New Delhi, the 21st September, 2001

No.41/1/2001-DGAD- M/s Manali Petrochemical Ltd., Chennai has filed a petition in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) alleging dumping of Flexible Slabstock Polyol of molecular weight 3000 to 4000 originating in or exported from USA, Japan, Singapore and European Union (hereinafter referred to as subject countries/territory) and requested for initiation of Anti Dumping investigations and levy of anti dumping duties.

2. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION:

The product under consideration in the present petition is Flexible Slabstock Polyol of molecular weight 3000 to 4000 (hereinafter referred to as subject goods).

Petitioner has claimed that Flexible Slabstock Polyol of molecular weight 3000 to 4000 is classified in chapter heading 3907.20 but are also cleared under Chapter Headings 3907.99 and 3907.91 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Customs classifications are indicative only and are in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.

3. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The petition has been filed by M/s Manali Petrochemical Ltd., Chennai. The petitioner is the sole producer of the subject goods in India. Thus the petitioner satisfies the criteria of standing to file the petition on behalf of the Domestic Industry in terms of Rule 5(3) (a) of the Rules supra.

4.. COUNTRIES INVOLVED:

The countries/territory involved in the present investigation are USA, Japan, Singapore and European Union.

5. LIKE ARTICLE:

The petitioner has claimed that the goods produced by them are like articles to the goods originating in or exported from subject countries/territory. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the goods produced by the petitioner is being treated as ‘like articles’ of the product imported from the subject countries/territory. within the meaning of the Rules supra.

6. NORMAL VALUE:

According to Section 9 A(1) (c) (i) Normal Value in respect of subject country(ies) has been claimed by the petitioner based on Constructed Normal Value. The petitioner has mentioned that they tried to get information on prices of the subject goods in the domestic market of the subject countries. The petitioner has also made efforts to get price lists of the exporters or price evidence for their exports to third countries. The petitioner submits that they have not been able to get any evidence, with regard to the prices of the subject goods in the subject countries/territory or price list of the exporters either for sales in that country or for exports to other countries. The problem gets further accentuated due to the fact that the subject goods are not traded in the open market and such commercially sensitive information is not available to outsiders much less to the Indian Domestic Industry. They have further submitted that the Constructed Normal Value in the subject countries is a good indicator of the Normal Value in the subject countries/territory for the subject goods, particularly as the prices are determined on the basis of international prices of raw materials, and in view of the fact that there are no significant differences in the levels of operations or technology.

The Authority has accepted the argument of the Domestic Industry and considered the same as prima facie evidence for Normal Value for the purpose of initiation.

7. EXPORT PRICE:

The petitioner has claimed the export price from the subject countries/territory based on the secondary data sources, i.e. M/s International Business Information Service, Mumbai whose data is based on the Customs Daily List. From the data of secondary source, the petitioner has sorted the data on the basis of description and clubbed the transactions for the product under consideration. Adjustments have been claimed on account of ocean freight, marine insurance to arrive at the Export Price at ex-factory level.

8. DUMPING MARGIN

There is prima facie evidence that Normal Value of the subject goods in the subject countries/territory is significantly higher than the ex-factory export price indicating prima facie that the subject goods are being dumped by exporters from the subject countries/territory.

9. INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK

Various parameters relating to injury such as increase in market share of imports from subject countries/territory, decline in production and capacity utilisation, decline in the sales volume and value, decline in profitability, price suppression, increase in inventories of the subject goods, prima facie indicate collectively and cumulatively that the Domestic Industry has suffered material injury on account of dumping.

10. INITIATION OF ANTI DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS

The Designated Authority, in view of the foregoing paragraphs, initiates anti-dumping investigations into the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries/territory.

11. PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION

The Period of Investigation for the purpose of the present investigation is 1.10.2000 to 30.6.2001 (9 months).

12. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION

The exporters in the subject countries and the importers in India known to be concerned with this investigation are being addressed separately to submit relevant information in the form and manner prescribed and to make their views known to the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Government of India, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi – 11 00 11.

As per Rule 6(5) of Rule supra, the Designated Authority is also providing opportunity to the industrial users of the article under investigation, and to representative consumer organizations who can furnish information which is relevant to the investigation regarding dumping, injury and causality. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation within the time limit set out below.

13. TIME LIMIT

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 from the date of publication of this notification. The known exporters and importers, who are being addressed separately are however required to submit the information within forty days from the date of the letter addressed to them separately.

14. INSPECTION OF PUBLIC FILE

In terms of Rule 6(7), any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by other interested parties. In case where an interest 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.