Anti-Dumping investigation concerning imports of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate (HAS) from USA, Japan and European Union (EU)-Final Findings Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Asscscment and Collection of Ami Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, thereof

REGD. NO D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India

EXTRAORDINARY

PART I—Section 1

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 59] NEW DELHI. THURSDAY. MARCH 1. 2001/PHALGUNA 10, 1922

641 GI/2001

(1)2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART I—SEC. 11 3 4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PART I—Stc II 5 6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY [PART I—SEC. 11 7 8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART I—SEC. 11 9

^l&T/^cc/ —^

£^?/c~/- z

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2001.

Subject:—Anti-Dumping investigation concerning imports of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate (HAS) from

USA, Japan and European Union (EU)—Final Findings.

FINAL FINDINGS

53/1/99-DGAD.—Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Asscscment and Collection of Ami Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, thereof:—

53/1/99-DGAD - 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:

1. The procedure described below has been followed:

i) The Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) notified preliminary findings vide notification dated the 4th August, 2000 on anti- dumping investigation concerning imports of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate (HAS) ( hereinafter also referred to as subject goods) from USA, Japan and EU (hereinafter referred to as subject countries / territory ) and requested interested parties to make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of its publication;

ii) The Authority forwarded a copy of the preliminary findings to known interested parties, who were requested to furnish their views, if any, on the preliminary findings within forty days of the date of the letter;

in) The Authority also forwarded a copy of the preliminary findings to the Embassies of USA, Japan and EU Delegation in India in New Delhi with a request that the exporters and other interested parties may be advised to furnish their views on the preliminary findings in the time frame as stipulated in (i) and (ii) above;

iv) The Authority provided opportunity to all interested parties to present their views orally. All parties presenting their views orally were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally The parties were advised to collect copies of the views expressed by opposing parties and offer rebuttals, if any. The written submissions thus received from interested parties have been considered by the Authority in this finding.

(v) The Authority made available the public file to all interested parties containing non-confidential version of the submissions, submitted by various interested parties, for inspection, upon request;

(vi) Arguments raised by interested parties before announcing of preliminary findings, which have been brought out in the preliminary findings notified earlier, have not been repeated herein for sake of brevity. However, the arguments raised by the interested parties after preliminary findings have been appropriately dealt in this findings;

(vii) In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules supra, the essential facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed to the known interested parties on 15.02.2001 and comments received on the same have also been duly considered in this finding.

(vnj) ***** in the Notification represents information furnished by interested parties on confidential basis and so considered by Authority under the Rules.

B VIEWS OF PETITIONER. EXPORTERS. IMPORTERS AND OTHER

INTERESTED PARTIES AND EXAMINATION BY AUTHORITY:

2. The petitioner, exporters and importers have expressed their views, and the same are briefly mentioned below. The arguments expressed by the petitioner, exporters, Importers and other interested parties, which are already discussed in the preliminary findings have not been repeated for the sake of brevity.

(a) PETITIONER1 VIEWS:

The arguments of the petitioner in this regard are:-

(i) The cost of production claimed by M/s BASF, Germany, one of the exporters is prima-facie suspected. The information provided by them in their non- confidential submission reveals that the company has considered its cost of production starting from HAS Solution. It appears that the entire process of manufacturing and cost of production projected by the company considers HAS manufacturing as crystallization of HAS Solution. It is submitted that such claim made by the company is grossly unacceptable, deceptive and misleading.

(ii) It is understood that M/s BASF is engaged in production of Caprolectum, which requires production of HAS Solution. M/s BASF is understood to hold significantly higher capacities for Caprolectum. Prima facie, it appears that the company has just evaded its cost of raw material for production of HAS and some incidental cost seems to have been charged under head "materials" in the statement of cost of production provided by the company to the Authority.

(iii) Attention of the Authority is invited to the oral submissions made by the representative of M/s BASF at the time of oral hearing, wherein the company claimed that HAS Solution is a by-product for them. The claim made by the company reinforces our view that the company has not apparently allocated its costs appropriately on HAS on account of raw materials.

(iv) It is our understanding that M/s BASF sells significant volumes of HAS Solution. We request the Authority to suitably consider this aspect while assessing Normal Value of this company.

In view of the above, we request the Authority to collect detailed information on cost of production on the lines demanded from Domestic Industry, It is submitted that the costing information required to be provided by the Domestic Industry is comprehensive and disclosure of information as per this format would reveal the correct position with regard to cost of production and profitability of M/s BASF Further, it is also important to examine that all sales made by the exporter in its home market were above the full cost of production including Selling, General and Administrative expenses.

(v) HAS is consumed for production of Sulphamethaxazole (SMX). SMX per se and in other forms is being exported from India in substantial volumes, Since the Government of India has permitted imports of the material required for production of export of goods from the purview of anti dumping duties, it is submitted that effectively this demand is not available to the Domestic Industry unless Government of India withdraws the exemption.

(vi) The petitioner has submitted that about 2500 MT HAS is imported in India for production of HAS related export items. Further, 650 Kg HAS is required for production of 1 ton of SMX. However, Government of India has permitted imports of 800 Kg of HAS against exports of 1 ton of SMX. Thus, effectively 20% extra imports is being permitted by the Government of India against every MT of every ton of export of SMX.

In view of the above, petitioner has submitted that though the merchant demand of the HAS for the Indian domestic consumption is in the region of 2000 MT, effectively another 400 MT imported anti dumping duty free material would be available to the industry which would be consumed by the company for production of item destined for domestic market. The effective demand of HAS for domestic market is thus in the region of 1600 MT, which is the capacity, created by the company.

(b) VIEWS OF THE EXPORTER. IMPORTER AND OTHER INTERESTED

PARTIES.

M/s BASF and Importer have made the following submissions-

(i) The Period of Investigation in the present case, as determined is from Is July 1999 to 31st December, 1999 The said Period of Investigation is too small for any industry, and in particular, chemical industry to depict a clear picture of the trend in the chemical industry They have requested that Period of Investigation may be extended for a full financial year in order to have a clear picture of the trend in that particular industry.

(li) The petitioner herein has imported the alleged product under consideration from USA just before the Period of Investigation.

(lii) The practice followed by the Authority to take the lower Export Price for non- cooperative exporter to calculate the Dumping Margin is unprecedented. The only data available with the Authority is the imports details and to take the lowest exports (or import) price is patently unfair to the users of HAS.

(iv) It is submitted that petitioner has suffered no injury. Injury is being claimed and highlighted on account of a selective analysis of injury, where differing period are compared - quarter to quarter or annualized just to accentuate the apparent injury.

(v) The fact that factors other than dumped imports are affecting the Domestic Industry is reinforced by the petitioner's admission at the public hearing that sales are still down. This proves that even after the imposition of duty the Domestic Industry is not benefiting and that imports are not on account of price, but rather on account of other factors such as poor quality and inefficient production methods.

AUTHORITY POSITION:

The submissions made by petitioner, exporters, importers and other interested parties have been examined and considered only to the extent they are relevant under the Rules and have a bearing on this case and dealt with at appropriate places in the notification: -

(i) With regard to the issues raised by the petitioner, the Authority has conducted on the spot verification of the exporter M/s BASF. Accordingly, Normal Value, Export Price and Dumping Margin have been determined.

(ii) With regard to the issue of quality, the Authority notes that there is no evidence that there is a difference in quality. Hon'ble CEGAT has already held that the issue of quality is not relevant to the present purposes. In any event, the issue of quality requires, at the best, a quantified adjustment, which has not been demonstrated by an interested party.

(III) The Domestic Industry has not imported HAS during the period of investigation In any event, the Authority has discretion to retain such a company within the scope of the Domestic Industry The reasons advanced for exclusion of the company are worthy of rejection

(iv) The Period of Investigation considered by the Authority is in accordance with the rules and most appropriate as the petitioner had alleged dumping of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate by the exporters from these countries during this period The Authority is required to investigate the period for which the dumping allegation is made by the petitioner

C PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION:

3 The product considered in the present investigation is Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate (HAS) originating in or exported from USA, Japan and the European Union (EU) Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate is classified, under the Custom-sub heading 2825 1003 of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 The classification is, however, indicative only and in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation

D DOMESTIC INDUSTRY STANDING OF THE PETITIONER:

4 The petition has been filed by M/s Deepak Nitrite Limited having its Registered Office at Alkapun, Baroda-390007 The petitioner is the sole producer of the subject goods in India Therefore, the petitioner fulfils the criteria to represent the Domestic Industry, as required under the Rules E LIKE ARTICLE:

5 (a) Rule 2(d) of the Anti-Dumping Rules specifies that "Like Article" means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the product under investigation or in the absence of such an article, another article, having characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under examination (b) The petitioner has claimed that there is no significant difference in Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate produced in India and Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate exported from subject countries/territory Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate produced by Domestic Industry and imported from these countries/ territory are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process and technology, functions and uses, product specification, pricing, distribution and marketing and tariff classification of the goods The two are technically and commercially substitutable The consumers have used the two interchangeably Therefore, Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate produced by the petitioner and imported from subject countries/ territory should be treated as Like Article in accordance with the anti dumping rules27 The petitioner has also claimed that there are two methods available for production of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate. Domestic industry is producing Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate with Raschig's process and other method of production for Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate is by hydrogenation of Nitric Oxide over platinum catalyst in presence of dilute sulphuric acid. The HAS solution is then separated out by crystallizing and centrifuging Domestic industry has further stated that they are not aware about the method adopted by the producers in the subject countries/ territory However, it is submitted that the difference in method adopted has no significant impact on marketing, pricing, specification etc..

(c) In view of the same, the Authority holds that Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate being produced by the Domestic Industry and those being imported from the subject countries/ territory can be used interchangeably and thus are commercially and technically substitutable and therefore, are Like Article within the meaning of the Rules.

F NORMAL VALUE. EXPORT PRICE & DUMPING MARGIN USA. JAPAN

AND EU:

6. The Authority provided opportunity to the exporters from USA, Japan and EU to furnish information relevant to the investigations and offer comments, if any, in accordance with the Rules. The Authority also wrote to the Embassy of USA, Japan and EU Delegation in India.

G DUMPING MARGIN

7 NORMAL VALUE:

The Authority has examined Normal Value in relation to Section 9A(1 )(c) of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995.

The Authority sent the questionnaire to the exporters from the subject countries/ territory in terms of the Section cited above, The claims made by the exporters with regards to the Normal Value and the Export Price are as under: -

H. EXPORTERS FROM USA, JAPAN AND EU:

8 The response was received from M/s BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Germany and M/s UBE Industries Limited, Japan. They had furnished the details of domestic sales and the exports made to India during the Period of Investigation. M/s Toagosei Company Ltd., Japan and M/s DSM, Netherlands have submitted that they have not exported the subject goods during period of investigation. M/s DSM has further stated that since January, 1998 they are not producing or exporting Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate any more, hence there is no necessity to participate in the investigation, The claims made by the exporters with regard to the Normal Value and the Export Price are discussed herein under: -28 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PAR 11—SEC 11 9 M/S BASF, GERMANY:

(a) NORMAL VALUE:

(0 The exporter furnished the month wise details of the sales of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate in the domestic market M/s BASF sold *****Kg of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate in the domestic market at a sales value of US$***** Thus, the average sales realisation in the domestic market was US$***** per kg M/s BASF has also submitted its cost of production of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate They have claimed adjustments in respect of Commission, Packing, and Inland Freight to arrive at the Ex-factory price of domestic sales Accordingly, an Ex-factory domestic price of US$***** per Kg of HAS was claimed

(n) At the time of verification, based on the issues raised by the petitioner and information submitted by M/s BASF, certain clarifications were sought from the company The company was requested to reproduce the oral clarifications at the time of verification in writing which they have failed to do

(in) Since the company has failed to reproduce their oral clarifications in writing, the clarifications provided by the company orally at the time of verification has not been taken on record, particularly in view of the counter-claims lodged by the petitioner This was clarified to M/s BASF at the time of visit and informed in writing also However, M/s BASF has failed to provide the clarifications/information solicited by the Authority in writing and hence M/s BASF has been treated as non-cooperative to such an extent The Authority has, therefore, proceeded on the basis of Rule 6(8), i e best information available

(b) EXPORT PRICE:

M/s BASF has exported ***** Kg of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate to India for a total value of US$***** Accordingly, the average Export Price of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate during the Period of Investigation works out to US$***** per kg The exporter has claimed adjustments on account of Commission *****, Inland Freight *****, Overseas Freight ***** and Packing ***** The Ex-factory Export Price to India is claimed at *****/Kg For Export Price the Authority has relied on the data submitted by the exporter

Thus, the Dumping Margin in case of M/s BASF, Germany from EL) is assessed by the Authority at US$***** per Kg or 98 74%

10 OTHER EXPORTERS FROM KU:

(a) The Authority provided opportunity to the exporters from EU to furnish information relevant to the investigations and offer comments, if any in accordance with the Section cited above The Authority wrote to the Delegation of EU in India also However, no other exporters from EU have responded to the Authority's request for information The claim made by the petitioner with regard to the determination of Normal Value has also not been29 disputed by the other interested party(ies). The Authority has, therefore, proceeded on the basis of Rule 6(8), i.e. best information available.

(b) Thus, the Dumping Margin in case of Non-co-operative/other exporters of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate from EU assessed by Authority is same as of M/s BASF i.e. at US$***** per Kg. or 98.74%.

11 M/S UBE INDUSTRIES LTD. JAPAN:

(a) NORMAL VALUE:

(i) M/s UBE has stated that subject goods produced by them are sold in the Japanese market through distributors,

(ii) M/s UBE has stated that they are not the distributor of subject goods in Japanese market, data regarding such as "Margin (balance of purchase price and resale price of distributors which is normally 3-5% of purchase price)' is not provided.

(in) The exporters furnished the month wise details of the sales of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate in the domestic market on same level of trade as exported in India. M/s UBE sold *****Kg of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate in the domestic market at a sales value of US$***** Thus, the average sales realisation in the domestic market was US$***** per kg. M/s UBE has also submitted its cost of production of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate. The adjustments have been claimed in respect of Packing, Inland Freight, insurance and handling to arrive at the Ex-factory price of domestic sales. Accordingly, an Ex-factory domestic price of US$***** per Kg. was claimed.

The Authority has allowed above adjustments. The Normal Value comes to US$***** per Kg.

(b) EXPORT PRICE:

(i) The exporter has mentioned that subject goods produced by them is sold to distributors/trading houses and they exported it to India. The subject goods produced by M/s UBE is exported to India through M/s Nissho Iwai Co , M/s Mitui &Co Ltd. and M/s Mitsuya Boeki Ltd., Japan.

(ii) M/s UBE has stated, that they have not directly exported the subject goods to India. However, they have provided exports data such as Exports Selling Price (CIF basis) and charges after FOB, of their distributors/trading houses.

(ui) M/s. UBE Industries Ltd. has exported ***** Kg. of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate to India for a total value of US$***** Accordingly, the average Export Price of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate during the period of investigation works out to US$***** per kg (through its distributors/trading houses) . The exporter has claimed adjustments on account of commission *****, inland freight *****, overseas freight *****, insurance *****, overseas insurance *****, packing *****, handling *****, forwarding ***** and interest ***** Thus the ex-factory price for export sales to India is claimed at *****/Kg. The Authority has allowed above adjustments.

Thus, the Dumping Margin in case of exports of subject goods produced by M/s UBE, Japan is assessed by the Authority at US$***** per Kg or 40 03%.

(iv) The Authority sought a clarification from M/s UBE regarding their statement that they have exported the subject goods in India through three distributors/trading houses named above, whether these distributors/trading houses have exported the subject goods produced by M/s UBE only, in India during Period of Investigation M/s UBE has clarified that during the Period of Investigation all three distributors/trading houses did not export Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate to India produced by any other company

Accordingly, the Dumping Margin is 40 03% for M/s Nissho Iwai Co, M/s Mitui &Co Ltd and M/s Mitsuya Boeki Ltd , Japan as assessed for M/s UBE Industries Ltd

12 OTHER EXPORTERS FROM JAPAN:

(i) The Authority provided opportunity to the exporters from Japan 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 in India also However, no other exporters from Japan have responded to the Authority's request for information The claim made by the petitioner with the regard to the determination of Normal Value has also not been disputed by the other interested party(ies) The Authority has, therefore, proceeded on the basis of Rule 6(8), i e best information available (MI) The Dumping Margin in case of Non-co-operative exporters of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate from Japan is assessed by Authority at US$**** per Kg or 105 78%

13 EXPORTERS FROM USA

(I) The Authority provided opportunity to the exporters from USA to furnish information relevant to the investigations and offer comments, if any, in accordance with the Section cited above The Authority also wrote to the Embassy of USA in India However, none of the exporters from USA has responded to the Authority's request for information

(II) The claim made by the petitioner with regard to the determination of Normal Value has also not been disputed by any interested party (les) The Authority has, therefore, proceeded on the basis of Rule 6(8), i e , best information available

(MI) The Export Price has been determined on the basis of the information compiled by the DGCI&S The average Export Price has been adjusted for commission insurance, inland freight, overseas freight, port expenses as claimed by Domestic Industry The Dumping Margin has been assessed by the Authority at US$***** per kg or 67 47% for all exports of HAS from USA31 14. The Rules relating to comparison provides as follows:

"While arriving at margin of clumping, 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,"

15. Based on the Normal Value and the Export Price, as discussed above, the Dumping Margin in respect of individual exporters and the specific countries/ territory, is as under: -

I. INJURY & CAUSAL LINK:

16. (a) 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.

(b) For the examination of the impact of the imports on the Domestic Industry in India, the Authority considered such indices having a bearing on the state 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,

(c) The Authority has also examined factors other than dumped imports viz. uneconomical plant size, inefficiencies, mismanagement, quality or any other factors etc. as cited which might be injuring the Domestic Industry at the same time.

Of ? 'r e l e v a nt f a c t o rs '*ke usage of raw material

w m/kinn ^nn ! ^ for t he D°m ⁶ S t ic l n d u s t ry h as b e en determined by uTaae n f ^T a?alyS¹S usage of utilities, etc. and the actual expenses during the Period of nvest.gat.on including the investments and capacity utilization The Non- Injurious Pnce of Domestic Industry has been determined by considering the optimum cost of production and considering the reasonable return on he capital employed by the Domestic Industry

J- CONCLUSION ON INJURY 17. The Authority concludes that: (a) MARKET SHARE:

Year

Market share - Imports

Market share - domestic industry (%)

12.71 13.80 13.56 15.30 10.72 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 POI (Annalised)

(%)

87.29 86.20 86.44 84.70 89.28

It may be seen from the above table that market shares of imports in demand of HAS in India has increased. The increase in the market share of imports in demand was directly at the cost of decline in the market share of the Indian industry. Further, the entire imports are from the subject countries/territory, (b) INCREASE IN IMPORT FROM THE SUBJECT COUNTRIES/TERRITORY IN ABSOLUTE TERM: The Authority finds that the imports of HAS from the subject countries/territory have increased significantly in absolute terms as may be seen from the table below:-

j YEAR 1995-96 _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 1996-97 ~ ~ ~ ~ ——^ 1997-98 1998-99 P O I- Annualised

IMPORTS IN MT 2826.25 3268.84 3684.58 4055.77 4117.87

(c) PRODUCTION & CAPACITY UTILISATION:

Production and Capacity Utilisation of the petitioner has been as under:-

Capacity in MT Year

600 600 750 975 780 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 POI (six months)

Production in MT Capacity utilization %

63.17 85.83 85.73

I 77

48.12 379 515 643 750.775 375.3333 It is evident from the above that the capacity utilisation of the Domestic Industry has declined even though production of the Domestic Industry has increased. The increase in the production has been because of increased capacity of the Domestic Industry.

(d) SALES REALISATION

The sales realisation of the Domestic Industry for Period of Investigation and for previous three years is as under (indexed information considering 1995-96 as 100):-

It is evident that the sales realisation of the Domestic Industry has declined very steeply particularly during the Period of Investigation.

(e) PRICE UNDERCUTTING:

It may be seen from the above table that the Landed Value of the imported material from subject countries/territory was higher than the selling price of Domestic Industry till 1998-99. However, during Period of Investigation the exporters from the subject countries/territory reduced their prices significantly, which resulted in very significant price undercutting in the Indian market.

&"/6Z/jco/—£?

(f) SALES QUANTITY:

The Authority finds that sales of the Domestic Industry have declined Though Domestic Industry has decreased its selling price because of dumping of HAS in the Indian market from the subject countries/territory, the Domestic Industry was not able to increase its sales proportionate to the increase in the production and capacity

(g) PROFITABILITY:

The increase in the cost of production and reduction in the selling price on the other hand has resulted in decline in profitability of the Domestic Industry (h) DECLINE IN CONTRIBUTION PER MT OF HYDROXYL AMINE SULPHATE:

As it is evident from the above para that sales realisation of the Domestic Industry has declined very significantly, the decline in the sales realisation of the Domestic Industry resulted in declined in contribution per MT of HAS The Authority has analysed the same in the confidential information submitted by the Domestic Industry and found that the Domestic Industry was faced with the situation of negative contribution

(i) CLOSING STOCK:

The closing stock of the petitioner was 16 625 MT during 1997-98 and 1 5 MT during 1998-99 has gone up to 117 800 MT during the Period of Investigation

18 The Authority, therefore, notes from the above that during the Period of Investigation the imports from the subject countries/territory have been at a price below the selling prices of the Domestic Industry Further, the imports into India have been at a price lower than the Non-Injurious Price for the Domestic Industry As a consequence thereof the petitioner was forced to sell its product at a price significantly below its Non-Injurious Price resulting in financial losses to the petitioner The petitioner was also prevented from increasing the level of capacity utilisation as compared to the total apparent market15 These parameters collectively and cumulatively indicate that the petitioner has suffered material injury due to the dumped imports.

K INDIAN INDUSTRTS INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES

19. (a) The purpose of anti dumping duties, in general, is to eliminate dumping which is causing injury to the petitioner companies and to re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the countries.

(b) 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, 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 petitioner's company. On the contrary, imposition of anti dumping measures would remove the unfair advantages gained by dumping practices, would prevent the decline of the petitioner¹ company and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate. Imposition of anti dumping measures would not restrict imports from the subject countries/territory in any way, and, therefore, would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers.

(c) To ascertain the extent of anti-dumping duty necessary to remove the injury to the petitioner's company, the Authority has relied upon Non - Injurious Price of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate in India for the petitioner's company, by considering the optimum cost of production at optimum level of capacity utilisation for the petitioner's company.

L. FINAL FINDINGS

20. The Authority, after considering the foregoing, concludes that:

(a) Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate originating in or exported from the subject countries/ territory has been exported to India below its normal value, thereby resulting in dumping;

(b) The Domestic Industry has suffered material injury;

(c) The injury has been caused to the Domestic Industry by dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from USA, Japan and EU.

(d) In view of the above, the Authority recommends imposition of definite anti- dumping duty on all imports of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate falling under chapter 28 (Custom Sub-heading 2825.1003 ) originating in or exported from USA, Japan and EU.

(e) The landed value of imports for the purpose shall be 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 , 9 and 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

(f) It was considered to recommend the amount of Anti-Dumping Duty equal to the Dumping Margin or less which, if levied, would remove the injury to the Domestic Industry. Landed value of the imports for individual exporters, for the purposes, were compared with the non-injurious selling price of the Domestic Industry, determined for the period of investigation. Wherever the difference was less than the Dumping Margin, a duty lower than the Dumping Margin is recommended.

(g) Accordingly, anti-dumping duties may be imposed, on all imports of Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate originating in or exported from the subject countries/ territory. The anti-dumping duty shall be the difference between the amounts mentioned in column 3 below and the landed value of imports in US $ / MT.

(h) Subject to the above, the Authority confirms the Preliminary Findings dated 4th August, 2000.

(i) An appeal against this order shall lie to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Act supra.

L. V SAPTHARISHI, Designated Authority Printed by the Manager, OovL of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Publiihod by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.