MINISTRY OF COMMERCE
NOTIFICATION
PRELIMANARY FINDINGS
Subject : Anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of polystyrene
from Korea RP Japan, Malaysia and Taiwan -
Preliminary Findings
12/2/97/ADD:
-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:
A PROCEDURE
The procedure described below has boon followed with regard to the
investigations:
i. The Designated
Authority (hereinafter referred to
as Authority), under the Rules, received written application from
Polystyrene Producers’ Association. On behalf of the domestic industry, alleging
dumping of polystyrene originating in or exported from Japan, Korea RF, Malaysia and
Taiwan;
ii. The
Authority, on the basis of sufficient evidence submitted by the petitioner; decided to
initiate investigations against imparts of polystyrene from Japan, Korea RP, Malaysia and Taiwan. The Authority notified the Embassy of
Japan Korea
RP, Malaysia and Taipei Economic & Cultural Centre. Taiwan about the receipt of
dumping allegation before proceeding to initiate the investigations in accordance with
sub-rule 5(5) of the Rules;
iii The Authority
issued a public notice dated 16th Sept , 1997 published
in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of polystyrene, classified under custom
sub-heading 3803 of Schedule- I of the Customs Tariff Act. 1975, originating in or
exported from Japan, Korea RP, Malaysia and Taiwan;
iv. The Authority forwarded a copy of
the public notice to the known exporters (whose details were made available by the
petitioner) and industry associations and gave them an opportunity to make their views
known in writing in accordance
with the rule 6(2);
v.
The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice
to the known importers of polystyrene
in India and advised them to make their views known in writing within forty days from the
date of the letter
vi. Request was made to the
Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBFC} to arrange
details of imports of polystyrene for the past three years, including the period of investigations.
vii.
The Authority provided a copy of the
petition to (he known exporters and the Embassy of Japan Korea RP, Malaysia and Taipei
Economic & Cultural Centre, Taiwan in
accordance with rules 6(3) supra;
viii. The Authority sent
questionnaire, to elicit relevant information, to the following known exporters, in accordance with the rule
6{4};
· LG International Korea RP;
· Dongbu Chemical Co , Korea RP;
· Hannan Chemical Corporation Korea RP;
· Hyosung Basf Co. Ltd., Korea RP;
· Chiel Industries Inc., Korea RP;
· Petrochemicals (M) Sdn Bhd., Malaysia.
· Eternal Chemical Co. Ltd. Taiwan;
· Chi Mei, Taiwan;
· Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, Japan.
Response to the questionnaire was filed by the following:
· Petrochemicals (M) Sdn Bhd, Malaysia;
· Eternal Chemical Co. Ltd, Taiwan;
ix. The Embassy of Japan, Korea RP,
Malaysia and Taipei Economic &
Cultural Centre of Taiwan in New Delhi were
informed about the initiation of the
investigations in accordance with rule 6(2)
with a request to advise the exporters/producers
from their country to respond to the questionnaire within
the prescribed time. A copy of the letter, petition and questionnaire
sent to
the exporters was also sent lo them, alongwith a list of Known exporters/producers:
x.
A questionnaire was sent to the following known importers of polystyrene in India calling for
necessary information in accordance with rule 6(4):
§
Blow Plast Ltd.,
§
Beardsell Ltd. ,
§
Crystal Plastics & Metallizing Pvt. Ltd.
§
Cello Household Appliances Pvt. Ltd ;
§
Duroplast Containers
Pvt. Ltd.;
§
GE Plastics India Ltd ;
§
Gothi Plastic Industries;
§
Hariram Gobindram;
§
Hytaisun Magnetics Ltd.;
§
Infra Industries Ltd.,
§
Indian Shaving Products
§
JCT Electronics Ltd ;
§
Malhotra Shaving Products Ltd.;
§
Milton Plastics Ltd.,
§
Polyset Plastics Ltd.
§
Pushpak Plastics Pvt. Ltd.:
§
Saurasthtra Ball Pen Pvt. Ltd.;
§
Snebro Manufacturing Co.;
§
Sanghavi Writing Industries Ltd.:
§
Tainwala Chemicals & Plastics Ltd.;
§
Tinna Overseas Ltd.,
§
\/idyut Metallics Ltd ;
§
Videcon International Ltd.;
§
Xpro India Ltd.;
§
Allied instruments Pvt. Ltd..
§
DR Plastics
xi.
Additional information regarding injury was sought from the petitioner, which was also received;
xii.
A number of pities made request far extension of time, which was, upon good cause shown, allowed by the Authority;
xiii.
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;
xiv.
Cost investigations were also conducted to work out
optimum cost of production and cost to make and sell the subject goods in India on the
basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the information furnished by
the petitioner so as to ascertain if anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would
be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry;
xv.
Investigation was carried out for the period from Starting 1st April 1996 to 31st March 1197.
B
PETITIONER’S_VIEWS
2.
The petitioner has raised the following issues in their petition:
i) The
exporters from the subject
countries are dumping
polystyrene in India. Normal
value by the exporters from Taiwan is established from the list of a producer in Taiwan.
Normal value in case of Malaysia and Japan is
established by the average prices of polystyrene in Malaysia and Japan, while normal value
in case of Korea RP is established in a leading journal (ICIS-LOR) Export price from these
countries is established from the information compiled from the Customs Daily List for the
imports at Mumbai port, which account for substantial imports.
ii)
Imports from the subject countries have caused material injury to the Indian
industry. The same is evidenced from the decline in the selling prices, far below the cost
of production of the Indian producers, resulting in financial losses to the Indian
producers.
C. VIEWS OF EXPORTERS, IMPORTERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
3.
The views expressed by the exporters, importers and
other interested parties are as under:
a) Polystyrenes is the
commodity plastic whose price is very transparent and easily accessible by means of media,
such as news reports and magazines.
b)
The polystyrene prices fluctuate by the demand and supply balance in the region,
technology advancement as well as efficiency of the respective facilities. The prices also
depend upon the demand and supply balance of styrene monomer in the international market.
c) The styrene monomer
conversion margin for Indian producers is large enough to classify the product under super
profit categories (which could be due to high tariff in India).
d)
Some off-grade material and some cargo might have created some confusion in the
Indian market. It is international practice
that off-grade material is sold at about
US $ 100 pmt lower than the regular material.
D.
EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED
4.
The submissions made by the exporters, importers, petitioner and other interested
parties have been examined, considered and have been dealt at appropriate places
hereinafter
E.
PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
5. The
product considered in the present investigations is polystyrene. Polystyrene is a versatile thermoplastic resin
available in wide range of formulations from
general purpose crystal and impact grades to highly specialized resins Polystyrene can be of various forms.
However, crystal polystyrene (popularly known
as general purpose polystyrene or GPPS} and impact polystyrene (popularly known as high
impact polystyrene or HIPS) are the subject matter of
the present investigations. GPPS is a clear, amorphous polymer and finds application in food packaging, food
service items; medical care products, and
packaging for audio cassettes, compact discs, and other consumer electronic media.
HIPS makes use of polybutadiene elastomers for impact modifications and finds
applications in toys, furniture, house wares, food packaging, food service, medical care products appliances,
building materials, consumer
electronics, and packaging for electronic media. GPPS and HIPS are different types at polystyrenes and are not
substituted with each other.
6. Polystyrene
is classified under custom sub-heading 390319 of Schedule 1 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and under 39031900
of the ITC. The description is however,
indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigations
F.
LIKE ARTICLES
In order to establish that the polystyrene produced by the domestic
industries is a tike article to
the polystyrene exported from Japan, Korea RP. Malaysia
and Taiwan, characteristics such
as physical characteristics (size, chemical
composition, raw material), manufacturing process and technology functions and uses,
product specifications, pricing, distribution and marketing arid tariff classification of
the goods have beer considered. There is no argument
disputing that polystyrenes produced by the domestic Industry in various forms are like articles to the polystyrenes
imported from the subject countries in various forms Polystyrenes in various “forms imported from the subject
countries are interchangeable with polystyrenes produced by the domestic industry. The goods produced by
the domestic industry have been treated as like
article to the goads exported from Japan, Korea RP, Malaysia and Taiwan within the meaning of the Rule 2(d).
G. DOMESTIC
INDUSTRY
8.
The petition has been filed by Polystyrene Producers’ Association, Mumbai. The
petition is supported by the following producers of polystyrene in India who are also
members of the Association:
a)
Supreme Petrochem Ltd. (SPL)
b) Hindustan Polymers
(HPL);
c)
Rajasthan Polymers and Resins Ltd. (RPRL).
9.
There is no other producer of polystyrene in India. The petitioner satisfies the
standing to file the present.
10.
One of the importers of polystyrene, M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. is related to
Supreme Petrochem Ltd. M/s. Supreme Petrocham Ltd. has, therefore, been excluded from (he
purview of domestic industry. The remaining two petitioner companies (Hindustan Polymers
Ltd. and Rajasthan Polymers and Resins Ltd.) account
for majority production of polystyrene in India and, therefore, satisfy the definition of the domestic industry in accordance
with Rule 2(b) supra.
H. DUMPING
11.
Undo- Section 9A(1)(c), normal value in relation to an article means.
(i) 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
(ii) 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 market situation or tow 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-
(a) Comparable representative
price of the tike 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
(b)
The cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with
reasonable addition for administrative gelling 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 county 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 of origin.
The Authority provided opportunity to the exporters from Japan, Korea RP Malaysia and Taiwan to furnish information
relevant to the investigations and offer
comments, if any in accordance with the Section cited above The Authority wrote to the Embassy of Japan, Korea
RP, Malaysia and Taipei Economic &
Cultural Centre, Taiwan in India also. A
number of companies requested for extension of time, which also allowed by the
Authority. However, except for Eternal Chemical Co Ltd., Taiwan and Petrochemicals (M)
Sdn. Bhd, Malaysia, no other exporter has responded to the Authority’s request for
information Normal value in case of these two exporters has been determined on the basis of information furnished by these
exporters Normal value in case of other exporters has been determined on the basis of Rule
6(8), i.e., best information available
with the Authority .
I.
Petrochemicals (M) Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia;
12 Scrutiny of the response filed by
Petrochemicals MSB reveals that the response is
deficient in terms of the following:
a)
The exporter was required to furnish information on sales made in the home market
and exports to India for all the months of the investigation period, as prescribed in
proforma 2B The exporter has, however, furnished information in case of home market only
for some of the months of the investigation period.
b)
The exporter has not furnished information required under proforma 2C, D, & E, nor reasons for not furnishing the same have been
mentioned.
c) Total safes claimed by
the exporter for the investigation period in proforma 2A do not tally with the sales
claimed in proforma 4A, nor the reasons for the difference have been explained by the
exporter
d) Details of total exports
made to India shown in proforma 2A do not reconcile
with (he details mentioned in proforma 1.
e) Profit & Loss Statement for the whole investigation
period has not
been burnished Profit & Loss
Statement furnished by the exporter shows a loss. It
is however not clear whether the P&L
Statement furnished by the exporter is for the
product under consideration or includes any other activity which might be carried on by
the exporter. The exporter has merely furnisher extracts of Balance Sheet and P&L
Statement Complete copy of published Annual
Accounts has not been furnished by the company.
13. Petrochemicals MSB has claimed that it
has exported GPPS type in the month of Oct., 1996 and Feb., 1997 and HIPS type in the
months of Oct., 1996 and Jan.,
1997 The exporter has furnished information with regard lo sales in the domestic market
only for these months whereas the Authority had desired
information for all the months in the investigation period, whether there was an
export to India or not in the particular month. The information available with the
Authority at the time of initiation showed that there was significant changes in the
normal value and expert price tram month-to-month in the investigation period. The
Authority notes that the date of sale considered for determination of normal value and
export price would assume importance in the instant case view of significant changes in
the month-to-month prices, as there is about, one month difference in the date of contract
and date of invoicing. Since the exporter has not
furnished information for all the months of the investigation period, it is not feasible
to consider dale of contract for determination of the export price. The export prices
have, therefore, been considered on the basis of
date of invoicing of the goods. The export prices in a particular month are based
on weighted average of all exports made to India in that month and therefore have been
allowed.
14. Selling prices in the home market appears to
be based on average selling prices of all sales made in Malaysia in that month, and,
therefore, have been allowed.
15. The exporter has claimed adjustments on
account of inland freight from the sales made in Malaysia. In case of exports made to
India the exporter has claimed the following price adjustments:
· Stuffing,
· Inland freight,
· Handling - forwarding charges,
· Terminal Handling Charges,
· Overseas freight.
16. The
exporter has claimed that it has exported one off-grade consignment in the investigation period. The exporter has claimed that the price of
off-grade material is generally lower by US$ 100 PMT as compared to good consignment the
invoice relating to this consignment shows that the exporter has declared the product as “near prime”. Though there is no evidence produced by the
exporter in support of the claim that the off-grade consignment is generally sold at US$
100 pmt tower than the good consignment, the Authority has, for the purpose of provisional
determination, allowed price adjustment on account of off-grade material purportedly
exported by the company in view of significant price
difference in the price or off-grade material and good quality maternal.
17. It is considered appropriate to allow all
other price adjustments for the purpose of preliminary determination.
II ETERNAL CHEMICAL CO LTD., TAIWAN:
18. M/s Chinese National Federation of Industries
replied to the questionnaire sent by the Authority. The company has, however, enclosed
response which appears to be have been filed on behalf of M/s. Eternal Chemical Co Ltd.
Taiwan. The response filed is incomplete in so far the company has not furnished the
following information.
a) Name and title of the
company, who executed the certificate of correctness and offered willingness for
verification.
b)
The general information required to be furnished as provided under appendix G1 to GS:
c)
Appendix 2C, 2D, and 2E (relating to details of sales made in the home market and exports made to India and to other
countries),
d)
Appendix 3B (sale price structure for sales in the domestic market) for HP602;
e)
Total production and
sales of the company shown in
Appends 4Ado not reconcile with the
production and sales of individual grades shown in Appendix
4A’
f)
The ex-factory unit selling prices shown by the
company in Appendix 4B (cost of production) do not reconcile with the ex-factory unit
selling prices shown in Appendix 3A. The exporter has compared the cost of production with
the gross selling prices shown in Appendix 3A.
19 A scrutiny of the cost of production
furnished by the company reveals that the company has provided only for styrene monomer
prices in the raw material cost. No explanation has been provided -for the other
materials, which the company should have consumed for production of polystyrene. The cost
of production furnished by the company does not provide for interest and financing costs.
The cost of production claimed by the company cannot, therefore be considered as the lull
costs.
20. Comparison of the cost of production
claimed by the company with the ex- factory prices claimed by the company in Appendix 3B
and 3A shows that ex-factory selling prices were below the cost of production claimed by
the company.
The sales in the home market are, therefore not in the ordinary course of trade.
21. In view of the above, the normal value cannot be
determined on the basis of demesne prices. The company has no furnished detailed
information with regard lo the export price to third countries. The normal value has,
therefore, been determined on the basis of constructed value, i.e. cost of production plus
administrative, selling & general expenses and profit.
The cost of production claimed by the company does not include full
costs, as detailed above. The Authority has, therefore, provided for costs of other
materials, which the company should have consumed for production of polystyrene
and interest expenses on the basis of information available with the Authority, for the
purpose of provisional determination, in view of incomplete information from the exporter
m the costs claimed by the company. The Authority
has provided for reasonable profit @ 5% on the total costs.
22. Samsung Corporation: Samsung Corporation wrote that it did not receive
a copy of the notification and questionnaire. The company showed its willingness to
cooperate. Though the Authority allowed extension of time requested by the company, no
response was filed by them.
23. Nissho Iwai Corporation: Nissho Iwai Corporation. Bangalore wrote, on
behalf of their Head Office in Japan, that a
copy of the questionnaire was not receded in
Japan. The company was sent the questionnaire
and was advised to furnished the response to the questionnaire No response was, however, received from the company.
24.
Mitsubishi
Chemical: Mitsubishi Chemical, Japan responded that the company had examined its records and found
that no exports were made by the company during the period, which were subject to
investigation. The company therefore informed that it was not in a position to respond to
the questionnaire.
25 In case of
Malaysia, there is only one producer of polystyrene in that country according to
Petrochemicals (M) Sdn. Bhd. and therefore the margins worked out for this company applies
for others also. In case of Taiwan, the imports
reported by DGCI&S are more than the exports shown by Eternal Chemical. The
other exporters from Taiwan have not responded to the Authority. The Authority considered
it appropriate to determine export price in case of other exporters from Taiwan on the
basis of the information furnished by Eternal Chemical and information available from
DGCI&S. The normal value in case of these exporters
has been determined at the same level as in case of Eternal Chemical. In case of Japan and
Korea RP, the Authority has considered it appropriate to determine normal value on the
basis of information furnished by the petitioner and the export price on the basis of
DGCI&S.
26. The
rules relating to comparison provides as follows:
“While arriving al 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 ex-works level, and in respect of
sales made at as nearly 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 sale, taxation levels of trade, quantities, physical
characteristics, and any other differences which are demonstrated to affect price
comparability.”
27.
For the purpose of fair comparison between the normal value and the export price,
the Authority took into account the information burnished by the petitioner and other
published information available with the Authority. The normal value and export price
determined, as detailed above are al ex-works level and therefore, the normal value has
been compared with weighted average export price at ex-works level.
28. The dumping margin comes as
under:
Name of the
Country/Exporter |
Dumping Margin (% of
export price) |
Taiwan a)
Eternal Chemical Co. Ltd.
GPPS Type Polystyrene |
41% |
HIPS Type Polystyrene |
24% |
b) Other
Exporters |
88% |
Petrochemicals (M)
Sdn. Bhd. ., Malaysia GPPS
Type Polystyrene |
20% |
HIPS Type Polystyrene |
22% |
Korea RP |
22% |
Japan |
27% |
I. INJURY
29.
Under Rule 11 supra, Annexure-ll, 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.
30. Annexure ll(iii) under rule 11 supra
further provides that in case where import of a product from more than one country are
being simultaneously subjected to Anti Dumping investigation, the designated authority
shall cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, only when it determines that
(a)
the margin of dumping established 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 imports of the like article or where the export of
the individual countries less than
three percent,
the imports cumulatively accounts for
more than seven percent of the imports of
tike article, and
(b) cumulative assessment of the effect of
imports is appropriate in light of the
conditions of competition between the imported article
and the like domestic articles.
The margin of dumping and quantum of imports from
each of the subject countries Korea RP, Taiwan, Japan and Malaysia are more than the
limits prescribed above. Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate
since the exports from the subject countries were directly competing with the goods
offered by the domestic industry in the Indian market
31. For the examination of the impact
of the imports on the domestic industry in India the Authority considered both (a) volume
of dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports, on prices in the domestic market
for like article
and (b) the consequent Impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products The Authority has, for the
purpose of assessing the impact of the dumped imports on domestic producers, considered
such indices having a
bearing on the stale of the industry as production, capacity utilisation, sales quantum stock, profitability, net sales
realisation, the magnitude and margin of dumping,
etc. in accordance with Annexure II (iv) of the rules supra.
32. There was only one producer of polystyrene In
India until 1994-95, namely Hindustan
Polymers M/s. Rajasthan Polymer started commercial production of HIPS type in 1994-95 and
GPPS type in 1995-96. Supreme Petrochem started commercial production in 1995-96. It
would, therefore, be appropriate to assess injury to the domestic industry considering
parameters for 1995-96 and 1996-97 only. The domestic industry, as detailed hereinabove,
includes Hindustan Polymers Ltd (HPL) and
Rajasthan Polymers and Resins Ltd [RPRL)
(a) Volume and Market share of Dumped
imports:
Imports of polystyrene from Japan, Korea RP, Malaysia and Taiwan
increased from 13392 MT (1995-96) to 14501 MT (1996-97). The imports of polystyrene increased significantly in absolute terms.
Share of Japan Korea RP, Malaysia and Taiwan in imports of polystyrene
in India increased from 75%
(1954-95) to 81% (investigation period). Market share of the subject countries in total
demand for polystyrene in India increased from 20% (1995-96) to 38% (investigation
period). The increase in market share of imports from the subject countries was
significant, both in terms of imports of polystyrene in India and the consumption of
polystyrene in India.
(b)
Economic parameter affecting the domestic industry:
i)
Production and Capacity Utilisation:
|
1995-96 |
1996-97 |
||||
|
GPPS |
HIPS |
TOTAL |
GPPS |
HIPS |
TOTAL |
Production (MT) |
20667 |
28415 |
49082 |
15562 |
23473 |
39035 |
Capacity Utilization
** (%) |
|
|
81.80 |
|
|
65.06 |
*** installed
capacity of 60000 MT.
ii) Sale in absolute
terms:
Sales of the domestic industry in absolute volumes declined as follows:
|
1995-96 |
1996-97 |
||||
|
GPPS |
HIPS |
TOTAL |
GPPS |
HIPS |
TOTAL |
Sales (MT) |
19124 |
28468 |
47592 |
16526 |
24169 |
40695 |
iii) Stocks:
Stock
of polystyrene with the domestic industry reduced as shown below
|
1995-96 |
1996-97 |
||||
|
GPPS |
HIPS |
TOTAL |
GPPS |
HIPS |
TOTAL |
Stocks (MT) |
1921 |
1726 |
3647 |
958 |
1030 |
1988 |
iv) Average
Sales Realisation:
Net average unit sales realisation of the domestic industry, after
excluding excise duly, sales commissions paid (if any) and discounts on sales paid (if
any) declined significantly as follows:
|
1995-96 |
1996-97 |
||
|
GPPS |
HIPS |
GPPS |
HIPS |
Net sales realisation |
40777 |
45536 |
32583 |
37682 |
The
average sales realisation during the period at investigations was lower than optimum cost
of production of the domestic industry resulting in financial losses to the domestic
industry
v)
Profit/Loss:
The
domestic industry was making profits from its sales relating to polystyrene till 1995-96. However unit
sales realisations significantly below
its cost of production in the
investigations period resulted in financial losses to .the petitioner It is noted that the
domestic industry made financial losses in 1905' q6 The same were, however, largely due lo
significantly higher prices paid by the companies for one of the major raw material,
styrene. Impact of high prices of styrene monomer paid by Rajasthan Polymers and Hindustan
Polymers has been assessed by the Authority considering the prices at which Supreme
Petrochem could purchase styrene. The Authority has further examined whether the prices
paid by Supreme Polymers were in line with the prices prevailing in other countries, for which, the prices paid by Supreme Petrochem
were compared with the prices payable CFR Taiwan, as disclosed by PCI-Plastic (for
1995-96) and ICIS-LOR (for 1996-97). The results are as shown below:
The Authority notes the prices paid by Supreme Petrochem for styrene monomer were comparable to the prices paid
by other purchasers In the world. It is
held that Rajasthan
Polymers and Hindustan
Polymers made losses in 1995-96 which can be attributed to
purchase of styrene at high prices, and their polystyrene production otherwise had
resulted in profits. These companies are, however, quite comparable to Supreme Petrochem
for the year 1996-97 in terms of styrene pricing and losses In 1996-97 were due to
un-remunerative prices of polystyrene.
Conclusion on
injury
v The imports of polystyrene increased in absolute terms from the subject countries during the period of investigations;
v The share of the subject country in imports of polystyrene in India as
also the demand of polystyrene in India
increased significantly during the investigations
period;
v Exports of polystyrene from the subject country forced the domestic
industry to keep its prices to un-remunerative levels, and prevented the domestic industry
from recovering its fair selling price resulting in financial losses to the domestic industry;
v Various indicators relating to domestic industry such as production,
capacity utilisation, sales quantities, average sales realisation, stock losses collectively and cumulatively
establish that the domestic industry has suffered material injury, even though some of the
parameter show improvement;
33. It may thus seen the
domestic Industry has suffered material injury.
J. CAUSAL LINK
34 In establishing that the material injury
to the domestic industry has been caused by the imports from the subject countries, the
Authority hold that increase in market share of the imports from Japan, Korea RP. Malays
and Taiwan requested in decline in the market share of the domestic industry and forced
the domestic industry to keep its prices to un-remunerative levels and prevented the
domestic industry from recovering its fair selling price resulting in financial losses to
the domestic industry.
L. INDIAN INDSURY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
35. The purpose of anti dumping duties, in
general, is to eliminate dumping which is causing injury
to the domestic Industry and to re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in
the Indian market, which is in the general
interest of the country.
36. It is recognised that the
imposition of anti dumping duties might affect the price
levels of the products manufactured using the sublet goods and consequently might have some influence on relative
competitiveness of these product. However, fair competition on the Indian market will not
be reduced by the anti dumping measures, particularly if the levy of the anti dumping duty
is restricted to an amount necessary to redress the injury to the domestic industry. On
the contrary, imposition of ant, dumping measures would remove the unfair advises gained by dumping practices, would prevent
the decline of the domestic industry and help
maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of polystyrene. Imposition of anti
dumping measure would not restrict imports from the subject countries in any way, and
therefore, would not affect the
availability of the product to the consumers.
37
Ta ascertain the extent of Anti-dumping duty necessary to remove the injury to the domestic industry, the Authority has relied
upon reasonable selling price of polystyrene in India for the domestic industry, by
considering the optimum cost of production at
optimum level of capacity utilisation for the domestic industry.
M. LANDED VALUE
The landed value have been determined on the basis of weighted average
export price of polystyrene from Japan, Korea RP, Malaysia and Taiwan, after adding the prevailing level of customs duties and
one percent landing and two
percent handling charges.
N CONCLUSIONS
38. It
is seen after considering the foregoing, that:
(a)
Polystyrene originating in or exported from Japan, Korea RP, Malaysia and Taiwan
has bean exported to India below normal value resulting in dumping,
(b) The Indian industry has suffered material injury;
(c) The
injury has been caused cumulatively by the imports from the subject country
40. It
is considered necessary to impose anti- dumping duty, provisionally pending final determination, on all imports
of polystyrene originating in or exported from the subject countries, pending further
investigations.
41. It was
considered whether a
duty lower than the
dumping margin would
be sufficient to remove the injury. Landed prices of the imports, for the purpose,
was compared with the fair selling price of the domestic industry, determined for the
period of investigations Wherever the difference was less than the dumping margin, a duty
lower than the dumping margin is recommended. Accordingly, it is proposed that provisional
anti dumping duties, as set out below be imposed. from the date of notification to be
issued in this regard by the Central Government, on all imports of polystyrene originating
in or exported from Japan, Korea PP. Malaysia and Taiwan falling under Chapter 39 of the
Customs Tariff. pending final determination.
S.No. |
Name of the Country |
Name of the Exporter |
Amount of
Anti-Dumping Duty (Rs. PMT) |
1. |
Malaysia |
(a) Petrochemical
(M) Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia v
GPPS Type Polystyrene v
HIPS type polystyrene (b) Any other
exporter v
GPPS type polystyrene v
HIPS type polystyrene |
4360 4250 4360 4250 |
2. |
Republic of Korea |
Any Exporter |
5991 |
3. |
Taiwan |
b) Eterbal Chemical
Co. Ltd. v
GPPS type polystyrene v
HIPS type polystyrene Other exporters |
NIL 2677 11388 |
4. |
Japan |
Any Exporter |
3766 |
42. 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.
RATHI VINAY JHA, Designated Authority
Back