THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

MINKTRYOFCOMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

NOTIFICATION

Preliminary Findings

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001

Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports into India of Vitrified/Porcelain Tiles originating in o

exported from China PR and UAE.

NO. 37/1/2001-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:

PROCEDURE

The procedure described below has been followed with

regard to the investigations:

The Designated Authority

(hereinafter referred to as

Authority), under the Rules, received written application

from M/s SPL Ceramics Ltd., Mundka, Bahadurgarh,

Haryana, M/s H&R Johnson India Ltd, Maharashtra and

M/s Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd, Hubli have filed a

petition alleging dumping of Vitrified/Porcelain tiles

(hereinafter also referred to as subject goods) originating in

or exported from Peoples' Republic of China and United

.*!

Arab Emirates (UAE) (hereinafter also referred to as

subject countries).

ii.

The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima facie

evidence submitted by the petitioner, decided to initiate

investigations against imports of subject material from the

subject countries. The Authority notified the Embassies ol"

the subject countries about the receipt of Jumping

allegation before proceeding to initiate the investigations ;,»

accordance with sub-rule 5(5) of the Rules;

iii.

The Authority issued a public notice dated 6^lh August,

2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,

initiating anti-dumping investigations concerning imports

of Vitrified/Porcelain tiles of the description given in the

initiation notification (hereinafter also referred to as the

subject goods or vitrified tiles) and classified under custom

Chapter 69 of Schedule 1 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

originating in or exported from the subject countries;

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 rule 6(2);

The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to the

known importers of Vitrified tiles in India and advised

them to make their views known in writing within forty

days iron •!>.; date of the letter;

ReqiK^i. v* •

"\ik to ihe Centra) Roatci oi' lixasc and

Customs (i

) to arrange details of imporis of

Vitrified/Porcelain tiles for the past three years, including

the period of investigations.

3718GI/2001— 7

THE G AZEITE OF INDT A: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC, 1]

vii. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential

petition to the known exporters and the Embassies of the

subject countries in accordance with rules 6(3) supra;

viii. The Authority sent a questionnaire to elicit relevant

information, to the known exporters from China PR and

UAE as indicated by the petitioner, as mentioned below in

accordance with the Rule 6(4):-

UAE

2..

Al Khaleej Ceramics (PSC)

RAK Ceramics

CHINA PR

Foshan Shiwan Dongpeng Ceramic

Group Co. Ltd.

Eagle Brand Holding Limited

Nanhai City Qiaodong Ceramics

Co. Ltd. (Monalisa)

ix.

Response to the initiation notifiction was received from

M/s RAK Ceramics and M/s Al Khaleej Ceramics, UAE

and M/s Guangdong Province Tai Shan City Supply &

Marketing Cooperative Company, M/s Lihua Ceramics

Company Ltd., Nanhai Guangdong and M/s Guangdong

New Zhong Yuan Ceramics Company from China PR.

None of the other exporters responded.

As per Rule 6(5) of Rule supra, the Designated Authority

has also provided opportunity to the industrial users of the

article under investigation, and to representative consumer

organizations who can furnish information which is

relevant to the investigation regarding dumping, injury and

causal link. It was also mentioned in the initiation

notification that any other interested party may also make

its submissions relevant to the investigation within the time

limit set out.

xi.

The Embassies of the subject countries 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 exporter was

also sent to the Embassies, along with a list of known

exporters/producers;

xii. A questionnaire was sent 10 the following known

importers/ wholesale dealers of Vitrified/Porcelain tiles in

India calling for necessary information in accordance with

rule 6(4):

M/s Trishla Distributors, Chenna

M/s Fortune Enterprises,Chenna

Kent Ceramic Tiles & Co. Pvt L

.,nnai

Bharat Marble, Kolkata

Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd., Alibagh

Aries Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Safaal Wasel Exim (P) Ltd., Kerala

Kajaria Plus Ltd., New Delhi

The response was, however, filed by the following

importers of Vitrified/Porcelain tiles as per prescribed

proforma: -

• M/s Trishla Distributors

• M/s NITCO, Mumbai

• M/s Kajaria Ceramics, New Delhi

• M/s Safa Al Wasel Exim Pvt. Ltd., Kochi

• M/s Chinar Ceramics(India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

• M/s Kapsons Ceramics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

n !H (lAzi-Trm OF TNDI A - EXTRAORDINARY

• \^I

•_<'••--$»

/i'i.

;'!; o .!^l i:v;.v'!.s regarding injury was sought from the

p o'iii i^;c<", wiicr¹ were also furnished;

-,:H:, ih; Viiih. -. y kept available non-confidential version of

ih, tivic'e;;:: presented by various interested parties in the

form of a public file maintained by the Authority and kept

open for inspection by the interested parties;

xiv. The Authority conducted spot verification of the domestic

industry to the extent considered necessary.

xv. The cost of production of the domestic industry was also

analysed 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) based

on the information furnished by petitioner so as to

ascertain if anti-dumping duty lower than dumping margin

would be sufficient to remove injury to domestic industry.

xvi.

ihis notification represents information furnished

^titioner/other interested parties on confidential

so considered by the Authority under the Rules.

xvii. Investigation was carried out for the period starting from

i>¹ /Vprii, 2000 to 31^sl March, 2001.

^fc-ilTIONERSLVIEWS

The petitioner had expressed the following views in the

petition with regard to dumping of Vitrified tiles and the

injury to domestic industry as a consequence thereof:

DUMPING!

In respect of exports from China, petitioner stated that

according to the amended rules under Custom Notification

No.28/2001(N.T.) dated 31^sl May, 2001, the Constructed

Normal Value is a good indicator for Normal Value in

China PR for the purpose of initiation, particularly as the

prices are being determined on the basis of international

prices of raw materials and petitioner's own production

and costing data, and in view of the fact that there are no

significant differences in the level of technology or

operation.

With regard to UAE, petitioner claimed Normal Value on

the basis of price list of one of the major producers, i.e.

M/s RAK Ceramics.

The Export Price had been claimed on the basis of imports

figures available with the petitioner with their C1F values

and adjustments were claimed with regard to ocean freight,

marine insurance, inland transport, port handling and port

charges.

On the basis of above, the petitioner claimed that there is a

huge dumping margin from both the subject countries

which indicates that subject goods are coming into India at

extremely low and dumped price.

Petitioner further

claimed that this indicates that the exporters are not even

recovering the nominal variable cost.

VIEWS OF EXPORTERS, IMPORTERS AND

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

VIEWS OF EXPORTERS:

M/s RAK Cerarnics, UAE and other exporters have given

the following comments:

Normal Value

The prima facie evidence of normal value from UAE has

been considered from a so-called non-binding price list

which does not evidence even a single concluded contract

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

or a sale in the Domestic Market. The alleged price list

cannot be an authentic document of evidence of even the

indicative prices since RAK Ceramics which is the major

exporter from UAE concludes all contracts at a negotiated

price. The evidence thus considered is not only bad in law

for the lack of evidence of concluded contract but is also

misleading and only a assertion which cannot be held as an

evidence of normal value in the legal proceedings.

Export Prices

The information on the import prices of the Director of

Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of

Commerce and Industry which are admittedly available

upto December, 2000 have been adjudged, unreliable and

insufficient. On the other hand the secondary information

from a private operator who has apparently supplied a

doctored information after manipulation has been relied

upon by the complainants as more reliable than the

Government of India, Director General of Commercial

Intelligence and Statistics.

In view of the above, the

information on Export prices also is prima facie not an

evidence to be recognized in the legal proceedings.

iii.

Meaningful Non-confidential

The petition does not give any clue to vital information

which in any case in India are public information through

the published accounts. In view of RAK Ceramics, in a

proceeding like this confidentiality on such information

without any reasonable explanation

commercial

proprietary is purposely to ensure that the exporters are

handicapped to contest the case properly.

iv.

Injury

Notwithstanding their right to access such an information

RAK Ceramics has submitted that the case on injury has

also not only been made but is only full of assertions

without an iota of proof of evidence.

Apparently the demand

has been

consistently

increasing. It has been grossly understated in the petition

to only satisfy the de minimus test of Imports.

The

demand in fact has been increasing by *** % to *** %.

H&R Johnson (India) Ltd., in its Directors Report of April

2000 has clearly admitted the increase in demand by above

*** % for ^

n e x t^few

v e a r s^{The production has been}

continuously increasing and the employment generation

has also increased. The Sales Prices in absolute terms has

also shown stability and growth.

In a recent press

statement, Mr. K. Chandrashekhar, General Manager has

emphasized that the demand of the product concerned will

grow by ***% to *** % year on year (Times of India

11.9.2001 page 15).

Profits are increasing and other

parameters of injury apparently show a position of progress

and strength except that decline in market share and

capacity utilization which are also grossly untrue and have

been derived from cover-up operations to mislead the

Designated Authority.

Capacity Utilization statistics have to be carefully

worked

out

considering

the

time

installation,

commencement of commercial production, unusual shut

down, closures for major overhauling and other unforeseen

reasons etc.

It appears that the complainants have with a clear

purpose to mislead the Designated Authority, either

concealed Vital Information or has not given the correct

determination

of the Utilization

of not only the

complainants but also the other manufacturers. Not only

this, the complainants themselves concealed major facts

i.e., SPL did not disclose the fact that the new expansion

plant came into operation on 28^th November, 2000 and has

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

JPART I—SEC. 11

been used only 4 months during the year. Further SPL's

plant was closed for over 2 months due to major

overhauling.

Similarly HR Johnson's plant also was

inoperative as per reports for about 2 months due to which

they had to go for a Run of Kiln Sale. Apparently, the

submissions are designed to deliberately mislead and

derive wrong conclusions.

The increase in the market share of Exporters is

apparently due to opening up of the economy allowing the

exporters also to take up a reasonable part of the market

share at a price which is not only competitive but also non-

dumped which apparently is the case of Imports from

UAE.

Thus the assertions that lower capacity utilisation and

loss of market share is the conclusive proof or Injury,

while the unit price realisation increases, production

capacity utilization, sales value & volume and profits

(considering

same

levels of operations,

efficiency,

productivity and operations, efficiency, productivity and

operational cost controls) keeps growing leaps and bounds

is a misnomer, as detailed herein after, in the detailed

company-wise analysis of various factors of injury. These

conclusively

rebut

the

assertions

and

misleading

presentations made through the complainants.

The company-wise analysis of injury indicators based

on their annual reports and other available evidence for

each individual company conclusively prove that the case

of injury has not at all been made out at all even prima

facie and as such the case deserves to be withdrawn

forthwith.

"• I

Causal Link

Similarly, no evidence or link has also been established

between the so-called dumping and alleged injury whereas

only on the basis of simple assertions the petitioners h;;vi

tried to conclude that there is a causal link.

The Indian industry has neither shown

investment in modernization in order to upgrad;

technology which could be competitive for pvn;^J

goods that are in continuous demand.

There is a case of lower productivity, inefficiencies,

increased operational costs, product bottlenecks etc.,

leading to higher cost and decreased profits which has sio

relationship with the alleged exports from subu' *

countries.

Apparently the technology used generates bip,h

volumes of sub-standard production which leads to love*

realization and higher losses.

The domestic manufacturers have very

h\r>h

marketing cost which along with high volume of sub

standard goods produced through the non-competitive

technology results into low realization and higher losses.

Petitioners themselves have through Directors

Reports, Chairman's overview

and/ or corporate

challenges, nnalysis etc. admitted the following reasons for

loss of •^:tMlion and sales and resultant impacts fv

margi?

• Modification and up-gradation of major plants a-id

equipment's leading to loss in 2 months

production.

• Earthquake in Gujarat causing Sales decline

371BGI/2001—8

T'rllr.GAZhTrh OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

IPARTI—SEC. 1J

•

Loss of production due to overhauling of Diesel

Generation sets.

• Hud ot Sales Tax exemption to some units.

• Teething problems in vitrified plant.

• Rise in operational cost particularly Raw

materials, Power and Labour leading to shrink in

margins.

• inability to retain the reduction in excise duty

• Continuous threat, price undercutting from the

small scale sector.

• Unfair competition within the organized sector in

India.

The causal link, therefore, is within the domestic industry

itself as evidenced and admitted by the complaints

themselves, which by no stretch of imagination could be

attributed to the exports of subject countries.

VIEWS OF IMPORTERS:

The importers have given the following comments:

Imported product information: The petition is confusing

with regard to the product on which the petitioner is

seeking duties. The description of the product mentioned in

the petition is as under:

"Unglazed tiles in polished or unpolished finish and

Glazed Porcelain/Ceramic tiles both with less than 3%

water

absorption

(commonly

known as vitrified

tiles/Porcelain Tiles)".

The

ill-defined

product

description has severely

handicapped the other parties from defending their

interests.

ii)

Standing of the petitioners :

The petitioners have

included SPL, Johnson, Murudeshwar, Bell Granito,

Restile, Spartek and Sun Earth as the Indian producers of

the subject goods. However, when the product itself is not

clear, it is not understood hovv the petitioners have

established their standing.

In case ''ceramic tiles" are

within the scope of the present investigations, the

following companies also produce ceramic tiles in the

Country:

Kajaria Ceramics

NITCO

. Orient Ceramics

Pedder & Pedder

Regency Ceramics

Bell Ceramics

Anantraj Industries

Gold Coin Ceramics

The above is not an exhaustive . ;»L

I ceramic tiles

producers in India. It is not clear why ihese producers have

not been included in the petition. The tiles produced by

these producers have not been segregated from the tiles

which are the subject matter of the present investigations.

iii.

Petitioners are importing the product:

One of the petitioner companies itself is importing the

subject product. The imports are understood to be through

an affiliate company. In any event, this company cannot

form part of domestic industry.

iv.

The petitioners have included ceramic mosaic tiles for the

purpose of export price calculations. Even the huge price

difference between these mosaic (priced at around Rs. 75

per unit) and vitrified tiles (priced at around Rs. 284 per

unit) has been ignored by the petitioners. This amounts to

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

......pruning gold with silver. In any event, the petitioners

vc so complaint of dumping against ceramic mosaic

ines. Such being the case, the petitioner cannot include

this for the purpose of export price calculations.

Tampering of the data: From the import information

enclosed in the petition, it is evident that the information

enclosed by the petitioners is not a copy of the information

provided by International Business Information Service,

Mumbai, nor have the petitioners clarified anywhere in the

petition whether trv data received by them from IBIS has

been filtered by them. The information provided by IBIS

has been used as an evidence . Such evidence could not

have been tampered by the petitioners while providing the

same to the Designated Authority.

vi.

Discounts on price list of UAE exporters: The petitioner

have dctc^T ironed normal value in UAE on the basis of price

list* in UAE. In case the petitioners claim that prices

q-i-

> the price lists are representative of the prevailing

:n we request the Designated Authority to kindly

\.:,j

i the price lists of the petitioner companies for

the [^r >se of injury and injury margin.

Ex")oi"c price: As stated earlier, the petitioner have, in their

to show lower prices, included even CERAMIC

MOSAIC TILES for calculating export price.

By no

stretch of imagination mosaic tiles and vitrified tiles be

treated as similar. This tantamount to combining gold

with silver. The export price is required to be computed

again after removing mosaic tiles.

Petition does not deal with all injury parameters: It is

noteworthy that WTO Dispute Settlement Body has held

that petitioners are required to give information in respect

of all injury parameters.

However, it is found that the

petitioners have not given information in respect of even

those parameters which have been listed in proforma. The

petitioners have not provided evidence of injury in respect

of following injury parameters:

a) Lost contracts

b) Employment

c) Selling prices

d) Price undercutting

e) Price suppression

f) Price depression

ix.

Injury and causal link: There is no injury to the

petitioners. The injury, if any, is not due to the alleged

dumping of subject goods from subject countries. These

are several other factors responsible for injury.

Alleged increase in imports must be seen alongwith the

fact that the import of tiles was under restricted list of

imports prior to April, 2000. Further, the imports must be

seen alongwith the phenomenal increase in demand,

capacity and production. While the imports grew from nil

to 1.20 lac sq. meters, the sales of the Indian Producers

grew from *** lacs sq.meters to *** lacs even as per

petition.

The alleged increase in imports must be seen alongwith the

attempts of the petitioners to include CERAMIC MOSAIC

TILES, not a subject matter of present investigations. Such

imports must be excluded by the domestic industry before

increase in imports or their share in demand in assessed.

Market share of imports from the two countries was less

than 2%, considering the sales volumes of the petitioners

and actual imports of subject goods.

However, it is

noteworthy that the petitioners have not included sales of

other Indian Producers for demand assessment.

When

these sales are added, the market share of imports from the

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

two countries in demand would be even lower. The

imports were de-minimus with reference to demand of the

product in the country.

It is presumptive to state that the share of imports from the

subject countries is already as high as 5.16%, it has been

presumed by the petitioners that the rate of increase in

imports would be higher than the rate of increase in

demand. There is neither a basis nor warrant for such

conjecture.

Trw share of imports in terms of demand as criteria for de-

minimis may not have been specifically provided in the

Indian Rules. However, rules of other countries, which are

quite elaborate and comprehensive, clearly have a

provision that volume of imports shall be considered as de-

minimus in case the same is less than 1% individually and

less than 3% collectively of demand of the product in the

country.

It is relevant to point out that even Indian Rules provide for

termination of investigations in case the injury is

negligible. The injury in this case is negligible since the

entire share of imports in demand in the country is less

than 1% individually and less than 3% collectively.

Production of the petitioner companies has phenomenally

increased. This is an open secret, even when the petitioners

have attempted to claim this information confidential.

There is no actual decline in capacity utilization. In fact,

there cannot be decline in capacity utilization when the

production has phenomenally increased.

The alleged

decline in capacity utilization must be seen along with

capacity additions in the industry in general and petitioners

in particular. Since new companies have commenced

production, they cannot naturally dream of optimum

_63

utilization immediately after commercial production -

whether dumping or no dumping.

We request the

Designated Authority to direct the petitioners to disclose

company-wise data on all injury parameters.

Sales volumes of the petitioners shows phenomenal

increase. It rather shows sign of a growing and healthy

industry.

Cost of production of one of the petitioner company is

much lower than its selling price. This company is making

significant profits. In fact, the profits of this company have

shown very significant improvement. This implies that

either other producers are having higher cost of production

(for which the exporters can not be blamed) or selling

prices of Indian Producers is lower (for which again the

exporters cannot be blamed).

j .

One of the petitioner companies has very recently

introduced a tile (brand name^w£ Porselano") which is

claimed to be far superior to the alleged dumped product.

The price of this tile to the end consumer (Rs. 80 sq.ft.

MRP) is far lower than the resale price of imported

product.

There are significant capacity additions in the recent

period, which is much more than the demand of the

product in India. Imports of about

*** sq meters cannot

prevent the Indian producers from not utilizing capacity to

the extent of about ***. This cannot be a reason for lower

capacity utilization and hence loss of production.

Petition is full of conjectures: The petitioners have

merely made statements, unsubstantiated with sufficient

evidence.

The

statements

price

undercutting,

suppression, etc. are mere statements.

Even if it is

assumed that dumping took place, it is not understood how

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I— SEC. 1J

the petitioners could refer to continued dumping", even

when the imports have started now.

Evidently, other

factors have forced the Indian producers to make losses.

Profit/loss: The petitioners have claimed that their profits

have declined. The statement must be seen alongwith

individual company's performance, decline in capacity

utilization by 8.29% (*** Lacs Sq. Meter) against imports

of *** sq. meters and effect of the volume of imports on

the sales of the domestic industry. The fact is that older

companies are running with reasonable profitability, while

the newer companies could be making losses due to

obvious lower capacity utilization. However, we strongly

believe that none of the participating companies should be

making losses. None of these parameters can be linked to

dumping.

Huge profits in Past: The Indian Producers were earlier

making huge profits in the past. In fact, Naveen has been

posting higher profits year after year in respect of vitrified

tiles.

COMMENTS OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ON

THE ISSUED RAISED BY IMPORTERS AND

EXPORTERS

5. (i) Standing:

It has been stated by the importers that the petition

lacks standing as SPL who is one of the petitioners,

had either directly or through related companies

imported the alleged dumped products in significant

quantities.

The contention of the importers is not

supported either by the facts or the provisions of law.

SPL has not imported the alleged dumped products

from

the alleged

sources during the period of

investigation nor prior to that. It is the unambiguous

J55

position in law that only those producers who have

imported the alleged products may be excluded from

the definition of domestic industry. That not being the

case, the inclusion of SPL as a part of the domestic

industry is perfectly supported by the facts and the

law. The determination by the Designated Authority

with regard to the standing of the petitioners to file the

application on behalf of the domestic producers of

vitrified tiles is fully justified and the argument of the

importers has no merit whatsoever.

(ii) Normal Value:

It has been alleged that the prima facie evidence with

regard to the Normal Value is bad in law as reliance

has been placed on the non-binding price list of one of

the UAE producers. The importers further go on to

say that the evidence is bad as the petitioners have not

supplied even a single evidence of a concluded

contract.

The argument of the importers that the

petitioners

should

have

produced

evidence

concluded contracts is a preposterous proposition on

ethical as well legal grounds. The importers are, as

per their own admission, aware that UAE producers

sell their goods at negotiated prices. If this is true,

then the domestic industry cannot be expected legally

or in practice to get the confidential documents of two

commercial entities. In this connection, the domestic

industry has drawn the attention of the Designated

Authority to Para 1 (a) of Part III of the Application

Proforma

wherein

has

been

unambiguously

mentioned that price¹ list can be a reasonable indicator

of the Normal Value in the home market of the

exporters. Perhaps the importers are not aware that the

price list is considered as an excellent prima facie

evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation.

3718GI/2001—9

«>

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I— SEC. 1J

(iii) Export Price:

It Has been alleged by the importers that the domestic

industry has submitted

unreliable and

'doctored'

information to mislead the Designated Authority.

this connection, attention of the Designated Authority

has been drawn to the fact that the domestic industry

has made all attempts to be as transparent as possible

by giving all the data which they could possibly collect

in a reasonable manner. Since a large number of

importers

have

imported

the

product

under

consideration under different headings for reasons

which can only be explained by them, we had to carry

out

a detailed

analysis

the

available

data.

Nonetheless, it is the duty and obligation of the

importers to first provide their own import data before

they acquire the right to comment upon the data

furnished by the domestic industry and accepted by the

Designated Authority as sufficient evidence to justify

the initiation of an investigation.

It is true that

Chapter Heading 69.14 has many other products than

the product under consideration but it is equally untrue

to say that we have included the same while making

the estimates of the imports.

In any case, the

importers are in a much better position to now give

their information to the Designated Authority, if they

consider that the information given by the domestic

industry is inaccurate. We would also like to submit

that the importers have for strange reasons chosen to

keep confidential

even those figures

which

are

supposed to be a part of the non-confidential version

of our petition.

Obviously, they do not want us to

comment on the propositions made by them.

_67

(iv) Injury:

Since the submissions made by the importers are so

outrageously mischievous and outrightly false, we consider

it appropriate to first deal with them only on the issues of

facts at this stage:

In this connection, it may be mentioned that the

importers need to be aware of the fact that under the

Anti-dumping Rules, the test of de minimus volume is

done only as a percent of the total imports and not a as

a proportion of the total demand. Therefore, there is

no reason whatsoever for the domestic industry to

understate the demand as suggested by the importers.

In Directors' Report of HRJ, the future demand

mentioned is generally indicative o. »he entire tile

industry. Moreover, the importers b

, onvenienlly

overlooked the following para:

"However, expected opening up of imports of Wall &

Floor Tiles next year and increased competition from

small scale sector is likely to keep the market fiercely

competitive.

Your Company has been preparing itself to face this

scenario

continuously

upgrading

its

plants,

introducing new value added products and improving

its service levels.

We are confident that with the strategies adopted and

already implemented,

the future

outlook for

your

company remains encouraging. "

The Press Statement of Mr. K. Chandrasekhar

General Manager (Sales) made during the launch of

"Porselano" (Glazed Porcelain tiles) referred to our

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

expectation that the demand should grow. However, it

does not follow that profits are also increasing.

SPL's Vitrified Tiles plant commenced commercial

production in March 2000 and not November 2000, as

stated by the importers. The importers have deliberately

made this statement to bias the Designated Authority

against the merits of the case made by the domestic

industry.

It may be clarified that the domestic industry had

indeed taken into account the capacitiesof Sun Earth

Ceramics & Spartek for calculation of standing of the

petitioner industry. Further, the importers, as the rest

their

submissions,

have

made

yet

another

misleading

statement. The unit of

Madhusudan

Ceramics and Sun Earth Ceramics manufacture only

Ceramic Glazed Wall / Floor tiles and not vitrified

tiles,

>jri) , ihe year 1999-2000 there was no sale of

vitrii

tiles by SPL. As such the figures are not at

all comparable.

Further, SPL's realization per MT

increased mainly in value added products in glazed

tiles segment while the case has been filed only for

vitnfied tiles. The irrelevance and mischievousness of

the contention made by the importers is obvious.

The increase in production capacity during the period

of investigation is mainly because of additional floor

tiles capacity put up at Kadi plant at Gujarat. In this

case, we are concerned only with vitrified tiles.

There was no production loss of vitrified tiles because

of plant/equipment maintenance and upgradation.

There is no loss of production of vitrified tiles because of

overhauling of diesel generating sets as SPL had enough

standby generation capacity to run the particular unit of

vitrified tiles.

The earthquake in Gujarat in the month of January 2001

had no effect on production of vitrified tiles as the plant for

the same is located in Haryana. The importers have

deliberately and knowingly ignored this fact with a view to

confuse the issues.

As already mentioned above, the commencement of

production of vitrified tiles was in March, 2000. The

complainant has wrongly taken the commencement of

production in November 2000. This is misrepresentation of

facts and there is no concealing of facts by SPL as has been

alleged.

The increase in total income during the first quarter of

2001-02 compared to corresponding quarter of previous

year was not ooly because of vitrified tiles sales but also

the sales of floor tiles of around Rs. *** lacs from the

new commissioned floor tiles plant at Kadi in November

2000.

The importers/exporters have referred time and again to

figures which do not pertain to the production and sale of

vitrified tiles and are confusing with production of wall

and floor tiles in SPL plants. Thus, there is no relevance of

adjustment of profits in view of the above. The growth of

exports of SPL is on account of growth in wall and floor

tiles exports.

It is apparent from the above that all the contentions of the

importers are based on misrepresentation, completely

wrong interpretation of facts, figures and Anti-dumping

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1|

Rules and therefore, has no substance in relation to the

period of investigation for vitrified tiles.

HRJ manufactures Wall & Floor tiles in addition to the

Vitrified Tiles. The Company has 4 plants in various parts

of the country. The achievement shown in the Director's

Report are combined achievement and not necessarily only

because of vitrified tiles. The details regarding vitrified

tiles have already been submitted separately.

HRJ has been continuously adding capacity in last 2 years

and therefore production has been increasing due to

increase in the installed capacity.

The capacities are added to achieve higher economy of

scale particularly in a capital intensive industry. Again the

total capacity as mentioned in the Balance Sheet cannot be

compared as it comprises of Wall, Floor & Vitrified tiles

and therefore is not any indicator.

It is admitted fact that the Thane factory of HRJ is one of

the oldest factory of the Company and outdated both in

terms of technology as well as product mix. The Thane

factory does not manufacture Vitrified Tiles.

Anti-dumping Rules clearly provide that a proper

application has to be filed by or on behalf of the domestic

industry which accounts for at least 25% of the domestic

production. The fact that some of the companies have not

expressly supported the application is of no consequence

either legally or in an economic sense. The conditions

required for an application to form a valid application have

been meticulously fulfilled by the petitioners.

The Petitioners are using state-of-the-art Italian technology

for producing tiles and the claim is also evidenced from the

capital expenditure. Indian industry has been continuously

making investment & up-gradation of their manufacturing

capabilities. HRJ spent an amount of Rs. *** Crores in

last 4 years. The vitrified tiles factory of HRJ has been set

up using the best of the plant & machinery and technology

available in the world. The Italian technology for vitrified

tiles is undisputedly acknowledged as the best in the world.

The plant of HRJ has been supplied by SACMI of Italy, the

major supplier of vitrified tiles plant in the world.

Vitrified tiles manufactured by HRJ have been very well

accepted as can be seen by the fact that HRJ has received

the PSB Certification from Singapore and Balogne

Certificate from Italy. Therefore calling their tiles as

inferior is totally misleading. In fact HRJ manufactures a

high 70% of first quality Vitrified tiles. HRJ products are

as good as the best products available in the world and it

now exports to countries in Europe, Middle East and Far

East.

The Petitioners (HRJ) have not resorted to any sale on Run

of Kiln basis. The allegation is strongly objected and also

merits a case of defamation.

However, the importers

should be asked to produce evidence for such a claim.

The tiles being marketed by HRJ as Porselano is indeed

Vitrified Porcelain tiles contrary to the claim and due to

total ignorance of the importers.

It is strange and shocking to see the argument of the

importers that duty should not be imposed in consumer

interest.

The major exporter from UAE namely RAK

Ceramics has itself admitted that they have been supplying

3rd and 4th quality tiles to India. Consumer interest cannot

THE GAZbTl'EOF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

be furthered by bringing 3rd & 4th quality products.

Majority of imports are of 4th quality as admitted by RAK

Ceramics in their submission and therefore the importers

are misleading by making false claim of bringing

exclusive/outstanding products.

E. EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED

The foregoing submissions made by the exporters,

importers, petitioner and other interested parties, to the extent

these are relevant as per Rules and to extent these have a bearing

upon the case, have been examined and considered and have

been dealt with at appropriate places in the notification.

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION & SCOPE

OF INVESTIGATION

The product

under

consideration

claimed

by the

petitioners and mentioned in the Initiation Notification is

"Unglazed tiles in polished or unpolished finish and Glazed

Porcelain/Ceramic

tiles both with less than 3% water

absorption(commonly known as Vitrified Tiles/Porcelain tiles)"

originating

exported

from

subject

countries.

Vitrified/Porcelain tiles are glazed and unglazed tiles and are

used primarily for coverings for floors as well as on walls.

These tiles are used in buildings, homes, restaurants, cinema

halls, airports, swimming pools, railway stations etc..

Petitioners have claimed that all types of unglazed tiles are

classified in chapter heading 69.07. However, unglazed tiles are

also being imported under Chapter heading 69.14, as- other

articles of porcelain. In addition, glazed porcelain tiles are being

imported under Chapter heading 69.14 with various descriptions

like G.P. Tiles, Porcelain Tiles, Gres Porcelenato Tiles,

Porcelain Vitrified Tiles, etc. It has further been stated that the

Glazed Porcelain Tiles, being imported under Chapter heading

69.14 are substitutable with the unglazed tiles of Chapter

Heading 69.07 in terms of properties, uses, functions,

distribution channels etc. Petitioners have further submitted that

ijlazed Porcelain Tiles are erroneously being classified under

Chapter Heading 69.14 by many importers. These products are

rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 69.08 as Glazed

Tiles. Therefore, petitioners requested that the investigations be

carried out against the product under consideration irrespective

of the classification under which they are being imported.

Customs classifications are indicative only and are in no way

binding on the scope of the present investigation.

However, the domestic industry clarified to the Authority

that the description in their application as well as the Initiation

Notification does not cover industrial tiles even though the same

are produced by the process of vitrification. They, therefore,

requested that industrial vitrified tiles may be excluded from the

scope of the present investigation as the same are not competing

or substitutable with the allegedly dumped imports.

On an

examination of the material available, the Authority accepts the

contention of the domestic industry and clarifies that the vitrified

industrial tiles are not covered in scope of investigation.

LIKE ARTICLE

8. (a) Rule 2(d) of the Anti-Dumping Rules specifies that "Like

Articles" 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 petitioners have claimed that the goods produced by

them are like articles to the goods originating in or

exported

from

subject

countries.

Therefore,

Vitrified/Porcelain tiles produced by the petitioners and

imported from subject countries should be treated as 'like

articles' in accordance with the Anti-dumnine Rules.

3718GI/2001—10

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC, 1]

by them are different in quality. However, no evidence has

been adduced by them to indicate that the imported^iles are

not substituting the domestically produced tiles either

technically or commercially. The Authority notes that the

vitrified tiles produced by the domestic industry has

characteristics which are similar to those of the tiles

imported from the subject countries. The channels of

distribution, end-use, etc., also indicate that the imported

tiles are like articles to the product under consideration.

(d) In view of the above, the Authority

holds that

Vitrified/Porcelain tiles produced by the domestic industry

and those being imported from the subject countries are

'Like Articles' within the meaning of the Rules.

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The petition has been filed by M/s SPL Ltd., M/s H&R

Johnson India Ltd. and M/s Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd. The

petitioners have claimed that they account for almost 60% of the

total Indian production in terms of sq. mtrs. of the subject goods.

It has been argued that the petitioners do not have the standing to

file the application as the production of many other producers of

tiles has not been taken into consideration for determining the

standing criteria. The importers have specifically named few

producers of tiles in support of their contention. The Authority

has examined the contentions made by the importers in this

regard as well as the evidence available on record.

The

producers referred to by the importers are not producing

vitrified/porcelain tiles i.e., ceramic tiles with less than 3% water

absorption and therefore, the question of inclusion of their

production for the purpose of standing, does not arise. It has also

been mentioned that there are several small scale producers of

tiles whose production has also not been accounted for. The

Authority hereby clarifies that under the Anti Dumping Rules,

the Authority is required to take into account only the production

of the product under consideration. In the instant case, the scope

of investigation is restricted only to vitrified tiles as defined

under the product under consideration, and the standing criteria

for the petitioners are adequately satisfied on the basis of the

total production of the product under consideration in the

country.

DUMPING

Normal Value

10. Under 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 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 -

(a)

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

(b)

the cost of production of the said article in the

country

origin

along

with

reasonable

addition for administrative, selling and general

costs, and for

profits,

as determined

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

accordance with the rules made under sub-

section (6)";

Separate provisions have been made in the Anti Dumping Rules

for non market economy countries vide amendments notified on

15.07.1999 and 31.05.2001.

CHINA PR

11. The Authority sent questionnaires to all the known

exporters for the purpose of determination of normal value in

accordance with Section 9A(l)(c). However, none of the

exporters from China responded to the Authority in the

prescribed questionnaire format nor have they provided adequate

information. The Authority, therefore, holds that none of the

exporters from China has cooperated with the Authority as

envisaged under the Rules. The domestic industry has furnished

information with regard to the normal value in China based on

the constructed cost of production. In view of non-cooperation

from the exporters from China, the Authority has determined

normal value in China on the basis of the constructed cost of

production.

Export Price

12.

None of the exporters from China has cooperated with the

Authority by providing sufficient and complete information with

regard to export volume and prices. Large exports of subject

goods from China have started very recently and the data are not

available from DGCI&S. In view of above, the data has been

compiled by the domestic industry from secondary sources.

Further adjustments has been given on account of freight, marine

insurance, commission, port handling etc., to arrive at net export

price on the basis of evidence provided by domestic industry.

Dumping Margin

The principles governing the determination of normal

value, export price and the dumping margin as laid down in the

Custom Tariff Act and the Anti Dumping Rules are elaborated in

Annexure I to the Rules. The dumping margin for exports of the

subject goods from China comes to 247 % of the export price.

UAE

13.

None of the exporters except M/s RAK Ceramics, has

provided information in the prescribed questionnaire format.

As regards M/s RAK Ceramics, the domestic industry has

made their submissions as follows:

• that the submissions made by the said exporter cannot be

taken cognizance of in the absence of a proper non-

confidential version of the exporter's response to the

questionnaire. Further, the exporter has not bothered even to

give non-confidential version or the indexed form of crucial

appendices such as Appendices 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. In effect,

the domestic industry has been deliberately blocked by the

exporter from commenting on the price structure, total sales,

adjustments etc. claimed by the exporter. The information

submitted by the exporter cannot be accepted in the absence

of proper non-confidential version. Therefore, the response

of the exporter needs to be summarily rejected until they

fulfill their legal obligations.

• The exporter has mentioned that the models sold to India are

different from the models sold within UAE and to other

countries. However, it appears that no specifications have

been provided to establish, on the basis of technical

parameters, as to how the models are different.

The

submissions have therefore been made on the basis of self-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

serving statements and analysis. It is a well-settled principle

of anti-dumping that physical differences are allowed to be

adjusted only on the basis of the differences in cost which can

be attributed to such established differences.

Mere

statements, conjectures and surmises are not sufficient to

classify the products in a manner only to avoid anti-dumping

duties.

Further, the claims made by the exporter are

contradictory. If the sales are to the end-users, where is the

question of claiming quantity discount. The exporter has not

given the Sales Arrangement as required under Para ' C itself.

Therefore, the information submitted by the exporter needs to

be rejected as incomplete and unreliable.

• Under the anti-dumping laws and practice, adjustment on

account of quality can be permitted only if the same can be

demonstrated by physical attributes. Such claims cannot be

permitted on account of differential price realization. The

exporter has also not given the details of the actual credit

advanced and has combined the domestic sales as well sales

to other countries.

• The cost method adopted by RAK is highly objectionable and

not sustainable because the cost of the product is the same

irrespective of the grade. It is preposterous to suggest that the

cost of the product is dependant upon the sales realization,

whatever is the grade. Further, RAK itself has admitted that it

does not have any cost accounting system and as and when

required, "indicative, cost" are made. In the same breath they

state that there are no material differences between the

production cost data supplied in reply to the questionnaire and

in the cost data normally determined by using the Accounting

System.

14.

The above issues have been carefully examined by the

Authority.

The Authority finds considerable merit in the

arguments advanced by the domestic industry. It has been

noticed that the information required in the non-confidential

version has not been provided as pointed out by the domestic

industry. The Authority also notes that the basis of gradation of

different types of subject goods has not been brought out which

makes it difficult to make proper comparison to carry out the

dumping and injury margin analysis. The Authority also notes

that the exporter has riot given any cogent reasons for

considering different costs for different grades of tiles.

In view of the above, the Authority has decided to ignore

the information submitted by M/s RAK Ceramics and other

exporters from UAE.

The preliminary determination is

therefore, made on the basis of the best information available on

record.

15. Based on the above, the dumping margin for all

exporters from UAE has been worked out as 148% of

export price.

INJURY & CAUSAL LINK

16. Analysis of injury to the domestic industry has been done

on the basis of the information available on record and the

verification done by the officials of the Directorate General of

Anti-dumping & Allied Duties. The following parameters have

been analysed for the purpose of assessment of injury to tht

domestic industry:

Sales Volume & Value

The domestic industry claimed that the vitrified tiles industry is

not very old in India. It was precisely when the industry was

hoping to come out of the red in the last financial year, dumping

from the subject countries resulted in increase in losses despite

some improvement in sales volume and marginal increase in

sales prices over the last two years. The Authority observes that

there is an increase in the sales volume as well as sales value

over the last two years. The unit price realization has also gone

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

up by about *** % in the period of investigation over the

previous year but these increases have to be judged in the

context of the additional capacities that had been created during

this period and the extent of dumping, landed values vis-a-vis

the selling prices of the domestic industry and the return on

investment made by the domestic industry.

Market share of the imports from China and UAE

An examination of the import data for the subject goods would

indicate that the imports (as a percent of the total imports) from

the subject countries namely, China and UAE account for about

71% during the period of investigation.

Year

i1998-99

! 1999-2000

April

2000-March

2001

jlmports from subjectiTotal Imports

^countries (Sq mtrs.)

]

jo.oo

1119570.00

121.00

i8.22

•169246.70

'% share

j().00%

io.oo% 1

70.65%

The Authority being aware that the imports of the subject goods

were restricted in the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, decided

to carry out an inter se trend analysis within the period of

investigation. An examination of the import figures indicates

that the imports from the subject countries have risen drastically

in the second half of the period of investigation as compared to

the first half. Of the total imports from the subject countries

made during 2000-2001 i.e., the period of investigation, only

6.42% came during the first half while 93.58% was imported in

the second half. Thus, it is clear that the imports from the

subject countries show an alarming increasing trend within the

period of investigation. There is an increase of over fifteen times

in imports in the second half as compared to the first half of the

_5L

period of investigation. The Authority notes that the total

imports also show a similar trend over during the very first year

of opening up of imports but the change is not as drastic and

marked as in the case of the subject countries. The rate of growth

of imports within the period of investigation is a sufficient

indicator of injury to the domestic industry. This fact has also to

be viewed in the context of the abnormally low prices from the

subject countries.

Particulars

Subject

Countries

Other

Countries

Grand Total

% share of

From

Subject

Countries

From

Other

Countries

Total

1st Half

Qty(in

Sq mlr)

7681

12999

20681

imports

6.42%

26.17%

12.22%

Value(in

Rs)

2870228

3709046

6579274

10.98%

24.04%.

15.82%

2nd Half

Qiy(in

mlr)

111889

36677

148567

93.58%

73.83%.

87.78%

Valuc(in Rs)

23275570

11722513

34998083

89.02%,

75.96%

84.18%.

Total for

Qty(in

Sq mlr)

119570

49677

169247

100.00%

100.00%.

100.00%

2000-2001

Valuc(in Rs)

26145798

15431559

41577357

1 ()().()()%

100.00%

1 ()().()()%

Market Sha*

' rsorts from Subject Countries (% of

Total Demar

The Authority has calculated the total demand in the country by

adding the total imports to the sales of the entire domestic

industry including the petitioners as well as other producers of

the product under consideration. The Authority notes that the

imoorts from the subiect countries could armn're a markpt sh^rp

3718QI/2001—11

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—She 1]

of 3.66% of the total demand in a very short period of one year.

Considering that vitrified tiles are in the nature of consumer

goods, a market share of 3.66% clearly constitutes a significant

proportion. If only the second half of the period of investigation

is considered, the market share of dumped imports will be much

higher. Moreover, the share of imports from the subject

countries could be much more as the current estimates are only

from select ports.

Year

1998-1999

1999-2000

April

00/Mar

2001

Imports from subject

countries (Sq mtrs)

0.00

119570

Total Demand

1884870

2372081

3262558

0.00%

3.66%

Production & Lower Capacity Utilization

It has been stated by the domestic industry that the demand for

the subject goods has grown in the country at a healthy rate and

that its use over the conventional floor and wall coverings is

steadily catching up. It has further been claimed that despite the

existence of a growing market, their losses have gone up due to

indiscriminate dumping by the subject countries. The Authority

observes that the capacity utilization by the domestic industry in

terms of square meters has gone up over the years. The domestic

industry has argued that capacity utilization as a factor of injury

cannot be of much significance in a product like vitrified tiles as

the same would vary significantly depending upon the product

mix of the tiles of different sizes being produced during a

particular period. Thus, capacity utilization is not being

considered as a valid indicator of the health of the industry for a

product like tiles where the installed capacity is also a variable

depending upon various factors.

Selling Price / Profitability

The domestic industry has stated that they have made substantial

investments and was trying to establish itself in the last two to

three years. It has further been argued that the incidence of

dumping to such a large extent has inflicted considerable injury

to the domestic industry and their losses have increased at a time

when the domestic industry was hoping to get out of the loss

making situation. The Authority notes that the domestic industry

as a whole had negative returns on their investments. It is also

noted that MCL which is making some nominal profits has also

not been able to recover a reasonable return on its capital

employed.

Their per unit profit in aiv l;Ue terms for the

vitrified tiles has also come down in the \ • H of investigation

over the preceding period.

Year

1998-1999

1999-2000

April

2000-March

2001

Sales

Value

(Rs. in lakhs)

+**

* * *

+**

Cost

Sales

(Rs. in lakhs)

+#*

#**

Prof it/U nh

** *

8 4

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I— SEC. 1]

Price Undercutting

It has been claimed that dumping by China and UAE has had a

significant impact on the net sales realization of the domestic

industry for the subject goods. To hold on to its market share,

the petitioners had to compete with low priced and dumped

imports of subject goods from China & UAE. The landed value

of the dumped imports also indicates that there is serious price

under-cutting taking place.

)HJW.'.™V.V..'.^..VJ,..J,.-.,V,.,,\

, - . : - . . : . , : : . u : . . v.w. .<-.-.

• . - .

Average Selling Price of

Indigenous

Product

(Excluding Excise Duty)

Landed

Value of

Imported product (CIF +

Basic Customs Duty)

Extent

Price

Un^;* voting

I China (In Rs.)

100.00

1;:

42.56

57.44

UAE (In Rs.) |

•

100.(K) j

]

65.63 \

34.37 1

iurcs)

Price Underselling:

The Authority has also examined the claim of the domestic

industry that the domestic industry is suffering on account of

losses or abnormally low return on their investments by different

units. The Authority notes that price underselling is an important

indicator to make an assessment of injury. The Authority has

worked out the Non-Injurious Price for the product under

consideration and compared the same with the landed value to

arrive at the extent of price underselling. The analysis shows a

significant level of incidence of price underselling causing injury

to the domestic industry. Examination of the available evidence

also shows that the domestic industry as a whole has suffered

losses on its sales of vitrified tiles. Even the unit which has

made some profits has not been able to recover a fair and

reasonable return on its investments.

Inventories and Stocks

The analysis of the stocks show that there is an increase in

stocks to the extent of about 14% at the end of the year 2000-

2001 as compared to the previous year.

The fact of price underselling, extent of price undercutting,

changes in the market share and the

profitability/ROI

parameters clearly indicate that the domestic industry has

suffered material injury during the period of investigation caused

by dumping from the subject countries.

CAUSAL LINK

17.

In determining whether material injury to the domestic

industry was caused by the dumped imports, the Authority took

into account the following facts:-

(i)

Imports of subject goods from China & UAE at dumped

prices forced the domestic industry to reduce its selling prices to

un-remunerative level which has resulted in a situation of price

undercutting in the Indian market.

(ii) The imports from China & UAE suppressed the prices of

the product in the Indian market to such an extent that the

domestic industry was prevented from recovering its full cost of

production and earn a reasonable return from the sale of subject

goods in India.

INDIAN

INDUSTRY'S

INTEREST

OTHER

ISSUER

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC:. 1]

18. 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 country. 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 companies. On

the contrary, imposition of anti dumping measures would

remove the unfair advantages gained by dumping practices,

would prevent the decline of the petitioner companies and help

maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of

subject material. 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.

19. To ascertain the extent of anti-dumping duty necessary to

remove the injury to the petitioner companies, the Authority has

relied upon non - injurious selling price of subject goods in

India by considering the optimum cost cf production at

optimum level of capacity utilisation for the petitioner

companies.

20.

Injury caused to the domestic industry from factors other

than dumping, if any, have not been considered while

recommending the amount of Anti-Dumping Duty necessary to

remove the injury to the domestic industry caused by dumped

imports.

21.

The Authority does not recommend restriction on imports

or supplies from any particular source, and

therefore,

availability of subject goods to the consumers would not be

affected in the event of imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty.

_Ji

CONCLUSIONS:

22.

After considering the foregoing the Authority concludes

that:

(a)

Subject goods originating in or exported from UAE and

China have been 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 countries.

23.

It is considered necessary to impose anti dumping duty,

provisionally, pending final determination, on all imports of

subject goods originating in or exported from UAE and China.

24. The Authority considered recommending the amount of

Anti-Dumping Duty equal to the margin of dumping or less,

which if levied, would remove the injury to domestic industry.

The average landed price of the imports, for the purpose, was

compared with the non-injurious selling price of the petitioner

companies, determined for the period of investigations.

Wherever the difference was less than the dumping margin, a

duty lower than the dumping margin is recommended. It is

considered

necessary

impose

antidumping

duty,

provisionally,

pending

further

investigation

and

final

determination on all imports of subject goods originating in or

exported from UAE and China.

25.

Accordingly, the Authority recommends that provisional

anti-dumping duties be imposed on all imports of subject goods

originating in or exported from UAE and China from the date of

notification to be issued in this regard by the Central

Government. The anti-dumping duty shall be the difference

between US $ 13.62 per square metre and the landed value of

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

all the imports of subject goods originating in or exported from

China and UAE.

26.

Landed value of imports for the purpose shall be trie

assessable value as determined by the Customs under the

Customs Act, 1962 and all duties of customs except duties

under Section 3, 3A, 8B, 9. 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

FURTHER PROCEDURE:

27.

The following procedure would be followed subsequent to

notifying the preliminary findings:-

(a)

The Authority invites comments on these findings from all

interested parties and the same would be considered in the

final findings;

(b)

Exporters, importers, petitioner and other interested parties

known to be interested are being addressed separately by

the Authority. They may make known their views, within

forty days from the date of the dispatch of this letter. Any

other interested party may also make known its views

within forty days from the date of publication of these

findings.

(c)

The Authority would provide opportunity to all the

interested parties for oral submissions to be rendered

thereafter in writing.

(d)

The Authority would conduct further verification to the

extent deemed necessary.

(e)

The Authority would disclose essential facts before

announcing final findings.

L. V. SAPTHARISHT. Designated Authority

Printed by the Manager, Govt, of India Press, Ring Road, Moynpuri. New Delhi-110064

mid

Published by the Controller of Publicntiona. Delhi-110054.