G/SG/N/8/IND/27
G/SG/N/10/IND/18
G/SG/N/11/IND/13
16 October 2014
(14-5929)  Page: 1/5
Committee on Safeguards  Original: English
 
 NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(B) OF THE AGREEMENT 
ON SAFEGUARDS ON FINDING A SERIOUS INJURY 
OR THREAT THEREOF CAUSED 
BY INCREASED IMPORTS 
 
NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE A MEASURE 
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
INDIA 
(Sodium Citrate) 
The following communication, dated 14 October 2014, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of India.   
 
_______________ 
  
In continuation to document No. G/SG/N/6/IND/36, 11 March 2014. 
 1  INFORMATION ON WHETHER THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN IMPORTS 
The Product Under Consideratio n (PUC) i.e. Sodium Citrate  is imported into India from a 
number of countries. The imports of Sodium Citrate have shown an increasing trend in absolute 
terms as well as steep surge in imports gradua lly increased rapidly thereafter. The quantum of 
imports of the PUC during the Period of Investigation (POI) 2011-12 to 2013-14 is evident from 
the table given below:  a. Increased imports in absolute terms 
 
Financial Year Total Import  
(MT) All India 
Production (MT) Increase in % 
2010-11  2,621  2,556  
2011-12  2,877  2,881 10% 
2012-13  3,721 3,227 42% 
2013-14 5,300 2,892 102% 
Imports of the PUC have increased throughout the injury period in absolute terms. There is a 
sudden, sharp and significant increase in imports in the recent period. The imports increased from 2621 MT in 2011-12 to 5300 MT in 2013-14, which is an increase of 102%, a very steep 
surge in imports. 
 b. Share of imports relative to production 
It is noticed that the imports of PUC in India during the POI have also increased in relation to the 
production of the DI, which is evident from the table given below:  G/SG/N/8/IND/27 • G/SG/N/10/IND/18 • G/SG/N/11/IND/13 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Financial Year Total Imports 
(MT) All India Production 
(MT) Imports in relation to 
Indian production (%) 
2010-11 2,621 2,556 103% 
2011-12 2,877 2,881 100% 
2012-13 3,721 3,227 115% 
2013-14 5,300 2,892 183% 
 
2  SERIOUS INJURY OR THREAT THEREOF CAUSED BY INCREASED IMPORTS 
a. Serious Injury 
 An evaluation of the overall position of the Domestic Industry (DI), in the light of almost all the 
relevant factors, having a bearing on the situation of the DI, shows a significant overall 
impairment. It is thus concluded that DI has suffered serious injury and increased imports of the product under consideration threaten to cause serious injury to the DI.  
b. Threat of Serious Injury  
 It is noticed that the imports of the PUC in India during the Period of Investigation (POI) have not 
only increased in absolute terms but also increased in relation to production of the DI, which is 
evident from the table indicated above.  
The increase in imports in absolute terms is a clear surge in imports and has a rising trend, which 
is significant enough to constitute "increased imports" within the meaning of Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.  
3  EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS INJURY 
The increased imports of Sodium Citrate  into India  have caused s erious injury  to the domestic 
producers as reflected by the following parameters:  
 
a. Market Share  
 
Financial Year Total Import 
(MT) Sales of DI 
(MT) % of Market Share 
      DI Import 
2010-11 2,621 505 11 57 
2011-12 2,877 632 12 55 
2012-13 3,721 1036 16 57 
2013-14 5,300 999 13 69 
 
The market share of the DI increased till 2012-13 and has declined thereafter. On the other hand, 
the market share of the imports has increase d significantly from 57% in 2010-2011 to 69% 
in 2013-14, which is an increase of 12%. The sizeab le part of market share has been seized by 
imports. Further, the market share of the DI has declined despite un-utilised capacities and 
increased production by the DI.  
 
b. Production  
 
Financial Year Production (MT) 
2010-11 1,184 
2011-12 1,211 
2012-13 1,531 
2013-14 1,521 
 Production of the DI has improved over the period. The DI has contended that they have been able 
to increase production as it kept prices below the level of cost. It is evident from the table above 
that despite the efforts made, the production has marginally declined in 2013-14 with significant 
surge in imports during the same period. The marginal decline in production in 2013-14 is despite 
18% increase in demand in that year, as compared to the preceding year.  
 G/SG/N/8/IND/27 • G/SG/N/10/IND/18 • G/SG/N/11/IND/13 
 
- 3 - 
 
  c. Change in level of domestic sales 
 
Financial Year Domestic Sales (MT) Total Demand (MT) 
2010-11 505 4,580 
2011-12 632 5,278 
2012-13 1,036 6,544 
2013-14 999 7,705 
 The sales of DI increased till 2012-13 and have thereafter declined from 1036 MT in 2012-13 to 999 MT in 2013-14, by about 4%. This decline in sales is despite the fact that the demand 
increased from 6544 MT in 2012-13 to 7287 MT in 2013- 14, i.e., by about 18%. This clearly shows 
that the DI suffered loss in sales at the cost of surge in imports, as is evident from the above 
table.  
d. Capacity Utilization  
 
Financial Year Capacity (MT) Capacity Utilization (%) 
2010-11 2,700 44 
2011-12 2,700 45 
2012-13 2,725 56 
2013-14 3,300 46 
 The capacity utilization of the DI had increased up to 2012-13 to 56% and then declined 
significantly in 2013-14 to 46% (but higher than the base year) despite increase in demand and 
efforts made by the DI to increase production and sales. The capacity utilization in 2013-14 would still have been 56% only which shows same level, if not a declining trend in capacity utilization from 2010-11 onwards. 
 
e. Profits and losses  
 
Financial Year Profitability (Rs/Lacs) 
Indexed Profitability (Rs/Kg.) 
Indexed Return on 
investment % 
(Indexed) 
2010-11 (100) (100) -100% 
2011-12 (249) (199) -155% 
2012-13  (378) (184) -146% 
2013-14 (1174) (593) -549% 
 
As the DI had to compete with the huge volume of imported goods in the market, the DI had to 
keep its prices below the cost of sales. This has sharply affected their profitability, which has significantly intensified during the most recent period of 2013-14. The DI is, thus, suffering severe 
financial losses on account of imports. 
 f. Employment 
 
The number of employees (on average) increased from 53 (2010-11) to 105 (2013-14).  
 
  2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 
No of Employees Nos 53 96 105 105 
 The domestic industry has increased the number of  employees over the injury period. The DI has 
submitted that employees have been added because of increase in capacities, increase in efforts to 
produce and sell the product and the fact that employees are not dedicated to the PUC alone. 
 
g. Productivity 
 Productivity per unit employee of the DI declin ed in 2011-12 and increased thereafter due to 
increase in employees. With the rise in producti on, the productivity increased till 2012-13 from the 
base year, and then declined marginally in 2013-14.  
 G/SG/N/8/IND/27 • G/SG/N/10/IND/18 • G/SG/N/11/IND/13 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Financial Year Productivity per day (MT) 
(indexed) Productivity per employee 
(indexed) 
2010-11 100 100 
2011-12 102 56 
2012-13 129 65 
2013-14 128 75 
 
h. Inventory 
 
The DI is faced with accumulated inventories which have shown rising trend throughout the POI, which is about 5 times more in 2013-14, as compared to the base year, i.e. 2010-11. When 
compared with 2012-13, it is about 65% more in 2013-14 despite a marginal decline in production 
in 2013-14, as compared to preceding year, as indicated below:  
Financial Year Average Inventories (MT) 
2010-11 18 
2011-12 37 
2012-13 52 
2013-14 86 
 i. Unforeseen Developments 
 
There has been an excess capacity generation in China for the PUC, which is far excess than the 
domestic demand which led to significant demand supply gap. This has resulted in diversion of the 
PUC to India. This situation has further aggravated on account of anti-dumping duties by various 
countries on PUC originated from China, leading to  increased exports of PUC from China to India. 
Hence, rise in imports of PUC due to imposition  of Anti-Dumping duty by the various countries 
against imports of the PUC from China aided by huge demand supply gap for this product in China 
due to excessive capacities can be regarded as an unforeseen development resulting in increase in 
imports causing serious injury and threat of serious injury to the domestic industry.    
4  ADJUSTMENT PLAN 
The DI has provided a viable adjustment plan which focuses on cost reduction, capacity 
enhancement to cater the growing demand of Sodium Citrate.   
 
5  PRODUCT INVOLVED 
The product involved is  Sodium Citrate  classified under sub-heading 29181520 of the 
Customs Tariff Act, 1975. "Sodium Citrate" is a chemical compound that comes in the form of 
monosodium citrate, disodium citrate and tri-sodium ci trate. It is sodium salt of citric Acid and has 
a sour and salty taste. Sodium Citrate is mainly used as an expectorant and urine alkanizer. It is also used as a pharmaceutical aid, food additive in dairy Industries laboratory reagent in water 
treatment, acidity regulator in drinks, an emulsifier for oils when making cheese and an 
antioxidant in food etc.   
6  PRECISE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE 
DG Safeguards, the competent authority, has reco mmended to impose safeguard duty at the rate 
of 55% ad valorem  for the first year, 50% ad valorem  for the second year and 40% for third year 
on imports of Sodium Citrate.  
 
7  FURTHER INFORMATION 
The Final Findings were published in gazette of India on 16/09/2014. 
 
8  PROPOSED DATE OF IMPOSITION OF SAFEGUARD MEASURE 
The safeguard measure will be applicable from the date  of issue of notification in this regard by the 
Department of Revenue, Ministry of  Finance, Government of India. 
  G/SG/N/8/IND/27 • G/SG/N/10/IND/18 • G/SG/N/11/IND/13 
 
- 5 - 
 
   
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2, 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
 
1  SPECIFY THE MEASURE 
Safeguard duty at the rate of 55% ad valorem  for the first year, 50% ad valorem  for the second 
year and 40% for third year when imported into India has been recommended by 
DG (Safeguards), the competent authority. 
 2  SPECIFY THE PRODUCT SUBJECT TO THE MEASURE 
"Sodium Citrate " classified under sub-heading 29181520  of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 
"Sodium Citrate" is a chemical compound that comes in the form of mono-sodium citrate, di-
sodium citrate and tri-sodium citrate. It is sodium salt of citric acid and has a sour and salty taste.   
3  SPECIFY THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO WHICH THE MEASUR E IS NOT APPLIED 
UNDER ARTICLE 9.1 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS, AND THE IMPORT SHARE OF THESE COUNTRIES INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY 
As the imports from developing countries except China PR do not exceed 3% individually and 9% 
collectively, the import of product under consideration originating from developing countries, except China PR, will not attract safeguard duty in  terms of proviso to Section 8B of the Customs 
Tariff Act, 1975. 
 
__________