TO BE PUBLISHED IN PART I SECTION 1 OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-DUMPING AND ALLIED DUTIES)

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS NOTIFICATION

NEW DELHI, THE 14^th August ,2001

Subject:- Initiation of Anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of BIAXALLY ORIENTED POLY PROPYLENE FILM ( BOPP) from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia , Oman, UAE, Singapore and Thailand.

No.21/1/2001-DGAD. – Government of India 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:

1. PROCEDURE

1. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigations:

1. The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority), under the Rules, received written application from M/s.BOPP Film Producers Association, NOIDA, UP c/o Flex Industries Ltd. A-1,Sector 16 NOIDA-201301 on behalf of domestic industry alleging dumping of BOPP film originating in or exported from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia , Oman, UAE, Singapore and Thailand. (hereinafter referred to as subject countries).
2. The Authority on the basis of sufficient evidence submitted by the petitioners, decided to initiate investigation against import of BOPP film from subject countries. The Authority notified Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, New Delhi and the Embassies of subject countries in India about the receipt of dumping allegation before proceeding to initiate the investigations in accordance with the sub-rule 5(5) of the Rules.
3. The Authority issued a public notice dated 30^th May, 2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of BOPP film, classified under heading 3920.20 of Schedule 1 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and No.3920.20.00 under Indian Trade Classification (based on Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System) originating from subject countries. The classification is however, indicative only and in no way binding on the present classification.
4. The Authority forwarded a copy of public notice to known exporters whose details were made available by the petitioners and industry associations and gave them an opportunity to make their views known in writing in accordance with the Rule 6(2).
5. Authority forwarded a copy of public notice to the known importers of subject goods in India and advised them to make their views known in writing within 40 days from the date of the letter.
6. Request was made to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to arrange details of imports of BOPP film for the past three years, including the period of investigation.
7. Authority provided a copy of petition to known exporters and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Centre in India and embassies of subject countries in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) supra.
8. Authority sent Questionnaire, to elicit relevant information to the following known exporters in accordance with the rule 6(4);

1. M/s. Trais Sentosa PT, Indonesia
2. M/s. Argha Karya Prima Industry PT.
3. M/s. Polidayaguna Perkasa PT
4. M/s. Fartrapolindo Nusa Industri PT
5. M/s. INA Multi Intipack Pt, Indonesia
6. M/s. Genius Dragon Industrial Ltd.,Hongkong
7. M/s. Omap Plastic Industry LLC, Oman
8. M/s. Al Khalji Polypropylene Product Company, Oman
9. M/s. Kaisers International Corporation, Taiwan
10. M/s. Chiui Lin Plastic Co.Ltd.,Taiwan
11. M/s. Senior Technology Pte.Ltd., Singapore
12. M/s. Toyo Pkg Industrial Pte. Ltd.,Singapore
13. M/s. Aj Plastic Public Ltd.,Thailand
14. M/s. Thai Film Industries Public Co.Ltd. Thailand
15. M/s. Dubai Polyfilm Ltd., UAE

9. Taipie Economic and Cultural Centre in New Delhi and embassies of subject countries in New Delhi were informed about the initiation of investigation in accordance with rule 6(2) with a request to advise the exporters/producers from their country to respond to the questionnaire with in the prescribed time. A copy of the letter, petition and questionnaire sent to the exporters was also sent to them alongwith the list of known exporters and producers from the subject countries.The questionnaire was sent to following importers of BOPP Film in India calling for necessary information in accordance with rule 6(4).

1. M/s. Sanghi Industries, Sanghi Nagar, AP
2. M/s. R. Thangarajan & Co.,Sivakasi
3. M/s. Esem Technologies (P)Ltd.,Chennai
4. M/s. Pooja Enterprises, Chennai
5. M/s. Amin Polyfilms, Ahmedabad
6. M/s. Trinity Trade, Ahmedabad
7. M/s. Nirma Ltd., Ahmedabad
8. M/s. Swati Polymer, Pali
9. M/s. Shikha PKG, Pali
10. M/s. Jurgyan Industries, Jabalpur
11. M/s. Navkar Agencies
12. M/s. Gujarat Polymers, Mumbai
13. M/s. Jagmag Decoratives Products Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai
14. M/s. Mexim Adhesive Tapes P Ltd., Mumbai
15. M/s. Shanti Patra Plastics Pvt.Ltd., Daman
16. M/s. Almec Industries, Daman
17. M/s. Windsor Packaging P.Ltd., Ropar
18. M/s. Mahalaxmi Packaging, NOIDA
19. M/s. Reliable Insupacks P.Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar
20. M/s. Vimal Hi-tech Pvt.Ltd., GT Road.
21. M/s. S.B.Packagings Ltd, New Delhi
22. M/s. Vacmet Packaging (I) Pvt. Ltd. Agra
23. M/s. Natraj Album Ind.Pvt.Ltd., Delhi
24. M/s. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. NOIDA
25. M/s. Sun Control Systems, New Delhi
26. M/s. Rollatainers Ltd., NOIDA
27. M/s. Tina Sales Corporation, New Delhi

11. Additional information regarding injury was sought from the petitioner, which was also received.
12. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested parties in the form of a public file kept open for inspection by the interested parties;
13. The Authority sought and verified information deemed necessary for the investigation.
14. The Authority also conducted cost investigation (based on the information received) and worked out optimum cost of production/cost to make and sell in India on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
15. The investigation covers the period of 1^st April,1999 to 30^th September ,2000 (18 months).
16. ***in this notification represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules;

  B.    PETITIONERS VIEW

2.1 The petitioners have stated that the domestic industry has witnessed dumping of BOPP film in the Indian market for the past some time.

2.1.1 The exporters from the subject countries are selling the product in the Indian market at a price which are significantly below the selling price of Indian producers. The petitioners have also stated that they have not been able to sell its product by increasing their prices. The profitability of industry has got seriously eroded.

2.1.2 They have reiterated that Taiwan, UAE, Oman are known non-market economies and hence the normal value to be determined on the basis of amended rules vide custom notification no.28/2001(NT) dated 31.5.2001.

2.1.3 Petitioners have clarified that ‘ BOPP Film Producers Association’ should be read as ‘Association of BOPP Manufacturers’.

C.    VIEWS OF EXPORTERS, IMPORTERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

3.0 Exporters / Importers

3.1.1 Thai Film Industries Public Co.Ltd.,Thailand
The exporters have stated that their product BOPP film was sold to India at a moderate price at the same level as sold to Asian countries during the period of investigation.

3.1.2 The price of product exported to Europe,USA and Australia was acceptable price for the same product.
The lowest price of BOPP film was in Hongkong and China which was substantially less than Indian export price, but in larger quantities. Accusing of dumping into India is not accurate and it is not based on facts what actually happened during POI.

3.1.3 The exporters have also stated that they are world class exporters of BOPP film for more than 10 years and they do not have any reason and gain to sell BOPP film to India at a lower price than world market.

3.1.4 They have also stated that they totally disagree with the anti dumping action by the Authority and have no interest in taking further action from their side.

3.2.0 AJ Plast Public Co.Ltd. ,Thailand. have stated that they have never supplied the films of any kind into Indian market during the period of investigation.

3.3.0 M/s.Al Khalij Polyproplene products Co. (SAOG), Oman and M/s. Dubai Polifilms LLC, Dubai requested for extension of time for filing the response in the prescribed questionnaire. The Designated Authority allowed the exporters to respond on or before 20^th July, 2001. Both the exporters have not furnished the information in the form and manner prescribed.

3.4.0 M/s. Kaiser International Corporation, Taiwan
The exporter has furnished information which is grossly inadequate. Authority notes that many of the column in Appendix 1 to 8 has not been completed and the information furnished is not in the form and manner prescribed. In the circumstances, Authority has not considered the information furnished for the purpose of preliminary findings.

3.5.1 Director General of Industry and International Trade Cooperation, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Indonesia, Jakarta.
As regards the standing of petitioners in the investigation they have stated that the association has filed the petition on behalf of only two producers which represent over 50% of production in India. And have indicated their apprehension on conditional exclusion of Kabra plastics as they are importers of subject goods.

3.5.2 As regards to normal value they have stated that no evidence or explanations have been given on determination of normal value for Indonesia.

3.5.3 They have stated that the review of the industry indicators of complainant suggests that the industry is performing well. Although it is alleged that, over all sales realisation were affected as a result of alleged dumped imports it is unclear whether complainant suffered reduced profits or financial loses.

3.5.4 According to Independent reports available on BOPP sector in India the mention is made of a chronic over-capacity that made worse by the clinical nature of exports market. They have requested the Indian Authority to examine most carefully the causality as the injury claims appear to be self-inflicted.

3.6.1 Department of Foreign Trade, Thailand:
They have stated that the petitioner has not been able to obtain authentic evidence either for domestic market or for export market. The Department of Foreign Trade has submitted that the market in Thailand for the subject goods is transparent and price information is readily available.

3.6.2 The Department of Foreign Trade have cited that the petition has been filed on behalf of BOPP Association which cover about 92% of Indian capacity of producing BOPP film yet the petitioner constituted a mere 50% of total production. Further M/s. Kabra Plastics Ltd. is excluded as it is an importer of the subject goods.

3.6.3 The allegation that the complainant suffered reduced financial losses as a result of alleged dumped imports is ambiguous as some of the parameters suggest that sales and production has increased. The Department of Foreign Trade has requested Designated Authority to closely examine all factors in establishing causality. As they feel that the problem lies in over capacity in Indian industry and lack of responsiveness of the complainant concern to market circumstances.

3.7.0 Adhesive Tape Mfrs.Association (ATMA) Mumbai.
The association have stated that their concern with the BOPP film suitable for manufacture of adhesive tape which cover thickness ranging from 22 to 30 microns. BOPP film is the major raw material for adhesive tape grade film and is met mainly through Indian manufacturers.

3.7.1 The Association has requested to exclude BOPP film (Adhesive tape grade) from the purview of anti-dumping investigations. Since there is very little import of BOPP film (adhesive tape grade) into the country. The Association has requested that they may be made interested parties in the investigation.

3.8.1 MEXIM ADHESIVE TAPE PVT.LTD, MUMBAI
The importers have requested that anti-dumping duty must not be imposed on BOPP Film. The importers have cited that local manufacturers of BOPP film are selling at cheaper rates than imported material.

3.8.2 BOPP film market has grown with steady pace of more than 20% per annum. There is no capacity addition by the manufacturers since 1999. New capacity addition in this stream is not likely to start before April, 2002.

3.8.3 The importers have also alleged that the indigenous manufacturers have found a cartel which decided pricing of subject goods from time to time.

3.9.0 Natraj Album Industries Pvt. Ltd.:
The importers/users have stated that there seems to be no case of dumping of BOPP films into India by said countries and levy of anti-dumping duties on BOPP film will harm the interest of users of subject goods.

3.10 Examination by the Authority:
As regards to claim made by the Adhesive Tape Manufacturers Association, Mumbai, for exclusion of BOPP film (Adhesive Grade), Authority notes that the Association has not furnished any corroborative evidence to justify its claim with their submission for consideration. In the circumstances, Authority does not consider appropriate to exclude for the purpose of preliminary findings pending final determination.

4.0 Product under consideration :

4.1.1     The product under consideration in the petition, alleged to being dumped by the exporters/producers from Taiwan, Hongkong, Indonesia, Oman, Singapore, Thailand and UAE is Biaxally Oriented Poly Propylene Film, generally known as BOPP Film in market parlance and referred to as BOPP Film in this investigation. BOPP Film is a high performance biaxially oriented, special film made from Poly Propylene. BOPP Film is produced in a wide variety of forms and types which are employed for a large range of end-use applications. BOPP Film is produced on various types of production lines, which are differentiated by a number of technical features including the Film thickness and width, the feeding process and the formula of fillers, the production environment conditions as well as certain specific capabilities such as on-line coating or co-extrusion. Mainly depending on the combination of line capabilities. BOPP Film can be commodity-type or specialty type.

4.1.2     There remains relation between film thickness and intended use, but other parameters are also relevant in respect of the individual application fields. In general, production lines are designed to cover certain ranges of BOPP Film which are intended for one or more specific applications fields. Therefore, supply-side substitutability considerations lead to segmentation of the BOPP Film market into various categories of BOPP Film application. The thickness and width vary as per customer requirements and can differ by as much as 4 gauge or 1 micron. Gauge or micron is an indicator of the thickness of the BOPP Film. The higher the gauge, the higher the thickness.

4.1.3     BOPP Film is primarily used by the packaging industry. It is used mainly in Packaging, Adhesive tapes, Capacitors, Synthetics paper, Metallising, Textiles outwraping, Lamination, Reverse printing, Twist wraping, Ciggerate wraping etc..

4.1.4     General properties of BOPP Film are described in terms of its thickness, grammage, film density, haze, tensile strength, elongation of break, modulus of elasticity, etc.

4.1.5     BOPP Film is produced by extrusion method (Poly propylene is the basic raw material required for production of BOPP Film). Poly propylene is extruded to obtain BOPP Film.

5.0 LIKE ARTICLE:

Definition of Like Article states as under:

"Like Article means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation."

5.1 There is no significant difference in BOPP Film produced by the Indian industry and BOPP Film exported from the subject countries, . BOPP Film produced by the Indian industry and imported from subject countries are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two closely resemble each other. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers have used the two interchangeably. BOPP Film produced by the petitioner should be treated as like articles to BOPP imported from subject countries in accordance with the anti-dumping Rules.

G Domestic Industry:

6.1    The petition has been filed by M/s. BOPP Film Producers Association New Delhi, on behalf of the domestic industry. The petitioners have claimed that participating units namely M/s Flex Industries Ltd, Delhi and M/s Gujrat Propack, Limited , Baroda accounts for majority of the production during the period of investigation. M/s Kabra Plastics Limited, which is a producer of BOPP film, is a leading importer of the subject goods as well as related to one of the leading importers of the subject goods. The participating companies, therefore, constitute domestic industry within the meaning of Indian Anti dumping Rules and satisfy the standing to file the petition on behalf of the domestic industry under aforesaid Rules.

6.2 In light of the foregoing, the Authority concludes that the petitioner has the standing to file the petition on behalf of the domestic industry under the rules.

H Dumping:

7.0 Under Section 9A (1)(c), normal value in relation to an article means:

1. 1. "the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or
   2. when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular mark situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either-
   1. comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or
   2. the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin alongwith reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6):

Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transshipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country or origin".

7.1 Authority notes that M/s.Thai Film Industries Public Co.Ltd., Thailand have stated that they totally disagree with anti-dumping investigation and have indicated that they have no interest for further action from their side. In the circumstances, the exporter has been treated as non-cooperative for this investigation. Further, Authority notes that none of the responding exporters have provided response to the Questionnaire in the form and manner prescribed. Hence, the Authority is constrained to proceed with the best information available on record.

Normal Value:

7.2 The petitioner claims that it is not feasible for them to obtain the domestic prices prevailing in subject countries in view of the market conditions in those countries. The normal value has been constructed on the basis of cost of production of subject goods duly adjusted to include selling, general and administrative expanses and a reasonable profit margin.

7.3 In the absence of cooperation of any of the exporters within the stipulated time authority relies upon the claims made by the petitioners with regard to constructed normal value in the subject countries and the best available information on record. Accordingly normal value has been arrived as under:-

Export Price:

7.4 The petitioners have provided the export price as per the DGCI&S, Calcutta for the period of investigation and claimed export price based on the above. Petitioners have indicated the following adjustments to the CIF price to arrive at the ex-factory export price namely, ocean freight, landing charges, marine insurance, commission, inland freight and port expanses. Accordingly the export price arrived as under:

7.5 The Authority relies upon DGCI&S statistics for the period of investigation and the export price (Ex-factory level) has been accordingly arrived at after adjustments.

8.0 Dumping Margin: The Rules relating to comparison provides comparison of normal value and export price 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 the ex-works level, and in respect of sales made at as nearly as 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 sales, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences which are demonstrated to affect price comparability".

8.1 Considering the normal value and export price as discussed above the dumping margin determined as a % of export price is as under:-

8.2 For the purpose of fair comparison between normal value and export price the Authority took into account the information furnished by the petitioner and other published information available with the Authority. The normal value and export price determined as detailed above is at ex-factory level.

I INJURY & CAUSAL LINK:

9.0 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;

9.1 Rule (iii) of the Annexure II to the Rules requires that in case imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigation, The Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports. Such assessment can be, however, made only if it is determined that:

1. the margin of dumping in relation to the imports from each country is more than two percent expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three percent of the import of the like article in India, and
2. the cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported article and the like domestic article.

9.1 The Authority notes that the margin of dumping and quantum of imports from subject country are more than the limits prescribed above. Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate since the export prices from the subject country were directly competing with the prices offered by the domestic industry in the Indian market.

9.2 Imports Volume :

As seen from the above the volume of imports from subject countries are above deminimus except in respect of UAE. The Authority notes that the volumes of imports from UAE is 2.6% which is below deminimus level of 3%. The volume of imports from UAE during the period of investigation is deminimus and therefore the Authority doesnot consider appropriate to recommend anti dumping duty with respect to imports from UAE In the circumstances, the country UAE is taken out of the purview of this anti dumping investigations for the purpose of preliminary findings pending final determination.

9.3 Volume of Imports and Market Share:

As seen from the above, the volume of imports from subject countries (i.e. excluding UAE) have increased in absolute terms during POI (Annualised) over the year 1997-98. In percentage terms also the volumes have increased from 19.5% in 1997-98 to 49.1%. The market share in demand of subject countries which was at 0.6% in 1997-98 has increased to 3.1% during POI and the share of domestic industry has declined from 97.1% to 93.6% during the same period.

9.4 Production

The production of the participating companies is as under:

It can be seen that production of the participating companies has increased over the period. However, increase in production has to be seen alongwith commencement of production by M/s Flex Industries and the cost of production and sales realization of the industry. Though, the production increased, the industry was not able to sell its produce at a price which permit even recovery of full cost of production. Therefore, the increase in production has resulted in increase of its losses.

9.5 Capacity Utilization

Capacity utilization( %) of the participating companies is as under:
Installed Capacity : 11500MT during 1997-98 ,
                             26500MT during 1998-99&
                             28500MT from 1999-2000 onwards

It is evident that the capacity utilisation of the Industry has increased. As mentioned in the previous para, though the production increased, the industry was not able to sell its produce at a price which permit even recovery of full cost of production.

9.6 Sales

The sales volume of the participating companies is as under:

As seen from the above the sales of the participating units have increased over the period. Further, the production and sales volume are directly related to cost of production and sales realization. Export Price from the subject countries have declined resulting in lowering the landed value due to which the sales realisation could not reach upto a fair level.

9.7 Land Price of imports and Selling Price:

(Rs/Kg)

As seen from the above that the landed price have been declining over the past years. The selling price have also been declining over the past years disproportionate to the changes in cost of production of the subject goods. A comparison of sale price and the landed price of subject goods, it is noted that the participating companies increased the prices in 1999-2000, the same was due to steep increase in the cost of production. However, the increase in the cost of production was more than the increase in the selling price during the period of investigation.

The dumped imports from the subject countries are significantly undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the Indian market.

9.8 Employment

The employment level in the participating companies has not undergone any significant change due to poor operating levels.

9.9 Conclusion:

The following parameters prima facie indicate that the injury to the domestic industry has been caused from the dumped imports:

• The volume of Imports from the subject countries have increased significantly and a direct consequence the domestic industry was not in a position to increase its selling price to a fair level;
• The market share of imported goods from subject countries has gone up;

• The decline in the Export Price by the exporter in the Indian market has directly resulted in the decline in the landed value from the subject countries;

• The dumped imports from the subject countries are significantly undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the Indian market.
• The domestic industry is finding it difficult to increase the selling prices to optimum level;

• The domestic industry has been forced to sell below cost of production. This has directly resulted in severe financial losses to the domestic industry.

• The volume of imports from UAE during the period of investigation is deminimus.

In view of the above, Authority concludes that the material injury to domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports from subject countries other than UAE.

10.1 The imports from the subject countries is being made at dumped prices. The imports from other countries are at much higher prices or the volumes are de minimus. Imports from other countries are, therefore, not causing injury to the Indian industry.

10.2 The demand of the BOPP Film in India is more or less constant. The domestic industry has sufficient capacity to meet the entire demand of BOPP Film in India. Therefore, the changes in demand have not caused any injury to the Indian industry.

10.3 Petitioners have reiterated that the BOPP Film industry in India is not so old as to have suffered any injury on account of the developments in the technology. The industry has employed the latest available technology and constant efforts are made to update the same. In fact, India is a major exporter of BOPP Film to developed countries, where production facilities also exists.

11.0 Indian Industry’s Interest and other issues :

11.1 The purpose of anti dumping duties, in general, is to eliminate dumping which is causing injury to the domestic industry and to reestablish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country.

11.2 It is recognised that the imposition of anti dumping duties might affect the price levels of the products manufactured using the subject goods and consequently might have some influence on relative competitiveness of these products. However, imposition of anti dumping measures would remove the unfair advantages gained by dumping practices, would prevent the decline of the domestic industry and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of subject goods. Imposition of anti dumping measures would not restrict imports from the subject countries in any way, and therefore, would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers.

11.3 The Authority determined reasonable selling prices of BOPP Film in India for the domestic industry, by considering the optimum cost of production at optimum level of capacity utilisation for the domestic industry.

12.0 CONCLUSIONS;

The Authority, after considering the foregoing, concludes that:-

• BOPP Film originating in or exported from subject countries has been exported to India below normal value resulting in dumping;
• The domestic industry has suffered material injury.

• The injury has been caused cumulatively by the imports from the subject countries.

• The volume of imports from UAE during the period of investigation is deminimus and therefore the Authority doesnot consider appropriate to recommend anti dumping duty with respect to imports from UAE for the purpose of preliminary findings, pending investigations.

It is considered necessary to impose anti-dumping duty, provisionally, pending final determination, on all imports of BOPP Film originating in or exported from the subject countries, pending investigations.

13.2 Accordingly, the Authority has therefore, decided to recommend provisional Anti-dumping Duty on BOPP Film from subject countries. The Anti-dumping Duty shall be the amount mentioned in column (3 ) below from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, on all imports of BOPP Film originating in or exported from subject countries falling under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff, pending final determination.

14.0 Landed value of imports for the purpose shall be the assessable value as determined by the customs under the Customs Act, 1962 and all duties of customs except duties levied under Section 3, 3A,8B and 9, 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

15.0 Exporters, importers, petitioners and other interested parties known to be concerned are being addressed separately by the Authority, who may make known their views, within forty days from the date of the dispatch of the letter. Any other interested party may also make known its views within forty days from the date of publication of these findings.

( L V SAPTHARISHI) Designated Authority