THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. EXTRAORDINARY/

|F™.J—Su

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 2nd August 200?

OBITUARY -

No. 3/3/2002-Public—Shri Krishan Kant, Vice-President of India, passed away in the morning of 27th July, 2002 at

New Delhi. The death of Shri Krishan Kant has deprived the country of a true Gandhian who always stood for democratic

values. Shri Krishan Kant was an able Statesman, a seasoned Parliamentarian and humanist to the core.

2 Shri Krishan Kant was born on February 28,1927 at village Kot Mohammed Khan, Tchsil-Taran Taran, Amritsai,

Punjab in a family of freedom fighters. He obtained his M. Sc. degree from the Banaras Hindu University. He worked as a

Scientist with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi.

3. Shri Krishan Kant took active part in the freedom struggle and was interned for two years during the Quit India

Movement. He was a well known students leader. He was a member of the Rajya Sabha from 1966 to 1977 and subsequently

a Member of the Lok Sabha from 1977 to 1980.

4. He was a prolific writeV and contributed profusely to prominent dailies and periodicals on issues relating to national

and international politics, culture and India's scientific, defence and foreign policies. He was also Editor of.the Journal

"Science in Parliament".

5. Shri Krishan Kant was the Secretary of the Indian Parliamentary and Scientific Committee of which Pandit Jawahar

La^Nehru was the President. He was the President of the Servants of the Peoples Society since July, 1991. A well known

educationist, he was the Chancellor of the Delhi University, Punjab University, Pondicherry University and North Eastern

Hill University.

6. He was Governor of Andhra Pradesh from February, 1990 to August, 1997. He assumed office of the Vice-President

of India in August, 1997. He was a dedicated leader and social activist and an erudite person who stood for value-based

politics.

7. Shri Krishan Kant is survived by his mother, wife, two sons and a daughter

KAMALPANDE,Secy.

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

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Dollii-110054.

THE GAZETTEOF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PARTI— SEC. 1J

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

FINAL FINDINGS NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2002

Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) from Republic of Korea

and Turkey—Final Findings.

No. J6/i/200M>GAD.— 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

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

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 Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry,

125, Uday Park, 1st Floor, New Delhi-110049 on behalf of the domestic industry,

alleging dumping of POY originating in or exported from Republic of Korea and

Turkey.

ii.

The Authority issued a public notice dated 20^th August,2001 published in the

Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping investigations concerning

imports of POY originating in or exported from Republic of Korea and Turkey

classified under heading 5402.4200 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

J25

iii.

the Authority issued a public notice

of the preliminary findings dated 23^rd

November, 2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary.

iv.

The Authority forwarded a copy of the preliminary findings to the known

interested parties who were requested to furnish their views, if any, on the

preliminary findings within forty days of the date of the letter;

The Authority also forwarded a copy of preliminary findings to the Embassies of

Korea RP and Turkey, New. Delhi with a request that exporters and other

interested parties may be advised to furnish their views on the preliminary

findings.

vi.

The Authority provided an opportunity to all interested parties to present their

views orally during

24.4.2002.

All parties presenting views orally were

requested to file written submissions, of the views expressed orally. The parties

were advised to collect copies of the views expressed by the opposing parties

and offer rebuttals, if any.

vii.

Argument raised by the interested parties before announcing the preliminary

findings, which have been brought out in the preliminary findings notified have

not been repeated herein for sake of brevity. However, the arguments raised by

the interested parties have been considered in the preliminary findings and/or

these findings.

,viii.

In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules supra, the essential facts/basis

considered for these findings were disclosed to known interested parties and

comments received on the same have also been duly considered in these

findings.

ix.

The Authority made available non-confidential version of the evidence presented

by various interested parties in the form of a public file kept open for inspection

by the interested parties;

The Authority sought and verified information with respect to cooperative

exporters from Turkey as deemed necessary for the investigation.

2573 GI/2002—«

___

THEGAZETTEOF i.^,.. .EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I— SEC. I]

iv.

The Authority also conducted cost investigation and worked out optimum cost of

production / cost to make and sell in India on the basis of Generally Accepted

Accounting Principles.

The investigations covered the period of 1*¹ April,2000 to 31^8t March, 2001 (12

months);

vi.

*** in this notification represents information furnished by an interested party on

confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules;

VIEWS

OF THE PETTIONERS,

EXPORTERS,

IMPORTERS AND OTHER

INTERESTED PARTIES :

2.0

The petitioner, exporters, importers and other interested parties have expressed

their views and the same are briefly mentioned below:

2.1.0 Views of the Domestic Industry:

2.1.1 The Petitioners have stated that they had filed petition against Thailand,

Indonesia, Taiwan, Malaysia and South Korea. The case was, however, initiated

only against Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan and Malaysia vide initiation notification

dated 10^th November, 2000.

The investigations culminated in final findings,

wherein the Designated Authority confirmed large scale dumping resorted by the

exporters from those countries. It was also found by the Designated Authority

that most of responding exporters had exported POY to India at prices below

their cost of production.

2.1.2

Faced with the continued dumping from Korea and dumping from Turkey, the

domestic industry was forced to approach the Designated Authority again with a

request for imposition of anti dumping duties on exports from these countries.

The Designated Authority was kind enough in initiating investigations against

Korea and Turkey vide notification dated 20^th August, 2001. The preliminary

findings notified by the Designated Authority again confirms the existence of

large scale dumping by the exporters in these countries.

2.1 3 Petitioners have stated that there is no argument to the contrary regarding

product under consideration and like article by any interested party.

2.1.4 They have stated that participating companies alongwith supporting companies

constitute more than 50% of Indian production and thus satisfy the standing to

file the petition.

Other Issues:

2.2.0

Domestic Industry has requested the DUTY IN TERMS OF US$

Though the Designated Authority has already recommended anti-umping duty in

terms of US$, it is submitted that the final duties may also be recommended in

terms of US$ only, so that erosion in the quantum of protection does not take

place on account of changes in the exchange rate.

It is evident from the preliminary findings and the submissions made hereinabove

that there was severe dumping of POY in India causing material injury to the

domestic industry. It is requested that the preliminary findings may kindly be

confirmed and definitive duties recommended.

2.3

M/s.Sonmez Filament Bursa, Turkey

Exporters have stated that they have not been in a position to export any POY

into India either directly or through any affiliated company.

2.4

Embassy of Republic of Korea. New Delhi

It has been stated that two Korean companies, namely, M/s.TAE-Han Synthetics

Fibre Co.Ltd. and M/s. JEIL Synthetics Fibre Co.Ltd. have not exported Partially

Oriented Yarn (POY) to India since last five years.

The above companies have not shown interest in taking part in the anti

dumping investigations with respect to POY exports to India and have no interest

in attending public hearing.

2.5

M/s. Jeil Synthetics Fibre Co.l_td...Seoul. Korea

The exporter have stated that they have not exported POY during the POI i.e.

from 1^8t April 200 to 31^st March, 2001. Their last export was in February, 1997.

There was no company who produced DOPE Dyed (colour) POY like there is in

India during that period.

They have also stated that their POY production is DOPE Dyed(colour)

Yarn and not raw white yarn that India produces and the price of DOPE Dyed

(colour) Yarn is much higher than the raw white (regular) yarn in India.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

|PARTI— SEC. 1]

EXAMINATION OF ISSUES RAISED

3.0

The submissions made by the petitioner, exporters and importers to the extent

they are relevant under the Rules and have a bearing upon the case, have been

examined and dealt with at appropriate places hereunder.

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION

4.1

The Product Under Consideration in the present Investigation is Partially

Oriented Yarn, originating and exported from Korea RP and Turkey. Partially

Oriented Yarn is generally known as "POY" in the commercial and market

parlance and has been referred to as POY in this investigation. POY is a yarn of

polyester and is made in wide range from 50 Denier to 530 Denier to meet the

requirement of different segments. Denier relates to the fineness of the yarn,

lower the denier, finer the yarn. POY is an intermediate, which is subject to

further processes (e.g. texturing or draw-twisting) to make it suitable for weaving

or knitting into fabrics. POY is different form PFY (having custom classification

5402.43) and PFY is not within the scope of the present investigations.

4.2

The POY is classified under Chapter 54 of the Customs Tariff Act. Description of

Chapter 54, in so far as it concerns POY is as follows:

Chapter/ Subheading

Chapter 54

Four Digit 54.02

Description

Man Made Filaments

Synthetic filament yarn (other than sewing

thread), not put up for retail sale, including

synthetic monofilament of less than 67

decitex

Other yarn, single, untwisted or with a twist not exceeding 50 turns per

meter:

Six Digit 5402.42

Of polyesters, Partially Oriented

The classification is , however, indicative only and is in no way binding on the

scope of the present investigation.

4.3

Authority notes that no arguments have been raised by any interested parties

disputing that the POY produced by the petitioners and the POY produced and

exported by the exporters are different with regard to product under

consideration.

LIKE ARTICLES:

5.1

Rule 2(d) of the Anti dumping Rules specifies that "Like Articles" means an

Article, which is identical or alike in 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;

5.2

The petitioners have claimed that there is no known difference in the goods

produced by the participating companies in particular and by the Indian industry

in general & POY exported from the subject countries which can have an impact

on price. POY produced by Indian industry and imported from these countries are

similar in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics,

manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications,

pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are

technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers have used the POY

imported from these countries and POY produced by the domestic industry

interchangeably. POY produced by the participating companies and imported

from these countries is to be treated as like articles under the anti-dumping rules.

There is no argument raised by any interested party contrary to the above claim

of petitioners.In view of the above, the Authority holds that POY being produced

by the domestic industry and those being imported form the subject countries are

Like Articles within the meaning of the Rules;

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

6.0

Petitioners have claimed that there are more than 34 producers of POY in India

who have created capacity for POY production. The petition is filed by ASFI and

is supported by M/s Reliance, Indo Rama, Century, and are participating.

However, M/s DCL, Sanghi & Recron are only supporting the petition

The Participating companies accounted for a major proportion of

production during the period of investigation and the Authority, therefore, holds

that the petitioners satisfy the standing to file the present petition and the

Participating companies constitute the "Domestic Industry" under the Rules.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[FART 1—SEC. 1]

DUMPING

7.0

Normal Value. Export Price. Dumping Margin and Examination bv the Authority is

discussed hereunder.

7.1.

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);

(b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin

alongwith reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general

costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules

made under sub-section (6):

Provided that in the case of import of the, article from a country other than

the country of origin and where the article has been merely transshipped through

the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or

there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be

determined with reference to its price in the country of origin".

7.2

Views of Domestic Industry

ON DUMPING

The dumping margin in the preliminary findings have been established on the

basis of the responses filed by the exporters in case of Turkey, while the same is

based on best information available in the case of Korea. It is relevant to point

out that the exporters from Korea have not responded at all to the notice of

initiation sent by the Designated Authority.

In case of Turkey, the Designated Authority has admitted the responses of the

exporters without rejection of any data/claim. We are sure, should the responses

be scrutinized in detail, the dumping margin would only be higher than what has

been claimed. In particular, the petitioners request the Designated Authority to

kindly examine whether the exporter had sufficient viable domestic sales in

accordance with Annexure 1 to the Rules. Further, the cost of production claimed

by the exporters may also kindly be examined with reference to the claims made

by the domestic industry.

7.3

Comments of domestic industry on views of Government of Turkey.

The Embassy has stated that the Turkish Govt, and companies

concerned have given detailed comments.

However, neither the

preliminary findings states so nor the petitioners are aware of any

comments filed after the preliminary findings.

Imports from Turkey were more than de-minimus limits. Further, neither

under Indian Rules nor under WTO Agreement on Anti Dumping, there is

any condition of de-minimus with reference to the demand of the product in

the Country.

Imports from Turkey and Korea RP are required to be assessed

cumulatively, conditions for which are fully met In this case. It is not even

the argument of opposing interested parties that cumulative assessment

would not be appropriate in this case.

It is misleading and frivolous to state that the imported product from Turkey

was inferior in nature. No evidence has been adduced by the exporters to

establish that the exported product was different from domestically sold

product. The exported product was a "like article" to the domestically sold

product and product being sold by Indian producers. Further, the normal

value is required to be seen for the "like article" for the purpose of dumping

margin. Similarly, the injury margin is required to be seen with reference to

the "like product" in India.

It is admitted fact that the imports from Turkey were higher than de-

minimus. Such being the case, imports cannot be said to be negligible. In

fact, in a way, the exporters admit injury to the Indian producers.

While it may be true that the export price from Turkey did not show

declining trend, it is relevant to note that (a) export price from Turkey and

Korea RP are required to be seen cumulatively (which shows that the

export price from the subject countries declined in the investigation period

as compared to previous years; (b) volume of exports by Turkey were very

small (de-minimus) in the year 1999-2000. Such being the case, the export

price only of Turkey in 1999-2000 is not representative. The prices in 1999-

2000 would have been even introductory prices, as the entire volume

involved was only 0.41% of total imports as against 3.6% in the

investigation period.

With regard to exports in the second half of 2001, it is submitted that

imports in the investigation period as a whole is the only relevant

parameter. Even if the imports were only in one month of the investigation

period (volume of which was more than deminimus to the imports

investigation period) the same is liable to duty. The imports in the instant

case, by their own admission, were in about six months of the investigation

period. We draw kind attention of the DA to various completed cases

wherein the imports were not uniformly spread throught the investigation

period.

No cogent reasons have been brought out by the opposing interested

parties to justify termination of investigations. In fact, the responses filed by

the exporters from Turkey clearly establishes—of significant dumping

margin.

The information filed by the petitioner companies establishes

material injury caused to the domestic industry and further threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SHC, 1]

7.4

Views of Govt, of Turkey:

The Director General of Imports, Government of Turkey in their submissions

have stated the following:

The Government of Turkey would like to stress the fact that the products

imported from Turkey amounting only 0.1% of total demand and being

substandard were in no way in competition with domestically produced products

and therefore, even if their exists any injury, this should not be attributed to

insignificant imports from Turkey.

It has been observed that the summaries provided were not in sufficient

details to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information,

figures and calculations of the Turkish producers were not provided and the

factors listed in the Article 3 of the Agreement were not examined at all.

It is observed in the notification that the investigation period chosen for

this investigation cover the period 1" April, 2000 to 31" March, 2001. Despite the

fact that the investigations period should be chosen as to cover the most recent

period with respect to initiation notification.

Turkey has concerns as regard to the applicability of cumulative

estimation for the imports from Turkey and Korea in the present investigations.

While considering the cost of credit adjusted for M/s. SASA it is stated

that the Authority calculated the cost of credit as the weighted average of the

cost for the years 2000 and 2001 rather than the actual cost of credits used. The

imputed credit cost adjustment was claimed by the respondent to adjust export

prices and home market prices for deferred payments term to make meaningful

comparison.

The quality differences between the domestically sold and exported

products were previously mentioned by M/s. Korteks in its replies to the

questionnaire contrary to the statements made in preliminary findings which

claims that there was no argument raised by any interested party.Tukey submits

that the differences in the physical feature and the quality of domestically sold

product and product exported to India should be taken into account and duty

adjustments should be allowed. Hence the dumping margins established should

be corrected accordingly.

It is a review of the Government of Turkey that the Authorities improperly

attributed the declining prices and declining profitability in the domestic industry,

if any, to the affects of the import from Turkey and fail to examine the second

impact on imports on the domestic industry as required by Article 3.4 of the

Agreement.

There is no positive evidence of causal link between imports and alleged

injury in the domestic market.

The Government of Turkey has requested the Indian Authority to evaluate

the points raised above and secondly terminate the investigation concerning

imports originating in Turkey.

7.5

M/s.Sonmez Filament Bursa. Turkey

Exporters have stated that they have not been in a position to export any POY

into India either directly or through any affiliated company.

7.6

Embassy of Republic of Korea. New Delhi

It has been stated that two Korean companies, namely, M/s.TAE-Han

Synthetics Fibre Co.Ltd. and M/s. JEIL Synthetics Fibre Co.Ltd. have not

exported Partially Oriented Yam (POY) to India since last five years.

7.7

The above companies have not shown interest in taking part in the anti dumping

investigations with respect to POY exports to India and have no interest in

attending public hearing.

7.8

M/s. Jeil Synthetics Fibre Co.Ltd.,.Seoul. Korea

The exporter have stated that they have not exported POY during the POI i.e.

from 1"¹ April 200 to 31*' March, 2001. Their last export was in February, 1997.

There was no company who produced DOPE Dyed (colour) POY like there is in

India during that period.

They have also stated that their POY production is DOPE Dyed(colour) Yarn and

not raw white yarn that India produces and the price of DOPE Dyed (colour) Yarn

is much higher than the raw white (regular) yarn in India.

7.9

Examination of the issues by the Authority

On the views of Government of Turkey.

(Through the Commercial Counsel Officer, Turkish Embassy in New Delhi)

a. The Authority notes that the imports from Turkey were more than de-minimus

limits. Further, neither under Indian Rules nor under WTO Agreement on Anti

Dumping, there is any condition of de-minimus with reference to the demand

of the product in the Country.

b. The Authority notes that imports from Turkey and Korea RP are required to

be assessed cumulatively, conditions for which are fully met in this case.

c. As regards to the imported product from Turkey was inferior in nature, the

Authority notes that except for the evidence indicated on the sales invoice

that they have sold under the nomenclature 'substandard', no evidence has

been adduced by the exporters to establish that the exported product was

different from domestically sold product. The exported product was a "like

article" to the domestically sold product and product being sold by Indian

producers.

2573 GI/2002—5

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART 1—SEC. 1]

7.10

M/s SASA . Turkey

Normal Value

The company furnished transaction-wise and danier-wise details of sales made

in home markets in respect of 133 Dtex SS and 283 Dtex SS and other domestic

sales. The company also furnished information on cost of production of domestic

sales in respect of types of POY exported to India. It has been observed that in

case of 283 Dtex POY exported to India and also sold in the domestic market

the average sales realisation is less than the Cost of production. Accordingly for

the purpose of determination of Normal Value the cost of production of this

denier of POY during the period of investigation has been considered for the

purpose of assessment of profitable transactions in accordance with Annexure I

of the Rules.

The Normal value has been determined based on information furnished in

respect of 133 Dtex SS and 283 Dtex SS based on viable domestic sales. The

Authority has determined average selling price for two types of POY sold by the

company in the domestic market during the POI after allowing adjustments on

account of credit cost on domestic sales.

Export Price:

The export price has been separately determined for two types of POY exported

to India. Adjustments claimed by the company on account of ocean freight,

insurance, commission, inland freight and handling has been allowed as claimed

by the company and verified by the Authority.

The normal value for two types of POY sold in the domestic market has been

compared with two types of POY exported to India separately. The Authority has

determined the average dumping margin on the basis of volume of exports for

two types POY exported to India.

7.11

M/s Korteks. Turkey

Normal-Value.

The exporter has furnished details of domestic sales for all daniers of POY during

the period of investigation. The exporter has claimed that for the purpose of

comparison of domestic sales price with the export price same daniers should be

considered. They have furnished separate details of the domestic sales for the

same deniers/ types of POY exported to India. However, it has been observed

that the company has not sold in the domestic market all types of deniers

exported to India. It has been observed that in case of two types of POY

exported to India and also sold in the domestic market the sales realisation is

less than the Cost of production. Accordingly for the purpose of determination of

Normal Value the average cost of production of POY including SGA, interest and

reasonable returns during the period of investigation has been considered in

absence of representative sales to appropriate third countries.

EXPORT PRICE

The weighted average export price has been determined separately for all types

of POY exported to India. Adjustments claimed by the company on account of

ocean freight, insurance, commission, inland freight and handling has been

allowed as claimed by the company.

The normal value as discussed above has been compared with weighted

average export price of POY exported to India for determining the dumping

margin.

7.12

Determination of Dumping Margin in case of Non-cooperative Exporters:

The Authority notes that no information in the prescribed proforma has been filed

by any other exporter from subject countries (including Korea RP) except for

exporters discussed in abo< a paragraphs.

The Authority has, therefore,

proceeded on the basis of Rule 6(8) i.e. with the best information available.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

Accordingly, the Normal Value and export price for 'other exporters' from

a particular country is proposed to be based on the information furnished by the

petitioner/ best available information.

8.1

Dumping Margin: The Rules relating to comparison provides comparison of

normal value and export price provides as follows:

"While arriving at margin of dumping, the designated authority shall make a fair

comparison between the export price and the normal value. The comparison

shall be made at the same level of trade, normally at the ex-works level, and in

respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time. Due allowance

shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which affect price

comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sales, taxation,

levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences

which are demonstrated to affect price comparability".

8.2

Accordingly, the Authority has determined the normal value and export price at

ex-factory level for cooperative exporters and other non cooperative exporters

for the purpose of final determination.

Country

Turkey

Korea RP

Name of the exporter

M/s

SASA

Dupont

Sabanci Polyester AS

M/s Korteks Mensucat

Sabatu

Ticaret

AS..Turkey, (Korteks)

Other Exporters

All Exporters

Normal

Value

US$/ka

**•

***

Export

Price

US$/ka

•**

*#*

***

•**

Dumpin

o Margin

(DM)

US $/ko

***

##•

D M as

a % of

Export

price

62.16

44.38

139.40

77.86

INJURY & CAUSAL LINK ::

9.0

Under Rule 11 supra, Annexure-ll, When a finding of injury Is arrived at, such finding shall involve

determination of the injury to the domestic industry, "... taking into account all relevant facts,

including the volume of dumped Imports, their effect on prices In the domestic market for like

articles and the consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles...." In

considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine

whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with

the price of the like article In India, or whether the effect of such Imports is otherwise to depress

prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases which otherwise would have occurred, to a

significant degree;

9.1

Rule (iii) of the Annexure II to the Rules requires that in case imports of a product from more than

one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigation, The Authority will

cumulatively assess the effect of such imports. Such assessment can be, however, made only if It

is determined that:

the margin of dumping In relation to the Imports from each country is more than two

percent expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the Imports from

each country Is three percent of the import of the like article in India, and

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

conditions of competition between the imported article and the like domestic article.

The various factors relating to injury to domestic industry have been discussed in

the preliminary findings and the same is being considered for final determination.

The argument raised by the various interested parties is as under:

9.2

Views of Domestic Industry:

ON INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK

It is submitted that the severe dumping of POY in India has caused material

injury to the domestic industry, which is evident from the petition filed by the

domestic industry and the preliminary findings notified by the Designated

Authority. They have submitted that the following parameters clearly establish

that the domestic industry has suffered material injury:

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1)

Since the exports from Korea have been continuing at dumped prices for

quite some time (for which the domestic industry had filed a petition also),

the injury to the domestic industry from Korea should be seen in the

context of non-initiation of investigations against Korea earlier by the

Designated Authority due to misclassification of imports by the importers.

The domestic industry was suffering material injury from the dumped

imports from the subject countries as also from other countries which are

now attracting anti dumping duties. Duties on these countries were levied

by the Ministry of Finance in April, 2001. Thus, performance of the

domestic industry is required to be examined in the context of imposition

of these duties and material injury and threat of material injury from the

existing countries.

The injury to the domestic industry is required to be assessed

cumulatively from Korea and Turkey. The conditions laid down under

Annexure II in this regard are fully met in the instant case.

The imports from the subject countries have increased in absolute terms.

So far as imports from Korea in the investigation period and immediately

preceding year are concerned, what is required to be noted is that (a)

Korean producers were resorting to dumping in the previous year also, for

which the industry had filed the petition but investigations were not

initiated due to misclassification of imports by the importers; (b) the import

data for the year 1998-99 is as per DGCI&S which includes misclassified

PFY imports also, while the import data for 1999-00 and investigation

period is as per MITCON which excludes misclassified PFY.'

The share of imports from subject countries increased significantly in

terms of imports of POY in India.

The export price from the subject countries diclined very significantly.

The landed price of imports, as a direct consequence, declined

significantly.

With regard to Turkey, it is clarified that the export price in the year 1999-

2000 should be seen alongwith the associated volumes. The volume of

imports in 1999-2000 was de-minimus.

The production of the domestic industry was almost stagnant during the

period.

Inspite of the apparent increase in the domestic sales volume (and

production) during POI, it is pertinent to note that the domestic industry

continued to sell the product at sub-optimal prices. Thus, in spite of

increasing the sales volumes, the domestic industry was not able to

recover fair price for their product.

Sales realisation of the domestic industry declined significantly.

The

decline in the selling prices was a direct result of decline in the export

prices ( and hence landed prices).

The imports were significantly

undercutting the prices in the Indian market.

Significant decline in the selling prices resulted in deteriorating profitability

of the domestic industry.

The domestic industry was forced to suffer

financial losses, which continued even in the investigation period.

The return on investments remained negative for the industry.

The dumped imports from the subject countries, in addition to the material

injury inflicted op the domestic industry, posed a threat of material injury

to the domestic industry. Following are relevant in this regard:-

(i)

The imports from the subject countries have been significant.

(ii)

The imports from the subject countries have shown significant

growth.

The same is evident in case of Turkey, while the Korean

producers had been dumping for quite long.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

The exporters from the subject countries have been holding significant

surplus capacities. As per PCI report, Turkey is holding POY capacities

in excess of 311,000 MT. Against this capacity created, the consumption

was only 162,000 MT.

Further, it was admitted even by the

representative of Govt, of Turkey at the time of oral hearing that most of

the Textile Industry in Turkey is suffering from lack of demand, and

operating levels have come down substantially.

The exporters are

understood to be having an excess of more than 150,000 MT, which has

to find a market. The vast Indian Market is, therefore, a natural choice.

With regard to Korea, total capacity of POY in Korea is 17,97,000 MT.

Against this, the consumption of POY in Korea is understood to be only

11,15,000 MT. This domestic demand in Korea also is declining, as their

Textile exports are also suffering due to the economic slow down in the

world. Thus, South Korea has atleast 800.000MT to 1 Million MT of

surplus POY capacity. This is more than India's total demand. Further,

South Korean companies/exporters have also not co-operated with the

Designated Authority in the present investigations.

(iii)

The landed price of imports from the subject countries was

significantly below the selling prices of the domestic industry. Thus, the

imports were significantly undercutting the domestic prices.

Such

significant undercutting coupled with significant disposable capacities in

these countries implies an imminent threat to the domestic industry,

(iv)

Since the demand of POY in the subject countries is far lower than

the capacities created.and further since access to other markets for the

producers in these countries have reduced, the producers in these

countries were holding significant inventories and were looking for

markets for disposal of these inventories.

All the parameters, collectively and cumulatively establish that the

domestic industry has suffered material injury from dumped imports.

Further, the imports from the subject countries threatened material injury

to the domestic industry.

9.3

Views of M/s. SASA Dupont, Turkey - on injury:

As regards to injury, the exporter have stated that during the POI the

production, capacity utilisation and sales volume has increased. Raw material

cost have decreased. The employment have not significantly changed. The only

possible injury as per the preliminary findings are falling prices and profitability.

World wide over capacity in the polyester industry has caused fall in prices

in respect of both raw material and finished products.

The causal link has not been established between dumping and injury.

the imports of POY to India has decreased by 40% during POI compared

to 1999. Therefore, any injury cannot be attributed to exports of M/s. SASA.

9.4

Share of imports from subject countries:

While examining the volume of the dumped imports, the Designated Authority

notes that the volume of total imports which was 49870MT in 99-00 declined to

27663 MT during POI. However, share of imports have cumulatively increased

from subject countries as may be seen from the table below.

Imports

Korea RP

Turkey

Subject countries

Countries attracting duties (Taiwan,

Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia)

Other countries

Imports total

Share In Imports

Korea RP

Turkey

Subject countries

Countries attracting duties (Taiwan

Thailand,Indonesia & Malaysia)

Other countries

Imports total

Indian Production

Total Demand

Unit

Volume

1998-99

477

1770

150

2398

19.8

73.83

6.2

100.0

745,377

769,363

1999-2000

3498

206

3704

43644

2522

49870

7.01

0.41

7.42

87.52

5.06

100.00

801,020

850,890

POI

1843

998

2841

24215

633

27663

6.66

3.60

10.26

87.45

2.29

100.00

826,144

853,807

2573 Gl/2002—6

THE GAZETTE OF 1ND1 \ . EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

Authority has taken into consideration DGCI&S data for the year 1998-99 as

MITCON data is not available for that period. The Authority is relying upon

MITCON data for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, as the DGCI&S data includes

imports of PFY also.

The information provided by MITCON is only in respect of major customs

ports in the Country. Further, the MITCON data has been analysed in detail and

imports misclassified as POY have been excluded. It may thus be seen that the

volume of imports is still more than deminimus and significant and the same has

increased from 7.42% to 10.26% (as per MITCON data).

9.5

Decline in export price:

Authority notes over the years the sharp reduction in the export price from Korea

RP and the commencement of exports from Turkey at dumped prices in

substantial volumes, thus resulting in steep reduction in the landed price of

imports from the subject countries, as may be seen from the following table:

Years

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

Korea

Export

price

70.76

58.02

41.67

38.94

Landed

price

96.23

76.18

56.82

47.20

Rs. per Kg.

Turkey

Export

price

33.68*

39.54

Landed

price

45.92

47.92

* volume very insignificant.

The steep decline in the landed price of imports (alongwith reduction in the

prices by other countries resorting to dumping) forced the domestic industry to

reduce its prices far below its cost of production, resulting in severe financial

losses to the domestic industry.

9.6

Production, sales and capacity utilisation:

Production,sales and capacity utilization of the participating companies are as

given in the table below:

Years

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

Production

InMT

330839

352675

367715

Capacity

Utilization %

91.59

97.64

101.80

Sales in MT

302492

311263

343481

The production,sales and capacity utilisation has shown improvement in the

year 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2000-01.

9.7 Selling Price

Authority notes that due to dumping, the industry has been forced to sell its

product below the cost of production during the period of investigation and due

to steep reduction in import prices, resulting in material injury to the domestic

industry.

9.8

Price Undercutting

The landed price of subject goods from subject countries compared to 1999-2000

has declined. The dumped imports have forced the domestic industry to sell its

products far below its cost of production.

9.9

Employment

The employment level in the participating companies has not undergone any

significant change due to poor operating levels.

9.10

Profitability

The industry has been forced to keep its selling prices much below its cost of

production, resulting in financial losses. The losses have increased in 2000-01, in

view of substantial increase in the cost of production and inability of the industry

to recover the same in view of lower landed prices. Further, the attempt to

increase the selling prices by the domestic industry resulted in steep increase in

the import volumes.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PARTt—SEC. 1]

9.11

Conclusion on injury:

The dumping margins from the subject countries are significant and volume

of imports are more than de-mlnlmus;

The volume of Import is significant and share of subject countries in imports

of POY has increased;

The export price has declined significantly. The cost of production should

have increased for the exporters from the subject countries in the current

year in view of increase in the PTA/DMT/MEG prices, whereas the export

price has reduced in the period of investigation;

The imports were causing severe price undercutting and prevented the

domestic industry from effecting legitimate price increases;

The domestic industry has been forced to sell at prices significantly below the

non injurious price;

The cost of production of the Indian producers increased during the period of

investigation as compared to year 1999-2000. However, the industry could

not increase its prices and recover the cost of production in view of cheaper

imports.

The Authority notes that the margin of dumping and quantum of imports from

subject countries are more than the limit prescribed under the Rules.

Cumulative assessment of the effect of the imports from Korea RP and

Turkey is appropriate since the export prices from these countries were

directly competing with,the prices offered by the Domestic Industry in the

Indian market.

The above parameters indicate that the domestic industry has suffered

material injury due to dumped imports.

EVIDENCE OF CAUSAL LINK

The imports from the subject countries are being at dumped prices. A number of

countries are already being investigated, wherein the preliminary findings notified

by the Designated Authority confirms large scale dumping. The Imports from

countries other than subject countries are either de-minimus or the prices are

higher or the Designated Authority is already conducting Anti Dumping

investigations against imports from these countries. The market

intelligence of

the domestic industry also does not suggest any significant imports at crumped

prices from other countries. The imports from other countries have, therefore, npt

caused any injury to the domestic industry.

Demand for POY has not declined. Decline in demand is, therefore, not a factor,

which could have caused injury to the domestic industry.

Reduction in the export prices by the producers from the subject countries and

the countries attracting duties is the cause for the injury to the domestic industry.

There is no other factor such as trade restrictive practices or export performance,

which has caused injury to the domestic industry. In fact, the domestic industry is

well established with regard to production and sale of POY.

Indian Industry's Interest and other issues:

n . 1

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

in general interest of the country. It is recognized that the imposition of anti

dumping duties might affect the price levels of the products manufactured using

the subject goods and consequently

might have some influence on relative

competitiveness of these products. However, fair competition on the Indian

market will not be reduced by the anti dumping measures, particularly if the levy

of the anti dumping duty is restricted to an amount necessary to redress the

injury to the domestic industry.

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 . Imposition of anti dumping

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

therefore, would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers.

11.2. To ascertain the extent of anti-dumping duty necessary to remove the injury to

the domestic industry, the Authority relied upon reasonable selling prices of

subject goods in India for the domestic industry, by considering the optimum cosi

of production at optimum level of capacity utilisation for the domestic industry.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

CONCLUSIONS;

12.0

The Authority, after considering the foregoing, concludes that:

•

Exporters from Korea RP and Turkey have been exporting subject goods

below normal value resulting in dumping:

•

The Indian Industry has suffered material injury;

•

The Injury has been caused cumulatively by the dumped imports of the

subject goods from subject countries.

13.0

The Authority after considering the foregoing, concludes that

(a)

The Authority recommends imposition of definitive anti dumping duty on all

imports of POY falling under Chapter 54 of Customs Tariff Act originating in

or exported from Turkey and Korea RP.

(b)

The Authority consider 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 investigation. Wherever

the difference was less than the dumping margin, a duty lower than the

dumping margin is recommended.

(c)

Accordingly, the Authority confirms the preliminary findings with regard to

imposition of anti-dumping duty and recommends Imposition of definitive anti

dumping duty on all imports of POY falling under the Chapter 54 of Customs

Tariff Act originating in or exported from subject countries. The anti dumping

duty shall be the amounts mentioned in column (3) below:

COUNTRY

111

Turkey

Korea RP

Name of the exDorter

(21

M/s SASA Dupont Sabanci Polyester AS

M/s Korteks Mensucat Sabatu Ve Ticaret

AS.Turkey, (Korteks)

Other Exporters

All Exporters

Anti dumping duty

in US $/Ka

(31

0.434

0.360

0.546

0.605

14.0

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

determined by the customs under the Customs Act, 1962 and all duties of

customs except duties levied under Section 3, 3A,8B and 9, 9A of the Customs

Tariff Act, 1975.

15.0

Subject to above , the Authority confirms the preliminary findings dated

23.11.2001

16.0

An appeal against this order shall lie to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control)

Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Act Supra.

L.V. SAPTHARISHl, Designated Authority

Printed by Ihe Manager, Govt, of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by Ihe Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054 — 2002