Full Text
6448 GI/2024
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 288] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2024/ASVINA 12, 1946
CG-DL-E-07102024-257731
**Excluding waterless CtP Plates used for printing on specialised materials such as credit card, security card etc., and not on paper.**
P. Further procedure
183.An appeal against the order of the Central Government that may arise out of this
recommendation shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.
DARPAN JAIN, Designated Authority
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES )
New Delhi, the 28th September, 2024
FINAL FINDINGS
Case No. AD(SSR)- 08/2023
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Digital Offset Printing
Plates” (DOPP) originating in or exported from China PR, Japan, Korea RP, Vietnam,
and Taiwan.
F. No. 7/20/2023 -DGTR - 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
amended from time to time (“AD Rules”).
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”) received an
application from TechNova Imaging Systems (P) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
“applicant” or the “domestic industry”) seeking initiation of a sunset review of the anti-
dumping duty imposed on imports of Digital Offset Printing Plates (hereinafter to be referred to
as “DOPP” or the “subject goods” or “product under consideration” or the “PUC”),
originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam (hereinafter
referred to as the “subject countries”).
2. The original investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the subject
countries was initiated by the Authority vide Notification No. 6/7/2019-DGTR dated
16.05.2019. The Authority issued the preliminary findings vide notification no., F.
No.6/7/2019-DGTR dated 3.10.2019 recommending imposition of provisional anti-
dumping duties on imports of the PUC from the subject countries for a period of six
months. The ministry of finance vide notification no., 02/2020 – Customs (ADD) dated
January 30, 2020 imposed the provisional anti-dumping duty.
3. Thereafter, the Final Findings were issued by the Authority vide Notification No. 6/7/2019-
DGTR dated 15.05.2020, recommending the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties.
On the basis of the said recommendation, definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed by
the Central Government vide Custom Notification No.21/2020-Customs (ADD) dated
29.07.2020 on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from subject
countries. The current anti-dumping duties are in force up to 29.01.2025.
4. On the basis of the duly substantiated application by the domestic industry, and having
satisfied itself, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant
substantiating the likelihood of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry,
and in accordance with Rule 23(1B) of the Rules, the Authority initiated the investigation
on 30.09.2023 to review the need for continued imposition of the duties in force in respect
of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries, and to examine
whether the expiry of existing anti-dumping duty is likely to lead continuation or recurrence
of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry.
B. PROCEDURE
5. The following procedure has been followed with regard to this investigation:
a. The Authority notified the embassies of the subject countries 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.
b. The Authority issued a public notice dated September 30, 2022, published in the
Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating the anti-dumping investigation concerning
imports of the subject goods from the subject countries.
c. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification on 20.10.2023, to the embassies
of the subject countries in India, the known producers and exporters from the subject
countries, 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 relevant information in the form and manner prescribed in the initiation
notifications and make their submissions known in writing within the time limits
prescribed in the initiation notification.
d. The Authority also provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application
filed by the applicant to the known producers/exporters, known importers/users and to
the embassies of the subject countries in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the AD
Rules, 1995 through its email dated 20.10.2023.
e. The embassies of the subject countries in India were also requested to advise the
exporters/producers from their countries to submit their responses to the questionnaire
within the time limit prescribed by the initiation notification. The embassies of the
subject countries were also sent a copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the
producers/exporters along with the names and addresses of the known producers
/exporters from the subject countries.
f. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in the
subject country in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules:
i. Kodak (China) Graphic Communications, China PR
ii. Shanghai Strong States Printing Equipment Co., Ltd. , China PR
iii. Lucky Huaguang Graphics Co., China
iv. Fujifilm Printing Plate (China) Co., Ltd. , China PR
v. Mylan Printing Media Corporation
vi. Top High Image Corporate
vii. Jeil C&P Co., Ltd., Korea RP
viii. Fujifilm Corporation, Japan
g. In response to the above notification, the following producers/ exporters from the
subject countries have submitted the exporter questionnaire response:
i. Lucky Huaguang Graphics Co., Ltd
ii. Kodak (China) Graphic Communications Company Ltd.
iii. Anhui Strong State New Materials Co., Ltd.
iv. Huangshan Jinruitai Technology Co., Ltd.
v. Zhejiang Jinruitai New Material Co. Ltd.
vi. Chongqing Huafeng Di Jet Printing Material Co., Ltd
vii. Fujifilm Corporation
viii. Fujifilm Printing Plate (China) Co., Ltd.
ix. Fujifilm Graphic Solutions Corporation
x. Fujifilm (China) Investment Co., Ltd.
xi. Eastman Kodak Company
xii. Jeil C&P Co. Ltd
h. The producers/exporters from the subject countries who have not submitted the
questionnaire response or have not cooperated in the investigation have been treated as
non – cooperative in the investigation.
i. 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.
j. The following importers/users submitted the importer/user questionnaire responses:
i. Kapoor Imaging Pvt. Ltd.
ii. Ganpati Imperial India
iii. Fujifilm India Private Limited
iv. Kodak India Private Limited (KIPL)
v. ART Printing House Pvt. Ltd.
vi. CEI Print Pack Pvt Ltd.
vii. CEI Print Solutions Pvt. Ltd
viii. Exquisite Print and Pack Pvt Ltd
ix. Saraswati Print Factory Pvt Ltd.
x. Printouch
xi. Screen Point Systems
xii. Trio Plate System
xiii. Sri Priyan Graphics
xiv. VPR Digital & Cards
xv. Blue Star Printers
xvi. Sudarsan Graphics Private Limited
xvii. Printline Systems - C.T.P BUERO
xviii. Maa Images
xix. Printline Systems - The Print House
xx. Scan Graphic System
xxi. Bhagyam Binding Works
xxii. Colour Solutions
xxiii. Kal Publications Private Limited
xxiv. Thomson Press
xxv. Nippon Color
k. Additionally, an association from India, namely, All India Federation of Master Printers
(“AIFMP”) participated in the investigation.
l. On December 1, 2023, the Authority conducted a discussion on the methodology to be
adopted for Product Control Numbers (“PCN”) in the subject investigation. The
Authority, based on the information submitted by the interested parties, finalized the
PCN methodology in the subject investigation vide notification dated January 12, 2024.
Thereafter, interested parties were provided time until January 31, 2024, to file a
response to the questionnaires circulated by the Authority.
m. The Directorate General of Systems & Data Management (DG Systems) was requested
to provide transaction-wise details of the imports of the subject goods for the past
injury investigation period and the period of investigation. The same was received by
the Authority and considered for the purpose of the present investigation.
n. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of 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 on August 19, 2024. 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 submissions submitted by them with the other interested parties.
o. The first public hearing was held on August 19, 2024 followed by the written
submission and rejoinder of the views expressed orally. However, due to the
appointment of the new Designated Authority, the Authority provided opportunity to
the interested parties to present its views orally followed by submissions in writing
pursuant to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Automotive
Tyre Manufacturers’ Association (ATMA) vs. Designated Authority, delivered in Civil
Appeal No. 949 of 2006 on 07-01-2011. Accordingly, the Authority held another public
hearing on September 12, 2024. The interested parties who presented their views in the
2nd 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 submissions submitted by
them with the other interested parties.
p. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the submissions made by
the various interested parties. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the
DGTR website along with the request therein to all of them to email the non-
confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties
q. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIP’) has been determined
based on the cost of production and reasonable profits of the subject goods in India,
based on the information furnished by the Domestic Industry on the basis of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules, 1995 so as
to ascertain whether anti-dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be
sufficient to remove injury to the Domestic Industry.
r. The Authority, during the course of the investigation, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of
the information supplied by the interested parties, which forms the basis of this final
findings, to the extent possible and verified the data documents submitted by the
domestic industry and the interested parties to the extent considered relevant,
practicable and necessary.
s. The information submitted by the Domestic Industry has been examined and verified
during on site-verification as well as table verification to the extent deemed necessary
and has been relied upon for the present final findings.
t. The examination and verification of the information submitted by the cooperating
producers/exporters from the subject countries was also carried out to the extent
deemed necessary and have been relied upon for the purpose of the present final
findings
u. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is 1st April
2022 to 31st March 2023 (12 months). The injury examination period is from 1st April
2019 - 31st March 2020, 1st April 2020 - 31st March 2021, 1st April 2021 - 31st March
2022, and the POI.
v. 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. 10/2018 dated 7th September 2018. The information/submissions provided
by the interested parties on a confidential basis were examined concerning the
sufficiency of such confidentiality claims. On being satisfied concerning the sufficiency
of the confidentiality 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.
w. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided
necessary information during the course of the present investigation, or has
significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as
non-cooperative and recorded the present final findings on the basis of the facts
available.
x. The Authority has 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.
y. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation which have
formed the basis of the final findings was issued to the interested parties on 20th
September, 2024 and the interested parties were allowed time up to 25th September,
2024 to comment on the same. The comments to disclosure statement received from the
interested parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant and non-repetitive,
in this final finding notification.
z. ‘***’ in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on
confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under Rule 7 of AD Rules, 1995.
aa. The exchange rate for the POI adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is
1 US $= Rs. 81.06.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1 Submissions made by the other interested parties
6. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the
product under consideration:
a. The description of the PUC in the original anti-dumping investigation and the
application for the sunset review clearly state that polyester plates are not included
within the scope of the PUC. However, as can be seen from the domestic industry's
product catalogue, it manufactures large varieties of Polyester-based digital printing
plates.
b. The present investigation is a sunset review, and the scope of the product under
consideration remains the same as defined by the Authority in the original
investigation.
c. The product under consideration consists of three types: (i) Thermal plates; (ii) Violet
plates; and (iii) CtCP/UV CtP plates. The Authority has classified these three types as
different PCNs (Product Control Numbers) based on differences in cost and price.
d. In the original investigation, interested parties argued that the domestic industry does
not produce certain product types: (i) Double Layer CtCP plates; (ii) Negative working
UV CtP plates; (iii) Other variants of Process-less Plates (i.e., Violet and UV CtP) on a
commercial scale; (iv) Chem-free UV CtP plates on a commercial scale.
e. The Authority previously considered that if there is commercial demand, and whether
TechNova has the capacity to produce these product types. Despite demand for these
product types, Technova has not made any sales of these products and is unable to
manufacture them. The Authority should critically examine whether these product types
were ever produced by the domestic industry.
f. The products involved are heterogeneous, with different production costs and processes.
The price injury should be evaluated at the PCN level rather than applying a broad
assessment across product types.
g. It should also be investigated if Technova’s self-imports include these product types,
which would indicate that TechNova is importing products it cannot produce. The
domestic industry should be required to disclose the types of products being imported
and the reasons for importing them, allowing interested parties to make effective
comments.
h. The PUC includes various products, and the Domestic Industry does not produce the
full range of the product scope. Instead, it relies on imports for products that it does not
manufacture.
C.2 Submissions made on behalf of the Domestic Industry
7. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the Domestic Industry with regards
to the product under consideration:
a. Digital Plates are used in the printing industry for transferring data as an image (dot
patterns or text) onto paper or on non-absorbent substrates like tin sheets, poly films,
etc. In the printing process using Digital Offset Printing Plates, the digital workflow
enables direct transfer of an image from a ‘computer to the plate’ (CtP) using lasers
unlike the analog workflow that requires an intermediary film to transfer the image.
b. The PUC is freely importable into India and is not subject to any import restriction.
c. Digital Offset Printing Plates are made from high-purity litho-grade aluminium coils
coated with a chemical coating. Digital Offset Printing Plates may be either positive
(non-exposed area forms image) or negative (exposed area forms image) working
plates.
d. The coating components, also known as ‘sensitizers’, vary for different types of plates.
Based on the coating components and laser type of plate setters, the Digital Offset
Printing Plates may be broadly classified into three categories, namely Thermal, Violet
and CtCP/UV CtP (Computer-to-Conventional Plate) based on their application.
e. All types of Digital Offset Printing Plates, in all dimensions, are covered within the
scope of the product under consideration, except waterless CtP plates.
f. The description of the subject goods and their use has not undergone any change since the
conclusion of the Original anti-dumping Investigation.
g. The Authority finalized the product scope after assessing products manufactured by the
Domestic Industry, imports of the product, and the end-use and substitutability of
domestic and imported products. This being a sunset review, the scope of the product
under consideration must be maintained, as was confirmed in the Original anti-
dumping Investigation.
h. The Digital Offset Printing Plates produced by the Domestic Industry is alike in all
respects to the to the imported digital offset printing plates from the subject countries.
The end-use, technical characteristics, and physical characteristics of the imported
goods are comparable with the PUC produced by the Domestic Industry.
i. The Domestic Industry submitted that to the best of their knowledge, there are no known
differences between the imported subject goods and the goods produced by the
Domestic Industry.
j. Therefore, the products being imported into India are alike in all respects to the products
produced by the Domestic Industry.
k. The Domestic Industry argues that the issues raised have already been resolved in the
original investigation and should not be revisited during the sunset review. The scope
of the review is fixed and was finalized by a January 12, 2024 notification, following
input from interested parties. No new product specifications or evidence have been
provided to support claims of exclusion, so the original scope must be relied upon.
l. The Domestic Industry can manufacture Double Layer - Thermal (Elite) and Violet plates
and has the capacity to produce double-layer UV CtCP plates, as confirmed during the
original investigation.
m. The Domestic Industry manufactures negative working UV CtCP plates, as previously
established.
n. The Domestic Industry clarifies it produces violet chem-free plates but notes that no
players in the market, including itself, manufacture violet process-free plates or
process-free UV CtCP plates. The Domestic Industry can produce chem-free UV CtP
plates, though the costs are significantly higher, leading to low commercial demand in
India.
o. One of the interested party argued that the Domestic Industry has imported products it
cannot produce is rejected. TechNova has not imported any of the products in question,
and all products imported by TechNova are also produced by the company, making
Kapoor’s claims baseless.
p. The scope of the PUC does not contain polyester plates.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
8. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Digital Offset Printing
Plates.
9. This being a sunset review investigation, the scope of the PUC remains the same as that in
the original investigation. The PUC in the original investigation was defined as under:
The product under consideration is “Digital Offset Printing
Plates”. Digital offset printing plates are used in the printing
industry to transfer data as an image onto paper or on non-
absorbent substrates like tin sheets, poly films, etc. In the printing
process using Digital Offset Printing Plates, the digital workflow
enables direct transfer of the image from a ‘computer to the plate’
(CtP) using lasers, unlike the analog workflow that requires an
intermediary film to transfer the image. Digital Plates are made
from high-purity litho-grade aluminium coils coated with a
chemical coating. Digital Offset Printing Plates may be either
positive (non-exposed area forms image) or negative (exposed area
forms image) working plates. The range includes plates that
require chemicals for processing the plates; and environmentally
friendly ones that require no chemicals or water for processing.
The coating formulations vary for different types of plates. There
are three types of digital offset printing plates, namely,
i. Thermal Plates;
ii. Violet Plates;
iii. CtCP/UV CtP Plates.
The Authority has taken note of post-disclosure comments and
holds that all types of Digital Offset Printing Plates in all
dimensions and thicknesses are covered within the scope of the
product under consideration. However, waterless CtP plates are
excluded from the scope of the PUC for reasons elaborated above.
10. The Authority notes that certain interested parties have argued that in the original
investigation, the Authority included Double Layer CtCP plates, Negative working UV CtP
plates, Other variants of Process-less Plates (i.e., Violet and UV CtP), and Chem-free UV
CtP plates within the PUC since the domestic industry demonstrated no commercial demand
for these products. However, they should now be excluded from the scope of the PUC, since
the domestic industry continues not to produce these products.
11. A meeting on scope of PUC/PCN was held by the Authority on December 1, 2023 wherein
no submissions were made by the interested parties with respect to exclusion of products
from the scope of the investigation. Pursuant to submissions received from the interested
parties the Authority has vide its communication dated January 12, 2024, clarified the scope
of the PUC and PCN methodology to be followed for the present investigation as under:
+-----+---------------------------------------------+------+
| S No| PCN Parameter | Code |
+=====+=============================================+======+
| 1 | Computer to Conventional Plates (CtCP) / UV | C |
| | Computer to Plate (UV CtP) | |
+-----+---------------------------------------------+------+
| 2 | Thermal Plates | T |
+-----+---------------------------------------------+------+
| 3 | Violet Plates | V |
+-----+---------------------------------------------+------+
12. The Authority also notes that the interested parties have failed to provide any evidence to
demonstrate that these products are not ‘like’ domestically produced products. Further, the
Authority has examined the issues of exclusions of various types of products from the scope
of the investigation in the original investigation, and the interested parties have not made
available any new evidence establishing that the applicant does not manufacture any of such
products. In view of the same, the Authority does not consider it appropriate to examine
these claims of product exclusion made by the interested parties.
13. Rule 2(d) relating to the definition of "like article" specifies that "like article" means an
article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation, or in the
absence of such an article, another article having characteristics closely resembling those of
the article under investigation.
14. From the above definition of the term "like article", it is clear that the like article has to be
identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation. The scope of the term like
article shall also include those articles having closely resembling characteristics to those
under investigation in the absence of articles identical or alike in all respects.
15. The Authority notes that there is no known difference in the subject goods produced by the
Indian domestic industry and those imported from the subject countries. The two are
comparable in terms of physical characteristics, manufacturing process, functions and uses,
product specifications, distribution and marketing, and tariff classifications of the goods.
The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers also use the two
interchangeably. The Authority holds that the product manufactured by the Applicant
constitutes like article to the subject goods being imported into India from the subject
countries.
16. With regards to the claims to the heterogeneity of the products covered within the scope of
the investigation, the Authority notes that it has determined to follow the PCN methodology
to ensure the fair comparison of the heterogenous products covered within the scope of the
investigation.
17. The PUC falls under tariff item 8442.50 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The PUC is also
being imported under other customs tariff items, including, 3701.3000, 3704.0090,
3705.1000, 7606.1190, 7606.9190 and 7606.9290. Imports of PUC made under all the
various HS codes have been taken into consideration for the purpose of injury assessment.
The customs classification is indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the
present investigation.
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1 Submissions made by the other interested parties
18. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the
Domestic Industry and Standing:
a. The applicant, Technova Imaging Pvt Ltd, acknowledged in its application that they
imported the subject goods from both subject and non-subject countries during the POI,
despite having anti-dumping protection, but did not disclose the reasons for such
imports.
b. The indexed data provided by the applicant indicates that these imports from subject
countries by the domestic industry constitute about 3% to 4% of the total imports of
subject goods from subject countries during the POI. This amounts to approximately
6,09,929 sqm, which is six times more than the total imports of the subject goods from
non-subject countries (1,66,592 sqm) and more than the combined imports from Japan,
South Korea, and Vietnam.
c. Interested parties argue that Technova is ineligible to be considered a "Domestic
Industry" under Rule 2(b) because it is a significant and habitual importer of the subject
goods from the countries under investigation. This increased substantially during the
period of investigation, disqualifying it from being treated as a domestic industry.
Several past cases, including Aluminium Foil from China PR (2017), Flax Yarn from
China PR (2018), and Glazed/Unglazed Porcelain/Vitrified Tiles from China PR
(2017), are cited to support this argument.
d. Technova’s regular imports contradict the claim that such imports are temporary, as
noted in previous investigations where the Designated Authority allowed temporary
imports to retain core customers. However, current import data shows that Technova
has consistently imported subject goods not only during the POI and injury period but
also before and after the POI. This pattern challenges the domestic industry’s eligibility
under Rule 2(b).
e. Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules stipulates that regular importers of the subject
goods cannot be considered a "Domestic Industry." The respondents submit that
Technova's imports increased from 100 index points in FY 2019-20 to 354 index points
during the POI, further disqualifying it under Rule 2(b).
f. The Manual of Operating Practices for Trade Remedy Investigations (Para 4.9.20(v))
requires a specific reference from the Director General on the issue of imports by
petitioners. The petitioner has not provided any exceptional circumstances for these
imports, and the reasons for such imports have been kept confidential.
g. The Authority must evaluate compliance with Rule 2(b), as regular imports by the
applicant, even though claimed to be temporary, contradict its status as a domestic
industry. The applicant's substantial imports, both from subject and non-subject
countries, raise questions about its eligibility, as similar producers have been
disqualified in previous cases like Soda Ash from Turkey and USA.
h. The Federation pointed out that M/s HL Printech Solutions Pvt Ltd, a major importer of
subject goods from Chinese companies and a supporter of Technova’s application, has
not disclosed its imports or its relationship with exporters/importers. This undermines
the validity of their support for Technova’s application.
i. The existence of M/s Lastra Niraj Pvt Ltd, an associate company of Technova involved in
a similar business, was not disclosed by Technova, affecting the applicant's standing.
The Authority must thoroughly examine Lastra Niraj's potential imports and
operational linkages with Technova.
j. The Federation argues that both Technova and HL Printech Solutions should not be
considered valid domestic producers under Rule 2(b) due to their import activities,
which are substantial and habitual. The Authority is requested to terminate the
investigation on these grounds.
k. Technova’s consistent imports are not insignificant, as claimed, and evidence suggests
that these imports were regular, occurring during the injury period, POI, and post-POI.
The applicant’s imports were neither temporary nor made under a duty-free scheme.
l. During the original investigation, the domestic industry’s imports accounted for 7% of
total imports, but the Authority treated these as temporary. However, current evidence
suggests that the domestic industry remains reliant on imports, particularly from subject
countries like China and Japan.
m. Technova has regularly imported goods from both subject and non-subject countries
during the POI, indicating that any decline in domestic production and sales cannot be
attributed solely to the subject goods.
n. The domestic industry is not fully equipped to serve all customers, lacks sufficient
technology, and relies on imports to meet demand, which contradicts its claims of being
a self-sufficient producer.
o. The interested parties have alleged that the Petitioner made false claims regarding the
import data for 2020-21 and 2021-22. Consequently, they have submitted a dataset
which indicates that during 2019-20 and 2020-22, the domestic industry imported a
total of 115,873 SQM.
p. The volumes imported by the Petitioner are far too high to be imported for R&D
purposes.
D.2 Submissions made on behalf of the Domestic Industry
19. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the Domestic Industry with regard
to the domestic industry:
a. Out of total domestic production, the production share of the domestic producer’s share
is 96%. In view of the same, the domestic producer meets the requisite threshold to
constitute domestic industry for the purposes of the present application.
b. The domestic producer has clearly demonstrated that it qualifies as “domestic industry”
within the meaning of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) of the Customs Tariff (Identification,
Assessment and Collection of anti-dumping duty on Dumped Articles and for
Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (“AD Rules”).
c. In order to qualify as “domestic industry”, the domestic producer’s production of the
PUC must constitute a major proportion of the eligible domestic production. The
domestic producer’s production meets the threshold requirement.
d. While the domestic producer was constrained to make some imports during the POI,
these imports are insignificant when compared to total production of the domestic
producer, total imports of PUC into India and subject imports of PUC.
e. The Domestic Industry has imported the PUC from both subject and non-subject
countries due to each of their two plants underwent separate routine maintenance
shutdowns.
f. It may be noted that neither of the plants were shut down at the same time. Consequently,
to fulfil its commitments to existing customers, the Domestic Industry imported the
PUC as a temporary solution.
g. Furthermore, Post COVID-19, the PUC witnessed a pent-up demand which is evident
from the production and sales of the Domestic Industry during the same period. In
order to meet the sudden increase in demand from its existing customers, the Domestic
Industry imported a limited quantity of the PUC while paying the applicable duties
including anti-dumping duties
h. The Domestic Industry submits that the imports from the subject countries on account
of the above reasons are only 1.8% of its production and 1.2% of the overall demand of
the subject goods in the POI period.
i. The Domestic Industry continues to focus on manufacturing of the subject goods and was
constrained to import the PUC as a temporary measure to serve its existing customers.
This does not alter the fundamental characteristic of the Domestic Industry’s business
i.e., manufacturing the PUC and supplying it to its customers.
j. With regard to the imports from the non-subject countries (i.e., the European Union), the
imports have been made from its erstwhile technology partner for the purpose of testing
and market seeding.
k. Since the imports by the domestic producer from the subject countries constitute only
1.8% of its total production of the PUC, 1.2% of the total demand, and 3.5% of the
import from subject countries, such low imports could not have conferred any undue
benefits to the Applicant.
l. Indian courts have held that where the principal business of the producer is not
importation, it should not be excluded from the scope of domestic industry. A producer
who imports a small fraction of its total production, and that too, during production
disruptions, should not be considered an importer under Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping
Rules.
m. The Petitioner manufactures the subject goods in India as a predominant activity and
possess all the essential characteristics of a manufacturer. The domestic production of
the Petitioner accounts for almost 67% of the demand of the subject goods.
n. The Petitioner is the largest producer of the subject goods accounting for 96% of the
total domestic production.
o. The Petitioner continues to focus on domestic production, continuing to further the
Indian government’s ambitions of “Make in India” and continues to expand its
capabilities to serve the domestic customers.
p. The Domestic Industry argues that "temporary" imports should not be conflated with
"non-recurring." Occasional small imports do not indicate that the industry is a habitual
importer or shifting towards trading activities. These imports are driven by short-term
needs, and the primary focus remains domestic production.
q. The Authority has consistently considered domestic producers with minimal imports as
eligible for domestic industry status in previous anti-dumping investigations. Examples
include cases involving natural mica-based pigments, flax yarn, and caprolactam.
r. The Domestic Industry confirms that LNPL is its associate company by virtue of
TechNova’s shareholding in the company. LNPL is a producer of NPUC, and therefore,
is not relevant for the purposes of the subject review
D.3 Examination by the Authority
20. Rule 2(b) of the Rules provides as follows:
“domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged
in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith
or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when
such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged
dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term
‘domestic industry’ may be construed as referring to the rest of the
producers”.
21. The Authority notes that the Application has been filed by M/s. TechNova Imaging Systems
(P) Ltd. In addition to TechNova, there is only one other producer of the subject goods
namely HL Printech Pvt. Ltd., who has filed a support letter in the said investigation.
22. The Applicant submitted that it is not related to any of the exporters of the PUC from the
subject countries or importers of the PUC from the subject countries. However, the
Applicant has submitted that it has imported the PUC from one of the subject countries
during the period of investigation.
23. The Authority notes that Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules provides that the domestic producers
which are related to the exporters or importers or which themselves are importers of the
allegedly dumped goods may be excluded from the scope of domestic industry. The usage
of the word “may” under Rule 2(b) indicates that producers related to exporters or importers
as well as importing producers are not automatically excluded from being part of the
domestic industry. The Authority has discretion to determine on the inclusion or exclusion
of such producers within the scope of the domestic industry, on a case-to-case basis after
making all due considerations in this regard. In particular, the Authority is required to
examine if the Applicant has imported the PUC in such substantial volumes and under
such conditions which would render the Applicant ineligible as domestic industry under
Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules.
24. The Authority has also taken note of the arguments raised by interested parties, which assert
that the Applicant’s imports of the subject goods cannot be characterized as ‘temporary,’
given that the Applicant had imported the subject goods during the POI of the original
investigation as well. The Domestic Industry (DI), in response, contends that the term
'temporary' should not be conflated with 'non-recurring.' The Authority notes that occasional
imports made by domestic producers, driven by specific and short-term needs such as
unexpected demand surges or production disruptions, should not result in the conclusion
that the imports are 'habitual' or not 'temporary’ as long as such imports are incidental to its
primary role as a domestic manufacturer and do not signify a shift in its business activities
toward trading.
25. In this regard, the Authority notes that the details of imports made by the Applicant are as
follows:
+---------------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=============================================+=======+===========+===========+===========+===========+
| Imports made by the Applicant from the | SQM | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| subject countries | | | | | |
+---------------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Production Quantity | SQM | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Total Imports | SQM | 1,45,05,334| 73,67,190 | 86,88,785 | 1,43,03,156|
+---------------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Total Demand | SQM | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+=====================================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+
| Imports in relation to | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| - Production of the Applicant | % | 0-1% | NIL | NIL | 1-2% |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| - Demand of the subject goods | % | 0-1% | NIL | NIL | 1-2% |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| - Subject Imports | % | 1-2% | NIL | NIL | 3-4% |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
26. The Authority notes that the volume of imports of the PUC by the Applicant during the
POI are insignificant compared to the total imports, total domestic production or total
demand of the country. The volume of imports made by the Applicant in relation to total
demand, its domestic sales and production is in the range of 1-2%. The same has been
verified from the DG Systems data.
27. It is noted that the Applicant is the largest producer of the subject goods, constituting about
96% of the total domestic production in the country. Therefore, the imports made by the
Applicant are consistent with its role as a domestic producer and do not indicate a shift
toward trading or habitual importation.
28. With regard to the claims made by the interested parties regarding the Applicant’s associate
company, Lastra Niraj Private Limited, being engaged in the production and import of the
PUC, the Authority notes that Lastra Niraj Private Limited is not engaged in the importation
or sales of the PUC. The same has been verified from the DG systems data.
29. With regard to the alleged imports made by HL Printech Solutions Pvt Ltd, who is a
supporter in the present review, the Authority notes that the supporter has not participated
in the present review after its initiation. However, the Authority analysed the import data
and found that there are no imports of PUC made by HL Printech Solutions Pvt Ltd over
the injury period. The Authority further notes that HL Printech only constitutes about 4%
of the domestic production of the PUC in India. Accordingly, irrespective of its eligibility,
the Applicant meets the standing requirements required under law.
30. In view of the above, the Authority holds that the Applicant i.e., TechNova Imaging Systems
(P) Ltd. satisfies the requirement of Rule 2(b) of the Rules and considered to be an eligible
domestic producer for the purpose of determining domestic industry standing.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1 Submissions made by the other interested parties
32. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the
Confidentiality:
a. The applicant has violated the specific provisions of Trade Notice No. 10/2018 dated
7.09.2018 by claiming excessive confidentiality over various pieces of information.
b. The applicant has claimed the following information as confidential, which includes:
i. Production process
ii. Names of major raw materials
iii. Imports made by the Domestic Industry (+/- 5% range)
iv. Non-Injurious Price Calculation (+/- 10% range)
c. Rule 7 of the Indian Anti-Dumping Rules requires parties providing confidential
information to furnish non-confidential summaries or provide reasons why
summarization is not possible.
d. If the Designated Authority finds that the confidentiality claim is not warranted or the
party is unwilling to disclose the information in a generalized form, the Authority may
disregard the information.
e. Rule 7 emphasizes that not all information submitted confidentially should be treated as
such unless supported by valid reasons and accepted by the Authority.
f. The applicant is responsible for providing detailed summaries to allow reasonable
understanding of the confidential information, enabling other interested parties to
respond effectively and assist the Authority in making the correct determinations.
g. The Hon’ble CESTAT, in the Vitrified Tiles case, held that information submitted
confidentially should not automatically be considered confidential and emphasized the
need for transparency.
h. The CESTAT ruling laid down guidelines for examining confidentiality claims and
stated that there is an obligation for the Authority to require detailed non-confidential
summaries from parties to allow a reasonable understanding of the confidential
information.
i. If the request for confidentiality is not warranted, and the party refuses to disclose the
information in a generalized or summarized form, the Authority may disregard such
information.
j. The respondents request that the Authority terminate the investigation, as it is without
jurisdiction due to the applicant’s excessive and unjustified confidentiality claims.
E.2 Submissions made on behalf of the Domestic Industry
33. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with respect to the
Confidentiality:
a. Interested parties have filed questionnaire responses that are grossly deficient,
excessively confidential, and does not meet the required standards under Trade Notice
07/2018 dated September 7, 2018.
b. The Domestic Industry points out that Kodak China was acquired by Lucky Huaguang
in 2019, but Kodak China and its parent company, Eastman Kodak, did not disclose
this information in their responses.
c. The Petitioner requests that the Authority examine Kodak China’s and Lucky Imaging’s
commercial relationship, the impact on the production, sale, and marketing of the
product under consideration (PUC) in India, and whether related parties provided
inputs/raw materials.
d. The Domestic Industry asks the Authority to reject incomplete questionnaire responses
from interested parties.
e. Responses filed by interested parties are excessively confidential, lacking meaningful
non-confidential summaries, thereby hindering the Petitioner’s ability to comment on
the data provided.
f. Several cases were cited to demonstrate how the Authority has rejected responses from
foreign producers when they were found deficient or excessively confidential.
E.3 Examination by the Authority
34. On confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of the Rules reads as follows:
“Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2),
(3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and subrule (4) of
rule 17, 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, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as
to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be
disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such
information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on
confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion
of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of
summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons
why summarization is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is
satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the
information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorise its
disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.”
35. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the information provided by -
various interested parties to all interested parties through the public file containing non-
confidential version of evidence submitted by various interested parties for inspection as per
for inspection as per Rule 6(7) of the Rules.
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries V. Designated Authority, had
emphasized upon the importance of confidentiality. In para 3 of said decision it was
reaffirmed that:
“3. ... confidentiality under Rule 7 is not something which must be automatically
assumed. Of course, in such cases there is need for confidentiality as otherwise trade
competitors would obtain confidential information which they cannot otherwise get.
But whether information supplied is required to be kept confidential has to be
considered on a case- to-case basis. It is for the Designated Authority to decide
whether a particular material is required to be kept confidential.”
37. Accordingly, the Authority examined the information provided by the domestic industry and
other interested parties on a confidential basis for sufficiency of such claims in accordance
with Rule 7 of the AD Rules. On being satisfied, the Authority accepted the confidentiality
claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential.
Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to
provide sufficient non confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.
38. With regard to the confidentiality claims over the name of raw materials, production
process, imports by the domestic industry as well as NIP range, the Authority notes that the
name of raw material, imports in ranges as well as injury margin in ranges has been
disclosed by the domestic industry in its submissions including the petition. With regard to
the confidentiality over production process, it is noted that such information is confidential
in nature and disclosure of such information may adversely impact the domestic industry.
F. MISCELLANEOUS
F.1 Submissions made by the other interested parties
39. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the interested parties:
a. Technova Imaging Pvt. Ltd. has consistently sought and received trade remedy
protections, including anti-dumping and countervailing duties, on Digital Offset
Printing Plates from various countries since 2011. The duties have been extended
repeatedly, most recently against China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, with a
countervailing investigation initiated against China and Taiwan in September 2023.
b. Despite these long-standing protections, Technova continues to claim injury from
dumped and subsidized imports. The Federation argues that this could either indicate
fabricated injury claims or internal structural issues within the domestic industry that
trade remedies cannot resolve. They assert that it is economically illogical for multiple
countries to consistently dump goods into India, given the demand-supply gap.
c. Interested parties urge the Authority to critically evaluate Technova's claims of
continued injury before recommending an extension of duties. They suggest that the
user industry should not bear the burden of additional duties, especially if inefficiencies
within the domestic industry are the primary cause. They recommend the immediate
termination of duties, asserting there is no real injury or likelihood of its recurrence.
d. The interested parties submit that the petitioner, Technova, selectively chooses periods
of adverse market trends to file for investigations, using trade remedies as a shield
against competition.
e. The interested parties request the Authority to conclude both the Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duty investigations concurrently. This would allow for a
comprehensive and integrated assessment of injury margins and ensure consistent and
effective remedies. By handling both anti-dumping and countervailing investigations
simultaneously, the Authority can conduct a unified analysis of the cumulative effects
of unfair trade practices, avoiding fragmented and inconsistent conclusions. This
approach would also enhance efficiency by preventing duplicative efforts and potential
discrepancies arising from separate investigations.
f. The producer/exporter submits that a sunset review can only be initiated when the
petitioner provides sufficient evidence of dumping, material injury, and causation. In
this case, the information provided by the petitioner is inadequate to justify the
investigation under Rule-5(3
Login to read full text