FF CERTAIN CRANES

REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India CG-DL-E-22092025-266294 xxxGIDEXXX EXTRAORDINARY PART I-Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 252] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2025/BHADRA 28, 1947 Case No. AD (OI)-39/2024 MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce) (Directorate General of Trade Remedies) NOTIFICATION New Delhi,the 19th September, 2025 FINAL FINDINGS Case No. AD (OI)-39/2024 Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Certain Cranes" originating in or exported from China PR. A BACKGROUND OF THE CASE F. No. 6/24/2024-DGTR: - Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, as amended from time to time (“AD Rules, 1995" or the "AD Rules" or the "Rules"). 1. M/s Action Construction Equipment Ltd. (ACE) (“domestic industry" or the "applicant") had filed an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "Customs Tariff Act") and the AD Rules, 1995 for initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Certain Cranes" ("product under consideration” or the "subject goods” or “PUC”) originating in or exported from China PR (“subject country"). 2. The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a public notice vide Notification No. 6/24/2024-DGTR dated 30 September 2024, published in the Gazette of India, initiating the subject investigation in accordance with Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act read with Rule 5 of the AD Rules, 1995 to determine the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of the subject goods and to recommend the appropriate amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry. B PROCEDURE 3. The following procedure has been followed with regard to this investigation: a. The Authority notified the Embassy of the subject country in India about the receipt of the present anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the AD Rules, 1995. b. The Authority issued a public notice dated 30th September, 2024, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the subject country. c. The POI for the present investigation is April 2023 to March 2024 (12 months). The injury investigation period for the present investigation is April 2020 – March 2021, April 2021 – March 2022, April 2022 – March 2023 and the POI. d. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification on 3rd October 2024 to the Embassy of the subject country in India, the known producers and exporters from the subject country, the known importers/users of the subject goods and other interested parties, as per the information provided by the applicant. The interested parties were requested to provide relevant information in the form and manner prescribed in the initiation notification and to make their submissions known in writing within the time limit prescribed by the initiation notification. e. The Authority also circulated copy of the non-confidential version of the application filed by the applicant to the known producers/exporters, known importers/users and to the Embassy of the subject country in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the AD Rules, 1995. f. The Embassy of the subject country in India was also requested to advise the exporters/producers from their country to submit their responses to the questionnaire within the time limit prescribed by the initiation notification. g. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the issues of confidentiality claimed by the other interested parties within 7 days of the circulation of the non-confidential version of the document filed before the Authority. h. The Authority also issued an economic interest questionnaire (hereafter referred to as ‘EIQ') to the interested parties seeking inputs on the economic impact of the proposed duties. i. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in the subject country in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules, 1995: i. Sany International Development ii. Xuzhou Construction Machinery iii. Zoomlion International Trading (H.K.) Co., Ltd. J. The following producers/ exporters of the product under consideration from subject country have filed the questionnaire response within the time-limit prescribed by the Authority: i. Sany International Development Limited ii. Zhejiang Sany Equipment Co., Ltd. iii. Sany Automobile Hoisting Machinery Co. Ltd. iv. Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science and Technology Co. Ltd. v. Zoomlion International Trading (H.K) Co. Ltd. vi. Zoomlion India Private Ltd. vii. Hunan Zoomlion Crawler Crane Co., Ltd., viii. Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd. k. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known importers/users of subject goods in India calling for necessary information, in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules: i. Dewanchand Ramsaran Corporation Private Limited ii. Macawber Beekay Private Limited iii. Samarth Lifters Private Limited iv. Sany Heavy Industry India Private Limited v. Schwing Stetter (India) Private Limited vi. Zoomlion India Private Limited 1. The Authority notes that the following importers/users who have registered in the subject investigation have participated by filing the questionnaire response. i. Sany Heavy Industry India Pvt Ltd, ii. Amrik Singh & Sons Crane Services Pvt. iii. Oasis Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. iv. Shethia Erectors and Materials Handlers Ltd. v. Samarth Lifters Pvt. Ltd. vi. Barkat Cranes and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vii. Dewanchand Ramasaran Corporation Pvt. Ltd. viii. Dwarkesh Transport Corporation ix. Shri Dinesh Crane Services m. The producers/exporters from the subject country who have not submitted the questionnaire response or have not cooperated in the investigation have been treated as non-cooperative in the investigation. n. Interested parties were provided 30 days from the date of the initiation notification to file their comments on the scope of PUC and Product Control Number (“PCN”) methodology. The last date to file comments on PUC/PCN was 30th October, 2024, which was further extended till 10th November, 2024 vide notice dated 4th November, 2024. o. The Authority received comments from various interested parties regarding the scope of the PUC and PCN methodology. Thereafter, the Authority held a meeting on the scope of PUC and PCN methodology on 14th November, 2024. Thereafter, the Authority notified the final scope of PUC and PCN methodology vide its notice dated 5th December 2024 after examining the comments/ submissions submitted by interested parties as per the timeline stipulated by the Authority both prior to and following the meeting and taking into account the discussions that took place during the meeting. p. The Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) was requested to provide transaction-wise details of the imports of the subject goods for the injury period and the period of investigation. The same was received by the Authority and considered for the present disclosure statement. q. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the AD Rules, 1995 the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties for presenting their views orally regarding the subject investigation through an oral hearing held on 3rd July, 2025. The interested parties who presented their views in the oral hearing, were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. The interested parties were further directed to share the non-confidential version of the written submissions with the other interested parties. r. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the “NIP") has been determined based on the cost of production and reasonable return on capital employed for the subject goods in India, based on the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules, 1995 so as to ascertain whether anti-dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry. s. The information submitted by the domestic industry has been examined and verified to the extent deemed necessary and has been relied upon for the present disclosure statement. t. The examination and verification of the information submitted by the cooperating producers/exporters from the subject country was also carried out to the extent deemed necessary and the same has been relied upon for the purpose of the present disclosure statement. u. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested parties on mutual basis in the manner prescribed through Trade Notice no. 01/2020 dated 10th April 2020. The information/submissions provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis were examined concerning the sufficiency of such confidentiality claims. On being satisfied concerning the sufficiency of the confidentiality claims filed by the interested parties, the Authority has considered such information/submissions as confidential. In case of non-acceptance of confidentiality claims, the interested parties were directed to submit the non-confidential version of the same and circulate it to the other interested parties. v. The Authority circulated the disclosure statement containing all essential facts under consideration for making the final recommendations to the Central Government to all interested parties on 25 August 2025. The Authority has examined all the post-disclosure comments made by the interested parties in these final findings to the extent deemed relevant. Any submission which was merely a reproduction of the previous submission and which had been adequately examined by the Authority has not been repeated for the sake of brevity. w. The Authority has considered all the relevant arguments raised and information provided by all the interested parties at this stage, to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation. x. ‘***' in the disclosure statement represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under Rule 7 of AD Rules, 1995. y. The exchange rate for the POI adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US $= INR 83.70 C PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE 4. The product under consideration as defined at the stage of initiation is as follows- 3. The product under consideration in the present investigation is "Certain Cranes", (hereinafter also referred to as the "product under consideration" or the "subject goods"). The product under consideration is Cranes of the following types: a. Crawler Cranes having lifting capacity from 40 MT to 260 MT, whether in fully assembled, semi-assembled or disassembled form. b. Truck Cranes with lifting capacity from 25 MT to 160 MT, whether in fully assembled, semi-assembled or disassembled form. 4. The subject goods are used for loading / unloading, shifting of material, erection etc. at project sites like infrastructure projects, roads & bridges, refinery, cement plants and any other industrial projects. 5. The product under consideration is classified under chapter heading 8426. The subject goods are also imported in HS Codes 84264100, 84264900, 84314990, 84314390,84314920, 84314390 during injury period. The customs classification may kindly be treated as indicative, and not binding on the scope of the product under consideration. 5. The applicant has proposed the following PCN methodology: Sl. No | Type | Value | PCN Code ------|-----------------------------|---------------|----------- 1 | Category / Type of Machine | Crawler Crane | CC | | Truck Crane | TC 2 | Load Capacity in MT | 25 MT | 025 | (Illustrative) | 40 MT | 040 | | 45 MT | 045 | | 50 MT | 050 | | 55 MT | 055 | | 60 MT | 060 | | 65 MT | 065 | | 70 MT | 070 | | 75 MT | 075 | | 80 MT | 080 | | 85 MT | 085 | | 90 MT | 090 | | 100 MT etc. | 100 C.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 6. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with respect to scope of product under consideration and PCN methodology: a. Sany group has claimed that the Domestic Industry during the entire injury period and Period of investigation has only produced Crawler Cranes between 40 MT to 81 MT only and truck cranes from 25 MT to 60 MT. Accordingly, Truck Cranes above 60 MT and Crawler Cranes above 81 MT may be excluded from the scope of the investigation. The detailed product specifications along with the brochures are provided at the website of the applicant industry. b. Zoomlion has requested to exclude Crawler cranes having lifting capacity of more than 180 MT and Truck Cranes having lifting capacity of more than 100 MT from the scope of PUC as they understand that the domestic industry is not producing crawler cranes having lifting capacity of more than 180 MT and Truck Cranes having lifting capacity of more than 100 MT. There are fundamental differences in terms of technology, machinery, production process for crawler cranes having lifting capacity of more than 180 MT. c. Petitioner has specifically requested for the inclusion of only two types of cranes, i.e., truck and crawler cranes. Accordingly, all other types of cranes, such as (i) all-terrain cranes, (ii) rough terrain cranes, and (iii) telescopic boom crawler cranes, are excluded from the scope of the PUC. d. The proposed Product Control Number (PCN) methodology should account for key distinctions among cranes, especially in terms of loading capacity, boom size, and chassis structure, telescopic boom etc. There is significant cost / price difference that justifies the adoption of PCNs for the telescopic boom crane. e. Clarify that 'Standalone parts of Cranes' are not covered within the scope of the PUC. The Authority is requested to omit reference to HS codes 84314990, 84314390, 84314920 while prescribing the final scope of PUC because HS code 8431 only covers parts. f. Para. 3.10 of the Manual of Operating Practices for Trade Remedy Investigations (“DGTR Manual") states that the PUC should preferably include those items, which are produced and commercially sold in the domestic market by the respective DI. g. The product type which is not sold by the DI in commercial quantities, should not be included in the scope of the PUC. C.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 7. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the scope of the product under consideration and PCN methodology: a. Sany has claimed that domestic Industry during the entire injury period and Period of investigation has only produced Crawler Cranes between 40 MT to 81 MT only and truck cranes from 25 MT to 60 MT. On the contrary, other interested party namely Zoomlion has claimed that the domestic industry is not producing crawler cranes having lifting capacity of more than 180 MT and Truck Cranes having lifting capacity of more than 100 MT. b. The domestic industry has, as a matter of fact, manufactured and sold Crawler Cranes upto 180 MT. As regards Crawler Cranes above 180 MT, the Domestic Industry is fully competent to produce the same as they have the required technology. The same can be produced and supplied as and when any orders are received. Same is the situation with regard to Truck Cranes above 100 MT. c. Without prejudice, it is submitted that there is no requirement under the law mandating to produce each and every model. It may be noted that PUC is a customized / tailor-made high value product and not a commodity product. The domestic industry has not manufactured some models due to aggressive dumping from China PR and resultant lack of orders. It is for this reason that it is the consistent practice of the Authority to include those variants/types in the scope of the investigation which were not manufactured by the domestic industry during the POI on the ground that the domestic industry had the capability to manufacture the same and both the products are comparable. In order to substantiate their submission in this context, relevant excerpts have been reproduced from some Final Findings (illustrative) as below. Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Wheel Loaders" originating in or exported from China PR [F. No. 6/4/2022-DGTR dated 29 September, 2023] 14. With regard to the other submissions made by interested parties in relation to wheel loaders having rated payload capacity of 4,500 KG and under 2,000 KG, the Authority notes that the products covered within the scope of the PUC in an investigation need not be interchangeable. The products included are only required to be comparable. Anti-Dumping Investigations concerning imports of SDH Equipment originating in or exported from China PR and Israel [F. No. 14/2/2009-DGAD dated 19 October, 2010] 35. c. STM-256 – Admittedly, STM-256 was neither imported during the investigation period nor supplied by the domestic industry. Investigation conducted at the premises of the petitioner and foreign producers clearly showed that STM-256 can be described as the new generation SDH equipment. The investigation has not shown that if STM 256 was exported by foreign producers, the domestic industry did not offer STM-256. In fact, the interested parties agreed that technical approvals/permissions to deploy SDH-256 are not even in place in the country. The Authority observes that a claim for exclusion of a particular type cannot be entertained unless the same has been exported to India during the relevant period, as the fact of non-supply of like article by the domestic industry cannot be established unless the type is exported to India. The Authority holds that no grounds have been made out justifying exclusion of STM 256. Moreover, the investigating team was given access to STM-256 equipment, manufactured by Tejas and available in their premises in Bangalore. Tejas showed that it has made significant investment (Rs. ***** crores) so far in development of this product and claimed that the equipment could be sold only if some party placed an order for the same. Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Saturated Fatty Alcohols” originating in or exported from Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Saudi Arabia [F. No. 14/51/2016- DGAD dated 23 April, 2018] g. As regards exclusion of pure form of C12 and C14 alcohols, the Authority finds force in the argument of the domestic industry that it has produced and sold C12&C14 alcohol. In fact, C12C14 has the most demand in India. When the domestic industry has sold the blended form of these alcohols, the pure forms cannot be excluded, as such exclusion would defeat the very purpose of the duty. The Authority also takes note of the final findings of the Director General, Safeguards that these items are interchangeable and originate out of identical raw material by an identical manufacturing process. Thus, there is no warrant for the exclusion of C12 and C14 grades of fatty alcohols. d. The above findings of the Authority have been confirmed by the Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi vide Final Order No. 50010-50013/2023 dated 06.01.2023, wherein it was observed as under: “34. There is, therefore, no error in the finding recorded by the designated authority in including pure cuts C12 and C14 in the product under consideration.” Anti-dumping investigations on the imports of "Self-Adhesive Vinyl (SAV)” originating in or exported from China PR [F. No. dated 28 December, 2023] 16. As regards, certain specialty SAVs for which specific exclusion has been sought by the other interested parties on the grounds that the domestic industry has not produced and commercially sold the same, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has submitted a detailed list and proof of product types produced and sold by them, though in small quantities, because of the lack of orders due to dumped imports, and also claimed that other products can be produced in the same set of plant and equipment as and when demanded as there is no material difference in the production process for producing these product types. Examination of the production process of some of the responding exporters also shows that the process is essentially the same. Further, the Authority notes that the ratio of the case decided by the Hon'ble CESTAT Technova Imaging Systems Vs Union of India & Ors., is not applicable to this case as it has been demonstrated that the plant and equipment available with the applicant has the capability and flexibility to produce and supply all types of SAV, except the ones specifically excluded by the applicant. e. The domestic industry has the capability to manufacture all types of PUC with all load / lifting capacity. However, the actual manufacture and supply depends on the dumping from China PR and order placed by the customers. f. The Authority may exclude Truck Cranes of lifting capacity of more than 160 MT since there is no demand of the same in the Indian market. Further, it may also be noted that the demand for Truck Cranes of lifting capacity of more than 160 MT is also very limited globally. The same may be cross-checked from the import data of PUC for the period of injury. g. As regards to the submissions made by the interested parties that domestic industry has restricted the scope of Crawler Cranes to the lifting capacity of 260 MT which implies that they do not have the ability to manufacture high lifting capacity machines. In this regard the applicant has submitted that the they have restricted the scope of Crawler Cranes to the lifting capacity of 260 MT since Indian demand for Crawler Cranes with lifting capacity of more than 260 MT is very small. h. With regard to the product brochure, it has been submitted that a brochure is indicative of the running models and it is neither required by law nor there is any norm to mention each and every model / capacity that can be manufactured by the domestic industry. i. As regards exclusion of All terrain cranes, the applicant has submitted that all Terrain Crane of 160 MT and above are not covered within the scope of the PUC. However, it may be noted that All Terrain Crane is also a type of Truck crane. Accordingly, there is every possibility that producers / exporters from China PR may export Truck Cranes as All Terrain Cranes to circumvent the anti-dumping duties unless the same is defined appropriately. Therefore, the Authority has been requested to define the term “All Terrain Cranes” in the Final Findings to avoid the possibility of circumvention. j. The applicant has requested the Authority to mention the following paragraph in the final findings to avoid the possibility of circumvention. “For removal of any doubts, it is clarified that the above-mentioned “All terrain cranes” is excluded from the scope of the PUC only if it satisfies all of the above conditions concurrently."” k. Our proposal is also in line within the recent decision of the Authority in the case of Wheel Loaders Anti-dumping investigation [FF dated 29.09.2023]. l. With regard to Rough Terrain cranes, it is submitted that the Authority may clarify in the findings that the same are not covered within the scope of PUC. m. As regards Telescopic boom crawler cranes, it is submitted that the Domestic Industry has manufactured telescopic boom within the POI. The domestic industry mounts fixed boom or telescopic boom on Crawler Crane based on the requirement of a customer. Accordingly, the domestic industry can supply Crawler Cranes both with fixed boom as well as telescopic boom based on the requirement of a customer. Therefore, there is no question of excluding such cranes. n. The request made by the interested parties to consider boom size, and chassis structure etc. except telescopic boom in the PCN methodology is misleading, wrong, and hence, denied. The domestic industry submits that Cranes are described by their lifting capacity in Metric Tons (MT) and type (like Crawler / Truck / All Terrain Cranes etc.). The sizes of key parts like boom, chassis etc. increase with the increase in the load capacity of the Cranes. Accordingly, the cost / price of a Cranes also increases. The representative of Sany India has also accepted this fact during the meeting. o. None of the interested parties has provided any details to support their claim that the prices/costs vary with different Boom Length, Chassis etc. and the same are not captured by the load capacity. The claims made by the interested parties are hollow and devoid of any substance. It may be noted that as a matter of consistent practice of the Authority, PCNs are made when all the below mentioned conditions are satisfied: a) Difference in price shall be attributed to each of the parameters proposed for PCNs. Interested parties have to establish whether and to what extent the difference in the cost of production of different types / models is due to difference in the product characteristics / proposed PCN parameters and the extent to which the difference in the costs is due to time period. However, no such information has been provided by the interested parties in the present case. b) It may also be noted that the proposed PCN parameters are also not available in the import data to facilitate cross-checking of the claim of the interested parties. In the present case, the proposed PCN parameter by the interested party cannot be cross-verified from the import data. The interested parties have raised this issue only to mislead the Authority and create confusion. It is submitted that it is the sole responsibility of the party requesting for addition of any variable/attribute to the PCN to demonstrate that addition of any variable would materially affect the price comparability. No such information, let alone evidence, has been filed by any of the interested parties. The claims of the interested parties, therefore, need to be rejected outrightly. p. In order to substantiate our submission in this context, relevant excerpts from the recent Final Findings of Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Wheel Loaders" originating in or exported from China PR [F. No. 6/4/2022-DGTR dated 29 September, 2023] are provided below. The Authority has taken the same view in plethora of investigations. 33. With regard to the additional PCN parameters (such as transmission, brakes and pumps) proposed by certain interested parties, the Authority notes that the interested parties have provided no evidence to establish that these additional parameters make a notable difference to the price comparison of the PUC warranting a separate PCN parameter. In other words, no evidence has been provided to establish that the inclusion of these additional parameters would enable a fairer comparison of dumping or injury. On the other hand, the Domestic Industry has provided substantive data to demonstrate that the difference in cost of Wheel Loaders on the basis of these additional parameters suggested by the interested parties is not significant. Accordingly, after examining the submissions of the interested parties, the Authority did not deem it necessary to modify the PCN methodology. q. The Authority may include telescopic boom in the PCN methodology. r. As regards the claim made by the interested parties to clarify that 'Standalone parts of Cranes' are not covered within the scope of the PUC, it is submitted that Crawler Cranes and Truck Cranes imported only in Assembled / Semi assembled / dis-assembled forms i.e., CBU / CKD / SKD form are covered within the scope of PUC. Accordingly, the Authority may clarify that 'Standalone parts of Cranes' are not covered within the scope of the PUC. C.3. Examination by the Authority 8. The Authority has examined the submissions regarding the scope of PUC and PCN methodology made by the interested parties herein as under: 9. Interested parties have claimed exclusion of various products from the scope of the PUC. It has been noted that while Sany group has claimed that domestic Industry during the entire injury period and Period of investigation has only produced Crawler Cranes between 40 MT to 81 MT only & truck cranes from 25 MT to 60 MT, Zoomlion group has claimed that the domestic industry is not producing crawler cranes having lifting capacity of more than 180 MT and Truck Cranes having lifting capacity of more than 100 MT. The domestic industry has submitted that Authority may exclude Truck Cranes of lifting capacity of above 160 MT and Crawler Crane of more than 260 MT as the demand for the same is very limited. The domestic industry has claimed that they have not manufactured some models due to aggressive dumping from China PR and resultant lack of orders. They have further claimed that the actual manufacture and supply depends on the dumping from China PR and order placed by the customers. 10. The Authority notes that PUC is a customized / tailor-made high value product and not a commodity product. The Authority notes that the domestic industry manufactured and sold Crawler Cranes upto 180 MT during the POI.As regards Crawler Cranes of above 180 MT and Truck Cranes of above 100 MT, the Authority notes the claim of the domestic industry that they are capable of producing the same with the existing technology and infrastructure. During the on-site verification of the domestic industry, it was explained that manufacturing of PUC with higher lifting capacity does not require any additional plant & machinery and infrastructure since major process of manufacturing any lifting capacity of the PUC involves fabrication. 11. The Authority finds that the scope of the 'product concerned' directly influences the objectives and effectiveness of the investigation. An overly broad product scope may lead to unwarranted protection and introduce unnecessary complexities into the investigative process. Conversely, an overly narrow scope may fall short of addressing the issue of injurious dumping in the domestic market and could result in ongoing injury, as importers or users may circumvent the imposed remedies. 12. The Authority excludes Crawler Cranes above 260 MT and Truck Cranes above 160 MT considering the submissions made by the interested parties and the domestic industry on the scope of PUC. 13. With regard to exclusion of All terrain cranes without any lifting capacity, the authority notes that All Terrain Crane is also a type of Truck crane. From the analysis of the import data for the POI, it indicates that All Terrain Crane is mainly imported of 160 MT and above lifting capacity. All Terrain Carnes can be substituted in place of Truck Cranes to circumvent the anti-dumping duties. Therefore, it is not appropriate to exclude All Terrain Cranes below 160 MT from the scope of PUC. 14. The interested parties have requested to clarify that Rough Terrain cranes are not included within the scope of PUC. The Authority notes that the same is not covered within the scope of PUC. 15. With regard to the submissions made by the interested parties for exclusion of standalone part of cranes, the Authority notes that standalone parts of cranes are not covered within the scope of PUC. 16. As regards exclusion of telescopic boom crawler cranes, the Authority notes that the Domestic Industry has manufactured telescopic boom during the POI. The type of boom i.e., fixed or telescopic boom depends on the requirement of a customer. In such a case, telescopic boom crawler crane is not excluded from the scope of PUC. 17. The interested parties have requested to consider boom size, type of boom, chassis structure etc. in the PCN methodology. The Authority notes that Cranes are described by their lifting capacity in Metric Tons (MT) and type (like Crawler / Truck / All Terrain Cranes etc.). The sizes of key parts like boom, chassis etc. increase with the increase in the load capacity of the Cranes. The cost & price of a Crane also increases accordingly. It has been also noted that none of the interested parties have demonstrated with evidence difference in cost / price vis-à-vis each of the proposed parameters. 18. The Authority has notified the PCN methodology based on the type of Cranes (Crawler or Truck), lifting/loading capacity and type of boom (Telescopic and Non-telescopic) considering the submissions made by the interested parties and domestic industry. 19. Rule 2(d) of the Anti-Dumping Rules provides the definition of like article as under: "like article" means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation. 20. After considering the information on record, the Authority concludes that the product under consideration produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject country are comparable in terms of physical characteristics, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The goods produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject country are like articles in terms of the provisions of Anti- dumping Rules. The two are technically and commercially, substitutable. Thus, the Authority concludes that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from the subject country within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of Anti-dumping Rules. 21. Further, the Authority confirms the scope of PUC and PCN methodology as defined vide its notice dated 5th December 2024. The same is reproduced below. The product under consideration in the present investigation is “Certain Cranes”, (hereinafter also referred to as the “product under consideration” or the “subject goods”). The product under consideration is Cranes of the following types: a. Crawler Cranes having lifting capacity from 40 MT to 260 MT, whether in fully assembled, semi-assembled or disassembled form. b. Truck Cranes with lifting capacity from 25 MT to 160 MT, whether in fully assembled, semi-assembled or disassembled form. PUC Exclusions: i. Rough terrain cranes ii. “All-terrain cranes 160 MT and above" which are truck mounted cranes and designed to operate effectively on various terrains and have following key characteristics: a. 2 engines; b. hydropneumatics suspension system on all axles using hydraulic oil and compressed gas; c. steering/turning of all axles with multiple steering modes; d. mutli-axle drive on all or at least 3 Axles; e. Automatic transmission; and f. boom of more than 6 sections and telescoping achieved through single cylinder mechanism. iii. Standalone parts of cranes PCN Methodology Sl. No | Type | Value | PCN Code ------|-------------------------------|---------------|----------- 1 | Category / Type of Machine | Crawler Crane | CC | | Truck Crane | TC 2 | Type of Boom | Telescopic | TE | | Non-Telescopic| NT 3 | Load Capacity in MT | 25 MT | 025 | (Illustrative) | 30 MT | 030 | | 35 MT | 035 | | 40 MT | 040 | | 45 MT | 045 | | 50 MT | 050 | | 55 MT | 055 | | 60 MT | 060 | | 65 MT | 065 | | 70 MT | 070 | | 75 MT | 075 | | 80 MT | 080 | | 85 MT | 085 | | 90 MT | 090 | | 95 MT | 095 | | 100 MT etc. [up to 260 MT | | for Crawler Cranes and up | | to 160 MT for Truck | | Cranes] | 100 D SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING D.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 22. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the standing of the domestic industry. a. The Applicant has misrepresented the existence and role of another domestic producer, TIL Limited, which continues to operate and manufacture products within the scope of the Product Under Consideration (PUC). Contrary to the claims of the Applicant, publicly available information on the official website of the company (www.tilindia.in) clearly establishes that TIL Limited continues to be operational and engaged in the manufacture of goods that fall within the scope of the product under consideration (PUC). b. Such material information should have been disclosed by the Applicant, in accordance with Rule 5(3) of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995, which requires the Applicant to provide evidence with regard to the volume and value of domestic production. The failure to identify and disclose the existence of another known producer of the PUC within India, namely TIL Limited is a serious lapse that compromises the credibility of the Applicant's claim regarding its market dominance or representation of the domestic industry. c. TIL Limited still continues to manufacture and supply infrastructure equipment such as Truck Cranes, Crawler Cranes and Boom Lifts, which are within the same category as the PUC. The company's continued operation and its manufacturing capacity cannot be overlooked. The Authority is must consider all domestic producers of the like article, as per Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, which defines "domestic industry" to include producers accounting for a major proportion of total domestic production. d. The Users highlight TIL Limited's annual report for the POI, according to which “truck cranes & rough terrain cranes” are the primary products produced at its Kamarhatty factory. TIL Limited's website also invites quotes for multiple variants of truck cranes. e. TIL Limited's omission from the application violates Rule 5(3) and undermines the claim that the Applicant represents the entire domestic industry. As per Rule 2(b) all domestic producers must be considered and the Authority should seek data from TIL Limited to ensure a complete injury analysis. D.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 23. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the domestic industry and standing: a. The applicant is the sole producer of the subject goods in India during the Period of Investigation as well as the period of injury. b. Other producers engaged in the manufacturing of the subject goods like Tractor India Ltd. (TIL), Kobellco, Escort Tadano, ABG Crane and Tata Hitachi stopped production of the subject goods on account of aggressive dumping from China PR. c. TIL is engaged in the manufacturing of other types of Cranes and not PUC during the period of investigation and injury period. Thus, the applicant accounts for 100% of the Indian production. d. It is also submitted that the applicant has not imported the subject goods from the subject country during the period of injury. Moreover, the applicant is not related to any importer or exporter of the subject goods during POI. In view of the above facts, the Authority has rightly considered the applicant as an eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Anti-dumping Rules, 1995 read with Rule 5(3). D.3. Examination by the Authority 24. Rule 2 (b) of the AD rules defines the "domestic industry" as under: "(b) "domestic industry" means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry' may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers”. 25. The interested parties have claimed that the applicant has misrepresented the existence and role of another domestic producer, TIL Limited, which continues to operate and manufacture products within the scope of the Product Under Consideration (PUC). The Authority notes that the present application has been filed by Action Construction Equipment Ltd. (ACE). The applicant has claimed in its application that it is the sole producer of the subject goods in India during the POI. The applicant has also submitted that Tractor India Ltd. (TIL) was engaged in the manufacturing of the subject goods. Further, it has claimed that TIL stopped production of the subject goods on account of aggressive dumping from China PR. The applicant has also shared the details of TIL in its application. It is also noted that none of the domestic companies including TIL have filed any submissions claiming that they are manufacturer of the subject goods in the period of investigation. 26. The Authority had published the notice of initiation in the official gazette of India inviting all interested parties to provide the data relevant to the investigation which includes any domestic producer of PUC. None of the alleged domestic producers have come forward and given the relevant data to the Authority for the purposes of investigation. Further, Authority notes that interested parties including user industry/association have failed to substantiate with any evidence like sales invoices etc. indicating production and sales of PUC by TIL. Therefore, the claim of other interested parties that TIL is one of the producers of PUC and the applicant has suppressed the facts, is not tenable. 27. The applicant has declared that it is neither related to any producer/exporter of the product under consideration in China PR; nor it is related to any importer in India. The Authority notes that the applicant has not imported the product under consideration from the subject country as evidenced from the analysis of the imports data. 28. Therefore, considering the information on record the Authority notes that the applicant constitutes domestic industry within the meaning of Rule2(b) of the Rules, and that the applicant satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rules 5(3) of the Rules. E CONFIDENTIALITY E.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 29. The interested parties have made the following submission on confidentiality: a. The domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality. b. The information for which confidentiality has been claimed is genuinely commercially sensitive, and its public disclosure would cause significant competitive prejudice. For all such confidential information, non-confidential summaries have been provided to the extent feasible, allowing for a reasonable understanding of the substance, as required by the Anti- Dumping Rules. E.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 30. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the confidentiality claims: a. The producer / exporters and other interested parties have claimed confidentiality on the essential information like name of shareholders, list of products, channel of trade etc. b. The domestic industry has not claimed excessive confidentiality of information and has disclosed sufficient information in the non-confidential version of the application as per the practice of the Authority. E.3. Examination by the Authority 31. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by various interested parties to all interested parties for inspection through e-mail communication between various parties. 32. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of the AD Rules, 1995 provides as follows: “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorisation 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 summarisation is not possible. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorise its disclosure in a generalised or summary form, it may disregard such information.” 33. Submissions made by the domestic industry and other opposing interested parties with regard to confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed accordingly. The Authority notes that the information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was duly 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 also notes that all interested parties have claimed their business-related sensitive information as confidential. F MISCELLANEOUS F.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 34. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with respect to the miscellaneous issues: a. The Authority to expressly note in the Final Findings that Anhui Liugong Crane Co., Ltd. has not exported subject goods to India during the POI and will be eligible for new shipper review in the future in accordance with Rule 22 of the Anti-dumping Rules. b. The inclusion of credit cost in the calculation of landed value is neither legally justified nor supported by the applicable statutory framework. The landed value of the product under consideration (PUC) in India is the CIF price plus basic customs duty and relevant surcharges, as applicable. c. Omit HS codes 84314990, 84314390, 84314920 from the definition of the PUC as HS code 8431 only covers parts. d. The reason for the continued reliance on imports from China PR is the superior quality and safety standards of imported goods. The Applicant's products have been reported to fall below prevailing industry benchmarks in terms of both performance and safety. e. The respondents have duly submitted all required appendices and questionnaire responses, addressed all deficiency letters and provided verification documents to the Authority promptly as and when requested. It is further submitted that in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Gypsum Board/Tiles with lamination on at least one side" originating in or exported from China PR and Oman the authority assigned an individual dumping margin to Global Gypsum Board Co., LLC an Oman-based company operating in a market economy even though it did not submit Appendix-7 and Appendix-8, which pertain to cost data. F.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 35. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the miscellaneous issues: a. With regard to omission of HS codes 84314990, 84314390, 84314920, it is submitted that there is no question of omission of any HS Codes as it is a matter of record that the PUC was also imported under the said Codes during the period of injury. Further, it is submitted that the duty is imposed based on product description and not on HS codes, which are only for indicative purpose. Accordingly, the domestic industry humbly requests the Authority not to omit the HS codes, as requested by the interested parties, from the definition of the PUC. b. The objective of the present investigation is not to examine the eligibility of an exporter for new shipper review. The Authority has taken the same view in plethora of investigations. In order to substantiate our view in this context, kind attention of the Authority is invited to anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Caprolactam" originating in or exported from European Union, Korea RP, Russia and Thailand [F. No. 6/39/2020 dated 27 September, 2021]. Accordingly, the domestic industry requests the Authority not to accept the request made by Liugong China PR. The relevant excerpts of the investigation are reproduced below for the ease of reference of the Authority. 29. The Authority notes that the objective of the present investigation is not examination of whether the exporter is eligible for new shipper review. The exporter is free to lodge its claim in accordance with the law in the event of imposition of duty and seek individual dumping margin. c. The claim made by the interested parties that the calculation of landed value is neither legally justified nor supported by the applicable statutory framework is wrong, illogical and hence, denied. The domestic industry submits as under as per its market intelligence: a) The producers / exporters / importers of the subject goods are offering credit period of as high as three (3) years. b) The producers / exporters / importers of the subject goods are giving post-imports discounts and rebates to undercut the prices of the Domestic Industry. c) The producers / exporters have their related importers / subsidiaries / joint ventures, who are trading the subject goods in the Indian market below their purchase price i.e., at losses. d. The producers / exporters / importers may not have correctly reported the credit terms / cost, post-imports discounts / rebates and losses in their questionnaire response. In such a case, the landed value is not reflective of the actual price paid / payable by the importer. e. The law enables the Authority to the examine whether the exports made by the producers / exporters were in the ordinary course of trade or not in case there is an association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or a third party. All importers in the present investigation are related to the producers / exporters, which is a peculiar situation. We request the Authority to kindly thoroughly examine the business nexus between the producers / exporters and their related importers. f. To thoroughly check the payment documents as they apprehend that the related importers / exporters may have not made the payment and the transaction between producers / exporters and their related importers are dummy. It was requested to make appropriate adjustment in the export price / landed value to calculate dumping and injury margins. The relevant excerpt of the law is reproduced below. 9(A)(1)(b) “export price”, in relation to an article, means the price of the article exported from the exporting country or territory and in cases where there is no export price or where the export price is unreliable because of association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or a third party, the export price may be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported articles are first resold to an independent buyer or if the article is not resold to an independent buyer, or not resold in the condition as imported, on such reasonable basis as may be determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); g. The Authority in plethora of investigation made adjustments in the export price / landed value on account of credit cost, losses incurred by importer etc. to ascertain the effective export price and/or the landed value. In order to substantiate their claim in the context, the relevant text from the anti-dumping Investigation concerning imports of Aluminium and Zinc coated flat products" originating in or exported from China PR, Vietnam and Korea RP [F. No. 6/4/2019-DGTR dated 21 February, 2020] were reproduced below. 86. It is noted from the response filed by above mentioned POSCO subsidiaries in India that together, they have incurred a loss during the sale of the subject goods imported from their parent company i.e., POSCO through different trading channels as mentioned above. As their sales price of subject goods are lower than their purchase price which includes import prices and SGA of the subsidiaries, suitable adjustment has been made from their landed price and net export price. Further adjustments have been allowed on account of ocean freight, inland freight, insurance, credit costs, packing costs and port and other related expenses. The net export price as determined is given in the dumping margin table. 160. As mentioned in the dumping margin analysis in this Findings, it is noted from the response filed by some of the producers and exporters from Korea RP that their wholly owned Indian subsidiaries in India have incurred a loss during the sale of the subject goods imported from their parent companies through different trading channels. As their sales price of subject goods are lower than their purchase price which included import prices and SGA of the Indian subsidiaries, suitable adjustment has been made from their landed price. h. To thoroughly examine the above issues and not accept the response filed by the producers / exporters and their related importers / subsidiaries / joint ventures in the event they have not fully disclosed the above-mentioned information and also not to grant them individual margins. F.3. Examination by the Authority 36. Anhui Liugong Crane Co., Ltd. has requested to expressly note in the Final Findings that it has not exported subject goods to India during the POI, and therefore, will be eligible for new shipper review in the future in accordance with Rule 22 of the Anti-dumping Rules. The Authority notes that the objective of the present investigation is not examination of whether the exporter is eligible for new shipper review. The exporter is free to lodge its claim in accordance with the law in the event of imposition of duty and seek individual dumping margin. 37. With regard to omission of HS codes 84314990, 84314390, 84314920, the Authority notes that the duty is imposed based on product description and not on HS codes, which are only for indicative purpose. 38. As regard the claim made by the domestic industry to make adjustments of credit cost of producers and exporters from subject countries, it is noted that the it has always been the consistent practice of the Authority to adjust such credit cost in the calculation of Net export price. 39. With regard to the issue raised by the interested parties on the quality of the product, it may be noted that no conclusive evidence has been provided by the interested parties to prove that the PUC manufactured by the domestic industry are not like article to their product. G NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE & DUMPING MARGIN G.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 40. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to normal value, export price and dumping margin: a. Complete questionnaire response has been filed and have provided complete information regarding its normal value and export price. b. The Authority should determine individual dumping margin and injury margin based on actual information provided by Respondent. c. Hunan Zoomlion International Trade Co. Ltd. is not involved in production of PUC and/or exports of PUC to India. Therefore, there is no requirement for Hunan Zoomlion International Trade Co. Ltd. to file questionnaire response. Therefore, export value chain of Respondents to India is complete. d. The producers / exporters have not claimed MET and Normal value may be determined based on principle of paragraph 7 of Annexure I of the AD Rules. G.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 41. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to normal value and export price: a. China PR has to be presumed to be a non-market economy country in terms of Para 8 of Annexure I of the Anti-dumping Rules, as it has been treated as a non-market economy country for purposes of plethora of anti-dumping investigations by the Designated Authority or also by other competent authorities of WTO member countries during the preceding three years unless the concerned firms / producers / exporters are able to rebut the said presumption based on the criteria laid down in Para 8(2). b. The normal value for Chinese firms should be determined as per the provisions of Para 7 of the Annexure I. The Applicants tried to get the information of the domestic prices in China PR. However, the applicants were not in a position to obtain any price details for the subject goods in the subject countries, as this information is not available in the public domain. Therefore, the domestic industry has constructed the normal value for the same on the basis of price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, to include a reasonable profit margin. c. The producers / exporters have not filed questionnaire response for all companies engaged in the manufacturing / sales of the subject merchandise in the Indian and their domestic market. As per their understanding, the following companies engaged in the manufacturing / sales of the subject goods have not filed the questionnaire response. XCMG Group • XCMG Marketing Co. • Jiangsu XCMG E-commerce Co. • XCMG, Construction Machinery Co. Ltd. • XCMG Mining Machinery Co. SANY Group • SANY Crawler Crane Industrial Park • Turbo Fly Machine Engineering Limited • China Wealth Hongkong Machine Limited • SANY Mobile Crane & Tower Crane Industrial Park ZOOMLION Group • Hunan Zoomlion International Trade Co., Ltd d. To thoroughly examine this issue and not to accept the response of the producers / exporters in the event the value chain is not complete as per the consistent practice of the Authority. e. As per their understanding, Sany group and XCMG group have not filed complete questionnaire response. Producers / exporters have accepted during the oral hearing that they have not filed appendix 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. They claimed that these formats are not required to be filed since they are not claiming market economy status, which is completely wrong and misleading. f. The above-mentioned formats are mandatory to be filed by all producers / exporters whether they are claiming market economy status or not. The interested parties have not cited any law under which they are exempt from filing the above-mentioned questionnaire formats. In view of the above, the domestic industry requested not to accept the response filed by XCMG, Sany and Zoomlion group as otherwise it would promote malpractices and set a bad precedence. G.3. Examination by the Authority 42. As regard the issue raised by the domestic industry that the value chain of the cooperating producers / exporters is not complete, it is noted that from the response filed by the cooperating producers / exporters that the all companies engaged in the exports sale channel to India have filed the response and therefore, the value chain is complete. 43. The domestic industry has claimed that the producers / exporters Sany group and XCMG group have not filed complete questionnaire response. It is noted from Questionnaire response of the SANY group that they have not filed appendix 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Same has been accepted by the SANY group during the oral hearing. The Authority notes that appendix 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are mandatory formats in term of Trade Notice no. 06/2021 dated 29th July, 2021(hereinafter referred to as Trade Notice) and are required to be filed in all cases. No relaxation is provided in the said Trade Notice to the producers / exporters from China PR. 44. It is further noted that the producers / exporters based in a non-market economy country do not have to file only supplementary questionnaire on market economy conditions in case they decide not to claim market economy status. The Authority notes that it is clearly mentioned in instructions no. 8 (i) of the Trade Notice that “In case of non-market economy countries, where the participating producers/exporters have not claimed market economy treatment, only those related producers involved in the production of PUC whose product has been exported to India are required to furnish information in Part I, II and III." Appendix 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are covered in Part III of the exporters' questionnaire format prescribed via Trade Notice. 45. The Authority also notes that the information requested in the above-mentioned appendices are relevant to infer / validate correctness of the adjustments claimed in Appendix 3A / 3B as well as the cost of production of cooperating producers / exporters. It has been noted that only Sany group has not filed appendix 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. In such a case, the response filed by Sany group cannot be accepted. 46. The Authority notes that XCMG Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd. (Related Exporter) had mentioned credit terms as “***” in appendix 3B of its questionnaire response. Further, it has been also noted that for invoice no. ***, the exporter has claimed credit term as “***” in appendix 3B while from the perusal of the sales contract enclosed with their questionnaire response, it is revealed that the credit term for this invoice is “***”. The related exporter has revised the credit term after explanation for the difference in the credit term reported in Appendix 3B and sample sales documents were sought by the Authority. 47. The Authority notes that credit cost is an important factor in this case as very long and exceptional credit period of as long as three years is provided by the related exporter to the related importer, which is not normal. The exporter has clearly mis declared the credit terms in its questionnaire response. Further, it has been noted that the related exporter has not provided credit cost in its questionnaire response despite the fact that it is clearly mentioned in the Trade Notice that credit cost is to be provided in Appendix 3A / 3B. 48. It has been also noted that the related exporter has also not provided the English version of the payment advice despite the fact that it is clearly mentioned in the Trade Notice that all documents and source material submitted in response to this questionnaire must be in English. The same cannot be reconciled with the invoices. It is further observed that there is a mismatch between the PCNS claimed by the exporter and related producers. In such a case, the response filed by XCMG group cannot be accepted. Normal value 49. Article 15 of China's Accession Protocol in WTO provides as follows: Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") and the SCM Agreement shall apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the following: (a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: (i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining price comparability; (ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. (b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO member may then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China. (c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. (d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provision of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector." 50. It is noted that while the provision contained in Article 15 (a) (ii) have expired on 11.12.2016, the provision under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO, read with obligation under 15 (a) (i) of the Accession Protocol require the criterion stipulated in Para 8 of the Annexure I of the Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire on claiming the market economy status. 51. As none of the producers from China PR have filed a supplementary questionnaire on market economy conditions questionnaire response, the normal value has been determined in accordance with para 7 of Annexure I to the Rules which read as under: “7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated Authority in a reasonable manner keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in question and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of the selection. Account shall also be taken within time limits; where appropriate, of the investigation if any made in similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments. 8. (1) The term "non-market economy country" means any country which the designated Authority determines as not operating on market principles of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchandise in such country do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise, in accordance with the criteria specified in subparagraph (3). (2) There shall be a presumption that any country that has been determined to be, or has been treated as, a non-market economy country for purposes of an antidumping investigation by the designated Authority or by the competent Authority of any WTO member country during the three-year period preceding the investigation is a non- market economy country. Provided, however, that the non- market economy country or the concerned firms from such country may rebut such presumption by providing information and evidence to the designated Authority that establishes that such country is not a non-market economy country on the basis of the criteria specified in sub- paragraph (3). (3) The designated Authority shall consider in each case the following criteria as to whether: (a) the decisions of the concerned firms in such country regarding prices, costs and inputs, including raw materials, cost of technology and labour, output, sales and investment, are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand and without significant State interference in this regard, and whether costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values; (b) the production costs and financial situation of such firms are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in particular in relation to depreciation of assets, other write-offs, barter trade and payment vid compensation of debts; (c) such firms are subject to bankruptcy and property laws which guarantee legal certainty and stability for the operation of the firms, and (d) the exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate. Provided, however, that where it is shown by sufficient evidence in writing on the basis of the criteria specified in this paragraph that market conditions prevail for one or more such firms subject to anti-dumping investigations, the designated the Authority may apply the principles set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 instead of the principles set out in paragraph 7 and in this paragraph. (4) Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub-paragraph (2), the designated Authority may treat such country as market economy country which, on the basis of the latest detailed evaluation of relevant criteria, which includes the criteria specified in sub paragraph (3), has been, by publication of such evaluation in a public document, treated or determined to be treated as a market economy country for the purposes of anti- dumping investigations, by a country which is a Member of the World Trade Organization 52. Para 7 lays down hierarchy for determination of normal value and provides that normal value shall be determined on the basis of price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to any other country, including India, or where it is not possible, on any reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like article, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. Thus, the Authority notes that the normal value is required to be determined having regard to the various sequential alternatives provided under Annexure-I. 53. It is to be noted that no information/evidence has been provided by the parties for the construction of the normal value on the basis of the first and second methods. In the absence of the above information/evidence, the Authority is unable to determine normal value on the basis of the first or second method. Therefore, the Authority has decided to construct normal value based on the third method, i.e., on any other reasonable basis including the price actually paid or payable in India during the period of investigation. The Authority has constructed the normal value on the basis of the price paid or payable in India. G.1.1.1 Export Price Export price for Hunan Zoomlion Crawler Crane Co., Limited (Related Producer), Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science and Technology Co. Ltd. (Related Producer / Trader), Zoomlion International Trading (H.K) Co. Ltd. (Related Trader), Zoomlion India Private Ltd. (Related Importer) 54. The Authority notes that Hunan Zoomlion Crawler Crane Co., Limited and Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science and Technology Co. Ltd. are related producers / exporters, which have exported *** Machines indirectly through related exporter Zoomlion International Trading (H.K) Co. Ltd. to related Indian customer Zoomlion India Private Ltd. The producer / exporter has filed complete response and have provided the information to determine the Net Export Price (NEP). The expenses on account of ocean freight, inland freight, credit cost etc. have been reduced from their export prices. The weighted average net ex-factory export price, after adjustment of the above expenses, is determined and is shown in dumping margin table below. Export Price for non-cooperating producers/exporters 55. For all other producers/ exporters of China PR, export price has been determined based on facts available in terms of 6(8) of the AD Rules. The normal value and export price for all non- cooperating producers and exporters of China PR is mentioned in the dumping margin table below: Dumping Margin 56. Considering the normal value and the export price for the subject goods, the dumping margin for the subject goods from the subject country is determined as follows: Dumping margin table Producer's/ exporter's | NV per | NEP per | Dumping | Dumping | Dumping name | unit | unit | margin | margin | margin | (USD/NOS)| (USD/NOS)| per unit | % | % | | | (USD/NOS) | | range -----------------------|----------|----------|------------|---------|---------- Zoomlion Heavy Industry| *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 Science and Technology Co. Ltd. Hunan Zoomlion Crawler | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 Crane Co., Ltd. Others | *** | *** | *** | *** | 100-110 H METHODOLOGY FOR INJURY DETERMINATION, EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK H.1. Submissions made by the other interested parties 57. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to injury and causal link: a. There is no material injury to the Domestic Industry on account of imports from subject countries. The Company has excelled in every financial aspect, achieving its highest-ever revenue, profit and profit margins. Compared to FY23, total income surged by an impressive 36% to ` 2,991 Crores, EBITDA soared by 83% to` 480 Crores, and Profit after Tax witnessed a growth of 90% to`328 Crores. Our EPS continues its upward trajectory. b. The Company has demonstrated substantial growth in both volume and value, further bolstering its balance sheet position." Cranes represented 72.28% of the Domestic Industry's gross turnover in the POI. c. Domestic Industry utilizes outdated technologies for the production of the PUC which in turn increases operational costs. Conversely, producers of the PUC from China PR possess technologies for manufacturing of the PUC which are more advanced than those used by the Domestic Industry. As a result, developers in construction projects are inherently disincentivized from procuring the PUC from the Domestic Industry. This is further supported by the fact that the Domestic Industry's closing inventory increased by approximately 500% between the base year (FY 2021-22 in this case) and the POI. d. The notable surge in both import volumes and the overall demand index unequivocally demonstrates that the growth in imports is necessary to meet the increase in demand. e. During the oral hearing held on 3rd July 2025 the applicant explicitly acknowledged that it is not incurring any financial losses and in fact earning a nominal profit. f. The Domestic Industry has mentioned in the petition that there has been reduction in their domestic sales of subject goods. The Respondents assert that the reported reduction in the sales volume of the subject goods by the Domestic Industry during the POI is directly attributable to an overall contraction in market demand, and not to any injurious effects of dumped imports. g. The Domestic Industry's financial data reveals a significant and unexplained increase in capital employed throughout the injury investigation period, which occurred without any corresponding increase in production capacity. h. The increase in imports into the domestic market is not a cause of injury to the Domestic Industry but rather a direct and commensurate response to a substantial increase in domestic demand. Furthermore, the Domestic Industry itself is exhibiting robust performance across various key economic parameters, thereby precluding any finding of material injury attributable to the subject imports. i. Data submitted by the Applicant demonstrates that its domestic selling price has consistently increased over the injury period including during the Period of Investigation (POI). This upward trend in prices has occurred despite a reported decline in overall demand implying that the Applicant has not suffered any price depression or suppression due to the presence of allegedly dumped imports. H.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 58. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal link: a. Imports from China PR increased significantly from 243 Machines in the base year to 961 Machines in the POI i.e., by around 295%. This substantial increase in imports from China PR clearly shows the injurious impact of imports on the financial performance of the Domestic Industry. b. Imports of the subject goods from China PR accounts for 100% of the total imports of the subject goods during the POI. c. Share of imports from China PR in demand is as high as 97%. The share of China PR increased by 12% in the POI as compared to the base year. However, during the same period the share of the domestic sales of the applicant in demand declined by 77% despite increase in the overall demand. d. There is significant variation in the cost / price of the product types / PCNs of the subject goods. Accordingly, the domestic industry has considered the landed value of only those PCNS imported from China PR, which were manufactured & sold by the domestic industry in domestic market for the purpose of the price undercutting to ensure fair comparison. The price undercutting is not only positive but also significant. e. The comparison of cost of sales and selling price clearly shows that the domestic selling price of the subject goods is not increased in the POI in proportion of the increase in the cost of the sales of the Domestic Industry. Resultantly, the profitability of the Domestic Industry declined significantly. f. The productivity declined on account of decline in the production due to increase in the dumped imports from China PR (declined by 27% in the POI as compared to the base year). g. The sales quantity of the Domestic Industry declined significantly by 18% in the POI as compared to the base year. h. The ROCE declined significantly from 255 (index points) in FY 21-22 to 89 (index points) in the POI. i. The dumping margin and injury margins are not only positive but also significant. j. The claim made by the interested parties that the domestic industry has excelled in every financial aspect, achieving its highest-ever revenue, profit and profit margins during the POI as compared to FY23 is misleading, and hence, denied. The claim made by the interested parties is based on the information provided in the Annual Report of the domestic industry, which includes NPUC. It is submitted that the domestic industry is engaged in the manufacturing of multiple types of Cranes. However, the scope of PUC includes only Crawler Cranes and Truck Cranes. The domestic industry has filed the actual injury information of the PUC with the Authority, which clearly shows that the domestic industry has suffered material injury on account of imports of PUC from subject countries. H.3. Examination by the Authority 59. The interested parties have claimed that there is no material injury to the Domestic Industry on account of imports from subject countries since the domestic industry has excelled in every financial aspect, achieving its highest-ever revenue, profit and profit margins in POI as compared to FY 23. The Authority notes that the domestic industry is also engaged in the manufacturing of other types of Cranes, which are outside the scope of PUC. In such a case, the submissions made by the interested parties on the profitability of the domestic industry considering the overall financial information provided in their annual report is incorrect. As regards capital employed, it has been noted that the increase is on account of increase in the working capital and non-current assets other than plant & machinery, which do not increase the productivity. 60. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that injury determination shall involve an examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, “......taking into account all the relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on the domestic producers of such articles..." In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped 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. 61. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II to the Rules. 62. The Authority has taken note of the various submissions made by the domestic industry and the other interested parties on injury and causal link. The submissions made by interested parties with regard to injury and causal link, which have been considered relevant by the Authority are examined and addressed as under. 63. The Authority notes that it is not necessary that all parameters of injury show deterioration. Some parameters may show deterioration, while some others may not. The Authority considers all injury parameters and, thereafter, determines whether the domestic industry has suffered injury or is likely to suffer injury due to dumping. The Authority has examined the injury parameters objectively considering the facts and arguments submitted by the domestic industry and other interested parties. H.3.1.Volume effect of the dumped imports a) Assessment of Demand 64. The Authority has determined the demand or the apparent consumption of the product in India, as the sum of domestic sales of the domestic industry, other domestic producer and imports from all sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table below. Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI ------------------------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|--- Sales of domestic industry | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 65 | 109 | 82 Imports from China PR | NOS | 163 | 667 | 949 | 938 Trend | Indexed | 100 | 409 | 582 | 575 Imports from other countries | NOS | 1 | 2 | 11 | 0 Trend | Indexed | 100 | 200 | 1100 | 0 Sales of Other domestic producers | NOS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 Trend | Indexed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 Total Demand | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 349 | 504 | 488 65. The Authority notes as follows: • The imports of the subject goods from China PR increased significantly from 100 index points in the base year to 575 index points in the POI. • The sales of the domestic industry declined by 18 index points in the POI as compared to the base year. Further, it has been also noted that the sales of the domestic industry declined by 27 index points in the POI as compared to the FY 22-23. The sales of the domestic industry in the POI also declined as compared to the FY 20-21 (base year). • The demand of the subject goods increased significantly from 100 index points in the base year to 488 index points in the POI. b) Import volume and share of the subject country 66. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or in relation to production or consumption in India. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied upon the transaction-wise data from DGCI&S. The import volumes of the subject goods and share of the same during the injury investigation period are as follows: Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI ----------------------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|--- Imports from China PR | NOS | 163 | 667 | 949 | 938 Trend | Indexed | 100 | 409 | 582 | 575 Total Imports into India | NOS | 164 | 669 | 960 | 938 Trend | Indexed | 100 | 408 | 585 | 572 Production of Domestic Industry | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 115 | 121 | 94 Demand | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 349 | 504 | 488 Subject country imports in relation to Total Imports | % | 99.4% | 99.7% | 98.9% | 100.0% Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 99 | 101 Production of Domestic Industry | % | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 355 | 480 | 613 Demand | % | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 117 | 116 | 118 67. The Authority notes as follows: • The share of imports of the subject goods from China PR in relation to the domestic production increased significantly from 100 index points in the base year to 613 index points in the POI. The share of imports of the subject goods from China PR in relation to the domestic production increased throughout the period of injury. • Imports from China PR increased significantly during the period of injury. The share of imports of the subject goods from China PR in the demand increased significantly from 100 index points in the base year to 118 index points in the POI. H.3.2.Price effect of the dumped imports 68. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is required to be analysed whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped 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 normal course. 69. Accordingly, the impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject country has been examined with reference to price undercutting and price suppression/depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis, the cost of sales and the net sales realization (NSR) of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed price of the subject imports from the subject country. a) Price undercutting 70. The price undercutting during the POI is noted below for the PCNs manufactured by DI for the sake of fair comparison: Particulars | UOM | Price Undercutting -------------------|---------|-------------------- Landed Price | Rs/NOS | 12136571 Net Sales Realization | Rs/NOS | *** Price Undercutting | Rs/NOS | *** Price Undercutting | % | *** Range | Range | 0%-10% 71. The Authority notes that the landed price of subject imports in the POI is below the selling price of the domestic industry and is undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. b) Price suppression/depression 72. To determine whether the dumped imports are suppressing or depressing the domestic prices and whether the effect of such imports is to depress domestic prices to a significant degree or prevent increases in domestic prices which otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree, the Authority notes the changes in the costs and prices over the injury period for the PCNs manufactured by DI for the sake of fair comparison. Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI ----------------------------|---------|------------|------------|------------|-------- Cost of Sales | Rs/NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Index | 100 | 99 | 112 | 118 Sales Realisation | Rs/NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Index | 100 | 103 | 111 | 115 Landed Price (PCNS manufactured by DI) | Rs/NOS | 11022558 | 14126849 | 11731707 | 12136571 Trend | Index | 100 | 128 | 106 | 110 73. The Authority notes that the landed price of imports of subject goods from the subject country during FY 2022-23 and POI was below the cost of sales as well as sales realisation of the domestic industry. This has created a significant price suppression effect on the domestic industry. The cost of sales of the domestic industry has increased by 19 indexed points in the POI as compared to 2021-22, whereas the landed value declined during the same period by 18 index points. The sales realisation is below cost of sales during POI. H.3.3.Economic parameters pertaining to the domestic industry 74. Annexure II of the Rules lays down that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of the consequent impact of dumped imports on the domestic producers of such products. The Rules further provide for an objective evaluation of all relevant economic parameters and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity: factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of margin of dumping actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. Accordingly, various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed herein below. a) Capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic sales 75. The details of capacity, production, capacity utilization, domestic sales and average inventory of the domestic industry over the injury period are as under: Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI --------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--- Installed Capacity | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 Production (PUC) | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 115 | 121 | 94 Capacity Utilisation | % | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 115 | 121 | 94 Domestic Sales | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 65 | 109 | 82 Average Inventory | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 200 | 400 76. The Authority notes as follows: • The production and capacity utilisation of the domestic industry declined by 27 index points in the POI as compared to the FY 2022-23 despite significant increase in the demand. The capacity utilisation of the domestic industry is very low. • There is a decline in the domestic sales of the domestic industry by 18 index points in the POI as compared to the base year, Further, it has been declined by 27 index points in the POI as compared to FY 2022-23. • The average inventory increased significantly from 100 index points in the base year to 400 index points in the POI on account of dumping from China PR. b) Market share 77. Information with respect to market share over the injury period is as under: Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI ---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--- Imports from China PR| NOS | 163 | 667 | 949 | 938 Trend | Indexed | 100 | 409 | 582 | 575 Imports from | NOS | 1 | 2 | 11 | 0 other countries Trend | Indexed | 100 | 200 | 1100 | 0 Sales of the Domestic| NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Industry Trend | Indexed | 100 | 65 | 109 | 82 Total Demand | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 349 | 504 | 488 Market Share of | % | *** | *** | *** | *** Domestic Industry Trend | Indexed | 100 | 19 | 22 | 17 Market Share of | % | *** | *** | *** | *** Imports from China PR Trend | Indexed | 100 | 117 | 116 | 118 78. The Authority notes as follows: • Imports of subject goods from China PR increased from 100 index points in base year to 575 index points in the POI. • Imports from China PR increased significantly during the period of injury. The share of imports of the subject goods from China PR in the demand increased significantly from 100 index points in the base year to 118 index points in the POI. The share of imports of the subject goods from China PR in the domestic production increased throughout the period of injury. • The market share of the domestic industry declined significantly from 100 index points in the base year to 17 index points in the POI. The market share of the domestic industry declined throughout the period of injury. c) Profitability, cash profits, and return on investments 79. Information with respect to profitability, return on investment and cash profits during the injury period is as under: Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI -----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--- Profit before Tax | Rs./NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | -100 | 1122 | -208 | -981 Profit before Tax | Rs Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | -100 | 761 | -226 | -808 Cash Profit | Rs Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 269 | 14 | -197 Return on Capital Employed | % | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 182 | 0 | -42 80. The Authority notes as follows: • The losses of the domestic industry intensified in the POI due to dumping from China PR. The loss per unit increased from (100) index points in the base year to (808) index points in the POI. • The cash profit of 100 index points in the base year turned to (197) in the POI. • The positive ROCE in the based year turned to negative in the POI. The ROCE of 100 index points in the base year turned to (42) in the POI. d) Inventory 81. Information with respect to inventory over the injury period is as under: Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI -------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--- Average Inventory | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 100 | 200 | 400 82. The Authority notes that inventory of the domestic industry has increased in the POI on account of significant increase in the imports from China PR. e) Productivity, employment, and wages 83. Information with respect to productivity, employment, and wages over the injury period is as under: Particulars | UOM | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI -------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--- Productivity per day | NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 115 | 121 | 94 Productivity per employee| NOS | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 114 | 112 | 73 No. of employees | Nos. | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 101 | 108 | 129 Salaries & Wages | Rs Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 97 | 89 | 81 84. The productivity of the domestic industry declined significantly in the POI as compared to FY 2022- 23 and previous years. f) Growth 85. The details relating to growth parameters are provided below. Particulars | UOM | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI -----------------------|-----|---------|---------|--- Production | % | 15% | 5% | -23% Domestic Sales | % | -35% | 68% | -24% PBT (Per Unit) | % | 1122% | -120% | -373% Cash Profit (Lacs) | % | 169% | -95% | -1553% ROI | % | 82% | -100% | -14732% Market Share of DI in Demand | % | -81% | 17% | -22% Inventory | % | 0% | 300% | 100% 86. The Authority notes that the losses of the domestic industry increased significantly in POI as well as FY 22-23. The production of the domestic industry declined significantly in the POI. The domestic industry is not able to fetch remunerative selling price on account of dumping of the PUC from China PR. Further, it has been noticed that the cash profits, ROI, market shared have also declined during the same period. g) Factors affecting domestic prices 87. The examination of the import prices from the subject countries, change in the cost structure, competition in the domestic market, factors other than dumped imports that might be affecting the prices of the domestic industry in the domestic market, etc. shows that the landed value of imported material from the subject country is below the selling price of the domestic industry, causing price undercutting. The price undercutting has led to price suppression in the Indian market. The demand of the subject goods increased over the injury period and therefore it could not have been a factor affecting domestic prices. h) Ability to raise capital investments 88. The Authority notes that the ability of the domestic industry to raise any further capital investment is significantly curtailed owing to the dumped imports of subject goods into India. The losses of the company increased significantly in the POI as compared to FY 22-23. In such a case, the domestic industry is not in a position to raise further capital investments. i) Magnitude of dumping margin 89. It is seen that the dumping margin is more than de minimis and is significant. I NON-ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS 90. As per the AD Rules, the Authority, inter-alia, is required to examine any known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same time are injuring the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by these other factors may not be attributed to the dumped imports. The factors which may be relevant in this respect include, inter-alia, the volume and prices of the imports not sold at dumped prices, contraction in the demand or changes in the patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and the productivity of the domestic industry. It has been examined below whether factors other than dumped imports could have contributed to the injury. a) Volume and price of imports from third countries 91. The Authority notes that there are no imports of the subject goods from non-subject countries during the POI. b) Contraction in Demand 92. There has been constant increase in the demand of the product concerned throughout the injury period except a marginal decline in POI as compared to FY 2022-23. Therefore, contraction in demand cannot be a cause of injury to the domestic industry. c) Export Performance and Captive Consumption 93. The Authority has considered the data for domestic operations only for its injury analysis. The injury information examined hereinabove relates only to the performance of the domestic industry in terms of its domestic market. d) Development of Technology 94. There has been no change in technology which can cause injury to the domestic industry. e) Performance of other products of the company 95. The Authority has only considered information related to the PUC for the purpose of injury analysis. f) Trade restrictive practices and competition between the foreign and domestic producers 96. There are no trade restrictive practices that can be considered as the reason for material injury suffered by the domestic industry. g) Changes in pattern of consumption 97. The pattern of consumption in India has not changed with respect to the PUC. J MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN 98. The Authority has determined the NIP for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The NIP of the product under consideration has been determined by adopting the information/data relating to the duly verified cost of production provided by the domestic industry for the POI. The NIP has been compared with the landed price of subject goods from the subject country for calculating injury margin. For determining the NIP, the best utilisation of the raw materials and utilities to the extent possible has been considered over the injury period. The best utilisation of production capacity over the injury period has been considered. Extraordinary or non-recurring expenses has been excluded from 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 NIP as prescribed in Annexure III to the Rules. 99. Based on the landed price and the NIP determined as above, the injury margin as determined by the Authority is provided in the table below: Injury Margin Table Producer's/ exporter's | NIP per | Landed | Injury | Injury | Injury name | unit (US$) | value per | margin | margin | margin | | unit | per unit | % | % range -----------------------|-------------|------------|------------|--------|-------- Zoomlion Heavy Industry| *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 Science and Technology Co. Ltd. Hunan Zoomlion Crawler | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 Crane Co., Ltd. Others | *** | *** | *** | *** | 40-50 K INDIAN INDUSTRY'S INTEREST K.1. Submissions made by other interested parties 100. The imposition of anti-dumping duties in the present case would be severely detrimental to the public interest. 101. It is submitted that cranes are high-value capital goods, and their acquisition represents a significant investment for crane service providers such as the Users. The imposition of duties ranging from 80- 90% would essentially double the cost of procurement of the PUC, in turn rendering the procurement of new, technologically advanced cranes economically unfeasible for the Users. This prohibitive cost would force the Users, who form the primary purchasers of the PUC (regardless of whether domestically produced or imported), to halt fleet expansion and modernization. The Users also highlight the possibility of such prohibitive costs requiring the Users to shut down their operations entirely, leading to job losses and a reduction in market competition. K.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 102. The impact of anti-dumping duty on the end-use product is negligible i.e., only 0.22% 103. The objective of the domestic industry is only to get level playing field through imposition of appropriate duties against unfair imports of the subject goods and not to restrict imports. K.3. Examination by the Authority 104. The Authority issued a gazette notification inviting views on the subject anti-dumping investigation from all the interested parties, including importers, users and other interested parties. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the importers/users to provide relevant information with regard to the present investigation, including possible effect of anti- dumping duty on their operations. The Authority sought information on inter-alia, interchangeability of the product supplied by various suppliers from different countries, ability of the consumers to switch sources, effect of anti-dumping duty on the users etc. 105. The Authority notes that the purpose of imposition of anti-dumping duty, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. Imposition of anti-dumping measures does not aim to restrict imports from the subject country in any way. Trade remedial investigations are intended to restore equal competitive opportunities in the domestic market by ensuring a level playing field for domestic producers by the imposition of appropriate duties against trade distorting imports. 106. The Authority notes that the volume of imports from the subject country has increased significantly through the period of injury except marginally decline in POI as compared to FY 22-23. The increase in imports from the subject country has adversely impacted the market share of the domestic industry. Further, it is also noted that the Indian Industry hold capacity to meet majority of the demand in the country. L POST DISCLOSURE COMMENTS K.1. Submissions made by other interested parties 107. Normal value and injurious price determined by the Authority are unduly high. It is requested to evaluate the appropriateness of such high normal value and non-injurious price determined by the Authority based on the data of the domestic industry. Imposition of high anti-dumping duty is unjustifiable and unduly burdensome. 108. Authority has determined dumping margin of 100-110% and injury margin of 70-80% in the disclosure statement for non-cooperating producers/exporters from China PR. Respondents (Zoomlion Group) agree with the determination of higher dumping margin and injury margin for non-cooperating producers/exporters. Respondents request the Authority to confirm this determination in the final findings as well. 109. Ad-valorem form of anti-dumping duty should be prescribed by the Authority in the present investigation as subject goods in the present investigation are in the nature of capital goods. It is a settled and consistent practice of the Authority to prescribe anti-dumping duty in the form of ad valorem rates for capital goods i.e., anti-dumping duty as a percentage of the CIF value. The underlying rationale is that capital goods normally cover smaller and bigger capacity/size machines and there is substantial variation between the price of smaller and bigger machines. 110. The Authority recommended ad-valorem form of anti-dumping duty i.e., as a percentage of CIF value in the following recently concluded anti-dumping investigations involving capital goods: • Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Plastic Processing Machines” (PPM) or Injection Moulding Machines originating in or exported from China PR and Taiwan – Final Findings dated 27 March 2025 • Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Wheel Loaders" originating in or exported from China PR – Final Findings dated 29 September 2023 • Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Industrial Laser Machines, used for cutting, marking, or welding" originating in or exported from China PR Final Findings dated 27 September 2023. 111. The Disclosure Statement refers to Respondent as "Liugong China PR" or "Liugong China". Respondent respectfully request that the Authority to use the full and correct legal name, Anhui Liugong Crane Co., Ltd., in the Final Findings to avoid any ambiguity. 112. The Authority has arbitrarily and unjustifiably rejected the entire Questionnaire Response filed by the Respondents (Sany Group) solely on the claim that Appendices 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were not filed. This is despite relevant and reliable information furnished in the Questionnaire Response filed by the Respondents. 113. The Authority has misapplied the discretion conferred to it under Rule 6(8) whilst determining the export price in the present investigation. It has incorrectly applied facts available under Rule 6(8) to construct export price despite due filing of Appendices 3A and 3B by the Respondents. This is a gross misapplication of the discretion conferred to it under the provision and is contrary to the law therein. 114. The Authority has contravened the law and practice for non-market economies and failed to consider the information furnished by the Respondents in the present investigation. The respondents did not claim market economy treatment and thus presumably receive non-market economy treatment in the present investigation. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the Authority to issue a supplemental questionnaire if they specifically require additional cost appendices for the NME party. 115. The Authority have acted in contravention to law in the scope of PUC preliminarily determined. The Disclosure Statement noted that the Domestic Industry is capable of producing the Crawler Cranes above 180 MT lifting capacity and Truck Cranes above 100 MT lifting capacity. Merely based on this reasoning, it has proposed to exclude Crawler Cranes of lifting capacity above 260 MT and Truck Cranes of lifting capacity above 160 MT from the scope of the investigation. 116. The Authority has committed gross violations of the principles of natural justice in the Disclosure Statement issued. It has rejected the Questionnaire Response filed by the Respondents in entirety. 117. XCMG has duly furnished all information and provided complete responses to the Questionnaire issued by it. The responses include all relevant appendices regarding costing and prices for the PUC. Despite the providing all relevant information, the DGTR has wrongly rejected its entire questionnaire response without proper reasoning for the same. The Authority ought to have simply rejected the Credit cost adjustment and applied an alternate appropriate adjustment deemed fit to the Authority, instead of simply rejecting the entire submissions. Or applied best facts available on record. The Authority ought to act in accordance with the Principle of Natural Justice. The Practice of Authority of rejecting entire questionnaire instead of rejecting one adjustment is unhear of and uncalled for. Hence, XCMG requests DGTR to consider its prior submissions and questionnaire responses duly filed in respect of the present matter. 118. XCMG submits that in Appendix 3A of the Questionnaire Response filed, credit cost was not reported because all payment terms were prepayment before shipment, therefore there was no term of credit. The Respondent, have already provided this explanation during deficiency letters and it is not reasonable to force the company to report costs which never occurred. Further, in Appendix 3B of the Questionnaire Response, credit cost was not reported because this appendix refers to sales to related party. 119. The credit cost arises in the sales process where the seller, due to a pay term, temporarily cannot receive payment immediately and may need to obtain the necessary operating funds through borrowing or other financing means, resulting in interest costs. However, related companies are ultimately under the ultimate control of the same third party. Therefore, although there might be flexibility in payments between related parties, the seller will not face a situation where it lacks the necessary operating funds due to payment terms from a related company. As a result, the company believe that there are no credit costs in sales between related companies. Additionally, XCMG submits that even if the Authority needs to add credit costs to write off the export price, it may make adjustments where it considers appropriate since we have provided the annual interest rate of 4.35% used for calculation of credit cost. Thus, it is unreasonable for the Authority to simply reject entire responses of XCMG because company claimed one cost to be zero. 120. DGTR's disclosure relies on the Trade Notice No. 6/2021 which includes credit costs in the calculation of landed value. Herein, XCMG submits that Trade Notices are merely administrative tools that provide procedural guidance and clarification regarding DGTR practices and have no legal enforceability. Hence, it's primacy given to the Trade Notice over legally binding statutory mandates enshrined in the Customs Act, Customs Valuation Rules and Customs Tariff Act is misplaced, grossly erroneous and must be rectified in time for the final determination on the matter. 121. XCMG submits that it has duly filed the Appendices 3A and 3B which provide relevant information regarding export prices. Despite the filing of this information, the DGTR has applied facts available to construct export price as per Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules. This is a gross misapplication of the discretion conferred to it under the provision. K.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 122. Sany group companies have not filed complete questionnaire response. Producers / exporters have not filed appendix 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as evidenced from para no. 45 of the disclosure statement. These formats are mandatory to be filed by all producers / exporters whether they are claiming market economy status or not as evidenced from instructions no. 8 (i) of the Trade Notice no. 06/2021 dated 29 July, 2021. All other producers / exporters have filed the above-mentioned formats. The Authority has rightly not accepted the response filed by Sany group. 123. XCMG group are offering credit period of as high as three (3) years. However, they have misdeclared the same in their questionnaire response as also clearly evidenced from para no. 46 and 47 of the disclosure statement. 124. XCMG group companies have given unreasonable and unprecedented credit terms of as high as three (3) years to their related Indian customer. Further, they have not filed the English version of the supporting documents in clear violation of Trade Notice no. 06/2021 dated 29 July, 2021. The Authority has rightly rejected the questionnaire response of XCMG group. 125. The law enables the Authority to the examine whether the exports made by the producers / exporters were in the ordinary course or not in case there is an association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or a third party. All importers in the present investigation are related to the producers / exporters, which is a peculiar situation. In such a case, the related importers / exporters may have not even made the payment and the transaction between producers / exporters and their related importers are dummy. 126. The Authority as a matter of its consistent practice should make adjustments in the landed value to ascertain the effective landed value so that fair comparison can be made between NIP and landed value. 127. 22% ROCE is allowed to the domestic industry for the recovery of interest cost, corporate tax and profit as evidenced from para 19.16 of the Manual of Operating Practices for Trade Remedy Investigations. The domestic industry does not offer any credit to its customers as a part of its standard terms & conditions and the entire payment is expected to be paid prior to the delivery. A part of the payment is received as non-refundable advance and the balance against despatch of the equipment. This can be corroborated from purchase orders/invoices, a few samples of which were already attached. Therefore, there is no question of inclusion of credit cost in the cost of interest paid by the domestic industry. Accordingly, to the Authority should make adjustments of credit cost in the landed value to ascertain the effective landed value so that fair comparison can be made between NIP and landed value. K.3. Examination by the Authority 128. The Authority has examined the post disclosure submissions made by the interested parties and notes that majority of the comments / submissions are reiterations which have already been suitably examined and adequately addressed in the relevant paras of the final findings. The same are not being repeated in the post-disclosure examination by the Authority for the sake of brevity. The issues raised for the first time in the post-disclosure comments/submissions by the interested parties and considered relevant by the Authority are examined below. 129. Zoomlion Group has claimed that normal value and non-injurious price determined by the Authority are unduly high, and therefore, the Authority must evaluate the appropriateness of such high normal value and non-injurious price based on the data of the domestic industry. The Authority notes that non-injurious price has been determined based on the verified data/information of the domestic industry and normal value has been constructed as per the provisions of Anti-dumping rules as well as consistent practice of the Authority. 130. As regards the request made by the interested parties to recommend ad valorem form of anti- dumping duty in the present investigation, it may be noted that since subject goods in the present investigation are in the nature of capital goods, and the large number of PCNs involved, the Authority considers that it would be appropriate to recommend anti-dumping duty as a percentage of the CIF value of the import price of the subject goods. 131. Sany group has claimed that the Authority has arbitrarily and unjustifiably rejected the entire Questionnaire Response filed by the Respondents solely on the claim that Appendices 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were not filed by the Authority. Further, it has been claimed that the Authority has contravened the law and practice for non-market economies and failed to consider the information furnished by the Respondents in the present investigation. The Authority notes that in term of Trade Notice no. 06/2021 dated 29th July, 2021 issued by the Authority, the exporters/producers are mandatorily required to submit data/information as per formats prescribed in Appendix 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. No exemption/relaxation is provided in the said Trade Notice to the producers / exporters from China PR, whether they have claimed market economy status or not. 132. The Authority further notes that it is clearly mentioned in instructions no. 8 (i) of the Trade Notice that "In case of non-market economy countries, where the participating producers/exporters have not claimed market economy treatment, only those related producers involved in the production of PUC whose product has been exported to India are required to furnish information in Part I, II and III." Appendix 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are covered in Part III of the exporters' questionnaire format prescribed in the said Trade Notice. The information requested in the above-mentioned appendices are relevant to infer / validate correctness of the adjustments claimed in Appendix 3A / 3B as well as the cost of production of cooperating producers / exporters. 133. XCMG has claimed that they have duly furnished all information and provided complete responses to the Questionnaire, despite providing all relevant information, the DGTR has wrongly rejected its entire questionnaire response without proper reasoning for the same. The Authority notes that XCMG Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd. (Related Exporter) had mentioned credit terms as “***” in appendix 3B of its questionnaire response. Further, it has been also noted that for invoice no. ***, the exporter has claimed credit term as "***" in appendix 3B while from the perusal of the sales contract enclosed with their questionnaire response, it is revealed that the credit term for this invoice is “***”. The related exporter has revised the credit term after explanation for the difference in the credit term reported in Appendix 3B and sample sales documents were sought by the Authority. 134. It is noted that credit cost is an important factor in this case. A very long and exceptional credit period of as long as three years is provided by the related exporter to the related importer, which is not normal. The exporter has clearly mis declared the credit terms in its questionnaire response. Further, it has been noted that the related exporter has not provided credit cost in its questionnaire response despite the fact that it is clearly mentioned in the Trade Notice that credit cost is to be provided in Appendix 3A / 3B. XCMG has accepted in the post disclosure statement comments that related companies are ultimately under the ultimate control of the same third party, and therefore, there is flexibility in payments between related parties. It is noted that XCMG has not disclosed this fact in the questionnaire response. 135. It has been also noted that the related exporter has also not provided the English version of the payment advice despite the fact that it is clearly mentioned in the Trade Notice that all documents and source material submitted in response to this questionnaire must be in English. The same cannot be reconciled with the invoices. It is further observed that there is a mismatch between the PCNS claimed by the exporter and related producers. In such a case, the response filed by XCMG group cannot be accepted. M CONCLUSION 136. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided, submissions made by the interested parties and facts available before the Authority, as recorded in the above findings, and on the basis of above analysis of the dumping, injury and causal link to the domestic industry, the Authority concludes as follows: a) The article manufactured by the domestic industry is a like article to the subject goods exported from the subject country in terms of Rule 2 (d) of the AD Rules, 1995. b) The applicant constitutes ‘domestic industry' within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Rules, and that the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. c) The dumping margin from subject country is not only positive but also significant. d) The domestic industry has suffered injury as a result of dumped imports of subject goods from subject country. e) The injury margin is positive and significant. f)No other factor appears to have caused injury to the domestic industry. 137. The Authority concludes that the injury to the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject country. 138. It is noted with regard to public interest that anti-dumping duty will have negligible impact on the downstream products. Also, anti-dumping duty does not restrict imports but only ensures that the imports enter the market at fair prices. N RECOMMENDATION 139. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate opportunity was provided to the domestic industry, Embassy of the subject country, producers/exporters of the subject goods from the subject country, importers, users, and other interested parties to provide information with regards to dumping, injury, and causal link. Having initiated under Rule 5(3) of the Anti-Dumping Rules and conducted investigation in accordance with Rule 6 of the Anti-Dumping Rules regarding dumping, injury and causal link as required under Rule 17 (1) (a) of the Anti-Dumping Rules and established material injury to the domestic industry due to subject imports from the subject country, the Authority recommends imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports of subject goods from the subject country. 140. Considering the nature of the product under consideration and the large number of PCNs involved, the Authority considers that it would be appropriate to recommend anti-dumping duty as a percentage of the CIF value of the import price of the subject goods. 141. Further, having regard to the lesser duty rule as enunciated in Rule 17 (1)(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, the Authority recommends imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties equal to the lesser of margin of dumping or margin of injury, from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, definitive anti-dumping duties equal to the amount as percentage of CIF value indicated in Col 7 of the duty table given below is recommended to be imposed from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government for a period of five (5) years: Duty Table S. | Customs | Description of | Country of | Country of | Producer | Duty (% of No. | Tariff | Goods ** | Origin | Export | | CIF value in | Line* | | | | | US$) -----|---------|--------------|------------|------------|--------------------------------------|------------- 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 -----|---------|--------------|------------|------------|--------------------------------------|------------- 1 | 8426 | Certain Cranes | China PR | Any | Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science and | 24.87% | | | | including | Technology Co. Ltd. | | | | | China PR | | -----|---------|--------------|------------|------------|--------------------------------------|------------- 2 | -do- | -do- | China PR | Any | Hunan Zoomlion Crawler Crane Co., | 24.87% | | | | including | Ltd. | | | | | China PR | | -----|---------|--------------|------------|------------|--------------------------------------|------------- 3 | -do- | -do- | China PR | Any | Any other Producer | 52.03% | | | | including | | | | | | China PR | | -----|---------|--------------|------------|------------|--------------------------------------|------------- 4 | -do- | -do- | Any | China PR | Any other Producer | 52.03% | | | country | | | | | | other than | | | | | | China PR | | | -----|---------|--------------|------------|------------|--------------------------------------|------------- * The Customs classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the product under consideration. ** Certain Cranes of the following types are included within the scope of the product under consideration: a. Crawler Cranes having lifting capacity from 40 MT to 260 MT, whether in fully assembled, semi-assembled or disassembled form. b. Truck Cranes with lifting capacity from 25 MT to 160 MT, whether in fully assembled, semi- assembled or disassembled form. The following products are excluded from the scope of the product under consideration: i. Rough terrain cranes ii. “All-terrain cranes 160 MT and above” which are truck mounted cranes and designed to operate effectively on various terrains and have following key characteristics: a. 2 engines; b. hydropneumatics suspension system on all axles using hydraulic oil and compressed gas; c. steering/turning of all axles with multiple steering modes; d. mutli-axle drive on all or at least 3 Axles; e. Automatic transmission; and f. boom of more than 6 sections and telescoping achieved through single cylinder mechanism. iii. Standalone parts of cranes O FURTHER PROCEDURE 142. An appeal against the order of the Authority arising out of the final findings shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Designated Authority Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-11054. GORAKHA NATH YADAVA Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH YADAVA Date: 2025.09.22 16:11:06 +05'30'