22_

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. EXTRAORDINARY

[PAR r I—SEC. 1

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-DUMPING AND ALLIED DUTIES)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the I lth September, 2002

FINAL FINDINGS

Subject:

Anti-dumping investigation in the matter relating to review

of anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Thermal Sensitive Paper

originating in or exported from EU - Final Findings.

No. 3t/i/2(Kti-DGAD.^Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as

amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and

Collection

of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and

for

Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, thereof.

PROCEDURE:

The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the

investigations:-

(i)

The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority),

under Rules initiated the review of anti-dumping duty imposed on

imports of Thermal Sensitive Paper (hereinafter referred to as

subject goods) originating in or exported from European Union

(hereinafter referred to as subject country/territory) pursuant to the

final findings notification no. 25/1/98/ADD dated 3^rd March, 2000.

This review was initiated vide notification no. 31/1/2001ADGAD

dated 13.9.01.

(ii)

The Designated Authority notified the initiation of the sunset

review vide notification no. 31/1/2001/-DGAD dated 13.9.01 with

regard to anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of Thermal

Sensitive Paper originating in or exported from the subject

country/territory. The Designated Authority forwarded a copy of

the initiation notification to the known interested parties who were

requested to furnished their views, if any, within 40 days from the

date of the letter.

(iii)

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

industry association, the domestic industry and gave them an

opportunity to make their views known in writing.

(iv) The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to all the

known exporters and gave them an opportunity to make their views

known in writing in accordance with the Rule 6(2). The Authority

sent questionnaire to the following known exporters:-

Jujo Paper Co. Ltd., P.O. Box No. 92,

PI - 55, 27501 Kauttua, Finland.

Japan Pulp & Paper GmbH,

Immermannsirasse, 14-16,

402100, Dusseldorf, Germany.

Storta Spazialpapiere GmbH,

Husumer Strasse 12,

29241, Flensburg, Germany.

Mitsubishi Hitek Paper Limited,

Husumer Strasse 12, 24941,

Flensburg, Germany.

(v)

The Authority forwarded copy of the public notice to the following

known importers and consumers of Thermal Sensitive Paper in

India' (whose details were made available by the petitioners in the

original investigations) in accordance with Rule 6(5) and advised

them to make their views known in writing within forty days from

the date of the letter.

• Cantronics Office Equipments Pvt. Limited, Mumbai-400007.

• Hindustan Sales, Delhi-110006.

• VI Office Equipments Pvt. Limited, Mumbai-600006.

• Rational Business Corporation, New Delhi-110052.

• Hariti Papers Pvt. Limited, Jaipur

• Vardhman Paper Products, Aurangabad.

*> Vaishano Paper Products, Delhi-6.

• Sohan Lai Nem Chand Jain, Delhi-110006.

• Alankar Stationery Mart, Delhi-110006.

• Modi Hospital Appliances Mfg. Co Limited, Chennai-93.

•> Sohum Industries Pvt. Limited, Mumbai-400002.

• Tokushu Menor Paper Mfg. Co., Chennai-600066.

• Haryana Traders P. Limited, Delhi-110006.

• Shyam Traders, Delhi-110006.

•> Varsha Traders, Mumbai.

• Asian Coated Paper P. Ltd., New Delhi.

• The Embassy of Finland, New Delhi-110D21.

• Excell Mark, Chennai-600001.

• All India Thermal Paper Dealers Association, New Delhi.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

(vi)

The Authority forwarded the initiation notification to the Embassies

of the Federal Republic of Germany and Finland in India; the

European Union, Delegation of the European Commission in India

in accordance with Rule 6(2) with a request to advise the

exporters/producers from their country to respond to the

questionnaire within the prescribed time. A copy of the letter and

questionnaire sent to the exporters was also sent to the concerned

Embassies, along with a list of known exporters/producers

(vii) The Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to

present their views orally in a public hearing on 1.3.2002. All

parties presenting views were requested to file written submissions

of their views expressed. The parties were advised to collect copies

of the views expressed by the opposing parties and offer rebuttals,

if any;

(viii) In addition to the known interested parties, responses/information

was filed by the following interested parties during the

investigation:

M/s. Papierfabrik August Koehler AG, Germany.

(ix)

The Authority made available the public file to all interested parties

containing non-confidential version of all evidence submitted by

various interested parties for inspection, upon request;

(x)

Arguments raised by the interested parties have been appropriately

dealt in these findings;

(xi) In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules supra, the essential

facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed to known

interested parties on 2^nd September, 2002 and comments received

on the same have also been duly considered in these findings;

(xii) The period of investigation (POI) for the present review is 1^st April,

2000 to 31^st March, 2001.

(xiii) ***in this notification represents information furnished by the

interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the

Authority under the Rules;

VIEWS OF PETITIONERS, EXPORTERS, IMPORTERS AND

OTHER

INTERESTED

PARTIES

AND

EXAMINATION

AUTHORITY.

The views expressed by various interested parties in response to the

initiation notification, subsequent to the oral hearing and in response to the

disclosure statement are discussed in the relevant paragraphs herein below to

the extent these are relevant as per rules and have a bearing upon the case.

The arguments raised by the interested parties have been examined,

considered and, wherever appropriate, dealt in the relevant paragraphs herein

below.

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE

Thermal Sensitive Paper is a paper coated with a special mix of

chemicals for providing thermal sensitive properties to the base paper.

Thermal Sensitive Paper is primarily used for recording messages for

electronic equipments where the machine is used to record messages, reports

through sensitivity of heat rays. It is primarily used in fax machines. It is

also used in ECG Machines and other medical equipments, Seismographic

machines, Airlines baggage tagging, tickets, boarding cards etc. TSP is

classified under chapter 48 of the Customs Tariff Act. The product does not

have a dedicated Customs Classification. However, it generally gets covered

under sub-heading 4809.10 i.e. 'Carbon or similar copying paper' of

Schedule I of Customs Tariff Act. TSP is also cleared under different sub-

headings of heading 4811 and 4816 of the Customs Tariff Classification.

These Classifications are indicative only and are in no way binding on the

scope of the present investigation.

The petitioners have stated that that subject goods are produced in a

large number of sizes to meet specific end application. The petitioner largely

produces the product in Jumbo rolls, which are then slit to the desired size,

primarily by the companies in the market (known as slitters). There is

significant price difference between the jumbo rolls and slitted small rolls for

specific end use. The goods are imported both in jumbo rolls as also in

finished slitted small rolls for specific end use. The product is not having a

dedicated custom classification at six-digit level. Therefore, the data of

DGCI&S or of the secondary sources is not sufficient to segregate the jumbo

rolls with the slit rolls. While the jumbo rolls are invariably imported in the

multiples of container loads, the imports of slit rolls are far lower in terms of

weight. In view of significant difference in the prices of the jumbo rolls and

slit rolls the petitioner has requested that the comparison may be done

separately for the two types. The petitioner has further argued that in view of

z$*rate^

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. EXTRAORDINARY

| PAR I I—SLC. 1]

significant differences in the export price in terms of square meters, even for

the same customer/country, the entire calculation may be done in terms of

weight of the material.

The Authority notes that there are no submissions opposing the

product under consideration. The Authority therefore confirms the product

under consideration as Thermal Sensitive Paper .

It has been claimed by the petitioner that the Thermal Sensitive Paper

being produced by the domestic industry and the Thermal Sensitive Paper

exported from EU closely resemble in terms of various characteristics and

are technically and commercially substitutable. There is thus no difference in

the Thermal Sensitive Paper produced by the petitioner and the subject goods

imported from EU. No arguments have been raised by any interested party

in this regard. The Authority therefore holds that the Thermal Sensitive

Paper produced by the domestic industry is a Like Article to the product

under consideration.

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY:

M/s. Shree Krishna Paper Mills and Industries Limited represent the

domestic industry as they account for 100% of the Indian production of

Thermal Sensitive Paper. There is no dispute as regards the standing of the

petitioner. Therefore, the Authority holds that M/s. Shree Krishna Paper

Mills and Industries Limited represent the domestic industry.

EXAMINATION

OF ISSUES RELATING TO NORMAL

VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING

The Authority sent questionnaires to all known exporters for the

purpose of determination of normal value in accordance with section

9A(1)(C) of the Act. Responses were received from the following

exporters/importers.

Exporters:

M/s. Jujo Thermal Ltd., Finland,

ii.

M/s. Japan Pulp and Paper GmbH, Germany,

iii.

M/s. Papierfabrik August Koehler AG, Germany

iv.

M/s. Mitsubishi Hitec Paper, Germany.

Importers:

M/s. Rational Business Corporation, New Delhi

10.

Submissions made by the Domestic industry:

i. Exporters from EU were earlier found to be dumping Thermal Sensitive

Paper in the Indian market.

The domestic industry was forced to

approach the Designated Authority for imposition of anti-dumping duty

on imports from the EU.

The Designated Authority recommended

imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports from EU. However, after

imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports from EU, the exporters have

intensified their dumping. Further, due to increase in various input

costs, the cost of production of the product has increased significantly,

resulting in increased injury to the domestic industry. The anti-dumping

duty earlier recommended is required to be enhanced against imports

from the EU.

11. The

Designated

Authority

sent

questionnaire

known

exporters/producers in EU as also to the Delegation of EU in India. It

appears that only one exporter M/s. Jujo Thermal Ltd., responded to the

Authority, which also is incomplete. With regard to Koehler, it appears

that the company has not filed any response in the present investigations.

iii. In its response, Jujo Thermal has stated that "as per the company's valid

licence agreement with the license owners, the company's standard

policy and for the reasons of maintaining confidentiality, the company

does not part with or transmit the costing information". It clearly shows

that the company has neither furnished cost of production nor the

company is willing to furnish the same. The company has deliberately

and consciously withheld this information. The cost of production is

very crucial information, in the absence of which the whole response

deserves to be rejected. Thus, there is no reason for the Designated

Authority to even give another opportunity to the company to complete

the deficiency.

iv. As regards exports from Finland, the normal value is required to be

determined with reference to the selling price of the exporter in EU.

Mere comparison with the prices in Finland would not be sufficient. In

case the exporter has provided information on with regard to Finland, the

information becomes insufficient on this account alone.

v. Mere existence of profits in respect of a company is insufficient. The

sales in the home market must pass the 80:20 test as provided under

Annexure I to the Rules.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I— SEC. 1]

vi. Since the exporters from EU have preferred not to cooperate with the

Designated Authority, it is submitted that normal value may kindly be

assessed on the basis of best information available, i.e. the data provided

by the petitioner. The normal value has been assessed considering the

normal value earlier claimed by the exporter from the EU and

subsequent increases in the raw material prices, leaving aside other

increases in the cost of production. Further, we have determined normal

value in EU on the basis of estimates of cost of production. It is

submitted that the cost of production after addition of SGA and profit

can be considered as good indicator of normal value in EU.

vii. We have already provided detailed information which shows that after

the period earlier investigated by the Designated Authority, the cost of

production of Thermal Sensitive Paper has increased substantially due to

steep increase in raw materials and fuel prices. We submit that the

normal value is required to be calculated considering these cost

increases.

viii. With regard to export price, as is already submitted by the domestic

industry and accepted by the Designated Authority in other case relating

to China, calculation of export price in terms of square meter would

result in inappropriate calculation of export price. We reiterate that the

export price can only be determined in terms of weight of the material. It

is therefore requested that dumping margin and injury margin in this

case may also be calculated in terms of weight of material only.

ix. Since the domestic industry largely sells in jumbo rolls and since the

non-injurious price is determined for jumbo rolls, it is submitted that the

export price is required to be calculated for jumbo rolls only. Any

imports of other kinds of Thermal Sensitive Paper are required to be

excluded for the purpose of export price and landed price calculations.

11. Submissions made by M/s. Papierfabrik August Koehler AG,

Germany

(i)

The petition of the domestic industry seeking review of anti-

dumping duty is not directed against Koehler and the Koehler has

not been named as known exporter in the Annexure 'F' filed along

with the said petition, therefore, the allegations contained in the

petition are not directed against the Koehler and Koehler has not

been identified by the domestic industry as guilty of dumping of

Thermal Sensitive Paper .

(ii)

The reliance of domestic industry is on secondary source and not on

DGCI&S. The purported data collected from secondary source are

manipulated, unauthenticated as no responsibility can be fixed on

these secondary sources for mis-informations.

Moreover, these

purported data of secondary sources have also been made as

confidential for no reasons.

(iii)

In so far as Koehler is concerned the export price of Koehler's

product is considerably higher than the hypothetical export price

unilaterally determined by the petitioner.

(iv)

Based on the profit and loss statement and other informations

submitted by Koehler depicts that Koehler is making reasonable

profits at their domestic selling price is less than the export price of

the subject goods to India and there is no dumping of subject goods

to India by Koehler.

(v)

There is absolutely nothing to show in support of the allegation that

material cost in EU (or world over) has increased.

(vi)

The export price has been calculated by the domestic industry on the

basis of a solitary invoice of an anonymous importer and this

solitary invoice has been kept as confidential.

(vii) There is absolutely nothing, leave apart any reliable evidence to

show that the raw material cost of the subject goods in EU has

increased. Therefore, the normal value of the subject goods as

construed by the petitioner, is wholly incorrect as it is not based on

any prima facie evidence of increase in cost of raw materials in EU.

(viii) The comparison of Appendix-4 and Appendix-6 (confidential

versions of Koehler) prima facie shows that export price of the

subject goods to India have substantially increased during the period

of investigation.

12.

Submissions made by Jujo Thermal Ltd., Finland

(i)

The petitioner has in their complaint constructed the normal

value based on their increased cost of production, which is

contrary to the laws and rules.

As the authority needs to

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SKC. 1]

determine the normal value based on the domestic sales price in

the exporting country.

(ii)

In the present case the normal value in case of Finland should be

based on the domestic selling price of subject goods charged by

the exporter during the period of investigation.

(iii)

There was no association or compensatory arrangement between

the exporter M/s. Jujo Thermal Ltd., Finland and M/s. Rational

Business Corporation, importer in India for the subject goods.

(iv)

Since the domestic selling price charged by them for the subject

goods is lower than the export price to India, there is no

dumping by them.

(v)

We are making reasonable profits on the sale of the subject

goods in Finland which accounts for nearly 95% of our total

turnover. The audited balance sheet and income statement of

M/s. Jujo Thermal Ltd., shows that the company is making

sufficient profits.

13.

M/s. Japan Pulp and Paper GmbH

M/s. Japan Pulp and Paper GmbH, Germany have informed that they are

sales agent of Jujo Thermal Oy, Finland and that they have not exported any

direct thermal paper on behalf of the manufacturer during the investigation

period.

14.

M/s Mitsubishi Hitec Paper, Germany

sought an extension for

submission of response which was also allowed by the Authority. However,

no response was received from the said exporter prior to the issue of

disclosures.

In response to the disclosures the exporter has made

submissions regarding quality of Thermal Sensitive Paper produced by them.

Other

submissions

made

them

are

under:-

(i)

Thermal papers are used for a wide range of applications than

mentioned in the submission. Not only fax but also increasingly

non-fax thermal applications. Substitution of our papers by

Shree Krishna is not possible. Maybe and only for the purpose

of Fax -roll . and here we would even regard the papers

uncomparable.

(ii)

We still believe that MPF never supplied any thermal paper with

dumping prices into India and we strongly oppose the

submission by the petitioner to have intensified dumping.

(iii) Absolute Increase of imports are because of the increase of the

usage of thermal papers in general. The worldwide market is

growing by 5-10 % a year. Also Shree Krishna should have

increased its sales due to the growing market.

(iv)

The proposed amount of antidumping duty is extremely high

and not seen in any other part of the world for thermal papers.

(v)

The current ADD of 0,03842 US$/100m2 is already too high

and not acceptable to us (especially considering that the import

cost are, apart from the ADD, adding up to another approx. 60

% already.

(vi)

Thermal paper grades which are essential to India's way into

future innovative technologies and applications will become so

expensive, that India will not be able to adopt those technologies

and advantages.

15.

Submissions made by M/s. Rational Business Corporation, New

Delhi

The petitioner has in their complaint constructed the normal value based on

their increased cost of production, which is contrary to the laws and rules. It is

only when the relevant domestic sales price in the exporting country are

unavailable that the recourse for determination of the normal value may be had

by other means as laid down under the rules.

16.

Examination by the Authority

NORMAL VALUE

(i)

M/s. Jujo Thermal Ltd., Finland have furnished information regarding

their exports to India. However they have not furnished full details of

transaction wise domestic sales as required in Appendix 1 and cost of

production of subject goods as required in Appendix 8 to enable the

Authority to determine whether the domestic sales are in the ordinary

course of trade.

(ii)

M/s Mitsubishi Hitec Paper, Germany

sought an extension for

submission of response which was also allowed by the Authority.

However, no response was received from the said exporter prior to the

disclosures. The exporter has made some general comments. They

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC, lj

have not furnished information regarding exports sales to India,

domestic sales, cost of production and sales price structure as required

in the questionnaire. The Authority considers the exporter as non-

cooperative to the investigation.

(iii) M/s. Papierfabrik August Koehler AG, Germany have furnished

response giving information about domestic sales, export sales, annual

accounts. However, they have not furnished the information on

Appendices 4,5,6,8,9 and 10 as required by the questionnaire. The

information regarding cost of production furnished is for the year

ended 2000 whereas the period of investigation is 1^st April 2000 to 31^st

March 2001. The exporter has also not given information regarding

the sale price structure for export to India, export to other countries

and for domestic sales as required in Appendix 4,5,6. The exporter

also did not give detailed information regarding allocation of costs in

the manufacture of the said product as asked by the Authority. The

Authority had called for all this information and some other

information vide letter dated 29^th January 2002 but the exporter has not

responded. The exporter was also required to furnish non-confidential

version of the information furnished in respect of various appendices.

The Authority finds that the exporter did not furnish the non-

confidential information of various appendices of the questionnaire.

This had been pointed out by the domestic industry in their

submissions subsequent to the oral hearing held on 1^st March 2002.

The exporter has also not responded to the same. The Authority holds

that the exporter has not fully cooperated in the investigation.

(iv) The Authority has therefore been constrained to rely upon the best

available information as per Rule 6(8) with regard to Normal Value.

In the circumstances the Authority has determined the normal value

for all exporters in EU on the basis of constructed cost of production

on best available information as furnished by the domestic industry.

While doing so the Authority has considered the cost of raw material

at international prices, the cost of utilities and other expenses as per

information furnished by the domestic industry and verified by the

authority. The cost of production has been normated for the optimum

level of production.

EXPORT PRICE

(i)

M/s. Papierfabrik August Koehler AG, Germany have furnished

information regarding export sales to India, ocean freight, commission

on sales which have been considered. Information in respect of other

adjustments has not been furnished which has been allowed as inland

transport @2%, port expenses @2%, packing @1% as claimed by the

petitioner. Adjustment on account of 60 days' (average) credit @ 5%

p.a. on export sales has been made as the export invoices show credit

given to the Indian customers for different periods. The petitions''

have stated that calculation of export price in terms of sq. mtr. would

result

inappropriate

calculation

and

have

requested

for

determination of export price in terms of weight. The Authority has

considered the export price of the subject goods sales in jumbo rolls in

terms of weight. The net export price determined for M/s. Papierfabrik

August Koehler AG, Germany is DM***

/kg.

(ii)

M/s Jujo Thermal Ltd. , Finland have furnished information in respect

of export sales, ocean freight, insurance which has been considered.

Information on account of other adjustments is not supported with

documentary evidence. Thus adjustments on account of inland

transport @2%, port expenses @2%, packing @1% and credit costs

for 60 days @ 5% p.a. have been made. The net export price of subject

goods in jumbo rolls determined for M/s Jujo Thermal Ltd is

US$***/kg.

(iii)

In respect of other non-cooperating exporters from EU the Authority

has considered the evidence of least export price and made all

adjustments as above to arrive at the net export price.

Dumping Margin:-

The Authority followed the consistent policy of adopting the principles

governing the determination of Normal Value, Export Price and Margin of

Dumping as laid down in Annexure I of the anti-dumping rules. Dumping

margin has been determined on the basis of a fair comparison of Export price

with the Normal value in pursuance of the principle laid down in para 6 of

Annexure-I to the rules. The comparison is at the same level of trade, i.e. ex-

factory level. The Authority has also considered the submissions made by M/s.

Jujo Thermal Ltd. and M/s. Rational Business Corporation that anti-dumping

3&rC?/a^s-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 11

duty be levied in terms of square meters only as the product is sold in square

meters. The Authority finds that Thermal Sensitive Paper is produced in

different GSM. Taking the unit of measurement in weight terms will take into

account the different GSMs.

Therefore, the Authority has considered it

appropriate to determine the normal value and export price in terms of weight

only. Based on the normal value and export price as determined above, the

Authority assessed the dumping margin in case of exporters from EU as under:

S.No

Exporter

M/s . Papierfabrik August Koehler AG, Germany

M/s Jujo Thermal Ltd. Finland.

All other exporters of EU

Dumping

Margin (%)

53.07%

36.97%

103.97%

INJURY AND THREAT OF INJURY

17.

Rule 11 of Anti Dumping Rules reads as follows:

"Determination of Injury:

(1)

In the case of imports from specified countries, the

designated authority shall record a further finding that 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;

(2) 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 of such articles and in accordance

with the principles set out in Annexure II to these rules."

18.

The principles for determination of injury set out in Annexure-

II of the Anti- Dumping Rules lay down that:

A determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of

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

_Jtf

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.

ii.

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.

19.

Views of the Domestic Industry:

a) Production, capacity utilisation and sales of the domestic industry have

increased. However, it is required to be seen in the light of the fact that

the domestic industry commenced commercial production only in March,

1997 and therefore the domestic industry has made dedicated efforts in

improving its capacity utilization. Increase in production did help the

domestic industry in reducing the unit cost of production. However, the

domestic industry was not able to recover full cost of production and earn

reasonable return. Thus the increase in production and sales volume have

not tielped the domestic industry in earning reasonable return on its

ipvestment.

b) Domestic industry was forced to increase its selling price in view of

increase in the cost of production. However, the domestic industry was

prevented from raising the prices to a level which would have provided

full recovery of the cost of production and reasonable return on its

investments.

c) The landed value of imported material is significantly below the selling

price causing severe price undercutting in the Indian market.

d) The landed value of imported material is significantly below the cost of

production and fair selling price of the domestic industry causing severe

price suppression and depression ^n the Indian market.

e) The stocks with the domestic industry have been increasing.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

| PART I—Sue 1]

f) The return on investments were negative for the domestic industry.

g) The domestic industry has faced severe cash flow problems.

h) The Designated Authority has already acknowledged the injury caused to

the domestic industry from the dumped imports from China and

EU/Japan. We have provided detailed information to the Designated

Authority clearly establishing that the domestic industry continues to

suffer material injury from the dumped imports from EU, in spite of

imposition of anti-dumping duty in case of imports from EU.

i) We have already given evidence to the authority showing that selling

price of the importer is less than landed value of the imported material

from EU which undoubtedly establishes that either (a) there was some

compensatory arrangements between the exporter and the importer; or (b)

the importers have resorted to misreporting of the import volumes.

j) Further, petitioner is the only producer of subject goods in India and

imports were only from China and EU. Thus, the only reason for the

inability of the domestic industry to increase the prices beyond

Rs.l09130/MT or Rs.6.98/sq. mtr. in the investigation period implies that

the weighted average landed price of imports was below Rs.l09130/MT

or Rs.6.98/sq. mtr.

k) With regard to the argument that there is no compensatory arrangement

between the exporter and Rational Business Corporation we request that

M/s Rational Business Corporation be directed to provide full details of

its sales of Thermal Sensitive Paper in India.

20. Submissions made by M/s. Papierfabrik August Koehler AG,

Germany

L There is nothing on record to show any compensatory arrangement

between the exporter and importer besides a mere unreliable allegation.

;i. There is no meaningful casual link existing between the material injury

being suffered by the domestic industry and the alleged dumped imports

shown by the domestic industry/petitioner.

iii. The basis of the allegation that there ought to be a compensatory

arrangement between the exporter and importer is also the same alleged

solitary invoice of an importer.

21.

Submissions made by M/s Jujo Thermal Ltd.

The claim of the petitioner that the injury to them has further aggravated is

based on only one factor that the domestic industry has not been able to

increase their selling price in proportion to the increase in their cost of

production. As already mentioned above, this claim of the petitioners is not

borne out of the information and data submitted by them in the petition.

Besides, none of the other injury parameters mentioned in the petition are

supportive of this claim by the petitioner.

22.

Submissions made by M/s Rational Business Corporation

(i)

The complaint by the petitioners that the exporter has not increased

their selling prices proportionately inline with the increase in cost of

raw materials worldwide is not correct as the selling price charged by

the exporters in the last two years and during the POI have increased

considerably. During POI the increase in cost of production was less

than 1% whereas he CIF export price increased by 47%.

(ii)

During the POI the domestic selling price increased by 2.49% over the

last year as against an increase of less than 1% in their cost of

production.

(iii)

The petitioner has claimed that the imported product is sold at less

than the landed cost of the importer, which has caused severe price

suppression and depression in the Indian market.

(iv)

A solitary instance indicating the sale of the subject goods in India at a

lower price as compared to the price of procurement does not in itself

prove that there does exist a compensatory arrangement between the

exporter and the importer.

(v)

We reiterate that we have had no such allegedly compensatory

arrangement with any of the exporter of the subject goods.

(vi)

The petitioner has calculated the dumping margin by following two

different methods. Under the first method, the export price is based on

the secondary sources data leading to the maximum dumping margin

as 59.11% which is lower than the dumping margin as determined by

the authority in the original case, hence there is no increase in dumping

margin.

(vii) Under the second method, the export price is calculated based on a

solitary invoice of an importer alleging that the selling price is less

than the landed cost of the subject goods. As already mentioned

above, this method of arriving at the export price without establishing

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—Sun. 1]

any association or compensatory arrangement between the exporter

and importer is incorrect and against the provision of the Anti

Dumping Rules. However based on the data submitted by us herewith

it can clearly be discerned that the selling price charged for the subject

goods during the period of investigation is not less than the landed

cost. Hence this method of arriving at the export price even otherwise

is not applicable in our case.

(viii) The claim of the petitioner that the injury to them has further

aggravated is based on only one factor that the domestic industry has

not been able to increase their selling price in proportion to the

increase in their cost of production. As already mentioned above, this

claim of the petitioners is not borne out by the information and data

submitted by them in the petition. Besides, none of the other injury

parameters mentioned in the petition are supportive of this claim by

the petitioner.

(ix)

As such there is no dumping of subject goods, there is no injury to the

domestic industry and there is no causal link between the two.

23.

Examination by the Authority

For the examination of the impact of imports on the domestic industry in

India, the Authority has considered such further indices having a bearing on

the state of the industry as volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices

in the domestic market, their share in the demand, the magnitude and margin

of dumping, production, capacity utilisation, quantum of sales, closing stock,

net sales realisation, cash flow, profitability, employment, wages etc. in

accordance with Annexure II of the Rules supra.

Volume of imports

The Authority has considered the information regarding the imports of

Thermal Sensitive Paper during the POI as received from various sources viz.

the DGCI&S, Kolkatta, Customs Authorities, secondary sources besides the

information received from the exporters and the sole importer. The Authority

finds that no single source gives the complete and correct information about

imports of TSP during the POI. After taking into account the information

from various sources the Authority finds that imports from EU during POI

were 366.57 Tonnes. The Authority finds that these imports are 86.53% of

the total imports during POI. The imports of Thermal Sensitive Paper were as

under:

*rm I— w*g i]

TTOT •W Tpsm : dWIVR^ul

(Imports in MT)

Country

European Union

China

Others

Total

1998-99

4.28

0.00

74.91

79.19

1999-2000

260.54

0.00

158.71

419.25

2000-2001JPOIL

366.57

32.63

24.43

423.63

Therefore, the Authority considers the volume of dumped imports from

subject country/territory to be significant as there has been an increase in the

dumped imports in absolute terms.

The imports from subject

country/territory increased by 40.69% during POI when compared with the

imports during the previous year.

ii)

Share in demand

Share in %

Domestic industry

Others

1998-99

91.07

0.48

1.48

1999-2000

71.70

17.58

10.72

2000-2001 (POI)

76.89

19.98

3.13

iii)

Production and Capacity utilization

The production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry has been as

under:

Capacity

Production

Capacity utilization

Sales

1998-99

100

1999-00

100

140.17

131.54

2000-01 *

100

196.24

174.6

* Note: Indexed figures considering 1998-99 as 100

iv)

Closing stock

The closing stock of the domestic industry was found to be as under:

Year

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01 (POI)

Closing stock in MT

100

808.31

1466.97

Note: Indexed figures considering 1998-99 as 100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY .

|PART1—SEC. 1]

Selling price

Selling price of the domestic industry has been as under:-

Year

Selling price Rs./sq. mtr.

1998-99

100

1999-00

144.28

2000-01 (POI)

147.88

* Note: Indexed figures considering 1998-99 as 100

vi)

Price Under cutting

The Authority finds that the average net sales realization of the

domestic industry during the POI when compared with the average landed

value of imports of the subject goods from subject countries/territory do not

show significant price undercutting. However, the Authority finds that a

significant volume of the imports caused price undercutting as the landed

value of these imports was significantly lower than the average sales

realization of the domestic industry.

vii)

Price Suppression:

The Authority finds that the domestic industry has been able to raise

its selling price to Rs. *** per kg. during the POI. However, it is seen that

the domestic industry has not been able to raise the selling price to a level to

recover its full cost of production and to achieve a reasonable return. The

average landed value of imports of subject goods from

subject

countries/territory has been Rs. *** per kg. which is significantly lower than

the cost of production. The Authority finds the suppression of price to the

extent of

viii) Profitability

The profitability position of the company has been as under:

Year

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01 (POI)

Cost

production

100

117.25

118.23

Selling price

100

144.28

147.88

Profit/loss

(-) 100

(-) 64.32

(-) 60.17

• Note: Indexed hgures considering 1998-99 as 100 (Rs. /sq/mtr)

ix)

Employment

The Authority finds that there has not been any significant change in the

employment level of the domestic industry.

Wages

The Authority finds that the wages of the employees have increased

marginally.

xi)

Cash flow

The Authority finds that the cash flow position of the domestic industry has

been as under:

Year

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01 (POI)

Cash flow

(-)100

(-)131.7

(-)83.84

* Note: Indexed figures considering 1998-99 as 100

24.

The Authority has taken into account all indices regarding injury while

doing the final determination. This involved all relevant facts viz., volume of

dumped imports, their effect on price in the domestic market and its

subsequent effect on domestic producers, production, capacity utilisation,

profitability, net sales realisation etc. While determining the non-injurious

price for the like article for the domestic industry, the Authority has

considered the optimum cost of production for the domestic industry taking

into account the normated best consumption norms and the actual price of the

raw materials during the POI which go into the production of the product

under consideration. Also, while arriving at the injury margin, the Designated

Authority has taken into account optimum capacity utilisation for arriving at

a fair selling or non-injurious price.

25.

After taking into account all the above indices the Authority has made

following conclusions regarding injury while doing the final determination:

(i)

There has been significant increase in the dumped imports in absolute

as well in relation to the total demand.

(ii)

The domestic industry has suffered price under-cutting from a

significant volume of dumped imports from the subject country/territory.

(iii)

The domestic industry has suffered Price Suppression as a result of

dumped imports. The average landed value of imports of subject goods from

subject country/territory

were significantly lower than the cost of

production. This has prevented the domestic industry to raise its selling price

to a remunerative level.

^SgrCs/o J^ ,5-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

[PAUI I - S « \ II

(iv)

The petitioner held finished goods inventory of Thermal Sensitive

Paper which was 81.53% higher than the inventory at the end of financial year

1999-2000. The Authority finds that the domestic industry has also suffered

material injury on account of higher inventory of Thermal Sensitive Paper at

the end of POL

(v)

The capacity utilization of the domestic industry has increased from

53.74% in 1999-2000 to 75.23% during POI and the production has also

increased.

However, the domestic industry has been prevented from

utilization of higher capacity due to dumped imports.

(vi)

The share in demand of the imports from subject country/territory was

19.98%, that of the domestic industry 76.89% and of imports from other

countries 3.13% during the POI. The share of the domestic industry was

71.70% and that of the subject country/territory 17.58% during the previous

year 1999-2000. The Authority observes that there was significant increase

in the market share by the imports from subject country/territory.

(vii) The domestic industry has continued to suffer losses in the production

and sale of subject goods since the sales realization have been lower than the

cost of production.

(viii) The domestic industry continues to have negative cash flow.

(ix)

The demand of the product has not decreased and has, therefore, not

contributed to injury to the industry.

26.

Threat of Injury

The Authority has examined the threat of injury to the domestic industry as

per para (vii) of Annexure II of Rules supra, and concludes that the imports

from subject country grew in absolute terms and also as a share of demand

from 17.58% during the previous year to command a 19.98% share in the

total imports. The Authority finds the dumped price of these imports from

the subject country to hold a significant threat in depressing the price of the

like product in India. There is every likelihood that imports may keep

coming at dumped price in larger quantities causing serious threat of injury

to the domestic industry. On the basis of the evidence available before it,

the Authority therefore concludes that there is a serious threat of material

injury being caused to the domestic industry on account of dumped imports

of subject goods from subject country/territory.

CAUSAL LINK:

27.

The Authority holds that the substantial increase in import of subject

goods from EU at dumped price has led to price undercutting and severe

price suppression of the subject goods produced by the domestic industry.

This has resulted in the building up of inventory of finished goods with the

domestic industry. The domestic industry has suffered losses due to its net

sales realization being lower than the cost of production. This clearly

establishes the causal link between the injury suffered by the domestic

industry with the dumping of subject goods from EU. The Authority finds

that there is a causal link between the dumping of subject goods from EU

and the injury being caused to the domestic industry during the period of

investigation.

INDIAN INDUSTRY'S INTEREST AND OTHER ISSUES

28.

The Authority reiterates that 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.

29.

The Authority recognises that the imposition of anti dumping duties

might affect the price levels of the product in India.

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

country in any way, and therefore, would not affect the availability of the

product to the consumers. The consumers could still maintain two or even

more sources of supply.

FINAL FINDINGS

30.

After considering the foregoing the Authority concludes that -

(i)

thermal Sensitive Paper has been exported from European

Union to India below its normal value;

(ii)

the Indian industry continues to suffer material injury on

account of price undercutting, price suppression, significant

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

increase in the volume of dumped imports, increased inventory,

financial losses as a result of dumped imports from subject

country/territory and is being threatened with further injury; and

(iii) the injury has been caused to the domestic industry by the

dumped imports from the subject country/territory.

31.

The Authority considers it appropriate to recommend the continuation

of anti-dumping duty in force on imports of Thermal Sensitive Paper

originating in or exported from EU. The amount of anti-dumping duty shall

be equal to the margin of injury, being lesser than the dumping margin,

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

purpose of determining injury margin, the landed price of imports has been

compared with the non injurious selling price of the petitioner company

determined for the period of investigation.

32.

The anti dumping duty shall be on all imports of Thermal Sensitive

Paper falling under Customs heading 4809.10 or under heading 48.11 or

48.16 of first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act originating in or exported

from the European Union. The anti dumping duty shall be the difference

between the amounts mentioned in column 3 below and the landed value of

imports in USS/MT.

Sl.No.

Country

M/s . Papierfabrik August Koehler AG,

Germany

M/s Jujo Thermal Ltd. Finland.

All other exporters of EU

Amount (US$/MT)

2947.92

33.

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 sections 3, 3A, 8B, 9 and 9A of the

Customs Tariff Act,1975.

34.

An appeal against this order shall lie before the Customs, Excise

and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Act, supra.

L. V. SAPTHARISHI, Designated Authority

Printed by the Manager, Oovt. of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapun, New Dclhi-110064

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