacity, production and sales. It is seen that even the supporters are operating with
significant idle capacities.
128. As regards the comments on methodology considered for suppression/depression, the
Authority notes that considering the large number of the PCNs involved, it will be highly
misleading if the comparison is made o n an average basis. The analysis of transaction
wise PCN wise data shows that the import price is below the selling price of the domestic
industry. The fact that the domestic industry has suffered financial losses and the import
price is below the selling price of the domestic industry itself shows that the imports are
suppressing or depressing the domestic prices.
129. As regards the argument on normal value calculation for the PCNs which are not
manufactured by the domestic industry it is noted that the Auth ority has taken due
diligence in computing the normal value nearest PCN manufactured by the domestic
industry with due adjustments, wherever necessary.
130. As regards the PCN wise comparison, the Authority has undertaken the comparison as
per the consistent practice. Where the domestic industry has supplied the exact PCN, the
same has been considered for the present determination. However, in cases where the
import quantities include some of the PCNs, which have not been produced by the
domestic industry duri ng the period of investigation, the non -injurious price or normal
value for these PCNs have been computed based on the closest PCN with due adjustment .
131. It has been contended that there is a demand and supply gap in the country, and the same
will worsen a fter imposition of anti -dumping duty. It is also seen that as against the
demand, the capacity with the domestic industry, other Indian producers, imports from
other countries and non -dumped imports from the subject countries will be able to cater
the enti re demand. The domestic industry has also submitted that the capacities can be
increased to some extent immediately, and to a significant extent in a short run. The
Authority notes that the demand -supply gap in the country does not bar the domestic
industr y from seeking redressal from dumped imports. As held by the CESTAT in the
matter of DSM Idemitsu Limited vs. Designated Authority , demand -supply gap does not
justify dumping. The foreign producers can always meet the Indian demand by selling the
product a t un-dumped prices. Even after the imposition of anti -dumping duty, the imports
are not restricted in the country.
132. It has been contended that the anti-dumping duty should not be imposed as the consumers
are in MSME sector . The Authority, however, notes that the argument has been raised by
a Chinese exporter/ Indian trader. The consumers have not raised any such arguments, nor
any consumers’ association has come forward with any such plea. At the same time, it is
noted that the domestic producers in the product under consideration are MSME s.
Further, as far as buyers are concerned, even if they are MSME, the product under
consideration is a capital good and therefore the cost would be absorbed over long
life of the product.
L. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST AND OTHER ISSUES
L.1 Submission made by other interested parties
133. The submissions made by the other interested party on the imposition of the duty being
against public interest are as follows:
i. Users who have imported Chinese machines would not have to import again until the
machine requires replacement due to complete depreciation. Hence, existing users will
not be affected by imposition of anti -dumping duty in the near future. The absence of
participation from users should be understood in this context.
ii. The p etitioner’s quantification of the impact of anti -dumping duty should be rejected.
The petitioner considered an anti -dumping duty of 30% when dumping margin and
injury margin claimed is 180 -190% and 90 -100% respectively whi ch would even
conservatively lead to an anti -dumping duty of 60%. The biggest proportion of users
of subject goods is MSME who would be most affected as opposed to large industrial
user considered by petitioner.
iii. An anti -dumping duty of 30% -60% will have a n impact of 13% -27% for laser cutting
machine and 6% -13% for laser marking machine and laser welding machine. The
increased cost of the product under consideration will impact the profits of user s. This
will force small scale users to give up business plan s leading to wide -scale impact on
the economy. The competitiveness of the user industry will be severely affected.
Importers and end -users employ 2000 and 5000 people directly respectively. The anti -
dumping duty will impact the employment generated.
iv. The im position of anti -dumping duty will worsen the demand -supply gap and be
detrimental to the government’s Make in India objective.
v. The demonstration made in Annexure 2.4 is unreliable, as the revenue figures on
which the calculations are made are unsubstantia ted and rationale is unexplained.
Considering the multiple end uses of the laser machines, the assessment has to be
undertaken based on the specific user industry. The Authority is requested to refer to
the user questionnaire filed in the investigation.
vi. The entire laser machine market is projected to grow in the following years and the
domestic industry under the pre -text of ‘levelling the playing field’ is attempting to
capture the Indian market. The domestic industry is unable to compete with the
industry standards and Chinese, Japanese, and German laser machines are deemed
superior globally. They are therefore resorting to alternative measures in order to gain
a price advantage. The domestic industry offers no benefit to end consumers and is
seeking to un dercut the competitive landscape. The imposition of anti-dumping duty
is against public interest.
vii. Even if anti-dumping duty is imposed and the subject imports cease, the petitioner
may not be able to achieve scale of production because they lack technical expertise
and know -how.
viii. The domestic industry ’s claim that the increase in cost owing to anti -dumping duty
would be spread across the AUL period of 15 years is contradictory. The domestic
industry not only states that the consumers are extremely price sens itive but also
claims that the imposition of duties will not have an overall effect to the consumer. If
the end consumer is not price -sensitive, then the reason why the user industry prefers
imports is owing to the fact that it has qualitatively superior P UC.
ix. The product ranges from lakhs to crores, as the product is capital intensive. If the anti -
dumping duty is imposed of 60%, it will be expensive for the users/importers to
import the PUC. The impact of anti -dumping duties would be high.
x. No complaints have been raised by the users or importer industry with regards to
after-sales service and the supply of spare parts. Further various importers are in
different parts of the country which are in a better position to meet the after -sales
suppo rt and requirements of the user’s industry. The after sales service of the
petitioner is meaningless as the machines are supported by the petitioner suffer from
poor quality/performance standards.
xi. The impact will likely to strengthen the oligopolistic ten dencies of domestic
producers, which can be detrimental to importers and the user industry.
xii. The imposition of duties will reduce importers and users’' which are already low
margins, leading to a severe impact on the demand for the PUC in the market.
xiii. The im ports of the PUC from third countries are otherwise also very expensive and
will not be affordable for small -scale users.
xiv. The interest of single producers cannot be equal to the interest of the public at large.
Where there is only one domestic industry and various importers have participated,
their claim of adverse impact of anti -dumping duty must be considered.
K.2. Submission made by the domestic industry.
134. The submissions made by the domestic industry on the imposition of the duty being
against public interest are as follows:
i. Imposition of anti-dumping duty is in the interest of producers, consumers and public
at large. The capacity would get expanded when fair competition is restored in India.
Additionally, imposition of anti-dumping duty would also en sure that even third
country imports can compete fairly in the Indian market.
ii. The lack of users’ opposition shows that the user’s industry does not expect any
adverse impact on account of imposition of anti -dumping duty. Further, the
quantification of the impact of anti-dumping duty shows that the impact is
insignificant.
iii. Procuring from the domestic industry is in the interest of the users. Post -sales
assistance and the supply of spares parts is essential for smooth functioning of the
machine. Being estab lished in India, the domestic industry would provide timely
service to the user’s industry.
iv. The Indian industry consists only of MSME s, which is competing against unfairly
priced imports from large Chinese entities. Some cooperating producers/exporters ar e
subsidiaries of major European corporations. Both the domestic industry and the other
Indian producers have been experiencing continuous losses. Sustaining these loss -
making operations is not feasible for the Indian industry in the long term. Without
government support, these companies may be forced to shut down soon.
v. Technology of the subject goods has application in other critical sectors such as
medicine and defence. The domestic industry is involved in engaging in research on
the use of such technolog y in these sectors. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the
country that the domestic industry continues in developing technology for these
sectors.
vi. Fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by imposition of the anti -
dumping duty. Anti -dumping duty is a redressal of unfair price discrimination by the
producers in other countries, which is injurious to the industry in India. Therefore,
anti-dumping duty is not a protection to the industry, but rather a means of price
correction.
vii. The objective of the imposition of the anti -dumping duty is to establish a level playing
field, by removing any trade distortion by the producers in the subject country and
allowing the Indian industry an opportunity for fair competition.
viii. The subject good s are produced by several countries other than China PR. The
restoration of fair competition will also help producers from third countries to
compete with Chinese imports on an equal footing in the Indian market. This further
assures that the downstream in dustry will not face any shortage of the subject goods
on account of the imposition of the duties.
ix. Indian industry is perfectly capable of competing with producers in the third country
markets on market principle. The Indian industry has the potential to become globally
renowned and share the same status as that of European, Korean, and Japanese
producers. The Indian industry is not suffering from injury from third country imports.
x. The imposition of anti -dumping duty on the subject imports would result in to fair
market competition, Indian producers would be able to compete on market terms with
Chinese imports, recovery from loss and earning adequate returns with growing
demand will act as an incentive to expand their production capacity and expansion of
production capacity will bridge the demand supply gap and facilitate the goal of
‘Make in India’.
xi. Only the domestic industry has quantified the impact of anti -dumping duty and none
of the importers have quantified the same which was a requirement under economic
interest questionnaire.
xii. Even entities with a turnover as high as Rs.250 crores are considered MSMEs. The
domestic industry has taken a reasonable average of Rs.50 crores and quantified the
impact accordingly.
xiii. Calculation of the impact of the anti -dumping duty on the revenue of the user industry
gives a correct metric of the economic impact. The impact should be calculated on a
static measure and hence, revenue would be more appropriate as opposed to net profit
which is dynamic and dependent on seve ral factors.
xiv. The Authority must reject the quantification of anti -dumping duty belatedly filed by
the imports as they failed to provide in the economic interest questionnaire. Even if
such has been filed, the same must be rejected as they failed to circul ate non -
confidential version of the same to the domestic industry.
xv. The imposition of anti-dumping duty would restore the fair competition in the Indian
market which will help the Indian Industry to increase their domestic sales, revenue
and returns. This would also encourage the Indian producers to scale up the
production and the Indian industry can come out of MSME sectors.
xvi. Chinese producers have acquired the Indian market by resorting to unfair dumping.
Existence of fair market practices in the Indian m arket would lead to Indian industry
acquiring market.
K.3. Examination of the Authority
135. The Authority notes that the purpose of anti -dumping duty, in general is to eliminate
injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to
re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the
general interest of the country. Ensuring a level playing field for the subject goods in
India is even more important considering the structure of the Ind ian industry. While the
domestic industry is the largest company among the Indian industry, still they are an
MSME. Apart from the domestic industry, all other producers of the subject goods fall
within the MSME sector. If the production and sales of the s ubject goods become
unviable to them, they will be forced to shut down operations. Further, The Authority
notes that the imposition of the anti -dumping measures would not restrict imports from
the subject countr y in any way, and therefore, would not affect the availability of the
product to the consumers.
136. The Authority issued gazette notification inviting views from all the interested parties,
including the importers, the consumers, and the other interested parties. The Authority
also prescribed a questionnaire for the users to provide the relevant information with
regard to the present investigation, including possible effect of the anti-dumping duty on
their operations. The Authori ty sought information on, inter -alia, interchangeability of
the product supplied by the various suppliers from different countries, ability to switch
sources, the effect of the anti-dumping duty on the consumers, the factors that are likely
to accelerate o r delay the adjustment to the new situation caused by the imposition of the
anti-dumping duty .
137. The Authority had prescribed an Economic Interest Questionnaire which was sent to all
interested parties to this investigation. The domestic industry has provided information
sought in the Economic Interest Questionnaire. The domestic industry has also pro vided a
quantification of the potential impact of the duty. It is to be noted that two producers /
exporters from the subject country have responded to the Economic Interest
Questionnaire namely, HSG Laser Co., Ltd and Jinan Hongshi Laser Technology Co.,
Ltd. However, exporters have not quantified the impact of the imposition of anti -dumping
duty on end users. During the course of the investigation, steps were taken to examine
whether the imposition of the anti -dumping duties will be against the public inter est. For
this, the Authority has considered information on record and interests of various parties,
including the domestic industry, importers, and users of the product.
138. None of the users, OEMs or user associations have opposed to the present investigation.
Nor these parties have claimed that there shall be an adverse effect of the proposed anti-
dumping duty on the public at large, or even their operations. After the issuance of the
disclosure statement, some representations were received requesting for non -imposition
of anti -dumping of the representation are very similar in content and no data on the
possible impact has been provided. As already noted above , none of the importers or
consumers have provide d any verifiable information to demonstrate the effect of the anti -
dumping duty on the consumers. In this regard, the Authority re -iterates that imposition
of the antidumping measures would not restrict the imports from the subject country in
any way and, would not affect the availability of the product to the consumer.
139. It is noted that the product is under free category and, therefore, can be freely imported
from the various countries. The imposition of the anti -dumping measures would not
restrict the imp orts from China in any way , and, therefore, would not affect the
availability of the product to the consumers. The imposition of anti -dumping duties,
therefore, would neither affect the availability of the product to the consumers nor create
monopoly.
140. It has been contended that there is a demand and supply gap in the country , and the same
will worsen after imposition of anti -dumping duty. It is also seen that as against the
demand, the capacity with the domestic industry, other Indian producers, imports from
other countries and non -dumped imports from the subject countries will be able to cater
the entire demand. The domestic industry has a lso submitted that the capacities can be
increased to some extent immediately, and to a significant extent in a short run. The
Authority notes that the demand -supply gap in the country does not bar the domestic
industry from seeking redressal from dumped i mports. As held by the CESTAT in the
matter of DSM Idemitsu Limited vs. Designated Authority , demand -supply gap does not
justify dumping. The foreign producers can always meet the Indian demand by selling the
product at un -dumped prices. Even after the imp osition of anti -dumping duty, the imports
are not restricted in the country.
141. The Authority notes all other producers including the domestic industry of the subject
goods in India belong to the MSME sector. Thus, imposition of duties would only help
the Indian producers to stay viable and competitive.
142. It is noted that the interested parties have not demonstrated how the prices of the subject
goods have adversely impacted the consumers. On the other hand, the domestic industry
has submitted quantified in formation establishing that the impact of the proposed
antidumping duty on the user industry would be miniscule. The domestic industry has
submitted that the cost of the product under consideration in the final product is very
minimal and will have almost no effect on the end -users. The domestic industry has
quantified an impact of 0.0003% on the turnover of the downstream industry. The
interested parties opposed the quant ification provided by the domestic industry but has
not provided any verifiable information to quantify the impact.
M. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
143. After examining the submission made by the interested parties and issues raised therein
and considering the facts available on record, the Authority concludes that:
a. Laser cutting , welding or marking machines are machines which have laser source as
the base product and performs the function of emitting laser required for cutting,
welding, marking or any other op erations. Mere fact that the machine may perform the
function of welding, cutting, or marking does not render these as different products .
Different kinds of laser machines are nothing but one product which essentially
perform the function of emitting lase r light in a controlled manner.
b. The product under consideration comes in a wide range of different sizes, laser power,
bed size etc. Different categories/types are developed to meet specific end -user
requirements. Since it is a capital good and customer made product, the design of the
industrial laser machines is as per the end use requirements. It may be possible that the
domestic industry would have produced machine similar to the imported product with
some minor differences in product characteristics. In a situation where a product is
produced and sold in a large number of types/forms/varieties, the Authority does not
consider that the domestic industry should have produced and supplied each of them.
Therefore, the Authority has considered if the domest ic industry has the technical
capacity to provide such products.
c. Components have been excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.
However, if all the components are transacted in such a manner that it merely requires
assembly operation in I ndia, such transaction would amount to transaction in CKD
condition and shall be within the ambit of the product under consideration.
d. There are around 8 producers of the product under consideration in India and the
industry is a MSME fragmented industry. S ome of the MSME s have a turnover of Rs
10 Cr or less.
e. The application was filed by M/s. Sahajanand laser Technology Limited. Lastronics
Technology Private Limited, Proteck Machinery Pvt Ltd. and Messers Cutting System
India Private Limited had supported th e investigation. The applicant together with
supporters account for 50 -60% of the total domestic production of the like article in
India.
f. The volume of imports made by the applicant is insignificant (0.26% in relation to total
imports into India and 0.24% in relation to total demand in India and 3.5% of its total
domestic sales). The imports made by the applicant are not in such volumes so as to
disentitle them from being treated as an eligible domestic industry.
g. Large number of exporters from China PR hav e participated. 9 Chinese group of
companies consisting of 20 exporters have participated and filed questionnaire
response. None of the responses have been rejected. The Authority has not undertaken
sampling and determined dumping margin based on their res ponse.
h. Considering the normal value and export price for the subject goods, the dumping
margin for the subject goods from the subject country has been determined, and the
margins are significantly positive. No reason has bee n provided by the exporters for
such a significant degree of dumping.
i. Even the lowest dumping margin determined in case of co -operating producers is in the
range of 30-40%. Further, the dumping margin is as high as 100%.
j. The examination of the imports of the subject goods shows that the volume of dumped
imports from China has significantly increased in the period of investigation. The
imports have increased in both absolute terms and in relation to production and
consumption.
k. The examination of the price of the imports of the subject go ods further shows that
imports are priced below the selling price of the domestic industry. The dumped
imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry by 40 -50%.
l. The imports are below the cost of sales of the domestic industry. The low-priced
imports have caused price depression on the domestic industry prices as they have
forced the domestic industry to reduce its prices.
m. The examination of the economic parameters of the domestic industry show that
production and sales are significantly lower as compared to the capacity and demand in
India. While the market share of the domestic industry has declined over the injury
period, the market share of the subject country has increased and is more than 80% of
the total demand.
n. The domestic industry has been suffering from losses throughout the injury period and
in the period of investigation. The loss per unit suffered is highest in the period of
investigation.
o. Considering the volume of dumped imports and the degree of the demand being catered
by them, the imports from China are the price setters in the domestic market. The
domestic industry is forced to reduce its price and has suffered losses. Therefore, the
dumped imports have impacted the prices of the domestic industry.
p. The Authority has examined t he submissions made by the other parties on any other
factors which could have caused injury to the domestic industry. No other factor
appears to have caused injury to the domestic industry. The Authority concludes that
material injury suffered by the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped
imports from the subject country.
q. None of the consumer of the product in India has participated in the present
investigation. While importer traders have participated and filed questionnaire
response, no user questionnaire response was filed. The Authority notes that the
absence of the user participation shows the lack of adverse impact of anti -dumping
duty.
r. As against the demand in India, capacity with the domestic industry, other Indian
producers and imports from non -dumped imports from the subject countries will be
able to cater the entire demand. Demand and supply gap does not justify dumping. The
foreign producers can always meet the Indian demand by selling the product at un -
dumped prices.
s. Interested par ties have not demonstrated how the prices of the subject goods have
adversely impacted the consumers. On the other hand, the domestic industry has
submitted quantified information establishing that the impact of the proposed
antidumping duty on the user in dustry would be miniscule.
t. The Authority had prescribed an Economic Interest Questionnaire which was sent to all
interested parties to this investigation. Two producers/ exporters from the subject
country and the domestic industry have responded to the Eco nomic Interest
Questionnaire. No Economic Interest Questionnaire response has been filed by any
customer. The domestic industry has also provided a quantification of the potential
impact of the duty.
u. The Authority considers that the impact of anti -dumping duty on the eventual end
consumers will be insignificant.
v. Considering the nature of the industry and degree of the injury suffered due to dumped
imports, the Authority considers that anti -dumping duty for a period of 5 years is
necessary.
144. The Authority n otes that investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties
and adequate opportunity was given to the domestic industry, exporters, importers, and
other interested parties to provide positive information on the aspect of dumping, injury,
causal link, and impact of recommended measures. Having initiated and conducted the
investigation into dumping, injury, and causal link in terms of provisions laid down under
the Anti -Dumping Rules and having quantified the impact of imposition of ADD, the
Authority is in view that imposition of anti -dumping duty is required to offset the
dumping and injury. The Authority considers it necessary and recommends imposition of
an anti -dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject country.
145. Considerin g the product under consideration is capital goods, the assessment and
collection of anti -dumping duty should be based on value of the goods rather than on any
other criterion such as weight or number etc. The Authority therefore considers that it
would be appropriate to recommend anti -dumping duty as a percentage of the CIF value
of the import price of the subject goods.
146. In view of the above, the Authority, in terms of provisions contained in Rule 17(1)(b)
read with Rule 4(d) of the Rules, recommend imposition of anti -dumping duty equal to
the lesser of margin of dumping and the margin of injury, so as to remove the injury to
the domestic industry. The Authority accordingly recommends imposition of anti -
dumping duty on the imports of subject goods originating in or exported from China PR
for a period of five years from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the
Central Government, as a percentage of the CIF price of the goods, as indicated in Col. 7
of the duty table given below.
147. The landed value of imports for this purpose shall be assessable value as determined by
the Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 and applicable level of custom duties except
duties levied under Section 3, 3A, 8B, 9, 9A of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975.
Duty Table
SN Sub
Heading or
Tariff Item Description of
Goods Country of
origin Country
of Export Producer Duty as %
of CIF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 84561100,
84569090,
84622920,
847981999,
85152190,
85158090
and
90132000 Industrial Laser
Machines, in
fully assembled,
SKD or CKD
form, used for
cutting,
marking, or
welding
operations* China PR Any
country
including
China PR GD Han’s Yueming Laser
Group Co., Ltd.
22.78% Han’s Laser Smart Equipment
Group Co., Ltd.
Han’s Laser Technology
Industry Group Co., Ltd.
Han’s MP Laser Technology
Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Songu Intelligent
Equipment Co., Ltd.
2 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Jiangsu Yawei Machine - Tool
Co., Ltd. 40.05% Jiangsu Yawei Chuangkeyuan
Laser Equipment Co., Ltd.
3 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR TRUMPF (China) Co., Ltd.
Nil Jiangsu Jinfangyuan CNC
Machine Co., Ltd.
4 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR HSG Laser Co., Ltd
20.82% Jinan Hongshi Laser
Technology Co., Ltd
5 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Bystronic (Tianjin) Laser Ltd
27.86% Bystronic Laser AG
Bystronic (Shenzhen) Laser
Technology Co., Ltd
6 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Jinan Bodor CNC Machine
Co., Ltd 77.80%
7 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Jinan Oree Laser Technology
Co. Ltd 80.65% Shandong Oree Laser
Technology Co. Ltd
8 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Gwe ike Tech Co., Ltd 81.52%
10 -do- -do- China PR Any
country
including
China PR Any, other than SN 1 to 8 135.98%
11 -do- -do- Any other than
China PR China PR Any 135.98%
* the scope of the product includes Laser Cutting Machines (LCM), Laser Marking Machines
(LMM), and Laser Welding machines (LWM)
N. FURTHER PROCEDURE
148. An appeal against the determination/review of the Designated Authority in this final
finding shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.
ANANT SWARUP, Designated Authority
Uploaded 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