G/SG/Q2/IND/18  
 
30 March 2015  
(15-1764)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Safeguards  Original: English  
 
 NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(A) OF THE AGREEMENT ON  
SAFEGUARDS ON INITIATION OF AN INVESTIGATION AND  
THE REASONS FOR IT 
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION1  
REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF INDIA2 
(Seamless pipes, tubes and hollow profiles of iron or non – alloy steel  
(other than cast iron and stainless steel)) 
The following communication, dated 27 March 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of India.  
_______________ 
  
Question 1  
 How did India determine that imports were sharp enough, sudden enough and recent 
enough given that imports increased between 2009/10 and 2011/12 but then decreased 
in the 2 subsequent financial years? The development in the last two years indeed 
seems to clearly indicate a rather long term change and not just a temporary downturn. Could India elaborate on this development? 
 
Reply 
As mentioned in paragraph 27(a) & (b) of the final findings dated 11.3.2014 of DG (Safeguards), 
the import of the product has increased from 307,581 MT (2009-10) to 425,194 MT (2011-12) and 
thereafter decreased to 373,848 MT (2012-13). Import of the product though decreased in 
2013-14 but it was still more than the base year of the Period of Investigation (POI). Further, 
share of import relative to production has increased from 73% in 2009-10 to 87% in 2012-13. 
Thus, import of the product has increased in absolute terms as well as in relation to production, which has been held as significant, sharp and sudden. 
Question 2  
How does India come to the conclusion that th e industry is suffering serious injury given 
that production increases, sales are largely stable, profits although  decreasing remains 
profitable? 
Reply 
For the purpose of 'serious injury conclusion', factors mentioned in para 29(a) to (h) of the final 
findings clearly established that increased imports had caused injury to the domestic industry. 
 
                                               
1 G/SG/Q2/EU/15. 
2 G/SG/N/6/IND/32. G/SG/Q2/IND/18 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Question 3 
How did India ensure the non-attribution an alysis? The document published by India 
only refers to an evaluation of other factor s but does not give any indication of which 
factors have been analysed and how they cont ributed or not to the injury. In particular 
the decrease in domestic demand and increase  of capacity played an essential role, in 
particular when looking at the development of certain injury indicators, but have not 
been analysed.  
Reply 
 
Increase in capacity and domestic demand has been discussed in paragraphs 29(d) and 30(a) of the final findings. 
 
Question 4  
Could India explain how it has determined th e level of the proposed duty (25% in the 
first year – decreasing to 15% and 5% in the subsequent years), and ensured that it 
does not exceed what is necessary to re medy any serious injury in this case? 
 
Reply 
 Duty was calculated after allowing reasonable rate  of return on capital employed of the domestic 
industry. The duty proposed is progressively liberalized and it would be adequate to remove the 
injury to the domestic industry.  
 
__________