Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 159] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY , JUNE 14, 2024 /JYAIS HTHA 24, 194 6
CG-DL-E-19062024-254799
61, 62, 63, 65 अनुदान 0-5% 0-5%
रेंज 5-15% 0-10%
2 2,44,26
4 3,72,411 4,77,072
2019 -20 2020 -21 अप्रैल 21 -
लाभ/ हाजन % - 578% 266% -68%
नकद लाभ % - 556% 257% -53%
्मता % - 0% 0% 300%
जलजमटेड *** *** *** *** 5-15%
2. अन्य *** *** *** *** 10-20%
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 38089199,
38089390 और
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce )
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES )
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 14th June 2024
FINAL FINDINGS
Case No . – CVD (SSR) – 10/2023
Subject: Sunset review investigation of countervailing duty imposed on i mports of Atrazine Technical
originating in or exported from China PR.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
F. No. 7/26/2023 -DGTR .—1. Meghmani Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the applicant or
MIL) filed an application before the Designated Authority (here inafter referred to as the Authority) on behalf of
the domestic industry for initiation of a sunset review investigation for continuation and enhancement of anti -
subsidy duty imposed on imports of Atrazine Technical (hereinafter referred to as the "product under
consideration" or th e "subject goods") from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the subject country).
2. The anti -subsidy investigation into imports of Atrazine Technical from China PR was initiated vide
Notification No. 06/19/2018 -DGAD dated 27th August 2018. Following a deta iled investigation, the Authority
concluded that the subsidy provided by the Chinese government to the producers of the subject goods was
countervailable in nature and the subject goods were exported from China PR at subsidized p rices causing
injury to the domestic industry. Thus, the Authority recommended the imposition of countervailing duties on
the imports of the subject goods from China PR vide Notification No. 06/19/2018 dated 22nd August 2019. The
definitive measures were i mposed by the Ministry of F inance vide Notification No. 3 /2019 -Customs (CVD)
dated 17th September 2019.
3. In terms of Section 9 (6) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rule 24(3) of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995
countervailing duty imposed shall, unless r evoked earlier, cease to h ave effect on expiry of five years from the
date of such imposition and the Authority is required to review whether the expiry of countervailing duty is
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidized imports. In accord ance with the same, the Au thority is
required to review, on the basis of duly substantiated requests made by or on behalf of the domestic industry
whether there is a need for the continued imposition of the countervailing duty, and whether the expiry of th e
duty is likely to lead t o continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury.
4. The applicant filed an application on behalf of the domestic industry, in accordance with the Act and the Rules,
requesting the initiation of a sunset review investigation concerning imports of Atr azine Technical originating
and exported from China PR.
5. The applicant sought enhancement of the countervailing duty against imports of the subject goods from the
subject country. The request was based on the ground that the expiry of the countervailing duty was likely to
result in the continuation of subsidized imports of the subject goods into the country and consequent injury to
the domestic industry.
6. Based on a duly substantiated application with prima facie evidence of the lik elihood of subsidisati on and
injury due to imports from China PR, filed on behalf of the domestic industry the Authority issued a public
notice vide Notification No. 7/26/2023 -DGTR dated 29th December 2023, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating the subjec t investigation in accordance with the Rules, to review the need for the
continued imposition of an anti -subsidy duty in respect of the subject goods, originating in or exported from
the subject country, and to examine whether the exp iry of the said duties is likely to lead to continuation of
subsidisation and injury to the domestic industry.
7. The scope of the present review covers all aspects of the Final Findings issued vide Notification No. F. No.
6/19/2018 -DGAD dated 22nd August 20 19.
B. PROCEDURE
8. The procedure described herein below has been followed by the Authority with regard to the subject review:
i. The Authority vide Notification No. 7/26/2023 -DGTR dated 29th December 2023, published a public
notice in the Gazette of India, Extra ordinary, initiat ing a sunset review of anti -subsidy duty on imports
of the subject goods from the subject country.
ii. The Authority in terms of Article 13 of WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
(hereinafter referred to as ―ASCM‖) provided an opportunity to the Government of China (hereinafter
referred to as ―GoC‖) for pre -initiation consultations. The consultation meeting was scheduled with its
representatives on 27th December 2023. However, the Government of China did not attend the
consul tation meeting. Therefore, the Authority proceeded with the initiation of the subject sunset review
investigation.
iii. The Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of t he application to the known
producers/exporters, to the GoC through its em bassy in India, and to other interested parties who
requested in writing in accordance with Rule 7(3) of the Rules supra. A copy of the non -confidential
version of the application wa s also provided to other interested parties, wherever requested.
iv. The Autho rity forwarded a copy of the public notice initiating the sunset review investigation to the
known producers/exporters in the subject country, to the GoC and other interested partie s and provided
them with an opportunity to file responses to the questionna ire in the form and manner prescribed ,
within the time limit as prescribed in the initiation notification or extended time limit, and make their
views known in writing in accordance with the Rule 7(4)of the Rules.
v. The Authority forwarded copies of the noti fication to the following known producers/exporters:
a. Zhejiang Zhongshan Chemical Industry Group Co Lt
b. Shandong Qiaochang Chemical Co Ltd
c. Shandong Weifang Rainbow Chemical Co Ltd
d. Sinochem International Crop Care Overseas Pte Ltd
e. Willowood Hangzhou Co Ltd
f. Hebei Bestar Commerce And Trade Co Ltd
g. Shandong Binnong Technology Co Ltd
h. Hangzhou Kaiyi Chemicals Co Ltd
vi. The GoC through its embassy in India, was also requested to advise the ex porters/producers from its
country to respond to the questionnaire within the p rescribed time limit.
vii. The following producers/exporters from the subject country filed a response to the exporters‘
questionnaire:
a. Xiangshui Zhongshan Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
b. Zhejiang Zhongshan Chemicals Industry Group Co., Ltd.
viii. The Authority sent Importe r's Questionnaire to the following known importers/users of the subject
goods in India calling for necessary information:
a. Adama India Private Limited
b. Agro Pack
c. Dharmaj Crop Gu ard Limited
d. PI Industries Ltd.
e. Rallis India Limited
f. Tropical Agrosystem (India) P vt. Ltd.
ix. In response to the notification and the request for a questionnaire response, the following importers or
consumers registered as interested parties in this investigation:
a. Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd.
x. However, it did not file any response to th e user/importer questionnaire or economic interest questionnaire
and did not appear before the Authority during the oral hearing.
xi. Further, the following parties h ave made submissions in response to the initiation notification:
a. China Crop Protection Industr y Association (CCPIA)
xii. The Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire to the embassy of the GoC , all the known
exporters, importers and the domestic industry. The Economic Interest Questionnaire was also shared
with the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC), Minist ry of Chemicals and Fertilizers.
The response to the Economic Interest Questionnaire has been only filed by the domesti c industry.
xiii. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR‘s website along with the request t herein to
all to email the non -confidential version of their submissions to all other interested parties.
xiv. The period of investigation (POI) for th e purpose of the present investigation is July 2022 – June 2023
(12 months). The injury period will cover the periods 2019 -20, 2020 -21, April 2021 to June 2022 (15
months) and the period of investigation.
xv. A request was made to the Directorate General Sys tems to arrange data of imports of the subject goods
for the injury period including the period of investigati on (POI), which was received by the Authority.
The Authority has relied upon DG System data for the required analysis after due examination of the
transactions.
xvi. 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 and having regard
to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), has been worked out to ascertain whether
countervailing duty lower than the subsidy margin would b e sufficient to remove injury to the domestic
industry.
xvii. The verification of the data provided by the other interested parties a nd the domestic industry was
conducted to the extent considered necessary for the present investigation. The Authority has consid ered
the verified data of the interested parties in its analysis of the present case.
xviii. The Authority provided the opportunity t o the interested parties to present their views orally in an oral
hearing held on 12th March 2024 in accordance with Rule 7(6) . The parties, who presented their views
in the oral hearing, were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed or ally, followed by
rejoinder submissions, if any.
xix. The submissions made by the interested parties, arguments raised, and information provided by various
interested parties during the investigation, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and
considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by the Authority in
these final findings.
xx. Informat ion provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to the
sufficiency of the confidenti ality claimed. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the
confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information h as been considered confidential and
not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing informat ion on a
confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non -confidential version of the information filed
on a confidential basis.
xxi. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information
in a timely m anner during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the
investigation, the Authority has considered su ch parties as non -cooperative and considered the facts
available.
xxii. *** represents information furnished by a party on a con fidential basis and so considered by the
Authority under the Rules.
xxiii. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investi gation is 1 US$ = ₹ 82.39
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
9. The product under consideration is Atrazine Technical (hereinafter referred to as Atrazine). It is an odourless
white powder, used in making the formulation of various kinds, as approve d by the Central Insecticides Board
(CIB). Atrazine formulations are used on crops, evergreen tree farms, for evergreen forest degrowth and
sprayed on croplands. It is also used to keep weeds from growing on highways and railroads.
C.1 Submissions of the other interested parties
10. The other interested part ies have not made any submissions with regard to the product under consideration and
like article.
C.2 Submissions of the domestic industry
11. The submissions made by the applicant with regard to the product under consideration and like article are as
follows:
i. The scope of the product under consideration is the same as that in the original investigation.
ii. There is no difference in the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and the subject goods
export ed from the subject country.
iii. No PCN methodology was adopted by the Authority in the previous investigation.
iv. The goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the goods being exported by the
producers in the subject country.
C.3 Examination o f the Authority
12. The product under investigation as defined in the original investigation is as follows:
“11. The product under consideration is “Atrazine Technical”, classifiable under various tariff sub -
headings No. 38089199, 38089390 and 38089990. The scientific name for Atrazine is 6 - chloro -N-
ethylN' -(1-methylethyl) -triazine -2,4-diamine ...
Atrazine technical is a commonly used herbicide. It is a systemic triazine herbicide registered for the
control of pre and post emergence of broadleaf weeds and gra ssy weeds. Pure atrazine is an odourless
white powder which is not very volatile, reactive, or flammable. It is synthesized in chemical factory
made in the laboratory and does not occur naturally. It is used mostly on farms on crops such as
sugarcane, corn , pineapples, sorghum, and macadamia nuts and also to prevent weeds from growing on
both highway and railroad rights -of-way. It can be sprayed on cro plands before crops start growing .
12. Atrazine Technical is designated as a Restricted -Use Pesticide (RUP ), and is not available to the
general public. RUP’s are, by law, only available for sale to certified applicators or persons under their
direct sup ervision, and only for the purpose covered by the applicator’s certification. It is known by
various names s uch as
a. 6-Chloro -N-Ethyl -N’-(1-Methylethyl) -Triazine -2,4-Diamine;
b. 2-Chloro -4-Ethylamino -6-Isopropylamine -S-Triazine;
c. 2-Chloro -4-(Ethylamino) -6-(Isopr opylamino) -S-Triazine;
d. 2-Chloro -4-(Ethylamino) -6-(Isopropylamino) -Triazine;
e. Chloro -4-(Propylamino) -6-Ethylam ino-S-Triazine;
f. Chloro -4-(Propylamino) -6-Ethylamino -S-Triazine, etc
Scope includes all synonyms of the product under consideration.”
13. In the initi ation notification, the Authority noted as follows:
“5. The product under consideration in the present invest igation is Atrazine Technical (hereinafter
referred to as “Atrazine” or the “product under consideration”).
6. The present investigation being a sunset review investigation, the scope of the produc t under
consideration remains the same as defined in the o riginal investigation.
7. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 38 of Schedule I to the Customs Tariff Act
under the sub -heading 3808 91 99, 3808 93 90 and 3808 99 90. The cu stoms classification is only
indicative and is not binding o n the scope of the present investigation.”
14. The subject goods are considered as Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP). Accordingly, it can be sold only by a
registered Central Insecticides Board (CIB) f ormulator and distributor. An importer must have an import
license from CIB in order to import the subject goods. Any product imported without CIB registration is treated
as prohibited and can be confiscated by the customs authorities for violation of law. Further, the import of the
subject goods is restricted to ce rtain ports, as per Rule 45 of CIB Rules.
15. The Authority notes from the information on record that the product produced by the domestic industry is ―like
article‖ to the goods imported from China . The goods produced by the domestic industry and imported fro m
China are comparable in terms of technical specifications, functions & usages, product specifications, pricing,
distribution and marketing, and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially
interchangeable. Accordingly, the Authority proposes to hold that the subject goods produced by the applicants
are ‗like article‘ to the subject goods being imported from the subject country.
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1 Submissions of Other Interested Parties
16. The other int erested parties have made the following submissions regarding the scope of the domestic industry
and standing.
a. The applicant has not provided details of relationship with foreign producers, if any, details of other Indian
producers and production of other Indian producers.
D.2 Submissions of the Domestic Industry
17. The submissions made by the applicant during the course of the investigation with regard to the scope of
domestic industry and standing are as follows:
b. There are four producers of the subject goo ds in the country.
c. The applicant accounts for ***% of the total Indian production
d. The applicant has a plant in the SEZ area for which data has not been provided since , in the original
investigation, the Authority noted that the SEZ unit cannot be treated as part of the domestic industry.
e. The applicant has not imported the product under consideration and is not related to any exporter or
importer of the product, from any country.
D.3 Examination of the Authority
18. Rule 2(b) of the Countervailing Duty Rules d efines domestic industry as under: -
“(b) “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole of the like article or domestic
producers whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major pr oportion of the total domestic
production of that article, except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the
alleged subsidized article, or are themselves importers thereof, in which case such producers shall be
deemed not to form part of domestic industry”.
19. The application was filed by Meghmani Industries Limited. Apart from the applicant, there are three other
producers of the subject goods in India. The production of the other producers has been estimated by the
applicant based on market information.
Particulars Unit POI
Applicant % 60-70%
Meghmani Industries Limited % ***
Other Producers % 30-40%
Insecticide India Limited % ***
GSP crop Life science
Limited % ***
Best Agrochem Private
Limited1 % ***
Total Indian Production % 100%
20. It is noted that the applicant h as a plant in the SEZ area. However, as held in the original investigation, the SEZ
unit of the applicant has not be en treated as part of the domestic industry.
21. The applicant accounts for a major proportion of the total domestic production. It is also not ed that the
applicant is not related to any exporter or importer of the subject goods and has not imported the product under
consideration. The Authority, therefo re, determines that the applicant constitutes the domestic industry under
Rule s 2(b) of the CVD Rules , and the application meets the requirements of standing under Rule 6(3) .
E. ISSUES ON CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1 Submissions made by Other Interested Parties
22. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to confidentiality is sues:
a. The non -confidential version of the petition fails to meet the requirements of Rule 7 and Trade Notice No
1/2013 dated 9th December 2013 .
b. The applicant has not provided all the required information in Section – VI and claimed such information
confide ntial without providing justification.
c. The annual reports have been claimed confidential but the same are available online and MCA porta l on
payment of fees.
E.1 Submission made by Domestic Industry
23. The other interested parties have made the following s ubmissions with regard to the confidentiality issues:
a. The domestic industry has provided the non -confidential version as required by Rule 7 and Trade Notice
1/2013.
b. The information contained in Section VI relates to business proprietary information, the sa me cannot be
disclosed to the interested parties.
c. The other interested parties have themselves claimed the financial sta tements as confidential.
E.3 Examination of the Authority
24. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 8 of Anti -Subsidy Rules provides as follows:
Rule 8: Confidential information. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (1), (2), (3) and (7)
of rule 7, subrule (2) of rule 14, subrule (4) of rule 17 and subrule (3) of rule 19 copies of applications
received under subru le (1) of rule 6 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 authorisation of the party providing such i nformation.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to
furnish a non -confidentia l summary thereof in sufficient details to permit a reasonable understanding of
the substance of the confidential info rmation and if, in the opinion of a party providing such
information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submi t to the designated
authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (2), if the designated authority, is satisfied that the
request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier o f the information is either unwilling to make
the information public or to authorise its disclosure in generalised or summary form, it may disregard
such information.
25. 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 informat ion has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the
other interested parties. W herever possible, parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed
to provide sufficient non -confidential versions of the information filed on a con fidential basis.
F. DETERMINATION OF SUBSIDY AND SUBSIDY MARGIN
F.1. Submissions made by other interested parties
26. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the subsidy and subsidy
margin issues:
i. The Authority should justify (a) whether it has assessed the adequacy and accuracy of the evidence
concerning su bsidization; and (b) the basis on which it considers that the petition contains adequate and
accurate information for each subsidy alleged.
ii. The Authority has initiated an investigation into programs for which the petitioner did not even bother
to make proper allegations. The petitioner did not establish the existence of the three elements
comprising a countervailable subsidy, namely, (a) financial contribution, (b) benefit, and (c) specificity.
iii. Most of the subsidies alleged by the applicant are sim ple assertions without any by actual evidence.
iv. The same subsidies have been alleged to be applicable to the product under consideration as copp er
tubes and pipes, without providing adequate evidence.
F.2 Submissions made by the domestic industry
27. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the subsidy and subsidy margin:
i. There is sufficient evidence showing that exporters/ producers/ their affiliates of the subject goods in the
subject countries may have benefited from vario us countervailable subsidy programs by the
Government of China, which are not available to general e xporters/ producers and are actionable under
the ASCM and CVD Rules.
ii. The Authority may call for information on the affiliate entities.
iii. The benefits under some of the schemes are non -recurring and must be examined over the average
useful life for the subj ect goods in China.
iv. The average useful life for machinery used in subject product in China is 10 years.
v. The import duty exemptions on inputs for exported products are not countervailable as long as the
exemption is extended to the production of exported products only.
vi. The Government of China must have a system in place to confirm the inputs consumed for exported
products If such a system does not exist or is not applied effectively, it will lead to countervailing of the
entire amount of the exemption.
vii. The Government of China has not filed a response/ nor provided any meaningful information. Only the
government can provide detailed information related to wh ether the said scheme is countervailable or
not. The responding exporter can only provide informatio n whether any benefit was received or not.
viii. In other jurisdictions, where the Government of the exporting country does not cooperate, the
investigating autho rities rely on the facts available and determine the countervailability of the schemes.
ix. One of the related entities of the responding producer, that participated in the original investigation, has
not filed a response in the present investigation.
x. The re sponse filed by the responding producer should be rejected since complete details of the subsidies
received cannot be obtained in case of non -participation of affiliated companies.
xi. The producer has suppressed relevant information and has failed to provide a complete response,
rendering its response fit for rejection.
xii. The producer has completely ignored the prescribed format of Section II and has not provided
information on all the schemes and how they were not eligible for them.
xiii. There is no clarity on whe ther Zhejiang Zhongshan has availed benefits for subsidies for which it was
eligible.
xiv. The Authority should quantify the subsidy margin based on the best facts available.
xv. The exporters have not shown that the information or evidence provided by the domest ic industry is not
accurate. The domestic industry has provided sufficient evidence required for ini tiation.
xvi. The exporters have not demonstrated any program that did not entail (a) financial contribution, (b)
benefit and (c) specificity.
xvii. The domestic ind ustry has nowhere alleged that schemes available to producers of copper tubes and
pipes are applicable to the producers of the subject goods.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
28. The application filed by the domestic industry provided adequate prima facie evidence of the existence of
countervailable subsidies in the subject country on the subject good. The Authority notes that adequate
opportunity was provided to the Government of China, through written communications and consultations, to
provide relevan t information concerning the existence, operations and administration of various subsidy
schemes contended by the applicant, countervailability of the same vis -à-vis the WTO ASCM and Indian
Rules, and benefits availed by the Chinese producers/exporters und er these schemes. The Government of China
has not filed a response to the questionnaire, nor has provided any information relevant to various subsidy
schemes. The Government of China has thus not cooperated with the Authority in the present investigation. As
the Government of China has not extended the required cooperation, the Authority was constrained to proceed
with the available information in this investigation .
29. The present investigation was initiated on the basis of prima facie evidence. Post initia tion, the GOC and
producers/ exporters of Atrazine Technical from China PR were advised to file response to the questionnaire in
the form and manner prescribed and were given adequate time and opportunity to provide verifiable evidence
on the existence, de gree and effect of the alleged subsidy program for making an appropriate determination of
existence and quantum of such subsidies, if any. The Authority granted additional time till 22nd February 2024
to the responding producers / exporters to file the res ponse . Further, the Authority issued deficiency letters
dated 2nd April 2024 and 14th May, 2024 requesting clarification/missing information from the responding
producers/exporters on certain information provided by in their exporter questionnaire response .
30. The following producers/ exporters of the subject goods, all related with each other, from China PR have filed
questionnaire responses:
i. M/s Zhejiang Zhongshan Chemical Industry Group Co. Ltd. (Zhejiang)
ii. M/s Xiangshui Zhongshan Bioscience Co. L td. (X iangshui)
31. The Authority examined the questionnaire response filed by the aforementioned producer and exporter. It was
noted that the responding producer and exporter failed to provide the response in the form and manner
prescribed by the Authority. F urther , the program -wise information provided by the responding producer and
exporter is only with respect to the subsidy schemes availed by the producer and exporter. Therefore, wherever
the response filed by the responding producer and exporter was found inade quate, the Authority is constrained
to rely on facts available on record, including the findings of the Authority in the original investigation as well
as the information/evidence provided by the domestic industry during the course of the investigati on.
32. The domestic industry has alleged that Chinese producers/exporters of the subject goods are receiving
countervailable subsidies under the following programs of various levels of government and they have been
classified under six broad categories: grants, tax and VAT incentives, preferential loans and lending/financing,
export financing and export credit, provision of goods at less than adequate remuneration, and equity infusion.
F.3.1 Subsidy Schemes Under Investigation
33. The applicant has alleged that the pro ducers/exporters of the subject goods in the subject country continue to
benefit from actionable subsidies provided at various levels by the Government of the subject country,
includin g the provinces and districts in which producers/exporters are located. The applicant has also claimed
that there are additional programs or schemes that should be considered in the present investigation. The
Authority initiated investigations for the foll owing subsidy programs wherein the producers of the product
under consid eration may have potentially received the countervailable benefits:
i. Schemes identified as provision of Goods and Services at less than adequate remuneration
a) Program No. 1: Provision of Water for less than Adequate Remuneration
b) Program no 2: Land use right s provided at less than adequate remuneration
c) Program No 3: Land Use Rights for SOEs
d) Program No 4: Electricity at LTAR
e) Program No 5: Provision of Land -Use Rights for LTAR – Land Use Rights in Certain Industrial and
SEZs
f) Program No. 6: Land Use rights for FIEs
g) Program No. 72: Raw materials at LTAR
ii. Programs in the form of Equity Infusion
h) Program No 7: Debt for equity swaps
i) Program No. 8: Unpaid dividends
j) Program No 9: Equity infusions
k) Program No 10: Debt Forgiveness
l) Program No 11: Deed Tax Exemption for SOE s Undergoing Mergers or Restructuring
m) Program No. 12: Dividend exem ption between qualified resident enterprises
iii. Programs in the form of Export Financing and Export Credit
n) Program No 13: Export Seller's Credit
o) Program No 14: Export Buyer‘s Credit
p) Program N o 15: Export Credit Insurance Subsidies
q) Program No 16: Export Credit Guarantee by GOC
r) Program No 17: Preferential export financing from the Export -Import Bank of China
iv. Programs in the form of Preferential Loans and Lending
s) Program No 18: Preferential Lendi ng
t) Program No 19: Preferential Loans for SOEs
u) Program No. 71: Discounted Loans for Export -Oriented Enterprises and Export Loan Interest
Subsidies
v. Programs in the form of Tax and Vat Incentives
v) Program no 20: Tax Policies for the deduction of research and development (R&D) expenses
w) Program No. 21: Preferenti al Tax Policies for the Research and Development of FIEs
x) Program No. 22: VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestically - Produced Equipment
y) Program No 23: Preferential tax policies for companies that are recognized as high and new
technology companies
z) Progr am No 24: Income tax concessions for the enterprises engaged in comprehensive resource
utilisation (special raw materials)
aa) Program No 25: Tax credit concerning the purchase of special equipment
bb) Program N o. 26: Reduced Tax Rate for Productive FIEs Scheduled to operate for a Period not Less
than 10 Years
cc) Program No. 27: Tax Reductions for Technology or Knowledge -Intensive FIEs
dd) Program no 28: Income Tax Reduction for Advanced Technology FIEs
ee) Program No 29: I ncome Tax Refund for Re -investment of FIE Profits by Foreign Investors
ff) Program No. 30: Preferential Tax Policies for FIEs Established in the Coastal Economic Open Areas
and in the Economic and Technological Development Zones
gg) Program No 31: Tax concessions for Central and Western Regions
hh) Program No 32: Preferential income tax policy for the enterprises in the Northeast region
ii) Program No. 33: Preferential Tax Policies for FIEs and Foreign Enterprises and Certain
Domestically - Owned Companies Which Have Establ ishments or Places in China and are Engage d
in Production or Business Operations Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment‘s
jj) Program No. 34: Shanghai Municipal Tax Refund for High -tech Achievement Commercialization
Projects
kk) Program No. 35: Local income t ax and reduction program for the productiv e FIEs
ll) Program No. 36: Local Income Tax Exemption and/or Reduction in SEZs in Guangdong and Hainan
Island
mm) Program No. 37: Tariff and Value -added Tax (V AT) Exemptions on Imported Materials and
Equipment in SEZs and Other Designated Areas
nn) Program No.38: Corp orate Income Tax Exemption and/or Reduction in SEZs and Other Designated
Areas
oo) Program No.39: Preferential Tax Policies for Foreign Invested Export Enterprises
pp) Program No. 68: Preferential Tax Policies for Enterpri ses with Foreign Investment (FIEs)
Establi shed in Special Economic Zones (excluding Shanghai Pudong Area)
qq) Program No. 69: Income Tax credits for domestically owned Companies Purchasing Chinese made
Equipment
rr) Program No.70: Export tax rebate/Tax Refund on E xports
vi. Programs in the form of Grants
ss) Program No 40: Famous Brands Program/ Incentive fund for famous -brand products
tt) Program No. 41: Grants for Antidumping Investigations
uu) Program No. 42: Research & Development (R&D) Assistance Grant
vv) Program No. 43: Export Assistance Grant
ww) Program No. 44: Grants f or Listing Shares
xx) Program No. 45: Grants provided through the Provincial Fund for Fiscal and Technological
Innovation.
yy) Program No. 46: International Market Fund for Export Companies
zz) Program No. 47: Special fund for energy saving technology reform
aaa) Program No. 48: State Special Fund for Promoting Key Industries and Innovation Technologies
bbb) Program No. 49: Superstar Enterprise Grant
ccc) Program No. 50: Funds for Outward Expansion of industries in Guangdong Province
ddd) Program N o. 51: Grant - Special Funds for Fostering Stable Growth of Foreign Trade
eee) Program No. 52: Interim Measures of Fund Management of Allowance for Zhongsham
Enterprises to Attend Domestic and Overseas Fair
fff) Program No. 53: Treasury Bonds Loans or Grants
ggg) Progra m No. 54: Provincial Government - Equipment Grant
hhh) Program No. 55: Various grants provided to Fuyang City and Hangzhou City
i. Grant for Enterprises Paying Over RMB 10 Million in Taxes
ii. Grants under the Export of Sub -Contract Services Program
iii. Grants under Excel lent New Products/Technology Award
iv. Investment grants from Fuyang City Government for key industries
v. Grants for Enterprises Operating Technology and Research and Development Centers
vi. Local and Provincial Government Reimbursement Grants on export Credit Insur ance
Fees
vii. Initial Public Offering (IPO) Grants from the Hangzhou Prefecture and the City of
Fuyang (Zhejiang Province) & (Anhui Province)
iii) Program No. 56: Grants provided by Hebei Province
i. Grants under the Science and Technology program of Hebei Province
ii. Government of Shijiazhuang City Export Award
jjj) Program No. 57: Various grants provided to Shandong Province
i. Shandong Province's Special Fund for the Establishment of Key Enterprise
Technology Centers
ii. Shandong Province's Award Fund for Industrialization of Ke y Energy-Saving
Technology
iii. Shandong Province's Environmental Protection Industry Research and Development
Funds
iv. Shandong Province's Construction Fund for Promotion of Key Industries
kkk) Program No. 58: Subsidies Provided in Tianjin Binhai New Area and the Tian jin Economic
and Technological Development Area
lll) Program No. 59: The State Key Technology Renovation Projects Fund
mmm) Program No. 60: Enterprise Development Funds
nnn) Program No. 61: The Clean Production Technology Fund
ooo) Program No. 62: Special fund for the develop ment of foreign trade and economic Cooperation
ppp) Program No. 63: Grants for High and New Technology Industries
qqq) Program No. 64: Various grants provided to Guangdong province
i. Special fund for developing trade through science and technology of Guangdong
Provin ce
ii. Guangdong - Hong Kong Technology Cooperation Funding Program
iii. Guangdong Supporting Fund
iv. Special Fund for Significant Science and Technology by Guangdong Governments
v. Provincial Government of Guangdong Science and Technology Bureau Project Fund
vi. Provincial Loa n Discount Special Fund for SMEs by Guangdong Governments
vii. Special Supporting Fund for Key Projects of "500 Strong Enterprises in Contemporary
Industries" by Guangdong Governments
viii. Fund for Supporting Strategic Emerging Industries by Guangdong Governments
ix. Special Fund for Export Credit Insurance by Guangdong Governments
x. Patent Award of Guangdong Province
xi. Supporting Fund for the Development from Guangzhou Local Governments
rrr) Program No. 65: Various grants provided to Jiangsu province
i. Jiangsu Provin ce Finance Sup porting Fund
ii. Environment Protection Award (Jiangsu)
iii. Jiangsu City Industrial Economy Performance Award
iv. Changzhou Qishuyan District Environmental Protection Fund
v. Changzhou Technology Plan
vi. Supportive Fund provided by the Government of Xuyi Count ry
vii. Enterprise Technology Centers/ Support Funds for Construction of Project
infrastructure
sss) Program No. 66: Funds for supporting technological innovation for technological small and
medium -sized enterprises/ Small and Medium -sized Enterprise Support Funds
ttt) Program No. 67: Project funds allowance
34. The domestic industry has alleged that there are new countervailable programs providing benefits, resulting in
lower costs, thereby allowing Chinese producers to sell at a lower price. The following is a list of the new
programs am ong the above -mentioned subsidy schemes:
a) Program No. 1: Pro vision of Water for Less than Adequate Remuneration
b) Program no 2: Land use rights provided at less than adequate remuneration.
c) Program No 7: Debt for equity swaps
d) Program No 10: Debt Forgiveness
e) Program No 11: Deed Tax Exemption for SOEs Undergoing Mergers or Restructuring
f) Program No 17: Preferential export financing from the Export -Import Bank of China
g) Program No. 18: Preferential Lending
h) Program No. 22: Vat Refunds for FIEs purchasing domesticall y produced equipment
i) Program No. 34: Shanghai Municipal Tax refund for high -tech achievement commercialization projects
j) Program No. 35: Local income tax and reduction program for the productive FIEs
k) Program No. 49: Superstar Enterprise Grant
l) Program No. 50 : Funds for outward expansion of industries in Guangdong Pr ovince
m) Program No. 51: Grant - special funds for fostering stable growth of foreign trade
n) Program No. 52: Interim Measures of fund Management of allowance for Zhongsham Enterprise to
attend domesti c and overseas fair
o) Program No. 53: Treasury bonds Loans o r Grants
p) Program No. 54: Provincial Government - Equipment Grant
q) Program No. 55: Various grants provided to Fuyang City and Hangzhou City
i. Grant for Enterprises Paying Over RMB 10 Million in Taxes
ii. Grants under the Export of Sub -Contract Services Program
iii. Grants under Excellent New Products / Technology Award
iv. Investment grants from Fuyang City Government for key industries
v. Grants for Enterprises Operating Technology and Research and Development Centres .
vi. Local and Provincial Government Reimbursement Grants on Export Credit Insurance Fees
vii. Initial Public Offering (IPO) Grants from the Hangzhou Prefecture and the City of Fuyang (Zhejiang
Province) & (Anhui Province)
r) Program No. 56: Grants provided by Hebei Province
i. Grants under the Science and Technology progra m of Hebei Province
ii. Government of Shijiazhuang City Export Award
s) Program No. 57: Various grants provided to Shandong Province
i. Shandong Province's Special Fund for the Establishment of Key Enterprise T echnology Centers
ii. Shandong Province‘s Award Fund for Ind ustrialization of Key Energy -Saving Technology
iii. Shandong Province's Environmental Protection Industry Research and Development Funds
iv. Shandong Province's Construction Fund for Promotion of Key Industrie s
t) Program No. 58: Subsidies Provided in Tianjin Binhai N ew Area and the Tianjin Economic and
Technological Development Area
35. The domestic industry contended that the Chinese producers have received countervailable benefits in these
schemes as well. However, based on the information provided by the responding producers/exporters, it is
noted that none of these schemes have been a vailed by the responding producers/exporters in the present
investigation. Further, the domestic industry has also not provided sufficient information with regard to any of
these programs to countervail and quantify the subsidies availed by the producers/e xporters from the subject
country. Thus, the Authority considers it not necessary to examine countervailability of these programs.
Accordingly, the other new schemes brought on record by the domestic industry have not been examined in the
present investiga tion.
36. The principle of judicial economy allows the Authority to refrain from undertaking a detailed investigation in
respect of thos e programs that were found countervailable in the original investigation. The Authority has
examined whether countervailabl e schemes as determined during the original investigation continue and
whether there is evidence of continued benefit being received under the said schemes. The present investigation
is a sunset review investigation, and the objective of the investigation is to ascertain whether the Chinese
producers continue to benefit from these countervailable subsidies. However, the Government of Ch ina has
failed to provide a response and the exporters have filed inadequate responses. On the other hand, the domestic
industry has made submissions demonstrating that the producers and exporters in China continue to avail the
benefit of such countervaila ble subsidies. Thus, in view of the absence of any evidence presented by the
Government of China or the responding producer s/exporters on whether such schemes have been withdrawn or
not and the submissions by the domestic industry, the Authority has conclu ded that the subsidy schemes
countervailed in the original investigation continue to exist in China and provide benefit to the
producers/exporters of the subject goods, based on the facts available.
F.3.3 Examination of subsidies availed by responding prod ucers/exporters
37. The following producers/ exporters of the subject goods from China PR have filed questionnaire responses:
i. M/s Zhejiang Zhongshan Chemical Industry Group Co. Ltd. (Zhejiang)
ii. M/s Xiangshui Zhongshan Bioscience Co. Ltd. (Xiangshui)
38. Based on the questionnaire responses submitted, it is noted that Xiangshui is the producer of the subject goods
in China. However, it has not directly exported the subject goods to India. It has sold the subject goods to
Zhejiang, which has in turn exporter the subject goods to India. During the period of investigation, Zhejiang
has exported ***MT of th e subject goods to India.
Xiangshui (Producer) Zhejiang (Exporter) India
39. M/s Zhejiang Zhongshan Chemical Industry Group Co., Ltd has accepted availing the benefit under the
following schemes/programs -
i. Program No 20: Tax Policies for the deduction of research and development (R&D) expenses
ii. Program No 23: Preferential tax policies / Income Tax Reductions for companies that are recognized as
high and new t echnology companies
iii. Program No 42:Research & Development (R&D) Assistance Grant
iv. Program No 60 Enterprise Development Funds
v. Program No 62: Special fund for the development of foreign trade and economic Cooperation
vi. Program No 63: Grants for High and new tech nology industries
vii. Program No 65: Various grants provided to Jiangsu province
a) Environment Prote ction Award (Jiangsu)
40. M/s Xiangshui Zhongshan Bioscience Co., Ltd. has accepted availing the benefit under the following
schemes/programs -
i. Program No 61: The Cle an Production Technology Fund
ii. Program No 65: Various grants provided to Jiangsu province
b) Environment Protection Award (Jiangsu)
41. The above acceptance in the questionnaire response of the producers/exporters shows the existence of the
above -mentioned schemes / programs. However, as stated above, the response filed by the exporters is
inadequate. The responding producer and exporter did not respond to program -specific questions about the
subsidy schemes not availed by them. The information made available by the se producers/ exporters with
respect to the subsidies availed by them has bee n adopted to the extent found relevant and appropriate. For the
remaining , the Authority has relied on facts available on record, including the information provided by the
domesti c industry and available on record in the original investigation.
F.3.3.1 Provision for Goods and Services for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR)
a) Land use right
42. Given the absence of participation by the Government of China or any evidence presented by the responding
producers/exporters on whether such schemes have been withdrawn or not and the submissions made by the
domestic industry, the Authority concludes that the subsidy schemes countervailed in the original investigation
continue to exist in Chin a and provide benefit to the producers/exporters of the subject g oods, based on the
facts available.
43. In the questionnaire response filed by Xiangshui, it is seen that the company obtained land and has paid certain
amounts towards land use rights. The resp onding producer has provided details of lands acquired from time to
time and the amount paid towards land use rights. I n order to determine the benefit received by the responding
producer, the Authority has considered the benchmark information submitted by the interested parties. The
responding producer has submitt ed the prevailing prices of land in China based on the screenshots of certain
Chinese websites. However, the prices of such lands being located in China cannot be considered as an
appropriate benc hmark since it has been concluded in the original investigat ion that the land prices in China are
distorted.
44. On the other hand, the domestic industry has submitted that the Authority must consider an out -of-country
benchmark for determining the benefit. I n this regard, the domestic industry has placed on record a report by
CB Richard Ellis, namely Asian Marketview Reports, and has requested that the price of land in Thailand
should be considered as a benchmark. It is noted that the Authority has previously considered land prices in
Thailand as the appropriate benc hmark in the original investigation. Accordingly, the Authority has considered
land prices in Thailand as the appropriate benchmark in the present review as well.
45. Considering the total amount of l and acquired by the responding producer and the amount pai d towards land
use rights, the Authority has determined the average amount paid towards land use rights. Such average amount
paid towards land use rights has been compared with the benchmark conside red by the Authority (that is, the
price prevailing in Tha iland adjusted for inflation). It is seen that the responding producer has benefited from
concessional payments towards land use rights.
46. The Authority, accordingly, holds land use rights as a counte rvailable subsidy received by the responding
producer. Fu rther, the Authority on the basis of aforementioned comparison of the average price paid by the
responding producer and the benchmark prices determines a subsidy margin of ***% on this account.
b) Utilities (electricity)
47. The responding producers/exporters have claimed that they have not received raw materials or utilities at less
than adequate remuneration. Further, all goods and services for the operations of the product under
consideration are at the market price.
48. However, in the original investigation, the Authority concluded that the producers of the product under
consideration in China have availed the benefit of electricity at less than adequate remuneration. The Authority
has not re -examined the scheme's countervailability since the GoC's response i s missing, and the exporter was
unable to establish that the subsidy scheme is not countervailable.
49. To examine whether the responding producer received power at less than adequate remuneration, the Auth ority
has examined the power cost of the responding p roducer with the benchmark prices. However, none of the
other interested parties have provided any benchmark information in this regard. Accordingly, for this purpose,
the Authority has considered benchm ark prices provided by the domestic industry. An analysis of the
information provided by the responding producer sh ows that the company has actually received power at less
than adequate remuneration. In the absence of a response filed by the Government of China and due
information provided by the responding producer, the benefit on this account has been worked out base d on the
facts available. The subsidy margin determined on the basis of facts available by the Authority is ***%.
c) Raw materials
50. The Authori ty notes that financial contribution arises if raw materials become available to a business enterprise
at less than adequate remuneration in view of a general or specific policy or a program of the government or a
public body. In such a situatio n, benefit is conferred on the recipient of goods by virtue of access to raw
materials at less than adequate remuneration. Such subsidy becomes specific because it is limited to certain
enterprises using such raw materials/goods. In the original investigat ion, the Au thority concluded that the
producers of the product under consideration in China have received raw material at less than adequate
remuneration.
51. In the present review, the responding producer has provided details of raw material purchased for u se in the
production of the subject goods. However, the producer has not demonstrated that it has purchased the raw
materials at market prices or that it has not received raw materials at less than adequate remuneration. Further,
the Government of China ha s not filed any submission to claim that the responding producer has not received
the relevant raw materials at less than adequate remuneration. On the other hand, the applicant has claimed that
the responding producers have received three raw materials at less than a dequate remuneration and has
submitted benchmark information to demonstrate the benefit received in this regard. Such information has been
considered by the Authority and has been compared with the actual price of the raw material paid by the
responding pr oducer.
52. The three major raw materials used for the production of the subject goods are cyanuric chloride, mono
isopropyl amine (MIPA) and mono ethyl amine (MEA). In the present investigation, the Authority has
considered the import prices of mono isopropy l amine into India, MEA prices at which MEA in India has been
procured by the domestic industry, adjusted for customs duty and expenses beyond FOB, and import prices of
cyanuric chloride adjusted for customs duty, ocean freight and insurance. Comparison of this international
benchmark price with the actual raw materials price reported by the responding producer shows that the
responding producer has received MEA and cyanuric chloride inputs at a price materially below the prevailing
internation al prices, re sulting in access to inputs at less than adequate remuneration. However, it is observed
that the prices at which the responding producer has procured MIPA is comparable to the benchmark
information submitted and no benefit has accrued to the p roducer with respect to this input. The subsidy margin
accordingly determined on this basis is ***%.
F.3.3.2 Tax incentives and VAT incentives
53. The Government of China and its agencies administer a number of tax programs, which provide tax
exemption/reduc tion remission/ rebate to certain categories of enterprises based on their location or nature of
the activities such as R &D, technological innovation/ upgradation these enterprises undertake.
54. The benefit of the program is not limited to the product under consideration a lone. Benefits under the program
are available on the total profits of the company, once the company is able to claim that it is entitled to benefit
under the program. In its response to the e xporter questionnaire, Zhejiang has provided the details of the
benefits taken under both schemes.
55. The Authority has cumulated the total benefit received through various income tax exemptions and allocated
the same across all products. Considering the to tal benefit received under these programs, the Authority
determin es the subsidy margin as ***%.
F.3.3.3 Preferential Lending
56. In their questionnaire response, the responding producer and the exporter have provided details of loans
procured. The Authority has earlier determined that loans are available to Chinese enterp rises at discounted
interest rates and such concessional lendi ng results in financial contribution in the form of direct transfer of
funds. In the absence of any evidence presented by the Government of China or the responding
producers/exporters on whether such schemes have been withdrawn or not and the submissions b y the domestic
industry, the Authority concludes that the subsidy schemes countervailed in the original investigation continue
to exist in China and provide benefit to the producers/exporters of the subject goods, based on the facts
available accordingly.
57. To determine the benefit received by the responding producer and exporter, the Authority has compared the
lending rates at which the responding producers have received loans, to the benchmark r ates. In this regard, the
responding producer and exporter ha ve submitted evidence of interest rates as issued by the People‘s Bank of
China. However, the GoC has not participated in the investigation and there is no evidence on record to show
absence of G overnment control over lending rates in China, the interest r ates as issued by the People‘s Bank of
China cannot be considered. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the benefit received, the Authority has
considered the benchmark information submitted by the domestic industry. In order to determine the benefit
received by the responding producer and exporter, the Authority has compared the interest rate at which such
parties have received loans with the average of benchmark information submitted by the domestic industry.
Based on the same, the Authority conside rs that the responding Chinese producers and exporters have benefited
from loans at preferential lending rates. The subsidy margin determined on this account is ***%.
F.3.3.4 Grants
58. In the questi onnaire response, Zhejiang has admitted availment of benefits under Program No. 42, 60, 62, 63
and 65(ii) and Xiangshui has admitted availing of benefits under Program No. 61 and 65(ii). However, the
Authority notes that the financial statemen ts of the res ponding producers show a higher amount of subsidies
received. The Authority has determined the CVD margin under various grants received by Zhejiang and
Xiangshui as reported by them. For the purpose, gross amounts reported in the response file d by the resp onding
producer and exporter has been considered as the benefit conferred. The amount of subsidy margin determined
is ***%.
F.4 Conclusion
59. In view of the foregoing, the Authority finds that the Chinese producers and exporters are benefited f rom
countervai lable subsidies. Based on the investigations conducted, facts on record available, questionnaire
response of the participating exporters and considering the absence of questionnaire response from the GOC,
the Authority has quantified the marg in of subsidie s for the responding producer as shown in the table below.
Further, the subsidy margin of the non -responding producers have been quantified based on the facts available.
G. METHODOLOGY FOR INJURY DETERMINATION AND EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND
CAUSAL LINK
G .1 Submissions made by other Interested Parties
60. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
i. The import data relied upon is not authentic and the applicant has not provided the sou rce for the data. The
Authority should call for DGCI&S data for examination of injury.
ii. The applicant has not provided any information or data on the injury parameters a nd accordingly failed
to establish causal link between subsidized imports and injury.
iii. The decline in the capacity utilisation of the applicant is due to the unnecessary expansion undertaken.
iv. There is no injury since:
a. The domestic sales of the applicant ha ve increased from 100 in base year to 316 in the period of
investigation. The average s tock, considered as percentage to production and sales also shows a
decline.
b. The profitability and cash profits have also increased from the base year.
c. The Authority s hould ignore the abnormal trends during the period that was affected by the
pandemic.
d. The number of employees, salary and wages and productivity per employee have also improved
over the period.
e. The capital employed, fixed assets, and working capital have also shown an upward trend.
v. The decline in the return on investment may be due to an unnecessary increase in capacities, higher interest
rates on the borrowings, and higher depreciation.
vi. The programs that the producers/exporters have not availed have ce ased to exist. SN Program No. Name of Scheme Xiangshui Zhongshan Biotechnology
Co., Ltd./ Zhejiang Zh ongshan
Chemicals Industry Group Co., Ltd.
Range
% Any other producer
Range %
1 Program No.
42, 60, 61, 62,
63, 65 Grants 0-5 0-5
2 Program No.
20-23 Tax and V AT
Incentives 0-5 0-5
3 Program No.
18 Preferential lending 5-10 5-10
4 Provision for goods
and services at
LTAR
a Program No. 4 Electricity 0-5 0-5
b Program No.
3,5,6 Land use right 0-5 0-5
c Program No.
72 Raw Material 5-10 5-10
Total Subsidy Margin (1+2+3+4) 15-20 20-25
vii. When the imports were highest and at low price, the applicant earned pr ofits and when the imports have
declined, the profitability of the applicant declined.
viii. There is no correlation between the imports and the injury to the domestic industry.
ix. The 70,000 M T capacity as alleged by the applicant is not specifically for Atrazine .
x. The installed capacity for Atrazine is *** MT only.
G .2 Submissions made by the Domestic Industry
61. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
i. Mere improvement in performance of the domestic industry do es not mean that it is no longer suffering
injury.
ii. There is a need for continued imposition of duty, since the situation of the industry is fragile.
iii. There are significant subsidies being provided to producers in China.
iv. China has introduced policies to en courage and support the sustainable and healthy development of
pesticides and their related industries.
v. For examination of likelihood, the imports should be seen with reference to im ports in absolute terms and in
excess of the demand -supply gap in the cou ntry.
vi. Imports have declined in absolute numbers, due to the increased capacity of the domestic industry, but
have increased in comparison to the demand -supply gap.
vii. When the imports w ere only slightly higher than the demand -supply gap, they were catering l argely to
the demand that the domestic industry could not meet. However, at present, the imports are entering the
market despite absence of demand -supply gap.
viii. The imports account for more than one -third of the demand, despite the Indian producers already h aving
capacity to meet the demand.
ix. The imports are actively taking away the demand that can be catered to by the domestic industry.
x. Even though the market share appears to have reduced in entirety, the market share of excess imports has
actually quadrupl ed in the last two years.
xi. The domest ic industry has suffered from underutilized capacity.
xii. Despite the increase in the Indian capacity, the increase in its domestic sales of the applicant is far lower.
xiii. The imports are undercutting the prices of the domest ic industry.
xiv. Even after addition of anti-subsidy duty, the imports would have shown positive price undercutting.
xv. The landed price is below the cost of sales of the domestic industry.
xvi. The selling price of the applicant has not increased in tandem to the cost of sales.
xvii. The raw material and other variable cost of the domestic industry has significantly increased during the
period but the selling price increased by a meagre 5%.
xviii. In case of absence of duties, the domestic industry will have to either reduce i ts prices or lose their
customers. T herefore, the imports are likely to depress the prices of the domestic industry in the absence
of duties.
xix. Even though the sales of the domestic industry increased, the total profits have witnessed a decline.
xx. The cash pr ofits and return on capital employed has also declined significantly.
xxi. The domestic industry has made an investment of Rs. *** crores in the product to meet the Indian
demand.
xxii. The capacity expansion did not suppress the return earned by the domestic indust ry, as evident from
the fact that t he present EBIDTA would have resulted in low return on investment even without
capacity expansion.
xxiii. In the absence of duty, the domestic industry is likely to suffer losses, cash losses and negative
return on capital empl oyed.
xxiv. In the absence of duty, the i mport volume is likely to increase further and cause intensified injury to
the domestic industry.
xxv. The domestic industry has already established a clear causal link between the subsidized imports
and the injury suffered b y it.
xxvi. The exporters have not explai ned the impact of the pandemic on the demand, production or imports.
xxvii. At best, the pandemic can be considered to effect only a few months during 2020 -21.
xxviii. Since the subject imports had a price effect on the domestic indust ry, the increase in productivity
does not throw light on the likelihood of injury.
xxix. Capital employed is bound to increase in a situation where the producer has undertaken capacity
expansion.
xxx. Had there been no increase in excess imports, the domestic indust ry would have been able to
increase its sales to a higher degree.
xxxi. There is a clear likelihood of an increase in imports in the event of the expiry of duty.
xxxii. Demand i n China is likely to reduce due to the categorisation of Atrazine as "high pollution and hi gh
environmental risks".
xxxiii. Against a demand of 1,03,400 MT in 2022 and 47,500 MT in the first half of 2023 in China, the
capacity is nearly 1,33,000 MT.
xxxiv. The capacity in China is 20 times the demand in Indi a in the period of investigation.
xxxv. More than 55% of total sales in China is exported, indicating that the producers in China are export -
oriented.
xxxvi. Capacities in China are underutilized, as against a capacity of 1,33,000 MT in 2023, the production
was nearly 1,20,000 MT.
xxxvii. The idle capacity in China is 13,000 MT which is more than twice the demand in India.
xxxviii. The capacity of the participating producer ( Xiangshui Zhongshan Biotechnology Co., Ltd. ) is 6
times the demand in India.
xxxix. Atrazine is used in formulat ions that are widely used on sugarcane and India is one o f the largest
sugarcane plantations globally, after Brazil, that is likely to ban Atrazine.
G .3 Examination of the Authority
62. The Authority has taken note of the submissions and evidence presented by all interested parties with respect to
injury to the dom estic industry. The injury analysis by the Authority hereunder addresses the various
submissions made by the interested parties.
63. Rule 13 of the Countervailing Duty Rules, 1995 read with Annexure I provides that an injury determination
involves examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, taking into account all
relevant facts, including the volume of subsidised imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like
article and the consequent effect of such imports on d omestic producers of such articles.
64. The Authority has considered submissions made by various interested parties and relevant legal provisions. The
Authority has examined injury information of the domestic industry having regard to these legal provisions.
The examination herein below ipso facto deals with the submissions made by the domestic industry and
interested parties concerning injury to the domestic industry.
65. The Authority has examined the various injury parameters on account of imports from the subje ct country
before proceeding to examine the likelihood aspects of subsidy and injury. It has been examined as to whether
there is an increase in imports, in absolute terms or in rel ation to production or consumption. In considering the
effect of the subsid ised imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a
significant price undercutting by the subsidised imports as compared with the price of the lik e article in India,
or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to d epress prices to a significant degree or prevent price
increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of
the subsidised i mports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the s tate of the industry
such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, stock, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude,
and margin of subsidy, etc. have been consid ered in accordance with Annexure -I of the Rules.
G .3.1 Assessment of demand / apparent consumption
66. For the purpose of the present investigation, the Authority has defined demand or apparent consumption of the
product concerned in India as the sum of domestic sales of the Indian producers and imports from all sources.
The demand so assessed is given in t he table below.
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr'21 -
Jun'22 (A) POI
Demand (including captive)
Sales of applicant MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 102 108 316
Captive sales of applicant MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexe d 100 96 76 207
SEZ sales to DTA MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 19 28 21
Sale of other producers MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 114 275 251
Subject imports MT *** *** *** ***
Other imports MT - - - -
Demand (including captive) MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 161 123 144
Demand (excluding captive) MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 164 125 142
67. It is seen that the demand for the subject goods increased after 2019 -20, but decreased during April 2021 to
June 2022, before reporting an increase during the period of investigation.
G .3.2 Volume effect of the subsidised imports
68. With regard to the volume of the subsidized imports, the Designated Authority is required to consider whether
there has been a significant increase in the subs idized imports either in absolute terms or relative to production
or consumption in India. For the purpose of injury analysis, the Authority has relied on the transaction -wise
import data procured from DG System. The import volumes of the subject goods fro m the subject country and
share of the subsidised import during the injury investigation period are as follows:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr'21 -Jun'22
(A) POI
Subject imports MT 2,813 5,618 2,984 2,406
Other imports MT - - - -
Subject imports i n relation to -
Total imports % 100 100 100 100
Consumption/demand including captive % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 124 86 59
Consumption/demand excluding captive % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 122 85 60
Production % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 175 59 28
69. It is noted that –
a. The subject imports increased in 2020 -21 even after the imposition of countervailing duty. Thereafter, the
imports have reduced in absolute terms. However, imports have remained significant during the POI a nd
over the injury period.
b. Imports from the subje ct country represent all of the imports that have entered India during the period of
injury and the period of investigation since imports from other countries are absent in both the periods.
c. The subject co untry imports in relation to the Indian production and demand have reduced throughout the
injury period and in the period of investigation. The imports were quite significant in relation to
production and consumption before the enhancement of capacity by t he domestic industry. However, the
imports have re mained significant in relation to production and consumption during the POI even after
substantial capacity addition by the domestic industry.
G .3.3 Price effect of the subsidised imports
70. With regard to th e effect of the subsidised imports on prices, it is required to be analysed whether there has
been a significant price undercutting by the alleged imports as compared to the price of the like products in
India, or whether the effect of suc h imports is othe rwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which
otherwise would have occurred in the normal course. The impact on the prices of the domestic industry on
account of the imports from the subject country has been examined with refer ence to price und ercutting, price
suppression and price depression, if any.
a) Price undercutting
71. Price undercutting has been determined by comparing the net sales realization of the domestic industry with the
landed price of the imports for the period of i nvestigation. It i s seen that the price undercutting is positive and
significant during the period of investigation.
POI
Particulars Landed Price
excluding CVD Landed Price
including CVD
Net sales realization *** ***
Landed price 4,39,387 4,77,072
Price undercutting *** ***
Price undercutting *** ***
Range 5-15% 0-10%
72. Since the product was subjected to countervailing duty, the Authority determined price undercutting after
including the prevailing countervailing duty. It is seen that the imports are were undercutt ing the prices of the
domestic industry even after the imp osition of duty. However, the selling price of the domestic industry was
very close to the landed price of imports after adding the countervailing duty. The applicant submitted that,
during the peri od of investigation, it was forced to reduce its prices in order to compete with the imports from
the subject country. It is noted that if the duty -inclusive price is considered, the domestic industry was selling at
a price very close to the landed price o f imports.
b) Price suppression / depression
73. In order to determine whether the subsidised imports are suppressing or depressing the domestic prices and
whether the effect of such imports is to suppress to a significant degree or prevent price increases whic h
otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree, the Authority has considered the changes in the costs
and prices over the injury period as compared as below.
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr'21 -Jun'22
(A) POI
Cost of Sales ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 96 135 190
Selling Price ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 108 184 192
Landed Price ₹/MT 2,29,131 2,24,972 3,42,994 4,39,387
Trend Indexed 100 98 150 192
Landed Price including
CVD ₹/MT 2,48,782 2,44,264 3,72,411 4,77,072
Trend Indexed 100 98 150 192
74. It is noted that both the cost of sales and selling price have increased during the injury period. Further, the
countervailing duty was imposed on the product in September, 2019. Therefore, if 2019 -20 is excluded, it is
seen that the increase in selling pr ice in the POI is less than the increase in the cost of sales of the domestic
industry as compared to all the preceding periods. Further, even though the total cost of the sales increased by
41% in the POI as compared to t he preceding year, the selling price increased by only 5% in the POI. It is seen
that the raw material costs of the domestic industry increased by ***%, and variable cost i ncreased by ***% in
the POI as compared to the preceding year. However, the domestic industry was not able to increase its selling
price in proportion to the increases in direct costs on account of raw materials and utilities, owing to the landed
price of imports. Further, the selling price of the domestic industry during the POI was very close to the landed
price of imports after adding the countervailing duty. It is thus seen that the imports have prevented the
domestic industry from raising its prices in proportion to the increase in the costs in the POI.
75. It is also seen that the lande d price of imports without the countervailing duty was below the cost of production
of the domestic industry during the period of investigation, while the same was above the cost of production of
the domestic industry after adding the countervailing duty. This indicates that the imports are likely to force the
domestic industry to sell at loss -making prices in the event of cessation of the countervailing duty. Thus, in the
event of the expiry of duty, the imports are likely to suppress/depress the prices of the domestic industry further
and to such an extent that the domestic industry is likely to suffer financial losses.
G .3.4 Economic parameters relating to the dom estic industry
76. The Rules require that the determination of the injury shall involve an object ive examination of the consequent
injury by the subject imports on the domestic producers. With regard to the consequent impact of these imports
on the domestic pr oducers of such products, the Rules further provide that the examination of the impact of the
subsidized imports on the domestic industry would include an objective unbiased evaluation of all relevant
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the st ate of industry, including actual and potential decline in
sales, profits, output, market sha re, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors
affecting domestic prices, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventor ies, employment, wages,
growth, ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, the perfor mance of the domestic industry has been
examined over the injury period.
a) Production, capacity, capacity utilization and sales
77. The production, capacity, capacity utilization and sales during the injury period was as follows:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020-21 Apr 21 -Jun
22 (Annl.) POI
Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 400
Production MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 114 108 337
Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 114 108 84
Domestic Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 102 108 316
78. It is seen that –
a. The domestic industry increased capacity significantly in the POI, after setting up a new plant during the
period of investigation. There was a demand -supply gap in the country which has been fille d up by the
domestic industry by adding significant capacit ies.
b. The production of the domestic industry has increased over the injury period, with a slight decrease in
production during April 2021 – June 2022, but was the highest during the period of inve stigation.
c. The capacity utilization of the domestic indust ry increased till 2020 -21 but declined thereafter.
d. Despite increasing demand in the market, the domestic industry has not been able to utilize its capacities to
the extent of demand for the produc t in the country, and its capacity utilization has remained low. The
domestic industry would have fully utilized its production capacity in the absence of imports.
e. The domestic industry has been able to increase its sales over the injury period. Further, the domestic
industry was able to post a significant increa se in sales in the POI after the enhancement of production
capacities. However, the increase in sales is far below the increase in production capacities. Further, the
volume of imports is still hig her than the volume of sales by the domestic industry, and even after
available production capacities in the Country.
79. The applicant has submitted that it has not been able to increase its production in line with the increase in its
capacities and therefore it has witnessed a decline in its capacity utilization. It is seen that the applicant
increased its capacities by ***% but the domestic sales have increased by ***% in the POI in comparison to
the preceding year and ***% when compared to the base year. It is noted that despite setting up a capacity of
***MT to cater to a significant share of the Indian demand, the applic ant produced only ***MT during the
period of investigation.
80. Some interested parties have submitted that the injury to the domestic indust ry is due to COVID -19. The
Authority notes that the period of investigation in the present investigation is July 2022 -June 2023, and there is
no evidence of adverse effects of COVID -19 during this period. It is observed that the effect of the pandemic, if
any, would be limited to a brief period in 2020 -21 only.
b) Market share
81. The market share of the domestic industry, o ther Indian producers, imports from the subject country, and other
countries are shown in the table below:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr'21 -Jun'22
(A) POI
Including captive
Domestic industry % *** *** *** ***
Domestic industry –
SEZ to DTA % *** *** *** ***
Domestic industry –
Captive % *** *** *** ***
Other Indian producers % *** *** *** ***
Subject imports % *** *** *** ***
Other imports % *** *** *** ***
Excluding captive
Domestic industry % *** *** *** ***
Domestic industry –
SEZ to DTA % *** *** *** ***
Other Indian producers % *** *** *** ***
Subject imports % *** *** *** ***
Other imports % *** *** *** ***
82. It is se en that the market share of the subject imports has decreased after 2020 -21 and the share of the domestic
industry has increased in the same period. Further, the market share of the domestic industry increased
significantly in the POI after commencement of new production capacities. However, the applicant has
submitted that durin g the period of investigation, there was no demand -supply gap in the country for the
subject goods. Against a demand of ***MT, the total capacity in the country stood at ***MT. Desp ite the same
and duties in place, it is noted that imports from the subject country have accounted for more than one -third of
the market. Further, the market share of the subject imports is more than the market share of the domestic
industry, even after th e countervailing duty is in place.
83. The applicant has also submitted that the market share of imports was higher in the preceding years due to the
demand -supply gap in the country and as such imports did not adversely affect the applicant both on volume
and price accounts. However, during th e period of investigation, even though the market share of the subject
imports reduced and the market share of the domestic industry increased, the imports have increased in relation
to the demand -supply gap, resulting i n a situation where the imports were more than the sales of domestic
industry. Further, the domestic industry suffered underutilisation of production capacities.
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr 21 -Jun 22 (Annl.) POI
Indian capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 214 386
Indian demand MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 161 123 144
Demand -supply gap MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 216 42 -72
Subject imports MT 2,813 5,618 2,984 2,406
c) Inventories
84. Inventory position with the domestic industry over the injury period and the period of investigation is given in
the table below:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr 21 -Jun
22 (Annl.) POI
Opening Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Closing Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Average Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 58 40 20
85. It is seen that the average inventory for the domestic industry has decreased during the injury period.
d) Employment, productivity and wages
86. The Authority has examined the information relating to employment , wages and productivity, as given below.
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr 21 -Jun
22 (Annl.) POI
Number of employees Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 350
Salaries and wages ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 121 111 520
Productivity per day MT/Days *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 114 108 395
87. It is seen that the number of employees and productivity have increased during the period of investigation. It is
because of the addition of capacity by the domesti c industry.
e) Profits, cash profits and return on investment
88. The profitability parameters of the domestic industry are as follows.
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr'21 -Jun'22
(A) POI
Cost of sales ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 96 135 190
Selling price ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 108 184 192
Profit/ (loss) ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 665 2,304 254
Profit/ (loss) ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 678 2,480 804
Cash Profit ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 643 2173 345
Cash Profit ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 656 2,340 1,094
Interest ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 0 2 174
Interest ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 0 2 550
Return of investment % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 294 579 71
Capital employed per unit ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 149 263 291
89. It is noted that:
a. The countervailing duty on the product was imposed in 2019 -20. The profits of the domestic industry
increased till April 2021 to June 2022, but significantly declined in the period of investigation. The
profits of the domestic industry declined by ***% dur ing the period of investigation as compared to the
preceding year.
b. Wherea s the cost of production increased in the POI as compared to preceding year, the domestic industry
was unable to increase its prices in proportion to the increase in the cost of prod uction, and even
increase in the costs on account of raw materials and uti lities. Resultantly, the domestic industry
suffered a significant decline in profits in the POI. The price suppression suffered by the domestic
industry in the POI led to a significa nt decline in profits in the POI.
c. The cash profits and return on investmen t also increased after the duties were imposed, but declined ***%
and ***% respectively in the POI as compared to the preceding year.
90. The other interested parties have argued that the decline in the return on investment is due to unnecessary
increases in capacities, higher interest rates on the borrowings, and higher depreciation. The Authority
therefore examined the trends in profit before interest and depreciation, and trends in capital employed per
unit of sales. It is seen that the profit before intere st and profit before interest and deprecation per unit of
sales have also shown a decline of 86% and 82% respectively in the period of investigation as compared to
the precedin g year. Further, the Authority determined the return on capital employed in the POI by
considering per unit capital employed before the enhancement of capacity. It is seen that the ROCE would
have been almost the same ( ***%) in the POI as against the actua l return earned during the period of
investigation ( ***%). Thus, the Authority d oes not find any merit in the contention that the decline in return
on capital employed is on account of the capacity expansion.
f) Growth
91. The growth in various parameters of t he domestic industry over the injury period was as follows:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 Apr'21 -
Jun'22 (A) POI
Production % - 14% -5% 212%
Domestic sales % - 2% 6% 194%
Profit / loss % - 578% 266% -68%
Cash Profit % - 556% 257% -53%
Return on investment % - 13% 19% -35%
Capacity % - 0% 0% 300%
92. It is noted that the volume p arameters of the domestic industry have shown growth over the period, after a drop
in April 2021 to June 2022 in the production. However, while the profitability parameters of the domestic
industry showed growth till the previo us period, they have declined during the period of investigation. Further,
the growth in capacity in the POI was more than the growth in production and domestic sales.
g) Ability to raise capital investment
93. It is noted that although the capacity of the domestic industry has increased d uring the injury period, the
profitability of the domestic industry has decreased and recorded a decline in return on capital employed. The
PBIT of the domestic industry has als o been reduced. Further, it is noted that the return on capital employed is
low and is not conducive to further investment. Thus, the imports have adversely impacted the ability of the
domestic industry to raise capital investment.
94. Some of the interested parties have argued that capital employed, fixed assets, and working capital of the
domestic industry have also shown an increase. The Authority notes that the capital employed has increased in
light of the capacity expansion undertaken by the domestic in dustry.
h) Factors affecting prices
95. It is noted that the imports are priced below the cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry. The
applicant was forced to adjust its prices in order to compete with the imports during the period of investig ation.
This has resulted in the domestic industry witnessing a deterioration in it s profitability. It is thus seen that the
imports were impacting the prices of the domestic industry during the present period of investigation.
i) Magnitude of subsidy margin
96. The Authority notes that the subsidy margin determined is significant and has des troyed the conditions of fair
competition in the market.
G .4 Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury
97. The Authority observes that this is a sunset review investigation and the focus of this investigation is to
examine the like ly scenario of continued subsidization and consequent injury if the anti -subsidy duty is to be
allowed to expire even if there is no current injury. This also requires a consideration of whether the duty
imposed is serving the intended purpose of eliminati ng injurious subsidisation.
98. Thus, in a sunset review investigation, the Authority is required to analyse whether revocation of a m easure is
likely to result in the continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic industry, contrary to the
determinatio n of injury in an original investigation.
99. All factors brought to the notice of the Authority have been examined to determine as t o whether there is a
likelihood of continuation of subsidisation or injury in the event of cessation of the duty. The Authorit y has
considered various information, as made available by the domestic industry, in order to evaluate the likelihood
of continuat ion of subsidisation or injury.
100. Further, the Authority has also examined other relevant factors having a bearing on the likel ihood of
continuation of subsidisation and consequent injury to the domestic industry. The examination of the
parameters of likel ihood is as follows.
a. Continued subsidization
101. The Authority notes that there is continued and significant subsidisation of the subject goods from the subject
country in spite of the duties in force. Continued subsidisation during the existence of duties indicates the
likelihood of continuation of subsidies.
b. Increase in imports in relation to the demand -supply gap
102. While the absolu te volume of imports has declined, the applicant has emphasized that the same is because of
the increased capacity during the period of investigation. If imports from China PR are seen in relation to the
demand -supply gap in the country, it would be seen t hat imports have in fact increased.
103. The Authority notes that during the first part of the injury period, the imports were m eeting the demand in India
that the Indian industry could not fulfil owing to absence of production capacities. However, during the period
of investigation, despite the increase in the Indian capacity and the existence of capacities sufficient to meet
entire Indian demand, the imports catered to one -third of the Indian demand. It is seen that the exporters from
the subject country have taken away the market that the domestic industry could easily cater. Further, a
comparison of the selling price of the dome stic industry with the landed price of imports in the POI after the
addition of CVD shows that the domestic industry was selling the product at almost comparable to the landed
price of imports. Thus, in the absence of duties, either the importers are likel y to further shift to imports,
thereby further impacting the market share held by the domestic industry, or the domestic industry is likely to
reduce the prices in proportion to the present CVD.
c. Absolute market share held by subject imports
104. The Authority noted that there was no demand -supply gap in the country during the period of investigation.
Against a demand of ***MT, the Indian capacity is roughly ***MT. Despite this, the imports account for
nearly one -third of the market share. Further, the landed price of imports after the addition of CVD is very
comparable to the selling price of the domestic industry. The applicant has emphas ised that the imports have
prevented the applicant from increasing its sales commensurate with the increase in its capacity. It is noted that
the absolute volume of imports and their share in the Indian market is quite significant to cause adverse price
effects in the absence of CVD. Further, the increase in sales of the domestic industry was not in tandem with
the increase in its capacities, thus showing the existing adverse effect of imports on the domestic industry.
d. Decline in profitability of the domes tic industry
105. The profitability of the domestic industry improved after the duties were imposed in 2019. Howe ver, during the
period of investigation, the landed price of the imports from China PR was below the cost of sales of the
domestic industry. Furthe r, the landed price of imports in the POI as compared to preceding year did not
increase in proportion to the increase in costs on account of raw materials and utilities. As a result, the domestic
industry faced price suppression and resultant decline in i ts profitability. It is seen that even though the
domestic sales of the domestic industry increased by 194%, the total profits declined by 68%.
106. The Authority notes that the return on capital employed in the POI was only 5%. The domestic industry has
inves ted nearly ₹ *** crores to meet the Indian demand and eliminate the demand - supply gap in the country.
Howe ver, the return generated is not viable for such an investment.
e. Expiry of duties likely to result in losses
107. It is seen that the landed price of imp orts is below the cost of production of the domestic industry. Further,
since the domestic industry is at present selling at a price very comparable to the landed price of imports after
addition of CVD, it is very lik ely that the applicant will be forced t o match these prices even after cessation of
CVD. Should that happen, the domestic industry is likely to suffer significant financial losses, cash losses and
negative return on capital employed.
Particulars Unit Actual Likely Impact
Cost of sales ₹/MT *** *** -
Selling price ₹/MT *** *** -8%
Landed Price ₹/MT 4,77,072
(With CVD) 4,39,387 (Without
CVD)
Profit/loss ₹/MT Profit Loss -284%
Profit/loss ₹ lakhs Profit Loss -284%
Cash profits ₹ lakhs Profit Loss -195%
Return on investment % *** *** -212%
f. Increasing global restrictions on the subject goods and decreasing demand
108. The domestic industry has provided a market research report by VynZ Research which contains information
regarding the capacity, production and demand in the subject coun try and globally. The Authority notes that as
per the report, the global demand for the product under consideration is expected to shrink from 2023 to 2028.
This would lead to price competition between the global producers of the subject goods and due to t he
subsidies available to the subject producers. The Chinese producers are likely to re duce their prices in the
Indian market to gain market share. This would lead to unfair competition, and increase the demand for
imported goods in India.
109. Moreover, as pe r the report, there is also a decline in the demand in China. In November 2021, the Mi nistry of
Ecology and Environment in China included Atrazine in the list of products with "high pollution and high
environmental risks‖. Thus, the demand for the product under consideration in the subject country is likely to
decline. In such a scenario, t he Chinese producers are likely to look for alternative markets for their goods and
are likely to target India due to its increasing demand. The Authority notes that in t he absence of duties, the
Chinese producers are likely to increase their exports.
g. Export orientation of producers
110. The Authority notes that the producers of the subject goods in China PR have a capacity much higher than the
domestic demand in China PR. As p er the market research report by VynZ Research, against a demand of
49,000 in 2023, the capacity in China was nearly 1,20,000 MT. Thus, it is evident that the producers in China
PR are export -oriented. Moreover, from 2019 to 2022, China's Atrazine export v olumes accounted for more
than 55% of the total sales. Thus, the exporters in the su bject country are reliant on exports.
111. It is also seen that the exportable capacities of the producers in the subject country are huge when compared
with the Indian demand.
Particulars V olume (MT)
Capacity 1,20,000
Domestic demand 49,000
Exportable surplus 71,000
Exportable surplus in relation to capacity 59%
Merchant demand in India ***
Exportable surplus in relation to Indian demand 1,186%
112. Thus, the Authority note s that the exportable capacity in China is 11 times the demand in India and more than
two times the demand in China. In the absence of duties, the producers will utilise their surplus capacities by
targeting the Indian market.
h. Idle capacities held by Chin ese producers
113. The applicant has also emph asised that the producers in the subject country hold idle capacities. As per the
report, in 2023, against a capacity of 1,20,000 MT, the production for the subject goods in China was nearly
98,200 MT. Thus, it is s een that in addition to holding significa nt exportable capacities, the producers in the
subject country are also suffering from significant idle capacities.
Particulars Quantity (MT)
Capacity 1,20,000
Production 98,200
Idle Capacity 21,800
Merchant demand in India ***
Idle capacity in relation to Indian demand 364%
Additional exports to cater to entire demand ***
Additional capacity utilization for the same 3%
114. The Authority notes that the idle capacities in China are more than 3 times the deman d in India. It is also seen
that the Chinese producers can take away the entire Indian demand by a mere 3% increase in their capacity
utilization.
i. Idle capacities held by responding producer
115. The Authority has also analysed the information submitted by the sole participating producer/exporter,
Xiangshui Zhongshan Biotechnology Co., Ltd . It is seen that the participating producer/exporter is holding
signif icant unutilised capacities and would be able to take away the remaining Indian demand by increasing its
existing capacity utilization by 12%.
Particulars Quantity (MT)
Merchant demand in India ***
Capacity of the responding producer ***
Capacity utilisation of the respondent ***
Excess capacity of the producer ***
116. It is noted that the unutilised capac ity of a single producer/exporter alone is enough to cater to the entire Indian
demand. The applicant has emphasised that apart from Xiangshui Zhongshan Biotechnology Co., Ltd. , there
are numerous other players in China PR with significant capacity to manu facturer the subject goods. Therefore,
the producers in the subject country have significant capacities, which would allow them to take away the
entire Indian market .
j. Importance of India as a market
117. The applicant has also emphasised that India is a key ma rket for the producers in the subject country. The
subject goods are used in making formulation, widely used on crops such as sugarcane. Since India is one of
the largest sugarcane plantations in the worl d, the demand for the subject goods in India is like ly to show
growth in the near future. Thus, India is a key market for the exporters.
118. Examination of the questionnaire response filed by the responding exporter with regard to its exports to third
countri es has shown that the exporter has largely exported to two countries, ***, and ***. Analysis of these
exports showed that exports to *** were much higher than exports to India (about twice), whereas exports to
*** were significant (above 50%) as compared t o exports to India. Further, the export prices to *** and ***
were 7 % and 11% lower than the export prices to India. The cumulative volume of exports to these two
countries by the cooperative exporter is sufficient to take over 100% of the sales of the dom estic industry.
G .5 Conclusion on injury and likeli hood of continuation of subsidisation and injury
119. The evidences on record shows that there is likelihood of continuation of subsidisation and consequent injury
to the domestic industry, in case of cessation of anti -subsidy duty in force. This is evident fro m the following
conclusion:
i. The subject imports have remained significant even after the imposition of countervailing duty and
enhancement of production capacities in the country.
ii. The price underc utting is positive and significant.
iii. The landed price of imp orts was below the cost of sales of the domestic industry.
iv. While the domestic industry is already facing suppressing effects on its prices, the imports are likely to
suppress/depress the prices of the domestic industry further.
v. The capacity utilization of the domestic industry increased till 2020 -21 but declined thereafter. The decline in
the capacity utilization in the POI is not due to technical constraints associated with new production
faciliti es.
vi. The domestic industry has not been able to increase its production in line with the increase in its
capacities.
vii. The subject imports have accounted for more than one -third of the market despite the existing
countervailing duties and significant capacity addition by the domestic industry.
viii. The imports are signif icantly higher than the demand -supply gap in the country. While the imports were
not causing suppressing/depressing effect so long as there was a demand -supply gap in the country,
imports caused a significant suppressing/depressing effect after the enhance ment of the production
capacities. The Chinese producers have prevented increase in prices in proportion to the increase in
costs and full utilisation of production capaciti es.
ix. The profit, cash profit and return on investment of the domestic industry have drastically declined in the
period of investigation. Decline in profit before interest and depreciation shows that such decline is not
due to capacity addition, but due to the inability of the domestic industry to increase its prices in
proportion to the increase in costs on account of raw materials and utilities.
x. The profitability parameters of the domestic industry have declined during the period of investigation.
xi. The im ports have impacted the prices of the domestic industry during the period of invest igation.
xii. There is continued and significant subsidisation of the subject goods from the subject country.
xiii. The global demand and the demand in the subject country is likely to lead to an increase in imports from
China and would lead to unfair competition a nd increase the demand for imported goods in India.
xiv. The producers in China PR have a capacity much higher than the domestic demand in China PR and are
highly export -oriente d.
xv. The exportable capacity in China is 11 times the demand in India .
xvi. In addition to holding significant exportable capacities, the producers in the subject country are also
suffering from significant idle capacities.
xvii. India is one of the key markets for e xporters since it is one of the largest sugarcane plantations in the
world.
xviii. The ex port price of the responding exporter to the rest of the world in general and to its largest market,
in particular, was materially below the export price to India. This volu me alone would be more than
adequate to take care of another one -third of the deman d in India and would allow the responding
exporter to earn much higher revenue than exporting to third countries.
H. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY AND INJURY MARGIN
120. The non -injurious price of the product under consideration has been determined by adopting the verifie d
information/data relating to the cost of production for the period of investigation. The non -injurious price has
been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject country for calculating the injury margin. For
determining the non -injurious price, the best utilisation of the raw materials by the domestic industry over the
injury period has been consider ed. The same treatment has been carried out with the utilities. The best
utilisation of production capacity over the injury period has been co nsidered. It is ensured that no extraordinary
or non -recurring expenses are charged to the cost of production. A r easonable return (pre -tax @ 22%) on
average capital employed (i.e. average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the product unde r
consideration was allowed as pre -tax profit to arrive at the non -injurious price.
121. The landed price for the coo perative exporters has been determined on the basis of the data furnished by the
exporters. For all the non -cooperative producers/exporters fro m the subject countries, the Authority has
determined the landed price based on the facts available.
122. Based on th e landed price and non -injurious price determined as above, the injury margin for
producers/exporters has been determined by the Authority and t he same is provided in the table below.
SN Countries Non-injurious
price Landed price Injury
margin Injury
marg in Injury
margin
(Rs/MT) (Rs/MT) (Rs/MT) (%) (Range in %)
A. China PR
1. Xiangshui Zhongshan
Biotechnology Co.,
Ltd. *** *** *** *** 5-15%
2. Others *** *** *** *** 10-20%
I. NON -ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
123. The Authority examined whether other factors listed under the CVD Rules could have caused injury to the
domestic industry. As per the Rules, the Authority, inter alia , is required to examine any known factors other
than subsidised imports which are injurin g or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry, so that the
injury caused by these other factors may not be attributed to the subsidised imports. While the present
investigation is a su nset review investigation and causal link has already been ex amined in original
investigation, the Authority examined whether other known listed factors have caused or are likely to cause
injury to the domestic industry.
a) Volume and value of imports from th ird countries
124. There are no imports of the subject goods fro m any other country and thus, there is no injury on account of
imports from third countries.
b) Contraction in demand
125. The demand for the subject goods increased in 2020 -21 and declined after. However, the demand has increased
again during the period of inve stigation. There is no information on record to suggest a contraction in demand.
The domestic industry has not suffered injury due to possible contraction in demand.
c) Pattern of consumption
126. There has been no material change in the pattern of consumption of the product under consideration, to which
the injury suffered can be attributed.
d) Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices
127. There are no trade restrictive practices or con ditions of competition, which can cause injury to the domestic
industry.
e) Developments in technology
128. There has been no change in technology for production of the subject goods, due to which the domestic
industry has suffered injury.
f) Productivity
129. The pr oductivity of t he domestic industry has not decreased and thus, it has not suffered injury on this account.
g) Export performance of the domestic industry
130. The domestic industry has segregated the export performance from the domestic performance, and thus, no
injury has bee n caused in this account.
h) Performance of other products
131. The injury suffered cannot be attributed to the performance of other products of the company, as the domestic
industry has segregated and provided information with regard to the product under conside ration only.
Conclusions on a causal link
132. While other k nown factors listed under the Rules have not caused injury to the domestic industry, the Authority
notes that the following parameters show that injury to the domestic industry is caused by the subsid ised
imports.
i. The imports account for the highest share in the Indian market, despite there being no demand -supply gap.
ii. The domestic industry has been unable to increase its domestic sales, in line with the increase in its
capacity.
iii. The imports are underc utting the prices of the domestic industry. Further, the landed price of imports
after the addition of countervailing duties is very comparable to the selling price of the domestic
industry.
iv. The landed price is below the cost of sales of the domestic indu stry.
v. The imports have prevented the domestic industry f rom increasing its prices, which otherwise would
have occurred.
vi. The imports are likely to depress the prices of the domestic industry in the absence of duties.
vii. The profits of the domestic industry hav e declined during the period of investigation. Resultant ly, cash
profits and return on capital employed have also declined.
viii. In the absence of countervailing duties , the domestic industry is likely to suffer financial losses, cash
losses and negative retur n on capital employed.
133. Thus, the Authority concludes th at there exists a causal link between the subsidised subject goods and injury to
the domestic industry.
J. POST DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
134. The Authority circulated the disclosure statement containing all essenti al facts under consideration for making
the final recommendations to the Central Government to all interested parties on 31st May 2024. The interested
parties were directed to file their comments on the disclosure statement by 6th June 2024. The Authority has
examined all the post–disclosure comments made by the interested parties in these final findings to the extent
deemed relevant. Any submission which was merely a reproduction of the p revious submission and which had
been adequately examined by the Auth ority has not been repeated for the sake of brevity.
J.1. Views of the other interested parties
135. The other interested parties have made no submissions on the disclosure statement.
J.2. Views of the domestic industry
136. The domestic industry has made the fol lowing comments:
i. The injury margin determined for the participating producer is materially lower than that determined by the
domestic industry.
ii. The present anti -subsidy duty is inad equate and has not been able to address the injury to the domestic industr y.
There is a need for enhancement of duties in the present case.
iii. The imports were undercutting the prices of the domestic industry even after the imposition of duty. If the
domestic industry does not maintain the price parity with imports, then it would h ave no option but to shut
down the plant.
iv.Since the exporters from China PR have continued to export to India at low prices, the Authority should impose
the highest duty possible for the non -cooperative exporters.
v. The injury margin in post -POI is not only positive and significant, but also increased.
vi.In the past, the Authority has modified the quantum of duty in a situation where the volume of imports in the
current period is signif icant, the injury situation of the domestic industry is fragile or the dom estic industry
has suffered material injury.
vii. Since the response furnished by the producers / exporters is not complete, the Authority should treat the
exporter as non -cooperative an d apply adverse facts to the exporter and deny individual duty to the expo rter.
viii. It would be inappropriate to compare the performance of the domestic industry in the period of investigation
to the period of investigation of the original investigation or the base year.
ix.The performance of domestic industry has increased due to the imposition of duty and enhancement of
capacities.
x. The companies in China PR are fully backward integrated with easy access to all the major raw materials at a
very low price.
xi.Brazil regulators have requested to ban the use of Atrazine which would increase imports into India.
xii. The price undercutting has become even more significant from July 2023 to December 2023.
xiii. The continuation of the current countervailing duty shall be in the larger public interest.
J.3. Examination by Authority
137. The Authority notes th at most comments are reiterations which have already been examined suitably and
addressed adequately in the relevant parts of the findings. The Authority has examined the fresh issues raised
by the interested parties.
138. The domestic industry has requested fo r enhancement of duty as well as re -quantification of margins for the
cooperative and non -cooperative producers / exporters from China PR. However, the Authority has cal culated
the subsidy margin and injury margin based on the data on record furnished by v arious parties. While the duty
is restricted by the quantum of injury margin, the domestic industry has not been able to furnish any
information to show that the landed price is not accurate or that the non -injurious price determined is
understated.
139. The A uthority notes that despite duties in place since 2019, the price undercutting is positive and significant,
and the imports have caused injury to the domestic industry. The performance of the domestic industry has
deteriorated, and the domestic industry wa s forced to reduce its prices in order to compete with the imports at
the cost of its profitability. Further, despite an increase in the capacity and the absence of a demand -supply gap,
the import volume is high.
K. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
K.1. Submissions made by other interested parties
140. The other interested parties have made the submissions with regard to the Indian industry‘s interest:
i. Continuation of duty is not in the public interest as it would damage the long -term and fundamental
interest of the applicant since it would be reluctant to improve.
ii. Increased prices will shrink the downstream industries and cause an overall decline in dem and.
iii. Inappropriate protection leads to an unfair competitive environment and may lead to deterioration of the
relationship between Indian industry and downstream users.
K.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry
141. The domestic industry has made the f ollowing submissions with regard to the Indian industry‘s interest:
i. No consumer has participated in the i nvestigation.
ii. No formulation manufacturers or any associations of farmers have contested the continuation of anti -
subsidy duties.
iii. The continuation of the duty would be in the interests of the domestic manufacturers since the imports
have precluded the do mestic industry from fully establishing its plant.
iv. It is in the consumers‘ interest to have a competitive domestic industry capable of supplying the p roduct
to the consumers in competition to fair -priced imports.
v. Since the imposition of duties, the Indian industry has grown from two to four producers in the country.
vi. The applicant has increased its capacities in order to meet the growing demand for the subject goods in
India and eliminate the demand -supply gap in t he country.
vii. Since there are 4 producers o f the subject goods in India, there is no monopoly held by any producer in
the Indian market.
viii. The goods can be imported from Israel, EU and USA as well.
ix. The duties have not had any adverse effect on the downstre am users since the demand has increased
since the original investigation.
x. The applicant has significantly invested in India to serve the Indian market, not globally.
xi. Continued profitable operations allow Meghmani Group to extend its CSR activities to a larger segment
of society.
xii. The support by th e Government of China has had an adverse effect on the conditions of competition in
India.
xiii. Continuation of duties will ensure a level playing field in the market for both Indian and foreign
suppliers and the same will not restrict the availability of the subject goods
xiv. In case of contin uation of duties, the outgoing foreign exchange would be conserved, which would lead
to a favourable balance of payment.
xv. There is no justification to spend valuable foreign currency on such commodity products, that can be
produced locally.
xvi. The availabilit y of healthy domestic production is necessary from an agricultural perspective.
xvii. The impact of the duty on the downstream industry would be minuscule.
xviii. The duties imposed did not have an adverse impact on the consumers and th e continuation of the duties
will also be in the interest of the public.
K.3. Examination by Authority
142. The Authority notes that the purpose of duty, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry
by the unfair trade practices of subsi disation so as to establish a situation of open and fair competition in the
Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. The continuation of anti -subsidy measures does
not aim to restrict imports from the subject country in any way. The Authority recogniz es that the continuation
of anti -subsidy duties might affect the price levels of the product in India. However, fair competition in the
Indian market will not be reduced by the continuation of anti -subsidy measures. On the contrary, conti nuation
of anti -subsidy measures would ensure that no unfair advantages are gained due to subsidy provided, prevent a
decline in the performance of the domestic industry and help maintain the availability of wider choice to the
consumers of the subject goo ds.
143. Post initiati on of the investigation, the Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire to all the interested
parties. However, the response to the questionnaire was filed only by the domestic industry. None of the
importers or users of the subje ct goods, have pa rticipated in the investigation or filed a response to the
Economic Interest Questionnaire. Further, the administrative ministry for the subject goods and the
downstream product has also not objected or made any statement regarding the con tinuation or expi ry of duty.
144. The Authority notes that while certain interested parties have raised arguments that no measures should be
imposed on grounds of public interest, no evidence has been provided to show that the duties in force have
resulted in a deterioration in the performance of the users, or may lead to such deterioration. As noted above,
despite the Authority providing an opportunity to provide structured and substantiated information, in the
response to the Economic Interest Questionnaire, the users have a bstained from doing so. In view of the same,
the Authority notes that it cannot be concluded that the continuation of measures would result in an adverse
impact on the user industry. Moreover, the Authority notes that the subject goods have application in the
formulation used on various crops and croplands. Thus, it is seen that the subject goods are necessary in the
agriculture sector and is an essential commodity for the industry.
145. In this regard, the Authority also notes that the domestic industry had fu rnished quantified impact of anti -
subsidy duty on the users. As per the information shared by the domestic industry, the impact on users was in
about ***%. The claim of the domestic industry has not been disputed by the other parties. Theref ore, it is
conc luded that the users have not been adversely impacted by the measures in force.
Particulars Unit Value
Atrazine Technical Rate Rs/MT ***
Atrazine Technical Rate Rs/Kg ***
Proposed CVD 20.89
Yield of sugarcane on one acre of land Tonne 100
Price of sugarcane Rs / Tonne 3,150.0
Revenue Rs 3,15,000
Impact of CVD 0.01%
146. With regard to the availability of the subject goods in the country, the Authority notes that the anti -subsidy duty
does not restrict imports from the subject c ountry, but only provides a level playing field. Such a level playing
field has allowed certain producers to enter the market. The applicant has expanded capacity, while Best
Agrochem Private Limited and GSP Crop Life Science Limited have also started prod ucing the subject goods.
This shows that the duties have reduced the user's dependency on import s and allowed the Indian industry to
grow. The applicant has also emphasised that the Indian industry has significantly invested to serve the Indian
and the con tinued profitability of the domestic industry would allow them to serve the marginalised and nee dy
sections of the society.
147. As per the information on record, while there was a demand -supply gap in the country before the duties were
imposed, there is no su ch demand -supply gap now. This shows that the imposition of countervailing duties has
allowed t he country to become self -sufficient.
Producer Capacity
Meghmani Industries Limited ***
Insecticide India Limited ***
GSP crop Life science Limited ***
Best Agrochem Private Limited1 ***
Total Indian Capacity ***
Total Indian Demand ***
Excess Capacity ***
148. The higher number of producers, coupled with excess capacity would also ensure inter -competition between
the domestic producers. As a result, the user s would be assured of competitive prices in the domestic market
and easy availability of the subject goods. The applicant has also highlighted that the product can also be
imported from other countries.
149. In view of the foregoing, the Authority conclude s that the continuation of countervailing duty would not have a
significant a dverse impact on the users as well as to the availability of the subject goods in the domestic
market.
L. CONCLUSION
150. After examining the submissions made by all the interested parties and issues raised therein and considering
the facts available on record, the Authority concludes that:
i. The application for the sunset review has been filed by Meghmani Industries Limited. The applicant accounts
for a major proportion of Indian production and constitutes the domestic industry for the purpose of the
present inve stigation.
ii. The product under consideration is Atrazine Technical. The scope of the product under consideration remains
the same as defined in the original investigation. The product produ ced by the domestic industry is ―like
article‖ to the goods imported from China.
iii. The Government of China has not filed a response to the questionnaire, nor has provided any information
relevant to various subsidy schemes. The response filed by the produce r and exporter is not in the form and
manner prescribed by t he Authority. The Authority has relied on facts available on record for the
determination of the margin.
iv. The producer has benefited from concessional payments towards land use rights, power, and raw materials at
less than adequate remuneration. The produc er / exporter has received benefit through various income tax
exemptions and through preferential lending rates in China. The producer / exporter has also received various
grants.
v. The subject imp orts have reduced in absolute terms as well as in relation t o Indian production and demand in
the injury period.
vi. The landed price is below the selling price and cost of sales of the domestic industry. The domestic industry
has not been able to increase i n the selling price in line with the increase in cost of sal es and raw material
costs.
vii. While the production and sales of the domestic industry increased with the increase in capacity, the domestic
industry has not been able to utilize its capacity to the extent of increased demand. This is because, despite
the abs ence of a demand -supply gap, the subject imports account for more than one -third of the demand.
viii. The global demand for the product under consideration is expected to shrink from 2023 – 2028, which would
lead to price competition between global producers. Fu rther, the exportable capacities of producers in China
are huge and Chinese exporters have significant idle capacities. With India being a key market for producers
in the subject country, with an increasing demand, there is a likelihood of increased export s to India in the
absence of duties. Export prices to Brazil and Pakistan were lower than export price in India, which shows
the price attractiveness of the Indian market.
ix. Injury in the present i nvestigation cannot be attributed to any other factor, apart from the subject imports.
x. Continuation of duties would not reduce fair market competition in the market. There is no evidence to suggest
that the present duties have adversely impacted the downst ream users, or that the continuation of duties
would have an adverse impact. By contrast, the duties in force have allowed more Indian producers to enter
the market and have helped the domestic industry to expand its capacity. While there was a demand -supp ly
gap in the country before the duties were imposed, there is no such demand -supply gap now.
M. RECOMMENDATIONS
151. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all the interested parties and adequate
opportunity was given to them to provide information on the aspect of subsidisation, injur y, causal link,
likelihood of continuation of subsidisation and injury and impact of recommended measures. Having initiated
and conducted the investigation in terms of provisions of sunset review investigation, the Authority has reached
a conclusion that a continuation and revision of existing anti -subsidy duties is required in the present case.
152. The Authority, thus, considers it appropriate and necessary to recommend continuation of definitive duty equal
to the figure indicated in Col. 7 of the duty table below for a period of five (5) years on all imports of the
subject goods from the subject country. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as
established hereinabove, countervailing duty equal to the amount indicated in Col 7 of the duty table given
below is recommended to be imposed from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the Central
Government, on all imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from China PR.
S. No. Heading/
Subheading Description
of Goods Country of
Origin Country of
Export Producer Duty amount
as a % of
CIF Value
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 38089199,
38089390 and
38089990 Atrazine
Technical* China PR Any country
including
China PR Xiangshui
Zhongshan
Biotechnology
Co., Ltd. 9.28
2 -do- -do- China PR Any country
including
China PR Any other
than the
producer at Sr.
No. 1 11.94
3 -do- -do- Any country
other than
China PR China PR Any 11.94
*The product is also known under the following names:
6-Chloro -N-Ethyl -N‘-(1-Methylethyl) -Triazine -2,4-Diamine;
2-Chloro -4-Ethylamino -6-Isopropylamine -S-Triazine;
2-Chloro -4-(Ethylamino) -6-(Isopropylamino) -S-Triazine;
2-Chloro -4-(Ethylamino) -6-(Isopropylamino) -Triazine;
Chloro -4-(Propylamino) -6-Ethylamino -S-Triazine;
Chloro -4-(Propylamino) -6-Ethylamino -S-Triazine, etc.
N. FURTHER PROCEDURE
153. An appeal against the recommendation of the Designated Authority in these final findings shall lie before the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Act/Rules.
ANANT SWARUP, Designated Authorit y
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Maya puri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Co ntroller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text