Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-24032026-271224
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I-Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 80]
NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 2026/PHALGUNA 29, 1947
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
INITIATION NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 20th March, 2026
CASE No. AD (SSR)-02/2026
SETU ID - AD/SSR/001/2026
Subject: Sunset review investigation of anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of "Axle for Trailers"
originating in or exported from China PR.
F. No. 7/5/2026-DGTR.—Having regards to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as the "Act") and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-
dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as the "Rules" or the "Anti-Dumping Rules"), M/s-York Transport Equipment (India) Pvt.
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "applicant" or "domestic industry") has filed an application with the Designated
Authority for initiation of sunset review investigation for continued imposition of anti-dumping duties on the imports
of "Axle for Trailers" (hereinafter also referred to as "subject goods" or "product under consideration) from China PR
(hereinafter referred to as the "subject country").
In terms of Section 9A (5) of the Act, the anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have
effect on expiry of five years from the date of such imposition and the Authority is required to review whether the
expiry of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. In accordance with the same, the
Authority is required to review, on the basis of a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic
industry as to whether the expiry of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
A. BACKGROUND
1. The original anti-dumping investigation was initiated vide notification no. 14/17/2015-DGAD dated 28th
December 2015. Thereafter, the Authority recommended anti-dumping duty vide final findings File No.
14/17/2015-DGAD, dated the 30th September 2016, duty was levied vide Notification No. 54/2016-Customs
(ADD) dated 29th November, 2016.
2. Thereafter, based on an application filed by the applicant alleging continuation of dumping and injury, the
Designated Authority initiated a Sunset review investigation vide notification File no. 7/7/2021-DGTR dated 19th
April 2021. The Authority after concluding likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury,
recommended the continuation of duty vide final finding File No. 7/7/2021-DGTR, dated the 27th October 2021.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Finance imposed duty vide notification No. 04/2022-Customs (ADD) dated 24th
January, 2022.
3. The aforesaid anti-dumping duty is in force till 23rd January, 2027. Thus, the present application is being filed for
initiation of 2nd sunset review investigation, to examine the need for continuation of existing anti-dumping duty.
B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
4. The product under consideration in the present investigation is same as defined in the original and 1st Sunset
review investigation which is as follows:
“The Product under Consideration in the present investigation is "Axle for Trailers”. The subject goods are
manufactured and sold in different variants. However, the basic product characteristics and end use of all
these variants remains the same and all such types of Trailer Axles have been covered in the scope of the
PUC. All such variants essentially constitute a homogenous product under consideration with comparable
basic characteristics and similar functions/uses.”
5. The subject goods are classified under Chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and further classified under
custom sub-heading no. 87169010. However, since the subheading is not a dedicated classification, the customs
classification is indicative only and not binding on the product scope determined for this investigation.
6. The applicant has not proposed any PCN methodology citing the same was not followed both in original as well
as 1st sunset review. The interested parties in the subject investigation may provide their comments on the
PUC/PCN methodology, if any, within 15 days from the date of initiation of this investigation.
C. LIKE ARTICLE
7. The applicant has submitted that there are no significant differences in the product produced by the applicant and
those imported from the subject country, and both are like articles. The product produced by the applicant and
those imported from the subject country is comparable in terms of essential product characteristics such as
physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & usage, product
specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. Consumers can use and have
been using the two interchangeably. The two are technically and commercially substitutable, and hence, should be
treated as 'like article' under the Rules. The issue of like article has already been examined by the Authority in the
original investigation and the 1st Sunset Review investigation as well, and it was concluded that the product
produced by the domestic industry is like article to the product under consideration produced and imported from
the subject country
D. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
8. The application has been filed by M/s York Transport Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Applicant has certified that
they have not imported the subject goods from the subject country in the entire injury period nor are they related to
any producer or importer of the subject goods. As per evidence available on record, the production of the applicant
accounts for a major proportion in the domestic production of the like article.
9. Based on the information provided, it is seen that the applicant constitutes 'domestic industry' within the meaning
of Rule 2(b) of the Rules, and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
E. SUBJECT COUNTRY
10. The subject county for the present SSR investigation is China PR.
F. PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION
11. The applicant had proposed 1st October,2024 to 30th September,2025 as the period of investigation. The Authority
has considered the period of investigation as proposed by the applicant for the purpose of the investigation. The
injury investigation period will cover the period of financial year 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25 and the period of
investigation.
G. BASIS OF ALLEGED DUMPING
Normal value
12. The applicant has cited and relied upon Article 15(a) (i) of China's Accession Protocol and has claimed that China
PR should be treated as a non-market economy and that producers from China PR should be directed to
demonstrate that market economy conditions prevail in the industry with regard to the production and sales of the
product under consideration. Unless the producers from China PR show that such market economy conditions
prevail, their normal value should be determined in accordance with Para 7 and 8 of Annexure-I to the Anti-
Dumping Rules, 1995.
13. With regard to the option of price in a market economy third country, the applicant have claimed that they have
exported substantial volume of subject goods during the POI to South Africa and the price of such exports at
landed value levels in South Africa would reflect the prevailing price of the subject goods in South Africa. In such
a situation, considering the export price of the applicant to South Africa at landed levels in South Africa as the
price of the subject goods in South Africa needs further substantiation. Even the claim of South Africa as the
appropriate market economy third county concerning China PR needs evidences to support the claims.
14. The applicant have also claimed that they could not find any evidence for normal value on the basis of constructed
value in a market economy third country or based on the price from such a third country to other country,
including India. Alternatively, the petitioner has claimed normal value on the basis of the price actually paid or
payable in India, duly adjusted to include a reasonable profit margin. The petitioner has considered cost of
production in India, duly adjusted, have been considered.
15. The interested parties are advised to offer their comments and make duly substantiated claims with regard to
methodology to be adopted for determination of normal value.
Export price
16. The export price of the product under consideration has been determined by considering the CIF price of the
product under consideration as reported in DG Systems data. Adjustments have been claimed for ocean freight,
marine insurance, commission, bank charges, port expenses, handling expense, inland freight, credit costs.
Dumping margin
17. The normal value and the export price have been compared at the ex-factory level. It is prima facie seen that the
dumping margin is positive. This prima facie establishes that product under consideration is continued to be
dumped in the domestic market of India by the exporters from the subject country.
H. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
18. The applicants have provided prima facie evidence claiming that there is likelihood of continuation/recurrence of
dumping and injury to the domestic industry if the duties are allowed to expire, since the producers in China PR
have large production capacities, and India remains a price attractive market for such producers.
19. The information provided by the applicant, prima facie, shows likelihood of continuation of dumping from the
subject country and the consequent injury to the domestic industry in case of cessation of the anti-dumping duties.
I. INITIATION OF SUNSET REVIEW INVESTIGATION
20. On the basis of the duly substantiated application of the applicant, and having satisfied itself on the basis of the
prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, substantiating the likelihood of continuation/ recurrence of
dumping and injury, and in accordance with Section 9A(5) of the Act read with Rule 23 (1B) of the Rules, the
Authority hereby initiates a sunset review investigation to review the need for continued imposition of the duties in
force in respect of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country and to examine whether
the expiry of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic
industry.
J. PROCEDURE
21. The sunset review investigation will cover all aspects of the final finding published vide File No. 7/7/2021-DGTR,
dated the 27th October 2021, recommending the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject
goods originating in or exported from the subject country.
22. The provisions of Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the Rules shall be mutatis mutandis applicable
in this review.
K. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION
23. All the interested parties are required to register themselves on SETU Portal (https://setu.dgtr.gov.in/). All
communications and submissions from the interested parties shall be uploaded on the SETU portal under their
registered name and corresponding case ID- AD/SSR/001/2026. It should be ensured that the narrative part of the
submission is in searchable PDF/MS-Word format and data files are in MS-Excel format.
24. The known producers/exporters in the subject country, the government of the subject country through its embassy
in India, and the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the subject goods are being informed
separately to enable them to file all the relevant information in the form and manner prescribed within the time
limit set out below. All such information must be filed in the form and manner as prescribed by this initiation
notification, the Rules, and the applicable trade notices issued by the Authority.
25. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the form and manner
prescribed within the time limit set out below. Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority
is required to make a non-confidential version of the same available to the other parties.
26. The interested parties are further advised to keep a regular watch on the official website of the Directorate General
of Trade Remedies at www.dgtr.gov.in and SETU portal https://setu.dgtr.gov.in for any updated information with
respect to this investigation. Interested parties are directed to regularly visit the website of DGTR www.dgtr.gov.in
to stay apprised with the further developments in the subject investigation and remain informed regarding notices
that may be issued from time to time regarding questionnaire formats, PCN methodology (if any), PCN discussion
/meeting schedule (if any), notice of oral hearing, disclosure, corrigendum, amendment notifications, and other
such information.
L. TIME LIMIT
27. Any information relating to the present investigation should be uploaded on the SETU portal
(https://setu.dgtr.gov.in) under their registered name and corresponding case ID -AD/SSR/001/2026. Both versions
of each submission, the confidential version (CV) and the non-confidential version (NCV) must be uploaded in the
respective designated columns within 37 days from the date on which the nonconfidential version of the
application filed by the domestic industry would be circulated by the Authority or transmitted to the appropriate
diplomatic representative of the exporting country as per Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules, 1995. If no information is
received within the stipulated time limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record its
findings based on the facts available on record and in accordance with the AD Rules, 1995.
28. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of interest) in the instant
matter and file their questionnaire responses within the above time limit as stipulated in this notification through
SETU portal only.
29. The 15 day period to file comments on the scope of PUC/PCN Methodology shall run concurrently with the time
limit mentioned in para 27 above of this initiation Notification.
30. Extension due to Modification of PUC/PCN: An extension of time by 15 days shall be granted if the Authority,
through a subsequent notice, modifies the PUC, and PCN that was previously proposed or is different from the
initiation notification. This extension of 15 days shall be granted from date of such notification of modified PUC
and PCN. Extension of time by 15 days stated in this paragraph is not applicable in instances where there is no
change in the PUC, and PCN methodology after initiation of investigation. Requests for a further extension of
time, beyond the 15-day extension (if granted), will ordinarily not be considered except in case of exceptional
circumstances, in line with the Rule 7(4) of the AD Rules.
31. Any request for an extension must be submitted by the concerned parties through the SETU portal at least one day
before the original deadline specified in paragraph 27 above. Requests submitted after this time will not be
considered.
M. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS
32. Where any party to the present investigation makes confidential submissions or provides information on a
confidential basis before the Authority, such party is required to simultaneously submit a non-confidential version
of such information in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules and in accordance with the relevant trade notices issued by
the Authority in this regard. Failure to adhere to the above may lead to rejection of the response/submissions.
33. The parties making any submission (including Appendices/ Annexures attached thereto), before the Authority
including questionnaire responses, are required to file confidential and non-confidential versions separately.
34. Such submissions must be clearly marked as 'confidential' or 'non-confidential' at the top of each page. Any
submission that has been made to the Authority without such markings shall be treated as 'non-confidential'
information by the Authority, and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow other interested parties to inspect such
submissions.
35. The confidential version shall contain all information which is, by nature, confidential, and/or other information,
which the supplier of such information claims as confidential. For the information which is claimed to be
confidential by nature, or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of other reasons, the
supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information as to
why such information cannot be disclosed.
36. The non-confidential version of the information filed by the interested parties should be a replica of the
confidential version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (where indexation is not
possible) and such information must be appropriately and adequately summarized depending upon the information
on which confidentiality is claimed.
37. The non-confidential summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of
the information furnished on a confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, the party submitting the
confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible to summary, and a statement of
reasons containing a sufficient and adequate explanation as to why such summarization is not possible, must be
provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.
38. The interested parties can offer their comments on the issues of confidentiality within 7 days from the date of
circulation of the non-confidential version of the documents.
39. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the information
submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or if the supplier of the
information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in generalized or
summary form, it may disregard such information.
40. Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or a sufficient and adequate cause
statement in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules, and appropriate trade notices issued by the Authority, on the
confidentiality claim shall not be taken on record by the Authority.
N. INSPECTION OF PUBLIC FILE
41. All non-confidential versions of submissions made by any interested parties will be accessible to other interested
parties through their respective login on the SETU portal.
O. NON-COOPERATION
42. In case any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide necessary information within a
reasonable period or within the time stipulated by the Authority in this initiation notification, or significantly
impedes the investigation, the Authority may declare such interested party as non-cooperative and record its
findings based on the facts available and make such recommendations to the Central Government as it deems fit.
AMITABH KUMAR, Designated Authority
Login to read full text