• E

—

]

• E

[

—

]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC II

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department Of Commerce)

(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-DUMPING AND ALLIED DUTIES)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 19th September, 2002

FINAL FINDINGS

Sub: Anti-Dumping investigations concerning Sunset Review of anti dumping duty

imports

Catalysts

viz.

Hydrodesulphurisation,

Zinc

Oxide

Desulphurisation,

High Temperature Shift, Low Temperature

Shift,

Secondary Reforming and Methanation Catalysts from Denmark.

No. 27/i/200i-DGA»*-Having regard to the Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975

as amended in lyys and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of

anti-dumping duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995,

thereof:

PROCEDURE

The procedure described below has been followed:

(i)

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

above Rules as per Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act,

1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of

Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury)

Rules, 1995 initiated Sunset Review to review the need for continued

imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Catalysts as indicated in the

original preliminary findings of the Authority dated 7.5.1997 and the Custom

Notification No.56 dated 20.6.1997 (hereinafter also referred to as subject

goods and subject catalysts) originating in or exported from Denmark

(hereinafter referred to as subject country).

(ii)

The Authority issued a public notice dated 17,1.2002 published in the Gazette

of India, Extraordinary, initiating Anti-Dumping investigations in respect of

the above mentioned investigation concerning imports of the subject goods

classified under Chapter 38 and also under 98 of Schedule I of the Customs

Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 originating in or exported from

Denmark.

(iii)

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

exporters (whose details were available in view of investigations conducted

earlier) and industry/user associations and gave them an opportunity to make

their views known in writing in accordance with the Rule 6(2).

(iv)

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

importers ((whose details were available in view of investigations conducted

earlier) of subject goods in India and advised them to make their views known

in writing within forty days from the date of issue of the letter in accordance

with the Rule 6(2).

(v)

Request was made to the Cei.iral Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to

arrange details of imports of subject goods made in India during the past three

years, including the period of investigation.

(vi)

The Authority provided a copy of the initiation notification to the known

exporter and the Embassy of the subject country/ European Union, Delegation

of the European Commission, New Delhi in accordance with Rules 6(3) supra.

(vii)

The Authority sent a questionnaire to elicit relevant information to the

following known exporters/producers, in accordance with the Rule 6(4):

(i) M/s Haldor Topsoe A/s (HTAS), Denmark

Response/information to the questionnaire was filed by the following

exporters/producers:

(i) M/s Haldor Topsoe A/s (HTAS), Denmark

(viii)

The Embassy of the subject

country in New Delhi and European Union,

Delegation of the European Commission, New Delhi were informed about the

initiation of the investigation in accordance with Rule 6(2) with a request to

advise all concerned exporters/producers from their country to respond to the

questionnaire within the prescribed time.

A copy of the letter and

questionnaire sent to the known exporter was also sent to the Embassy of the

subject country and European Union, Delegation of the European Commission,

New Delhi in accordance with Rule 6(3).

(ix)

A questionnaire was sent to the known importers/user associations of the

subject goods whose details were made available by the petitioner for

necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4):-

Response/information to the questionnaire was filed by the following

importers:-

(I)

M/s Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd., Mumbai

(U)

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., West Bengal.

(x)

Information regarding injury was sought from M/s Project and

Development India Ltd. (PDIL) and M/s Sud-Chemie India Pvt. Ltd.

(SCIL), the domestic producers of the subject goods.

The cost of

production/injury information was furnished by M/s SCIL only. M/s PDIL

however gave information regarding their production of various subject

catalysts in the POL

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I^SEC. 1]

(xi)

Request for extension was made by certain interested parties which was

considered by the Authority and extension was granted upto 20.3.2002.

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

findings.

(xii)

Cost investigation of M/s SCIL was also conducted to work out optimum

cost of production and cost to make and sell the subject goods in India on

the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP( and the

information furnished

by the petitioner.

The cost data of M/s Sud-

Chemie India Pvt. Ltd. was provided and analysed.

(xiii)

Additional information from M/s HTAS, the only responding exporter

from Denmark was also sought.

(xiv)

An opportunity was provided to all interested parties to present their views

orally on 29.4.2002. All parties presenting views were requested to file

written submissions of the views expressed. The parties were advised to

collect copies of the views expressed by the opposing parties and offer

rebuttals, if any;

(xv)

The Authority kept available non-confidential version of the evidence

presented by various interested parties in the form of a public file

maintained by the Authority by the Authority and kept open for inspection

by the interested parties as per Rule 6(7).

(xvi)

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

considered for these findings were disclosed to known interested parties

on £.9.2002.

(xvii)

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

party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the

Rules.

(xviii)

The period of investigation (POI) considered is 1.4.2000 to 30.9 2001

VIEWS OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY. EXPORTERS. IMPORTERS.

USER ASSOCIATIONS

AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES &

EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY

The views expressed by various interested parties have been discussed in the

disclosure statement. The views whicji have not been discussed earlier in the disclosure

statement and those now raised in response to the disclosure statement are discussed in

the relevant paras 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 paras herein below.

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY M/S SUD-CHEMIE INDIA PVX LTD. (SC1D

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION & LIKE ARTICLE

(i)

In regard to LTS, HTAS has mentioned that they are supplying special catalyst

LSK. Both LSK and LK823 type catalysts have been manufactured and can not

be manufactured in that way in India. This claim of M/s HTAS illustrates that

HTAS is building grounds to circumvent anti dumping duty in future in case of

LTS catalyst.

(ii)

HTAS resorts to offer catalysts with minor modification and calls them

proprietary by changing nomenclature.

(iii)

In regard to Methanation, there is nothing revolutionary in introducing a pre-

reduced catalyss. Domestic Industry can also manufacture pre-reduced or activate

the catalyst before delivery. HTAS is trying to introduce a new proprietary

product by circumventing anti dumping duties.

(iv)

HTAS has supplied HDS catalyst from its market subsidiary which does not

attract anti dumping duties. We request the anti dumping duty to be put on this

catalyst when supplied from USA also.

DUMPING

(i)

NORMAL VALUE

(i)

The Doniestic Industry has provided information on the actual prices received

from M/s Sud-Chemie AG, Germany during the period of investigation for

supply of subject catalysts within the Territory of European Union.

(ii)

The domestic market of M/s HTAS is not only confined to Denmark since it

does not have any user industry but to the entire Territory of European Union.

(iii)

M/s HTAS have admitted to have supplied ZnODS and LTS catalysts into

India at prices which are at dumped levels. In case of ZnODS, there was no

anti dumping duty in place since there were insufficient injury caused to the

Domestic Industry during initial investigation though the Designated Authority

had found M/s HTAS's prices were dumped prices. This scenario has changed

for the worst and that injury would be found to the Domestic Industry now.

(iv)

The dumping is relevant to the normal value and not to the cost of production

and that the normal value should be the price at which the HTAS supplied

these catalysts in the European Union. M/s HTAS should make available these

prices in the European Union to the Designated Authority.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

(ii)

EXPORT PRICE

(i)

M/s SCIL has provided tender participation details on six catalysts for the POI

indicating the participation and award of tender to various participants.

In response to the Disclosure, the following submissions have been made;-

(i)

We would like to reiterate here that the Sunset Review the Designated

Authority needs to take a broad view of the case to examine whether M/s

HTAS will again resort to dumping their products in the absence of Anti

Dumping Rules

(ii)

The Designated Authority has examined the case within the limited time

frame of the period of investigaiton under this review. This, while enough for

the Designated Authority to examine if actual dumping is occurring and the

injury on Domestic Industry, is not large enough a time span to come to a'

conclusion as to the long term intentions of any company.

(iii)

We would also like to bring to your attention to our submission dated July 13,

2002, wherein we have provided information on M/s HTAS's dumping prior

to POI under this review, and have shown M/s HTAS receiving orders for

HTS catalyst at highly injurious prices. This period was outside the POI but

clearly shows HTAS's intention. It was because of these orders having been

procured by HTAS that PDIL and ourselves had to suppress our prices to get

further orders. In actual fact, PDIL and us were not competing against each

other as alleged by HTAS but were forced to reduce our prices or else lose

orders to HTAS. It is pertinent to note that at the time of bidding, it is not

always known who the other contenders are.

(iv)

Keeping the fact of (iii) above and a larger time frame in mind, we request the

Designated Authority to continue with the Anti Dumping_Duty

on HTS

catalyst as, in the absence of the Anti Dumping Duty, HTAS will once again

resort to selling their catalyst at dumping prices.

(v)

We request that in the event of finding yourself unable to use information

from outside the POI, you at least use the Non-Injurious price worked out by

you for the HTS catalyst and take an undertaking from M/s HTAS that they

will not supply at prices below such NIP. We are confident that M/s HTAS

will refuse to do so in the event of being asked further strengthening our

contention that their intention to dump at injurious prices remain.

INJURY & CAUSAL LINK

(i)

We have been able to maintain our market share and therefore there is no

significant decline either in our production or in capacity utilisation or in our

employment levels. However this has been achieved at the cost of having to

suppress our sales price in spite of our increase in production leading to greater

loss in profits as evidenced by the loss incurred in actual indigenous sales

turnover for the past six years.

(i)

The catalysts-wise information and the landed value clearly indicates that there is

a causal link between our performance and the existence of Anti Dumping Duty.

(H)

Because of present anti dumping auty in case ot some catalysts, we have managed

to benefit by increasing our market share as also our capacity utilisation.

However this alone has not been sufficient to remove injury caused to us as can

been seen from the sales price compared to our cost of production.

(iii)

Injury has persisted due to our having to suppress or reduce our prices because of

M/s HTAS's policy of negotiating down or quoting the very low prices in their

catalysts.

(iv)

In case of ZnODS catalysts, HTAS continued to dump and that the fall in existing

duty, the dumping margin has increased. The situation has now changed and we

are being injured by the dumping of ZnODS.

(v)

The process of recovery has been slow for us and that five years is too short a

time for anti dumping duty to have effect on the market to enable the prices to be

increased. The majority of these five years have been consumed in the legal

process and there has been a stiff resistance for any increase in price.

(vi)

There has been a significant effect of catalyst's life which pertains from 5 years

to 12 years depending on plant design and therefore 5 years period for anti

dumping duty is not sufficient to have its effect in the market.

(vii)

We are managing to retain our market share provided that if the anti dumping

duties are continued for a few more years so that we will be able to increase our

price in a manner which will be to our customer's satisfaction.

(viii)

The anti dumping duty as calculated on the basis of our cost of production at 70%

capacity utilisation is inadequate to redress the actual market injury being suffered

now by the Domestic Industry.

(ix)

The basic Customs duty has decreased to 25% which has meant the landed cost

for exporter is now cheaper allowing him to further reduce its price.

(x)

HTAS's strategy has been to quote very low prices on non-proprietary catalysts

and compensate the losses so incurred by selling their proprietary catalysts

namely Primary Reforming Catalyst and Ammonia Synthesis Catalysts at high

prices giving them unrealistic profits.

(xi)

In case of Methanation, no tender was floated during the POI. As was if HTAS

has not supplied this as dumped prices because there is no demand for this

catalyst.

(xii)

In case of Secondary Reforming Catalyst only one tender was floated during the

POI and the order was awarded to a foreign company i.e. M/s Synthetic. HTAS

did not participate in this tender at all.

(xiii)

In case of HTS we found it difficult to believe that HTAS who continued

dumping in case of other catalysts will not take advantage of the situation to

recommence dumping of HTS if there were no anti dumping duties.

(xiv)

Regarding price suppression, it has been mentioned by HTAS that it has been on

account of internal competition amongst domestic producers. As pointed out by

us, there is a definite causal link between HTAS's account of dumping and

inability of the Domestic Industry to substantially increase its prices. We deny

HTAS's contention that our injury is self-inflicted.

(xv)

We are not only being injured by the attitude of M/s HTAS but also the injury

has increased from past levels because of factors like existing customs duties, cost

of production, capacity utilisation etc. which aye beyond our control.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC, 1]

IMPORTER'S VIEWS

The following submissions have been made bv M/s Rashtriva Chemicals &

Fertilisers Ltd.. Mumbai and M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.. West pengal:-

EXPORT PRICE

(i)

The import prices of various non-subject catalysts have been provided by M/s

Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd., Mumbai and M/s Indian Oil Corporation

Ltd., West Bengal which are not pertaining to the subject catalysts.

EXPORTER'S VIEWS

M/S HALDOR TOPSOE A/S(HTAS), DENMARK

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION & LIKE ARTICLE >

(i)

The allegation regarding circumventing anti dumping duty on LTS is incorrect

since LTS catalyst is subjected to anti dumping duty even after modification.

There are no catalysts being manufactured within India today with the proprietary

LSKandLK823.

(U)

As regards pre-reduced methanation catalyst, we have not exported the same and

we have made submission that this catalyst has not been manufactured in India till

date.

In response to the Disclosure Statement, the following submissions have been

made;-

(i)

We agree with the Authority that the product under consideration is the six

Catalysts identified in the original investigation. In regard to the LTS Catalyst, we

have clearly stated that there is no attempt to circumvent the anti dumping duty on

the said Catalyst. In fact, we had categorically indicated that the modified LTS

Catalyst has been subjected to anti dumping duty. We had only pointed out that

the modified LTS Catalyst is not manufactured in India. We agree with the

Authority that the HDS Catalyst exported from USA was riot within the purview

of the original investigation and consequently, is not within the purview of the

present Sunset Review.

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

In response to the disclosure, the following submissions have been made:-

(i)

We submit that SCIL and PDIL do not constitute the domestic industry. It is

pertinent tp note that the Sunset Review has been initiated by the Authority and

not at the instance of the domestic industry. Consequent on the initiation, only

PDIL has come forward to support the Review, Hence PDIL cannot be treated as

forming part of the domestic industry, Our submission is also reinforced by the

fact that the Authority had also examined only SCBL for the purpose of injury

determination.

DUMPING

(i)

NORMAL VALUE

(i)

The exporter has indicated that there are no sales in the home market of the six

catalysts during the Period of review.

(ii)

The exporter has also provided the quantity of exports to other countries with

reference to six catalysts.

(iii)

The exporter has provided details on the cost of production for the 6 catalysts

during the period of investigation. The exporter has submitted that out of 4

catalysts have not been exported during the period of investigation and so there is

no export price and hence the dumping margin cannot be determined.

(iv)

The cost of production of ZnODS and LTS catalysts have been provided and

these are supplied at prices which covered total costs including the overheads and

hence these have not been dumped.

(ii)

EXPORT PRICE

M/s HTAS have provided FoB value of ZnODS and LTS catalysts and expenses

incurred on account of ocean freight and pre-FoB expenses.

In response to the Disclosure Statement, the following submissions have been

made bv the various interested parties;-

(i)

We agree with the stand taken by the Designated Authority that the Normal Value

in respect of Methanation, Secondary Reforming, HDS and HTS Catalysts need

not be determined as these four Catalysts were not exported during the review

period. Further, HTAS had not even participated in the tender process for two of

the subject Catalysts. In any case, in the absence of export price, it is impossible

to determine the Dumping Margin, Therefore, these four catalysts cannot be said

to have been dumped during the period under review. The recurrence of the

dumping of these four Catalysts is also a remote possibility, as has been correctly

observed by the Designated Authority, as HTAS had not participated in the tender

process / did not obtain any orders for these Catalysts during the period under

review.

(ii)

We reiterate that the original investigation was initiated only against Denmark

and not against the European Union. It is, therefore, illegal and incorrect to treat

European Union as the domestic market for the purposes of review investigation.

HTAS, therefore, reiterates its earlier submission that the Normal Value (for the

other two Catalysts) should be determined based on the constructed value (cost of

production plus profit).

(iii)

HTAS notes that the Authority has determined the normal value for the LTS and

ZnODS Catalyst on the basis of domestic selling prices in Germany as provided

by SCIL HTAS had exported only 60,400 litres of LTS Catalyst and 87,200 litres

of Zinc Oxide Catalyst. There were only two transactions for LTS Catalyst and 7

transactions for Zinc Oxide Catalyst. It is not known whether SCIL made

2943GI/2002—5

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC 11

available the details of the sales of these two Catalysts through out the European

Union in the 18 months period of investigation. It is our submission that SCIL had

probably made available selective information, only of a few sales in Germany at

higher prices, in order to distort the Dumping Margin. The information obtained

by the domestic industry from their affiliates in Germany is being used to

determine the normal value. Hence, the same should be used only after validation.

In this connection, we invite the attention of the Authority to para 7 of Annex-II

of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI, dealing with best information

available. The selective use of information by domestic industry because of their

access to the data of their affiliate company in Germany cannot be ruled out.

Hence, their information should be fully validated.

(iv)

To the best of our information Zinc Oxide Catalyst had not been sold within

Europe during the Review period. We request the Authority to verify the claim of

SCIL in this regard. We understand that there was only one order for a small

quantity of 10000 litres for LTS Catalyst. The price for this quantity would

appear to be negotiated with Sud-Chemi. It is our submission that the price for the

LTS Catalyst is not in the ordinary course of trade as it was a single source

supply, not under competitive conditions. . The said price cannot, therefore, be

used for determining the normal value of the LTS Catalyst.

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION.

DELEGATION

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

DUMPING

The following submissions have been made bv European Union, Delegation of

the European Commission. New Delhi:-

(i)

By using list prices in Germany from a complainant/s affiliate in order to

calculate the dumping margin, the Designated Authority violated Article 2.2 of

the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement which provides that the dumping margin

may be "determined by comparison with a comparable price of the like product

when exported to an appropriate third country, provided that this price is

representative,

since the list prices were not prices from the exporting

company - Denmark(the EU cannot be the exporting territory since the

European Commission was never notified of the investigation in accordance

with Article 12.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement) - and also the list

prices were not "comparable" since the Danish exporter HTAS filed evidence

to show that Sud-Chemie's actual prices were between 30% and 52% below its

list price.

(ii)

Even if the Designated Authority was entitled to conclude that the Danish

exporter had refused access to some information, it should not have

disregarded the exporter's cost information. By not explaining the reasons for

the rejection of the information and not properly conducting a verification of

the probative value of the complainant's information which was used, the

Designated Authority violated Article 6.8 and Annex II of the WTO Anti-

dumping Agreement.

(iii)

By not disclosing to the Danish exporter crucial information used to calculate

Normal Value and export prices and to determine the alleged injury, the

Designated Authority violated Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the WTO Anti-dumping

Agreement.

In response to the Disclosure, the following submissions have been made:-

(i)

Article 11(3) of the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement (ADA) requires that:-

any anti dumping duty shall be terminated on a date not later than five

years from its imposition

unless the authorities determine, in a

review

, that the expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury

This provides pre-supposes the existence of an anti dumping duty on the product

under review.

However in the case of catalyst ZnODS there was none.

Therefore, it is not possible to use the tests of continuation and recurrence based

on the expiry of a duty, which does not exist, to justify the imposition on a higher

duty rate on this product. Indeed the very inclusion of this product in the review

investigation at all is highly questionable.

The European Commission submits that India can only impose a duty on znODS

after a fully fledged investigation under Article 5 of the ADA.

ii)

The calculation of the Normal Value is clearly in breach of the WTO Anti-

Dumping Agreement. The Agreement clearly states that where there were no

domestic sales the authorities must use either 'a comparable price of the like

product when exported to an appropriate third country provided that this price is

reasonable, or

the cost of production in the country of origin

The Indian authorities have stated that there are no sales on the domestic market,

which they have identified as the European Union. However they then proceed to

calculate normal value on the basis of list prices of a domestic producer in

Germany. Given that there are no domestic sales in that market the authorities

should have used either export prices to a third country or cost of production in

accordance with the WTO Agreement. This they did not do despite the fact that

the Danish exporter provided full information on the cost of production of the

product concerned. In any event, it should also be mentioned that list prices of a

domestic producer in Germany do not take account of discounts and other

possibly significant adjustments attracted in the actual sale of a product.

Furthermore it is not clear where these prices are for replacements or new

equipment, a fact which appears to bear great relevance and on which India makes

no finding.

INJURY & CAUSAL LINK

M/S HALDOR TOPSOE A/S(HTAS), DENMARK

(i)

M/s HTAS has not been able to obtai an; * i\> for ^ e 4 catalysts

during the

period of review because of the )luid >tu&tv~n ur* account of litigeticn during

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

I PART I—Stc 1]

which the customers have always taken into account the existence of anti

dumping duties in evaluating tenders on or after imposition of the provisional anti

dumping duties.

(ii)

The arguments that M/s Sud-Chemie was not able to make any price increase

because of uncertainty does not represent the correct picture.

(iii)

The Submission of M/s Sud-Chemie that they have not been able to retain or

increase market price at ruinous price is again due to their own estimation while

offering quotations. The injury, if any, as a result of obtained orders at these

ruinous prices are self-inflicted and cannot be attributed to dumping.

(iv)

As regards non-injurious price, depending on the optimum capacity utilisation of

70% within a period is a consistently adopted practice on determining NIP at

optimal capacity utilisation. This practice has been followed in all cases

(v)

The injury to M/s Sud-Chemie is because of the higher costs arising out of lower

capacity utilisation even after imposition of anti dumping duty and it supports the

contention that injury was due to reasons entirely extraneous to dumping.

^vi)

Reduction in customs duty is a regular phenomena and that the exports have

reduced prices to the extent of fall in customs duty is incorrect. The fact that

HTAS did not get even one order during the period illustrates that the reduction of

customs duty has in no way benefited the exporter.

(vii)

As regards proprietary catalysts referred to by M/s Sud-Chemie, it is a normal

practice for technology providers to specific certain pre-conditions such as design

criteria, hardware including catalysts supplied in order to stand by the

performance guarantee of the plant.

These catalysts are not those under

investigation and hence references to these are irrelevant.

viii)

The injury margins were higher in previous investigation because of inclusion of

M/s PDIL as a Domestic Industry. Since PDIL has not cooperated in the present

investigation, the NIP would be determined on the basis of cost of production of

M/s Sud-Chemie only and there would be no injury margin. Hence there is no

continued injury nor can injury reoccur.

fix)

In a Sunset Review or Expiry Review, the Authority is required to evaluate the

following two aspects:-

Whether the dumping and injury are continuing

Whether dumping and injury are likely to recur if the duty is withdrawn

HTAS had supplied two consignments of Low Temperature Shift Catalyst during

the Period of review. One type of this catalyst was a new catalyst which had a

lower rate of methanol formation. This catalyst is not being manufactured in

India. Hence the export of this catalyst not produced in India, cannot cause

material injury to the domestic producer.

Further the attention of the Designated Authority is invited to the fact that in the

original investigation there were two domestic'producers viz. PDIL and SCIL. In

the present investigation, which has been initiated by the Authority on its own

motion, PDIL has not extended its cooperation.

SCIL is the only domestic

producer whose injury recurrence is required to be analysed by the Authority. It

is submitted that the fact that PDIL had not cooperated is significant and the

recurrence of injury only to SCIL is required to be evaluated judicially. Since the

recurrence of dumping and injury are to be not based on a mere conjecture or

remote possibility and PDIL has chosen not to cooperate, the Authority may

return a negative verdict of recurrence of dumping and injury.

(x)

It is also significant to note that SCIL had not approached the Authority with a

request for initiation of the expiry review. It is because the Authority has initiated

the review that they have chosen to take advantage of the situation. This is a

significant aspect which shows the remote possibility of the continuation or

recurrence of injury.

(xi)

We also wish to bring to the notice of the Designated Authority the submission of

SCIL that during the period when the anti dumping duty was in force, orders

were obtained either by theni or by PDIL and that the price of the catalysts had

not moved significantly because of the imposition of anti dumping duties, This

submission suggests that the prices prevalent in the domestic market are

determined by internal competition and is uninfluenced by the price of HTAS. If

at these prices, which were prevalent during the Period of review, SCIL had

suffered losses (injury), then the causal link for that injury cannot be placed on

HTAS. Hence, the recurrence of injury is again a mere conjecture. Injury if any,

is self-inflicted and cannot be considered as continuation of the material injury or

recurrence of the material injury which presupposes the existence of a causal link

between the dumping and the material injury.

(xii)

We entirely agree with the questions posed to SCIL by the Designated Authority

at the hearing regarding the number of tenders that SCIL lost and whether such

tenders were lost of the Domestic Industry. Since the alleged dumping has been

corrected by the existence of anti dumping duties, the inability of the Domestic

Industry to make good use of the opportunity shows that their injury if any, was

not at all due to the alleged dumping. In fact, this reinforces our submission right

through that the injury, if any, was not at all due to HTAS.

In response to the disclosure, the following submissions have been niade:-

(i)

The CIF price in Dollar per Litre and Dollar per Kg for the two Catalysts is

tabulated below:-

Catalyst

Zinc Oxide

LTS

FOB Price $

3.162/lit

5.12 /lit

Ocean Freight $

0.07

Ocean Insurance S

0.005

0.008

CIFS !

3.237

5.198

(ii)

We request the Authority to use the above CIF figures for determining the landed

value and to examine whether the Injury Margin is lower than the dumping

margin.

(iii)

The Disclosure states reproduces the submissions of SCIL, the Delegation of the

European Commission and HTAS. It is seen from para 4 - "Examination by

Authority" that these submissions will be considered at for determination of

injury to the Domestic Industry. In other words, there is no disclosure in regard to

the existence or recurrence of injury. The Disclosure statement is flawed.

(iv)

The Authority will recall that in the original investigation HTAS had pointed out

that each of the six catalysts was a distinct like product. The catalysts are not

substitutable and hence the injury should be determined separately for each of the

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

six catalysts. The Authority did not accept this contention and had determined the

injury by cumulating all the six catalysts together and had invoked Article 3.6 of

the Agreement on Anti dumping. In the present investigation period, 4 of the

subject catalysts bad not been exported. The Zinc Oxide Catalyst should not have

been included in the investigation as the duty on the said catalyst was zero in the

original investigation. Since there was no anti dumping duty for Zinc Oxide

Catalyst the same cannot form part of the present Review. Proviso to Section 9A

(5) provides for a Review on the premise that cessation of the duty is likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Cessation of duty pre-

supposes the existence of anti dumping duty. There was no duty on Zinc Oxide

Catalyst and hence there is no question of cessation of the duty on Zinc Oxide

Catalyst, Inclusion of Zinc Oxide catalyst in the Sunset Review is incorrect.

(v)

The injury analysis is, therefore, required to be restricted only to the LTS catalyst,

As the Authority had already held that it is not possible to determine injury

separately for each catalyst, any injury analysis based on injury parameters for all

the six catalysts would completely distort the injury analysis. The Authority

cannot, therefore, determine either the existence of or recurrence of injury to

LTS/Zinc Oxide Catalyst. Consequently the review should result in termination of

duty on all catalysts.

(vi)

We entirely agree with the Authority, without prejudice to the foregoing, that the

withdrawal of anti dumping duty on four Catalysts will not lead to recurrence of

injury to the domestic injury. SCIL have argued that during the period of review

they had suffered injury and that the said injury has been caused by the dumping.

It is clear from their own submission that they have faced stiff resistance for any

increase in price from customers. This is purely a commercial aspect and cannot

be attributed to HTAS who had not supplied four of these Catalysts.

(vii)

The submission that the reduction in the Customs duties had resulted in increase

in dumping margin is totally incorrect. The dumping margin is a function of

normal value and export price at ex-works level which are not at all dependent on

the customs duty prevailing in India. Similarly, their submission regarding low

prices of non-proprietary catalysts and higher prices on proprietary catalysts is

totally irrelevant to the issue and is without any basis or evidence. The provisional

duty was imposed in June 1997 and the said duty had continued till today. In this

scenario, it is difficult to understand the argument of SCIL that the alleged injury

during the period 1997 to 2002 has been caused by HTAS. If SCIL had suffered

injury during this period when four of these catalysts had not even been exported

it could only mean that the injury is self-inflicted. In fact, SCIL had admitted that

the injury has increased because of reduction is customs duty, increase in cost of

production etc. These are the precise reasons which are required to be analysed by

the Authority for determining whether the material injury was caused by reasons

other than dumping. In fact, there should be a total termination of this

investigation rather than withdrawal of anti dumping duty only on four

catalysts.

(viii) In view of the above, we request the Authority to re-examine the entire aspect of

injury and casual link analysis and issue a revised disclosure. It is our submission

that no injury has been caused to the domestic industry as a result of the export of

the two Catalysts. Hence there is neither a present material injury nor the

possibility of recurrence of material injury.

(ix)

We request the Hon'ble Authority to terminate ithe Sunset Rt 'iew by

recommending withdrawal of anti dumping duties on all Ithe six Catalysts.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DELEGATION OF EUROPEAN UNION,

NEW DELHI

(i)

By not analysing all factors having bearing on the states of the Domestic Industry

as determined under Article 3.4 of the WTO Anti-Duimping Agreement the

Designated Authority has violated the same article.

(ii)

By not demonstrating a causal relationship between the alleged dumped imports

and the alleged injury and by failing to examine other possible causes for adverse

effects on the Domestic Industry, the Designated Authority violated Article 3.5 of

the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

In response to the disclosure, the following submissions have been made:-

(i)

The European Commission finds the injury analysis in this case to be very weak

on a number of points:

•

Of the two products for which injury was found. Catalyst ZnODS should not

be included in the analysis for the reasons outlined under i) above.

•

The Indian authorities have defined the 'like product' to be all six catalysts,

despite the arguments of the Danish exporter. It would now appear, from the

findings on injury in the review investigation, that the investigation authorities

have redefined the 'like product' without explicitly admitting it.

The

reasoning for this assumption, on our part, is that the injury analysis finds no

injury in respect of four of the six products which should imply a separation of

the various modes for the purpose of injury analysis.

•

The findings contradicts the original finding that these catalysts are one like

product and the WTO Rules make it clear that injury must be determined for

the like product as a whole, This raises the question, whether, then two thirds

of the types concerned are found to be non-injurious, how can injury be found

for the remaining one third. In these circumstances, injury could only be

deemed to exist if a detailed injury and causation analysis concluded, that the

alleged injury by the two models concerned (in fact, only one if ZnODS is

excluded) was material in the context of the whole product range. It is clear

that no such analysis has been carried out,

•

A further point needs to be made in terms of the information available to the

European Commission from the disclosure document and the Danish exporter.

The latter has shown that its export prices to India in fact exceed it costs of

production, i.e. they are not loss making.

Clearly therefore any measure

which is added to that price to achieve an Indian non-injurious price will

identify the amount of the inefficiencies of the Indian domestic producers in

comparison to their Danish counterparts. In the original investigation this

ranged from 88% to 266%. With the Indian domestic producers being shown

to require non-injurious prices so massively above the cost of production of

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC J l

the Danish exporter, it is difficult to believe that other factors are not

responsible for the injury suffered to them.

In summary, therefore, the European Commission considers that the investigation

does not fulfil the requirement of Article 11 of the WTO Agreement on Sunset Reviews.

The evidence on the table, little that it is, would indicate that the anti dumping proceeding

on catalysts should be closed forthwith.

EXAMINATION BY AUTHORITY:

The foregoing submissions made by the various interested parties, to the extent

these are relevant as per Rules and have a bearing upon the case, have been examined,

considered and dealt with at appropriate places in these findings.

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE

The Authority notes that the present investigation is a review investigation

regarding the product under consideration viz Catalysts, namely, Hydrodesulphurisation

(HDS), Zinc Oxide Desulphurisation (ZnODS), High Temperature Shift(HTS), Low

Temperature Shift (LTS),

Secondary Reforming (SR) and Methanation Catalysts

(Meth).as also indicated in the provisional findings dated 7^th May, 1997 and final

determination dated 5^th January, 1998 (hereinafter called original investigations) and the

recommendations of which were implemented vide Customs Notification Numbers. 56 of

20.6.1997 and 2 of 2.2.98 respectively. The detailed technical description of these

catalysts is indicated in the original investigation and the related Custom Notifications.

The subject catalysts are classified under the Customs Tariff classification 38.15 and are

also cleared under Chapter 98 as project imports. Since the present investigation is only

a review under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995, the

Authority holds that the scope of product under consideration is limited to the original

investigation as indicated above.

The Authority noting the submissions made by M/s SCIL regarding

circumvention of LTS Catalyst under different nomenclature and the HDS Catalyst

being supplied in different form from USA holds that the product under consideration

has been clearly indicated with technical description in the original investigation in Para

E(5) to E(9) of the provisional findings dated 7.7.1997 and that any catalyst conforming

to these technical details irrespective of the fact that it has a different commercial

nomenclature is within the scope of product under consideration. As regards the

Catalysts which has been exported from USA, the same is not within the purview of the

present Sunset Review. The Authority reiterates the findings on product under

consideration as indicated in Para E(5) to E(8) of preliminary findings dated 7^th May,

1997 and para E(5) of the Final Findings dated 5^th January, 1998.

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The Authority holds that in the original investigation M/s United Catalyst India

Limited (UCIL) (Now M/s Sud-Chemie India Pvt. Ltd. (SCIL)) and M/s Projects &

Development India Limited(PDIL) represented the Domestic Industry . In the present

review investigation, the Authority notes that M/s HTAS has indicated that this

investigation was a suo moto review and that it has not been supported by M/s PDEL and

that M/s SCIL only should be considered as Domestic Industry. The Authority in this

regard notes that M/s PDIL has provided information on the production of various subject

catalysts during the period of investigation and that M/s SCIL in view of its share in the

total domestic production during the period of investigation represents the Domestic

Industry as per Anti Dumping Rule 2(b).

NORMAL VALUE AND EXPORT PRICE

(i)

FOR ZnODS and LTS CATALYSTS

The Authority notes that the submissions made by various interested parties and

the response of M/s Haldor Topsoe (HTAS) indicating that the two catalysts viz. Zinc

Oxide Desulpherisation (ZnODS) and Low Temperature Shift (LTS) have only been

exported during the period of investigation. The Authority also notes that in respect of all

the six catalysts, the exporter has indicated that there have been nil sales in Denmark and

that they have provided the cost of production for the two catalysts exported to India and

that they are not at the dumped price. The Authority also notes the submissions made by

the European Union, Delegation of the European Commission, New Delhi who have

indicated that in the original investigation the list prices as referenced by the Authority

were not comparable since the Danish exporter M/s HTAS filed evidence to show that

that M/s Sud-Chemie's export prices were between 30% and the 52% below its list price.

It has also been submitted by the European Union, Delegation of the

European

Commission, New Delhi that the Authority should not have disregarded the exporter's

cost of production information and that by virtue of disregarding these information, the

Authority had violated the Article 6.2 and 6.4 of the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement.

The Authority notes that in response to the disclosure, it has been mentioned that

information given by M/s SCIL is selective and that ZnODS catalyst was not sold during

the period of investigaiton in the Territory of EU and that the LTS catalyst sales are not

in ordinary course of trade.

The Authority holds that in the Review the circumstances on no domestic sales

in Territory of European Union which prevailed during the original investigations also

prevail as of now. The Authority has however received information

with evidence

regarding the domestic selling prices in Germany of M/s Sud-Chemie AG, Germany.

These domestic selling prices of the two catalysts are during the period of investigation

and are therefore considered as the representative domestic selling price for the normal

value determination for M/s HTAS also being the best available information.

The

Authority also notes that vide the Supreme Court's

Judgement dated 20.7.2000 the

Hon'ble Court has upheld the methodology of normal value computation

by the

Designated Authority and that the exporter during the period of investigation should

have provided the domestic selling prices prevailing in the Territory of European Union

for appropriate referencing and determination of the Normal Value as settled by way of

Supreme Court's judgement which was also not challenged by the exporter. However the

exporter has maintained the same position as it had taken during the original investigation

and further the Delegation of European Commission Jiad also advanced the same

argument. Though in response to the disclosure, M/s HTAS and EU have given views

on the computation of normal value, no evidence has been provided regarding their

claim, while the Authority has received appropriate evidence from the Domestic Industry

2943GI/2O02—6

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I— Stc 11

for the Normal Value computation. Under such circumstances in event of the domestic

selling prices in EU being made available by M/s SCIL only for the two catalysts, the

Authority has referenced the same for the purpose of the normal value determination for

these two catalysts.

The Authority further holds that even if the maximum discounting of 52% as submitted

by the Delegation of European Commission is considered on the domestic sales prices of

M/s Sud Chemie AG, Germany as provided by M/s SCIL, there is still a definitive

dumping margin witnessed in respect of these two catalysts

However no definitive

information has been provided by the exporter either on their domestic selling prices in

the Territory of European Union or to the third country, or else on the aspect of

discounting on list prices to an extent of 30 to 52% as submitted by the Delegation of

European Commission even in response to the disclosure statement.

The Authority

therefore holds that the methodology of determination of Normal Value is consistent in

accordance with the original investigation Para F(6) of Findings dated 5 1 1998, which

was also upheld by Supreme Court and also not challenged by the exporter

Keeping

view

the

judgement of Supreme Court, the provisions of

Section 9A(l)(c) of the Customs Tariff act, Annexure 1 to the Anti Dumping Rules, the

Authority also does not consider it appropriate to reference the cost of production details

as provided by the exporter for determination of the Normal Value but rather adopts the

information as provided by M/s SCIL for Normal Value determination consistent with the

original investigation.

The Normal Value for ZnODS and LTS comes to ****$/kg. and ****$/kg.

respectively

(ii)

OTHER CATALYSTS VIZ. HYDRODESULPHURISATION (HDS). HIGH

TEMPERATURE SHIFT (HTS), SECONDARY REFORMING (SR) ANI

METHANATTON (METH.)

With regard to the above four catalysts, the Authority notes that while there have

been no exports by M/s HTAS during the

period of investigation and also in the

preceding two years i.e. 1998-99 and 1999-2000 as well and that there have been no

participation in the tender process for exports to India in respect of the Methanation and

Secondary Reforming catalysts.

In respect of High Temperature Shift catalyst, the

Authority notes that on the basis of the information provided by M/s SCIL, the price

undercutting and suppression phenomena has been on account of internal competition

from the other domestic producer and therefore there does not appear to be enough

evidence to suggest that cessation of anti dumping duty would cause recurrence of injury

and dumping. It is the competition from players other than M/s HTAS which have led to

a situation of price depression. The Authority therefore holds that under such situation

recurrence of dumping and injury on account of cessation of anti dumping duty is not

conclusive and therefore does not consider it appropriate to evaluate the normal value

in respect of these catalysts. As regards Hydrodesulphurisation catalyst the Authority

notes that there has been participation by other exporters as well and the orders granted

to them in absence of M/s HTAS's participation and the fact that during the period of

investigation M/s HTAS has not been able to successfully get any order does not lead to

conclusion that cessation of duty is likely to lead to recurrence of dumping and injury.

The Authority therefore Uo«s not consider it appropriate to evaluate the Normal Value

for this catalyst also. As regards the other two catalysts viz. Methanation and Secondar>

Reforming, as there has not even been any participation in the tender process for exports

to India by M/s HTAS during the period of investigation, there also does not appear to be

a case where cessation of anti dumping duty would lead to recurrence of dumping and

injury and therefore the Authority does not propose to consider it appropriate to evaluate

the Normal Value for these catalysts. Also the Authority holds that it is not feasible

to evaluate the extent of dumping when there is no participation by the exporter even in

the tender process for exports to India and that during the period of investigation there

have been no exports.

EXPORT PRICE

The Authority has referenced FOB values of ZnODS and LTS as provided by the

exporter as ***$/Litre and *"'*$/Litre respectively. The Authority also notes that the

exporter has provided expenses incurred on account of Ocean Freight, Ocean Insurance

and Port expenses. The Authority has evaluated the ex-factory Export Price by reducing

the other port expenses from the FOB values and has evaluated the CIF price on the basis

of the FOB price , Ocean Freight and Ocean Insurance as provided by the exporter. The

Authority notes that response has also been filed by the importers viz. Rashtriya

Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited, Mumbai and Indian Oil Corporation Limited, West

Bengal which however have not provided the information pertaining to relevant catalysts

in the POI To the extent the information has been received from the Custom Authorities,

the same has been correlated with the information provided by the exporter.

The Ex-factory Export Price for ZnODS

and LTS comes to ****$/kg. and

****$/kg. respectively.

DUMPING-COMPARISON OF NORMAL VALUE AND EXPORT PRICE

The rules relating to comparison 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 ex-works level, and in respect of sales made

at as nearly possible the same time. Due allowance shall be made in each case, on its

merits, for differences which affect price comparability, including differences in

conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics,

and any other differences which are demonstrated to affect price comparability "

The Authority has carried out comparison of weighted average normal value with

the weighted average ex-factory export price for evaluation of dumping margin.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 1]

Based on the normal value and the ex-factory export price as determined above

the Authority has evaluated the dumping margin for the two catalysts exported to India as

follows:-

Catalysts

Zinc

Oxide

Desulpherisation

(ZnODS)

Low

Temperature

Shift(LTS)

Normal Value

$/kR

***

Export Price

$/kg.

***

**•

Dumping

Margin(%)

146.7

240.7

The above dumping margins are above the de-minimus limits

INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK

The Authority notes that as per Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as

amended in 1995 " the anti dumping duty imposed under this section shall, unless

revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such

imposition:

Provides further that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that

tls; cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and

injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period

of five years and such further period shall commence from the date of order of such

extension:

Provided further that where a review initiated before the expiry of the aforesaid

period of five years has not come to a conclusion before such expiry, the anti dumping

duty may continue to remain in force pending the outcome of such a review for a further

period not exceeding one year".

Also under Rule 11 supra, Annexure-II, when a finding of injury is arrived at,

such finding shall involve determination of the injury to the domestic industry,

1 . ..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

lumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a

ignificant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the

1 ke article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to

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

significant degree.

For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic

i dustry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry as production,

capacity utilisation, sales quantum, stock, profitability, net sales realisation, the

magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with

/ nnexure II(iv) of the rules supra.

Since under the present investigation it is to be evaluated as to whether cessation

of anti dumping duties would lead to continuance or recurrence of dumping and injury,

the Authority has considered appropriate injury parameters as indicated in Annexure

II(iv) of the Rules supra to evaluate this aspect.

The Authority observes the various economic parameters pertaining to the six

catalysts for the Domestic Industry as under: -

(a)

Production

(KB)

Domestic Sales

(Kg)

Imports

from

Denmark (Kg.)

Minimum

known demand

(Kg.)

imports

from

Denmark in the

known demand

1998-99

804373

738444

236225

974669

24.24

1999-2000

556606

396531

36950

433481

8.53

POI

947561

950668

180880

1273548

14.21

POI

(Annualized)

631707.3

633778.7

120586.7

849032

14.21

(b)

The catalyst-wise exports by M/s HTAS are as follows:-

(inKcs)

Catalysts

HDS

ZnODS

HTS

LTS

Meth

Total

1998-99

164170

72055

236225

1999-00

36950

POI (18 months)

110620

70260

180880

(c)

The Authority notes that the Net Sales Realisation in Rs/kg. of the subject catalysts

has been below the NIP in Rs/kg during the POI.

(d)

The Authority notes that in respect of ZnODS catalyst since in the original

investigation there was no anti dumping duty imposed under Chapter 38 and also

under Chapter 98 category. The arguments made by exporter viz. M/s HTAS and

EU regarding the fact that the Sunset Review presupposes the existence of anti

dumping duty holds merit especially when all the six catalysts are not

interchangeable and substitutable and therefore the Authority holds the test of

cessation of anti dumping duty which presupposes the existence of anti dumping

duty cannot be applied for this catalyst and therefore does not recommend

imposition of any new anti dumping duty on this catalyst.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA*. EXTRAORDINARY

[PART I—SEC. 11

(e)

As regards LTS catalyst, the Authority holds that as per the evidence made

available by the Domestic Industry, the imports of this catalyst have taken place

under Chapter 38 category only. The % share of LTS in total known demand was

7.4% in 1098-99 which decreased to 5.52% in POI. The Authority has evaluated

landed value in Rs/kg for this catalyst as also requested by M/s SCIL. This

landed value when compared with the Non-Injurious Price in $/kg implies that

there is no price undercutting on account of dumped imports of this catalyst and

therefore the Authority holds that m this case, the cessation of anti dumping duty

would not lead to continuance and recurrence of injury. The Authority therefore

does not recommend continuance of-anti dumping duty on this catalyst.

(f)

As regards the other four catalysts, viz. HDS, HTS, Meth. and SR, the Authority

notes that there has either been no participation by M/s HTAS viz. in case of

Meth. and SR and as regards the other two catalysts viz HDS and HTS, the price

undercutting has been on account of players other than M/s HTAS thus therefore

does not imply any causal link between the phenomena of price undercutting and

the participation by the exporter in ithe tender process. The Authority notes that it

has been mentioned by M/s SCIL tlliat 39 tenders were evaluated pertaining to the

supply of subject catalysts by the user industry during the period of investigation

of which 19 were obtained by M/s SCIL, 8 by M/s PDIL and 12 by foreign

suppliers including 8 by M/s HTAS. The Authority also notes that in respect of

HDS catalyst, M/s Synetix had obttiimed an order when there was no participation

by M/s HTAS. Also in respect of HTS, the orders were placed on M/s PDIL

when M/s HTAS did not participate;. The Authority notes that there are no

exports of these 4 catalysts during t he period of investigation and also in the

preceding two years i.e. 1998-99 and V 999-2000..

(g)

The above economic indicators imply that the cessation of ami dumping duty on

the subject catalysts will not lead to continuance or recurrence of dumping and

injury to the Domestic Industry and therefore the Authority recommends

discontinuance of the anti dumping duty on all the subject catalysts.

LANDED VALUE

The landed value has been determined for the subject goods after adding on

weighted average CIF export price, the applica ble level of custom duties (except duties

levied under Section 3, 3A, 8B, 9, 9A) and one p>ercent towards landing charges.

CONCLUSIONS:

It is seen, after considering the foregoing thfttt

(a)

The catalysts viz. ZnODS and LTS in all fornts originating in or exported from

the subject country have been exported to Ii idia below its normal value;.

vb)

The various economic indicators and injury parameters imply that the cessatio. of anti

dumping duty on the subject catalysts will not lead to continuance or recun^/.;2 of

dumping and injury and therefore the Authority recommends discontinuance of

;

dumping duty on all the six catalysts viz, Hydrodesulphurisation (HDS), Zinc Oxide

Desulphurisation (ZnODS),

High Temperature Shift (HTS), Low Temperature

Shift (LTS), Secondary Reforming (SR) amd Methanation (Meth.) exported to India

from Denmark,

(c)

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

Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Act supra.

L V SAPTHARISHI, Designated Authority

and Addl Secy.

Printed b\ the Manager, Govt ot India Press, Ring Road, Mayapun, New DUhi-110064

and Punished by the Controller of Publication;, Delhi-1 10054—2002