1 
 To be published in Part - I Section - I of the Gazette of India Extraordinary 
 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-DUMPING & ALLIED DUTIES 
UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110011 
 
NOTIFICATION 
 
Final Findings 
 
Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi-110011   
Dated the 9th June, 2014 
 
Subject:- Anti-Dumping Investigations co ncerning imports of Cast Aluminium 
Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels used in Motor Vehicles, whether or not 
attached with their accessori es, of a size in diameters ranging from 12 inches 
to 24 inches, originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP and 
Thailand. 
14/7/2012-DGAD:-  Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as amended from 
time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the Act) and the Customs Tariff 
(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles 
and for Determination of Injury) Rules,1995 thereof, as amended from time to time 
(hereinafter also referr ed to as the Rules); 
 
2. Whereas, Aluminium Associ ation of India filed an ap plication on behalf of the 
domestic industry represented by M/s Syner gies Castings Limited, alleging 
dumping of Cast Aluminium Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels used in Motor 
Vehicles, whether or not attached with th eir accessories, of a size in diameters 
ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches (her einafter also referred to as the subject 
goods), originating in or  exported from China PR , Thailand and Korea RP 
(hereinafter  also referred to as the s ubject countries) and requested for initiation 
of anti-dumping investi gations for levy of anti-dumpi ng duty on the imports of the 
subject goods, originating in or expor ted from the subject countries.  
 
 
3. Whereas, the Authority on the basis of  sufficient evidence submitted by the 
applicant issued a public notice dated 10th December 2012, published in the 
Gazette of India, Extraordi nary, initiating anti-dumping investigations concerning 
imports of the subject goods, or iginating in or exported fr om the subject countries, 
in accordance with sub-Rule 6(1) of the Rules, to determine the existence,  
2 
 degree and effect of the alleged dumpi ng and to recommend the amount of anti-
dumping duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to the 
domestic industry.  
 
4. And whereas, the Author ity notified the Preliminar y Findings in the present 
investigations vide Notification No 14/7/2012-DGAD dated 13.01.2014 
recommending provisional ant i-dumping duties on the im ports of the subject 
goods, originating in or expo rted from the subject countr ies. The Authority also 
forwarded a copy of the preliminary fi ndings to the known interested parties 
inviting their comments by giving a reasonable period of time. 
 
5. And whereas, the Central Government in the Departm ent of Revenue, vide their 
Notification No. 15/2014-Customs (ADD)  dated 11.04.2014 im posed provisional 
anti-dumping duties, as per the reco mmendations made by the Designated 
Authority, on the imports of  the subject goods, originati ng in or exported from the 
subject countries vide Notification  No 14/7/2012-DGAD  dated 13.01.2014. 
A. PROCEDURE 
  
6. The procedure described below has been foll owed by the Authority in the present 
investigation:   
 
i. The Authority notified the Embassi es/Representatives of the subject 
countries in India about the rece ipt of the anti-dumping application 
before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with 
sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra. 
 
ii. In addition to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra, the 
Government of Korea RP was informed through its Embassy in 
India about the receipt of the subject application as per provisions 
of Article 2.14 of Comprehensive Economic Partnersh ip Agreement 
(CEPA) between India and Korea RP. 
 
iii. The Authority on the basis of su fficient evidence submitted by the 
applicant on behalf of the domestic i ndustry, issued a public notice 
dated 10th December, 2012 published in the Gazette of India, 
Extraordinary, initiating Anti-Dum ping investigations concerning 
imports of the subject goods, origi nating in or exported from the 
subject countries, to determine t he existence, degree and effect of 
alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping 
duty, which, if levied, would be a dequate to remove the injury to the 
domestic industry. 
  
3 
 iv. The copy of the Initiation No tification was sent to the known 
producers/exporters of the subjec t goods in the subject countries, 
Embassies of the subject countries in India, importers/users of the 
subject goods in India, the dom estic producers and other known 
interested parties requesting them to  file response and make their 
views known in writing. 
 
v. The Authority provided copies of  the non-confidentia l version of the 
application to the known producers/ exporters of the subject goods 
in the subject countries and to the Embassies/Representatives of 
the subject countries in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) supra. 
 
vi. A copy of the letter and questio nnaire sent to the exporters were 
also sent to the Embassies/Repres entatives of the subject countries 
in India, along with the names a nd addresses of the exporters with 
the request to advise the exporters/p roducers from their country to 
respond to the questionnaire wit hin the prescribed time.  
 
vii. Since a large number of pro ducers/exporters fr om the subject 
countries expressed interest to  participate in the subject 
investigation, the Author ity took resort to sampling under Rule 17(3) 
of the Anti-dumping Rules.  
 
viii. Along with the initiation Notifi cation, a sampling questionnaire was 
sent to the producers/exporters of  the subject goods in the subject 
countries, with copy to the conc erned Embassies/Representatives 
in India, with the advice to fill in the same and provide to the 
Authority within 15 (fifteen) da ys of the date of the letter. 
 
ix. The initiation notification al ong with sampling questionnaire was 
sent to the following producers/expor ters of the subject goods in the 
subject countries: 
 
China PR 
 
a. Baoding Lizhong Wheel Manufacture Co., Ltd. b. Dare Technology Co.,Ltd. 
c. Danyang Co  
d. Yhi International Limited 
e. Citic Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Co., Ltd 
f. Ysm Wheels Corporation Ltd 
g. Zhejiang Baokang Wheel  Manufacture Co., Ltd 
h. Baosh Auto Parts Company Limited 
i. Chiping Xinfa Alum inum Product Co., Ltd  
4 
 j. Freeman Racing Wheels 
k. Shandong Vesteon Automotive Parts Co., Ltd 
l. Uniracing (Ningbo) Manufacturing Co., Ltd 
m. Ningbo Jinggang Machinery Co., Ltd 
n. Qindago Homeshine International Trading  Co., Ltd 
o. Ningbo Qiyu Special Wheel Corp 
p. Zhejiang Buyang Auto Wheels Co., Ltd 
q. China Zenix Auto International Limited 
r. Qingdao Donghwa Casting Inc 
s. Dare Wheel Manufacturing Co., Ltd, 
t. Hua Tai (Jiang Men) Aluminium Product Co Ltd 
u. Sanmengxia Dicastal W heel Manufacturing Co.Ltd 
v. Shanghai Jinheli Aluminum W heel Hub Manufacture Co., Ltd 
w. Liufeng Machinery Industry Co., Ltd 
x. Foshan Nanhai Zhongan Aluminium Wheel Co., Ltd 
y. China Zenix Auto International Limited 
 
 
Korea RP 
a. Korea Wheel Tech Co Ltd 
b. Samsung Auto Dismantling Co., Ltd 
c. GS Corporation 
d. Uniwell Corporation 
e. Mirae Trading Co Ltd 
f. Rainbow Industrial Co., Ltd 
g. Eastern Point 
h. MH International 
i. Wowmotors Co., Ltd 
j. Unhwa Commerce Inc 
k. Alux Co., Ltd 
 
Thailand 
a. Sammitr Bangyai Auto Part & Export Co.,Ltd 
b. Easy World Sa Trading Ltd. Part 
c. Southern Cross Enterprises 
d. WC Co., Ltd., 
e. The Rep Company 
f. Tanut Netphant 
g. Taita Enterprise Co., Ltd., h. I.C.Point 
i. Tnp Autoparts Company Limited 
j. Technet Corp Asia Co., Ltd., 
k. Hyper Silvers & Chrome Paints  
5 
 l. Enkei 
 
x. The following producers/exporte rs from the subject countries 
submitted the sampling questi onnaire along with relevant 
information: 
 
China PR  
 
a. Seyen Heavy Industries (Shang hai) Co., Ltd, Shanghai, China 
PR. 
b. Shanghai General Motors Cor poration Ltd, P udong, Shanghai, 
China PR. 
c. CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manufactu ring Co Ltd, Qinhuangdao City, 
Hebei, China PR. 
d. SAIC GM Wuling Automobile Co., Ltd., Guangxi, China PR. 
e. ZheJiang YueLing Co., Ltd., Wenling, Zhejiang, China PR. f. CITIC Dicastal Co Ltd, Qin Huangdao City, China PR. 
g. Zhejiang Baokang Wheel Ma nufacture Co., Ltd, Wangzhai 
Town, Wuyi, Zhejiang, China PR.  
h. Zhejiang Zent Auto Wheel Co. Ltd.,Yongkang City, Zhejiang, 
China PR.  
i. Zhejiang Buyang Auto Wheel Co., Ltd., West City, Yongkang, 
Zhejiang, China PR.  
j. Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheel Co, Ltd., Jinhua City, Zhejiang, 
China PR.  
k. Wuxi City Wanxuan Metal Production Co., Ltd., Wuxi City, 
Jiangsu, China PR. 
l. Zhejiang Autom Aluminium Wheel Co., Ltd., Wuyi City, Zhejiang, 
China PR.  
m. Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co ., Ltd., Wuyi ,Zhejiang, China 
PR. 
n. Lio Fung International Corpor ation Kunshan Development Zone, 
Jiangsu Province, China PR. 
o. Baoding Lizhong Wheel Manu facturing Co., Ltd., Baoding, 
Hebei, China PR. 
p. Xiangyang Hengde Auto Part s Co. Ltd., Xiangyang, Hubei 
Province, China PR. 
q. Kunshan Liufeng Machinery I ndustry Co. Ltd, Suzhou City, 
Jiangsu Province, China PR. 
 
Korea RP 
a. Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co., Lt d, Wanju-gun, Chunbuk, Korea RP. 
b. G.M. Korea Co., Bupyeong-Gu, Incheon, Korea RP. c. Hands Corporation, Gajwa-dong Seogu, Incheon, Korea RP. d. Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd., Gangnam-gu, Seol, Korea RP. 
 
xi. No sampling questionnaire was received from producers/exporters 
from Thailand.  
6 
  
xii. The following producers/exporters  from the subject countries were 
sampled by the Authority: 
 
i. Baoding Lizhong Wheels Manufacturing Co., Ltd., China PR.  
ii. CITIC DICASTL Co Ltd, China PR.  
iii. Zhejiang Yueling Co., Ltd., China PR. 
iv. Zhejiang Autom Aluminium Wheels Co., Ltd., China PR.    
v. Zhejiang Buyang Auto Wheel Co., Ltd., China PR. 
vi. Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co., Ltd., Korea RP. 
vii. G.M. Korea Co., Korea RP.  
viii. Hands Corporation, Korea RP.  
ix. Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd., Korea RP. 
 
xiii. The Authority further notes that the following were not  selected  by 
the Authority in the sampling process:  
 
i. Seyen Heavy Industries (Shanghai) Co., Ltd, Shanghai, 
China PR. 
ii. Shanghai General Motors Corporation Ltd, Pudong, 
Shanghai, China PR. 
iii. Zhejiang Baokang Wheel M anufacture Co., Ltd, Wangzhai 
Town, Wuyi, Zhejiang, China PR.  
iv. Zhejiang Zent Auto Wheel Co. Ltd., Yongkang City, Zhejiang, 
China PR.  
v. Zhejiang JinfeiKaida Wheel Co, Ltd., Jinhua City, Zhejiang, 
China PR.  
vi. Wuxi City Wanxuan Metal Pr oduction Co., Ltd., Wuxi City, 
Jiangsu, China PR. 
vii. Zhejiang Shuguang Industria l Co., Ltd., Wuyi, Zhejiang, 
China PR. 
viii. Lio Fung International Co rporation, Kunshan Development 
Zone, Jiangsu Province, China PR. 
ix. Xiangyang Hengde Auto Part s Co. Ltd., Xiangyang, Hubei 
Province, China PR. 
x. Kunshan Liufeng Machinery Indu stry Co. Ltd, Suzhou City, 
Jiangsu Province, China PR. 
 
xiv. The following sampled produc ers/exporters from the subject 
countries along with their relat ed/connected parties filed the 
Exporter’s Questionnaire/MET (in case of China PR) responses: 
 
China PR 
  
7 
 i. CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd 
ii. Zhejiang Yueling Co. Ltd 
iii. Zhejiang Buyang Auto Wheel Co. Ltd 
iv. Zhejiang Autom Aluminum Wheels Co. Ltd 
v. Baoding Lizhong Wheels Manu facturing Co. Ltd along with 
MET response of the related companies namely Hebei Lizhong Non-ferrous Metals Group Co Ltd (related raw material supplier), Qinhuangdao Dicamry Wheel Co Ltd, Tiaanjin Dicastal Wheel Manuf acturing Co Ltd, and Tianjin 
Lizhong Wheel Co Ltd. 
 
Korea RP 
i. Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co. Ltd (producer) 
ii. GM Korea Company (exporter) 
iii. Hands Corporation (producer) 
iv. Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd (exporter) 
  
xv. The Authority notes that Hands Corporation, Korea RP (producer) 
exporting through Hyundai Glovis Co . Ltd, Korea RP has not filed 
exporters questionnaire response.  However, Hyundai Glovis Co. 
Ltd (exporter), Korea RP , which also exported to India during the 
POI the subject goods produced by Baoding Li zhong Wheels 
Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China PR, filed the exporter’s questionnaire 
response along with Baoding Liz hong Wheels Manufacturing Co. 
Ltd, China PR. 
  
xvi. The Authority further notes t hat M/s GM Korea Company, one of the 
responding exporters from Korea RP, has exported subject goods 
by purchasing from two producers namely M/s Artisan Spirit Alloy 
Co Ltd, Korea RP an d M/s Dayou Smart Alum inium Co Ltd, Korea 
RP. While M/s Artisan Spirit & Allo y Co. Ltd., which constituted less 
than 1% share of total exports made by GM Korea Company to 
India during the POI has filed the exporters questionnaire response, 
M/s Dayou Smart Aluminium Co Lt d, Korea RP, accounting for 99% 
of the exports made by GM Ko rea Company to India during the 
POI, has not filed exporters questi onnaire response. M/s GM Korea 
was given an opportunity through a deficiency letter to explain the 
position. However, the company di d not furnish any satisfactory 
explanation towards non-cooper ation by M/s Dayou Smart 
Aluminium Co Ltd, Korea RP in the present investigat ion. Further, it 
is also noted that M/s Artisan Spirit  Alloy Co Ltd, Korea RP has also 
not filed complete information with r egard to pricing/costing. In view 
of the above position and since the quant ity of exports, in respect of 
which response has been filed, is  negligible and the export price 
cannot be considered as the repr esentative export price in the  
8 
 absence of response from M/s Da you Smart Aluminium Co Ltd, 
Korea RP, whose products constitute 99% of the total quantity of 
subject goods exported by GM Kor ea Company to India during the 
POI, the Authority does not accept the response filed by M/s GM 
Korea Company, Korea RP (exporte r). It may further be noted that 
M/s Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co . Ltd (producer) has not filed 
information with regard to costing/ pricing as per the prescribed 
Appendixes by the Author ity in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. 
In view of the above position th e Authority has not accepted the 
response of M/s Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co. Ltd (producer) as well. 
 
xvii. The Authority further notes that the exporter’s questionnaire 
responses filed by M/s SAIC GM Wu ling Automobile Co. Ltd, China 
PR and SAIC GM Wuling (Linz hou) Importation & Exportation Co 
Ltd, China PR were not accepted, since the said parties were not 
sampled in the sampling process.  Moreover, in their exporter’s 
questionnaire responses the said par ties claimed to have exported 
the subject goods produced by CITI C Dicastal Co. Ltd, China PR 
and exported to M/s GM India.  However, the exporter’s 
questionnaire response filed by CI TIC Dicastal Co. Ltd, China PR 
does not show export through M/s SAIC GM Wuling Automobile Co. 
Ltd, China PR and SAIC GM Wuling (Linzhou) Importation & 
Exportation Co Ltd, China PR  as a channel of sale. As 
subsequently clarified by CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd, some of the 
subject goods were domestically sold to SAIC GM Wuling 
Automobile Co. Ltd, China. But, t hey expressed their inability to 
confirm whether the said goods were  exported to India. Therefore, 
the Authority does not accept the responses filed by M/s SAIC GM 
Wuling Automobile Co. Ltd, China PR and SAIC GM Wuling 
(Linzhou) Importation & Expor tation Co Ltd, China PR. 
 
xviii. Importers Questionnaire was se nt to the followin g known importers 
and/or consumers of subject goods in India calling for necessary 
information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules: 
 
i. Enkei Wheels (India) Limited 
ii. Neo Wheels 
iii. Aakar Castings Pvt Ltd 
iv. Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. 
v. Ford India Private Ltd. 
vi. General Motors India Pvt. Limited. 
vii. Hyundai Motor India Ltd  
viii. Toyota Kirloska r Motor Pvt. Limited 
ix. FIAT India Automobile Limited            
9 
 x. Hindustan Motors Limited    
xi. BMW India   
xii. Tata Motors Limited  
xiii. Daimler India Pvt. Ltd   
xiv.Skoda Auto India Private Limited   
xv. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. 
xvi.Renault Nissan Technology & Business Centre India Pvt. Ltd 
xvii. Sai Mag Wheels 
xviii. Prestige Design 
xix.Marwah Trader 
xx.  The Automotive Component  Manufacturers Association 
of India (ACMA) 
xxi. Society of Indian Autom obile Manufacturers (SIAM) 
xxii. Sheromani Trader Pvt. Ltd. 
xxiii. Rockford Wheels 
xxiv. Sukhmani Wheels 
xxv. Sukhadata Enterprises  
xxvi. Perfect Importers & Distributors (I) Pvt. Ltd. 
xxvii. Auto Dynamic Corporation 
xxviii. Fast Track Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 
xxix. General Motors  India Pvt. Ltd.  
 
xix. In response, the following im porters/users in India have filed 
importers questionnaire response: 
 
(a) Hyundai Motors India Ltd  
(b) General Motors I ndia Private Limited  
(c) Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd 
    
xx. Apart from the exporters  and importers who have filed 
questionnaire responses, the follo wing interested parties have also 
made submissions during the course of the investigation: 
 
(a) Auto Dynamic Corporation  
(b) Perfect Importers & Distributors (I) Pvt. Ltd  
(c) Ford India Pvt Ltd 
(d) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd 
(e) Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd 
(f) TVS Motor Company Ltd 
(g) China Chamber of Comme rce for Import and Export of 
Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME). 
(h) BMW Group, India. 
(i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 
(j) Hindustan Motors India Ltd.  
10 
 (k) Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd. 
(l) Sheromani Traders Pvt Ltd. 
(m) Rockford Wheels. 
(n) Focus Tradex Pvt Ltd. 
(o) Sukhmani Wheels. 
(p) Sukhadata Enterprises 
(q) Enkei Wheels (India) Ltd 
(r) Neo Wheels Ltd 
(s) Deltronix India Ltd 
(t) Kosei Minda Aluminium Co Ltd 
(u) Fast Track Distributors Pvt Ltd 
(v) Zhejiang Wanfeng Auto Wheel Co Ltd, China PR 
(w) Society of Indian Autom obile Manufacturers (SIAM). 
 
xxi. The Authority made availabl e non-confidential version of the 
evidences presented by various interested parties in the form of a 
public file kept open for inspection by the interested parties. 
  
xxii. The Non-injurious Price based on  the cost of production and cost to 
make and sell the subject goods in  India based on the information 
furnished by the domestic indust ry on the basis of Generally 
Accepted Accounting Principles  (GAAP) and Annexure III to the 
Anti-dumping Rules has been work ed out so as to ascertain 
whether Anti-Dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would 
be sufficient to remo ve injury to the Domestic Industry. 
  
xxiii. Information provided by intere sted parties on conf idential basis was 
examined with regard to sufficiency of  the confidentiality claim. On 
being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality 
claims, wherever warranted and such information has been 
considered confidentia l and not disclosed to other interested 
parties. Wherever possible, par ties providing information on 
confidential basis was directed to provide sufficient non confidential 
version of the information filed on confidential basis. 
         
xxiv. On site verification of the in formation provided by the petitioner as 
well as the producers/exporters of the subject countries were 
conducted to the extent considered re levant by the Authority. Only 
such verified information with necessary rectification wherever 
applicable is relied upon for the purpose of present final finding. 
 
xxv. Investigation was carried out  for the period starting from 1st July 
2011 to 30th June, 2012 (POI).  The exam ination of trends, in the  
11 
 context of injury analysis, cove red the periods April 2009-March 
2010, April 2010-March 2011, April 2011-March 2012 and the POI. 
 
xxvi. Request was made to the Direc torate General of Commercial 
Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) to arrange details of imports of 
subject goods for the past thr ee years and the period of 
investigation.  
 
xxvii. After comparing the import dat a from the secondary sources (IBIS) 
as furnished by the domestic indu stry with the import data received 
from the DGCI&S, the Au thority notes that in terms of volume of 
imports into India from subject countries, data as per both the 
sources do not show any signific ant differences, however, the unit 
prices reported by DGCI&S are abno rmally low vis-à-vis the price 
reported by IBIS. Therefore, th e Authority has relied upon the 
secondary sources (IBIS) data furnished by the domestic industry 
for the purpose of this investigation. 
 
xxviii. The Authority held an oral hearin g on 3rd December, 2013 to hear 
the interested parties orally. The in terested parties present at the 
time of the oral hearing were advis ed to file written submissions of 
the views expressed ora lly and were also gi ven an opportunity to 
file rejoinders to the views expr essed by other interested parties. 
 
xxix. The Department of Revenue vi de their letter No.354/241/2012-TRU 
dated 06.12.2013 and letter No.354/241/2012-TRU dated 
30.04.2014 extended the time period to  complete the investigations 
up to 09.03.2014 and thereafter up to 09.06.2014 respectively. 
 
xxx. The Authority provided another oppor tunity of oral hearing to the 
interested parties on 30.05.2014  consequent upon change in the 
incumbent Designated Au thority and in line wi th the judgment dated 
7th January, 2011 of the Hon’ble S upreme Court in the Automotive 
Tyre Manufacturers Association (A TMA)  Case vide Civil Appeal 
No. 949 of 2006. No sooner t he change in the incumbent 
Designated Authority was in dicated on 29th May, 2014, the 
interested parties were intima ted the schedule of  the 2nd oral 
hearing for the 30th May, 2014 on 29t h May, 2014 itself considering 
the limited time availa ble with the Authority to  conclude the present 
investigation by 9th June, 2014 in terms of Rule 17 of the Anti-
dumping Rules. Even though the known intere sted parties were 
intimated about the schedule of the 2nd oral hearing, some of the 
interested parties including the domestic industry appeared for 
hearing and made oral submissions. Some of the interested parties  
12 
 who expressed inability to attend  the 2nd oral hearing were also 
intimated the circumstances  under which the hearing was 
convened. The interested parties were  allowed time up to 5 PM of 
2nd June, 2014 for submitting written submissions and thereafter up 
to 5 PM of 4th June, 2014 for ma king rejoinder submissions. Thus, 
despite limited time available with the Authority, best possible 
efforts were made to convene a 2nd oral hearing and to give 
adequate opportunity to the interested parties to make oral as well 
as written submissions including rejoinder submissions. Under no 
circumstances the authority coul d have given a better opportunity 
because the investigation has to  be completed and final finding 
issued by the Authority by 9th J une, 2014 under Rule 17 of the Anti-
dumping Rules.  
 
xxxi. In accordance with Rule 16 of Ru les supra, the essential facts of 
the investigation were disclosed to the known interested parties 
vide disclosure statement dated 5th June, 2014 and comments 
received thereon, considered relevant by the Authority, have been 
addressed in this final finding.  
 
xxxii. The submissions made by the in terested parties during the course 
of the present investigation a nd considered relevant by the 
Authority have been addressed in this final finding. 
 
xxxiii. ***In this final finding repr esents information furnished by an 
interested party on confidential bas is, and so considered by the 
Authority under the Rules. 
 
xxxiv. The exchange rate adopted for the POI is 1 US$ = Rs. 50.25 
 
B. LITIGATIONS: 
 
7. The following writ applicat ions were filed by the in terested parties before the 
Hon’ble Delhi High Court a fter the issue of the pre liminary findings by the 
Authority. The status of the said  writ applications are as below. 
 
i. In the W.P. (C) 733/2014 filed by G eneral Motors India Private Limited 
Versus Union Of India And Others, t he order of the Hon’ble Delhi High 
Court dated 31.01.2014 is inter alia as follows: 
“During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner 
sought liberty to approach the Govern ment in respect of the findings 
recorded in the adverse observations made against it in the preliminary  
13 
 findings. This Court has been informed that 40 days time has been 
granted to the concerned affe cted parties to make such 
representations. In case such r epresentation is ma de, the Central 
Government may deal with it in a ccordance with law. W.P.(C) 733/2013 
and pending applications are accordi ngly dismissed but in the above 
terms” . 
ii. In the W.P.(C) 1279/2014 filed by Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd 
Versus  Union Of India & Ors and W.P.(C) 1280/2014  filed by Volkswagen India Private Limi ted Versus  Union Of India & Ors, 
the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 24.02.2014 is inter alia as 
follows: 
“The petitioner is aggrieved by the prel iminary finding recorded by   the 
designated authority on 30.01.2014, sa id to have been communicated 
in February, 2014 pursuant to which provisional anti dumping duty has 
been recommended. It is stated that Central Government is yet to 
notify the   duty. Counsel highlights that the time grant ed by law i.e. 
Section 9A of   the Central Excise  Tariff Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 is 
one year,   extendable by a maximum period of six months, from the 
date of initiation of th e proceedings. It is stat ed that once the Central 
Government extended the period by three months which is scheduled 
to expire on 09.03.2014.  
This Court notices that by a pr evious order disposed of W.P.(C) 
No.733/2014 (General Moto rs India Pvt. Ltd. vs.  Union of India and 
Ors.) on the very same provisional  anti dumping duty notification and 
the preliminary findings in respec t of aluminium road wheels (ARW) 
was issued. There like in the pres ent case the writ petitioner was 
afforded 40 days time to make repres entations. It is stated that in the 
present case, 40 days would expire beyond the date prescribed by law 
i.e. 09.03.2014. This Court is unable to take a diffe rent view from what 
was expressed in W.P.(C) No.733/2014.  It is open to the petitioner to 
make such representation as is perm issible which shall be dealt with by 
the designated authority in  accordance with law. 
W.P.(C) 1279/2014 and 1280/2014 along with accompanying 
applications are disposed of in the above terms.”  
8. Following the imposit ion of provisional duties by the Ministry of Finance vide 
notification No. 15/2014-Customs (ADD) dated 11.04.2014, fo llowing writs were 
filed before Hon’ble Madras High Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The details 
of the same are as below.   
14 
 i. In the matter W.P. (C) 11683 and 11684 of 2014 fi led by Hyundai 
Motors India Ltd versus  Union Of India And Other s, the order of the 
Hon’ble High Court  of Madras dat ed 23.04.2014 is inter alia as follows: 
“The respondents are directed to release the consignments of 
the petitioner- company on the pe titioner- company paying entire 
customs duty and 50% of the anti dumping duty for the 
consignments received from today till the next hearing date, i.e. 
12/6/2014. Notice”     
 
ii. In the matter W.P. (C) 3022 and 3251 of 2014 filed by Mahindra and 
Mahindra Ltd versus Union Of India and others, and W.P. (C) 3023 and 
3250 of 2014 filed by Volkswagen Indi a Private Limited, the Hon’ble 
Delhi High Court heard the ma tter on 21.05.2014 and has scheduled 
the matter for next hearing on 17.07. 2014 without any interim orders. 
9. After the issue of disclosure stat ement, Writ Petition Nos. 14567/2014 and 
14568/2014 were filed by M/s Hyundai Motors  India Ltd before the Hon’ble High 
Court of Madras. As informed by the Central Government Standing Counsel, the 
Hon’ble Court had ordered on 6th June, 2014 that the DGAD shall not pass any 
orders on 09.06.2014 and direct ed to file their counter on 16.06.2014 for final 
hearing. The Central Government Standing Counsel informed on 9th June, 2014 
that the above stated matters were  heard by the Hon’ble Court on 9th June, 2014 
on a mention by the Central Governm ent Standing Counsel and the Counsel 
representing Synergies Cast ings Ltd and the Hon’ble Court passed an order in 
modification of the earlier order dated 6.6.2014 permitting the Designated 
Authority to pass the final findings and directed to keep the same in a sealed 
cover till 16th June, 2014, the next date of hearing fixed to hear the WPs.  
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DOMESTIC LIKE ARTICLE  
  
10. The product under consider ation in the present  investigation is “Cast Aluminum 
Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels(ARW) used in Motor Vehicles, whether or not 
attached with their accessories, of a size  in diameters ranging from 12 inches to 
24 inches”, originating in or exported fr om China PR, Korea RP and Thailand.  
 
11. Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road W heels (ARW) are produced in various 
sizes/diameters. The product under consideration covers only ARWs of a size in 
diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 in ches used in motor vehicles. ARWs 
other than 12 inches to 24 inches diam eter are out of the product scope. The 
goods include finished or semi-finished ARWs whether unpainted, painted or 
chrome plated. The main function of AR Ws is that they are fitted on motor 
vehicles to enable vehicle movement. Wheels for Motor Vehicles are generally 
made of Steel or Aluminium Alloy. As claimed by the domestic industry, Alloy 
Wheels are new generation product and are widely capturing market in India  
15 
 because of their superior features over the steel wheels. Steel wheels are not 
included in the product scope.  ARWs are classified u nder Chapter 87 of the 
Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under customs sub-heading No. 8708.70 under the 
description “Road wheels and parts and accessories thereof”. As claimed by the 
domestic industry, the subject goods ar e also imported under different customs 
classifications such as 87087000,  87082900, 87089900, 87149290, 87149990, 
87089400 etc. However, the cu stoms classification is i ndicative only and in no 
way binding on the scope of  this investigation. 
 Submissions made by producers/exporters /importers/other interested parties 
12. The submissions made by the producers/ exporters/importers/o ther interested 
parties, regarding product under considerat ion and like articles, during the course 
of the investigation and considered rele vant by the Authority are as follows: 
 
i. As agreed by the petitioner  during the oral hearing, the alloy wheels meant for 
2-wheelers should be  specifically excluded from  the purview of the product 
under consideration.  
 
ii. Apart from the above, t he following alloy wheels s hould also be excluded from 
the purview of the present investigati ons due to the reasons as stated against 
each:  
a. Products protected by IPRs (Copyrights) ought to be excluded 
as per the past practice and ju risprudence of the Designated 
Authority itself. 
b. Products not produced by the Domestic Industry during the 
Period of Investigation. 
c. Products not sold by the Domest ic Industry during the Period of 
Investigation. 
d. Products that is not commercia lly substitutable with the products 
of the Domestic Industry. 
e. Products that is not technically substitutable with the products of 
the Domestic Industry. 
f. Products that is not substitu table due to legal constraints. 
g. The petitioner has sought to include finished as well as semi-
finished, whether painted or unpai nted, forged or chrome plated 
within the scope of t he PUC.  It is not known whether the 
petitioner itself is pr oducing all such products or not. If not, they 
should be excluded from  the purview of the PUC as well along 
with all sizes of wheels not produced by the petitioner. 
 
iii. The Product under Consideration cove rs Alloy Road Wheels "with or without 
accessories". The nature of such acce ssories is required to be elaborated.   
16 
  
iv. Considering factors like differences in technical specifications, pricing and 
long term contractual obligations, channels  of distribution, isolation of the 
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM ) and the After Mark et segment (AM) 
segments, volumes in differ ent market segments, inte llectual property issues, 
statutory approvals and involvement of OEM in the development of the 
products, etc, ARWs for OEM and AM  segments should be treated as 
separate products and analysis should be done accordingly. 
 
v. Conversion of wheels in terms of Kg /MT is not appropriate as weight alone 
can’t be the core factor while defining the PUC. The petitioner should explain 
the methodology of converting number of wheels in terms of weight. While it is 
admitted that styling, weig hts as well as designs ar e determining factors for 
deciding the specificity of wheels, the impacts of t he same while defining the 
product is not taken into consideration. 
 
vi. The Domestic industry adopts Low pre ssure Die casting (LPDC) or Gravity 
Die Casting Technology, instead of newer  technologies such as Cast-Flow & 
Forged.  
 
vii. Wheels are manufactured in various sizes, designs, weights, finishes and 
fitment configurations. Only such product types which are produced by the 
petitioner should be included in the P UC and the rest to  be excluded.  
 
Submissions by the domestic industry 
13. The submissions made by the domes tic industry, regarding product under 
consideration and like article, during the course of the investigation and 
considered relevant by t he Authority are as follows: 
 
i. The wheels for two wheelers are as such not included in the product scope; 
hence the question of exclusion is irre levant. However, the petitioner does 
not have any reservations to recordin g a specific finding to show the 
exclusion of ARWs for two wheel ers from the ambit of PUC.  
 
ii. Classification of PUC as OEM and After Market wheels are completely 
baseless. OEM and aftermarket are me re channels of distribution and 
subject goods being sold in both the c hannels do not constitute two dislike 
articles per se. The products supplied to OEMs and After Market have the 
same basic product features and end use and both the wheels are like 
articles and perfect substitutes. 
 
iii. A wheel design can change depending upon the choice of the OEM but the 
same do not render them  a different product. Th is aspect was also  
17 
 addressed by EU and Australia in thei r investigations against China and 
concluded that OEM and AM  wheels are considered  to form one single 
product and like articles. 
 
iv. IPR is not a license to dump the material in another country and has no 
relevance while determining dumping an d injury. The TRIPS agreement and 
Anti-dumping agreement under the GA TT have different purposes and 
objectives. Copy right on design do not  render them different product under 
the meaning of rule 2 (d) of AD Rules as the basic product features such as 
raw material, production process, tec hnology, physical properties, end uses 
etc remain the same. Copy right do not  limit any commercial or technical 
substitutability of ARWs. A design is in any case associated with an ARW 
and copy right on any such design is th e choice of the car maker and do not 
prejudice the product definition for the present anti-dumping investigation. 
 
v. Possession of any copy right on a particular design does not alter the 
substitutability of the wheel. The subject goods, which are being dumped in 
India, are identical to the goods produced by the dom estic industry. The two 
are technically and commercially subs titutable and are ‘like article’. 
 
vi. The product is produced in different  sizes and different size would have 
different weight. Thus, the cost and pric e also that of t he wheel would vary 
between different sizes and weights proportionate to their size and weights. 
The conversion of wheels wit h different sizes to equivalent weights is the 
fair methodology to compare any price and cost related information. Such 
methodologies were also adopted by t he DGAD in a number of cases such 
as Steel Wheels, Tyres etc. 
 
vii. The PUC is defined to include wheel si zes from 12 inches to 24 inches only. 
Such sizes are produced depending up on the demand for such sizes. 
Petitioner has produced and sold all such sizes during the POI. Even if any 
particular size was not produced or so ld in the POI would not make them 
liable to be excluded as the petitioner has the capacity to cater to all such 
sizes provided demand for a particula r design emerged. Different sizes 
within the PUC do not mean they are al l different products. An apple to 
apple comparison is possible after c onverting the domestic and imported 
goods equivalents of  weights.  
 
viii. The argument of the interested parti es that part numbers not manufactured 
or sold in India should be excluded,  is completely skewed. The present 
investigations are concerning dumpi ng of subject goods and the Authority 
has already identified the PUC and like article subject to rule 2 (d).  
  
18 
 ix. The PUC is classified under the customs subheading ‘Road wheels and 
parts and accessories thereof’. Pres ence or absence of any accessories 
such as any wheel caps, ai r valves and lug nuts at t he time of import should 
not lead to any ambiguity with regard to definition of PUC. 
 
 
EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY   
14. The product under consideration in the present in vestigation is “Cast Aluminum 
Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels (ARW ) used in Motor Vehicles, whether or 
not  attached with their accessories, of a si ze in diameters ranging from 12 inches 
to 24 inches”, originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP and Thailand. 
 
15. Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road W heels (ARW) are produced in various 
sizes/diameters. The product under consideration covers only ARWs of a size in 
diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 in ches used in motor vehicles. ARWs 
other than 12 inches to 24 inches diameter  and for use other than motor vehicles 
are out of the product scope. The goods include finished or semi-finished ARWs 
whether unpainted, painted or chrome plated. The main function of ARWs is that 
they are fitted on motor vehicles to enabl e vehicle movement. Wheels for Motor 
Vehicles are generally made of Steel or Aluminium Alloy. As claimed by the 
domestic industry, Alloy Wheels ar e new generation product and are widely 
capturing market in India because of thei r superior features over the steel wheels. 
Steel wheels are not incl uded in the product scope. AR Ws are classified under 
Chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff Act,  1975, under custom s sub-heading No. 
8708.70 under the description “Road wheels and parts and accessories thereof”. 
As claimed by the domestic industry, the subject goods are also imported under 
different customs classifications such as 87087000, 87082900, 87089900, 
87149290, 87149990, 87089400 etc. Ho wever, the customs classification is 
indicative only and in no way bindi ng on the scope of this investigation. 
 
16. With regard to like article, Rule 2(d)  of the AD Rules provides as under: - 
  
"like article " means an article which is  identical or alike in all respects 
to the article under inve stigation for being dumped  in India or in the 
absence of such article, another articl e which although not alike in all 
respects, has characteristics closel y resembling those of the articles 
under investigation;   
17. The Authority notes that there is  no known difference in product under 
consideration produced by the Indian industry and exported from subject 
countries. Product under consideration produced by the Indian industry and 
imported from subject countri es are comparable in terms of characteristics such 
as physical characteristics, manufactu ring process & technology, functions &  
19 
 uses, product specifications, pricing,  distribution & marketing and tariff 
classification of the goods. The tw o are technically and commercially 
substitutable. The subject goods produc ed by the domestic industry are like 
article to the product under considerati on imported from subject counties within 
the scope and meaning of Rule 2( d) of anti-dumping Rules.  
 
18. The various submissions made by t he producers/exporters/importers/other 
interested parties during the course of the present investigation with regard to the 
scope of PUC and domestic lik e article and considered re levant by the Authority 
are examined and addressed as follows: 
 
i. As regards the submissi on that the alloy wheels meant  for 2-wheelers should 
be specifically excluded fr om the purview of the pr oduct under consideration, 
the Authority notes that the PUC defined in the present investigation as “Cast 
Aluminum Alloy Wheels or Alloy R oad Wheels (ARW) as such does not 
include the ARW meant for two wheeler s. Moreover, the domestic industry 
does not manufacture ARW meant for tw o wheelers and therefore the same 
was not included in the petit ion filed by them. Furt her, the domestic industry 
has also submitted that they have no obj ection for exclusion of ARWs for two 
wheelers from the ambit of PUC. In vi ew of the above, the Authority excludes 
the ARW meant for two wheel ers from the purview of the PUC in the present 
investigation. 
 
ii. As regards the submissi on of the interested parties that the ARW of size, 
design, style, etc with or without copy rights, not m anufactured/supplied by the 
domestic industry, should be excluded from the purview of the PUC, the 
Authority notes that  the PUC covers “Cast Aluminum Alloy Wheels or Alloy 
Road Wheels (ARW) used in Motor Vehicles, whether or not attached with 
their accessories, of a size in diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches” with the exclusion of the ARW meant  for two wheelers as noted above . The 
domestic industry either manufactures all the sizes of the ARW covered in the 
PUC or is having the capac ity to manufacture the same. Moreover, design of 
an ARW (including those with copy rights)  is an aesthetical aspect determined 
by a Motor Vehicle manufacturer. Thus, the design of a particular ARW, even 
if having copy rights, does not make it different from another design of ARW 
as long as both are technically and commercially substitutable within the 
purview of Anti-dumping Rules. 
 
iii. As regards the submission of the in terested parties that ARWs for OEM and 
AM segments should be treated as s eparate products and analysis should be 
done accordingly, the Authority notes t hat OEM and After Market (AM) are 
two channels of distribution of subj ect goods and not goods per se. As 
claimed by the domestic industry, t he products supplied to OEMs and After 
Market has the same basic product features and end use and both the wheels  
20 
 are like articles and perfect substitutes.  The Authority notes  that the subject 
goods sold in both the channels constitute  like articles in terms of the Anti-
dumping Rules. 
 
iv. The petitioner has claim ed that there is no known difference in the subject 
goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported from the subject 
countries. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry and the 
subject goods imported from the subject c ountries are comparable in terms of 
characteristics such as physical and chem ical characteristics, manufacturing 
process and technology, functions and uses, product specifications, 
distribution and market & tari ff classification of the go ods. Examination of the 
product and import data submitted by the applicant and the respondent 
exporters indicates that there is no difference between subject goods 
produced by the Domestic Industry and im ported from the subject countries. 
In view of the similarity in manufac turing process and s ubstitutability, the 
Authority holds that the two are r equired to be treated as alike and one 
product for the purpose of defining the ‘p roduct under consideration’ in this 
case.  
 
v. As regards the submission of the intere sted parties that c onversion of wheels 
in terms of Kg/MT is not appropriate as weight alone can’t be  the core factor 
while defining the PUC, the Author ity notes that the product under 
consideration is produced and  sold in different sizes and different weights. As 
a result, the cost and price of the produc t having different size and weight is 
bound to differ according to their size and weight. Thus, the Authority notes 
that conversion of wheels with different sizes equivalent to their weights to 
compare their price and cost is th e most appropriate methodology. 
 
vi. As regards the submission of the intere sted parties that the Domestic industry 
adopts Low pressure Die casting (LPDC) or Gravity Die Casting Technology, 
instead of newer technologies such as  Cast-Flow & Forged, the Authority 
notes that different technologies as su ch do not make end products different. 
 
19. After examining and analyzing the various  submissions made by the interested 
parties, the Authority confirms the product under consideration as “Cast 
Aluminum Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels (ARW) used in Motor Vehicles, 
whether or not attached with their access ories, of a size in  diameters ranging 
from 12 inches to 24 inches”,  originating in or  exported from China PR, Korea RP 
and Thailand. The product under consideration includes fi nished or semi-finished 
ARWs whether unpainted, painted or chrome  plated. The Authority further notes 
that ARWs other than 12 inches to 24 inches diameter and ARW meant for two 
wheelers are out of the product scope.   
21 
 D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING 
Submissions made by producers/exporters /importers/other interested parties 
20. The submissions made by the producers/ exporters/importers/o ther interested 
parties during the course of the investigation with regard to scope of domestic 
industry & standing and considered relevant  by the Authority are as follows: 
 
i. The petitioner being a 100% EOU cann ot be considered as domestic industry. 
At the most, production of the petitioner should be restricted to its entitlement 
to supply in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) for the purposes of determining 
their standing. In such a case, the s hare of petitioner in total domestic 
production would be even less than 30%. Thus the petitioner does not have 
standing to file the petition. 
 
ii. It was submitted by the petitioner at t he time of initiation that there were only 
two other producers in the Indian mark et. However, during the hearing, the 
petitioner named 3 more producers of t he subject goods in India. This is a 
clear case of material non- disclosure of essential fact s by the petitioner which 
has a direct bearing on the locus-standi of the petit ioner and therefore the 
investigation should be terminated. 
 
iii. Considering the producti on of the petitioner- Synergies  Castings Ltd and other 
domestic producers in India namely Neo Wheels, Enkei Wheels, Minda Kosei 
and Deltronix, Synergies Castings does not  account for a major proportion of 
the total domestic production of  like articles in India. 
 
iv. Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate with su pporting evidence as to 
why Enkei and Neo Wheels should be excluded. 
 
v. The claim of the petitioner that its net  inflow of foreign exchange is higher than 
the net foreign exchange outflow, which determines its sales in the domestic 
market, is doubtful. As per the annual re ports of the petit ioner company for 
2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, the foreign exchange outgo is much more 
than the foreign exchange earnings. If t he petitioner was unable to achieve 
positive NFE, then it could not have sold in DTA. 
 
Submissions by the domestic industry 
21. The submissions made by the domesti c industry during the course of the 
investigation with regard to scope of domestic industry & standing and 
considered relevant by t he authority are as follows: 
 
i. EOU status of the pet itioner has no bearing on t he definition of domestic 
industry. Synergies Castings Limited (SCL) accounts for entire production by  
22 
 domestic industry during the POI to sati sfy standing requirements as the other 
two producers are themselves importers of the subject goods and not eligible 
to form domestic industry within the meani ng of AD rules. Presumptions of the 
interested parties that the unit may not be an NFE positive unit have no 
factual foundation. SCL maintains it s NFE level positive. Moreover, the 
Foreign Trade Policy do not impose any volume restrictions on the 100% 
EOU unit for DTA sale after achieving the positive NFE as alleged by the 
other interested parties. 
 
ii. The petition has been fil ed by Aluminium Associati on of India (AAI) on behalf 
of the domestic industry. One of its me mbers, who is the largest producer of 
subject goods in India, Synergies Ca stings Limited (SCL), an 100% EOU, 
has provided all information relevant for the application for imposition of anti 
dumping duties. There were three producer s of the subject goods relevant for 
the POI. Except SCL, En kei Wheels (India) Ltd and Neo Wheels were 
identified as producers of subject goods in India who were in production of 
subject goods during the POI. Enkei Wheels has neither supported nor 
opposed the investigation. However, Neo Wheels has supp orted the petition 
vide their letter to the Authority post init iation. As per mark et information, two 
more producers also started production of the subject goods in the post POI 
period namely Minda Kosei and Delt ronix. However, Minda Kosei has 
supported the present in vestigation.  Enkei and Neo Wheels should be 
excluded from the purview of domesti c industry as they  are engaged in 
import activities. Thus, the petitioner  satisfies the st anding requirements 
under the rule and production by SCL cons titutes major proportion in the total 
domestic production and accounts for entir e domestic production by domestic 
industry during the POI. 
 
iii. EOU scheme provides a competitive footing to serve the domestic and 
foreign customer better, provided ther e exists a fair market condition. 
Therefore, EOUs cannot be consider ed as beyond the scope of the domestic 
industry under the AD Rules. They ar e very much an industry in India. 
 
iv. The present petition satisfies the requi rements of Rule 2 (b) of the AD rules 
and Synergies Castings Limited s hould be considered as the domestic 
industry within the meaning of Rule 2 (b). 
 
v. There is no export obligation on the pet itioner. Being an EOU, Foreign Trade 
Policy requires the unit to be an NFE po sitive unit and the NFE needs to be 
met in blocks of 5 years which is fu rther extendable and the same was met 
by the petitioner. 
 
vi. The claim of the interested parti es that domestic performance of the 
petitioner is depende d upon the export has no lega l footing. The domestic  
23 
 industry could increase its sales only at  miniscule levels when the demand for 
the product increased significantly and there were significant unutilized 
capacity available with the petitioner. Dumped imports caused direct loss of 
sales to the domestic industry.  
 
 
EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 
22. The various submissions made by the in terested parties during the course of the 
present investigation with regard to the scope of do mestic industry & standing 
and considered relevant by the Authority are examined  and addressed as follows: 
 
i. The application in the present invest igation has been filed by the Aluminium 
Association of India on behalf of M/ s Synergies Castings Limited, an 100% 
Export Oriented Unit. As claimed by the applicant there were two other 
producers of the product under  consideration in India during the POI namely 
M/s Enkei Wheels (India) Ltd and M/s Neo Wheels. As claimed by the 
domestic industry, both Enkei Wheels (India) Lt d and Neo Wheels have 
imported the subject goods from the s ubject countries during the POI. The 
Authority provided the initiation not ification to both the said domestic 
producers requesting for the information. While, both the said domestic 
producers have not furnished require d information, Neo Wheels has 
supported the present invest igation and Enkei Wheels (India) Ltd informed the 
Authority that they have imported the subject goods from subject countries 
during the POI. The Authorit y further notes that, as submitted by the domestic 
industry, Minda Kosei and Deltronix have started production during the post-
POI and thus any production by Minda Ko sei and Deltronix are not relevant 
for the present investigation. Neverthel ess, the Authority notes that Minda 
Kosei and Deltronix have support ed the present investigation. 
 
ii. As regards the submission of the interested parties that the petitioner being a 
100% EOU cannot be considered as domest ic industry, the Authority notes  
that Rule 2(b) of the An ti-dumping Rules defines domestic industry as under:- 
   
(b) “domestic industry” means t he domestic producers as a whole 
engaged in the manufacture of t he like article and any activity 
connected therewith or thos e whose collective output of the said article 
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that 
article except when such producer s are related to the exporters or 
importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers 
thereof in such case the term ‘dom estic industry’ may be construed as 
referring to the rest  of the producers”;  
24 
 iii. In terms of the above stat ed Rule, there is no explicit  exclusion of EOUs from 
the scope of domestic industry. The Aut hority however notes that EOU units 
may form part of the domestic industry to the extent of their domestic sales 
within the limit of their entitlement pe rmitted under the foreign trade policy of 
India.  
 
iv. With regard to the eligibility of the 100% EOU units and conditions to sale in 
the DTA, the Authority not es  that Paragraph 6.8 (a) and (h) of the Foreign 
Trade Policy, 2009-14 lays down the relevant provisions as  follows: 
 
“6.8 Entire production of EOU/ EHTP/STP/BTP units shall be 
exported subject to following: 
 
(a) Units, other than gems and jewe llery units, may sell goods upto 
50% of FOB value of exports, subject to fulfilment of positive NFE, 
on payment of concessional duties . Within entitlement of DTA 
sale, unit may sell in DTA, its pr oducts similar to goods which are 
exported or expected to be export ed from units. However, units 
which are manufacturing and expor ting more than one product can 
sell any of these products into DTA, upto 90% of  FOB value of 
export of the specific products, subj ect to the condition that total 
DTA sale does not exceed the over all entitlement of 50% of FOB 
value of exports for the unit, as stipulated above. No DTA sale at 
concessional duty shall be permissi ble in respect of motor cars, 
alcoholic liquors, books, tea (except  instant tea), pepper & pepper 
products, marble and such other items as may be notified from 
time to time. Such DTA sale shall also not be permissible to units 
engaged in activities of packaging/labelling/segregation/ 
refrigeration/compacting/micronis ation/pulverization/granulation/ 
conversion of monohydr ate form of chemical to anhydrous form or 
vice-versa. Sales made to a unit in SEZ shall also be taken into 
account for purpose of arriving at  FOB value of export by EOU 
provided payment for such sales are made from Foreign 
Exchange Account of SEZ unit. Sale  to DTA would also be subject 
to mandatory requirement of registration of pharmaceutical 
products (including bulk drugs). An amount equal to Anti-Dumping 
duty under section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 leviable at 
the time of import, shall be payable on the goods used for the 
purpose of manufacture or proce ssing of the goods cleared into 
DTA from the unit.” 
 
“(h)   EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units sell finished products, except pepper 
and pepper products and marble, wh ich are freely importable 
under FTP in DTA, under intima tion to DC, against payment of  
25 
 full duties, provided they have achi eved positive NFE. An amount 
equal to Anti-Dumping duty under section 9A of the Customs 
Tariff Act, 1975 leviable at the time  of import, shall be payable on 
the goods used for the purpose of manufacture or processing of 
the goods cleared into DTA from the unit.”  
 
23. The above provisions of the Forei gn Trade Policy shows that EOUs are not 
debarred from selling in the DTA and the sc heme under para 6.8 (a) states that 
EOU units can sell goods upto 50% of FOB value of export at concessional rates 
of duties. However, the provisions at para 6.8 (h) of the scheme does not put any 
such capping on supplies from EOU to DTA at payment of full duties. Under both 
the above scenarios, the sc heme obligates the 100% EOU units to maintain a 
positive NFE situation which is calculated in blocks of  Five Years which is also 
extendable based on the reque sts of the Unit. The Au thority notes from the 
submissions of the petiti oner that they could not even sell the permissible 
volumes even as per para 6.8 (a) of the scheme during the POI as the presence 
of dumped material were substantial.    
 
24. The Authority also notes that in certain past cases in volving EOUs, the Authority 
has granted them the status of domestic i ndustry to the extent of their domestic 
sales within the limit of their entitlements permitted under the foreign trade policy 
of India. The Authority also  notes that Directorate G eneral of Safeguards in the 
matter of Saturated Fatty Alcohols have in itiated Safeguard investigations based 
on an application filed by a 100% EOU vide its notification no F.No.D-
22011/26/2013 dated 19.02.2014. 
 
25. The Authority also notes from the submi ssions of the petitioner  that the other two 
producers i.e Enkei Wheels (India) Ltd and Neo Wheels have imported the 
subject goods from subject countries during the POI and this claim of the 
petitioner is not disputed and disproved by Enkei W heels (India) Ltd and Neo 
Wheels. Even the opposing interested parties  have claimed that imports by Enkei 
Wheels (India) Ltd and Neo Wheels ar e not significant. Under these 
circumstances, the Authority notes that Rule 2 (b) pr ecludes such producers who 
are themselves importers from the scope of domesti c industry making Synergies 
Castings Limited as the only eligible domestic producer to constitute domestic 
industry for the purpose of pr esent investigation.   
 
26. After detailed examination of the factual and legal provis ions as elaborated in the 
preceding paragraphs, the Aut hority determines that M/s Synergies Castings 
Limited accounts for a major proportion of  the total domestic production of the 
subject goods during the POI and thus constitutes domestic industry within the 
meaning of the Rule 2 (b) and satisfies the cr iteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 
(3) of the Anti- dumping Rules.   
26 
 E. Confidentiality 
Submissions made by producers/exporters /importers/other interested parties 
27. The various submissions made by t he producers/exporters/importers/other 
interested parties during the course of the present investi gation with regard to 
confidentiality and considered relevant  by the Authorit y are examined and 
addressed as follows: 
 
i. The petition suffers from excessive c onfidentiality. The petition provides 
absolutely no information with respect to petitioner’s pol icy regarding its 
distribution channels, commission/discount policy, credit terms, normal value 
calculation etc.  
 
ii. The domestic industry has claim ed and has been al lowed excessive 
confidentiality in the sense that t hey have not made available their annual 
report in the public file. Domestic Industr y has also not provided the details of 
their export sales, export obligati ons (being an EOU) and the quantities 
available for domestic market.   
iii. It has been claimed by petitioner that exporter has claimed excess 
confidentiality. Respondent considers t hat it has filed submitted a reasonable 
non-confidential versions of  the submissions. On t he contrary, petitioner has 
not disclosed many material informati on, which should have been provided 
along with the petition.  
 
iv. Petitioner has not disclosed many  material information relating to 
methodology used to refine the import data, conversion factor used for 
converting number of wheels into MT/K G, information about the subject goods 
viz., size, quality, category and uses, information about existence of other 
producers and their production, evidence of  lost sales order, annual report of 
the company, etc.  
Submissions made by the domestic industry 
 
28. The various submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to 
confidentiality and considered relevant  by the Authorit y are examined and 
addressed as follows: 
 
i. Excessive confidentiality has  been claimed by the exporters. 
 
ii. Petitioner has claimed confidentiality on informati on provided by them as 
allowed in rule 7 of the AD rule s and a meaningful summary of such 
information were also provided. The cl aims of interested parties that the 
petitioner has claimed excessiv e confidentiality are baseless.   
27 
  
 
 
 EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 
29. The various submissions made by the in terested parties during the course of the 
present investigation with r egard to confidentiality and c onsidered relevant by the 
Authority are examined and addressed as follows: 
 
i. With regard to confidentiality of in formation Rule 7 of Anti-dumping Rules 
provides as follows:-  
 
Confidential information: (1) Not withstanding anythi ng contained in 
sub-rules and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2), (3) (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) 
of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of ru le 17, the copies of applications 
received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided 
to the designated authority on a confi dential basis by any party in the 
course of investigatio n, shall, upon the desi gnated authority being 
satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such 
information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific 
authorization of the party pr oviding such information. 
 
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing 
information on confidential basis to  furnish non-confidential summary 
thereof and if, in the opini on of a party providing su ch information, such 
information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to 
the designated authority a statement  of reasons why summarization is 
not possible. 
 
 (3) Notwithstanding anything cont ained in sub-rule (2), if the 
designated authority is satisfied that  the request for confidentiality is 
not warranted or the suppl ier of the information is either unwilling to 
make the information public or to authorise its disclosure in a 
generalized or summary form, it ma y disregard such information. 
 
ii. Information provided by the inte rested parties on confidential basis was 
examined with regard to suff iciency of the confidenti ality claim. On being 
satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever 
warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not 
disclosed to other interested parties. W herever possible, parties providing 
information on confidential basis was directed to provide sufficient non  
28 
 confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority 
made available the non-confidential ve rsion of the evidences submitted by 
various interested parties in  the form of public file. 
 
iii. With regard to the submission of the opposite interested parties that the 
petitioner should make av ailable their annual report in the public file, the 
Authority notes that the domestic in dustry has already provided the ROC 
version of their annual r eport in the public file. 
F. Miscellaneous Submissions 
Submissions made by producers/exporters /importers/other interested parties 
30. The miscellaneous submissions made by the producers/exporters/importers/other 
interested parties during the course of the present investi gation and considered 
relevant by the Aut hority are as follows: 
 
i. The petition is deficient and ther efore the investi gation needs to be 
terminated. 
 
ii. Selection of period of investi gation and injury period are flawed. 
 
iii. Importers need not file questionnaire response in order to be treated as a 
cooperating importer. Non-fi ling or incomplete filing of response does not 
dilute the right of an interest ed party to make submissions. 
 
iv. The anti-dumping duties imposed by th e EU and Australia on the imports of 
the subject goods from China PR have no impact on the Indian situation.  
 
v. The market situation, conditions of co mpetition, level of development of the 
domestic producer differs from country to  country. The finding of investigating 
authority of one country cannot form the basis of decision for another 
country’s investigating authority. The authority need not rely upon the findings 
of EU and Australia. The authority is r equired to conduct AD investigations 
based on its own domestic laws and jurisprudence. 
 
vi. Auto industry is currently passing through a difficult phase with sales at 
extremely low levels. Imposition of anti- dumping duty at this stage would lead 
to further increase in the cost of production and prices. 
 
vii. The 2nd oral hearing should be adjourned and another opportunity of hearing 
should be given by the authority a fter providing adequate notice.  
 
Submissions made by the domestic industry 
  
29 
 31. The miscellaneous submissi ons made by the domestic in dustry during the course 
of the present investigati on and considered relevant by the Authority are as 
follows: 
 
i. The Authority should reject the subm issions made by the importers as they 
have not filed questionnaire response. 
 
ii. EU and Australia have imposed anti- dumping measures aga inst imports of 
subject goods from China PR. Facts in the findings by EU and Australia 
should be considered by the Authority in the pres ent investigation. The 
imposition of anti-dumping m easures by EU and Austra lia against imports of 
subject goods from China PR has im pact on Chinese exports to India.  
 
iii. A full-fledged Oral Hearing under sub rule  (6) of Rule 6 of AD Rules is already 
conducted by the Authority in the present investigation. Request for 
adjournment of 2nd Oral H earing when the investigation is required to be 
completed by 09.06.2014 is intended to  impede the present investigation. 
 
EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 
32. The various miscellaneous issues rais ed by the interested parties during the 
course of the present inve stigation and consi dered relevant by the Authority are 
examined herein below: 
 
i. As regards the argument of the opposite interested part ies that the petition is 
deficient and therefore t he investigation needs to be terminated, the Authority 
notes that the present inve stigation was initiated on the basis of prima facie 
evidence furnished by the domestic in dustry showing dumping, injury and 
causal link and justifying initiation of t he investigation in accordance with the 
Act and Rules. The Authority has also  called for additional information 
wherever required and verified the information furnished by the domestic 
industry.  
ii. As regards the contenti on of the opposite interested par ties that selection of 
injury period and period of investigat ion are contrary to the provisions 
contained in Annexure III of the AD Rules in India, the Authority notes that the 
period of investigation and the injury investigation period were determined in 
accordance with the provisions laid do wn under the Anti-dumping Rules and 
as per practice.  
iii. The facts of finding of the investigati ng authorities of other countries, although 
not binding on the Indian Authority as such, can be considered by the 
Authority as having corroborative value.  
  
30 
 iv. An oral hearing was ear lier held by the Authority on 3rd December, 2013. The 
Authority pprovided another  opportunity of oral hearing to the interested 
parties on 30.05.2014 cons equent upon change in the incumbent Designated 
Authority and in line with the judgment dated 7th Janu ary, 2011 of the Hon’ble 
Supreme Court in the Automotive Tyre  Manufacturers Association (ATMA) 
Case vide Civil Appeal No. 949 of  2006. No sooner the change in the 
incumbent Designated Author ity was indicated on 29th May, 2014, the 
interested parties were inti mated the schedule of the 2nd oral hearing for the 
30th May, 2014 on 29th May, 2014 itself considerin g the limited time available 
with the Authority to conclude the present investigation by 9th June, 2014 in 
terms of Rule 17 of the Anti-dum ping Rules. Even though the known 
interested parties were intimated about the schedule of the 2nd oral hearing, 
some of the interested parties incl uding the domestic i ndustry appeared for 
hearing and made oral submissions. So me of the interested parties who 
expressed inability to attend the 2nd oral hearing were also intimated the 
circumstances under which the hearing wa s convened. The interested parties 
were allowed time up to 5 PM of 2nd June, 2014 for submitting written 
submissions and therea fter up to 5 PM of 4th June, 2014 for making rejoinder 
submissions. Thus, despite limited time  available with t he Authority, best 
possible efforts were made to convene a 2nd oral hearing and to give 
adequate opportunity to the interested parties  to make oral as well as written 
submissions including rejoinder subm issions. Under no circumstances the 
authority could have given a better opport unity because the investigation has 
to be completed and final finding issued by the Authority by 9th June, 2014 
under Rule 17 of the Anti-dumping Rule s. Keeping in view the statutory 
provisions of completing the present investigation by 9th June, 2014, the 
requests of certain interest ed parties to adjourn the 2nd oral hearing and to 
provide another opportunity of oral hearing with adequate notice was not 
acceded by the Authority.  
 
v. As regards the contenti on of the opposite inte rested parties that Auto industry 
is currently passing through a difficult phas e with sales at extr emely low levels 
and imposition of anti-dum ping duty at this stage would lead to further 
increase in the cost of production and prices, the Authority notes that the 
basic objective of anti-dumping investi gations are to est ablish the facts of 
alleged dumping and injury to the dom estic industry on account of dumping 
and to recommend suitable and adequat e anti-dumping measures for 
imposition by the central government to neutralize the injurious effect of 
dumping and to create a level playing fiel d for the domestic industry vis-a-vis 
dumped imports. Anti-dumping measures ne ither restrict nor prevent imports. 
The consumers, who may be benefitting out of dumped prices, may have to 
buy the subject goods at fair prices afte r imposition of the anti-dumping duty.  
31 
 G. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT, NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE 
AND DUMPING MARGIN 
 
33. The Authority notes that in the past three years China PR has been treated as a 
non-market economy country in anti-dumpi ng investigations by India and other 
WTO Members. China PR has been treat ed as a non-market economy country 
subject to rebuttal of the presumption by  the exporting country or individual 
exporters in terms of the Rules.  
 
34. As per Paragraph 8 of Annexure I of t he Anti-dumping Rules, the presumption of 
a non-market economy can be rebutted, if t he exporter(s) from China PR provide 
information and sufficient evidence on the bas is of the criteria specified in sub 
paragraph (3) of Paragraph 8 and establish the facts to the contrary. The 
cooperating exporters/producer s of the subject goods from  People’s Republic of 
China are required to furnish necessa ry information/sufficient evidence as 
mentioned in sub-paragr aph (3) of paragraph 8 in response to the Market 
Economy Treatment questionnaire to enabl e the Authority to consider the 
following criteria as to whether:  
 
a. the decisions of concerned firms in  China PR regarding prices, costs and 
inputs, including raw materials, co st of technology and labour, output, 
sales and investment are made in res ponse to market signals reflecting 
supply and demand and with out significant State interference in this 
regard, and whether costs of major i nputs substantially reflect market 
values;  
b. the production costs and financial situat ion of such firms are subject to 
significant distortions carried over  from the former non-market economy 
system, in particular in relation to depr eciation of assets, other write-offs, 
barter trade and payment via compensation of debts;  
c. such firms are subject to bankr uptcy and property laws which guarantee 
legal certainty and stability for the operation of the firms and  
d. the exchange rate conversions ar e carried out at the market rate.  
 
35. The Authority notes that consequent upon issue of the initiation notification, the 
following sampled Chinese producers/ex porters submitted the market economy 
questionnaire response and sought to  rebut the non-market economy 
presumption: 
 
i. CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd 
ii. Baoding Lizhong Wheels Manufactu ring Co. Ltd along with  related 
companies namely Hebei Lizhong Non-ferrous Metals Group Co Ltd 
(related raw material supplier), Qinhuangdao Dicamry Wheel Co Ltd,  
32 
 Tiaanjin Dicastal Wheel Manufactu ring Co Ltd, and Tianjin Lizhong 
Wheel Co Ltd. 
iii. Zhejiang Yueling Co. Ltd 
 CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd, China PR 
36. In the MET Response filed by M/s CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd, China PR, it is stated 
that the company is a Sino foreign (Tai wan, Hong Kong, Macau) joint venture 
belonging to China CITIC Group (formerly known as China International Trust 
and Investment Corporation), a fully St ate owned company. It has been further 
stated that China CITIC Group was estab lished in the early years of China’s 
economic reforms. The Group is stated to  own 44 subsidiaries in China and 
abroad. The CITIC Group controls M/ s CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd (respondent 
company) through its 100% subsidiary M/ s CITIC Group Investment Holdings.  
As stated in the MET respons e, the senior officers of  the CITIC Group and CITIC 
Dicastal (respondent company) are appoint ed by the State Council which is 
involved in the major decisions of the group. It is further stated in the MET 
response that some of the subsidiaries  of CITIC Dicastal are involved in the 
subject goods, but CITIC Dicastal only expo rted the subject goods to India during 
the POI. As stated in the MET response,  Mr. ZuoXu , CEO of CITIC Dicastal is 
responsible for the managem ent of the whole Group. 
 
37. In response to the deficiency letter issued  by the Authority, it  is stated that M/s 
CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd, China PR was or iginally establishe d in May, 1988 with 
the name of Bohai Aluminium Alloy Casting Co Ltd. The original investors were 
CITIC Development Co Ltd,  Top Winner Development Ltd and Vitality Motor Co 
Ltd. The investment ratio of the three above named investors is ***%, ***% and 
***% respectively. Bohai Aluminium Allo y Casting Co Ltd was renamed as 
Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Co Ltd in  May 1988 and subsequently as CITIC 
Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing Co Ltd in Oc tober, 2007. Further, in July, 2012, 
CITIC Dicastal Wheel Manuf acturing Co Ltd changed it s name as CITIC Dicastal 
Co Ltd. It is further acknowledged by t he company that CITI C Group is funded by 
Ministry of Finance, China. Further, it  has been acknowledged by the respondent 
company they are recipients of substantial subsidies fr om Government of China. 
Moreover, the Group Company as well as  the subsidiaries/related companies 
involved in the subject goods hav e also not filed response. 
 
38. Although CITIC Dicastal Co. Ltd, China PR claim ed market economy treatment 
by filing the required questi onnaire responses during the on the spot verification 
conducted by the Authority the Compan y could not rebut the non-market 
economy (NME) treatment and could not substantiate its MET claim with 
documentary evidence. Instead, CITIC Dicas tal Co. Ltd, China PR withdrew their 
market economy treatment (MET) claim in  writing. Moreover , as regards the 
Company’s claim for individual export price,  the Authority notes that the complete  
33 
 value chain in respect of significant vo lume of exports of subject goods produced 
by others and exported by the Company has also no t been brought before the 
Authority by the respective producers by  filing exporter’s ques tionnaire response. 
The Authority provided the on the spot ve rification report to CITIC Dicastal Co. 
Ltd, China PR for their comments. Howe ver, the Company did not furnish any 
comments disputing the observations of t he Authority. In view of the above 
position, the Authority does not grant market ec onomy treatment to CITIC 
Dicastal Co. Ltd, China PR.  
 
 
Baoding Lizhong Wheels Manufacturing Co. Ltd along with  related 
companies namely Hebei Lizhong Non-fe rrous Metals Group Co Ltd (related 
raw material supplier), Qinhuangdao Dicamry Wheel Co Ltd, Tiaanjin 
Dicastal Wheel Manufacturi ng Co Ltd, and Tianjin Lizhong Wheel Co Ltd 
39. In the MET response filed by Baoding Lizhong Wheels Manufacturing Co. Ltd, it 
is stated that the company was origina lly set up in August, 1995 by three Chinese 
individual shareholders namely ***, *** (previously known as ***) and *** 
(previously known as ***). On 5th July, 2004 all the shares were transferred to M/s 
***, Singapore and thus Baoding Lizhong Wheels Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China 
PR became a wholly foreign owned co mpany. In Dec, 2005 China Wheel 
Holdings Pvt Ltd was renamed as China Wheel Holdings Ltd and in February, 
2008 as Lizhong Wheel Group Lt d. Lizhong Wheel Group Lt d is related to three 
Chinese producers of subject goods namely ***, ***, and ***, who produced and 
sold the subject goods in the Chinese mark et but not exported to  India during the 
POI. The respondent company is stated to  be procuring the major raw materials 
from its related company namely Hebe i Lizhong Non-ferrous Metals Group Co 
Ltd, who has also filed MET response al ong with the above three other  related 
companies. It has been further stated in the response that the ultimate owner and 
controller of the entire Group incl uding the respondent company is *** family. 
MET response has not been filed by the group company i.e. M/s Lizhong Wheel 
Group Ltd despite their invo lvement in subject goods.  
 
40. Although Baoding Liz hong Wheels Manufacturing Co. Ltd along with related 
companies namely Hebei Lizhong Non-ferr ous Metals Group Co Ltd (related raw 
material supplier), Qinhuangd ao Dicamry Wheel Co Ltd, Tiaanjin Dicastal Wheel 
Manufacturing Co Ltd, and Tianjin Lizhon g Wheel Co Ltd, China PR claimed 
market economy treatment by filing the required questionnaire response, during 
the on the spot verification conducted by the Authority, Baodi ng Lizhong Wheels 
could not rebut the non-market ec onomy (NME) treatment and could not 
substantiate MET claim with documentary ev idence and instead withdrew  market 
economy treatment (MET) claim in writing. The Authority provi ded the on the spot 
verification report to Baoding Lizhon g Wheels for comments. However, the 
Company did not furnish any comments disputing the observations of the  
34 
 Authority. In view of the above positi on, the Authority does not grant market 
economy treatment to the abov e stated Chinese companies. 
 Zhejiang Yueling Co. Ltd 
41. In the MET response, Z hejiang Yueling Co. Ltd is st ated to be a Chinese Limited 
Company, held by seven major Chinese individual shareholders. The related 
companies of Zhejiang Yuel ing Co. Ltd are ***, *** and ***. Out of these, as stated 
in the MET response *** is the actual c ontroller of Zhejiang Yueling Co. Ltd. 
Further, as stated in the annual accounts, the predece ssor of Zhejiang Yueling 
Co. Ltd is Yuelin Wheel Hub Making Co mpany Ltd, set up in May, 1998. In 
September, 2010 it is stated that the name of the company  was changed from 
Yuelin Wheel Hub Making Company Ltd to Zhejiang Yueling Co. Ltd. As it is 
evident from the MET response, the re spondent company is not only under the 
control of a Wenling City body, it has al so received substantial Government 
subsidies. Moreover, the respondent company seems to be procuring the major 
raw materials from the first- rate state-owned enterprises. 
 
42. Prior to the on the spot verification,  Zhejiang Yueling Co. Ltd was informed in 
writing to keep the relevant informa tion/records ready for the purpose of 
verification. During the on the spot ve rification, the Company was requested to 
substantiate their claim for market economy status by providing documents 
concerning the establishment, growth and history of the Company including their 
parent/related companies. The Company was also requested to provide the 
documentary details about their share holdi ngs, investments, fixed assets along 
with purchase invoices and valuation report s, source of funding including bank 
loans, if any. They were further ask ed to produce documents relating to purchase 
of major raw materials and utilities incl uding power etc and details of subsidies 
received by the Company from Government of China as reflected in their annual 
accounts. But, Zhejiang Yueling Co. Lt d did not cooperate by providing the 
required documents for verification in s upport of their market economy claim and 
could not rebut the non-market economy (NME) treatment with substantiated 
information. Moreover, during the on the s pot verification, Zhejiang Yueling Co. 
Ltd did not demonstrate wit h documentary evidence the receipt of complete 
export proceeds from the Indian buyers and as a result the Auth ority did not find 
their export related information as reliable.  The Authority provided the on the spot 
verification report to Zhejiang Yueling Co .  for comments. However, the Company 
did not furnish any comments disputing the obs ervations of the Aut hority.  In view 
of the above position, the Authority does  not grant Zhejiang Yueling Co. Ltd, 
China PR market economy status  in the present investigation.  
 
43. The submissions concerning market economy, normal value, export price and 
dumping margin made by t he producers/exporters/impor ters/other interested  
35 
 parties during the course of the invest igation and considered relevant by the 
Authority are as follows: 
 
i. During the last 30 years, China ha s established a complete market economy 
system. To date, 97 WTO members hav e recognized China as complete 
market economy country, and the same sh ould also be granted by authorities 
of India. The contention of the petitioner that a ll producers in China are 
operating under non-market  economy conditions is presumptuous and 
baseless.  
 
ii. The normal value and export price arriv ed by petitioner in its petition cannot 
be accepted as correct since petitioner  has not made available any evidence 
to support their computations.  
 
iii. The Designated Authority has also not  followed the prescribed procedure with 
regard to Normal Value for China in terms of para 7 of Annexu re I of the Anti-
dumping Rules.  
 
iv. It has been contended by the petitioner that since aluminum prices in China 
reflect state interventions, such prices  cannot be considered as fair market 
rates. However, the authorities in both EC and Australia cases have 
concluded that aluminum market pric e in China was lower than aluminum 
price in LME. Thus, the contention of petitioner needs to be rejected.  
 
v. The contention of the petitioner that EC has found serious distortions in the 
financial situations of CI TIC Dicastal is baseless. EC has clearly determined 
that CITIC Dicastal me t the MET criterions. 
 
vi. Baoding fulfils criteria to be tr eated as a market economy company and 
should be accorded Market Economy status. DGAD has granted Market 
Economy status to Chinese exporters w ho acted under similar circumstances.  
 
vii. OEM segment is the largest consum er of alloy wheels and after-market 
segment comprises of a very miniscule share in the total Indian market. Since 
almost all the procurement of wheels in India is done by OEMs, it is the 
decision of the OEMs, not the wheels manufacturers, which decides the 
market for the wheels. Moreover, OEM comprises of global vehicle 
manufacturers, who resort to global tendering process. In such a case, it 
cannot be said that wheels are being dumped into India. 
 
viii. The decision whether to participate in AD  investigation is that  of an individual 
party and the cooperation by GMK, theref ore, cannot be rejected.  It is not 
necessary that all the producers from whom the subject goods may have  
36 
 been bought by the cooperating expo rter must participate in the 
investigations, even though such produc ers are unrelated to the exporter. 
 
ix. The information provided by Maruti Su zuki Ltd with regard to their imports 
from Thailand should be considered as best available information for 
determining dumping and injury  margins for Thailand. 
 
44. The submissions made by the domesti c industry concerning market economy, 
normal value, export price an d dumping margin and cons idered relevant by the 
Authority are as follows: 
 
i. None of the Chinese exporters are e ligible to be considered as market 
economy in terms of the various criteria  laid down under the Annexure – I of 
AD Rules. 
 
ii. Almost 50 to 55% of cost  of production of the subj ect goods is on account of 
the main raw material i. e. aluminium which refl ects significant State 
intervention. Moreover, the EU and Austra lia findings also did not consider 
Chine exporters as operati ng under market economy. 
 
iii. Baoding has placed their reliance on a claim that they are a wholly foreign 
owned company for market economy. But ownership alone ca n’t rule out the 
element of state interference. Baodi ng was denied MET by European Union 
recently in an investigation concerning ARWs dumped in EU by Chinese 
producers. Thus, Baoding should be treated as operating under NME 
conditions based on the facts of decision by EU alone.     
 
iv. Dicastal has presented highly unrelia ble data and needs to be rejected.  
Dicastal is attracting AD duties in EU  and Australia. There is enough reason 
to believe that the company is on a dum ping spree on all budding markets.    
 
v. CITIC Dicastal submitt ed that they supply only to  OEMs. But the exporters 
questionnaire response by CITIC Dicas tal shows they have supplied ARWs 
purchased from unrelated parties  to India which is in complete contradiction to 
the claim of the exporter that they cate r only to OEMs because the practice of 
OEM is not to buy the products purchased from OEM but their purchases are 
manufacture centric.  
 
vi. The questionnaire responses filed by GM Korea Company should be rejected 
as one of the producers who have supp lied the material to GM Korea 
Company hasn’t filed any EQR and thus the export chain is not complete.  
  
37 
 vii. Normal Value in case of China PR being a non-market  economy should be 
constructed as per Para 7 of Annexure 1 of the AD Ru les by considering India 
as an appropriate surrogate coun try for Chinese producers. 
 
viii. For Normal Value in Korea RP petit ioner relied upon a price list of a Korean 
producer. The same may be relied upon by  the Authority as the information 
provided by Korean exporter is incomplete and unreliable.  
 
ix. In case of Thailand, efforts were  made to determine normal value based on 
cost of production in Thailand. Howe ver no such information is publicly 
available. In the alternative, normal va lue for Thailand is determined based on 
cost of production in India by taking aluminium price as per LME rates and 
electricity rates in Thailand. The sa me may considered for the purpose of 
findings in the present investigation. 
 
x. Large number of importers who have part icipated in the present investigation 
hasn’t filed any questionnaire response. In  view of that the export price 
claimed by the exporters does not seem  to be reliable. The Authority should 
compare export prices claimed by the ex porters with that r eported by Indian 
customs.    
 
xi. The claim of Maruti that information provided by them with regard to imports 
from Thailand should be considered as best available information for 
determining dumping and injury margins for Thailand is ex-facie untenable 
under the AD Rules. In the absence of any response from Thailand, 
determination of normal value, export price and dumping margin for Thai 
exports may be carried out based on the information provided by the 
petitioner.  
 EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 
45. The Authority notes th at the Chinese companies who filed MET Response and 
cooperated in the present in vestigation and whose info rmation was verified by the 
Authority, could not rebut  the non-market economy pr esumption by providing 
documentary evidence. The Authority has not granted MET status to any Chinese 
company in the present investigation 
 
46. The subject goods, originat ing in or exported from Ch ina PR, are also subjected 
to anti-dumping duty in Australia and Europ ean Union. In their final findings, the 
Australian Authority did not  grant MET to the Chines e companies on the ground 
that  the actions of Government of Ch ina have directly impacted the price of 
aluminium materials in China, causing prices to be lower than they would be 
without the intervention of t he government. Similarly, in  the EU Authority also 
denied MET to the Chinese companies in their final findings on the ground that  
38 
 Chinese State has a primary role in the se tting of prices of pr imary aluminium and 
interferes in the market continuously wit h a number of tools. Further, as EU has 
observed, State interferes  with the price setting mechanisms in the Shanghai 
Futures Exchange (SHFE), which is a closed exchange for Chinese-registered 
companies and Chinese citizens, and Stat e interference with the price setting 
mechanisms in the SHFE is linked to it s position both as a seller of primary 
aluminium and as a purchas er via the State Reserve Bureau and other State 
Bodies. In addition, the State sets daily price limits via the rules of the SHFE 
which have been approved by the State Regulator, the China Securities 
Regulatory Commission. 
 
47. In addition to the significant Governm ent interferences in the determination of 
prices of the major raw material, the EU has also observed significant distortions 
in the financial situation of the major Chinese respondent companies like CITIC 
Dicastal and Baoding Lizhong group. In respect of CITIC Dicastal and Baoding 
Lizhong group , the EU final finding observed as follows: 
 
(41) It has been claimed by Baoding Li zhong group that Article 2(7)(c) 
of the basic Regulation explicitly requires that  the distortions are 
caused by the former non-market economy system; the group claimed 
that since it would ha ve allegedly always oper ated as privately-held 
group, distortions cannot be the result  of the ‘former’ non- market 
economy system as the group never operated as State-owned 
companies. The argument cannot be accepted. As established in the 
present case, production costs and fi nancial situation of companies can 
be subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-
market economy system regardless if a company has operated as a 
Sate-owned company or not. 
 
(42) In addition, Baoding Lizhong group, YHI Manufacturing (Shanghai) 
Co. Ltd and CITIC Dicastal reiter ated the argument s already put 
forward before the adoption of the provisional Regulation and insisted 
on the fact that the advantages enjoyed by t he companies are not 
significant. However, as explained in recital (50) of the provisional 
Regulation, the investigation revealed that distortions on the financial 
situation of the groups were significant.  
 
“(53) As regards CITIC Dicastal, it is a State-owned company directly 
controlled by the State (the majority of its shares belong to the State). 
The State interference is such t hat it permits circumvention of 
measures if it obtains a different ra te of duty. In other words, production 
of other State-controll ed companies could be re-directed through CITIC 
Dicastal. Concerning the other argument put forw ard by CITIC Dicastal, 
the fact that it supplies exclusivel y car makers in the OEM market does  
39 
 not prevent it from supplying to ot her clients in the future. It can 
therefore be concluded that CI TIC Dicastal should be denied IT”. 
 
48. As regards the contenti on of the opposite interested par ties that the normal value 
and export price arrived by petitioner in its petition cannot be accepted as correct 
since petitioner has not made ava ilable any evidence to support their 
computations, the Authority notes that the present inve stigation was initiated on 
the basis of prima facie evidences of dumpi ng, injury and causal  link furnished by 
the applicant. However, the Authority has constructed the normal value for China 
PR, considering the country as non-mark et economy for the purpose of present 
investigation, as per the pr ovisions of Para 7 of Anne xure I of the Anti-dumping 
Rules.  
 
49. The argument of the pr oducers/exporters/importers that OEM segment is the 
largest consumer of alloy wheels and after-market segm ent comprises of a very 
miniscule share in the total Indian market and hence it is the decision of the 
OEMs, not the wheels manufacturers, whic h decides the market for the wheels, 
who resort to global tenderi ng process and not dumping, the Authority notes that 
the facts of the investigation as enunciate d in this finding is self-explanatory in 
this regard. 
H. Determination of Normal Value 
 
Determination of Normal Value for produ cers and exporters in China PR  
50. The Authority notes that none of the sa mpled producers/exporte rs from China PR 
have been found to be operating under market economy condition for 
determination of normal value in China in terms of Para -7 of Annexure-1 to the 
Rules. Under the circumstances, the Author ity is not in a position to apply the 
provisions of Para 8 of Annexure - I to the Rules to the above named Chinese 
companies and the Authority has to pr oceed in accordance with Para 7 of 
Annexure - I to the Rules.  
 
51. Paragraph-7 of the Annexur e-1 to the Anti-dumping Rules provides as follows: 
 
 “In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value 
shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in 
the market economy third country, or the price from such a third 
country to other countries, including I ndia or where it is not possible, or 
on any other reasonable basis, including the pric e actually paid or 
payable in India for t he like product, duly adjusted if necessary, to 
include a reasonable profit margin”. 
  
40 
 52. According to these Rules, the normal value in China PR can be determined on 
any of the following basis:  
 
a) On the basis of the price in a market economy third country, or  
b) The constructed value in a ma rket economy third country, or  
c) The price from such a third country to other countries, including India.  
d) If the normal value cannot be determined  on the basis of the alternatives 
mentioned above, the Desi gnated Authority may determine the normal value 
on any other reasonable basis including the price actually paid  or payable in 
India for the like product duly adjusted to include reasonable profit margin.  
 
53. The Authority notes that for determinat ion of normal value based on third country 
cost and prices, the complete and exhaus tive data on domestic sales or third 
country export sales, as well as cost  of production and cooperation of such 
producers in third country is required. No  such information with regard to prices 
and costs prevalent in these markets have been provided either by the applicant 
or by the responding export ers, nor any publicly available information could be 
accessed, nor the respondi ng Chinese companies have made any claim with 
regard to an appropriate ma rket economy third country . Therefore, for the 
purpose of final determination, the Aut hority proceeds to construct the normal 
value based on any other reasonable basis. 
 
54. The Authority determined the Normal val ue for China PR on facts available basis 
in terms of second proviso of Para 7 of  Annexure- I to the Anti-dumping Rules. 
Accordingly, the Normal Value of the product under consideration is determined 
by the Authority on the basis of internat ional prices of major raw materials and 
constructed costs of production, duly adjusted to include selling, general & 
administrative costs of the domestic indus try by adding reasonable profits. The 
normal value so determined is *** US$/KG. 
 
Determination of Normal Value for produ cers and exporters in Korea RP and 
Thailand 
 
Determination of Normal Value for pr oducers and exporters in Korea RP 
55. Under section 9A (1) (c), the norma l value in relation to an article means: 
 
(i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, 
when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as 
determined in accordance with the ru les made under sub-section (6), or 
 
(ii) When there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade 
in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when 
because of the particular market situat ion or low volume of the sales in  
41 
 the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do 
not permit a proper comparison, t he normal value shall be either: 
 
(a) Comparable representative pric e of the like article when exported 
from the exporting country or te rritory or an appropriate third 
country as determined in accor dance with the rules made under 
sub-section (6); or  
(b) The cost of production of the said  article in the country of origin 
along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and 
general costs, and for prof its, as determined in accordance with the 
rules made under sub-section(6): 
 
Provided that in the case of import of  the article from a country other than 
the country of origin a nd where the article has been merely transshipped 
through the country of export or such ar ticle is not produced in the country 
of exporter there is no comparable price in the country of export, the 
normal value shall be determined with re ference to its price in the country 
of origin. 
 
56. The following sampled producers/expor ters from Korea RP filed exporter’s 
questionnaire response.  
 
i. Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co. Ltd (producer) 
ii. GM Korea Company (exporter) 
iii. Hands Corporation(exporter) iv. Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd(exporter) 
 
57. The Authority has not a ccepted the responses filed by M/s GM Korea Company, 
Korea RP (Exporter) and M/s Artisan Spirit  Alloy Co Ltd, Korea RP (Producer) for 
reasons well explained in this final fi nding. As regards Hands Corporation and 
Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd, they  are not producers of the subject g oods in Korea RP 
and are exporters of the subject goods pro duced by China PR. In view of this 
position, determination of normal va lue on the basis of cooperative 
producer/exporter from Korea RP is not  possible. Moreover, the information 
concerning the normal value of the subj ect goods in Korea RP during the POI, as 
prescribed under the Anti- dumping Rules, has not be en made available by any 
interested party, nor could it be accessed in the public domain.   Therefore, the 
Normal Value for the producer s/exporters from Korea RP is determined by the 
Authority on the basis of international prices of  major raw materials and 
constructed costs of production, duly adjusted to include selling, general & 
administrative costs of the domestic indus try by adding reasonable profits. The 
normal value so determined by the Authority for Korea RP is *** US$/KG. 
 
  
42 
 Determination of Normal Value for producers and exporters in Thailand 
58. As there is no response from Thail and and the information concerning the normal 
value of the subject goods in Thailand during the POI, as prescribed under the 
Anti-dumping Rules, has not  been made available by any interested party, nor 
could it be accessed in the public domain,  the Normal Value for the 
producers/exporters in Tha iland is determined by the Authority on the basis of 
international prices of major raw mate rials and constructed costs of production, 
duly adjusted to include se lling, general & admin istrative costs of the domestic 
industry by adding reasonable profits. The normal value so determined by the 
Authority for Thailand is *** US$/KG. 
I.  EXPORT PRICE  
Sampled Exporters From China PR 
 
a) CITIC Dicastal, Ltd, China PR 
 
59. As per the information provided by CITIC Dicastal, 75% of their total export of 
subject goods to India during the POI was outsourced from two unrelated 
producers namely M/s ***and ***. The Company claimed that such out sourcing 
were done to meet either urgent  orders or to cater to re latively small orders which 
may not be advantageous for the company to produce themselves. At the stage 
of preliminary finding the Aut hority did not accept the ex port price claimed by Citic 
Dicastal pending verification. During the on  the spot verification, the Company 
reiterated its earlier stand and informed t hat to cater to the Indian clients’ 
demand, the Company had to purchase goods from some unrelated Chinese 
producers with long-term cooperat ion. But, the Company could not justify why the 
producers with whom they have long term cooperation did not file exporter’s 
questionnaire response in the present invest igation. In view of the above position, 
resulting in the absence of complete va lue chain in respect of a significant 
volume of exports (75%) made by CITI C Dicastal to India during the POI, the 
Authority notes that the export price claimed by CITIC Dic astal cannot be 
considered as reliable. The Authority provided the on t he spot verification report 
to CITIC Dicastal for comments. Howeve r, the Company did not furnish any 
comments disputing the observa tions of the Authority. Therefore, the Authority 
does not accept the export price claimed by CITIC Dic astal Ltd, China PR as 
reliable and does not grant individual margins to the Company.  
 
b) Zhejiang Autom Aluminum Wheels Co. Ltd 
 
60. Zhejiang Autom Aluminum Co. Ltd,  China PR claimed to have exported *** MT of 
the subject goods for a tota l invoice value of US $ *** to India during POI. Since 
the invoice value claimed by the Com pany did not match with the transaction-
wise Customs data availabl e with the Authority and wa s found to be much lower  
43 
 than the price claimed by the exporter, fo r the purpose of preliminary finding, the 
Authority had determined t he net export price in re spect the Company on the 
basis of the Customs data available with the Authority, after making due 
adjustments as claimed by the exporter. 
 
61. During the on the spot verification,  the Company could not demonstrate with 
documentary evidence the receipt of comp lete export proceeds by the Company 
from the Indian buyers. The Authority provided the on the spot verification report 
to Zhejiang Autom for comments. However, the Company did not furnish any 
comments disputing the observations of the Au thority. In view of this position, the 
Authority does not accept the export pr ice claimed by Zhejiang Autom Aluminum 
Co. Ltd as reliable and therefore does not grant individual margins to the 
Company. 
 
c) Zhejiang Buyang Auto Wheel Co. Ltd, China PR 
 
62. Zhejiang Buyang Auto Wheel Co. Ltd,  China PR claimed to have exported ***MT 
of the subject goods to India during the POI for a total invoice value of USD ***. 
Since the invoice value claimed by the Company did not match with the 
transaction-wise Customs data available wi th the Authority and was found to be 
much lower than the price claimed by the exporter, for the purpose of preliminary 
finding, the Authority had determined the net export price in respect the Company 
on the basis of the Customs data available with the Authority, after making due 
adjustments as claimed by the exporter.  
63. During the on the spot verification,  the Company could not demonstrate with 
documentary evidence the receipt of comp lete export proceeds by the Company 
from the Indian buyers. The Authority provided the on the spot verification report 
to Zhejiang Buyang for comments. Howeve r, the Company did not furnish any 
comments disputing the observations of the Au thority. In view of this position, the 
Authority does not accept the export price claimed by Zhejiang Buyang Auto 
Wheel Co. Ltd as reliable and therefore does  not grant individual margins to the 
Company. 
 
d) ZheJiang YueLing Co., Ltd 
 
64. ZheJiang YueLing Co., Ltd, Ch ina PR claimed to have exported ***MT of the 
subject goods to India during the POI for a total invoice value of USD ***. Since 
the invoice value claimed by the Com pany did not match with the transaction-
wise Customs data available with the Authority and was f ound to be much lower 
than the price claimed by the exporter, fo r the purpose of preliminary finding, the 
Authority had determined t he net export price in respect the Company on the 
basis of the Customs data available with the Authority, after making due 
adjustments as claimed by the exporter.  
44 
  
65. During the on the spot verification,  the Company could not demonstrate with 
documentary evidence the receipt of comp lete export proceeds by the Company 
from the Indian buyers. The Authority provided the on the spot verification report 
to ZheJiang YueLing for comments. However, the Co mpany did not furnish any 
comments disputing the observations of the Au thority. In view of this position, the 
Authority does not accept t he export price claimed by ZheJiang YueLing Co., Ltd 
as reliable and therefore does not grant  individual margins to the Company. 
 e) Baoding Lizhong Wheels Manufactur ing Co. Ltd and through Hyundai 
Glovis, Korea RP and Hyundai Mobis, Hong Kong 
 
66. The data/information furnished by the Co mpany was verified by the Authority on 
the spot. The verification report was pr ovided to the Company for comments. 
Post verification, no relevant comment has been provided by the Company. On 
the basis of verified data, Baoding Lizh ong Wheels Manufacturing  Co. Ltd, China 
PR was found to have exported the s ubject goods to India during the POI *** MT 
directly for an invoice value of US$ ***and *** MT for an invoice value of US$ *** 
through the exporters namely Hyundai Gl ovis, Korea RP and Hyundai Mobis, 
Hong Kong. The Authority made adjustm ents on account of inland freight, port 
and handling determined the weighted average net export price at ex-factory 
level as US$ ***/Kg after making the said adjustments. 
 
Other Exporters From China PR 
 
67. In respect of non-cooperating exporters from China PR, the Authority determined 
their net export price as per facts availabl e in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. 
Accordingly the net export price in res pect of the non-cooperat ing exporters from 
China PR with due adjustm ents on account of ocean frei ght, overseas insurance, 
port expenses, inland freight, bank char ges and credit cost is determined by the 
Authority as US$ ***/Kg. 
 
Exporters from Korea RP 
 
68. The Authority notes that the following producers/expor ters from Korea RP have 
submitted the sampling questionnaire:  
 
a. Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co., Lt d, Wanju-gun, Chunbuk, Korea RP 
(Producer). 
b. G.M. Korea Co., Bupyeong-Gu, Incheon, Korea RP (Exporter). 
c. Hands Corporation, Gajwa- dong Seogu, Incheon, Korea RP 
(Producer). 
d. Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd., Gangnam- gu, Seol, Korea RP (Exporter). 
  
45 
 69. The Authority further notes that all the above listed producers and exporters from 
Korea RP have been selected in the sampling process:  
 
70. The Authority notes that  out of the above stated producers/exporters from Korea 
RP, Hands Corporation (producer), whose subject goods were claimed to have 
been exported by Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd,  has not filed exporters questionnaire 
response. However, Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd., Korea RP also filed sampling 
questionnaire and subsequently exporter s questionnaire response along with the 
Chinese producers/exporters namely Baodi ng Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd, China PR. 
 
71. The Authority further not es that G.M. Korea Co., Kor ea RP has filed exporters 
questionnaire response claiming export of the subject goods produced by two 
Korean producers namely Artisan Spirit  & Alloy Co., Ltd and Dayou Smart 
Aluminium Co Ltd. Out of the above named producers from  Korea RP, while 
Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co., Ltd has fil ed sampling questionnaire and also exporters 
questionnaire response on being sampled by  the Authority, the other producer 
namely Dayou Smart Aluminium Co Ltd,  Korea RP did not file sampling 
questionnaire and therefore not sample d by the Authority. Dayou Smart 
Aluminium Co Ltd, Ko rea RP also did not file exporters questionnaire response. 
The Authority notes that the exports of the subject goods made by G.M. Korea 
Co., Korea RP, produced by Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co., Ltd, Korea RP, constituted 
less than 1% of the total exports made by  GM Korea Company to India during the 
POI, whereas 99% of the exports made by GM Korea Company, produced by 
Dayou Smart Aluminium Co Ltd, Korea RP, have not been responded before the 
Authority. In view of the fact that t he exports made by G.M. Korea Co., Korea RP 
and produced by Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co., Ltd is insignificant and does not 
represent a commercial volume, the Author ity does not consider the export price 
claimed by G.M. Korea Co., Ko rea RP as representative of  the export price of the 
total exports made by the company to India during the POI. Therefore the 
Authority does not accept the exporter’ s questionnaire response filed by G.M. 
Korea Co., Korea RP (exporter) and Artis an Spirit & Alloy Co ., Ltd, Korea RP 
(producer).Further it may be noted that M/s Artisan Spirit & Alloy Co. Ltd 
(producer) has not filed information with r egard to costing/ pricing as per the 
prescribed Appendixes by  the Authority in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. In 
view of the above the Authority has not  accepted the response of M/s Artisan 
Spirit & Alloy Co. Ltd (producer). 
 
72. The Authority further notes  that except the exports made by Hyundai Glovis Co. 
Ltd, Korea RP of the subject goods  produced by Baod ing Lizhong Wheel 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd, China PR, none of  the exporters from Korea RP are 
eligible for individual export price and t herefore fall under t he residual category. 
The Authority made adjus tments on account of ocean freight, overseas 
insurance, port expenses, inland freight, bank charges and credit cost as claimed  
46 
 by the petitioner in order to arrive at the net export price at  ex-factory level. 
Accordingly, the net export price at ex-f actory level in case of Korea RP is 
determined as US$ ***/Kg. 
 Exporters from Thailand. 
73. There is no response from any producer/exp orter from Thailand. In the light of the 
above, export price from all the producers/ exporters in case of Thailand is 
determined on the basis of information av ailable on record. The Authority made 
adjustments on account of ocean freight, ov erseas insurance, port expenses, 
inland freight, bank charges and credit cost as claimed by the petitioner in order 
to arrive at the net export price at ex-fac tory level. Accordin gly, the net export 
price at ex-factory level in case  of Thailand is determined as US$ ***/Kg. 
 
J. DUMPING MARGIN  
 
Sampled Cooperative Exporters from China PR 
  
74. Considering the Normal value and Expo rt prices as determined above, the 
dumping margins is determined as follows for the sampled expor ters from China 
PR: 
 
Non Sampled Exporters from China 
 
75. The dumping margin for the followin g exporters who had made themselves 
known in response to the sampling qu estionnaire but not sampled by the Sl.
No. Channel 
of 
Export Producer Exporter 
Normal 
Value - 
US$/Kg Export 
price - 
US$/K
g Dumping 
Margin - 
US$/Kg Dumping 
Margin - % Dumping 
Margin 
Range - 
% 
1 China-
India Baoding 
Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China PR Baoding 
Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China PR  
     
***  
     
***                 
***              ***  
     
45-55 
2 China-
Hong 
kong-Korea-India Baoding 
Lizhong 
Wheel Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China PR Hyundai 
Glovis Co. 
Ltd, Korea RP and Hyundai Mobis , Hong Kong 
     
***  
     
***                 
***              ***  
 
    
45-55 
3 Weighted average of Baoding 
Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China PR *** *** *** *** 
45-55  
47 
 Authority, has been dete rmined on the basis of the weighted average of the 
dumping margins determined for aforesaid sampled exporter in  terms of Rule 
18(2) of the AD Rules. The dumping margin in respect of the non-sampled 
exporters from China PR is determined as per table below: 
 
Sl 
No Particulars Dumping 
Margin - 
US$/Kg Dumping 
Margin - 
% Dumping 
Margin 
Range - 
% 
1 Seyen Heavy Industries (Shanghai) Co., 
Ltd, Shanghai, China PR (Producer) and Shanghai General Motors Corporation Ltd, Pudong, Shanghai, China PR (Exporter). 
***              
*** 45-55 2 Zhejiang Baokang Wheel Manufacture 
Co., Ltd, Wangzhai Town, Wuyi, Zhejiang, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
3 Zhejiang Zent Auto  Wheel Co. Ltd., 
Yongkang City, Zhejiang, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
4 Zhejiang Jinfei Kaid a Wheel Co, Ltd., 
Jinhua City, Zhejiang, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
5 Wuxi City Wanxuan Metal Production Co., 
Ltd., Wuxi City, Jiangsu, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
6 Zhejiang Shuguang I ndustrial Co., Ltd., 
Wuyi , Zhejiang, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
7 Xiangyang Hengde Auto  Parts Co. Ltd., 
Xiangyang, Hubei Province, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
8 Kunshan Liufeng Machinery Industry Co. 
Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China PR (Producer) and Lio Fung International Corporation, K unshan Development 
Zone, Jiangsu Province, China PR (Exporter). 
 
All other exporters from China PR 
 
76. Dumping margin for all other non-coop erating exporters from China PR is 
determined by the Authority on the basis of best available facts. 
 
Particulars Normal 
Value - US$/KgExport 
price - US$/KgDumping 
Margin - US$/Kg Dumping 
Margin - % Dumping 
Margin Range - % 
All other *** *** *** *** 60-70  
48 
 Producers/Exporters 
 
Dumping Margin in case of Korea RP. 
 
Dumping Margin for Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd, Korea RP (exporter), Hyundai 
Mobis, Hong Kong (exporter) and Ba oding Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing 
Co., Ltd, China PR (producer) 
 
77. The dumping margin in respect of Hyundai  Glovis Co. Ltd, Korea RP (exporter), 
Hyundai Mobis , Hong Kong  and Baoding Lizhong W heel Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd, China PR (producer) has been dete rmined by the Authority as already been 
dealt in case of Producer  M/s Baoding Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Co., Ltd, 
China PR. 
 
Dumping Margin in case of all ot her exporters from Korea RP. 
 
78. Comparing the normal va lue and export prices as determined in the preceding 
paragraphs, the dumping margin is determi ned by the Authorit y with regard to 
Korea RP based on best available facts as per the table below; 
 
Particulars Normal 
Value - US$/KgExport 
price - US$/KgDumping 
Margin - US$/Kg Dumping 
Margin - % Dumping 
Margin Range - % 
All Producers/Exporters 
*** *** *** *** 25-35 
 
Dumping Margin for all producer/exporter in case of Thailand. 
 
79. Comparing the normal va lue and export prices as determined in the preceding 
paragraphs, the dumping margin is determi ned by the Authorit y with regard to 
Thailand  based on best availabl e facts as per the table below; 
 
Particulars Normal 
Value - US$/Kg Export 
price - US$/Kg Dumping 
Margin - US$/Kg Dumping 
Margin - % Dumping 
Margin Range - % 
All Producers/Exporters 
*** *** *** *** 20-30 
 
K. METHODOLOGY FOR INJURY DETE RMINATION AND EXAMINATION OF 
INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK 
 
Submissions made by  the producers/ex porters/importers/other interested 
parties  
49 
 80. The following are the injury related submissions made by the 
producers/exporters/importers/other intere sted parties during the course of the 
present investigation and consider ed relevant by the Authority: 
 
i) The increasing imports from China are a natural result of the huge gap 
between high demand in In dia and insufficient supply capacity of Indian 
wheel industry. The petitioner company claiming to hold major 
proportion (though erroneously) is unable to  meet even the half of total 
Indian demand for ARWs since it is an EOU unit and is obligated to 
export at least 50% of its goods and achieve  a positive NFE.As a 
result, whenever demand arises, in the absence of permission from the 
Development Commissioner to the A pplicant Domestic Producer to 
sale in the DTA, the consumers ar e forced to procure the subject goods 
from the other domesti c producers or import. 
 
ii) Injury Margin 22% Capital Retu rn Rate is too high to construct 
reasonable NIP. The Designated Au thority should adopt the actual 
profit earned by the Domestic I ndustry during the period when there 
was no allegation of dumping as a basis for calculating reasonable 
return.  
 
iii) DGAD should follow the methodol ogy as per Annexure III of the Anti-
Dumping Rules for applying lesser duty Rule and not the one which is 
highly arbitrary to give undue adv antage to the Domestic Industry. 
 
iv) The petitioner is exporting ARW to its subsidiary in USA and incurring 
huge losses. It is to be noted that the Petiti oner has a huge outstanding 
receivables against its US subsidiary for 2010-11 for export of ARW. 
So the claim of the Petitioner that the Petitioner registered a significant 
growth in export market is incorrect. 
 
v) DGAD is required to examine t he data of not only the petitioner 
company but also other domestic producers in the market. There are 5 
producers in the market, as was stated by the Petitioner. That being the 
case, DGAD should direct Petitioner  to submit information about the 
other producers or require other domestic producers to provide 
necessary information for the pur poses of evaluating injury.  
 
vi) The petitioner has included semi-f inished ARWs as well in the product 
scope without any justification. T he semi-finished ARWs have more 
weight and less cost as compar ed to finished ARWs and therefore 
should be excluded from the injury analysis. 
  
50 
 vii) While import prices have increas ed during the injury period, the selling 
price of the petitioner has remained stable throughout the injury period. 
Therefore, the claim of  the petitioner that the dumped imports is 
affecting profitability and its inability to increase its selling price has no 
merit. There is no volume effect as well. 
 
viii) There has been a marked improv ement in Production, Production 
capacity, sales, employment, producti vity (per day as well as per 
employee), etc. Thus, injury claim ed by domestic industry holds no 
merit. 
 
ix) The real cause for the alleged injury  to the petitioner is not dumping of 
subject goods but rather due to ot her reasons such as the power 
outage, dismal export performance affecting domestic sales, 
competition with other dom estic producers, Exchang e rate fluctuation, 
inability to meet quality standar ds of OEM market, etc. 
 
x) There are two distinct market segments for the subject goods– OEM 
segment and aftermarket segment. T he dynamics of OEM segment are 
completely different from aftermar ket segment and therefore the injury 
analysis needs to be made separatel y. Australia in its findings has 
conducted separate injury and caus ation analysis for both OEM and 
After Market segments.  OE sale s are governed by long term contract 
between the supplier and the OE buyers. In contrast, the sales in the 
AM market segment are not subject to  any such contractual obligations 
and hence they are pr ice sensitive.  
 
xi) In the OE market segment, the w heels invariably include IPRs of the 
OE buyers whereas in the AM, thes e rights could be with the supplier 
or the buyers depending upon the contra ctual conditions.  In either 
case, the important point is that t he each of the two market segments is 
characterized by different pattern of IPR ownership.  
 
xii) Domestic industry failed to submit  relevant information with regard to 
the existence of two different and distinct market segments namely 
Original Equipment Market Segment (OE) Replacement or After Sales 
Market Segment (AM). The wheels so ld by the manufacturers in the 
OE market segment have different technical specifications, designs, 
branding and styling as  compared to the goo ds manufactured 
exclusively for AM. 
 
xiii)  Styling, weights as  well as designs are dete rmining factors for deciding 
the specificity of wheels. The Dome stic Industry has deliberately not 
brought to the notice of the Authority the followi ng facts. That the  
51 
 pricing of the wheels is a function of  designs, styling, sizes, weights 
and finishes. Therefore, even if whee ls manufactured by two different 
producers may fit into the same vehicl e, the price can vary significantly 
on account of the abov e-mentioned factors. 
 
xiv) That each wheel supplied to the OE is as per the specific design, style 
and technical specifications provi ded the OE buyer.  Therefore, each 
wheel supplied to the OE is unique a nd is invariably identified as a 
specific part number.  The contention of the Domest ic Industry that all 
wheels are interchangeable is incorrect. 
 
xv) There are legal and contractual obli gations due to which it is not open 
to all the producers of ARWs to s upply all the part numbers.  Since the 
technical specifications, design and styling are largely an outcome of a 
collaborative effort of the OEM and t he supplier, the market is distinct 
from normal commodity markets.  
 
xvi) Each part number procured by OE Ms in India have to be necessarily 
approved by the Automotive Research  Association of India (ARAI).  
The non-approved producers can at best sell wheels in the After 
Market Segment or the Replacement  Market Segment (AM) which may 
fit into the vehicles but cannot be considered as a substitute either 
technically or commercially.  
 
xvii) The proposition of the Domestic I ndustry that the pricing of the wheels 
is primarily determined by the weight  of the wheel is not only without 
any merit but also illogical.  If this  proposition is accepted, it would lead 
to a totally unacceptable conclusion that the higher the weight the 
higher would be the price.  The reality is that lighter th e wheel the more 
expensive it would be.   
 
xviii) The domestic industry is a 100% EOU unit, therefore by the virtue of 
EOU unit they have advantages in export market and some limitations 
to supply in the domestic market or are at disadvantageous footing 
compared to other domestic players. Thus the petitioner cannot sell 
any quantities in the local market unle ss they fulfill their obligations as 
mentioned under Chapter 6.5 and 6.8 of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). 
Other domestic producers have no such obligation to fulfill. Such an 
obligation severely limits their ability to accept large contracts which are 
essential for OE supplies. 
 
xix) The applicant’s total earning cannot  exceed the upper limit of 50% of 
FOB value as set in the Chapter 6. 8 of FTP.  Therefore, applicant’s 
total domestic sales value is only dependent on their export  
52 
 performance. If the Petitioner/ Domest ic Industry do not export, they 
cannot sell in domestic market al so.  Such obligations are not 
prevailing with other domestic players.  Therefore, it is obligatory on the 
Designated Authority to analyze their export performance over the 
entire injury investigation period and it s impact on their ability to sell in 
the Indian market. 
 
xx) As stated earlier also, the applicant  industry performance is totally 
dependent on the export performance on ly because unless their export 
revenue increases they cannot increas e the price of their product in 
domestic market. If they increase t heir prices, without increase in 
export revenue then in that case , they will have to reduce their 
quantities in the domestic market as there is a cap on the domestic 
sales in terms of value. The domestic industry cannot increase their 
prices with the OE because of the long term commitments with them.  
 
xxi) The increase in import volumes in the period of invest igation have to be 
evaluated after taking into considerat ion the fact that the orders for 
these supplies were placed at l east 1-2 years in advance.   
 
xxii) Domestic Industry is in no positi on to increase its domestic sales as 
apparently they had already exceeded their DTA entitlement in the 
preceding years.   
 
xxiii) The cost of domestic industry needs to be adjust ed appropriately on 
account of capacity, capacity utiliz ation, high fixed overheads, price 
commitments in their long term contract s, cost structure provided at the 
time of bidding in tender s for OE market, etc. 
 
xxiv) The claim of the Domestic Indus try’s fall in profits is completely 
misleading as the claimed fall has to be examined in the context of their 
export performance and export obligati ons which have a direct bearing 
on their financial performance in the domestic market as well. 
 
xxv) The petitioner has claimed that pr oduction, capacity, capacity utilization 
and sales has been seriously injur ed by the imports from subject 
countries. The fact of significant increasing of capacity itself is 
contradictory to the petitioner’s claim.  
 
xxvi) The petitioner claims that profitabilit y of the domestic industry sharply 
and materially declined as an impact of  dumping from subject countries 
and remained at negligible le vels during the POI. Howe ver, it is difficult 
to understand why there could be a sign ificant loss, while the cost of 
sales and domestic sales price remai ned stable during POI. The profit  
53 
 ratio of OEM ARW manufacturers is not determined by the OEM ARW 
manufacturers. Rather, it is ultima tely determined by the car makers. 
 
xxvii) Petitioner has also claimed that it has lost substantial sale orders 
directly to the exporters from subject countries. However no supporting 
evidence in this regard seems to have been furnished by the petitioner 
in the public file. 
 
xxviii) The current exchange rate shoul d be taken for injury analysis. If DGAD 
examines injury to domestic i ndustry based on old exchange rate of 
50.25 considered by petitioner instead  of prevailing exchange rate, 
then the injury analysis will not re flect the correct picture and the 
exporters may in fact be burdened with  a higher rate of duty than the 
actual injury margin.  
 
xxix) Though petitioner managed to incr ease the capacity to some extent, 
however, petitioner could not incr ease the capacity further due to 
capital constraints. This is evid ent from the repor t of Kubera Cross 
Border Fund Ltd, the largest shar eholder in the petitioner company, 
wherein it is stated t hat due to capital constraint, the management 
decided not to increase the capacity despite strong order book. Thus, it 
is evident that decision with respect to  increase in capacity is not due to 
alleged dumped goods from subject countries. 
 
xxx) Domestic Industry has not provi ded much crucial information such as 
export sales, long term contract det ails and its implication on pricing 
and costing, in the absence of whic h no meaningful injury analysis can 
be made by the Authority with regard to  injury as well as causal link. 
 
xxxi) As regards the issue of price undercutting and price under selling, it is 
reiterated that the Domest ic Industry has given a misleading analysis to 
the Authority. The price comparisons ignore the fact that the material 
terms and conditions of the contract  were finalized much before the 
date of actual supply.  
 
xxxii) There is no causal link between performance of Domestic Industry and 
imports of subject goods. Because of  the nature of the auto industry 
and that of the subject goods, any cl aim of injury by the Domestic 
Industry in the period of investigat ion has to be analyzed only after 
getting full information regarding the timing and the terms and 
conditions of specific contracts.  
 
  
54 
 Submissions made by the domestic industry 
81. The following are the injury related s ubmissions made by the domestic industry 
during the course of the present invest igation and considered relevant by the 
Authority: 
 
i. It would be appropriate to assess injury to the domestic industry 
cumulatively from subject countries  since the goods involved are like 
articles and are competing in the same market, the imported products 
are being sold through the comparable channel of  distribution and to 
comparable category of cu stomers, products from the subject countries 
are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market and 
imports from subject c ountries are increasing. 
 
ii. Authority should dete rmine NIP for the domestic industry based on 
provisions of Annexure III to the AD rules. 
 
iii. The demand of the product in t he country shows a robust growth 
during the POI. However, share of  domestic industry declined due to 
dumped imports.  
 
iv. Imports from subject countries have  increased in absolute term as also 
in relation to total imports, producti on and consumption in India. As a 
result, share of the domestic industry has declined steeply. 
 
v. Weighted average import prices (a fter including basic customs duties 
and applicable edu.cess) have been signif icantly below the net sales 
realization of the domestic industry, thus, resulting in significant price 
undercutting. Although import prices are showing increasing trend but 
such import prices are still significant ly lower than net sales realization 
of the domestic industry. 
 
vi. The increase in sell ing price was lower than t he increase in cost of 
production thus the dumped imports are creating price suppression 
effect on the domestic industry.  
 
vii. The domestic industry has suffered material injury in connection with 
dumping of subject goods from subjec t countries. Further, the domestic 
industry is threatened with conti nued injury, should the present 
condition continue.  
 
viii. The domestic industry, despite available capacity, has not been able to 
take part in the increased demand owing to presence of dumped 
material and in turn faced huge losse s of market share. Absence of  
55 
 dumped imports could have helped do mestic industry to achieve 
legitimate and reasonable grow th in the above parameters.  
 
ix. The profitability of the domesti c industry sharply and materially 
declined as an impact of dumping from  subject countries and remained 
at negligible levels during the POI. 
 
x. Market share of the domestic in dustry has severely declined whereas 
that of imports from subject countries has materially increased.  
 
xi. While the increase in demand of t he product where al most absolutely 
absorbed by the dumped imports, the employments in absolute number 
have not increased to a level whic h could have been possible if the 
domestic industry was given a proper  share of increase in demand.  
 
xii. Productivity of the domestic indus try has increased significantly over 
the base year.  
 
xiii. Return on investments has taken deep dips. The current level of ROI is 
much less than the desirable and legi timate levels which should have 
been achieved by the domestic industry considering the huge 
investments it has made in the absence of dumped imports.  
 
xiv. Inventory during POI have signific antly increased ov er the years.  
 
xv. Overall growth paramet ers of the domestic industry in terms of sales, 
capacity utilization, market share, profit per KG, PBIT, ROI etc has 
been negative.  
 
xvi. The entire increase in demand dur ing POI as compared to previous 
years has been met through dumped imports despite unutilized 
capacity available with domestic industry. 
 
xvii. The dumping margin from subject countries is not only more than de-
minimis levels but is very significant.  
 
xviii. Petitioner has lost subst antial sale orders directly to 
exporters/producers form subject countries who offered dumped prices. 
 
xix. The domestic industry has suffered material injury due to dumped 
imports of the subject goods from the subject countries.  
 
xx. There are no such long term contract s which could have caused injury 
to the petitioner. The reason is only dumping and any other 
suggestions by the respondent are merely misleading.  
56 
  
xxi. Demand for the product is in creasing based on the high penetration 
level of ARWs. However, all such increase in demands is imbibed by 
the dumped imports owing to the dumped prices offered by them. 
Question of petitioner meeting t he entire Indian demand is a well 
settled issue as imposition of dutie s is only to correct the trade 
distorting effects of dumping and not to  stop imports. In any case, India 
can meet the demand provided ther e is a level playing ground is 
provided in the Indian market. 
 
xxii. The contention that increase in  imports are on account of demand 
supply gap in India is absolutely wr ong. AD measures are not to stop 
imports. AD measures would correct  the trade distorting effects of 
dumping. Imports can be allowe d but not at dumped prices.  
 
xxiii. The price undercutting throughout the injury period is significant as 
there is significant difference between the prices offered by the 
Domestic Industry and producers/ expor ters from subject countries. 
Thus, decline in market share of t he domestic industry is a result of 
dumping. 
 
xxiv. Even when the domestic industry has been compelled to offer sub-
optimal prices, it is losing sales on one hand and lowe ring profitability 
to the level which is unviable. 
 
xxv. Presence of import at very lower price preventing domestic industry to 
increase their price to t he extent of increase in input cost, thus imports 
are suppressing the selling prices  of the domestic industry.  
 
xxvi. Reduction in profits directly resu lted in deterioration in return on capital 
employed and cash profit s. The domestic industr y has not been able to 
cover the cost of capital. Thus, deteri oration in profits, return on capital 
employed and also cash fl ow and cash profit is directly due to dumped 
imports. 
 
xxvii. Decline in sales volumes has adversely affected t he production and 
capacity utilization. Thus, decline in  growth of production and capacity 
utilization is due to dumped imports. 
 
xxviii. Contentions with regard to power constraints causing injury to the DI 
are out of place. The fa ct of the matter is DI could not produce and sell 
to the extent possible because of t he presence of severe competition 
from dumped materials fr om subject countries.  
 
  
57 
 Examination by the Authority 
 
82. Article 3.1 of the WTO Agreement and Annexure-II of the AD Rules provide for an 
objective examination of both, (a) the vo lume of dumped imports and the effect of 
the dumped imports on prices , in the domestic market, for the like products; and 
(b) the consequent impact of these impo rts on domestic producers of such 
products. With regard to the volume effect  of the dumped imports , the Authority is 
required to examine whether  there has been a significant increase in dumped 
imports, either in absolute term or relative  to production or consumption in India. 
With regard to the price effect of the dum ped imports, the Author ity is required to 
examine whether there has been signifi cant price undercutting by the dumped 
imports as compared to the pr ice of the like product in Indi a, or whether the effect 
of such imports is otherwise to depress the prices to a significant degree, or 
prevent price increases, wh ich would have otherwise o ccurred to a significant 
degree.  
  
83. As regards the impact of  the dumped imports on the domestic industry para (iv) 
of Annexure-II of the AD Ru les states as follows. 
  
“The examination of the impact of the dump ed imports on the domestic industry 
concerned, shall include an evaluation of all releva nt economic factors and 
indices having a bearing on the state of  the Industry, incl uding natural and 
potential decline in sales, pr ofits, output, market share, productivity, return on 
investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the 
magnitude of margin of dumping actual and potent ial negative effects on cash 
flow, inventories, employment, wages , growth, ability to raise capital 
investments.”  
  84. The injury analysis made by the Au thority hereunder ipso facto addresses the 
various submissions made by the intere sted parties. However, the specific 
submissions made by the interested parti es during the course of the present 
investigation and considered relevant by  the Authority are addressed by the 
Authority as below:  
 
i. As regards the submission that t he increasing imports from China are a 
natural result of the huge gap bet ween high demand in India and 
insufficient supply capacity of Indian wheel industry, t he Authority notes 
that lack of adequate capacity with the domestic industry does not 
justify  dumped imports. Moreover , anti-dumping measures are not 
intended to prevent imports  but rather to create a level playing field for 
the domestic industry vis- a-vis the dumped imports. 
 
ii. As regards the submi ssion that the petitioner company being an 100% 
EOU is not capable of meeting the domestic demand,  unless it fulfills  
58 
 its export obligation, the Authority notes that as  per the Foreign Trade 
Policy of India 100% EOU units, other than gems  and jewellery units, 
may sell goods upto 50% of FOB value of exports, subject to fulfillment 
of positive NFE, on payment of  concessional duties. Further, 
EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units can also  sell finished products, except 
pepper and pepper products and marble , which are freely importable 
under FTP in DTA, under intimation to  DC, against payment of full 
duties, provided they have achieved  positive NFE. The domestic 
industry does enjoy positive NFE dur ing the POI as per the provisions 
of the Foreign Trade Policy. 
 
iii. As regards the submi ssion that 22% Capital Return Rate is too high, 
the authority notes that the NIP fo r the domestic industry has been 
determined as per the provisions of  Annexure III to the anti-dumping 
Rules and consistent practice s followed by the Authority. 
 
iv. As regards the submissions that t he petitioner is expo rting ARW to its 
subsidiary in USA and incurring huge losses, the Authority notes the 
injury analysis in the present inve stigation has been conducted after 
segregating the domestic and export  performance of the domestic 
industry. Therefore, the contention that the losse s, if any, incurred by 
the domestic industry on account of its exports does not have material 
impact on the injury analysis conducted by the Authority. 
 
v. As regards the submissions that DGAD is required to examine the data 
of not only the petitione r company but also other  domestic producers in 
the market, the authority notes that the petitioner  company constitutes 
domestic industry under the Rules.  Moreover, the other domestic 
producers during the POI have not filed the required information 
despite request by the Authority.  
 
vi. As regards the submission that  the petitioner has included semi-
finished ARWs in the product sc ope without any justification and 
therefore the same should be excl uded from the injury analysis, the 
Authority notes that the semi-fin ished ARWs are also ARWs for all 
practical purposes and therefore not excluded from the purview of 
injury analysis.  As per the im port data relied upon, certain ARWs 
reported as semi finished have been r eported only in respect of import 
transactions from China PR during t he POI. The Authority further notes 
that such imports constitute only about  6 MT (0.06% of the total imports 
of the subject goods from Ch ina PR during the POI).  
 
vii. As regards the submission that t here are two distinct  market segments 
for the subject goods– OEM segment and aftermarket segment and   
59 
 the injury analysis should be done s eparately, the Aut hority notes that 
the difference in the segments of t he market does not constitute the 
product under consideration differen t. Styling, weights as well as 
designs including proprietary rights or patenting also do not make the 
products different. The objective of the anti-dumping investigation is to 
ascertain injury to the domestic indus try, if any, on account of dumping 
of the subject goods from the subjec t countries. The segmental nature 
of the market does not vitiate the in jury analysis done by the authority 
in the present investigation.  
 
viii. The Authority notes that the content ion that pricing of the wheels is not 
determined by the weight  of the wheels, but rather by the style and 
design of the wheels, is not correct . While the size, style, design, 
quality, brand, patent, etc. may contri bute to the price of a product in 
the market, the primary determinant fa ctor for the cost and price of a 
product is the price of the i nputs that has gone in the product. 
 
ix. With regard to other contentions of  the interested parties, the Authority 
has appropriately dealt with the same in the preceding paragraphs and 
also herein below. 
I. Cumulative Assessment 
  
85. The Annexure II (iii) of the Anti-Dumping  Rules requires that where imports of a 
product from more than one country are be ing simultaneously subjected to anti-
dumping investigations, the designated aut hority will cumulatively assess the 
effect of such imports, onl y when it determines that ; 
 
i. The margin of dumping established in  relation to the imports from each 
country is more than two percent expre ssed as percentage of export price and 
the volume of the imports from each count ry is three percent of the import of 
like article or where the export of i ndividual countries is less than three 
percent, the imports collectively account s for more than seven percent of the 
import of like article; and  
 
ii. Cumulative assessment of the effect of  imports is appropria te in light of the 
conditions of competition between t he imported article and the like domestic 
articles.  
86. The Authority notes that the dumped imports are entering the Indian market 
simultaneously from the subject countries . Therefore, the issue of cumulative 
assessment of the injury caused to t he domestic industry due to dumped imports 
from these sources has been examined with respect to the above parameters 
and it was observed that:   
60 
  
i. The margins of dumping of individual produ cts from each of the subject 
countries are more than the de-minimis  limit;  
ii. The volume of imports  of individual products from each of the subject 
countries is more than the de minimis;  
iii. Imports from the subject countries  are significantly undercutting the 
prices of the domestic industry in the market;  
 
87.  In view of the above, the Authority considers it appropriate to cumulatively 
assess the effects of dumped imports of  the subject goods from the subject 
countries on the domestic industry in the light of conditions of competition 
between imported product and li ke domestic product. The Au thority notes that the 
margin of dumping and quantum of imports  from subject countries are more than 
the limits prescribed above.  
 
88. Annexure-II of the Anti -dumping Rules provides for an objective examination of 
both, (a) the volume of dumped imports and  the effect of t he dumped imports on 
prices, in the domestic market, for the like articles; and (b) the consequent impact 
of these imports on domestic producers of  such articles. With regard to the 
volume effect of the dumped imports, th e Authority is required to examine 
whether there has been a significant in crease in dumped imports, either in 
absolute term or relative to production or c onsumption in India. With regard to the 
price effect of the dumped im ports, the Authority is r equired to examine whether 
there has been significant price under cutting by the dumped imports as 
compared to the price of the like product in India, or whether th e effect of such 
imports is otherwise to depress the prices to a significant degree,  or prevent price 
increases, which would have otherwise occurred to a significant degree.  
 
89. As regards the impact of  the dumped imports on the domestic industry. Para (iv) 
of Annexure-II of the Anti-dumping Rules states as follows:  
 
“The examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic 
industry concerned, shall include an ev aluation of all relevant economic 
factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Industry, including 
natural and potential decli ne in sales, profits, output, market share, 
productivity, return on investments or ut ilization of capacity; factors affecting 
domestic prices, the magn itude of margin of dumping actual and potential 
negative effects on cash flow, inventorie s, employment wages growth, ability 
to raise capital investments.”  
 90.  For the examination of the impact of  imports on the domestic industry in India, 
the Authority has considered such further  indices having a bearing on the state of 
the industry as production, capacity utilizat ion, sales quantum, stock, profitability, 
net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of du mping etc. in accordance 
with Annexure II(iv) of  the Rules supra.   
61 
 J. Volume Effect of the Dumped  imports on the Domestic Industry 
a)         Demand and market share  
  
91. Authority has defined, fo r the purpose of the present  investigation, demand or 
apparent consumption of the pr oduct in India as the sum of domestic sales of the 
Indian Producers and imports from all sources. The de mand so assessed is given 
in the table below: 
 
i) Demand 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
ii) Market Share in Demand 
 
92. Considering imports fr om various sources and sale s of the Indian Producers, 
market share of subject imports in demand in India was examined. Factual 
position is as follows  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Particulars Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 
POI 
Demand MT 7,298 9,913 16,006 16,410 
Indexed Trend 100 136 219 225 
Imports from Subject 
Countries MT 3,066 4,719 12,039 12,497 
Imports from Other 
Countries MT 1,317 1,420 531 550 
Sales of Domestic Industry MT 2,545 2,966 2,636 2,603 
Sales of other Indian 
Producers (Estimated) MT 370 808 800 760 
Particulars Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Imports from 
Subject Countries %          
42.01           
47.61           
75.21             76.15  
Imports from Other Countries %          
18.04           
14.32           
3.32               3.35  
Sales of 
Domestic Industry %          
34.87           
29.92           
16.47             15.86  
Sales of other Indian Producers %          
5.07           
8.15           
5.00               4.63   
62 
 93. It is seen that the demand for the produc t increased significantly in the country 
throughout the injury period and  also during the POI. Wh ile the share of imports 
from subject countries which was 42.01%  in the base year has increased to 
76.15% in the POI, the share of domesti c industry has declined from 34.87% in 
the base year to 15.86% in the POI. Thus , the imports from subject countries 
constituted a significant increase, whils t the share of domestic industry showed 
declining trends.   
  
b)        Import volume and market share  
  
94. The Authority has examined the volume  of imports of the subject goods as 
provided by the petitioner (w hich is based on secondary source import data i.e 
IBIS). After comparing the import data from the secondary sources (IBIS) as 
furnished by the domestic industry with the import data received from the 
DGCI&S, the Authority notes t hat in terms of volume of imports into India from 
subject countries, data from both the sour ces do not show significant differences, 
however, the unit prices reported by DGCI&S are abnormally low vis-à-vis the 
price reported by IBIS. Therefore, the Authority has relied upon the secondary 
sources (IBIS) data furnished by the domes tic industry for the purpose of this 
investigation. The import vo lumes from subject countries are found to be above 
the de-minimis  levels as can be seen from the table below. 
  
95. Imports volume from subject count ry and other countries has been as under:- 
 
Particulars Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 
POI 
Volume Subject 
Countries MT 3,066 4,719 12,039 12,497 
Other 
countries MT 1,317 1,420 531 550 
Total imports MT 4,383 6, 139 12,570 13,047 
Market 
Share 
in 
Imports Subject 
Countries % 69.96 76.88 95.77 95.78 
Other countries % 30.04 23.12 4.23 4.22 
 
96. It is observed from the above table that imports from subject countries increased 
significantly. It is also noted that impor ts from subject countries account very 
significant proportion of total imports of product under consideration in India.  
   
 
 
  
63 
 c)        Share of dumped imports in relation to production  
  
97. Authority observes that  the dumped imports from subject countries have 
increased in relation to the production of t he domestic industry, as is evident from 
the following table: 
 
  Unit  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Imports from Subject 
Countries  MT 3,066 4,719 12,039 12,497 
Production of domestic industry  MT         
3,361         
5,496         
5,818         
5,715  
Dumped Imports in relation to production of domestic industry. % 91.23 85.88 206.94 218.65 
 
  e)         Capaci ty & capacity utilization  
 
98. Capacity and capacity utilizat ion of the domestic industry over the injury period is 
given in the following table:- 
  
 
 Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Capacity MT MT 6,760 6,760 8,060 8,060 
Capacity utilization   % 49.72 81.30 72.18 70.91 
  
99. It is observed that capac ity utilization of the domes tic industry increased upto 
2010-11, but declined thereafter including the POI. Domestic industry claimed 
that such decline in capacity utilization is the direct impact of increase in dumped 
imports in the same period.  Decline in  capacity utilization,  when there is an 
increase in the deman d, shows adverse impacts on the domestic industry due to 
absorption of such increase in demand by dumped imports.  
 100. It is further observed that there ha s been an enhancement of capacity in the 
period 2011-12. As submitted by the petitioner such capacity enhancement was 
considering the novelty of the product and the growing dem and. However, the 
domestic industry is unable to increase it s production due to presence of dumped 
imports in the country.  
 
 f)          Production  
  
101. Production data of the dom estic industry is given in the following table:- 
  
  
64 
  Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Production MT MT 3,361 5,496 5,818 5,715 
Trend  Indexed 100 164 173 170 
Demand MT 7,298 9,913 16,006 16,410 
Trend  Indexed 100 136 219 225 
Production in 
relation to Demand % 46.06 55.44 36.35 34.83 
  
102. It is observed that production of t he domestic industry has increased up to 
2011-12, however declined marginally in the POI. Demand in the same period 
has increased significantly. The domesti c industry has submitted that, even 
when demand increased sharply, the dumped imports prevented the domestic 
industry to increase its production. 
  
g)         Sales volume  
  
103. Sales volume of the domestic indus try is given in the following table: 
 
  Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Domestic sales  MT 2,545 2,966 2,636 2,603 
Trend Indexed 100 117 104 102 
Demand MT 7,298 9,913 16,006 16,410 
Trend Indexed 100 136 219 225 
Market Share of 
domestic industry in Demand % 34.87 29.92 16.47 15.86 
 
104. It is observed from the above table t hat sales of the domestic industry has 
showed increasing trend between 2009- 10 and 2010-11 and declined thereafter 
till POI. While the demand for the product has increased significantly during the 
injury period, the sales of the domestic i ndustry are either st agnant or marginally 
increased. The domestic industry has cl aimed that the si tuation had arisen 
because of the impact of dumped imports. Resultantly, the domestic industry 
lost significant market share.  
 
K.  Price Effect of the Dumped imports on the Domestic Industry 
 
105. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, the Designated 
Authority is required to consider w hether there has been a significant price 
undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like 
product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress 
prices to a significant degree or prevent  price increases, which otherwise would 
have occurred, to a significant degree. For the purpose of this analysis, the 
weighted average cost of  production (COP), weig hted average Net Sales  
65 
 Realization (NSR) and the Non-Injurious Price (NIP) of the domestic industry 
have been compared with the landed cost of imports from the subject countries. 
 
i. Price Undercutting 
 
106. The net sales realization was arrived after deducting outward freight and taxes. 
Landed value of imports has been calcul ated by adding 1% handling charge 
and applicable basic customs duty including applicable ce ss to the CIF value of 
subject imports. The landed value of imports was compared with net sales 
realization of the domestic industry and it was found that t he dumped imports 
are undercutting the prices of the domes tic industry as per the table below: 
 
China PR 
 
 
Korea RP 
 
 
Thailand 
 Particulars Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Landed Value Rs./KG 188.83 208.96 224.22 238.78 
Net Sales 
realization Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting % *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting % 
Range 25-35 15 - 25 25-35 15 - 25 
Particulars Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Landed Value Rs./KG 220.48 232.01 251.83 256.68 
Net Sales 
realization Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting % *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting % 
Range 15-25 10-20 15-25 15 – 25 
Particulars Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Landed Value Rs./KG 220.36 247.36 258.14 262.84 
Net Sales 
realization Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting % *** *** *** ***  
66 
  
Subject Countries 
  
 
107. It is observed from the above table that imports are undercutting prices of 
domestic industry. Even though the landed price showed increases over the 
years, they were still well below the prices offered by domestic industry.  
  
ii. Price Underselling  
  
108. Authority notes that the price underselling is an important indicator of 
assessment of injury. N on injurious price has been worked out and compared 
with the landed value of the subject goods to arrive at the extent of price 
underselling. The non-i njurious price has been determined considering the cost 
of production of the domestic industry for the product under consideration during 
the POI, in accordance wi th Annexure III of the Anti-dumping Rules. The 
analysis shows that the landed value of  subject imports was below the non-
injurious price as can be seen from the table below. 
   
 Particulars Unit China PR Korea Thailand 
Non-injurious price Rs/KG *** *** *** 
Landed price (POI) Rs/KG 238.78 256.68 262.84 
Price underselling Rs/KG *** *** *** 
Underselling % *** *** *** 
Underselling  %Range  
30 - 40  
20-30  
20-30 
  
 
 
 Price 
Undercutting % 
Range 15-25 5-15 15-25 10-20 
Particulars Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Landed Value Rs./KG 201.64 216.67 232.17 242.22 
Net Sales 
realization Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting % *** *** *** *** 
Price 
Undercutting % 
Range 20 - 30 15 - 25 20-30 15 – 25  
67 
 iii. Price suppression/depression  
  
109. The Authority examined whether the effect of the dumped imports was to 
depress the prices of the like article in India, or prevent price increases which 
would have otherwise occurred. 
 
 
110. It can be seen from the table above that  the cost of production has increased 
from 100 to 119 from 2009-10 to POI, the se lling price increas ed only from 100 
to 113 during the same period, thereby the prices were suppressed on account 
of dumped imports, as the domestic industry was not able to increase its prices 
in proportion to increase in costs. The imports were thus suppressing the prices 
of the domestic industry.  
  
L. Economic parameters of the domestic industry  
i. Profit/Loss  
  
111. The profitability of the domestic i ndustry is given in the following table: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
112. It is seen from the above t able that profitability of t he domestic industry declined 
significantly during the injury period ex cept 2011-12. Return on investment has 
also declined in the POI as compared to base year as well as the previous year. 
  Particulars Unit 2009- 10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Cost of production Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 103 119 119 
Selling Price Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 101 118 113 
Landed Value Rs./KG 
201.64 216.67 232.17 242.22 
Particulars Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Profits Rs./Kg *** *** *** *** 
 Indexed 100 76 106 50 
Cash Profit Rs./Kg *** *** *** *** 
 Indexed 100 80 98 66 
ROCE % *** *** *** *** 
 Indexed 100 71 69 38  
68 
 ii. Cash Flow  
  
113. Authority has examined the trends in cash profits in order to examine the impact 
of dumping on cash flow situation of the domestic i ndustry. Information 
regarding cash profit of t he domestic industry is given in the following table. 
 
 
  Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Cash profits  
Rs./KG *** *** *** *** 
Trend Indexed 100 80 98 66 
  
114. It is seen that the cash profits of the domestic industry declined over the injury 
period. The decline was si gnificant in POI.  
  
iii. Inventories  
  
115. Inventories with the domesti c industry moved as follows; 
  
  Units 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Average Stock MT 234 395 935 1,075 
Stock as no. of 
days sale Days 9 9 22 25 
  
116. It is noted that inventor ies with the domestic industry increased in the POI as 
compared to the base year as well as the previous year.  
  
iv. Productivity  
 
117.  Authority notes that pr oductivity of the domestic i ndustry shows same trend as 
that of production. Productivity was incr easing till 2011-12 and declined in POI.  
  
Particulars Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Productivity per 
employee MT/Nos. ***  
***  
***  
*** 
Productivity per day MT/day 9.21 15.06 15.94 15.66 
 
v. Employment and Wages  
  
118. It is seen from the table below t hat the employment level has increased 
throughout the injury period and was stagnant in the POI.  Overall wages per kg, 
however, showed decline in POI as comp ared to the base year  as well as the 
previous year. 
   
69 
   Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Employment Nos. ***  ***  ***  *** 
 Indexed 100 116 140 140 
Wages Rs/Kg ***  ***  ***  *** 
 Indexed         100            84           95            98 
 
vi. Magnitude of Dumping  
 
119. Magnitude of dumping as an indicato r of the extent to which the dumped 
imports can cause injury to the domes tic industry shows that the dumping 
margin determined against the subject co untries are above de minimis and 
significant. 
 
vii. Growth 
 
120. The Authority notes from the table below that growth of the domestic industry in 
respect of production, capacity utilizat ion, ROI was negative. The domestic 
industry has submitted that they were  prohibited from taking benefits of 
increasing demand on account of incr eases in the dumped imports with 
significant price undercutting.  
 
 
 
 Unit 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Production % - 63.51 5.86 (1.76) 
Capacity 
Utilisation % 
- 31.58 (9.12) (1.27) 
Domestic sales % - 16.54 (11.12) (1.26) 
Inventory % - 68.42 136.94 15.01 
Profit/ KG % - 23.95 38.86 (52.56) 
ROI % - (3.43) (0.19) (3.71) 
 
viii.  Ability to raise capital investment  
  
121. Authority notes from the submissions of the app licant that ARWs are new 
generation product and the inve stments were made by t he domestic industry in 
the production of ARWs expecting to capitalize on the upcoming huge demand 
of the product in the country. However,  dumped imports starte d to reach Indian 
market at a time the product started to  gain momentum in India and any such 
increase in demand were absorbed by such  dumped imports. It is further noted 
that the domestic industry’s ability to pump in any add itional investments in the 
product depends upon the market situation as it is evident that the market share 
of the domestic industry has marked so me sharp decline in the POI. Hence,  
70 
 dumping of the product would have adverse impact on the ability of the 
domestic industry to raise capital investment. 
 
ix. Factors Affecting Domestic Prices  
 
122. The examination of the import prices from the s ubject countries and other 
countries, change in the cost  structure, competition in the domestic market, 
factors other than dumped impor ts that might be affecting the prices of the 
domestic industry in the domestic marke t, etc shows that the landed value of 
imported material from the subject count ries is below the selling price and the 
non-injurious price of the domestic i ndustry, causing significant price 
undercutting as well as price under selling in the Indian market. It is also noted 
that the demand for the subject goods wa s showing significant increase during 
the injury period and therefore it could not have been a factor affecting domestic 
prices. Thus, the principal factor affect ing the domestic prices  is landed value of 
subject goods from subject countries. 
M. Conclusion on material injury  
 
123. In view of the above, the Authority concludes that  the dumped imports of the 
subject goods from the subject countries  have increased in absolute terms as 
also in relation to production and consum ption of the subject goods in India. 
Imports of the product were undercutting t he prices of the domestic industry in 
the market. Further, the domestic industry was not in a position to increase its 
selling price to the extent of increase in  the cost of goods due to presence of 
dumped imports. The dumped imports were  suppressing the prices of the 
domestic industry. It is noted that demand for the product increased very 
significantly however production and sales of the domestic industry declined as 
dumped imports marked very significant increase. Resultantly, the domestic 
industry lost market share which in  turn impacted other performance 
parameters.  
 
124. The domestic industry was faced with significant unutilized capacities in a 
situation where the demand for the product is quite significant in the market. 
Profitability of the domestic industry declined. Return on capital employed and 
cash profits followed the same trend as th at of profits. Both return on capital 
employed and cash profits marked negative growths in POI. Thus, growth in 
respect of most of the parameters such as  production, sales, capacity utilization, 
profits, cash profits, return on capita l employed, market s hare& inventory etc 
shows an adverse impact on the domestic i ndustry. It is thus concluded that the 
domestic industry has suffered material injury.  
71 
 N. CAUSAL LINK AND OTHER FACTORS  
 
125.  Having examined the existence of materi al injury, volume and price effects of 
dumped imports on the prices of the domes tic industry, in terms of its price 
underselling and price suppre ssion, and depression effect s, other indicative 
parameters listed under t he Indian Rules and Agreem ent on Anti-Dumping have 
been examined to see whether any other factor, other than the dumped imports 
could have contributed to injury to t he domestic industry. Accordingly, the 
following parameters have been examined:-  
 
 
(a) Volume and prices of imports from third countries  
  
126. During POI, imports of t he subject goods from countri es other than the subject 
countries have been insignificant in volu me. Therefore, the imports from other 
countries cannot be considered to have c aused injury to the domestic industry. 
  
(b) Trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and 
domestic producers  
 
127. It is noted that there is  a single market for the subject goods where dumped 
imports from the subject countries co mpete directly with the subject goods 
supplied by the domestic industry. It is  also noted that the imported subject 
goods and domestically produced goods ar e like articles and are used for 
similar applications/end uses. There is no evidence of trade restrictive practices 
of and competition between the fore ign producers and domestic producers 
causing injury to the domestic industry. 
  
(c) Contraction of demand or Changes in the pattern of consumption  
  
128. The Authority notes that demand for the product showed signi ficant increase 
during the injury period and also during POI. The Authority thus concludes that 
injury to the domestic industry was not due to contraction in demand.  
  
(d) Development in Technology 
 129. None of the interested parties hav e furnished any evidence to demonstrate 
significant changes in technology that c ould have caused injury to the domestic 
industry.  
 
(e) Export performance of Domestic Industry;  
 
130.  The details of exports by  the petitioner are as follows: 
  
72 
 Period 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 POI 
Volume in MT ***  ***  ***  *** 
Indexed 100 322 324 326 
 
131. Performance of the domestic industr y has been segregated for domestic and 
export market. Exports by the domest ic industry showed robust growth during 
the injury period and also in POI. Ther efore, any possible decline in export 
performance is not a cause of injury.  In  any case, the Authority has considered 
only domestic operations in order to asce rtain the impact on pr ice parameters.  
  
(f) Productivity of the Domestic Industry 
  
132. Productivity of the domestic indust ry increased consistently. However, 
regardless of changes in pr oductivity levels, the profitability of the domestic 
industry showed continued decline. 
  133. From the foregoing, the Au thority concludes that ther e is no evidence of injury 
being caused due to other factors.  
  
O. FACTORS ESTABLISHING CAUSAL LINK 
  
134. Analysis of the performance of the domestic industry over the injury period 
shows that the performance of  the domestic industry has materially deteriorated 
over the injury period. The causal link between dumped imports and the injury to 
the domestic industry is est ablished on the following grounds: 
  
a) Significant increase in the demand coincided wit h significant increase 
in imports from subject countries brushed aside the domestic industry 
from its share in the domestic market; 
b) Imports from subject countries are undercutting the prices of the 
domestic industry. Resultantly, the volume of imports has increased 
significantly; 
c) Price undercutting being caused by  the dumped import s is preventing 
the domestic industry from increasi ng its prices. On the contrary, the 
domestic industry has been forced to reduce the prices whereas the 
cost of production increased over the injury period; 
d) Increase in import volumes and the import prices forced the domestic 
industry to reduce the prices;  
73 
 e) The price depression e ffect of dumped imports is visible on significant 
decline in profitability to the domestic industry; 
f) Deterioration in profits, return on  capital employed and cash profits are 
directly a result of dumped imports; 
g) Market share of the dumped imports increas ed significantly and 
consequently, market share of the domestic industry declined; 
h)  The growth of the domestic industry became negative in terms of a 
number of price related econom ic parameters and also volume 
parameters.   
 
135. The Authority is of the view that the above grounds establish existence of 
causal link between the dumped imports and injury to the domestic industry. 
Thus the Authority concludes for the pur pose of the present final findings that 
the domestic industry suffered material injury due to dumped imports of the 
subject goods originating in or expor ted from the subject countries.  
P.  MAGNITUDE OF INJURY  AND INJURY MARGIN  
 
136. The Authority determined non-injurious pr ice for the domestic industry on the 
basis of principles laid down in the Ru les, as amended. The non-injurious price 
so determined has been compared with the landed prices of imports from the 
subject countries. 
Sl.
No. Channel 
of 
Export Producer Exporter Non 
Injurious 
Price - 
US$/Kg Landed 
price - 
US$/Kg Injury 
Margin - 
US$/Kg Injury 
Margin 
- % Injury 
Margin 
Range 
- % 
1 China-
India Baoding 
Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China PR Baoding 
Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China PR 
 
 
  
***  
 
  
***  
 
  
***  
 
  
***  
   
30-40 
  
2 China-
Hongkong-Korea-India Baoding 
Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China PR Hyundai 
Glovis Co. Ltd, Korea RP and Hyundai Mobis , Hong Kong 
 
 
 
 
***  
 
 
 
***  
 
 
 
***  
 
 
 
***  
  
20-30 
3 Weighted average of Baoding 
Lizhong Wheel Manufacturing Co. Ltd, China PR  
***  
***  
***  
*** 
20-30  
74 
  
Non Sampled Exporters from China 
 
137. The injury margin for the following  exporters who had made themselves known 
in response to the sampling questionnaire but not sampled by the Authority, is 
determined on the basis of the injury margin determined for aforesaid sampled 
exporter. The injury margin in respect of the non-sampled exporters from China 
PR is as per table below: 
 
Sl 
No Particulars Injury 
Margin - 
US$/Kg Injury 
Margin - 
% Injury 
Margin 
Range - 
% 
1 Seyen Heavy Industries (Shanghai) Co., 
Ltd, Shanghai, China PR (Producer) and Shanghai General Motors Corporation Ltd, Pudong, Shanghai, China PR (Exporter). 
*** *** 20-30 2 Zhejiang Baokang Wheel Manufacture 
Co., Ltd, Wangzhai Town, Wuyi, Zhejiang, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
3 Zhejiang Zent Auto  Wheel Co. Ltd., 
Yongkang City, Zhejiang, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
4 Zhejiang JinfeiKaid a Wheel Co, Ltd., 
Jinhua City, Zhejiang, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
5 Wuxi City Wanxuan Metal Production Co., 
Ltd., Wuxi City, Jiangsu, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
6 Zhejiang Shuguang I ndustrial Co., Ltd., 
Wuyi, Zhejiang, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
7 XiangyangHengde Auto Parts Co. Ltd., 
Xiangyang, Hubei Province, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
8 KunshanLiufeng Machinery Industry Co. 
Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China PR (Producer) and Lio Fung International Corporation,Kunshan Development Zone, 
Jiangsu Province, China PR (Exporter). 
 
All other exporters from China PR 
 
138. Injury margin for all other non-c ooperating exporters fr om China PR is 
determined by the Authority on the basis of best available facts. 
  
75 
 Particulars Non Injurious 
Price - US$/Kg Landed 
price - US$/KgInjury 
Margin - US$/Kg Injury 
Margin - % Injury 
Margin Range - % 
All other Producers/Exporters           
*** *** *** *** 55-65 
 
Korea RP and Thailand 
 
139. In case of Korea RP and Thailand non-injurious price for the domestic industry 
has been compared with the la nded prices of imports into India as there are 
no/deficient responses in effect and the margins of injury has been compared 
with the margins of dumping for application of lesser duty. The injury margin so 
determined is as follows: 
 
S 
No Particulars Non 
Injurious Price - US$/Kg Landed 
price - US$/KgInjury 
Margin - US$/Kg Injury 
Margin - % Injury 
Margin Range - % 
1 All 
Producers/Exporters from Korea RP 
*** *** *** ***  25-35 
2 All 
Producers/Exporters from Thailand 
*** *** *** *** 20-30 
 
Q. Comments on the Provisional Fi nding by the interested parties 
  
140. The following are the post provis ional finding  comments made by the 
producers/exporters/importers/other inte rested parties and considered relevant 
by the Authority: 
 
i. Initiation Notification and Preliminary Findings are bad in law. Designated 
Authority has committed a jurisdic tional error in recommending anti-
dumping duties on semi-finished wheels to prevent circumvention of duties 
without even invoking the spec ific provisions of law. 
  
ii. Issue of preliminary finding on 13th January 2014, that is, 13 months after 
the initiation of investigation is illegal.  
 
iii. Domestic producers who also import do not automatically get excluded 
from the standing of the domestic industr y. In terms of Rule 2(b) of the 
anti-dumping rules, it is the discretion of DGAD to include or exclude the  
76 
 producer, who is also an importer. The exercise of such discretion needs 
to be demonstrated in the finding. 
 
iv. DGAD has considered entire producti on of Petitioner to evaluate the 
standing requirement. The petitioner bei ng a 100% EOU, The authority is 
required to examine only the produc tion related to DTA entitlement.  
 
v. It is incorrect to treat an EOU as dom estic industry.  EOU’s are given a 
special status only for the purposes of  export and only after they are in a 
position to meet their Net Foreign Exc hange (NFE) that they are allowed to 
sell in DTA with specif ied restrictions.   
 
vi. Models with specifications, which are not manufactured by Petitioner, 
should be excluded from the product scope. Imported grades or products 
which are not in competition with domes tic like articles cannot be said to 
cause injury to domestic industry.  
 
vii. Subject goods protected by intellect ual property righ t/copyright should be 
excluded from the purview of PUC since any other party including 
domestic industry are precluded from manufacturing such products without 
specific permission from the IPR/Copy  right holders. Also products not 
produced or sold by domestic indust ry during the POI should be excluded 
from the purview of PUC. 
 
viii. Definition of the Product under Consideration in t he Preliminary Findings 
as well as the initiation notificat ion is vague. The Product under 
Consideration covers Alloy Road Wheels “with or without accessories”, 
without detailing the accessories. 
 
ix. Citic Dicastal has no control over unr elated producers to force them to 
cooperate in the present investigation. Thus rejection of its export price by 
authority on these grounds is incorrect. 
 
x. Almost all the users of the produc t concerned are Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs), who place gl obal tenders with specified standards. 
The exporters do not have much say in the pricing of the product.  
 
xi. Authority has erroneously put SAIC GM Wuling Automobile Co. Ltd. 
(SGMW) and SAIC GM Wuling (Lin zhou) Importation and Exportation 
Company Ltd. (SGMW I&E) in the ca tegory of non-cooperative exporters.  
SGMW and SGWM I&E are entitled to individual dumping margin with 
Dicastal as the link producer. 
  
77 
 xii. GM Korea may be given individual dumping margin and injury margin 
based on their export prices to India and the normal value constructed by 
the Authority.  
  
xiii. Authority has rejected the claim of normal value of all the sampled 
producers in the China. In this cont ext, it may kindly be noted that the 
Authority can call for information fr om other non-sampled producers from 
the China to arrive at material co nclusion for determining normal value for 
non-sampled producers/exporte rs from China.   
 
xiv. Despite the submission that average exchange rate for the period should 
be adopted to make an appropriate injury analysis, prevailing exchange 
rate has been adopted in the PF without any justification.  
 
xv. Although it was substant iated with supporting evidence that petitioner 
could not increase its capacity due to capital constraint, it was not 
adequately addressed in the PF. 
 
xvi. The authority has noted in its pre liminary findings that apart from 
Synergies Castings, there exist 4 mo re producers of subject goods in 
India. The authority should have exami ned the inter-se competition among 
the domestic producers themselves as each producer is eyeing the same 
market.   
xvii. It was earlier submitted that inferi or quality product supplied by the 
petitioner causes diversion of orders and in result was a major cause of 
injury to it. This important fact need to be examined properly. 
 
xviii. Petitioner is exporting ARW to its subsidiary in USA and incurring huge 
losses. It is to be noted that t he Petitioner has a huge outstanding 
receivables against its US subsidiary  for 2010-11 for export of ARW. So 
the claim of the Petitioner that the Pe titioner registered a significant growth 
in export market is incorrect and false. 
 
xix. Where multiple product types are included in a single product basket for 
the purposes of investigation,  it is necessary to consider the prices of each 
product type in the injury analysis. 
 
xx. There are two distinct market segments for the subject goods – OEM 
segment and aftermarket segment. Injury analysis should be done 
separately for both the s egments of the market. 
  
78 
 xxi. Semi-finished ARWs are imported at  a lesser price as compared to 
finished goods. Therefore semi-fin ished ARWs should be excluded from 
the injury analysis. 
 
xxii. OEMs are meeting 15% of  their requirements from the domestic industry 
and their capacity is fully utilized. Thus  there is no injury to the domestic 
industry. 
 
xxiii. Domestic Industry is adopting Low pressu re Die casting (LPDC) or Gravity 
Die Casting Technology. Cast-Flow form & Forged wheels are newer 
technologies which lead to light weig ht, better mechanical properties and 
better styling appearance. Cost and pricing analysis for the two 
technologies should be done separately.  
xxiv. OE sales are governed by long term contract between the supplier and the 
OE buyers.  The Authority should a ssess the impact of long term contracts 
on the financial position on the Domestic Industry.  
 
xxv. Anti-dumping duty is detrimental to the Indian Auto industry. Indian 
industries can meet only 19% of the total domestic demand and the 
balance has to be imported. Imposition of anti-dumping duty will result in 
unfair cost burden on the Indian automobile manufacturers. 
 
xxvi. Post 2010-11, there has been a massive  power outage in the state of 
Andhra Pradesh, which result ed in fall in capacity utilization of Synergies 
Castings Ltd and not due to dumping.  
 
xxvii. DGAD has not disclosed how normal value and export price for non-
cooperating exporters has been determined.  
 
xxviii. Excessive confidentially has been allowed to the domestic industry and 
adopted in the preliminary findings by  the Authority. Conclusions and 
determinations reached by Desi gnated Authority have been kept 
confidential. Moreover EU & Australia have carri ed out their analysis on 
piece basis.  
 
xxix. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd has imported subject goods from Asahi Tec 
Aluminium Thailand. Dumping margin and injury margin in respect of 
Thailand should be determined based on the import information provided 
by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 
 
xxx. Duty imposed on weight basis is erroneous.  
79 
 141. The following are the comments m ade by the domestic industry on the 
provisional findings and consider ed relevant by the Authority: 
 
i. Individual export pr ice should be denied to Z hejiang Autom Aluminum 
Wheels Co. Ltd, Zhejiang Buyang Auto  Wheel Co. Ltd, ZheJiangYueLing 
Co., Ltd in light of the gross discrepan cy provisionally found in their export 
prices. 
 
ii. There are very grave and serious inconsistencies and lapses in the 
submissions made by CITI C Dicastal with regard to their export price and 
acknowledgements by the exporter it self shows that the export price 
claimed by them are highly unre liable and unrepres entative. CITIC 
Dicastal’s claim for individual ex port price should be denied.  
EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY 
142. The Authority notes that the comment s/submissions made by the interested 
parties after the issue of the preliminary fi ndings are mostly re iterations of their 
earlier submissions, which have been appropriately and adequately addressed 
in this final finding. The post PF submi ssions considered relevant are addressed 
below: 
 
i. As regards the submission that in itiation notification and the preliminary 
findings are bad in law as the Authorit y has committed a jurisdictional error 
in recommending anti-dumping duties on semi-finished aluminium wheels 
to prevent circumvention of dutie s and semi-finished aluminium wheels 
should be excluded from the purview of  the product under consideration, 
the Authority notes that the semi-f inished ARWs are also ARWs for all 
practical purposes. The interested parties, who have put forward the 
above arguments, have not substantiat ed with documentary proof in what 
respect and how the semi finished ARW imported from the subject 
countries are different from the produc t under consideration in the present 
investigation. On examinat ion of the volume of impor ts of the semi-finished 
aluminium wheels from t he subject countries during the POI from the data 
relied upon by the Authority in the pr esent investigation, the Authority 
notes that such semi-finished alum inium wheels have  been imported only 
from China PR constituting a miniscule  0.06% of the total imports of the 
subject goods in to India during the POI from Ch ina PR. Further, 
descriptions available in the data base which generally reads as 
“Aluminium Alloy Wheels (semi finished )”, does not specifically prove that 
such wheels are different  from the PUC. Thus, if excluded, dumping of 
subject goods in the guise of semi -finished ones cannot be ruled out. 
  
80 
 ii. With regard to the s ubmission that issue of preliminary finding on 13th 
January 2014, that is, 13 months after t he initiation of investigation is 
illegal, the Authority notes that the Anti-dumping Rules do not stipulate 
such time limits to issue preliminary findings.  
 
iii. With regard to the submission that  domestic producers who also import 
should not automatically get excluded from the purview of the domestic 
industry, the Authority notes that va rious aspects of standing are already 
examined herein above elabor ately. The question of exercise of discretion 
of the Authority to include or exclude any domestic producers who 
themselves have imported the subject goods from subject countries during 
the POI would come into picture only when such producers have come 
before the Authority and spec ifically requested for their inclusion in the 
scope of domestic industry by provid ing all relevant information to support 
or oppose the ongoing investigation.  
 
iv. With regard to the submission that DGAD has considered entire 
production of Petitioner to eval uate the standing requirement and the 
petitioner being a 100% EOU,  the Authority is requi red to examine only the 
production related to DTA ent itlement, the Authority notes that in terms of 
Para 6.8(a) & (h) of the Foreign Tr ade Policy, Synergies Castings Ltd is 
entitled to sell the entire production dur ing the POI in the DTA. Synergies 
Castings Ltd is the only eligible pr oducer to constitute domestic industry 
for the purpose of pres ent investigation and pr oduction pertaining to 
Synergies Castings Ltd constitutes 100% eligible production within the 
meaning of the Rules. 
 
v. With regard to the subm ission that it is incorre ct to treat an EOU as 
domestic industry, the Authority notes t hat the aspect of eligibility of EOUs 
to constitute domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) is already 
addressed in detail in the relevant para of this finding. The Authority notes 
that anti-dumping Rules do not preclude a 100% EOU from being 
considered as part of the domestic industry. 
 
vi. With regard to the contention that ce rtain models of the subject goods with 
design, colour etc specifications, which are not manufactured by the 
Petitioner, should be excluded from the purview of product scope, the 
Authority notes that the subject goods  produced by the domestic industry 
are like article to the product under considerati on imported from subject 
countries within the sc ope and meaning of Rule 2 (d) of anti dumping 
rules. The Authority further notes t hat the product under consideration with 
different specifications of design, co lour etc does not make them different 
from the product unde r consideration. 
  
81 
 vii. With regard to the submission that  subject goods protected by intellectual 
property right/copyright should be excl uded from the purview of PUC since 
any other party including domest ic industry are precluded from 
manufacturing such products without specific permission from the 
IPR/Copy right holders and also pr oducts not produced or sold by 
domestic industry during the POI should be excluded from the purview of 
PUC, the Authority notes that these issues raised  by the interested party 
have already been addressed in the relev ant paras of this finding. The 
Authority once again notes that the PUC covers “Cast Aluminum Alloy 
Wheels or Alloy Road W heels (ARW) used in Motor Vehicles, whether or 
not attached with their accessories, of a size in diameter s ranging from 12 
inches to 24 inches” with the exclus ion of the ARW meant for two wheelers 
as noted above. The domesti c industry either manufac tures all the sizes of 
the ARW covered in the PUC or is hav ing the capacity to manufacture the 
same. Moreover, design of an ARW (inclu ding those with copy rights) is an 
aesthetical aspect determined by a Mo tor Vehicle manufacturer which is 
not a precluding factor as far as  different ARW manufactures are 
concerned. Thus, the design of a parti cular ARW, even if having copy 
rights, does not make it different fr om another design of ARW as long as 
both are technically and commercially substitutable within the purview of 
Anti-dumping Rules. In any case, subj ect goods are primarily tailor made 
products and the OEMs would have to invariably share any copy right 
protected wheel designs with the ARW ma nufacturer of their choice if they 
want to get such wheels produced including producers from India.  
 
viii. With regard to the submission that definition of the Product under 
Consideration in the Pr eliminary Findings as well as the initiation 
notification is vague and the Product und er Consideration covers Alloy 
Road Wheels “with or without accessories”, without detailing the 
accessories, the Authority notes that PUC is defined be yond any ambiguity 
in the present final findings. It is once again noted that the PUC is 
classified under the customs subhead ing ‘Road wheels and parts and 
accessories thereof’ and the reference to accessories as per the 
submissions of the petitioner commonl y contains wheel caps, air valves 
and lug nuts.  
 
ix. As regards the submission by Citic Dicastal that it has no control over 
unrelated producers to force them to c ooperate in the present investigation 
and its export price should not be reject ed on this ground, the Authority 
notes that the issue has been appropriately and adequately addressed in 
the relevant paras of this final findi ng. Nevertheless, t he Authority notes 
once again that significant volume of  exports (75%) made by the Company 
are out sourced by Citic Dicastal from other producers, who have not 
cooperated with the Author ity by filing exporters questionnaire response in  
82 
 the present investigation. Since complete value chain of the majority of the 
exports made by the Company is absent before the Authority, the Authority 
has not granted individual margins to Citic Dicastal. 
 
x. As regards the submission that almost all the users of the product 
concerned are Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), who place 
global tenders with specified standar ds and the exporters do not have 
much say in the pricing of the pr oduct, the Authority notes that the 
producers/exporters from the subject count ries cannot attribute the fact of 
dumping in the present inve stigation to the global te ndering process by the 
OEMs.  
 
xi. With regard to the submission that  Authority has failed to follow the 
prescribed procedure with regard to No rmal Value for China in terms of 
Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules and the Designated Authority has not 
even specified as to which country was proposed to be taken as a 
surrogate country if the said  Authority finally conclu ded that the firms were 
not operating on market economy princi ples, the Authority noted in the 
preliminary finding that determinat ion of normal value based on third 
country cost and prices, the comple te and exhaustive data on domestic 
sales or third country export sales,  as well as cost of production and 
cooperation of such producers in thir d country is required. No such 
information with regard to prices and costs prevalent in these markets 
have been provided either by the applicant or by the responding exporters, 
nor any publicly available informa tion could be accessed, nor the 
responding Chinese companies have m ade any claim with regard to an 
appropriate market economy third count ry at this stage. The Authority 
further notes that the position remains the same in the final findings also 
as none of the interested parties have provided nay relevant information in 
this respect. Thus, the Authority relied upon other basis as prescribed in 
Para 7 of Annexure I to construct normal value in case of China PR.  
   
xii. As regards the submi ssion that Authority has re jected the claim of normal 
value of all the sampled producers in China and it may be noted that the 
Authority can call for information fr om other non-sampled producers from 
the China to arrive at material co nclusion for determining normal value for 
non-sampled producers/exporters from China, the Authority notes that 
Normal Value for Chinese producers ar e determined based on Para 7 of 
Annexure I which pertains to Non Ma rket Economy country. In view of the 
fact that the sampled responding cooperative producers from China PR 
failed to substantiate their MET claim.  Further, the Authority is not in a 
position to determine Normal Value fo r non sampled producers from China 
PR on some other basis at this time  in light of the settled principles 
governing sampling. The Authority al so notes that none of such non  
83 
 sampled producers have made any timely  requests for individual treatment 
so as to claim any request for individual  examination at this juncture when 
the investigations are nearing to its final stage.         
 
xiii. With regard to the contention that  despite the submi ssion that average 
exchange rate for the period should be adopted to make an appropriate 
injury analysis, prevailing excha nge rate has been adopted in the PF 
without any justification,  the Authority notes t hat the exchange rate 
adopted for the POI is 1 US$ = Rs. 50.25 which is the average rate for the 
POI. 
  
xiv. With regard to the contention t hat although it was substantiated with 
supporting evidence that petitioner coul d not increase its capacity due to 
capital constraint and it was not adequately addressed in the PF, the 
Authority notes that t he contention is not in tandem with the facts 
established in the finding. The domesti c industry has increased its capacity 
substantially. However, the capacity utilization remained far below the 
optimal levels.   
 
xv. With regard to the submission that  DGAD has noted in  its preliminary 
findings that apart from Synergies Cast ings, there exists 4 more producers 
of subject goods in Indi a and DGAD should hav e examined the inter-se 
competition among the domestic produc ers themselves as each producer 
is eyeing the same market, the Author ity notes that exis tence of multiple 
players in the market do cause some amount of compet ition among them 
which is healthy, but  such com petition cannot be termed as inter se 
competition having injurious effect  on the performance of the domestic 
industry .  
 
xvi. As regards the submission that infe rior quality products supplied by the 
petitioner have caused diversion of orders from them and resultantly 
caused injury to them, the Aut hority notes that the claim is 
unsubstantiated.  
 
xvii. As regards the submission that petit ioner is exporting substantial ARW to 
its subsidiary in USA and incurring hu ge losses, the Aut hority notes that 
injury analysis in the present inve stigation has been conducted after 
segregating the domestic and expor t performance of the domestic 
industry.  
 
xviii. As regards the subm ission that where multiple product types are included 
in a single product basket for the pur poses of investi gation and it is 
necessary to consider the prices of  each product type in the injury 
analysis, the Authority notes that PUC in the present finding covers “Cast  
84 
 Aluminum Alloy Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels (ARW) used in Motor 
Vehicles, whether or not attached with their accessories, of a size in 
diameters ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches” excluding ARWs  for two 
wheelers. The Authority has conduc ted an objective examination of 
dumping and injury at same levels by converting the subject goods 
equivalents of KG or MT. The Aut hority further notes that both the 
dumping and injury analysis in the pr esent investigatio n has been done on 
apple to apple basis. 
 
xix. With regard to the submission t hat injury analysis for OEM segment and 
aftermarket segment should be done separ ately, the Authority notes once 
again that OEM and After Market (AM) ar e two channels of distribution of 
subject goods and not goods per se. As cl aimed by the domestic industry, 
the products supplied to OEMs and After Market has the same basic 
product features and end use and both t he wheels are like articles and 
perfect substitutes. The Authority notes  that the subject goods sold in both 
the channels constitute like articles in terms of the Anti-dumping Rules. 
 
xx. With regard to the submission that  Semi-finished ARWs are imported at a 
lesser price as compared to finis hed goods and therefore semi-finished 
ARWs should be excluded from the injury  analysis, the Authority notes that 
the semi-finished ARWs are also ARWs  for all practical purposes and its 
imports, which is reported only from Ch ina PR, constitute a mere 0.06% of 
the total imports of subject goods from China PR during the POI. 
 
xxi. With regard to the submission that OEMs are meeting 15% of their 
requirements from the domestic industry and their capacity is fully utilized, 
meaning thereby that ther e is no injury to the domestic industry, the 
Authority notes that the domestic indust ry has utilised only about 71% of 
its capacity during the POI. Thus the claim that the domestic industry has exhausted its capacity onl y by meeting 15% of the demand of the OEMs 
appears to be incorrect. 
  
xxii. With regard to the submission t hat Domestic Industry is adopting Low 
pressure Die casting (LPDC) or Grav ity Die Casting Technology and Cast-
Flow form & Forged wheels are newer technologies which lead to light 
weight, better mechanical properties and better styling appearance and 
cost and pricing analysis for t he two technologies should be done 
separately, the Authority not es that that different technologies as such do 
not make end products diffe rent. It is also noted that the subject goods 
produced by the domestic industry are like article to the PUC imported 
from subject countries within t he scope and meaning of AD Rules. 
  
85 
 xxiii. With regard to the submission t hat the Authority has not considered the 
impact of long term contracts on the financial position of the Domestic 
Industry, the Authority notes that claim of any injury due to long term 
contracts neither stands s ubstantiated nor evident in injury information 
submitted by the petiti oner which has been verified by the Authority.   
 
xxiv. As regards the contention of intere sted parties that Anti-dumping duty is 
detrimental to the Indian Auto indust ry and Indian industries can meet only 
19% of the total domestic demand and t he balance has to be imported and 
imposition of anti-dumpi ng duty will result in unfair cost burden on the 
Indian automobile manufacturers, the Au thority notes that the purpose of 
anti-dumping duties, in general, is to  eliminate injury caused to the 
domestic industry by the unfair trade pr actices of dumping so as to re-
establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, 
which is in the general interest of the Country. Imposition of anti-dumping 
measures would not restrict imports fr om the subject countries in any way, 
and, therefore, would not affect the av ailability of the products to the 
consumers.  
 
xxv. With regard to the submission t hat Post 2010-11, there has been a 
massive power outage in the state of  Andhra Pradesh, which has resulted 
in fall in capacity utiliz ation of Synergies Castings  Ltd, the Authority notes 
that capacity and production of the pet itioner has increased in absolute 
terms over the base year and be tween 2010-11 and the POI. Thus the 
contention regarding impact of power out age on the capacity utilisation of 
the domestic industry does not appear to be correct.  
 
xxvi. With regard to the submission t hat DGAD has not di sclosed how normal 
value and export price for non- cooperating exporters has been 
determined, the Authority notes that the normal value and export price 
have been determined as per Annexure I to the Rules. 
  
xxvii. With regard to the submission that excessive confidentially has been 
allowed to the domestic i ndustry and adopted in the pr eliminary findings by 
the Authority, the Aut hority notes that information provided by the 
interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to 
sufficiency of the confidentia lity claim. On being sati sfied, the Authority has 
accepted the confidentiality claims , wherever warranted and such 
information has been considered conf idential and not disclosed to other 
interested parties. Wherever possible,  parties providing information on 
confidential basis were directed to  provide sufficient non-confidential 
version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority made 
available the non-confident ial version of the ev idences submitted by 
various interested parties in  the form of public file.   
86 
 xxviii. As regards the cont ention that duty imposed on weight basis is erroneous, 
it may be noted that since imports ar e reported on weight as well as piece 
basis, it was considered appropriate to conduct the dumping and injury 
analysis and to impose the anti-dumping duty on weight basis. Moreover, 
similar methodology was also adopted by  the Authority in respect of the 
AD investigation concerning imports of Flat Base Steel Wheels from China 
PR. The basic customs duty for the s ubject goods is also collected on 
weight basis. 
   
xxix. As regards the submission that the margins in respect of Thailand should 
be determined based on the import informa tion provided by Maruti Suzuki 
India Ltd, the Authority notes that the exporters from Thailand have not 
cooperated in the present investigation. The Author ity further notes that 
the margins in respect of the expor ters are determined on the basis of 
exporter specific data and not on the basis of information provided by any 
importer as per the Rules. 
 
Post–disclosure comments made by th e interested parties including the 
domestic industry  
143. The following post-disclosure co mments have been made by the domestic 
industry: 
 
i. The authority should recommend imposit ion of fixed form of duty in terms 
of USD/KG considering the chances of mis-declaration of the import 
values with the intention to avoid ADD. 
 
144. The following are the post-disclos ure comments made by the opposite 
interested parties and considered  relevant by the Authority: 
 
i. Authority has failed to prov ide opportunity to SAIC GM Wuling 
Automobiles Co Ltd and it s group to substantiate their claims through on 
the spot verification.  
ii. Inadequate time granted by the authority for 2nd oral hearing on 
30.05.2014 cannot be said to be an effective opportunity to the interested 
parties.  
iii. The Authority has recorded contradi ctory statements regarding difference 
in technology and capacity utilization.  
iv. M/s Citic Dicastal, China PR should  be given separate in dividual dumping 
margin for the exports di rectly made by them.  
 
  
87 
 Examination by the Authority 
 
145. The Authority notes that  the post-disclosure comments made by the interested 
parties are mere reiterations of thei r earlier submissions, which have already 
been examined adequately and addressed su itably in the respective paras of 
this final finding.  
 
146. As regards the post-disclosure comment  that authority has made contradictory 
statements at Para 16, 17( vi) and 128 of the disclosur e statement concerning 
difference in technology, the Authority not es that there is no contradiction as 
such in the relevant paragraphs. The autho rity holds once again that different 
technologies as such do not make end products  different.  
 
147. As regards the post-disclosure comment  that authority has made contradictory 
statements at Para 98 and 141of the di sclosure statement concerning capacity 
utlisation of the applicant, t he Authority notes that there is no contradiction as 
such in the relevant paragraphs. The aut hority notes that while in percentage 
terms, as mentioned in Para 98 of th e disclosure statement, the capacity 
utilisation of the domestic  industry has increased up to 2010-11, it shows 
declining trend thereafter. The Authority has noted at  para 141(xxv) of the 
disclosure statement that  the capacity and producti on of the petitioner has 
increased in absolute terms over t he base year and between 2010-11 and the 
POI.  
R. CONCLUSIONS:   
  
148. After examining the issues raised and submissions made by the interested 
parties and facts made availa ble before the Authority as recorded in this finding, 
the Authority concludes that: 
  
a. The product under c onsideration has been exported to India from 
subject countries below its normal val ue, thus, resulting in dumping of 
the product.  
  
b. The domestic industry has suffered material injury due to dumping of 
the subject goods, originating in or ex ported from the subject countries.  
  
c. The material injury has be en caused by the dumped imports, 
originating in or exported fr om the subject countries.  
  
S.   INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES  
   
88 
 149. The Authority notes that  the purpose of anti-dumping duties, in general, is to 
eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of 
dumping so as to re-establish a situat ion of open and fair competition in the 
Indian market, which is in the general inte rest of the Country. Imposition of anti-
dumping measures would not restrict impor ts from the subject countries in any 
way, and, therefore,  would not affect the avail ability of the products to the 
consumers.  
  
150. It is recognized that the imposition of anti-dumping duties on the imports of the 
subject goods might affect the price levels of the motor vehicles in the country to 
some extent. However, fair competiti on in the Indian market will not be reduced 
by the anti-dumping measures , particularly if the levy of the anti- dumping duty 
is restricted to an amount necessary to redress the injury to the domestic 
industry. Imposition of anti-dumping duties may also remove the unfair 
advantages gained by the exporters/imp orters due to dumping practices, 
prevent the decline of the domestic industry and help ma intain availability of 
wider choice to the consumers of the subject goods. 
 
T. RECOMMENDATIONS  
  
151. The Authority notes that the invest igation was initiated and notified to all 
interested parties and ade quate opportunity was giv en to the exporters, 
importers and other interested parties to provide positive information on the 
aspect of dumping, injury and causal li nks. Having initiated and conducted a 
final investigation into dumping, injury and causal links in terms  of the provisions 
laid down under the Anti-dumping Rule s and having established positive 
dumping margin as well as material injury to the domestic industry caused by 
such dumped imports, the Authority is of the view that imposition of anti 
dumping duty is required to offset dum ping and injury. Therefore, Authority 
considers it necessary and recommends imposition of anti- dumping duty on 
imports of subject goods from the subj ect countries in the form and manner 
described hereunder from the date of issue of  the notification of  provisional duty 
by the Central Government vide Notifi cation No. 15/2014-Customs (ADD) dated 
11.04.2014. 
 
152. Having regard to the lesser duty rule followed by the Author ity, the Authority 
recommends imposition of definitive anti-dumping dut y equal to the lesser of 
margin of dumping and margin of injury, so as to remove the injury to the 
domestic industry. Accordingly, the anti-dumping duty equal to the amount 
indicated in Col 8 of the table below  is recommended to be imposed concerning 
all imports of the subject goods, originat ing in or exported from the subject 
countries.  
  
89 
  
DUTY TABLE 
 
Sl.No Heading 
/Subheading* Description of 
goods ** Country of 
origin Country of 
export Producer Exporter Duty 
amountUnit Currency
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 
1 8708 70 “Cast Aluminium 
Alloy Wheels or 
Alloy Road 
Wheels(ARW) 
used in Motor 
Vehicles, 
whether or not 
attached with 
their 
accessories, of a 
size in diameters 
ranging from 12 
inches to 24 
inches” China PR China PR Baoding Lizhong 
Wheels 
Manufacturing 
Co. Ltd, China 
PR Baoding Lizhong 
Wheels 
Manufacturing 
Co. Ltd, China 
PR 1.37 KG US$ 
2 Do do China PR China PR Baoding Lizhong
Wheels 
Manufacturing 
Co. Ltd, China 
PR Hyundai Mobis, 
Hong Kong and 
Hyundai Glovis 
Co. Ltd, Korea 
RP 1.37 KG US$ 
3 Do do China PR China PR Non-Sampled 
Producers/ 
exporters as per 
list *** Non-Sampled 
Producer/ 
exporters as per 
list *** 1.37 KG US$ 
4 Do do China PR China PR Any combination other than 
mentioned in Sl No. 1 to 3 above 2.15 KG US$ 
5 
 Do do China PR Any 
country 
other than 
those 
subject to 
Anti-
dumping 
duty Any Any 2.15 KG US$ 
6 Do do Any 
country 
other than 
those 
subject to 
Anti-
dumping 
duty China PR Any Any 2.15 KG US$ 
7 Do do Korea RP Korea RP Any Any 1.18 KG US$ 
8 Do do Korea RP Any 
country Any Any 1.18 KG US$  
90 
 other than 
those 
subject to 
Anti-
dumping 
duty 
9 Do do Any 
country 
other than 
those 
subject to 
Anti-
dumping 
duty Korea RP Any Any 1.18 KG US$ 
10 Do do Thailand Thailand Any Any 1.06 KG US$ 
11 Do do Thailand Any 
country 
other than 
those 
subject to 
Anti-
dumping 
duty Any Any 1.06 KG US$ 
12 Do do Any 
country 
other than 
those 
subject to 
Anti-
dumping 
duty Thailand Any Any 1.06 KG US$ 
  
* The subject goods are also being import ed under other tariff headings such as 
87087000, 87082900, 87089900, 87149290, 87149 990, 87089400, etc. However, 
the customs classification is indicative  only and in no way binding on the scope of 
this investigation.  
** Aluminium Alloy Wheels or  Alloy Road Wheels (ARW) meant for Two Wheelers 
are excluded from the purview of the Product Under Consideration. 
*** List of Non-sampled exporters from China PR 
i. Seyen Heavy Industries (Shanghai ) Co., Ltd, Shanghai, China PR 
(Producer) and Shanghai General Mo tors Corporation Ltd, Pudong, 
Shanghai, China PR (Exporter). 
ii. Zhejiang Baokang Wheel Manufact ure Co., Ltd, Wangzhai Town, Wuyi, 
Zhejiang, China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
iii. Zhejiang Zent Auto Wheel Co. Lt d., Yongkang City, Zhejiang, China 
PR (Producer & Exporter). 
iv. Zhejiang JinfeiKaida Wheel Co, Ltd., Jinhua Cit y, Zhejiang, China PR 
(Producer & Exporter). 
v. Wuxi City Wanxuan Metal Producti on Co., Ltd., Wuxi City, Jiangsu, 
China PR (Producer & Exporter).  
91 
 vi. Zhejiang Shuguang Industrial Co., Lt d., Wuyi , Zhejiang, China PR 
(Producer & Exporter). 
vii. Xiangyang Hengde Auto Parts Co. Ltd., Xiangyang, Hubei Province, 
China PR (Producer & Exporter). 
viii. Kunshan Liufeng Machinery Indus try Co. Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu 
Province, China PR (Producer) and Lio Fung International Corporation, 
Kunshan Development Zone, Jiangsu Province, China PR (Exporter). 
 
153. Subject to the above, the Authority confirms the Prelim inary Finding No. 
14/7/2012-DGAD dated 13. 01.2014. 
 
154. An appeal against the order of the Central Government arising out of this Final 
Finding shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal 
in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act. 
 
 
J.K. Dadoo 
Designated Authority 
 
 
 
  
     1TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA – EXTRAORDINARY-PART-I, 
SECTION-1  
  
Government of India  
Ministry of Commerce & Industry  
Department Of Commerce  
Directorate General of Anti-dumping and Allied Duties  
4th Floor, Jeewan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi  
  
9th December, 2014 
Notification  
 
Initiation  
 
(Sunset Review ) 
 
Subject: Initiation of Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping duty on imports of 
‘Melamine’ originating in or exported from China PR.  
1. F.N. 15/17/2014-DGAD Whereas, the Designated Authority having regard to the 
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 
and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Duty or Additional Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 
(hereinafter referred to as AD Rules) recommended imposition of provisional duty on 
imports of Melamine originating in and exported from China PR vide notification No.14/16/2003-DGAD dated 27.02.2004 and such provisional duty was imposed by 
the Government of India vide Notification No.53/2004-Customs dated 02.04.2004. 
The Authority issued its final findings recommending imposition of definitive anti dumping duty on imports of Melamine (hereinafter referred to as subject goods) 
originating in or exported from China PR(hereinafter referred to as subject country), 
vide notification No 14/16/2003-DGAD dated 03.09.2004 and such definitive duty was imposed by the Govt. of India vide customs notification No.107/2004-Customs 
dated 16th November, 2004.   
 
2. WHEREAS The Designated Authority thereafter vide notification No. 15/29/2008-
DGAD, dated the 21.11.2008, had initiated sunset review in the matter of 
continuation of anti-dumping duty on import s of subject goods, originating in, or 
exported from, the subject country, imposed. The Designated Authority vide 
notification No. 15/29/2008-DGAD, dated the 20.22.2009, had recommended for 
continuation of the anti-dumping duty.  Notification No. 10/2010-Customs was issued on 19.02.2010 imposing anti dumping duty on imports of Melamine from the subject 
country. 
 
 
   23. WHEREAS, M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd has filed a duly 
substantiated application before the Authority,  in accordance with the Act and the 
Rules, alleging likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping of the subject 
goods, originating in or exported from Su bject Country and consequent injury to the 
domestic industry and have requested for revi ew, extension of period, modification 
and enhancement of existing anti dumping duties, imposed on the imports of the 
subject goods, originating in or ex ported from the subject country.  
 
 
Domestic Industry & Standing  
 
4. The application for the sunset review has been filed by M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers 
& Chemicals Ltd. As per the information available, the petitioner company is not related (neither directly nor indirectly) to any exporter in the subject country or 
importer of product under consideration in India. The petitioner has not imported the 
subject goods from subject country during  period of investigation. However the 
petitioner has made some imports from su bject country during the base year. The 
Authority is of the view that the focus of the company continues to be of a producer 
and do its own production. The company has been considered as eligible domestic industry within the meaning of the Rules.  
 
5. The petitioner company is the sole producer of the product under consideration in 
India. The Authority after examining the information on record has determined that 
the petitioner company constitute domestic industry within the meaning of the Rule 
2(b) and the petition satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules supra 
 
Product under Consideration and Like Article  
 
6. The product under consideration, in the or iginal as well as in first sunset review 
investigation is Melamine, a tasteless, odourless, and non-toxic substance. 
Melamine is reacted with formaldehyde and made into resins or moulding powder for 
making innumerable products of beauty and utility. Melamine formaldehyde resin is used for laminates offer good hardness, resistance to scratch, stain, water and heat. 
Laminates used in some electrical applic ations possess high mechanical strength, 
good heat resistance and good electrical insulating properties . 
7. The subject goods fall under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff under Subheading 
No. 29336100. However, the customs classification is indicative only and is in no 
way binding on the scope of the present investigation. 
 
Initiation of Sunset Review of Anti Dumping Duty
 
 
8. WHEREAS in view of the duly substantiated application filed and in accordance with 
Section 9A(5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Anti-dumping Rules, the Authority 
hereby initiates a Sunset review investigation to review the need for continued imposition of the duties in force in respec t of the subject goods, originating in or   3exported from the subject country and to exam ine whether the expiry of such duty is 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic 
industry.  
Country Involved  
9. The country involved in this investigation is China PR.   
Period of investigation 
 
10. Domestic Industry has proposed the period of investigation for the present 
investigation as 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014. However the authority has extended the 
same by 3 months as 1.4.2013 to 3.6.2014 so as to undertake analysis on the most recent date. Further the injury investigation period will cover the periods April 2010 
to March 2011, April 2011 to March 2012, April 2012 to March 2013 and the Period 
of Investigation (POI) 
 Procedure
 
 
11. The review covers all aspects of Notification No. 15/29/2008-DGAD, dated the 
20.22.2009 (final findings of the sunset review investigation).   
12. The provisions of Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Rules supra 
shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in this review. 
 
Submission of Information
 
13. The known exporters in the subject count ry, the government of the subject country 
through its embassy in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the product are being addres sed separately to submit relevant 
information in the form and manner prescribed and to make their views known to the 
Authority at the following address: 
The Designated Authority  
Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties  
Ministry of Commerce and Industry  
Department of Commerce  
4th Floor, Jeewan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 
 
14. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the 
investigation in the prescribed form and manner within the time limit set out below. 
Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is required to 
make a non-confidential version of the same available to the other parties.    
   4Time Limit : 
15. Any information relating to the present review and any request for hearing should be 
sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the address mentioned above not later than forty days (40 days) from the date of publication of this Notification. If no 
information is received within the prescribed time limit or the information received is 
incomplete, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available on record in accordance with the AD Rules. 
 
16. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the 
nature of interest) in the instant matter and file their questionnaire’s responses and 
offer their comments to the domestic industry’s application regarding the need to 
continue or otherwise the AD measures within 40 days from the date of initiation of this review investigation. 
Submission of information on confidential basis
. 
17. In case confidentiality is claimed on any part of the ques tionnaire’s response/ 
submissions, the same must be submitt ed in two separate sets (a) marked as 
confidential (with title, index, number of pages, etc.) and (b) other set marked as 
non-confidential (with title, index, number of pages, etc.). All the information supplied must be clearly marked as either “confidential” or “non-confidential” at the top of 
each page. 
18. Information supplied without any mark shall be treated as non-confidential and the 
Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other interested parties to inspect any such non-confidential information. Two (2) copies  each of the confidential version and the 
non-confidential version must be submitted. 
19. For information claimed as confidential; the supplier of the information is required to 
provide a good cause statement along with the supplied information as to why such 
information cannot be disclosed and/or why summarization of such information is not possible. 
20. The non-confidential version is required to  be a replica of the confidential version 
with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out / summarized depending upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed. The non-
confidential summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable 
understanding of the substance of the information furnished on confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, party submitting the confidential information 
may indicate that such information is not susceptible of summary; a statement of 
reasons why summarization is not possible, must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority. 
21. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of 
the nature of the information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request 
for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in generalized or 
summary form, it may disregard such information.   522. Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or 
without a good cause statement on the confidentiality claim may not be taken on 
record by the Authority. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for 
confidentiality of the information provided; shall not disclose it to any party without specific authorization of the party providing such information. 
 
Inspection of public file
 
23. In terms of rule 6(7) any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-
confidential versions of the evidence submitted by other interested parties. 
 
Non-cooperation  
24. In case any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide 
necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the 
investigation, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Governments as deemed fit. 
  
  
(J K Dadoo ) 
Designated Authority  
 
 
 
 
  
 To be published in Part -I Section I of the Gazette of India Extraordinary  
 
No.14/17/2014-DGAD  
Governm ent of India  
Depart ment of Commerce  
(Dire ctorate General  of Anti -Dumping & Allied Duties)  
New Delhi - 110001  
 
Dated:    09,  December, 2014 
 
 INITIATION NOTIFICATION  
Subject: Initiation of investigation for imposition of anti -dumping duty on 
imports of Mulberry Raw Silk originating in or exported from China PR.  
 
 
F.No.14/17/2014- DGAD :  M/s Central Silk Board  (hereinafter also referred to as 
the Petitioner or applicant) has filed an application before the Designated Authority 
(hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafte r also referred to as the Act) and 
the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -Dumping 
Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of injury) Rules, 1995 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the Rules) f or initiation of anti-
dumping investigation and imposition of anti dumping duty on the imports of 
Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of 3A grade and below (hereinafter also referred to 
as the subject goods or PUC) , originating in or exported from China PR (he reinafter 
also referred to as the subject country).  
 
 
Product under consideration  
2. The product under consideration for the purpose of subject investigation is 
‘Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of 3A grade and below’. Raw silk is  
woven into  textiles . The silk is obtained from the  cocoons  of the  larvae of the  
mulberry  silkworm  Bombyx mori  reared in captivity ( sericulture ). The silk is a protein 
fibre composed mainly of  fibroin  and produced by the i nsect larvae to form 
cocoons. The shimmering appearance of silk is due to the triangular  prism -like 
structure of the silk fibre, which allows silk cloth to refract incoming light at 
different  angles , thus producing different colors. Silks are produced by several other 
insects, but g enerally only the silk of moth caterpillars has been used for textile 
manufacturing.  Domestic industry has submitted that there are no mandatory 
specifications or standards. However, the grading system is described in the standard manual of Raw Silk Testin g & Classification of the International Silk Association 
(ISA) and is universally accepted  
The subject goods are classified under Chapter 50 of the Customs Tariff Act, 
1975 and further under 5002.00.10 as per International Trade Classification. The classif ication, however, is only indicative and in no way binding on the scope of the 
present investigation. 
 Like Article  
4. The petitioner has submitted that Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of 3A 
grade and below , which is exported from China PR into India, are identical to the 
goods produced by the domestic industry.  Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of 3A 
grade and below  produced by the domestic industry and imported from China PR is 
comparable in terms of essential product characteristics such as physical & chemical 
characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing etc. Consumers can use and are using the two interchangeably. The two ar e technically and commercially substitutable and 
hence should be treated as ‘like article’ under the Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the applicant in India are being treated as ‘Like Article’ to  the subject goods being imported from the subject 
country.  
 
 
Domestic Industry & Standing  
5. Central Silk Board has submitted an application on behalf of the domestic 
producers/reelers through their nine associations/societies in the States of Karnataka, Tamil 
Nadu and Andhra Pradesh for imposing antidumping duty on imports of Mulberry Raw Silk 
(not thrown) of 3A grade and below. The associations / societies have duly authorized CSB 
(applicant) to file the present application for initiation of the anti -dumping investigation. 
These associations/  societies have been authorized by t heir constituent me mbers who are the 
producers/reelers.   
The petitioner has certified that there are no imports of the product under consideration by 
the petitioner or any of its related party from the subject countries. Since the production of the petitioner accounts for “a  major proportion” in the total production of the product under 
consideration in India, the petitioner satisfies the standing and constitutes Domestic Industry within the meaning of the Rules.  
 
 Countries involved  
6. The present investigation is in respect of alleged dumping of the product under 
consideration from China PR.  
 
 Normal Value  
7. The petitioner has claimed that China PR should be treated as a non- market 
economy and has determined normal value in accordance  with Para 7 and 8 of 
Annexure I of the Rules. In view of the non -market economy presumption and subject 
to rebuttal of the same by the responding exporters, normal value of the subject goods 
in China PR has been estimated in terms of Para 7 of Annexure I to the Rules. The applicant has determined the normal value based on cost of production in India, duly adjusted with selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profit.   Export Price  
8. The applicant has determined the export price on the basis of data published 
by IBIS. Price adjustments have been claimed on account of commission, ocean 
freight, port expenses, inland freight, marine insurance, and bank charges.   
 
 Dumping Margin  
9. The normal value and the export price have been compared at ex -factory level, 
which show significant dumping margin in respect of the subject country. There is 
sufficient prima facie evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in the subject country is significantly higher than the ex -factory export pric e, indicating, 
prima facie, that the subject goods are being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the subject country.  
 
 
Injury and Causal Link  
10. The applicant has claimed that domestic industry has suffered material injury 
from dumped imports. The demand for the product under consideration has increased 
over the injury period and subject imports have increased in absolute terms. The imports are undercutting the domestic prices. The imports have suppressed/depressed the domestic prices o ver the injury period. With regard to consequent impact of the 
imports on the domestic industry, it is noted that performance of the domestic industry has deteriorated in respect of parameters such as profits; return on capital employed and cash profits. T he domestic industry is suffering significant financial losses, cash 
losses and negative return on investments. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of injury to the domestic industry caused by dumped imports from subject country to justify initiation of an anti -dumping investigation. 
 11. And whereas, the Authority prima facie finds that sufficient evidence of dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country; injury to the domestic industry and causal link between the a lleged dumping and injury exist to 
justify initiation of an anti- dumping investigation, the Authority hereby initiates an 
investigation into the alleged dumping, and consequent injury to the domestic industry in terms of Para 5 of the Rules, to determine t he existence, degree and effect of 
alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of antidumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the ‘injury’ to the domestic industry.  
 
 
Period of Investigation (POI)  
12. The period of investigation (POI) i s from 1st April 2013 to 30th June 2014  (15 
months) . However, for the purpose of analyzing injury, the data of previous three 
years, i.e. Apr’10- Mar’11, Apr’11 -Mar’12, Apr’12- Mar’13 and the period of 
investigation will be considered . 
 
 
 Submission of Information  
13. The exporters in the subject country, their government through their Embassy in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned and the domestic   industry are being addressed separately to submit relevant information in the f orm 
and manner prescribed and to make their views known to the Authority at the 
following address:  
The Designated Authority  
Directorate General of Anti -Dumping & Allied Duties  
Department of Commerce,  
Jeevan Tara Building, 4th Floor  
5, Parliament Street  
New Delhi - 110001 
 14. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the prescribed form and manner within the time limit set out below. Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is requir ed to 
make a non -confidential version of the same available to the other parties.  
 
 
Time Limit  
15. Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent in writing so as to reach the Authority at the address mentioned above not later than forty days (40 days) from the date of publication of this Notification. If no information is received within the prescribed time limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available on r ecord in 
accordance with the AD Rules.  
 16. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of interest) in the instant matter and file their questionnaire responses and offer their comments to the domestic in dustry’s application within forty days (40 
days) from the date of publication of this Notification. The information must be submitted in hard copies as well as soft copies.  
 
 
Submission of information on confidential basis  
17. The parties making any submis sion (including Appendices/Annexure attached 
thereto), before the authority including questionnaire response, are required to file the same in two separate sets, in case "confidentiality" is claimed on any part thereof: -  
 (a) one set marked as Confidentia l (with title, number of pages, index, etc.), and  
(b) the other set marked as Non- Confidential (with title, number of pages, index, etc.).  
 18.   The “confidential” or “non- confidential” submissions must be clearly marked as 
“confidential” or “non -confidential” at the top of each page. Any submission made 
without such marking shall be treated as non- confidential by the Authority and the 
Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other interested parties to inspect such submissions. Soft copies of both the  versions will also be required to be submitted, 
along with the hard copies, in two (2) sets of each.  
 19. The confidential version shall contain all information which are by nature 
confidential and/or other information which the supplier of such informati on claims as 
confidential. The information which is claimed to be confidential by nature or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of other reasons, the supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along wi th the 
supplied information as to why such information can not be disclosed.  
 
20. The non- confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential 
version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (in case indexation is not feasible) and summarized depending upon the information on which 
confidentiality is claimed. The non- confidential summary must be in sufficient detail 
to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information furnished on confidential  basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, party submitting the 
confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible to summary, and a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible, must be provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.  
 21.  The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or if the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.  22. Any submission made without a meaningful non- confidential version thereof 
or without  a good cause statement on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on 
record by the Authority.  
 23. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for confidentiality of 
the information provided, shall not disclose it to any party without spe cific 
authorization of the party providing such information.   
 
Inspection of Public File  
24. In terms of Rule 6(7) of the AD Rules, any interested party may inspect the public file containing non- confidential version of the evidence submitted by other int erested 
parties.  
 
 Non-cooperation  
25. In case where an interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.             
    
          J K Dadoo  
            Designated Authority  
                                                                              
 
 1 
     
               To be published in Gazette of India, Extra ordinary, Part 1, Section1  
                   F.No.14/26/2012 -DGAD 
Government of India  
Ministry of Commerce & Industry  
Department of Commerce  
Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Dutie s 
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi -110001  
Dated       11.12.2014  
NOTIFICATION  
(Final Findings ) 
Subject: Final Findings in the anti -dumping investigation concerning imports 
of Pentaerythritol originating in or exported from Russ ia-reg. 
 
No.14/26/2012 -DGAD: Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended 
from time to time and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection 
of Anti -Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 
1995 th ereof:  
 
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE  
2. Whereas, M/s Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited (hereinafter also referred to 
as the applicant) filed a duly substantiated application before the Designated 
Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) in acco rdance with the Customs 
Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 
and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty 
on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from 
time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), alleging dumping of Pentaerythritol 
(hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), originating in or exported from Russia 
(hereinafter referred to as the subject country), and, thus, for initiation of anti -
dumping investigation and for levy of anti -dumping duties on the imports of the 
subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country.  
 
3. And whereas, the Authority found sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping of 
the s ubject goods originating in or exported from the subject country and injury to the 2 
 domestic industry and causal link between dumping and injury and initiated the anti 
dumping investigation vide Notification No 14/26/2012 -DGAD dated 21st June, 2013 
to inves tigate into the alleged dumping, and consequent injury to the domestic 
industry, in terms of Rule 5 of the Anti -dumping Rules, and to determine the 
existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping and to recommend the amount 
of anti -dumping duty, which,  if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to the 
domestic industry.  
 
B. PROCEDURE  
4. The procedure described below has been followed in this investigation:  
 
i)     The Authority notified the Embassy of the subject country in India about the 
receipt of ap plication alleging dumping of the subject goods originating in or 
exported from the subject country before proceeding to initiate the 
investigation in accordance with the Anti -dumping Rules.  
 
ii) The Authority issued a public notice no 14/26/2012 -DGAD dated 21st June, 2013, 
published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating the anti dumping 
investigation concerning imports of the subject goods, originating in or 
exported from the subject country.  
 
iii)     The Authority forwarded a letter along with copy o f the public notice to all the 
known exporters and other interested parties/industry associations (whose 
details were made available by the domestic industry) and gave them 
opportunity to make their views known in writing within the prescribed time 
limits in accordance with the Anti -Dumping Rules.  
 
iv)     The Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the application 
to the known exporters of the subject country in accordance with the Anti -
dumping Rules. A copy of the application was also mad e available to other 
interested parties, upon request.  
 
v)      Copies of the letter and the exporter ’s questionnaires sent to the 
exporters/producers in the subject country  were also sent to the E mbassy of 
the subject country in India along with a list of kn own exporters / producers 
with a request to advise the known exporters / producers from the subject 
country as also other exporters / producers from the subject country to 
respond to the questionnaires within the prescribed time limits.  
 3 
 vi)      The Authority  sent exporter ’s questionnaires to elicit relevant information to 
the following known exporters in the subject country in accordance with the 
Anti-dumping Rules:  
 
a) JSC “Metafrax ”, Russia, Gubaha, Perm region, 618250  
b) Russia Tech.Chem Co Ltd, VO UL. Kapitansk aya, 307, Saint 
Petersburg – 197724, Russian Federation  
c) Chemiolux, Moscow, Milutinskiy per.18/3, Russia  
 
vii)      None of the exporters filed response to the exporter ’s questionnaire in the 
form and manner prescribed by the Authority. However, the following ma de 
miscellaneous submissions:  
 
a) Joint Stock Company Metafrax, Russia; and  
b) Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, through 
The Trade Representation of the Russian Federation in the Republic of 
India  
 
viii)     The Authority forwarded a copy of  the public notice to the following known 
importers/users/user associations (whose names and addresses were made 
available to the Authority) 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(4):  
 
User Associations  
a) Indian Paints Associ ation, Calcutta  
b) Indian Resin Man ufacturers ’ Association, Mumbai  
c) Indian Small Scale Paint Associat ion, Mumbai  
Importers/Users  
a) Addison Paints & Chemical Ltd., Ch ennai, Tamil Nadu  
b) Berger Paints India Limited , Mumbai  
c) Century Enka Limited, Mumbai  
d) Ciba Specialty Chemicals (In dia), Mumbai  
e) Coates Of India Ltd , Mumbai  
f) Decro Paints, Hyderabad  
g) Dujodwala Paper Chemicals Ltd. , Raigad  4 
 h) Gargi Industries Prop, Thane, Navi Mumba i 
i) Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai  
j) Hardcastle & Waud Mfg Co Limited, Mumbai  
k) Hero Dye Chem Industries, Mumbai  
l) Hindustan Inks & Resins Ltd , Mumbai  
m) IVP Ltd., Maharashtra  
n) Jenson & Nicholson (I) Ltd. , Kolkata  
o) Mitsu Inds.  Limited , Mumbai  
p) Paras Dyes & Chemical s ,Mumbai  
q) Resin & Pigments , Pitham pur, Madhya Pradesh  
r) Perstorp Chemicals India Pvt L td, Vapi  
s) A.V.M. Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata  
t) Alcon Enterprises , Kolkata  
u) Chemi Colour Agency , Kolkata  
v) Eastcorp International , Kolkata  
w) Garware Polyester Ltd. , Mumbai  
x) H. R. Tr ading Co. Pvt. Ltd , Mumbai  
y) Leo Chemoplast Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai  
z) Samir Dye Chem , Mumbai  
aa) Sanman Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai  
bb) Saraf Chemicals Ltd. , Mumbai  
cc) Vibgyor Paints Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai  
dd) Dujodwala Paper Chemicals Limited , Mumbai  
ee) Shalimar Paints Ltd., Hawrah  
 
ix)      None of the importers/users /associations  filed any responses to the 
questionnaire. However, the following made miscellaneous  submissions:  
 
a) Sandeep Organics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai  
b) India Paint & Coating Association, New Delhi  
c) Bharat Solvent & Chemical Corpor ation, New Delhi  
 
x)     The Period of Investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present investigation 
was from 1st January, 2012 to 31st December, 2012. The examination of 5 
 trends in the context of injury analysis covered the periods 2009 -10, 2010 -11, 
2011 -12 and the POI.  
 
xi) Request was made to the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and 
Statistics (DGCI&S) to arrange details of imports of subject goods into India 
for the past three years, including the period of investigation, and the said 
informati on was obtained from the DGCI&S and has been adopted in this 
investigation.  
 
xii)      Exporters, producers and other interested parties who have neither 
responded to the Authority, nor supplied information relevant to this 
investigation have been treated as no n-cooperating interested parties.  
 
xiii)     The Authority made available non -confidential version of the evidence 
presented by interested parties in the form of a public file kept open for 
inspection by the interested parties as per Rule  6 (7).  
 
xiv) The Authority has examined the information furnished by the domestic 
producer to the extent possible on the basis of guidelines laid down in 
Annexure III to work out the cost of production and the non -injurious price of 
the subject goods in India so as to ascertain if a nti-dumping duty lower than 
the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic 
industry.  
 
xv)      In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided opportunity 
to all interested parties to present their views orally in a p ublic hearing held 
on 9th September, 2014 which was attended by only the domestic industry 
and their representatives. The domestic industry which presented its views in 
the oral hearing was requested to file written submissions of the views 
expressed orall y. 
 
xvi) The submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties 
during the course of the investigation and considered relevant by the 
Authority have been examined and addressed in this investigation.  
 
xvii) At the request of the Authority, the Cen tral Government extended the time 
period to complete the investigations up to 20th December, 2014.  
 
xviii) On the spot verification of the information and data submitted by the 
domestic industry was carried out to the extent deemed necessary.  6 
  
xix) Information provide d by the interested parties on confidential basis was 
examined by the Authority with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality 
claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality 
claims, wherever warranted, and such information has  been considered 
confidential and not disclosed. Wherever possible, the interested parties 
were directed to provide sufficient non -confidential version of the information 
filed on confidential basis.  
 
xx)      Wherever an interested party has refused access t o, or has otherwise not 
provided necessary information during the course of the present 
investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has 
recorded these essential facts on the basis of the ‘facts available' and treated 
such p arties as non -cooperative.  
 
xxi) A Disclosure Statement containing the essential facts in this investigation 
which would have formed the basis of the Final Findings was issued to the 
interested parties on 21.10.2014. The post Disclosure Statement 
submissions re ceived from the domestic industry and the opposing interested 
parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant, in this Final 
Findings Notification.  
 
xxii) *** in this Final Findings Notification represents information furnished by an 
interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority 
under the Rules.  
 
xxiii) The exchange rate adopted for the POI is 1 US $ =Rs 53.69.  
 
C. SCOPE OF PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE  
C.1 Submissions by the Domestic Industry   
 
5. The following su bmissions have been made by the domestic industry:  
i. The product being dumped in the Indian market is Pentaerythritol. 
Pentaerythritol is an organic compound. The term ‘erythritol ’ indicates the 
presence of four hydroxyl groups, and the prefix ‘penta ’ indicates that there 
are five carbon atoms in the molecule.  
ii. Pentaerythritol can be produced using electrodialysis separation technology 
or fractional crystallization technology. There is no difference, however, in the 7 
 product properties of the products pr oduced through the two technologies. 
Pentaerythritol can be of technical grade or nitration grade. The principal 
difference in the two grades is in purity, crystal size and uniformity of crystals. 
Other than this, there is no other material difference betw een Technical Grade 
Pentaerythritol and Nitration Grade Pentaerythritol. Both the grades are 
produced out of the same process. Pentaerythritol having purity above 98% 
and better crystal formation can be used in the explosive industry and 
therefore, this gr ade has been designated as “Nitration Grade ” in commercial 
parlance. However, Pentaerythritol considered as Nitration Grade can be 
used for production of Alkyd Resins and other products (where the other 
grade, “Technical Grade ” Pentaerythritol, is used). E ven though there is no 
major difference in the two grades, the two command some difference in the 
prices. Normally, nitration grade carries a higher price.  
iii. The production process, however, largely results in production of Technical 
Grade. Less than 2%  production results in nitration grade, while the 
production of Di -pentaerythritol is less than 0.5%. More than 97% production 
is of technical grade. Further, imports are primarily in technical grade. Di -
Pentaerythritol and Pentaerythritol are two differen t kinds of products. Di -
Pentaerythritol is beyond the scope of the product under consideration.  
iv. Pentaerythritol finds application  in manufacture of Alkyd Resin, Rosin 
Esters, Plasticizers, Printing Inks, Synthetic Rubber, Stabilizers for Plastics, 
Modified drying oils, Detonators, Explosives, Pharmaceuticals, Core oils and 
Synthetic Lubricants.  
v. There is no known difference in the subject product produced by the 
domestic industry and the subject product exported from the subject country. 
Both have c omparable characteristics in terms of parameters such as 
physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, 
functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing, tariff 
classification, etc. The two are technical ly and commercially substitutable. 
The consumers have used and are using the two interchangeably.  
vi. As far as the contention of the opposing interested parties that 
Pentaerythritol with purity above 98% should be kept beyond the scope of the 
product unde r consideration , it is contended that the domestic industry is 
producing and supplying Nitration grade and the same is being imported into India 
and, therefore, there is no justification for its exclusion. Majority of the demand for 
Nitration is being met by the domestic industry.  
C.2 Submissions made by the producers/exporters/other interested 
parties  8 
 6. As the domestic industry is producing Pentaerythritol Nitration grade less than 
2% only, it should be kept beyond the scope of the product under consider ation. 
Nitration grade purity is above 98%. So, any Pentaerythritol with purity above 98% 
should be kept beyond the scope of the product under consideration. Mono 
Pentaerythritol Grade should also be kept beyond the scope of the product under 
consideration . 
 C.3  Examination by the Authority  
7. The Authority has considered the submissions of the domestic industry and the 
opposing interested parties and proposes to conclude as under:  
i. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Pentaery thritol. 
Pentaerythritol is an organic compound. The term “erythritol ” indicates the presence of 
four hydroxyl groups, and the prefix “penta ” indicates that there are five carbon atoms in 
the molecule. Pentaerythritol can be produced using electrodialysis separation 
technology or fractional crystallization technology. There is no difference in the product 
properties produced through the two technologies. Pentaerythritol produced can be of 
technical grade or nitration grade. The principal difference in the t wo grades is in purity, 
crystal size and uniformity of crystals. Both the grades are produced out of the same 
process. Pentaerythritol having purity above 98% and better crystal formation can be 
used in the explosive industry and, therefore, this grade has  been designated as 
“Nitration Grade ” in commercial parlance. However, Pentaerythritol considered as 
“Nitration Grade ” can be used for production of Alkyd Resins and other products (where 
the other grade “Technical Grade ” Pentaerythritol is used). Producti on process, 
however, largely results in production of “Technical Grade ”. Less than 2% production 
results in nitration grade whereas the production of Di -Pentaerythritol is less than 0.5%. 
More than 97% production is of technical grade. Further, imports are  primarily in 
technical grade. Di -Pentaerythritol and Pentaerythritol are two different kinds of 
products. Di -Pentaerythritol is beyond the scope of the product under consideration.  
ii. As far as the contention of the opposing interested parties that as t he domestic 
industry is producing Pentaerythritol Nitration grade less than 2% only, it should be kept 
beyond the scope of the product under consideration. Nitration grade purity is above 
98%. So, any Pentaerythritol with purity above 98% should be kept be yond the scope of 
the product under consideration. The Authority notes that  an examination of the 
documents provided by the domestic industry shows that Penta NG is 98% and the 
domestic industry is producing and selling Penta NG of 98% or more purity. Sinc e the 
domestic industry is selling Penta of 98% or above purity, there is no justification for its 
exclusion.  9 
 iii. As far as the contention of the opposing interested parties that Mono Pentaerythritol 
Grade should also be kept beyond the scope of the produ ct under consideration, t he 
Authority notes that Mono Pentaerythritol has been included within the purview of anti dumping 
duties in the past as well. Moreover, none of the interested parties have justified the need for 
exclusion of either grade from the s cope of product under consideration.  
iv. The interested parties desired to know what is the crystal size & uniformity of crystals of 
Technical & Nitration Grade. The domestic industry clarified that Pentaerythritol produced can 
be of technical grade or nit ration grade. The principal difference in the two grades is in purity, 
crystal size and uniformity of crystals. The Authority notes that technical grade and nitration 
grade have been included within the purview of anti dumping duties in the past as well. 
Moreover, none of the interested parties have justified the need for exclusion of either grade 
from the scope of product under consideration.  
v. Pentaerythritol is mostly used in the manufacture of Alkyd Resins, Resin Esters, 
Plasticizers, Printing inks, Sy nthetic rubber, Stabilizers for plastics, Modified drying oils, 
Detonators, Explosives, Pharmaceuticals, and Core oils and Synthetic lubricants, etc. 
Pentaerythritol is classified under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the 
Customs Code 2905 4200. However, Customs classification is indicative only and in no 
way binding on the scope of the investigation.   
vi. With regard to the issue of Like Article, Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules defines like article 
as follows:  
“an article which is identical or a like in all respects to the article under 
investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, 
another article which although not alike in all respects, has the 
characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigat ion” 
vii. The Authority has examined the matter and notes that there is no known 
difference in subject goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported into 
India from the subject country. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry 
and that im ported from the subject country are comparable in terms of characteristics 
such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, 
functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff 
classificatio n of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The 
consumers are using the two interchangeably. None of the opposing interested parties 
has raised any objection in this regard. In view of the same, the Authority holds the 
subject g oods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the subject goods 
imported from the subject country in accordance with the Anti -dumping Rules.  
 
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING  
D.1 Views of the Domestic Industry  10 
 8. The Domestic Industry has made the following submissions with respect to the 
scope of domestic industry and standing:  
I. The petitioner in the present investigation is Kanoria Chemicals & 
Industries Limited.  
II. Apart from the petitioner, the product under consideration is being 
produced by Asian Paints (India) Ltd ( “Asian Paints ”). While Asian Paints 
manufactures the product under consideration, the company captively 
consumed 52% of its production of Pentaerythritol in 2011 -12. The 
production of Asian Paints to the extent of captive consumption should 
not be included in the eligible production, as this production does not 
compete with the dumped material supplied by the foreign producers or 
sales made by the Indian producers.  
III. Earlier, there was one more producer of the product under c onsideration, 
Perstorp Chemicals India (P) Ltd. ( “Perstorp India ”). However, Perstorp 
India has had no domestic production of the product since 2009 -10. 
IV. Neither Asian Paint nor Perstorp India can be considered eligible 
domestic industry.  
V. The petitioner do es not import the subject goods from the subject country. 
Further, it is not related to any exporter or importer of the subject goods 
from the subject country.  
VI. For the purpose of standing, the petitioner has calculated Indian 
production both including and  excluding captive consumption of Asian 
Paints. The production of the petitioner constitutes more than 70% of the 
total Indian production when captive consumption of Asian Paints is 
excluded and about 55% of the total Indian production when captive 
consump tion of Asian Paints is included. Therefore, the petitioner 
constitutes domestic industry in both the cases.  
VII. The petitioner had sufficient standing to file the petition on behalf of the 
Indian domestic industry for the product concerned.   
VIII. The argument that  the petitioner has no locus standi to file the complaint 
is without any basis and is against established law and practice in this 
regard. Domestic industry is defined under Rule 2(b) and the petitioner 
satisfies the same. In fact, interested parties thems elves have claimed 
that the petitioner is the sole manufacturer of the product, which implies 
the petitioner is a domestic industry for the product under consideration.  
 
D.2 Views of exporters/importers/users and other opposing interested parties  
 
9. The com plainant has no locus standi to file the complaint . The complainant is the 
sole manufacturer of Pentaeryhtritol in India and sells the subject goods in the open 11 
 market in India. Hence, it does not qualify within the definition of the term “Industry ” 
since it is the sole manufacturer for selling purposes in India.   
 
D.3 Examination by the Authority  
 
10. The Authority has examined the issue as under:  
i. The Authority notes that Rule 2(b) of the Anti -dumping Rules provides as 
follows:  
“(b) “domestic industry ” mea ns the domestic producers as a whole engaged 
in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or 
those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion 
of the total domestic production of that article ex cept when such producers 
are relate to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are 
themselves importers thereof in such case the term ‘domestic industry ’ may 
be construed as referring to the rest of the producers ” 
 
ii. The petition was file d by Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited (hereinafter 
referred to as the “applicant ”). The company is a producer of the product under 
consideration in India and has not imported the product from the subject country 
during investigation period. It is not  related to any producer in the subject country 
or importer in India.  
iii. Aside from the applicant, Asian Paints (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 
“Asian Paints ”) manufactures the like article in India. The applicant has 
claimed that the captive and mer chant markets constitute two separate 
markets and that the dumped imports enter the latter. It has been claimed 
that captive producers do not compete with the dumped material to the 
extent of captive production. It has been further claimed that Perstorp 
Chemicals India (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Perstorp India ”), which 
has capacities for the production of Pentaerythritol, is not producing the 
product at present.   
iv. The Authority notes that it is not necessary to determine whether or not Asian 
Paints is eligible to be included within the scope of domestic industry since 
the production of the applicant is sufficient to constitute a major proportion of 
total Indian production whether or not the captive production of Asian Paints 
is included. With resp ect to Perstorp India, it is noted that the company is not 
manufacturing the product during the period of investigation and so cannot 
be considered eligible to be included within the scope of domestic industry.  
v. It is noted that the production of the appli cant in the investigation period 
constituted 71.54% of Indian production when production for captive use was 
excluded. When captive production is included, the share of the applicant 
was 54.68%.  12 
 vi. After an examination of the issue, it is noted that the prod uction of the applicant 
constitutes a major proportion in Indian production (both after including and 
excluding captive consumption by Asian Paints) and , therefore , the applicant 
has been treated as domestic industry within the meaning of the Rules. The 
Authority, after examining the facts, proposes to determine that the applicant 
constitutes domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Anti -
dumping Rules, and the petition satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of 
Rule 5 of the Rules.  13 
  ASSESSMENT OF DUMPING – METHODOLOGY AND PARAMETERS  
E.1 Normal Value, Export Price and Dumping Margin   
11. The Authority notes that none of the exporters/producers from Russia has 
responded to the initiation notification by filing exporter questionnaire in the man ner 
and format prescribed.  However, M/s. JSC Metafrax has made brief submissions.  
E.2 Views of the domestic industry  
12. JSC Metafax has not cooperated with the Authority in the form and manner 
prescribed. Mere submissions about prevailing prices in Russia or cost of production of 
the exporter are entirely meaningless unless the exporter files questionnaire response 
in the form and manner prescribed; and cooperated to verification of its data. The 
exporter has attempted to give impression that there was only on e price for the product 
throughout the period. Format E enclosed with the costing information shows that the 
price of the product under consideration varied quite significantly in the present period 
of investigation, thus, clearly establishing absence of s tatic price throughout the period.  
 
Month  Quantity  NSR  
  MT Rs/MT  
JAN-12 *** *** 
FEB-12 *** *** 
MAR -12 *** *** 
APR-12 *** *** 
MAY -12 *** *** 
JUN-12 *** *** 
JULY -12 *** *** 
AUG -12 *** *** 
SEP-12 *** *** 
OCT -12 *** *** 
NOV -12 *** *** 
DEC -12 *** *** 
Total  *** *** 14 
  
13. The selling price in Russian market cannot be accepted unless it is established 
that the same is above the cost of production in accordance with p rovisions of 
Annexure -1 to the R ules. This analysis of profitable sales is required to b e made on 
invoice by invoice sales of the exporter in the domestic market of the exporting country. 
It is also relevant to point out that the cost of production is also required to be provided 
in a particular form and manner prescribed and the Designated A uthority is required to 
satisfy itself that the cost of production cla imed by the exporter is as per Accounting 
Standard of the exporting country and reasonably reflects the cost associated with 
production and sale of the product under consideration. In ca se, the company is a multi 
product company, elaborate investigation is required to ascertain whether cost 
assessments are reasonable and appropriate. It is widely known fact that determination 
of dumping margin for a cooperating exporter is an elaborate ex ercise, which the 
exporter has attempted to put under the carpet by substituting some negative numbers 
for selling price in Russia and cost of production of the exporter.  
 
14. Since the exporter has not filed the questionnaire response in the form and 
manner prescribed and thus has not cooperated for verification of its data, the exporter 
is not entitled to claim its normal value or export price or dumping margin. In fact, the 
exporter cannot even claimed individual dumping margin without a complete 
questionna ire response. It is, thus, contended that the Authority cannot determine the 
dumping margin for JSC Metafax without questionnaire response.  
 
15. None of the producers/ ex porters in Russia has  filed questionnaire response. 
The petitioner  made efforts to get evi dence of price of product concerned in the 
domestic market of Russia and to get evidence of price from published sources. 
However, it could not collect any information/evidence such as price lists or quotations 
of producers of subject goods in the domestic  market of Russia due to lack of relevant 
information in public domain and, therefore, it has constructed the normal value in the 
case of imports from Russia based on the raw material prices and consumption norms 
of the domestic industry, prevailing price of power in Russia, estimates of conversion 
costs, selling, general & administrative expenses and reasonable profit margin.   
 
E.3 Views of the exporters/importers/users and other opposing interested parties  
 
16. M/s. JSC Metafrax has contended that their total  production of Pentaerythritol in 
2012 is 22,500 metric tons. Out of which approximately 10,500 metric tons is sold in 
domestic market and 12,000 metric tons are exported to 17 countries. The export of 
Pentaerythritol to India in 2012 is 1,275 metric tons which is only 10.6% of its total 
export of Pentaerythritol. The ex -factory cost of production of Pentaeryth ritol is 
43,250.00 Ruble/metric ton. They have further contended that the ir sale of 
Pentaerythritol  made in Russia is above the cost of production pl us profit. The weighted 
average selling price of Penaterythritol in Russia is not below the weighted average 15 
 cost of production during the normal years. The normal selling price of Pentaerythritol 
in Russia is Ruble 55,500.00 per metric ton. This includes cost of production, general 
and administrative expenses, profit and VAT of 18% .  
17. The exporter has further contended that the export price of Pentaerythritol to 
India is Ruble 47,150.00 per metric ton during the year 2012. In no way, the export 
price of Pen taerythritol is less than the production cost.  There is no dumping of 
Pentaerythritol done by the Russian manufacturers done into India.  
18. It has been contended by the importers that the complainant has failed to furnish 
any evidence with regard to the price  prevailing (normal price) in domestic market in 
Russia, so as to make out a case of dumping. More precisely, in the event of non 
availability of normal price and non comparison of normal value of the subject goods 
manufactured and sold in the domestic mar ket in India, no case is made out.  
  
E.4 Determination of Normal Value for producers and exporters  
 
19. As provided under the law, the Authority is required to consider selling price of 
the product when meant for consumption in the domestic market of Russia fo r 
determining normal value in Russia. The applicant submitted that there is no evidence 
of actual selling price prevailing in the domestic market of Russia. None of the 
exporters in Russia has cooperated with the Authority with questionnaire response. The 
submissions made by M/s. JSC Metafrax in this regard are unsubstantiated. The 
Authority notes that in the absence of any response from any Russian producer in the 
form and manner prescribed, the normal value cannot be determined on the basis of 
questionnai re response of a producer in Russia. The Authority has, therefore, 
constructed normal value by considering international price of major raw material, 
Methanol, estimates of cost of production, duly adjusted to include selling, general & 
administrative cost s and profits. The normal value so determined is in the dumping 
margin table below.  
 
E.5 Determination of Export Price for producers and exporters   
 
20. Since none of the expo rters from subject country has responded to the Authority  
through complete and duly s ubstantiated questionnaire response, the Authority has 
determined Export Price in respect of imports from Russia on the basis of best 
information available in accordance with Rule 6(8) of the AD Rules. The applicant has 
determined export price on the basis  of imports of the product under consideration in 
India, as reported by IBIS, the data supplying agency. The Designated Authority has 
also got the transaction wise import data from the DGCIS. It is seen that the volumes 
and prices of imports reported by bo th DGCI&S and IBIS are comparable. The 
Designated Authority has considered the data received from DGCI&S and determined 16 
 the export price considering all imports of the product under consideration in India. 
Price adjustments have been made on the basis of c laims made by applicant domestic 
industry in view of non cooperation from the exporters from Russia. Export price so 
determined at ex -factory level  is in the dumping margin table below.  
 
E.6 DUMPING MARGIN  
21. Considering the normal value and export price as determined abo ve, the 
dumping margin determined is as follows. It is seen that the dumping margins are mo re 
than de -minimi s and significant.   
 
         Dumping Margin  Table  
Normal Value  US$/MT  *** 
Export Price  US$/MT  *** 
Dumping Margin  US$/MT  *** 
Dumpi ng Margin  % *** 
Dumping Margin %  Range  30-40 
 
F. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND EXAMINATION OF CAUSAL LINK  
INJURY  
 
F.1 Views of the Domestic Industry   
22. The domestic industry has submitted that:  
a) Demand has shown a largely continuous increasing trend both, includi ng 
and excluding captive consumption.  
b) Imports of the subject goods from Russia have increased significantly 
when compared with the base year. Imports from Saudi Arabia, against 
which anti-dumping  investigation has been terminated on 8th November, 
2013, and  from Chinese Taipei, against which a sunset review 
investigation has been initiated by the Authority, have increased. The 
imports from other countries attracting anti -dumping duty (China PR 
and EU excluding Sweden) have declined in the POI.  
c) There were no imports from Russia in 2009 -10. The share of imports from 
Russia has increased considerably in terms of imports of the subject 
goods into India, and consumption and production in India in the POI 
when compared with 2010 -11. 17 
 d) There has been significant price  undercutting in the POI and the previous 
year.  
e) Landed price of imports are substantially below the cost and selling price 
of the Domestic Industry. Whereas both cost of production and selling 
prices increased over the period, the increase in the selling p rice is less 
than the increase in the cost of production.  
f) Though production has increased slightly, capacity utilization has declined 
in the POI. Domestic sales volume has declined from 2009 -10 to the 
POI. 
g) The market share of the domestic industry has decl ined with the increase 
in imports of the subject goods from Russia  and other existing sources . 
h) The domestic industry has been running into losses since 2009 -10. 
Losses have been substantial in the POI. Imports are entering the 
Indian market much below cost s. Per unit cost of sales has increased 
significantly in the POI when compared with the base year and the 
previous year. However, the cost of sales per unit of the product has 
exceeded the per unit selling price, considerably affecting profitability 
throug hout the injury period.  
i) The cash profits have severely declined over the period to the extent that 
cash losses have been reported since the base year. Return on Capital 
Employed has declined substantially in the period of investigation when 
compared with t he base year.  
j) Inventories with the domestic industry have increased in the POI when 
compared with the base year, and increased significantly when 
compared with the previous year.  
k) The productivity of the domestic industry has been improving though the 
rate of increase in production has declined.  However, in spite of 
increase in productivity, the domestic industry has suffered financial 
losses in the POI.  
l) There are no other factors aside from dumping causing injury to the 
domestic industry. Aside from the su bject country, imports are entering 
the country from certain other countries, but these are already subject 
to anti -dumping duties or investigations. Imports from any other country 
are below de minimis . Demand for the product has increased. There 
have been  no changes in pattern of consumption, technology, trade 
restrictive practices or conditions of competition that have caused the 
injury. The export performance of the domestic industry has not caused 
the injury claimed.  
m) There is a causal link between dump ed imports from Russia and the 
material injury being caused to the domestic industry since imports are 
undercutting the domestic industry ’s prices.  18 
 n) As far as the as the issue of demand supply gap is concerned, it is 
contended that though there was signifi cant demand supply gap for the 
product, yet it is well understood practice and established principle that 
the demand supply gap does not imply that the anti dumping duty 
cannot be imposed.  
o) As far as the argument that the petitioner has attempted to elimina te 
healthy competition from the market is concerned, the argument is just 
opposite to the position consistently advanced by the Authority that the 
purpose of anti -dumping duties, in general, is to eliminate injury caused 
to the Domestic Industry by the unf air trade practices of dumping so as 
to re -establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian 
market, which is in the general interest of the country. Imposition of anti 
dumping measures would not restrict imports from the subject country 
in anyway and, therefore, would not affect the availability of the 
products to the consumers. Further, imposition of duty eliminates unfair 
trade practice and does not create the same.  
p) As far as the argument that in the event of non availability of normal pr ice 
and non comparison of normal value of the subject goods manufactured 
and sold in the domestic market in India, no case is made out, it is 
contended that the issue is well settled. The petitioner has given best 
available information. None of the produce rs from Russia has provided 
information in the form and manner prescribed. The interested parties 
have not been able to show that some information with regard to normal 
value in Russia was publically available and the same has been ignored 
by the petitione r.  
q) Imports from Saudi Arabia are at a price higher than the import price from 
Russia. In any case, the investigation conducted by Authority in respect 
of Saudi Arabia clearly establishes that the imports from Saudi Arabia 
were at undumped prices. Further,  in the absence of filing of the 
exporter ’s questionnaire response, the information provided by the 
petitioner has to be relied upon which clearly shows significant price 
undercutting being caused by Russian imports.  
r) The Authority is required to consider the performance of the domestic 
industry in respect of product under consideration and not performance 
of all the products of the company. The information provided by the 
petitioner clearly shows significant deterioration in the performance of 
the domestic  industry in respect of a number of vital injury parameters.  
s) The price increases are required to be seen along with cost increases. It 
would be seen that increases in the price of the product are far lower 
than increases in the cost of production. These in creases in cost of 
production are on account of increases in input cost and, therefore, it is 
legitimate expectation of the petitioner that it would increase its product 
price in proportion to the increase in cost of production. However, the 19 
 petitioner has  not been able to increase its price in proportion to the 
increase in cost of production, thus, leading to significant decline in 
profitability to a situation where petitioner is now suffering significant 
financial losses, cash loss and negative return on investment.  
t) The argument that the import of subject goods from Russia into India is 
quite small as compared to the demand in India has no basis. Import 
price from Russia is undercutting the domestic price and, therefore, 
causing price form of the injury to  the domestic industry.  
u) Performance of the domestic industry deteriorated materially in respect of 
profits, cash flow and return on investment.  
v) It would, thus, be seen that there is no substance in submissions of the 
interested parties made before the Auth ority. Further, in view of the 
above submissions, and submissions earlier made, domestic industry 
submits that the investigation has clearly established that:  
i. Product under consideration is being exported to India at dumping 
prices from the subject country . 
ii. Both dumping margin and injury margin in the POI are significantly 
positive.  
iii. Domestic industry has suffered material injury as a result of 
dumping.  
iv. Definitive anti dumping duties are required to be imposed in 
accordance with the dumping margin and inju ry margin.  
v. The form of measure is required to be kept as fixed quantum.  
 
F.2 Views of the opposing i nteres ted p arties   
23. The other interested parties have made the following submissions  with respect 
to material injury to the domestic industry : 
a) The complaina nt is having a production capacity of nearly 6,000 MT/ annum 
of the subject goods, whereas the industrial requirement in India is 
approximately 22000 MT/ annum. This leaves a huge gap between the 
demand and supply situation, having an impact on the commerc ial interests 
of the paint and resins industry.  
 
b) The complainant has attempted to eliminate healthy competition from the 
market with respect to the subject goods and create its monopoly with regard 
to manufacture and sale of subject goods, which tantamount  to anti -
competitive and unfair trade practices.  
 
c) Imports from Saudi Arabia and Russia are around the same price even 
though freight from Russia is much higher than Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the 
petitioner is also selling on same landed price in India, then how can it be 
called price undercutting.  20 
  
d) There has been no significant price undercutting by the subject goods 
imported from Russia as compared to the price of the like article in India. The 
landed price of imports from Russia is not lower than the sellin g price of the 
domestic industry. Hence, there is no decline in the market share of the 
domestic industry. In fact, the market share of the domestic industry has 
been increasing constantly over the past few years.  
 
e) As per the information available at the p ortal of moneycontrol.com, the net 
profit of so called “domestic industry ” consisting exclusively of the 
complainant has shown considerable growth in sales, net profit and 
profitability. Hence, there is no impact on profits and return on investments of 
the domestic industry due to imports of subject goods from Russia.  
 
f) The domestic industry has been able to substantially increase its prices. 
Paint industry is in bad shape due to increase in price of raw material.  
 
g) The import of subject goods from Russia int o India is quite small as 
compared to the demand in India.  
 
h) Production, sales and capacity utilization of the complainant has shown 
substantial growth and improvement during the last 4 years. Similarly, profit 
before tax, cash profits and ROI of the compla inant have shown a substantial 
growth during the last 4 years.  
 
i) The plant of Pentaerythritol of the Domestic Industry is facing pollution 
problem. The pollution department is shutting the plant.  
 
j) Reserve & Surplus, profit before tax from continuing operati ons / cash flow 
from operating activities, earning per share, profit before exceptional & 
extraordinary items & Tax, profit before extraordinary items & Tax, profit 
before Tax, profit for the year for the Domestic Industry in fact improved.  
F.3 Examination  by the Authority   
24. In consideration of the various submissions made by the domestic industry and 
other opposing interested parties in this regard, the Authority proceeds to examine the 
current injury, if any, to the domestic industry.  
25. Rule 11 of A ntidumping Rules read with Annexure –II provides that an injury 
determination shall involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the 
domestic industry, “…. taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of 
dumped imports, their e ffect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the 
consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles ….” In 
considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to 
examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped 21 
 imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of 
such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price 
increases, which otherwise wo uld have occurred, to a significant degree.  
26. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic 
industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as 
production, capacity utilization, sales volume, stock, profitability, net sales realization, 
the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with 
Annexure II of the rules supra.  
27. For the purpose of current injury analysis, the Authority has examined the 
volume and price effects of dumped imports of the subject goods on the domestic 
industry and its effect on the prices and profitability to examine the existence of injury 
and causal links between the dumping and injury, if any. The Authority has examined 
injury to the domestic ind ustry by considering information relating to M/s Kanoria 
Chemicals & Industries Ltd., constituting domestic industry under the Rules. 
Accordingly, the volume and price effect of dumped imports have been examined as 
follows:  
F.4 Volume Effect of dumped impo rts and Impact on domestic Industry  
a) Demand and Market Share  
28. The Authority has determined demand or apparent consumption of the product 
in India as the sum of domestic sales of the Indian producers and imports of the subject 
goods in India from all sour ces, both including and excluding captive consumption by 
Asian Paints. The demand so assessed can be seen in the tables below, both including 
and excluding captive production. It is seen that demand of the product under 
consideration in the country has inc reased up to 2011 -12 and then declined slightly in 
the POI. However, the demand has increased during the POI as compared to the base 
year. Whereas the sales of the domestic industry have declined over the injury period, 
the imports of the subject goods fro m the subject country started in 2010 -11 and have 
increased till POI.  
Demand and Market Share in India (including captive consumption)  
Description  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI*  
Sales of Domestic Industry  MT 6,725  6,629  6,518  6,327  
Sales of Other Ind ian Producers  MT 4,549  5,400  5,400  5,400  
Imports – Chinese Taipei (SSR)  MT 2,507  1,223  1,641  1,895  22 
 Imports – Russia (on -going)  MT 0 300 900 1,153  
Other countries attracting ADD  MT 7,643  5,700  4,524  1,908  
Other countries  MT 1,167  6,362  7,784  10,001  
Total Demand  MT 22,592  25,614  26,766  26,684  
Market Share       
Domestic Industry  % 29.77  25.88  24.35  23.71  
Other Indian Producers  % 20.14  21.08  20.17  20.24  
Imports - Chinese Taipei (SSR)  % 11.10  4.77 6.13 7.10 
Imports – Russia (on -going)  % - 1.17 3.36 4.32 
Other countries attracting ADD  % 33.83  22.25  16.90  7.15 
Other countries  % 5.16 24.84  29.08  37.48  
*POI – January 2012 -December 2012.  
Demand and Market Share in India (excluding captive consumption)  
Description  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI*  
Sales  of Domestic Industry  MT 6,725  6,629  6,518  6,327  
Sales of Other Indian Producers  MT 2,125  2,509  2,592  2,592  
Imports – Chinese Taipei (SSR)  MT 2,507  1,223  1,641  1,895  
Imports – Russia (on -going)  MT 0 300 900 1,153  
Other countries attracting ADD  MT 7,643 5,700  4,524  1,908  
Other countries  MT 1,167  6,362  7,784  10,001  
Total Demand  MT 20,168  22,723  23,958  23,876  
Market Share       
Domestic Industry  % 33.35  29.17  27.20  26.50  
Other Indian Producers  % 10.54  11.04  10.82  10.86  23 
 Imports – Chinese Taipei (SSR)  % 12.43  5.38 6.85 7.94 
Imports – Russia (on -going)  % - 1.32 3.76 4.83 
Other countries attracting ADD  % 37.90  25.08  18.88  7.99 
Other countries  % 5.78 28.00  32.49  41.89  
       *POI – January 2012 -December 2012.  
 
b) Import volumes and market shares  
29. With regard to volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to 
consider whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports either in 
absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. Volume of imports and 
imports in rel ation to production and consumption in India are given in the table below:  
Import Volume  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI*  
Russia  MT - 300 900 1,153  
Trend  Indexed  - 100 300 384 
Chinese Taipei  MT *** *** *** *** 
Trend  Indexed  100 49 65 76 
Other countri es 
attracting ADD  MT *** *** *** *** 
Trend  Indexed  100 75 59 25 
Other countries  MT 1,167  6,362  7,784  10,001  
Trend  Indexed  100 545 667 857 
Total Imports  MT 11,317  13,585  14,849  14,957  
Imports from Russia 
in relation to:       
 Total Imports  % - 2.21 6.06 7.71 
 Consumption 
(including captive 
consumption)  % - 1.17 3.36 4.32 
 Consumption 
(excluding captive 
consumption)  % - 1.32 3.76 4.83 24 
 Import Volume  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI*  
 Production 
(including captive 
consumption)  % - 2.53 7.56 9.68 
 Production 
(excluding captive 
consumption)  % - 3.34 9.89 12.66  
*POI – January 2012 -December 2012  
 
30. The Authority notes that imports of the subject goods from Russia began in 
2010 -11, and ha ve increased till POI . The share of imports from Russia has increased 
in relation to total imports into India, and also in r elation to apparent 
demand/consumption in India and total production in India. The Authority further notes 
that t hough the percentage of imports itself is not high, it has increased over the injury 
period.  
 
F.5 Price Effect of the Dumped imports on the Do mestic Industry  
 
a) Price Undercutting and Price Underselling  
 
31. The impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of imports of the 
subject goods from the subject country has been examined with reference to price 
undercutting, price underselling , price suppression and price depression. For the 
purpose of this analysis, the cost of production, net sales realization (NSR) and the 
non-injurious price (NIP) of subject goods of the domestic industry have been 
compared with landed value of imports from  the subject country. A comparison for 
subject goods during the period of investigation was made between the landed value of 
dumped imports and the domestic selling price in the domestic market. In determining 
the net sales realization of the domestic indu stry, taxes, rebates, discounts and 
commission offered by the domestic industry have been adjusted. The price 
underselling is an important indicator of assessment of injury and, thus, the Authority 
has worked out a non -injurious price and compared the same  with the landed value to 
arrive at the extent of price underselling. The non -injurious price has been evaluated 
for the domestic industry by appropriately considering the cost of production for the 
product under consideration during the POI. The position is as follows:  
Particulars  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI 
Landed price Rs/MT   - 69,850  81,759  97,513  25 
 of import  
Trend  Indexed   100 117 140 
NSR of 
domestic 
industry  Rs/MT  - *** *** *** 
Trend  Indexed   100 124 141 
Price 
undercutting 
amount  Rs/MT  - *** *** *** 
Trend  Indexed   100 322 185 
Price 
undercutting 
% %  - *** *** *** 
Price 
undercutting 
% Range  - 
0-10% 5-15% 0-10% 
 
 
Price Underselling  
Non-injurious Price of DI  Rs/MT  *** 
Landed Value  Rs/MT  *** 
Price Underselling  Rs/MT  *** 
Price Underselling   % *** 
Price Underselling  % Range  20-30 
 
32. The Authority notes from the above that the landed prices of the subject goods 
were below the selling price of the domestic industry  showing price undercutting being 
caused by the dumped imports from Russia. It is further noted that the landed price of 
imports from Russia is less than the non -injurious price of the domestic industry, thereby , 
resulting in price  underselling . 
b) Price Suppression and Depression  
33. To examine the price suppression and depression effects  of the dumped imports 
on the domestic prices, the trend of net sales realization of the domestic industry has 
been compared with the cost of sales. The given data shows that the domestic 26 
 industry ’s selling price has remained below its cost of sales throug hout the injury 
period, signifying existence of price suppression effect. The trends in this regard are 
summarized below:  
Description  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI 
Cost of Sales  Rs/MT  *** *** *** *** 
Trend   Indexed  - 100 117 141 
Selling Price  Rs/MT  *** *** *** *** 
Trend   Indexed  - 100 122 139 
Landed price of 
imports  Rs/MT  
 - 69,850  81,759  97,513  
Trend     - 100 117 140 
 
34. The Authority notes that the selling price of the subject good of domestic 
industry during the injury period has increased. Howeve r, the increase is not  in the 
same proportionate  to that of cost of sales over the same period. Further, the selling 
price of the domestic industry remains below the cost of sales throughout the injury 
period. The landed price of imports from the subject c ountry during the injury period 
has also increased. However, the increase in landed price is far lower than the increase 
in the cost and selling price. Further, the landed price of imports is below the cost of 
sales and net sales realization throughout the  injury period. Therefore,  it is noted that 
dumped imports are suppressing the prices of domestic industry  in the domestic 
market . 
F.6 Impact on Economic Parameters of the Domestic Industry  
35. Annexure II to the Anti-dumping Rules requires that the determ ination of injury 
shall involve an objective examination of the consequent impact of these imports on 
domestic producers of such products. With regard to consequent impact of these 
imports on domestic producers of such products, the Anti-dumping Rules further 
provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic 
industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic 
factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual 
and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on 
investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the 
magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual  and  potential  negative  effects  on  
cash  fl ow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments.   
36. Various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are  discussed 
herein below.  
a) Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilization and Sales  27 
  
37. Information on capacit y, production, capacity utilization and sales volumes of the 
dome stic industry has been as under:  
Particulars  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI 
Installed Capacity  MT 6,000  6,000  7,000  7,000  
Production -PUC MT *** *** *** *** 
Trend   100 100 101 101 
Produc tion-NPUC  MT *** *** *** *** 
Total Production  MT *** *** *** *** 
Trend   100 100 101 101 
Capacity Utilization  % 108 109 94 94 
Trend   100 100 86 86 
Domestic Sales Volume  MT 6,725  6,629  6,518  6,327  
Trend   100 99 97 94 
 
38. The Authority notes that the capacity of the product concerned was enhanced by 
the domestic industry in 2011 -12. The volume of production has increased slightly over 
the injury period. The capacity utilization has fallen in 2011 -12 and the POI with the 
increase in capacity.  
39. It is noted that the sales volume of the domestic industry has declined over the 
injury period despite increase in demand.  
b) Profits, Return on Capital Employed and Cash Profit  
 
40. The profits, return on investment and cash profit of the domestic industry have 
been examined as under:  
Particulars  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI 
Cost of Sales  Rs./MT  *** *** *** *** 28 
 Trend   100 111 130 157 
Selling Price  Rs/MT  *** *** *** *** 
Trend   100 106 129 147 
Profit/ Loss per unit  Rs./MT  *** *** *** *** 
Trend   (100)  (258) (154)  (427)  
Profit/ Loss  Rs.Lacs  *** *** *** *** 
Trend   (100)  (255)  (150)  (402)  
PBIT  Rs.Lacs  *** *** *** *** 
Trend   (100)  (221)  (126)  (359)  
Cash Profit  Rs.Lacs  *** *** *** *** 
Trend   (100)  (410)  (205)  (707)  
Return on Capital 
Employed (NFA 
basis)  % *** *** *** *** 
Trend   (100)  (273)  (121)  (265)  
 
41. The Authority notes from the above as under:  
(i) Both the selling price and cost of sales of the domestic industry increased 
over the injury period. However, the increase in cost of sales of the 
domestic industry was much higher than the increase in the selling price.  
(ii) Profitability was negative throughout the injury period. Profitability was 
significantly adverse in the period of investigation.  
(iii) Profits, cash profits, profit before interest & tax and retur n on capital 
employed, all followed the same trend as that of profitability. All these 
parameters were negative during the entire injury period.  
(iv) It is clear that the domestic industry has been suffering continued injury 
in terms of profit -related parameter s. The position of the industry with 
respect to these parameters has deteriorated substantially in the period 29 
 of investigation as a result of dumping from fresh sources in addition to 
existing sources.  
 
c) Employment and Wages  
42. The status of employment l evels and wages of the domestic industry has been 
as under:  
Description  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI 
Employment  Nos. 67 67 67 67 
Salary and Wages  Rs. Lacs  *** *** *** *** 
 
43. It is noted from the above that the employment level remained constant ov er the 
injury period. This is despite increase in capacity and production. Salary and wages 
increased over the injury period.  
d) Productivity  
44. The productivity of the domestic industry is given in the following table.  
Description  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI 
Productivity Per Employee  MT 97.10  97.51  97.91  97.92  
Productivity Per Day  MT 18.59  18.67  18.74  18.74   
 
45. The Authority notes that the productivity per employee and productivity per day 
remained at the same level over the injury period.  
e) Inventori es  
46. The Authority has examined the inventory level of the domestic industry which is 
given in the table below.  
Description  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI 
Average Stock  MT *** *** *** *** 
Trend   100  30  1  112  
47. It is noted from the above table tha t the inventory of the domestic industry 
declined till 2011 -12 and increased substantially in the period of investigation. Further, 30 
 it has increased in the period of investigation in relation to the base year.  
f) Magnitude of Dumping  
48. Magnitude of dumping  as an indicator of the extent to which the dumped imports 
can cause injury to the domestic industry shows that the dumping margin determined 
by the Authority against the subject country in the POI is above de-minimis  and 
significant.  
g) Ability to raise cap ital  
49. The applicant has argued that given the current state of affairs where the 
product is consistently not performing well because of persistent dumping, any fresh 
investment is not envisaged. However, the Authority notes that the ability to raise 
capital investment in the event of dumping is not relevant since the domestic industry is 
a multi -product industry.  
h) Growth  
50. With regard to the growth of the domestic industry, the position is as under:  
Particulars  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI 
Produc tion % - 0.43 0.42 0.13 
Domestic Sales  % - -1.43 -1.68 -2.93 
Inventory  % - -69.81  -95.32  7,826  
Profit per MT  % - -158 40 -177 
Return on Investment 
(NFA)  % - -7.37 6.48 -6.14 
 
51. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has shown negative growth  in 
terms of profit and return on capital employed despite anti dumping duty being in force 
and revised upwards. The Authority notes that though the production of the domestic 
industry increased over the injury period, yet the magnitude of increase in prod uction 
has declined over the period. Domestic sales have declined. Inventories first declined 
and then increased substantially in the period of investigation. Overall growth of the 
domestic industry over the injury period was adverse.  
i) Factors Affecting Do mestic Prices  
52. The examination of the import prices from the subject country and other 31 
 countries, change in the cost structure, competition in the domestic market, factors 
other than dumped imports that might be affecting the prices of the domestic indu stry in 
the domestic market shows that without antidumping duty, the landed value of the 
subject goods imported from the subject country is below the selling price and the non -
injurious price of the domestic industry, causing significant price undercutting  as well as 
price underselling, both with and without anti -dumping duty, in the Indian market. It is 
also noted that the demand for the subject goods was showing significant increase 
during the POI and, therefore, it could not have been a factor affecting domestic prices. 
Thus, the principal factor affecting the domestic prices is landed value of subject goods 
from the subject country and other dumping countries.  
F.7 Other Known Factors and Causal Link  
53. The Authority has examined whether other known fact ors could have caused 
injury to the domestic industry as follows:  
(a) Contraction in demand and / or change in the pattern of consumption  
54. The Authority notes that demand for the product has grown over the injury 
period, except a slight decline in the POI.  However, demand for the product under 
consideration has increased in the POI as compared to the base year. Hence, a 
decline in demand cannot be causing injury to the domestic industry. Further, the 
Authority has found no evidence of a change in the patter n of consumption of the 
product.   
(b) Volume and Prices of imports not sold at dumped prices  
 
55. The Authority notes that apart from the subject country, imports of the subject 
goods from EU (excluding Sweden) and China are attracting anti dumping duties. T he 
Authority had initiated an anti -dumping investigation in respect of imports from Saudi 
Arabia, which have been terminated by the Authority as the margin of dumping 
determined by the Authority for the only exporter in Saudi Arabia was de -minimis. 
Further , the Authority ha d initiated an SSR investigation on imports  originating in or 
exporter from Chinese Taipei in which the Authority has recommended to the Central 
Government for imposition of anti dumping duty vide its Final Findings dated 
16.10.2014. As regards the imports from all other countries, the Authority notes that the 
volume of imports is de -minimis.  
(c) Trade restrictive practices of and competition between foreign and 
domestic producers  
56. The Authority notes that the subject goods are freely impo rtable and there are 
no trade restrictive practices in the domestic market. Further there is no perceptible 32 
 competition among the domestic producers, except that is obvious of a market 
economy. It is noted that there is a single market for the subject good s where dumped 
imports from the subject country compete directly with the subject goods supplied by 
the domestic industry. It is also noted that the imported subject goods and domestically 
produced goods are like articles and are used for similar applicati ons/end uses. There 
is no evidence of trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign 
producers and domestic producers causing injury to the domestic industry.  
(d) Developments in Technology  
57. The Authority notes that there are no develo pments in technology with respect 
to the product or its manufacture that could have resulted in the injury caused to the 
domestic industry.  
(e) Export performance  
58. The Authority notes that the domestic industry does export the product. 
However, the export s in 2011 -12 became nil and remained less in the POI in 
comparison to the base year. However, information relating to injury has been 
examined separately for domestic operations to the extent possible. Any deterioration 
in the export performance of the dom estic industry is, therefore, not a possible cause of 
the injury.  
Particulars  Unit 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 POI 
Exports by the Domestic 
Industry  MT 20 40 - 10 
(f) Productivity of the domestic industry  
59. The Authority notes that productivity of the domestic  industry has increased 
slightly over the period in accordance with the increase in production. Hence, a decline 
in productivity cannot be a cause for the injury.  
(g) Performance of other products  
60. The Authority notes that the performance of other products  being produced and 
sold by the domestic industry is not a possible cause of the injury found since all 
parameters were examined with respect to the like article in this investigation.  
61. The Authority notes that while the known other factors listed above do not 
appear to have caused the injury determined, the following parameters show that injury 
to the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports.  
a. The volume of imports from the subject country has increased since they 
commenced in 2010 -11.  
b. Import s of the subject goods from the subject country are undercutting the 
domestic industry prices and also causing price suppression.  33 
 c. Domestic sales of the product have declined over the injury period 
despite increase in demand.  
F.8 Conclusion on Injury and Ca usation  
62. The Authority notes that there has been an increase in the volume of dumped 
imports from the subject country in absolute terms and relative to apparent 
consumption and production in India, though the share of imports from the subject 
country is  not very high. Production of the domestic industry has increased, but sales 
have declined over the period. Profit -related parameters of the domestic industry have 
all been significantly adverse. Inventories have been significant. They declined until the 
previous year and then increased substantially in the period of investigation.  
 
63. The Authority notes that the domestic industry was suffering injury on account of 
dumping of the subject goods from other countries even before imports from Russia 
commence d. There have been investigations conducted and duties imposed on these 
imports. However, due to the price undercutting and price suppression specifically 
found in this investigation, it is clear that imports from the subject country are causing 
injury to the domestic industry.  
 
F. 9 Magnitude of injury and injury margin  
64. The Authority has determined the non -injurious price for the domestic industry, 
taking into consideration the cost of production of the domestic industry. This non -
injurious price of the d omestic industry has been compared with the landed value of the 
subject goods ’ imports from the subject country to determine the injury margin. The 
injury margin has been worked out as follows:  
Injury Margin  
Particular  US $ /MT  
Exchange Rate  53.69 
Non I njurious Price (NIP)  *** 
Landed Price  *** 
Injury Margin  *** 
Injury Margin %  *** 
Injury Margin % Range  20-30 
 
65. It is noted that the level of injury margin, as determined, is considered significant . 
G. INDIAN INDUSTRY ’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES  
 34 
 66. The Autho rity notes that the purpose of anti -dumping duties, in general, is to 
eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping 
so as to re -establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which 
is in the general interest of the country. Imposition of anti -dumping measures would not 
restrict imports from the subject country/territory in any way, and, therefore, would not 
affect the availability of the product to the consumers.  
 
67. It is recognized that t he imposition of anti -dumping duties might affect the price 
levels of the product manufactured using the subject goods and consequently might 
have some influence on relative competitiveness of this product. However, fair 
competition in the Indian market wi ll not be reduced by the anti -dumping measures, 
particularly if the levy of the anti -dumping duty is restricted to an amount necessary to 
redress the injury to the domestic industry. On the contrary, imposition of anti -dumping 
measures would remove the unf air advantages gained by dumping practices, would 
prevent the decline in the performance of the domestic industry and help maintain 
availability of wider choice to the consumers of the subject goods.  
 
H.  POST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SUBMISSIONS BY THE INTER ESTED 
PARTIES  
H.1   Post Disclosure Statement submissions by the opposing Interested 
Parties  
68. Following are in brief the post Disclosure Statement submissions made by the 
opposing interested parties:  
 
A. Metafrax, Russia  
(i) Enough time was not given to file detai led reply as per required performa 
considering communication problem and language issues due to very long 
distance. Detailed reply was not accepted by the Authority when submitted.  
(ii) Time given for comments to disclosure is short.  
(iii) Looking at Indo -Russia trad e relation, due consideration may be given to 
submissions by Metafrax.  
(iv) Kanoria caters to only 27% of demand and wants to create artificial shortage of 
the product.  
(v) Share of Russia is not more than 5% and landed price is higher than local selling 
price in I ndia.  
 
B. INDIAN PAINT & COATING ASSOCIATION  
(i) Most of the paint consumers are importing due to quality issues as Kanoria offers 
95% product while all imported products are 98% on a cheaper price.  35 
 (ii) Even if anti dumping duty is imposed, Kanoria will be not be abl e to fulfill entire 
demand.  
(iii) Kanoria is not upgrading quality and quantity to become cost effective. It is trying 
for a monopolistic situation with anti dumping duty on a number of countries. With 
the imposition of anti dumping duty on the only country lef t, thousands of small & 
medium scale manufacturers would suffer due to this additional cost in their raw 
material.  
(iv) Asian Paints is also importing huge quantity instead of buying from Kanoria due 
to quality and pricing issues.  
(v) Association was not given a f air chance to represent their case even when the 
association was registered within the time period for filing objection.  
 
C. SANDEEP ORGANICS PVT LTD, MUMBAI  
(i) JSC Metafrax has dumped Penta in India in large and regular quantity. There 
should be anti dumping du ty imposed on it.  
(ii) Before calculating anti dumping duty, current US$ to INR exchange rate and 
profit of Aarya Enterprise, UAE (Exporter) and RMF Chemicals, Switzerland 
(Manufacturer/ Producer JSC Metafrax, Russia Export House/ Sister Company/ 
Agent) should be considered.  
(iii) CFR prices of Penta were in the range of 1600 -1700.  
(iv) Penta from Russia is exported in 2 purity levels – 95-96% and 98 -99%.  
(v) COA of domestic/ local manufacturer and Russia should be compared.  
 
D. BHARAT SOLVENT & CHEMICAL CORP  
(i) Response to initiati on was filed on 31.7.2013 and detailed response to 
questionnaire on 19.9.2013. However, the Authority has not taken into account 
the submissions made by the interested party.  
(ii) Total output of Kanoria is merely 23.71% of demand (excluding captive 
consumption ). It is legally wrong to give it the status of domestic industry.  
(iii) There is gross devaluation of Indian Rupee in the international market during 
POI. Even the position of Ruble vs Indian Rupee has strengthened.  
(iv) The burden of proof regarding dumping lies on  the complainant. No evidence of 
normal value has been given by the petitioner. Information submitted by Matafrax 
was rejected on flimsy grounds that it is not submitted in the prescribed proforma.  
(v) Export price stated in the complaint is unrealistic and no t based on market 
research reports.  
(vi) Demand of Penta in India is higher than production capacity of Kanoria.  
(vii) There is no injury to petitioner due to imports from Russia as their financial 
statement shows profits in the POI.  36 
 (viii) Kanoria has recently expanded cap acity for production of Penta at 
Vishakhapatnam. This has reduced the overall accounting cost factor and 
reduced profit in short term only.  
(ix) Increase in price of methanol has increased the cost of production of domestic 
industry.  
(x) Wrong management decisions  and policies of the alleged domestic company 
have further aggrieved the condition.  
(xi)  Domestic industry has not provided demarcation of loss suffered on domestic 
sales.  
(xii) Price underselling claims are exaggerated by assuming 22% return on capital 
employed.  
(xiii) Domestic industry has not included income from sale of by -product, Sodium 
Formate, to offset losses.  
(xiv) There is scarcity of Penta in the country. Asian Paints has also imported.  
(xv) The import of Penta from Russia is far less than import from other countries such 
as Sweden and Saudi Arabia.  
(xvi) There is increase in sales of other producers and demand. Comparatively 
decrease in sales of Kanoria shows that imports from Russia has no effect on the 
domestic industry.  
(xvii)  If sales of domestic industry have declined then why cap acity has been 
expanded.  
(xviii)  Data given by Kanoria is incorrect because in the case against EU, the sale in 
2009 -10 is stated to be 6778MT whereas in this complaint it is stated to be 
6327MT . 
 
H.2  Post Disclosure Statement submissions by the Domestic Industry  
 
69. Following are in brief the post Disclosure Statement submissions made by the 
domestic industry:  
(i) Non-injurious price may be re -determined considering actual cost of 
production.  
(ii) Product under consideration is exported to India below its normal value 
result ing in dumping from the subject country.  
(iii) Both dumping margin and injury margin in the Period of Investigation are 
significant and positive from the subject country.  
(iv) Domestic Industry has suffered material injury.  
(v) The anti dumping duty is required to be imp osed definitively in fixed form 
and the duty expressed in US$ terms.  
 
G.3  Examination by the Authority  37 
  
70. The Authority has addressed these issues to the extent considered relevant as 
under:  
 
(i)   As regards the contention that enough time was not given to fil e detailed 
reply, the Authority notes that the Anti Dumping Agreement or Indian 
rules do not provide for additional time because of communication 
problem and language issues or distance involved.  
 
(ii) It is incorrect that reply given by Metafrax was not accep ted/considered 
by the Authority. The A uthority has in fact duly considered the 
submissions made by Metafrax in the present F indings.  
 
(iii) The Authority notes that while rules envisaged no minimum time  that 
should be allowed by the A uthority for the purpose of  comments to 
Disclosure S tatement. It is noted that in any case, Metafrax has not 
demanded addition al time for filing comments to Disclosure S tatement. 
Thus, the contention that enough time has not b een given to offer 
comments to Disclosure S tatement canno t be accepted.  
 
(iv) The Authority has given due consideration to the submissions made by 
Metafrax. Each and every submissions made by Metafrax has been 
carefully considered and evaluated while rendering these Findings.  
 
(v) The A uthority notes that a number of i nterested parties have contended 
that the domestic industry cannot meet complete demand of the product 
in the country. While it is true that the domestic industry cannot meet 
complet e demand of the product in the country, the A uthority has not 
recommended any ban on imports, nor imposition of anti dumping duties 
shall prevent a party from importing the product or an exporter to sell the 
product.  
 
(vi) As regards the contention of Metafrax that share of Russia is not more 
than 5%, the Authority notes that the rul es with regard to negligibility 
provide negligibility in the context of imports of the product from the 
country under investigation and its share in total imports. Imports from 
Russia during relevant period were 7.7% of total imports in India which is 
clearly significantly beyond negligible limits provided under the law.  
 
(vii)  Metafrax has contended that landed price of import from Russia is higher 
than the local selling price in India. T he Authority however notes that the 
information on record clearly shows t hat landed price of import from 
Russia is lower than selling price of the domestic industry in India.  
 38 
 (viii)  Indian Paint & Coating Association has contended that most of the paint 
consumers are importing due to quality issues. Kanoria offers 95% purity 
product  while all imported products are 98% and at a lower price. It is, 
however, noted that the claim is unsubstantiated. Further, sales invoices 
and product specifications provided by the petitioner shows that it 
produces and supplies product having 98% purity.  It is also noted that 
there have been a number of investigations concerning the product 
under consideration and in none of the investigations in the past, either a 
consumer or the association has established a quantified material 
difference in quality or specifications. The investigation has shown that 
the goods produced by the domestic industry are technically and 
commercially substitutable to the goods imported from Russia and other 
countries.  
 
(ix)  The Authority notes that purpose of anti dumping is not to  create 
monopolistic situations. The purpose is to address the unfair situations 
created by the dumping practices. Further, it is noted that anti dumping 
duties ha ve been imposed on the product under consideration on 
different countries. However, the A ssociation has not provided any 
quantified and verifiable information showing that thousands of small & 
medium scale manufacturers suffered due to this additional cost in their 
raw material. It is, thus, concluded that the contention that thousands of 
small & medium scale manufacturers suffered due to this additional cost 
in their raw material is wholly unsubstantiated and unverifiable.  
 
(x) It has also been contended that Asian Paints is also importing huge 
quantity instead of buying from Kanoria due to quality a nd pricing issues. 
It is, however, noted that Asian Paint has not made any such argument 
and has not provided any documentary evidence to establish the same. 
On the contrary, petitioner domestic industry has provided documentary 
evidences showing sales bei ng made to Asian Paint over the period. 
Further, the information provided by the domestic industry shows that 
their sales to Asian Paints have not shown material decline.  
 
(xi)   Indian Paint & Coating Association has contended that the Association 
was not giv en a fair chance to represent their case even when the 
association was registered within the time period for filing objection.  The 
Authority notes in this regard that the Association cannot plead 
ignorance about t he present investigations. The A uthority ha s given 
ample opportunity to all interested parties to provide relevant information 
to present their views.  
(xii)  While Metafrax has contended that the company has not resorted to 
dumping, Sandeep Organics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, has mentioned  that JSC 
Metafrax has d umped Penta in India in large and regular quantity and 
there should be anti dumping duty imposed on it.  39 
  
(xiii)   As regards the contention with regard to that the Authority should 
consider current exchange rate and expense and profit of exporting 
companies, the  Authority notes that the Authority considers exchange 
rate prevailing during the period of investigation. It would not be 
appropriate to consider current exchange rate selectively for the import 
price. It is without any basis to assume that only exchange rate has 
changed over the period and all other parameters have remained the 
same.  
 
(xiv) As regards claims for price adjustments, the Authority notes that any 
such adjustment is feasible only when response to questionnaire has 
been filed by the exporter concern ed. Moreover, the authority notes that 
any such adjustment would at the least increase the dumping margin.  
 
(xv)   Sandeep Organics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai contended that there is one more 
exporter of Penta which was not sent letters by DA. It is, however, 
clarified th at the Designated Authority has issued public notice.  
 
(xvi) Sandeep Organics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai stated that 3 names were given by 
Aarya Enterprises in their letter to Designated Authority and the same 
are not mentioned in the disclosure statement. The Au thority h owever 
notes that the A uthority has taken care of all the submissions made by 
Sandeep Organics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai . 
 
(xvii)  The Authority notes that Sandeep Organics Pvt Ltd has stated that CFR 
prices of Penta were in the range of 1600 -1700. The export price 
consider ed by the A uthority is also in the same region. However, since 
the company Aarya Enterprise, UAE has not filed response to 
questionnaire in the form and manner prescribed, in any case, the 
Authority is not in a position to determine individual dumping marg in.  
 
(xviii) Bharat Solvent also contended that since output of Kanoria is merely 
23.71% of demand (excluding captive consumption), it is legally wrong 
to give it the status of domestic industry. The Authority however notes 
that Rule 2(b) provides that  “domestic  industry ” means the domestic 
producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article or 
those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major 
proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when 
such producer s are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged 
dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the 
term ‘domestic industry ’ may be construed as referring to the rest of the 
producers. In the instant case, the investigation shows  that production of 
petitioner constitute s a major proportion in Indian production. The 
Authority notes that consideration of petitioner share in Indian demand is 40 
 not appropriate in determining the scope of domestic industry, as the 
rules require the autho rity to consider major proportion on the basis of 
Indian production.  
(xix) A number of interested parties have contended that US$ has 
significantly appreciated after the period of investigation. The authority 
notes that it would not be appropriate to selectivel y consider US$ in the 
recent period. The Authority fixed a period for detailed investigation and 
it would not be appropriate to selectively consider parameters prevailing 
at present. Significant changes in any of the parameters leading to the 
present deter mination in a subsequent period require a review to be 
undertaken which can be considered under Rule 23 as per the law.  
 
(xx)   Bharat Solvent contended that the burden of proof regarding dumping 
lies on the complainant and no evidence of normal value has been given 
by the petitioner. Bharat Solvent has also contended that information 
submitted by Matafrax was rejected on flimsy grounds that it is not 
submitted in the prescribed proforma. The Authority holds that the 
petitioner had discharged its initial burden of proof with regard to 
existence of dumping. It was now for the exporters to file information in 
the form and manners prescribed and establish that they did not export 
at a price below normal value. However, none of the Russia 
manufacturers have filed que stionnaire response in the form and 
manner prescribed and therefore dumping margin could not be 
determined on the basis of questionnaire response of such companies. 
With regard to the contention that information submitted by Matafrax was 
rejected on flimsy  grounds that it is not submitted in the prescribed 
proforma, the Authority notes that response to questionnaire cannot be 
accepted unless the same is in the prescribed formats. There are 
material gaps in the response filed by Matafrax and the information 
contained therein is grossly insufficient to determine dumping margin on 
the basis of the same.  
 
(xxi) Bharat Solvent contended that export price stated in the petition is 
unrealistic and not based on market research reports. It is noted that the 
export price h as been determined on the basis of IBIS and , therefore , 
the same is sufficient for the present purposes.  
 
(xxii)  Some of the interested parties have contended that the petitioner has 
earned profits in the period of investigation. The investigation has 
however sh own that the petitioner has suffered financial losses in the 
product under consideration in the period of investigation. It is noted in 
this regard that petitioner has earned significant crores in the period of 
investigation on account of sale of its caust ic soda plant, which is clearly 
not relevant for the present purposes.  
 41 
 (xxiii) It has been contended that petitioner has recently expanded capacity for 
production of Penta at Vishakhapatnam, which has reduced the profits. It 
is, however, noted that no capacity ex pansion has been undertaken by 
the company at Vishakhapatnam. The expansion in capacity has taken 
place at Ankleshwar and the same has been considered in the present 
determination. As regards allegation of decline in profit due to cap acity 
expansion, the A uthority determined profits after eliminating additional 
cost in the new plant. The data still shows that domestic industry has 
suffered significant financial losses.  
 
(xxiv)    Some interested parties contended that price of methanol has increased 
the cost of pr oduction of domestic industry. The Authority considers 
whatever be the reason for increase in cost of production, the rule 
requires Authority to determine whether the effect of dumped imports is 
to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price in creases 
which otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree. It is seen 
in this regard that the selling price of the domestic industry has 
increased much less than the increase in the cost of production. The 
imports are suppressing the prices of th e domestic industry in the 
market.  
 
(xxv)    Some interested parties contended that the adverse performance of the 
domestic industry is due to wrong management decisions and policies of 
the domestic company. These interested parties have however not 
quantified h ow wrong management decisions and policies of the 
domestic company has resulted in deterioration in performance. Further, 
the investigation has not shown that decline in performance is due to 
wrong management decisions and policies of the domestic company.  
(xxvi)    Some of the interested parties have contended that domestic industry 
has not provided profit/loss in domestic sales. It is, however, clarified 
that profit/loss has been considered only in respect of domestic 
operations.  
 
(xxvii)  It has been contended that pric e underselling claims are exaggerated by 
assuming 22% return on capital employed. It is however, seen that even 
if return on capital employed is not considered and only cost of 
production of the domestic industry is considered, the data clearly 
establishes  existence of significant price underselling. The landed price 
of imports is below cost of production of the domestic industry.  
 
(xxviii)  It has been contended that domestic industry has not included income 
from sale of by -product, Sodium Formate, to offset losses . It is clarified 
that profit/loss and NIP has been determined after deducting sale value 
of Sodium Formate.  
 42 
 (xxix)    It has also been contended that there is scarcity of Penta in the country 
and Asian  Paints has also imported. The A uthority notes that the prese nt 
petition and proposed anti dumping duty is not intended to ban the 
imports in the c ountry.  
 
(xxx)    It has been contended that import of Penta from Russia is far less than 
import from other countries such as Sweden and Saudi Arabia. It is, 
however, noted that  import from Russia were NIL in 2009 -10 and 300 
MT in 2010 -11. Imports increased to almost four times in period of 
investigation as compared to 2010 -11. Further, imports from Russia 
constituted 4.32% of demand in India. It is also noted that import price 
from Russia on an average basis were lower than the import price from 
other countries not attracting anti dumping duties.  
(xxxi)    It has been contended that there is increase in sales of other producers 
and demand and decrease in sales of Kanoria shows that impor ts from 
Russia has no effect on the domestic industry. It is, however, noted that 
market share of domestic industry and other producers declined. 
Moreover, the primary injury in the present case is in the form of adverse 
price effect of imports on the dome stic industry. Performance of the 
domestic industry deteriorated in respect of profits, cash profits and 
return on investments. It has also been contended that if sales of 
domestic industry have declined then why capacity has been expanded. 
It is, however,  noted that the capacity additions by the domestic industry 
are far lower than the present and potential demand of the product in the 
country. It does not appear a situation where injury to the domestic 
industry has occurred due to capacity additions.  
 
(xxxii)  As regards the contention about incorrectness in the data of sales, it is 
clarified that 6778 MT was annualized sale of the domestic industry in 
POI (April 2009 – June 2010) in the EU case. 6327 MT is the sale of the 
domestic industry in POI (Jan – Dec 2012)  of the present case. Actual 
sale of the domestic industry in 2009 -10 is 6725 MT.  
 
I. CONCLUSION  
71. After examining the submissions made by the opposing interested parties and 
the domestic industry and issues raised therein; and considering the facts ava ilable on 
record, the Authority concludes that the product under consideration has been exported 
to India from the subject country below its associated normal value, thus, resulting in 
dumping of the product. The domestic industry has suffered material inj ury in respect of 
the subject goods. The material injury has been caused by the dumped imports from 
the subject country.  
J. RECOMMENDATIONS  43 
 72. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all 
interested parties and adequate opp ortunity was given to the domestic industry, 
exporters, importers and other interested parties to provide positive information on the 
aspects of dumping, injury and the causal link. Having initiated and conducted 
investigation into dumping, injury and the causal link thereof in terms of the AD Rules 
and having established positive dumping margins as well as material injury to the 
domestic industry caused by such dumped imports, the Authority is of the view that 
imposition of definitive anti dumping duty is required to offset dumping and consequent 
injury. Therefore, the Authority considers it necessary to recommend imposition of 
definitive anti -dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject countr y in 
the form and manner described hereunder.  
 
73. Having regard to the lesser duty rule followed by the Authority, the Authority 
recommends imposition of definitive anti -dumping duty equal to the lesser of the margin 
of dumping and the margin of injury, so as to remove the injury to the domestic indus try. 
Accordingly, definitive antidumping duty as per amount specified in the table below is 
recommended to be imposed from the date of the Notification to be issued by the 
Central Government, on all imports of the subject goods originating in or exported f rom 
the subject country.  
Duty Table  
 
S. 
No Heading  Description of 
goods  Specifi
-cation  Country 
of origin  Country of 
export  Producer  Exporter  Duty 
amountUnit of 
measur -
ement  Currency  
1 2905 42  Pentaerythritol  Any 
grade  Russia  Russia  Any Any 474 MT US$ 
2 2905 42  Pentaerythritol  Any 
grade  Russia  Any  Any Any 474 MT US$ 
3 2905 42  Pentaerythritol  Any 
grade  Any  Russia  Any Any 474 MT US$ 
 
 
 
 44 
  
74. Landed value of imports for the purpose of this Notification shall be the 
assessable value as determined by the C ustoms under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 
1962) and includes all duties of customs except duties under sections 3, 3A, 8B, 9 and 
9A of the said  Act.  
75. An appeal against the order of the Central Government arising out of this findings  
notification  shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in 
accordance with the Customs Tariff Act.              
        
    
 
                      (J K Dadoo)  
                                                                                                       Designated Authority  
 1 
 To be published in Part - I Section - I of the Gazette of India Extraordinary  
 
F.No.14/22/2013-DGAD 
Government of India 
Ministry of Commerce & Industry 
Department of Commerce  
(Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties) 
Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street 
New Delhi 110001 
 
    
NOTIFICATION  
        
 Final Findings  
 
Date 19 December, 2014 
 
 
Subject: Anti-Dumping Investigation co ncerning import of  “Sheet Glass” 
originating in or exported from China PR  
 
14/22/2013-DGAD:- Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as amended from 
time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the Act) and the Customs Tariff 
(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles 
and for Determination of Injury) Rules,1995 thereof, as amended from time to time 
(hereinafter also referred to as the Rules);   
1. Whereas, Bharat Glass Tube Limited filed an application on behalf of the 
domestic industry, alleging dumping of Sheet Glass (hereinafter also referred to as 
the "subject goods"), originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter also 
referred to as the "subject country") and requested for initiation of anti-dumping investigations for levy of anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods, 
originating in or exported from the subject country.  
 
2. And whereas, the Authority on the basis of sufficient evidence, submitted by the 
applicant issued a public notice dated 20th December 2013, published in the 
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping investigations concerning 
imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country, in  
accordance  with  sub-Rule  5(5)  of  the  Rules,  to  determine  the  existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-2 
 dumping duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to the 
domestic industry. 
 
A. PROCEDURE  
 
 
3. The procedure described below has been fo llowed by the Authority after issuance 
of the public notice notifying the initiation of the present investigation: 
 
i. The Authority notified the Embass y/Representatives of the subject 
country in India about the receipt of the anti-dumping application 
before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra.   
ii. The Authority on the basis of sufficient evidence submitted by the 
applicant on behalf of the domestic industry, issued a public notice 
dated 20
th December, 2013 published in the Gazette of India, 
Extraordinary, initiating Anti-Dumping investigations concerning 
imports of the subject goods, orig inating in or exported from the 
subject country, to determine the existence, degree and effect of 
alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping 
duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to the 
domestic industry.   
iii. The copy of the Initiation Notification was sent to the known 
producers/exporters of the subject goods in the subject country, 
Embassy of the subject country in India, importers/users of the 
subject goods in India, the domestic producers and other known interested parties requesting them to file response and make their 
views known in writing. 
 
iv. The Authority had provided the copies of the non-confidential 
version of the application to the known producers/exporters of the 
subject goods in the subject country and to the Embassy/Representatives of the subject country in India in 
accordance with Rule 6(3) supra. 
 
v.  A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the exporters were 
also sent to the Embassy/Representatives of the subject country in 
India, along with the names and addresses of the exporters with the 
request to advise the exporters/producers from their country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time. 
 
vi. The initiation notification was sent to the following 
producers/exporters of the subjec t goods in the subject country: 3 
   
a) RST International Glass Co., Ltd 
b) Rider Glass Company Limited 
c) Shouguang Jingyao Glass Product Co., Ltd 
 
vii. The   following   producers/exporters   from   the   subject   country 
submitted the questionnaire response: 
 
a) Shandong Guangyao Super-Thin Glass Co., Ltd., China PR 
b) Shouguang Yaobang Imp. & Exp. Industry Co., Ltd., China PR 
c) Dongguan CSG Architectural Glass Co., Ltd., China PR 
d) Guangxi Fungrich Imp & Exporter C., Ltd., China PR 
    
viii. Importers Questionnaire was sent  to the following known importers 
and/or consumers of subject goods in India calling for necessary 
information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules: a) Tech Arch Solutions  
b) Polar Industrial Corporation c) Shiv Shakti Enterprises 
d) Krishan Glass Work Pvt Ltd 
e) Ganga Jamuna Enterprises f) J.K. Sales Corporation g) Shiv Corporation  
h) Ajanta  Limited  
i) Rikon Clock Manufacturing Company  j) Shriji Engineering  
 
ix. Importers questionnaire response was filed by only M/S Ajanta Pvt 
Ltd and R.S. Bawa & Sons. However, written submissions were also 
filed by Simplex Glass Works, who did not file any questionnaire response.  
x. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the 
documents and evidences presented by various interested parties in 
the form of a public file kept open for inspection by the interested parties. 
 
xi. The Non-injurious Price is calc ulated based on the cost of production 
and cost to make and sell the subject goods in India based on the information furnished by the domestic industry on the basis of 
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III 
to the Anti-dumping Rules so as to ascertain whether Anti-Dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove 
injury to the Domestic Industry. 4 
  
xii. Information provided by interested parties on confidential basis was 
examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On 
being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered 
confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties.
 Wherever   
possible, parties providing information on confidential basis was directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the 
information filed on confidential basis. 
 
xiii. On site verification of the information provided by the petitioner 
were conducted at the premises of the petitioner. Only such verified 
information with necessary rectification wherever applicable is relied upon for the purpose of present findings. 
 
xiv. Investigation was carried out for the period starting from 1st July, 
2012 to 30th June, 2013 (POI). The examination of trends, in the context of injury analysis, cove red the periods April 2010-March 
2011, April 2011-March 2012, April 2012-March 2013 and the POI. 
 
xv. In accordance with Rule 16 of Rules Supra, the essential facts/basis 
considered for these findings were  disclosed to known interested 
parties vide disclosure statement dated 9
th December 2014 and 
comments received thereon, considered relevant by the Authority, have been addressed in this notification.  
 
 
 
xvi. ***In this Final Finding repres ents information furnished by an 
interested party on confidential basis, and so considered by the 
Authority under the Rules.   
xvii. The exchange rate adopted for the POI is 1 US$ = Rs. 55.15   
 
B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DOMESTIC LIKE ARTICLE
  
4. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Sheet Glass, 
originating in or exported from China PR . It is produced by using horizontally lehr. 
The glass is taken directly from the free surface of the melt and the edges of the sheet are stabilized by driving the glass up ward using rotating bodies. The molten 
glass passes from the glass furnace to a vertical drawing machine to a height of 
about 1000 MM from where the formed glass is converted in to glass sheet by horizontal flow. Once the sheet is formed, it is bent over a polished metal roll and 
carried away horizontally into a lehr. Float glass, figured and wired glass are not 
covered within the scope of Product under Consideration. 5 
  
5. Product under Consideration is classified under the heading “Glass and 
Glassware” in Chapter 70 and further under 7004.20. The classification at 8-digit 
level is 70042011 and 70042019. However, the subject goods are also been imported under different customs classifications such as 70031290, 70031990, 
70033090, 70042099, 70049019, 70049099, 70052110, 70053090, 70091090 etc. 
The classification, is only indicative and in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.  
 
 
Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties
 
 
6. Shandong Guangyao Super-Thin Glass Co Ltd. and China PR, Shouguang 
Yaobang Imp. & Exp. Industry Co Ltd., China PR, exporters and Ajanta Ltd., importers of the subject goods from the s ubject country have submitted that sheet 
and float glass should be considered as "like product" as per Article 2.6 of the 
WTO ADA due to the same physical characteristics, end use and substitutability. 
 
7. Sheet glass of thickness 2mm & below and widths higher than 920mmx1220mm is 
to be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration due to the 
applicant domestic producer’s inability to produce the same.  
 
8. Domestic industry has not provided descrip tion or specification of the product with 
regard to size, quality, category and use of the subject goods. Applicant domestic 
industry has also not defined the thickness as well as size of the sheet glass.  
9. Bharat Glass is not producing all thickn esses of sheet glass. Further, it does not 
have the capacity to produce colour sheet and the product manufactured by 
Bharat Glass is not upto the mark.   
Submissions by the domestic industry
 
 
10. Domestic industry has submitted that sheet and float glass should not be 
considered as "like product" as sheet glass and float glass are two distinct 
products having different technical characteristics, prices and costs. Further, it has submitted that in the past also Authority had initiated and recommended anti-
dumping duty on the float glass but sheet glass is never included within the scope 
of PUC for the simple reason that technica l characteristics, prices, marketability 
and costs of both these products are different. In order to substantiate their claim 
in this context, domestic industry has cite d relevant portion from the Final Findings 
No. 15/01/2007-DGAD dated 2
nd December, 2008 against the imports of Float 
Glass from China PR and Indonesia.  
11. Domestic industry has submitted that the claim of the interested parties regarding 
the inability of the domestic industry to produce sheet glass of thickness 2mm & 
below and 
sizes above 920mmx1220mm  is without any merit. In order to 6 
 substantiate their claim, domestic industry has enclosed some sample sales 
invoices of sheet glass of 2mm and below. Further, domestic industry has 
submitted that it has the capability to  produce the subject goods up to 12mm 
thickness. It has further submitted that the actual production of the subject goods 
of various thicknesses is a factor of market demand. 
 
12. Domestic industry has submitted that neither the grades nor the sizes are relevant 
in this case as the domestic industry either produces all types/grades/thicknesses 
of the product concerned or has the capability to produce all 
types/grades/thicknesses of the product concerned.   
 
EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY  
 
13. The product under consideration in the present investigation is “Sheet Glass”, 
originating in or exported from China PR.   
14.  The glass is taken directly from the free surface of the melt and the edges of the 
sheet are stabilized by driving the glass up ward using rotating bodies. The molten 
glass passes from the glass furnace to a vertical drawing machine to a height of 
about 1000 MM from where the formed glass is converted in to glass sheet by 
horizontal flow. Once the sheet is formed, it is bent over a polished metal roll and 
carried away horizontally into a lehr.   
15. With regard to like article, Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules provides as under: -  
 
"like article " means an article which is identical or alike in all respects 
to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which although not alike in all 
respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles 
under investigation;  
16. The various submissions made by the interested parties with regard to the scope 
of PUC and domestic like article and considered relevant by the Authority are examined and addressed as follows: 
 
 
i. The petitioner has claimed that there is no known difference in the 
subject goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported 
from the subject country. T he subject goods produced by the 
domestic industry and the subject goods imported from the subject 
country are comparable in terms of characteristics such as technical 
characteristics, manufacturing process   and   technology,   functions   
and   uses,   product   specifications, distribution and market and tariff classification of the goods. Examination of the product and import data 
submitted by the applicant and the respondent exporters indicates that 7 
 there is no difference between subject goods produced by the 
Domestic Industry and imported from the subject country. In view of 
the similarity in manufacturing process and substitutability, the Authority 
holds that the two are treated as alike and one product for the purpose of defining the ‘product under consideration’ in this case.  
ii. As regards the submission of the interested parties that sheet glass 
and float glass should be considered as like products, the Authority 
holds that sheet glass and float glass are two distinct products having 
different technical characte ristics, price and cost.  
 
iii. With regard to the submission of the interested parties, that Sheet glass 
of thickness 2mm & below and sizes above 920mmx1220mm be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration due to the 
applicant domestic producer’s inabi lity to produce the same, the 
Authority notes that the domestic industry had produced thickness  2mm 
and below. The issue of sizes does not lead to exclusion based on the 
principle of like article.  
 
C. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
 
  
Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties  
 
17. Interested parties have submitted that the applicant domestic producer does not 
Constitute “Domestic Industry” as per Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules and Article 4.1 of 
the WTO ADA as sheet and float glass are considered as "like product" as per 
Article 2.6 of the WTO ADA due to the same physical characteristics, end use and substitutability. As a result, the share of  the Applicant Domestic Producer in total 
production of the PUC in 2010-11 is a mere 3.6%.  This share further decreased to 
2.8% in 2011-12 that cannot be construed a “major proportion” of the subject good in any circumstances, and therefore, app licant domestic producer does not satisfy 
the definition of "domestic industry".   
Submissions by the domestic industry
 
 
18. The domestic industry has submitted that the contention of the interested parties 
that sheet and float glass should be co nsidered as "like product" is without any 
merit for the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, the arguments based on this 
premise are without any merit.  The domestic industry has submitted that they accounts for 100% of the total I ndian production of the subject goods. 
 
 
EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY
 
 
19. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules defines domestic industry as under: -   
“domestic industry” means the domes tic producers as a whole engaged in the 8 
 manufacture of the like article and any acti vity connected therew ith or those whose 
collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total 
domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the 
exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term ‘domestic industry’ may be construed as referring to 
the rest of the producers”  
 
20. The application in the present investi gation has been filed by Bharat Glass Tube 
Limited on behalf of the domestic industry. As claimed by the applicant, it is the 
sole producer of the subject goods in the country. 
 
21. As regards the claim of the interested parties that the “Domestic Industry” should 
be determined considering sheet glass and float sheet as like products, the Authority notes that sheet glass and float  glass are two distinct products and 
cannot be considered as “like articles” for the reasons mentioned earlier.  That 
being the case, the contention of the interested parties to determine the status of the domestic industry taking into account the production of float glass also, is 
rejected. 
 
22.  On a detailed examination of the facts, the Authority determines that Bharat Glass 
Tube Limited accounts for 100% of the total domestic production of the subject 
goods during the POI. It is further noted that petitioner has not imported the product under consideration nor are they related to any importer or exporter of the 
product under consideration.  The petitioners, therefore, constitute ‘Domestic 
Industry’ in terms of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules.  It is also clear that the application, having been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, satisfies the 
requirements of ‘standing’ under Rule 5 of the AD Rules.   
 
D. Confidentiality
 
  
Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties  
 
23. Various submissions made by the producers/exporters/importers/other interested 
parties with regard to confidentiality and considered relevant by the Authority are 
as follows:   
i. The petition suffers from excessive confidentiality. The petition provides 
no evidence with respect to adjustments claimed to the export price.  
 
ii. The domestic industry has not provided much information about the 
subject goods viz. quality, category, uses, etc.  
iii. The application filed by the a pplicant domestic producer contains 
numerous violations of the Applic ation Proforma like application does 
not contain Proforma IVB at all etc. 
 
Submissions made by the domestic industry   9 
  
24. With regard to the issues of confidentiality, the domestic industry has submitted 
that the contention of the interested parties regarding violation of the Application Proforma by the domestic industry is without any merit. Domestic industry has filed 
the application in accordance with the AD Rules and the prescribed formats. 
Further, information relating to Proforma IV B has also been provided in the non-confidential version of the application at the relevant places. It is further submitted 
that the Domestic Industry has claimed confidentiality on their business sensitive 
information with adequate reasons in accordance with the legal provisions and the guidelines being followed by the Authority.  
 
25. The domestic Industry has, on the other hand, submitted that the participating 
exporters have claimed excessive confidentiality.  It is submitted that the exporter 
has not provided a meaningful summary of the various Appendices as prescribed 
in the exporter's questionnaire viz. Appendix-2, Appendix-2A, Appendix-3, Appendix-4, Appendix-7 etc. In all of the above appendices, the information even in the indexed form has not been provided. Moreover, even the details regarding 
the production, exports to India, domestic sales and capacity have also been 
claimed as confidential.  
 
 
EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY
 
 
26. The  various  submissions  made  by  the  interested  parties  with  regard  to 
confidentiality and considered relevant by the Authority have been examined.  
Rule 7 of Anti-dumping Rules provides as follows:- 
 
  Confidential  information:  (1)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in 
sub-rules and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2), (3) (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of  
rule  15  and  sub-rule  (4)  of  rule  17,  the  copies  of  applications 
received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to 
the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course 
of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to 
its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall 
be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party 
providing such information.   
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing 
information on confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary 
thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not 
possible.   10 
 (3)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub-rule   (2),   if   the 
designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or 
summary form, it may disregard such information.   
27. Information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined 
with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the 
Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested 
parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis was 
directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the 
evidences submitted by various interested parties in the form of public file.   
28. With regard to the submission of the opposite interested parties that the petitioner 
should make available information about t he subject goods viz. quality, category, 
uses etc., the Authority notes that the domestic industry has already provided the 
information on the uses etc of the subjec t goods in the application filed with the 
Authority. A copy of the non-confidentia l version of the application has been sent 
by the Authority to the known interested parties. Moreover, it is also made 
available in the public file. 
 
E. Miscellaneous Submissions
 
 
Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties  
 
29. The  miscellaneous  submissions  made  by  producers/exporters/importers/other 
interested parties and considered relevant  by the Authority are as follows: 
 
i. The Applicant domestic producer has  neither disclosed any evidence in 
its construction of Normal Value nor followed the correct procedure in 
determining the same. Applicant Domestic Producer is required to 
resort to the price at which the subject good is exported from the third country to other countries, including India as the same is available in 
UN Comtrade. 
 
ii. The application does not contain any evidence with regard to 
adjustments to Export Price. 
 
iii. The production of the Applicant Domestic Producer in its Balance 
Sheet for 2012-13 states that the production of sheet glass is 5125475 
(Sq. Mt. 2mm basis) which amounts to 25002 MT. However, the production claimed by the Applicant Domestic Producer in the petition 
is 24788 MT which reflects inaccu racies in the production data. 11 
  
iv. In direct contrast to its claims of loss in the petition, the applicant 
domestic producer in its balance sheet for the 2012-13 has stated that 
it has increased its net profit by 100.84% in 2012-13 as compared to 2011-12.  
 
v. During the POI, the exchange rate for USD that has been adopted by 
domestic industry is 55 for computation of normal value and export 
price.  However, the prevailing rate of USD, as per the RBI, is currently 
62.2.  
 
vi. Duty, if any, must be imposed on reference price basis. 
 
vii. Applicant has changed its accoun ting policy, which may have impacted 
the amount of depreciation charged during the year. Interested parties have requested to examine this issue. 
 
viii. Interested parties have requested DGAD to direct applicant to provide 
an explanation as to how it has sorted import data from the raw import data and also requested to direct them to provide the transaction-wise 
raw import data as well as sorted imported data to the respondent in 
MS-Excel format.   
ix. No communication regarding initiation was sent to the exporter i.e., 
Guangxi Fungrich Imp & Exporter C., Ltd., China PR. Accordingly, request Authority to accept the belated response filed with the 
Authority.   
 
Submissions made by the domestic industry
   
30. The miscellaneous submissions made by the domestic industry and considered 
relevant by the Authority are as follows: 
 
i. China has been considered as a non-market economy country by 
various authorities world-over. Ac cordingly, domestic industry had 
determined the normal value for the same as per procedure described 
in Para 7 of Annexure I to the Anti-dumping Rules. Further, as far as 
the suggestion of the interested parties that the applicant domestic producer is required to resort to the prices of the subject goods from 
third country to other countries part icularly when the same is available 
on UN Comtrade is concerned, it is submitted that UN Comtrade data relating to the exports or imports is available on a consolidated level 
and no transaction-wise data is available. Moreover, description of the 
product is also not available. Domest ic industry has invited the attention 
of the Authority to the fact that the HS code of the product under 
consideration is 7004 20 11 and 7004 20 19. However, subject goods 12 
 are also being imported in various other HS Codes. Furthermore, after 
the perusal of the raw import data, it is clear that many products that fall 
outside the purview of the product under consideration (i.e. NON-PUC) 
are also being imported in India within the HS code of PUC. Accordingly, there is a gross miscla ssification of the products in the 
import data and, therefore, classification of the export data at 
transaction level is must for proper comparison. In view of the above, it has submitted that considering price of consolidated level data from UN 
Comtrade will not result in proper comparison.  
 
ii. Choice of the method for determining the normal value rests with the 
Designated Authority and not with the exporter. Domestic industry has 
invited the attention of the Authority to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Designated Authority v. Haldor Topsoe, 
2000 (120) ELT 11 (SC) wherein it has been clearly made that that the 
choice of the method for determining the normal value rests with the Designated Authority and not with the exporter. In the absence of 
information with regard to the domestic sales and the third country 
export by the producer it is not possible for the Authority to determine the Normal value as per the Anti-dumping Rules and, hence, the 
response has to be rejected outright. Further, domestic industry has 
submitted that non-filing of the MET claim cannot lead to curtailing the rights of the Designated Authority regarding the methodology to determine the normal value.   
iii. Domestic industry has not import ed the subject goods from the subject 
country during the investigation period. In view thereof, it is not possible for the domestic industry to provide evidence for the same. However, 
attention of the Authority is invited to the fact that the domestic industry has claimed the adjustments to the export price as per its market 
intelligence. 
 
iv. Allegation raised by the interest ed parties regarding difference in the 
production quantities reported in the Balance Sheet and to the Anti-
dumping Authorities by the domestic industry is without any merit.  Domestic industry has invited the attention of the Authority to the fact 
that the interested parties have compared the production quantity for 
the year 2012-13 with the production quantity for POI (i.e. July 2012-June 2013). Accordingly, reached to a wrong conclusion of the 
difference in the production quantities. 
 
v. The contention raised by the interested parties that there is an increase 
in the net profit of 2012-13 by 100.84% is without any merit. Domestic 
industry has not made any claim in the balance sheet regarding 100.84% increase in the profitability in the year 2012-13. It seems that 
the interested parties have ignored the fact that the profit of 2011-2012 13 
 includes substantial loss on account of the figured glass operations 
(since discontinued) to reach to a wrong conclusion of 100.84% 
increase in the profitability in the year 2012-13. Domestic Industry has 
submitted that the profitability of the subject goods reduced to 40% in 
the year 2012-13 as compared to the year 2011-12 and the detailed 
costing is already submitted to the Authority.  
 
vi. Adopting the exchange rate of the POI for calculating Normal Value, 
Non-injurious Price etc. is the standard practice being followed by the 
anti-dumping Authorities. Same practice is being followed consistently by the Authority in all cases.      
vii. Indian economy is witnessing significant volatility in the rupee value vis-
à-vis US dollars. Moreover, the reference price based duty does not 
take into account the price and cost volatility of the subject goods.  In 
such a scenario, duty based on refere nce price will not be able to 
provide sufficient and effective protection to the domestic industry 
against dumped imports from the subject country. 
   
viii. Domestic industry has claimed that due to closure of the Nasik plant all 
the assets of Nasik plant have been transferred to Ankleshwar plant. 
Accordingly, depreciation methodol ogy has been changed from WDV to 
SLM, which is being consistently followed for the existing assets of the Ankleshwar plant. Change in the method of depreciation has resulted 
into decrease in the amount of depreciation charged during the POI.  
 
ix. Domestic industry has submitted that import data for the subject goods 
has been sorted based on the description given in each transaction in 
the import data. The details of which has been provided as Annexure 2 to the application. Further, domestic industry has submitted that import 
data has been provided in the application as per the consistent practice 
of the Authority followed in other cases. 
 
x. Shouguang Yaobang Imp. & Exp. Industry Co., Ltd. China PR 
(Exporter) has not filed the questionnai re response relating to the linked 
producer. In the absence of which, it is not entitled to an individual 
dumping margin. The response is to be rejected outright on this ground 
alone.  Further, it has submitted that the exporter has not even disclosed even the name of the li nked manufacturer/producer from 
which it has purchased the subject goods in the POI for exporting the 
same to India. In view of the above, domestic industry has requested 
the Authority to reject the response filed by the exporter considering the consistent practice being followed by the Authority in plethora of cases.  
 
xi. Shouguang Yaobang Imp. & Exp. Industry Co., Ltd. China PR 
(Exporter) has furnished completely contradictory and misleading 14 
 information. In Q. No. 2 of Section B, the exporter has stated that they 
are not engaged in the domestic sales. Whereas, in response to 
Section J which is in the context of information related to third country 
exports, exporter has replied that "Not applicable as Shouguang Yaobang submits that its normal value shall be based on the sales in 
domestic market". It may also be noted that the exporter is under an 
obligation to submit the information as per the guidelines given in the 
prescribed format of the response i.e., exporter's questionnaire. 
Accordingly, domestic industry has requested the Authority to ask the 
exporter to file the third country information as the exporter has themselves accepted the fact that they are not engaged in domestic 
sales. 
 
xii. The response of Shandong Guangyao Super-Thin Glass Co., Ltd. 
China PR (Exporter) is liable to be rejected on the ground that the 
exporter has admittedly not produced the subject goods during the POI and very insignificant volumes have been exported to India during the 
POI. The exporter has claimed during the public hearing that they have 
exported the subject goods to India from the inventory of 200 MT of the preceding year. Accordingly, exports made by the exporter account for 
only 0.73% of the total exports to India even after assuming that all the 
inventory i.e., 200 MT of the preceding year has been exported to India only. Further, domestic industry has submitted that the exporter has exported only one consignment of the product concerned to India 
during the entire POI. Furthermore, domestic industry has also 
submitted that the exporter has accepted during the public hearing that they have produced only 3600 MT in the preceding year. However, no 
information has been provided by the exporter about their annual 
capacity. It has also submitted that the production level or a capacity of a mere 3600 MT is completely unviable. Under such circumstances, the 
exporter has merely acted as a trader as far as their operations during 
the POI are concerned.  In the absence of the requisite data relating to production and costs, they are ab initio not entitled to a separate 
treatment for this reason also.  
 
xiii. Both the exporters mentioned above have stated in their response that 
they are not providing the Appendix-1, Appendix-3B, Appendix-3C, 
Appendix-8B and Appendix-8C as they are claiming Constructed Normal Value as their Normal Value.  Exporters may be asked to clarify 
under which law they are absolved from the legal obligation to file the 
above mentioned Appendices by merely claiming Constructed Normal Value as their Normal Value. Further, it has submitted that the exporter 
has to provide Appendix-1 even if the company did not sell the product 
in the domestic market. Further, in such cases, details for exports to third countries other than India are also to be provided. Domestic 
industry has also invited the attention of the Authority to the guidelines 15 
 prescribed in the General Introduction section of the Exporters 
Questionnaire Format wherein it is clearly stated that the questionnaire 
is not a "fill in type" and provides for submission of answers to all 
questions. In case the information is found incomplete or not adhering to the prescribed format, the same can be rejected by the Designated 
Authority. Therefore, exporter has to submit the information strictly as 
per the questionnaire prescribed by the Authority. 
 
xiv. The response of Dongguan CSG Architectural Glass Co., Ltd. 
(Exporter) is liable to be rejected on the ground that the exporter has accepted during the public hearing that they have not exported the 
product under consideration i.e., Sheet Glass. They further admitted 
that the product exported by them i.e., Float Glass is also not a like article to the Product under Consideration. Furthermore, domestic 
industry has also submitted that the fact that product exported by them 
is neither the product concerned nor like article is amply clear from the written submissions filed by the exporter. Domestic industry has 
submitted that exporter has not even enclosed Appendix A i.e., 
Certificate of true, complete & correct information. This is inevitable information that is required to count on the information furnished by the 
exporter.  
 
xv. Domestic industry has submitted that the written submissions filed by 
R.S. Bawa & Sons and Simplex Glass Works should not be accepted 
as they have not filed the importers questionnaire response within the 
prescribed period. Further, domestic industry has also submitted that the above-mentioned interested parties have accepted during the 
public hearing that they have not filed the response within the 
prescribed time frame.   
 
 
EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY
 
 
31. Various issues raised by the interested parties and the Domestic Industry 
considered relevant by the Authority are examined herein below. Responses 
related to Normal Value and Export price have been appropriately considered in Annexure 2.  
i. As regards the contention of the some interested parties regarding the 
exchange rate used for the calculation of normal value etc., the 
Authority has considered the ex change rate for the period of 
investigation and determined in accordance with the consistent practice 
followed by the Authority. 
 
ii. The interested parties have claimed that duty, if any, should be based 
on a reference price. In this c ontext, the Authority holds that 
considering the nature of business, price and cost volatility of the 16 
 subject goods, fixed anti-dum ping duty is appropriate and 
recommended. 
 
iii. The interested parties have requested the Authority to examine the 
impact of the change in the method of depreciation. In this context, the 
Authority notes that this issue has been examined during domestic 
industry's verification visit and has been appropriately taken care of by the Authority in injury analysis.   
iv. As regards the claim of the domestic industry to reject the written 
submissions filed by R.S. Bawa & Sons and Simplex Glass Works, the 
Authority notes that M/s Simplex Glass works has not filed any 
questionnaire response within the pres cribed time frame and, therefore, 
it cannot be considered as an interest ed parties as per the provisions of 
law and the consistent practice of the Authority.  Further they have also 
not given sufficient grounds for the not filing the same.  
v. In the context of the alleged contradictions in the balance sheet and the 
application, the Authority notes that the Domestic Industry clarifications 
that profit for the year 2011-2012 includes substantial loss on account 
of the figured glass operations (s ince discontinued). The authority has 
verified the injury details during POI through an on spot domestic verification and on the basis of records has evaluated all injury parameters as per rules and its consistent practice.   
 
METHODOLOGY AND DETERMINATION OF DUMPING AND DUMPING MARGINGS  
F. Normal Value  
 
32. Under section 9A (1) (c) normal value in relation to an article means:   
(i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when 
meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in 
accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6), or  
(ii) When there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the 
domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the 
particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the 
exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the 
normal value shall be either  
 (a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the 
exporting country or territory or an appr opriate third country as determined in 
accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or   17 
 (b) the cost of production of  the said article in the country of origin along with 
reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as  
determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6);  
 
33. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known exporters from the subject 
countries, advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed. 
The questionnaire responses have been filed by  the following exporters/producers:  
 
i. Shandong Guangyao Super-Thin Glass Co., Ltd., China PR 
ii. Shouguang Yaobang Imp. & Exp. Industry Co., Ltd., China PR 
iii. Dongguan CSG Architectural Glass Co., Ltd., China PR 
iv. Guangxi Fungrich Imp & Exporter C., Ltd filed response after the last 
date.  
34. With regard to the response filed by M/s Shouguang Yaobang Imp. & Exp. Industry 
Co., Ltd., China PR, the Authority notes that the said exporter has not filed the 
response of the linked manufacturer/manuf acturers from whom it has purchased 
the subject goods and exported to India during the POI. In view of the fact that the said exporter has failed to provide the information relating to the linked producer, the Authority is of the considered view that the exporter is not entitled to an 
individual normal value and accordingly an individual dumping margin in terms of 
the provisions of law and cons istent practice of the Authority. Accordingly, the 
authority has adopted the consistent methodology for determination of Normal Value for Non Market Economy. 
 
35.  With regard to the response filed by Dongguan CSG Architectural Glass Co., Ltd., 
China PR, the Authority notes that the said exporter has submitted during the 
public hearing followed by written submissions also that they have not exported 
the product under consideration i.e., Sheet Glass. The authority notes that the end 
user who has imported the said goods is also a user of the float glass. The 
exporter has mentioned that the ITC HS has been erroneously mentioned by them 
on the export documents and that the goods are not Sheet Glass. Accordingly, the authority has accepted the submission of the exporter that the exported goods are not sheet glass and hold that the said exporter has not exported the product concerned and accordingly the exporter is not  considered as an interested party 
as per the provisions of law.  
 
36. With regard to the request made by Guangxi Fungrich Imp & Exporter C., Ltd., 
China PR to accept their response, the Authority notes that the same was received 
much after the time limit prescribed by the Authority. The said exporter has 18 
 contended that they did not receive any communication from the Designated 
Authority and came to know about the initiation only through their Indian buyers.  Hence, the delay in filing their response. In this connection, the Authority notes 
that the ground for filing delayed response by the said exporter cannot be 
accepted, as the notice of initiation was sent to all the known exporters as required 
in Rule 6.  At the same time, a copy of the initiation notification along with a non-confidential version of the application was also sent to the Embassy of China PR as required under the rules. It is not envisaged in law or in practice that each and 
every interested party ought to be notified about the proceedings individually. The 
fact that it is communicated to the known exporters as well as to the Embassy of 
China PR is sufficient to meet the requirements of law. In view thereof, time barred 
response filed by the said exporter cannot be accepted. Further, the Authority 
notes that the said exporter has also not filed the response of the linked 
manufacturer from whom it has purchased the subject goods and exported to India 
during the POI. In view of the aforesaid, exporter is not entitled to any individual 
normal value, export price and consequentially a dumping margin in terms of the 
provisions of law.   
 
37. It is submitted by the Domestic Industry that China has been treated as a non-
market economy country by various authorities world over and in recent cases China has been treated as non-market economy country in India also. Therefore, the normal value for China is required to be determined as per the procedure 
described in Para 7 of the Annexure I to the Anti-dumping Rules. For the ready 
reference the provisions of Para 7 are quoted below: 
 
“7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall 
be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in the market 
economy third country, or the price from su ch a third country to other countries, 
including India or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, 
including the price actually paid or payab le in India for the like product, duly 
adjusted if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated authority in a reasonable manner keeping in view the level of development of the country 
concerned and the product in question and due account shall be taken of any 
reliable information made available at the time of selection. Account shall also be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation if any made in similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties 
to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay the aforesaid 
selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments.” 19 
 38. Normal value for China is required to be determined based on domestic selling 
prices in a market economy third country or the constructed value in a market 
economy third country or the export prices from such a third country to any other country including India. However, if the normal value cannot be determined on the 
basis of the alternatives mentioned above, the Designated Authority may 
determine the normal value on any other  reasonable basis including the price 
actually paid or payable in India for the like product duly adjusted to include reasonable profit margin. 
 
39. In the absence of any price and cost det ails for the subject goods in any market 
economy third country and the fact noted that none of the exporters/producers has 
claimed market economy treatment in terms of Paragraph 8(3) of Annexure 1 to 
the Anti-dumping Rules, the Designated Authority is left with no alternative but to 
determine normal value estimated on the basis of price actually paid or payable in 
India for the like product, duly adjusted,  to include a reasonable profit margin. 
 
40. Based on the information made available by the domestic industry, producers and 
the exporters and other information available with the Authority, the normal value 
for the subject goods has been construc ted as USD *** per MT for all  
producers/exporters from China PR.  
 
Export price for Producer s/Exporters from China
 
A. M/s Shandong Guangyao Super-Thin Glass Co., Ltd  
 
41. M/s Shandong Guangyao Super-Thin Glass Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 
“producer cum exporter”) is a limited lia bility company established in accordance 
with the company law of China. It is noted that said exporter is both a producer 
and an exporter of the product under consideration. However, it has not 
manufactured the product under consideration during the period of investigation and has accordingly not claimed an individual normal value. Further, it is noted that the exporter has exported only one consignment of *** MT during the POI 
which is not significant and representat ive to determine separate Dumping or 
Injury Margin. The Authority therefore has not determined the export price for this 
exporter. 
 
B. All exporters from China
 
  
42. The Authority has determined the export price for all producers and exporters 
including M/s Shandong Guangyao Super-Thin Glass Co., Ltd from China on the 20 
 basis of the best facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Anti-dumping Rules. 
The net export price so determined works out to US$ *** per MT.  
 
  
Dumping Margin   
43. Considering the normal value and expor t price for subject goods, the dumping 
margin for the subject goods for cooperating and other exporters has been determined as follows:    
 
All producers and exporters from China  
Particulars China ($/MT)
Normal Value *** 
Ex-factory price *** 
Dumping margin *** 
Dumping margin (%) *** 
Dumping margin (Range) 65-75 
 
It is seen that the dumping margin for the subject goods is more than de-minimis 
and significant. 
 
G. INJURY DETERMINATION   
 
Submissions made by the producers/exporters/importers/other interested  
parties  
 
44. The    following    are    the    injury    related    submissions    made    by    the 
producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties:  
i. The Applicant Domestic Producer  has been enjoying an extremely high 
rate of capacity utilization and was able to utilize its capacity at the rate 
of 99.4% in 2010-11, which only marginally declined to 97% in 2011-12 and 93-94% in 2012-13 and the POI.   
ii. Applicant Domestic Producer was able to sell 98-99% of the goods 
produced every year. In that case, inventories with the Applicant Domestic Producer should logically be very low, as opposed to the inflated inventory figures provided in the petition. Costs as well as the 21 
 dumping and injury margin must be computed for each thickness of 
sheet glass. 
 
iii. The Applicant Domestic Producer is alleging that imports of the subject 
good from China PR is substantially high and is hampering the 
functioning of the Applicant Domestic Producer. However, it is to be noted that the Applicant Domestic Producer is only able to cater to 45-55% of the total demand on an average. Even while the capacity 
utilization of the Applicant Domestic Producer was 99%, it was at the 
most able to cater to about 64% of the total demand. 
 
iv. The landed values of the subject good have undergone a consistent 
increase over the injury period as well as the POI. It underwent an 
increase from Rs13719 in 2010-11 to Rs 14075 in 2011-12 and Rs. 
15259 per MT in 2012-13. In the POI, the landed value jumped further 
to Rs. 15465 per MT.  
 
Submissions made by the domestic industry
 
45. The following are the injury related submissions made by the domestic industry:  
 
i. Costing data has been provided on a per ton basis to ensure proper 
comparison and in view of the fact that the differences in the costs and 
prices of various thicknesses of the product under consideration are very small. 
 
ii. Domestic industry is in the installation phase of the additional 
production capacity of the subject goods that will be operational by the 
end of the year.  It will increase t he production capacity of the domestic 
industry by around 25,000 metric tons per annum.  However, due to 
huge quantity of the dumped imports at injurious prices from the subject 
country, it seems unlikely that t he domestic industry will be able to 
maintain the present levels of capacity utilization in the future also if the 
low value dumped imports from the subject country continue to be 
imported.  
 
iii. The demand of the product in the c ountry shows a robust growth during 
the POI. However, share of domestic industry declined due to dumped imports.  22 
 iv. Imports from subject country have increased significantly in absolute 
term as also in relation to production and consumption in India. As a result, share of the domestic industry has declined steeply.  
v. Average import price from the subject country is significantly below net 
sales realization of the domestic indus try, thus, resulting in significant 
price undercutting.  
vi. The increase in selling price was lower than the increase in cost of 
production leading to price suppression. 
 
vii. Domestic industry has suffered material injury in connection with 
dumping of subject goods from subj ect country. Further, the domestic 
industry is threatened with continued injury, should the present 
condition continue. 
 
viii. The profitability of the domestic industry sharply and materially declined 
as an impact of dumping from subject country and remained at 
negligible levels during the POI. 
 
ix. Market share of the domestic in dustry has severely declined whereas 
that of imports from subject count ry has substantially increased. 
 
x. Productivity of the domestic industry has remained almost at the same 
level during the injury period. 
 
xi. Return on investments has declined sharply. The current level of ROI is 
much less  than  the  desirable  and  legitimate  levels  which  should  
have  been achieved by the domestic industry in the absence of 
dumped imports, considering the huge investments it has made. 
 
xii. Inventory during POI has significantly increased. 
 
xiii. Overall growth parameters of the domestic industry in terms of sales, 
market share, profit per MT, PBIT, ROI etc has became negative.  
xiv. The dumping margin from subject country is not only more than de-
minimis levels but is very significant. 
 23 
 xv. The domestic industry has suffered material injury due to dumped 
imports of the subject goods from the subject country. 
 
xvi. Presence of import at very low prices preventing domestic industry to 
increase their price to the extent of increase in input cost resulting into 
suppression of the selling prices of the domestic industry.  
xvii. Reduction  in  profits  directly  resulted  in  deterioration  in  return  on  
capital employed and cash profits. The domestic industry has not been 
able to cover the cost of capital. Thus, deterioration in profits, return on 
capital employed and also cash flow and cash profit is directly due to 
dumped imports. 
 
Examination by the Authority
 
 
46. Article 3.1 of the WTO Agreement and Annexure-II of the AD Rules provide for an 
objective examination of both, (a) the volume of dumped imports and the effect of 
the dumped imports on prices, in the dom estic market, for the like products; and 
(b) the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such 
products. With regard to the volume effect  of the dumped imports, the Authority is 
required to examine whether there ha s been a significant increase in dumped 
imports, either in absolute term or relative to production or consumption in India. 
With regard to the price effect of the du mped imports, the Authority is required to 
examine whether there has been significant price undercutting by the dumped 
imports as compared to the price of the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress the prices to a si gnificant degree, or 
prevent price increases, which would hav e otherwise occurred to a significant 
degree. 
 
47. As regards the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry para (iv) 
of Annexure-II of the AD Rules states as follows: 
“The examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry 
concerned, shall include an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices 
having a bearing on the state of the Industry, including natural and potential 
decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments 
or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of margin 
of dumping actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, 
employment, wages, grow th, ability to raise capital investments.” 24 
 48. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto  addresses the 
various submissions made by the interested parties. However, the specific submissions made by the interested parties are addressed by the Authority as below: 
 
i. As regards the submission that the increasing imports from China are a 
natural result of the gap  between  high  demand  in  India  and insufficient supply capacity of Indian sheet glass industry, the Authority 
notes that lack of adequate capacity with the domestic industry does 
not justify dumped imports. Moreover, anti-dumping measures are not 
intended to prevent imports but rather to create a level playing field for 
the domestic industry vis-à-vis the dumped imports. 
 
ii. With regard to other contentions of the interested parties, the Authority 
has appropriately dealt with the same in the following paragraphs. 
 
H. Volume Effect of the Dumped imports on the Domestic Industry 
 
 
a) Demand and market share  
 
49. Demand or apparent consumption of the product in India has been taken as the 
sum of domestic sales of the Indian Producers and imports from all sources. The 
demand so assessed is given in the table below: 
 
i. Demand  
 
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI (July, 2012 
to June, 2013) 
Demand MT 38,732 47,420 53,185 52,284 
Trend Indexed 100 122 137 135 
Imports from 
Subject Country MT 11,994 20,779 27,078 27,026 
Imports from Other Country MT 272 887 1296 859 
Sales of Domestic Industry MT 26,466 25,754 24,811 24,398 
Trend Indexed 100 97 94 92 
 25 
 50. It is noted that the sales of the domestic industry has declined in the POI as 
compared to the base year as well as all the preceding years despite increase in the demand from the base year to the POI.  
 
ii. Market Share in Demand
 
 
51. Considering imports from various sources and sales of the Indian Producer, 
market share of subject imports in demand in India was examined. The position is 
as follows: 
 
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Demand MT 38,732 47,420 53,185 52,284 
Share in Demand 
Imports from 
Subject Country % 30.97 43.82 50.91 51.69 
Imports from 
Other Country  
% 0.70 1.87 2.44 1.64 
Sales of 
Domestic Industry  
% 68.33 54.31 46.65 46.67 
 
52. It is seen from the above table that the demand for the product increased 
significantly in the country throughout the injury period and also during the POI. 
While the share of imports from subj ect country which was 30.97% in the 
base year has increased to 51.69% in the POI. The share of domestic industry 
has declined from 68.33% in the base year to 46.67% in the POI. Thus, the 
imports from subject country showed signi ficant increase while the share of 
domestic industry declined during the same period. 
 
b) Import volume and market share  
 
53. The Authority has examined the volume  of imports of the subject goods on the 
import data received from the DGCI&S. The import volumes from subject country 
are found to be above the de-minimis levels  as can be seen from the table below:- 
  26 
 Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
 
Volume Subject Country MT 11,994 20,779 27,078 27,026 
Other country MT 272 887 1296 859 
Total 
imports MT 12,266 21,666 28,374 27,885 
Market 
Share in 
Imports Subject Country % 97.8% 95.91% 95.43% 96.92% 
Other country % 2.22% 4.09% 4.57% 3.08% 
 
54. It is seen from the above table that impor ts from subject country increased from 
11,994 MT in the base year to 27,026 MT during the POI. It is also noted that 
imports from subject country account fo r 96.92% of the total imports of product 
under consideration in India during the POI.     
 
 
c) Share of imports in relation to production   
 
55. Authority observes that the imports from  subject country have increased in relation 
to the production of the domestic industry, as is evident from the following table:  
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Imports from Subject Country MT 11,994 20,779 27,078 27,026 
Production of domestic 
industry MT 26,486 25,784 25,142 24,788 
Dumped Imports in relation to 
production of domestic 
industry. % 
45.3% 80.6% 107.7% 109.0% 
 
 
 
 
56. It is noted from the above table that the share of the dumped imports from the 
subject country in the total domestic pr oduction is increased from 45.3% in the 
base year to 109% during the POI.   27 
 d) Capacity & capacity utilization  
 
57. Details regarding the c apacity and capacity utilization of  the domestic industry are 
provided in the below table: 
 
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Capacity MT MT 26,645 26,645 26,645 26,645 
Capacity utilization % 99.40 96.77 94.36 93.03 
 
58. It is noted from the above table that capacity utilization of the domestic industry 
declined during the POI as compared to th e base year as well as the preceding 
years. Domestic industry claimed that su ch decline in capacity utilization is the 
direct impact of increase in dumped imports in the same period. Decline in 
capacity utilization, when there is an increase in the demand, shows adverse 
impacts on the domestic industry due to abs orption of such increase in demand by 
dumped imports. 
 
e) Production  
 
59. Production data of the domestic industry is given in the following table:- 
 
  
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Production  MT 26,486 25,784 25,142 24,788 
Trend Indexed 100 97 95 94 
Demand MT 38,732 47,420 53,185 52,284 
Trend Indexed 100 122 137 135 
 
 
60. It is noted from the above table that production of the domestic industry has 
declined during POI as compared to the base year as well as the preceding years 
whereas demand in the same period has increased significantly. The domestic 
industry has submitted that even when demand increased sharply, the dumped 
imports prevented the domestic industry to increase its production.  
 28 
 f) Sales volume  
 
61. Sales volume of the domestic industry is given in the following table: 
 
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Domestic sales MT 26,466 25,754 24,811 24,398 
Trend Indexed 100 97 94 92 
Demand MT 38,732 47,420 53,185 52,284 
Trend Indexed 100 122 137 135 
Market Share of 
domestic industry in 
Demand % 68.33 54.31 46.65 46.67 
 
62. It is observed from the above table that sales of the domestic industry have 
declined during POI as compared with the base year as well as the immediately 
preceding years despite the demand for t he product has increased significantly 
during the same period. The domestic industry has claimed that the reason for the 
reduction for the market share of the do mestic industry is the significantly low 
value dumped imports from the subject country. Resultantly, the domestic industry 
lost significant market share. 
 
g) Price Effect of the Dumped imports on the Domestic Industry  
 
63. With  regard  to  the  effect  of  the  dumped  imports  on  prices,  the  Designated 
Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting  by  the  dumped  imports  as  compared  with  the  price  of  the  like 
product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress 
prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would 
have occurred, to a significant degree. For the purpose of this analysis, the 
average cost of production (COP), average Net Sales Realization (NSR) and the 
Non-Injurious Price (NIP) of the domes tic industry have been compared with the 
landed cost of imports from the subject country. 
 
i. Price Undercutting
 
 
64. The net sales realization was arrived after deducting post factory expenses i.e., 
outward freight and taxes. Landed value of imports has been calculated by adding 
1% handling charge and applicable basic  customs duty including applicable cess 
to the CIF value of subject imports. T he landed value of imports was compared 
with net sales realization of the domestic industry and it was found that the 29 
 dumped imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry as can be 
seen from the table below:  
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI
Landed price of imports Rs/MT *** *** *** *** 
Net selling price Rs/MT *** *** *** *** 
Price undercutting Rs/M T *** *** *** *** 
Price undercutting % *** *** *** *** 
Price undercutting Range 10-20 10-20 20-30 10-20 
 
65. It  is  observed  from  the  above  table  that  imports  are  significantly undercutting  
prices  of domestic industry throughout the injury period as well as POI.  
 
ii. Price Underselling  
 
66. Authority notes that the price underselling is an important indicator of assessment 
of injury. Non injurious price has been worked out and compared with the landed 
value of the subject goods to arrive at the extent of price underselling. The non- 
injurious price has been determined considering the cost of production of the domestic industry for the product under consideration during the POI, in accordance with Annexure III of the Anti-dumping Rules. The analysis shows that 
the landed value of subject imports was below the non-injurious price as can be 
seen from the table below. 
 
Particulars China (Rs/MT) China ($/MT) 
NIP  *** *** 
Landed price of imports *** ***
Price underselling *** *** 
Price underselling (%) *** *** 
Price underselling (Range) 20-30 20-30 
 30 
 iii. Price suppression/depression  
 
67. The Authority examined whether the effect of the dumped imports was to depress 
the prices of the like article in India, or prevent price increase that would have 
otherwise occurred. 
 
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Cost of production Rs./MT *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 109 122 124 
Sellin g Price Rs./MT *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 102 111 114 
Landed Value Rs./MT *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 101 103 113 
 
68. It is seen from the table above that the cost of production has increased from 100 
to 124 from base year to POI. The selling price increased only from 100 to 114 
during the same period, thereby the prices were suppressed on account of 
dumped imports, as the domestic industry was not able to increase its prices in 
proportionate to increase in costs. Even though the landed prices have increased 
over the years, they are lower than the sales realization of the domestic industry 
during the POI as well as injury period. The imports were thus suppressing the 
prices of the domestic industry. 
 
I. Economic parameters of the domestic industry  
 
i. Profit/Loss  
 
69. The profitability of the domestic industry is given in the following table; 
 
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Profits Rs./MT *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 49 21 30 
Cash Profit Rs./MT *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 61 40 47 
ROCE % *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 55 25 30 
 
70. It  is  seen  from  the  above  table  that  profitability  of  the  domestic  industry 
declined significantly during the injury period including the POI. Cash profits as 31 
 well as return on investment have declined in the POI compared to base year as 
well as the previous years.  
ii. Cash Flow
 
 
71.  Authority has examined the trends in ca sh profits in order to examine the impact 
of dumping on cash flow situation of the domestic industry. Information regarding cash profit of the domestic industry is given in the following table.  
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Cash profits      Rs./MT *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 61 40 47 
 
72. It is seen that the cash profits of t he domestic industry has declined significantly 
over the injury period.  
 
iii. Inventories  
 
73. Inventories with the domestic industry moved as follows: 
 
Particulars Units 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Closing stock MT *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 185 1123 1454
 
74. It is noted that inventories with the domestic industry increased significantly in the 
POI as compared to the base year as well as the previous years. 
 
iv. Productivity  
 
75. Authority notes that productivity of the domestic industry has almost remain at the 
same level during period of injury. 
 
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Productivity per employee     MT *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Tr 100 97 94 92 
 32 
 v. Employment and Wages  
 
76. It is seen from the table below that the employment has remained almost at the 
same level throughout the injury period. Overall wages per employee, however, has increased in the POI as compared to the base year which is on account of the 
annual increment in the salary of the employees. 
 
Particulars Unit 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Employment        Nos. 268 270 270 272 
Indexed Trend 100 101 101 101 
Wages/Employee        Rs. *** *** *** *** 
Indexed Trend 100 113 139 139 
  
vi. Magnitude of Dumping  
 
77. Magnitude of dumping as an indicator of the extent to which the dumped imports 
can cause injury to the domestic industry shows that the dumping margin determined against the subject country are above de mimimis and significant. 
 
vii. Growth
 
 
78. The Authority notes from the table below that growth of the domestic industry in 
respect of production, sales, Market share & profitability was negative. The 
domestic industry  has  submitted  that  they  were  prohibited  from  taking  
benefits  of increasing  demand  on  account  of  increases  in  the  dumped  imports  with significant price undercutting. 
 
Particulars 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 POI 
Sales (%) - -3 -6 -8 
Production (%) - -3 -5 -6 
Market Share (% Demand) - -21 -32 -32 
Profitability per unit (%) - -51 -79 -70 
 
 
 33 
 viii. Ability to raise Capital Investment  
 
79. The Authority notes that the domestic industry’s ability to put in additional 
investments in the product depends upon the market situation. It is evident that the market share of the domestic industry has  marked decline during the injury period. 
Hence, dumping of the product would cert ainly have adverse impact on the ability 
of the domestic industry to raise capital investment.  
J Post Disclosure Statement Submissions by the Interested Parties 
 
  Post Disclosure Statement submissions by the other Interested Parties  
 
80. Various Requests have been made  to provide thickness wise production and 
sales data of domestic industry so as to ascertain whether or not the Applicant is producing sheet glass of thickness less than 2 mm and size more than 920 mm X 1220 mm. However, these requests have neither been noted in the disclosure 
statement nor has such data been provided.  
 
81. The Authority has only noted the submission that the Applicant is not 
manufacturing sheet glass of thickness less than 2 mm and size more than 920 
mm X 1220 mm. This does not captur e all the submissions made by the 
Respondent during the course of the investigation on the scope of PUC. 
Throughout the investigation, the Respondent have contended that sheet glass of 
thickness less than 2 mm, in particular 1.8 mm and size more than 920 mm X 1220 
mm (which the Respondent requires) is not technically and commercially 
substitutable with sheet glass of thickness 2 mm and above and size 920 mm X 
1220 mm and lesser (which the Applicant is willing to supply).  
 
82. The quality of sheet glass manufactured by the Applicant is not up to the mark and 
cannot be relied upon. This submission has not even been recorded by the 
Authority in its disclosure statement. 
 
83. The Applicant has claimed to have submitted some sample sales invoices to 
establish that it has produced/has the capability to produce sheet glass of 
thickness less than 2 mm. If the Applicant has submitted sample sales invoices to 
the Authority, the Respondent is at a loss to understand why the same haven’t 
been made available to all the interested parties in the subject investigation.  
 
84. The Respondent is unable to appreciate how the Authority has refused to accept 
the export price of an exporter who has only exported one consignment during the 
POI, but has readily accepted production in small quantities and mere sample 34 
 sales invoices as proof of the Applicant’s ability to manufacture sheet glass of 
thickness less than 2 mm. 
 
85. The Applicant’s contention that capab ility of the domestic producer to produce 
sheet glass of thickness less than 2 mm and size more than 920 mm X 1220 mm 
is a relevant factor is completely incorrect and unacceptable. The Authority has never placed reliance on the capability of  the domestic producer to produce a 
certain variant of the PUC; it has always relied only on the actual production of the 
specific grade/type/variant when deciding the question whether certain 
grades/type/variant are to be excluded from the scope of PUC.  
 
86. The Applicant does not satisfy the definition of “domestic industry” as per Rule 2(b) 
of the AD Rules and Article 4.1 of t he ADA because the Applicant’s output does 
not constitute a “major proportion” of the total production, due to the fact that sheet 
glass and float glass are “like products” as per Article 2.6 of WTO ADA. The 
Authority has stated in para 21 that sheet and float glass are not “like products”, 
without any supporting reason whatsoev er. The Respondent submits that the 
statements made by DGAD are required to be supported by some sort of 
evidence, and bald statements dismissing the arguments of the Respondent in one 
line does not suffice as a properly reasoned order.  
 
87. Applicant has claimed excess confidentia lity over various information like technical 
specifications, production process, purchase/sales policy, costing of subject goods 
etc. 
 
88. The petition filed by the Applicant did not meet the evidentiary standards of Article 
5.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement due to the following reasons: 
i. The Applicant has neither disclos ed any evidence in its construction of 
normal value nor followed the correct procedure in determining the same.  
ii. The Authority is required to disclose the prices based on which normal value 
is constructed for the exporter from China PR. 
iii. The adjustments made by the Applic ant with respect to the export price are 
abnormally high. Furthermore, no evidence has been adduced in support of 
the adjustments made to the export price.  
iv. The Applicant has not complied with the requirements in the Application 
Proforma. For instance, there is no mention of the technical specifications of sheet glass, or any other information with regard to the size, quality, category 
and uses of the product under consideration.  
 35 
 89. Respondent has requested transaction wise import data in MS-EXCEL format and 
an explanation as to how the raw DGCIS data with regard to import of the subject goods was sorted by the Applicant. However, same has not been provided to the respondent. The Respondent considers this a serious breach of the principles of 
natural justice.  
 
90. Normal value may be constructed individually for the exporters concerned. In para 
34, the Authority has merely noted that since M/s Shouguang Yaobang Imp. & 
Exp. Industry Co., Ltd., China PR has not filed the response of the linked 
manufacturer; it is not entitled to an individual normal value and correspondingly, 
an individual dumping margin.  In this regard, the Respondent had clearly 
submitted earlier that during the POI, Shouguang Yaobang has exported the 
subject goods manufactured by various unr elated producers in China. All these 
producers are unrelated to Shouguang Yaobang and not controlled by Shouguang 
Yaobang. Therefore, it is very difficult for Shouguang Yaobang to compel these 
producers to cooperate with the authority.  
 
91. The Authority has rejected the export price of Shandong due to the fact that 
Shandong exported only one consignment of the subject goods during the period 
of investigation. The rejection of export price due to this reason is not provided for anywhere in the Act or AD Rules, thereby rendering such rejection of export price unjustified and illegal. 
 
92. The Authority has considered the profits of the Applicant to be declining from 100 
indexed points in 2010-11 to 49 indexed points in 2011-12, 21 indexed points in 
2012-13 and 30 indexed points in the POI. However, it is to be noted that this is in 
direct contrast to the statements made by the Applicant in its Balance Sheet for the 
2012-13 which corresponds with the POI in the present investigation. The 
Applicant has stated the following: 
 
“For the year ended March 31, 2013 the company has 
made net profit of Rs. 123.90 lacs, an increase of 
100.84% as compared to previous year .” 
 
93. The Respondent is engaged in manufacturing and exporting Wall Clocks with the 
famous brand Ajanta Quartz and other products with the brand name “ORPAT”, 
and is one of the world’s largest clock manufacturers. The Respondent contributes 
substantially to India’s exports as well as employment to thousands of people. The 
imposition of anti-dumping duty on a grade of sheet glass which is not even being manufactured by the Applicant would impact India’s exports as well as the 36 
 employment of a substantial number of people. This is clearly a “public interest” 
consideration which must be kept in mind by the Authority while considering the recommendation of imposition of anti-dumping duty. 
 
94. The size of the customized glass imported by us is not manufacture by the 
domestic industry for which huge investme nt has been made in CNC glass cutting 
machine. 
 
Post Disclosure Statement submissions by the Domestic Industry 
 
95. Claim of the interested parties that the domestic industry does not have the 
capability to produce sheet glass of thickness less than 2mm, in particular 1.8mm 
and of various higher widths is without any basis and factually incorrect. Domestic 
industry has reiterated that it has the capability to produce the subject goods upto 
12mm. Domestic industry has shown the product under consideration of various 
thickness and sizes to the Authority during their verification visit.  Sample copies of 
the sales invoice of sheet glass of various thicknesses and sizes have already 
been provided to the Authority to substantiate our claim in this regard. These 
sample sales invoices includes invoices of thickness less than as well as thickness 
more than 2mm.  
 
96. Indian economy is witnessing significant volatility in the rupee value vis-à-vis US 
dollars. Moreover, the reference price based duty does not take into account the 
price and cost volatility of the subject goods.  In such a scenario, duty based on 
reference price will not be able to provide sufficient and effective protection to the 
domestic industry against dumped imports from the subject country. In such 
circumstances, we once again humbly request the Authority to levy fixed duty 
rather than reference price based duty as  proposed by the interested parties.   
   
97. Domestic industry has requested the Authority not to consider any document or 
evidence in relation to the product scope or any other issue at this stage of the investigations. The rejection of the fresh documents / evidence would be in accordance of the principles of natural justice and would also be in line with the 
consistent practice of the Authority followed in plethora of the case including 
Saccharin and CR Coil case.  
 Examination by the Authority 
 
98. The Authority notes that all the issues raised by the other interested parties post 
issue of disclosure statement are by and large reiteration of their earlier 37 
 submissions which have been appropriately dealt by the Authority in the relevant 
sections in the disclosure statement and  now in the final findings also. However, for the sake of clarity and explicit narration, the Authority reiterates its examination below on the post disclosure submissions made by the other interested parties.  
The authority had in the disclosure statement captured essence and summarized 
various submissions appropriately rather than narrating each and every submission.   
 
99. With regard to the submission of capab ility, production and domestic sales of 
different sizes and thicknesses of the subject goods by the domestic industry, the 
Authority notes that in the disclosure statement it has been clarified that the 
domestic industry has the capability to  produce various thicknesses and sizes. 
Further, the Authority during the domestic verification had verified the same and 
holds that domestic industry has t he capability to produce and did produce 
different thicknesses and sizes of the subject goods during the POI. Further, 
production and sales of subject goods in commercial quantities is dependent on 
demand and sales orders placed.  
 
100. As regards the issue of exclusion of tinted/coloured glass, the Authority notes 
that production of tinted/coloured glass requires same plant and equipment with no technological upgradation. In view of this, these goods cannot be excluded from the scope of investigation as it might lead to circumvention.  
 
101. With regards to the issue of quality, the Authority notes that may be the quality 
of Sheet Glass from China is better however; dumping is to address unfair price 
aspects. Further, difference in quality could only lead to consideration of exclusion 
from scope of investigation if it leads to emergence of a different article not 
passing the test of a like article. In this case the imported subject goods and the 
goods produced by the domestic industr y have been held as ‘like article’. 
 
102. As regards the issue of public intere st, the Authority notes that the purpose of 
anti-dumping duty is only to create a level playing field and to provide relief to domestic industry due to injurious effect of dumping. Further, it is noted that the 
anti-dumping duty is not envisaged to provide undue protection to the domestic 
industry. The Indian AD Rules further adopt the lesser duty rule for levy of Anti-dumping duty i.e the duty is limited to lower of the Dumping or Injury margin so that the interest of other stakeholders also gets addressed and a balanced view is 
taken. 
 38 
 103. With regard to the claim of other interested parties to place the domestic 
invoices in public file, the Authority not es that the domestic industry has claimed 
confidentiality regarding the same and it has been its consistent practice to admit confidentiality claims on domestic sales/ pricing/customers etc. 
 
104. In response to the claim about refusal to accept the export price of the exporter 
who has exported only one consignment during the POI, the Authority reiterates its 
observation as mentioned in the disclosure statement that this consignment is not 
significant to establish a fair and realistic export price. Further, the Authority has 
followed this approach consistently in its earlier determinations as well. 
 
105. As regards the contention on the standing of the domestic industry, the Authority 
reiterates that the sheet glass and float glass have not been considered as like 
article. The scope of investigation being is limited to sheet glass only and 
therefore, the issue of standing of domestic industry is trivial. The Authority 
therefore reiterates its finding on petitioner qualifying as domestic industry. 
 
106. With regard to the issue of sorting of DGCI&S data, the Authority notes that the 
Non Confidential version of the petition was already available in the public file. 
Some interested parties have made their s ubmissions on the basis of this data.  
 
107. With regard to the issue of confidentiality, the Authority notes that it has 
considered and granted the claim of confidentiality on various parameters keeping 
in view its practice and principles of natural justice. 
 
108. As regards the construction of normal value and grant of individual normal value 
and consequently dumping margin, the Authority notes that in the absence of 
response from the producer/exporter, individual dumping margin cannot be 
evaluated for any cooperating exporters. Further, the methodology on construction 
of normal value has been adopted as per t he relevant provisions of the Anti-
dumping Rules.  
109. The authority has examined various injury parameters including profitability 
specifically for the subject goods under consideration during the period of 
investigation. The NIP has been determined as per the guidelines incorporated under the AD rules and consistent with the existing practice of determination. The profit shown in the Balance Sheet is refl ecting the profitability of  company as a 
whole, whereas the profit show in para 69 is relating to the PUC only. 
 
 39 
  
K Conclusion on material injury  
 
110. Based on the above, the Authority concludes that the dumped imports  of  the  
subject  goods  from  the  subject  country   have  increased  in absolute terms as 
well as in relation to production and consumption of the subject goods in India. 
Imports of the product were undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the 
market. Further, while the cost of production kept increasing over the injury period, the increase in selling price did not commensurate with the increase in the cost of 
production. The imports were thus suppressi ng the prices of the domestic industry 
and preventing the price increases that would have otherwise occurred in the 
absence of dumped imports. With regard to consequent impact of the dumped 
imports on the domestic industry, it is observed that while the demand for the 
product increased very significantly, t he production and sales of the domestic 
industry declined due to the marked increase in the dumped imports. Resultantly, 
the domestic industry lost market share which, in turn, affected other performance 
parameters.  
 
111. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has suffered injury on account of 
volume as well as price effect of imports, as a result of which the profitability of the 
domestic industry has declined. Return on capital employed and cash profits 
followed the same trend as that of profits. Both return on capital employed and cash profits marked negative growths in PO I. Thus, growth in respect of most of 
the parameters such as production, sales, capacity utilization, profits,  cash  
profits,  return  on  capital  employed,  market  share &  inventory etc shows an 
adverse impact on the domestic industry. Thus, Authority concludes that the 
domestic industry has suffered material injury. 
 
L CAUSAL LINK AND OTHER FACTORS
  
112. Having examined the existence of material injury, volume and price effects of 
the dumped imports on the prices of the domestic industry, in terms of its price underselling and price suppression, and depression effects, other indicative parameters listed under the Indian Rules and Agreement on Anti-Dumping have 
been examined to see whether any other factor, other than the dumped imports 
could have contributed to injury to the domestic industry.  Accordingly,  the 
following parameters have been examined:- 
  40 
  
(a) Volume and prices of imports from third country  
 
113. During POI, imports of the subject goods from country other than the subject 
country have been insignificant in volume. Therefore, the imports from other 
country cannot be considered to have caused injury to the domestic industry. 
 
(b) Trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and 
domestic producers  
114. It is noted that there is a single market for the subject goods where dumped 
imports from the subject country compete directly with the subject goods supplied 
by the domestic industry. It is also noted that the imported subject goods and domestically produced goods are like ar ticles and are used for similar 
applications/end uses. There is no evidence of trade restrictive practices of and 
competition between the foreign producers and domestic producers causing injury to the domestic industry.  
 
(c)  Contraction of demand or Changes in the pattern of consumption
 
115. The Authority notes that demand for the product showed significant increase 
during the injury period and also during POI. The Authority thus concludes that 
injury to the domestic industry was not due to contraction in demand. 
 
(d) Development in Technology  
 
116. None of the interested parties has furnished any evidence to demonstrate 
significant changes in technology that c ould have caused injury to the domestic 
industry.  
(e) Export performance of Domestic Industry;
 
 
117. Domestic industry is not indulged in the export sales during the entire injury 
investigation period. Therefore, Authority concludes that injury to the domestic 
industry was not due to export performance of the domestic industry. 
 
(f) Productivity of the Domestic Industry  
 41 
 118. Productivity of the domestic industry almost remained at the same level 
throughout the injury period. Accordingly, it is clear that the injury to the domestic industry is not on account of loss of productivity.  
 
119. From the foregoing, the Authority concl udes that there is no evidence of injury 
being caused due to factors other than dumping. 
 
M FACTORS ESTABLISHING CAUSAL LINK
 
 
120. Analysis of the performance of the domestic industry over the injury period 
shows that the performance of the domestic industry has materially deteriorated over the injury period. The causal link between dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry is established on the following grounds:  
a) Imports from subject country are undercutting the prices of the domestic 
industry. Resultantly, the volume of imports has increased significantly; 
 
b) Market share of the dumped imports increased significantly and 
consequently, market share of the domestic industry declined;  
c) Price undercutting being caused by the dumped imports is preventing 
the domestic industry from increasing its prices commensurate with the increase in costs resulting in decline in the profitability of the domestic industry during the POI as compared to the base year.  
 
d) The price depression effect of the dumped imports is evidenced from the 
fact that there is significant decline in profitability to the domestic 
industry; 
 
e) Deterioration in profits, return on capital employed and cash profits are 
directly a result of dumped imports; 
 
f) The growth of the domestic industry became negative in terms of a price 
related economic as well as volume parameters. 
 
121. The above grounds clearly establish ex istence of causal link between the 
dumped imports and injury to the domestic i ndustry. Thus, the Authority concludes 
that the domestic industry suffered material injury due to dumped imports of the 
subject goods originating in or ex ported from the subject country. 
 42 
 N MAGNITUDE OF INJURY AND INJURY MARGIN  
 
122. The Authority has determined non-injurious price for the domestic industry on 
the basis of principles laid down in the Rules, as amended. The non-injurious 
price so determined has been compared with the landed prices of imports from 
the subject country. 
 
Producers and Exporters from China PR  
 
123. Injury margin for all producers and exporters from China PR has been 
determined by the Authority on the basis of best available facts. 
 
 
Particulars  
Non Injurious 
Price- US$/MTLanded 
price - 
US$/ MT Injury 
Margin  - 
US$/ MT 
Injury 
Margin  -% Injury 
Margin 
Range - % 
All  producers and 
Exporters from China 
PR *** *** *** *** 20-30 
 
O CONCLUSIONS : 
 
124. After examining the issues raised and submissions made by the interested 
parties and facts made available before the Authority as recorded in this finding, the Authority concludes that:  
a. The product under consideration has been exported to India 
from subject country below its normal value, thus resulting in dumping of the product.  
b. The domestic industry has suffered material injury due to 
dumping of the product under consideration from the subject country. 
 
 
P INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
 
 
125. The Authority notes that the purpose of anti-dumping duties, in general, is to 
eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of 43 
 dumping so as to re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian 
market, which is in the general interest of the Country. Imposition of anti- dumping measures would not restrict imports from the subject country in any way, and, therefore, would not affect the availability of the products to the consumers. 
 
126. It is recognized that the imposition of anti-dumping duties might affect the price 
levels of the products manufactured using the subject goods and consequently 
might have some influence on relative  competitiveness of these products. 
However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by the anti-
dumping measures, particularly if the levy of the anti- dumping duty is restricted to an amount necessary to redress the injury to the domestic industry. On the contrary, imposition of anti-dumping measures would remove the unfair 
advantages gained by dumping practices, would also prevent the decline of the 
domestic industry and help maintain availabi lity of wider choice to the consumers 
of the subject goods. Imposition of anti-dumping measures would not restrict 
imports from the subject country in any way, and therefore, would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers.  
Q RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 
127. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all 
interested parties and adequate opportunity was given to the exporters, importers 
and other interested parties to provide information/submissions on all aspect of the investigations including dumping, injury and causal link. Having initiated and conducted investigation into dumping, injury and causal link in terms of the 
provisions laid down under the Anti-dumping Rules and having established 
positive dumping margin as well as material injury to the domestic industry caused by such dumped imports, the Authority is of the view that imposition of duty is required to offset dumping and injury, pending completion of the investigation.  
Further, the domestic industry has also represented that they continue to suffer 
injury on account of low value dumped imports from the subject country. 
Therefore, the Authority considers it necessary to recommend imposition of anti-
dumping duty on imports of subject goods fr om the subject country in the form and 
manner described hereunder. 
 
128. Having regard to the lesser duty rule followed by the Authority, the Authority 
recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty equal to the lesser of margin of dumping and the margin of injury, so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, antidumping duty equal to the amount mentioned in Col 8 of 44 
 the table below is recommended to be imposed by the Central Government, on all 
imports of subject goods originati ng in or exported from China PR. 
 
DUTY TABLE  
 
Sl.NoHeading 
/S bh di *Description of 
goods  Country 
of originCountry 
of exportProducer Exporter Duty 
amountUnit Currency 
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1 7004 20 11 & 
7004 20 19 Sheet Glass China 
PRChina 
PRAny Any 63 MT US$ 
2 Do Do Any China 
PR Any Any 63 MT US$ 
3 Do Do China 
PR Any Any Any 63 MT US$ 
 
* The subject goods are also being imported under other tariff headings such as 
70031290, 70031990, 70033090, 70042099, 70049019, 70049099, 70052110, 70053090, 70091090, 70091010, 70099100, 70119090 etc. However, the customs 
classification is indicative only and is not binding on the scope of this investigation. 
 
129. Landed value of imports for the purpose of this Notification shall be the 
assessable value as determined by the Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 
of 1962) and includes all duties of customs except duties under sections 3, 3A, 8B, 9 and 9A of the said Act.  
130. An appeal against the order of the Cent ral Government arising out of these 
findings shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in 
accordance with the Customs Tariff Act. 
 
 
 
(J K Dadoo) 
Designated Authority