Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 251] NEW DELHI, TUESDAY , OCTOBER 3 , 2023/ ASVINA 11, 194 5
CG-DL-E-05102023-249168
6. स स 30 स / स ,
, स
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department Of Commerce )
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
INITIATION NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2023
Case No – AD(OI) – 18/2023
Subject : Initiation of Anti -Dumping Investigation concerning imports of ―Halobutyl -Rubber (HIIR)‖
originating in or ex ported from Japan, Russia, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United
States of America.
F. No. 06/ 19/2023-DGTR. —1. Having regards to the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to
time (hereinafter also referred to as the “Act”) and the Customs Ta riff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of
Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, as amended from time
to time (hereinafter also referred to as the “Rules or AD Rules”), Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Limited
(hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) has filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter
referred to as the “Authority”) for initiation of an anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of “Halobutyl -
Rubber (here inafter referred to as the “subject goods” or “product under consideration” or “HIIR”) originating in or
exported from European Union, Japan, Russia, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
2. The applicant has alleged that dumping of imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the
subject countries has materially retarded the establishment of the domestic industry. Accordingly, the
applicant has requested for the imposition of anti -dumping duty on the imports of the s ubject goods from the
subject countries.
A. Product under consideration
3. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Halobutyl -Rubber (HIIR), such as Bromobutyl
Rubber (BIIR) or Chlorobutyl Rubber (CIIR). HIIR is obtained through the haloge nation of the isoprene
groups of the IIR, producing a rubber with improved properties and characteristics. HIIR is used for tire inner
liners, hoses, seals, membranes, tank linings, conveyor belts, protect ive clothing and for consumer products,
such as ball bladders for sporting goods.
4. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 40, under tariff code 4002 39 00 of the First
Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on
the scope of the present investigation.
5. The interested parties in the subject investigation may provide their comments on the PUC/PCN methodology,
if any, within 30 days from the date of initiation of this investi gation.
B. Like article
6. The applicant has claimed that there are no known significant differences in the goods produced by the
domestic industry and those exported from the subject countries. Both products have comparable
characteristics in terms of parameter s such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process &
technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification.
The applicant claimed that the two are technically and commercially su bstitutable. Therefore, for the purpose
of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the applicant are being treated as „like article‟ to the
subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries.
C. Domestic industry and standing
7. The application has been filed by Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Limited. The applicant has stated that it
has not imported the product under consideration. The applicant has further stated that it is a joint venture
between Reliance Industries Limited and Sibur Investments AG. Sibur Investments AG is related to a
producer of the product under consideration in Russia, namely PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim, through PJSC
Sibur Holding. Further, it was also earlier related to Sibur Togliatti, which has been sol d to Tatneft.
However, there are no direct exports of such producers to India. Exports, if any, have been made by the
traders. The applicant has claimed that Reliance Industries Limited holds majority shares and accordingly,
exercises control over Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Limited. Further, the applicant and
PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim cannot be considered related under Rule 2(b) since the two entities are not in a
position to legally or operationally control each other, do not jointly control a third entity, and are not
controlled by a third entity. Accordingly, the applicant has claimed that it should not be considered related to
any exporter or producer of the subject goods in the subject countries.
8. From the information on record, the Authority not es that Reliance Elastomers Private Limited is the sole
producer of like article in India. The applicant accounts for a major proportion of the total domestic
production in India. In view of the above and after due examination, the Authority prima facie notes that the
applicant constitutes eligible domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b) and the application satisfies the criteria
of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
D. Normal value
9. The applicant has claimed that it was not able to find evidence reg arding the domestic selling price in the
subject countries. However, for Japan and the USA, information with regard to import price was available,
which is the price of goods in the exporting country. The applicant has provided evidence of normal value on
that basis. The applicant has submitted that for the subject countries barring Japan and the USA, the volume of
imports in those countries was too low, or the imports were priced below the cost of production, thereby not
being in the ordinary course of tra de. Accordingly, the normal value could not be determined based on the price
of imports into these subject countries.
10. The information provided by the applicant also shows that for Russia, Singapore and the United Kingdom, the
price of exports to third coun tries was also below the cost of production. Therefore, the normal value for these
countries has been determined based on the basis of best available information, having regard to the cost of
production in India, duly adjusted for selling, general and admi nistrative expenses with reasonable profits.
11. The Authority has accepted the claim of the applicant in respect of the determination of normal value for the
subject countries for the purpose of the initiation of this investigation.
E. Export price
12. The Authority has considered the export price of the subject goods has been determined by considering the
price of the subject goods, as reported in the DG Systems data. Price adjustments have been made on account
of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, port ex penses, inland freight, and bank charges to arrive at an
ex-factory export price.
F. Dumping margin
13. The normal value and export price have been compared at the ex -factory level. There is sufficient evidence that
the normal value of the subject goods in the su bject countries is significantly higher than the ex -factory export
price indicating, prima facie , that the subject goods are being dumped by the exporters from the subject
countries into the Indian market and the dumping margin is above de-minimis so as to justify initiation of the
investigation.
G. Injury and Causal link
14. Information furnished by the applicant has been considered for assessment of injury to the domestic industry.
The applicant has claimed that the imports have materially retarded its establish ment. The information
concerning imports and economic parameters of the domestic industry over the injury period show that the
imports have prevented price increases, which otherwise would have occurred. The applicant has also claimed
that it has faced und erutilization of capacities and has been forced to export in order to dispose of its
production and has sold in the domestic market below its cost of sales. The applicant has incurred cash losses
and has been able to earn a negligible return on its capital employed. The performance of the domestic industry
is much lower than that projected, both in terms of volume and profitability parameters. There is sufficient
prima facie evidence of injury being caused to the domestic industry by the dumped imports from the subject
countries to justify the initiation of an anti -dumping investigation.
H. Initiation of anti -dumping investigation
15. On the basis of the duly substantiated application filed by or on behalf of the domestic industry, and having
satisfied itself, on t he basis of the prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, substantiating dumping of
the product under consideration originating in or exported from the subject countries, injury to the domestic
industry and causal link between such alleged dumping a nd injury, and in accordance with Section 9A of the
Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, the Authority, hereby, initiates an investigation to determine the existence,
degree and effect of any alleged dumping in respect of the subject goods originating in or exported from the
subject countries and to recommend the amount of anti -dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to
remove the injury to the domestic industry.
I. Subject countries
16. The applicant filed for initiation of an anti -dumping investigation in to imports from the European Union,
Japan, Russia, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. However, as per the DG
Systems data received by the Authority, the volume of imports from the European Union accounts for less than
three per cent of the imports of the like products. Accordingly, the subject countries for the present anti -
dumping investigation are Japan, Russia, Singapore, the United States of America and the United Kingdom
(herein referred to as “subject countries”).
J. Period o f investigation
17. The applicant has provided information considering January - December 2022 as the period of investigation.
The applicant has provided data for the periods 2019 -20, 2020 -21, and 2021 -22 and the proposed period of
investigation for the purpo se of injury analysis. However, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5(3A) of
the Rules, the period of investigation (POI) considered by the Authority for the present investigation is from 1st
April 2022 to 31st March 2023 (12 months). The injury anal ysis period covers the period of investigation and
the three preceding financial years, 2019 -20, 2020 -21, 2021 -22 and the period of investigation.
K. Procedure
18. Principles as given in Rule 6 of the Rules will be followed for the present investigation.
L. Submiss ion of Information
19. All communication should be sent to the Authority via email at the email addresses adv13 [email protected] , adg16 -
[email protected] , [email protected] and dd15 [email protected] . It should be ensured that the narrative part of the
submission is in searchable PDF/MS Word format and data files are in MS Excel format.
20. The known producers/exporters fr om the subject countries, their governments through their embassy in India,
the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the subject goods and the domestic producer are
being informed separately to enable them to file all the relevant inform ation in the form and manner prescribed
within the time -limit set out below.
21. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the form and manner
prescribed within the time -limit set out below on the email addresses mentioned hereinabove.
22. Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is required to make a non -confidential
version of the same available to the other interested parties.
23. Interested parties are further advised to keep a regular watch o n the official website of the Authority
http://www.dgtr.gov.in/ for any updated information with respect to this investigation.
M. Time Limit
24. Any information relating to the present investigation should be to the Autho rity via email at the email
addresses adv13 [email protected] , adg16 [email protected] , [email protected] and dd15 [email protected] within thirty days
(30 days) from the date of receipt of the notice as per Rule 6(4) of the Anti -Dumping Rules. It may, however,
be noted that in terms of explanation of the said Rule, the notice calling for information and other docume nts
shall be deemed to have been received within one week from the date on which it was sent by the Designated
Authority or transmitted to the appropriate diplomatic representative of the exporting countries. If no
information is received within the prescr ibed time limit or the information received is incomplete, the
Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available on records in accordance with the Rules.
25. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (includin g the nature of interest) in the
instant investigation and file their questionnaire response/submissions within the above time limit.
N. Submission of information on confidential basis
26. Any party making any confidential submission or providing information on confidential basis before the
Authority, is required to simultaneously submit a non -confidential version of the same in terms of Rule 7(2) of
the Rules and the trade notices issued in this regard. Failure to adhere to the above may lead to rejection of the
response / submissions.
27. The parties making any submission (including appendices/annexures attached thereto), before the Authority
including questionnaire response, are required to file confidential and non -confidential versions separately.
28. The “confidenti al” or “non -confidential” submissions must be clearly marked as “confidential” or “non -
confidential” at the top of each page. Any submission made without such marking shall be treated as non -
confidential by the Authority, and the Authority shall be at libe rty to allow the other interested parties to
inspect such submissions.
29. The confidential version shall contain all information which is by nature confidential and/or other information
which the supplier of such information claims as confidential. For inform ation which are claimed to be
confidential by nature or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of other reasons, the
supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information
as to wh y such information cannot be disclosed.
30. The non -confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential version with the confidential
information preferably indexed or blanked out (in case indexation is not feasible) and summarized depending
upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed. The non -confidential summary must be in sufficient
detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information furnished on a confidential
basis. However, in exceptional circumsta nces, the party submitting the confidential information may indicate
that such information is not susceptible to summary, and a statement of reasons why summarization is not
possible must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority. The other interest ed parties may offer their
comments on the confidentiality claimed within 7 days of receiving the non -confidential version of the
documents.
31. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the
information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied the request for confidentiality is not warranted or if the
supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in
generalized or in summary form, it may disr egard such information.
32. Any submission made without a meaningful non -confidential version thereof or without good cause statement
on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on record by the Authority.
33. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for confidentiality of the information provided, shall
not disclose it to any party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
O. Inspection of Public File
34. A list of registered interested parties will be uploaded on the DGTR ‟s website along with the request therein to
all of them to email the non -confidential version of their submissions/response/information to all other
interested parties. Failure to circulate a non -confidential version of submissions/responses/information m ight
lead to the consideration of an interested party as non -cooperative.
P. Non-cooperation
35. In case where an interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide necessary information within
a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the inv estigation, the Authority may record its findings on the
basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.
ANANT SWARUP , Designated Authority
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Governmen t of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text