(vii) Argument 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 these findings;

(viii) In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules supra, the essential facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed to known interested parties and comments received on the same have also been duly considered in these findings;

(ix) The period of investigation (POI) considered is 1.4.98 to 31.3.99;

2. The views expressed by various interested parties have been discussed in the preliminary findings and also in the disclosure statement. The views which have not been discussed earlier in the preliminary findings and disclosure statement and those now raised in response to the disclosure statement are discussed in the relevant paras herein below to the extent these are relevant as per rules and have a bearing upon the case. The arguments raised by the interested parties have been examined, considered and, wherever appropriate, dealt in the relevant paras herein below.

The Authority notes that there is no argument raised by interested parties on the standing of the petitioners.

4. The Product under consideration is acyclic alcohols and their halogenated, sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives, known as Oxo alcohols in the commercial and technical parlance and defined under customs sub-heading No. 2905 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Authority recalls its observations in paras 5, 6 and 18 of the Preliminary findings dated 3.12.1999 wherein it was decided to restrict the investigation only to some forms of Oxo alcohols viz., Normal Butanol, Iso Butanol, Iso Decanol, Iso Ocianol, 2-Ethyl Hexanol & Normal Hexanol on the ground that these are the only t6lrns which are either being produced by the domestic industry or being imported or both during the investigation period.

5. The domestic; industry as well as importers have raised arguments on the issue of scope and definition of product under consideration and Like Article. The domestic industry has submitted that the scope of the present investigation and duties E should extend to al i those types of oxo alcohols which have been produced in India or for which the Indian industry has capacity and capability to produce. They have argued that the fact of actual production of the particular form of Like Article in India is of little consequence and the issue of capacity and capability to produce particular forms is more important. Also exclusion of a particular form from the scope of duty merely because that type was not imported may lead to continued injury to the domestic industry as the importers may start importing this type once duties are confirmed on other types. On the other hand the importers have submitted that the scope of investigation should be restricted only to the forms of oxo alcohol actually being produced by the domestic industry. They have stated that the term domestic industry refers only to those who are actual producers. They have submitted that Normal Hexanol is used to produce DHP whereas 2-Ethyl Hexanol is used to produce DOP and hence Normal Hexanol should not be taken as a substitute for 2-Ethyl Hexanol. On the basis of this the importers have requested to drop Normal Hexanol from the scope of anti dumping investigation as it is not being produced by the domestic industry.

6. These arguments have been examined and it is noted that though normal Hexanoi may not be a substitute for 2-Ethyl Hexanol, the products these are used to manufacture substitute each other and hence exclusion of one from anti dumping duty investigation will have an impact on the usage of others. In view of above and the arguments already given in para 5 of the Preliminary Findings, the Authority does not find any reason to restrict or, expand the scope of definition of product under consideration or that of ‘Like Article’ and has decided to continue with the definition adopted in Preliminary Findings. The Authority therefore confirms the scope and definition of 'Like Articles’ adopted in Preliminary Findings.

7. The Authority provided opportunity to the known exporters to furnish information ire accordance with Section 9A (1) (e) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended in 1995, cited above. The argument raised by the exporters wl:o responded are discussed in the following paragraphs.

8. Argument raised by M/s. Zaklady Azolowe Kedzierzyn SA (ZAK) Poland: M/s. ZAK, in their submission have stated that they have supplied to the Indian market very small quantities of oxo alcohols which is 0.7% of their total export and only 1.1 % of Indian production. Their sale to India was made by trading companies from EU and it is these companies that should be considered for dumping. It is therefore, argued that these EU companies should be treated as real exporter of their oxo alcohols to India with their independent right to create their own export price. It has, therefore, been submitted that taking the above mentioned facts into consideration, there is no basis to bring ZAK into the charge of using the dumping methods in case of export of oxo alcohols into India.

Examination of by the Authority: For the purposes of deminimus import volume, the calculations are done with reference to total import volume of the product and it is seen that imports of oxo alcohols into India originating from Poland are more than deminimus. In anti dumping investigation it is the origin of the goods from the source of manufacturer that is considered as the point of export and source of dumping. Since goods dumped have been manufactured at M/s. ZAK, Poland, the information regarding the normal value was requested from them which they have not submitted.

9. Arguments raised by M/s. LG Chemicals, South Korea: In their submissions M/s. LG Chemicals vide their letter of 3.1.2000 have stated that they exported only 4129 MTS of oxo alcohol to India during the period of investigation which is less than ‘che amount stated to have been exported from Korea as mentioned in the preliminary finding issued by the Designated Authority. They promised to submit additional information for their normal value.

Examination by Authority: In the preliminary findings issued by the Designated ,Authority it was the total volume of export from South Korea which was mentioned. There might have been exporters other than M/s. LG Chemicals from Korea as the export data from DGCIS provides data country-wise and not exporter-wise. However, even the volume of exports from LG is substantial enough to pass the de-minimus test. LG have not provided any additional information regarding their normal value in their submissions made subsequent to the preliminary findings. The observation. regarding their export price and normal value in the preliminary findings have not been addressed by the exporters. The Authority therefore confirms the methodology adopted for computation of normal value: and export price in case of Korea RP as detailed in para 9 of the Preliminary Finding.

10. Arguments raised by M/s. OXENO Olefinchemic GmbH, Germany: In their submissions dated 20.10.99, received by the Designated Authority after the expiry of‘ the time period allowed for making submission before the preliminary findings, they have stated that their products are exportccl Lo India at competitive prices and they do not pursue dumping policy of any kind The prices in the period under investigation were determined exclusively by the prevailing market conditions and the prices of products being exported to India fall wiiiiin the international price range prevailing at that time, without exception. They have further stated that Art. 2.1 of WTO Agreement on Anti Agreement stipulates that a product has to be considered as being dumped Le, introduced into the commerce of another country at less than its normal value, if the export price of the product exported from one country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade for the like-product when destined for consumption in the exporting country. The company has submitted that from the above it is evident that no significant difference in price exist Between sales on their domestic market and the export markets. In view of the above they feel that there is no need to draw up further details on price and cost structures. M/s. Oxeno have submitted that they believe that on the sole basis of their sales figures, the charge of dumping oxo-alcohol export in India is not only non-obvious, but has already been disproved and the initiated investigation be suspended or the above grounds.

Examination by the Authority: In the communication addressed to M/s. Oxeno, Germany, it was stated that the domestic sale price is taken as normal value only if these sales are in the ordinary course of trade which implies that it has to be proved that these sales are at a price sufficient to recover total average cost of production and normal rate of profit. The company was requested to furnish the information regarding price and cost of sales in the forma given in the questionnaire which was sent to them. They were also asked to give details of domestic sales transaction-wise alongwith the adjustment claimed supported by documentary evidence. However, no such information has been received by the Designated Authority. In view of the above, the Authority cannot use the information furnished by M/s. Oxeno for the purposes of calculation and has to rely on the best information available which has been provided by the petitioners.

11. Arguments made by M/s. Al Jubail Fertilizer Company (SAMAD): In their submissions the company has given details of their relation with M/s. Sabic Marketing Limited. Regarding the import of 2-EH, it is stated that there is a marketing agreement between SAMAD and M/s. SABIK in terms of which SABIK pays SAMAD "netback price" for all the products sold. This Net back price is equal to the price at which the product is actually sold to the third party‘ less expenses and marketing fee, The expenses are costs associated with ocean freight, insurance, port charges etc. These adjustments have been claimed for arriving at the Net Export Price which have been allowed.

Subsequent to preliminary finding the company requested that the normal value calculated on the basis of the information submitted by petitioner should not be relied upon and instead the information provided on the cost of production by them should be used for arriving at the normal value. As there is no domestic sale of 2EH in Saudi Arabia the relevant information for normal value is the cost of production. The company has provided data on month wise cost of production during the period of investigation and it is observed that there is significant variation in the average cost of production month-wise which (according to company) is because of fluctuating cost of the raw material. It was submitted by the company that dumping margin should be determined based on the comparison of the cost of production of the month preceding the month of export with the export price as there are only 4 export transactions to India during the entire period of twelve months. It was therefore submitted by them that the comparison of the export price and average cost of production on transaction to transaction basis is the most appropriate method of determining dumping margin. As per para 2(ii) of Annexure I of the Anti Dumping Rules, it is further contended that the comparison of selling price with the corresponding cost of production is the permitted method of fair comparison and only when the said selling prices are below the cost of production of that particular transaction, there is a need to find out whether the selling prices were above or below weighted average cost of production for the period of investigation to consider these transactions having been in the ordinary course of trade.

In the reference made to the company in reply to their submissions, the company was asked to clarify the basis of their request for using the average cost of production of the month preceding the month of export for arriving at the normal value. It was also pointed out to them that para 2(ii) of Annexure I of the said Rules, quoted by them relates to situation where domestic sale transactions are to be used for arriving at the normal value. It was also pointed out to them that even if the Designated Authority decides to use month wise average cost of production for arriving at the normal value, it will be more appropriate to use the cost of production for the month in which the order for export transaction being compared was indented.

In their subsequent communications, it was admitted by the advocates for the company that tiara 2(ii) of Annexure I of the Anti Dumping Rules relates to evaluation of domestic sale transaction and not to cost of production but they had referred to the said para as an illustration to show the principle recognised therein. It was further stated that the principle is that a particular transaction could either be above the cost of production at the time of sale or it could be above the weighted average cost for the period of investigation and in both situations the transaction is to be treated as in the ordinary course of trade. It was also admitted that as they had incurred losses ;or the period of investigation and they do not have domestic sales it becomes necessary to determine the normal value with reference to their cost of production plus selling, general and administrative expenses plus profit. However, there have been violent fluctuations in the prices of propylene, a major raw material, during the period of investigation which has resulted in significant variations in the monthly average cost of production. It was in this light that they had requested to compare the export transaction which are only 4 with the monthly average cost of production. Regarding the question of which month’s cost of production to be used, their submission was to use the preceding month’s cost of production on the ground that the goods are normally manufactured in the preceding month and that should be duly reflecting the cost of production of the goods being exported.

Examination by the Authority: After having gone through the detailed submissions made by M/s. SAIVIAD, most of the arguments presented by them have been accepted by the Authority. Adjustments claimed as expenses such as ocean freight, insurance, port charges for arriving at ‘net back price’ and marketing fee payable to SABIK is allowed as claimed. Also using transaction by transaction approach and use of average monthly cost of production for arriving at a dumping margin as argued and requested by the exporter is also allowed. However, the logic that previous month’s average cost of production should be used as normal value for a particular export transaction is not acceptable. It is more appropriate to use the average cost of production in the month in which the export order was indented as the cost of production of that particular month is likely to be the basis for quoting a particular price for sale. Though the company would work on some expectations but as admitted by the exporters themselves there have been violent fluctuations in the cost of propylene which constitutes 80% of the variable cost of production. It is, therefore, not possible for the exporter to anticipate the likely cost at the time of production for export. So it is most appropriate to take the average cost of production for the month in which particular export transaction is indented for the purpose of comparison and arriving at dumping margin. The calculations for dumping margin have been done accordingly.

It was stated in the Disclosure Statement that the Authority intends to use the methodology explained above for arriving at the dumping margin. In response to the disclosure statement, the advocates for the exporter have made further submission that the prices are not based on the cost of production but only on the prevailing international prices and that the prices indicated in these indents are agreed upon depending on the timing of the shipments indicated by the purchaser.

If the arguments of the exporter was to be accepted then the use of month-wise cost of production as normal value has no basis. This contradicts the request of the exporter for using average cost of production of month as normal value. Hence the argument of the exporter is not accepted by the Authority and the calculation as done above are taken into account for arriving at the dumping margin. However, there was a calculation error in dumping margin given in Disclosure Statement which has been since corrected.

12. Argument by the domestic industry: In their submissions regarding dumping margin, the domestic industry has contended that DGCIS information used by the Designated Authority for arriving at the export price contains some abnormal transactions suggesting unusually high export prices. They have listed some of these transactions in their submissions made in the public hearing and the written submissions made thereafter.

Examination by Authority: This has been examined and it is noticed that some of these transactions may refer to sale in drum packing. It is, therefore, decided to ignore only two of those transactions for which evidence has been furnished to the Designated Authority. The dumping margin has been recalculated accordingly.

13. Other Countries : The information as required to be submitted in the prescribed format by the exporters has not been received from any exporter from the rest of subject countries ire. Iran, Poland, Indonesia, Russia, USA and the European Union. .As no information on normal value in these countries has been furnished by the exporters or other interested parties, the Authority has, therefore, considered the information provided by the petitioners for the purpose of arriving at formal value t r: these countries. The normal value in such cases has been constructed on the basis of cost data of the Indian industry with appropriate adjustments, in accordance with Rule 6(8) of Anti Dumping Rules and Section 9A(1)(c) of Custom Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 which authorise the Authority to work out cost of production in the country of origin on the basis of the facts available with it. Here it may be stated that in arriving at constructed cost of production, international prices of raw materials with adjustments, wherever applicable, are used. Regarding the export price the information available from DGCIS as well as that furnished by the importers has been used for arriving at the export price at ex-factory level after making necessary adjustments.

14. New exporters : Some of the exporters/manufacturers have claimed that they have not exported to India during the period of investigations. It has been the practice to allow these exporters to apply for review as new exporter under Rule 22 of Anti-Dumping Rules mentioned above as and when they export to India.

15. On the basis of the best information available, the Authority has arrived at the dumping margins in percentage terms (as % of export price after adjustments) in the case of subject countries for products under consideration as follows: