Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-21062024-254835
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I-Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 160]
NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi 15th June 2024
FINAL FINDINGS
Case No. CVD/SSR-09/2023
Subject: Sunset review investigation of countervailing duty concerning imports of Welded Stainless-Steel
Pipes and Tubes originating in or exported from China PR and Vietnam.
1. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
F. No. 7/23/2023-DGTR.—1. An anti-subsidy investigation into imports of Welded Stainless-Steel Pipes and
Tubes (hereinafter also referred to as the "product under consideration" or the "subject goods) from China PR and
Vietnam (hereinafter also referred to as the "subject countries") was initiated by the Designated Authority on 9th
August, 2018. Following a detailed investigation, the Designated Authority concluded that the subsidies provided by
the Chinese Government and Vietnamese Government to the producers of the subject goods were countervailable in
nature and the subject goods were exported from the subject countries at subsidized prices causing injury to the
domestic industry. Consequently, the Authority recommended imposition of countervailing duty on imports of subject
goods from the subject countries vide final findings No. 6/22/2018-DGAD dated 31st July 2019.The measures were
implemented by the Ministry of Finance vide Customs Notification No. 4/2018 Customs (CVD) dated 17th
September 2019.
2. Pursuant to an application filed by the exporters of the subject goods, the Designated Authority initiated a
limited mid-term review of the anti-subsidy duty vide Notification dated 11th February 2021 to examine the
need for modification of scope of product under consideration. Following a detailed investigation, the
Authority concluded that the product exclusion requested by the exporter was not warranted vide Final
Findings No. 7/45/2020-DGTR dated 8th February 2022.
3. Stainless-Steel Pipe and Tubes Manufacturer Association, New Delhi, and Stainless Steel Pipes & Tubes
Manufacturers Association, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the "applicants” or “applicant associations"),
filed an application before the Authority under Trade Notice 09/2021 dated 29th July 2021. This application,
made on behalf of their members and producers of the subject goods in India, requested the initiation of a
sunset review of the anti-subsidy duty concerning imports of Welded Stainless-Steel Tubes and Pipes
originating in or exported from China PR and Vietnam. Forty (40) members of the applicants (hereinafter
referred to as the "applicant domestic producers" or the "domestic industry") submitted data in accordance
with the requirements of Trade Notice 09/2021 dated 29th July, 2021.
4. In accordance with Section 9(6) of the Act, countervailing duties imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to
have effect upon the expiry of five years from the date of imposition. The Authority is required to review
whether the expiry of the countervailing duty is likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of subsidization
and injury. Furthermore, Rule 24(3) of the Rules provides as follows:
"Any definitive countervailing duty levied under the Act shall be effective for a period
not exceeding five years from the date of its imposition. The designated authority may
upon coming to a conclusion, on a review initiated before that period either on its own
initiative or upon a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic
industry within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of that period, that the
expiry of the said countervailing duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
subsidisation and injury to the domestic industry, make recommendation for extending
the period of such imposition in accordance with provisions of section 9 of the Act. "
5. In accordance with the above and based on a duly substantiated application filed by or on behalf of the
domestic industry, the Authority is required to review as to whether the expiry of anti-subsidy duties is likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidization and injury.
6. The applicants filed an application dated 31st July 2023, requesting initiation of sunset review of anti-subsidy
duties imposed earlier and seeking continuation of anti-subsidy duties against imports of Welded Stainless-
Steel Tubes and Pipes from China PR and Vietnam. The request was based on the grounds that imports of
subsidized subject goods from Vietnam are causing material injury to the domestic industry and the expiry of
the measures is likely to result in continuation of subsidization of the product under consideration and
consequent injury to the domestic industry.
7. In view of a duly substantiated application with prima facie evidence of material injury to the domestic
industry due to imports from Vietnam and likelihood of subsidization and injury due to imports from China PR
and Vietnam, filed on behalf of the domestic industry and in accordance with Section 9(6) of the Act, read with
Rule 24 of the Rules, the Authority initiated the sunset review investigation vide Notification No. 07/23/2023-
DGTR, dated 30th September, 2023 to review the need for continued imposition of anti-subsidy duties in
respect of the subject goods, originating in or exported from China PR and Vietnam and to examine whether
the expiry of anti-subsidy duty on imports of subject goods from the subject countries is likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of subsidization and injury to the domestic industry.
B. PROCEDURE
8. The scope of the present review covers all aspects of the Final Findings No. 6/22/2018 -DGTR dated 17th
September, 2019 by which the Authority had recommended imposition of anti-subsidy duty on imports of subject
goods from the subject countries.
9. The procedure described herein below has been followed in the present investigation:
i. The Authority, under the above Rules, received a written application from the applicants on behalf of
the domestic industry contending injury due to imports from Vietnam and likelihood of continuation of
subsidization and consequent injury to the domestic industry due to imports of product under
consideration from the subject countries.
ii. The Authority notified the embassies of China PR and Vietnam in India about the receipt of the
application before initiation the investigation in accordance with Rule 6(5).
iii. The Authority vide Notification No. 07/23/2023 dated 30th September 2023, published a public notice in
the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating sunset review of anti-subsidy duty on imports of the
subject goods from the subject countries.
iv. A copy of the public notice was forwarded by the Authority to the Embassies of the subject countries in
India, known producers and exporters from the subject countries, known importers/users in India and
other interested parties, as per the information available, to inform them of initiation of the subject
investigation in accordance with Rule 7(2) of the Rules.
v. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters, and to the Governments of the subject countries through their Embassies in India,
and to other interested parties who made a request therefore in writing in accordance with Rule 7(3) of
the Rules supra. A copy of the non-confidential version of the application was also provided to other
interested parties, wherever requested.
vi. The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice initiating sunset review investigation to the known
producers / exporters in the subject country, and other interested parties and provided them an
opportunity to file response to the questionnaire in the form and manner prescribed within the time limit
as prescribed in the initiation notification or extended time limit, and make their views known in writing
in accordance with the Rule 7(4) of the Rules. The Authority also issued economic interest
questionnaire to all the interested parties and the concerned ministry.
vii. The Authority sent a questionnaire to the Government of China PR (GOC) and the Government of
Vietnam (GOV) seeking relevant information in the form and manner prescribed regarding various
schemes/programs where countervailable benefits might have been conferred onto the
producers/exporters in the subject countries. However, no response was filed by either Government of
China PR or the Government of Vietnam.
viii. The Authority forwarded the exporters' questionnaires to the following known producers/ exporters in
the subject countries:
a. Emetal Company Ltd., China PR
b. Foshan Metalwell Co ltd., China PR
c. Foshan Nanhai Zhouying Hardware Acc, China PR
d. Guangdong Foreign Trade Imp. & Exp. Co., China PR
e. Guangdong Sumwin New Material Group Co. Ltd., China PR
f. Guangfeng Steel Corporation, China PR
g. Haimen Senda Decoration Material Co., Ltd., China PR
h. Jiangsu New Qiujing Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., China PR
i. Jieyang City Baowei Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., China PR
j. Low Metals Ltd., China PR
k. Minimetals Steel Co., Ltd., China PR
l. Okaya (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., China PR
m. Pohang (Zhangjiagang) Stainless Steel Processing Co., Ltd., China PR
n. Shandong Huaye Stainless Steel Products Co., China PR
o. Shangai Hyss International Trading Co., Ltd., China PR
p. Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., China PR
q. Tsingshan Holding Group Shanghai International Trading Co., Ltd., China PR
r. Wuxi City Steel Co., Ltd., China PR
s. Wuxi Joyray International Corp, China PR
t. Xiamen Golden Huanan Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd., China PR
u. Young Metal Co. Ltd., China PR
v. Yuyao Xingda Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., China PR
w. Zhangijiagang Pohang Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., China PR
x. Zhejiang Huashun Metal Materials Co., Ltd., China PR
y. Zhenshi Group Eastern Special Steel Co., Ltd., China PR
z. Gia Anh Hung Yen Company Limited, Vietnam
aa. Gia Anh Joint Stock Company, Vietnam
bb.Ha Anh Stainless Steel Company Limited, Vietnam
cc. Inox Hoa Binh, JSC, Vietnam
dd. Minh Huu Lien JSC, Vietnam
ee. Nam Cuong Metal Company Limited, Vietnam
ff. Oss Dai Duong International Joint Stock Company, Vietnam
gg. Sonha International Corporation, Vietnam
hh.Steel 568 Co., Ltd., Vietnam
ii. Tap International, JSC, Vietnam, Vietnam
jj. Tuan Dat Metal Company Limited, Vietnam
kk. Vinainox, Vietnam
ll. Vinlong Stainless Steel (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Vietnam
ix. The Governments of the subject countries, through their Embassies in India were also requested to
advise the exporters/producers from their countries to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed
time limit. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the known producers/exporters was also sent to
the Embassies of the subject countries along with the details of the known producers/ exporters.
x. The following producers/exporters from the subject countries filed a response to the exporters'
questionnaire:
a. Sonha International Corporation, Vietnam
b. Steel 568 Co., Ltd., Vietnam
c. TVL Steel Production and Construction Joint Stock Company, Vietnam
d. Gia Anh Hung Yen Company Limited, Vietnam
e. OSS Daiduong International Joint Stock Company
f. Nam Cuong Metal Company Limited
xi. The Authority forwarded a copy of the Notification to the known importers/ users of subject goods in
India calling for necessary information In response to the Notification, none of the importers/users have
responded by filing questionnaire response.
xii. The Authority issued Economic Interest Questionnaire to the Embassy of the subject countries, all the
known exporters, importers and the domestic industry. The Economic Interest Questionnaire was also
shared with the administrative line ministry. Response to Economic Interest questionnaire has been filed
only by the applicants.
xiii. A list of all interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR's website, along with a request for all the
parties to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to each of the interested parties.
xiv. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation is 1st April 2022 to 31st
March 2023 (12 months). The injury analysis period covers 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and the period
of investigation.
xv. The applicants submitted that they did not have access to DGCI&S transaction-wise data and hence, the
information regarding imports into India was provided as per the market intelligence. A request was
made by the Authority to the Directorate General of Systems (“DG Systems”) to provided transaction-
wise details of imports of subject goods for the past three years and the period of investigation, which
was received by the Authority.
xvi. The application for initiation of the present investigation was made by the applicant associations on
behalf of the domestic industry under Trade Notice 09/2021. The application was filed by the domestic
industry, accompanied by data from 18 entities. The Authority is cognizant of the fact that over 100
Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) produce the subject goods across the country. The
Authority sought to ascertain whether the trends observed in the data of the 18 companies were
representative of the broader industry. To this end, the Authority requested additional data from
companies affiliated with the associations. The analysis of this expanded data set revealed that all major
economic parameters aligned with the trends identified in the initial data. Owing to the presence of large
number of producers within the MSME sector in India manufacturing the subject goods, and the
complexity involved in handling large amount of data the Authority opted for sampling in the present
investigation.
xvii. The Authority sought further information from the sampled domestic producers to the extent deemed
necessary. The verification of the data provided by the sampled domestic producers was conducted to
the extent considered necessary for the purpose of the present investigation. The Authority has
considered the verified data of the sampled domestic producers in its analysis in the present case.
xviii. The Authority sought further information from the other interested parties to the extent deemed
necessary. The verification of the data provided by the other interested parties was conducted to the
extent considered necessary for the purpose of the present investigation. The Authority has considered
the verified data of the interested parties in its analysis in the present case.
xix. The non-injurious price has been determined based on the optimum cost of production and cost to make
& sell the subject goods in India as per information furnished by the domestic industry and in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
xx. In accordance with Rule 7(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to the interested parties
to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 14th May 2024. The parties, which presented
their views in the oral hearing, were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally,
followed by rejoinder submissions.
xxi. The submissions made by the interested parties, arguments raised and information provided by various
interested parties during the course of 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 this disclosure statement.
xxii. The Authority, during the course of the investigation, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the
information supplied by the interested parties, which forms the basis of this disclosure statement to the
extent possible and verified the data/ documents submitted by the domestic industry to the extent
considered relevant, practicable and necessary.
xxiii. The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to
the sufficiency of the confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the
confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information has been considered as confidential
and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on a
confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed
on confidential basis
xxiv. Wherever an interested party has refused access to, or has otherwise not provided necessary information
during the course of investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority
considered such interested parties as non- cooperative and recorded this disclosure statement on the
basis of the facts available.
xxv. *** in this final findings represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis,
and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xxvi. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = ₹ 81.06.
C. SCOPE OF PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.3 SUBMISSIONS BY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
10. One of the interested parties requested the Authority to adopt the PCNs considered in the original investigation
in the ongoing investigation, which are provided below
a) 200 Series
b) 300 Series
c) 400 Series
C2. SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
11. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the scope of product under
consideration or like article.
a. The present investigation being a sunset review investigation, the scope of the product under
consideration is the same as defined in the original investigation.
b. The product under consideration is Welded Stainless-Steel Pipes and Tubes. The subject goods are
made up of 200, 300 and 400 series. Accordingly, the PCN has been proposed based on the raw
material used.
c. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to product under consideration
imported from the subject countries.
C3. Examination by the authority
12. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Welded Stainless Steel Tubes and Pipes.
The present investigation being a sunset review investigation, the scope of the product under consideration
remains the same as that in the original investigation.
13. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 73 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of
1975) under the tariff codes 7306 40 00, 7306 61 00 and 7306 69 00. The domestic industry has submitted
that the subject goods are also being imported under the HS Codes 7304 11 10, 7304 11 90, 7304 41 00,
7304 51 10, 7304 90 00, 7305 11 29, 7305 90 99, 7306 11 00, 7306 21 00, 7306 29 19, 7306 30 90, 7306
50 00, 7306 90 11, 7306 90 19 and 7306 90 90. The customs classification is indicative only and is not
binding on the scope of the product under consideration.
14. Based on the comments received from the interested parties, the Authority found it appropriate to adopt
PCN methodology for fair comparison. The following PCNs were finalized by the Authority.
+----+----------------------------------+------+
| SN | PCN Parameter (Grade of Steel) | Code |
+====+==================================+======+
| 1. | 200 series | 2S |
+----+----------------------------------+------+
| 2. | 300 series | 3S |
+----+----------------------------------+------+
| 3. | 400 ries | 4S |
+----+----------------------------------+------+
15. The PCNs finalized in the present investigation are identical to that of original investigation. Therefore, the
Authority holds that the product under consideration is the same as in the original investigation i.e.,
"welded stainless steel pipes and tubes".
16. The Authority notes that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported from the
subject countries are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics,
manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution &
marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable.
The consumers are using the two interchangeably. In view of the same, Authority holds that the goods
produced by the domestic industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from the
subject countries.
D. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D1. Submissions by the other interested parties
17. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the domestic industry
and standing.
a. The present investigation should not have been initiated since the applicant domestic producers do not
account for 25% of the total Indian production. The Authority consistently applies test of standing in
terms of Rule 6(3)(a) in sunset reviews.
b. None of the domestic producers constituting domestic industry have filed Annexure I in accordance with
Trade Notice 09/2021. Accordingly, the present investigation should be terminated immediately.
c. The Authority may not accept the response submitted by the domestic producers voluntarily since such
producers may be those with high cost of sales which are suffering injury on account of internal reasons.
Trade Notice 09/2021 prescribes sample selection based on statistically valid techniques in order to
ensure fairness and transparency.
D2. Submissions by the domestic industry
18. The following submissions have been made by the applicants with regard to the domestic industry and standing:
a. The application has been filed by Stainless Steel Pipe and Tubes Manufacturer Association, New
Delhi and Stainless Steel Pipes & Tubes Manufacturers Association, Gujarat under Trade Notice
09/2021 on behalf of the domestic industry.
b. The Indian industry is composed of more than 100 producers. 40 members of the applicant
associations have filed data for the purpose of the present investigation.
c. As opposed to the contention of the other interested parties, at the time of filing the application, the
applicant domestic producers accounted for more that 25% of the total Indian production.
d. While 18 companies filed data at the time of filing the application, post filing 22 more companies
provided information sought by the Authority thereby increasing the share of the domestic
producers to 50% of the total Indian production.
e. The applicant domestic producers have not imported the product under consideration from the
subject countries and are not related to any exporters/ importers.
f. the total Indian production has been determined based on raw materials supplied for the production
of the subject goods as estimated by JSSL, one of the largest Indian producers of upstream product
catering to approximately 70% of the domestic demand.
g. Five sampled producers as well as seven other producers have filed complete cost data for the
purpose of the present investigation. The Authority may choose to add any of the volunteering
producer for their micro analysis.
h. As opposed to the contention of the other interested parties, the present investigation is a sunset
review initiated under Rule 24 of the Anti-Subsidy Rules. As per the amended rules, Rule 6 is not
applicable to sunset review and there is no requirement to establish standing.
D3. Examination by the Authority
19. The application for initiation of the present review has been filed by two registered associations of the producers
of the subject goods in India under Trade Notice 09/2021. The application has been filed by Stainless Steel Pipe
and Tubes Manufacturer Association, New Delhi and Stainless-Steel Pipes & Tubes Manufacturers Association,
Gujarat on behalf of the domestic industry.
20. The Authority notes that the present investigation involves producers in MSME segment. The Indian industry
manufacturing the subject goods is fragmented in nature and there are more than 100 producers of the subject
goods in India.
21. The applicants have submitted that since there are a number of producers in India, they do not have access to
the total production of the subject goods in India. In order to determine the total Indian production, the
Authority has relied on the information filed by Jindal Stainless Steel Limited (“JSSL"). As per the information
on record JSSL is the largest supplier of raw material, that is, stainless-steel coils for the production of the
subject goods in India. JSSL accounts for ***% of the market share of the demand of raw material in India.
JSSL has supplied *** MT of raw material in India during the period of investigation. In order to determine the
total Indian production, the Authority has considered the SION norms of 1.05.
+---------------------------+---------------+
| Particulars | Quantity (MT) |
+===========================+===============+
| Coil Supplied by Jindal | A *** |
+---------------------------+---------------+
| Coil supplied by others | B = A/70%*30% | *** |
+---------------------------+---------------+
| Total Coil supplied | C = A+B *** |
+---------------------------+---------------+
| Estimated Indian production*| D = C/1.05 | *** |
+---------------------------+---------------+
| Range | MT | 2,50,000-3,50,000 |
+---------------------------+---------------+
*consumption norm of 1.05
22. Rule 2(b) of the Countervailing Duty Rules defines domestic industry as under:
"(b) "domestic industry" means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the
like article or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total
domestic production of that article, except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers
of the alleged subsidized article, or like article from other countries or are themselves importers thereof,
the term 'domestic industry' may be interpreted as referring to the rest of the producers".
23. Regarding the submissions from other interested parties asserting that Rule 6 is applicable to the current
investigation, the Authority notes that since the present review is being conducted under Rule 24, Rule 6 does
not apply. Rule 24 is as under:
(1) Any countervailing duty imposed under section 9 of the Act shall remain in force so long as and to
the extent necessary, to counteract subsidisation, which is causing injury.
(2) The designated authority shall review the need for continued imposition of the countervailing duty,
where warranted on its own initiative or upon request by any interested party who submits necessary
information substantiating the need for such review, and a reasonable period of time has elapsed since
the imposition of the definitive countervailing duty and upon such review, the designated authority shall
recommend to the Central Government for its withdrawal, when it comes to a conclusion that the injury
to the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur, if the said countervailing duty is removed or
varied and is therefore no longer warranted.
(3) Any definitive countervailing duty levied under the Act shall be effective for a period not exceeding
five years from the date of its imposition. The designated authority may upon coming to a conclusion,
on a review initiated before that period either on its own initiative or upon a duly substantiated request
made by or on behalf of the domestic industry within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of
that period, that the expiry of the said countervailing duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence
of subsidisation and injury to the domestic industry, make recommendation for extending the period of
such imposition in accordance with the provision of section 9 of the Act.
(4) Any review initiated under sub-rule (1) shall be concluded within a period not exceeding twelve
months from the date of initiation of such review.
[Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in rule 19, such review shall be
completed at least three months prior to expiry of the countervailing duty under review].
[(5) Subject to sub-rule (4), the provisions of rules 7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,18,19,20,21 and 22 shall apply
mutatis mutandis apply in case of review.]
24. The other interested parties have argued that the data submitted voluntarily by certain producers should not be
used, as it may lead to data distortion. The Authority notes that when the number of producers is very large and
more than 100 in number and these producers are mostly MSMEs and fragmented. The domestic industry has
submitted injury information of 18 entities which was duly examined. Further, in order to substantiate their
claim they have voluntarily submitted the data related to injury parameter of 22 more entities. On further
examination, the Authority notes that the injury trend found in case of 18 entities are mostly similar to that of
22 additional entities and trend is also similar for that of 40 entities combined together.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E1. Submissions by other interested parties
25. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to confidentiality.
a. The applicant associations have not filed documents as per the requirement of Trade Notice 09/2021. In
case such documents have been filed, the same may be provided to the other interested parties along
with an opportunity for oral hearing.
b. The applicants have claimed excessive confidentiality as sales value, list of members of associations
who have supported or opposed the investigation has been claimed confidential. According to trade
notice 10/2018, the domestic industry has to disclose actual information in case of multiple producers.
The principles laid down in the Trade Notice are applicable to anti-subsidy investigation as well.
Confidentiality should not be granted automatically but a thorough examination of the same is required
as held by the Supreme Court in Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. V. Designated Authority.
c. The applicants must show good cause in order to claim confidentiality as held by the Appellate Body in
EC - Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China. The Authority may direct the domestic industry to file
a proper non-confidential version of the petition as instructed in investigation on clear float glass. A
fresh hearing may be granted after proper NCV of the application is filed by the applicants.
E2. Submissions by the domestic industry
26. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to confidentiality:
a. TVL Steel Construction and Joint Stock Company, Sonha SSP Vietnam and Steel 568 Co. have claimed
blanket confidentiality regarding its ownership structure, shareholders, affiliate companies, nature of
activities performed by affiliated entities, whether it has purchased inputs from affiliated/ government
entity for producing subject goods.
b. TVL Steel Construction and JSC has claimed that it has not applied/ availed benefit for any import duty
exemption for raw material, the information provided has been claimed confidential. Appendix-1 has
been claimed confidential.
c. As opposed to the contention of the other interested parties, documents of associations cannot be
disclosed as they contain business proprietary information which cannot be shared with the other
interested parties.
d. The comments on confidentiality filed by the other interested parties are belated in nature as the same
have been filed post 7 days from the date of circulation of the non-confidential version of the petition.
e. While the applicants have disclosed aggregate actual information with regard to volume parameters,
price parameters are confidential business sensitive information disclosure of which will provide undue
benefit to the competitors.
E3. Examination by the authority
27. With regard to confidentiality of the information, the Rule 8 of the Countervailing Duty Rules provides as
follows:
“Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), (2),
(3) and (7) of rule 7, sub-rule(2) of rule 14, sub-rule (4) of rule 17 and sub-rule (3) of
rule 19, copies of applications received under sub-rule (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 authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on
confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a
party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such
party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization
is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is
satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the
information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its
disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information."
28. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to
sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality
claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other
interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to
provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority made
available the non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by various interested parties by directing the
interested parties to share the non-confidential version of the submissions with each other through e-mails.
29. The other interested parties have contended that the applicants have not shared the documents of the
associations. The Authority notes that the documents of the associations contain minutes of meetings, by-laws
of the association as well as the memorandum of association which the contain business proprietary
information and cannot be disclosed to the other interested parties.
30. As regards confidentiality on sales value, the Authority notes that the sales value consists of sales volume and
price. These are business proprietary information and its confidentiality needs to be maintained in order to
compete with the other producer in the market. The Authority notes that disclosure of such information will
provide undue advantage to the other interested parties. Therefore, the Authority has accepted the claim of
confidentiality over such information.
F. Miscellaneous issues
F1. Submissions by other interested parties
31. No miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties.
F2. Submissions by the domestic industry
32. The domestic industry has not made any miscellaneous submissions.
A. DETERMINATION OF SUBSIDY AND SUBSIDY MARGIN
A.1 Views of other interested parties
33. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to the subsidy and subsidy
margin issues:
i. Since the producer/exporter has fully cooperated in the investigation, the margins must be determined
as per the response filed and an individual duty may be granted to it.
ii. The exporter did not participate in the original investigation as it started commercial production in
2019-20 and exported to India in 2021-22. This is the first opportunity of participation.
iii. A new exporter is eligible for individual duty in a sunset review which is evident from the fact that the
Authority has requested information from all interested parties including new exporters via the initiation
notification. In a number of investigations such as those on imports of VSF, Graphite Electrodes, NFY,
Aluminium Foil, NBR, NTCF and Jute, the Authority has prescribed individual duties to producers for
first time in a sunset review. The CESTAT in Indian Graphite Manufacturers Association V. DA held
that the Authority can fix anti-dumping duty for new exporters in a sunset review.
iv. A sunset review conducted by the Authority is akin to original investigation as held by the CESTAT in
Robin Resources V. Designated Authority. Since the Authority in the present investigation is examining
all parameters relevant for determination of subsidies, there is no rationale for not granting individual
rate of duty to the new exporter.
v. The duty can be imposed to countervail any subsidy granted by the government of the exporting
producers / exporters, not on subsidy granted by the government of a third country.
vi. Most Indian producers of the subject goods also import raw materials from China PR. Any claims of
pass through of benefits would mean that the Indian producers are also getting subsidy on the raw
materials imported from China PR.
vii. The claim of pass through of subsidy was made in the original investigation and was not accepted by the
Authority.
A.2 Views of the domestic industry
34. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the subsidy and subsidy margin issues:
i. The governments of the subject countries have provided significant support to the steel industry in
the form of various subsidies.
ii. The benefits under some of the schemes are non-recurring and must be examined over the average
useful life for the subject goods.
iii. Only the government can provide detailed information related to whether a said scheme is
countervailable or not. An exporter can only provide information on whether any benefit was
received or not.
iv. In anti-subsidy investigation concerning imports of Hot Rolled and Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Flat
Products from China, which is the raw material for the subject goods, the Authority concluded that
the Government of China provides various countervailable subsidies.
v. The Government of China has formulated various policies to support the iron and steel industry
which has lead to overcapacities and excess production. This has even spilled over to foreign
producers in Vietnam, that have exported subsidized goods to India.
vi. No response has been received from the Government of China or Chinese producers/exporters.
vii. In the absence of any information the Authority can undertake examination based on information
available.
viii. Since the continuation of various programs has not been contested, the new schemes alleged in the
present investigation must not be investigated and the examination of subsidies in China may be
restricted to only continuation of existing duty.
ix. The holding company and the sister company of Gia Anh Hung Yen have not filed a response in the
current investigation.
x. The Authority may call for information on the affiliate entities.
xi. The response 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.
xii. The producer has suppressed relevant information and has failed to provide a complete response,
rendering its response fit for rejection.
xiii. 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.
xiv. 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.
xv. The Authority should quantify the subsidy margin based on the best facts available.
xvi. In other jurisdictions, where the Government of the exporting country does not cooperate, the
investigating authorities rely on the facts available and determine the countervailability of the
schemes.
xvii. Some of the exporters / producers have failed to respond to Part - II of the questionnaire response.
xviii. New subsidies alleged in this investigation need to be investigated in case of producers / exporters
with zero percent margin in the original investigation.
xix. The exporters have not shown that the information or evidence provided by the domestic industry is
not accurate. The domestic industry has provided sufficient evidence required for initiation.
xx. The subsidies provide to the producers of steel products, which has been found countervailable by
the Authority in its findings in Hot Rolled and Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Flat Products from China
have spilled over to foreign producers, even those in Vietnam, allowing such producers to export the
goods to other countries, including India, at uncompetitive prices.
A.3 Examination by the Authority
35. The application filed by the domestic industry provided 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 governments of China and Vietnam, through written communications and
consultations, to provide relevant information concerning the existence, operations and administration of
various subsidy schemes contended by the applicants, countervailability of the same vis-à-vis the WTO ASCM
and Indian Rules, and benefits availed by the producers/exporters of the subject countries under these schemes.
The Authority notes that the Government of China has neither filed the response to the questionnaire, nor has
provided any information relevant to various subsidy schemes. The Government of China has, thus, failed to
co-operate with the Authority in the present investigation. As the Government of China has not extended the
required co-operation, the Authority is constrained to proceed with the best available information for the
purpose of the present disclosure statement. The response filed by Government of Vietnam has been taken on
record and examined by the Authority.
36. The present investigation was initiated on the basis of prima facie evidence. Post initiation, the producers/
exporters of the subject goods 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,
degree and effect of the alleged subsidy program for making an appropriate determination of existence and
quantum of such subsidies, if any. However, no producers / exporters of the subject goods from China have
filed questionnaire responses whereas the following producers/ exporters of the subject goods from Vietnam
have filed questionnaire responses:
i. Steel 568 Co. Limited
ii. Sonha SSSP Vietnam Company Limited
iii. TVL Steel Production and Construction Joint Stock Company (TVL)
iv. Gia Anh Hung Yen Co., Limited (Gia Anh)
v. Nam Cuong Metal Company Limited (Nam Coung)
vi. OSS Daiduong International Joint Stock Company (OSS)
37. The domestic industry has alleged that producers/exporters of the subject goods are receiving countervailable
subsidies under the following programs of various levels of governments 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 infusions.
A.3.1 Subsidies in respect of China PR
38. With respect to China, the Authority has initiated the investigation against the following schemes:
i. Schemes identified as provision of Goods and Services at Less Than adequate remuneration
a. Provision of Water for Less than Adequate Remuneration
b. Hot Rolled Steel (HRS) provided by Government at less than adequate remuneration.
c. Provision of Cold-Rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR)
d. Government Provision for Steel Scrap for Less than Adequate Remuneration
e. Land use rights provided at less than adequate remuneration
f. Land Use Rights for SOES
g. Provision of Nickel/Nickel Pig Iron for LTAR
h. Provision of Ferrochrome/Chromium for LTAR
i. Provision of Coking Coal for LTAR
j. Iron Ore at LTAR
k. Electricity at LTAR
l. Export restrictions on Coke
m. Provision of Land-Use Rights for LTAR – Land Use Rights in Certain Industrial and SEZS
ii. Schemes identified as Tax and Vat Incentives
a. Tariff and VAT Exemptions for imported equipment
b. Preferential tax policies for companies that are recognized as high and new technology companies.
c. Tax concessions for central and western regions
d. Tax preference available to companies that operate at a small profit
e. Enterprise income tax rate reduction in the tianjin port free trade zone
f. Tax credit concerning the purchase of special equipment
g. Income tax concessions for the enterprises engaged in comprehensive resource utilisation (special
raw materials)
h. Preferential tax policies for FIEs established in the pudong area of shanghai
i. Income tax reduction for enterprises with foreign investment and foreign enterprises established in
special economic zones
j. Tax policies for the deduction of research and development (R&D) expenses
k. Preferential income tax policy for the enterprises in the northeast region
l. Income tax refund for re-investment of FIE profits by foreign investors
m. Reduced tax rate for productive FIEs scheduled to operate for a period not less than 10 years
n. Income tax reduction for advanced technology FIES
o. Preferential tax policies for FIEs and foreign enterprises and certain domestically- owned companies
which have establishments or places in china and are engaged in production or business operations
purchasing domestically produced equipment's
p. Preferential tax policies for the research and development of FIEs
q. VAT refunds for FIEs purchasing domestically - produced equipment
r. Tax reductions for technology or knowledge-intensive FIEs
s. Shanghai municipal tax refund for high-tech achievement commercialization projects
t. Local income tax and reduction program for the productive FIES
u. Local income tax exemption and/or reduction in SEZs in Guangdong and Hainan Island
v. Industrial parks promoting growth of steel industry
w. Dividend exemption between qualified resident enterprises
x. Preferential tax policies for FIEs established in the coastal economic open areas and in the economic
and technological development zones
iii. Schemes identified as Preferential Loans and Lending
a. Credit guarantee by GOC
b. Preferential lending (including policy loans)
c. Preferential export financing from the Export-Import Bank of China
d. Preferential loans for SOES
e. Allowance to pay loan I nterest
iv. Schemes identified as Export Financing and Export Credit
a. Export Seller's Credit
b. Export Buyer's Credit
c. Export Credit Insurance Subsidies
d. Other export financing from State Owned Banks
v. Schemes identified as Equity Infusion
a. Debt for equity swaps
b. Equity infusions
c. Unpaid dividends
d. Debt Forgiveness
e. Deed Tax Exemption for SOEs Undergoing Mergers or Restructuring
vi. Schemes identified as Grants
a. Famous Brands Program/ Incentive fund for famous-brand products
b. Special fund for energy saving technology reform
c. Direct Government Grants given by Jiangsu Province
d. Grants to Baoshan Steel
e. Grants for Antidumping Investigations
f. Superstar Enterprise Grant
g. Research & Development (R&D) Assistance Grant
h. Export Assistance Grant
i. Grants for Listing Shares
j. Funds for Outward Expansion of industries in Guangdong Province
k. Grants provided through the Provincial Fund for Fiscal and Technological Innovation
l. Grant - Special Funds for Fostering Stable Growth of Foreign Trade
m. Interim Measures of Fund Management of Allowance for Zhongsham Enterprises to Attend
Domestic and Overseas Fair
n. International Market Fund for Export Companies
o. Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Support Funds
p. State Special Fund for Promoting Key Industries and Innovation Technologies
q. Treasury Bonds Loans or Grants
r. Provincial Government - Equipment Grant
s. 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 Centers
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)
t. Grants provided by Hebei Province
i. Grants under the Science and Technology program of Hebei Province
ii. Government of Shijiazhuang City Export Award
u. 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 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
v. Subsidies Provided in Tianjin Binhai New Area and the Tianjin Economic and Technological
Development Area
w. Shanghai Municipal Subsidy to Coal-Fired Power Plants for Emissions Reduction
vii. Schemes identified as provision of Goods and Services at Less Than Adequate Remuneration
a. Purchase of Goods by the Government for higher than adequate remuneration
39. The principle of judicial economy allows the Authority to refrain from undertaking a detailed investigation in
respect of those programs that were determined to be countervailable in the original investigation. The
Authority has to examine whether countervailable 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
Chinese producers continue to benefit from countervailable subsidies. However, the Government of China and
the exporters from China PR have failed to co-operate and provide any response or comments. 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 countervailable subsidies. Thus, in view of the absence of any evidence
presented by the government of China or its producers/exporters on whether such schemes have been
withdrawn or not and the submissions by 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.
40. In the sunset review investigation, the primary focus is to determine the likelihood of the continuation or
recurrence of subsidies and the resultant injury. Unlike the original investigation, where it is necessary to
establish and quantify current subsidy or injury margins to apply the principle of the lesser duty rule and
accordingly determine the rate of duties, the present analysis centers on the likelihood of these factors and the
continuation of already existing duties. Consequently, in the present circumstances where there are no new or
contrary facts adduced before the Authority, the Authority exercises judicial economy concerning these
schemes previously addressed and deemed countervailable in the original investigation. Thus, the existing
subsidy margins are to be maintained and the Authority thereby restricts itself from repeating the exercise of
detailed examination of subsidy schemes afresh for the subject sunset review investigation.
New Programs alleged by the domestic industry in the present investigation
41. The domestic industry has contended that there is one more countervailable scheme "Export Credit Insurance
Subsidies" which provides benefit to the exporter / producers, thereby allowing them to sell at lower prices. No
information has been provided by the producers/exporters or GOC about this scheme. Further, the domestic
industry has also not provided sufficient information with regard to this program in order to quantify the
benefit received by the producers / exporters from the subject country. In light of absence of sufficient
information, the Authority does not consider it appropriate to examine countervailability of the new subsidy
program alleged. Accordingly, the new program has not been examined for the purpose of the present
investigation.
42. In absence of any response from producers / exporters and GOC, 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 investigation. Therefore, the
Authority continue to holding the above-mentioned programs as countervailable on the basis of its findings in
the original investigation. Thus, the Authority has determined the subsidies equivalent to the subsidy margin
quantified in the original investigation.
+------+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------+
| S.NO.| Name of Scheme | CVD Margin | Range |
+======+===========================================+============+=======+
| 1. | Grants | *** | 0-10 |
+------+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------+
| 2. | Tax and VAT Incentives | *** | 0-10 |
+------+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------+
| 3. | Preferential lending | *** | 0-10 |
+------+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------+
| 4. | Provision for goods and services at LTAR (A+B+C) | *** | 30-40 |
+------+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------+
| A. | Electricity at LTAR | *** | 0-10 |
+------+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------+
| B. | Land use rights provided at LTAR | *** | 0-10 |
+------+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------+
| C. | Raw Material at LTAR | *** | 20-30 |
+------+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------+
| | Total Subsidy Margin | *** | 30-40 |
+------+-------------------------------------------+------------+-------+
A.3.3 Subsidies in respect of Vietnam
Schemes previously found as countervailable in the original investigation
43. With respect to Vietnam, the Authority has initiated the investigation against the following schemes:
i. Schemes identified as Tax Incentives and Exemption
a. Import duty exemption or reimbursement for raw material
b. Import duty exemption for equipment and machinery to create fixed asset
c. Exemption on corporate income tax for enterprises
d. Enterprise Income Tax Exemption under Chapter III of the Law on Enterprise Income Tax
ii. Schemes identified as Export Financing and Export Credit
a. Preferential Lending for investors
b. Export Promotion Program
iii. Schemes identified as Investment Incentives
a. Preferential lending to exporters
b. Assistance to Small-Medium Enterprises
c. Interest rate of the investment credit loans
d. On investment support on foreign investors who invested on establishing small and medium scale
enterprises.
iv. Schemes identified as Benefits from Banks
a. Export credits from Vietnam Development Bank
b. Export financing activity by Vietin Bank
c. Financial Guarantees by Vietin Bank
d. Export Support Credit
v. Schemes identified as being provided in Specific Zones
a. Land preference for Enterprises in Encouraged Industries or Industrial Zones
vi. Schemes identified as Incentives on Use of Utilities
a. Exemptions or reduction on water rent
b. Government provision of land for less than adequate remuneration and exemption or reductions
from land rents
44. In the original investigation, the Authority found the following programs to be countervailable.
I. Schemes identified as tax incentives and exemptions
1. Program No 1: Income Tax Preferences under Chapter V of Decree 24
(Implementation of the Law on Enterprise Income Tax)
2. Program No 2: Import duty exemption or reimbursement for raw material
3. Program No. 3: Exemption on corporate income tax for enterprises
II. Schemes identified as export financing and export credit
4. Program No 5: Preferential lending to exporters
5. Program No 6: Export Promotion Program
6. Program No 7: Export credits form the Vietnam Development Bank
7. Program No. 8: Export Support Credit
III. Schemes identified as investment incentives
8. Program No. 9: Preferential Lending for investors
9. Program No. 10: Interest rate of the investment credit loans
10. Program No. 11: On investment support on foreign investors who invested on
establishing small and medium scale enterprises.
IV. Schemes Identified as benefits from banks
11. Program No. 13: Financial Guarantees by Vietin Bank
V. Schemes Identified for being located in specific zones
12. Program No 14: Land Preferences for Enterprises in Encouraged Industries or
Industrial Zones under Decree 142
VI. Schemes Identified for incentives on use of utilities
13. Program No. 15: Government provision of land for less than adequate
remuneration and exemptions or reductions from land and water rents
Schemes found as countervailable in the subject investigation
45. The Authority notes that the applicants have primarily alleged likelihood of continuation/recurrence of
subsidization and consequent injury. Therefore, the Authority in the subject investigation, has focused on
determination of the likelihood of the continuation or recurrence of subsidies and the resultant injury in the
event of cessation of current duties.
46. The Authority acknowledges that in the initial investigation, schemes held countervailable were also found to
benefit the participating exporters/producers. In the ongoing sunset review investigation, participating
exporters/producers contended that they did not receive any benefits from the alleged schemes. However, no
substantial evidence to establish that they have discontinued to avail the benefits from the countervailed
schemes is provided to the Authority. Moreover, the Government of Vietnam (GOV), in their submissions have
specifically asserted that there have been no discontinuation of the alleged programs and also there are no
anticipated changes in the said programs. Consequently, in the present circumstances where there are no new or
contrary facts adduced before the Authority, the Authority exercises judicial economy concerning these
schemes previously addressed and held countervailable in the original investigation. Thus, the existing subsidy
margins are to be maintained and the Authority thereby restricts itself from repeating the exercise of detailed
examination of subsidy schemes afresh for the subject sunset review investigation.
47. The Authority observed that the questionnaire response submitted by Nam Cuong Metal Company Limited was
severely lacking and did not adhere to the format specified by the Authority. Furthermore, it failed to provide
any pertinent information, documentation, or evidence regarding the programs under investigation.
Consequently, the Authority was compelled to rely on the best available facts for the exporter/producer in
question, as outlined in Rule 7(8) of the CVD Rules, 1995.
48. Exporter/producer OSS Dai Duong International Joint Stock Company have stated that they did not export to
India during the period of investigation. This claim has been verified by the Authority using DG systems data.
Further, to investigate whether OSS was still availing the benefits of the subsidy schemes countervailed in the
original investigation during the POI of the present investigation, the investigation team requested OSS to
participate in the remote desk verification to verify its response. However, OSS failed to respond to this
request. This wilful omission on part of OSS has hindered the Authority's ability to verify the information
provided. Consequently, the Authority has calculated OSS's subsidy margin based on the facts available, as
stipulated under Rule 7(8) of the CVD Rules, 1995.
49. Gia Anh Joint Stock Company had claimed that it did not export the subject goods to India during the POI.
This claim was verified by the investigation team through DG Systems data. Gia Anh has filed complete
exporter questionnaire response. To verify whether Gia Anh had taken benefit in the POI of the present
investigation under any of the schemes countervailed in the original investigation, the investigation team
requested to participate the above mentioned exporter/producer in remote desk verification meeting for
validation of its response. During the remote desk verification Gia Anh claimed that it had not taken any
benefit under any of the schemes. Investigation team posed several queries to Gia Anh regarding the subsidy
schemes. While examining availment of subsidies under Program no 3 and 14, the investigation team put
forward the Investment Policy Certificate issued by People's Committee of Hung Yen Province to Gia Anh.
According to this Certificate, Gia Anh is entitled to various incentives aimed at fostering the production of
high-grade stainless steel products in Vietnam. Further, article 4 of the Certificate specifies that this entitlement
remains effective until November 13, 2052. Gia Anh was asked to demonstrate that it had not availed any
benefit from the schemes based on its financial statements. However, the representatives of the exporter
company failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claim that the company did not continue to
avail benefits. As the investigation team was also not able to find any evidence concerning an increase in the
amount of benefits conferred under the countervailed schemes the Authority has continued with the subsidy
margins as determined in the original investigation.
New Programs alleged by the domestic industry in the present investigation
50. Additionally, the domestic industry has contended that there are three countervailable programs providing
benefits thereby allowing producers in Vietnam to sell at a lower price. The list of such new programs is
provided below:
a. Exemption on Import for Exported Goods
b. Enterprise Income Tax Exemption under Chapter III of the Law on Enterprise Income Tax
c. Assistance to Small- Medium Enterprises
51. The Authority notes that while the domestic industry has alleged the existence of new programs as mentioned
above, the allegations have not been substantiated by relevant and material evidences. Hence, the Authority is
not in a position to examine the countervailability of the newly alleged programs.
+------+------------------------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+----------+
| P. | Name of the Program | Son Ha SSP | Steel 568 Co.Ltd| Residual |
| No. | | Vietnam | | |
+======+================================================+==============+=================+==========+
| P.1 | Income Tax Preferences under | | | 0-5% |
| | Chapter V of Decree 24 | | | |
| | (Implementation of the Law on | NIL | NIL | |
| | Enterprise Income Tax) | | | |
+------+------------------------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+----------+
| P.3 | Exemption on corporate | | | |
| | income tax for enterprises | | | |
+------+------------------------------------------------+--------------+-----------------+----------
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P. | Name of the Program | Son Ha SSP | Steel 568 Co.Ltd| Residual |
| No. | | Vietnam | | |
+======+==================================================+==========+=================+==========+
| P.2 | Import duty exemption on | NIL | NIL | NIL |
| | reimbursement for raw | | | |
| | material | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.5 | Preferential lending to | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
| | exporters | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.6 | Export Promotion Program | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
| | | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.7 | Export credits form the Vietnam | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
| | Development Bank | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.8 | Export Support Credit | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.9 | Preferential Lending for | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
| | investors | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.10 | Interest rate of the investment | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
| | credit loans | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.11 | On investment support on foreign | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
| | investors who investedon | | | |
| | establishing small and medium | | | |
| | scale enterprises. | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.13 | Financial Guarantees by | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
| | Vietin Bank | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.14 | Land Preferences for Enterprises | 0-5% | 0-5% | 0-5% |
| | in Encouraged | | | |
| | Industries or Industrial Zones | | | |
| | under Decree 142 | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| P.15 | Government provision of landfor | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
| | less than adequate remuneration | | | |
| | and exemptionsor reductions from | | | |
| | land and water rents | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| Other| Import duty exemption for | NIL | NIL | 0-5% |
| | equipment and machinery to | | | |
| | create fixed asset | | | |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| | Total Subsidy Margin % | *** | *** | *** |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
| | Total Subsidy Margin (Range %) | De-minimis | De-minimis | 10-20% |
+------+--------------------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+----------+
G. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK AND LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR
RECURRENCE OF SUBSIDIZATION AND INJURY
G1. Submissions by other interested parties
52. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the injury, causal link
and likelihood of subsidization and injury:
a. The domestic industry has neither suffered injury nor there is any likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of injury. This is evident from the fact that the capacities, production, domestic sales,
domestic selling price, PBIT, cash profits and return on investment of the domestic industry have
increased.
b. There is no injury or likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic industry due to
imports from the respondents as the import price of the respondents has increased and was the highest
during the period of investigation. Since no duty was imposed on the respondents, there will be no
change in pricing behaviour even in case of no anti-subsidy duty in force.
c. While major imports from Vietnam are from sources exempt from duty, the economic parameters of
domestic industry including domestic sales, selling price and profits have improved. Since the domestic
industry has not suffered injury due to such imports, there is no likelihood of injury in case of cessation
of anti-subsidy duty in force.
d. The injury suffered by the domestic industry, if any, is only due to imports from China. This is due to
the fact that the Chinese imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry by 30-40%.
e. It is apprehended that the selling price of the domestic industry is higher than the non-injurious price
and due to this, the applicants have not submitted non-injurious price in the application. In case, non-
injurious price is higher than net selling price, the investigation should be terminated as per consistent
practice of the Authority.
f. The applicants have not provided any concrete evidence of likelihood of recurrence or continuation of
injury.
g. The import price from Vietnam has increased and is much higher than import price from other
countries which indicates that exporters are selling at fair prices even in the absence of customs duty.
G2. Submissions by the domestic industry
53. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the injury, causal link and
likelihood of subsidization and injury:
a. There is no requirement of cumulative assessment of injury in the present investigation as imports
from China are negligible and not causing injury to the domestic industry. Imports from Vietnam and
especially due to producers not subject to anti subsidy duty have caused injury to the domestic
industry.
b. The Governments of the subject countries have continued providing subsidies to the producers of the
subject goods in the subject countries.
c. The imports from Vietnam have increased in absolute terms. The increase is from importers not
subject to anti-subsidy duty.
d. Imports from exempted producers in Vietnam have increased much more than the increase in
demand.
e. Imports of producers subject to anti-subsidy duty have declined which demonstrates the inability of
the foreign producers to sell at fair prices in India.
f. The market share of imports from exempted producers in Vietnam has increased. Such imports have
taken away the potential and existing market share of the domestic industry.
g. The market share of the Indian industry is much lower to the market share held by the Indian industry
prior to the original period of investigation.
h. The domestic industry has enough capacity to cater to the entire demand in India. Hence, reliance on
imports is totally unnecessary.
i. The imports from Vietnam are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry on average basis. The
price undercutting on PCN wise basis is higher.
j. The capacity utilization of the domestic industry has declined over the injury period and was the
lowest during the period of investigation.
k. The landed price of imports from Vietnam was below the cost of sales of the domestic industry.
l. The domestic industry has been forced to compromise on margins due to low-priced imports from
Vietnam. The profitability and return on investment of the domestic industry have declined.
m. The imports are likely to increase in the absence of anti-subsidy duty. The raw material is being
transferred from China to Vietnam especially after imposition of anti-subsidy duty and anti-dumping
duty in India on imports of raw material from China.
n. The Authority, in Hot Rolled and Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Flat Products held that there are
significant subsidies being provided to the raw material manufacturers in China. The benefits of such
subsidies have been passed through to producers in Vietnam.
o. There are significant and excess capacities of stainless steel in China, as held by the Authority in the
final findings on imports of Hot Rolled and Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Flat Products from China.
p. Since the subject goods are downstream products of stainless steel with minimal value addition, such
exportable capacities are likely to be used for exports to India, in the absence of anti-subsidy duty.
q. Sohna SSP and Steel 568 have reported increase in production quantity and capacity utilization.
Sohna SSP has also reported increase in capacities.
r. While producers in China PR have excess capacities, there has been decline in demand of steel in
China. The Chinese producers are in need for alternate markets to absorb the excess volumes.
s. A number of countries such as Türkiye, Eurasian Economic Union, USA and Brazil have imposed
trade remedial measures on imports of subject goods.
t. Imports are likely to depress the prices of the domestic industry and cause material injury to the
domestic industry in the absence of the anti-subsidy duty.
G3. Examination by the authority
54. The Authority has examined the arguments and counter arguments of the interested parties with regard to
injury to the domestic industry. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder addresses the various
submissions made by the interested parties.
55. 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 domestic producers of such articles.
56. The Authority has considered submissions made by various interested parties and relevant legal provisions.
The examination hereinbelow ipso facto deals with the submissions made by the domestic industry and
interested parties concerning injury to the domestic industry.
57. The Authority has examined the various injury parameters on account of imports from the subject countries
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 relation to production or consumption. In considering the
effect of the subsidised 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 like article in India,
or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price
increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of
the subsidised imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry
such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, stock, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude,
and margin of subsidy, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure-I of the Rules.
58. Para 4 of Annexure I of the Rules provides that in case where imports of a product from more than one country
are being simultaneously subjected to anti-subsidy investigation, the Authority may cumulatively assess the
effect of such imports in case it determines that:
a. The margin of subsidization established in relation to the imports from each country is more than one
percent and the volume of imports from each country is not negligible, and
b. A cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of
competition between the imported products and the like domestic products.
59. With regard to the submissions by the domestic industry that there is no need for cumulative analysis, the
Authority notes that the imports from China have declined and are negligible. Further, the domestic industry
has stated that such imports are not causing any injury to the domestic industry. Thus, the Authority assessed
the injury due to imports from Vietnam.
G.3.1 assessment of demand / apparent consumption
60. The Authority has defined, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand or apparent consumption of the
product under consideration in India as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry and other Indian
producers and imports from all sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table below.
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+===========================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Sales of domestic industry| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 111 | 117 | 124 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Sales of other producers | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 101 | 107 | 91 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Imports from Vietnam | MT | 42,013 | 33,474 | 46,626 | 46,310 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 80 | 111 | 110 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Imports from China | MT | 36,584 | 408 | 616 | 129 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Other imports | MT | 31,387 | 26,532 | 15,637 | 14,408 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 85 | 50 | 46 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Demand | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 91 | 96 | 90 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
61. It is seen that the demand for the subject goods declined in 2020-21 as compared to 2019-20 but increased
thereafter in 2021-22 and has again declined in the period of investigation. However, the demand has largely
remained stable throughout the investigation period.
G.3.2. Volume effect of the subsidized imports
62. With regard to the volume of the subsidized imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has
been a significant increase in subsidized 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 systems. The import volumes of the subject goods from the subject countries
and share of the subsidized imports during the injury period and the period of investigation are as follows:
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+===========================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Imports from Vietnam | MT | 42,013 | 33,474 | 46,626 | 46,310 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Imports from China | MT | 36,584 | 408 | 616 | 129 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Other imports | MT | 31,387 | 26,532 | 15,637 | 14,408 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Total | MT | 1,09,983 | 60,414 | 62,880 | 60,847 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Imports from Vietnam in relation to |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Domestic production | % | 10-20 | 10-20 | 10-20 | 10-20 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Consumption | % | 10-20 | 0-10 | 10-20 | 10-20 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
63. It is seen that:
a. The volume of imports from Vietnam declined in the year 2020-2021 as compared to the base year of
the injury investigation period. However, there has been significant increase in import volume post
2020-2021.
b. The imports from Vietnam in relation to domestic production has increased from ***% to ***%.
c. The imports from Vietnam in relation to domestic consumption has increased from -***% to ***%.
G.3.3. Price effect of the subsidized imports
64. With regard to the effect of the subsidized 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 such imports is otherwise 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 imports has been examined with reference to price undercutting, price suppression and price
depression, if any.
a. Price undercutting
65. To determine price undercutting, a comparison has been made between the landed value of the product and
average selling price of the domestic industry, net of all rebates and taxes, at the same level of trade. The prices
of the domestic industry were determined at the ex-factory level.
+----+------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+
| SN | Particulars | UOM | 200 series| 300 series|
+====+====================================+=======+===========+===========+
| 1 | Landed Price of imports from Vietnam | ₹/MT | 1,51,493 | 2,50,993 |
+----+------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+
| 2 | Net selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** |
+----+------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+
| 3 | Price undercutting | ₹/MT | (***) | *** |
+----+------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+
| 4 | Price undercutting | % | (***) | *** |
+----+------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+
| 5 | Price undercutting | Range | (0-10) | 0-10 |
+----+------------------------------------+-------+-----------+-----------+
66. It is seen that though there has been negative price undercutting in case of 200 series, however, there is a
positive price undercutting in the case of 300 series ranging from ***%.
b. Price suppression/depression
67. In order to determine whether the effect of imports depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price
increases which otherwise would have occurred in normal course, the Authority has examined the changes in
the costs and prices of the domestic industry over the injury period.
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+===========================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Cost of sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 95 | 130 | 137 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 98 | 138 | 141 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Landed price from Vietnam | ₹/MT | 1,56,842 | 1,71,120 | 2,02,932 | 2,43,168 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 109 | 129 | 155 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Landed price from China | ₹/MT | 1,08,347 | 1,33,597 | 2,39,300 | 1,83,228 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 123 | 221 | 169 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
68. The Authority notes that, during the base year, the domestic industry experienced some price pressure from
imports, as evidenced by the selling price falling below the cost of sales. However, post the base year of the
injury investigation period, the domestic industry has been able to sell the subject goods at prices above the
cost of sales, indicating an absence of price pressure—be it suppression or depression—resulting from imports
on domestic prices.
69. However, based on PCN wise comparison, the Authority notes that the landed price of Vietnam for 300 series
is below the selling price of the domestic industry. The domestic industry has submitted that it has been forced
to compromise on margins due to the low-priced imports from Vietnam.
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Particulars | Unit | 200 S | 300 S |
+=====================================+========+=========================+=========================+
| Domestic Industry Selling price (Sampled)| ₹/MT | *** | *** |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Range | ₹/MT | 1,50,000-2,00,000 | 2,50,000-3,00,000 |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Landed price from Vietnam | ₹/MT | 1,51,493 | 2,50,993 |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Landed price from China | ₹/MT | 1,01,052 | 2,32,182 |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
70. Some of the interested parties have contended that the injury to the domestic industry is due to imports from
China as the landed price of imports from China is lower than that from Vietnam. The Authority notes that
while the landed price of imports from China is lower than landed price from Vietnam, the volume of imports
from China is negligible. Such miniscule volume cannot be considered to be a cause of injury to the domestic
industry.
G.3.4. Economic parameters of the domestic industry
71. The Rules require that the determination of the injury shall involve an objective examination of the consequent
injury of the subject imports on the domestic producers. With regard to the consequent impact of these imports
on the domestic producers 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 state of industry, including actual and potential decline in
sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors
affecting domestic prices, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,
growth, ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, performance of the domestic industry has been
examined over the injury period.
a. Production, capacity, capacity utilization and sales volumes
72. The performance of the domestic industry with regard to capacity, production, sales and capacity utilization
over the injury period was as below:
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=======================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 104 | 109 | 131 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Total Production | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 112 | 119 | 130 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Capacity Utilization | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Range | % | 50-60 | 60-70 | 60-70 | 50-60 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Domestic Sales | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 111 | 117 | 124 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
73. The Authority observes that, despite the increases in capacity, production, and sales of the domestic industry
over the injury period, the industry has not been able to operate at its optimum level or fully utilize its capacity.
b. Market share
74. Market share of the subsidized imports and domestic industry have been examined as below:
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=======================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Domestic industry | % | 20-30 | 30-40 | 30-40 | 30-40 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Other Indian producers| % | 40-50 | 40-50 | 40-50 | 40-50 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Imports from Vietnam | % | 10-20 | 0-10 | 10-20 | 10-20 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Imports from China PR | % | 0-10 | 0-10 | 0-10 | 0-10 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Other imports | % | 0-10 | 0-10 | 0-10 | 0-10 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
75. The Authority notes that the imposition of anti-subsidy duties has provided significant relief to the domestic
industry, enabling it to increase its market share from ***% in the base year of the injury investigation period
to ***% in the period of investigation. However, it is also observed that the trend of imports from Vietnam has
experienced an upward trajectory, rising from ***% in the base year to ***% during the period of
investigation.
76. Further, the applicants have submitted that the market share held by the Indian industry during the period of
investigation is much lower than the market share held by the Indian industry prior to the original period of
investigation. The Authority notes that the lowest market share held by the Indian industry during the injury
period of the original investigation was ***% while the highest market share held by the Indian industry during
the current period of investigation was ***%. Thus, the Indian industry holds market share less than it held
previously.
c. Inventories
77. Inventory position of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below:
+----------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Average stock | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+----------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 130 | 141 | 166 |
+----------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
78. It is noted that the inventories of the domestic industry have increased over the injury period.
d. Profitability, cash profits and return on capital employed
79. Profits, cash profits and return on capital employed of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in
the table below:
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=======================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Cost of sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 95 | 130 | 137 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 98 | 138 | 141 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Profit/ (loss) | ₹/MT | (***) | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | (100) | 686 | 2,267 | 976 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Profit/ (loss) | Lacs | (***) | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 761 | 2,652 | 1,234 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Cash profits | Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | 100 | 448 | 1,129 | 609 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Return on capital employed| % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Indexed | 0-10 | 10-20 | 20-30 | 10-20 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
80. The Authority notes that:
i. The profitability of the domestic industry did increase till 2021-2022, however, it has declined by
***% in the period of investigation as compared to the previous year.
ii. The return on capital employed also showed the same trend as it increased till the year 2021-2022 but
thereafter has declined in the period of investigation by ***% as compared to the previous year.
iii. The domestic industry has stated that it has been forced to compromise on margins due to imports from
Vietnam at prices below the cost of sales of the domestic industry.
e. Employment, wages and productivity
81. The Authority has examined the information relating to employment, wages and productivity, as given below:
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=======================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Employees | Nos. | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 105 | 116 | 137 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Productivity per day | MT/Day | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 112 | 119 | 130 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Productivity per employee| MT/Nos | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Trend | Index | 100 | 106 | 103 | 95 |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
82. It is noted that the number of employees increased over the injury period. The productivity per day has also
increased over the injury, however, the productivity per employee started declining since 2020-2021 and has
experienced a further decline in the period of investigation.
f. Growth
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+=======================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Capacity | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Production | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Domestic sales | % | *** | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Profit/(loss) per unit| % | (***) | *** | *** | (***) |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Cash profits | % | *** | *** | *** | (***) |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Return on capital employed| % | *** | *** | *** | (***) |
+-----------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
83. It is noted that the capacity has demonstrated positive growth, reaching *** % in the period of investigation
compared to *** % in the base year. However, the domestic industry's production has decreased from *** %
in the base year to *** % in the period of investigation. The domestic industry has also faced a decline in
domestic sales, which fell from *** % in the base year to *** % during the period of investigation.
Furthermore, cash profits and return on capital both turned negative during the period of investigation, despite
exhibiting a positive growth rate during the injury investigation period.
g. Ability to raise capital investment
84. The Authority notes that although the capacity of the domestic industry has increased during the injury period,
the profitability of the domestic industry has declined in the period of investigation and recorded a decline in
return on capital employed.
h. Magnitude of subsidy margin
85. The subsidy margin determined by the Authority is positive and significant in the present investigation.
H. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF SUBSIDIZATION AND INJURY
86. Since, the present investigation is a sunset review investigation, the fact that whether domestic industry is
currently not suffering injury does not impact the determination of whether the duties shall be continued or not.
In a sunset review investigation, the Authority is required to analyze whether revocation of a measure is likely
to result in continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic industry, contrary to the determination made in
an original investigation.
87. All factors brought to the notice of the Authority have been examined to determine as to whether there is a
likelihood of continuation of subsidisation or injury in the event of cessation of the duties. The Authority has
considered various information, as made available by the domestic industry, in order to evaluate the likelihood
of continuation of subsidisation or injury.
88. Further, the Authority has also examined other relevant factors having a bearing on the likelihood of
continuation of subsidisation and consequent injury to the domestic industry. The examination of the
parameters of likelihood is as follows.
H1. Continued subsidization despite existence of anti-subsidy duty
89. The authority notes that there is a continued subsidisation of the subject goods from the subject countries
inspite of the duties in force. Continued subsidisation during the existence of duties indicates the likelihood of
continuation of subsidies.
90. While the volume of imports from China was negligible due to anti-subsidy duty in force, the imports of 300
series from both the subject countries are below the selling price of the domestic industry.
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Particulars | Unit | 200 S | 300 S |
+=====================================+========+=========================+=========================+
| Domestic Industry Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Range | ₹/MT | 1,50,000-2,00,000 | 2,50,000-3,00,000 |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Landed price from Vietnam | ₹/MT | 1,51,493 | 2,50,993 |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Landed price from China | ₹/MT | 1,01,052 | 2,32,182 |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
91. The Authority notes that in case of cessation of anti-subsidy duty, the imports from all sources are likely to
increase. Further, such imports are likely to be at prices below the cost of sales of the domestic industry and is
likely to cause injury to the domestic industry.
H2. Decline in imports from china pr and producers subject to anti-subsidy duty
92. The Authority notes that the volume of subject imports has declined over the injury period from sources subject
to anti-subsidy duty.
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | POI |
+===========================+==========+===========+===========+===========+========+
| Imports from China | MT | 36,584 | 408 | 616 | 129 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Imports from Vietnam | MT | 42,013 | 33,474 | 46,626 | 46,310 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Imports from exempted producers| MT | 25,098 | 31,602 | 43,671 | 42,992 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Imports from other producers| MT | 16,915 | 1,872 | 2,955 | 3,318 |
+---------------------------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
93. The Authority notes that the imports from producers subject to anti-subsidy duty have declined. In the event of
expiry of anti-subsidy duty, the imports are likely to follow the trend of imports from sources exempted from
anti-subsidy duty. Thus, such imports are likely to increase in India and cause material injury to the domestic
industry.
H3. Significant idle capacities held by producers in china pr
94. The applicants have submitted that there are significant excess capacities of stainless steel in China PR. The
Authority notes, that as per the evidence on record, the demand for stainless steel has declined in China PR.
Since the subject goods are downstream products of stainless steel with minimal value additions, the additional
capacities of the Chinese producers are likely to be used for exporting the subject goods to India.
H4. Measures imposed by other countries
95. The applicants have claimed that the producers in the subject countries face trade remedial measures in
Türkiye, Eurasian Economic Union, USA and Brazil. The Authority notes due to imposition of trade remedial
measures on imports of subject goods from the subject countries, the producers are likely to shift to Indian
market in case of cessation of anti-subsidy duty. Further, since there are excess capacities in China PR, the
producers in China PR are likely to export the subject goods to India in large quantities in case of expiry of
anti-subsidy duty.
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Date | Country imposing measure | Type of measure imposed |
+=================+==============================+=====================================+
| 10-07-2021 | Türkiye | Anti-dumping duty on imports from Vietnam |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| 14-03-2021 | Eurasian Economic Union | Anti-dumping duty on imports from China |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| 03-12-2019 | United States of America | Anti-dumping duty on imports from China and Vietnam |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| 06-03-2019 | United States of America | Anti-subsidy duty on imports from China |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| 13-06-2018 | Brazil | Anti-dumping duty on imports from Vietnam |
+-----------------+------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
H5. Imports entering india below the selling price
96. The applicants have claimed that the imports are entering the country at prices lower than the selling price of
the domestic industry.
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Particulars | Unit | 200 S | 300 S |
+=====================================+========+=========================+=========================+
| Domestic Industry Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Range | ₹/MT | 1,50,000-2,00,000 | 2,50,000-3,00,000 |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Landed price from Vietnam | ₹/MT | 1,51,493 | 2,50,993 |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Landed price from China | ₹/MT | 1,01,052 | 2,32,182 |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
97. The Authority notes that the landed price of subject imports was below the selling price of the sampled
producers during the period of investigation.
98. The domestic industry has not suffered injury due to anti-subsidy duty in force and negligible volume of
imports from China and exporters subject to duty in Vietnam. In case of cessation of anti-subsidy duty and
increase in volume of imports, the domestic industry will be forced to compete with the import price. Such
prices are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry.
H6. Likely performance of the domestic industry in case of cessation of anti-subsidy duty
99. In the event of expiry of anti-subsidy duty, the domestic industry is likely to be forced to compete with imports
from the subject countries. At the present imports prices, the domestic industry is likely to suffer injury in
terms of financial losses, decline in cash profits and negative return on capital employed.
100. The likely analysis of domestic industry in the absence of anti-subsidy duty.
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | Actual | Likely | Change |
+===========================+==========+=========+=========+=========+
| Cost of sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | (***)% |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Profit / loss | ₹/MT | *** | (***) | (***)% |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Profit / loss | ₹/MT | *** | (***) | (***)% |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Cash profits | ₹/MT | *** | (***) | (***)% |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Return on investment | % | *** | (***) | (***)% |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
H7. Revival of domestic industry only due to imposition of anti-subsidy duty.
101. The Authority notes that the performance of the domestic industry has increased significantly in the current
period of investigation as compared to the original period of investigation due to imposition of anti-subsidy
duty. The improvement between the two periods is as a result of decline in volume of imports.
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Particulars | Unit | Original POI | Current POΙ | Change |
+=============================+==========+==============+==============+=========+
| Volume of subject imports | MT | 71,593 | 46,439 | -35% |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Imports from China | MT | 43,059 | 129 | -99.7% |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Imports from Vietnam | MT | 28,535 | 46,310 | 62% |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Demand | MT | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Capacity | MT | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Production | MT | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Capacity utilization | % | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Domestic Sales | MT | *** | *** | *** |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Market share of imports | % | 20-30% | 10-20% | (50)-(60)%|
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Market share of Indian Industry| % | 60-70% | 80-90% | 20-30% |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
| Profit/Loss | ₹/MT | Losses | *** | |
+-----------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------+---------+
102. The capacity, production, domestic sales, market sales of the domestic industry have improved as compared to
the period of investigation of the original investigation. While the domestic industry was incurring losses in the
original period of investigation, it is now earning profits.
H8. Improvement in performance due to anti-subsidy duty in force
103. The Authority notes that the performance of the domestic industry in terms of capacity, production and
domestic sales has improved drastically post imposition and during the tenure of the anti-subsidy duty.
104. Since in the absence of anti-subsidy duty in force, the subject imports are likely to enter India at low-prices and
increased quantities, there is likelihood of injury to the domestic industry in case of cessation of anti-subsidy
duty.
H9. Imports at injurious prices
105. The Authority notes that the subject imports have entered the Indian market at injurious prices and below the
cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry despite duties in force.
I. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
106. The non-injurious price of the product under consideration has been determined by adopting the verified
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 countries 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 considered. The same treatment has been carried out with the utilities. The best
utilisation of production capacity over the injury period has been considered. It is ensured that no extraordinary
or non-recurring expenses are charged to the cost of production. A reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on
average capital employed (i.e. average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the product under
consideration was allowed as pre-tax profit to arrive at the non-injurious price.
107. As regards the contention raised by the new participating producer/exporter from Vietnam, TVL, for the grant
of an individual rate of duty on the basis that this is its first opportunity to participate in the investigation, the
Authority notes that TVL began exporting to India a year before the current investigation period.
108. The data provided by TVL reveals that TVL exported *** MT in the year 2021-2022 and ***MT during the
period of investigation (POI), constituting ***% and ***%of the total imports into India, and ***% of the total
demand in India, respectively. Furthermore, it is noted that the exports to India amount to ***% of TVL's total
production during the specified periods—a figure substantially lower in both number and percentage compared
to the exports made by other cooperating producers from the subject country. It is further noted that TVL's
third-country exports amounted to ***MT, representing merely ***% of its total production, ***% of its
domestic sales, and ***% of the total imports to India during the POI.
109. Since the quantity exported to India by TVL is very low, this leads to a suspicion that the prices at which TVL
has exported to India could be a 'manipulated' price because the current investigation is that of sunset review
wherein it is possible to assess the price of the producers/exporters from the subject country. The Authority
therefore needs to have a deeper scrutiny of the export price to assure itself that the export price of the limited
exports from TVL truly reflects its price and has not been influenced by the prevailing anti-subsidy duties on
imports from the subject country. In order to re-assure itself, the Authority has looked at TVL's exports to third
countries. The purpose of this inquiry was to ascertain whether the export price of TVL to third countries was
comparable to its export price to India and reach to a conclusion that the export price of TVL with such export
volume is not 'coloured'. However, TVL's exports to third countries is also very low as deliberated in the
earlier para.
110. In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Authority is unable to accept the export prices of
TVL to India with such a low volume of exports and hence rejects TVL's claim for the grant of an individual
rate of duty.
111. The landed price for the cooperative exporters has been determined on the basis of the data by the exporters.
For all the non-cooperative producers/exporters from the subject, the Authority has determined the landed price
based on the facts available.
112. Based on the landed price and non-injurious price determined as above, the injury margin for
producers/exporters has been determined by the Authority and the same is provided in the table below.
+------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| SN | Particular | NIP USD/MT | Landed price USD/MT | Injury margin | Injury margin | Injury margin |
| | | | | USD/MT | % | Range |
+======+===========================+=============+=====================+=================+================+================+
| 1 | Vietnam | | | | | |
+------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| a | Son Ha SSP Vietnam | *** | *** | *** | *** | Negative |
+------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| b | Steel 568 Co. Ltd | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10 |
+------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| g | Any other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20 |
+------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 2 | China PR | | | | | |
+------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| a | Any Other | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
+------+---------------------------+-------------+---------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
H9. Non- attrubution analysis
113. 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 subsidized imports which are injuring 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 subsidized imports. While the present
investigation is a sunset review investigation and causal link has already been examined in original
investigation, the Authority examined whether other known listed factors have caused or are likely to cause
injury to the domestic industry.
a. Contraction in demand
114. The demand for the subject goods declined initially but has thereafter increased over the injury period. 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.
b. Pattern of consumption
115. There has been no material change in the pattern of consumption of the product under consideration, to which
the injury suffered can be attributed.
c. Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices
116. There are no trade restrictive practices or conditions of competition, which can cause injury to the domestic
industry apart from the low-priced imports from subject countries.
d. Developments in technology
117. There has been no change in technology for production of the subject goods, due to which the domestic
industry has suffered injury.
e. Productivity
118. The productivity of the domestic industry has not decreased and thus, it has not suffered injury on this account.
f. Export performance of the domestic industry
119. The domestic industry has segregated the export performance from the domestic performance and thus, no
injury has been caused in this account.
g. Performance of other products
120. 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 consideration only.
K. INDIAN INDUSTRY'S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
K1. Submissions by other interested parties
121. Other interested parties have not made any submissions with regard to the Indian industry's interest.
K2. Submissions by the domestic industry
122. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the Indian industry's interest:
a. Importers and Users have not participated or have responded to the economic interest questionnaire.
b. The responding producers/exporters have not provided any information that may allow the Authority to
determine whether the discontinuation of the duties would be in public interest. The absence of any
information in this regard shows that the producers / exporters do not have any evidence or information
to prove that the duties have any adverse effect on the users in India.
c. The continuation of the duty would create favourable market conditions for the Indian steel sector as it
would reduce dependence on steel imports.
d. It is in the consumers' interest to have a competitive domestic industry which is capable of supplying the
product to the consumers in competition to fair-priced imports.
e. The Indian industry has sufficient capacities to meet the growing demand in India.
f. The Indian industry constitutes more than 100 of producers and imposition of duties will not create any
monopoly in the Indian market.
g. The Indian industry is fragmented and majority of the producers of like article in India are MSMEs and
continuation of duties is imperative to provide them with a level playing field.
h. The subject goods are not raw materials for other industries and thus the impact of duties, which is
minimal, would not impact the performance of other industries.
i. The subject goods are used in residential or commercial construction and the costs on account of this
product forms only 0.3% of the overall cost of a construction project. The impact of proposed duty is
minimal.
j. The goods can be imported from various other countries such as Italy, Malaysia, USA and Korea RP.
k. The duties did not have any adverse effect as the demand has increased since the original investigation.
K3. Examination by authority
123. 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 subsidization so as to establish a situation of open and fair competition in the
Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. Continuation of anti-subsidy measures does not
aim to restrict imports from the subject countries in any way. The Authority recognizes 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, continuation of anti-
subsidy measures would ensure that no unfair advantages are gained due to subsidy provided, prevent decline
in the performance of the domestic industry and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of
the subject goods.
124. Post initiation of investigation, the Authority issued an economic interest questionnaire to all the interested
parties. However, the response to the questionnaire was filed by the domestic industry and two producers from
Vietnam namely Sonha SSP Vietnam and Steel 568 Co., Ltd. Apart from the said parties, no
producers/exporter, importers or users of the subject goods, have participated 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 continuation or expiry of
duty.
125. The Authority notes that 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 abstained from participating in the present investigation. 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 domestic industry.
126. In this regard, the Authority also notes that the domestic industry had furnished 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 0.03%.
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Particulars | Unit | Rate |
+======================================+==========+===========+
| Cost of Land | ₹ Lakhs | *** |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Cost of Construction of Building | ₹ Lakhs | *** |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Total Cost of Building | ₹ Lakhs | *** |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Cost of WSSTP | ₹ Lakhs | *** |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Highest CVD imposed | % | 29.88% |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Lowest CVD imposed | % | 10.33% |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Cost of CVD in total building (Highest) | ₹ Lakhs | *** |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Cost of CVD in total building (Lowest) | ₹ Lakhs | *** |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Impact with Highest CVD | % | 0-0.10% |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
| Impact with Lowest CVD | % | 0-0.10% |
+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+
127. With regard to the availability of the like article in the country, the Authority notes that the anti-subsidy duty
does not restrict imports from the subject countries, but only provides a level playing field. Such a level playing
field shall allow many MSME companies to flourish in the Indian market. The Indian industry has sufficient
capacity to cater to the growing demand in India. Since the imposition of duties, the demand has increased.
This shows that the duties have reduced the dependency on imports and allowed the Indian industry to grow.
128. As per the information on record there is sufficient capacity in India to cater to domestic demand. This shows
that the imposition of countervailing duties has allowed the country to add more capacity.
129. The fragmented nature and presence of multiple producers would also ensure inter-se competition between the
domestic producers. As a result, the users would be assured of competitive prices in the domestic market, and
easy availability of the subject goods. The applicants have also highlighted that the product can also be
imported from other countries.
Login to read full text