Subject: Anti-dumping (Mid-Term Review) investigation concerning import of Caustic Soda originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, Indonesia and EU(excluding France) - Final Findings.
No. 15/5/2005-DGAD – WHEREAS, the Designated Authority, having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 (herein after also referred to as the Act) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Antidumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (herein after also referred to as Rules), recommended imposition of provisional anti dumping duty on imports of Caustic Soda (hereinafter referred to as subject goods) originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, Indonesia and European Union (excluding France) (hereinafter referred to as subject countries). The preliminary findings were published vide Notification no. 14/39/2002-DGAD dated 8th January 2003 and provisional duties were imposed on the subject goods vide Customs Notification dated 27.03.2003. The Designated Authority notified the final findings on 01.10.2003 and definitive antidumping duty were imposed vide Customs Notification dated 14.11.2003.
2. AND WHEREAS, the Designated Authority, received an application from M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, requested for a changed circumstances review since conditions of dumping and injury have changed. The Authority, on the basis of a request made on behalf of importer, issued a public notice dated 03.06.2005, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping mid term review investigation in respect of the duty in force against the above countries as above, to determine whether the continued imposition of duty notified vide Custom Notification dated 27.03.2003 would be necessary to offset dumping, whether the injury would be likely to continue or recur if the duty is removed or varied or both.
A. BACK GROUND OF THE CASE
3. On the basis of an application filed by the M/s Indian Producer through Alkali Manufacturers Association of India, the Designated Authority conducted an investigation into existence of Dumping, Injury and Causal link of imports of Caustic Soda from Chinese Taipei, Indonesia and European Union (excluding France) and on the basis of positive determination of Dumping, Injury and Causal link, notified its final findings vide Notification No: 14/39/2002-DGAD dated 1st October 2003. Acting Upon the findings of the Authority, the Central Government imposed antidumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject countries vide Customs notification dated 14.11.2003. The present investigation to review the need for continued imposition of duty has been initiated on 03/06/2005 on the basis of an application filed by M/s Hindustan Lever Limited, Mumbai.
4. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority), under the above Rules, received an application from M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., alleging changed circumstances and requesting initiation of midterm review investigation concerning imports of Caustic Soda (hereinafter referred as subject goods) originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, Indonesia and European Union (excluding France) (hereinafter referred to as subject countries).
The information provided by the applicant showed sufficient prima facie justification that there was a need for review of anti dumping duties earlier imposed. On being satisfied, the Authority issued a public notice dated 03.06.2005 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping midterm review investigations concerning imports of the subject goods classified under chapter 28 of Schedule I of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, Indonesia and European Union – Excluding France in order to determine whether there is no justification for continued imposition of existing duties and whether the same can be withdrawn.
The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to the known producers and/or exporters in the subject countries and gave them opportunity to provide relevant information and make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of the letter in accordance with the Rule 6(2):
The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to all the known importers and/or consumers of subject goods in India and advised them to provide relevant information and make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of issue of the letter in accordance with the Rule 6(2).
Requests were made to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) and Director General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S), Kolkata to arrange details of imports of subject goods made in India for the period of investigation and preceding three years.
The Authority provided copies of the non confidential version of the application to the known producers and/or exporters and the Embassy/territory of the subject countries in accordance with Rules 6(3) supra. A copy of the non-confidential application was also provided to other interested parties, wherever requested.
The Authority sent a questionnaire to elicit relevant information to the government of subject countries including known exporters/producers, in accordance with the Rule 6(4). One of the exporters from Chinese Taipei M/s. Formosa Plastics Corporation, Taiwan (hereinafter referred to as FPC) filed response in the prescribed exporters questionnaire within duly granted extended time period.
Questionnaire was sent to the known importers/user and associations of the subject goods for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4). Following parties filed response to the questionnaire:-
M/s. National Aluminium Company Ltd.,
The Authority provided opportunity to the industrial users of the product under consideration, and to the known representative consumer organizations, to furnish information considered relevant to the investigation regarding dumping, injury and causality.
The Authority held a public hearing on 29th November 2005 to provide an opportunity to the interested parties to present relevant information orally, which was attended by petitioner, representatives of the domestic industry, Formosa Plastics and other interested parties. The parties attending the public hearing were advised to file written submissions of views and information presented orally. The interested parties were allowed to present rebuttal arguments on the views/information presented orally by other interested parties. Designated Authority has considered these written submissions received from various interested parties.
Arguments raised and information/evidence provided by various interested parties during the course of the investigation, to that extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by the Authority in the present findings, .
The Authority during the course of investigation satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the information supplied by various interested parties upon which these findings are based. For the purpose, the Authority conducted on-the-spot verification of the foreign producer, the domestic producers and consumers to the extent considered relevant and necessary. Additional details regarding injury were sought from the domestic industry, which were also received.
The Authority made available non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested parties through a public file maintained by the Authority and kept open for inspection by the interested parties as per Rule 6(7).
Cost investigations were conducted to work out optimum cost of production and cost to make and sell the subject goods in India on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the information furnished by the domestic industry so as to ascertain if anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
In accordance with Rule 16 supra, the essential facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed on 2/05/2006 to known interested parties and comments received have been duly considered in these findings;
Investigation was carried out for the period starting from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2004 (12 months) and has been referred to as the period of investigation (POI). The examination of trends in the context of injury analysis covered the period from April 2001 - March 2002, April 2002 – March 2003 and April 2003 – March 2004 and the POI;
****In this notification represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules on merits. Information provided by various interested parties on confidential basis were examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has granted confidentiality, 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. Wherever an interested party has refused access to, or has otherwise not provided, necessary information during the course of the present investigations, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has recorded these findings on the basis of the facts available
If you want to see more informations,please click the Source follow: