59/1/2000-DGAD- Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of anti-dumping duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, thereof :

The procedure described below has been followed:

1. The Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as Authority), under the above Rules, received a written application from M/s Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter also referred to as petitioner) having registered office at Plot No.1 A, Sector-16A, Institutional Area, Noida – 201 301 on behalf of domestic industry, alleging dumping of Choline Chloride (hereinafter also referred to as subject goods) originating in or exported from territory of European Union and People’s Republic of China and USA.
2. Preliminary scrutiny of the application filed by the petitioner revealed certain deficiencies, which were subsequently rectified by the petitioner. The petition was, therefore, considered as properly documented.
3. The Authority on the basis of prima-facie evidence as received decided to initiate the investigation against imports of subject goods from territory of European Union and People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as subject countries). As the petitioner could not furnish prima-facie evidence on dumping of the subject goods from USA, the Authority did not initiate any proceedings against imports of subject goods from USA. The Authority notified the Delegation of the European Commission and the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in New Delhi(hereinafter also called Embassies of the subject countries) about the receipt of the dumping allegation before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with sub-Rule 5(5) of the Rules.
4. The Authority issued a public notice dated 6.12.2000 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating Anti-Dumping investigations concerning imports of the subject goods classified under Custom Code 2309.9001 and 2923.1001 of Schedule I of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 originating in or exported from territory of European Union and Peoples Republic of China.

v. The Authority notified preliminary findings dated 22.2.2001 and forwarded a copy of the preliminary findings to the known interested parties, who were requested to furnish their views, if any, on the preliminary findings within forty days of the date of the letter.

6. The Authority also forwarded a copy of the preliminary findings to the Embassy of the subject countries in New Delhi with a request that the exporters/producers of subject goods and other interested parties may be advised to furnish their views on the preliminary findings in the time frame as stipulated in (v) above.
7. The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to all the known exporters (whose details were made available by petitioner) and industry/user associations and gave them an opportunity to make their views known in writing in accordance with the Rule 6(2).
8. The Authority provided an opportunity to all interested parties to present their views orally on 27.4.2001. All parties presenting views were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed. The parties were advised to collect copies of the views expressed by the opposing parties and offer rebuttals, if any;
9. The Authority made available the public file to all interested parties containing non-confidential version of all evidence submitted by various interested parties for inspection, upon request;
10. Request was made to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to arrange details of imports of subject goods made in India during the past three years, including the period of investigation.
11. Arguments raised by the interested parties before announcing the preliminary findings, which have been brought out in the preliminary findings notified have not been repeated herein for sake of brevity. However, the arguments raised by the interested parties subsequently have been appropriately dealt in the preliminary findings and/or these findings;
12. In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules supra, the essential facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed to known interested parties on 8.11.2001. Request for extension was made by certain interested parties which was considered by the Authority and extension was granted upto 16.11.2001. Comments received on the same have also been duly considered in these findings.
13. *** in this notification represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
14. The period of investigation (POI) considered is 1.4.1999 to 30.9.2000

9. Choline Chloride a supplement not a feed:-

b) Domestic Industry

9. Whether Choline Chloride is a feed additive or a feed supplement, it is clarified that the product under consideration is Choline Chloride and the product being produced by the domestic industry is a like article to the product being imported. There is no dispute even on this account. Such being the case, the distinction pointed out by the importer is hardly of any consequence in the on-going investigations.

The Authority notes the various submissions made by the interested parties and also notes that even though choline chloride is a feed supplement, it is known as choline chloride and as such there is no dispute on this nomenclature. The Authority noting that as there is no other dispute on the Product Under Consideration and that none of the interested parties have raised any issue in response to the disclosure statement, therefore, confirms the product under consideration as clarified in para C(1) of the preliminary findings as follows:

"The product under consideration in the present investigation is Choline Chloride, a kind of animal compound feed, is a quaternary ammonium compound, which is colourless, viscid and strongly alkaline.

The product is generally referred to as B Complex Vitamin, which is basically poultry, feed supplement. The product is classified under Chapter 23 (2309.9001) of the Customs Tariff Act and also the Liquid Choline Chloride under Chapter 29 (2923.1001). The manufacturing process is as under: -

The product is manufactured in three steps batch process, which involves neutralization of Hydrochloric Acid with Trimethyl Amine to form Trimethyl Amine Hydrochloride. Ethylene Oxide is then added to Trimethyl Amine Hydrochloride to form Choline Chloride solution. The solution is then concentrated under vacuum to a pre determined percentage solution. Dry Choline Chloride is produced by blending in a mixer batch wise Liquid Choline Chloride with solid carriers. This blend is then fed to a Rotary Dryer where moisture is removed. This is then fed in Rotary Cooler to bring down the temperature of the mass to Atmospheric Temperature. Finally the dry choline chloride is Milled and filled in bags.

The carrier normally used is a Silica, corn Cob powder or similar absorbent powder derived from agro-waste materials. The carrier is used merely to carry the product, Choline chloride. The commercial nomenclature of the product depends upon the carrier used and the concentration of Choline. In case the carrier used is corn cob, the product is commercially called Choline Chloride Corn Cob base. If the carrier used is vegetable, it is known as Choline Chloride Vegetable base. The concentration of Choline Chloride is also usually mentioned along with the carrier used. In case the concentration is 50% Choline Chloride, it is called Choline Chloride 50% Corn Cob (or vegetable) base. The various grades of Choline Chloride are Choline Chloride on Corn Cob Carrier, Choline Chloride on Silica Carrier and Aqueous Choline Chloride.

The product falls under OGL and attracts the basic duty of 35% with 10% surcharge. The present investigation covers all types, forms and grades of Choline Chloride, regardless of its concentration and the carrier used."

2. STANDING OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The Authority notes that there are no submissions made on the standing of the Domestic Industry in response to the disclosure statement and therefore recalls and confirms the Para C(3) of the preliminary findings dated 22.2.2001 as indicated below:-

The petition has been filed by M/s Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. , having registered office at Plot No.1-A, Sector-16 A, Institutional Area, Noida-201301. The Authority holds that the petitioner a major producer of subject goods in India accounts for almost 70% of the total domestic production, and therefore, satisfies the standing to file the petition on behalf of the Domestic Industry as per Rule 5(a) and (b) and Rule 2(b).

3. LIKE ARTICLE

The Authority notes that there is no dispute and no submissions made on the issue of like article by any interested parties in response to the preliminary findings or to the disclosure statement. The Authority, therefore, recalls and confirms para C(2) of the preliminary findings as indicated below:-

The Authority notes that the petitioner has claimed that goods produced by them and as classified by the Custom Tariff under the Head 2309.9001 and 2923.1001 have no substitute and that there is no significant difference in Choline Chloride produced by the Domestic Industry and that exported from subject countries viza. Domestic and those imported from the subject countries. The consumers of the product are using both the products without making any changes in their production process. Also according to the petitioner’s information there is no significant difference in the production process adopted by the petitioner and the producer in the subject countries. The Authority further notes that the cooperative exporter M/s Akzo Nobel Chemicals S.p.A. and the other interested parties viz. importers/users who have responded have not raised any issues on this. The petitioner has submitted that the domestic goods and the imported goods from the subject countries be treated as Like Article.

The Authority, therefore, holds that the subject goods imported from the subject countries and that manufactured by the Domestic Industry are Like Article within the meaning of the Rule 2(d).

 4. NORMAL VALUE & EXPORT PRICE

(iv) M/s Akzo Noble has provided its pricing arrangement with one of the customers in the domestic market.

 NORMAL VALUE

The Authority notes the submission made above by various interested parties. The Authority recalls that in Para 4(a) of the preliminary findings, it has been indicated that the domestic prices of the exporter M/s Akzo Nobel are being treated in the ordinary course of trade for the purpose of preliminary determination only, pending final determination. The Authority had deputed a team of officers from the Directorate of Anti Dumping to verify the response filed by M/s Akzo Nobel on domestic selling price, cost of production and export price with adjustments thereof. The Authority on the basis of cost of production of subject goods provided to the verification team notes that the domestic selling price of subject goods in the domestic market are in the ordinary course of trade. The Authority also notes that M/s Akzo Nobel has incurred credit cost for 60 days credit on their domestic sales and have also incurred a freight cost on their domestic sales. The Authority has allowed the adjustments on credit cost and freight to an extent of US$****PMT and US$****PMT respectively. The Authority, however, notes that in the absence of no evidence provided by the exporter in regard to any expense incurred on the commission given to their agent in the domestic market, no adjustments can be granted on account of commission on the domestic sales. The Authority has referenced the domestic selling prices for the purpose of normal value. The normal value after considering the above adjustments comes to US$****PMT.

As regards the export price, the Authority notes that on the basis of the data given by the exporter, the weighted average CIF price to India comes to US$****PMT. The Authority notes that the exporter has incurred expenditure on freight (ocean freight, inland freight and other port expenses), commission to their agent in Delhi, ocean insurance and credit cost to an extent of 120 days as indicated in their export invoices. The Authority has considered and allowed adjustments on these elements to an extent of ***, ***, *** and *** $/MT respectively. The Ex-factory export selling price after allowing these adjustments comes to US$****PMT.

A. Determination of Normal Value in EU for Non-cooperative exporters:-

At the outset, the interested opposing parties would like to submit the pursuant to Rule 6(5) of the Anti Dumping Rules, the interested opposing parties are permitted to give information on interalia, dumping.

Based on this provision, the interested opposing parties submit that if the Designated Authority is relying on Rule 6(8) of the Anti Dumping Rules, then all relevant information available to the Designated Authority needs to be considered, including that provided by partially cooperating exporters.

It is submitted that the Designated Authority should consider the cost basis of M/s Akzo Nobel as the basis for the determining Normal Value for non-cooperating exporters from the EU. A difference of over 100% in the dumping margin for cooperating and non-cooperating exporters penalizes the consuming industry.

Furthermore, under the best evidence Rule in 6(8), the cost of the raw materials in the EU would not be the "raw material prices at international level to the extent they are available and on the production cost details adjusted on the basis of best practices as provided by the Domestic Industry " as is stated by the Designated Authority. In fact the raw material pricing as available in EU with M/s Akzo Nobel and the manufacturing practices adopted by them.

As regards the other exporters/producers of territory of European Union and all exporters/producers of PR China who have not cooperated, the Authority has evaluated normal value and export price as indicated in the preliminary finding by referencing the secondary source information as provided by the petitioner and on the normal value constructed on the basis of information by adopting the raw material prices at international level to the extent they are available and on the production cost details adjusted on the basis of best practices as provided by the petitioner. The Authority notes the above submissions made by M/s Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills and M/s Compound Livestock Feed Manufacturers Association, recalls the provisions of Rule 22 in which any new exporter is permitted to apply for a new shipper review if he has not been evaluated during the investigation. In case of any non-cooperating exporter other than such exporters, the Authority is well within the provisions of Anti Dumping Rules to consider the best available information under Rule 6(8).

  The Authority recalls and confirms the methodology as illustrated in Para C(1) (ii) of preliminary findings dated 2.2.2001 and as indicated below.:-

A) Non-cooperative exporters other than M/s Akzo Nobel Chemicals S.p.A. Italy & M/s Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV. Netherlands

1. Normal Value

The Authority notes that the petitioner has provided a secondary source evidence for the domestic selling prices in the European Territory. Since only one exporter has responded, the Authority considers it appropriate to refer the secondary source for the purpose of determination of the normal value for all exporters other than the cooperative exporter. The normal value for such exporters is referenced at ****$/MT.

2. Ex-factory export price

The Authority notes that the petitioner has provided details of the month-wise CIF export prices and quantitities to India of the subject goods in the POI. The petitioner has sought adjustments on ocean freight, ocean insurance, commission, inland freight, port handling to an extent of ****, ****, ****, **** & ****$/MT respectively. The weighted average ex-factory export price for the non-cooperating exporters by considering the average CIF prices and adjustments as indicated by the petitioner except ocean freight for which data provided by the cooperative exporter has been referenced. comes to ****$/MT.

B. NON-COOPERATIVE EXPORTERS/PRODUCERS OF PR CHINA

 i) M/s Yixing Akzo Nobel Sanyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd. Dushan, PR China

The Authority notes that the exporter has indicated that they have not made any exports of the subject goods in the POI to India. The Authority, therefore, notes that Rule 22 of the Anti-Dumping Rules would be attracted for the above exporter. The exporter should make application accordingly under the Rules. Till such time their case is take up for review under Rule 22, they shall be covered under the category of "all exporters/producers in Para (C) below.

3. ll exporters/producers

1. Normal Value

The Authority notes that none of the exporters/producers has responded to the questionnaire. The Authority in the absence of the response from exporters/producers, considers it appropriate to construct the normal value for such exporters/producers. For the purpose of construction of the normal value, the Authority has referenced the best available information by considering the cost of production of subject goods and by making appropriate adjustments on capacity utiliation and bench marking best utilisation practices and international raw material prices. The weighted average normal value comes to ****$/MT.

2. Ex-factory export price

 The Authority notes that the petitioner has provided the weighted average CIF price of imports of subject goods from PR China in POI. The petitioner has also claimed adjustments on ocean freight, ocean insurance, commission, inland freight, port handling to an extent

of ****, ****, ****, **** and ****$/MT. The weighted average Ex-factory Export Price is considered at ****$/MT.

The rules relating to comparison provides as follows:

"While arriving at margin of dumping, the Designated Authority shall make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value. The comparison shall be made at the same level of trade, normally at ex-works level, and in respect of sales made at as nearly possible the same time. Due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which affect price comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences which are demonstrated to affect price comparability."

The Authority has carried out comparison of weighted average normal value with the weighted average ex-factory export price for evaluation of dumping margin.

  The dumping margin for the producers/exporters of the subject goods in the subject countries are as under:--

The above dumping margins are above the de-minimus limits

Under Rule 11 supra, Annexure-II, when a finding of injury is arrived at, such finding shall involve determination of the injury to the domestic industry, "…..taking into account all 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 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.

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 as production, capacity utilisation, sales quantum, stock, profitability, net sales realisation, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II(iv) of the rules supra.

The following submissions have been made by various interested parties

  (a) DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

(i) The Designated Authority has already acknowledged the injury caused to the domestic industry from the dumped imports from European Union and China. We have already provided detailed information to the Designated Authority, which is not being repeated herein for sake of brevity, which shows that the domestic industry has suffered material injury from the dumped imports.

(ii) The following parameters summarize injury to the domestic industry:

(a) Imports from each of the subject countries are more than de-minimus.

1. The imports were only from the subject countries in the period April 99 to June 2000
2. The imports from the subject countries have increased in absolute terms.
3. The imports from the subject countries have increased related to consumption of choline chloride in India. Market share of subject countries in imports as well as demand has increased significantly
4. Export price from subject countries have declined significantly
5. Though the petitioner has been able to maintain its production, sales and capacity utilization, its share in demand has not increased proportionately.
6. The imports have forced the domestic industry to reduce its prices in spite of increase in the cost of production. The imports are causing severe price undercutting in the Indian market. The landed value of the imported material is significantly below the selling prices of the domestic industry.
7. The landed value of the imported material was significantly below the cost of production and fair selling price of the domestic industry and has prevented the industry from recovering its cost of production.

(iii) All parameters collectively and cumulatively establish that the domestic industry has suffered material injury from the dumped imports.

In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the preliminary findings is required to be confirmed with regard to injury and causal link.

1. M/s Akzo Nobel strongly questions the reliability of data that has been used in some parts of investigation. It has been stated that the imports from European Union have increased from 1.22 mt in 1998-99 to 636 mt in the period of investigation. As indicated in our export statistics, imports in 1998-99 from M/s Akzo Nobel have been higher than stated. This means that the increase in volume of imports and its increase in market share are not correct. Consequently the injury to the domestic industry is not as substantial as indicated in the findings.
2. Based on the remarks made we can only observe that the decision to instigate anti-dumping duties on choline chloride is based on non-reliable or even incorrect information.
3. For that reason M/s Akzo Nobel requests the Indian Ministry of Commerce & Industry to reconsider the instigation of anti-dumping measures as announced. At the same time M/s Akzo Nobel shall investigate its position in this matter under the pertinent international treaties.
4. However, to ascertain the true picture of the petitioner, the accounts of M/s Anichem or all other companies/divisions manufacturing agri-feed prior to the amalgamation will need to be analysed. Injury is not apparent from the financial accounts on the contrary, high profits are. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble DA investigates the same in detail.

Further, from the preliminary findings, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Designated Authority has not considered all the parameters of the injury and causal link as per the Rules. The WTO decision in the Bed Linen case is on point. It is noteworthy that the panel therein upheld the Indian Government view that all the parameters contained in the Agreement on Dumping need to consider in a finding of injury. It is appropriate and just that the Hon’ble Designated Authority follows the same even though it is not binding upon the Designated Authority .

The Authority after considering the above submissions observes the following-

(i) The Authority notes that the subject goods are imported under customs tariff head 2309.1001 as "compound animal feed" and under 2923.1001 as "Liquid Choline Chloride". The nomenclature "compound animal feed" being a broad and generic classification includes products other than subject goods also. As there are only a few major importers of the subject goods in the POI, the Authority has referenced the export data as provided by M/s Akzo Nobel and port-wise secondary source import data provided by the petitioner for evaluation of total imports. In this regard the Authority also notes that M/s Akzo Nobel in its response has indicated that imports volume may be correlated with the data provided by them.

(ii) The Authority notes that the imports from China PR have increased from 4 MT in 1998-99 to 25 MT (Annaulised- 16.7 MT) in POI. The imports from territory of European Union have increased from about 115 MT in 1998-99 to about 343 MT (Annualised 228 MT) in POI. The percentage of imports from Peoples Republic of China in the total imports constitutes about 6.67% in POI whereas the imports from territory of European Union constitutes about 83%

3. The sales of the petitioner has increased from 852 MT in 1997-98 to 3974 MT in POI (2650 MT annualised). The market share of the petitioner has increased from 41.28% to 62.6% in POI. The production has also increased from 1196 MT in 1997-98 to 2792 MT in 1998-99 and further 3874 MT in POI. The capacity utilisation has also increased from 11.97% in 1997-98 to 33.15% in POI.
4. The demand of Choline Chloride has increased from about 2064 MT in 1997-98 to about 6348 MT in POI. Demand has, therefore not been a factor for cause of injury to the Domestic Industry.

(v) Though the market share, production and sales of the petitioner have increased, the Authority notes that the petitioner has been forced to sell the subject goods below the Non Injurious Price (NIP) in the POI on account of price suppression caused by the dumped imports from the subject countries, leading to un-remunerative prices and consequentially financial losses.

The above factors collectively and cumulatively indicate that the dumped imports have kept the domestic prices depressed in the Indian market thereby causing injury to the Domestic Industry by way of depressed Net Sales Realisation leading to financial losses.

 7. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES

A. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The following submissions have been made:

  (i) STATE OF POULTRY FARM IN INDIA AND IMPACT OF PROPOSED MEASURES

Whole argument made by the importer is related to problems being faced by the poultry industry and threat of injury to this industry from the recent liberalization step taken by the Government. We submit that whole argument of the domestic industry deserved to be ignored as the issue is beyond the scope of the present investigations. The investigations in the present case relate to Choline Chloride and not to the poultry farm industry.

Notwithstanding above, we submit that imposition of anti-dumping duty would not effect the poultry business, however, it would lead to survival of whole Choline Chloride Industry as is evident from the table below.   

It is evident from the above, impact of anti-dumping duty would impact on Chicken for 1.2 paisa, which is minimal. Such miniscule is the impact of the proposed measures that it can hardly be argued that there could be any adverse impact on the consumers.

(ii) PUBLIC INTEREST:

With regard to public interest, it is submitted that the prices of Choline Chloride in India were significantly higher before VAM came into production. In fact, as argued in the

petition also, the export price declined as shown below:

The market price of Choline Chloride was as high as Rs. 70 per kg. before VAM came into production. The significant decline in the export price is due to entry of VAM in the production of the subject goods. Thus, it is in the interests of the consumers that unfair activities of the exporters are restricted so that VAM continues to be in production and caters to the market.

Further, the Anti Dumping investigations being undertaken by the Designated Authority are governed by the provisions made under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rules made thereunder. The Designated Authority is not required to look into the issue of public interest under these provisions. Moreover, in various investigations, the Designated Authority held as under:

Evidently, imposition of the proposed anti-dumping duty would not be against the interests of the consumers and would not be contrary to the public interest.

(iii) WRONGFUL PROTECT WOULD RESULT IN MONOPOLY:

It is inappropriate to say that the imposition of anti-dumping duty would result in monopoly to the petitioner. Firstly, we submit that there are four producers of Choline Chloride in India. Further, as also acknowledged by the Designated Authority in a number of investigations so far, the purpose of imposition of Anti Dumping Duty is not to restrict the imports. Its whole purpose is to eliminate the dumping practice resorted by the exporters. In various investigations, the Designated Authority held as under:

(iv) PUBLIC INTEREST IN WTO JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA

It is respectfully submitted that while the safeguard cases are in no way binding upon the Hon’ble Designated Authority, it is indicative of the analysis being made in this area of the law. With utmost respect the dicta in the safeguard decision on phenol is reproduced for the consideration of the Hon’ble Designated Authority.

(ii) Though the Designated Authority has already recommended anti-dumping duty in terms of US$, it is submitted that the final duties may also be recommended in terms of US$ only, so that erosion in the quantum of protection does not take place on account of changes in the exchange rate.

(iii) The Designated Authority has clarified in the preliminary findings that any product having choline chloride concentration different from the specified concentration would attract proportionate duty. However, it appears that this aspect of the recommendation seems to have been overlooked while imposing the duties. We request the Designated Authority so suitably clarify to the Ministry of Finance in this regard in the final findings.

B. M/s Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills Ltd. Pune, M/s Poultry Federation of India and M/s Compound Livestock Feed Manufacturers Association of India, Bombay submits the following:

(i) It is also a fact that most poultry farmers are in the unorganized sector and cannot make their representations in an organized manner, however, each one experiences the pain of increasing costs.

(ii) Poultry farming is perhaps facing its most severe test in India. Over capacity, coupled with the threat of low priced imports coming in as a consequence of the recent liberalization in import restrictions is putting severe pressure on the industry.

(iii) The domestic Indian poultry farmer earns approximately Rs.3 per chicken and 10 paisa per egg. The main cost component for the Indian poultry farmer is the feed – it amounts to over 70% of its cost. Maize, the main ingredient of this fed has recently seen the customs duty increased in the recent budget. With this grim situation, it is more than likely that the feed supplements, which are dispensable in comparison to the feed, will not be consumed.

(iv) It is a matter of record that no new poultry farms have come up in the past two years in the North of India. The plight in the West and South is no better with 20/81 cooperative sector farms in Maharashtra having closed down. Further, in the South there are severe worries about the anticipated influx of imports of both chicken legs and eggs. European countries are able to export eggs costing Rs.3.5 to produce for Rs.1-1.50 to the Middle East.

(v) The petitioner has already increased prices from Rs.38/- to Rs.48/- per kg after the imposition of preliminary duties in this matter. The same is having a devastating effect on the already burdened farmers.

(vi) M/s Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills and M/s Compound Livestock Feed Manufactures Association have indicated in the submission in response to the disclosure statement that submission on WTO jurisprudence in India has been erroneously attributed to them.

(vii) In response to the disclosure statement M/s Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills and M/s Compound Livestock Feed Manufactures Association have indicated that while the Designated Authority appears to be sympathetic to the plight of the consuming industry, by relying upon the petitioner’s data for non-cooperating exporters and thus inflating the dumping margin, all possibility of no or low duties on the allegedly dumped product will be impossible. It is respectfully submitted that not only must the lesser duty rule be followed, the discretion vested in the Designated Authority must be exercised in a manner which although does not put a premium on non-cooperation, it does not overly burden an already burdened consuming industry, at the grass roots of the Indian economy.

(viii) M/s Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills and M/s Compound Livestock Feed Manufactures Association have indicated in response to the disclosure statement that they without accepting the analysis on the impact on the industry made by the petitioner, it would like to point out that the poultry industry is going through a very trying period. Poultry farmers are faced with imports of chickens. Profits on chickens, as well as eggs are under tremendous pressure. Any increase in costs will have a domino and spiraling effect on the plight of the farmer. In fact other feed inputs of the poultry industry have been subjected to Anti Dumping Duty in this forum.

D. M/s Akzo Nobel, Netherlands has made the following submissions:-

We would be interested in a price undertaking mechanism in respect of this investigation.

The Authority notes the submissions made by the user associations on the likely impact on the poultry industry. The Authority in this regard notes that the incidence of cost of the subject goods in the overall feed cost is quite low and therefore the impact of anti dumping duty on the user industry would not be significant. Moreover the Authority has recommended levy of definitive anti dumping duty on the basis of the injury margin wherever it was lower than the dumping margin. Therefore it is only the extent of injury on account of dumping which has been redressed by the Authority. The Authority notes that after M/s Akzo Nobel, the exporter of the subject goods for from Netherlands had indicated desire to file a price undertaking, it was provided an opportunity to offer the same in the disclosure statement. The exporter has not filed any response to the disclosure statement. Despite the impact of anti dumping duty on the price levels as indicated above, the Authority holds that the purpose of anti-dumping duties, in general, is only to eliminate dumping, which is causing injury to the domestic industry and to

re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country.

The Authority recognises that the imposition of anti-dumping duties might affect the price levels of the products which manufactured/produced with the usage of the subject goods and consequently might have some influence on relative competitiveness and price levels of these products. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by the anti-dumping measures. On the contrary, imposition of anti-dumping measures would remove the unfair advantages gained by the dumping practices and would prevent the decline of the domestic industry and help maintain availability of wider choice of the subject goods to the user industry and the consumers. Imposition of anti-dumping measures would also not restrict imports from the subject countries in any way, and, therefore, would not affect the availability of the products to the consumers.

The landed value has been determined for the subject goods after adding on weighted average CIF export price, the applicable level of custom duties (except duties levied under Section 3, 3A, 8B, 9, 9A) and one percent towards landing charges.

4. CONCLUSIONS:

It is seen, after considering the foregoing that:

1. The subject goods in all forms originating in or exported from the subject countries have been exported to India below its normal value.
2. The domestic industry has suffered material injury by way of depressed Net Sales Realization (NSR) on account of price suppression caused by low landed prices of the dumped subject goods from the subject countries leading to financial losses.
3. The injury has been caused to the domestic industry by dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries. The authority recommends anti-dumping duty on imports of all forms/concentration of subject goods falling under Chapter 23 and 29 originating in or exported from the subject countries.
4. It was considered to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty equal to the margin of dumping or less so as to remove the injury caused to the domestic industry. Accordingly, it is proposed that definitive anti dumping duties as set out below be imposed, by the Central Government on all forms, grades and concentration of subject goods originating in or exported from territory of European Union and Peoples Republic of China falling under Chapter 23 and 29 of the Customs sub-heading 2309.1001 and 2923.1001 of the Customs Tariff.

(e) As noted by the Authority in foregoing para C(1), the subject goods are available on different carriers with different concentration. The anti-dumping duties as set out in Para D(d) arerecommended for 50%, 60%, 70% and 100% concentration of subject goods in any form and on any type of carrier viz. corn cob base, vegetable base or silica base. The amount of anti dumping duty would be determined proportionately for any other extent of concentration of the subject goods i.e. 40% Choline Chloride would attract duties of 68.6$/MT, i.e. 40% of the duty prescribed for 100% Choline Chloride in respect of M/s Akzo Nobel Chemicals S.p.A., Italy and M/s Akzo Nobel Fucntional Chemical BV, Netherlands.

(f) Subject to above, the Authority confirms the preliminary findings dated 22.2.2001

(g) An appeal against this order shall lie to the Customs, Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Act supra.

Back