DGTR terminates anti-dumping probe on imports of Chinese fasteners

Case No. 6/16/2023-DGTR/AD(OI) – 15/2023

Product: Fasteners

Country: China PR

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

The DGTR (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) has initiated anti-dumping probe on import of Chinese fasteners based on the representations filed by Apt Tools and Machinery Indian Pvt. Ltd.” (hereinafter referred to as “ATM”) and 'Northern India Screw Manufacturers and Traders Association” (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”), (collectively referred to as “Applicant industry”) stating that Indian domestic producers of fasteners are being injured due to import of the said product from China at dumped prices.

As per section 5(4) of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 stated that the designated authority may initiate an investigation suo-motu. Thus, based on existence of sufficient prima-facie evidence regarding dumping, injury and casual link between such dumped imports and the alleged injury to justify the initiation of an investigation the Authority suo-motu initiated the anti-dumping duty investigation concerning imports of "Fasteners” from China PR vide Notification No. 6/16/2023-DGTR dated 22nd September 2023,

For Participation in investigation, the authority forwarded a copy of public notice along with the questionnaires to the embassy of China in India, FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM etc. so that they could provide their views in writing according with Rule 6(2) of the anti-dumping rules within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice.

The Authority sent the Questionnaire to known Exporters in China to elicit relevant information.

Various producers/exporters from China PR along with Indian manufacturers/importers of the subject goods have registered themselves as interested parties in the investigation.

Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has recorded its observation on the basis of the facts available. For final findings, disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation was issued to interest parties to respond the same up to 29th January, 2025. The submissions made by the interested parties, and the comments to disclosure statement received from the interested parties have been considered by the authority, to the extent found relevant, non-repetitive and supported with evidence in this final findings notification.

PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE

The Product under consideration at the time of initiation was defined as 'fasteners’ for the subject investigation but the same is not limited to screws, bolts, nuts, coil nails, concrete nails, C-rings, spring & roll clips, industrial staple pins etc. The product under consideration is classified under Chapters 73, 82, and 83 of the Customs Tariff Act under subheadings 73170013, 73170019, 73 181110-73 181190, 73 181200, 73181300, 73 181400, 73 181500, 73 1 81600, 73 1 81900, 82074090 and 83059010.

Submission was made on behalf of opposing interested parties that Authority has failed to provide the clear picture of the PUC as Fasteners are manufactured using three primary metals–-Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Brass–but it remains unclear if the PUC includes fasteners made from all or any of these materials. Further, also contending that Anti-dumping investigation application focuses specifically on "Concrete Nails” but the Authority has expanded the scope of the PUC to include all "Fasteners” a broad category encompassing multiple items. They said,” Authority should restrict the scope of the PUC to only those types of Fasteners, which are manufactured and sold by the Indian industry and prescribed Product Control Number (PCN) methodology is also missing, which is essential for apple to apple comparison of product.

Domestic industry has not made any submission regarding scope of the PUC and the like article apart from the initial representation.

On examination by the Authority regarding PUC, despite multiple opportunity provided by the Authority for requisite data from ATM and the Association regarding PUC, no clarification has been provided by the them. Therefore, the Authority is not able to ascertain the scope of PUC.

SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING

Opposing interested parties contended that “Northern India Screw Manufacturers and Traders Association” has not provided the necessary information required to substantiate the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation and has failed to provide relevant information as mandated under Trade Notice 09/2021 within time frame. Key information, such as names of domestic producers, production capacities, sales data, and the basis for injury claims, has not been disclosed in the petition. They stated that the eligibility of the domestic industry is a key requirement under Rule 5(3), which stipulates that applicants must meet thresholds of 25% and 50% of production capacity to qualify as a "domestic industry. However, petitioners have not submitted sufficient non-confidential information to demonstrate their eligibility. Without clarity on which domestic producers meet the criteria, it is not possible to determine the domestic industry, and thereafter evaluate dumping and injury.

ATM and the Association have, in their representations, submitted that the Indian industry consists of small and micro units, mostly falling in the unorganised sector, scattered across various parts of the country. Hence, data regarding the production of the entire Indian Industry is not readily available and has not been furnished in the representations. However, in the representation filed by ATM Pvt. Ltd. it has been claimed that ATM Pvt. Ltd. along with the supporting companies forms 30% of the total Indian production of concrete nails.

Findings:

• Thus, after carefully examination the Authority found that the Applicant has not met the definition of Domestic Industry means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article.
• The Association claimed to represent approximately 150 domestic producers of Fasteners. However, no documentary or other supporting evidence has been provided to validate this claim.
• There has been no submission of requisite costing data or injury claims from any members of the Association, other than the data submitted by ATM.
• The Authority provided the Association with a final opportunity to submit the complete costing and injury data in the prescribed formats for a sufficient number of its member producers by January 16, 2025.
• In addition, the Authority also convened a meeting with representatives of the domestic industry, including the Association, to discuss this matter on 17th January 2025 and the same was duly intimated to the Association and ATM. However, neither any data was furnished nor the opportunity of the meeting was availed by any of the domestic producers.
• However, ATM in their reply submitted that they have provided all available inputs and records from their side and highlighted the challenges of obtaining comprehensive data due to the unorganized nature of the sector.
• Authority has not been able to ascertain the major proportion of the total domestic production. In view of the above, it is not possible to determine the domestic industry in the subject case.

CONCLUSION:

Post initiation of the subject investigation, the domestic industry has not provided necessary information to the Authority. Therefore, the Authority notes that there is no sufficient evidence of dumping and injury to justify the continuation of the investigation in accordance with Rule 14 (b) of AD Rules. The Authority also notes that when interested party does not provide necessary information, the Authority is required to proceed on the basis of facts available in accordance with Rule 6(8) of AD Rules. Thus, due to lack of required data, the Authority is unable to make any determination regarding evidence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.

Basis on aforesaid findings, the Authority is constrained to terminate the present investigation in terms of Rule 14(b) read with Rule 6 (8) of the AD Rules.

Rule 14(b) of Customs Tariff (Identification Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995, (hereinafter also referred as the “Rules” or “AD Rules”) provides as follows:

14. Termination of investigation. - The designated authority shall, by issue of a public notice, terminate an investigation immediately if -

(b) it is satisfied in the course of an investigation, that there is not sufficient evidence of dumping or, where applicable, injury to justify the continuation of the investigation”

AND

Rule 6 (8) of AD Rules provides as follows

6. Principles governing investigations. -

(8) in a case where an interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the designated authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as it deems fit under such circumstances.