Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 247] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2023/ASVINA 7, 1945
CG-DL-E-05102023-249181
1.
2.
जलजमटेड *** *** (***) (***) (30-40)
(एसडीएलिी) *** *** *** *** 70-80
- उत्पादि % *** *** *** ***
- कुल आयात % *** *** *** ***
आयात मात्रा यूजिट *** *** 1308 *** *** 1071 *** *** 1419 *** *** 552
यूजिट *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
यूजिट *** *** 35.37 *** *** 30.50 *** *** 33.28 *** *** 44.13
यूजिट *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
क मत कटौती % *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
क मत कटौती % - रेंि 40-50 % 40-50 % 40-50 % 40-50 % 40-50 % 40-50 % 30-40 % 40-50% 40-50 % 20-30% 40-50% 30-40 %
आयात मात्रा यूजिट *** *** 1308 *** *** 1071 *** *** 1419 *** *** 552
यूजिट *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
यूजिट *** *** 35.37 *** *** 30.50 *** *** 33.28 *** *** 44.13
यूजिट *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
प्रवृजत्त सूचीबद्ध 100 100 100 109 104 101 125 127 124 125 140 145
कुल % 100% 100% 100% 100%
(एसडीएलिी) *** *** *** *** 30-40
गेर *** ***
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 84295900
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce )
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES )
NOTIFICATION
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi , the 29th S eptem ber, 2023
Case No. AD(OI) –04/2022
Subject: Anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of " Wheel Loaders " originating in or
exported from China PR.
F. No. 6/ 4/2022-DGTR .—1.Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as amended from time to time
and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for
Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, as amend ed from time to time ( “AD Rules, 1995 ”);
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CA SE
1. M/s JCB India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “ domestic industry ”) has filed an application before the
Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “ Authority ”), on behalf of the domestic industry , in
accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ( hereinafter referred to as the “ Customs Tariff Act ”) and the
AD Rules, 1995 for initiation of anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of the “ wheel loaders ”
(“product under consideration ”, or the “ subject good s” or “wheel loaders ”) originating in or expo rted
from China PR . (“subject countr y”).
2. The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a public
notice vide Notification No. 6/ 4/2022 -DGTR dated September 30, 2022, published in the Gazette of India,
initiating the subject investigation in accordance with Section 9 A of the Customs Tariff Ac t read with Rule 5
of the AD Rules, 1995 to determine the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of the subject
goods and to recommend the appropriate amou nt of anti -dumping duties, which if levied, would be adequate
to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry .
B. PROCEDURE
3. The following procedure has been followed with regard to this investigation:
i. The Authority notified the Embass y of the subje ct countr y in India about the receipt of the present anti -
dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the AD
Rules, 1995.
ii. The Authority issued a public notice dated September 30, 2022, published in t he G azette of India
Extraordinary, initiating the anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the
subject countr y.
iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification on October 4, 2022 , to the Embassy of the subject
count ry in Indi a, the known producers and exporters from the subject countr y, the known importers/users of
the subject imports and other interested parties, as per the information provided by the applicant. The
interested parties were requested to provide relev ant inform ation in the form and manner prescribed in the
initiation notification and to make their submissions known in writing within the time limit prescribed by the
initiation notification.
iv. The Authority also provided a copy of the non -confidential ver sion of th e application filed by the applicant
to the known producers/exporters, known importers/users and to the Embassy of the subject countr y in India
in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the AD Rules, 1995 through its email dated October 4, 2022 .
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 submit their responses to the quest ionnaire within the time limit prescribed by the initiation
notification. The Embass y of the subject countr y was also sent a copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to
the producers/exporters along with the names and addresses of the known producers /exp orters from the
subject country .
vi. The Authority issued Economic Interest Questionnaire to the Chinese Embassy, a ll the known exporters,
importers and the domestic industry. The Economic Interest Questionnaire was also shared with the
Administrative Line Mi nistry.
vii. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in the subject countr y in
accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules, 1995 :
i Guangxi LiuGong Machinery Co. Ltd.
ii Shandong Lingong Construction Machinery Co. Ltd.
iii Caterpillar (Qingzhou) Ltd.
iv Liebherr Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd.
v Volvo Construction Equipment China
vi Lonking Internat ional
viii. On November 3, 2022, the Authority conduced a discussion on the methodology to be adopted for Product
Control Numbers (“ PCN ”) in the subject investigation. Interested parties were provided time until
November 7, 2022, to file their comments on the PCN methodology.
ix. Accordingly, the Authority finalized the PCN methodolo gy in the subject investigation vide notification
dated November 17, 2022. Upon the request of the exporters, the Authority granted an extension of two
weeks to file the questionnaire r esponses. Thereafter, interested parties were provided time until Decem ber
2, 2022, to file a response to the questionnaires circulated by the Authority.
x. In response to the above notification, the following producers/ exporters from the subject countr y have
submitted the exporter questionnaire response:
i Liebherr Machinery (Dailian) Co. Ltd. (“Liebherr Dailian”)
ii Liebherr (China) Co. Ltd. (“Liebherr China”)
iii Liebherr Export AG (“Liebherr Switzerland”)
iv Liebherr Werk -Bischofshofen GmbH (“Liebherr Austria)
v XCMG Cons truction Machinery Co., Ltd. Technology Branch,
vi Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group Import and Export Co., Ltd.
vii Shandong Lingong Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.
viii Caterpillar (Qingzhou) Ltd.
ix Caterpillar (Suzhou) Co. Ltd.
x Caterpillar Inc.
xi Caterpillar SAR L Singapore Branch
xii Guangxi LiuGong Machinery Co. Ltd.
xi. The producers/exporters from the subject countr y who have not submitted the questionnaire response or
have not cooperated in the investi gation have been treated as non -cooperative in the investiga tion.
xii. The Authority also sent questionnaires to the known importers/users of the subject goods in India calling for
necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules, 1995.
xiii. The following importers/users submitted the importer/user questi onna ire responses:
i Liebherr India Private Limited (“Liebherr India”)
ii Schwing Stetter (India) Pvt Ltd
iii Volvo CE India Private Limited
iv LiuGong India Pvt. Ltd.
v Gain well Commosales Pvt. Ltd.
vi GMMCO Ltd.
xiv. Additionally, an association from China PR, namely, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export
of Machinery and Electronic Products(“CCCME”) participated in the investigation.
xv. The Directorate General of Systems & Data Management (DG Systems) was requ ested to provide
transaction -wise details of the impor ts of the subject goods for the injury period and the period of
investigation. The same was received by the Authority and considered at the stage of initiation of the
investigation as well as for the pr esent final findings .
xvi. In accordance with Rule 6(6) o f the AD Rules, 1995 the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested
parties for presenting their views orally regarding the subject investigation through a public hearing held in
hybrid mode , on April 6, 2023. The interested parties who presented their views in the oral hearing, were
requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if
any. The interested parties were further directed to share the non -confidential version of the written
submissi ons submitted by them with the other interested parties.
xvii. The non -injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIP’) has been determined based on the cost of
production and reasonable return on capital employed for 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 AD Rules, 1995 so as to ascertain whether anti -dumping d uties lower than
the dumping margin would be sufficient to re move injury to the domestic industry .
xviii. The information submitted by the domestic industry has been examined and verified during on site -
verification to the extent deemed necessary and has been r elied upon for the present final findings .
xix. The examination a nd verification of the information submitted by the cooperating producers/exporters from
the subject countr y was also carried out to the extent deemed necessary and have been relied upon for the
purpose of the present final findings .
xx. The period of invest igation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is April 1, 2021 – March 31,
2022 . The injury period for the present investigation is 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019, 1st April 2019 –
31st March 2020, 1st April 2020 – 31st March 2021 and the PO I.
xxi. The Authority made available the non -confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested
parties on mutual basis in the manner prescribed through Trade Notice no . 01/2020 dated 10th April 2020.
The information/submissions provided by t he interested parties on a confidential basis were examined
concerning the sufficiency of such confidentiality claims. On being satisfied concerning the sufficiency of
the confidenti ality claims filed by the interested parties, the Authority has considered such
information/submissions as confidential. In case of non -acceptance of confidentiality claims, the interested
parties were directed to submit the non -confidential version of the same and circulate it to the other
interested parties.
xxii. The Authority ha s considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the interested parties
at this stage, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present
investigation.
xxiii. ‘***’ in these disclosure statement repre sents information furnished by an interested party on confidential
basis and so considered by the Authority under Rule 7 of AD Rules, 1995.
xxiv. The exchange rate for the POI adopted by t he Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US $= Rs. 7 5.26.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSID ERATION AND LIKE ART ICLE
C.1 Submissions Made By The Other Interested Parties (Exporters, Importers And Users)
4. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the product under
consideration:
a. It is th e consistent practice of the Authority to exclude those products from the scope of the PUC that
are not produced by the domestic industry and/or not imported into India.
b. The domestic industry does not produce wheel loaders of rated payload of 7 ,000 KG.
c. Wheel loaders with a rated payload of 7 ,000 K G is used in specific industries like mining and shipping
ports. Due to limited domestic demand, it is not commercially viable to produce them in India. The
few interested parties have imported wheel loaders with a payload rating of 7,000 KG from China, as
they are not manufactured domestically in India.
d. The d iesel engine wheel loaders with a capacity of 7,000 KG have different technical specifications
compared to domestically produced wheel loaders with a payload of 5,500 KG. Replacing 7,000 KG
wheel loaders with 5,500 KG wheel loaders would result in inefficiencies and adverse consequences in
terms of cycle time, fuel consumption, site efficiency, allied machinery efficiency, safety concerns,
productivity, and ma intenance cost . The 7,000 KG wheel loaders are used for bulk loading within a
limited time frame, achieving higher material movement with lower fuel consumption compared to the
5,500 KG wheel loaders . There is no possibility of circumvention of anti -dumpi ng duty by imp orting
7,000 KG wheel loaders .
e. If a lower -rated capacity wheel loader could realistically substitute a higher -rated payload wheel
loader, the market would only have one type of rated payload capacity. Consumers would have
rejected the higher -rated wheel loaders if the lower -rated ones could perform the same tasks.
f. The domestic industry has not provided clear information about the diff erence between "theoretical
payload" and "rated payload" or disclosed these specifications in their product br ochure.
g. Some interested parties have argued that the petition does not categorically state that any of the
domestic industry ’s products have any patents and registered design, either of themselves or their
supporters or of their importers and exporters . In this regard, it has been argued that in the past,
products have been excluded from the scope of the PUC only because the sa me was patented.
h. The domestic industry has itself submitted that wheel loader with rated payload of more than 7000 Kg
should be exc luded from the scope of the PUC and has thereby accepted that wheel loaders with more
than 7000 Kg are not substitutable with wheel loader with rated payload of 5585 Kg produced by the
domestic industry .
i. The fact that JCB is producing wheel loader of rate d capacity of 3650 Kg as well as 3350 Kg, itself
shows that precise rated p ayload capacity is an important parameter and even a variation of 300 Kg
can result in a separate category of wheel loader and can be a determinative factor for the users.
j. Certain i nterested parties have objected to the concurrent (or ‘and’) conditions for exclusion. It has
been argued that t he additional conditions for exclusion along with the rated payload, may
inadvertently include wheel loaders with a rated payload of 7,000 KG and above within the scope of
the produc t under consideration (PUC), even though they are not produced by the applicant.
k. No third party has specified that wheel loaders with a payload over 7,000 KG must have certain
specifications such as engine power, wheel tread, and wheel -base. Accepting thes e conditions as
necessary for excluding wheel loaders creates a mandatory product standard and an artificial
distinction between Loaders with a payload over 7,000 KG.
l. It is difficult for customs authorities to determin e if imported wheel loaders in a semi -knocked down
condition fulfil the additional conditions regarding wheel base, wheel tread, and engine power.
m. The applicant does not produce electrical wheel loaders (battery operated). Electrical wheel loaders
have no t been imported into India during the POI.
n. Electrical wheel loaders have limitations in terms of geographical locations, extreme temperatures,
and charging requirements, which may affect uninterrupted productivity.
o. Electrical wheel loaders lack th e necess ary legal framework and certification for registration with the
Road Transport Office (RTO) and cannot be used on roads, unlike diesel engine wheel loaders .
p. The purchase cost of electrical wheel loaders is approximately three times higher than that of di esel
engine wheel loaders , and they contribute to reduced carbon footprints and noise pollution compared
to their diesel counterparts . Failure to exclude electrical wheel loaders would discourage the use of
emission -free electric alternatives, even when th ey are suitable for specific applications.
q. Electrical wheel loaders have a different production process, technology, parts, and specifications
compared to diesel engine wheel loaders , resulting in lower e missions and noise. Electrical wheel
loaders require specific infrastructure like charging stations and adequate electricity supply, while
diesel engine wheel loaders do not.
r. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways is the leading user of wheel loaders for
infrastructure/construction purposes and promotes en vironmentally friendly solutions such as battery -
operated wheel loaders . The Ministry of Power in consultation with NITI Aayog is also promoting
electric vehicles and has introduced guidelines for charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.
s. The initiati on notification as well as PCN notification categorizes the product based on engine power
(only wheel loaders powered by the engine are considered). In battery -operated wheel loaders , there is
no engine to power the loader. Thus, non -fossil fue l-based whee l loaders like battery -operated electric
wheel loaders are inherently different product categories altogether.
t. Guangxi Liugong Machinery has produced and sold electrical wheel loader during the POI.
u. The scope of the PUC does not include parts and component s of wheel loaders . It is unclear whether
semi-knocked down (SKD) or completely knocked down (CKD) forms are included within the scope
of the PUC.
v. The domestic industry claimed to have categorized imports in the PUC or non-PUC without any
explanation on th e identification and quantification of wheel loaders in SKD form and CKD form.
w. It is suggested that wheel loaders in SKD ( semi-knocked down) form should be defined as c onsisting
of the machine body or chassis (including the engine, gear box, frame, and axl e) assembled with
certain separately imported items. These items include the bucket, cabin, tool kit, mufflers, handrails,
and ladders.
x. CKD refers to a product that has been completely disassembled form. In effect, the product in SKD
and CKD are the same p roduct and the difference is merely the level of assembly. There fore, there is
no clarity on the exclusion of wheel loaders in CKD form from the import data.
y. There is no investigation till date wherein the PUC in SKD form has been included and the PUC in
CKD form is excluded from the PUC.
z. There is strong apprehension that the domestic industry has imported the PUC in CKD form and
excluded wheel loaders in CKD form only to become eligible as the “ domestic industry ”.
aa. The wheel loader imported in SKD form un dergoes substantial value addition for assembling as a
completely built unit. It requires value addition on account of assembling, skilled manpower, energy
consumption, quality control/testing, sales, and distribution, amongst others. In addition, CBU
(com plete built unit) and SKD differ in terms of transportation costs, product quality, etc. O ther things
being equal, the cost composition of CBU and SKD are different, and the value/price of CBU is
automatically higher than the SKD unit.
bb. Wheel loaders in the SKD form should not be compared with the wheel loader in the CBU form. Any
such compariso n would not result in a fair injury analysis.
cc. The Caterpillar Entities submitted their objections to the proposed Product Control Number (PCN)
methodology to the Aut hority via email on November 2, 2022. They followed up with another letter
on November 4, 2022, requesting a meeting with the Authority rega rding the PCN methodology.
However, their request for a meeting was not accepted. On November 17, 2022, the Authorit y
confirmed the PCN classification that was proposed during the initiation of the investigations.
Therefore, it has been argued that they ha ve not been provided a fair opportunity.
dd. The cost/price difference between a wheel loader with automatic transmissi on, wet brake, and piston
pump compared to a wheel loader with manual transmission, dry brake, and gear pump is
approximately 40%.
C.2 Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Domestic Industry
5. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the domestic industry with regard s to the product
under consideration:
a. The PUC is a construction equipment, which is used for varied applications such as loading, shifting,
heaping, and dozing bulk or discrete materials, using buckets or other attachments . The scope of the
PUC includes wheel loaders with additional features that provide for functions beyond the essential
functions of loading, shifting, and dozing of materials, etc.
b. A wheel loader is a self -propelled wheel mounted equipment with an articulat ion joint , having front
loading mechanism. The product under consideration is commonly known as " wheel loading
shovel/ wheel loader /front -end loader /wheel ed loading shovel/ wheel ed loader ".
c. A wheel loader is also fitted with hydraulically operated arms on the front w ith lift and lower
operations. Further, a wheel loader is equipped with a front -mounted bucket, which is supported by a
tilting cylinder for operating the bucket and other attachments on t he front based on application.
d. The PUC is used across different sect ors, including material handling, and loading in crushers,
ready -mix-concrete plants, mining, ports, process industries, and other general engineering and
industrial applications.
e. The rated payload capacity is a self -declared parameter by the manufacturer which is neither
accredited by an y external party nor regulated by any law in force. Since the rated payload capacity
of wheel loaders is self -declared, the possibility of importers or foreign producers attempting to
evade the imposed duties by modifying t he declared payload capacity cann ot be ruled out.
f. Gross engine power is a parameter that measures the output power of the engine that operates a
wheel loader . The tuning of an engine can be modified to increase the gross power in exchange for
lower effici ency, or vice -versa. Accordingly, to a certain degree, gross engine power can also be
modified to avoid anti -dumping duties, without any substantial changes in the physical dimensions.
g. Even though rated payload capacity and gross engine power are crucial parameters relevant to a
wheel loader, any party looking to exploit the exclusion parameters can easily make minor changes
to their claimed payload capacity or tune their engine differently to get their product excluded from
the product scope. However, the size of a machine (i.e., the ot her two parameters of exclusion) is
more difficult to modify.
h. The exclusion should be tested on the basis of all four parameters mentioned above. In absence of
the same, exclusion based on only one or two parameters is susce ptible to circumvention of any
imposed duties, ultimately undermining the intended effect of the duties .
i. The domestic industry also submits that it is a settled position of WTO law that the determination of
‘like products’ must be done on a case -to-case b asis, by examining relevant fact ors.
j. It is also the consistent practice of the Authority to consider the following factors in examining
whether the domestic product is like article to the imported product: (a) product specifications, which
include physica l & chemical characteristics, (b ) manufacturing process & technology, (c) raw
materials, (d) functions & uses, (e) pricing, (f) distribution & marketing and (g) tariff classification
of the goods.
k. As affirmed by the Hon’ble CESTAT in Merino Panel Products Ltd. v. Designated Authority (2016)
(334) ELT 552, commercially and technically substitutable products are ‘like products’ and must be
included with the scope of the PUC in an anti -dumping investigation.
l. Other jurisdictions such as the European Commission and the United Stat es also rely on factors such
as basic physical and technical characteristics, end -uses, and interchangeability to determine
‘likenesses’ of the products.
m. The domestic industry manufactures wheel loaders with a declared rated payload capa city of up to
5,585 KG, which is commercially and technically substitutable with wheel loaders having a declared
rated payload capacity of 7,000 KG .
n. The domestic industry ’s wheel loader of rated payload capacity 5,585 KG directly competes with
wheel loader s having rated payload capacity of 7,000 KG in terms of price ranges, end -use, and
applications.
o. If the rated payload capacity is adjusted to account for differences in methodology, a t the higher
capacity levels of the PUC definition, the difference would be only about 5~8% when a consistent
methodology ( i.e., payload based on engine power) is used to assess the models of the domestic
industry and LiuGong for the purpose of determining the rated payload capacity.
p. The domestic industry has calculated the the oretical payload capacity of its competing wheel loader
(with reported rated payload capacity of 5,585 KG). Upon computation of a theoretical payload
capacity using the same engine power to payload ratio as LiuGong ’s mo del, the domestic industry ’s
model wo uld also have a rated payload capacity in the range of about 6,533 KG. The domestic
industry demonstrated the same during the on -site verification.
q. Wheel loaders produced by the domestic industry and wheel loaders of rated payload capacity of
7,000 KG do not have any differences in engine power, dimensions, hydraulic pump, etc.
r. The wheel loaders produced by the domestic industry cater to the same market segment as wheel
loaders with 7,000 KG of payload capa city.
s. The price at which LiuGong’s 870H model is i mported is significantly lower compared to the selling
price of the domestic industry . Further, the fact that the price of LiuGong’s 870H model ( 7,000 KG
rated capacity) is significantly lower than the domestic industry ’s 455ZX model (5585 KG rated
capacit y) also implies that the LiuGong product is being sold at extraordinarily low and injurious
prices, and directly competing with the domestic industry ’s product.
t. The domestic industry produces and sells models having rated payload capacity 3,650 KG and 5,58 5
KG. Both models are substitutable with the wheel loaders with a payload capacity of 4,500 KG
technically and commercially.
u. The domestic industry submit s that a wheel loader with a payload capacity of less than 2,000 KG is
substitutable with a wheel loade r having a payload capacity of 3,000 KG.
v. The wheel loaders in CBU form contain the engine number, model number, brand, and other relevant
details, in transaction -wise import data. Therefore, the imports of wheel loaders in CBU form are
easily identifiable.
w. It may be noted that often machine bodies or chassis a re not imported as single assemblies.
Therefore, adopting the definition of wheel loaders in SKD form provided by the Caterpillar Group
may result in the imposition of anti -dumping duty being render ed redundant.
x. A wheel loader in SKD form may be defined as a shipment consisting of the machine body/chassis
fitted with an engine, transmission, or axle in a single unit, which may or may not be fitted with one
or more other components. Wheel loaders impo rted in the SKD form require minimal processing,
assembly, and the use of resources.
y. The imports in SKD form are generally imported in 5 –8-line items. Notably, these line items are
imported on same day, and has same import declaration number. The product d escription of these
line ite ms clearly mentions the number of imported machines, model number, brand of the machine,
and the form of import, i.e., SKD/kits.
z. Wheel loaders in CKD form would be wheel loaders imported in the form of parts and components.
Typically, all parts and components required to manufacture a machine may not be imported at the
same time, or as a part of the same transactions/shipments. It may prove to be difficult to identify the
components and parts mea nt for wheel loaders from the tra nsaction -wise import data, unless the
model number, brand name, and other product details are clearly mentioned in the import transaction
description.
aa. Wheel loaders imported in the CKD form require substantial assembly oper ations in India. Since
wheel loaders are heavily engineered and complex products, assembling all the components from a
CKD form requires significant manpower, skills, and other resources.
bb. The efficiency of the domestic industry ’s 455ZX is comparable (in different conditions and
operations ) to the efficiency of LiuGong’s 870H model in terms of output and fuel efficiency. Site
efficiency depends on the type and quantity of allied vehicles/types of machinery deployed is
dependent o n the project in terms of size, location, and operations, ther efore, these cannot be
considered as a differentiating factor of the machine.
cc. The d omestic industry ’s wheel loader with 5 ,500 KG payload meets all site safety parameters as
prescribed. In addition, it is fitted with cabin with roll over protection system a nd an emergency
brake system.
dd. Maintenance and repair costs should be considered from life -cycle perspective with factors of
comp onent life, pricing, duty cycle and maintenance practices being the key ones.
ee. No upgradation is required for a wheel loader of rated payload capacity of 7,000 KG to perform the
tasks of a wheel loader of rated payload capacity of 5,500 KG, and vice versa. Accordingly, no
certification shall be required by the Automotive Research Association of India.
ff. The PUC includes all wheel loaders irrespective of their mechanical energy delivery platform (i.e.,
internal combustion engine or battery -powered engine/motors). The engine or battery -powered motor
is merely a platform meant to provide energy for the operation of the wheel loader . Whil e the
technology, production process, part and components may be different, electric wheel loaders are
technical substitutable with conventional wheel loaders .
gg. The requirement of different infrastructure and charging stations per -se does not result in two
products unlike to each other. Additionally, m erely an interim break in the operations of a batte ry-
operated wheel loader (for charging) does not imply that they are different from a conventional
wheel loader or have different utilities. Further, the diff erence in emission and noise levels does not
automatically result in two products being unlike each other.
hh. While the initial cost of an electric wheel loader may be higher, the overall cost of owning &
operating costs for a conventional wheel loader and el ectric -powered wheel loaders are comparable .
ii. From the perspective of a user, the end -use of a battery operated and conventional wheel loader is
the same, irrespective of differences in supply chain, development, and testing infrastructure.
jj. In the past, th e Authority has refused to exclude grades of products which have neither been
imported into nor manufactured in India, since the grades were substitutable by the grades offered by
the domestic industry in the given investigation.
kk. The Caterpillar Group and Caterpillar India were intimated about the investigation in time. It may
also be noted that the Authority has invited all the registered interested parties for a discussion on the
proposed PCN structure. Subsequently, all interested parties filed their que stionnaire responses on
the basis of which PCN were finalized by the Authority .
ll. Due to the absence of an y imports of electric wheel loaders during the POI, there is no need to
modify the PCN methodology. The final PCN methodology allows for a comparison o f imported and
like articles on the basis of the kW (power) of the products. Therefore, the power of the battery
operating a wheel loader can also be reported in terms of kW .
mm. The impact of all three parameters, i.e., transmission, brakes, and pumps (even w hen considered
jointly) only affects the pricing of the PUC by merely 0 -5%.
C.3 EXAMINATION BY THE A UTHORITY
6. The PUC in the present investigation is “ wheel loaders ” which is a self-propelled wheel -mounted equipment
with an articulation joint, having fron t end loading mechanism.
7. The following specifications of the Wheel loaders are to be excluded from the scope of the investigation:
i. Rated payload capacity of more than 7,000 KG;
ii. Gross engine power above 180 kW;
iii. Measured distance at the centre between right and left wheel (wheel tread/track) above
2,280 mm;
and
iv. Measured distance between the front and back wheel axles ( wheel base) above 3 ,350 mm.
8. All the above parameters are ‘and’ conditions. In other words, a product is excluded from the scope of the
PUC only if it satisfies all of the above conditions concurren tly.
9. In the following paragraphs, the Authority has addressed each of the interested parties’ concerns .
Wheel loaders with rated payload capacity above 5,500 KG, 4,500 KG, and under 2,000 KG
10. The Authority notes that the main argument from the interested parties is that wheel loaders with rated
payload capacity of 5,500 KG, as produced by the domestic industry , cannot be substituted with wheel
loaders with rated payload capacity of 7,000 KG. It has been argued that wheel loaders of different rated
payload capacities have different end-uses and costs.
11. The Authority notes that the rated payload capacity is a compa ny-declared parameter wherein different
producers of the subject goods use differing methodologies to report their rated payload capacity . Therefore,
comparable wheel loaders have different rated payload capacities, depending upon the methodology
followed by the producing company. Further, the Authority notes that the rated payload capacit y of wheel
loaders is not required to be certified by any competent body or agency under any law. Accordingly, merely
differing rated payload capacity is not sufficient to the render two products “unlike”. In view of the above ,
the exclusion of wheel loade rs merely on the basis of rated payload capacities of the wheel loaders may
result in any imposed anti -dumping duty being rendered redundant.
12. Additionally, a t the on -site verification, the domestic industry demonstrated that the wheel loader produced
by the domestic industry , having a declared rated payload capacity of 5585 KG , can lift and operate with a
payload of about 7,000 KG, whereby the two products can substitute each other . Further, it was also
submitted that the wheel loaders of the declared payl oad capacity 7,000 KG and 5,585 KG are being
interchangeably used by certain customers for the same application at same site .
13. Further more , it was also noted that various models of rated payload capacity of 7,000 KG have been
imported into the country at a price much lower than the wheel loaders of rated payload capacity of 5,585
KG sold by the domestic industry . In view of the above, it is noted that the exclusion of wheel loaders
having declared rated payload capacity more than 5,585 KG is not justified.
14. With r egard to the other su bmissions made by int erested parties in relation to wheel loaders having rated
payload capacity of 4,500 KG and under 2,000 KG , the Authority notes that the product s covered with in the
scope of the PUC in an investigation need n ot be interchangeable . The products included are only required
to be comparable.
15. Accordingly , for the purpose of fair comparison of the various types of wheel loaders , the Authority has
finalized the PCN methodology , on the basis of the comments received from the interested parties, vide
Notification dated F. No. 6/4/2022 dated November 17, 2022.
16. In view of the above, the Authority finds that all wheel loaders are included within the scope of the PUC,
except the ones specifi cally excluded by the Authority.
‘And’ Conditions
17. The Authority notes that the following specifications of the wheel loaders are to be excluded from the scope
of the investigation:
a. Rated payload capacity of more than 7,000 KG;
b. Gross engine power above 180 kW;
c. Measured di stance at the center between right and left wheel (wheel tread/track) above 2 ,280 mm;
and
d. Measured distance between the front and back wheel axles ( wheel base) above 3 ,350 mm.
18. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has argued that any party looking to exploit the exclusion
parameters can make minor changes to their claimed payload capacity or tune their engine differently to get
their product excluded from the product scope. However, the size of a machine (i.e., the other two
param eters of exclusion ) is more difficult to modify. Therefore, exclusion based on only one or two
parameters is susceptible to circumvention of any imposed duties .
19. In this regard, the Authority notes after examining the arguments of interested parties that the lack of ‘and’
exclusion conditions may lead to any imposed anti-dumping duties being rendered redundant. Rated payload
capacities and gross engine power are modifiable parameters which may be tweaked. However, the other
two parameters of exclusion (i.e ., wheel track and wheel tread) may be more difficult to modify. Also, t he
Authority notes that none of the interested parties have provided a ny instance of a model unfairly being
classified as the PUC due to the concurrent exclusion parameters.
20. Accordingly, the Authority p roposes to retain the ‘and’ exclusion conditions as part of the scope of the PUC.
Battery Operated Wheel Loaders
21. Parties have argued that battery -operated wheel loaders must be excluded from the scope of the PUC since
neither have they been i mported during the POI, nor have they been produced by the domestic industry .
22. The Authority notes that neither has the domestic industry manufactured the battery -operated wheel loaders ,
nor have they been imported. It is also noted that the price differen ce, end-use and other technical
parameters of a battery -operated wheel loader are significantly different from that of a conventional wheel
loader .
23. It is the consistent practice of the Authority to exclude grades that have neither been manufactured and sold
by the domestic industry nor have been imported into India. Accordingly, the Authority decides to exclude
battery operated wheel loaders from the scope of the PUC.
Inclusion of ‘SKD’ Units of Wheel Loaders
24. The Authority notes that wheel loaders can be imported in three forms: (i) Completely Built Up (“ CBU ”),
(ii) Semi Knocked Down (“ SKD ”), and (iii) Completely Knocked Down (“ CKD ”).
25. A CBU wheel loader is a fully assembled machine which does not require any further modification or
assemb ly in India. Once imported, the CBU wheel loader is ready to be sold to , and used by , consumers.
wheel loaders in SKD form are partially assembled machines which require minimal resources in terms of
technical know -how, capital investments, labour etc., and wheel loaders in CKD form are machines which
are imported in the form of parts and components.
26. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has not alleged dumping for components. It has also been
submitte d that inclusion of CKD forms of the PUC migh t lead to the indirect inclusion of parts and
components of a wheel loader . Therefore, it was decided t o exclude CKD forms of the PUC from the scope
of the PUC.
27. On the other hand, since wheel loaders in SKD form are near complete CBU , any exclusion of wheel loaders
in SKD form would lead to the exclusion of dumped imports of wheel loaders . Therefore, wheel loaders in
SKD form are included in the scope of the PUC.
28. However, the Authority acknowledges that wheel loader in SKD form must be defined in order to provi de
clarity to importer s and also to customs officials at the time of clearance. The Authority notes that the
Caterpillar Group and the domestic industry have proposed definitions for wheel loaders in SKD form. The
Authority has considered these pr oposed d efinitions , and deems it appropriate to define SKD forms of wheel
loaders as:
“A wheel loader in SKD form consists of the machine body/chassis fitted with an engine,
transmission, or axle in a single unit, which may or may not be fitted with one o r more o ther
components .
Explanation: If chassis/machine body is imported without an engine, transmission or axle fitted into it,
no anti-dumping duties shall be payable.”
PCN Methodology
29. At the outset, the Authority notes that the initiation notific ation allowed interested parties to place their
objections to the proposed PCN methodology on record within 30 days of initiation. Accordingly, certain
interested parties had filed comments on the proposed PCN methodology within the prescribed dead line, i. e.,
October 30, 2022. To adequately understand and address such comments, the Authority conducted a
discussion on the PCN methodology to be adopted in the subject investigation on November 3, 2022.
Interested parties were further provided time unti l Novemb er 7, 2022, to file their comments on PCN
Methodology. The Authority allowed all the interested parties to attend the hearing who had filed their
comments within the prescribed deadline.
30. After due consideration of the comments and submissions rece ived fro m various interested parties, the
Authority had finalized by the Authority vide Notification dated F. No. 6/4/2022 dated November 17, 2022.
The finalized PCN Methodology is as follows:
S.No. Criteria Range PCN Code
1.
Rated payload Up to 4,000 KG A
Above 4,000 KG B
2.
Engine gross power Up to 140 kW 1
More than 140 kW 2
3. Measured distance at the centre between right and
left wheel (Wheel tread/track) Less than 2,100 mm X
2,100 mm and above Y
4. Measured distance between the front and back
wheel axles (Wheelbase) Up to 3,000 mm U
More than 3,000 mm M
31. Pursuant to such notification, various interested parties filed their questionnaire responses on the basis of the
notified PCN methodology.
32. In light of the above, the Authority finds that th e contention of the Caterpillar with regard to not being
provide d adequate opportunity to place its objections to the PCN methodology on record is unfounded. The
initiation notification was published in the official Gazette of India and all the int erested parties, including
Caterpillar. Despite the same Caterpillar fai led to provide its comments on the PCN methodology within the
prescribed timelines. The Authority notes that that an anti -dumping investigation is a time -bound process,
and submissions made af ter the expiry of specific deadlines are not required to be addr essed. Nevertheless,
the Authority has addressed additional comments on the PCN methodology below.
33. With regard to the additional PCN parameters (such as transmission, brakes and pump s) propos ed by certain
interested parties, the Authority notes that the interested parties have provided no evidence to establish that
these additional parameters make a notable difference to the price comparison of the PUC warranting a
separate PCN parame ter. In o ther words, no evidence has been provided to establish that the inclusion of
these additional parameters would enable a fairer comparison of dumping or injury. On the other hand, the
Domestic Industry has provided substantive data to demonstrate t hat the d ifference in cost of Wheel Loaders
on the basis of these additi onal parameters suggested by the interested parties is not significant.
Accordingly, after examining the submissions of the interested parties, the Authority did not deem it
necessary to modify the PCN methodology.
34. Additionally, the Authority also notes t hat battery -operated Wheel Loaders are excluded from the scope of
the PUC. Therefore, there is no need to modify the PCN methodology for the same.
Like article and Scope of th e PUC
35. After considering the information on record, the Authority holds that there is no known difference between
the subject goods produced by the Indian industry and that exported from the subject countr y. Subject goods
produced by the domestic industry and those i mported from the subject countr y are comparab le, in terms of
product characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology,
functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff cla ssification of the
goods. Wheel loaders produ ced by the domestic industry are technically and commercially substitutable to
the imported wheel loaders . The Authority hold s that the product under consideration produced by the
applicant domestic in dustry is a “like article ” to the subject product under consideration imported from the
subject countr y.
36. Therefore, the Authority defines the PUC as follows:
“The PUC in the present investigation is “ wheel loader” which is self -propelled wheel -mounted equ ipment
with an articulation joint, having front end loading mechanism.
Wheel loader imported in the form of completely built unit (CBU) or semi-knocked down (SKD) are
included within the scope of the investigation. However, imports of wheel loader in completely knocked
down (CKD) or component form are excluded from the scope of the investigation.
For the purposes of this recommendation , a wheel loader in SKD form consists of the machine body/chassis
fitted with an engine, transmission, or axle in a single unit, whic h may or may not be fitted with one or more
other components.
Explanation: If chassis/machine body is imported without an engine, tran smission or axle fitted into it, no
anti-dumping duties shall be payable.
The f ollowing products are excluded f rom the sco pe of the investigation:
I. The wheel loaders of the following specifications are to be excluded from the from the scope of the
investigation:
a) Rated payload capacity of more than 7,000 KG;
b) Gross engine power above 180 kW;
c) Measured distance at th e center be tween right and left wheel (wheel tread/track) above 2,280 mm;
and
d) Measured distance between the front and back wheel axles ( wheel base) above 3,350 mm.
All the above parameters are ‘and’ conditions. In other words, a product is excluded from th e scope
of the PUC only if it satisfies all of the above conditions concurrently.
II. Wheel Loader in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) or component form are excluded from the scope of the
investigation.
III. Battery -operated wheel loaders are also excluded from the s cope of the investigation. ”
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1 Submissions Made By The Other Interested Parties
37. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the domestic industry and
standing:
a. Rule 2(b) of th e AD Rules, 1995 provides that those domestic producers who are related to
exporters, importers or who are themselves importers of the product under consideration may be
excluded when determining the scope of the domestic industry . However, such producers are no t
automati cally excluded from the scope of the domestic industry . The use of the term “may” in Rule
2(b) of the AD Rules , 1995 provides discretion to the Authority to decide whether a company who
is related to exporters or importers and/or who is imp orting the PUC s hould be included or
excluded from the scope of the domestic industry . For the purpose of exercising discretion, the
Authority takes into account several factors such as volume of imports during the POI, essential
business of the entity in India, type of i mports, reasons for imports etc.
b. LiuGong India and Caterpillar India are domestic producers of the PUC. They argued that they
must be considered eligible as domestic industry .
c. Guangxi LiuGong has not exported substantial quantities of the subjec t goods to India during the
POI. There were substantial exports by Guangxi LiuGong to India during the years prior to the POI
and not during the POI. Exports by Guangxi LiuGong to India are not substant ial during the POI in
absolute terms. Exports by Guang xi LiuGong to India during the POI are also not substantial in
comparison to total imports from China PR .
d. It is the settled practice of the Authority to consider imports of the subject goods during the POI for
assessing the eligibility of domestic p roduce r as a domestic industry .
e. Imports into India during POI by LiuGong India are primarily of the subject goods not produced in
India. Wheel loaders with rated payload of 7,000 KGs are not manufactured in India. In this regard,
the respondents also note that wheel loaders with rated payload of 7,000 KGs are used in specific
industry segment s such as mining. It is not commercially viable to produce wheel loaders with
rated payload of 7,000 KG in India. Therefore, LiuGong India had to import wheel loaders with
rated payload of 7,000 KG in order to meet the demand of consumers in India.
f. LiuGong India imported goods in 2019 -20 and 2020 -21, but their production volume during and
after that period demonstrates that they are a domestic producer of wheel loaders , not an importer.
They have enhanced their skills and technical capabilities to in crease in -house production, making
them one of the top wheel loader producers in India.
g. LiuGong India imported wheel loaders from Guangxi LiuGong in China PR before March 31,
2021, to comply with the revised emission norms and ensure a continuous supply to their
customers. The development of specific components with the required technology was time -
consuming and posed a bottleneck for many manufact urers.
h. LiuGong Indi a is a dome stic p roducer as evident by its total investment in domestic production and
employment.
i. The examination of post POI data regarding exports by Guangxi Liugong and imports by LiuGong
India will further support the claim that LiuGong India is primarily a dom estic producer and should
be considered as eligible domestic industry .
j. Since components o f wheel loaders are not covered within the scope of the PUC, imports of some
key components from China PR will not prejudice the status of LiuGong India as an eligible
domes tic industry .
k. The ownership of Guangxi LiuGong is irrelevant for determining the eligibility of LiuGong India
as a domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules , 1995 .
l. The claim that the individual dumping margin should not be determined for Guan gxi LiuGong if
LiuGong India is considered as eligible domestic industry , is without any legal basis.
m. Caterpillar India Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Caterpillar India ”)’s exclusion is unjustified
because it is neither an importer of the dumped art icle n or involved in i ts sale or marketing in India.
Its production represents a substantial portion of the total domestic production, and excluding it
would create a ‘domestic industry ’ that does not accurately represent Indian producers.
n. Caterpillar Indi a’s wheel loaders are manufactured under contract manufacturing arrangements.
Caterpillar India provides various support activities to the contract manufacturer, including
technology, know -how, designs, brand use, and quality management.
o. Creative Manufact uring Solutions (India) Private Limited (CMS), located in Maharashtra,
manufactures wheel loaders under the brand name ‘Hindustan ’. CMS is not an importer or related
to any importer/exporter of the subject goods from China. CMS is a significant producer wi th a
substantial quantity of wheel loaders and is considered a market leader in its segment.
p. Even if Caterpillar India is considered related to a foreign exporter, the exclusion from the scope of
‘domestic industry ’ is not automatic under Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules, 1995 .
q. It is submitted that just because Caterpillar India is a domestic producer, it is not compulsorily
required to support the anti-dumping investigation. Caterpillar India has not made loss making
sales during the POI .
r. Caterpillar India is not engaged in “deliberate and co -ordinated market targeting behaviour ”. Every
producer, seller, dealer is at liberty to devise its sales marketing plan, so as to optimise its sales.
Further, Caterpillar India sells the products made in India, whereas the import s are of products
made in China. They are bound to be different.
s. The Caterpillar Entities and Caterpillar India have clarified that there is no shareholding
relationship between them and the dealers, and vice versa. They also confirm that there are no
common directors between the Caterpillar Entities or Caterpillar Ind ia and the dealers. The sales
and purchases between the parties are conducted on an arm ’s length basis, indicating independent
transactions.
t. Furthermore, the Caterpillar Entities or Caterpill ar India do not exercise direct or indirect control
over any of t he dealers. Similarly, the dealers are not under the direct or indirect control of any
third party. Additionally, there is no shared control between the Caterpillar Entities or Caterpil lar
India and the dealers over a common third party.
u. It is submitted th at the importers are independent companies, and merely because they have
appointed common counsels, does not mean that they are related to each other.
v. The required polling, as mandated by Rul e 5 of the AD Rules, 1995, has not been conducted. As a
domestic producer, their opposition to the investigations should be considered under Rule 5.
w. While conducting the test of “a major proportion” provided under Rule 2 (b), the Authority is
obliged to ta ke into account the “total domestic production” in India. The reference to “total
domestic production” is clearly to the entire domestic production a nd not to the production by any
part of the domestic producers.
x. JCB India Ltd. has an affiliated com pany ( JCB Construction Equipment Shanghai Co., Ltd.) in
China PR.
y. JCB India Ltd. has not identified all Indian producers of the PUC (CASE Construction Ind ia and
Doosan Bobcat India) . This has resulted in an incorrect estimation of total Indian production in
India.
z. Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. has only provided a support letter without the required data. The support
of Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. must be disregar ded when determining the domestic industry standing
and the injury suffered by the domestic industry .
D.2 Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Domestic Industry
38. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the domestic industry with regard to the domest ic
industry :
a. Out of the total eligible domestic production, the production share of the domestic in dustry is
approximately 70%. Additionally, the domestic industry , along with the supporters constitutes about
74% of the total eligible production. In view of the same, the domestic industry meets the requisite
threshold to constitute domestic industry for the purposes of the present application.
b. It has been the consis tent practice of the Authority to exclude related domestic producers from the
scope of the domestic industry to ensure a fair and just investigation.
c. Caterpillar India is a subsidiary of Cater pillar Inc, which is a US -based multinational company .
Caterpill ar (Qingzhou) Ltd. (“Caterpillar Qingzhou”), an exporter of the PUC from China PR, is
also a wholly owned subsidiary of Caterpillar Inc. Caterpillar (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. (“Caterpillar
Suzhou”), a producer and exporter of the PUC from China PR, is also a wholl y owned subsidiary of
Caterpillar Inc . Caterpillar India, Caterpillar Qingzhou and Caterpillar Suzhou are jointly controlled
by Caterpillar Inc.
d. The related exporters of Caterpillar Inc. have exported the PUC to India during the POI in
substantial quantiti es under the brand name of “SEM”.
e. Gainwell Commosales Pvt. Ltd. and GMMCO Ltd. are the official dealers of all Caterpillar
products, including Caterpillar India, Caterpillar Qingzhou and Cater pillar Suzhou. There is a clear
nexus between the parties.
f. Merely being a domestic producer in India does not make Caterpi llar India eligible to participate in
the determination of the domestic industry standing at the pre -initiation stage.
g. The domestic in dustry further submits that Caterpillar India failed to provide a questionnaire
response in the subject investigation.
h. The fact that Caterpillar India is opposing the imposition of anti -dumping dut ies without any
substantive reason, despite being a domesti c producer, shows that its relationship with the Chinese
exporters has affected its behaviour as a domestic producer.
i. LiuG ong India is a subsidiary for which 99.9% of shares are held by Guangxi LiuGong Machinery
Co. Ltd. LiuGong India has also imported the PUC in substantial quantities from its parent company
in China during the injury period, including the POI. Given the regulatory changes in the market, it
is also noted that LiuGong India has made substantial sales of the produ ct during the POI which
were imported in the period from January 2021 to March 2021 (last quarter of FY 2020 -21).
j. The behaviour of LiuGong India clearly demonstrates that its operations are more akin to an
importer rather than a domestic producer. Addition ally, LiuGong India shielded itself from the
effects of dumping by participating in high -volume imports, whereby it is not eligible to constitute
domestic industry in the present investigation.
k. LiuGong India is interested in benefitting from the dumping of the PUC, as its importer. T he
inclusion of LiuGong India as a domestic industry would substantially distort the Authority’s
investigation process.
l. Since Caterpillar India and LiuGong India are ineligible to be qualified as the domestic industry for
the purposes of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules, 1995 , there are five eligible producers, namely, JCB
India Limited, L&T Construction & Mining Machinery, Tata Hitachi, Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd,
and BEML Limited, which qualify for determining the eligible domestic production under Rules
2(b) and 5(3)(a) of the AD Rules , 1995 .
m. Polling in accordance with Rule 5(3)(a) of the AD Rules , 1995 is required to be conducted only for
eligible domestic producers. Accordingly, the Authority was not required to invite Caterpillar India
for polling prior to the initiation.
D.3 Examination By The Authority
39. The present petition is filed by JCB India Ltd, a nd has been supported by M/s BEML Ltd. and M/s Eimco
Elecon (India) Ltd. The domestic industry has declared that it has not imported the subject goods and is not
related to a ny foreign producer who has exported the subject goods to India during the POI. Apart from the
applicant and supporters, there are four more domestic producers of the PUC . Of these four, two of the
producers , i.e., L&T and Tata Hitachi, have no t participated in the present investigation . With regard to the
remaining two producers, the domestic industry has argued that Caterpillar India and LiuGong India are
ineligible to constitute the ‘ domestic industry ’ in this investigation within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the
AD Rules , 1995 .
40. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules , 1995 defines domestic industry as under:
“(b) “ domestic industry ” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged
in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected
therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes
a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except
when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the
alleged dumped article or are themselves impor ters thereof in such case
the term ‘ domes tic industry ’ may be construed as referring to the rest of
the producers”.
41. Therefore, domestic producers may be excluded from the scope of the domestic industry in two situations:
a. When the domestic producer is relat ed to the exporter or importer of the all eged dumped article, in
this case, wheel loaders from China; or
b. When the domestic producer is an importer of the dumped article themselves.
42. Further, the Explanation to Rule 2(b) defines ‘related parties’ as:
“Explan ation. -For the purposes of this clause, producers shall be deemed to be
related to exporters or importers only if, -
(a) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other; or
(b) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person; o r
(c) together they directly or indirectly control a third person subject to the
condition that there are grounds for believing or suspecting that the effect of
the relationship is such as to cause the producers to behave differently from
non-related prod ucers.
Note: For the purpose of this Explanation, a producer shall be deemed to control
another producer when the former is legally or operationally in a position to
exercise restraint or direction over the latter.”
43. The Authority acknowledges that it has the disc retion to determine, on the basis of various factors, whether a
related domestic producer is eligible to be domestic industry . However, it notes that related domestic
producers must be rendered ineligible unless an exception case is made out by suc h a dome stic producer.
44. The Authority notes that both Caterpillar India and LiuGong India are ‘related ’ to exporters of the PUC from
the subject country :
a. Caterpillar India is a subsidiary of Caterpillar Inc, which is a US -based multinational company.
Caterpillar (Qingzhou) Ltd., an exporter of the PUC from China PR, is also a wholly owned
subsidiary of Caterpillar Inc. Caterpillar (Suzhou) Co. Ltd., a producer and exporter of the PUC from
China PR, is also a wholly owned subsidiary of Caterpillar Inc. Ther efore, Caterpillar India,
Caterpillar Qingzhou and Caterpillar Suzhou are jointly controlled by Caterpillar Inc. Accordingly,
Caterpillar Inc., is legally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over both entities particularly
Caterpillar Indi a. This relationship falls within the meaning of Explanation ( b) of Rule 2(b).
Additionally , Caterpillar India has not demonstrated that it is not controlled (legally or operationally)
by Caterpillar Inc.
b. LiuGong India is a subsidiary for which 99.9% of shares are held by Guangxi LiuGong Machinery
Co. Ltd., which is a Chinese producer and exporter of the PUC. Accordingly, Guangxi LiuGong
Machinery Co. Ltd. is legally in a position to exercise restraint or directio n over LiuGong India. This
relationship falls wi thin the meaning of Explanation (a) of Rule 2(b). Further , LiuGong India has not
demonstrated that it is not controlled by Guangxi LiuGong Machinery Co. Ltd .
45. The Authority notes that both Caterpillar and LiuGong have both exported the subject goods from th e
subject country in substantial quantities through the injury period. In particular, Caterpillar has exported 30-
40% of the total imports of the subject goods from the subject country into India during t he POI. LiuGong
has exported almost half the total i mports of the PUC from the subject country into India in 2020 -21.
46. The Authority notes that LiuGong India has requested the Authority to assess post-POI data to examine its
eligibility as domestic industry . In this regard, the Authority notes that as per i ts consistent practice, it has
not assessed the post-POI data for the purposes of assessing the standing of the domestic industry .
47. Therefore, the Authority holds that both LiuGong India and Caterpillar India ’s related entities have regularly
export ed the PUC to India . No exception al circumstances have been established by LiuGong India and
Caterpillar India for their relationship with the exporter s.
48. Additionally, the Authority also notes that Caterpillar India also failed to file a questionnaire response a s a
domestic producer . LiuGong India has also only filed its response as an importer, and not a domestic
producer. Therefore, The Authority holds that these producers have not provided any concrete reasons for
opposing the investigation other than their re lationship with exporters of t he subject goods .
49. In view of the above , the Authority holds that both Caterpillar India and LiuGong India do not qualify as
domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b).
50. With regard to the argument regarding polling, t he Authority notes that polling is required to be conducted
only for eligible domestic producers. However, Caterpillar India and LiuGong India were considered as not
eligible for such polling under Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules, 1995.
51. With regard to the stand ing of JCB India Ltd. as the domestic industry in the present investigation, the
Authority holds that it constitutes 70% of the eligible domestic production. Further, the application is also
supported by BEML Ltd. and Eimco Elecon ( India) Ltd. Accordingly, the domestic industry along with the
supporter accounts for a major share of the eligible Indian production.
52. Therefore, for the purpose of this investigation, JCB India Ltd. constitutes the domestic industry within the
meaning of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rule s, 1995 and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of
Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules , 1995 .
E CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1 Submissions Made By The Other Interested Parties
53. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the product under
consideration:
a. Caterpillar India asserts that the investigation is being conducted based on the DG Systems data,
despite the application relying on import data from an unnamed private agency.
b. DG Systems does not qualify as an "interest ed party" and therefore cannot claim confidentiality
under the rule. Even if the information is considered confidential, a non -confidential summary should
be provided to the involved parties, which has not been done in this case.
c. Rule 6(7) of the AD Rules , 1995 requires evidence submitted by one party to be made available to
the other parties, but the DG Systems data has not been shared, depriving Caterpillar India of the
opportunity to comment on it.
d. Without disclosing the name of the agency and providing a non -confidential summary of the import
data, the i nformation in the application cannot be considered sufficient or accurate for the purpose of
initiating the investigation.
e. Failure to provide a non -confidential version of the information or disclose th e agency's name is a
violation of the principles of n atural justice.
f. The domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality by not disclosing the name of the source
of information used as a basis for the initiation of the present investigation. The domestic industry
has not even mentioned the source of imported data nor cited any reason fo r claiming the same as
confidential. It is submitted that the import data sourced by the domestic industry pertains to Chinese
exporters and therefore, the same cann ot be claimed as confidential from the responding exporters.
E.2 Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Domestic Industry
54. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the domestic industry with regard to the product
under consideration:
a. The domestic industry had requested for import data from the DGCI&S, however, the same was not
made availab le. Therefore, the domestic industry relied on the import data from private sources.
Further, the domestic industry submits that it has provided the import data sorting methodology
which includes the tariff heading, product description, and the manner in w hich the quantity/values
have been determined.
b. Various interested parties have not filed their questionnaire responses in line with Trade Notice No.
10/2018 dat ed Se ptember 7, 2018.
E3 Examination By The Authority
55. With regard to confidentiality of informat ion, Rule 7 of the AD Rules , 1995 provides as follows:
“(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 sub -rule (4) of rule 17, the
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, sh all, upo n the designated authority
being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be tre ated 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 authorit y may require the parties providing information on
confidential basis to fur nish 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 des ignated authority a
statement of reasons why summarisation 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 th e inform ation is either unwilling to make the information public
or to authorise its disclosure in a generalised or summary form, it may
disregard such information .”
56. The Authority made a non-confidential version of the information provided by various inter ested pa rties
available to all interested parties for inspection through the public file containing non - confidential version
of evidence submitted by various interested parties and also through e -mail communication between various
parties.
57. Submissions ma de by t he domestic industry and other opposing interested parties with regard to
confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed
accordingly The Authority notes that the information provided by the intereste d parti es on confidential b asis
was duly examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority
has accepted the con fidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered
confidential a nd not disclosed to other i nterested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information
on confidential basis were directed to provide suf ficient non -confidentia l version of the information filed on
confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all int erested parties have claimed their business -related
sensitive information as confidential.
F. MISCELLANEOUS
F.1 Submissions Made By The Other Interested Parties
58. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the misce llaneous is sues:
a. The domestic industry has failed to submit a properly substantiated application that would allow the
Authority to form an initial view on the presence of dumping, injury, and a causal link between the
alleged dumped imports and the injur y. The evid ence provided in support of the application is
deemed inaccurate and inadequate under Rule 5(2) of the AD Rules , 1995 .
b. In the case of Union of India and Others v. Adani Exports Ltd and Another (2002) 1 SCC 567, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held tha t the quest ion of jurisd iction should be first decided before going
into the merits of any case.
c. The POI is not appropriate due to several exceptional circumstances that significantly impacted the
market conditions during that period. These circumstances i nclude the second wave o f the COVID -
19 pandemic affecting India in the first quarter of FY 2021 -22, a contraction in demand due to
delays in infrastructure and government projects, changes in emissions norms from Bharat Stage -III
(BS-III) to Bharat Stage -IV (BS -IV) b y the Ministr y of Road Transport and Highways, significant
price fluctuations in steel and other materials, non -availability or restricted availability of critical
production materials, and the diversion of oxygen from industrial to medical use, which affe cted
fabricat ion activities and the production of wheel loaders and their components in the country. The
POI, once decided , cannot be changed at a later stage.
d. The POI can be revised before the initiation of the investigation and no request for a change s hall be
considered after the initiation of the investigation. Also, the examination of post POI data shall be
communicated in the initiation notification. Howeve r, no such communication was made in the
initiation notification of the present inve stigation a bout the same. Thus, post POI data cannot be
examined in the present investigation.
F.2 Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Domestic Industry
59. No miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry .
F.3 Examina tion By The Authority
60. With regard to the contention that the initiation notice was violative of Rule 5 of the AD Rules, 1995 , the
Authority notes that the investigation was init iated only after examination of the evidence provided by the
domestic industry . Only when all the requir ements under R ule 5 were met, the investigation was initiated by
the Authority.
61. With regard to the contention that the POI is inappropriate given the change in emission -norms , contraction
in demand, significant price fluctuations, and other external fact ors, the Autho rity notes that the existence of
external factors during the said period does not make it ineligible for being selected as a POI. In its
assessment of injury, it has considered the effect these external factors had on the performance of the
domestic indust ry, if any, during the POI. Any such effects have not been a ttributed to the imports of the
PUC from the subject country .
62. With regards to the jurisdictional issue that has been raised by Liebherr Group that the Authority should first
decide on the issue of standing before proceeding with the other facts of the investigation. It is noted that the
case was initiated only after the determination that the applicant industry has a standing to qualify as the
domestic industry as per the statutory threshold in t erms of Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules. It is further noted tha t
the Authority in this final finding has again deliberated in the beginning i.e., from para 39 to 52 itself on the
standing of the domestic industry and has held that the domestic ind ustry has a st anding as per the statutory
threshold. In view of the same , the Authority notes that it doesn’t find any merit on the issue of jurisdictional
challenge to proceed with the investigation and its determination thereto.
G. MARKET ECONOMY TREAT MENT (MET), NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE &
DETERMINATION OF DUM PING MARGIN
G.1 Submissions Made By The Other Interested Parties
63. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the this:
a. Guangxi LiuGong, the producer, and exp orter of the subject goods in China PR, has submitted the
Exporter Questionnaire Response within the specified timeframe.
b. LiuGong India, a related entity of Guangxi LiuGong in India, has submitted Part IV of the Exporter
Questionnaire Re sponse. All partie s involved in export s to India and imports into India have
participated in the investigation.
c. The estimated dumping margin and injury margin presented by the domestic industry in the petition
should not be relied upon for determining dumping and injury re lated to exports mad e by Guangxi
LiuGong .
d. Section 9A(6A) of the Customs Tariff Act allows for the determination of the dumping margin for
cooperating producers/exporters based on the information they submit. The margin of dumping is to
be calculated based on the records of n ormal value and export price maintained by the exporter or
producer.
e. Certain interested parties disagreed with the market economy treatment given to China PR, and
requested the Authority to not use surrogate country methodology, use ap propriate normal val ue
calculation and at the very least, use data provided by the company instead of applying analogue
country data in the investigation.
f. China’s Accession Protocol expired on December 11, 2016. Such practice was to be expire d from
then on . “Surrogate country ” methodology should not be used in calculating the normal value for this
case. The Appellate Body Report in EC - Fastener provide s strong justification for China PR to
automatically obtain the market -economy status once the Article 15 of the Protocol expi res.
g. The normal value for China PR should first be determined based on price or constructed value in the
third country, or the price fr om such a third country to other countries. In case the normal value
cannot be computed based on thir d country price, the same be computed on any other reasonable
basis, including the price paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if n ecessary, to
include a reasonable profit margin.
G.2 Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Domestic Indus try
64. The following submi ssions have been made on behalf of the domestic industry with regard to the product
under consideration:
a. It is submitted that sub -paragraph (2) of paragraph 8, Annexure I of the AD Rules , 1995 stipulates
that a country shall be co nsidered as a non -market economy (“NME”) for the purpose of the anti-
dumping investigation if the same has been treated as an NME in three (3) previous years preceding
the investigation period unless the producers/exporters cooperating in the investigation produces
sufficient evi dence establishing that it operates unde r market economy principles.
b. It is submitted that none of the exporters or producers from China has filed for market economy
treatment in the present investigation. Therefore, there is no evid ence on record to prove that
exporters of the PUC from China PR operate under market economy principles for the purposes of
the present investigation.
c. Section 15(d) sets forth three different timelines: (i) China stops being a non -market economy for the
purpose of trade remedial investigations in India once it establi shes under Indian law that it is a
market economy; (ii) certain sectors or industries stop being treated as non -market economy sectors
for the purpose of trade remedial investigations in India once it is established under Indian law that
market economy con ditions prevail in those sectors on industries; and (iii) all other provisions of
Section 15 of the Protocol would remain to be operational after December 11, 2016, except Section
15(a)(ii).
d. Section 15(a)(ii) merely reiterates the power of the investigati ng Authority under the second Ad Note
to Article VI:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1995.
e. Article 2.7 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement clearly carves out an exemption for the sec ond Ad Note
for Article VI:1 of the GATT.
f. Section 15(a) which imposes a rebuttable presumption on China being a non -market economy did not
expire on December 11, 2016.
g. There exists no obligation on India to consider China a non -market economy after Decemb er 11,
2016. In fact, Ar ticle 2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement also allows investigating authorities to
adopt an alternative methodology for calculating normal value when the domestic sales in the
exporting country do not permit a proper comparison.
h. The domestic industry also no tes that it is a consistent practice to regard China as a non -market
economy not only in Indian trade remedial investigations, but also in trade re medial investigations
conducted in all major jurisdictions. For example, jurisdiction s such as the European U nion and the
United States of America continue to consider China to be a non -market economy.
i. China requested a WTO panel to be formed to decide on its non -market economy status in 2017 in
EU — Price Comparison Methodologies . Howeve r, in 2019, China reques ted the Panel to be
suspended. It was reported that China decided to seek suspension because the results of the interim
report, which has never been made public, were unfavourable to China.
G.3 EXAMINATION BY THE A UTHORITY
Normal Value
Market Econom y Status for Chinese Producers
65. Article 15 of China's Accession Protocol in 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 involv ing
imports of C hinese 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 WT O Member shall use either
Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodolog y
that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China
based on the following rules:
(i) If the pr oducers under investigation can clearly show that market economy
conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product wit h regard to the
manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WTO Member
shall use Chinese prices or costs f or the industry under invest igation in
determining price comparability;
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use 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 co nditions
prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture,
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 14(a), 14(b), 1 4(c) and 14(d),
relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are
special difficulties in that appli cation, the importing WTO Member may then
use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which
take into acco unt the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China
may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In ap plying such
methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust
such prevailing t erms and conditions before c onsidering the use of terms and
conditions prevailing outside China.
(c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in
accordance with subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti -Dumping
Practices and shall notify m ethodologies used in accorda nce with
subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures.
(d) Once China has established, under th e national law of the importing WTO
Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagrap h (a) shall
be terminated pr ovided that the importing Member's national law contains
market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, th e
provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of
accession. In addition, s hould China establish, pursu ant 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 sect or.”
66. It is noted that while the provision contained in Article 15 (a) (ii) have expired on 11.12.2016, the provision
under Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Agr eement on Anti -Dumping read with the obligation under 15 (a) (i) of
the Accession Protocol require the criterion stipulated in Par a 8 of Annexure I to the AD Rules , 1995 to be
satisfied through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary quest ionnaire upon claiming
market economy status.
67. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded as p er the information given by the applicant. Upon
initiation, the Authority advised the producers/ exporters in China PR to respond to the notice of initia tion
and provide information relevant to the determination of their market economy status. The Authorit y sent
copies of the supple mentary questionnaire to all the known producers/ exporters for rebutting the
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 informat ion. The Authority also req uested the Government of China
PR to advise the producers/ exporters in China PR to provide the relevant information.
68. None of the exporters/producers contested the non-market economy status of China. Thus, in view of the
above po sition and in the absence of rebuttal of the non -market economy presumption by any Chinese
exporting company, the Authority, consider it appropri ate to treat China PR as a non - market economy
country in the present investigation and proceeds with para 7 of Annexure - I to the Rules for determination
of normal value in case of China PR.
Determination of Normal Value for China PR
69. The Authority notes that no evidence has been provided by the domestic industry or other interested parties
on prices in mar ket economy third countri es. The global trade data also could not be used to consider price
from a market economy third country in view of the fa ct of various PCNs involved and the absence of
dedicated HSN Code for the PUC .
70. Therefore, the Authority has de termined the normal valu e for the subject imports from China PR 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 production of the domestic industr y, with reasonable addit ion for
selling, general and administra tive expenses, and profits. The normal value was constructed PCN wise for a
fair comparison. The weighted average on the basis of quantities of various PCN by the respective producer
exporter i s shown in the dumping m argin table below.
Export Price
Caterpillar (Qingzhou) Ltd, Caterpillar (Suzhou) Co., Ltd, Caterpillar Inc., and Caterpillar
SARL Singapore Branch
Caterpillar (Qingzhou) Ltd.
71. Caterpillar (Qingzhou) Ltd. (hereinafter referr ed as “CQL”) is engage d in manufacture of the PUC at its
factory located at Nanhuan Road, Qingzhou City, Shandong 262500 P.R. China.
72. During the POI, CQL directly exported *** wheel loaders to unrelated customers in India out of which ***
were A1XU and *** were B2YM. These exp orts were made on CIF basis for which CQL has claimed
adjustments on account of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port expenses, credit cost.
Accordingly , the weighted average of net export price at ex -factory level so d etermined is mentione d in the
dumping margin table.
Caterpillar (Suzhou) Co., Ltd
73. Caterpillar (Suzhou) Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred as “CSCL”) is engaged in manufacture of the PUC at its
factory located at No. 58 Qiming Road, Export Processing Zone B, Su zhou Industrial Park, Suzhou 215121,
P.R. China.
74. During the POI CSCL has exported *** wheel loaders to India through its group compan ies Caterpillar Inc.
(hereinafter referred as “CAT Inc.” ), Caterpillar SARL Singapore Branch (hereinafter referred as “CS SB”)
on CIF bas is. While invoicing is routed through group companies, wheel loader s are directly exported from
the factory. CSCL has claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation,
port expenses, credit cost. Accordingly, the weighted a verage of net export price at ex -factory level so
determined is men tioned in the dumping margin table.
Guangxi Liugong Machinery Co. Ltd. and LiuGong India Pvt. Ltd
75. From the response filed by Guangxi Liugong Machinery Co., Ltd (“Liugong Ch ina”), Author ity notes that
Liugong China has exported the product under consideration manufactured by Liugong China to its related
importer, LiuGong India Pvt. Ltd (“Liugong India”) and also to unrelated Indian customer during the POI.
Both Liugong China and Liugong I ndia have participated in the investigation and provided all the relevant
information in the prescribed questionnaire format.
76. It is noted that Liugong India is engaged in production as well as trading of product under consideration in
India. During th e POI, Liugong India has sold the PUC manufactured by itself and also PUC imported from
Liugong China.
77. Liugong China has exported ***wheel loaders to unrelated Indian customer and ***wheel loaders to
Liugong India during the POI . Accordingly, the Authori ty has worked out the ex -factory export price taking
export price of Liugong China to related and unrelated Indian customers and adjusted on account of ocean
freight, insurance, inland transportation, port related expenses, credit cost and bank charges .
78. Liugong China and Liugong India have provided the PCN wise information in the relevant appendices. The
aforesaid adjustments and PCN wise information have been verified and accepted by the Authority. It is
noted that Liugong India has earned prof it on resa le of the PUC during the POI. Ac cordingly, the export
price for the subject goods at ex -factory level for Liugong China has been determined and shown in the
dumping margin table .
Shandong Lingong Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. and Volvo CE In dia Privat e Limited
79. From the responses filed by Shandong Lingong Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. (“SDLG”) and its
affiliated importer in India i.e. , Volvo CE India Private Limited (“Volvo”) , the Authority notes that SDLG is
a producer of the subject good s in China PR and has exported the subject goods directly to Volvo which is
related to SDLG .
80. During the POI, SDLG has exported *** units of wheel loaders to India. For the exports to India, SDLG has
claimed adjustments such as ocean freight, insurance, i nland insu rance, credit cost, dismounting cost, port
and other related expense.
81. SDLG and Volvo have provided the PCN wise information in the relevant appendices. The aforesaid
adjustments and PCN wise information have been verified and accepted by the Auth ority. It is noted that
Volvo incurred losses and the same has been adjusted in the export pric e. Accordingly, the export price for
the subject goods at ex -factory level for SDL G has been determined and shown in the dumping margin table
below.
Liebherr Machinery (D alian) Co. Ltd. (LH Dalian) , Liebherr Werk -Bischofshofen GmbH (LH
Austria), Liebherr Export AG (LH Swiss), Liebherr China Co. Ltd. and Liebherr India Private
Limited (LH India).
82. Liebherr Machinery (Dalian) Co. Ltd. (LH Dalian) is the producer o f the subj ect goods in China, filed
complete questionnaire response along with its related trading company, namely, Liebherr Werk -
Bischofshofen GmbH (LH Austria), Liebherr Export AG (LH Swis s), Liebherr China Co. Ltd. and Liebherr
India Private Limited (LH India).
83. During the POI, LH Dalian has exported *** machines to India through its related traders LH Austria and
LH Swiss only. Out of the *** machines *** machines were exported directly to Indian customers and ***
machines were sold through its related importer LH India. LH Dalian has claimed adjustment on account of
overseas transportation, overseas insurance, inland transportation, credit cost, bank charges, port and other
related expen ses, and other additional equipment charges.
84. LH Dalian and other parties i nvolved in the value chain provided the PCN wise information in the relevant
appendices . The aforesaid adjustments and PCN wise information have been verified and accepted by the
Authority. The Authority also examined the profitability of these ex port tran sactions. Accordingly, the
export price for the subject goods at ex -factory level for S DLG has been determined and shown in the
dumping margin table below.
XCMG Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. Technology Branch , Xuzhou Construction Machinery
Grou p Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., and Schwing Stetter (India) Pvt Ltd.
85. From the responses filed by XCMG Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. Technology Branch (“XCMG ”)
Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., and its affiliated importer in India i.e .,
Schwi ng Stetter (India) Pvt Ltd. (“Schwing ”), the Authority n otes that XCMG is a producer of the subject
goods in China PR and has exported the subject goods to India through a related trader to a related importer
namely Schwing in India .
86. During the POI, XCMG has sold *** units of the subject goods in home market to their related company
namely Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., The related company, Xuzhou
Construction Machinery Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., has sold *** units of the subject goods directly to
India to related company Schwing . The related e xporter namely Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group
Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., has claimed adjustment o n account of ocean freight, insurance, port and other related
expenses, credit co st.
87. XCMG and other parties involved in the value chain provided the PCN wise information in the relevant
appendices. The aforesaid adjustments and PCN wise information have been verified and accepted by the
Authority. The Authority also examined the profit abilit y of the traders reported in Appendix 5 . Accordingly,
the export price for the subject goods at ex -factory level for XCMG has been determined and shown in the
dumping margin table below.
Normal Value & Export Price for non -cooperating producer s/exp orters
88. For all other producers/ exporters of China PR, export value has been determined based on facts available.
Export price has been determined on the basis of transaction wise import data of the cooperating producers
and exporters. Since these are CIF export price, these have been adjusted for expenses such as ocean freight,
insurance, port expenses, bank charges, inland freight, credit cost, port and other charges to determine ex -
factory export price.
Dumping Margin
89. It is noted that in the subject investigation many cooperating producers and exporters are related to each
other and form a group of related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider
related exporting producers and exporters as one single entity fo r the determination of a dumping margin
and thus to establish one single dumping margin for them. This is in particular because calculating
individual dumping margins might encourage circumvention of antidumping measures, thus rendering them
ineffective, b y enabling related exporting producers to channel their exports to India through the company
with the lowest individual dumping margin. In accordance with the above, related producers and exporters
have been regarded as one single entity and attributed one single dumping margin which was calculated on
the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins of the cooperating related producers and
exporters.
90. Considering the normal value and the export price for the subject goods, the dumping margin for the subject
goods from the subject country is proposed to be determined as follows:
Dumping margin table
Producer's/ exporter's name CNV per
unit (US$) NEP per
unit (US$) Dumping
margin per
unit (US$) Dumping
margin % Dumping
margin %
range
Guangxi Liugong M achiner y Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 80-90
Caterpillar (Qingzhou) Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 50-60
Caterpillar (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. *** *** (***) (***) (30-40)
Caterpillar Group *** *** *** *** 40-50
Liebherr Machinery (Dalian) Co. Ltd *** *** (***) (***) (30-40)
Shandong Lingong Construction
Machinery (SDLG) *** *** *** *** 70-80
M/s XCMG Construction Machinery Co.,
Ltd. -Technology Branch *** *** *** *** 100-110
Any other producer *** *** *** *** 110-120
H. METHODOLOGY OF INJ URY ASS ESSMENT AND EXAMINAT ION OF CAUSAL
LINK
91. Rule 11 of the AD Rules, 1995 read with Annexure II to the AD Rules, 1995 provides that an injury
determination shall involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry , “…
taking into a ccount 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… ”. Further, in considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is conside red necessary to
examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with
the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwis e to de press prices to a
significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.
92. The Authority has examined the effect of dumped imports on the state of the domestic industry in the
paragraphs below.
H.1 Subm issions Made By The Other Interested Parties
93. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to this:
i There is no legal basis or past precedence for such an adjustment by the Authority. It is considered a
normal trade pract ice for imports made prior to the POI to be sold during the POI, and no
adjustment can be made to account for this. Any adjustment in the import for the POI shall impact
volume analysis, computation of NIP, evaluation of price undercutting/under selling and margin of
dumping.
ii The Authority has rejected the POI of 15 months from Jan 2021 -March 2022 and determined the
POI as April 21 -March 22. Now since the Authority has already excluded imports during January
2021 -March 2021 from dumping determinat ion, these imports cannot be adjusted thereafter.
iii If the aggregate imports from China PR in 2020 -21 and the POI are combined and distributed equally
in both years, there is still no absolute increase in import volumes from China PR. In fact, even after
adjusting th e imports in the POI, there is a consistent decline in import volume from China PR from
100 index points in 2018 -19 to 78 index points in the POI.
iv Imports from the subject country have declined substantially during the POI to 43 as compared to
100 during the base year 2018 -19. The decline in imports indicates that there is no volume effect
caused by an absolute increase in imports.
v Imports have decreased from 100 to 75 indexed points in relation to the domestic industry 's
production and from 1 00 to 5 8 indexed points in proportion to the demand in India. Market share of
total import s has declined from 100 indexed points in 2018 -19 to 59 indexed points in the POI.
Market share of the domestic industry has remained stable during the injury inves tigatio n period.
vi Despite a contraction in demand, the share of imports has significantly declined, indicating a
complete absence of a volume effect.
vii Even in the base year and preceding years, when there was no dumping, there was positive price
undercu tting a t similar levels as in the POI. This suggests that the price undercutting is not a result of
dumping but rather due to a lack of direct comparison b etween the imported wheel loaders and the
domestic industry 's products.
viii Even if there is positive price u ndercutting during the POI, it is important to note that there is no
injury to the domestic industry . The computed margin of price undercutting and price underselling in
the application falls within the range of 40 -60%. This indicates that the domes tic ind ustry was selling
its products at their optimum price, which is equivalent to the non -injurious pric e. Since there is no
volume effect and no evidence of injury to the domestic industry , it can be concluded that there is no
injury to the company.
ix Accord ing to Annexure III of the AD Rules, 1995 , the best utilization of raw materials, production
capacities, and utilities of the domestic industry over the past three years and the period of
investigation (POI) should be taken into account. It is impor tant to note that starting from April 1,
2021, t he PUC was required to be manufactured under the CEV Stage IV emission standards. Prior to
that date, the applicable emission standard was CEV Stage III. Certain interested parties assert that
there is no dis cretion regarding the applicability of Annexure III in determining the non -injurious
price. The non -injurious price must be determined in accordance with Annexure III, even if there
were differences in the utilization of raw materials, utilities, and produ ction c apacities during the POI
due to the imple mentation of CEV Stage IV emission norms.
x The landed value of imports increased by 24% in the POI compared to the base year. If the injury to
the domestic industry was truly due to cheap imports, they could h ave rai sed their price by at least
24% to align with the increased import prices. The fact that the domestic industry 's price increase is
only 17% suggests that factors other than imports are influencing their pricing.
xi The change in cost has actually de creased by 97% in the POI, while their selling price has increased
by over 2 ,000%. Therefore, there is no evidence of price suppression in the present case.
xii The domestic industry ’s CIF prices for the PUC are far higher than the prices indicated for the PUC
fromChina and are even higher than the other countries whose CIF value of exports have been
indicated in Exhibit 1.4 of the application.
xiii There are a total of 7 domestic producers of the subject goods in India. Injury to the domestic
industry , if any, i s due t o inte r se competition between the domestic producers of the subject goods in
India.
xiv Market share of the domestic industry has increased by 3 indexed points and the market share of
other domestic producers has increased by 32 indexed points . Sales of othe r Indian producers have
increased substantially during the POI to 98 as compared to 60 during the previous year.
xv There was an abnormal increase in imports d uring the quarter of January 2021 to March 2021, which
led to an abnormal increase in sales o f impor ted wheel loaders and consequently market share in the
POI. Therefore, the market share of the imports was temporarily higher than usual in the POI. Even
in such a situation, the market share of imported wheel loaders have not increased in the POI a s
compa red to previous y ears.
xvi The fact that the domestic industry has been able to improve its market share in a scenario where the
demand has contracted significantly indicates that there is no injurious effect on account of the
imports.
xvii Despite the f all in demand in the mar ket, sales of the domestic industry did not decrease in tandem
with the fall in demand. This shows that the domestic industry was able to maintain its market share.
xviii The domestic industry was earning profits in 2018 -19. However, t he domestic industry is incurring
losses since 2019 -20. Losses incurred by the domestic industry has increased in 2020 -21 but has
improved from (1788) indexed points in 2020 -21 in (877) indexed points.
xix Imports fr om China PR declined in 2019 -20 as compared to 201 8-19. However, the domestic
industry incurred losses in 2019 -20 as compared to 2018 -19. Even though the increase in losses
coincides with the increase in imports from China PR, impact of increased imports in 2020 -21 was
felt by the domestic industr y in th e POI, and not 2020 -21. This is because wheel loaders were
majorly imported between January 2021 to March 2021, and were resold during the POI. However,
the losses incurred by the domestic industry reduced substantially in the POI as compared to 202 0-
21.
xx There is no threat of material injury on import of the subject goods from China PR .
xxi It is also not clear how the increase in inventory in 2020 -21 as compared to 2018 -19 was more than
six times when the domestic sales of JCB during the same period was st able and declined only by 7
index points.
xxii Since there is a substantial cost and price difference betw een BS III complaint wheel loaders and
CEV Stage IV compliant wheel loaders , it is inappropriate to compare the two different product
categories i. e., CEV Stage IV compliant wheel loaders (imported during POI) vis -à-vis BS III
complaint wheel loaders (manufactured by the domestic industry before POI and sold during the
POI).
xxiii The evaluation of the import data and economic parameters of the domestic i ndustry on a monthly/
quarterly basis is necessary to objectively evaluate the impact of imports. Evaluation of the data on a
monthly/ quarterly basis is necessary to avoid any distortion due to the resale of wheel loaders
complying with BS -III norms, manu facture d before the period of investigation.
xxiv The injury should be assessed strictly as per Annexure -II and the Gujarat High Court judgment which
confirms that there is no requirement to assess injury margin/price underselling. The respondents
request not to refe r to price underselling/injury margin to assess material injury or threat of material
injury.
xxv The POI is a period of recovery for the domestic industry , as its losses have declined significantly,
indicating the absence of nexus between the imports a nd fina ncial health of the domestic industry .
xxvi It is submitted that the domestic industry ’s ability to raise investment has not been impacted at all.
This is evident from the fact that the domestic industry has invested £ 100 million in a factory near
Vadodara in Gujarat and commenced production since April 2022. The domestic industry has
participated in “Invest Rajasthan 2022” and signed MOU for new investments in Rajasthan.
xxvii There is unexplained increase in capital employed. Capital employed has incre ased to 179 indexed
points in the POI from 100 indexed points in 2018 -19. However, there is no increase in capacity
during the investigation period.
xxviii The return on capital employed in the POI has improved as compared to previous year, and is almost
at par w ith 201 9-20 levels, when there are admittedly no dumped imports.
xxix In the POI, the domestic industry retrenched a large number of persons (about 400 persons) at the
senior level, as the organization was top heavy. This happened for all segments and was not con fined
to wheel loaders . The wages show a healthy improvement as compared to the base year. The
employment and wages do not indicate any injury to the domestic industry .
xxx Number of employees has declined to 79 during the POI as compared to 100 dur ing the base year
2018 -19 whereas wages have increased from 100 during the base year 2018 -19 to 128 during the
POI. However, the number of employees and wages don’t get affected directly from the imports from
China PR.
xxxi The domestic sales increased relati ve to p roduction on account of backlog inventory available with
the domestic industry at the beginning of FY 2021 -22. Import volume during the POI declined
relative to the domestic indu stry’s domestic sales and demand.
xxxii There is a marked decline in the cl osing i nventory for the domestic industry . In fact, in 2020 -21, the
domestic industry had huge inventories, which it has been able to liquidate during the POI. The
closing inventory at the end of POI, is comparable to that in the base year. The closing inv entory does
not indicate any extra -ordinary accumulation of inventory of the domestic industry at the end of the
POI.
xxxiii The Authority is requested to assess inventory levels on a semi -annual basis since the domestic sales
were impacted by government regul ations and backlog inventory.
xxxiv The profitability parameters reflected improvement dur ing the POI as the COVID -19 subsided and
imports from all sources including subject countr y declined substantially.
xxxv The productivity per day and productivity per employee declin ed during 2019 -20 and subsequently
increased during 2020 -21. The number of employees and wages paid declined during POI due to a
slowdown in demand and the sale of backlog inventory .
xxxvi The capacity of the domestic industry remained constant during th e POI a nd the injury period. The
production and capacity utilization of the domest ic industry declined in 2019 -20 and the POI.
Production during POI has declined on account of the resale of backlog inventory. The domestic
industry has not utilized its exi sting c apacity to cater export market. This resulted in low-capacity
utilization.
xxxvii The domestic industry had not provided justification why there is significant variation in their capacity
utilization figures during the injury period. Also, profitability i mproved in the period of investigation
despite all allegations of in jury.
xxxviii The domestic industry has performed well, and their losses , cash profits and ROCE all improved
during the period of investigation. The domestic industry itself has claimed that the “constr uction
equipment industry could grow 25% in 2021, regain pre -Covid peak in 2022” .
xxxix The domestic industry has neither furnished any data nor claimed any decline in growth.
H.2 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
94. The domestic industry have made the following submissions with respect to this:
i The domestic industry requests the Authority to appropriately adjust the imports of the January to
March 2021 quarter to the POI for the purpose of a fair and accurate assessment of injury.
ii The dec line in the volume of imports from the year 2020 -21 in the POI is on account of imports
made in huge quantities in the last quarter of FY 2020 -21 due to changes in the emission
regulations.
iii The introduction of the compulsory use of CEV Stage IV emission st andards led to a situation of
large -scale stocking and selling in the Indian market, wherein several buyers/dealers imported
substantial quantities of the PUC in the quarter of January -March 2021 and stored the same as
inventory. The same stock was then so ld over a l onger period from April 2021 to November 2021.
Accordingly, the PUC imported in the period January to March 2021 were ultimately sold in the
subsequent period.
iv A majority of imports (of the POI) took place in Jan -March 2021 whereas the resultin g market
distortion, undercutting and injurious impact was only experienced in the months of the proposed
POI as the stocked imports started entering the domestic commercial market at low prices .
v A simplistic analysis of volume effect which does not take i nto account the context in which imports
have been made would not be an objective examination of facts, and would therefore, be a violation
of an investigating Authority’s overarching obligation.
vi The imports during the POI were only limited due to the inventory coll ected by the importers in the
last quarter of FY 2020 -21. The dumped imports were sold at low prices in the domestic market
during this period and caused injury to the domestic industry .
vii The reason for the domestic industry ’s increase in losses through the injury period can be attributed
to the price undercutting exhibited by the dumped imports, along with the (i) rapid increase in the
volume of subject imports, and (ii) the domestic indu stry’s inability to increase its prices
commensurate to the increase i n cost owing to the low prices at which imports were being made.
viii The volume of imports from the subject country has increased by 26 indexed points in the year
2020 -21, as compared to th e previous year.
ix In 2020 -21, the imports increased significantly. In p articular, the imports made in the quarter of
January to March 2021 were stockpiled for sale during the POI. However, the cost of the products
increased by 20 indexed points as compared to the previous year, while the domestic industry could
only increase its prices by 5 indexed points as compared to the previous year. It was only able to
increase its prices by 4 indexed points as compared to the base year, in the face of an increase of 3 0
indexed points in the cost of the product as compared to the base ye ar.
x Chinese exporters have been engaging in dumping in the previous years as well, and have been
undercutting the market. This has caused tremendous injury to the domestic industry .
xi The volume of imports from China PR in relation to the production of the domestic industry has
increased from 100 indexed points in 2018 -19 to 113 indexed points in the year 2020 -21 then
declined in the POI to 75 indexed points on account of the increased impo rts in the last quarter of
January -March 2021 of the year 2020 -21.
xii The imports from China PR are coming at prices below the domestic selling price of the domestic
industry , thus, heavily undercutting the selling price and injuring the domestic industry . These
declining prices led to an increase in losses suffered which are d irectly attributable to low -priced
imports from China PR.
xiii The domestic industry was unable to increas e its prices due to the dumped prices of the imports in
the market. The selling price is significantly lower than the non -injurious price.
xiv While the price undercutting remained in the same range as the previous year in 2019 -20, there was
a rise in the cos t to sell the products by 10 indexed points as compared to the previous year.
xv The imports are coming into India at a much lower price compared to the non -injurious price.
Further, these low -priced imports adversely affected the performance of the domestic industry ,
thereby preventing the domestic industry from achieving a fair selling price thereby causing severe
material injury.
xvi The cost to make and sell ha s increased substantially for the domestic industry , i.e., by 30 indexed
points in the POI compared t o the base year 2018 -19. During the same period, the domestic industry
could not increase the selling price of the PUC commensurately with the increase in its cost, on
account of imports from the subject country. Further, the price suppression increased su bstantially in
the POI on account of dumped imports.
xvii The apparent demand/consumption for the year 2020 -21 calculated based on the import data, as
available , is skewed since a substantial volume of imports were made in the last quarter of January -
March 2021 , which were ultimately sold in the subsequent period (i.e., April to November 2021).
Accordingly, the import volumes of the last quarter of FY 2020 -21 sho uld be appropriately adjusted
to assess the actual demand.
xviii There is a minor decline in demand compared to the base year. The minor decline in the demand is
on account of the fact that the year 2018 -19 witnessed an increase in demand for construction
equipm ent (including the PUC) due to significant investments in infrastructure -related projects in
the country.
xix The demand for the PUC has declined in the POI compared to the year 2020 -21 and the base year on
account of the excess imports made in the last quarte r of January -March 2021. The domestic sales of
the domestic industry declined at a much faster pace compared to the demand for the subject goods
in the country. This clearly indicates that the domestic industry is not able to sell its products in the
marke t on account of dumping of the PUC from the subject country.
xx The domestic industry has lost market share compared to the previous year 2020 -21.
xxi While the imports from the subject country have lost market share in the POI compared to the
previous year 2020 -21, the same is on account of pent -up imports in the last quarter of the FY 2020 -
21 due to changes in the emission regulations.
xxii The market share of the imports from China PR’s market share increased in the year 2019 -20 &
2020 -21 compared to the base year 2018-19
xxiii The installed capacity of the domestic industry has remained constant. How ever, capacity utilization
has declined in the POI compared to the previous year or base year.
xxiv There has been a reduction in the productivity, employment, and wages of the domestic industry .
The same remains far below the potential of the domestic industry to offer sustainable employment
and wages.
xxv Aggressive dumping, and pricing by the exporters from the subject country have led to a significant
decline in all the financial performance ind icators such as PBIT, cash profits, and return on capital
employed of the domestic industry .
xxvi The level of the inventories of finished goods has increased substantially in the POI compared with
the base year 2018 -19.
xxvii The PUC is part of a larg e product portf olio for the domestic industry , and the decline in the
financial performance has adversely affected the domestic industry ’s overall capability to raise
capital at competitive rates.
xxviii LiuGong has argued that since the domestic industry has fai led to provide post-POI data, it cannot
make any claim regarding threat of material injury. In this regard, it is submitted that while a threat
of material injury assessment may include the analysis of post-POI data, the same is not mandated
by Para. (vii) of Annexure II of the AD Rules , 1995 .
H.3 Examination By The Authority
95. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve an
examination of factors that may indicate in jury to the domestic industry , “…. taking int o account all the
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 the domestic producers of su ch 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 the price of the like
article in India or wheth er 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 of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the sta te
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 Anne xure
II to the Rules.
i The Authority has take n note of the various submissions made by the domestic industry and the other
interested parties on injury and has analyzed the same as per the evidence available on record.
ii The domestic industry has argued that the imports made in the period of January -March 2021 should
be considered as part of the POI for the purposes of injury analysis . In this regard, the Authority
notes that Government of India, vide notification dated 30th September 2020, mandated the
compulsory use of CEV Stage IV emission standards for diesel non -road engines used in
construction and agricultural equipment from the existing Bharat Stage III standards. Accordingly,
with effect fro m 1st April 2021, the PUC was mandatorily required to be manufactured under the
CEV Stage IV. However, th e PUC manufactured or imported prior to 31st March 2021, could still be
sold in the Indian market until 30th November 2021. The Authority notes that substantial imports
made in the period of January – March 2021 may have been sold during the period of in vestigation
by the related importers of the exporters. However, the Authority notes that there are no precedent s
to attribute the pre -POI import data to the POI imports . Therefore, the Authority has analysed the
injury in the subsequent paragraphs in a manner consistent with the practice of the Authority.
iii The Authority notes several submissions made by the interested parties on the improvement of
market share of the other domestic manufacture r of wheel loaders and increase in the inter -se
competition betwe en the domestic producers. The Authority notes that market share of the import s
from the subject country has increased until the year 2020 -21 compared to the base year of 2018 -19
but witnessed a decline in the POI. As noted above by the Authority , var ious importers/exporters
have exported the PUC in substantial quantities in the pre -POI period , which were sold during the
POI.
iv The Authority further notes that the various submissions have been made by the interested parties
regarding the improvement of econom ic parameters of the domestic industry . In this regard, the
Authority has carried out a detailed examination of the economic parameters, to assess current injury,
if any, to the domestic industry .
H.3.1 VOLUME EFFECT OF THE DUMPED IMPORTS
a) ASSESSMENT O F DEMAND
96. The Authority has determined the demand or the apparent consumption of the product in India, as the sum of
domestic sales of the domestic industry , supporter and other domestic producers, and imports from all
sources. The demand so assessed is giv en in the table below.
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Sales of domestic industry Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 69 93 76
Domestic sales of Supporters Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 31 35 19
Sales of Other Domestic Producer s Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 97 62 98
China - Dumped Imports Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 82 109 42
China – Un-dumped Imports Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 83 97 70
China - Total Imports Nos 1308 1071 1419 552
Trend Indexed 100 82 108 42
Imports from other countries Nos 48 18 35 32
Trend Indexed 100 38 73 67
Total Demand Nos *** *** *** ***
Total Demand Indexed 100 84 85 73
97. The Authority notes that total demand in the POI declined compared from the year 2020 -21 as well as base
year 20 18-19. As noted by the Authority earlier, the same is on account of the imports in substantial volume
made in the pre -POI period which were sold during the POI . The domestic industry submitted that the
decline in demand com pared to th e base year of 2018 -19 is on account of the fact that the year 2018 -19
witnessed an increase in demand for construction equipment (including the PUC) due to significant
investments in infrastructure -related projects in the country.
b) IMPORT V OLUME AND SHARE OF THE SUBJECT COUNTRY.
98. The effect of the volume of dumped imports from the subject country as well as imports from other
countries have been examined by the Authority as follows:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Import from th e subject count ry Nos 1308 1071 1419 552
- Dumped Imports Nos *** *** *** ***
- Un-dumped Imports Nos *** *** *** ***
Import from non-subject country Nos 48 18 35 32
Total Imports Nos 1356 1089 1454 584
Dumped Imports in relation
- Production % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 118 109 72
- Indian Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 97 128 57
- Total imports % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 102 101 96
99. Various interested parties claimed the imports of the subject goods from the subject country have declined
significantly in the POI compared to the previous year. As noted above, the Government of India, vide
notification dated 30th September 2020, mandated the compulsory use of CEV Stage IV emission standards
for di esel non -road e ngines used in construction and agricultural equipment from the existing Bharat Stage
III standards. Accordingly, with effect from 1st April 2021, the PUC was mandatorily required to be
manufactured under the CEV Stage IV. However, the PUC m anufactured or imported prior to 31st March
2021, could still be sold in the Indian market until 30th November 2021. The Authority notes that substantial
imports made in the period of January – March 2021 may have been sold during the period of investiga tion
by the rel ated importers of the exporters.
100. Therefore, the overall imports of the subject goods declined in the POI from the base year 2018 -19. As noted
in the above paragraphs, quantities imported in 2020 -21, were sold in the domestic market during the period
of investigation. Accordingly , the imports declined in the POI.
101. The Authority further notes that:
i. Dumped i mports from the subject country in relation to production of the domestic industry
increased in the year 2020 -21 from the base year and de clined in the POI.
ii. The imports from the non -subject countries as well as un -dumped imports have declined over
the injury period.
iii. The dumped imports from the subject country have declined in both absolute terms and in
relation to production and consumptio n in the POI. However, imports have increased in the
year 2020 -21 compared to the base year 2018 -19.
H.3.2 PRICE EFFECT OF THE DUMPED IMPORTS
102. Vario us interested parties have argued that the domestic industry is not suffering price injury. With regard to
the effect of the dump ed imports on 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 o therwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which otherwise
would have occurred in normal course.
103. Accordingly, the impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of dumped imports of the subject
goods from the subject country has been examined with refer ence to price undercutting and price
suppression/de pression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis the cost of sales and the net sales realization
(NSR) of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed price of the subject imports from the
subject country.
a) Price Undercutting
104. In order to deter mine, whether the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market,
price undercutting has been worked out by comparing the landed price of the subject impor ts with the selling
price of the domestic industry during the injury peri od. Due to significant difference in the prices of PCNs
proposed in the present investigation, the Authority has determined the price undercutting separately for
each PCN.
Particula rs Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
A1XU B2YM Total A1XU B2YM Total A1XU B2YM Total A1XU B2YM Total
Import Quantity Units *** *** 1308 *** *** 1071 *** *** 1419 *** *** 552
Net Sale s Realization INR in
Lacs/Unit *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Landed Pric e INR in
Lacs/Unit *** ***
35.37 *** ***
30.50 *** ***
33.28 *** ***
44.13
Price Undercutting INR in
Lacs/Unit *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Price Underc utting % *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Price Undercutting % -
Range 40-
50% 40-
50% 40-
50% 40-
50% 40-50% 40-50% 30-
40% 40-
50% 40-
50% 20-30% 40-
50% 30-
40%
105. Interested parties have argued that even when there was no dumping, there was posit ive price undercutting .
In this regard, the Authority notes that there is no evidence on record which suggests that there was no
dumping during the injury period.
106. It has also been argued that since the price undercutting and injury ma rgin are in the same range, it is
indicati ve that the domestic industry is selling its products at their ‘optimum ’ price. In this regard, the
Authority notes that the NIP and NSR solve different purposes during an investigation, and cannot be
compared. It may be noted that the NIP is a notional pr ice, which is calcu lated in accordance with the
methodology prescribed by Annexure III . On the other hand, NSR is th e actual price at which the domestic
industry has sold the PUC in the domestic market. In any case , on examining the a ctual figures of the
domestic industry , the Authority notes that the landed price of the subject imports is below the NSR of the
domestic industry resulting in positive price undercuttin g.
e) Price Suppression / Depression
107. In order to determine whether t he dumped imports are sup pressing or depressing the domestic prices and
whether the effect of such imports is to depress domestic prices to a significant degree or prevent increases
in domestic prices which otherwise would have occurred to a significant de gree, the Authority notes the
changes in the costs and prices over the injury period. Due to significant difference in the prices of PCNs
proposed in the present investigation, the Authority has analysed the price suppression / depression
separately for PCN s.
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
A1XU B2YM Total A1XU B2YM Total A1XU B2YM Total A1XU B2YM Total
Import Quantity Units *** *** 1308 *** *** 1071 *** *** 1419 *** *** 552
Net Sa les Realization INR in
Lacs/Unit *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 98 94 90 99 94 93 112 113 120
Landed Price INR in
Lacs/Unit *** *** 35.37 *** *** 30.50 *** *** 33.28 *** *** 44.13
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 99 89 86 108 92 94 136 112 125
Cost of Sales INR in
Lacs/Unit *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 109 104 101 125 127 124 125 140 145
108. It is seen that throughout the injury period, the landed price of the subject imports has remained below the
cost and the selling price of the domestic industry . The la nded price of the subject imports and selling price
of the domestic industry declined in 2019 -20, however, during the same period the cost of the domestic
industry increased . Further, in the year 2020 -21, both landed price and sell ing price increased at almost the
same rate but the cost has increased at significant rate . Further, in the period of investigation, increase in
landed price of the subject imports is more than the increase in the cost and selling price of the domestic
industry . However, the selli ng price and landed prices is significantly lower compared to the cost of sales.
109. With regard to the interested parties’ submission that the landed value increased at a higher rate than the
domestic selling price, the Authority note s that the domestic indu stry was unable to increase its prices due to
the price pressu re created by the dumped imports.
110. Based on the indexed figures of the domestic industry , certain interested parties also argued that the cost has
decreased by 97 indexed points, while the domestic industry ’s selling price has increased by 20 indexed
points. The Authority finds this argument to have no factual basis.
H.3.3 Economic Parameters Pertaining To The Domestic Industry
111. Annexu re - II of the Rules lays down that t he determination of injury sh all involve an objective examination
of the consequent impact of dumped imports on the domestic producers of such products. The Rules further
provide for an objective evaluation of all relevant economi c parameters and indices h aving a bearing on the
state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share,
productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity: factors affecting domestic prices, the
magnitude of margin of dump ing actual and potential nega tive effects on cash flow, inventories,
employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, various injury parameters
relating to the domestic industry are discussed herein be low.
a) Capacity, Product ion, Capacity Utilization And Domestic Sales
112. The capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales over the entire injury period was as
follows:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Capacity - PUC Units *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 100
Production - PUC Units *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 69 100 57
Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 69 100 57
Domestic Sales - PUC Units *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 69 93 76
113. Interested parties have raise d concerns about the ‘variation ’ in the capacity utilization of the domestic
industry . In this regard, it has been noted that the domestic industry ’s capacity utilization increased in 2020 -
21, owing to the impending change in e mission standards. The domest ic industry produced both BS -III and
CEV -IV norms compliant wheel loaders in that period. It is also seen that:
i. The installed capacity of the petitioner has remained constant. However, the domestic industry is
operating with idle capacities.
ii. The productio n and domestic sales for the PUC has declined in the POI compared to the year 2020 -21
and the base year .
b) Market Share
114. Various interested parties have argued that despite the contraction in demand, the market share of the subject
imports has declined, w hile the market share of the domestic industry has remained stable . In this regard, the
Authority notes that t he market sh are of the subject imports and the domestic industry over the entire injury
period was as follows:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020-21 POI
Imports from China PR % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 97 128 58
Imports from other countries % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 45 86 91
Total Imports % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 96 126 59
Domestic industry % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 82 110 104
Market Share of Supporters % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 37 41 26
Other Domestic Producers % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 115 73 134
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100%
115. It is seen that the market share of the imports from the subject country has declined particularly in the period
of investigation . However, as noted above , substantial quantities of the PUC were imported in the pre -POI
period which were sold during the period of investigation. During the same period, m arket share of the
domestic indu stry remained same .
116. The Authority notes that the market share of the other domestic producers (including LiuGong India and
Caterpillar India) has improved considerably, on the other hand, the market share of the domestic in dustry
and supporter has declin ed. However, the Authority notes that market share of the imports from the subject
country has increased until the year 2020 -21 compared to the base year of 2018 -19 but witnessed a decline
in the POI. As noted above by the Au thority, various exporters have exported the PUC in substantial
quantities in the pre -POI period, whi ch were further sold by their domestic affiliates/importers during the
POI.
c) Profitability , Cash Profits And Return On Investments
117. Information with respe ct to profitability, return on inv estment and cash profits was as follows:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Cost of Sales INR in
Lacs/Unit *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 110 131 131
Selling Price INR in
Lacs/Unit *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 99 104 117
Profit/(Los s) INR in
Lacs/Unit *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 -654 -1788 -931
Profit/(Loss) INR in Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 -453 -1665 -710
Cash Profits INR in Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 -276 -1111 -463
PBIT INR in Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 -453 -1665 -710
Return on capital employed % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 -522 -889 -423
118. Interested parties have argued that the losses incurred by the domestic industry have declined in th e POI, as
compared to the previous year. In this regard, the Authority notes :
i. The profitability of the domestic industry has declined significantly, and the domestic industry is
incurring losses.
ii. The domestic industry started incurring cash losses from 201 9-20.
iii. While the losses of the dome stic industry declined in the period of investigation, the losses are at
significant levels.
iv. The return earned by the domestic industry is negative .
119. Interested parties have also argued that even though the imports made b etween January 2021 – March 2021
were sold in the POI , the domestic industry ’s losses have decreased in the POI. Interested parties have also
argued that profitability parameters have improved during the POI, and therefore, that period was a period
of rec overy for the domestic industry . In this regard, the domestic industry submitted that it could increase
the sell ing price of the PUC slightly from the previous year at higher rate than increase in the cost , therefore
the losses declined in the POI compared to the previous year. However, th e domestic industry’s prices
continued to remain suppressed by the dumped impo rts from China, and therefore, the domestic industry
continued to make extreme losses during the POI.
d) Inventories
120. Information with respect to inventories is as follows:
Particul ars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Opening Inventories Unit *** *** *** ***
Closing Inventories Unit *** *** *** ***
Average Inventories Unit *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 166 688 646
121. Interested parties ha ve argued that it is not clear how th e increase in inventory in 2020 -21 as compared to
2018 -19 was more than six times, when the domestic sales of the domestic industry only declined slightly .
In this regard, the Authority has verified the information prov ided by the domestic industry . The Au thority
notes that due to the change in emission norms in 2020 -21, the domestic industry also manufactured BS -III
compliant wheel loaders before March 31, 2021, for sale in the domestic market till November 30, 2021.
Accordingly, th ere was a spike in the o pening inventories in the beginning of the POI, i.e., April 1, 2021.
However, the Authority also notes the closing inventory of the domestic industry stabilized to pre -2021
levels during the POI. Therefore, the average inventory dur ing the POI has increase d compared to the base
year.
122. Additionally, the Authority also notes that the decline in the domestic sales of the domestic industry in the
POI is substantial.
123. Interested parties have requested the Authority to assess the inventory on a semi -annual basi s. In this regard,
the Authority has followed its consistent practice to assess injury to the domestic industry ’s economic
parameters. It is seen that the average inventory of the domestic industry has increased th roughou t the injury
period.
a) Productivity, Employment, And Wages
124. Information with respect to productivity, employment and wages over the injury period is as under:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Productivity per day Units/Day *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 69 100 57
Productivi ty per employee Units/Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 90 109 73
Employment Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 77 91 79
Wages INR in Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 117 178 128
125. Productivity, and e mployment have declined over the injur y period. However, the wages have increased in
the period of investigation compared to the base year.
126. Interested parties have argued that 400 employees were retrenched during COVID. In this regard, the
domestic industr y has clarified that majority of thes e employees were re -hired in the same year.
b) Growth
127. The information with respect to growth of the domestic industry with respect to the base year is given
below:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Production Y/Y -30.87% 44.05% -42.38%
Sales Y/Y -30.82 % 34.60% -18.08%
Profit/(Loss) per unit Y/Y -754.15% 173.28% -47.94%
Inventory Y/Y 65.85% 314.71% -6.03%
Market Share Y/Y -17.72% 33.50% -5.35%
Profit/(Loss) before tax Y/Y -552.54% 267.83% -57.35%
Cash Profit Y/Y -376.07% 302.43% -58.31%
ROI Y/Y -621.64% -70.49% 52.46%
128. It is seen that the growth of the domestic industry has been negative on all the parameters in the period of
investigation except return on investment. However, the domestic industry continue s to have a negative
return on investments in the POI. The growth of the domestic industry was negative as compared to 2019 -
20.
c) Ability Of Raise Capital Investments
129. The interested parties have argued that the domestic industry has made new investments in Rajasthan and
Gujarat. It is seen that the ROCE earned on investments on the PUC already made is negative.
d) Magnitude Of Dumping Margin
130. It is seen that the dumping margin is more than de minimis and significant .
H.4 CAUSAL LINK AND NON – ATTRIBUT ION ANALYSIS
H.4.1 Submissions Made By The Other Interested Parties
131. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the this:
i The domestic industry ’s claim of injury is patently false, as C aterpillar India has not ma de loss
making sales during the POI in the domestic market.
ii There has been a very sharp decline in the demand for the subject goods, mainly on account of the
effects of the COVID -19 Pandemic. The demand has fallen from 100 in the base year to 74 in the
POI. The fall in demand has caused a decline in the production o f the domestic industry , resulting in
loss of economies of scale, escalation in costs, etc., making the domestic industr y’s products
overpriced for the Indian market. The injury if any is on a ccount of the sharp contraction in demand.
iii Consequent to the change in emission norms, the domestic industry had to upgrade its facilities and
selection of components, resulting in cost escalation. The B S-IV wheel loaders were more expensive,
and it too k the market some time to adapt to higher priced products. The c hange in norms created a
disturbance on the demand and supply front, causing temporary adverse effect on the domestic
industry and other Indian producers. Such ill effects cannot be attributed to the imports.
iv The respondents specifically submit that the domestic industry has specifically omitted reference to
competition between domestic producers as the other known factor causing injury to the domestic
industry .
v The wheel loader market is o perating on thin margins, due to stiff competition between domes tic
producers. The profitability of all domestic producers has remained moderate due to severe price
competition. The price in the Indian market is not driven by the imports, but by the compet ition
between the local producers.
vi The POI data regarding total imports into India from China PR and domestic sales of self -produced
wheel loaders by LiuGong India shows that the performance of the domestic industry is impacted by
competition between the domestic producers.
vii When sales of other domestic producers in Ind ia during the POI is also analysed, it would be clear
that the domestic industry is impacted by competition between domestic producers and not by
imports into India.
viii Despite the decline in the domestic industry ’s sales volume, there is an unreasonable incr ease in the
expenses on commissions, discounts, rebates, etc.
ix The domestic industry has incurred high depreciation costs. The domestic industry has experienced
losses since 2019 -20, primarily due to an increase in depreciation costs. The depreciation cost has
risen from 100 index points in 2018 -19 to 179 index points in 2019 -20. Concurrently, the profit
before tax (PBT) of the domestic industry has declined from 100 index points in 2018 -19 to (653)
index points in 2019 -20.
x Furthermore, the domestic industr y has failed to provide the information regarding the interest cost
incurred during the injury investigation period, which is a violation of Trade Notice No. 05/2021.
xi For 2020 -21 and POI, the domestic industry incurred disproportionate higher freight, com mission,
and rebate, which adversely impacted the profitability. Such an increase in commission, discount,
and freight is likely on account of (a) higher commission pai d for the resale of back log inventory;
and (b) new offers such as preferential down paym ent and payment days introduced by the domestic
industry to boost sales.
xii In a report published by Indian Construction Equipment manufacturers Association (ICMA), for FY
2021 -22, various indust ry leaders have given their view s regarding the challenges faced in the year
and the way forward. The industry players have stated that the FY 2021 -22, has seen a decline in
demand in the construction equipment industry due to suppl y constraints, COVID -19 etc. None of
them have made a whisper saying that the imports ar e causing any injury to the industry. In fact, Mr.
Deepak Shetty, Convener, ICEMA SMART Infra Panel and CEO & Managing Director of the
domestic industry , has also point ed factors other than im port to be a cause of concern. The domestic
industry ’s claim tha t the injury suffered by them is on account of imports, is also not in line with the
views of the other industry players.
xiii The domestic industry ’s deterioration in economic parameters overlaps with the COVID -19
pandemic. In comparison to FY 2018 -2019, FY 2 019-2020 shows a decline in most of the sales -
related metrics, followed by a rebound in FY 2020 -2021, and then a small decline during the injury
investigation period. This trend coincides with the COVID -19 pandemic and the period when the
new Ind ian emissi on regulations come into effect. As a result, the domestic industry suffered the
injury on account of the COVID -19 pandemic and not on account of the subject imports.
xiv Earlier imports made dur ing FY 2020 - 21 were in anticipation of change in emission norms and thus
it cannot be claimed that JCB suffered on account of the alleged dumped imports.
xv The petition does not consider external factors like depressed market conditi ons, internal problems,
COVID -19, devaluation of the rupee, inflation, price increase of bulk commodity on the global and
Indian market.
xvi The injury assessment should be done post removal of Bharat III norms since BS -III norm machinery
will not be imported/ sold in the future. Sinc e anti -dumping duties are progressive in nature,
machinery with obsolete emission norms/legally barred technology, should be removed for the
purpose of any injury calculations.
xvii The domestic industry ’s losses are on account of its ow n inefficiency and lack of acceptability of the
domestic industry’s 5.5 T (455ZX) wheel loader in the Indian market, on account of costly add -ons,
for which there was no demand in the market.
H.4.2 Submissions Made By The Domestic Industry
132. The domestic industry has made the fo llowing submissions with respect to the this:
i The imports of the PUC from countries other than China PR are not significant in terms of volume
and are below de-minimis . Further, the price at which the imports are made from other than subject
countr y is not injuring the domestic industry . Therefore, any injury to the domest ic industry cannot
be attributed to third country imports.
ii The export performance of the domestic i ndustry has not affected its financial performance.
Crucially, the export performance o f the domestic industry has not been taken into consideration
when det ermining the effect of the dumped imports and the extent of the injury. Therefore, the injury
canno t be attributed to the domestic industry ’s export performance.
iii There has been no injury caused to the domestic industry on account of change in technology.
iv The domestic industry has only considered information related to the PUC for the purpose of injury
analysis. Therefore, the injury demonstrated above cannot be attributed to the performan ce of other
products of the domestic industry .
v During the POI, there w ere no such constrai nts (such as raw material shortages, power shortage, tax,
capacity/investment constraints, etc.,) on the operations of the domestic industry concerning the
PUC.
vi The P UC inventory level of the domestic industry at the onset of the plant shutdown was *** units
which is enough to meet the demand of the country for approximately 30 days (based on the average
demand per day in FY 2020 -21).
vii There are no trade restrictive pra ctices that can be considered germane to the material injury suffered
by the domestic indu stry.
viii As demonstrated by the domestic industry , it has not incurred any interest cost during the POI or
injury period. As a result, it has not reported the same as pa rt of Proforma IV -A.
ix The domestic industry submits that the capital e mployed has increased mainly on account of the
inventory of wheel loaders .
x The overall depreciation at plant level has decreased during the POI .
xi It is submitted that the domestic indust ry was required to make certain investments in tooling and
machinery r equired for the purpose of manufacturing CEV Stage IV wheel loaders . Therefore, there
was a slight increase in the fixed assets employed.
H.4.3 Non-Attribution Analysis
133. As per the AD Rules, 1995 , the Authority, inter alia , is required to examine any known factor s other than
the dumped imports which at the same time are causing injury to the domestic industry , so that the injury
caused by these other factors may not be attributed to the du mped imports. Factors which may be relevant in
this respect include, inter a lia, 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 bet ween the
foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and the
productivity of the domestic industry . It has been examined below wheth er factors other than dumped
imports could have contributed to the injury to the domestic industry .
a) Volume Of Imports From Third Countries
134. The Authority no tes that the imports of the product under consideration f rom non -subject countries are not
in sign ificant quantity. Also, the prices at which imports of the PUC were made from n on-subject
countries is significantly higher than prices of the subject country .
b) Export Performance And Captive Consumption
135. The Authority notes that the export performance of the domestic industry has not impacte d its economic
parameters. The export p erformance of the domestic industry has not been taken into consideration when
determining the effect of the dumped imports and t he extent of the injury caused to the domestic industry .
c) Development Of Technology
136. At the on -site verification, the domest ic industry demonstrated that the change in emission norms did not
attribute t o the injury caused to the domestic industry .
d) Performance Of Other Products Of The Company
137. The domestic industry has only considered information related to the PUC for t he purpose of injury analysis.
Therefore, the injury demonstrated above cannot be attributed t o the performance of other products of the
domestic industry .
e) Trade Restrictive Practices And Competition Between The Foreign And Domestic Producers
138. There a re no trade restrictive practices that can be considered germane to the material injury suffered by the
domestic industry .
f) Contraction In Demand And Changes In Pattern Of Consumption
139. The Authority notes that demand of the subject goods as determined has declined in the POI. However, as
noted above, t his is predominantly on account of the imports in la rge quantities in the pre -POI period which
were sold during the POI. Therefore, the demand figures were distorted in the POI on account of the change
in the emission regulation. Thus , contraction in demand or change in the pattern of consumption could not
have caused injury to the domestic industry .
140. The Authority notes several submissions made by the interested parties on the improvement of market share
of the other domestic manufact urer of wheel loaders and increase in the inter -se competition between the
domestic producers. In this regard, the Authority notes that the market share of the other domestic producers
(including LiuGong India and Caterpillar In dia) has improved considerab ly, on the other hand, the market
share of the domestic industry and suppo rter has declined. However, the Authority notes that market share of
the imports from the subject country has increased until the year 2020 -21 compared to the base year of
2018 -19 but witnessed a decline in the POI. As noted above by the Authority, various importers/exporters
have exported the PUC in substantial quantities in the pre -POI period, which were sold during the POI.
141. During the on -site verificatio n, it was demonst rated that the depreciation cost did not cause injury to the
domestic industry . It was also verified that the domestic industry did not incur any interest costs. It was also
noted that factors such as commission and freight have not caused injury to the domestic industry .
I. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
142. The Authority has determined the NIP f or the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in the
Rules read with Annexure III, a s amended. The NIP of the product under consideratio n has been determined
by adopting the information/data relating to the duly verified cost of production provided by the domestic
industry for the POI. The NIP has been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject country
for calculating injur y margin. For determining the NIP, the best utilisation of the raw materials and utilities
has been cons idered over the injury period. Best utilisation of production capacity over the injury period has
been considered. Extraordinary or non -recurring expens es have been excluded from the cost of production.
A reasonable return (pre -tax @ 22%) on average capita l employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus
average working capital) for the product under consi deration was allowed as pre -tax profit to arrive at the
NIP as prescribed in Annexure III to the Rules.
143. Based on the landed price and the NIP determined a s above, the injury margin as determined by the
Authority is provided in the table below. Further, s eparate injury margin has been determined for PCNs.
Injury Margin
Producer's/ exporter's name NIP per unit
(US$) Landed
value per
unit (US$) Injury
margi n per
unit (US$) Injury
margin
% Injury
margin %
range
Guangxi Liugong Machinery Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 50-60
Caterpillar (Qingzhou) Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 30-40
Caterpillar (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** (40-50)
Caterpillar Group *** *** *** *** 10-20
Liebherr Machinery (Dalian) Co. Ltd *** *** *** *** (40-50)
Shandong Lingong Construction Machinery
(SDLG) *** *** *** *** 30-40
M/s XCMG Construction Machinery Co.,
Ltd. -Technology Branch *** *** *** *** 70-80
Any other producer *** *** *** *** 70-80
J. POST -DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
J.1 SUBMISSIONS BY INTERESTED PARTIES
144. Post Disclosure comments made by the other interested parties is as follows:
i The Authority is requested to confirm in the final finding the exclusion of wheel loaders in
Completely Knocked Down (CKD) or component form and battery -operated wheel loaders
from the scope of the PUC.
ii Rated pay load is a technical and a standard parameter that is used by all manufacturers of
wheel loader. There is no reason to dis trust the declared rated payload capacity of a
producer. There is no incentive for the producer to overstate or understate rated payloa d
capacity of its wheel loader since the wheel loader with a specific rated payload would be
used for a specific industry segme nt.
iii Rated payload alone is a determinative criterion for users. Rated payload is also
determinative for deciding the applicabili ty of wheel loaders in the concerned industry
segment. Therefore, it is incorrect to undermine the significance of rated payload by stating
that it is a self -certified parameter.
iv JCB claimed that its model “would also have a rated payload capacity in the r ange of about
6,533 Kg” (as noted in para. 5. p of the disclosure statement) – it is not clear how the
Authority observed in its examination that JCB model can lift about 7,000 Kg.
v If such a sample or theoretical demonstration is the criterion, then the de clared rated
payload capacity of 7000 Kg can also lift and operate with a payload of about 8,300 Kg.
Thus, the substantia l gap between the wheel loader produced by the domestic industry and
the wheel loader with a rated payload capacity of 7000 Kg will rem ain. It is arbitrary to
compare the so -called theoretical payload of the domestic industry with the declared rated
payloa d of Guangxi Liugong.
vi It can be seen that rated payload capacity (of more than 7,000 Kg) is one of the mandatory
criteria for seeking e xclusion. In other words, if the imported wheel loader fulfils the
condition (b), (c), and (d) but does have a declared r ated payload capacity of 7,000 Kg or
less, it will be covered within the scope of the PUC. It will not be excluded from the scope
of the PUC on the ground that its ‘theoretical payload’ is 8,300 Kg even though the rated
payload capacity is 7,000 Kg or less . Thus, the Authority should give equal weightage to
the rated payload capacity throughout the investigation and cannot play fast and l oose at
the same time.
vii With regard to the observation that wheel loaders with a rated payload capacity of 7,000
Kg have b een imported into the country at a price much lower than the wheel loaders of
rated payload capacity of 5,585 Kg, the respondents note that the price of wheel loaders
with rated payload capacity of 7,000 Kg cannot be a relevant criterion while assessing th e
technical substitutability between these two products.
viii The Authority has considered only parameters such as rated payload, engine gro ss power,
the distance between the right and left wheel, and the distance between the front and back
wheel ax les. The Aut hority is requested to consider other parameters such as automatic/
manual transmission, brake – wet brakes/dry brakes, and gear pumps/ piston pumps.
ix The detailed submissions highlighting statutory restrictions on the use of wheel loaders
with a payload ca pacity of 5,585 KG to lift a payload of 7,000 KG have not been examined
by the Authority.
x SDLG has filed detailed submissions highlight ing statutory restrictions on the use of wheel
loaders with a payload capacity of 5,585 KG to lift a payload of 7,000 KG. These
submissions were neither recorded nor examined by the Authority.
xi Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, JCB India Ltd.'s wheel load ers are legally restricted
to carrying a maximum laden weight of 5,585 KG. This legal limitation makes them
distinct from wheel loaders with a 7,000 KG payload capacity and not considered "like
articles."
xii There is a significant cost/price difference (i.e., about 40%) between automatic/manual
transmission, brake – wet brakes/dry brakes, and gear pumps/piston pumps . GCPL is
willing to provide actual cost differences on a confidential basis to the Authority.
xiii The Authority has constructed normal value based on the domestic industry’s data which is
not comparable with the imported wheel loaded on account of the aforesa id parameter s i.e.,
transmission, brake, and pumps. The said finding is incorrect as these parameters have a
significant bearing on the costs of wh eel loaders.
xiv The Authority is requested to compare normal value and injury margins for SKD wheel
loaders ind ependently a nd make necessary adjustments for accurate comparison, rather
than comparing them with CBU wheel loaders.
xv The demand/supply of the firs t two -quarters of the POI was plagued with exceptional
circumstances that created abnormal market conditions – the same i s being used as a
pretext to claim injury. Therefore, the POI must be changed.
xvi Various factors such as COVID, changes in emission norms , etc should be considered
while assessing injury.
xvii The change in norms resulted in cost escalation. The whee l loaders be came more expensive
and it took time for the market to adapt to higher -priced products. The change in norms
which created a disturbance in demand -supply cannot be attributed to imports.
xviii There was a significant fall in demand on account of the COVID -19 pan demic, which in
turn caused a decline in production. Thus, this resulted in loss of economies of scale,
escalation in costs, etc and in turn making domestic industry’s products overpriced.
xix Inter -se competition between domestic producers has b een overlook ed and injury due to
these factors has been attributed to imports.
xx Illustrative calculation has been provided on a confidential basis – a levy of 20% duty
would erode contractors’ profitability by ***% and a levy of 40% would impact
profitability by ***%. Interested parties are willing to provide actual calculations on a
confidential basis to the Authority.
xxi Imposition of duties would be detrimental to the users as the PUC is used in applications
such as mining, port operations, and road construction.
xxii CQL did not receive any questionnaire from the Authority. It came to kno w about the
investigation from CCME.
xxiii The name of the participating entity is Caterpillar (Qingzhou) Ltd and not Caterpillar
(Qingzhour) Ltd.
xxiv Caterpillar group’s name was not given in the l ist of known exporters in the application. A
hearing was fixed on PC N, but to Caterpillar groups surprise, it was not included in the
parties called upon to participate. Despite making a specific request, it was not allowed to
participate in the PCN hearin g on 3rd November 2022.
xxv Caterpillar group filed objections to PCN methodology on 2nd November 2022 and vide
letter dated 4th November 2022 requested a meeting on PCN methodology. However, this
was not accepted. On 17 November 2022, the Authority confirmed the PCN proposed at
the time of initiation.
xxvi CIPL is a domestic producer of wheel loaders as it manufactures under contract
manufacturi ng in India. It undertakes various activities connected to the manufacturing of
wheel loaders. CIPL would therefore quali fy as a domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the
AD Rules.
xxvii CMS manufactures in Banda, Maharashtra, and is neither an importer nor relat ed to an
exporter/importer of goods from China. CMS manufactures a substantial quantity of wheel
loaders under the brand Hindustan and is one of the market leaders in its segment. Hence,
CMS is an eligible producer and was required to be considered for pre -initiation polling
and standing of JCB as a domestic industry. Polling is a pre -condition for the initiation of
an inves tigation.
xxviii L&T and Tata Hitachi, who are not inv olved in importing or producing the subject
goods, should be included in the domes tic industry scope.
xxix Guangxi Liugong made substantial exports to India during the years prior to the POI but
not during th e POI.
xxx The Authority has not examined the relevan t factors for deciding the eligibility of a
producer. An objective assessment of these factors would show that LiuGong India is an
eligible domestic industry.
xxxi There is no specific questionnaire for producer s opposing the levy. CMS filed a
communication providing certain information. No reason of finding has been given for
exclusion of CMS from domestic producers eligible for consideration as a domestic
industry.
xxxii Caterpillar group denies that it has dumped wh eel loaders to India. A determination be
made that the exports of caterpillar entities are not at dumped prices, whereby investigation
against these entities be terminated.
xxxiii Various economic parameters have b een changed. The petitioner did not mention
anything about these changes in the written submissions filed by them post -oral hearing
dated 14th April 2023. No information with regard to changes in the above parameters has
been filed and circulated to other interested parties for their comments.
xxxiv The Auth ority has observed that there is an improvement in domestic manufacturers'
market share and an increase in inter -se competition between the domestic players.
However, the Authority has given a finding that the domestic industry is suffering injury.
xxxv There is no volume effect, hence there cannot be any injury on account of imports.
xxxvi The Authority has noted that the market share of imports d eclined in the POI whereas the
domestic industry’s market share remained t he same. This observation does not lead to the
fact that JCB is suffering as its market share remains unchanged. In fact, other producers'
market share increased.
xxxvii The d omestic indus try’s losses have declined significantly and it is in the recovery phase.
xxxviii If losses incurred by the domestic industry wer e higher in the POI as compared to 2020 -21,
then it would be correct to claim that the imports are causing injury to the domestic
indus try. However, the losses incurred by the domestic industry declined substa ntially in
the POI as compared to pre -POI perio d.
xxxix Quarterly evaluation was requested because Chinese producers/exporters only sent CEV
Stage IV compliant wheel loaders to India durin g the POI, while BS III compliant loaders
and CEV Stage IV compliant wheel loaders were sold in the Indian market during different
quarters. This discrepancy led to the request for quarterly injury assessments.
xl The period of April 2021 – June 2021 should b e excluded from the POI for eliminating the
impact of second wave of Covid -19. The Authority has not provided any respons e to the
claim that the adverse impact of second wave of Covid -19 pandemic in the POI should be
excluded for assessing material injury.
xli The d omestic industry has huge inventories that it could not liquidate in the POI.
xlii The injury margin computed for the Ca terpillar group is very high which may be due to
inappropriate NIP.
xliii The domestic industry has suffered losses due to this significant i ncrease in cost of sales
which is due to a substantial increas e in steel prices and other input costs.
xliv If the rate of ste el applicable during the POI is considered, it will result in an overtly high
determination of NIP.
xlv The Authority is requested to adjus t the determination of NIP so that abnormal and
temporary incr eases in steel prices would not result in an exaggerated an d unrealistic
determination of NIP.
xlvi JCB incurs high sales and marketing expenses as a business strategy to optimise its sales.
The said abnormal expenses would be reflected in the NIP and construct ed normal value,
which has in turn led to high dumping and injury margins. Appropriate adjustments may be
made to set off additional expenses.
xlvii Anti-dumping duty, if any, should be recommended f or 2 years.
xlviii The Authority should grant a lower rate of duty to the participating producer than the
residual category.
xlix The non-injurious price determined by the Authority is highly inflated and is not based on
real situation. The Authority should adopt actu al profit earned by the domestic industry
during a period when dumping was not alleged and not 22% ROCE. Adoption of 22%
gives undue protection to the domestic industry.
J.2 SUBMISSIONS BY DOMES TIC INDUSTRY
145. Post disclosure comments made by the domestic in dustry is as follows:
i The domestic industry submitted that it was demonstrated during the spot verification that a
wheel lo ader of 5,585 KG can lift and operate with a payload of about 7,000 KG.
ii The domestic industry submitted that there are no legal cons traints on a wheel loader to lift
a higher or lower load than its self -declared rated payload capacity by any legal body,
including the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and the Automotive Industry
Standards and submitted that wheel loaders above 5,5 85kg must not be excluded from the
scope of the investigation.
iii A wheel loader qualifies as a ‘construction equipment vehicl e’ or ‘non -transport vehicle’
within the meaning of Rule 2(cab) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. None of the
certification or registration documents are requir ed to declare the payload/laden weight for
this category (i.e., construction equipment) of vehicles. It may be noted that all tests
relating to construction equipment vehicles are performed in unladen condition, in
accor dance with the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which is demonstrated through a
sample certificate of registration issued for a wheel loader by the International Centre for
Automotive Technology .
iv The laden weight is not specified for wheel loaders (or oth er construction equipment
vehicles) in the certificate of registration. Therefore, Section 113(3)(b) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is not applicable to wheel loaders. Thus, the exclusion of wheel loaders
merely on the basis of rated payload capacity is l ikely to result in any imposed anti -
dumping duty being rendered redundant, since comparable wheel loaders may have
differen t rated payload capacities.
v Apart from establishing commercial substitutability, the fact that the price of LiuGong’s
model (rated p ayload capacity of 7,000 KG) is sign ificantly lower than the domestic
industry’s model also implies that the LiuGong produc t is being sold at extraordinarily low
and injurious prices, and directly competing with the domestic industry’s product.
vi With regard to wheel loaders with a rated payload capacity of 4,500 KG and less than
2,000 KG models are substitutable with the wheel loaders with a payload capacity of 4,500
KG technically and commercially. Therefore, to be included in the product scope of the
inves tigation.
vii Similarly, the domestic industry submits that a wheel loader with a payload capacity of less
than 2,000 KG is sub stitutable with a wheel loader having a payload capacity of 3,300 KG
and thus must not be excluded.
viii It has been noted that none of th e interested parties have provided any evidence of any
model being included in the scope of the PUC unfairly due to a concu rrent reading of the
exclusion parameters. Accordingly, it has found that exclusion based on only one or two
parameters is susceptibl e to circumvention of any imposed duties and has proposed to
retain the ‘and’ exclusion conditions as part of the PU C.
ix A product scope determined on the basis of only one parameter (such as the rated payload
capacity), may result in the exclusion of wheel loaders which are substitutable with the
domestic industry's products. Therefore, to prevent such a situation, it is essent ial to
evaluate all four parameters simultaneously. It reiterates that a wheel loader is a complex
engineering product, which must no t be determined by a singular parameter/factor.
x The domestic industry also reiterates that the scope identified for each ex clusion parameter
is not arbitrary, and is based on market research.
xi A battery -operated wheel loader satisfies all 4 characteristics to fall within the scope of the
PUC. The domestic industry reiterates that the PUC includes all wheel loaders irresp ective
of their mechanical energy delivery platform (i.e., internal combustion engine or battery -
powered engine/motors). The engine or batte ry-powered motor is merely a platform meant
to provide energy for the operation of the wheel loader. The only differ ence is that internal
combustion engines convert thermal energy into mechanical energy whereas a battery -
powered motor converts stored elect rical energy into mechanical energy. Accordingly, such
wheel loaders must be covered under the product scope of the investi gation. From the
perspective of a user, the end -use of the products is the same, irrespective of differences in
supply chain, develop ment and testing infrastructure.
xii The Authority has noted since the domestic industry has not alleged dumping for
components , the inclusion of CKD units of wheel loaders may result in the inadvertent
inclusion of components, and therefore, the expansion of the PUC.
xiii The domestic industry agrees with the definition proposed by the Authority: “A wheel
loader in SKD form con sists o f the machine body/chassis fitted with an engine,
transmission, or axle in a single unit, which may or may not be fitted with one or more
other components.” The proposed definition is based on the views expressed by various
interested parties includ ing the domestic industry. Importantly, the proposed definition
ensures that the parts and components used in manufacturing of wheel loaders are not
inadvertently included within the scope of the PUC.
xiv The Authority has reiterated that the PCN methodology was fina lized by the Authority vide
Notification F. No. 6/4/2022 dated November 17, 2022, and that questionnaire responses
were filed by the interested parties on the basis of the notified PCN methodolo gy. The
Authority has noted that submissions made after the e xpiry of the specific deadlines need
not be entertained by the Authority. However, the Authority has addressed the comments
received before after the finalization of PCN.
xv Battery -operated wheel loaders should be included in the scope of the PUC.
xvi The final PCN methodology allows for a comparison of imported and like articles on the
basis of the kW (power) of the products.
xvii It is crucial to bear in mind that PCN parameters are identified to enable a fair price
comparison between the various product sub -catego ries. Therefore, any parameter selected
for the PCN comparison must have a demonstrable and material impact on the cost and
price of the product.
xviii The parameters are examined separately in terms of impact on the overall price
comparability to show a variati on in the pricing of the PUC by a mere 2.44% :
Comparison of different Wheel Loader models on the basis of transmission, brakes and pu mps
S No Parameter Categories Model/Variant Price (INR) Difference (INR)
1 Transmission Manual Avtech T22 ***
Automa tic 4WG115 *** ***
2 Brakes Wet MT-L3055 ***
Dry *** ***
3 Pumps Piston ***
Gear *** ***
Total Difference in the cost INR/Unit ***
Selling Price of the Wheel Loader INR/Unit ***
Total Difference in the cost compared to the selling price % 0-5%
xix The domestic industry requests the Authority to include battery -operated wheel loaders in the scope
of the PUC.
xx The Authority has rightly noted that JCB India Ltd. is eligible to be considered as domestic industry
under Rule 2(b) and 5(3) of the Anti -Dumping Rules. It has also rightly noted that LiuGong India
Pvt. Ltd. and Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. are no t eligibl e to constitute ‘domestic industry’ given their
relationship with Chinese producers/exporters.
xxi A majority of impo rts (of the POI) took place in pre -POI period whereas the resulting market
distortion, undercutting and injurious impact was only expe rienced i n during the POI as the stocked
imports started entering the domestic commercial market at low prices. The domest ic industry
requests the Authority to find that the decrease in volume of dumped imports is distorted, and does
not reflect the accura te market situation.
xxii The d omestic industry is operating with idle capacities, and that the production and sales for the
PUC has declined in the POI as compared to the previous and the base year.
xxiii The p rofitability of the domestic industry has been adversel y affecte d due to intensified dumping by
the exporters from the subject country and that the profitability has reduced sig nificantly.
xxiv The Authority has also clarified that the inventory of the domestic industry has been verified, and
that the analysis has been done as per its consistent practice. It has also observed that majority of the
400 employees retrenched by the domest ic industry were re -hired.
xxv It has noted that factors such as imports from third countries, export performance and captive
consumption, developm ent of technology, performance of other products of the company, trade
restrictive practices, contraction in dema nd, inter -se competition between domestic producers and
depreciation cost have not caused injury to the domestic industry.
xxvi In lieu of the provision of technical know -how and other requisite document/information, the
domestic industry is required to pay a r oyalty at a pre -determined percentage of the sales made in the
domestic market and exports to South Asian Association for R egional Coo peration (SAARC)
nations. The domestic industry submits that while the royalty payable is accrued on the basis of
sales, t he same is payable for the provision of technical know -how as per transfer technology
agreement .
xxvii The Authority has noted t hat the PCN s differs in terms of associated cost and price of different,
therefore has undertaken price undercutting, dumping and inj ury assessment for each PCN
separately. In light of the, the domestic industry requests the Authority to recommend duties i n the
form of an ad -valorem basis.
J.3 Examination By Authority
i The Authority has examined the post -disclosure comments/submissions ma de by the interested
parties including reiterations which have already been examined suitably and adequately addressed in
the relev ant paras of these final findings. The issues raised for the first time in the post disclosure
comments/submissions made by t he interested parties and considered relevant by the Authority are
examined below.
ii With regard to certain arguments concer ning the rated payload capacity of wheel loaders, the
Authority notes that rated payload capacity is a crucial factor for the PUC and therefore has been
considered as one of the parameters in the PCN. Further, it notes that rated payload capacity is a self-
declare d parameter.
iii While wheel loader with the declared payload capacity of 7,000 KG may lift weight more than
declared payload , the wheel loaders with 5,585 KG and 7,000 KG rated payload capacity have
substantial overlap in various technical specification s as verified by the Authority. Wheel loaders
with rated payload capacity of 5,585 KG and 7,000 KG can lift and operate with a loa d of 7,000 KG,
and are being deployed for the same function at the same site . The domestic industry has
demonstrate d that wheel loa ders of rated payload capacity of 5,585 KG and 7,000 KG are being used
in the same market segment at the same site. In additi on to the technical specification overlap, t he
commercial substitutability is also a relevant factor that has been considered. The Authority notes that
wheel loaders of 7,000 KG are being imported at a price lesser than the domestic selling price of
domest ically produced wheel loaders with rated payloa d capacity of 5,585 KG. Therefore, it is clear
that the wheel loaders with rated pay load capacity of 5,585 KG are technically, commercially, and
functionally substitutable with wheel loaders with rated payload capacity of 7,000 KG . In any case,
the Authori ty reiterates that there is no requirement for the imported and like products to be identical
but need to be similar to each other .
iv With regard to the argument that there are legal constraints on wheel loader s of a rated payload
capacity of 5,585 KG to lift and operate with a load of 7,000 KG, the Authority observes that the
provision hi ghlighted by the interested parties is not applic able to construction equipment vehicles,
such as a wheel loader. Further, t he Authority notes that registration certificate does not include any
specification/parameter with laden weight , therefore, the contention of the interested parties are
inaccurate.
v With regard to Caterpillar not receiving an adequate opportunity to provide its comments on the PCN
methodology, the Authority notes that the initiation notification was published in the official e-
Gazette of India and all the interested parties had access to the same. Further, the relevant embassy
was also intimated in accordance with the Anti -Dumping Rules. The initiation notification allowed
interested parties to place their comments to the proposed PCN methodology on record within 30
days of initiation. In light of the above, the Authority finds that the contention of the Cater pillar with
regard to not being provided adequate opportunity to place its objections to the PCN methodology on
record is unfound ed.
vi Certain interested parties had filed comments on the proposed PCN methodology within the
prescribed deadline. To adequately understand and address such comments, the Authority held a
discussion on the PCN methodology to be adopted in the subject invest igation on November 3, 2022.
Interested parties were further provided time until November 7, 2022, to file their comments on PC N
Methodology. With the regard to the communications, Caterpillar failed to circulate its proposed
PCN methodology to all the int erested parties as per the list issued by the Authority to allow the
interested parties a chance to review and provide their co mments. Accordingly, the Authority has
allowed only those interested parties which had filed their comments within the prescribed deadline
and circulated their comments to other interested parties, to attend the discussion. After due
consideration of the c omments and submissions received from various interested parties, the
Authority had finalized by the PCNs and notified vide Notif ication dated F. No. 6/4/2022 dated
November 17, 2022.
vii The Authority notes that that an anti -dumping investigation is a time -bound process, and submissions
made after the expiry of specific deadlines are not required to be addressed. Nevertheless, the
Auth ority addressed additional comments on the PCN methodology in the relevant section of the
present final findings.
viii The Authorit y reiterates that the interested parties have provided no evidence to establish that these
additional parameters make a notable d ifference to the price comparison of the PUC warranting a
separate PCN parameter , even at this stage of the investigation. In other words, no evidence has been
provided to establish that absence of these parameters in the PCN would distort the assessment of
dumping or injury. On the other hand, the domestic industry has provided relevant data to
demonstrate that the difference in cost of wheel loaders on the basis of these combined additional
parameters suggested by the interested parties is not significant. Accordingly, after examining the
submissions of the interested parties, the Authority did not deem it appropriate to modify t he PCN
methodology.
ix With regard to the definition of the PUC in SKD form, the Authority notes that it has not received
any substant ial comments on the definition proposed by it. It further observes that there is no
requirement to define wheel loaders in CK D form since all wheel loaders other than those in CB U
and SKD (as defined) form, are not covered within the scope of the investiga tion.
x With regard to the submissions relating to the standing of the domestic industry, the Authority notes
that both LiuGo ng India and Caterpillar India are domestic producers , but are not eligible to form
‘domestic industry’ within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Anti -Dumping Rules. An assessment of
the exports made by their related exporters reveals that such exports are su bstantial, and have
remained substantial through the injury period. Given the peculiar circumstances of the present
investigation, the Authority has assessed exports by the related exporters through the injury period as
well, for a holistic examination of whether the relationship between the domestic producers and the
exporters renders them ineligible to constitute ‘domestic industry’ under Rule 2(b) of the Anti -
Dumping Rules. Notably, during the POI , more than 30% of sales b y LiuGong India were wheel
loade rs which were imported prior to the POI.
xi With regard to the contention that Creative Manufact uring Solutions (India) Private Limit ed (CMS )
should be considered as eligible domestic industry, the Authority notes that CMS is a job worker for
the Caterpillar India Private Limited and j ob-workers cannot be considered domestic producers for
the purposes of an anti -dumping investigation. In any event, it may be noted that Caterpi llar India
Private Limited has duly been considered as a domestic producer who is no t eligible as domestic
industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Anti -dumping Rules.
xii With regard to submissions of the inter ested parties regarding an improvement in various economic
parameters, the Authority notes that there is no requirement for a ll economic parameters to be
deteriorating for the Authority to find that the domestic industry has been injured by dumped imports.
xiii With regard to the injury being suffere d by the domestic industry on account of a decline in demand,
the Authority notes th at the domestic industry suffered the highest losses when the demand of the
PUC was relatively high. Therefore, the interested part ies have failed to establish a causal
relationship between the decline in demand and the injury caused to the domestic indust ry.
xiv With regard to the injury being suffered by the domestic industry on account of t he change in
emission norms, the Authority re iterates that the domestic industry demonstrated that there has been
no injury caused to it because of such a change during t he on -site verification.
xv With regard to the claims concerning the calculation of NIP, the Authority notes that the NIP has
been co mputed on the basis of principles laid down in Annexure III of the Anti -Dumping Rules.
xvi As regards the submission made by the domestic industry regar ding disallowance of royalty paid for
technical know -how for computation of NIP, the same has been disallow ed as per Annexure -III to
ADD Rules, 1995 and consistent practice of the Authority. Domestic Industry was requested to
provid e copy of the royalty ag reement to establish whether the royalty expense is made for technical
know -how of the product under consid eration. However, the same was not provided to the Authority.
It was also noted that the royalty payment was made to the rela ted party on the specifi ed percent of
the sales. As the domestic industry has not fully cooperated, NIP has been calculated on the basis of
best available facts and in terms of Rule 6(8) of ADD Rules.
xvii With regard to the submission made by interested partie s concerning 22% return on capital employed
for calculating NIP, the authority notes that NIP has been calculated in accordance wit h Annexure III
of Anti -dumping Rules and consistent practice of the Authority.
K . INDIAN INDUSTRY ISSU ES
K.1 Submissions Made By Other Interested Parties
i The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the this:
ii The i mposition of anti -dumping duty would be detrimental to users and contrary to public interest,
as wheel loaders are used in applicati ons like mining, port operations, road construction etc.
iii Operations carried out at port such as bulk material/ cargo handlin g require wheel loaders to do the
job in a time bound manner. If anti -dumping duties are imposed on whe el loaders, it will increase
the capital cost which will lead to deployment of lesser number of wheel loaders by service
providers to complete the job. T hus, making such service provider business unviable.
iv Further, the cascading effect of anti -dumping duti es could have a bearing on th e material
movement from the port area to the end users. This will in -turn affect the turnaround time of
vessels at the bert h leading to heavy demurrage and other port handling charges.
v Further, imposition of anti -dumping duty may lead to additional outflo w/ negative impact on public
exchequer and publicly funded institutions in terms of increased price of coal and the downstre am
applications like power (thermal power plant), steel etc.
vi Wheel loaders contribute at many stages of various mining operations in cluding coal mining. The
broader stages of mining operations are removal of overburden, blasting, stock piling,
transportati on. Wheel loaders are majorly used in stock piling and transportation activities. An
escalation in the 'on-road price' of wheel load ers will have a bearing on the overall cost of
ownership of the machines for the end users. The end users are typically enti ties engaged as
contractors in such activities. The impact on cost of ownership may be due to following attributable
reasons -
Servic ing of loans - Downpayment, EMls
Resource and capacity constraints
Added operations and maintenance cost.
Contract Prices are generally non -negotiable in nature - Long Term Contracts
Cascading effect on the ecosystem of financial institutions may lead to del inquencies or
even NPAs.
Act as an entry barrier for contractors to bid for coal loading tenders.
vii At the existing rate the c ontractor would go into losses and its operations would become unviable.
Imposition of duty@ ***% would erode the profitability of t he contractor by ***%, whereas a 40%
duty would impact by ***%.
viii As per the prevailing exchange rate, the impact of duty in INR terms is approximately ***/unit.
Considering the average useful life of Loaders as 7 -8 years, the i mpact of duty on downstream
users is highly significant i.e. approximately INR *** to ***per year (excluding finance cost and
taxes).
K.2 Submissions Ma de By The Domestic Industry
146. The domestic industry has made the following submissions:
i There are no conce rns regarding public interest in the present investigation since no users have
participated in the present investigation. Additionally, except LiuGong India, no other interested
party has filed an Economic Interest Questionnaire as well. Notably, no public interest issues were
highlig hted by the LiuGong as well. Therefore, it is not possible for any interested party to bring up
the issue of public inter est at this juncture.
ii Wheel loaders are a very small part of the overall investment in mining and ports, and hence the
impact of incre ased duty would be even more negligible.
iii The impact the PUC is used in a wide array of industries and sectors. The applic ation of the PUC is
generally in quarry/crusher, large -scale construction, infrastructure projects, mining, ports and other
industries. Therefore, the impact of the duties on downstream applications would differ depending on
the scale and size of the proje ct under which the PUC has been de ployed.
iv The impact of the anti -dumping duties cannot be calculated on a per -unit basis. It must be c alculated
on a cost -per-tonnage basis.
v The imposition of 20% duties on the operation of the crusher would lead to an impa ct of about 0.4%
only. As per the off-highway research report for the year 2020, the crusher industry (or quarry
industry) is the large st segment and represents about 43% of the total demand of the PUC.
vi For the rest of the segments like mining, road and co nstruction, ports and other indust ries, the wheel
loader is a much smaller part of the overall investment, and hence the impact of incr eased duty would
be even more negligible.
K.3 Examination By Authority
i. At the outset, the Authority notes that none of th e users of the PUC have cooperated in the present
investigation by filing the relevant user/economic interest questionnaire responses, part icipating in
the oral hearing or filing any submissions. Based on this, there is no evidence placed on record
which s uggests that any imposition of anti -dumping duties would adversely impact the users of the
PUC.
ii The economic interest questionnaire has on ly been filed by LiuGong India and the domestic
industry. LiuGong India did not raise any concerns related to public interest. However, the
domestic indust ry has presented detailed calculations to show that the imposition of an anti -
dumping duty would have a negligible impact on the user industry.
iii One of the importers, M/s Gainwell Commosales Pvt. Ltd. has also provided calculations to claim
that the imposi tion of anti -dumping duty would significantly impact the user industry. The
Authority notes that the Gainwell Commosales has provided the calculations at the operator level
(often hire purchaser) and not at the cost of operations of the mining or port oper ations as submitted
by the domestic industry. Further, Gainwell has not provided the source of inform ation such as life
of wheel loader, interest cost considered, fuel consumption norms, diesel prices etc., to arrive a t the
end-user impact of the duties, i f any. Gainwell Commosales submitted that it may provide the
detailed calculations to the Authority o n confidential basis at this stage of the investigation . It may
be appr eciated that anti -dumping investigations are t ime-bound process , and any new informa tion
at this stage will not be considered by the Authority.
iv Accordingly, the Authority allocated the ownership costs over a period of 7 years, and added other
annual costs (such as manpower, repair, maintenance, fuel). It was found that the impact of a 20 -
40% duty on a wheel loader is negligible for a contractor (hire purchaser).
v In any case, the Authori ty notes that trade remedial measures are intended to restore equal
competitive opportunities in the domestic market by ensuring level playing field to dom estic
producers through imposition of appropriate duties against unfair imports of the subject goods. At
the same time, the Authority is cognizant of the fact that the impact of such duties is not limited to
only the d omestic producers of the PUC but also affects the users as well as consumers of the PUC.
Further, imposition of duties may also lead to com petition issues within the country.
L CONCLUSION
147. After examining the issues raised and submissions made by the inter ested parties and facts made available
before the Authority as recorded in this finding, the Authority concludes that:
i The subject goods ex ported from the subject countr y and the article m anufactured by the domestic
industry are ‘like article’ to each oth er in terms of Rule 2 (d) of the AD Rules , 1995 .
ii The domestic industry satisfies the requirements stipulated under Rule 2 (b) of the AD Ru les, 1995
and application satisfies the standing requirements under Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules, 1995.
iii The application contained all information relevant for the purpose of initiation of the anti –
dumping investigation and necessary evidence in terms of Rul e 5(2) of the AD Rules, 1995 to
justify the initi ation of the present investigation for determination of dumping and material injury to
the domestic industry in terms of Rule 5 (3) of the AD Rules, 1995.
iv The imports of the PUC from the subject country are at dumped prices.
v The domestic industry has suffered material injury due to dumping of the product under
considerat ion from the subject country :
vi Dumped imports from the subject country have declined in both absolute and relative terms during
the POI. How ever, imports have increased in 2020 -21 compa red to the base year 2018 -19. These
imports may have been sold in the d omestic market during the POI, thereby injuring the domestic
industry during the POI.
vii The price undercutting calculated for the dumped impo rts is positive and high during the POI.
viii The landed price of the subject imports has remained below the cost and t he selling price of the
domestic industry. Additionally, the domestic industry was unable to increase its selling price at the
rate at which the cost of sales increased during the POI.
ix The production and domestic sales for the PUC has declined in the POI as compared to the
previous year and the base year.
x The profitability of the domestic industry declined significantly, and the domestic ind ustry is
incurring losses. The return earned by the domestic industry is negative.
xi The growth of the domestic indust ry has been negative on all parameters in the POI.
xii The material injury has been caused by the dumped imports from the subject country , and there are
no other factors which are causing injury to the domestic industry.
M RECOMMENDATIONS
148. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate
opportunity was provided to the domestic industry, o ther domestic producers, Embass y of the subje ct
countr y, producers/exporters of the subject goods from the subject countr y, importers, users, and other
interested parties to provide information with regards to dumping, injury, and causal link. Having initi ated
under Rule 5(3) of the A nti-Dumping Rule s and conducted investigation in accordance with Rule 6 of the
Anti-Dumping Rules regarding dumping, injury and causal link as required under Rule 17 (1) (a) of the
Anti-Dumping Rules and established material in jury to the domestic industry due to subject imports from
the subject countr y, the Authority recommends imposition of anti – dumping duties on the subject imports
from the subject countr y.
149. Considering the nature of the product under consideration and the large number of PCNs involved, the
Authority 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.
150. Further, having regard to the lesser duty rule as enunciated in Rule 17 (1)(b) of the Anti -Dumping Rules, the
Authority recommends imposition of definitive anti -dumping duties equa l to the lesser of margin of
dumping or margin of injury, from the date of n otification to be issued in this regard by the Central
Governmen t, so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, definitive anti -dumping
duties equal to the amo unt as percentage of CIF value indicated in Col 7 of the duty table given be low is
recommended to be imposed from the date of notification t o be issued in this regard by the Central
Government for a period of five (5) years:
Duty Table
S.
No. Customs
Tariff Line Description of
Goods Country of
Origin Country of
Export Producer Duty (% of
CIF value in
US$)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 84295900
and
84295 100 Wheel Loaders * China PR Any
including
China PR Guangxi
LiuGong
Machinery Co.
Ltd. 55.18 %
2. -do- -do- China PR Any
including
China PR Caterpillar
(Qingzhou) Co.,
Ltd. 18.84 %
3. -do- -do- China PR Any
including
China PR Caterpillar
(Suzhou) Co. ,
Ltd. 18.84%
4. -do- -do- China PR Any
including
China PR Liebherr
Machinery
(Dalian) Co. Ltd NIL
5. -do- -do- China PR Any
including
China PR Shandong
Lingong
Construction
Machinery Co.,
Ltd. (“SDLG ”) 34.74%
6. -do- -do- China PR Any
including
China PR XCMG
Construct ion
Machinery Co.,
Ltd. 77.68 %
7. -do- -do- China PR Any
including
China PR Any other
Producer 82.71 %
*“Wheel loader ” is a self -propelled wheel -mounted equipment with an articulation joint, having
front end loading mechanism.
Wheel loader imported in the form of completely built unit (CBU) or semi -knocked down (SKD) are
included within the scope of the in vestigation. H owever, imports of wheel loader in completely
knocked down (CKD) or component form are excluded from the scope of the investigation.
For t he purposes of this recommendation, a wheel loader in SKD form consists of the machine
body/chassis fit ted with an en gine, transmission, or axle in a single unit, which may or may not be
fitted with one or more other components.
Explanation: If chassis/mac hine body is imported without an engine, transmission or axle fitted
into it, no anti-dumping duties sh all be payable .
The following products are excluded from the scope of the investigation:
151. The wheel loaders of the following specifications are to be exc luded from the from the scope of the
investigation:
a) Rated payload capacity of more than 7,000 KG; and
b) Gross engine p ower above 180 kW; and
c) Measured distance at the center between right and left wheel (wheel tread/track) above
2,280 mm; and
d) Measured distan ce between the front and back wheel axles (wheelbase) above 3,350 mm.
All the above parameters are ‘an d’ conditions. In other words, a product
is excluded from the scope of the PUC only if it satisfies all of the above conditions
concurrently.
e) Wheel Load er in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) or component form are excluded from
the scope of the investigation.
f) Battery -opera ted wheel loaders are also excluded from the scope of the investigation.
N FURTHER PROCEDURE
152. An appeal against the recommendation of the Au thority shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant pro visions of the Customs Tariff Act.
ANANT SWARUP, Designated Authority
Uploade d by Dte. of Printing at Governm ent of India Press, Rin g Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text