NOTIFICATION NO. 56/1/2001-DGAD DATE 16/10/2002

Anti-Dumping investigations concerning import of Vitamin AD3 500/100 from ChinaPR.
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 subsequent to the preliminary findings:

(a) The Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) notified Preliminary Findings vide notification dated 2nd January 2002 with regard to anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of Vitamin AD3 500/100 from China PR and requested the interested parties to make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of its publication; the Authority issued a Public Notice dated 17a' October 2001, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary initiating anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of Vitamin AD3 500/100 ;

(b) The Authority forwarded a copy of the preliminary findings to the known interested parties, who were requested to furnish their views , if any, on the said findings within forty days from the date of the letter;

(c) The Authority provided an opportunity to all interested parties to present their views orally on 9/5/2002. All parties presenting views orally were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally. The parties were advised to collect copies of the views expressed by the opposing parties and offer rejoinders, if any. Only the petitioners were present at the oral hearing.

(d) The Authority made available the public file to all interested parties containing non-confidential version of all evidence submitted and arguments made by various interested parties;

(e) The arguments raised by the petitioners and other interested parties have been appropriately dealt with in the preliminary findings and/or these findings;

(f) In accordance with Rule 16 supra, the essential facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed to known interested parties and comments received on the same, (submitted by the domestic industry alone) have been duly considered in these findings;

(g) * * * in this notification represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.

(h) Investigations were carried out for the period 1st January 2001 to 30th September 2002.

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION

2. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Vitamin AD3 500/100. It is a light brown coloured fine granular powder. The individual particles contain Vitamin A Acetate - and Vitamin D3 microencapsulated in gelatin and sucrose. EMQ is added as an anti oxidant. Each gram of Vitamin AD3 500/100 contains

Vitamin A 500000 IU

Vitamin D3 100000 IU

Vitamin AD3 500/100 falls under Chapter 23 of the Custom Tariff Act. However, the product has not been categorised precisely under single dedicated Customs sub-heading, but it has been covered under the category of others preparations of a kind used in animal feeding. Some imports of the Vitamin AD3 500/100 have also being done under Customs sub-heading no. 29.36. Present investigation covers all forms of Vitamin AD3 500/IOO.The classification is, however, indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.

The Authority confirms the preliminary findings on product under consideration.

C. LIKE ARTICLES

3. The Vitamin AD3 500/100 is used in animal/poultry/prawn feed to provide required Vitamin Level for better nutrition. The pharmaceutical companies having veterinary divisions use this product to manufacture animal health dry products.

In order to establish that Vitamin AD3 500/100 produced by the domestic industry is a Like Article to that exported from China, characteristics such as technical specifications, manufacturing process, functions and uses and tariff classification have been considered by the Authority. No argument has been raised disputing that Vitamin AD3 500/100 produced by the domestic industry has characteristics closely resembling the imported Vitamin AD3 500/100 and is substitutable both commercially and technically. Vitamin AD3 500/100 produced by the domestic industry has been treated as Like Article to the product exported from People's Republic of China, within the meaning of Rule 2(d).

In view of the above, the Authority confirms the preliminary findings on Like Articles.

D. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY:-

4. M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Limited, Mumbai has filed the petition. The petitioner is the only surviving producer of Vitamin AD3 500/100. Being the sole manufacturer, the Petitioner has the ‘standing' to file the petition as per the Rules.

Examination by the Authority regarding issue on other producers raised at the time of the Oral Hearing:-

1. The Authority notes that the petitioner had stated in their written submissions that, "M/s Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. were forced to pull out of the market because of non remunerative prices as the sales of Vitamin AD3 were very badly affé6ted because of dumping of cheaper imports. However, M/s Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals have expressed support to the petition." On seeking clarification, the petitioner vide their letter dated 23 `d September 2002 informed the Authority that they were not able to collect such a letter of support from them but KSDPL has not opposed the petition. The petitioner vide the said letter has also informed that KSDPL is not manufacturing Vitamin AD3 500/100.

2. The Compound Livestock Feed Manufacturers' Association of India has stated in their rejoinder that M/s Kerala State Drugs & Pharmaceuticals the only other manufacturer of Vitamin A (not Vitamin D3) was closed much before the prices were slashed in international market and were not in the picture when the investigation was initiated.

The Authority therefore notes that KSDPL is not a manufacturer of/is not manufacturing Vitamin AD3 500/100. The petitioner is therefore the only producer of the subject goods.

In view of the above, the Authority confirms the preliminary findings on Domestic Industry.

E. Other Issues:-

Other Issues:-

I. Views expressed by importers:-

The views of The Compound Livestock Feed Manufacturers' Association of India have been enumerated at Para 3.2. (I) of the preliminary findings.

(i) In their written submissions pursuant to the public hearing held on 9/5/2002, the respondent has clarified that China was never the exporter of Vitamin AD3 500/100 till recent past. Most of the supply to the livestock and feed industry was made by Nicholas Piramal and the gap between the requirement of the industry and supply by the local manufacturer was met by import of Vitamin AD3 from three major suppliers from Europe namely Avends (Rhone - Poulenc), France, BASF, Germany and Roche, Switzerland. The imported product was 50%-60% more expensive as farmers used to pay import duty.

(ii) Chinese manufacturers supplied Vitamin AD3 X00/100 to Indian customers for less than 6 months and it clearly shows that this was neither their regular business nor India was a target company for them for these small quantities. Hence, they did not participate in these pre-concluded investigations.

(iii) The Indian dairy and poultry farmers have done a yeomen service to the animal production sector, which is a part of agriculture. Our dairy and poultry sectors have been growing remarkably year on year, and since many years. Anti-dumping duty on Vitamin Ads will increase the cost of animal feed, which will ultimately lead to decrease in milk, egg and broiler production. India may loose its prime position in milk, egg and broiler production. Therefore, anti dumping duty should not be imposed on the import of Vitamin AD3 500/100.

(iv) Price of Vitamin AD3 has declined from USD 23/kg to USD 19/kg internationally. This is benefited farmers and feed millers in other countries to get Vitamin AD3 @ USD 19/kg whereas their counterparts in India are already paying about USD 30/kg i.e. with customs duty.

(v) The petitioner, in his annual report 1999-2000 claims that he has made additional profit in Vitamin A and premixes. Therefore, no damage or loss is caused to him.

(vi) On the one side we want our farmers and industries to be globally competitive and export the value added products and on the other we want them to spend more than double on inputs (choline chloride, Vitamin AD3, Vitamin AB2D3K and may be many more in this case).

Rejoinder by The Compound Livestock Feed Manufacturers' Association of India:-

(i) Ws Kerala State Drugs & Pharmaceuticals the only other manufacturer of Vitamin A (not Vitamin D3) was closed much before the prices were slashed in international market and were not in the picture when the investigation was initiated. Relating this to the import of Vitamin AD3 from China is meaningless.

(ii) Vitamin AD3 500/100 which is a must in dairy and poultry feed and it is one of the largest single input for feed, amounting to over Rs 250 million per anum.

II. Exporters Views

None of the Exporters/producers responded to the initiation notification.

III Views expressed by Domestic Industry

The domestic industry's views have been given ar para B.2. of the preliminary findings and are reiterated below.

The Petitioner has stated that Vitamin AD3 500/100 is being produced in India by M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Limited, Mumbai, only. Being the sole producer of Vitamin AD3 500/100, the petitioner satisfies the test of `standing' to file the present petition on behalf of the domestic industry.

Vitamin AD3 500/1000 started coming into the country from late 1996 (November/ December) onwards. The exporters have suddenly dropped their prices very substantially in March 2001. The imports from the subject country are, therefore, causing serious injury to the domestic industry.

Till May 2000, Vitamin AD3 500/100 was imported under chapter 23 by declaring it as Prawn Feed and paying Concessional duty of 5%. The ministry .subsequently issued notification number 80/2000-customs in the month of May, 2000 wherein exemption has been given for comprehensive prawn feed and not for Premixes like Vitamin AD3 500/100 and thus stopping clearances of Vitamin feed Premixes as Prawn Feed. As such now Vitamin AD3 500/100 is cleared under Chapter 23 with basic duty of 35% plus 4% additional duty with no CVD. (Surcharge on Basic duty has since been removed)

There were no imports from People's Republic of China during the period April, 2000 to December, 2000. It is only when the Petition against European Union and Singapore was filed that the importers resumed the imports of subject goods from China. The market share of imports from China, which was never more than 2% of the total market, has suddenly risen to 9% of the total market during the nine months period ending September 2001.

Vitamin AD3 500/100 is highly price sensitive. Even a small difference in prices may result in loss of sales. The domestic industry has been forced in the face of severe price undercutting from imports, to either reduce their selling prices or lose market share.

The Petitioner has stated that during the period of Investigation the production and consequently the capacity utilisation has increased as compared to the April - December, 2000 period. Till March 2001, there was no increase in production of the petitioner. During the six months period ending September 2001 there was sudden spurt in demand for the Petitioner's product. This was because of reduced import of subject goods on the one hand and increase in demand from the user industry on the other hand which was due to the fear of increase in selling prices because of the imposition of anti-dumping against European Union and Singapore. As soon as the duty was imposed in July 2001, the importers diverted their purchases from European Union to People's Republic of China in order to avoid the payment of anti-dumping duty. Thus, even before the benefit of anti-dumping duty could pass to the Petitioner in the form of increased selling prices, the imports from People's Republic of China of the subject goods again pulled back the selling prices. Resultantly the fear of increase in selling price in the minds of users was removed and the abnormal increase in demand for the petitioner's product stabilised

Thus, the increased production and capacity utilisation was mainly due to the reduced imports of subject goods during this period. The petitioner was however not able to realize the fair selling price even after the imposition of anti-dumping duty due to the availability of subject goods from People's republic of China at lower prices. This is evident from the fact that the weighted average net sales realisation of subject goods by the Petitioner declined from Rs. ***/- per kg during the period April-December 2000 to Rs. * * */- per kg during the period of Investigation.

The sales - realisation of the subject goods too declined from Rs. * * * p/kg in 1998-99; Rs. * ~' p/kg in 1999-2000 to Rs. * * * p/kg during the POI.

The petitioner could not reduce its losses, rather they increased during the Period of investigation. The main reason for this was the decline in selling prices which resulted due to the availability of the imported subject goods at lower prices during the POI and which forced the petitioner to reduce its prices also.

The total demand of the subject goods increased from 92 MT in 1998-1999 to 126 MT in 1999-2000. During the year ending March 2001 the demand was 96 MT which show:: a decline as compared to the previous year. Since there was abnormal growth in sales during 1999-200(1 it led to huge stocking of this product with the users and as a result of this the sales during 2000­2001 were slightly less. Also the import figures do not include the imports made from all the ports around the country as the import data contained imports made through Mumbai pond only. Hence, it can be said that there was normal growth in demand. During the period April 2001 to September 2001, the demand of the product was 56 MT and on an annualised basis it cones to 112 MT which shows an increase in demand as compared to 2000-2001. Thus, except for the abnormal growth in sales during 1999-2000 and its consequent impact in 2000-2001, there is consistent growth in demand of the subject goods and is not a cause of injury to the domestic industry.

The claim of injury to the Petitioner from the dumped imports is based on the following factors:

a) Increase in actual imports from the subject country.

b) Increase in market share of imports from the subject country.

c) Sales of the domestic industry would have declined had the domestic industry not reduced the selling price to prevent dumped imports.

d) Due to tremendous pressure on margins, the petitioner may be forced to reduce manpower to the extent possible. It is stated that its manpower strength of *** people is likely to be reduced if no corrective action is taken to redress dumping.

e) The imports from the subject country have caused significant price undercutting in the market leading to significant decline in prices.

f) The losses incurred by the domestic industry in 1998-99 increased during the POI and losses were to the extent of * * * Lacs in the period of investigation.

Written submissions by petitioners in response to the oral hearing held on May 9, 2002:

(i) Vitamin AD3 is produced in India by M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. who are the petitioners in this case. The other manufacturers M/s Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. were forced to pull out of the market because of non remunerative prices as the sales of Vitamin AD3 were very badly affected because of dumping of cheaper imports. However, M/s Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals have expressed support to the petition.

ii) The import of various feed grade. Vitamins and Vitamin premixes like Vitamin AD3 were being wrongly done earlier, basically to evade the customs duty. Misinterpretation and misdeclaration was the crux of the game. Norms fixed for the issue of advance licences by the DGFT were very high. Thus, large quantities of Vitamin AD3 were imported without paying any duty. On a representation made to the Government the norms were revised and the quantities to be imported against advance licensing were substantially reviewed.

(iii) Thereafter, imports of the subject goods were started by wrongly declaring them as prawn feed where the customs duty was just 5%. This too came to halt after corrective action was taken.

(iv) During this whole period from 1996-97 till 1999-2000 the exporters did not reduce their prices as steeply as they did during the period of investigation. After the notification in April, 2000 when imports of Vitamin AD3 as prawn feed was completely stopped the exporters resorted to dumping and lowered their prices by almost 30%. This was so because it was no longer beneficial for the importers to sell the subject goods at a huge profit margins at the same import price. Hence the exporters reduced their prices substantially fearing losing their market share. Thus the phenomenal growth in imports during the period of investigations is directly a result of lowering prices.

(v) The petitioner has come to know that of late Vitamin AD3 is being imported as veterinary drugs. In the customs tariff under general exemption 36 products have been identified under chapter 23, 28, 29,30 and 38 for the benefit of concessional duty of 15% which otherwise would have attractive a higher duty of 35%. Though Vitamin AD3 is not mentioned in the list of 36 products, the same is cleared as veterinary drug and cleared with 15% duty only. However, since the matter is under active consideration, the petitioner hopes that this new rule will also be plugged soon.

(vi) At the time of filing of petition against EU and Singapore there were no imports of AD3 from China during the period of investigation concerning EU and Singapore. However, after the anti dumping investigations was started against EU and Singapore the imports from China suddenly started in huge quantities and at abnormally low price. On account of this fact, the possible benefit of investigation against EU and Singapore has been nullified and domestic industry could not realise fair selling price.

(vii) The contention of importers that the total demand in India is 200 MT is incorrect. Whereas the annual demand in India is approximately 92 to 100 MT. As against this, the installed capacity of the domestic industry is .132 MT per annum.

F. DUMPING:-

Exporters and Producers of the Subject Goods in the Country of Origin:-

Under Section 9A (1) , Normal Value in relation to an article means:

The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or

When there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the Normal value shall be either –

Comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory to an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and geneal costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6);

Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export of such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the Normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.

The Authority sent questionnaires to the known exporters from the subject country in terms of section 9 A (1). However, the exporters did not respond with the information called for. Therefore there are no claims made by the exporters with regard to Normal "value and Export Price.

In view of the non-submission of information by producers/exporters from China PR, the Authority has been constrained to rely upon 'facts available' with regard to the normal value and the export price.

(A) NORMAL VALUE

As regards the Normal value of the subject goods from People's Republic of China neither the People's Republic of China, producers nor the exporters of People's Republic of China origin material to India furnished any information in the prescribed questionnaire.

The Petitioner has stated that Normal Value in case of Non Market Economy countries should be determined as per the provisions of Annexure I, Paragraph 7 & 8 of the Anti Dumping Rules as amended on 15.7.1999 and 31.5.2001. Since People's Republic of China has been presumed to be a Non Market Economy, Normal value as per these rules should be determined as under: -

(a) on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including India, or.

(b) 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.

The Petitioner has further stated that the Normal value cannot be determined on the basis of price or constructed value in a market economy third country, as they could not get any authentic information on the price list or the cost of production of exporters in these countries inspite of the best efforts made by them. Normal value could not also be constructed on the basis of price from such third country to other countries including India as the imports from these countries are at dumped prices. They have thus constructed the Normal value on the basis of price actually payable in India for the like product.

As per Paragraph 8, Annexure I to the Anti Dumping Rules as amended on 31.5.2001, People's Republic of China is presumed to be a Non Market Economy. This presumption can be rebutted if the exporter from China furnishes necessary information as mentioned in Paragraph 8 and proves to the contrary.

Since none of the exporters/ producers of subject goods from People's Republic of China has responded to the initiation notification under the circumstances Normal value under the rules is determined on the basis of ‘facts available'. Therefore, as per the information provided by the petitioner on the basis of the estimated cost of production of the subject goods after being normated has been taken as the basis for working out the Normal value of the subject goods which works out as USD * * */kg or Rs * * */kg at an exchange rate of R5 47.64=1 USD during the POI.

(B) Export Price

The Petitioner has stated that Vitamin AD3 500/100 was imported under different headings of the Customs Tariff Act. The subject goods have not been categorised precisely under single dedicated Customs sub-heading, but it has been covered under the category of others preparations of a kind used in animal feeding: Besides imports of the subject goods effected under Chapter 23 of the Customs Tariff classifications, some imports are also being done under Custom sub-heading No. 29.36.

No specific data was made available by DGCI&S, as there is no specific ITC (HS) Code for the subject goods. Therefore, the volume and value of the subject goods imported into India from the subject country has been compiled on the basis of ‘facts available', i.e. from the data made available by the Petitioner from Mumbai Customs and (secondary sources; namely, M/s. Informant and M/s. International Publishing House).

The Petitioner has claimed adjustments towards ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, inland transportation and port expenses. However, the Authority has accepted the adjustments on the basis of evidence/documents produced to that effect.

The weighted average c.i.f. price per kg. of exports of the subject goods effected during the period of investigation by all exporters of the People's Republic of China works out as USD ***/kg. The weighted average ex-factory export price has been determined after taking 3.57% as ocean freight, 0.18% as marine insurance charges, 5% as commission amount, 1.49% as inland transportation end 0.89% as port expenses. After adjustments on these accounts for USD ***./kg. against the total quantity of exports of 7000 kg; the weighted average ex-works export price works out to Rs ***/kg or USD ***/kg at an exchange rate of Rs 47.64=1USD during the POI.

Dumping Margin:-

Examination by the Authority:-

The Authority proposes to follow the consistent policy of adopting the principles governing the determination of Normal Value, Export Price and Margin of Dumping as laid down in Annexure I of the anti-dumping rules. The Rule relating to fair comparison provides comparison of Normal Value and Export Price as follows:

"While arriving at margin of dumping, the Designated Authority shall make a fair comparison between the Export Price and the Normal Value. A comparison shall be made at the same level of trade, normally at the ex-factory level, and in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time. Due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which affect price comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences which are demonstrated to affect price comparability".

Considering the ex-factory normal value at USD * * */kg or Rs * * */kg and the ex-factory export price at USD * * */kg or Rs * * */kg, the dumping margin comes to USD * * */kg or Rs * * */kg which is 165.63% of the export price.

F.6. INJURY

Under Rule 11 supra, Annexure-II, when a finding of injury is arrived at, such finding shall involve determination of the injury to the domestic industry, "taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such article..; In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increase, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.

The Authority notes that the margin of dumping and quantum of imports from the subject countries are more than the limits prescribed in Rule 11 Supra.

For the examination of the impact of imports on the domestic industry in India, the Authority has considered such further indices having a bearing on the state of the industry as - production, capacity utilisation, quantum of sales, stock, profitability, net sales realisation, the magnitude and margin of dumping etc. in accordance wire Annexure II (iv) of the rules supra.

(a) Quantum of Imports

Quantity (kg.)

	1998-99	1999-2000	1 st April 2000 – 1st December 2000	1 st January 2001 September 2002.
Total imports	38,664	46,040	37,090	15,000
China	1000	3000	–	7000
Other countries	37,664	43,040	37,090	8000

The quantum of imports from China have also gone up significantly. The share of China in total imports was 2.58%, 6.5%, nil and 46.66% in 1998-99, 1999-2000, 1st April 2000 –31st December 2000 and 1st January 2001 to 30thSeptember 2002 (POI) respectively.

(b) Production and Capacity Utilisation It is observed that the production capacity, production and capacity utilisation of the petitioner company (viz., M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Limited, Mumbai was as under:

Year	Capacity (MT) (per annum)	Production (MT)	Capacity Utilisation
1998-99	132	49.04	3715%
1999-2000	132	80.12	60.70%
April 2000-Dec 2000	132	41.79	42.21 (Annualised)
Jan 2001–Sept 2001(POI)	132	58.64	59.23% (Annualised)

The capacity utilisation of the petitioner was 37.15% in 1998-99, 60.70% in 1999-2000 and 42.21 % in April-Dec 2000 and 59.23% during the POI. It is noted that the production and consequently the capacity utilisation of the Petitioner Company increased during the period of investigation as compared to April-Dec 2000 period.

The petitioner has claimed that the increased production and capacity utilisation was mainly due to the reduced imports of subject goods from European Union and Singapore during this period and that they were not able to realize the fair selling price even after the imposition of the preliminary anti-dumping duty against European Union and Singapore due to the availability of subject goods from People's Republic of China at lower prices. In this context it is observed that the weighted average net sales realisation of subject goods of the Petitioner declined from Rs. * * */kg during the period April- December 2000 to Rs. * * */kg during the period of investigation.

(c) Sales and Market Share

The quantum of sales (kg) by e petitioners were as follows:-

	1998-99	1999-2000	1st April 2000– 31st December 2000	1st January 2001 September 2002.
Petitioner	52,720	80,111	40,753	58,809

It is observed that the demand of the subject goods was 91,384kg, 1,26,151kg, 77,843 kg and 73,809 in 98-99, 99-2000, 1st April 2000-31st December 2000 and 1st January 2001 to 30th September 2002 (POI) respectively. The share of dumped imports in total demand was 1.09%, 2.38%, nil and 9.48% in 98-99, 99-2000, 1st April 2000-31st December 2000 and 1st January 2001 to 30th September 2002 (POI) respectively. Imports from China PR have therefore increased significantly in demand. The share of the petitioner was 57.69%, 63.50%, 52.35% and 79.69% during 98-99, 99-2000, 1st April 2000-31st December 2000 and 1st January 2001 to 30th September 2002 (POI) respectively. Thus, the share of imports from the subject country as well as the share of Indian industry has risen in the total consumption during the POI, mainly on account of reduced imports from other countries.

(d) Closing Stocks

The closing stocks of the petitioner were as follows:-

Closing Stocks (MT)	1998-99	1999-2000	1 st April 2000 – 31st December 2000-	1st January 2001 September 2002.
	Nil	0.01	1.05	0.88

(e) Price undercutting and price depression

Further, the imports from the subject country are significantly undercutting the prices of the domestic industry as the landed price of the imported material is below the selling price of the, domestic industry as illustrated in the table below:-

Rs/kg

Year	Sales Realisation (wt.ave)	Landed Price of Imports
		China	Others
1998-99	***	***	***
1999-2000	***	***	***
1st April 2000-31st December 2000	***	---	***
1st January 2001 to 30th September 2002	***	***	***

(f) Profitability:-

The domestic industry has been forced to reduce its selling prices below its cost of production, resulting in substantial financial losses. The injury to the domestic industry is evident from the per unit profit/loss made by the industry from sales in the domestic markets, as shown below:-

Rs/kg	1998-99	1999-2000	1st April 2000 – 31st December 2000	1st January 2001 September 2002.
COP	---	---	***	***
Selling Price	---	---	***	***
P/L	---	---	***	***

It is also shown that the losses of the petitioner companies were Rs. *** lacs during 1998-99. The petitioner company losses increased to Rs. * * * lacs in 1999-2000. The losses were to the extent of Rs *** lacs during the April- Dec. 2000 period and further increased to Rs. *** lacs during the nine months period of the POI. It is observed that these losses have been caused due to decline in the net sales realisation which was Rs ***/kg in 1998-99, Rs ***/kg in 1999-2000, Rs ***/kg in April- Dec. 2000 period and Rs ***/kg during the POI (January 2001-September 2001) respectively.

The petitioner has not yet laid off employees but it has been mentioned that they may be forced to lay off employees if corrective measures to check dumping are not taken. But it is observed that the Petitioner Company is a multi-product Company and involved in production of various products. Therefore, no significant change in employment level of the domestic industry due to poor operating levels is observed.

(g) Impact on Cash Flow & Growth

It has been claimed by the Petitioner that constant reduction in the prices of Vitamin AD3 500/100 in the domestic Market on account of dumped imports has affected the profitability of the petitioner consequently adversely affecting the cash flow of the company.

However, no significant impact on the factors such as actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, growth and ability to raise capital investments has been observed.

In view of the foregoing the Authority confirms the conclusions on injury at Para J.10 of the Provisional Findings and reiterates that:-

(a) the quantum of imports from the subject country have increased in absolute terms;

(b) the market share of imports has increased;

(c) the petitioners have been forced to sell at prices below their non-injurious price resulting in losses;

(d) imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry;

(e) though the production, sales and capacity utilisation have increased but the same has been achieved at the cost of low sales realisation.

The Authority therefore concludes that the domestic industry has suffered material injury.

7. Causal Link

In establishing that the material injury to the domestic industry has been caused by the imports from the subject country, the Authority holds that the increase in market share of imports from People's Republic of China resulted in decline in the sales realisation of the petitioner. These imports significantly undercut the prices of the domestic product forcing the domestic industry to sell at unremunerative prices. Resultantly, the domestic industry incurred losses. The material injury to the domestic industry was, therefore, caused by the dumped imports from the subject country.

8. Anti-Dumping duty imposed:-

The Authority has carefully evaluated the injury caused to the domestic industry on account of dumping of Vitamin AD3 S00/100 and has recommended the amount of anti-dumping duty equivalent to the dumping margin or less, which if levied, would remove injury to the domestic industry. For this purpose, the Authority has compared the non-injurious selling price of the domestic industry with the landed value of imports from the subject countries. Wherever the margin is found to be less than the dumping margin, the Authority has recommended duty lower than the dumping margin.

9. FINAL FINDINGS:-

The Authority after considering the foregoing, concludes that:

(a) Vitamin AD3 S00/100 originating in or exported from China has been exported to India below normal value, resulting in dumping;

(b) the domestic industry has suffered material injury;

(c) material injury has been caused by imports from the subject country.

10. The Authority recommends imposition of definitive Anti-dumping duty on all imports of Vitamin AD3 500/100 being cleared under Chapter 23 and Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act, as specified under the para relating to product under consideration originating in or exported from China. The anti-dumping duty shall be the difference between the amount mentioned in Col.3 and the landed value of imports of the subject goods.

Country	Name of the producer/exporter	Amount
1.	2.	3.(USD/kg)
China	All producers/exporters	40.03

11. Landed value of imports for the purpose shall be the assessable value as determined by Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 and all duties of customs except duties levied under Sections 3, 3A, 813, 9 and 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

12. Subject to the above, the Authority confirms the preliminary findings dated 2"d January, 2002.

13. An appeal against this order shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Act, supra.

Sd/-
(LV Saptharishi),
Designated Authority

Presented by eximkey.com