Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
NEW DELHI, MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2024/ASVINA 29, 1946
CG-DL-E-22102024-258129
6818 GI/2024
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department Of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 19th Octoberr, 2024
Case No. ADD (OI) - 13/2023
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Telescopic Channel Drawer Slider” originating in
or exported from China PR.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. F.No.6/13/2023-DGTR:.—Highhope Furniture Fittings Manufacturers Associates Pvt Ltd (hereinafter
referred to as the “Highhope”) on behalf of number of Indian manufacturers of “Telescopic Channel Drawer Slider”
(hereinafter referred to as “subject goods” or “product under consideration”) filed representations before the
Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) stating that the Chinese producers are exporting the
product at a price materially below the normal value, resulting in dumping of the product and the Indian MSME
industry is getting materially injured.
2. The Authority took cognizance of the information provided by Highhope and its manufacturer members, and
collected import data from customs authority (through DGCI&S) as per Rule 5(4) of the Customs Tariff
(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of
Injury) Rules, 1995 stated as under:
“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the designated authority may initiate an
investigation suo motu, if it is satisfied from the information received from the (Principal Commissioner of
Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be), appointed under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of
1962) or any other source that sufficient evidence exists as to the existence of the circumstances referred to
in sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (3).”
3. The Authority analysed the trend in imports of the product in the country, both in terms of volume and price,
corroborated the same with information contained in various representations and ascertained whether there is
sufficient prima facie evidence that the product under consideration is being exported from China at a price below
estimates of normal value, whether the same is causing injury to the Indian industry and whether an antidumping
investigation is required to be conducted to ascertain existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping. The Authority
also considered the nature of the industry, the degree of dumping, the trend in volume of imports, the import price
from China, prevailing prices of principal raw material (stainless steel/mild steel) and information with regard to
possible impact on the Indian industry on the basis of information contained in various representations. The Authority
called information with regard to imports of the product under consideration from the customs authorities and adopted
the same. The Authority found that there was sufficient evidence regarding dumping, injury, and casual link between
such dumped imports and the alleged injury, to justify the initiation of an investigation.
4. Having satisfied itself with regard to existence of sufficient evidence regarding dumping, injury, and casual
link between such dumped imports and the alleged injury to justify the initiation of an investigation, the Authority
suo-moto initiated the anti-dumping duty investigation concerning imports of "Telescopic Channel Drawer Slider"
from China PR (hereinafter referred to as "the subject country") vide Notification No. 6/13/2023-DGTR dated 20th
September 2023, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, to determine the existence, degree and effect of the
alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country, and to recommend the
amount of anti-dumping duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic
industry. The Authority having regard to the Act and Rules issued Preliminary findings vide Notification No.
6/13/2023-DGTR dated 19th April 2024 recommending imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty.
5. These provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by the Ministry of Finance vide Customs Notification
No. 13/2024-CUSTOMS (ADD), dated 27th June 2024.
B. PROCEDURE
6. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
i) Request was made to the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) to provide the
transaction-wise details of imports of the subject goods for the past three years, and the period of investigation,
which was received by the Authority. The Authority has relied upon the DGCI&S data for computation of the
volume of imports and its analysis after due examination of the transactions.
ii) The Authority issued a public notice dated 20th September 2023, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
suo-moto initiating an investigation concerning imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the
subject country.
iii) The Authority sent intimation to the Tax Research Unit (also referred to as “TRU”) of the initiation of the
present investigation.
iv) The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the representations to the embassy of the
subject country in India, in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules. A copy of the non-confidential version of the
representations was made available to other interested parties, on demand.
v) The embassy of the subject country in India was requested to advise the producers / exporters in their country to
respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit.
vi) The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification along with a non-confidential version of the
representation to the embassy of the subject country in India, producers and exporters from the subject country,
importers / users who registered themselves as interested parties in the present investigation along with the
domestic producers as per the information made available to it by Highhope through its representations and
requested them to make their views known in writing within the prescribed time limit.
vii) The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to the producers/exporters in the subject country and offered
them an opportunity to make their submissions in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules.
viii) In response to the initiation notification, the following producers/exporters from China PR have responded by
filing a questionnaire response through their respective legal representatives:
a. Dongguan Litong Precision Slide Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
b. Dongguan Topmin Development Co., Ltd.
c. Dongtai Hardware Precision (Hong Kong) Ltd.
d. Eternal Mark Pvt. Ltd.
e. Eternal Mark Singapore Pte Ltd
f. Fortune Plus Technology (Guangzhou) Ltd.
g. Foshan Fusaier Metal Products Co. Ltd.
h. Foshan Shunde Daoke Technology Co., Ltd
i. Foshan Shunde Heqian Precision Manufacturing Co., Ltd
j. Guangdong Dongtai Hardware Precision Manufacturing Co., Ltd
k. Guangdong Hongli Hardware Co., Ltd.
l. Guangdong Jino Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd
m. Guangdong Oula Hardware Technology Co., Ltd
n. Guangdong Taiming Metal Products Co., Ltd
o. Guangdong Xingpeng Industrial Co. Ltd.
p. Guangzhou Jino Hardware Technology Co., Ltd.
q. Guangzhou Rongtai Hardware Products Ltd.
r. Hafele Engineering Asia Ltd.
s. Jieyang City Kiki Hardware Industry Co., Ltd
t. Jieyang Mingbo Hardware Industry Co., Ltd.
u. Jieyang Zhengbiao Hardware Co., Ltd
v. Jieyang Zhongxing Hardware Co., Ltd.
w. Lovhom Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd
x. Shantou Rongtai Hardware Plastic Factory
y. Taiming Advanced Precision Manufacturing Company Ltd
z. Zhaoqing City Gaoyao District Chuangyiyuan Metal Products Co. Ltd.
aa. Zhaoqing City Gaoyao District Kangxun Precision Manufacturing Technology Co., Ltd
bb. Zhongshan Haibao Precision Hardware Co., Ltd.
7. An exporter, Guangdong Xinghui Precision Co. Ltd., registered itself as an interested party but did not file a
response to the prescribed exporter questionnaire.
8. The Authority sent questionnaires to the importers / users of the subject goods in India, calling for necessary
information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
9. In response to the initiation notification, the following importers/users responded by filing a questionnaire
response:
i. Ebco Private Ltd.
ii. Hafele India Pvt Ltd
iii. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Ltd
iv. Asian Paints
v. Sleek International Private Ltd.
10. While Dorset Industries Pvt. Ltd, an importer of the subject goods and a potential domestic producer, did not file
a response to the prescribed importer questionnaire, the Authority received submissions from Dorset, which
have been examined in the final findings.
11. The period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is from 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023. The
injury investigation period for the present investigation is 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and the POI.
12. The Authority vide para 8 of the initiation notification dated 20th September 2023 sought comments on the scope
of the product under consideration (or PUC) within 15 days of initiation. The interested parties were further
granted an additional time to file comments on PUC and PCN (Product Control Number) methodology till 12th
October 2023. All interested parties were invited for a discussion on the scope of PUC and PCN methodology
on 30th October 2023, wherein the Authority directed all stakeholder to exchange their submissions by 10th
November 2023. The Authority, after considering the submissions made by interested parties, vide notification
dated 30th November 2023, notified the revised scope of the product under consideration and the PCN
methodology that should be followed by the interested parties for filing questionnaire response. All interested
parties were directed to file questionnaire responses in accordance with the PCN-methodology, latest by 14th
December 2023. At the request of some interested parties, the time limit was further extended to 28th December
2023.
13. The Authority sought production details from the known producers of the subject goods. The Association made
available details of Indian production along with the breakup of production for Indian producers for the entire
injury period. Based on the information received, the Authority sampled the following Indian producers for
providing costing and injury information for the purpose of determination of Non-Injurious Price (NIP):
a. Jenil Techno Industries
b. Kiara Slides (India) Pvt. Ltd.
c. Slide Tech Industries
d. Suketu Enterprise
e. Vinayak International
14. The abovementioned domestic producers were directed to provide costing information as per Formats prescribed
vide Trade Notice No.: 09/2021 dated 29th July 2021, for the purpose of determining injury margin. On receipt
of the costing information, it was noted that the sampled producers were producing PUC using mild steel (MS)
only. Hence, the scope of the sampled producers was enlarged to also include Butterfly Drawer Slide
Manufacturing Company as an Indian producer producing the product using stainless steel.
15. The Authority sought further information from the sampled producers to the extent deemed necessary. The desk
verification of the data provided by the domestic industry was conducted to the extent considered necessary for
the purpose of the present investigation. The Authority has also conducted spot verification of few sampled
domestic producers on 3rd and 4th October, 2024.
16. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website along with the request to all of them to
email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties along with the
investigation team.
17. The Non-Injurious Price (NIP) has been determined based on the cost of production and cost to make and sell
the subject goods in India based on information furnished by the sampled domestic producers on the basis of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules so as to ascertain whether
anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic
industry.
18. The Authority, vide Notification no. 6/13/2023-DGTR, issued the Preliminary Findings on 19th April 2024. As
recorded in the Preliminary Findings, the Authority invited comments on the same at the time of oral hearing.
19. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the AD Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to the interested parties to
present their views during the oral hearing held on 10th September 2024. The interested parties were requested to
submit their written submissions by 17th September 2024 and rejoinder submissions by 24th September 2024.
20. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information during
the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has recorded
its observation on the basis of the facts available.
21. Desk verification was carried out by the Authority to verify the information filed by the other interested parties.
Only such verified information with the necessary rectification, wherever necessary, has been relied upon for the
purpose of the present investigation.
22. “***” in the final findings, represents information furnished by interested parties on confidential basis and so
considered by the Authority under the Rules.
23. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is US $1= INR 81.06.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C. 1 Views of the other interested parties
24. The other interested parties have made the following submission with regard to scope of the product under
consideration (PUC) and like article:
i) The product under investigation in the Initiation Notification has been classified under HS Codes 8302 4110,
8302 4190, 8302 4200, and 8302 4900. The product is not classifiable under HS codes 83024110 and 83024190
as these subheadings cover fittings ‘suitable for buildings’ and ‘doors and windows.’ The product under
consideration, however, is not used for buildings, doors, or windows.
ii) The following are not covered under the scope of PUC:
a) Drawer runners with nylon cylindrical roller: it is a product consisting of motion technology using nylon
cylindrical roller instead of ball bearings. 14 of the domestic producers who filed representations do not
have drawer runners with nylon cylindrical roller listed in their product catalogue/ website. They cannot
be considered producers of the system if they have imported parts for this system.
b) Econo Boxes: Econo Boxes that have a simple runner along with side doors that are not facilitated by ball
bearings, are not categorised under the scope of PUC.
c) Drawer systems like Slim Ergo or Super Slim Ergo are value added products which consist of side panels
should be outside scope of investigation.
d) Living and bedroom fittings: Living and bedroom fittings such as trouser pull-out, slide mounted tie rack
etc. have one component as ball bearing runner but contain many other parts/components and the product
in its entirety is different from Channel Drawer and hence cannot be equated with it.
iii) There are certain product types that are not produced by manufacturers in India. Hence, exclusion of the
following is sought:
a) Undermount slides that are installed on the bottom of the drawers.
b) Products of black zinc-plated.
c) Soft close slide that enables soft closing of the drawer.
d) Slide products made from 201 stainless steel and 304 stainless steel materials.
e) Heavy Duty Ball Bearing Slides
f) Slides with widths 17mm, 27mm, 30mm, 35mm, 36mm, 40mm, 42mm, 53mm.
g) Products with 3-ball, 4-ball, 5-ball, and 6-ball configurations.
h) Products with load capacity more than 50 kilograms.
iv) Push open slides, Steel drawer slides and Computer keyboard ball bearing slides are outside the scope of PUC.
v) The Authority should specify the type of closing i.e., soft close or hard close, and type of raw material as the
parameter for PCN.
vi) The domestic industry has not given any reasoning for asking the Authority to check if all exporters have
reported under HS codes other than the four specified in the notice of initiation. No purpose would be served by
entertaining this exercise.
vii) While excluding econoboxes, the Authority should mention the generic name of the product, i.e., “drawer
system” instead of the brand name of a particular company, i.e., “Econo box”.
viii) Domestic industry’s request for inclusion of drawer systems within the definition of the PUC seems to be a post
thought of the Petitioner and tantamount to expanding the scope of the present investigation. Drawer Systems are
a composite product which consist of side panels, slides and a connector which connects the slide with the side
panel. These are value added products having significantly higher price. Further, the domestic industry had
provided an illustrative list of names of the PUC in its post initiation submissions which did not include either
“drawer systems” or any of the names by which drawer systems are imported in India.
C. 2 Views of the domestic industry
25. The domestic industry has made the following submission with regard to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article:
i) The product under consideration in the present investigation is “Telescopic Channel Drawer Slider”. The subject
goods do not have a dedicated code and are being imported in several HS codes. The Authority has rightly
mentioned in the initiation notification that the product is being imported under several subheadings under the
chapter 83, including 83024110, 83024190, 83024200 and 83024900.
ii) The product exclusions proposed by the other interested parties are not for different product types, but only
different nomenclatures used for the subject goods. All descriptions are included within the scope of the product
under consideration. However, the domestic industry has agreed to exclusion of kitchen and bedroom fittings
(such as trouser pull out, slide mounted tie rack), slim box, ultra slim box, legra box, tandem box (drawer), slim
tandem box, etc.
iii) An illustrative list of the different nomenclatures used to describe the product under consideration is as follows:
a) telescopic channel
b) drawer slider
c) ball bearing telescopic slide
d) ball bearing telescopic channel
e) kitchen drawer slide
f) wardrobe drawer channel
g) drawer runner
h) ball bearing drawer runner
i) side mounting drawer slide
j) side mounting drawer channel
k) bed trolley runner
l) pull out channel
m) single extension channel
n) side track drawer channel, etc.
iv) Undermount runner of motion technology with nylon cylindrical roller is a product which is installed at the
bottom of the drawer. Hence, only the product placement is different and not the product itself. Whether it is
placed on the side, or the bottom of the drawer is only a matter of how it is used.
v) As regards coating/ plating, closing type and raw material, the Indian industry produces zinc and black coated
channel, soft close, push open and standard channel, and also produces channels made of not only mild steel but
also stainless steel.
vi) In addition to this, the Indian manufacturers also manufacture heavy duty slides with high load capacity that can
meet the needs when greater loading capacity is required.
vii) Since the demand in India is primarily for 45mm product, the Indian manufacturers focus on production of
45mm style products. Products of 17mm or 27mm width are obsolete and rarely in demand now. In any case, the
Indian Industry is well capable of producing products below and beyond 45mm width as size can be altered
using the same machines.
viii) There is no difference in the technology adopted by the domestic industry and that adopted by the producers in
the subject country. The technology adopted by the domestic industry is comparable with the technology adopted
by the producers of the subject goods in the subject country. However, every producer fine-tunes its production
process based on necessities and available facilities.
ix) The subject goods produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject country are comparable in
terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology,
functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods.
The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are using the two interchangeably. The
goods produced by domestic industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from the
subject country.
x) The Authority may prescribe PCN based on the following:
a) Raw material i.e., mild steel, stainless steel grade 202 and grade 304
b) Closing type i.e., soft close/ push open and regular closing
c) Load bearing capacity i.e., heavy duty (≥ 90 kg) and other than heavy duty
C.3 Examination by the Authority
26. The product under consideration (hereinafter also referred to as the “PUC”) as defined at the stage of initiation is
as follows:
“4. The product under consideration in the present investigation is “telescopic channel drawer slider”, also
known as a drawer runner/ channel/ soft close telescopic channel. It is generally used in drawers, which are
used for storing things. It is a small device that helps to simplify fluid motion while the drawer is closed and
opened. Telescopic channels or runners are an essential component of modern furniture design that enhances
the functionality and aesthetics of drawers.
5. It consists of two or more interlocking metal sections that extend and retract as the drawer is opened and
closed. Telescopic channels or runners are commonly used in furniture, cabinets, and appliances that require
easy access to storage space.
6. While the product is produced and sold in a number of different size and varieties, essentially these are
comparable in terms of weight. The change in size of the product does not materially alter the unit cost of
production and selling price (on weight basis).”
7. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 83 of the Customs Tariff Act under subheading
83024110, 83024190, 83024200, and 83024900. The customs classification is only indicative, and not binding
on the scope of this investigation.
27. Some of the interested parties have argued that the product under consideration is not classifiable under HS Code
83024110 and 83024190 and these subheadings cover fittings ‘suitable for buildings’ ‘door knobs’ ‘door handles
‘doors and windows’ etc. The Authority notes that the product under consideration does not have a dedicated HS
Code. It is classifiable within 8302. On examination of transaction wise import data from DGCI&S, it is seen that
the product under consideration has been imported under various codes, including, 83024110, 83024190,
83024200, and 83024900. While it is for the customs authorities to decide whether the importers have
appropriately declared the customs classification, since the Authority defines a product by description, if the said
product has been imported under some other HS classification, the Authority is required to not only include the
same for the purpose of the proposed determination, but also recommend measures against the same. This is
additionally important and necessary for the reason that anti-dumping duty can be charged only if the HS code
prescribed by the Authority includes such HS codes. It is however clarified that merely because some HS code
has been included within the scope of the product under consideration does not imply that any import under that
HS code shall be subject to proposed measures. It is clarified that ADD is payable only if the description of the
imported product conforms to the description of the product under consideration in the present investigation, even
if some product is sought to be imported under the specified HS code.
28. The Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to offer comments on the scope of the PUC and
PCN methodology. The interested parties have sought a number of exclusions.
29. The other interested parties have sought exclusion of products like kitchen and bedroom fittings (such as trouser
pull-out, slide mounted ties rack), slim box/ slim ergo, ultra slim box/ super slim ergo, Legra box, tandem box
(drawer), Econo box, Legra box, tandem box (drawer), slim tandem box, double wall box, compact box, slimline
tandem box, double wall drawer, matrix box, etc. It has been stated that their production process, usage, physical
characteristics, etc. differ from telescopic channels and these are value added products. The Authority notes that
the domestic industry has also agreed to exclusion of the same stating that there is limited demand in these
products.
30. However, as regards exclusion of other products such as undermount slides, zinc coated slides, soft close slides,
push open slides, stainless-steel slides, heavy duty slides, slides with different width, slides with different ball
configurations, etc. it is, noted that these claims for exclusion were unsubstantiated with evidence. It is not even
claim of the interested parties that such products are so different as to render them different product and outside
the ambit of the scope of the product under consideration of the present investigations. The interested parties have
not even established that products offered by the domestic industry are not commercially and technically
substitutable with these products. It has been noted that various product types for which exclusion has been
sought are either being produced by the domestic industry or is not a distinctive product but merely an alternative
name for the product under consideration. The Authority also notes the nature of the product under consideration,
wherein minor variations in the form of the product through usage of slightly different raw material or component
is possible. Mere use of different raw material or component does not render a product so distinctly different that
it renders the product as different from the product defined as the product under consideration in the present
investigation.
31. As regards exclusion sought for drawer runners with nylon cylindrical roller, drawer system of nylon roller, it is
noted that these are subject goods which have Nylon cylindrical roller. Nylon cylindrical roller is only a roller
mechanism and is a bought-out component. These are purchased and fitted. Use of different type of roller does
not render the product itself as a different product. The mechanism in a drawer runner system with nylon
cylindrical rollers is not different from the mechanism with ball bearing. However, essential characteristic of the
product remains the same as a telescopic channel with ball bearings. The two are technically and commercially
substitutable and can be used interchangeably. If drawer runners with nylon cylindrical roller is not available,
drawer runners with ball bearing roller can be used and would perform the same function.
32. As regards exclusion of undermount slides, the Authority notes that these are also channel drawer slider.
Undermount slides are channel drawer slider with difference in placement of the subject goods, i.e., underneath
the drawer. In any case, the domestic producers are also producing the subject goods and selling the same in the
market and is thus required to be included within the scope of the product under consideration.
33. As regards coated/ plated subject goods, it is noted that the domestic producers also produce zinc and black
coated subject goods.
34. As regards heavy duty sliders and heavy-duty ball bearing slides, the Authority considers that these are just
different variant of the product with difference in load bearing capacity of the goods. The Indian industry is also
producing and selling high load bearing subject goods.
35. As regards soft close, push open etc., it is noted that these are merely different opening and closing mechanism
attached to the subject goods. Use of these mechanism do not render these products as unlike article. These
mechanisms are bought out items for producers of the PUC. Further, the domestic producers also manufacture
these variants and hence are not required to be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.
36. As regards varied width of channel drawer, it is noted that the commonly used subject goods have a width of
45mm. Production of the product with different widths merely requires tooling adjustments. Any producer can
adjust the machinery and produce different sizes. Product with different width have essentially the same
characteristics and are technically and commercially substitutable. Moreover, the domestic producers also
produce channel drawers of varying width.
37. As regards difference between subject goods with 3-ball, 4-ball, 5-ball, and 6-ball configurations, the Authority
notes that it is only about placement of number of ball bearings. These can be adjusted by the producers based on
the requirement of the customers. These are merely different variants of the product under consideration. The
domestic industry also produces these variants of the product under consideration.
38. In view of the above, the product under consideration is as follows:
The product under consideration in the present investigation is “telescopic channel drawer slider”, also known
as a drawer runner/ channel/ soft close telescopic channel. It is generally used in drawers, which are used for
storing things. It is a small device that helps to simplify fluid motion while the drawer is closed and opened.
Telescopic channels or runners are an essential component of modern furniture design that enhances the
functionality and aesthetics of drawers.
It consists of two or more interlocking metal sections that extend and retract as the drawer is opened and
closed. Telescopic channels or runners are commonly used in furniture, cabinets, and appliances that require
easy access to storage space.
However, products such as kitchen and bedroom fittings (such as trouser pull-out, slide mounted ties rack),
slim box/ slim ergo, ultra slim box/ super slim ergo, Legra box, tandem box (drawer), Econo box, slim tandem
box, double wall box, compact box, slimline tandem box, double wall drawer, matrix box are specifically
excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. Illustrative pictures of such products, excluded
from the scope of the product under consideration are given below, for reference:
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| S. | Product |
| No. | |
+=====+================================================================================================================+
| 1. | Trouser pull-out |
| | (value added product, with rods and hooks, used for |
| | hanging clothes) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2. | Slide mounted tie rack |
| | (slide-mounted tie rack with hooks for organizing ties |
| | and belts) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3. | Slim Box |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4. | Ultra Slim Box |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5. | Legra Box |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6. | Tandem Box (Drawer) |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7. | Slim Tandem Box |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8. | Double Wall Box |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 9. | Compact Box |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 10. | Slimline Tandem Box |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 11. | Double Wall Drawer |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 12. | Matrix Box |
| | (drawer system with 2 double walled side panels |
| | mounted on telescopic channel) |
+-----+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
39. The Authority sought comments on the PCN methodology from the interested parties. The interested parties were
called for interactions, so that conflicting views could be presented by the interested parties, and rebuttals offered.
The interested parties were also allowed opportunity to give their submissions in writing after the interactions
held with these interested parties.
40. After considering the submissions made by the domestic industry and interested parties, the Authority noted that
steel is the main raw material constituting around 75-80% of the costs incurred for production of telescopic
channel drawer slider, thus affecting the cost and price of the subject goods. Further, the product can be produced
using mild steel or stainless steel or some other material. The product carries significant difference in costs
depending on the raw material used. The interested parties have not demonstrated that the other parameters
argued to be included as PCN parameters leads to difference in cost and price of the subject goods, particularly
when the raw material itself constitutes 75-80% of the costs. Accordingly, following PCN was finalised and
notified to the interested parties vide notice no. 6/13/2023-DGTR dated 30.11.2023, a copy of which was also
placed on the website of the DGTR. This PCN methodology has been adopted for determination of dumping
margin, injury margin and price undercutting.
+------+--------------------------+------+------+
| S. No. | Parameter | PCN | Code |
+======+==========================+======+======+
| 1 | Channel made of Mild Steel | MS | MS |
+------+--------------------------+------+------+
| 2 | Channel made of Stainless Steel | SS | SS |
+------+--------------------------+------+------+
| 3 | Channel made of Other Material | OS | OS |
+------+--------------------------+------+------+
41. The Authority notes that the like article produced by the domestic industry and the product under consideration
imported from the subject country is comparable in terms of physical & mechanical 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 Rules.
The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The Authority holds 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.
SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1 Views of the other interested parties
42. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to scope of the domestic industry
and standing:
i) An association can file an application as per Rule 2(c) of the Rules, but it is required to provide evidence along
with the application to substantiate that they qualify to be an interested party in terms of Rule 2(c)(ii).
ii) Highhope cannot be considered as an eligible association as they have not submitted the requisite information
like a copy of registration certificate, memorandum of association, list of members who supported, opposed or
remained neutral, etc. which is important to ascertain the standing of the domestic industry.
iii) Neither the association nor the Authority has provided any information about the companies to be considered as
eligible domestic industry based on which the examination can be done.
iv) Rule 5(4) of the Rules needs to be read along with Rule 5(3). Once the Authority initiates a suo-moto
investigation under Rule 5(4), it is still required to fulfil all the requirements of determination of domestic
industry, working out the standing of domestic industry, etc.
v) As per the post initiation submissions, the Authority communicated the list of sampled producers which have
been considered to constitute the “domestic industry” under Rule 2(b).
vi) No information has been given regarding when the sample selection took place, what was the methodology
followed by the Authority in selecting the sampled producers. The other interested parties have been deprived of
the opportunity to comment on the process adopted.
vii) The alleged “supporters” have not provided information as required to be submitted and thus they should not be
treated as supporters.
viii) Jenil techno cannot be eligible DI. It failed to act in a bonafide manner and made a wrong declaration. Authority
rejected export price of all cooperating producers in the PF without any opportunity of hearing. If Jenil Techno is
accepted as domestic industry, then authority should also accept all explanations provided by respondents and
determine individual rate. The respondents had reconciled their date with DG System in the questionnaire
response. All producers in support have to file basic injury information. Further, no investigation can be initiated
if applicants account for less than 25% of total production.
ix) Authority assessed that none of the 25 producers imported the PUC. However, Advanced Technologies,
Butterfly Drawer Slide Manufacturing Company, Rajhans Technocraft, Rajkot Everwin Hardware LLP, Suketu
Enterprise and Jenil Techno Industries have imported the subject goods.
x) The quantity of imports by the domestic producers is not the primary concern. The applicant has attempted to
mislead the Authority by providing wrong declarations and stating that they have not imported the subject goods.
xi) Imports by Jenil Techno were not merely restricted to the POI but have extended during the injury period and
even continued post the POI. This establishes that the imports were not merely for testing but for supplying the
PUC to the Indian market.
xii) The real reason for the imports is the absence of the imported products within the applicant’s product range.
D.2 Views of the domestic industry
43. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to scope of the domestic industry and
standing:
i) The association and several manufacturers representing the Indian manufacturers of Telescopic Channel Drawer
Slider filed representations before the Designated Authority stating that the industry in India is getting injured in
view of increase in dumped imports of the subject goods from China PR.
ii) The industry is highly fragmented and consists of a large number of domestic producers belonging to the MSME
category. Highhope represents 25 of the producers of the subject goods in India.
iii) On production details from the known producers of the subject goods in India being sought by the Authority, the
association provided a statement of Indian production to the extent the data was available. The production data of
members of the association was given in respect of 17 responding members. These companies collectively
command more than 50% of eligible domestic production.
iv) The Association also filed post-initiation submissions on behalf of the members of the association. Following
companies, sampled by the Authority and considered to be constituting domestic industry, filed costing and
injury information along with post initiation submissions:
a) Jenil Techno Industries
b) Slide Tech Industries
c) Suketu Enterprise
d) Kiara Sliders (India) Private Ltd.
e) Vinayak Slide LLP
D.3 Examination by the Authority
44. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules defines domestic industry as under:
"(b) "domestic industry " means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like
article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a
major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to
the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the
term 'domestic industry ' may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers"
45. The Authority received representations from 25 companies seeking remedy from dumped and injurious imports.
The list of 25 members of Highhope engaged in the production of PUC is as under:
i. Advanced Technologies
ii. Aggarwal Plywood Industries
iii. Almetal Industries
iv. Anirved Industries
v. Arrowin Metaltech (I) Pvt. Ltd.
vi. Butterfly Drawer Slide Manufacturing Company
vii. Eisen Hardware Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
viii. Glidox Hardware
ix. Glorious Group of Company
x. Hardwell Industries
xi. Jenil Techno Industries
xii. Khetan Udyog
xiii. Kiara Sliders (India) Private Ltd.
xiv. Krinapal Hardware LLP
xv. Park wood
xvi. Parko Hardware LLP
xvii. Rajendra Engitech LLP
xviii. Rajhans Technocraft
xix. Rajkot Everwin Hardware LLP
xx. Reno Slide Venture Pvt. Ltd.
xxi. Slide Tech Industries
xxii. Suketu Enterprise
xxiii. Sun Plastics
xxiv. Vinayak International
xxv.Vision Slide LLP
46. These representations inter-alia contended information on the following:
a. Product under consideration, different forms, type/size, manufacturing process, etc.
b. Details of domestic producers of the product in India
c. Estimates of cost of production
d. Imports of the product in India
e. Injury to the Indian industry as a result of dumping in the Country
f. Whether injury was due to dumping
47. Even though these parties did not file the application in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority, these
representations nevertheless contained information required under Rule 5(3). Further, the Authority took
cognizance of the fact that producers of the product under consideration in India are micro companies and the
industry is fragmented.
48. The Authority therefore initiated the present investigation suo-moto having regard to the contents of these
representations and after prima facie satisfying on the accuracy and adequacy of information contained in these
representations.
49. The association quantified Indian production as *** MT.
50. Considering the information on record, the Authority sampled the following Indian producers based on volume of
production and sale, and size of the company (large and medium scale) and directed them to provide costing and
injury information as prescribed vide Trade Notice No.: 09/2021 dated 29 July, 2021:
a) Jenil Techno Industries
b) Slide Tech Industries
c) Suketu Enterprise
d) Kiara Sliders (India) Private Ltd.
e) Vinayak Slide LLP
f) Butterfly Drawer Slide Manufacturing Company
51. On receipt of the costing information, it was noted that the sampled producers were producing PUC using mild
steel (MS) only. Hence, the scope of the sampled producers was enlarged to also include Butterfly Drawer Slide
Manufacturing Company as an Indian producer producing the product using stainless steel.
52. Interested parties have argued that the association cannot be considered as an eligible association, as they have
not submitted the requisite information like a copy of registration certificate, memorandum of association, list of
members who supported, opposed or remained neutral, etc. which is important to ascertain the standing of the
domestic industry prior to initiation. It is noted in this regard that the present investigation was suo-moto initiated
by the Authority based on multiple representations received from several Indian producers of the subject goods
and their association. Thus, the information typically required through a formal application was necessary
before starting the investigation. Post-initiation, the Authority received submissions and questionnaire responses
from the association and domestic producers. The association filed certificate of incorporation, memorandum of
association, articles of association, list of the members (all of whom unanimously supported submission of the
response and imposition of ADD), details of the executive body, minutes of the meeting. The association also
filed response to the economic interest questionnaire (EIQ).
53. The Authority received submission from Dorset Industries Pvt. Ltd., who identified itself as an importer of
Telescopic Channel Drawer Slider and a potential domestic producer. The company expressed support for the
anti-dumping investigation and has requested imposition of anti-dumping duties on subject imports.
54. It is seen from the information on record that production by Jenil Techno Industries, Slide Tech Industries, Suketu
Enterprise, Kiara Sliders (India) Pvt Ltd, Vinayak International and Butterfly Drawer Slide Manufacturing
Company constitutes *** MT. Further, Indian production has been determined as *** MT. Thus, production of
these participating companies constitutes 38% of Indian production. These companies thus constitute “a major
proportion” of the total Indian production.
55. The interested parties have pointed out that domestic producers such as Jenil Techno Industries, Suketu
Enterprise, Rajhans Technocraft, Rajkot Everwin Hardware and Butterfly Drawer Slide Manufacturing Company
have imported subject goods during the POI. The Authority has examined the facts and notes as follows:
a. Jenil Techno Industries – The company imported *** MT of the subject goods in the POI as reflected in the
DG Systems data, the import corroborates with the Jenil Techno Industries imported subject goods. The domestic
industry has also submitted the same in its written submission. Further, it is noted that this volume of imports is
insignificant in relation to Indian production i.e., ***%, Indian consumption i.e., ***%.
b. Suketu Enterprise – The company imported *** MT of the subject goods in the POI as reflected in the DG
Systems data, the import corroborates with the Suketu Enterprise imported subject goods. The domestic industry
has also submitted the same in its written submission. Further, it is noted that this volume of imports is
insignificant in relation to Indian production i.e., ***%, Indian consumption i.e., ***%.
c. Butterfly Drawer Slide Manufacturing Company - The company imported in the POI from China PR. The
DG Systems data corroborates the submission made by the domestic industry in this regard. However, the
domestic producer stated that it had imported machineries in the POI from China PR. The Chinese sellers also
made trials on the machineries brought and supplied such products with the machineries. The domestic producer
provided purchase invoice and evidence of shipments. It was noted that the imports were made along with
machineries. It has been stated that such imported goods have not been traded further. Further, it is noted that the
volume of such imports is insignificant in relation to Indian production i.e., ***%, Indian consumption i.e.,
***%.
d. Rajhans Technocraft and Rajkot Everwin Hardware - As regards these producers, it is clarified that these
producers have not been considered as part of the scope of domestic industry. Further, the DG Systems data
shows that Rajkot Everwin Hardware LLP has imported subject goods, while Rajhans Technocraft has not. Since
these companies have not been treated domestic industry for the purpose of present investigations, imports by
these companies does not vitiate the standing of the sampled companies to constitute domestic industry under
Rule 2(b).
56. In view of the above it is noted that Butterfly Drawer, Jenil Techno Industries and Suketu Enterprise are part of
the sampled producers whose information has been considered for the purpose of determination of injury and
have imported subject goods. Authority notes that it has the discretion to determine on the inclusion or exclusion
of such producers. It was acknowledged by the domestic industry that there were imports by these parties in the
POI. The Authority considered following parameters while deciding inclusion or exclusion of domestic producers
from the scope of the domestic industry:
i. The percentage of domestic production of the product in question that is accounted for by the related
producers.
ii. Whether imports of the product in question by the related producers allow them to benefit, or serve to shield
them, from the effects of dumping.
iii. Whether exclusion of the related parties would unduly skew the data for the remaining member of the
industry.
iv. The level or long-term nature of the commitment shown by the producers to the domestic production, as
opposed to the importing activities.
v. The ratio of imports shipments to domestic production for the related producers.
57. The goods imported by Butterfly Drawer Slide Manufacturing Company have not been to traded but rather were
produced and then imported only to test the quality of goods that will be produced using the machinery. The
company has imported the subject goods as sample products produced in the machinery to check the operation of
purchased machines.
58. Jenil Techno Industries has imported *** MT of subject goods. Volume of imports is insignificant when
compared to the total imports and demand in India as well as its production and sales. The core business of the
producer is to produce subject goods.
59. While the Authority considers that omission on the part of the company was not appropriate, however, in light of
their significant commitment to production, negligible volumes of these import, the fact that non-disclosure of the
fact has not caused any undue benefit to the company or prejudice to the interested parties, the Authority finds
that no adverse implications should flow from such non-disclosure. It is also noted that the Authority would not
have treated these producers as ineligible, in the facts of the present case, had they disclosed such imports at the
time of initiation. The Authority would have treated the company eligible even in that situation.
60. The Authority considers that the sampled domestic producers constitute eligible domestic industry within the
meaning of Rule 2(b) and these domestic producers satisfy the criteria of standing in terms of Rule5(3) of the AD
Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1 Views of the other interested parties
61. The other interested parties have made the following submissions:
i) Post issuance of initiation notification, the applicant should be asked to provide an updated non-confidential
version of the application. The association has not provided sufficient information in the non-confidential
version of the representations. The representations do not even contain indexed numbers for the data claimed
confidential.
ii) The petitioners have not disclosed the exact source of import data adopted for assessment of volume and value
of subject imports.
iii) The non sampled producers who have been projected as supporters in the subject investigation have not filed
the basic information concerning their economic parameters leave aside any non-confidential version.
iv) The petitioners have not disclosed the import segregation methodology employed. Further, imports of PUC are
made in sets and pairs. The petitioners have also not disclosed the conversion basis for converting the data
from sets, pairs or pieces to weight in kg or MT.
v) The petitioners have not provided documents like registration certificate, memorandum of association, list of
association members, etc. that are vital for the petitioner association to furnish.
vi) The petitioners have not provided a write-up on the manufacturing process of the PUC even though there are
more than two producers, and the process is generic and well known. Similarly, the petitioners have also not
provided aggregated information regarding its economic parameters but only provided the data in indexed
form.
vii) Excessive confidentiality has been claimed for certain information without providing a clear justification. The
Authority cannot treat information as confidential unless it is explicitly claimed by the party providing it.
viii) Dumping margin was redacted. The applicant should indicate the range of dumping margin.
E.2 Views of the Domestic Industry
62. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to confidentiality:
i) Import data from market intelligence was relied upon in the post initiation submissions to assess import
volumes and values. In any case, while the source and methodology used by the domestic industry may vary,
the Authority has now relied upon DGCI&S data which is crucial for an accurate assessment of imports. As
regards conversion from sets to kilograms, the domestic industry used the actual weight of their own products
as a reference.
ii) Information such as registration certificate, copy of by-laws, MoA, list of Association members, details of
executive body and managing structure, etc. has been submitted with response to the economic interest
questionnaire.
iii) The Authority provided a sufficient non-confidential summary of the information in its preliminary findings.
The allegedly withheld information did not hinder the ability of interested parties to make submissions.
iv) The domestic industry provided estimated dumping margin in the range of 50-60% in the non-confidential
version of its post-initiation submissions. Further, the Authority also disclosed the range of dumping margin at
para 109 of its preliminary findings.
v) The NCV response to deficiency letters must be made available to domestic industry also. Not granting access
to the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. The domestic industry is handicapped and cannot
make effective comment on the acceptance or rejection of the responses filed before the Authority due to non
circulation.
E.3 Examination of the Authority
63. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by the various parties to
all the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7).
64. With regard to confidentiality of the information, Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:
“7. Confidential Information:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub
rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub -rule (1) of rule
5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the
course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be
treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific
authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the interested parties providing information on confidential basis to
furnish nonconfidential 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 authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such
information.”
65. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regards to sufficiency
of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and
such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever
possible, the parties providing information on 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.
66. As regards the source of import data used by the association is concerned, the Authority notes that the association
has specified the source of data as market intelligence. The Authority has considered DGCI&S transaction wise
data for the purpose of the present investigation.
F. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
F.1 Views of the other interested parties
67. The submissions of the other interested parties with regards to the normal value, the export price and the dumping
margin, are as follows:
i) China’s Accession Protocol has expired, and Authority should grant market economy status to China PR and
calculate normal value according to Article 2 ADA.
ii) Rejection on the ground that data did not match DG system data is in violation of principles of natural justice.
The exporters should have been given opportunity to present their case.
iii) When the Authority provided DG system data to the exporter, they were able to provide clarification why there
are differences between the information filed and DG Systems data.
iv) Rejection based on DG system data is not reasonable for the following reasons:
a) DG systems data includes imports into bonded warehouses and subsequent transfers from bonded
warehouses to customs leading to double counting.
b) DG system data does not capture imports by air affecting accuracy of volume.
c) Direct imports in SEZ not recorded in DG Systems data.
d) DG system records imports in various UoM depending on nature of goods, while the Authority has used
weight, leading to inconsistency.
e) DG System data includes imports under multiple codes while Authority focuses on specific codes
therefore creating discrepancies through selective consideration.
f) Goods invoiced in bundles include both PUC and NPUC and the data from DG Systems may reflect
bundled product, thereby distorting the data.
g) DG system reflects import price whereas investigation may focus on export prices and such difference in
source may lead to discrepancy.
h) Discrepancy between date of invoice and date on bill of entry may affect the accuracy of import data.
i) Some transactions for which invoice was raised during POI arrived in India after POI.
v) Data provided by the Authority does not contain information important for reconciliation like invoice number,
date and customer/importer name, hence difficult for exporter to reconcile these invoices.
vi) Authority rejected Haibao’s response as traders did not report purchases from Haibao. However, both traders
have reported purchases from Haibao under a different name i.e., Haihui (brand name of Haibao). The exports by
Haibao through traders who have not filed a response, is less than 10% of its total volume of exports. Hence,
questionnaire should not be rejected.
vii) As per DG Systems data, Hongli made direct exports to India. However, it did not provide information regarding
its direct exports. Hongli has filed a revised EQR including information relating to direct exports. Even in the
case that direct exports are not considered, Authority should not reject all information and rely on direct exports
as per facts available.
viii) Due to disparity in data, the Authority provided relevant import transactions recorded as per DG systems to the
Respondents. It should be considered that DG systems data shows both KGS and SETS. Respondents have
Login to read full text