WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/N/8/IND/12
19 February 2003
(03-1051)
Committee on Safeguards Original:  English
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(B) OF THE
AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS ON FINDING A SERIOUS INJURY
OR THREAT THEREOF CAUSED BY INCREASED IMPORTS
INDIA
The following communication, dated 10 February 2003, has been received from the
Permanent Mission of India.
_______________
1. Please refer to this Mission’s letter dated 3 June 2002 forwarding therewith a copy of Notice
(Notification No. No.SG/INV/2/2002 dated 27 May 2002) of initiation of a safeguard investigation by
the Director General (Safeguards) on imports of Vegetable Oils (Edible grade) into India.  This
notification under Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards was circulated as document
G/SG/N/6/IND/13.
2. I now forward herewith a copy of the final findings (Notification No. SG/INV/2/2002 dated
23 January 2003) of this investigation by the Director General (Safeguards).G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 2
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (SAFEGUARDS)
ROOM NO.139, C.R.BUILDING, I.P.ESTATE
NEW DELHI
F.No.SG/INV/2/2002        Dated:  23 January 2003
NOTIFICATION
Subject: Safeguard investigation concerning imports of Vegetable Oils (edible grade) into
India - Final Findings.
Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Customs Tariff (Identification and
Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997 thereof.
A. PROCEDURE
The Notice of Initiation of safeguard investigation concerning imports of Vegetable
Oils(edible grade) into India was issued on 27.5.2002 and was published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary on 13.6.2002. A copy of the notice along with the application by The Solvent
Extractors' Association of India, Mumbai (SEAI)  and questionnaire was also sent to all known
interested parties including the applicants, ex porters, importers, exporting governments and
associations representing the overseas/domestic producers of vegetable oils (edible grade).  They wereasked to submit their response by 12 July 2002. Request for extension of time to submit their reply
was made by some of the interested parties. Keeping their request in mind and the need to complete
the investigation within the statutory period, requisite extension was granted and the parties were
informed that they may make their views also known at the time of public hearing.
Replies to the Notice dated 27.5.2002 and to the questionnaire were received from the
following parties:
1. Dhara Vegetable Oil and Foods Company Ltd., Vadodara
2. Federation of Oilseeds Co-operatives & Growers of India, Bangalore (FECOG)
3. Mehsana Regional Telibiya Utpada k Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Jagudan-382710
4. Solvent Extractors' Association of Punjab, Amritsar5. All India Oils & Seeds Foreign Trade Association, Calcutta
6. Ruchi Worldwide Ltd., New Delhi.
7. Madhya Pradesh Glychem Industries Ltd., Indore
8. Sethia Oil Industries Ltd., Calcutta
9. All India Cottonseed Crushers' Association, Mumbai10. The Gujarat Oilseeds & Extraction Industries Association, Rajkot
11. Eastern India Oil Industry & Trade Association, Calcutta
12. M.P.State Co-operative Oil-seed Growers' Federation Ltd., Bhopal.
13. L.S.P.Agro Ltd., Salem
14. Indian Vanaspati Producers' Association, New Delhi.15. Rajasthan State Co-operative Oilseed Growers' Federation Ltd., Jaipur
16. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd., Chennai
17. Jharkhand Vanaspati & Oil Manufacturers' Association, Dhanbad
18. Andhra Pradesh Rice Bran Solvent Extractors' Association, Vijayawada
19. Mahavir Vanaspati Company, Ludhiana.20. Kissan Fats Ltd., Ferozepur (Punjab)
21. Bhatinda Chemicals Ltd., Bathinda
22. Bhagwati Refineries Pvt. Ltd., Pachora-424201
23. Anand Mohata Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., NagpurG/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 3
24. Dharamsi & Dharamsi Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Jalgaon
25. S.K.Oil Industries, Jalgaon.
26. Kohinoor Feeds & Fats Ltd., Nanded.
27. Prakash Soya Ltd., Indore
28. Prakash Solvex, Indore29. Departemen Perindustrian Dan Perdagangan, Jakarta (Indonesia)
30. Suruhanjaya Tinggi Malaysia, New Delhi. (Malaysian High Commission)
31. The Soybean Processors Association of India, Indore
32. Sai Smaran Oil Refinery Ltd., Nanded
33. ABIOVE, Brazil
34. Radhekrishna Extractions Ltd., Sangli (Maharashtra)
35. International Association of Seed Crushers (IASC), U.K.36. CIARA, Argentina
37. Govt. of Romania
38. Govt. of Argentina
39. Manav Kalyan Samiti, Etah (U.P.)
40. Solvent Extractors' Association of India, Mumbai41. Shivani Oil Mills, Sangli
42. Govt. of Brazil
43. National Oil Seeds Processors Association, United States (NOPA)
44. Mantora Agro Industries Ltd., Kanpur
45. The Vanaspati Manufacturers' A ssociation of India, New Delhi
46. Canadian Oilseed Processors Association, Canada
47. Tamilnadu & Pondicherry Solvent Extractors' Association, Trichy
48. Gujarat Oil Refiners Association, Ahamadabad
49. Andhra Pradesh Oil Millers' Association Ltd., Hyderabad
50. The Bombay Commodity Exchange Ltd., Mumbai51. Regional Oilseeds Growers' Cooperative Union Ltd., Bharatpur
52. The Kurnool Oil Millers Association, Kurnool (A.P.)
53. Worldwide Commodities Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
54. Indian Vegetable Oil Processors' Association, Mumbai
55. S.S.D.Refinery Pvt. Ltd., Jalna
56. Arjuna Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd., Dhanore
57. Siddaganga Oil Extractions Ltd., Rajkot58. Raviprakash Refineries Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka
59. Elite Tradex Pvt. Ltd., Pune.
60. Patum Vegetable Oil Co. Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand
61. Dayal Agro Products Ltd., Akola
62. Wilmar Edible Oils SDN.BHD. Penang, Malaysia63. Branded Edible Oils Manufacturers Association, Mumbai
64. Govt. of Canada
Verification of the information considered necessary for the investigation was done at the
premises of M/s Premier Industries Ltd, Dewas and M/s Vippy Industries Ltd, Dewas.  The outcomeof investigations was conveyed to the applicant and a copy of the investigation report was also placed
in the Public File.
 A Public Hearing was given to all interested parties on 25.11.2002, notice for which was sent
on 21.10.2002.  During the Public Hearing the interested parties were requested to file their writtensubmission of oral arguments made by them by 2.12.2002, collect copies of replies filed by others on
3.12.2002.and to file rebuttals if any, by 13.12.2002.
The following parties attended the public hearing:G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 4
1. The Solvent Extractors' Association of India, Mumbai*
2. Dhara Vegetable Oil and Foods Company Ltd., Vadodara
3. Indian Vanaspati Producers' Association, New Delhi.
4. ABIOVE, Brazil*5. CIARA, Argentina*
6. Government of Romania**
7. Government of Argentina**
8. Government of the United States**
9. Government of Indonesia**
10. Government of Malaysia**
11. Government of Brazil**12. National Oil Seeds Processors Association, United States*
13. The Vanaspati Manufacturers' A ssociation of India, New Delhi
14. Govt. of Canada**
15. Indian Vegetable Oil Processors' Association, Mumbai*
16. Delegation of the European Union in India, New Delhi17. Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council, New Delhi
18. Ministry of Primary Industries, Malaysia
19. Uttaranchal Solvent Extrac tors' Association, Rudrapur
20. Solvent Extractors' Association of Punjab, Amritsar
21. Central Organisation for Oil Industry and Trade, New Delhi22. Regional Oil Seeds Growers co-operative Union, Bharatpur
*Through Counsel
** Through their Embassy/High Commission at New Delhi
B. VIEWS OF THE APPLICANTS (SEAI) THEY HAVE STATED MAINLY THE
FOLLOWING
(i) Vegetable Oils of Edible Grade includes So yabeen Oil Groundnut Oil, Palm Oil, Palmolein
and Palm Kernel Oil, Sunflower Oil Kardi/ Safflower Oil, Coconut Oil, Rape-seed Oil
(Mustard), Rice Bran Oil, Sesame Oil, Salseed Oil, Kokum Seed Oil and other vegetable oil
of edible grade. It includes both crude oil as well as refined oil but excludes hydrogenated oilsor vanaspati.
(ii) The vegetable oil producers in India comprise of over 15,000 oil mills, 600 solvent extraction
units and 400 refining units. Collection of unit-wise data from over 16,000 units would be a
herculean task.  As the number of units are too large, the application has been made by SEAIon behalf of the Indian Vegetable Oil industry as a whole.  Fixed Vegetable Oils obtained by
pressure shall be considered as 'crude', if they have undergone no processing other than
decantation, centrifugation, filtration, provided that, in order to separate the oils from solid
particles only mechanical force, such as gravity, pressure or centrifugal force, has been
employed, excluding any absorption filtering pr ocess, fractionation or any other physical or
chemical process.  If obtained by extraction, an  oil shall continue to be considered to be
'crude', provided it has undergone no change in colour, odour, or taste when compared with
the corresponding oil obtained by pressure.  Vegetable oils may be 'refined' or 'purified' by
clarifying, washing, filtering, decolourising, deacidifying or deodorizing processes.
(iii) Vegetable oils of edible grade are used as cooking medium, for salad dressing and for making
a number of food products such as margarine, diet ary supplements, etc.  A particular oil may
be preferred for making certain specific recipes.  However, there is a high degree of inter-
changeability between various vegetable oils.  Depending upon taste and other preferences ofG/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 5
individual households, different households may use different oils for almost similar cooking
purposes or for making the same recipe.  Price is also a major consideration in the choice of
oil used in an Indian household.
(iv) Import duty structure on vegetable oils is characterised by Fixed Tariff Value for certain
items, Tariff Rate Quotas on certain oils; Customs Tariff on all categories of oils read with the
relevant exemption notifications, if any;  Bound rates committed to WTO; and other import
restrictions.  Further, India has also given commitments to WTO binding the tariff on certain
types of oils.  Government has also prescribed the tariff values for the purposes of imposing
customs tariff on Crude Palm Oil, RBD Pa lm, RBD Palmolein and Crude Palm Olein.
(v) The refined oil imported in bulk is being sold in tankers to packers.  They pack in 15 Kg tin,
5 Kg tin, 5 Kg. Jar, 1-2 Kg pouch for sale to consumers.  The crude oil imported is first
refined by the local refiners.  Either they pack or sell to packers for further small packing for
consumers.  Crude oil like CPO, degummed Soyabean oil etc., are purchased by Vanaspati
manufacturers also to make Vanaspati (hydrogenated oil).
(vi) SEAI has an extensive databank meticulously developed over several decades.  SEAI Data
bank covers vegetable oils of edible grade.  SEAI also publishes the data from its databank
periodically. In this application, in addition to the data available on the SEAI databank,
DGCIS Statistics, data published in international trade journals like Oil World Annual:  2001,
data published by the Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture,Government of India, etc have been used.  The data furnished unless other wise specified the
year means 'Oil-Year' which runs from November to October.
(vii) Import of edible oils have increased from a mere 2.00 lakh MT in the oil-year 1992-93 to a
massive 48.3 lakh MT in the oil-year 2000-01.  The increase in the past three years is awhopping 132 per cent.  Import of edible oils during the oil year 1999-2000 was only
Rs.6733.13 crores.  It increased to Rs.7012.89 crores during the oil-year 2000-2001.  In the
reputed international publication 'Oil World Annual : 2001' the Quantity of vegetable oils
imported into India have registered a 3.5 times increase between 1996 and 2000 i.e. from
15.14 lakh MT to 49.20 lakh MT.
(viii) The vegetable oil market size was 70.1 lakh MT in the year 1992-93.  In the last decade, the
market grew continuously to reach 113.0 lakh MT in the year 1998-99.  Thereafter, the
market went down marginally to 108.2 lakh MT in 1999-00 and further to 106.4 lakh MT in
2000-01. On the other hand, domestic production of vegetable oils has come down from 68.1
lakh MT in 1992-93 to 58.1 lakh MT in 2000-01 - a fall of 10 lakh MT [15 per cent]. Overall
market size has grown by 36.4 lakh MT between 1992-93 and 2000-01 - an increase of about52 per cent.  In such an expanding market, the share of domestic production has come down
in absolute terms.  On relative terms, the share of domestic industry has come down from
97 per cent in 1992-93 to a mere 55 per cent in 2000-01. Even if one considers the last
4 years, the share of domestic industry has come down from 77 per cent in 1997-98 to 55 per
cent in 2000-01.  The market share of domestic industry has fallen continuously year-after-year throughout the last decade .
(ix) The factors that could be attributed to increased imports inter alia are removal of the
Quantitative Restrictions on import of edible oils in the mid-90s, bringing down the customs
duties progressively from 65 per cent to 15 per cent during the period 1994-95 to 1999-2000. India is an extremely price sensitive market.  When the duty rates came down, imports
became highly competitive to the domestic vegetable oil industry and the imports increased
manifold between 1994-95 and 1999-2000.  In a single year 1998-99, quantity of imports
more than doubled to reach 43.9 lakh MT compared to a mere 20.8 lakh MT in the year 1997-G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 6
98.  Coupled with the reduction in customs tariff, the international prices of edible oils also
fell down dramatically during the last three Oil years [Oct. 1998-Nov. 1999 to Oct. 2000-
Nov. 2001].  Government of India responded to this alarming trend by increasing the customs
tariff.  In December 1999, it increased the rates from 15 per cent to 35 per cent.  In
November 2001, tariff was increased again from 35 per cent to 65 per cent.  However, theincreases in the customs tariff were not commensu rate with the fall in international prices.
Despite the increases in customs tariff, imports continued to increase steadily.  Global excess
supply over demand also contributed to significant price depression in the international
markets.
(x) The domestic industry is operating at about 25 per cent to 30 per cent capacity.  Edible
vegetable oils have a short shelf-life.  There is no significant difference between quantitiessold and quantities produced.  Therefore, production data itself is a fairly good indicator of
domestic sale.  Further, as no reliable data relating to sales quantities is available, production
quantities have been taken as sales quantities.
(xi) The sales of the domestic industry has come down from 69.1 lakh MT in the year 1998-99 to
58.1 lakh MT during 2000-01.  The domestic Sale Prices have come down drastically.  In
fact, the Annual Average prices of most of the edible oils at Mumbai market for the year 2000
were significantly lower than the prices that prevailed in 1991.  When the prices of all other
commodities have sky rocketed during the past decade, prices of edible oils alone have defied
the trend and have registered an absolute fall.  Had the prices followed the wholesale priceindex, the current level of prices would have been far higher.  The Annual Average Prices
[AAP] of vegetable oils except Groundnut oil have come down quite significantly during the
last 10 years.  In fact, even the 10 year average prices are much higher than AAP for the year
2000.  As the per unit realisation of the domestic industry is far less than what it was 10 years
ago, existence of severe price depression is obvious.  Such a price depression could have beencaused only by the low priced imports from abroad.  Otherwise, AAP could not have been so
low compared to 10-year average prices.  The import prices are far too low compared to
domestic prices forcing the domestic industry to operate at self-destructive levels of prices
(xii) The capacity utilisation is only 25 per cent to 30 per cent for oil mills and solvent extraction
units.  Such a low capacity utilisation is due to very low vegetable oil prices ruling in the
domestic market.  Because vegetable oil prices are so low, oil industry is not in a position topay remunerative prices to oil seed growers.  Oil seed prices have remained at very low
levels, in a number of cases, even below the MSP fixed by the Government.  As oil seeds do
not fetch remunerative prices, farmers are shifting their production to other crops.  Total Oil
seed production in the country has come down from 247.7 lakh MT in 1998-99 to 182 lakh
MT in the year 2000-01 registering a fall of 26 per cent in just two years.  Lower oil seedproduction results in less availability of oil seeds for crushing and extraction forcing the
domestic industry to operate at very low capacity utilisation levels.  This is a vicious inward
spiral shrinking the size of the domestic industry continuously.  The days are not far off when
the domestic industry will reach the inner end of the spiral and will no longer exist.  Already
129 solvent extraction units have closed down as they could not survive at such low pricesand capacity utilisation levels.  Nearly 18,000 jobs have been lost in the vegetable oil
industry.  Many more units have closed down during the year 2000-01. According to CMIE
database, net sales realisation of the Indian Edible Oil industry came down from Rs. 11,352.7
crores in the year 1997-98 to Rs.10,792.4 crores in 1998-99 registering a fall of 5 per cent in a
single year.  Operating profit has come down from Rs.205.5 crores in 1997-98 to Rs.150.8
crores in 1998-99 - a fall of 27 per cent in a single year.  From a Profit After Tax [PAT] of
Rs.98.5 crores in 1995-96, it has come down to a loss of Rs.67.3 crores in the year 1998-99. 
PAT has come down by 167 per cent during the said period.  Gross Fixed Assets have come
down from Rs.2531.6 crores at the close of 1997-98 to Rs.2136 crores at the close of 1998-G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 7
99.  Value of fixed assets have come down by Rs.395.6 crores [16 per cent].  Keeping in tune
with the reduction in the jobs, expenditure on wages & salaries had also come down from
Rs.181.1 crores in 1997-98 to Rs.168.7 crores in 1998-99.
(xiii) Lower production of oil seeds is a factor that needs to be considered in its entirety.  Yield per
hectare in India is very low due to fragmented landholdings.  There is no long term solution
for this problem except improving the infra-struc ture and perhaps motivating farmers to bring
in more land under oil seed cultivation.  Prime motivating factors would include a highly
remunerative price to the farmer, which he is not getting today
(xiv) They have no information about the subsidies given to exporters by the governments of the
exporting countries.  They also have no information about dumping practices, if any, resortedto by the exporters.  They have not filed any application seeking countervailing duties or anti-
dumping duties.
(xv) The import of edible oils have increased manifold during the last few years directly as a result
of -removal of QRs on the imports of edible oils; reduction in the customs tariff to aridiculously low level of 15 per cent though the Government could have levied up to 300 per
cent on the import of major oils; commitments by India to WTO in binding tariff on Soyabean
Oil to 45 per cent and Rapeseed Oil to 75 per cent.  Soyabean oil imports increased from 0.46
lakh MT in 1996-97 to a whooping 14.15 lakh MT in 2000-01 largely due to the very low
bound tariff.  Rapeseed Oil imports also went up from 27,000 MT in 1996-97 to 101,569 MTin 1999-2000 and came down to 35,969 MT in 2000-01. The following unforeseen
developments which India could not have foreseen at the time of undertaking its obligations
under WTO:  Major imports consisted of Palm Oil which is not produced in India.  However,
Palm Oil prices are very low compared to soft oils such as Groundnut oil, Soyabeen oil, etc.
India is a highly price sensitive market and consumption patterns changed very quickly.  PalmOil swiftly replaced other conventional soft oils in the kitchens of many Indian households.
(xvi) Global vegetable oil prices decreased in the range of 28 per cent to 64 per cent due to excess
supply over demand;  Lower international prices drove the Indian domestic prices downwards
causing alarming levels of price undercutting, price depression and price suppression;  Lower
domestic prices of vegetable oils drove down the prices of oils seeds, in many cases,
vegetable oil prices went below MSP fixed by the Government;  Lower oil seeds prices forcedfarmers to shift land under cultivation of oil seeds to other crops which resulted in less and
lesser oil seeds production;  Less oil seed production resulted in lesser capacity utilisation by
the oil crushing and extracting industry;  More than 129 vegetable oil units closed down in a
short span resulting in loss of employment for over 18000 people;  The size of the Indian
Vegetable Oil Market grew from 88.7 lakh MT in 1997 to 106.4 lakh MT by 2000-01 - anincrease of 20 per cent.  However, in such an expanding market, the share of domestic
industry came down from 77 per cent  in 1997-98 to 55 per cent in 2000-01.  The imports
have occurred in such increasing quantities to cause serious injury to the domestic industry.
The sales realisation of the domestic industry has come down.  Industry earned a profit after
tax of Rs. 98.5 crores in 1995-96.  But due to price undercutting by increased imports, theindustry suffered a loss of Rs.67.3 crores in the year 1998-99.  Since the domestic oil seed
prices are ruling at or below the MSP fixed by the Government, input prices have not gone up
significantly.  Therefore, the losses are solely due to the fall in sales realisation, which is
directly attributable to the price undercutting caused by increased imports.
(xvii) Vegetable Oils of edible grade consist of different oils like Soyabean Oil, Rapeseed Oil,
Groundnut Oil, Palm Oil, etc.  Prices of one variety of oil is markedly different from another. 
A single unified rate of safeguard duty may not be suitable. It is also not possible to determine
separate rates for each kind of vegetable oil.  They have suggested that individual rates ofG/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 8
safeguard duty may be determined in respect of a few major oils and a common weighted
average rate for all other types of oils.
(xviii) Safeguard duty is sought to arrest the serious injury suffered by the domestic vegetable oil
industry due to increased imports from other countries.  It is also required to help thedomestic industry recover from the current financial crisis that is posing a serious threat to its
very existence.  Once the safeguard duty is in place, the import prices will go up.  Imports
will not undercut the prices of domestic industry and therefore, the domestic vegetable oil
industry will be in a position to recover a fair price for its products.  A fair price to oil
producers, will in turn, give a fair price to oil seed manufacturers. This will, in turn, increase
the area of land under oil seed cultivation which will result in higher oil seed production,
higher oil production and a healthy and robust domestic vegetable oil industry.  Such a strongvegetable oil industry will be in a far better position to meet import competition. Safeguard
duty is sought for a period of 4 years.  The purpose is to strengthen the ailing vegetable oil
industry in India.  Strengthening can not take place in a single year or two.  A strong domestic
industry needs higher quantities of oil seeds, which in turn, requires increased land area under
oil seed cultivation.  For this purpose, Government intervention in the form of appropriateMSP for Oil seeds and other incentives for oil seed production are also required.  Further,
increasing land area under oil seed cultivation cannot take place overnight.  Only when the
production cycle of existing crops is complete, land could be used for growing oil seeds.  This
transformation requires time.  Therefore, a minimum of 4 years would be required to make
Indian domestic industry capable of meeting import competition.  If no protective measuresare put in place, many more domestic units wi ll be closed down.  Thousands of workmen will
loss their job and livelihood.  Therefore, provisional safeguard measures may be imposed at
the earliest.
(xix) Vegetable Oil Industry is unique in itself.  It is highly fragmented and majority of its members
are in the unorganised sector.  It would be unimaginable for such large number of small units
to come together and give a blue print of wh at every one of them would do to improve their
competitive edge.  Most of them being livelihood earners, i.e. they work in their own mills
and earn their livelihood, their costs are bare minimum and their ability to restructure their
operations is rather extremely limited.  They will increase their output i.e. increase the volume
of oil produced and achieve higher utilisation of capacity.  With higher utilisation of capacity,
their revenues will go up and their bottom lines as well.
(xx) They have suggested that the Government of India should also address the following:
(a) Policy to encourage diversification of crops from growing wheat and rice to oil seeds
(b) Creating an oil seed and oil development fund(c)  Encouraging Palm Plantation
(d) Exempt oil seeds and its derivatives from Sales tax.
(e) Allow oil seeds imports at concessional rates of customs duty
(f)  Popularizing the usage of edible rice bran oil
(xxi) Oil prices are volatile both in the domestic and international markets.  The domestic oil prices
not only depend upon the ability of the oil producers and oil seed growers, but also is
dependent on the vagaries of nature.  For instance, if there is a drought, oil seed production
may be severely affected and the prices of oil seeds will shoot up.  Under these
circumstances, a fixed ad valorem rate of duty may not be suitable for the vegetable oilindustry.  Therefore, it has been proposed that the safeguard duty may be fixed as a variable
duty.  The quantum of duty shall be the difference between a fixed reference price or a non-
injurious price determined for the domestic industry and the c.i.f. import prices of every
consignment.  If the c.i.f. price is less than the reference price, the difference between the twoG/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 9
will be levied as Safeguard Duty.  In case the c.i.f. price is equal to or higher than the
reference price no safeguard duty shall be levied.  Further, imports are taking place at various
parts and a large number of importers, refiners, vanaspati manufacturers, etc. are involved.  At
present the imports are free and there are no restrictions on quantity/canalisation
requirements, etc.  Taking into account the current scenario and the fact that imports are madeat a number of ports and by a large number of persons, any quantity based restriction may not
be appropriate for the vegetable oil industry and it may not be administratively feasible.  Such
restrictions may not also be in the best interests of users and general consumers.  The
safeguard duty may be progressively reduced in the next three years by successively reducing
the reference price in the second and third years of imposition of duty.
C. VIEWS OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
For the sake of brevity the detailed submissions made by Exporting Governments, Exporters,
Overseas Associations, Indian Associations, Vanaspati Manufacturers, Oil Refiners and other
interested parties have been carefully considered and summarised in brief in the findings below.
Findings
 I have carefully gone through the case records and the replies filed by the applicants,
users/importers, exporters and exporting governments. Submissions made by various parties and the
issues arising therefrom are dealt with at appropriate places in the findings to the extent necessary.
Product under Investigation
The product under investigation is Vegetable Oils (edible grade). Vegetable Oils (edible
grade) is classified under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Indian TradeClassification based on Harmonised Commodity De scription and Coding System (ITC) as under.
However, the classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Indian Trade Classification
has been indicated for the purpose of convenience and in no way restricts the scope of the coverage of
the product under investigation.
Heading Description
15.07 Soyabean Oil
1507.10 Crude Oil, whether or not degummed
1507.90 Other
15.08 Groundnut Oil
1508.10 Crude Oil1508.90 Other
15.11 Palm Oil [includes Palmolein also]
1511.10 Crude Oil
1511.90 Other
15.12 Sunflower-Seed Oil or  Safflower (Kardi) Oil
1512.11 Crude Oil
1512.19 Others
15.12 Cotton Seed Oil
1512.21 Crude Oil, whether or not gossypol has been removed
1512.29 Other15.13 Coconut Oil
1513.11 Crude Oil
1513.19 Other
15.13 Palm Kernel or Babassu OilG/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 10
1513.21 Crude Oil
1513.29 Other
15.14 Rape, Colza or Mustard Oil Low erucic acid rape or colza oil
1514.11 Crude Oil
1514.19 Other Others1514.91 Crude Oil
1514.99 Other
15.15 Other fixed vegetable fats and oils
1515.50 Sesame Oil
1515.90 Others
Domestic Industry
The application for imposition of safeguard duty on Vegetable oils(edible grade) has been
filed by The Solvent Extractors' Association of I ndia, Mumbai (SEAI).  It has been contended by
some of the interested parties that SEAI does not represent the domestic industry.  An important issue
regarding the actual capacity and the production of vegetable oils of the SEAI has been raised byvarious parties. It has been averred that SEAI has no locus to file the application on behalf of the
domestic industry.  It has been contended that under the Agreement on Safeguards, a domestic
industry, for the purpose of determination of injury or threat thereof, is to be understood to mean the
producers as a whole of the like or directly compe titive product, operating within the territory of a
WTO Member or those whose collective output of the like or directly competitive product constitutesa major proportion of the total domestic production of these products.  Thus, a safeguard measure can
be taken either if the serious injury or threat thereof is caused to the producers as a whole of the like
or directly competitive products or to those producers whose collective output of the like or directly
competitive product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production.  SEAI, with its
members manufacturing only 25 per cent of total domestic production of vegetable oils, do notconstitute domestic industry and hence are not eligible for making such an application.  It has been
stated that according to the World Bank's data, SEAI represents less than thirty-seven per cent of
domestic oilseed processing by volume; the 20,000 "small-scale private expellers" process about 62
per cent of the output, while approximately 130,000 "Ghanis" account for barely 1 percent of total
output.  SEAI counts none of these among its me mbers. SEAI is a member organization whose
membership consists of a small number of the total vegetable oil seeds processors in India. SEAI's
own data presented to the International Association of Seed Crushers delegation in Mumbai on27 February 2002, reveals that their members make  up only 100 of the approximately 15,000 oil mills,
354 of the 600 solvent extractors, 193 of the 400 refiners, and none of the Ghanis (traditional
crushers) in India.  Based on the number of establishments, SEAI represents only a small fraction of
the domestic industry.  Thus, regardless of how data are measured, SEAI represents only a minor
proportion of total domestic production of vegetable oi l.  SEAI's share of domestic production is far
below the domestic market share found to be representative of the industry. Even assuming that SEAI
possesses reliable data for its own members, it is unclear, if not doubtful, that SEAI has access to the
financial details, production and related data of the tens of thousands of companies which are not
members of SEAI, whose information is important when considering the injury issue.  
The applicant has admitted that it is only fo r the purpose of determining injury to the
domestic industry the major proportion rule shall apply and they have further stated that Agreement
on Safeguards defines the domestic industry in the context of determining the injury or threat thereof
and not in the context of filing the petition.  There is no legal infirmity in either filing the petition or
in the initiation of investigation by the Director General.G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 11
Submissions made by other interested parties
The interested parties particularly the exporters/exporting Governments and vanaspati
manufacturers/associations have opposed the levy of safeguard duty, inter alia, on the following
grounds besides contesting that SEAI has no locus to file the application.
(i) Credibility of data base maintained by SEAI appears to be doubtful.(ii) The government has increased the MSP for pulses and oilseeds much more than that
of wheat and paddy.  The contention of the applicants that because of higher M.S.P.
for paddy and wheat, the area under cultivation of oilseed is decreasing is absolutely
wrong and without any basis.  It is only the low yield per hectare and low realizationper hectare in spite of higher MSP of oilseeds, that has deterred the farmers from
bringing more and more areas under cultivation of oilseeds.
(iii) As far as price trend is concerned, one cannot remain insulated from global trend in
prices in a globalized economy, particularly of an item like edible oil, production ofwhich, to a great extent, depends upon nature.  If the world production and supply is
high, prices are bound to be low, as they are bound to be high in an year of low
production.
(iv) India's oilseed output shows wide fluctu ations year to year and crop to crop.  Output
has invariably fallen short of the targets every year.  The shortfall has necessarily to
be met through additional imports.
(v) The government is also aware of the shortfall in the oilseed production and has been
making all out efforts to increase the same as would be evident from theParliamentary Proceedings wherein it has been stated that the import of edible oils is
a necessity because of demand and supply gap and the imports was not at all affecting
the production of oilseeds.
(vi) The SEA data does not appear to be credible except for import figures and no specific
source has been provided along with the application in support of the installed
capacity of the different categories of domestic producers. It is a case of self inflictedinjury for which the Directorate General of Safeguards cannot be forum for the
redressal.  The closure of units having excess capacities would in fact automatically
help the crushing/extractions units to improve their returns.  Under the existing
circumstances, no safeguard measure can improve their lot.
(viii) It is admitted that the imports of edible vegetable oils have increased in absolute
terms as well as relative to domestic production.  It is a very peculiar case where the
domestic producers increased their capacities to attract injury, fully knowing the
restricted availability of oilseeds.
(ix) The international prices fell as a result of market behaviour and were not brought
down by the International suppliers.  No evidence otherwise to this effect has also
been adduced.  The international suppliers have not deliberately suppressed the prices
and have supplied edible oils at the prevailing international prices because of excess
global supply over demand to meet the rising demand which the domestic industrywas not able to cater to.
(x) Low capacity utilization is not because of low prices of vegetable oils but because of
deliberate creation of excess capacities and restricted availability of oilseeds.G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 12
(xi) Any increase in prices of oilseeds would increase the prices of indigenous edible
vegetable oils without affecting the international prices, leading to more imports and
hence would be suicidal for the domestic industry.  The only remedy is to increase the
yield of oilseeds.
(xii) Imports increased because of increase in demand and domestic industry not being
able to meet the same.  The increase in imports of rape seed oil is negligible as
compared to the total imports.  The increase in imports of soyabean oil is because of
its popularity as a medium of cooking and low price as compared to other soft oils.
The increase in imports has nothing to do with the tariff barriers.
(xiii) Vanaspati being a blend of several oils, the industry uses cheapest edible oils to
reduce the cost of production.  Except for rapeseed / mustard oil which is restricted to
the extent of 30 per cent of the oils used in the manufacture of Vanaspati, the Industry
is allowed to use all indigenously produced vegetable oils and imported edible oils. 
As per the Vegetable Oil Products (Regulation) Order, 1998, it is mandatory for theVanaspati factories to use a minimum of 25 per cent indigenous edible oils in the
manufacture of Vanaspati. On an average the Industry is presently using 72 per cent
imported edible oils.  Since Crude Palm Oil is the cheapest available imported oil, it
is the major imported raw material for the Industry.  Crude Palm Oil is imported from
Indonesia and Malaysia.  Any additional duty in the form of Safeguard duty willfurther push up the cost of raw material for the Industry, thereby creating shortage of
raw material for the Industry.
(xiv) Since Crude Palm Oil is the cheapest raw material available in the international
market, the Industry depends on its import to reduce its raw material cost to competewith cheap vanaspati imported from Nepal under the Indo-Nepal Trade Treaty.
Already the customs duty on crude palm oil has been increased to 65 per cent as
against 45 per cent for soyabean oil. Any imposition of safeguard duty will make the
cost of raw material uneconomical for the Industry besides making the product
unaffordable to the consumers.
(xv) It is patently incorrect to say that se rious injury has been caused to the domestic
producers because of increased imports of edible oil into India.  Edible oil is an
essential food item consumed by all classes of people.  In our country where several
millions suffer from pervasive malnutrition, edible oils provide the much-needed
calories and nutrition.  The government has recognised that consumption of pulses
(high protein) and edible oils will provide the much needed nutrition security for poorpeople.  This is precisely the reason why both pulses and edible oils are allowed for
import under open general license.
(xvi) Many factories were set up in States where there is no production of oilseeds just to
take advantage of generous concessions and tax benefits granted by the StateGovernment.  All these have resulted in mu shrooming of factories over the last two
decade thus ballooning their capacities disproportionate to the production of oilseeds.
Oilseed crops are not the reason for their (SEAI's) low production and low
profitability, but deliberate and excessive capacity expansion in complete dissonance
with Indian average oilseed production.
(xvii) Solvent extraction industry is impregna ted with outdated technology, managerial and
operational inefficiencies, obsolete plant and machinery, infrastructural deficiencies,G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 13
over-capacities, worn out assets, over-concentration of units in a particular region and
a host of other inherent weaknesses.
(xviii) Vanaspati manufacturers are mandatorily required to use a minimum of 25 per cent
indigenous oils in the manufacture of vanaspat i.  Also, higher use of expeller mustard
oil in the manufacture of vanaspati up to 30 per cent has also been allowed.
(xix) Indian Government should be careful in this important case to adhere scrupulously to
those WTO rulings setting high legal standards, particularly relating to sufficiency of
data about the whole domestic industry, the nature of the requisite causal link, and
"unforeseen conditions."  The WTO Appellate Body has held that a proper safeguard
action under WTO rules must include a finding demonstrating unforeseendevelopments.  The Appellate Body has taken the view that in addition to the three
conditions set forth in Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards (i.e. increased
imports, serious injury and a causal link between the two elements), certain
"unforeseen developments" must be "demonstrated as a matter of fact in order for a
safeguard measure to be applied consistently with the provisions of Article XIX ofthe GATT 1994."
(xx) In essence, safeguard measures "are to be invoked only in situations when, as a result
of obligations incurred under the GATT 1994, an importing Member finds itself
confronted with developments it had not 'foreseen' or 'expected' when it incurred thatobligation."  The Appellate Body also requires the establishment of "a logical
connection" between "unforeseen developments" and increased imports before
safeguard measures may be implemented.  The phrase "as a result of unforeseen
developments" of Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 requires that "the developments
which led to the product being imported in such increased quantities and under suchconditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to domestic producers must
have been unexpected." Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 dictates that any safeguard
measure imposed by a WTO Member must be taken as a result of "unforeseen
developments."  The WTO Appellate Body has interpreted this phrase to require the
investigating agency to identify a relationship between the "unforeseen
developments" and the increased imports.  "Foreseeability" is particularly relevant in
this case where domestic demand has increased over the years, but domesticproduction failed to keep pace.  As such, the "forseeability" issue should be broken
down into two questions:  1) was the increase in demand foreseeable; and 2) was the
inability of domestic oilseed processors to increase production foreseeable?  The
answer to both questions is absolutely "y es" and, in fact, both occurrences have been
explicitly acknowledged and foreseen by the World Bank, Oil World and SEAIitself.  As such, the Application fails to m eet the legal requirement with regard to the
foreseeability of increased imports under Indian and WTO law.
(xxi) The interested parties opposing the safeguard measure have also invited attention to
the Safeguard Duty Rules concerning initiation of investigation, which requires theDirector General to examine the accuracy and adequacy of evidence provided in the
application and also the procedure prescribed in Rule 6 and 7 of the said Rules.
(xxii) Some of the interested parties have stated and expressed concern regarding the
adequacy & level of information furnished by SEAI and more so even when theDirector General directing them during the Public Hearing to augment the
information provided by them in order to allow the Director General an opportunity
to determine whether safeguard measures if provided will be consistent with
Agreement on Safeguards. They also expressed that India has an obligation to ensureG/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 14
that the safeguard measures taken are in full conformity with the Agreement on
Safeguards.  Further, under Rule 6(8) of the SGD Rules the Director General may
resort to facts available to him where an interested party refuses access to necessary
information or significantly impedes the investigation.  Disregarding the information
supplied by the SEAI and resorting to facts would mean that the Director Generalwould have no factual basis left for reaching the findings required by law for
imposition of safeguard duties.  The case of SEAI clearly falls within the definition of
an "interested party" under Rule 2(d) because it is "a trade or business association, a
majority of the members of which produce or trade the like article or directly
competitive article in India".  Further the SEAI has suppressed vital and important
information concerning the extent to which it represents the interests of domestic
industry besides not furnishing to the Director General the desired information whichhas a direct bearing on the determination and nature of the injury that the domestic
industry may have suffered.  The verification report by the Office of the Directorate
General also revealed that certain solvent extraction units that were alleged to have
closed down were found to be running.  They have accordingly requested the Director
General to terminate the investigation on account of lack of information and domesticsupport in favour of the imposition of safeguards.
Discussions
It is considered necessary to discuss the issue whether the SEAI has the right to file the
application and further whether they represent th e edible oil industry as a whole first, before
proceeding to analyse various other factors.  To consider this issue in its proper perspective, it will be
necessary to consider the entire procedure of investigation as stipulated in the Safeguard Duty Rules. 
Rule 5 SGD Rules which deals with initiation of investigation provides that:
"Except as provided in sub-rule (4) the Director General shall, on receipt of a written
application by or on behalf of the domestic producers of like article or directly
competitive article, initiate an investigat ion to determine the existence of 'serious
injury' or 'threat of serious injury' to the domestic industry, caused by the import of
an article in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production."
The term 'domestic industry' is defined under Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act,
1975 as under:
"Domestic industry" means the producers (i) as a whole of the like article or a
directly competitive article in India; or (ii) whose collective output of the like article
or a directly competitive article in India constitutes a major share of the total
production of the said article in India"
Rule 5 also requires the Director General to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the
evidence provided in the application.  The principl es that govern investigation are provided for in
Rule 6.
The investigation is thus required to be initiated after examining the accuracy and adequacy
of the information provided by or on behalf of the domestic industry in the application.  It is notnecessary that the application must be filed by all the domestic producers.  The notice of initiation sets
the investigation process on.  One of the purposes of the Notice of Initiation is to put all interested
parties on notice.  Even the parties not identifi ed in the application can respond and join the
investigation after initiation thereof.  The requirement of natural justice, however, is that response
filed by them should neither give them any unfair advantage nor should cause prejudice to theinterests of other parties. Besides, it also needs to be ensured that only such information is relied upon
in the investigation, which passes the test of scrutiny.G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 15
An objection has been raised by certain interested parties about the status of the Solvent
Extractors' Association of India as a petitioner for imposition of safeguard duty on imports of
vegetable oil (edible grade) on various grounds including that they represent only 25 per cent of the
domestic industry engaged in the manufacture and trade of vegetable oil (edible grade) thus they failto constitute required major proportion of the domestic industry.  It is relevant and necessary to
determine who exactly constitute the domestic industry in respect of vegetable oil (edible grade)
whose interest is projected to be injured or threatened to be injured and as such requiring
consideration for imposition of safeguard duty as an emergency protection measure.
While considering the protection for vegetable oils (edible grade) domestic industry, the
interest of all such segments of the industry ha ve to be kept in view. The domestic vegetable oil
(edible grade) industry as has been agreed upon by almost all the interested parties comprises of the
Ghanis, Oil mills/Expellers, Refiners and the Solvent Extraction Units.  In so far as the Ghanis and
seed growers including self consumer growers are concerned it is accepted that they are located and
scattered throughout the length and breadth of the country who crush oil seeds having higher oil
contents for meeting the requirements covering a limited area, normally in and around the village theyare located and are totally unorganised. The same, perhaps applies to the small oil mills/expellers.  In
this connection it may be mentioned that the Govt. of India has statutorily reserved the production of
oils particularly Rapeseed, Mustard, Sesame and Groundnut exclusively in the small scale sector. As
regards the refiners they are basically concerned with and undertake processing of "raw oil" and who
are opposing the application moved by the SEAI excepting the Gujarat Oil Refiners Association whohave extended their support to SEAI for imposition of safeguard duty in the short run but have
suggested a comprehensive policy targeted at increasing the crop yield of oil seeds. It does not appear
rational or legal not to segregate the blenders, refiners whose predominant business interest is import
based particularly while determining the status of the petitioner as representing the major proportion
of vegetable oil (edible grade) segment of the domes tic industry. Blenders and processors of imported
oil have exclusive interest on import.  Other segment of the domestic industry i.e. seed crushers,
millers, (excluding solvent extractors) and cultivators of various oil seeds are widely scattered and
fragmented and their experience of hurt in terms of poor realisation on their produce remains
unreflected or unrepresented.  No data regarding the production sales and price realised by this
segment of domestic industry is available. It is stated by the SEAI that due to the very composition of
vegetable oil producers in India which comprise of over 15,000 oil mills, 600 solvent extraction units
and 400 refining units besides any number of Ghanis, collection of unit-wise data from all these unitswould be a herculean task. As the number of units are too large, the application has been moved by
them on behalf of the Indian Vegetable Oil industry as a whole. After taking into account various
aspects including what has been stated above and in the circumstances I consider that the application
filed by the SEAI as maintainable and they are possibly the one who could represent the edible oil
industry with regard to any suffering that the indus try may be facing, if any, before the Government.
The ground for feeling injured as stated by the petitioner in their application, inter alia , is
stagnant domestic price for the last 11 years and their consequent inability to pay more to the seed
farmer/grower on grounds of lower sales realisation caused by increased imports at cheaper prices
attracting lower tariff rate of duty of Customs vis-à-vis the WTO bound rates.  The petitioner haslamented that increased imports have rendered a large number of units unprofitable leading to their
closure, lower capacity utilisation, retrenchment of employees and as such have caused
unemployment on large scale. It was stated by the SEAI that the safeguard duty if levied will arrest
the serious injury suffered by the domestic industry due to increased imports and also will help the
industry recover from the current financial crisis that  was posing a serious threat to their existence.  It
was also stated that once the safeguard duty is in place the import prices will go up resulting in a fair
price to the oil producers and who in turn will give a fair price to the oil seed manufacturers which
would result in increase in the area of cultivation of oil seeds.G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 16
In this case, the SEAI was sent a detailed questionnaire, inter alia, seeking details and asking
them to furnish all relevant details substantiating  the various injury parameters including  Cost of
Production of various types of vegetable oils in respect of some of their large manufacturers; details
of exports/imports of vegetable oils if any made by their members both in terms of quantity & value;
substitutability & interchangeability of various types of oils; details of closed units and reasonsthereof etc.  The details furnished by them in thei r response was observed to be vague & sketchy and
was not easily comprehensible.  They were requested time and again to carefully go through the
questionnaire forwarded to them and furnish all relevant details. During the Public Hearing the SEAI
was specifically asked to furnish the impact of tariff values fixed and revised upwards in respect of
Palm Oil and Soyabean Oil by the Government on the domestic oil prices and in particular the benefit
of any increase by way of a fair price to the seed growers.
It was stated by some parties that if the cause of injury to domestic producers was cheaper
imports, it does not hold good any longer as the import prices have shown substantial improvement
currently, due to buoyant international prices and fixation of higher tariff values by the government in
respect of Palm Oil and Soyabean oil. It has been stated that the increase in prices that SEAI was
seeking through safeguard measures is already reflected in market prices and market fundamentalsshow that prices will remain strong for the 2002-03 crop year. It has been stated that as against
requested safeguard tariff of 25 per cent on Rapeseed Oil, the price has increased from Rs. 281 per
10 kg in Feb. 2002 to Rs. 396 per 10 kg as of 8 Nov. 2002, an increase of 41 per cent; as against
requested safeguard tariff of 19 per cent on Sunflower Oil the price has increased from Rs. 355 per
10 kg in Feb. 2002 to Rs. 430 per 10 kg as of 8 Nov. 2002, an increase of 21 per cent; for Soyabeanoil as against a request of safeguard tariff of 45 per cent, the price has increased from Rs. 293 per
10 kg in Feb. 2002 to Rs. 392 per 10 kg as of 8 Nov. 2002, an increase of 34 per cent and for RBD
Palm Olein as against request for safeguard tariff of 69 per cent, the price has increased from Rs. 283
per 10 kg in Feb. 2002 to Rs. 378 per 10 kg as of 8 Nov. 2002, an increase of 34 per cent.  This was
the precise reason for asking the SEAI to furnish the impact of fixation of tariff values and subsequentupward revisions and to gauge the possible improvements, if any, in the prices paid to the seed
growers which has not been furnished by them.  
Even the details furnished by them with regard to  cost of production of oils in respect of some
of their Members though furnished at a later date was found not verifiable and no substantial details of
profit and loss was furnished by them representing the industry as a whole.  In fact the details
furnished in respect of the units did not reveal any injury to them. These details are indeed important& are an explicit criterion for determination of injury parameters due to increased imports, if at all, if
any, and for quantification of safeguard duty to be recommended.
It was also observed that the application in itially moved by the SEAI requesting safeguard
duty protection for different oils was based on the landed cost of imports vis-à-vis their reported costof production (of that particular oil) except for Palm Oil for which they had suggested an average NIP
of other oils to be considered. However, subsequently they changed their stance and they requested
that the Director General may suggest a reference price mechanism for imposition of Safeguard Duty,
if any.  This in my opinion was perhaps due to the fact that the SEAI was not able to collect and
furnish relevant cost details for any verification that may be required under the Safeguard Duty Rules.It has been stated that safeguard duties should be imposed only when edible oil prices fall below these
reference prices and that the fixing of reference prices will benefit consumers and will contribute to
the public interest.  The arguments in favour of a trigger price mechanism i.e. safeguard duty be
imposed only on imports entering at a price lower than a reference price has been considered by me. 
This, suggestion, however, does not appear to be legally tenable in the context of safeguardinvestigation as that would give it a colour of a price based measure where the low priced imports,
although not unfair, would get discriminated and char ged to safeguard duty, whereas the higher priced
imports would not attract safeguard duty.  This does not appear to meet with the objectives of
safeguard measures which encourages the domestic producers to make efforts to become competitive,G/SG/N/8/IND/12
Page 17
rather than encouraging inefficiency for the domestic industry or for the exporters.  The trigger price
mechanism on the contrary penalises the efficient foreign producers, while encouraging the inefficient
producers.  The fixing of reference prices, which will undoubtedly be higher than the prices at which
consumers can buy edible oil today, will have enormous adverse effect on hundreds of millions of
Indian consumers of edible oil, who will be forced to reduce their consumption of vegetable oils.
In the light of the above, I am constrained to observe that the SEAI have not passed the test of
scrutiny and sustainability of their application on the basis of which I could arrive at a conclusion to
determine the cause of injury and quantify the same for imposition of safeguard duty or otherwise
including quantity restrictions.  Accordingly, I refrain from making any recommendations for the
imposition of safeguard duty on imports of vegetable oils (edible grade).  I am also not inclined to
pass findings on any other matter which has been contested by the various interested parties includingthe applicants.
      (B.K. MISHRA)
      DIRECTOR GENERAL
__________