F No. 3111/99-DGAD: M/s. Ispat Profile India Ltd. has filed a petition on behalf of domestic industry in accordance with the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995 and Customs Tariff (Identification Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) alleging dumping of certain seamless grade alloy tit non-alloy steel billets, bars and rounds from Russia, China and Ukraine and requested for anti-dumping investigations and imposition of anti-dumping duties.

1. Standing : The petition filed by M/s lspat Profile India Ltd. is supported by M/S Indian Sees Steels and Alloys Ltd. (ISSAL). The petitioner alongwith supporter satisfy the requirement to make the application on behalf of the domestic industry as per Rule 5[3] of Anti Dumping Rules.

2. Product Involved: The product involved in the investigation is certain seamless grade alloy and non-alloy steel billets, bars and rounds originating in or exported from Russia, China and Ukraine. The product falls under custom subheading nos. 7206.90, 7207.19 & 7207.20 of Customs Tariff Act,1975. However custom classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of this investigation. The petitioners have sought imposition of anti-dumping duty only of the following grades of alloy and non-alloy steel billets, bars and rounds:

The above types of alloy and non-alloy steels billets, bars and rounds have been produced in India and/or are being imported from the subject countries. Further, the petitioners have claimed that the above types of alloy and non-alloy steels billets, bars and rounds are used for production of seamless tubes by the seamless tubes industry and can technically and commercially substitute each other. The petitioner has claimed that the anti-dumping duty is required to be imposed on the all the above types so as to ensure that the same is effective and is not circumvented by the importers.

3. Country(ies) involved: The countries involved in the present petition are Russia, People’s Republic of China and Ukraine.

4. Like Goods: The petitioner has claimed that the subject goods produced by the domestic industry has characteristics closely resembling to the goods being imported from the subject countries. In fact, the petitioners have claimed that the goods produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject countries have to conform to certain given technical specifications laid down by the consumers and the goods are in fact identical in nature. Goods produced and sold by the petitioners may be treated as like article to the goods being imported from subject countries within the meaning of the Rules.

5. Dumping and Dumping Margin:

a. Normal Value: The petitioners have claimed normal value on the basis of the constructed cost of production of the subject goats in the subject countries. The petitioners have based the constructed value on standard cost of production of the domestic industry.

b. Export price: The customs classification of the subject goods is not dedicated for the subject goods & therefore the import statistics compiled by DGCI&S have not been relied upon for determination of export price. The petitioner has claimed the export price on the basis of the prices reported by a secondary source which is the journal Steel Trade Intelligence. They have provided details of all the imports under the customs sub-headings under which the subject goods have been imported, which shows that there are many different types of grades imported under these sub-headings. It has further been claimed that the subject goods are primarily imported by seamless tube producers. The import transactions have thus been identified on the basis of the name of the importer appearing in these statistics. There is sufficient prima facie evidence with regard to export price of the subject goods from the subject countries.

c. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal value of the product under consideration in the subject countries is significantly higher than the price at which it has been exported to India, indicating, prima facie, that the subject goods are being dumped by the exporters from the subject countries.

6. Injury & Causal Link : Various economic indicators relating to domestic industry such as import volumes, market share, production, sales, market share, profit/loss etc. collectively and cumulatively indicate that the imports of the product under consideration caused material injury to the domestic industry.

7. Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation : The Designated Authority has, therefore, decided to initiate anti-dumping investigations into the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries.

8. Period of investigation : The period of investigation for the purpose of present investigations is to be between Ist January, 1999 to 30th September, 1999.

9. Submission of information : The exporters in the subject countries and the importers in India known to be concerned are being addressed separately to submit relevant information in the form and manner prescribed and to make their views known to be Designated Authority - Ministry of Commerce, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the prescribed form and manner within the time limits set out below.

10. Time Limit: Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the address mentioned above not later than forty days from the date of publication of this notification. The known exporters and importers, who are being addressed separately, are, however, required to submit the information within forty days from the date of letter addressed to them separately.

11. Inspection of public file : In terms of Rule 6(7), any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by other interested parties.

In case where an interested party refuses access to or otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.