THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

| P M U I—Sn- Ij

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTIDUMPING AND ALLIED DUTIES)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, thc7lh December. 2001

Preliminary Findings

Subject:—Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Acrylic Fibre originating; in or

exported from UK, Germany, Brazil and Bulgaria—Preliminary findings.

No. 42/i/2(tot-DGAD.— The Government of India having regard to the

Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff

(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped

Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, thereof;

PROCEDURE

The procedure described below has been followed:-

(i)

The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority), under

the above Rules, received a written petition from

Forum of Acrylic

Fiber Manufacturers, New Delhi on behalf of the domestic industry,

alleging dumping of Acrylic Fibre (hereinafter referred to as subject

goods) originating in and exported from UK, Germany, Brazil and

Bulgaria (hereinafter referred to as subject countries);

(ii)

The following producers of acrylic fibre in India and members of the

Forum (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) have specifically

consented to participate in the anti-dumping investigations:

a) M/s Indian Acrylics Limited, having its office at:

SCO, 49-50, Sector 26,

Chandigarh.

b) M/s Consolidated Fiber and Chemicals Limited, having its

office at:

97, Park Street 3^rd, Kolkata.

c) M/s Pasupati Acrylon Limited, having its office at:

M-14, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

Two other domestic producers, viz., M/s. Indian Petrochemicals and

Chemicals Ltd., Baroda; and M/s. Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Ludhiana have

supported the petition.

(iii)

The Authority notified the Embassies of UK, Germany, Brazil and

Bulgaria in India about the receipt of dumping application made by the

petitioners before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance

with sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra;

(iv)

The Authority issued a Public Notice dated 28^th August, 2001 published

in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,

initiating anti dumping

proceedings concerning imports of Acrylic Fibre falling under Chapter

heading/subheading 5501.30 and 5503.30 of Schedule I of the

Customs Tariff Act.

(v)

The Authority forwarded copy of the said public notice to the known

exporters, importers, industry associations and to the complainants and

gave them an opportunity to make their views known in writing.

(vi)

According to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 supra, the Authority provided a copy

of the petition to all the known exporters and Embassies of subject

countries in India.

(vii)

The Authority sent questionnaires, to elicit relevant information, to the

following exporters:

1. Acordis Ag,

Kasinostrasse 19,

42103, Wuppertal,

Germany.

2. Bayer Faser Gmbh,

41538, Dormagen,

Gesellschaffen Faserwerke Lingen,

Gvw Garnveredlingswerke Gmbh, Goch,

Germany,

3.Markische Faser Ag,

Parkstrasse,

14727, Premnitz,

Germany.

4.Du Pont De Nemours (Deutschland),

Du Pont Strasse 1,

61352, BAD HOMBURG V.D.H,

Germany.

5.Accordis,

Westcrogt, Saint Street,

£)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PARI I—SEC. 1|

Bradford,

U.K.

6.Neftokhim Petrochemical Complex,

Acrylic Fibre Complex,

Burgas,

Bulgaria.

7.Rhodia Bresil Crylor,

Acrylic Fibre Division,

Centra Empresarial A.V. Maria,

Coelho Aguiar215,

Bloco B, Cep05804-902,

Sao Paulo,

Brazil.

(viii)

The Embassies of subject countries in New Delhi were also informed

about the initiation of investigation and requested to advise the

exporters/producers

from

their

countries

respond

to the

questionnaire within the prescribed time;

(ix)

The

questionnaire

was

sent

the

following

users/importers/association of subject goods:

M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.,

Bhilwara Bhawan,

40-41, Community Center,

New Delhi-110 065.

M/s. Siddharth Super Spinning Mills Ltd.,

211, Gagan Deep,

12, Rajendra Place,

New Delhi-110 008.

M/s. Adhinath Textiles Ltd.,

Village - Bholapur,

P.O. Sahabana Mundia,

Ludhiana,

Punjab.

M/s. Vardhaman Spinning & General Mills,

Chandigarh Road,

Ludhiana-141 011,

Punjab.

M/s. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd.,

Industrial Area, 'A',

Ludhiana-141 003,

Punjab.'

M/s. Winsome Textile Industries L

SCO 144-145, Sector 34-A,

Chandigarh-160 022.

M/s. Bhiwani Textile Mills,

Bhiwani (Dist. Hissar),

Haryana.

M/s. Shruti Synthetics Ltd.,

Village Loyaran, Gagunda Road,

Udaipur,

Rajasthan.

M/s. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd.,

373, Industrial Area - A ,

Ludhiana-141 003,

Punjab.

Indian Spinners' Association,

C/o The Millowners' Association,

Elphinstone Building,

10, Veer Nariman Road,

Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

(x).

Additional information regarding injury was sought from the petitioners,

which was also furnished;

(xi)

The Authority kept available non-confidential version of the evidence

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;

(xii)

***** in this notification represents information furnished by the

interested parties on confidential basis and so considered by the

Authority under the Rules;

(xiii)

The investigation covered the period from 1^st April 2000 to 31^st March

2001;

(xiv)

Copies of initiation notice were also sent to FICCI, Cll, ASSOCHAM

etc., for wider circulation.

PETITIONER'S VIEWS

The petitioners have made the following major arguments in their

submissions:-

The product under consideration in the present petition is

Acrylic Fibre

J700&I/2001—C

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

| PART I—So- 1J

ii.

Acrylic Fibre is a long chain of synthetic polymer composed

of at least 90% by weight of Acrylonitrile units. Acrylic fibre

can be acrylic staple fibre, acrylic tow or acrylic top. Acrylic

staple fibre, acrylic tow and acrylic top are all known as

acrylic fibre. The only difference between acrylic fibre and

acrylic tow is the difference in length. Acrylic Fibre is

produced in various grades, which are defined in terms of its

Denier. Acrylic

Fibre is an economical substitute for

expensive wool. Acrylic Fibre has application in day to day

human life use. Acrylic Fibre has a variety of applications in

apparel, house-hold and industrial areas.

iii.

Acrylic Fibre (which includes tow, top and staple) is classified

under Chapter 55 of the Customs Tariff Act at subheading

nos. 5501.30 and 5503.30.

iv.

There is no known difference in Acrylic Fibre produced by

the Indian industry and the Acrylic Fibre exported from the

subject countries. The Acrylic Fibre produced by the Indian

industry and that imported from the subject countries is

comparable in terms of characteristics, such as, physical and

chemical, manufacturing process and technology, functions

and uses, products specification, pricing, distribution and

marketing and tariff classification of the goods. Therefore,

the Acrylic Fibre produced by the domestic industry should

be treated as like article to the subject goods imported from

subject countries within the meaning of the Rules supra.

The petitioners represent the domestic industry as they have

a majority share in the domestic production of Acrylic Fibre.

vi.

As regards the normal value in the case of UK, the

petitioners have claimed the same on the basis of an

evidence of domestic sale in UK. The petitioner has made

adjustment on account of VAT and Inland freight for

determination of normal value in UK.

As regards normal

value in Germany the petitioner has not been able to get any

evidence of domestic sales in Germany.

They have

produced evidence of exports of subject goods by German

producer to a third country. They have claimed the normal

value based on the export price to the third country after

making adjustments on account of inland freight. As regards

Brazil and Bulgaria the petitioners have not been able to get

evidence of domestic sales in these countries or any exports

to third country.

They have claimed normal value on the

basis of constructed cost of production after taking the price

of major

raw

material Acrylonitrile

on the

basis

internationally published prices.

vii.

The petitioners have claimed export price based on the

published data of DGCI&S, Kolkata. The petitioners have

made adjustments from the weighted average CIF export

price on account of ocean freight, marine insurance,

commission, inland transportation in the country of export

and port handling charges.

viii.

As per the petitioners, prior to this petition, the domestic

industry was suffering from dumping of Acrylic Fibre from

various

countries

and

the

Designated

Authority

has

conducted investigations in respect of imports of Acrylic

Fibre from USA, Thailand, Korea RP, Italy, Spain, Portugal,

Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Taiwan. Evidently, the domestic

industry has been suffering regularly due to dumping from

various sources one after the another.

ix,

The exporters from UK, Germany, Brazil and Bulgaria are

dumping Acrylic Fibre into India and the

Designated

Authority may examine the cumulative effect of these

dumped imports from different sources as required under the

Anti Dumping Rules,

The quantum of imports from each of the subject country is

more than the de-minimus limit.

xi.

Market share of imports from subject countries

has

increased.

xii.

Production, capacity utilization and sales of the domestic

industry declined during the POI.

xiii.

The selling price of the domestic industry has increased

during the POI. However, the industry has not been able to

realize a fair price even after imposition of anti-dumping duty

on imports from various sources as imports have started

from newer sources.

xiv.

Sales volume of the domestic industry declined by more than

17% during 2000-01 which was directly due to shifting of

some of the customers to the dumped imports.

xv.

Though there is no significant change in the employment

level in the petitioner companies.

However, should the

situation continue, the domestic industry will have to

restrict/close down production which would have significant

adverse impact on employment.

xvi.

The sales of Acrylic Fibre at prices significantly below cost of

production and fair selling price has resulted in heavy losses

to the domestic industry. Continued dumping from one after

other source has forced the domestic industry to sell the

products at a price which does not permit recovery of even

full cost of production.

xvii.

The injury to the domestic industry is directly being caused

due to dumped imports from the subject countries

EXPRORTERS¹, IMPORTERS', USERS' AND OTHER INTERESTED

PARTIES' VIEWS

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC IJ

Responses have been received from the following exporters and

exporters' organization:

AcordisUKLtd.,UK.

ii.

M/s. Lukoil Oil Company, Bulgaria,

iii.

DuPont Deutschland Holding GmbH & Co. KG, Germany,

iv.

Dralon GmbH - Bayerwerk, Germany,

International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee

(CIRFS), Brussels.

The submissions made and/or the information provided by the above

are as follows:

(i)

AcordisUKLtd., UK.

M/s. ACORDIS in their response, have offered price undertaking by

confirming

to undertake in consultation with the domestic Acrylic Fibre

industry of India to not export Acrylic Fibre at a price which is injurious to the

domestic industry.

(ii)

M/s. Lukoil Company, Bulgaria,

M/s. Lukoil Company has furnished information regarding total quantity

and value of exports to India, exports to other countries and domestic sales

during the POI and in the years 1998 and 1999. As per the company the

Acrylic Fibre was sold via a company registered in UK through an agent in

India. The domestic market sales price include about 3% cost of financing

since the terms of sale are usually with 90-120 days deferred payment and

the normal interest rate around being 12% per annum. The exporter has not

furnished complete response as per the prescribed questionnaire with

Appendix 1 to 10,

(iii)

DuPont Deutschland Holding GmbH & Co. KG, Germany

M/s. Dupont have informed that they are currently not producing and

exporting Acrylic Fibre from Germany to India. Following a decision taken in

June, 1990 the parent company and its affiliates have withdrawn from the

production of Acrylic Fibre in the early 1990s,

Therefore, they have not

answered to the questionnaire.

(iv)

Dralon GmbH - Baverwerk. Germany

M/s. Dralon GmbH has informed that they are legal successor of Bayer

Faser GmbH Business Unit Acrylic Fibres which was founded on January 1^st

2001. The exports of their company during April 2000 - March, 2001 were

994 MT. During the preceding twelve month period the exports of their

company were 1337 MT and so their business with India in volume terms has

shrunk by 26% during the period of investigation.

Compared to a mill

consumption in India of approximately 1,20,000 T/annum their market share

was about 0.8% during the POI and with this market share they do not see

any danger for the Indian domestic producers (as per de-minimus Rules).

According to them the utilization rate of the Indian domestic Acrylic Fibre

producers of around 93-94% during the period of investigation indicates the

performance which is equal to or above the average of the world-wide

industry.

They requested that the anti-dumping complaint against Dralon

should be cancelled as they consider it to be unfounded. However, they have

not furnished complete information as required under Appendix 1 to 10 of the

questionnaire sent to them.

(v)

International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee (CIRFS), Brussels

As per this association CIRFS is the representative association for the

European man-made fibre industry. CIRFS has made the following major

arguments in their communication sent through E-Mail:

•

Market Share

The market share in India of imports from UK and Germany has remained

at a very low level.

In the case of Germany, market share (using the

information in the Petition filed by the Forurn of Acrylic Fibre Manufacturers) in

2000/2001 can be deduced as only 1.7%, and 1.1% in the case of the UK. It

is the contention of CIRFS that, in the circumstances of the Indian acrylic

fibres market, these market shares are too low to be the cause of injury to

Indian producers.

•

Normal Value in UK and Germany

The assessment of normal value in UK and Germany contained in the

Petition is highly misleading. Information from specialist consultants shows

estimates for selling prices in the West European market in April 2000 to

March 2001 ranging from $ 1.20 to $ 1.45 per kg, with a weighted average of

$ 1.33. Assessment by the Petitioners of normal value in Germany as $ 1.66

and $ 2.67 in UK has thus clearly been made on the basis of specialist

products, which are not comparable to those generally exported to India. The

evidence in the consultants' report should thus be taken as the best evidence

available of normal value in Germany, UK as the consultants concerned have

an international reputation, However, the stated report of the consultant has

not been received by the Authority.

As per CIRFS the true causes of injury to domestic industry are:

(a)

Insufficient scale

The average size of the plants of the Petitioners ranges from

12,000 tonnes to 38,500 tonnes, with an average of 24,000 tonnes.

This is well below the economic size needed to run efficient acrylic

fibres production units.

In UK and Germany plant size varies from 70,000 tonnes to 150,000

tonnes. Some plants elsewhere in the world exceed 200.000 tonnes.

4(>

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

| PAH I I—SEC. 11

The Petitioners will continue to have serious problems unrelated to

imports for as long as they continue to run units of uneconomic size.

(b)

Inadequate technology

The Indian plants are in some cases old, some of them imported

' second-hand many years ago, and technologically obsolescent. This

means that production costs are high, quality unreliable and that

producers are unable to supply a full range of products.

(c)

Excessive Protection of Acrylic Fibre Producers

The Indian textile industry (spinning, weaving, manufacture of finished

apparel and household textiles) is both an essential supplier of products to the

Indian population and a major export sector.

It employs large numbers of

people, and makes a very large contribution to India's export earnings.

However, it has been seriously harmed by the imposition of anti-dumping

duties, and will be further harmed if the current investigation results in the

imposition of further anti-dumping duties.

CIRFS has further stated that:

i) Indian acrylic fibre prices are among the highest in the world

According to the leading firm of consultants the price of acrylic

fibre in Asia in 2000/2001 averaged $ 1.36 per kg, This is equivalent to

approximately Rs 63. No specific information on selling prices in India

in the same period is given in the Petition.

ii) Indian producers have increased prices faster than in other regions

of the world

According to the Petition, selling prices of the Petitioners

increased by 26.5% between 1999/2000 and 2000/2001.

This is a

much higher rate than in other regions of the world.

iii) The Indian textile industry will be denied access to better quality and

more innovative fibres needed to increase the value added of their

products

Producers in UK and Germany produce fibres to the highest

quality standards, including many fibre variants not manufactured in

India. These value added products will help Indian spinners, weavers

and knitters increase the quality and attractiveness of their products,

and the prices they can obtain on local and international markets, if

they are permitted free access to them.

CIRFS has, therefore urged for immediate termination of the anti-dumping

investigations concerning Germany and UK on the grounds of their

incompatibility with the WTO Agreement and the serious damage which will

_£

be caused to the Indian textile industry by further anti-dumping action on

acrylic fibre.

The following importers/association have responded :

M/s. APM Industries Ltd,, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.

M/s. Deepak Spinners Ltd., Chandigarh.

M/s. Indian Spinners Association, Mumbai.

(i)

M/s. APM Industries Ltd.. Bhiwadi, Rajasthan

M/s. APM Industries Ltd. have given information relating to their

imports from Italy and Japan which are not relevant to these investigations.

(ii)

M/s. Deepak Spinners Ltd,, Chandigarh

M/s. Deepak Spinners Ltd

have given partial information to the

questionnaire . In respect of imports from the subject countries they have

given

information

about

imports

***

quantity

from

Germany under Advance Licence (Duty exemption Scheme) @ *** GIF

Mumbai. They have not shown any other imports of subject goods with

payment of Duty in Annexure 4. They have also not

furnished any

information in respect of Annexure 5,6&7.

(iii)

M/s. Indian Spinners Association, Mumbai.

Indian Spinners Association has in their response made the following major

arguments:

(a)

Insignificant imports from UK and Germany:

As per the Indian Spinners Association the figures of imports of Acrylic Fibre

are as under:

(Quantity in kg.)

Year

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-2000

2000-2001

(Apr. to Feb.)

U.K.

55,624

3,56,056

18,521 .

9,404

94,074

Germany

10,14,658

5,88,861

8,56,765

9,76,966

11,11,224

Brazil

Nil

6,585

25,334 •

70,213

Nil

Bulgaria

Nil

18,070

18,519

Imports of acrylic fibre from the U.K. have come down substantially since

1997-98. The drop in import is of the order of 75%. In the case of Germany,

there has been a small increase in imports, which is of the order of 8 to 9%. In

the case of Brazil, there are no imports in the period of investigation. Bulgaria

is not a regular supplier of the subject goods to India, and imports have taken

THEGAZETTEOF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—Ser lj

place only in the last two years, i.e. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and the level

of imports is more or less the same, The above facts do not show any threat

of increased imports from subject countries.

(b)

Normal Value:

In the case of the U.K., the normal value has been worked out on the

basis of one solitary sale document in the domestic market. An important

issue like, normal value cannot be determined on the basis of one single

transaction. A solitary transaction might be an unusual deal being for a small

quantity or terms of trade in favour of the buyer might have influenced the

transaction or there might have been an urgent and out-of-turn supply etc. It

will therefore, be totally misleading to go by just one transaction to determine

the normal value.

In the case of Germany, the price is determined on the basis of price in

a single transaction of a producer from Germany exporting the subject goods

to a third country. Here again it is necessary to go into the levels of trade,

quantities involved and conditions and terms of sale. It is also necessary to

find out whether the third country is an appropriate country to consider the

price. More importantly, a single transaction may be a freak deal.

The costing route adopted in the case of Brazil and Bulgaria raise the

question of the assumptions made in the determination of cost of production,

and their justification. Since the assumptions have not been given, it is not

possible to comment on the same.

(c ) Evidence of Injury:

•

The figures of country-wise imports given in the petition do not appear

to be correct as they appear to be at variance with DGCIS data for

April,2000 to February, 2001. The correct figures should be as given in

para 6(iii)(a) above.

•

So far as production and capacity utilization are concerned, here again

data given by the petitioner has been distorted by referring to only

three petitioners and leaving out supporting producers.

If the total

production of the industry as a whole is taken, then the picture is as

under-

Year

1998-1999

1999-2000

2000 - 2001

Production of Acrylic Fibre

(Quantity in tons)

78,917

79,313

94,704

•

It would thus been seen that in the year of investigation, domestic

production of acrylic fibre has increased by 20% over the previous

year.

•

So far as the market share is concerned the correct picture is as

under-

Year

1999-2000

2000-2001

Market Share

Production

in Tonns

79,313

94,704

Imports from 4

countries

Tonns

1075

1224

Total

80,388

95,928

Imports

Total as %

1.34

1.27

•

It will be seen from the above that the Market Share of domestic

producers has increased, while that of imports has gone down.

•

The price of Acrylic fibre vis-a-vis that of Acrylonitrite, the main raw

material depict the following position:-

Year

1999 -2000

2000 -2001

Price Per Kg.

Acrylic

Acrylonitrite

•

While the raw material cost increased by Rs.11 per kg., the selling

price increased by an hefty Rs. 16 per kg.

•

Profitability depends upon various factors like Managerial efficiency,

productivity, level of technology, upkeep of machines level of

rationalization, industrial relations etc.

Hence losses suffered by the

domestic producers, if any, cannot be said to have increased because

of imports. The petitioners have also not given information on many

parameters as required statutorily.

(d)

Causal Link

The information on causal link is not proper and to the point and the

domestic producers have failed to establish the causal link. Thus the

petitioners have failed to establish any dumping or injury or causal link. There

is therefore no justification to proceed with the investigation and the finding

may be given to say that there has been no dumping and no ground for

imposition of anti-dumping duty.

EXAMINATION AND FINDINGS BY THE AUTHORITY

The submission made by the petitioners, importers, exporters and

other interested parties, to the extent filed before the Authority have

'V^:;Q G 1/2001—7

• E

[

—

1 1 .

been examined and considered while arriving at these findings and

wherever appropriate have been dealt hereinafter.

The Authority confirms, in the absence of complete and sufficient

response from the exporters from subject countries in the form and

manner prescribed, having made the findings with regard to exports

from subject countries on the basis of the facts available to it as per

rule 6(8) supra.

The cases of new exporters or those stated to be willing to give price

undertaking shall be considered, on request, by the Authority in

accordance with the Rules supra.

Product Under Consideration And Like Article

10.

The product under consideration in this investigation is Acrylic

Fibre. Acrylic Fibre is a long chain of synthetic polymer composed of at

least 90% by weight of Acrylonitrile units. Acrylic fibre can be acrylic

staple fibre, acrylic tow or acrylic top. All the three forms are the subject

matter of this investigation. Acrylic Fibre is produced in various grades,

which are defined in terms of its Denier. Acrylic Fibre finds application

in apparel, household and industrial areas. Acrylic Fibre is classified in

chapter heading 55.01 and 55.03. The product is classified under

5501.30 and 5503.30 under the Customs Tariff Act at six digit levels

and under 5501.3000 and 5503.3000 under ITC. The present

investigations are in respect of the product under consideration

irrespective of the classification under which they are imported.

Customs classification is indicative only and is in no way binding on the

scope of the present investigation.

11.

The petitioner claimed that the goods produced by them are like

articles to the goods originating in or exported from subject counties.

None of the interested

partiers who have responded to the

investigation has disputed that Acrylic Fibre exported by the subject

countries and Acrylic Fibre produced by the domestic industry are like

article. Thus, the Authority holds, for the purpose of preliminary

determination, that Acrylic Fibre being produced by the domestic

industry is like article to the product under consideration.

De-Minimus Limits

12.

As regards ascertaining that the imports from the subject countries

during the period of investigation (POI) are above de-minimus levels, the

Authority has referred to the DGCI&S published data. As per the data of

DGCI&S the imports of Acrylic Fibre during POI under the classification

55013000 'Synthetic Filament Tow, Acrylic/Mod-Acrylic' and 55033000 'Staple

Fibres of Acrylic/Mod-Acrylic' are as under:

Country Name

Brazil

Bulgaria

Germany

Quantity (MT)

665.51

540.29

1782.94

1206.36

%age share in imports

4.765

3.868

12.765

8,637

Thus, the Authority finds that the imports from the subject countries

during the POI are above de-minimus levels. The Authority does not find the

contention of Indian Spinners Association as correct that there are no imports

of Acrylic Fibre from Brazil during POI. The Initiation Notification dated 28^th

August, 2001 had clearly mentioned that Acrylic Fibre can be Acrylic Staple

Fibre, Acrylic Tow or Acrylic Top.

Domestic Industry

13.

The petition has been filed by Forum of Acrylic Fiber Manufacturers,

New Delhi on behalf of the domestic industry. The following producers

of acrylic Fibre in India have specifically consented to participate in the

present Anti-dumping investigations.

(a)

Indian Acrylics Limited,

(b)

Consolidated Fiber and Chemicals Limited,

(c)

Pasupati Acrylon Limited,

The above-mentioned

companies

have provided all

information

required for the purpose of the present investigation and have offered

themselves for further information and verification, These companies

account for a major proportion of the total Indian production of subject

goods. None of the responding interested party has raised any point

regarding the standing of the petitioners. Thus, the Authority holds that

petitioners satisfy the criteria of standing to file the petition on behalf of

the Domestic Industry in terms of Rule 5(3) (a) of the Rules supra, for

the purpose of preliminary finding. The Authority also considers these

petitioner companies as 'domestic industry' within the meaning of Rule

2(b) supra.

E. DUMPING & EXAMINATION OF CLAIMS MADE ON NORMAL VALUE &

EXPORT PRICES

Normal Value

14.

Under Section 9A(1)(c) of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995

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^); or

Tl IE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

|P\iu 1—Sir. 1|

(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 of

origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling

and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance

with the rules made under sub-section (6)";

15.

The Authority sent questionnaire to all the known exporters for the

purpose of determination of normal value in accordance with Section 9A(1)(c).

The Authority received responses from the following exporters and exporters

association.

ii.

iii.

iv.

AcordisUKLtd., UK.

M/s. Lukoil Oil Company, Bulgaria.

DuPont Deutschland Holding GmbH & Co. KG, Germany.

Dralon GmbH - Bayerwerk, Germany.

International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee

(CIRFS), Brussels.

However, the responses filed by the exporters are found to be grossly

insufficient and incomplete for the purpose of preliminary finding, as

discussed in detail hereinbelow.

Normal value determination for UK

16.

The Authority notes that none of the exporters from UK

has

filed

complete response. Only M/s. Acordis, UK has responded and has offered

price undertaking. They have not given full information as required under

Appendix 1 to 10 and part A to H of the questionnaire. As per Rule 15(2) "No

undertaking as regards price increase under clause (ii) of the sub-rule (1)

shall be accepted from any exporter unless the Designated Authority had

made preliminary determination of dumping and the injury".' Therefore, it is

incumbent upon the Authority to make preliminary determination of dumping

and injury.

As no information about domestic sales price structure of the

subject goods in UK, its cost of production and other information as per the

questionnaire has been furnished, the Authority has proceeded to rely upon

the best available information for determination of normal value.

The

petitioners have claimed normal value in respect of UK on the basis of an

evidence of domestic sales in UK based on a-solitary sales invoice. Indian

Spinners Association has stated that normal value cannot be determined on

the basis of one single transaction as it may not be a truly representative

transaction.

17.

As per International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee (CIRFS),

Brussels the assessment of normal value in UK contained in the petition is

highly misleading.

The normal value of dollar 2.67 in the case of UK as

claimed in the petition is made on the basis of specialty products.

The

Authority finds that none of the exporters have given complete and sufficient

information to enable it to determine the normal value based on the domestic

sales price. As per the Anti Dumping Rules Annexure 1(2) sales of the like

product in the domestic market of the exporting country have to be in the

ordinary course of trade. The Authority is not able to accept the view of

CIRFS unless such a claim is supported by full information as required in the

questionnaire. The Authority confirms, in the absence of complete and

sufficient response from the exporters from subject countries in the form and

manner prescribed, having made the findings with regard to exports from

subject countries on the basis of the facts available to it as per rule 6(8) supra.

Accordingly, the Authority has considered the evidence as furnished by the

petitioner for normal value determination, i.e. as per the domestic sales

transaction as furnished by the petitioner. The normal value so determined

for UK is US$ ***

Normal value determiniation for Germany:

18,

Only M/s. Dupont and M/s. Dralon have responded from amongst the

exporters of Germany.

M/s. Dupont have informed to have not exported

Acrylic Fibre to India as they have withdrawn from production of Acrylic Fibre

in early 1990s. M/s. Dralon, who are legal successor of M/s. Bayer Faser

Gmbh, have exported 994 MT to India during POI.

They have given

information about previous years export and that their business with India has

shrunk by 26% during POI. However, they have not given complete

information as required under Appendix 1 to 10 and part A to H of the

questionnaire. As per Indian Spinners Association the single transaction of

export from Germany to a third country may not be sufficient to know the level

of trade, quantities involved and conditions and terms of sales. According to

CIRFS, the normal value in Germany of dollar 1.66 in the petition is made on

the basis of special products which are not comparable to the products

generally exported to India.

The Authority reiterates that as per the Anti

Dumping Rules Annexure 1(2) sales of the like product in the domestic market

of the exporting country have to be in the ordinary course of trade.

The

Authority is prevented to accept the view of CIRFS and Indian Spinners

Association unless such a claim is supported by full information as required in

the questionnaire. The Authority confirms, in the absence of complete and

sufficient response from the exporters from subject country in the form and

manner prescribed, having made the findings with regard to exports from

subject countries on the basis of the facts available to it as per rule 6(8) supra.

Accordingly, the Authority has considered the evidence as furnished by the

petitioner for normal value determination, i.e. as per the evidence of exports

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

1P MU I—Srr 1 ]

from Germany to a third country as furnished by the petitioner. The normal

value so determined for Germany is US$ ***

Normal value determination in respect of Bulgaria:

19.

M/s. Lukoil Company has given information about total quantity and

value of exports to India, exports to other countries and domestic sales.

Average unit price has also been given. However, the information as required

in Appendix 1 to 10 and part A to H of the questionnaire has not been

furnished. The Authority finds that the information is grossly insufficient and

incomplete.

The Authority is prevented from accepting the information

furnished by the exporter from Bulgaria in view of its being insufficient and

incomplete as according to the Anti Dumping Rules Annexure 1(2) sales of

the like product in the domestic market of the exporting country have to be in

the ordinary course of trade.

The Authority confirms, in the absence of

complete and sufficient response from the exporters from subject country in

the form and manner prescribed, having made the findings with regard to

exports from subject country on the basis of the facts available to it as per rule

6(8)

supra. Accordingly, the Authority

has considered the

available

information as furnished by the petitioner for normal value determination, i.e.

as per the constructed cost of production of subject goods. The normal value

so determined for Bulgaria is US$ ***

Normal value determination for Brazil:

20.

None of the exporters from Brazil has responded to the questionnaire.

The domestic industry has claimed normal value in respect of Brazil on the

basis of constructed cost of production. They have considered the price of

major raw material Acrylonitrile on the basis of published price of this item in

leading journal. Accordingly, the normal value so constructed is US$ *** in

respect of Brazil,

Export price in respect of UK and Germany:

21.

None of the exporters from UK and Germany has cooperated in

furnishing the export price. The petitioners have determined export price on

the basis of DGCI&S published data.

The DGCI&S published data is

available for the period April 2000 - March 2001. The imports of Acrylic Fibre

are shown in the data under the classification 55013000 'Synthetic Filament

Tow, Acrylic/Mod-Acrylrc' and 55033000 'Staple Fibres of Acrylic/Mod-Acrylic',

The Authority has considered the export price in respect of UK and Germany

based on this data. The petitioner has shown adjustments on account of

ocean freight, insurance, commission, inland transportation and port handling

charges. The Authority has allowed adjustments of $*** on account of ocean

freight @ $50/MT, insurance .5% of CIF, commission 2% of CIF, inland freight

2% of FOB and port charges 2% of CIF. The ex-factory export price comes

to US$*** for UK. After allowing similar adjustments the export price at ex-

factory level in respect of Germany comes to US$ ***.

Export price in respect of Bulgaria:

22.

M/s. Lukoil Company, Bulgaria has responded to the questionnaire but

has given insufficient and incomplete information.

They have not given

transaction-wise details of exports made to India in the form given in

Appendix- 2. Instead they have given total export sales, total exports to other

countries and total domestic sales along with respective unit price. The

Authority finds the information as insufficient and incomplete. It is however

seen that the exporter has shown exports of 868 MT during POL Price shown

in the response are stated to be FCA Bourgas delivery and advance payment

terms.

In absence of clear and complete information about the GIF export

price to India and other information as per the questionnaire the Authority

could not consider even :his limited information about the export quantity and

export price as furnished by the exporter. The Authority therefore relied upon

the DGCI&S data for determining the export price which comes to dollar ***

CIF.

After making adjustment of dollar *** on account of ocean freight @

$50/MT, insurance 0.5% of CIF, commission 2% of CIF, inland freight 2% of

FOB and port charges 2% of CIF, the export price at ex-factory level comes

to dollar ***.

Export price for Brazil:

23.

There has been no response from any exporter from Brazil.

The

Authority has therefore relied upon the DGCI&S data for export price

determination. As per this information the weighted average CIF export price

comes to US$ ***. Adjustments have been made on account of ocean freight

@ $50/MT, insurance 0.5% of CIF, commission 2% of CIF, inland freight 2%

of FOB

and port charges 2% of CIF. The export price at ex-factory level

comes to US$***.

Dumping margin

24.

Considering the normal value and export price, determined as detailed

above, the dumping margin comes as under:

S. No

Country

Germany

Bulgaria

Brazil

Dumping Margin %

80.80 %^v

10.51%

51.11%

229.72%

INJURY

25.

Rule 11 of Anti Dumping Rules reads as follows:

"Determination of Injury:

(i)

In the case of imports from specified countries, the

designated authority shall record a further finding that

THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : EXTRAORDINARY

[PARI I—SEC. 1]

import of such article into India causes or threatens

material injury to any established industry or materially

retards the establishment of any industry in India;

(ii)

The designated authority shall determine the injury to

domestic

industry, threat of injury to domestic

industry, material retardation to establishment of

domestic industry and a causal link between dumped

imports and injury, taking into account all relevant

facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their

effect on price in the domestic market for like articles

and the consequent effect of such imports on

domestic

producers

such

articles

and in

accordance with the principles set out in Annexure II

to these rules."

26.

The principles for determination of injury set out in Annexure-ll of the

Anti- Dumping Rules lay down that:

a. A determination of injury

shall

involve an objective

examination of both (a) the volume of dumped imports and

the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic

market for like article and (b) the consequent impact of

these imports on domestic producers of such products.

b. While examining the volume of dumped imports, the said

Authority shall consider whether there has been a significant

increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or

relative to production or consumption in India. With regard to

the effect of the dumped imports on prices as referred to in sub-

rule (2) of Rule 18 the Designated Authority shall consider

whether there has been a significant price under-cutting by the

dumped imports as compared with the price of like product in

india, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to

depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increase

which otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree.

27.

Views of the petitioners

(i)

The domestic industry was suffering from dumping of

Acrylic

Fibre

from

various

countries

and the

Designated Authority has conducted investigations in

respect of imports of Acrylic Fibre from USA, Thailand,

Korea RP, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Mexico,

Turkey and Taiwan. Evidently, the domestic industry

has been suffering regularly due to dumping from

various sources one after the another.

(ii)

The exporters from UK, Germany, Brazil and Bulgaria

are dumping Acrylic

Fibre

into

India and the

Designated Authority may examine the cumulative

effect of these dumped imports from different sources

as required under the Anti Dumping Rules.

(iii)

The quantum of imports from each of the subject

country is more than the de-minimus limit

(iv)

Market share of imports from subject countries has

increased.

(v)

Production, capacity utilization and sales of the

domestic industry declined during the POI.

(vi)

The selling price of the domestic industry has

increased during the POI, However, the industry has

not been able to realize a fair price even after

imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports from

various sources as imports have started from newer

sources.

(vii)

Sales volume of the domestic industry declined by

more than 17% during 2000-01 which was directly due

to shifting of some of the customers to the dumped

imports,

(viii)

Though there

is no significant

change

in the

employment

level

the

petitioner

companies.

However, should the situation continue, the domestic

industry will have to restrict/close down production

which would have significant adverse impact on

employment.

(ix)

The sales of Acrylic Fibre at prices significantly below

cost of production and fair selling price has resulted in

heavy losses to the domestic industry.

Continued

dumping from one after other source has forced the

domestic industry to sell the products at a price which

does not permit recovery of even full cost of

production,

(x)

The injury to the domestic industry is directly being

caused due to dumped imports from the subject

countries

28.

Views of exporters and importers:

(i)

As per Indian Spinners Association:

Imports of acrylic fibre from the U.K. have come down substantially

since 1997-98. The drop in import is of the order of 75%. In the case

of Germany, there has been a small increase in imports, which is of the

order of 8 to 9%. In the case of Brazil, there are no imports in the

period of investigation. Bulgaria is not a regular supplier of the subject

goods to India, and imports have taken place only in the last two years,

i.e. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and the level of imports is more or less

the same.

The above facts do not show any threat of increased

imports from subject countries,

V-iO G1/2001— y

•

—

(

> In the year of investigation, domestic production of acrylic fibre has

increased by 20% over the previous year.

> The Market Share of domestic producers has increased, while that of

imports has gone down.

> While the raw material cost increased by Rs.11 per kg., the selling

price increased by an hefty Rs. 16 per kg.

> Profitability depends upon various factors like Managerial efficiency,

productivity, level of technology, upkeep of machines level of

rationalization, industrial relations etc.

Hence losses suffered by the

domestic producers, if any, cannot be said to have increased because

of imports.

(ii)

As per M/s. Dralon GmbH, Germany compared to a mill consumption

in India of approximately 1,20,000 T/annum their market share was about

0.8% during the POI and with this market share they do not see any danger

for the Indian domestic producers (as per de-minimus Rules). According to

them the utilization rate of the Indian domestic Acrylic Fibre producers of

around 93-94% during the period of investigation indicates the performance

which is equal to or above the average of the world-wide industry.

(iii)

As perCIRFS:

The market share in India of imports from UK and Germany has

remained at a very low level. In the case of Germany, market share in

2000/2001 can be deduced as only 1.7%, and 1.1% in the case of the

UK. These market shares are too low to be the cause of injury to Indian

producers and according to them the true causes of injury to domestic

industry are:

(a)

Insufficient scale

The average size of the plants of the Petitioners ranges from 12,000

tonnes to 38,500 tonnes, with an average of 24,000 tonnes. This is

well below the economic size needed to run efficient acrylic fibres

production

units. In UK and Germany plant size varies from 70,000

tonnes to 150,000 tonnes. Some plants elsewhere in the world exceed

200,000 tonnes.

The Petitioners will continue to have serious

problems unrelated to imports for as long as they continue to run units

of uneconomic size.

(b)

Inadequate technology

The Indian plants are in some cases old, some of them imported

second-hand many years ago, and technologically obsolescent. This

means that production costs are high, quality unreliable and that

producers are unable to supply a full range of products.

(c)

The damage caused to Indian Textile Production is by excessive

protection of acrylic fibre producers

5⁽J

Examination by the Authority:

29.

The Authority has examined the information regarding the volume of

exports from the subject country during the period of investigation and the

preceding years. During the POI the imports from the four subject countries

taken together were of 4195 MT. During the year 1999-2000 these imports

were 2469 MT and 3739 MT during 1998-99 (as per DGCI&S data). These

imports account for a market share of 3.35% in 1998-99, 2.18% in 1999-2000

and 3.73% during 2000-01. When compared to the previous year 1999-2000

the share in the market had shown an appreciable increase during the POI.

However, in volume terms the imports from the subject countries during POI

showed an increase of 69% over the imports in the previous year.

The

increase in market share though not very significant is however appreciable

and the increase in imports in absolute terms does hold a threat for the

domestic industry.

The Authority has found that there has been an increase

in the dumped imports in absolute terms.

30.

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

product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress

prices to a significant degree. The Authority has compared the landed value

of imports of subject goods from subject countries during the POI with the net

sales realization and has found that there has been a significant price under-

cutting by the dumped imports. The landed value of imports has been found

to be significantly lower than the domestic industry's net sales realization.

The imports were having significantly suppressing/ depressing effect on the

prices in the domestic market, as the domestic industry has not been able to

raise its selling price in view of the dumped imports.

31.

For the examination of the impact on the domestic industry in India, the

Authority also considered such further indices having a bearing on the state of

industry as capacity utilization, production, sales, net sales realization

profitability, etc. The Authority found that:

(a) The selling price of the domestic industry is significantly below the

price which would have permitted the domestic industry a fair

recovery of its cost of production and earn a reasonable return.

(b) The installed capacity of the three petitioner companies had

increased during the POI. However, the total production of the

petitioner companies declined during the POI in comparison to the

previous year. The production of the two other domestic producers

mentioned in Para 2 (ii) earlier, who have supported the petition but

have not participated in the present investigation, may have

increased during the POI. The argument of the Indian Spinners

Association is that the production of Acrylic Fibre has increased

during, POI. The petitioner companies account for 61% share, i.e. a

major proportion of the domestic production of the subject goods

during the POI and have been construed as 'Domestic Industry' in

THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA EXTRAORDINARY

IPAKII--SH-.II'

terms of Rule 2(b) supra and so stated in foregoing Para 13 of

these findings. Therefore, the Authority holds the view that the

domestic industry has suffered injury on account of decline in

production and capacity utilization. The sales volumes of the

domestic industry as represented by the petitioner companies also

declined during the POI by 16.25% in comparison to the previous

year.

compared to the previous years, the increase in the Cost of

production was much more than the increase in the selling prices,

In fact, it is found that the loss per unit has significantly increased in

the investigation period. Thus, the dumped imports have prevented

the domestic industry from effecting legitimate price increase to

realize a reasonable price. The industry has suffered material injury

on account of depressed selling prices resulting in non-recovery of

cost of production and thereby suffering financial losses.

Cumulative assessment of injury

32.

As per annexure-ll (iii), in cases where imports of a product from more

than one country are being simultaneously subjected to Anti-dumping

investigation, the Authority is required to cumulatively assess effect of

such imports, only when it determines that (a) the margin of dumping

established in relation to imports from each country is more than 2%

expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports

from each country is 3% of the imports of like article — and (b)

cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of

the conditions of competition between the imported article and the like

domestic article. The Authority has found that the margin of dumping

in respect of each of the subject country is more than 2% and the

volume of imports from each country is also more than 3%.

The

Authority has also found it appropriate to cumulatively assess the effect

imports of the subject goods on the domestically produced like

article and has found that there is a cumulative effect of injury by

imports of subject goods on the domestic industry.

CAUSAL LINK

33.

As regards the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry

the principle (iv) of Annexure-ll of the Anti-Dumping Rules states:

"The examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic

Industry concerned, shall include an evaluation of all relevant economic

factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry,

including natural and potential decline in sales, profits, output; market

share, productivity, return on investments or utilisation of capacity;

factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of margin of dumping;

actual and potential negative effects on cash flow inventories,

employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments."

Views of the Petitioners:

34.

The petitioners have stated that injury to the industry has been caused

by the dumped imports of subject goods from the subject countries. As the

landed value of the subject goods is significantly below the selling price of the

domestic industry, the industry has been forced to keep its selling price

significantly below the cost of production. Therefore, the industry has not

been able to realize a non-injurious price. The price suppression suffered

due to dumped imports has resulted in severe financial losses to the domestic

industry. The industry has also been prevented from increasing its sales and

production. The domestic industry has also stated that there has not been a

contraction of demand of the subject goods and the injury to the industry

cannot be attributed to any fall in demand.

Examination and Findings of the Authority:

35.

The Authority has also considered the views expressed by the Indian

Spinners Association and CIRFS as regards the causal link, which have been

mentioned, in the preceding paragraphs. The Authority, in its views, does not

find the reasons adduced by the said interested parties attributable to the

injury to the domestic industry in the present investigation. For the

examination of the impact on the domestic industry in India, the Authority

considered such indices having a bearing on the state of industry as

production, sales, market share, profitability, net sales realisation etc. in

accordance with Annexure-ll (iv) of the Rules supra. The Authority has also

found that the demand for the subject goods during the period of investigation

(POI) has remained almost same as compared with the demand in the

preceding year 1999-2000.

36.

After examining the various economic parameters as above the

Authority has come to the following conclusions:

The capacity utilization of the domestic industry has declined and the

domestic industry has been prevented from utilization of higher

capacity due to dumped imports.

ii)

The market share of the dumped imports from the subject countries

has increased.

iii)

Sales of the domestic industry have declined during the POI.

iv)

The selling price of the domestic industry increased during the POI as

compared to year 1999-2000. However, the same has been below the

non-injurious price (NIP) on account of dumped imports.

The industry has suffered financial losses due to price undercutting of

dumped imports.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

|PARI I-Sue, 11

vi)

The domestic industry has suffered due to price suppression. They

have not been able to raise their selling price to recover the cost of

production, as the landed value of the dumped imports has been

significantly lower than the cost of production.

vii)

The

above

economic

parameters

cumulatively

and

collectively

establish that domestic industry has suffered material injury on account

of dumping.

INDIAN INDUSTRY'S INTEREST

37.

The purpose of anti dumping duties in general is to eliminate dumping

which is causing injury to the domestic industry and to re-establish a situation

of open and fair competition in the Indian market which is in the general

interest of the country.

38.

The Authority recognizes that the imposition of anti dumping duties

might affect the price levels of the products manufactured using 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. On the contrary, imposition of anti

dumping measures would remove the unfair advantages gained by dumping

practices, would prevent the decline of the domestic industry and help

maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of subject goods.

The

Authority notes that the imposition of anti dumping measures would not

restrict imports from subject countries in any way, and therefore, would not

affect the availability of the product to the consumers.

CONCLUSIONS

39.

The Authority has, after considering the foregoing, come to the

conclusion that:

(i)

Acrylic Fibre has been exported to India from subject countries

below its normal value;

(ii)

The domestic industry has suffered material injury;

(iii)

The material injury has been caused by the dumped imports

from subject countries;

40.

The Authority considers it necessary to impose an anti dumping duty

provisionally, pending final determination, on all imports of Acrylic Fibre from

subject countries in order to remove the injury to the domestic industry. The

margin of dumping determined by the Authority is indicated in the paragraphs

above. The Authority proposes to recommend the amount of anti dumping

duty not exceeding the margin of dumping or the margin of injury whichever is

fl?

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

For the purpose of determining injury, the landed value of imports is proposed

to be compared with the non injurious selling price of the petitioner companies

determined for the period of investigation.

41.

Accordingly, the Authority recommends that provisional anti dumping

duties be imposed from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by

the Central Government on all imports of Acrylic Fibre falling under Chapter

55 of Schedule I of Custom Tariff Classification originating in or exported from

UK, Germany, Bulgaria and Brazil

pending final determination. The anti

dumping duty shall be as in column 3 in the following table.

S. No.

Country

(2)

All producers/exporters from UK

All

producers/exporters

from

Germany

All

producers/exporters

from

Bulgaria

All

producers/exporters

from

Brazil

Anti Dumping Duty

( US $ per Kg)

(3)

0.684

0.143

0.619

1.275

42.

Landed value of imports for the purpose shall be the assessable value

as determined by the Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 and all

duties of customs except duties under sections 3, 3A, 8B, 9 and 9A of

the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

FURTHER PROCEDURE

43.

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 concerned are being addressed separately by the

Authority, who may make known their views, within forty days

from the date of

these preliminary findings.

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 making oral submissions which have to be rendered

thereafter in writing;