Final findings SSR AARW

REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India CG-DL-E-10012024-251221 EXTRAORDINARY PART I—Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 06] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945 MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department Of Commerce) (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 6th January, 2024 FINAL FINDINGS [Case No. ADD (SSR)-07/2023] Subject: Sunset review of anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of “Aluminium Alloy Road Wheel” originating in or exported from China PR. F. No. 7/13/2023-DGTR.-A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 1. Kosei Minda Aluminium Company Pvt. Ltd., Maxion Wheels Aluminium India Pvt. Ltd., Minda Kosei Aluminium Wheel Pvt. Ltd. and Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “applicants") filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority"), on behalf of domestic industry with a request to initiate the second sunset review investigation of anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of "Aluminium Alloy Road Wheel", (hereinafter also referred to as "subject goods" or the "product under consideration") originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand. 2. The original investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand was initiated by the Authority vide notification No.14/7/2012-DGAD dated 10th December 2013. The Authority, vide its final findings No. 14/7/2012-DGAD dated 9th June 2014, recommended imposition of definitive anti- dumping duty, which was given effect vide Customs notification No. 21/2015-Customs (anti-dumping duties) dated 22nd May 2015 on imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand. 3. Before the expiry of the anti-dumping duty in force, the Authority initiated a sunset review investigation vide notification No. 7/31/2018-DGTR dated 10th August 2018 and recommended continuation of the anti-dumping duty vide final findings dated 29th March 2019 and the same was subsequently imposed by the Central government and the duty was continued via notification No.17/2019-Customs (anti-dumping duties) dated 9th April 2019. 4. Thereafter, the Authority initiated a mid-term review of the anti-dumping duty via notification No.7/12/2021- DGTR dated 1st September 2021 and pursuantly recommended the enhancement of anti-dumping duty levied on certain exporters vide final findings dated 30th August 2022. The recommendations were accepted by the Central government vide Customs notification No.30/2022- Customs (anti-dumping duties) dated 28th November 2022. 5. In terms of Section 9A (5) of the Act, anti-dumping duties imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition and the Authority is required to review, whether the expiry of anti-dumping duties is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Further, Rule 23 (1B) of the Rules provides as follows: "any definitive antidumping duty levied under the Act shall be effective for a period not exceeding five years from the date of its imposition, unless the designated authority comes to a conclusion, on a review initiated before that period on its own initiative or upon a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of that period, that the expiry of the said anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry." 6. Following the above, the Authority is required to review, based on a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, whether the expiry of anti-dumping duties is likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. 7. The applicants filed an application dated 13th July 2023, requesting initiation of a sunset review of anti- dumping duties imposed earlier and seeking continuation of anti-dumping duties against imports of Aluminium Alloy Road Wheels from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measure is likely to result in the continuation of dumping of the product under consideration and consequent injury to the domestic industry. 8. Given a duly substantiated application with prima facie evidence of likelihood of dumping and injury due to imports from China PR (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject country”), filed on behalf of the domestic industry and under Section 9A(5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Rules, the Authority initiated the sunset review investigation vide notification No. 07/13/2023– DGTR, dated 30th September 2023 to review the need for continued imposition of anti-dumping duties in respect of the subject goods, originating in or exported from China PR and to examine whether the expiry of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from China PR is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry. However, given the absence of sufficient prima facie evidence in the application regarding the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry in the event of cessation of duties in force concerning goods being imported from Korea RP and Thailand, the same were not included in the subject investigation. B. PROCEDURE 9. The scope of the present review covers all aspects of the final findings No. 14/7/2012 -DGTR dated 9th June 2014 by which the Authority had recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject country. 10. The procedure described herein below has been followed in the present investigation: i. The Authority vide notification No. 07/13/2023 dated 30th September 2023, published a public notice in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating a sunset review of anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject country. ii. A copy of the public notice was forwarded by the Authority to the embassy of the subject country in India, known producers and exporters from the subject country, known importers in India and other interested parties, to inform them of the initiation of the subject investigation in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules. iii. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known producers/exporters, to the government of the subject country through its embassy in India, and to other interested parties who requested in writing in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules supra. A copy of the non-confidential version of the application was also provided to other interested parties, wherever requested. iv. The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice initiating the sunset review investigation to the known producers/exporters in the subject country, and other interested parties and provided them with an opportunity to file responses to the questionnaire in the form and manner prescribed within the time limit as prescribed in the initiation notification or extended time limit, and make their views known in writing in accordance with the Rule 6(4) of the Rules. V. The Authority forwarded copies of the notification to the following known producers/ exporters: a. Advanti Manufacturing (Suzhou) Company Ltd. b. AITL Manufacturing C. Auto Parts Accessory Holding Company Ltd. d. Baoding Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Company Ltd. e. Buyang Group Company Ltd. f. China Wheel Company Ltd. g. Chiping XinFa Aluminious Production Company Ltd. h. CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Company Ltd. i. Dare Wheel Manufacturing Company Ltd. j. Dare Technology Co. Ltd. k. Danyang Company 1. DongFeng Maxion Wheels Co. Ltd. m. Fervent Wheel Company n. Foshan Nanhai Zhongnan Aluminium Wheel Company Ltd. Ο. Jiangsu Dare World Light Alloy Company Ltd. P. Jiangsu Kaite Automobile Parts Company Ltd. q. Kinghwa Toptrue Wheel Company Ltd. r. Liufeng Machinery Industry Company Ltd. S. Nanhai Anchi Aluminium Wheel Company Ltd. t. Ningbo Baody AutoParts Company Ltd. u. Ningbo Shenzheng Import and Export Company Ltd. V. Ningbo YongQi Aluminium Wheel Manufacturing Company Ltd. W. Sanmengxia Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Χ. Seyen Heavy Industries (Shanghai) Company Ltd. y. Shandong Binzhou Bohai Piston Company Ltd. Z. Shandong Vesteon Automotive Manufacture Co., Ltd. aa. Shanghai Arays Hardware Manufacturing Company Ltd. bb. Shengyang Sanhua Dooray Wheel Company Ltd. cc. SMX Dicastal Wheel Manufacture Company Ltd. dd. Taiyuan Heavy Machinery (Ace) ee. Weihai Wangeng Auto Wheel Company Ltd. ff. YHI Advanti Manufacturing (Shuzhou) Company Ltd. gg. YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) Company Ltd. hh. YHI International Ltd. ii. Zhejiang AARVI Auto Parts Company Ltd. jj. Zhejiang Auto Aluminium Wheel Company Ltd. kk. Zhejiang Baokang Wheel Manufacture Co., Ltd. 11. Zhejiang Buyang Auto Wheel Company Ltd. mm. Zhejiang Jinfei Yada Wheel Company Ltd. nn. Zhejiang Tailong Aluminium Wheels Company Ltd. 00. Zhejiang Wanfeng Auto Wheel Company Ltd. vi. The government of the subject country, through its embassy in India, was also requested to advise the exporters/producers from its country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the known producers/exporters was also sent to the embassy of the subject country. vii. The following producers/exporters from the subject country filed a response to the exporters' questionnaire: a. Shandong Shuangwang Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd b. Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co., Ltd C. Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co., Ltd viii. The Authority forwarded a copy of the notification to the known importers/ users of subject goods in India calling for necessary information, in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules. However, none of the importers/users have responded by filing questionnaire responses. ix. The Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire to the embassy of the subject country, all the known exporters, importers and the domestic industry. The Economic Interest Questionnaire was also shared with the administrative line ministry. Response to Economic Interest questionnaire has been filed by the following parties: a. The domestic industry b. Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co., Ltd c. Zhejiang Haoyuan Industry Co., Ltd. Χ. The period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2023 (12 months). The injury analysis period covers 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and the POI. xi. The petition was filed based on the DGCI&S transaction-wise data for 2019-20 and 2020-21. The applicants submitted that they did not have access to DGCI&S transaction-wise data for the remaining period, i.e. 2021-22 and 2022-23 and, therefore, the data for this period was provided as per the market intelligence with the applicants. xii. A request was made by the Authority to the DGCI&S to provide transaction-wise details of imports of subject goods for the past three years and the period of investigation, which was received by the Authority and has been relied upon for the present investigation. xiii. The Authority sought further information from the other interested parties to the extent deemed necessary. The verification of the data provided by the other interested parties was conducted to the extent considered necessary for the present investigation. The Authority has considered the verified data of the interested parties in its analysis of the present case. xiv. The non-injurious price has been determined based on the optimum cost of production and the cost to make & sell the subject goods in India as per information furnished by the domestic industry and in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure-III to the Rules. Such non-injurious price has been considered to ascertain whether anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove the injury to the domestic industry. XV. A list of all interested parties was uploaded on DGTR's website along with the request therein to email non-confidential versions of their submissions to all other interested parties through email. xvi. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided the opportunity to the interested parties to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 6th December 2023. The parties, who presented their views in the oral hearing, were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions. xvii. The submissions made by the interested parties, arguments raised, and information provided by various interested parties during the investigation, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by the Authority in these final findings. xviii. The Authority, during the investigation, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the information supplied by the interested parties, which forms the basis of these final findings to the extent possible and verified the data/documents submitted by the domestic industry to the extent considered relevant and necessary. xix. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined about the sufficiency of the confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential versions of the information filed on a confidential basis. XX. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information during the investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority considered such interested parties as non-cooperative and recorded these final findings based on the facts available. xxi. ‘***' in these final findings represents information furnished by an interested party on a confidential basis, and so considered by the Authority under the Rules. xxii. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = ₹81.06. C. SCOPE OF PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE 11. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration was defined as under: “Cast aluminium Alloy Wheels or Aluminium Alloy Road Wheels (“ARW") used in Motor Vehicles whether or not attached with accessories, of a size in diameter ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches." 12. It was also noted that ‘the present investigation being a sunset review investigation, the scope of the product under consideration remains the same as defined in the previously conducted investigations.' C1. SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 13. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry about the scope of the product under consideration or like article. a. The present investigation being a sunset review investigation, the scope of the product under consideration is the same as defined in the original investigation. b. ARW of size other than those ranging from 12-24 inches, ARW meant for use in other than motor vehicles and ARW meant for use in two-wheelers are excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. c. The product under consideration includes finished or semi-finished wheels, whether painted, unpainted, chrome-plated or forged and whether sold to Original Equipment Manufacturers or to after-market customers. d. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry are like articles to the product under consideration imported from the subject country. e. There is a need to consider a PCN methodology as the cost and price of product supplied to OEM and in after-market is different. Alternatively, the Authority should make due adjustments for the differences in the products sold in the OEM and after-market. f. The differences in cost and prices of the product supplied to OEMs and in after-market is due to differences in moulds being used in two segments, difference in packing cost, distribution cost and associated volumes. g. PCN is essential in the present investigation as, in the earlier investigations, both the imports and the domestic industry were largely catering to the after-market. However, during the present period of investigation, while the domestic industry has sold primarily to OEMs, almost all imports are in the after-market. h. It is not appropriate to hold that the need for PCN is the same in different investigations, and if the Authority did not frame PCN in the original investigation, it implies no PCN shall be formed in all subsequent investigations. The need to frame PCN and the parameters to be used for framing PCN is a case-specific issue and is decided based on the facts and circumstances of the particular investigation. There can be no generality in this regard. i. While the domestic industry has incurred lower costs for producing the subject goods sold to OEMs, the importers have paid higher prices in procurement of the product owing to differences in the two markets. A direct comparison in such a case will lead to understated dumping margin, price undercutting and injury margin. At the same time, the import price in the present investigation period would not appropriately reflect the likely import prices in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duties in so far as procurement of the product by OEM is concerned. C2. SUBMISSIONS BY THE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES 14. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties about the scope of the product under consideration and like article. a. Differences in the channel of distribution cannot be considered a PCN methodology. Further, no new facts have been brought on record for the Authority to reverse its original decision on the issue. Even the European Commission has noted that the difference in the channel of distribution does not render the products as different. b. In all past investigations, the domestic industry has claimed that there is no difference between the products supplied to OEMs and in the after-market. The same has been accepted by the Authority. The change in stance could be because of a change in counsel, or because the imports are catering to after- market. с. The difference in cost between the two markets claimed by the domestic industry cannot be considered reliable, as the basic raw material and production process involved are the same. d. If, as the domestic industry has claimed, the products supplied in the OEM and after-market segment are indeed different, it raises the question as to why the product supplied in the after-market segment should be considered as part of the product under consideration at all. e. While no PCNs were issued in the previous investigations, there is no bar on the Authority to issue a PCN in the sunset review investigation. C3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 15. The product under consideration (PUC) in the present investigation is Cast Aluminum Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels (ARW) used in Motor Vehicles, whether or not attached to their accessories, of size in diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches. The present investigation being a sunset review investigation, the scope of the product under consideration remains the same as that in the previously conducted investigations. The PUC 16. includes finished or semi-finished ARWs whether unpainted, painted or chrome plated. The Authority further notes that ARWs other than 12 inches to 24 inches in diameter and ARW meant for two-wheelers are out of the product scope. 17. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) under the tariff heading 8708 70. The customs classification is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of the product under consideration. 18. The scope of the product under consideration includes both subject goods supplied to OEMs and after-market. The applicants have submitted that a PCN-wise comparison is necessary for the present investigation due to differences in the cost of production and selling price of subject goods supplied to OEMs and in the after- market segment. The Authority notes that, the OEM and after market segment are two different users' market for the subject goods. During onsite verification, the domestic industry demonstrated the manufacturing process of the subject goods supplied to OEMs and after-market segment, wherein it was observed that there is no significant difference in manufacturing process of the subject goods supplied to OEMs and After Market Segment. It was claimed by the domestic industry that the subject goods require a special packaging when it is supplied to after market segment. Further, it was also claimed the subject goods, which are supplied in the after-market segment is more costly on account of mould cost and selling & distribution cost. After detailed examination, the authority notes that there is no significant difference in terms of cost and physical characteristics for the subject goods supplied to OEMs and after market segment except some additional packaging cost. Therefore, the Authority considers that there is no need for making separate PCN for the product sold in the OEM and After-market in the present investigation. However, for fair comparison of the subject goods manufactured by the domestic industry with the subject goods imported for the after-market segment, the Authority has made appropriate adjustments on account of additional packaging cost. 19. The domestic industry has claimed that the goods produced by them are like articles to the imported goods. The same has not been disputed by other interested parties. The Authority notes that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and those imported from China PR are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are using the two interchangeably. The same has also been concluded in the previous investigations. In view of the same, the Authority holds that the goods produced by the domestic industry are like articles to the product under consideration imported from the subject country. D. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING D1. SUBMISSIONS BY THE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES 20. No submissions have been made by the other interested parties regarding the scope of domestic industry and standing. D2. SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 21. The following submissions have been made by the applicants concerning the domestic industry and its standing: a. The application has been filed by Kosei Minda Aluminium Company Pvt. Ltd., Maxion Wheels Aluminium India Pvt. Ltd., Minda Kosei Aluminium Wheel Pvt. Ltd. and Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. b. Maxion Wheels Aluminium India Pvt. Ltd. is related to a producer in the subject country, namely, Dongfeng Maxion Wheels Co Ltd. However, such a producer has not exported to India. The other applicants are not related to any exporter or importer of subject goods in India. c. The applicants account for a major proportion of domestic production in India and constitute domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. D3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 22. Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules defines domestic industry as under: “(b) “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry' may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers". 23. The application has been filed by Kosei Minda aluminium Company Pvt. Ltd., Maxion Wheels aluminium India Pvt. Ltd., Minda Kosei aluminium Wheel Pvt. Ltd. and Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. Apart from the applicants, the like article is being produced by the following producers in India. a. Enkei Wheels India Ltd. b. JJF Castings Ltd. c. Neo Wheels Ltd. d. Synergies Castings Ltd. e. Rockman Industries Ltd. f. Wheels India Ltd. 24. The Authority notes that the production by the applicants constitutes 80% of the production in India during the period of investigation, thereby constituting a major proportion of the Indian production. The Authority, therefore, holds the applicants as the domestic industry under Rules 2(b) of the Rules read with Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules. E. CONFIDENTIALITY E1. SUBMISSIONS BY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES 25. The other interested parties have made the following submissions about confidentiality. a. Contrary to the claims of the domestic industry, no excessive confidentiality has been claimed and the response filed is complete. E2. SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 26. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry about confidentiality: a. Shandong Shuangwang aluminium Industry Co., Ltd, has not disclosed information with regards to the related party. b. The exporters, in violation of Trade Notice 10/2018, have claimed the production process as confidential. с. The exporters have claimed excessive confidentiality with regards to adjustments to export price, methodology for reporting packing cost, ocean freight and insurance expenses as well as trends of data for own production, sales and exports to third countries. d. Country-wide data regarding production, imports and demand has been claimed confidential even though the same is not business proprietary in nature. e. Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co., Ltd and Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co., Ltd._have reported PCN- wise data but have not shared the methodology or the basis of PCNs. f. The description of the product being sold by Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co., Ltd in the home market as well as export market has been claimed confidential due to which the domestic industry is unable to furnish its comments on the same. E3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 27. With regard to the confidentiality of the information, Rule 7 of the Anti-dumping Rules provides as follows: "Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7)of rule 6, sub-rule(2) of rule12,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, 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 a confidential basis to furnish a non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible to 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 authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information." 28. Addressing the domestic industry's concern that Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co., Ltd and Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co., Ltd have reported data according to product control numbers (PCNs) without disclosing the methodology or basis of these PCNs, the Authority notes that the aforementioned exporters have elucidated that these so-called PCNs are merely components of an internal nomenclature system for their products, employed for the purposes of record-keeping and cataloguing. Moreover, the Authority has proposed not to adopt any PCN methodology in the instant investigation. 29. The Authority further notes that Trade Notice: 10/2018 provides a general guideline that the Foreign Producer(s) must provide actual information unless the same is protected by any law or is a trade secret for the foreign producer(s). Where the information pertaining to the manufacturing process is protected by any law, the Foreign Producer(s) must cite the same as the reason for claiming confidentiality and provide a summary of the information sought. In the present case, it has been claimed by the foreign producers that the production process, which involves the manufacturing of the subject goods as per the design and specifications of the buyers, is business-sensitive information, disclosure of which would be of significant competitive advantage to their competitors and consumers and the parties requested not to disclose such information to any other interested parties. Thus, the foreign producer has presented such information as business sensitive and their trade secret which is not amenable for summarization. 30. The Authority reviewed the confidential information submitted by the interested parties, evaluating the adequacy of the confidentiality claims. Upon finding the claims substantiated, the Authority has granted approval for the confidentiality requests where deemed necessary, thereby ensuring that such sensitive information remains undisclosed to other interested parties. In situations where it was feasible, entities that furnished confidential information were advised to provide ample non-confidential renditions of the confidentially submitted information. The Authority facilitated the distribution of the non-confidential versions of the evidence presented by various interested parties, instructing them to share these non-confidential versions of their submissions via electronic communication. F. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES F1. SUBMISSIONS BY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES 31. The other interested parties have made the following miscellaneous submissions: a. The review has been initiated based on prima facie evidence, whereas sufficient evidence is required under Rule 5 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. In this regard, decisions of the Panel in Mexico – Pipes and Tubes, United States – Softwood Lumber from Canada, and Guatemala – Cement II were relied upon. F2. SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 32. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry: a. Contrary to the allegations of the other interested parties, Rule 5 is not applicable in a sunset review. The domestic industry had provided sufficient evidence of the likelihood of dumping and injury in the absence of anti-dumping duty. b. Only prima facie evidence is required at the time of initiation as held by the Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Textile Mills Association Vs. Dir. General of Anti-Dumping and CESTAT in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority. F3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 33. Jinfei has contended that the present review investigation was initiated based on insufficient evidence regarding the likelihood of dumping and injury. Jinfei argues that initiation of the investigation based on prima facie evidence is incorrect and does not align with the obligations of this Authority under Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules, 1995 and that in terms of Art. 5.3 of the Agreement on Anti-dumping, the Authority did not properly examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence. To support its argument Jinfei has relied on US Softwood Lumber¹ wherein the GATT Panel² had observed that sufficient evidence means something more than mere allegation or conjecture.³ Jinfei has also relied on Guatemala Cement – II to argue that it is the sufficiency of the evidence presented before the Authority upon which any investigation is to be initiated. Jinfei has further relied on the Panel's observations in Mexico Steel Pipes and Tubes to argue that mere examination of evidence cannot be considered to establish that evidence was sufficient to justify initiation in terms of Art. 5.3 of the Agreement on Anti-dumping. 34. Jinfei further contends that the decline in the volume of imports from the subject country establishes that there is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping from the subject goods4. Jinfei also argues that a decline in the volume of imports establishes that injury cannot be attributed to imports from the subject country. 5 Jinfei has also distinguished between the terms prima facie and sufficiency. It has been argued prima facie means "first impression" whereas sufficient denotes "legally satisfactory". Jinfei contends that as the Authority initiated the present investigation based on “prima facie evidence”, it failed to examine whether 35. there was "sufficient evidence" to initiate the investigation and thereby failed to fulfil the "sufficient evidence" standard as has been underlined in the abovementioned panel reports. The abovementioned arguments made by Jinfei lack merit. Jinfei has unnecessarily tried to emphasize the difference between the phrases “sufficient evidence” and “prima facie” evidence. The Authority agrees with Jinfei that no anti-dumping investigation can be initiated based on insufficient evidence. In this regard, it is noted that the term evidence as mentioned in Para 26 of the initiation notification means sufficient evidence. The usage of the term prima facie does not correlate with the quality of evidence and merely denotes that at the stage of initiation, there was sufficient evidence to initiate the investigation. It appears Jinfei is insisting the Authority should specifically mention the adjective “sufficient” before evidence, and in its understanding, the absence of the adjective would mean that the evidence was insufficient. The Authority disagrees with such a restrictive and formalistic interpretation. 36. To establish that the application did not contain sufficient evidence, Jinfei has argued that the decline in import volumes from the subject country indicates that the application lacked sufficient evidence of the likelihood of dumping and injury. The Authority disagrees with Jinfei's argument. The evidence to establish the likelihood of injury in a case is much different than establishing material injury in an original investigation. To establish a case of likelihood, evidence in the nature of para (vii) to Annexure -II needs to be produced before the Authority. These relate to magnitude of dumping margin, injury margin, surplus capacities, etc. The decline in import volume from a subject country can be a result of the trade remedial measure in place itself. Jinfei has not presented any arguments on likelihood parameters. Thus, Jinfei has failed to establish how the evidence presented in the application was insufficient. Jinfei has further highlighted this Authority's obligation under Art. 5.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement but has failed to mention any other known factor. Jinfei has incorrectly identified the legal standard applicable to sunset review investigations and has misinterpreted the same with the legal standard applicable to the original investigation. 37. The Authority had examined the evidence provided by the applicant against all the subject countries. Upon examination of the evidence, it concluded that the evidence was lacking against Korea RP and Thailand even to prima facie sustain the allegations made in the application and therefore, these countries were not included within the purview of the present investigation. However, for China PR a different conclusion was reached based on the evidence provided by the applicant. For these reasons, the Authority disagrees with Jinfei's submission and holds that the investigation was initiated based on sufficient evidence. For these reasons, the Authority disagrees with Jinfei's submission and holds that the investigation was initiated based on sufficient evidence. G. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DETERMINATION OF DUMPING MARGIN G1. SUBMISSIONS BY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES 38. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regards to the determination of normal value, export price and dumping margin. a. An individual margin should be allowed to Shuangwang, based on its cooperation. b. Contrary to the claim of the domestic industry, no related party of Shuangwang is producing the subject goods, since the party identified has sold its shares in February 2020. с. The adjustments claimed by the exporter are based on the verifiable information of the exporter, and cannot be considered inappropriate. Further, no adjustment for inland freight and credit cost has been reported for domestic sales, since the sales are on an ex-factory basis. G2. SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 39. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the normal value, export price and dumping margin: a. China PR should be treated as a non-market economy in accordance with Article 15(a)(i) of China's Accession Protocol and the normal value should be determined in terms of Annexure I, Rule 7 of the Rules. b. Since the information regarding domestic selling prices or costs in appropriate third countries were not available to the applicants and several products are imported and exported under the same HS Codes, the applicants have determined normal value based on the price payable in India. с. The normal value may be considered based on the actual cost of production of the domestic industry with a reasonable addition of profits. By determining normal value based on the lowest optimized cost of production of domestic producers, it is assumed that the Chinese producers are operating their plants at the most efficient cost of production. d. The non-confidential version of the response filed by Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co., Ltd is deficient as it has not reported any adjustments for a fair comparison of normal value and export price. In case no adjustments are reported in the confidential response, then the same must be rejected for being incomplete. e. In case, the Authority does not form a PCN in the present investigation, there is a need for adjustments to export price by adjusting the difference in costs between OEM and after-market products to enable fair comparison. f. Investigating authorities globally demand information concerning differences in channels of distribution with respect to sales made in domestic and export markets to enable fair comparison. G3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 40. The Authority notes the following relevant provisions with regard to the determination of normal value for China PR. Provisions under Para 7 and Para 8 of Annexure I to the Anti-Dumping Rules are as under: "7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated authority in a reasonable manner [keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in question] and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of the selection. Account shall also be taken within time limits; where appropriate, of the investigation if any made in a similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay of the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments. 8. (1) The term “non-market economy country" means any country which the designated authority determines as not operating on market principles of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchandise in such country do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise, in accordance with the criteria specified in subparagraph (3). (2) There shall be a presumption that any country that has been determined to be, or has been treated as, a non-market economy country for purposes of an antidumping investigation by the designated authority or by the competent authority of any WTO member country during the three-year period preceding the investigation is a non-market economy country. Provided, however, that the non-market economy country or the concerned firms from such country may rebut such a presumption by providing information and evidence to the designated authority that establishes that such country is not a non- market economy country on the basis of the criteria specified in sub-paragraph (3) (3) The designated authority shall consider in each case the following criteria as to whether: (a) the decisions of the concerned firms in such country regarding prices, costs and inputs, including raw materials, cost of technology and labour, output, sales and investment, are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand and without significant State interference in this regard, and whether costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values; (b) the production costs and financial situation of such firms are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in particular in relation to depreciation of assets, other write-offs, barter trade and payment via compensation of debts; (c) such firms are subject to bankruptcy and property laws which guarantee legal certainty and stability for the operation of the firms, and (d) the exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate. Provided, however, that where it is shown by sufficient evidence in writing on the basis of the criteria specified in this paragraph that market conditions prevail for one or more such firms subject to anti-dumping investigations, the designated authority may apply the principles set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 instead of the principles set out in paragraph 7 and in this paragraph. (4) Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub-paragraph (2), the designated authority may treat such country as market economy country which, on the basis of the latest detailed evaluation of relevant criteria, which includes the criteria specified in sub paragraph (3), has been, by publication of such evaluation in a public document, treated or determined to be treated as a market economy country for the purposes of anti-dumping investigations, by a country which is a Member of the World Trade Organization. 41. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded with the presumption of treating China PR as a non-market economy country. Upon initiation, the Authority advised the producers/exporters in China PR to respond to the notice of initiation and provide information on whether their data/information could be adopted for normal value determination. The Authority sent copies of the market economy treatment/supplementary questionnaire to all the known producers/ exporters in China PR to provide relevant information in this regard. 42. Article 15 of China's Accession Protocol in WTO provides as follows: "(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining price comparability; 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 conditions 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), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO Member may then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China. (c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. (d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector." 43. The Authority notes that while the provisions of Article 15 (a)(ii) of China PR's Accession Protocol have expired with effect from 11th December 2016, the provision under Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement read with obligation under 15(a)(i) of the Accession Protocol require criterion stipulated in Para 8 of the Annexure 1 of Anti-Dumping Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire for claiming MET status. The Authority notes that no producer or exporter from China PR has submitted market economy treatment or supplementary questionnaire response. Therefore, the normal value computation for these producers/exporters is required to be determined in terms of provisions of Para 7 of Annexure-1 of Anti-Dumping Rules. G.3.1. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE 44. The Authority notes that none of the producers/exporters from China PR has filed the supplementary questionnaire response to rebut the presumptions as mentioned in para 8 of Annexure – I of the Rules. Under these circumstances, the Authority has to proceed in accordance with para 7 of Annexure – I of the Rules. 45. It is noted that paragraph 7 of Annexure-I to the AD Rules stipulates three methods of constructing the normal value for Non-Market Economies: (a) on the basis of price or constructed value in a market economy third country; (b) export price from a third country to other countries, including India; and (c) on any other reasonable basis. The Authority notes that under the provisions of paragraph 7 of Annexure-I to the AD Rules, the normal value must first be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a surrogate country, or the price of the exports from such country to other countries, including India. However, when such basis is not possible, only then the Authority can determine the normal value on any other reasonable basis, including the price paid or payable in India. 46. It is to be noted that no information/evidence has been provided by the parties for the construction of the normal value on the basis of the first and second methods. There is no data available with respect to the price or constructed value of the subject goods produced in a market economy third country. Further, the HS code under which the PUC is being imported also includes other products which are not covered in the scope of the PUC. Therefore, extrapolating the export price of the subject goods from third country to other countries is not possible since the export data for the relevant HS code under which the PUC is being imported also includes other products which are not covered in the scope of the PUC. There is also no public data available with the Authority to determine the normal value from the above two methods. In the absence of the above information/evidence, it is not possible for the Authority to determine normal value on the basis of the first or second method. Therefore, the Authority has decided to construct normal value based on the third method, i.e., on any other reasonable basis including the price actually paid or payable in India. The Authority has constructed the normal value on the basis of the price paid or payable in India. G.3.2. DETERMINATION OF THE EXPORT PRICE 47. The following producers/exporters from China PR have filed responses to the Exporters' questionnaire i. Shandong Shuangwang aluminium Industry Company Ltd. ii. Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Company Ltd. iii. Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Company Ltd. 48. The responses filed by the exporters were verified by the Authority. The Authority also called for documents for the desk verification. The same was carried out and supplementary issues were also raised. The producers/exporters responded to the same. 49. The Authority notes that the exporters mentioned hereinabove have supplied only in the after-market segment in India. The other interested parties have not disputed the cost difference, but have only claimed that no PCN methodology should be adopted in view of previous determinations. The normal value determined by the Authority is based on the cost of production of the domestic industry with respect to the production and sale of goods in the domestic market. The domestic industry claimed significant difference between the products sold in the OEMs and in the after-market segment with respect to parameters such as mould cost, packing cost, distribution costs and the associated volumes. The Authority however notes that the domestic industry has not been able to offer complete verification of all of its claims with regard to difference in the costs. The Authority has therefore considered price adjustments based on information on record from the domestic industry and responding companies. 50. Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides as under. “2.4 A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value. This comparison shall be made at the same level of trade, normally at the ex-factory level, and in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time. Due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which affect price comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences which are also demonstrated to affect price comparability. In the cases referred to in paragraph 3, allowances for costs, including duties and taxes, incurred between importation and resale, and for profits accruing, should also be made. If in these cases price comparability has been affected, the authorities shall establish the normal value at a level of trade equivalent to the level of trade of the constructed export price, or shall make due allowance as warranted under this paragraph. The authorities shall indicate to the parties in question what information is necessary to ensure a fair comparison and shall not impose an unreasonable burden of proof on those parties." 51. Therefore, the Authority has undertaken adjustment for all factors that affect price comparability between the normal value and export price, including differences in physical characteristics, packing costs, level of trade, and quantities, based on information provided by the domestic industry and responding exporters. Accordingly, to ensure a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, the Authority has adjusted the export price for the difference in costs on these accounts. The net export price has been determined after adjustment for the cost differences. Export Price for Shandong Shuangwang Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd. 52. Shandong Shuangwang aluminium Industry Co., Ltd. is a limited liability company. The legal status of Shuangwang has not changed in the last three years. During the period of investigation, Shuangwang has directly exported *** MT of product under consideration to India. 53. However, in response to the comments on the disclosure statement, the domestic industry has challenged the accuracy of the value of the exported subject goods reported by the cooperative producer, alleging mismatch. The Authority re-verified the data reported by Shandong Shuangwang Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd. with the Indian customs data available to the Authority. Upon comparison, it was observed that while the volumes reported by the concerned producer closely align with the Indian customs data, there is a substantial discrepancy in the associated values. Consequently, the Authority is unable to accept the net export price (NEP) as reported in the Exporter's Questionnaire Response filed by the concerned producer and has proceeded to compute the NEP for the said exporter using the Indian customs data. Regarding the adjustments claimed by the concerned exporter, it is noted that since the reported value in the response is itself in question, the Authority has applied Rule 6(8) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, and proceeded with the available facts. 54. Accordingly, the net export price at the ex-factory level for Shandong Shuangwang Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd. has been determined after due adjustments and the same is shown in the dumping margin table below. Export Price for Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co., Ltd. 55. Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co., Ltd. is a limited liability company. The legal status of Shuguang has not changed in the last three years. During the period of investigation, Shuguang has directly exported *** MT of product under consideration to India. 56. Shuguang has claimed adjustments on account of inland freight and handling expenses. Accordingly, the net export price at the ex-factory level for Shuguang has been determined after adjustment for inland freight, handling expenses, etc. and the same is shown in the dumping margin table below. Export Price for Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co., Ltd. 57. Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co., Ltd. is a limited liability company. The legal status of Jinfei Kaida has not changed in the last three years. During the period of investigation, Jinfei Kaida has directly exported *** MT of product under consideration to India. 58. Jinfei Kaida has not claimed any adjustments in export price as per the narrative portion of the EQR. However, few incoterms have been provided in Appendix 3A in Excel format. Accordingly, the net export price at the ex- factory level for Jinfei Kaida has been determined after adjustment for inland freight, credit cost, and handling charges, etc. and the same is shown in the dumping margin table below. G.3.3. DUMPING MARGIN 59. The normal value, export price and dumping margin determined in the present investigation are as follows: Dumping Margin Table +--------------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | Producer/Exporter | Normal Value | Export Price | Dumping | Dumping | Dumping | | | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | Margin | Margin (%) | Margin | | | | | (USD/MT) | | (Range) | +==========================+===============+===============+===============+===============+===============+ | Shandong Shuangwang | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 | | Aluminium Industry Co., | | | | | | | Ltd. | | | | | | +--------------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | Zhejiang Shuguang | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 | | Industrial Co., Ltd. | | | | | | +--------------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel| *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20 | | Co., Ltd. | | | | | | +--------------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ | Non-cooperative/ exporters | *** | *** | *** | *** | 50-60 | +--------------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ H. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK H1. SUBMISSIONS BY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES 60. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the injury, causal link and likelihood of dumping and injury: a. Owing to the establishment of a level playing field, the Indian industry has grown in terms of number of producers, capacities and market share. The domestic industry has registered a steady increase in volume and profitability parameters, while the imports have reduced. Thus, continuation of duty is not warranted. b. There is no injury to the domestic industry as the volume of imports has declined and the volume and profitability parameters of the domestic industry have improved. с. Initiation of the present investigation is baseless as there is no evidence of injury and a causal link to necessitate initiation. d. The Panel in the US – DRAMS has held that anti-dumping duty should remain in force only as long as and to the extent necessary. The purpose of anti-dumping duty is to offset dumping and address injury. In the present case, the duty has served its purpose. e. Excess capacity in India is driving the cost higher and non-injurious price should be discounted for such excess capacity and inflated costs. The cost undercutting could be on account of such a higher cost. f. While the performance of the domestic industry has improved phenomenally since large Indian consumers have primarily sourced domestically; the improvement cannot be attributed to the anti- dumping duty alone. It cannot be assumed that users would not shift back to imports, in the absence of duty. g. Imports were taking place when the industry was at a nascent stage and did not have economies of scale with cutting-edge technology. h. There is no evidence of likelihood of dumping and injury in the absence of duty, particularly in view of the trend of low import volumes, and increase in import prices. This shows that the exporters were under no compulsion to reduce their prices to gain increased volumes. i. The findings of the European Commission concerning capacities are based on estimates of the petitioner in the European Union and cannot be relied on. In any case, the findings determine the capacity utilization of the Chinese industry at ***%, which is optimal and does not indicate the likelihood of increased exportation. j. A perusal of the complete findings of the European Commission, rather than selective reading by the applicants, shows the absence of likelihood. The findings show that the imports from China were not a cause of injury, but the Commission extended the duty given the negative situation faced by the Union industry. k. While the Indian producers can utilize only ***% of their capacity domestically, the Chinese producers can utilize ***%, implying lower freely disposable capacity. 1. There are no significant inventories for the product, as the goods are tailor-made. No evidence of inventories has also been given by the applicants. m. Despite the low duty applicable, the exporters have not exported the subject goods to India, which shows the absence of the likelihood of dumping or injury in the event of expiry of duty. H2. SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 61. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the injury, causal link and likelihood of dumping and injury: a. The domestic industry has not suffered injury because the anti-dumping duties are in force. b. Injury and causal link are not required to be established in a sunset review as held by the CESTAT in P.T. Asahimas Chemicals V. Designated Authority and held by the Panel in the US Mexico. OCTG from c. Contrary to the submissions of the other interested parties, the capacity utilization of the domestic industry is higher than the Chinese industry, which would lead to a lower cost of production for the domestic industry. Thus, the cost undercutting is more significant when viewed from the fact that the landed price of imports is due to the higher cost of production of the Chinese industry. d. As opposed to submissions of the other interested parties, continuation of anti-dumping duty is based on whether there is a likelihood of continuation/recurrence of dumping and injury. e. In case of the expiry of anti-dumping duties, the domestic industry cannot compete with unfair prices charged by the Chinese exporters. f. The other interested parties have not furnished any evidence regarding the claim that consumers will not shift to imports in case of the expiry of anti-dumping duties. In such a case, there was no incentive for the exporters to even participate in the present investigation. g. The consumers compare the prices offered to them by exporters from China and the prices offered by the domestic industry. There are hectic price negotiations where the lowest prices offered are considered by the OEMs even if such prices are dumped and below the cost of production of the domestic industry. h. Contrary to the submissions of the other interested parties, the volumes of exports to India are low as the demand in after-market is below ***%. OEMs are reluctant to switch to an exporter as the anti-dumping duties may increase pursuant to mid-term review and retrospective duties may be applied in case of absorption review. i. While the raw material cost of the domestic industry has increased by ***% during the injury period, the landed price has increased only by ***%. j. The dumping of subject goods has continued in India. The dumping margin is higher if the export price to OEMs is compared with selling price of the domestic industry to OEMs. k. The dumping of subject goods increased post-reduction of anti-dumping duty during the first sunset review and reduced post-enhancement of anti-dumping duty after the mid-term review investigation. 1. There are overcapacities in China PR. CITIC Dicastal group alone has capacities 10 times the demand in India. m. While the applicants did not have the information about inventories, the Authority may check inventories from the responses filed by the participating exporters. The largest producer of the subject goods in China has not participated, hence, the inventories of the participating producers may not be reflective of the situation in the subject country. n. While Chinese producers are operating at 80.6% capacity utilization, in case capacity utilization is increased by 1%, they will be able to cater to a 22% share of demand in India. o. In case Chinese producers can utilize 4.6% more capacities, they will be able to cater to the total demand in India. p. While the other interested parties have claimed 81% capacity utilization is optimum, the domestic industry is operating at higher capacity utilization and one of the domestic producers has achieved 91% capacity utilization, thus, 81% cannot be claimed optimum. q. The capacity utilization of Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co., Ltd. has declined during the period of investigation which may be used to export to India. r. Contrary to the submissions of the other interested parties, the European Commission has issued the findings by relying upon the capacity utilization figures and the said cannot be claimed to be unreliable. s. As opposed to the claims of the other interested parties, the applicants have relied upon only the likelihood information from the findings issued by the EC and not the findings themselves. t. The selling price of Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co., Ltd. for exports to India has not increased in line with the increase in selling price in the domestic market and exports to other countries. u. The growth rate in India is higher than the global growth rate, making India a price-attractive market. V. The producers from China PR face trade remedial measures in other jurisdictions such as Argentina, the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. W. The largest consumers of the product include China, USA and India. Chinese producers have lost markets in these countries due to the imposition of trade remedial measures and deteriorating trade relationships. Χ. The landed price of imports is below the cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry. y. The subject imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. Price undercutting is higher in case the likely price to OEMs is compared with the selling price of the domestic industry. Z. In case of cessation of anti-dumping duty, the low-priced imports are likely to adversely impact the profitability of the domestic industry. The domestic industry will incur losses, decline in cash profits and record a negative return on capital employed. aa. Contrary to the submissions of the other interested parties, imports were entering India even after the anti-dumping duty had been imposed. The volumes of imports were reduced only due to the apprehension of the consumers that the prices might increase due to an increase in anti-dumping duty pursuant to the mid-term review investigation. bb. The Chinese producers have an unfair advantage over the Indian industry as the prices of aluminium in China are fixed as per Shanghai Metal Exchange prices which are lesser than London Metal Exchange prices. cc. The largest producer of the product under consideration in China