Anti-Dumping Investigations concerning imports of Biaxially Oriented Poly Propylene Film (BOPP) originating in or exported from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Oman, UAE, Singapore and Thailand-Final Findings

21/1/2001-DGAD - Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, thereof:

A. PROCEDURE
1. The Procedure described below has been followed:

The Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) notified Initiation vide Notification No. 21/1/2001-DGAD dated the 30th May, 2001 with regard to Anti-Dumping Investigations concerning imports of Biaxially Oriented Poly Propylene Film (BOPP) originating in or exported from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Oman, UAE, Singapore and Thailand and requested the interested parties to provide information and make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of its publication;

The Authority notified preliminary findings vide Notification No. 21/1/2001-DGAD dated the 14th August, 2001 with regard to Anti-Dumping Investigations concerning imports of Biaxially Oriented Poly Propylene Film (BOPP) originating in or exported from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Oman, UAE, Singapore and Thailand and requested the interested parties to make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of its publication;

The Authority forwarded a copy of the Preliminary Findings to known interested parties, who were requested to furnish their views, if any, on the Preliminary Findings within forty days of the date of the letter;

The Authority also forwarded a copy. of the Preliminary Findings to the Embassies of Indonesia, Oman, UAE, Singapore, Thailand in New Delhi, Taipei Economic and Cultural Center,New Delhi and Hongkong Special Administrative Region, HK; with a request to furnish their views on the Preliminary Findings;

The Authority held a public hearing on 21st November, 2001 to hear the interested parties orally, which was attended by representatives of the Domestic Industry, Exporters and Importers. The parties attending the public hearing were requested to file written submissions of views expressed orally. Designated Authority in this finding has considered the written submissions thus received from interested parties;

The Authority made the public file available to all interested parties containing non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by various interested parties, for inspection, upon request;

Arguments raised by interested parties before announcing of Preliminary Findings, which have been brought out in the Preliminary Findings notified earlier have not been repeated herein for sake of brevity. However, arguments raised by the interested parties have been appropriately dealt with in the Preliminary Findings and/or these findings;

In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules supra, the essential facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed to known interested parties and comments received on the same have also been duly considered in these findings;

Investigation was carried out for the period starting from 1st April, 1999 to 30th September, 2000;

The Authority heard and discussed with the concerned interested parties the issues and submissions pertaining to price undertaking;

The Authority received injury and costing information from two domestic producers, viz. M/s. Max India and Supreme Oriented. Further, questionnaire information was received from M/s. Al Khaleej, Oman. The Authority has accepted both the information, even though the same was after the preliminary findings. Issues raised by the exporter have been brought out in these findings. Further, the domestic producers have provided injury and costing information.

*** in the Notification represents information furnished by interested parties on confidential basis and so considered by Authority under the Rules.

Central Government vide OM No.354/155/2001-TRU dated 17.6.2002 granted extension for a period of one month from 30.5.2002 for completion of this anti dumping investigation.

B. VIEWS OF PETITIONERS, EXPORTERS, IMPORTERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND EXAMINATION BY AUTHORITY:
2. The petitioner, exporters and importers have expressed their views and the same are briefly mentioned below:-

2.1 views of the domestic industry:

(a) On PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERTION AND LIKE ARTICLE:

They have stated that they support the disclosure statement that BOPP films of all types are within the scope of the present investigations. Metalised BOPP Film and other BOPP Film are one like product. In support of it they have referred to the findings of European Commission on similar product viz. Polyester film. The Domestic Industry has stated that there is no justification for excluding metalised BOPP film or separate comparison of these films and base films for the following reasons as explained by the European Commission in their findings:

The materialization process consists of addition of metal, such as aluminum, and the same does not alter the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of polyester film.

The fact that an additional production step is required for production of metalised polyester film ( and the same results in higher cost of production and sales price) is not an element which could justify per se exclusion of certain type from the scope of the proceedings.

The companies doing metalizing alone do not produce base polyester film and the same is purchased from different sources. The purchased polyester film is then metalized by these metalizers. This additional processing step undertaken by them is however, not sufficient in itself to justify their consideration as community producers of polyester film.

Mere processing of the base polyester film ( Metalization) does not alter the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of the product.

(b) ON STANDING OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

With regard to determination of standing, they have submitted that even at the time of initiation, the petitioners satisfied the standing to file the present petition. The petition has been filed by the Association.

The following producers are the members of the Association. M/s. Flex Industries Ltd, Gujarat propeck, Cosmo Films Ltd., Xpro India Ltd., Max India Ltd., Supreme Oriented.

The following producers of BOPP Films are not member of the Association, M/s. M.M. Rubber, M/s. Kabra Plastics, MPUPUL. Also they have indicated that M/s. Kabra Plastics is an importer (or related to importer) of the subject goods.

The Executive Committee of the Association earlier decided to file a petition before the Designated Authority requesting imposition of appropriate anti-dumping duties on imports of BOPP Films. The decision was taken in accordance with the byelaws of the Association.

Thus, the petition was filed by BOPP Producers Association and is specifically supported by Flex Industries Ltd., Gujarat Propack Ltd., Max India Ltd. and Supreme Oriented Films Ltd., The participating companies with the support of the supporting companies constituted more than 50% of eligible Indian Production even at the time of initiation.

Further they have stated that the proposition advanced by the exporter would imply that "the Designated Authority should first investigate and then initiate the investigations". However, they contend that the initiation is for investigation.

(c) ON PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION

The whole argument with regard to the investigation period advanced by the exporters deserves to be ignored. Followings are relevant in this regard:-

There is no requirement of passing a decision on the investigation period by the Designated Authority envisaged under the Rules. Neither the Application Proforma prescribes for the same – Rule 5(2), nor the principles governing investigations-Rule 6 nor requirements for preliminary findings – Rule 12 states so. Such being the case, the entire argument is misplaced and unsupported with law.

While financial year, accounting year and business cycle may be considered for determination of investigation period, it is submitted that there is no basis to argue that these are vital and relevant for determination of investigation period. It has been lost sight of that the accounting year of different companies even in India may be different (for instance, the present investigation itself, wherein the two participating companies had different accounting years ) leave aside the exporters in the subject countries.

Administrative convenience can not overlook the core issue of "dumping and injury". "Dumping causing injury to the domestic industry" and not administrative convenience would decide the investigation period. It is like arguing that the administrative convenience of the hospital (and not illness of the patient) would decide whether and when the patient should be operated upon.

If you want to see more informations,please click the Source follow: http://commerce.nic.in/writereaddata/traderemedies/adfin_bopp.htm