Government of India
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2002
INITIATION NOTIFICATION
Subject:- Initiation of Anti-dumping investigation concerning Import of Potassium Carbonate originating in or exported from European Union (EU), China PR, Korea RP and Taiwan.
No. 14/42/2002-DGAD- M/s. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Limited, Vadodra has filed a petition in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act., 1975 as amended in 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 Potassium Carbonate from European Union, China PR, Korea RP and Taiwan and requested initiation of anti dumping investigation and levy of anti dumping duties.
1.PRODUCT INVOLVED
The product under consideration in the present case is Potassium Carbonate originating in or exported from European Union, China PR, Korea RP and Taiwan. Potassium Carbonate is a white deliquescent inorganic compound, available in powder and granules form. Potassium Carbonate is soluble in water and insoluble in alcohol. Potassium Carbonate is classified under Custom Tariff Heading 28.36.40 and 28.36.40.00 under Indian Customs Tariff Classification. The classification is, however, indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.
2.DOMESTIC INDUSTRY STANDING:
The petition has been filed by M/s. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. Vadodra- 391 346 and is a major producer of Potassium Carbonate in India. M/s. Standard Alkalies, Mafatlal Centre, Mumbai-400 021, is also a producer of subject goods and has supported the petition. The petitioner represents about 75% of total Indian production and satisfies the standing to file the petition.
3.COUNTRY(IES) / TERRITORY INVOLVED:
The territory / country involved in the present investigation are European Union(EU) , China PR, Korea RP and Taiwan (referred to as subject countries hereinafter).
4.LIKE ARTICLES:
The petitioner has claimed that goods produced by them are like articles to the goods produced, originating in or exported from the subject countries. Goods produced by the petitioner are being treated as like articles to the goods imported from the subject countries within the meaning of the Rules.
5.NORMAL VALUE:
The petitioner has claimed Normal Value with regard to European Union based on EUROSTAT Internal and External Trade of EU. As regards to Korea RP, evidence regarding exports of Potassium Carbonate from Korea RP to Japan and Malaysia has been furnished. The petitioner has claimed that China PR as non market economy country in terms of Notification 1/2001 dated 4th January, 2002 and have requested that the normal value be based on the constructed cost of production duly adjusted to include selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profit margin be adopted. With regard to Taiwan, petitioner has claimed normal value on the basis of estimates of cost of production, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrativae expenses and reasonble profit.
There is sufficient prime facie evidence with regard to normal value of Potassium Carbonate in the subject countries.
6.EXPORT PRICE:
The petitioner has claimed the export price of subject goods based on information furnished by DGCI&S, Calcutta for the period April 2001-June, 2002(latest avilable). Petitioner has also submitted information based on data collected from Secondary Sources. Adjustments have been claimed on account of Ocean freight, Marine insurance, Commission, Inland freight, Port expenses to arrive at Ex-factory level.
There is sufficient prime facie evidence with regard to Export Price of Potassium Carbonate in the subject countries.
7.DUMPING MARGIN:
Considering the normal value and export price, the dumping margins are significantly higher than the de-minimus limits.
There is sufficient prima-facie evidence that Normal Value of subject goods in the subject countries is significantly higher than the price at which it has been exported to India indicating prima-facie that subject goods are being dumped by exporters from subject countries.
8.INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK:
Various parameters relating to injury such as the decline in export price, increase in import volume, decline in production, capacity utilisation, sales volumes, adverse profitability of Domestic Industry and failure of Domestic Industry to realise fair and reasonable price from sale of subject goods, prime-facie indicate, collectively and cumulatively, that Domestic Industry has suffered material injury on account of dumping.
9.INITIATION OF ANTI DUMPING INVESTIGATION:
The Designated Authority, in view of the foregoing paragraph, initiates anti dumping investigations into the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries/territory.
10.PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION (POI):The period of investigation for the purpose of present investigation is 1st April, 2001 to 30th September, 2002 (18 months).
11. 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 the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties (DGAD), 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 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 letter addressed to them separately.
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.
14.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.
(L.V. Saptharishi)
DESIGNATED AUTHORITY