Imports of Mulberry Raw Silk of grade 3A and below from China PR

Dated 4th December, 2015 | Copy Of | Notification No. sl100 |

F. No.14/17/2014-DGAD Government of India Ministry of Commerce & Industry Department of Commerce (Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties)

(Final Findings)

Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of grade 3A and below originating in or exported from China PR.

BACKGROUND

F. No.14/17/2014-DGAD: Whereas, Central Silk Board on behalf of the domestic producers/reelers through their below named associations/societies in the States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh filed an application, alleging dumping of Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of grade 3A and below (hereinafter also referred to as the "subject goods"), originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter also referred to as the "subject country") and requested for initiation of anti-dumping investigations for levy of anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country.

i. M/s Silk Reelers Association, Karnataka ii. M/s Ramanagaram Silk reelers welfare association, Ramanagaram (District), Karnataka iii. M/s Kolar Silk Reelers Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Kolar District, Karnataka iv. M/s SidlaghattaTaluk Silk Reelers Association, Sidlaghatta, Karnataka V. M/s Karnatak State Multiend Silk Reelers Welfare Association (Regd.), Ramanagaram. Karnataka vi. M/s Kyalnur Silk Reelers Industrial Co-operative Society, Ltd., Kolar District vii. M/s Dharmapuri District Silk Reelers Association, Kamakshiamman Cross, Dharmapuri viii. M/s Silk Reelers Welfare Association, Reg. No. Cocoon Market, Hindupur, Anathapur District (AP) ix. M/s Dharmavaram Silk Reelers Association, (Society reg. Dharmavaram, Anathapur District, (AP)

2. And whereas, the Authority on the basis of sufficient evidence, submitted by the applicant issued a Notification dated 09th December 2014, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country, in accordance with sub-Rule 5(5) of the Rules, to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry.

A. PROCEDURE

3. The procedure described below has been followed by the Authority after issuance of the Notification notifying the initiation of the present investigation:

i. The Authority notified the Embassy/Representatives of the subject country in India about the receipt of the anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra.

ii. The Authority on the basis of sufficient evidence submitted by the applicant on behalf of the domestic industry, issued a public notice dated 09th December, 2014 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating Anti-Dumping investigations concerning imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country, to determine the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry.

iii. The copy of the Initiation Notification was sent to the known producers/exporters of the subject goods in the subject country, Embassy of the subject country in India, importers/users of the subject goods in India, the domestic producers and other known interested parties requesting them to file response and make their views known in writing in accordance with the Rule 6(2) of the AD Rules.

iv. The Authority had provided the copies of the non-confidential version of the application to the known producers/exporters of the subject goods in the subject country and to the Embassy/Representatives of the subject country in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) supra.

v. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the exporters were also sent to the Embassy/Representatives of the subject country in India, along with the names and addresses of the exporters with the request to advise the exporters/producers from their country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time.

vi. The initiation notification was sent to the following producers/exporters of the subject goods in the subject country:

a) M/s. Zhejiang Silk Import Export Corporation b) M/s. Sichuan Province Silk Import & Export Group c) M/s. Zhejiang Weilai I & E Corporation Limited d) M/s. Jaingsu Haian Cocoon Silk Group Co., Limited e) M/s. Jiangsu Soho International Group Corporation f) M/s. China National Silk Import & Export Corporation g) M/s. Sichuan Dryad Imp. & Exp. Trading Co., Ltd h) M/s. Sichuan Wusheng Antai Silks Company i) M/s. Nanjing Textiles Imp & Exp Corp., Ltd j) M/s. Bazhong Yongyi Cocoon Silk Co., Ltd k) M/s. Zhejiang Tscashmere Co., Ltd l) M/s. Liaoning Silk I & E Corporation m) M/s. Chengdu Tianyou Silk Co. Ltd n) M/s Chengdu Tianyou Development Co., Ltd.

vii. None of the producers/exporters from the subject country submitted the questionnaire response.

viii. Submissions have been made by the China Chamber of Commerce for Imports & Exports of Textiles on behalf of China Silk Industry

ix. Importers Questionnaire was sent to the following known importers and/or consumers of subject goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules:

a) M/s. Asha Silk Exports b) M/s. Akhil Exports & Imports c) M/s. Bharat Silks d) M/s. Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd e) M/s. Chaitra Prints f) M/s. Dattatreya Silk Exports g) M/s. Ethnic Exports h) M/s. Gajananya Silk Fabrics i) M/s. Harmony Silks Pvt. Ltd j) M/s. J.J. Exporters Ltd k) M/s. Himatsingka Seide Ltd l) M/s Swan Silk Ltd m) M/s. Pathi Prints n) M/s. Shah Silk And Fabrics Pvt. Ltd o) M/s. Elite Inc. p) M/s Rama textiles(P) Limited q) M/s Riltika silk & Sarees r) M/s triveni Sarees s) M/s B. R. Exporters (India) t) M/s Chetan Exports u) M.s Classic Creations v) M/s Alok Exports w) M/s Jaykey International x) M/s Shalimar Exports y) M.s Amrita Exports

x. None of the importers has filed the questionnaire response.

xi. The Authority has received representations/submissions from the following Associations on behalf of users/importers:

a) All India Silk Weavers Federation b) The Mysore Power Loom Silk Manufacturers Co-Operative Society Ltd c) Karnataka State Nekara (Weavers) Sangha (R.) d) Silk Trade Association (Regd.) Varanasi e) The Southern Gujarat Chamber of Commerce & Industry f) Aloka Exports g) Banarasi Vastra Udyog Association h) Pure Silk Weavers Association i) Resham Taga Association, Varanasi j) Federation of Indian Art Silk weaving Industry

xii. Following interested parties had filed the written submissions:

a) Central Silk Board (hereinafter referred to as "domestic industry") b) China Chamber of Commerce for Imports & Exports of Textiles (hereinafter referred to as "CCCT") c) Sino Imports & Exports Pvt Ltd

xiii. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the documents and evidences presented by various interested parties in the form of a public file kept open for inspection by the interested parties.

xiv. The Non-injurious Price is calculated based on the cost of production and cost to make and sell the subject goods in India based on the information furnished by the domestic industry so as to ascertain whether Anti-Dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry. xv. Information provided by interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis was directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.

xvi. On site verification of the information provided by the petitioner were conducted at the premises of the units comprising the Domestic Industry. Such verified information with necessary rectification wherever applicable is relied upon for the purpose of present findings.

xvii. The Authority held oral hearing on 24th September 2015 to provide an opportunity to the interested parties to present information orally in accordance with Rule 6(6). The interested parties were allowed to present rebuttal arguments/rejoinders on the views/information presented by other interested parties. The Authority has considered submissions received from interested parties appropriately.

xviii. Investigation was carried out for the period starting from 1st April 2013 to 30th June, 2014 (POI). The examination of trends, in the context of injury analysis, covered the periods April 2010-March 2011, April 2011-March 2012, April 2012-March 2013 and the POI.

xix. A disclosure statement was issued on 24.11.2015 containing essential facts under consideration of the Designated Authority, which have formed the basis for this Final Finding Notification. A time up to 30.11.2015 was given to furnish comments, if any, on Disclosure Statement. The Authority has considered post disclosure comments received from interested parties appropriately.

xx. Transaction-wise imports data has been procured from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) for the periods April 2010-March 2011, April 2011-March 2012, April 2012-March 2013 and the POI and has been relied upon for the analysis in present SSR investigation.

xxi. ***In this Final Finding represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis, and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.

xxii. The exchange rate adopted for the POI is 1 US$ = Rs. 60.87

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DOMESTIC LIKE ARTICLE

4. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of 3A grade and below, originating in or exported from China PR. The silk is obtained from the cocoons of the larvae of the mulberry silkworm Bombyx mori reared in captivity (sericulture).

5. Product under Consideration is classified under the heading “Silk” in Chapter 50 and further under 5002 00. The classification at 8-digit level is 5002 00 10. However, the subject goods are also been imported under different customs classifications such as 5002 0010, 5002 00 20, 5002 00 30 etc. The classification is only indicative and in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.

Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties

6. Indian standards of all grades in all aspects are much lower than standard manual of Raw Silk Testing & Classification of the ISA 1968, on which Indian Customs generally relies for retest. China PR has been implementing the mandatory national standards on raw silk since 1979 and the current version is GB/T 1797-2008. When compared to Indian standards, all Chinese standards of raw silk above 3A grade are much higher than Indian 3A grade. Therefore, the Designated Authority may kindly issue a specific clarification that raw silk above 3A grade is outside the purview of the present investigation.

Submissions by the domestic industry

7. The subject goods, which are being dumped into India, are identical to the goods produced by the domestic industry. There are no differences either in the technical specifications, functions or end-uses of the dumped imports and the domestically produced subject goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable and hence should be treated as ‘like articles’ under the Anti-dumping Rules.

8. Domestic industry has submitted that it is settled position in anti-dumping jurisprudence that quality does not matter and cannot be a basis to seek any exclusion from the product under consideration as long as the imported products are “like article”, they can be covered within the product scope. Further, domestic industry has submitted that the definition of the “product under consideration” in the initiation notification has not been challenged before any writ court by CCCT and, therefore, the remedy that is sought without seeking appropriate redressal before a proper forum cannot be provided by the Designated Authority specifically when as per anti-dumping jurisprudence, quality is not a factor to change the product scope.

Examination by the Authority

9. The product under consideration in the present investigation is “Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of 3A grade and below”, originating in or exported from China PR.

10. The silk is obtained from the cocoons of the larvae of the mulberry silkworm Bombyx mori reared in captivity (sericulture). The silk is a protein fibre composed mainly of fibroin and produced by the insect larvae to form cocoons. The shimmering appearance of silk is due to the triangular prism-like structure of the silk fibre, which allows silk cloth to refract incoming light at different angles, thus producing different colours. Silks are also produced by several other insects, but generally only the silk of moth caterpillars has been used for textile manufacturing.

11. With regard to like article, Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules provides as under: -

"like article " means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation;

12. The submissions made by the interested parties with regard to the scope of PUC and like article and considered relevant by the Authority are examined and addressed as follows:

i. The petitioner has claimed that there is no known difference in the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported from the subject country. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry and the subject goods imported from the subject country are comparable in terms of characteristics such as technical characteristics, manufacturing process and technology, functions and uses, product specifications, distribution and market and tariff classification of the goods. Examination of the product and import data submitted by the applicant and the respondent exporters indicates that there is no difference between subject goods produced by the Domestic Industry and imported from the subject country. In view of the similarity in manufacturing process and substitutability, the Authority holds that the two are required to be treated as like product for the purpose of defining the ‘product under consideration’ in this case.

ii. With regard to the request of the interested parties to issue a specific clarification that raw silk above 3A grade is outside the purview of the present investigation, the Authority notes that Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of grade above 3A is outside the purview of the product scope of the current investigation as is apparent from the initiation notification itself.

C. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING

Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties

13. Central Silk Board (CSB) is a statutory body established as per Central Silk Board Act, 1948 under the administrative control of the Ministry of Textiles. It is argued that according to relevant rules, no authorization can be given to the CSB to represent domestic industry in trade remedy investigations. In addition, it also cannot represent the Government of India in this case as according to the definition of “interested party” provided under Rule 2(c) of the AD Rules, the government of an importing country is not envisaged to be an interested party.

14. A proper list containing the names and addresses of the Applicant association and its members should have been provided in the petition. A number of associations have only provided handwritten list of its members, without actually providing certain critical information about its members.

15. Interested parties have submitted that in the petition, the Applicant holds a share of 57% in total domestic production in India. However, the statistics provided by the Applicant itself in the Annual Reports show a different picture.

Submissions by the domestic industry

16. Domestic industry has submitted that Central Silk Board is an independent body in India which has been formed by way of a separate legislation, i.e., Central Silk Board Act, 1948 to regulate, develop and augment the activity of the silk in the country. It is the nodal agency in the country which is responsible for not only the development and growth of the silk sector but also to compile and record the necessary statistics relating to the silk sector. Therefore, in order to promote the development of the silk industry Central Silk Board has coordinated the process of filing of the application. It is the duty of the Central Silk Board to promote the development of the silk industry by such measures as it thinks fit. Domestic industry has also filed the relevant pages from the Central Silk Board Act, 1948, to substantiate their claim in this context.

17. It has also submitted that Rule 5(1) permits filing of the application by or on behalf of the domestic industry. There is no bar under the Rules as to which authority has the power to file the application for and on behalf of the domestic industry. Reading of the said Rule in the manner proposed by CCCT would result in interpreting Rule 5(1) being available only to non- government organizations as authorized agents of defined domestic industry. Such an interpretation goes against the settled principles of statutory interpretation. The domestic industry has also submitted that Central Silk Board has been considered as the domestic industry in various previous investigations relating to the silk industry by the Hon'ble Authority.

18. Domestic industry has submitted that the members of one association are not the member of other association and all the members of these associations are the manufacturer / producers of the product concerned. Domestic industry has invited the attention of the Authority to the fact that the CCCT (one of the so-called interested party) on the one hand is requesting proper list of members of the association on the ground that some associations have provided handwritten list of its members. However, on the other hand it has not provided the list of its members along with their production details to substantiate their eligibility as an interested party in terms of Rule 2 (c) to this investigation despite specific request made by the domestic industry during the public hearing. The domestic industry has also submitted that the applicant domestic producers have neither imported the subject goods nor they are related to the exporters or the importers of the subject goods from the subject country and necessary declaration are already enclosed as Annexure 7 with the application. Further, domestic industry has submitted that the interested parties had raised the issue of providing the names of some of the members in vernacular languages by the domestic industry just to derail the proceedings. In this context, domestic industry has invited the attention of the Authority to the fact that the CCCT has enclosed Exhibit 3 in their written submissions dated 06th October, 2015. The Exhibit 3 is in the context of the Chinese standards of Mulberry Raw Silk which is in the local language i.e. Chinese. CCCT has not provided the translated English version of the same. Thereof, CCCT is following double standards as far as the issue of the language of certain documents is concerned.

19. The production reported in the Annual Report includes other products as well which are outside the scope of the present investigation. Therefore, statistics provided by the Applicant in the Annual Reports cannot be used in this investigation, as the scope of product of which the production figures is reported in the Annual report is much wider than the product scope of the present investigation.

EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY

20. Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules defines domestic industry as under: -

“domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term ‘domestic industry’ may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers”

21. The application in the present investigation has been filed by Central Silk Board on behalf of the domestic industry. As claimed by the applicant, it is an independent body in India which has been formed by way of a separate legislation i.e., Central Silk Board Act, 1948 to regulate, develop and augment the activity of the silk in the country. It is the nodal agency in the country which is responsible for not only the development and growth of the silk sector but also to compile and record the necessary statistics relating to the silk sector. Therefore, in order to promote the development of the silk industry Central Silk Board has coordinated the process of filing of the application. It is the duty of the Central Silk Board to promote the development of the silk industry by such measures as it thinks fit.

22. The applicant has also submitted that Rule 5(1) permits filing of the application by or on behalf of the domestic industry.

23. Rule 5(1) of the AD Rules are as under: -

"5. Initiation of investigation - (1) Except as provided in sub-rule (4), the designated authority shall initiate an investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping only upon receipt of a written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry."

24. The Authority notes that Rule 5(1) of the AD Rules does not specify the Authorities who can file the application on behalf of the domestic industry. Further, Rule 5(1) does not restrict the government of the importing country from filing an application on behalf of the domestic industry. Therefore, Authority holds that CSB is fully eligible and competent to file the application on behalf of the domestic industry.

25. As regards the issue raised by the interested parties that on page number 7 of the petition domestic industry has stated that the Applicant holds a share of 57% in total domestic production in India while the statistics provided by the Applicant itself in the Annual Reports show a different picture, the Authority notes that the Annual Report covers various products while the product scope of this investigation is restricted to Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of grade 3A and below.

D. CONFIDENTIALITY

Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties

26. Various submissions made by the producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties with regard to confidentiality and considered relevant by the Authority are as follows:

i. The petition suffers from excessive confidentiality. Applicant has claimed confidentiality on various information like Part VI costing, Depreciation, Interest cost etc.

ii. Rule 2(b) requires that each of the participating domestic producers provides its data relating to the subject product. The Applicant does not have information with respect to all such individual producers and hence cannot be in a position to file the petition on their behalf.

iii. Applicant has not produced any evidence regarding the actual quantities produced by each of the domestic producers.

Submissions made by the domestic industry

27. With regard to the issues of confidentiality, the domestic industry has submitted that domestic industry has filed the application in accordance with the AD Rules and the prescribed formats. It is further submitted that the domestic industry has claimed confidentiality on their business sensitive information with adequate reasons in accordance with the legal provisions and the guidelines being followed by the Authority.

28. As regards issue of providing the information of the individual producers along with the evidences, domestic industry has submitted that in the present case domestic industry is highly fragmented and scattered, comprising of thousands of tiny units. These units are cottage based industry and are run predominantly by individual families. Accordingly, these units are in no position to maintain or keep the various accounts and follow the accounting procedures as followed by various other units in the organized sector nor do they have the resources to maintain such records. Further, it is submitted that in view of the limited and small operations of the domestic industry, it is not possible for the individual units to submit the information in the form and manner regarding the various injury parameters as normally required to be submitted by an industry in the organized sector. In view thereof, production of the domestic industry has been calculated based on the information provided by the various associations whose members are involved in the production / manufacture of the product concerned. The information received by various associations for production has been enclosed as Annexure 6 of the application. Moreover, the domestic industry has also provided to the Authority cost and price information duly substantiated with evidences.

Examination by the Authority

29. The various submissions made by the interested parties with regard to confidentiality and considered relevant by the Authority have been examined. Rule 7 of Anti-dumping Rules provides as follows:-

Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2), (3) (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub- rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.

(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.

30. Information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis was directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. The Authority made available the non- confidential version of the evidences submitted by various interested parties in the form of public file.

31. With regard to the submission of the opposite interested parties that the applicant should make available information of the individual producers, the Authority notes that in the present case domestic industry is highly fragmented and scattered, comprising of thousands of tiny units. These units are cottage based industry and are run predominantly by individual families. Accordingly, these units are in no position to maintain or keep the various accounts as followed by various other units in the organized sector nor do they have the resources to maintain such records. The Authority has, however, validated the Authenticity of the data during the verification visit of the domestic industry.

32. The Authority further holds that there is nothing in the scheme of the Act and the Rules which mandates that the information regarding injury etc. has to be at the enterprise level. The rules specifically provide for examination of the “state of the industry”. In this context, the Authority also refers to its Final Findings F. No. 15/24/2010-DGAD dated 05th December, 2011 in case of "Silk Fabrics 20-100 gms per meter originating in or exported from China PR" wherein a clear view had been taken that “there is no specific of law which proscribes the acceptance of aggregated information for the industry as such. Thus, there is no bar in accepting information provided by the Central Silk Board for the purpose of any aspect of these investigations. Therefore, the Authority finds no reason to reject any data or information provided by the CSB”.

E. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS

Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties

33. The miscellaneous submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties and considered relevant by the Authority are as follows:

i. CCCT has submitted that it is in fact the largest textile and apparel trade association both in China PR and the world. They have several functional departments and branches that deal, inter alia, with textiles, silk, garments etc. In light of the above submissions, CCCT is qualified to be an interested party under Rule 2(c) of the AD Rules. Further, it has submitted that it is registered as an interested party with the Designated Authority with minor delay.

ii. Import statistics should be provided to interested parties in soft copy, preferably in Microsoft Excel format so that the same can be examined in an intelligible manner. Interested parties require the information on the basis on which raw data is sought by the Designated Authority or the domestic industry from DGCI&S or other private agencies, the raw transaction-wise data as provided by the DGCI&S/private agency, the methodology followed to refine the raw transaction- wise data and the refined data and its summary.

iii. The format of application prescribed by the Designated Authority requires the disclosure of information about the subject goods including the size, quality, category, type, range, models, etc. The Applicant could have collected this information from producers in India and provided the same in the petition.

iv. Interested parties had requested the Authority to direct the Applicant to provide a copy of such standard manual that has been relied upon in the petition.

v. Imports of 3A grade from China PR are not affecting the domestic industry. Imports are primarily supplementing the demand in Indian market which could not be met by the domestic industry, which is already operating at optimal capacity utilization. The power loom industry has to import bivoltine category from China PR mainly due to the non-availability of bivoltine category of raw silk with the Indian domestic producers. Respondent requests the Designated Authority to separate different grades for apple-to-apple comparison for not only grades 2A and 3A, but also for sub-grades – bivoltine and multivoltine under grades 2A and 3A, respectively and thereafter make dumping and injury determination accordingly during the investigation process.

vi. Sub-para (iii) of para (4) of Annexure III to the AD Rules requires the Designated Authority to consider the best capacity utilization over the past three years and the period of investigation, while arriving at the non-injurious price.

vii. The exchange rate for USD that has been adopted by domestic industry as INR 60.98. However, the prevailing rate of USD, as per the RBI, is currently INR 65.39. It is also predicted that the Rupee will not appreciate once again and may get depreciated further. This means that imports into India currently are priced significantly higher than what they used to be during the POI. It is important that prevailing exchange rate is considered for an accurate picture of the level of price undercutting and price underselling, if any in this case.

viii. The Applicant is alleging that the subject product is being dumped from China PR, and China PR has been treated as a non-market economy country by various authorities world over and in recent cases China PR has been treated as non- market economy country in India also. It is also alleged that Chinese producers/exporters in the present case cannot be granted market economy status in view of the fact that the silk production and trade is admittedly not free from state interference. For this purpose, the Applicant provided the Protocol on Accession of People’s Republic of China and Articles of Association of China Cocoon & Silk Exchange to support its claim. Cocoon is a kind of scarce resource and produced by a much fragmented, ill-equipped and financially unsecured industrial sector in any country. In order to protect the basic survival right of the cocoon farmers, who are still in the position as disadvantaged group in China PR, the government has to undertake measures to balance the price of cocoon, which also is of significance to the stability of the society and the economic development of disadvantaged territories of China PR.

ix. Designated Authority is mandated to arrive at normal value in cases of exports from non-market economy countries such as China PR in this case, by first exhausting the main options of using the price or constructed value in a market economy third country or the price from such a third country to other countries including India. Only when the first two options have been exhausted, the Designated Authority may apply any other reasonable basis to arrive at the normal value including prices paid or payable in India giving due account to reasonable adjustments. However, in the present petition, Applicant only claimed to take third option.

x. The Applicant did not provide any positive evidence or the basis on which certain costs were adopted, thus, it is in the violation of Article 5.3 of the WTO ADA for the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence.

xi. There are more than 6 to 8 lakh power loom weavers whose livelihood is at stake. If the duties are levied, then all the 6 to 8 lakh power loom weavers will have to face starvation and death. The domestic industry has never supplied them raw silk of required quantity and quality. The domestic industry has been supplying principally to handloom weavers and power loom weavers were not their market. In this case, if the duties are levied, at least duty on goods imported for the purpose of using in power looms shall be exempt. Such an end-use exemption will not affect the domestic industry as they can continue to sell their raw silk to their existing markets i.e., handloom weavers.

xii. The Weavers’ Associations, who are importers and users, have submitted that they are rather surprised that the Central Silk Board has made an application to the Anti-dumping authorities in Delhi requesting them to levy Anti-dumping duty on raw silk yarn of 3A grade imported from China. If this is implemented, it will lead to a catastrophe for the silk weaving industry.

xiii. The domestic producers have already been provided adequate protection on the subject product for more than 10 years pursuant to earlier anti-dumping investigations. In addition, the Ministry of Finance has increased customs duty on raw silk from 5% to 15% via Notification No.12/2013-Customs dated 1 March 2013. Despite such adequate protection, the domestic industry is deceptively claiming to have suffered material injury caused by alleged dumped imports from China PR in the present case without any supporting data.

xiv. The silk weavers require bulk quantity of uniform quality of 2A and above grade silk for their production of quality fabrics which is not being produced indigenously in bulk.

xv. The Weavers have submitted that India imports bivoltine silk yarn from China which Indian Industry has not been able to produce indigenously, in satisfactory quality or quantity, despite sustained support for several decades.

Submissions made by the domestic industry

34. The miscellaneous submissions made by the domestic industry and considered relevant by the Authority are as follows:

i. Domestic industry has submitted that CCCT can be represented before the Designated Authority only when they establish before the Designated Authority that they are an interested party in terms of Rule 2(c). Once they are in a position to establish that they are an interested party, only then they participate in the investigation process. There is no dispute that CCCT is not falling under the category of a Producer, Exporter or an Importer. It may therefore, claim the status of a business Association under Rule 2(c). It may be seen from the above that only those Associations can be considered as “interested party” the majority of the members of which are producers, exporters or importers of “such an article”. It is pertinent to note that the majority test is to be applied in the context of total membership of the CCCT for such an article i.e., Mulberry Raw Silk. However, CCCT has not disclosed by way of any communication that they are a business association and their majority of the members are producers, exporters or importers of product under consideration and has also not even provided the list of their members along with their respective activities for the Designated Authority to reach any determination in terms of Rule 2(c). On the contrary, CCCT has categorically mentioned in their submissions dated 07th April, 2015 that they are engaged in textile trade business. In the absence of such substantiation, they cannot be considered as an interested party in terms of Rule 2(c) of the Rules. Therefore, domestic industry has prayed that the Designated Authority may decline to treat CCCT as an interested party and consequently may reject all submissions advanced by CCCT.

ii. The Authority had granted to all the interested parties 40 days from the date of publication of initiation Notification i.e., till 18th January, 2015 to file the questionnaire response and also to offer the comment on the domestic industry's application. However, despite the specific timeline prescribed by the Authority CCCT has filed their submissions much beyond the due date i.e., on 7th April, 2015 and 3rd June, 2015. Further, no request for condonation of delay has been filed with the Authority. Therefore, domestic industry has requested the Authority not to accept the belated submissions filed by CCCT on the application of the domestic industry.

iii. Further, despite the specific timeline prescribed by the Authority, All India Silk Weaver's Federation and Sino Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd have not filed the comment on the domestic industry's application within the timeline prescribed by the Authority. Further, it has also submitted that Sino Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd had withheld material information necessary for the Designated Authority to arrive at proper conclusions in the present investigation by not filing the mandatory questionnaire response. In view thereof, the Domestic Industry requested the Authority not to accept the submissions filed by All India Silk Weaver's Federation and Sino Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd.

iv. Transaction wise raw import data has been enclosed as Annexure 1 to the application filed with the Authority. The import data has been provided in the same format in which the import data has been accepted by the Authority in other cases and import data for the subject goods has been sorted based on the description given in each transaction of the import data.

v. The domestic industry is involved in the production / manufacture of all types, grades etc of the subject goods like grade 2A, grade 3A, bivoltine type, multivoltine type of raw silk etc. The domestic industry has also substantiated the same to the Authority during the verification visit of the constituents of domestic industry.

vi. As regards the request of the CCCT for the copy of the standard manual, the domestic industry has submitted that the request made by CCCT is evidently to somehow create an issue that can impede the investigation process. From the submissions made by them it is evident that they are not only aware of the ISA standards and other related international norms in this trade but also filed copies of the same before the Designated Authority.

vii. With regard to the request of the interest parties for grade wise dumping and injury margin, the domestic industry has submitted that none of the exporters from the subject country has filed the questionnaire response. Therefore, non- cooperation by the interested parties is in fact an attempt to impede the investigation as even the exporter-wise export details have not been made available to the Authority. In the absence of such material information from any of the interested parties, the request cannot be considered. In any case, the various grades are commercially substitutable as the price variation between various grades upto 3A is very insignificant.

viii. As regards the request of the interested parties to calculate the NIP in terms of Annexure III, the domestic industry has submitted that that the nature of the domestic industry in this investigation is very peculiar in nature. The domestic industry is highly fragmented and scattered, comprising of thousands of tiny units. These units are cottage based industry and are run predominantly by individual families. Therefore, domestic industry has made all possible efforts to provide the best available information for the purpose of the calculation of the NIP. Further, it has also submitted that there is no provision under the present law which mandates that the investigation can be undertaken only for those who maintain the records in a particular manner. The Act and the Rules also do not exclude small farmers, artisans, craftsmen etc. from the protection or remedial action through invocation of anti-dumping law.

ix. The domestic industry has submitted that adopting the exchange rate of the POI for calculating Normal Value, Non-injurious Price etc. is the standard practice being followed by the anti-dumping Authorities that are based on sound economic and accounting rationale and logic. This practice is being followed consistently by the Authority in all cases. Further, the contention of the interested parties is based on conjecture about the future exchange rates and, hence, without any merit. Considering the standard practice of the Authority, the same has been adopted by the domestic industry for the purpose of calculating Export Price, Normal Value etc. Moreover, the interested parties have not pointed out any legal or logical infirmity in the said approach.

x. It has been submitted that China is treated as a non-market economy country by various authorities world over and in recent cases China has been treated as non- market economy country in India also. Therefore, the normal value for China is required to be determined as per the procedure described in Para 7 of the Annexure I to the Anti-dumping Rules. Further, it is submitted that Chinese producers/exporters in the present case cannot be granted market economy status in view of the fact that the silk production and trade is admittedly not free from State interference. Since the fact of State interference is admitted, the question of granting MET to any of the exporters/producers, does not arise. In order to substantiate our claim Protocol on Accession of People’s Republic of China wherein China has admitted state control over the silk cocoon prices has been enclosed as Annexure 8A to the application.

xi. The domestic industry has submitted that it has provided all evidences to support the cost and price data submitted to the Authority. However, the domestic industry has claimed confidentiality on such information / documents in terms of the rules of confidentiality.

xii. The domestic industry has submitted that the contention raised by the interested parties that the domestic industry has been supplying principally to handloom weavers is wrong. It is a misrepresentation of facts to say that Chinese silk is used only on power looms whereas the Indian silk is used only on handlooms. The interested parties had made a hollow claim without providing any supporting evidence. The Indian raw silk used in many power loom clusters of the country. Thus, both imported and domestic raw silk yarn are indeed like products that can be interchanged depending upon the price. As regards the submissions of the interested parties that if the duties are levied then all the 6 to 8 lakh power loom weavers will have to face starvation and death, it is submitted that the objective of the anti dumping duties is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. Its objective is basically to create a level playing field for the domestic industry to compete more effectively in the market. The imposition of anti dumping, therefore, would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers.

xiii. It has submitted that the basis for levying the anti-dumping duty is discriminatory pricing behaviour of the exporter of the subject goods from the subject country. The fact that Authority has given the protection for more than 10 year does not ensure that the exporter from the subject country has mended his discriminatory pricing behaviour. In fact, the significant dumping and injury margin calculated based on the low value dumped prices from the subject country proves that despite protection from the Authority for more than 10 years the exporters from the subject country have not mended their discriminatory pricing behaviour. As regards the submission of the interested parties regarding increase in the customs duty from 5% to 15%, it is submitted that interested parties has not brought on record the fact that initially the customs duty was 30% which was reduced to 5% and then increased to 15%.

xiv. The contention raised by the interest parties that the raw silk of grade 2A and above is not being produced indigenously in bulk is wrong. Interested parties have just made a guess and hollow claim. In order to substantiate their claim that domestic industry produces grade 2A and above sample copies of the test certificate issued by Silk Conditioning and Testing House (SCTH) certifying the quality/grade of the product concerned has been provide to the Authority.

EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY

35. Various issues raised by the interested parties and the domestic industry considered relevant by the Authority are examined herein below:

i. As regards the contention of some interested parties regarding the exchange rate used for the calculation of normal value etc., the Authority has considered the exchange rate for the Period Of Investigation only, which is in accordance with the consistent practice followed by the Authority.

ii. With regard to the issue raised by the interested parties that if the duties are levied, then all the 6 to 8 lakh power loom weavers will have to face starvation and death, the Authority states that the imposition of anti-dumping does not, in any case, affect the availability of the product to the consumers. The objective of the anti-dumping duties is to create a level playing field for the domestic industry to compete more effectively in the market by eliminating injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping in the general interest of the country. Further, the application of the lesser duty rule ensures that the Domestic Industry gets the protection that is sufficient to remove the injury.

iii. As regards the issue raised by the interest parties that adequate protection has already been provided to the domestic producers, the Authority notes that the anti-dumping protection is granted to the domestic industry so as to protect them from the discriminatory price behaviour of the exporter from the subject country causing injury to the Domestic Industry. Protection provided to the domestic industry in previous years is not a relevant factor in respect of the decision whether to levy Anti-dumping duties or not in the present scenario.

iv. The interested parties have raised an issue that the silk weavers require bulk quantity of uniform quality of 2A and above grade silk for their production of quality fabrics which is not being produced indigenously in bulk. The Authority notes that the interested parties have not provided any evidence in support of their submissions. In any case, it was noticed during the verification that the domestic producers are indeed manufacturing silk of 2A and above grades in sufficient quantities. Further, significant investments have also been made in the new automated machines which will ensure manufacture of the uniform quality of silk of 2A grade and above of both bivoltine and multivoltine varieties, in sufficient quantities.

v. As regards to the issue raised by the interested parties for the application of Annexure III to determine the NIP and the basis on which certain costs were adopted, the Authority notes that the provisions of Annexure III cannot be read in a manner so as to dilute the powers of the Authority to resort to the best information. It is well recognized that the nature of the domestic industry in this investigation is very peculiar and distinct from the typical organized Domestic Industry. The domestic industry is highly fragmented and scattered, comprising of hundreds of tiny units. These units are cottage based industry and are run predominantly by individual families. While recognizing that there is no specific requirement in law to compute the NIP only on the basis of enterprise-specific information, the Authority has nevertheless validated the accuracy of the information provided by the domestic industry in their application during the verification visit of the constituent units. It is this validated information that has formed the basis for the calculation of the NIP.

vi. With regard to the request of the interested parties to calculate the grade wise dumping and injury margin, it is noted that the exporters from the subject country have not filed the questionnaire response and have not given material information necessarily required for the calculation of the dumping margin. In the absence of the relevant information, it is not possible to determine grade wise dumping and injury margin.

vii. With regard to the issue of import data, the Authority notes that the non- Confidential version of the DGCI&S import data was made available in the public file.

METHODOLOGY AND DETERMINATION OF DUMPING AND DUMPING MARGINGS

F. Normal Value

36. Under section 9A (1) (c) normal value in relation to an article means:

(i) 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

(ii) 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

(a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or

(b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6);

37. None of the exporters from China PR has filed the questionnaire response. Also none of the exporters have filed response to NMET Questionnaire.

38. China has been treated as a non-market economy country by various authorities world over and in recent cases China has been treated as non-market economy country in India also. Therefore, the normal value for China is required to be determined as per the procedure described in Para 7 of the Annexure I to the Anti-dumping Rules. For the ready reference the provisions of Para 7 are quoted below:

“7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, 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 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.”

39. Since China is being considered as Non Market Economy, the Rules provide that the normal value for China is required to be determined based on domestic selling prices in a market economy third country or the constructed value in a market economy third country or the export prices from such a third country to any other country including India. However, if the normal value cannot be determined on the basis of the alternatives mentioned above, the Designated Authority may determine the normal value on any other reasonable basis including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product duly adjusted to include reasonable profit margin.

40. In the absence of any price and cost details for the subject goods in any market economy third country and the fact noted that none of the exporters/producers has filed the questionnaire response and claimed market economy treatment in terms of Paragraph 8(3) of Annexure 1 to the Anti-dumping Rules, the Designated Authority is left with no alternative in the current case but to determine normal value estimated on the basis of price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, to include a reasonable profit margin. However, the Authority has adopted international rates of cocoon for POI as published by China Cocoon and Silk exchange.

41. Based on the information made available by the domestic industry and other information available with the Authority, the normal value for the subject goods has been constructed as below for all producers/exporters from China PR.

Export price for Producers/Exporters from China

42. The Authority notes that none of the exporters from the subject country has filed the questionnaire response. Therefore, Authority has determined the export price for all producers and exporters from the subject country on the basis of the best facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Anti-dumping Rules after adjusting for Ocean Freight, Marine Insurance, Commission, Bank Charges, Port Handling Expenses and Inland Freight Expenses. The net export price so determined is as below:

Dumping Margin

43. Considering the normal value and export price for subject goods, the Authority has determined the dumping margin for the subject goods for the exporters from China PR, as follows:

It is seen that the dumping margin for the subject goods is more than de-minimus and significant.

G. INJURY DETERMINATION

Submissions made by the producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties

44. The following are the injury related submissions made by the producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties:

i. It may be seen from the updated petition that there is neither any absolute nor relative increase in imports of subject goods. Imports of subject product were never significant in the last 4 years so as to command the Indian market. Production, sales as well as capacity utilization of Indian domestic producers increased. There is no link between the subject imports and profitability of the domestic industry. Thus, it is incorrect to state that Indian domestic producers suffered injury during the said POI.

ii. Landed value of imports from China PR increased consistently throughout the injury analysis period. The domestic selling price also significantly increased in line with the increase in landed value during the same period. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no possibility of a positive undercutting in the present case. The Chinese imported silk is being sold indigenously at Rs 3250-3400 based on quality. This rate when compared to indigenous silk is higher by Rs. 1000 per kg. Hence, there is no dumping.

iii. The average prices, import prices from other countries were much lower than import prices from China PR throughout the injury period. Therefore, price influence from other countries cannot be neglected.

iv. The loss of market share by domestic industry is not due to the imports from the subject country but because of the poor export performance of its downstream goods.

v. The imports of mulberry silk during the year 2014-15 up to July 2015 was around 1139 MT compared to 1166 MT imported during the corresponding period of the previous year. Thus, it clearly indicated that even though anti-dumping duty was not in force from January 2014 the import has not shown an increasing trend.

Submissions made by the domestic industry

45. The following are the injury related submissions made by the domestic industry:

i. Share of the imports from the subject country in the total imports is as high as 97.14% during the period of investigation. It may also be seen that imports from subject country has increased significantly from 100 (Indexed) in the base year to 199 (Indexed) during the period of investigation.

ii. Domestic industry has submitted that share of the subject country in the total Indian demand was only 8.53% during the base year. However, the share of subject country in total Indian demand in India has increased to 14.02% in the POI. iii. Share of imports from the subject country in the production has increased significantly from 17.9% in the base year to 28.5% in the POI.

iv. Cost of the domestic industry has increased substantially in the POI as compared to base year as well as preceding years. Unfortunately, the Domestic Industry has not been able to increase the selling price commensurate with the increase in the cost due to low value dumped imports from the subject country. Accordingly, it is clear that dumped imports from the subject country have suppressed the prices of the domestic industry.

v. With regard to the submission of the interested parties that the domestic selling price increased in line with the increase in landed value during the same period and there is no possibility of a positive undercutting, domestic industry has submitted that based on the index numbers provided in the application interested parties have argued that the landed value is much higher than the domestic selling price during the POI and there is no price suppression or depression. Further, domestic industry has submitted that sometime index no may not lead to right conclusion. The same situation persists in this case where the domestic selling price (134 - Indexed) is much higher than the landed value (142 - Indexed) during the POI. However, comparison of the index numbers of domestic selling price and the landed value / price gives a contrary impression. Furthermore, domestic industry has submitted that the positive price undercutting as provided in Annexure 11 of the application proves without any doubt that the domestic selling prices of the subject goods is higher than the landed value from the subject country.

vi. The Domestic industry has submitted that the imports of subject goods from sources other than subject country are de minimis during the period of investigation. Thus, based on the available data, it is amply clear that the real cause of the injury to the domestic industry is the dumped imports from the subject country.

vii. The real cause of injury is low value dumped imports from the subject country. The domestic industry is not able to increase the domestic selling price commensurate with the increase in the cost due to low value dumped imports from the subject country. Moreover, the imports volume of the subject goods from the subject country almost doubled in the POI as compared to the base year. As a result, the performance of the domestic industry has deteriorated significantly. The reason attributed by interested parties is therefore without logic and substantiation.

viii. The contention raised by the interested parties that during the year 2014-15 the imports have not shown an increasing trend vis-à-vis imports during the corresponding period of the previous year, is without any merit. Interested parties have not provided the import data to substantiate their claim. Further, even the source of the import data for the year 2014-15 has not been provided. In view of the above, the Domestic Industry is unable to offer any meaningful comments on the same.

ix. The profitability of the domestic industry sharply and materially declined due to dumping from subject country due to dumped imports from the subject country.

x. Return on investments has declined sharply. The current level of ROI is much less than the desirable and legitimate levels which should have been achieved by the domestic industry in the absence of dumped imports.

xi. The dumping margin from subject country is not only more than de-minimis levels but is very significant.

xii. The domestic industry has suffered material injury due to dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject country.

xiii. Presence of import at very low prices preventing domestic industry to increase their price to the extent of increase in input cost resulting into suppression of the selling prices of the domestic industry.

xiv. Reduction in profits directly resulted in deterioration in return on capital employed and cash profits. The domestic industry has not been able to cover the cost of capital. Thus, deterioration in profits, return on capital employed and also cash flow and cash profit is directly due to dumped imports.

Examination by the Authority

46. Article 3.1 of the WTO Agreement and Annexure-II of the AD Rules provide for an objective examination of both, (a) the volume of dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices, in the domestic market, for the like products; and (b) the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products. With regard to the volume effect of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to examine whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports, either in absolute term or relative to production or consumption in India. With regard to the price effect of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to examine whether there has been significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared to the price of the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress the prices to a significant degree, or prevent price increases, which would have otherwise occurred to a significant degree.

47. As regards the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry Para (iv) of Annexure- II of the AD Rules states as follows:

“The examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry concerned, shall include an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Industry, including natural and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of margin of dumping actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments.”

48. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties.

Volume Effect of the Dumped imports on the Domestic Industry

a) Demand and market share

49. Demand or apparent consumption of the product in India has been taken as the sum of domestic sales of the Indian Producers and imports from all sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table below:

i. Demand

50. It is noted that the demand in the country has increased in the POI as compared to the base year. While there is a decline in the annualized values as compared to the preceding years, the decline is marginal and the general level of demand remained more or less in the same band.

ii. Market Share in Demand

51. The Authority has considered all imports and sales of the Indian Producers to analyze the market share of subject imports in relation to the total demand in India. The position is as follows:

52. It is seen from the above table that the market share from China has increased as compared to the base year while there is a marginal decline as compared to the immediately preceding year. However, it is noted that the market share is still significant enough to cause injury to the Domestic Industry considering the fact that the subject goods are offered in the Indian market are at dumped prices.

iii. Import volume and market share

53. The Authority has examined the volume of imports of the subject goods on the import data received from the DGCI&S. Details of the import volumes of the subject goods from the subject country and its share in the total imports of the subject goods are provided in the table below:-

54. It is seen from the above table that imports from subject country increased from 1262809 KG in the base year to 1773470 KG during the POI (Annualized). It is also noted that imports from subject country account for 99.14% of the total imports of product under consideration in India during the POI. The Authority also notes that there is a marginal decline in the share of imports in the POI as compared to the base year. The overall impact of the volumes has also to be examined in the context of the prices at which imports are coming from China.

iv. Share of imports in relation to production

55. Authority observes that the imports from subject country have increased in relation to the production of the domestic industry during the POI as compared to the base year, though there is a decline during the POI as compared to the immediately preceding years. It is evident from the following table:

v. Capacity & capacity utilization

56. It is noted that capacity utilization of the domestic industry increased during the POI as compared to the base year. The increase in the capacity utilization of the domestic industry is on account of the increase in the demand and the fact that there was an anti-dumping duty on raw silk until January 5, 2014.

Production

57. It is noted that production of the domestic industry has increased during POI as compared to the base year as well as the preceding years in view of the increase in demand and the fact that there was an anti-dumping duty on raw silk until January 5, 2014, as is seen for other parameters as well.

vi. Sales volume

58. It is observed that sales of the domestic industry have increased during POI as compared with the base year as well as the immediately preceding years on account of the increase in the demand:

Price Effect of the Dumped imports on the Domestic Industry

59. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, the Designated Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the purpose of this analysis, the average cost of production (COP), average Net Sales Realization (NSR) and the Non-Injurious Price (NIP) of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed cost of imports from the subject country.

i. Price Undercutting

60. The net sales realization was arrived after deducting post factory expenses i.e., outward freight and taxes. Landed value of imports has been calculated by adding 1% handling charge and applicable basic customs duty including applicable cess to the CIF value of subject imports. The landed value of imports was compared with net sales realization of the domestic industry and it was found that the dumped imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry as can be seen from the table below:

61. It is observed from the above table that the price undercutting is positive. The overwhelming market share of the subject country is bound to put price pressure on the Domestic Industry which compels the domestic producers to match their prices with the landed values of the imports from the subject country. The price pressure is adequately reflected in the financial performance of the Domestic Industry.

ii. Price Underselling

62. Authority notes that the price underselling is an important indicator of assessment of injury. Non injurious price has been worked out and compared with the landed value of the subject goods to arrive at the extent of price underselling. The non- injurious price has been determined considering the cost of production of the domestic industry for the product under consideration during the POI, in accordance with Annexure III of the Anti-dumping Rules to the extent applicable. The analysis shows that the landed value of subject imports was below the non-injurious price as can be seen from the table below.

iii. Price suppression/depression

63. The Authority examined whether the effect of the dumped imports was to depress the prices of the like article in India, or prevent price increase that would have otherwise occurred.

64. It is seen from the table above that the index of cost of sales has increased from 100 to 136 from base year to POI. The selling price increased only from 100 to 134 during the same period indicating that the prices were suppressed on account of dumped imports as the domestic industry was not able to increase its prices commensurate to the increase in costs.

H. Economic parameters of the domestic industry

i. Profit/Loss

65. It is seen that profitability of the domestic industry declined significantly during the POI as compared to the base year. Cash profits as well as return on investment have also followed the same trend.

ii. Cash Flow

66. Authority has examined the trends in cash profits in order to examine the impact of dumping on cash flow situation of the domestic industry. It is seen that the cash profits of the domestic industry has declined significantly during the POI as compared to the base year. Information regarding cash profit of the domestic industry is given in the following table.

iii. Inventories

67. Considering the nature of the domestic industry in the present case, the details relating to the inventories are not available and the analysis for this factor cannot be made.

iv. Productivity

68. The Authority notes that this factor in the present case cannot be analyzed as the exact number of employees deployed is not accurately ascertainable. Being more or less a family enterprise, the actual number of workers is not maintained. However, there is reason to believe that the productivity per employee/worker would has increased particularly when the production has gone up and the number of workers per basin has remained the same.

v. Employment and Wages

69. In view of the peculiar nature of the domestic industry where the producing units are mainly run by individual families and all the family members are engaged in the production process, the exact number of employees as well as wages paid to them is not determinable. However, it is important to note that the workers employed in this business are not even getting the minimum wages prevalent in the respective states. This is a matter of serious concern as the inability to earn even the minimum wages is clearly a significant indicator of material injury.

vi. Magnitude of Dumping

70. Magnitude of dumping as an indicator of the extent to which the dumped imports can cause injury to the domestic industry shows that the dumping margin determined against the subject country are above de mimimis and significant.

vii. Growth

71. The Authority notes from the table below that the growth of the domestic industry in respect of profitability, cash flow and ROCE was negative particularly in the POI as compared to the base year. The domestic industry were prohibited from taking benefits of the increasing demand in the form of increase in profitability on account of low value dumped imports from the subject country.

viii. Ability to Raise Capital Investment

72. The Authority notes that the domestic industry’s ability to put in additional investments in the product depends upon the market situation. It is evident that the profitability of the domestic industry has declined during the POI as compared to the base year on account of low value dumped imports of the subject goods from China. Hence, dumping of the product would certainly have an adverse impact on the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment.

I. CONCLUSION ON MATERIAL INJURY

73. Based on the above, the Authority concludes that the dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject country have increased in absolute terms as well as in relation to production and consumption of the subject goods in India when compared to the base year. However, the significant cause of injury is on the price front where imports from China have been found to be undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the market. The fact that the landed value of the subject goods is much below the NIP clearly establishes the existence of price underselling. Further, while the cost of production kept increasing over the injury period, the increase in selling price did not commensurate with the increase in the cost of production. The imports were thus suppressing the prices of the domestic industry and preventing the price increases that would have otherwise occurred in the absence of dumped imports. With regard to consequent impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry, it is observed that while the demand for the product increased very significantly, the profitability of the domestic industry declined due to the low value dumped imports from the subject country.

74. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has suffered injury as a result of which the profitability of the domestic industry has declined. Return on capital employed and cash profits followed the same trend as that of profits. Both return on capital employed and cash profits marked negative growths in POI. Most importantly, the workers engaged in the production of the subject goods have not been able to earn the minimum wages. Thus, growth in respect of most of the parameters such as profits, cash profits & return on capital employed, wages, etc. show an adverse impact on the domestic industry. Thus, Authority concludes that the domestic industry has suffered material injury.

J. CAUSAL LINK AND OTHER FACTORS

75. Having examined the existence of material injury, volume and price effects of the dumped imports on the prices of the domestic industry, in terms of its price underselling and price suppression, and depression effects, other indicative parameters listed under the Indian Rules and Agreement on Anti-Dumping have been examined to see whether any other factor, other than the dumped imports could have contributed to injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, the following parameters have been examined:-

(a) Volume and prices of imports from third country

76. During POI, imports of the subject goods from countries other than China have been insignificant in volume. Therefore, the imports from other sources cannot be considered to have caused injury to the domestic industry.

(b) Trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers

77. It is noted that there is a single market for the subject goods where dumped imports from the subject country compete directly with the subject goods supplied by the domestic industry. It is also noted that the imported subject goods and domestically produced goods are like articles and are used for similar applications/end uses. There is no evidence of trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign producers and domestic producers causing injury to the domestic industry.

(c) Contraction of demand or Changes in the pattern of consumption

78. The Authority notes that demand for the product showed significant increase during the entire injury investigation period even though the demand in the POI declined marginally as compared to the immediately preceding years. The Authority thus concludes that injury to the domestic industry was not due to contraction in demand.

(d) Development in Technology

79. None of the interested parties has furnished any evidence to demonstrate significant changes in technology that could have caused injury to the domestic industry.

(e) Export performance of Domestic Industry

80. Domestic industry is not involved in the export sales during the entire injury investigation period. Therefore, Authority concludes that injury to the domestic industry was not due to export performance of the domestic industry.

(f) Productivity of the Domestic Industry

81. The Authority notes that the production of the domestic industry over the injury investigation period has increased except marginal decline during the year 2012-13 as compared to 2011- 12. Considering the fact that the workers per basin have remained constant, there is reason to believe that the productivity has in fact increased. 82. From the foregoing, the Authority concludes that there is no evidence of injury being caused due to factors other than dumping.

K. FACTORS ESTABLISHING CAUSAL LINK

83. Analysis of the performance of the domestic industry over the injury period shows that the performance of the domestic industry has materially deteriorated over the injury period on account of low value dumped imports from the subject country. The causal link between dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry is established on the following grounds:

a) Imports from subject country are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. Resultantly, the profitability has declined while the other financial parameters have been adversely affected significantly during the POI;

b) There is significant price underselling indicating that the Domestic Industry has not been able to get due returns on their investments and labour.

c) The existence of dumped prices is preventing the domestic industry from increasing its prices commensurate with the increase in costs causing price suppression which has resulted in decline in the profitability of the domestic industry during the POI as compared to the base year.

d) Deterioration in profits, return on capital employed and cash profits and inability to earn even the minimum wages are directly a result of dumped imports;

e) The growth of the domestic industry became negative in terms of price related economic as well as volume parameters.

84. The above grounds clearly establish existence of causal link between the dumped imports and injury to the domestic industry. Thus, the Authority concludes that the domestic industry suffered material injury due to low value dumped imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country.

L. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY AND INJURY MARGIN

85. The Authority has determined non-injurious price for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in the Rules, as amended. The non-injurious price so determined has been compared with the landed prices of imports from the subject country. Injury margin for all producers and exporters from China PR has been determined by the Authority on the basis of best available facts, which is as below:

86. Post disclosure Statements/Submissions

Submissions by Domestic Industry

87. The domestic industry had offered their detailed comments / submissions / rebuttals in their earlier communications filed with the Authority at various stages of the investigation. There are no new submissions and same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetitions. In brief, following are the key comments:

a. The submissions filed by CCCT should not be accepted, as CCCT has not disclosed by way of any communication that they are a business association and their majority of the members are producers, exporters or importers of product under consideration. Therefore, they cannot be considered as an interested party in terms of Rule 2(c) of the Rules. Further, they had filed their submission much beyond the last date and without giving sufficient cause for the delay. Also, the written submissions filed by CCCT are not signed by any authorized signatory to be treated as legally acceptable document in the present proceedings. For this additional reason, we request the Authority not to take the submissions advanced by CCCT on record.

b. All India Silk Weaver's Federation has not filed the comment on the domestic industry's application within the timeline prescribed by the Authority. In view thereof, the Authority is requested not to accept the submissions filed by All India Silk Weaver's Federation.

c. Sino Imports & Exports Pvt Ltd has filed their written submissions after the prescribed timeline. In view thereof, the Authority is requested not to accept the belated written submissions.

Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties

88. China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Textile, Weavers’ Associations who are the users of the imported material and M/s Sino Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd, the importer have made submissions on disclosure statement. There is no additional point. The brief of the submissions is as below:

a. The Designated Authority has relied upon DGCI&S transaction-wise import data for analysis in the present investigation. Respondent submits that the product scope covers only “Mulberry Raw Silk (not thrown) of 3A grade and below”. Therefore, all transactions where grades above 3A are also mentioned should be excluded from PUC as these transactions do not constitute PUC. Further, all transactions where “Not Thrown” is not mentioned in the item description should also be excluded from PUC. Only transactions where grade 3A or below are mentioned should be made part of PUC.

b. Respondent submits that imports of 3A grade from China PR are not affecting the domestic industry. Imports are primarily supplementing the demand in Indian market which could not be met by the domestic industry, which is already operating at optimal capacity utilization. The power loom industry has to import bivoltine category from China PR mainly due to the non-availability of bivoltine category of raw silk with the Indian domestic producers. Respondent requests the Designated Authority to separate different grades for apple-to-apple comparison for not only grades 2A and 3A, but also for sub-grades – bivoltine and multivoltine under grades 2A and 3A, respectively and thereafter make dumping and injury determination accordingly during the investigation process.

c. The Respondent as well as other interested parties have maintained throughout the investigation that the domestic industry cannot supply 3A grade in adequate quantities, therefore 3A grade should be excluded from the product scope.

d. As the domestic industry is highly fragmented and scattered, comprising of thousands of tiny units which are family run, it is not understood as to how the industry’s data was validated during the verification visit and what kind of records were examined and verified.

e. As per Rule 11(2), the Designated Authority is mandated to determine injury, threat of injury, material retardation to establishment of domestic industry and a causal link between dumped imports and injury for the domestic producers of such articles. Without identifying and collecting injury information from the domestic producers concerned, such an exercise would not be possible. The Designated Authority is mandated to identify the domestic producers and determine injury to such producers based on their injury information at enterprise level only.

f. The domestic industry’s contention that Respondent should not be treated as an interested party is incorrect. Respondent is an interested party in terms of Article 6.11 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement read with Rule 2(c) of the AD Rules, and even the Designated Authority has rightly considered Respondent as an interested party in this case.

g. The imposition of Anti-dumping duty on the imports of raw silk yarn from China will badly affect the silk weaving industry all over the country. More than 20 million weavers working in looms will lose their jobs because of closure of units.

h. In paragraph 35(iv) of Disclosure Statement, the Designated Authority observes that the domestic industry has made significant investments in new automated machines. However, Respondent submits that it is not clear which domestic producers have made such investments, as no names have been disclosed in the disclosure statement. Further, it is not clear whether such investments were made prior to the POI or after the POI. If such investments have been made post POI, such investments are irrelevant for the purpose of this investigation.

i. In paragraph 50 of the disclosure statement, the Designated Authority observes that demand for the subject goods has increased in the POI as compared to the base year 2010-11. Respondent respectfully disagrees with the above observation and submits that demand for the subject goods has in fact declined on year-on-year basis. Total demand was 12,084,302 kgs in 2010-11, which rose to 14,389,410 kgs in 2011-12. Total demand further increased to 14,752,457 kgs during 2012-13 but sharply declined to 14,160,475 kgs during the POI (Annualised). Therefore, demand for the subject goods has actually declined during the POI (Annualised) in comparison to previous two years. The Designated Authority is requested to modify its observation in paragraph 50 in light of the above contention.

j. In Annexure IV of the disclosure statement, the Designated Authority observes that producers of mulberry raw silk in India are in no position to maintain or keep formal accounts and follow the accounting procedures as followed in the organized sector nor do they have the resources to maintain such records. The Designated Authority further observes that vide its Final Findings No. 14/28/2002-DGAD dated 3 July 2003, the Designated Authority had recommended imposition of anti- dumping duty in similar circumstances. Respondent submits that at the time when the aforesaid final findings were issued, there were no codified rules for determination of non-injurious price. However, now mandatory codified rules on determination of non-injurious price are given in Annexure III of the AD Rules. Principles under Annexure III of the AD Rules have to be followed in all cases without any exception. Therefore, reliance on the aforesaid final findings is incorrect in this case. In light of the above contentions, the Designated Authority is urged to modify its observations in Annexure IV of the disclosure statement.

Examination by the Authority

89. The various issues raised by the exporter and contested by DI have been addressed in above paragraphs but are being again addressed herein for the sake of clarity:

i. CCCT has submitted that it is in fact the largest textile and apparel trade association both in China PR and the world. They have several functional departments and branches that deal, inter alia, with textiles, silk, garments, etc. In the light of the above submissions, CCCT is qualified to be an interested party under Rule 2(c) of the AD Rules. Further, it has submitted that it is registered as an interested party with the Designated Authority with minor delay. The Designated Authority has recognized them as interested party and decided to accept and examine the submissions made by all the interested parties.

ii. With regard to the request of the interest parties to exclude all import transactions which mentions the word "Grades above 3A" and / or does not mention the word "Not Thrown", the Authority notes that the price of the Mulberry Raw Silk of grade above 3A and / or of thrown variety is higher than the prices of Mulberry Raw Silk (Not Thrown) of grade 3A and below, because of the additional cost involved. However, from the DGCI&S import data it has been noted that in number of transactions the import prices of Mulberry Raw Silk of grade above 3A and / or of thrown variety from China PR is significantly lower than the import prices of Mulberry Raw Silk (Not Thrown) of grade 3A and below. Therefore, the Authority has excluded only those transactions from the product scope where the description specifically mentions grade above 3A and / or thrown and the import price of these transactions are higher than the import prices of Mulberry Raw Silk (Not Thrown) of grade 3A and below.

iii. With regard to the issue raised by the interested parties that if the duties are levied, then all the 6 to 8 lakh power loom weavers will have to face starvation and death, the Authority holds that the imposition of anti-dumping does not, in any case, affect the availability of the product to the consumers. The objective of the anti-dumping duties is to create a level playing field for the domestic industry to compete more effectively in the market by eliminating injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping in the general interest of the country. Further, the application of the lesser duty rule ensures that the Domestic Industry gets the protection that is sufficient to remove the injury.

iv. The interested parties have raised an issue that power loom industry has to import bivoltine category from China PR mainly due to the non-availability of bivoltine category of raw silk with the Indian domestic producers. The Authority notes that it was noticed during the verification that the domestic producers are indeed manufacturing silk of various grades including 2A, 3A both bivoltine and multivoltine varieties. Further, though not relevant to this investigation, it is also noted that significant investments have also been made in the new automated machines which will augment supply of Mulberry Raw silk of various grades including 2A, 3A in sufficient quantities.

v. As regards the issue raised by the interested parties of the application of Annexure III to determine the NIP and the basis on which certain costs were adopted, the Authority notes that the provisions of Annexure III cannot be read in a manner so as to negate the powers of the Authority to use the best available information. It is well recognized that the nature of the domestic industry in this investigation is very peculiar and distinct from the typical organized Domestic Industry. The domestic industry is highly fragmented and scattered, comprising of hundreds of tiny units. These units are cottage based industry and are run predominantly by individual families. While recognizing that there is no specific requirement in law to compute the NIP only on the basis of enterprise-specific information, the Authority has nevertheless validated the accuracy of the information provided by the domestic industry in their application during the verification visit of the constituent units. It is this validated information that has formed the basis for the calculation of the NIP.

vi. With regard to the request of the interested parties to calculate the grade wise dumping and injury margin, it is noted that the exporters from the subject country have not filed the questionnaire response and have not given material information necessarily required for the calculation of the dumping margin. In the absence of the relevant information, it is not possible to determine grade wise dumping and injury margin.

vii. With regard to the submission of the opposite interested parties that the applicant should make available information of the individual producers, the Authority notes that in the present case domestic industry is highly fragmented and scattered, comprising of thousands of tiny units. These units are cottage based industry and are run predominantly by individual families. Accordingly, these units are in no position to maintain or keep the books of accounts as is followed by the units in the organized sector nor do they have the resources to maintain such records. During the verification visit of the constituents of domestic industry, the Authority verified the records maintained by the cocoon exchange as well as the reelers and validated the data submitted by the domestic industry.

viii. As regards to the issue raised by the interested parties that Designated Authority is mandated to determine the injury considering the injury information at the enterprise level, the Authority holds that there is nothing in the scheme of the Act and the Rules which mandates that the information regarding injury, etc. has to be at the enterprise level. The rules specifically provide for examination of the “state of the industry”. In this context, the Authority also refers to its Final Findings F. No. 15/24/2010-DGAD dated 05th December, 2011 in case of "Silk Fabrics 20- 100 gms per meter originating in or exported from China PR" wherein a clear view had been taken that “there is no specific law which prescribes the acceptance of aggregated information for the industry as such. Thus, there is no bar in accepting information provided by the Central Silk Board for the purpose of any aspect of this investigation. Therefore, the Authority finds no reason to discard the data or information provided by the CSB”.

ix. With regard to the issue raised by the interested parties that imposition of anti- dumping duties will badly affect the silk weaving industry all over the country, the Authority states that imposition of anti-dumping will not affect the availability of the product to the consumers. The objective of the anti-dumping duties is to create a level playing field for the domestic industry to compete more effectively in the market by eliminating injury caused to the domestic industry by the unfair trade practices of dumping in the general interest of the country. Further, the application of the lesser duty rule ensures that the Domestic Industry gets the protection that is sufficient to remove the injury.

x. Interested parties have raised the issue regarding the period in which such investment has been made. Further, the interested parties have raised the issue regarding the disclosure of the names of the domestic producers who have made significant investment. The Authority notes that several reelers have made investments in the automated machines. These investments have been made in both POI as well as Post POI. The Authority has only visited some of these units considering the nature of the industry which is highly fragmented and scattered.

xi. As regards the request of the interested parties to modify the observation made in paragraph 50 of the disclosure statement considering the fact that the demand for the subject goods has actually declined during the POI (Annualized) in comparison to two previous years, the Authority notes that the examination done in Para 50 regarding the demand of the subject goods in India is in line with the facts of the case. It is noted that the demand in the country has increased in the POI as compared to the base year. While there is a decline in the annualized values of demand in the POI as compared to the preceding years, the decline is marginal and the general level of demand remained more or less in the same band.

xii. The request of the interested parties to modify Annexure IV of the disclosure statement was noted by the Authority. It is clarified that it is a fact that the rules for determination of non-injurious price have been codified vide Annexure III on 1st March 2011 and the Authority is required to determine the fair selling price or non-injurious price of the like domestic product taking into account the principles specified in this Annexure. These rules are based on set principles of costing which prevailed even before the notification. Therefore, making a reference of the previous findings on such principles does not mean that the rules specified in Annexure III have not been followed by the Authority while determining the non- injurious price in the present case. The contention of the interested parties that the guidelines of Annexure III have to be necessary followed, the Authority observes that the guidelines contained in the said Annexure have to be read harmoniously along with the other provisions of the Act and the Rules. The fact that information is not available at the enterprise level to enable the Authority to apply all the guidelines and principles contained in Annexure III, does not dilute the power of the Authority to use the best information available in the facts and circumstances of any case.

xiii. As detailed in Annexure IV of the disclosure statement, non-injurious price of the product has been determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Annexure III. Material cost which accounts for above 80% of the total cost of production has been taken at the best utilization norms. The propriety of all expenses charged to the cost of production has been reviewed and ensured that only reasonable amount is charged to the cost of production. No expenses specified in Para 4(vii) of the Annexure III have been included in the cost of production. A reasonable return on average capital employed for the product has been allowed in accordance with the principles laid down in the said Annexure.

CONCLUSION

90. The Authority has, after considering the foregoing, come to the conclusion that: a. The subject goods have been exported to India from the subject country below its normal value; b. The domestic industry has suffered material injury; c. The material injury has been caused by the dumped imports of the subject goods from subject country.

INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST AND OTHER ISSUES

91. The Authority recognizes that imposition of antidumping duties might affect the price level of product in India. However, fair competition in Indian market will not be reduced by the anti-dumping measures. On the contrary, imposition of anti-dumping measures would remove the unfair advantage gained by dumping practices, would arrest the decline of the domestic industry and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of subject goods. Consumers could still maintain two or more sources of supply.

92. The Authority notes that the purpose of antidumping duties, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the Domestic Industry by unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re-establish a situation of open and fair competition in Indian market, which is in the general interest of the country. Imposition of anti-dumping measures would not restrict imports from the subject country in any way, and therefore, would not affect the availability of the products to the consumers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

93. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate opportunity was given to the exporters, importers and other interested parties to provide positive information on the aspects of dumping, injury and causal link. Having initiated and conducted the investigation into dumping, injury and the causal link thereof in terms of the AD Rules and having established positive dumping margins as well as material injury to the domestic industry caused by such dumped imports, the Authority is of the view that imposition of antidumping duty is required to offset dumping and injury. Therefore, the Authority considers it necessary to recommend imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject country in the form and manner described hereunder.

94. Having regard to the lesser duty rule followed by the Authority, the Authority recommends imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty equal to the lesser of margin of dumping and margin of injury, so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, the antidumping duty equal to the amount indicated in Col No.9 of the table below is recommended to be imposed on all imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject country.

*The classification is only indicative and description of the item is the governing factor.

95. Landed value of imports for the purpose of this Notification shall be the assessable value as determined by the Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and includes all duties of customs except duties under sections 3, 3A, 8B, 9 and 9A of the said Act.

96. An appeal against the order of the Central Government arising out of this final finding shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act.

(A.K.Bhalla) Designated Authority