Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-19042024-253778
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 108]
NEW DELHI, TUESEDAY, APRIL 16, 2024/CHAITRA 27, 1946
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
Preliminary Findings
New Delhi, the 16th April, 2024
Case No- AD(OI)- 05/2023
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber (IIR)” originating in
or exported from China PR, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United States of America
F. NO. 6/05/2023-DGTR .—A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the Act),
and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for
Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time, (hereinafter also referred to as the Rules)
thereof;
1. Whereas, Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant” or “the domestic
industry” or “RSEPL”) filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the
“Authority”) in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the anti-dumping rules for initiation of anti-
dumping investigation concerning imports of the Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber (hereinafter also referred to as
the “product under consideration” or the “subject goods” or “IIR”) from China PR, Russia, Saudi Arabia,
Singapore and the United States of America (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject countries”).
2. And whereas, in view of the duly substantiated application filed by the applicant, the Authority issued a public
notice vide Notification No. 6/05/2023-DGTR dated 30th June 2023, published in the Gazette of India,
initiating an anti-dumping investigation into the imports of the product under consideration originating in or
exported from China PR, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United States of America in accordance with
Rule 5 of the anti-dumping rules to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of the
subject goods and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to
remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry.
B. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the 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 sub-rule (5)
of Rule 5 supra.
b. The Authority issued a public notice dated 30th June 2023, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating an anti-dumping investigation concerning the import of subject goods from the
subject countries.
c. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the governments of the subject countries,
through their embassies in India, known producers and exporters from the subject countries, known
importers/users and the domestic industry as well as other interested parties, as per the addresses made
available by the applicant and requested them to make their views known in writing within the
prescribed time limit.
d. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters and to the governments of the subject countries, through their embassies in India, in
accordance with Rule 6(3) of the anti-dumping rules. A copy of the non-confidential version of the
application was made available to other interested parties, wherever requested.
e. The Authority sent an exporter’s questionnaire to the following known producers/exporters to elicit
relevant information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
i. Arlanxeo Singapore Pte. Ltd
ii. China Petrochemical Corporation
iii. Exxon Mobile Corporation
iv. Huntsman International LLC.
v. Japan Butyl Co. Ltd
vi. Lyondell Basell Industries Holdings B.V
vii. Timco Rubber
viii. PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim
ix. SABIC
x. TPC Group
xi. Zhejian Cenway New Synthetic Materials Co., Ltd.
f. The embassies of the subject countries in India were requested to advise the exporters/producers from
their country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit.
g. In response to the initiation of the subject investigation notification, the following producers/exporters
from the subject countries have responded by filing a questionnaire response:
i. ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (“EMAPPL”)
ii. ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BV, Belgium (EMPC)
iii. ExxonMobil Product Solutions Company (“EMPSC”)
iv. MRF SG PTE LTD.
v. Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company (“Kemya”)
vi. ARLANXEO Singapore Pte Ltd.
vii. Public Joint Stock Company
viii. Public Joint Stock Sibur Holding
ix. Sibur International GMBH,
x. Trigon Gulf FZCO
h. The Authority sent an importer’s questionnaire to the following known importers/users of the subject
goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
i. Rubberking Tyres India Pvt Ltd
ii. Elpha Polychem Private Limited
iii. Cavendish Industries Limited
iv. Chelna Inc
v. Ram Charan Company Private Limited
vi. Balaji Enterprises
vii. Karnataka Chemical Industries
viii. Ganpati General Trading LLP
ix. Dev Rubber Factory Private Limited
x. Braza Tyres Pvt. Ltd.
xi. Pinkcity Rubber and Chemicals
xii. Aks Polychem Pvt Ltd.
xiii. Adven Tyre Tube India Pvt. Limited,
xiv. Paragon Vial Caps Pvt Ltd
xv. Ud Pharma Rubber Products
xvi. Ravinder Kumar Vijay Kumar
xvii. Sunrise Industrial Corporation
xviii. Swastik Sales Agency
xix. Exxon Mobil Company India Pvt Ltd
xx. Cinq Micron Chem Pvt Ltd
xxi. Kesoram Industries Ltd
xxii. Raman Enterprises
xxiii. Astron Polymers Private Limited
xxiv. Kohinoor India Pvt Ltd
xxv. Ambica Boiler & Fabricator
xxvi. Prs Tyres Limited
xxvii. Supple Rubber Chemical Pvt Ltd
xxviii. Hindustan Cycles & Tubes Pvt. Ltd.
xxix. Seal For Life India Pvt Ltd
xxx. Sangee
xxxi. Jonson Rubber Industries Limited
xxxii. J K Tyre & Industries Ltd.
xxxiii. Vista Business Ventures LLP
xxxiv. Bajaj Rubber Company Pvt Ltd
xxxvv. Sonata Rubber Pvt. Ltd
xxxvi. Sun Exim
xxxvii. Sahil Enterprises
xxxviii. Mil Industries Ltd
xxxix. B. B. M. lmpex Pvt Ltd
xl. Majestic International
xli. Anabond Ltd
xlii. Pix Transmissions Ltd
xliii. Henkel Anand India Private Limited
xliv. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Ltd
xlv. Jayam Industries
xlvi. Vee Rubber India Private Limited
xlvii. Elgi Rubber Company Limited
xlviii. Maxxis Rubber India Pvt Ltd
xlix. Bis Polymers Ltd
l. Specific Ventil Fabrik
li. Pearl Patch
lii. Indian Rubber Manufacturers Resear
liii. Armacell India Pvt Ltd
liv. Deepak Overseas
lv. R.K. Polymer
lvi. Sakshi lmpex
lvii. Maxwell Polymers LLP
lviii. Hartex Rubber Pvt Ltd
lix. Rubber India
lx. Shri Krishan Rubber Chemical
lxi. Surendra Elastomers Pvt Ltd
lxii. Thakar Dass & Co
lxiii. Thomson Rubbers India Pvt Ltd
lxiv. Jamnadas Industries
lxv. Midas Treads (India) Private Limited
lxvi. Polygold Precured Systems Pvt. Ltd.
lxvii. Rajshila Synthetics Pvt. Ltd
lxviii. Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Ltd.
lxix. B. K. Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd
lxx. Allied J B Friction Pvt Ltd
lxxi. Speedways Rubber Company
lxxii. Chemicolour International Pvt Ltd
lxxiii. Cherry International
lxxiv. K.L. Trading Corporation
lxxv. Classic Auto Tubes Ltd
lxxvi. Chowdhry Rubber & Chemical Pvt Ltd.
lxxvii. Metro Tyres Limited
lxxviii. Midas Butyl Products India Pvt Ltd
lxxix. Flexilis Private Limited
lxxx. Zenith Industrial Rubber Products Pvt.
lxxxi. Yokohama India Pvt. Ltd.
lxxxii. Ceat Specialty Tyres Limited
lxxxiii. Jay Ashirwad Trading Co.
lxxxiv. Tulsiram Hanumanbagas Gilada
lxxxv. Jasmino Polymertech Pvt Ltd.
lxxxvi. B.P. Chemicals
lxxxvii. Abhi Rubber & Chemicals
lxxxviii. Sagar Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd.
lxxxix. Agarwal Rubber Limited
xc. Wrigley India Private Limited
xci. Toyota Tsusho India Private Limited
xcii. MRF Limited
xciii. Sakshi Innovations Private Limited
xciv. Exel Rubber Private Limited
xcv. Bharat Rubber Works Private Limited
xcvi. Classic Industries and Exports Limited
xcvii. Apollo Tyres Limited.
xcviii. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Private Ltd.
xcix. B P Chemicals
c. Triton Valves Limited
ci. Mysore Polymers And Rubber Products
cii. Continental India Private Limited
ciii. Jmf Synthetics India Private Limited
civ. Balkrishna Industries Limited
cv. Jk Tyre & Industries Limited
cvi. Elmer Products Pvt Ltd
cvii. Bridgestone India Private Limited
cviii. Corrosion Engineers Private Limited
cix. Satyam Rubber Industries
cx. Dolfin Rubbers Ltd.
cxi. Hind Elastomers Private Limited
cxii. D Decor Exports Private Limited.
cxiii. Ceat Limited
cxiv. Globus Rubchem Private Limited
cxv. Accura Valves Private Limited
cxvi. Nishigandha Polymers Pvt Ltd
cxvii. Perfetti Van Melle India Private Limited
cxviii. Crane Process Flow Technologies (I)
i. A copy of the initiation notification and non-confidential version of the application was sent to the
Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers on July 14, 2023
however the Authority has not received any comments.
j. The Authority sent the importer’s questionnaire to the following known Associations of the subject goods
in India for circulation & calling necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
i. FICCI
ii. CII
iii. ASSOCHAM
iv. FIEO
k. In response to the initiation of the subject investigation notification, the following importers/users from
the subject countries have responded by filing a questionnaire response:
i. ExxonMobil Company India Private Limited (“EMCIPL”)
ii. Exel Rubber Pvt. Ltd
iii. Classic Industries and Exports Ltd.
iv. JMF Performance Materials Pvt. Ltd.
v. Adven Tyre Tube India Pvt. Ltd.
vi. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers’ Association (‘ATMA’)
vii. CEAT Ltd
viii. MRF Ltd
ix. J K Tyre & Industries Ltd
l. 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 to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other
interested parties.
m. Request was made to DG System to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of the subject goods
for the injury period and also the period of investigation. The Authority has relied upon the data for
computation of the volume of imports and required analysis after due examination of the transactions.
n. The non-injurious price (NIP) based on the optimum cost of production and cost to make & sell the
subject goods in India based on the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules has been worked out
to ascertain whether anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove
injury to the domestic industry.
o. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st April 2022 to
31st March 2023 (12 months). The examination of trends in the context of injury analysis covered the
periods 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and the period of investigation.
p. Information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to the
sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the
confidentiality claims wherever warranted and such information has been considered as 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.
q. 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 views/observations on the
basis of the facts available.
r. The Authority conducted a meeting where the interested parties were invited to give their comments on
the scope of the product under consideration and PCN methodology.
s. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the interested
parties up to this stage, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to
the present investigation. The Authority will further examine the evidentiary documents submitted by
the interested parties subsequent to the preliminary findings, which will form the basis for conclusions
at the time of final findings.
t. ‘***’ in this notification represents information furnished by an interested party on a confidential basis
and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
u. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = ₹ 80.79.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
4. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration was defined as follows by the Authority:
“The product under consideration in the present investigation is Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber (“IIR”) which is
a synthetic rubber, commonly used to manufacture inner tubes for tyres and other high-pressure tubes. IIR has
applications in the tube and tyre inner liners, which form an integral part of the pneumatic tyre manufacturing
process. It is also used in diaphragms, gaskets, wire and cable insulations, liners, O-rings, seals, weather
stripping, and bottle closures.
The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 40, under tariff code 40023100 of the First
Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on
the scope of the present investigation.”
C.1 Views of other interested parties
5. The submissions of the other interested parties with regard to the product under consideration and like article
are as follows:
i. The scope of the product under consideration defined in the initiation notification is broad and covers
certain speciality grades which are not produced or sold by the domestic industry and should be
excluded from the product scope.
ii. The two major specifications in the product under consideration which lead to different technical
properties resulting in different end-use applications are “Mooney Viscosity”; and “Unsaturation
Levels”. While the regular grade produced by the domestic industry and EMPSC have high mooney
viscosity and medium unsaturation levels, the speciality grades of IIR manufactured by EMPSC have
different combinations of the specifications. The Authority must exclude IIR with low unsaturation
content <=1.35 mol% and IIR with high unsaturation content >=2.00 mol% from the product scope.
iii. Differences in the mooney viscosity and unsaturation levels in the specialty grades as compared to
regular grades lead to differences in chemical composition, molecular structure and technical
specifications, which imply that specialty and regular grades are not technically substitutable. Further,
the products have different applications and end uses.
iv. In case the Authority does not exclude the specialty grades from the product scope, it must notify
separate PCN for specialty grades since such grades command higher prices on account of different raw
material composition, technical properties, and end-use applications.
v. To ensure a fair comparison between the regular grade and specialty grade, the following PCN is
proposed –
+------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| S.N. | PCN parameter | Value | Notation |
+======+=====================+=====================+==========+
| 1. | Mooney Viscosity | High (51 +/- 5) | H |
| | (MU) | Low (31 +/- 5) | L |
+------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| 2. | Unsaturation content| High (2.00-2.60) | H |
| | (mol%) | Medium (1.50-1.90) | M |
| | | Low (0.85-1.35) | L |
+------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
vi. The domestic industry does not produce a like article to the food grade IIR produced by Arlanxeo, due
to differences in physical and chemical characteristics and end-use. Food grade IIR complies with strict
government and industry requirements, for food contact applications (for the production of chewing
gums), and has different technical specifications.
vii. It is requested that the Authority clarify that HIIR is not included in the scope of the product under
consideration.
viii. There is no need for formulation of PCN methodology in the present case.
C.2 Views of the domestic industry
6. The submissions of the domestic industry with regard to the product under consideration and like articles are as
follows:
i. The domestic industry has provided evidence that it has produced and sold low mooney viscosity.
Further, IR with “low” and “high” unsaturation content is already in the product profile of the domestic
industry.
ii. The demand for low mooney viscosity and High Mooney Viscosity and IIR with low unsaturation
content <=1.35 mol% and high unsaturation content >=2.00 mol% content is quite low in the country
i.e., at less than 0.1%.
iii. Food grade IIR is used in wrapping or packing material and medicinal items and is in the product profile
of the domestic industry.
iv. Food grade IIR is also used for making chewing gums, which is not there in the current product profile,
but the domestic industry intends to start selling it. The demand for the food grade IIR used in food
items is only 50-60 MT.
v. Since the domestic industry is a new entrant in the market, it is attempting to first establish itself in the
market instead of focusing on market segments.
vi. Mere difference in specification does not call a need for PCN. The other interested parties have not
provided evidence that there is a significant difference in the cost of the different specifications. The
consumer association has categorically stated that there is no need for PCN.
C.3 Examination by the Authority
7. The Authority had granted an opportunity to all the interested parties to file their submissions on the scope of
the PUC and PCNs. Further, the interested parties were asked to provide the details of cost and selling price
differences for different parameters and values as suggested in their proposed PCN methodology.
8. Comments were filed by ExxonMobil Product Solutions Company (“EMPSC”), Arlanxeo Singapore Pte. Ltd
and Automotive Tyre Manufacturer’s Association (ATMA). The domestic industry was also asked to provide
its comments on the cost/price differences in the PCNs proposed by the producers/exporters.
9. With regard to specialty grades, the domestic industry showed that the low mooney viscosity has been
produced and sold by the domestic industry. Further, the IIR with low unsaturation content <=1.35 mol% and
IIR with high unsaturation content >=2.00 mol% - products with “low” and “high” unsaturation content can be
produced by RSEPL, with the existing machinery and technology. Although the other interested parties have
argued that these speciality grades should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration, the
Authority notes that there are no imports of IIR with low unsaturation content. Further, only a negligible
volume of 300 kg of IIR having low mooney viscosity but high unsaturation has been imported. It is well
settled that the question of exclusion arises only when there are imports of the product type, and the domestic
industry has not supplied like the article. However, in the present case, there are no imports of the product
types for which exclusion has been sought, barring one transaction of negligible volume. There is no material
demand for the product in the market, and therefore, the domestic industry has not produced and supplied the
same as well. The product with low or high mooney viscosity and unsaturation content can be interchangeably
used. Further, the domestic industry has provided evidence to show the production of goods with low mooney
viscosity. Further, the domestic industry has also enclosed a specification sheet, which shows that product with
different unsaturation contents falls within the specification of goods it can produce. The Authority further
notes that the present case involves a new industry, that has set up a facility for a new product and is facing
difficulty in capturing the market on account of dumped imports of the product. Further, the product types are
not being imported into India as such. In view of the same, it is not appropriate to consider whether the product
has actually been produced and sold by the domestic industry, but whether the domestic industry has the
capability to produce such products. Accordingly, the Authority provisionally finds that there is no cause for
the exclusion of specialty grades from the product scope.
10. With regard to food-grade IIR, it is noted there are two grades of food-grade IIR. One is used for packing in
food or medicinal items and the other one is used as an ingredient for making food items like chewing gums.
The Authority notes that while food-grade IIR used for wrapping or packaging is being offered for sale by the
domestic industry, food-grade IIR used as an ingredient in chewing gum is not. Although the domestic industry
has claimed that it intends to start producing and selling this product, it is currently not in its product profile.
Since the domestic industry has not shown any ability to produce the food-grade IIR used for making food
items, the Authority has excluded the food-grade IIR used as an ingredient in the production of chewing gum
from the scope of the current investigation.
11. Accordingly, the scope of the product under consideration is provisionally determined as follows.
“3. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Isobutylene-Isoprene Rubber
(“IIR”) which is a synthetic rubber, commonly used to manufacture inner tubes for tyres and other
high-pressure tubes. The scope of the product under consideration excludes food-grade IIR used as an
ingredient in the production of chewing gum. IIR has applications in the tube and tyre inner liners,
which form an integral part of the pneumatic tyre manufacturing process. It is also used in diaphragms,
gaskets, wire and cable insulations, liners, O-rings, seals, weather stripping, and bottle closures.
4. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 40, under tariff code 4002 31 00 of the
First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The customs classification is only indicative and is not
binding on the scope of the present investigation.”
12. Further, based on the information supplied by the interested parties and discussions held, the Authority has
adopted the following PCN methodology for fair comparison.
+------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| S.N. | PCN parameter | Value | Notation |
+======+=====================+=====================+==========+
| 1. | Mooney Viscosity | High (51 +/- 5) | H |
| | (MU) | Low (31 +/- 5) | L |
+------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| 2. | Unsaturation content| High (2.00-2.60) | H |
| | (mol%) | Medium (1.36-1.99) | M |
| | | Low (0.85-1.35) | L |
+------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1 Views of other interested parties
13. The submissions of the other interested parties with regard to the scope of the domestic industry and standing
are as follows:
i. SIBUR indirectly controls certain key management and policy decisions of RSEPL, as per the AoA of the
petitioner. Two directors are appointed by SIBUR on the board of RSEPL. A decision on reserved matters
and joint approval transactions cannot be taken without the approval of at least one of the directors
appointed by SIBUR and one of the authorised representatives of one of the shareholders of SIBUR till
the time SIBUR holds qualifying shares (25.1%).
ii. The only exception to the abovementioned is when the board meeting has been adjourned three times due
to the absence of at least one director of each shareholder group. However, such a situation is
extraordinary and is unlikely to occur.
iii. In case of related party transactions, the directors of the shareholder group with whom the related party
transactions are proposed shall not be part of the discussion and shall be bound to vote as per the vote of
other shareholder group. Thus, in case of related party transactions with RIL, SIBUR gets majority voting
rights in the board meeting.
iv. Even when SIBUR ceases to hold qualifying shares but collectively holds more than 15.1% of shares,
related party transactions cannot be approved without the vote of at least one of the directors appointed by
SIBUR.
v. The de facto control of the joint venture lies with both RIL and SIBUR.
vi. The transactions related to reserved matters in the annual general meeting as well as the extra ordinary
general meeting of RSEPL have been passed only after acceptance by the Chief Operating Officer and the
whole-time director appointed by SIBUR.
vii. The European Commission in the merger decision between SIBUR and the Tatar-American Investment
and Finance group of companies found that although RIL holds the majority of shares in RSEPL, both
RIL and SIBUR have joint control over it.
viii. RIL and SIBUR signed a technology license agreement wherein RSEPL can use the proprietary butyl
rubber production technology of SIBUR, SIBUR will develop basic engineering design for RSEPL and
train personnel in this regard. This provides leverage to SIBUR to control the policy and operational
decisions of RSEPL.
ix. There is a pre-marketing agreement between RIL, RSEPL and Sibur International GmbH. RSEPL exports
to Europe and other regions through Sibur International GmbH. Sibur International GmbH exports
product under consideration produced by NKNH to India. Both NKNHNKNH and Sibur International
GmbH are owned and controlled by SIBUR. Thus, RSEPL should not be considered as a domestic
industry in this investigation.
x. Since SIBUR controls both NKNH and Sibur International GmbH, it should be considered as a single
entity for the purpose of this investigation. The claim that there are no direct exports by the Russian
producer should not be accepted.
xi. The claim of the petitioner that no injury analysis would be possible if it is not considered as an eligible
domestic industry does not prevent the Authority from declaring the petitioner as an ineligible domestic
industry.
D.2 Views of the domestic industry
14. The submissions of the domestic industry with regard to the scope of domestic industry and standing are as
follows:
i. Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Limited (RSEPL) is the sole producer of the subject goods in India.
ii. RSEPL was set up as a joint venture of Reliance Industries Limited and Sibur Investment AG,
Switzerland.
iii. SIBUR Holding also had a shareholding in SIBUR Togliatti, a producer of the product under
consideration and has a stake in PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim (NKNH), a Russian producer/exporter of
the product under consideration.
iv. Even though NKNH is engaged in the production of the subject goods, it has not exported the same to
India directly.
v. SIBUR Switzerland has a shareholding in RSEPL, but it is not in a position to legally or operationally
exercise restraint or direction over the operations of the latter, since RIL has the majority shareholding.
vi. The Russian producers NKNH and RSEPL do not control each other, are not under common control of
a third party, and do not jointly control a third party.
vii. Despite the presence of RSEPL in the Indian market, NKNH has been continuously exporting through
traders to India.
viii. ExxonMobil has deliberately and mischievously partially quoted the documents in an attempt to derail
the investigation. The object and purpose of the Companies Act and the anti-dumping law are different
and the relationship under the Companies Act cannot be relied upon in an anti-dumping investigation.
The definition provided in a different law cannot be applied to anti-dumping investigations. In a number
of cases, the Authority has held that the meaning of production is different under different laws as they
have different objectives.
ix. While the scope under the Companies Act is wider and concerns operations of the company before
commencement of production and up to winding up, the anti-dumping laws and rules are only
concerned with the period of investigation. The relationship is also seen during the period of
investigation and not pre-period of investigation or post period of investigation. Thus, the meaning of
control whether de jure or de-facto should be examined only in reference to the period of investigation.
x. The object behind exclusion of related party from the scope of the domestic industry is to exclude
producers, which are benefitting from their relationships with the foreign producers. In case of legal or
operational control, the domestic producer is said to be related to a foreign producer / exporter. Even if
two parties are related, the mere relationship is insufficient to consider domestic producer as ineligible.
xi. There is a need to check if behavior of related parties is distinct from unrelated parties, if they triggered,
intensified, benefitted or shielded itself from dumping, if the injury is self-inflicted, impact of imports
made by related party, whether related party had exported the product to India during the period of
investigation, if the volume of related exporter is substituting the unrelated domestic producers’ market,
whether the relationship has the potential to impact decision concerning production, pricing, or cost of
like article, the statutory or organizational restrictions by shareholders, whether the related parties
operate autonomously or in collusion or are competing with each other and whether they have
conflicting interest in anti-dumping investigation.
xii. In the present investigation while RSEPL will benefit from anti-dumping duty, Sibur will be subject to
anti-dumping duty. There is no difference in behavior of RSEPL despite having alleged related parties
in the subject country, Both the parties are in competition and conflicting interests. There is no evidence
that RSEPL has participated in dumping or the injury is self-inflicted. Thus, it should not be excluded
from the scope of the domestic industry.
xiii. RIL holds majority of shares and directors in RSEPL, the right to nominate the Chairman of the Board
rests with RIL and thus, all decision where majority voting is required are of RIL.
xiv. The reserved matters do not entail day-to-day business or marketing or pricing related decisions of
RSEPL which could have allowed RSEPL to suffer self-inflicted injury. SIBUR cannot take any
decision unilaterally unless it is supported by RIL. Thus, SIBUR is not in a position to exercise restraint
or direction over RSEPL.
xv. As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, AoA does not establish control of SIBUR
over the petitioner.
xvi. The notice and transcript of Annual General Meeting as well as Extra Ordinary General Meeting relied
upon by the other interested parties, does not show control and is not relevant to the present
investigation as it only concerns capital addition.
xvii. As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, the European Commission held that RIL
has control over RSEPL. Further, the document relied upon is related to merger and acquisition and not
anti-dumping investigation. The meaning and scope of related parties is different under the two.
xviii. The media release relied upon by the other interested parties shows acquisition of technology and
training from SIBUR. The fact pertains to pre-commissioning of production and not relevant to the
present anti-dumping investigation. It does not show control over production, sales, costs, or prices of
the petitioner. In a number of cases, technology has been sourced from other producers in other
countries.
xix. As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, control of SIBUR over NKNH, TAIF or
control of TAIF over NKNH is not relevant to the present investigation.
xx. No clause of reserved matter shows control of SIBUR on operations of the petitioner regarding
production, purchase, sales, pricing, or any other factor relevant to an anti-dumping investigation.
xxi. Certain clauses in reserved matters, relied upon by Exxon, relate to pre-commercial operations of plant
and business establishment funding phase are no longer applicable as the plant has already commenced.
xxii. The other clauses in reserved matters do not concern anti-dumping investigation nor are in relation to
operations in the period of investigation as they relate to expansion plans, general principles of
marketing which is a one-line general strategy to sell product at maximum net back, winding up,
altering the MoA or other documents, change in authorized capital, creation of a subsidiary, approval of
modification of business plan, creation of mortgage or charges, obtaining or providing loans or
guarantees, entering into contract with third party regarding engineering services, construction, purchase
of equipment or acquisition or sale of immovable property, contract with amount of expenditure over
1,00,00,000 USD per annum and accounting policies.
xxiii. In case of a deadlock between RIL and SIBUR, RIL has the power to direct SIBUR to sell off its share
to RIL. Likewise, SIBUR has power to require RIL to purchase its share. Thus, in a situation of
deadlock, RIL assumes control over the entirety of operations. Thus, SIBUR cannot prevent any
decision by RIL directors due to presence of deadlock clause.
xxiv. The pre-marketing agreement between SIBUR and RSEPL has expired in 2019 while the control of
NKNH was acquired by SIBUR in 2021 when such agreement was not in force. The agreement was
meant for imports into India for seed marketing and not exports of the product under consideration. The
same does not show any control by SIBUR. Exports are irrelevant in the anti-dumping investigation, as
activities for export has to be excluded as per Annexure II.
xxv. All transactions between related parties are at arm’s length basis and duly approved by the Audit
Committee and Board of the petitioner. In any case, RIL is obliged to ensure that all related party
transactions are at arm’s length by virtue of its own legal and operational status.
xxvi. The wholetime director and COO of RSEPL is required to work under the direction and control of the
Board of Directors. The mere fact that SIBUR has appointed such person does not imply that the person
can work in contravention to the directions of the Board.
xxvii. ExxonMobil has not identified any related party transactions which would need consent of SIBUR or
existence of some transactions which impact the determination relating to dumping, injury and causal
link.
xxviii. There are no direct exports by the Russian producer but exports have been made by unrelated exporter.
The exporter determines the market in which the product under consideration will be sold and the price
of such goods. Hence, the alleged relationship with SIBUR does not have any relevance in the present
investigation.
xxix. The domestic industry has imported the product under consideration prior to the commencement of
production in order to perform seed marketing activity. However, the domestic industry has not
imported the product under consideration post commencing commercial production or during the period
of investigation.
D.3 Examination by the Authority
15. 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”.
16. The application has been filed by Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Limited (RSEPL). RSEPL is the sole
producer of the subject goods in India.
17. For the purposes of Rule 2(b), producers shall be deemed to be related to exporters or importers only if, -
“(a) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other; or
(b) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person; or
(c) together they directly or indirectly control a third person subject to the condition that there are
grounds for believing or suspecting that the effect of the relationship is such as to cause the producers
to behave differently from non-related producers.
Note: For the purpose of this Explanation, a producer shall be deemed to control another producer
when the former is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the
latter.”
18. The Anti-Dumping Agreement, in Article 4, defines domestic industry as follows.
“4.1 For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “domestic industry” shall be interpreted as referring
to the domestic producers as a whole of the like products or to those of them whose collective output of
the products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of those products, except
that:
(i) When producers are related to the exporters or importers or are themselves importers of the
allegedly dumped product, the term “domestic industry” may be interpreted as referring to the rest of
the producers;”
19. Footnote 11 further clarifies the meaning of related as follows.
“11. For the purpose of this paragraph, producers shall be deemed to be related to exporters or
importers only if (a) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other; or (b) both of them are
directly or indirectly controlled by a third person; or (c) together they directly or indirectly control a
third person, provided that there are grounds for believing or suspecting that the effect of the
relationship is such as to cause the producer concerned to behave differently from non-related
producers. For the purpose of this paragraph, one shall be deemed to control another when the former
is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the latter.”
20. The Authority notes that the essence of the definition of related party lies in “control”, legal or operational. If
one party is not in a position to exercise direction or control over the other, whether directly or through the
other party, it cannot be considered that the two parties are related to each other. It is noted that mere
shareholding does not amount to the exercise of control and therefore does not make RSEPL related to NKNH
within the meaning of Anti-Dumping Rules. Further, even if the two parties are related parties, the mere fact of
the relationship is insufficient to consider the domestic producer as ineligible. There must be evidence that the
related domestic producer has acted differently due to the relationship or has participated in dumping practices
and has taken such steps which would have resulted in self-inflicted injury.
21. In the present case, RSEPL is a joint venture between Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) and Sibur Investments AG,
Switzerland (SIBUR Switzerland), a subsidiary of PJSC SIBUR Holding (SIBUR Russia). SIBUR Russia also
has a stake in PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim (NKNH), a producer of the product under consideration in Russia.
The Authority notes that RSEPL is majorly controlled by RIL, which owns majority shares whereas SIBUR
Switzerland has a minority share, both in terms of voting powers of shareholders and of directors.
22. The petitioner contended that it should be treated as an eligible domestic industry under Rule 2(b)
notwithstanding the fact that exports to India have been made by the Russian producer and the petitioner is a
joint venture company between Reliance Industries Limited and SIBUR Investments AG. The interested
parties have however disputed the eligibility of the petitioner contending that the petitioner is ineligible on the
grounds that the petitioner company is controlled by the Russian producers, either directly or indirectly through
a third company. The sole ground for seeking ineligibility is the existence of “control” over the petitioner
company by both the JV partners. The Authority has examined the issue.
23. The Authority notes that under Rule 2(b), the Authority is required to examine whether a domestic producer
should be treated as ineligible because of its potential relationship with a foreign exporter dumping the goods
in India or the petitioner itself is an importer of such product.
24. In the facts of the present case, it is seen that the petitioner i.e. RSEPL is a joint venture company between
Reliance Industries Limited and SIBUR Investments AG. The joint venture partner SIBUR Investments Ag is a
subsidiary of PJSC SIBUR Holding, which is also the holding company of PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim, a
cooperative producer from Russia in the present case. The questionnaire response filed by PJSC
Nizhnekamskneftekhim has therefore been examined. It is noted that PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim has
reported ownership of the company comprising PJSC SIBUR Holding. The Russian producer was also required
to provide complete information with regard to all companies affiliated with the producer, whether or not
involved in the production and sale of the PUC and whether or not in Russia. It is noted that PJSC
Nizhnekamskneftekhim has reported the following companies as its affiliated entities.
a.***
b.***
25. It is noted that PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim has not reported the petitioner or RIL as its affiliated company. It
is thus seen that PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim does not consider itself as related to RSEPL or RIL.
26. The claims made by the petitioner were also examined. It is seen that the petitioner has claimed that it is not
related to exporters of Russian goods, nor it is related to Russian producers of the subject goods. The applicant
has submitted that the relationship under the Rules is required to be seen with reference to the exporter of the
product. The petitioner has denied the relationship on the grounds that (a) there are no direct exports by SIBUR
or PJSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim, (b) Reliance has a majority voting power in both shareholders and Board of
Directors, (c) SIBUR cannot dictate any day-to-day decisions of RSEPL, (d) RSEPL has not contributed to
dumping by SIBUR, and (e) the applicant should be treated as eligible domestic industry in view of past
practice.
27. The Authority notes that the objective or the purpose of the discretion conferred onto the Authority under Rule
2(b) is relevant in the present case. The Authority notes that the objective of the provision is to allow the
Authority to treat certain domestic producer as ineligible under certain situations. One such condition is when a
domestic producer is related to an exporter of the subject goods. However, the term ‘related’ has been defined
in explanation to Rule 2(b) as requiring one of the parties to directly or indirectly control each other, or for the
two parties to be controlled by a third person, or together control a third person. The Authority further notes
that the mere fact of the relationship is insufficient under the law to exclude such domestic producers. The Rule
further provides that a party shall be deemed to control another party where the former is legally or
operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the latter. Furthermore, the Authority has
discretion under such circumstances to treat such domestic producers as ineligible. In any case, there is no
automatic exclusion of such a domestic producer from the scope of domestic industry under Rule 2(b).
28. In the facts of the present case, it is noted that both the petitioner and Russian producer have denied a
relationship or existence of control over each other – whether directly or indirectly or through a third person.
Further, the petitioner has filed an application seeking the imposition of anti-dumping duties on several
countries, including Russia. The petitioner quantified a dumping margin of 50-60% with respect to exports
from Russia. The Russian producer filed a questionnaire response and claimed the absence of dumping.
Despite the petitioner having the capacity to meet the entirety of the demand, it is seen that a significant
volume of the product has been supplied by the Russian producers. As per the questionnaire response filed by
the company, it is seen that *** MT PUC has been exported by the company during the current injury period,
and after the commencement of production by the petitioner. Thus, despite the alleged relationship or control, it
is seen that the Russian company has exported the product to India during the relevant period. Further, the
volume of imports made is not insignificant. Further, whereas the exporter has claimed the absence of
dumping, the petitioner claimed dumping by the Russian producer. The Authority has found a significant
dumping margin in respect of exports made by the company. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has taken
steps to prevent dumping in the country, even against Russia, despite alleged control over the petitioner by one
of its shareholders. The petitioner has not participated in dumping by the Russian producer, nor provoked, nor
shieled itself from such dumping happening from Russia. Rather, the petitioner has taken effective steps in
seeking redressal against such dumping happening in the Indian market. It is also seen that there appear no
other exports from Russia barring exports by the present company.
29. As regards submissions made by interested parties concerning the existence of control, the Authority notes that
the interested parties have referred to information, evidence and documents which concern an entirely different
scope of operations of the company. The interested party itself has conceded that the alleged control is in the
areas of “reserved category”. The Authority considers that in so far as day-to-day production and sale of the
product are concerned, dumping causing injury to the domestic industry and actions by the domestic industry
against such dumping were not prevented by the shareholders, thus establishing that the same does not fall in
the category of reserved items.
30. It is also undisputed that the majority of the board in the present case is controlled by RIL. Thus, the fact that
SIBUR Investments AG holds only two directors on the board of the petitioner establishes that another
shareholder, namely, RIL is in a position to give direction or restrain the petitioner from seeking redressal
against such dumping. The company has in fact taken such action in filing the present application, which
further establishes the inability of SIBUR Investments AG to give direction and the ability of RIL to give
direction to seek redressal against dumping.
31. It is seen that various provisions of Article of Association (AOA) provides de-jure and the de-facto control to
RIL and not to SIBUR. While RIL admittedly holds de-jure control over the petitioner, the de-facto control
also rests with RIL, through the provisions of Article 40 of the AoA. While admittedly certain matters have
been kept under the reserved category and SIBUR consent is necessary for taking a decision, it is noted that
these reserved matters and authority with SIBUR are subjected to provisions of Article 40 of the AoA. Further,
it is seen that Article 40 of AoA provides de-facto power to RIL to force a decision in its favour in a situation
of difference between RIL and SIBUR nominated directors. In other words, if SIBUR attempts to force a
decision by invoking the alleged de-facto control, RIL has the ability to override the same, by invoking
deadlock provisions under the AoA. It is, thus, provisionally concluded that both the de-jure and de-facto
control on the petitioner rests with RIL, and SIBUR does not acquire the authority to control the petitioner in a
manner inconsistent with RIL decision.
32. As regards provisions concerning related party transactions, the Authority notes that in any case, these
provisions encourage transparency in transactions with the related parties and attempt to ensure arms-length
transactions for such related party transactions. Since RIL is a majority shareholder in the petitioner and is a
listed company, anyways RIL is governed by various provisions concerning related party transactions under the
Companies Act. Even RIL is bound to ensure transparency in transactions with the related parties and is
required to attempt to ensure arms-length transactions with such related party transactions. Further, the
authority also ensures that transactions with related parties are at arms-length for the purpose of injury
determination.
33. As regards reference to the European Commission decision, the Authority notes that not only this decision is in
an altogether different context, but also the said decision does not establish that the petitioner is controlled by
SIBUR.
34. The Authority thus considers that the fact of control is not established in so far as it concerns the present law
and proceedings. The Authority further considers that the meaning of control and applicability of the same in
other laws is irrelevant for the present purposes. Further, even if the two parties are related parties, the mere
fact of relationship is insufficient to consider the domestic producer as ineligible. There must be sufficient
grounds justifying exclusion of such related domestic producer. There must be evidence that the related
domestic producer has acted differently due to relationship, or has participated in dumping practices and has
taken such steps which would have resulted in self-inflicted injury. In the instant case, there is no such
evidence that the relationship between the two parties have led to petitioner behaving in a manner different
from an unrelated producer.
35. Further, the Authority notes that the behavior of the petitioner as a domestic producer was not such that it could
be construed that petitioner has behaved as a related company. The Authority also provisionally holds that the
provisions under Company’s Act or requirements of special resolutions are not relevant for the present
purposes.
36. The Authority further takes note of the fact that there are no direct exports by the Russian producer, PJSC
Nizhnekamskneftekhim, or PJSC SIBUR Holding or SIBUR International GmbH. *** from Russia are through
an exporter, ***, which is not affiliated to the Russian producer or SIBUR entities. It is also not disputed that
*** is not related to RSEPL.
37. In view of the foregoing, the Authority provisionally holds that the applicant is entitled to be treated as a
domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
38. The domestic industry has reported that it has imported IIR before it started commercial production, in order to
undertake seed marketing activity in India. However, the imports were made before the period of investigation,
and before declaring commercial production. Accordingly, it is noted that the applicant can be considered as
eligible to constitute the domestic industry on this account.
39. In view of the foregoing, the Authority provisionally concludes that the applicant constitutes the domestic
industry as defined under Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping rules, and the application satisfies the requirement of
standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1 Views of other interested parties
40. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the confidentiality claimed by
the domestic industry:
i. The domestic industry has not disclosed information prescribed under the trade notice.
ii. The domestic industry has not provided evidence of efforts made to determine domestic selling price in
other markets.
iii. The domestic industry has not provided information with regard to whether R&D expenses were
incurred or not, cost of sales for exports, quantity of imports as a percentage of total imports, date of
commencement of production and date on which it received approval from customers.
iv. The domestic industry has not disclosed the components of non-injurious price or their number in range
of +/- 10%.
v. The domestic industry has claimed its capacity and financial statements as confidential, despite such
information being available publicly.
vi. The domestic industry has claimed the entire project report as confidential and has not even provided a
non-confidential summary.
vii. The domestic industry has claimed that the level of trade / channel of sales should be considered in the
determination of injury margin but has not disclosed the same.
viii. While the domestic industry has claimed that it has provided price undercutting and injury margin in
range, it has not provided the same in Proforma IV B.
ix. The exporters / producers have provided the list of products produced, details of manufacturing units,
production process, product utilization thereafter.
x. The exporters / producers have disclosed their distribution channels for home market and exports to
India in descriptive form in their non-confidential questionnaire responses.
xi. The exporters / producers have disclosed the nature of adjustments in home market and export prices,
but the actual value is business sensitive and cannot be disclosed.
xii. The exporters / producers have disclosed that certain auxiliary activities are contracted to a vendor, but
the details for the same are business sensitive.
xiii. The Trade Notice 10/2018 permits exporters / producers to keep their proprietary information
confidential.
xiv. The information regarding product catalogue is not typically publicly available, and certain exporters /
producers do not circulate product brochures since they sell products through affiliates.
xv. Certain exporters / producers have claimed that production process, the names of raw materials, details
about outsourcing or subcontracting, startup cost adjustments, import of raw material, purchase of raw
materials or utilities from related parties is business proprietary information and revealing such
information would be detrimental to their business interests.
xvi. The users addressed most of the questions in the user questionnaire response and the economic interest
questionnaire and have not claimed the entire impact of anti-dumping duty as confidential.
xvii. The petitioner has claimed excessive confidentiality as the price undercutting and price suppression is
not given in trend and at least the difference between the cost of sales and selling price in indexed form
should have been provided, opening and closing inventory, depreciation, net fixed assets, working
capital, details regarding self-imports such as import value, import price, resale price and market share
have not been provided in indexed form.
E.2 Views of the domestic industry
41. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the confidentiality claimed by the
other interested parties.
i. The evidence of efforts made to determine domestic selling price in other markets does not relate to
confidentiality claimed.
ii. The Authority has modified the application proforma which does not require the applicant to provide
details of R&D expenses.
iii. The domestic industry has filed the application under Trade Notice 5/2021 whereas the specific
requirements as per Trade Notice relied upon by the other interested parties is Trade Notice 2/2018
dated 1st February 2018.
iv. The trade notice does not require the applicant to disclose the components of non-injurious price and its
numbers in range of +/- 10%.
v. Although the exporter has not been able to cite why disclosure of the date of commercial production and
the date on which the domestic industry received approval of customers is required, it is submitted that
the domestic industry commenced trial production in September 2019, and declared commercial
production in March 2022.
vi. The domestic industry has sold goods to unaffiliated customers in the domestic market, which are
traders or users of the subject goods. It has also provided details of selling price and various discounts.
The Authority should compare its selling price at the same level at which the Authority considers import
price and consider actual customs duty paid on imports.
vii. The domestic industry has provided a revised non-confidential version of the application with the
quantity of imports as a percentage of total imports in range form, revised Proforma IV A with capacity,
information with regard to injury margin and financial statements.
viii. The project report is confidential in its entirety and have been treated as confidential in the past several
investigations as well. The domestic industry has provided a summary of the project report, in the form
of comparison between actual and projected information in the revised non-confidential version.
ix. Since the financial statements for 2022-23 have also been published post filing of the application, they
have also been supplemented thereafter.
x. The questionnaire response filed by other interested parties suffer from various violations of Rule 7 of
the Anti-Dumping Rules
xi. The exporters / producers have claimed entire responses to certain questions as confidential, without
providing a non-confidential summary of the confidential information.
xii. The exporters / producers have not provided any statement explaining why a non-confidential summary
of the responses is not possible.
xiii. The exporters / producers have claimed their product catalogue as confidential without providing a
justification for the same.
xiv. The statement of reasons for confidentiality filed by the exporters / producers is not as per the format
prescribed under Trade Notice 1/2013.
xv. The exporters/producers have failed to provide any information regarding the methodology used to
report adjustments claimed on export price and in some cases home market price.
xvi. The exporters/producers have claimed the channel of distribution is confidential without providing any
justification for the same.
xvii. The manufacturing process as well as the names of major raw materials has also been claimed
confidential, without due justification.
xviii. The exporters/producers have provided information regarding post-invoicing/sale discounts or year-end
rebates given to their customers. However, the response regarding this has been claimed confidential in
its entirety.
xix. The exporters/producers have claimed all information regarding the manufacturing units linked to the
product under consideration in India as confidential.
xx. The users have claimed the information regarding the utilization of the product under consideration.
xxi. Some of the users have claimed that the proposed duty would lead to a significant decline in the
profitability of the user industry but have claimed the entire quantification of impact as confidential
without even sharing a range of impact quantified.
xxii. The users have failed to furnish adequate information in the economic interest questionnaires responses
and have reserved their comments on certain critical aspects. Such inadequate responses may render the
exercise of issuing the questionnaire futile.
E.3 Examination by Authority
42. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by the various parties to
all the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7).
43. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of Anti-dumping Rules provide 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 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 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 authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard
such information.”
44. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to the
sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever
warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested
parties. Wherever possible, the parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide
sufficient nonconfidential version of the information filed on a confidential basis. The domestic industry was
directed to revise the non-confidential version based on the comments received from the other interested parties
and the same was provided by the domestic industry and accepted by the Authority. The Authority also notes
that all interested parties have claimed their business-related sensitive information as confidential.
F. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS
F.1 Views of other interested parties
45. The other interested parties have made the following miscellaneous submissions:
i. The domestic industry has not provided sufficient evidence on why the investigation should be
considered as material retardation for an establishing industry.
ii. Since the imports have not increased over the injury period, there is no ground to demonstrate material
injury or material retardation to the domestic industry.
iii. As per the website of the domestic industry, their plant was commissioned in 2019. It cannot claim
material retardation as per the definition of material retardation provided in the Manual of Operating
Practices for Trade Remedy Investigations.
iv. There is no legal foundation of injury to justify the initiation of the investigation.
v. All the factors of the domestic industry are positive throughout the injury period considered.
vi. Financial year 2021-2022 and the proposed POI (January 2022- December 22) has three months in
common. The domestic industry should provide data for the comparable calendar years 2019, 2020, and
2021 plus 2022 (POI).
vii. A comparison of two years with overlap period cannot provide an accurate picture. Only a comparison
of identical periods with no overlap periods would allow for a proper assessment of injury to the
domestic industry.
F.2 Views of the domestic industry
46. The domestic industry has made the following miscellaneous submissions.
i. The submissions filed by ExxonMobil is belated as the deadline for the same was 14th December 2023
while the same have been filed on 9th February 2024. Such submissions should be rejected. The
Panel and Appellate Body in multiple reports have held that investigating authorities can reject
time barred submissions by the interested parties.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
47. The Authority notes that the applicant has provided a duly substantiated application, based on which the
present investigation was initiated. The present investigation was initiated by the Authority based on the
information provided by the domestic industry and prima facie satisfying itself that there is sufficient evidence
of the dumping, the injury and the causal link. Further, subsequent to the initiation, the information has been
sought from the applicant to the extent deemed necessary and the same has been provided by the applicant.
48. The period of investigation adopted by the Authority is from 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023 (12 months) and
the injury analysis period covers the period of investigation and the three preceding financial years, 2019-20,
2020-21, 2021 -22. The period of investigation considered by the Authority is in accordance with Rule 5(3A)
of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
49. The Authority has examined material injury to the domestic industry. Therefore, the Authority has not
considered the domestic industry to be an establishing industry, for examining material retardation to the
establishment of the industry.
50. As regards the contention of the domestic industry that the parties have filed belated submissions, while the
Authority considers that these submissions are indeed significantly belate,d the Authority has considered it
appropriate to nevertheless deal with these submissions. The Authority does consider conduct of such parties
inappropriate.
G. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
G.1 Views of other interested parties
51. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regards normal value, export price and
dumping margin:
i. The domestic industry has not provided information or evidence on the cost data for the subject
countries.
ii. The domestic industry did not provide any explanation as to why it was unable to obtain cost
information of the subject countries.
iii. The normal value calculated by the domestic industry violates Articles 5.2(iii), Article 2.2, and Article
2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, since the domestic industry has relied on its own data, and not
considered the differences in manufacturing cost, SG&A and profits among different subject countries.
A single constructed normal value for the subject countries without any reasonable explanation.
iv. The domestic industry has not provided any evidence of the adjustments made to the export price
obtained for Saudi Arabia, and has used the same ocean freight adjustment for China and for Saudi
Arabia without any justification.
v. Russia should be treated as a non-market economy as done by USA and Canada in recent
investigations. The European Commission has also found significant distortions in certain sectors of the
Russian economy.
G.2 Views of the domestic industry
52. The submissions of the domestic industry with regard to the normal value, export price and dumping margin
are as follows:
i. 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.
ii. The domestic industry has determined the normal value for China based on the price payable in India,
considering the cost of production of the domestic industry, plus profits.
iii. For the other subject countries, there is no evidence available with regard to domestic selling price.
Since most of the subject countries are net exporters of the subject goods, the import price into the
subject countries cannot be considered.
iv. Accordingly, the domestic industry has calculated the normal value on alternative basis. The domestic
industry has relied upon available facts with regard to the cost of production in the subject countries
plus profits, based on information reasonably available to it.
v. Export price must be determined considering volume and value of imports for the proposed period of
investigation adopted from the published DGCIS data after due adjustments are made to determine the
ex-factory price.
vi. The dumping margin for the subject countries is not only above the de minimis levels, but also
significant.
G.3 Examination by the Authority
53. Under section 9A(1)(c), the normal value in relation to an article means:
“i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when meant for
consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made
under sub-section (6), or
ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of
the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of
the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper
comparison, the normal value shall be either:
(a)comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or
territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-
section (6); or
the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for
administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules
made under sub-section (6);
(b)Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and
where the article has been merely transshipped through the country of export or such article is not
produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal
value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.”
54. The Authority notes that the following producers/exporters of the subject goods have filed exporter’s
questionnaire responses:
a.ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.
b.ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BV, Belgium
c.ExxonMobil Product Solutions Company
d.MRF SG PTE LTD.
e.Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company
f. Sibur International GMBH
g.Public Joint Stock Sibur Holding
h.Public Joint Stock Company Niznekamskneftekhim
i. Trigon Gulf FZCO
G.3.1 Determination of Normal value and Export Price
The normal value for China PR
55. 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 labor, 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.”
56. 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.
57. 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), l4(c) and l4(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.”
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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 should 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.
61. At the stage of filing the application, the domestic industry submitted that the normal value for China should be
constructed based on the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary,
to include a reasonable profit margin.
62. 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. No interested party has suggested a country that may
be considered as an appropriate third country, for determination of normal value. There is no information
furnished by any party with respect to the price or constructed value of the subject goods produced in a market
economy third country.
63. The Authority also examined whether the price from an appropriate third country into India can be considered
for the determination of normal value. However, it was noted that the subject imports account for 97% of the
total imports into the country. No country, barring the subject countries, has exported a reasonable volume of
product to India during the period of investigation. The price of imports from other subject countries are
already alleged dumped prices. In view of the same, the normal value cannot be determined based on the price
of exports from an appropriate third country to India.
64. 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.
65. For this purpose, the Authority has considered the optimized cost of production of the domestic industry, with a
reasonable additional of selling, general and administrative expenses and profits.
Export price for China PR
66. None of the producers from China PR have participated in the investigation. Accordingly, the export price has
been determined on the basis of facts available. For the purpose, the information provided by DG Systems has
been considered. Further, price adjustments have been carried out on account of ocean freight, marine
insurance, inland freight, bank charges, port expenses and commission on the basis of facts available.
Normal value for Singapore
ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (“EMAPPL”)
67. ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (EMAPPL) is a producer of the subject goods in Singapore. The Authority
notes that EMAPPL has not sold goods in the domestic market during the period of investigation. In the
absence of domestic sales, the Authority has considered the cost of production of the producer as the basis for
the purpose of preliminarily determining the normal value.
68. The Authority determined the normal value on the basis of the ex-factory cost of production with reasonable
addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits. The profit margin for the purpose has
been considered on the basis of profit of the company as a whole (***). The normal value so determined has
been mentioned in the dumping margin table.
Normal Value for other producers/exporters in Singapore
69. The normal value for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters from Singapore has been determined
based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export Price for Singapore
ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (“EMAPPL”), MRF SG PTE Limited (“MRF SG”) and CIAEL Singapore
PTE LTD (“CIAEL”)
70. ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (EMAPPL) is a producer of the subject goods in Singapore. EMAPPL has
exported the subject goods to India directly to un-related customers and through unrelated traders namely MRF
SG PTE Limited (MRF SG) and CIAEL Singapore PTE LTD (CIAEL). MRF SG and CIAEL have exported
the product under consideration to their related entities in India. Further, EMAPPL has a related entity in India
namely ExxonMobil Company India Private Limited (EMCIPL). However, EMCIPL is not involved in
manufacturing or buying or selling of the product under consideration. EMCIPL acts as a service entity in India
and provides marketing services. Moreover, ExxonMobil Chemical Asia Pacific (EMCAP) is a division of
EMAPPL. It is engaged in the purchase and sale of the product under consideration and has exported the
product under consideration to India and other countries. However, EMAPPL has not exported the subject
goods to India through EMCAP. During the period of investigation, EMAPPL has exported the goods through
the following distribution channels.
EMAPPL→Unrelated customers in India
EMAPPL→ MRF SG→Related customers in India
EMAPPL→ CIAEL→Related customers in India
71. It is noted that during the period of investigation, EMAPPL has exported *** MT of the product under
consideration out of which *** MT is directly exported to unrelated customers in India and *** MT through
unrelated traders. Price adjustments have been carried out towards inland freight, ocean freight, insurance,
credit cost, commission, warehousing and related costs for direct sales to India. Price adjustments have been
carried out towards credit costs and bank charges for exports through traders to India. The exporter has also
claimed adjustments on account of loss on exports made to India for exports from ***. The same has been
accepted for the purpose of present preliminary findings. Accordingly, the Authority has provisionally
determined the export price, as mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export price for all non-cooperative producers/exporters from Singapore
72. The export price for other non-cooperative producers/exporters from Singapore has been determined based on
facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules.
The normal value for Saudi Arabia
Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company (“Kemya”)
73. Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company (“Kemya”) is a producer of the subject goods in Saudi Arabia. The
Authority notes that Kemya has not sold in the domestic market during the period of investigation. In the
absence of domestic sales, the Authority has considered the cost of production for the purpose of preliminarily
determining the normal value.
74. The Authority determined the normal value on the basis of the ex-factory cost of production with reasonable
addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits. The profit margin for the purpose has
been considered on the basis of the profit of the company as a whole (***). The normal value so determined
has been mentioned in the dumping margin table.
Normal Value for other producers/exporters in Saudi Arabia
75. The normal value for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of Saudi Arabia has been determined
based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export Price for Saudi Arabia
Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company (“Kemya”), ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BV, (“EMPC”) and
ExxonMobil Chemical Asia Pacific (“EMCAP”), CIAEL Singapore PTE LTD (“CIAEL”)
76. Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company (“Kemya”) is a producer of the subject goods in Saudi Arabia. Kemya has
sold the product under consideration to its JV partners i.e., ExxonMobil - ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical
BV, Belgium (EMPC) and ExxonMobil Chemical Asia Pacific, Singapore (EMCAP), for exports to India.
EMPCAP has exported the goods to unrelated customers in India. EMPC has purchased goods from Kemya
and sold the goods to EMCAP that has re-sold the goods to CIAEL Singapore PTE LTD (CIAEL SG) that has
exported the goods to its related entity in India.
Kemya →EMPC →EMCAP→CIAEL SG→ Related entities in India
Kemya →EMCAP→Unrelated customer in India
77. It is noted that during the POI, Kemya has exported *** MT of PUC. The adjustments towards inland freight,
credit cost, ocean freight, insurance, commission, warehousing cost, port expenses and bank charges have been
accepted for the purpose of present preliminary findings. Accordingly, the Authority has provisionally
determined the export price, as mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export price for all non-cooperative producers/exporters from Saudi Arabia
78. The export price for other non-cooperative producers/exporters from Saudi Arabia has been taken as per facts
available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules.
Normal value for Russia
79. Some of the interested parties have contended that Russia should be treated as a non-market economy for the
purpose of the present investigation. The other interested parties have not referred to the legal provision under
which Russia should be treated as a non-market economy country, nor established with evidence that the
operations in Russia with regards to the subject goods are not in accordance with the market principles of cost
or pricing structures. While it is alleged that the USA and Canada have treated Russia as a non-market
economy, they have not concluded the same with regard to the present product under consideration. In the
absence of evidence on record, Russia cannot be treated as a non-market economy for the purpose of the
present investigation.
Public Joint Stock Company Niznekamskneftekhim (NKNH)
80. Public Joint Stock Company Niznekamskneftekhim (“NKNH”) is a producer of the subject goods in Russia.
NKNH has sold *** MT of the subject goods in the domestic market during the POI whereas, it has exported
*** MT of the subject goods to India. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes
when compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the Authority conducts the ordinary
course of trade test to determine profit-making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of
production of the subject goods, on a PCN-wise basis. If profit-making transactions are more than 80% of the
total sales, then all the transactions in the domestic sales are considered for the determination of the normal
value and in cases, where profitable transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken
into consideration for the determination of the normal value. In the present case since more than 80% of
domestic sales are profitable hence all domestic sales have been considered to determine normal value. The
company has claimed price adjustments on account of insurance and inland transportation and the same is
allowed by the Authority. Thus, the normal value at an ex-factory level for NKNH has been calculated for the
POI is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Normal Value for other producers/exporters in Russia
81. The normal value for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of Russia has been determined based
on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export Price for Russia
Public Joint Stock Company Niznekamskneftekhim (“NKNH”), Sibur International GMBH (“SI GmbH”) and
Public Joint Stock Sibur Holding (“SIBUR Holding”) and Trigon Gulf FZCO (“Trigon”)
82. Public Joint Stock Company Niznekamskneftekhim (NKNH) is a producer of the subject goods in Russia.
NKNH has exported the product under consideration to India through unrelated traders in Russia - Sibur
International GMBH (GmbH) and Public Joint Stock Sibur Holding (SIBUR Holding) who have further sold
the goods to an unrelated exporter in the United Arab Emirates - Trigon Gulf FZCO (Trigon) that has sold the
product under consideration to un-related customers in India.
NKNH→ SIBUR Holding → SI GmbH→Trigon→Unrelated customers in India
NKNH→ SI GmbH →Trigon→ Unrelated customers in India
83. It is noted that during the POI, NKNH through Trigon has exported *** MT of PUC to unrelated customers in
India. The adjustments towards metal containers, inland freight, ocean freight, credit cost, other logistics
charges, insurance, port expenses, commission, and storage as claimed have been accepted for the purpose of
present preliminary findings. Accordingly, the Authority has provisionally determined the export price, as
mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export price for all non-cooperative producers/exporters from Russia
84. The export price for other non-cooperative producers / exporters from Russia has been taken as per facts
available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules.
Normal value for USA
ExxonMobil Product Solutions Company (“EMPSC”)
85. ExxonMobil Product Solutions Company (“EMPSC”) is a producer of the subject goods in the USA . EMPSC
has sold *** MT of the subject goods in the domestic market during the POI whereas, it has exported *** MT
of the subject goods to India. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when
compared with exports to India. To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted the ordinary
course of trade test to determine profit-making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of
production of the subject goods on a PCN-wise basis. If profit-making transactions are more than 80% of the
total sales, then all the transactions in the domestic sales are considered for the determination of the normal
value and in cases, where profitable transactions are less than 80%, only profitable domestic sales are taken
into consideration for the determination of the normal value. In the present case since more than 80% of
domestic sales are profitable hence all domestic sales have been considered to determine normal value. The
company has claimed price adjustments on account of inland transportation, credit cost and level of trade
adjustment and the same is allowed by the Authority. Thus, the normal value at an ex-factory level for EMPSC
has been calculated for the POI is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Normal Value for other producers/exporters in the USA
86. The normal value for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of the USA has been determined
based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export price for the USA
ExxonMobil Product Solutions Company (“EMPSC”), ExxonMobil Chemical Asia Pacific (“EMCAP”), MRF
SG PTE Limited (“MRF SG”) and CIAEL Singapore PTE LTD (“CIAEL”)
87. ExxonMobil Product Solutions Company (“EMPSC”) is a producer of the subject goods in the USA . EMPSC
has sold the product under consideration to one of its JV partners i.e., ExxonMobil - ExxonMobil Chemical
Asia Pacific, Singapore (EMCAP) for exports to India and other traders in Singapore - MRF SG PTE Limited
(MRF SG) and CIAEL Singapore PTE LTD (CIAEL) that have sold the goods to their related entities in India.
EMPSC→EMCAP→Unrelated customers in India
EMPSC→MRF SG→Related entities in India
EMPSC→CIAEL→ Related entities in India
88. It is noted that during the POI, EMCAP has exported *** MT of PUC directly to unrelated customers in India.
The adjustments towards inland freight, ocean freight, warehousing expenses, insurance, credit cost,
commission, port expenses and bank charges have been accepted for the purpose of present preliminary
findings. Accordingly, the Authority has provisionally determined the export price, as mentioned in the
dumping margin table below.
Export price for all non-cooperative producers/exporters from the USA
89. The export price for other non-cooperative producers/exporters from the USA has been taken as per facts
available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules.
G3.2. Dumping Margin
The normal value, export price and dumping margin determined in the present investigation are as follows:
Dumping Margin Table
+-------------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+
| Producer | Normal Value | Export Price | Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin |
| | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | (%) | (Range) |
+===========================================+================+================+==================+==================+================+
| Saudi Arabia | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+
| Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company (“KEMYA”)| *** | *** | *** | *** | 40-50% |
+-------------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+
| Any Other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 50-60% |
+-------------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+
| Singapore | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+
| ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd/ | *** | *** | *** | *** | 15-25% |
| ExxonMobil Chemical Asia Pacific | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+------------------+----------------+
| Any Other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30% |
+-------------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------
Login to read full text