No. 44/1/2001-DGAD- M/s Aarti Drugs Limited., Amoli Organics Limited and Kairav Chemicals Ltd., have 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 Diclofenac Sodium originating in or exported from Peoples’ Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as subject country) 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 Diclofenac Sodium. This is used as anti inflamatory and analegsic drug. Petitioners have claimed that all types of Diclofenac Sodium are classified in chapter heading 2942. Petitioners have requested that the investigations be initiated against the product under consideration irrespective of the classification under which they are imported. 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 Aarti Drugs Limited., Amoli Organics Limited and Kairav Chemicals Ltd.. The petitioners have claimed that they account for a major proportion of the total Indian production. Prima facie the petitioners satisfy 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. COUNTRY INVOLVED:

The country involved in the present investigation is the China PR.

5. LIKE ARTICLE:

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

Annexure 1 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 had been amended vide Notification No. 44/99-CUS(NT), dated 15-7-99 and subsequently Notification No. 28/2001(N.T.) dated 31^st May, 2001whereby the following Principle 7 had been added:-

"In case of imports from non-market economy country, Normal Value shall be determined on the basis of the price of constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other country, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable 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 the 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."

Vide Custom Notification No.28/2001(NT) dated 31.5.2001, further Principle 8 as under has also been inserted and in the Note appended thereto Peoples’ Republic of China has been included in the list of non-market economy country:

Provided that in view of the changing economic conditions in Russia and in the Peoples’ Republic of China, where it is shown on the basis of sufficient evidence in writing on the factors specified in this paragraph that market conditions prevail for one or more such firms are subject to anti-dumping investigations, the Designated Authority may apply the principles set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 ( of Annexure 1 of Rules supra) instead of the principles set out in this paragraph.

In accordance to the Rules as amended above, the petitioners have claimed Normal Value for China PR on the basis of Constructed Normal Value of the subject goods.

In terms of the aforesaid Rules it will be incumbent upon the exporters from the China PR, in case they claim their exports to be from market economy country, to provide sufficient evidence to the Designated Authority in accordance with the aforesaid Rules.

The Authority has considered the same as prima facie evidence for Normal Value.

7. EXPORT PRICE:

The petitioners have claimed the export price from the subject country based on the information about actual imports made in India. Adjustments have been claimed on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, credit cost, inland transportation in the country of exports, port handling and port charges 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 country is significantly higher than the ex-factory export price indicating prima facie that the subject goods are being dumped by exporters from the subject country.

Various parameters relating to injury such as the decline in the sales realisation, price undercutting, decline in profitability, price suppression, underutilisation of capacity, increase in rate of growth of imports from subject country, prima facie indicate collectively and cumulatively that there is threat of material injury to the domestic industry on account of dumping.

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 country.

11. PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION

The Period of Investigation for the purpose of the present investigation is Ist January, 2001 to 31^st August, 2001.

The exporters in the subject country 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.

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.