No.14/17/2003-DGAD
Government of India
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 8th
October 2003
INITIATION NOTIFICATION
Subject: Initiation
of Anti-dumping Investigations concerning import of Cyclohexanone originating in or
exported from Taiwan, European Union and United States of America (USA).
1. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
The product under investigation in the present case is
Cyclohexanone , having chemical formula C6H100 (henceforth referred to also as subject goods). It is an
intermediate product generated in the process of manufacture of caprolactum. Cyclohexanone is manufactured from Benzene and it
acts as an intermediate in the production of Adipic Acid
and in the manufacture of Nylon 6. Besides, being used primarily as an intermediate
in the production of Adipic Acid and in the manufacture of nylon 6, it is also used as a
solvent and thinners for lacquers, especially those containing nitro cellulose or vinyl
chloride polymer and co-polymer resins including poly vinyl chloride. It is an excellent
solvent for DDT and organic phosphorus
insecticides and pesticides. It is also used as a sludge solvent in oil for piston type
aircraft lubrication. It is classified
under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act under subheading 29142200 which is described as
“Cyclohexanone and Methylcyclohexanones”. The Authority has examined the
transaction wise data provided by the DGCIS for the POI and it has found that primarily
Cyclohexanone is being imported under the
Customs subheading mentioned above. Methyl cyclohexanone which is also classified under
same Customs subheading is excluded from the scope of the investigations. Investigations
are being initiated with respect to product under consideration irrespective of the
classification under which they are being imported. Customs classifications are indicative
only and in no way binding on the scope of investigations.
2. DOMESTIC
INDUSTRY STANDING
The petition has been filed by M/s Gujarat State Fertilziers
& Chemicals Limited, Vadodra, Gujarat. The petitioner has claimed that they are the
only producer selling the subject goods in the domestic market. Another company M/s.
Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) also produces the subject goods.
However, the same is used for the captive consumption only and they have not sold any
subject goods in the preceding three years as per the letter received from FACT. There is
no other known producer of the subject goods in India. The Authority determines that the
petitioner is a major producer of subject goods in India accounting for a major proportion
of the production of the subject goods in India. The
Authority notes that the petitioner constitutes a domestic Industry within the meaning of
the rule 2(b) and the petitioner satisfies the criteria of standing to file the petition
in terms of Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules supra.
3. COUNTRIES INVOLVED
The countries/territory involved in the present investigation
are Taiwan, European Union and USA (hereinafter also referred to as subject
countries/territory).
4. LIKE GOODS
The petitioner has claimed that goods produced by it are like
articles to the goods originating in or exported from subject countries/territory. There
is no significant difference in the subject goods produced by the petitioner and those
exported from subject countries/territory. Petitioner
claims that the two are technically and commercially substitutable. Therefore, for the purpose of present
investigation, the goods produced by the petitioner are being treated as Like Articles of
the product imported from the subject countries/territory within the meaning of the Rules,
supra.
5. NORMAL VALUE
The
petitioner has claimed that the product is an intermediate product in production of
caprolactam and according to the petitioner, no published information is available with
regard to the actual transaction price at which the product is being sold in the domestic
market in the exporting countries/territory. Normal value in the case of European union
and Taiwan has been claimed on the basis of prices reported in the “Polyamides &
Intermediates” a journal published by reportedly leading journal Tecnon. With regard
to the USA, petitioner has claimed that prices are not reported in this journal.
Petitioner has claimed normal value in the case of USA on the basis of cost of production
in the USA, constructed on the basis of the major raw material, Benzene, in the USA,
reported in the “Polyamide & Intermediate” and other costs on the basis of
the most optimum conversion costs of the petitioner. The Authority notes that there is
sufficient evidence of the Normal value claimed for the subject goods from the subject
countries/territory.
6. EXPORT PRICE
The Petitioner has claimed the
export price of cyclohexanone from the subject countries/territory based on the import
data provided by the DGCIS. Imports of the other products reported under the
classification 29142200 have been excluded for the purpose of calculations of the export
price. Adjustments have been claimed on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland
transportation in the country of exports, port handling and port charges to arrive at the
Export Price at ex-factory level. There is
sufficient evidence of export price and the adjustments claimed for the subject goods from
subject countries.
7. DUMPING
MARGIN
There is, prima facie, evidence that
Normal Value of the subject goods in the subject countries/territory is significantly
higher than the ex-factory export price indicating prima facie that the subject goods are
being dumped by exporters from the subject countries/territory.
8. INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
Petitioner has furnished information on various parameters
relating to material injury to the domestic industry. Parameters such as increase in
volume of imports from subject countries/territory, decline in the import prices, increase
in the market share of imports from subject countries/territory, decline in the market
share of the domestic industry, decline in the sales volume and capacity utilization of
the domestic industry, decline in the domestic selling price, low return in investment,
negative cash flow, price undercutting, price depression and price suppression, prima
facie, indicate collectively and cumulatively that the domestic industry has suffered
material injury on account of dumping of
subject goods from subject countries/territory.
9. INITIATION
OF ANTI DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS
The Designated Authority, in view of
the foregoing paragraphs, initiates anti-dumping investigations into the existence, degree
and effect of alleged dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the
subject country.
10. PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION
The Period of Investigation for the
purpose of the present investigation is 1st April 2002 to 30th June
2003 (15 months).
11. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION
The exporters in the subject
countries and the importers in India known to be concerned with this investigation are
being addressed separately to submit relevant information in the form and manner
prescribed and to make their views known to the Designated Authority, Directorate General
of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of
Commerce, Government of India, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi – 11 00 11.
As per Rule 6(5) of Rule supra, the
Designated Authority is also providing opportunity to the industrial users of the article
under investigation, and to representative consumer organizations who can furnish
information which is relevant to the investigation regarding dumping, injury and
causality. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the
investigation within the time limit set out below.
12. 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 the letter
addressed to them separately. It may be noted that no request, whatsoever, shall be
entertained for extension in the prescribed time limit.
13. 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 interest 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.
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY