Sunset Review (SSR) anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Acetone

Dated 4th December, 2014 | Copy of | Notification | Final Findings Subject: Sunset Review (SSR) anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Acetone, originating in or exported from Korea RP. No. 15/13/2013-DGAD: Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the Act) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of injury) Rules 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the Rules) thereof. Background of the Case 2. The Designated Authority, having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time, had initiated the original investigation concerning imports of Acetone (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and Russia vide Notification No. 14/13/2006-DGAD dated 12th February, 2007.  3. The Designated Authority vide Notification No. 14/13/2006 dated 14th March, 2008 terminated the investigation concerning the subject goods, originating in or exported from Russia. 4. The Final Findings Notification was issued by the Authority vide Notification No. 14/13/2006-DGAD dated 9th May, 2008, recommending imposition of definitive duty on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from Korea RP (hereinafter also referred to as the subject country). On the basis of the recommendations made by the Authority in the final findings, definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed by the Department of Revenue vide Notification No.75/2008-Customs dated 10th June, 2008 on the imports of the of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country. 5.  M/s  Hindustan  Organic  Chemicals  Limited  (hereinafter  also  referred  to  as HOCL), supported by M/s SI Group India Ltd (hereinafter also referred as SI Group),   filed a duly substantiated application before the Authority, on behalf of the domestic industry, in accordance with the Act and the Rules for sunset review of the anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country,  alleging dumping of the subject goods from the subject country and consequent injury and likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in the event of revocation of the anti-dumping duty. The applicant requested for review, continuation and enhancement of the anti-dumping duties, imposed on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country. 6.  In  view of  the  duly substantiated  application  filed  on  behalf  of  the domestic industry and in accordance with section 9A(5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Anti-dumping Rules, the Authority initiated a sunset review investigation vide Notification No. 15/13/2013-DGAD dated 6th June,  2013 to review the need for continued imposition of the anti-dumping duties in respect of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country, and to examine whether the expiry of the said duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry. 7.  The validity of the anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods from the subject country was extended up to 09.06.2014 by the Central Government vide Notification 12/2013-Customs (ADD) dated 25.06.2013. 8.  The scope of the present review covers all aspects of the previous investigations concerning imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country. B. Procedure 9. The procedure  described below has been followed with regard to the subject investigation: i.    The  embassy of  the subject  country in  New Delhi  was  informed  about  the initiation of the investigations in accordance with Rule 6(2). ii.    The Authority provided copies of the non-confidential version of the application to the known exporters and the embassy of the subject country in accordance with Rules 6(3) supra. A copy of the non- confidential version of the application was also made available  in  the  public file and  provided to  other interested parties, wherever requested. iii.    The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to the following known manufacturers/exporters   in   Korea RP   (whose  names  and addresses were made available to the Authority) and gave them opportunity to make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of the letter in accordance with the Rules 6(2) & 6(4):

1.   M/s LG Chem Ltd.
2.   Jisan Chemical Co Ltd.
3.   M Corporation.
4.   Humade Corporation.
5.   OCI Corporation.
6.   Kumho P&B Chemicals.
7.   Cowin Global Co Ltd.

  iv.     Response   to   the   exporter’s   questionnaire   was   received   from   following producers/ exporters/traders from Korea RP:

1.  Kumho  P&B  Chemical  Inc,  Korea  RP  (Producer)  along  with  the Korean traders namely Cowin Global Co. Ltd, HUMADE Corporation, Jisan Chemical Co., Ltd, M Corporation and OCI Corporation.
2.  LG Chem, Ltd, Korea RP (Producer/Exporter).

v.    The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to the following known importers/consumers (whose names and addresses were made available to the authority by the applicants) of subject goods in India and advised them to make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of issue of the letter in accordance with the Rule 6(4):

1.     Future Option Exports Pvt Ltd.
2.     National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd
3.     Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
4.     Lanxess India Pvt Ltd.
5.     Cresent Chemsol Pvt Ltd
6.     M/s C.J. Shah and Company
7.     M/s Haresh Kumar & Co.
8.     M/s PCL Oil & Industries
9.     M/s Kantilal Manilal & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
10.     M/s Sonkamal Enterprises
11.     M/s Khetan Brothers
12.     M/s Shubham Dyes & Chemicals Limited
13.     M/s Acron Enterprises
14.     M/s Naiknavare Chemicals Limited
15.     M/s Paras Dyes & Chemicals
16.     M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
17.     M/s United Phosphorous Ltd.
18.     M/s Resins & Plastic Ltd.
19.     M/s Kailash Polymers
20.     M/s Centrum Metalics Pvt. Ltd.
21.     M/s Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd.
22.     M/s Meghdev Enterprises
23.     M/s Satguru International
24.     M/s High Polymer Labs Ltd.
25.     M/s Rainbow colours & Chemicals
26.     M/s Bleach Marketing Pvt. Ltd
27.     M/s Karmen International (P) Ltd.
28.     M/s Krishna Antioxidants Pvt. Ltd.
29.     M/s NGP Industries Ltd.
30.     M/s Farmson Pharmaceutical Gujarat Ltd.
31.     M/s India Glycols Ltd.
32.     M/s Singh Plasticisers and Resins (I) Pvt.
33.     M/s National Plywood Industries Ltd.
34.     Kundan Rice Mills Ltd.

vi.    No questionnaire response was received from any importer. vii.     SI Group India Ltd, the other domestic producer which supported the petition, filed relevant information subsequently. viii.     The  Period  of  Investigation  (POI)  for  the  purpose  of  the  present  review investigation was 1st January, 2012 to 31st December, 2012 (POI). The examination of trends in the context of injury analysis covered the periods April 2009-March, 2010, April 2010-March 2011, April 2011-March 2012 and the POI. ix.   Transaction wise imports data, procured from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S), has been relied upon for the analysis in present SSR investigation. x.    Exporters, producers, importers and other interested parties who have neither responded to the Authority nor supplied information relevant to this investigation have been treated as non-cooperating interested parties by the Authority. xi.     The Authority made available non-confidential version of the evidence presented by interested parties in the form of a public file kept open for inspection by the interested parties as per Rule 6(7). xii.     The Authority has examined the information furnished by the domestic producers to the extent possible on the basis of guidelines laid down in Annexure III of the Rules to work out the cost of production and the non-injurious price of the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry. xiii.     The Authority provided opportunity to all interested parties to present their views orally in public hearings held on 18.02.2014 and 11th August, 2014. All the interested parties attending the hearings were requested to file written submissions/rejoinders of the views expressed orally. xiv.    The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation have been examined and addressed in this finding. xv.    The Department of Revenue vide their letter No.354/10/2008-TRU (Pt-1) dated 09.06.2014  extended  the  time  period  to  complete  the  investigations  up  to 5.12.2014. xvi.     Verification of the information and data submitted by the domestic industry was carried out to the extent deemed necessary. xvii.     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 as confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever  possible,  parties  providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non- confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. xviii.     In accordance with Rule16 of the Rules supra, the essential facts were disclosed by the Authority to the known interested parties vide disclosure statement issued on 26th November, 2011 and comments received on the same, to the extent considered relevant by the Authority, have been considered in this finding. xix.    *** in this finding represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules. xx.    The exchange rate for the POI has been taken by the Authority as Rs.53.69 = 1US$. C. Scope of Product under consideration and like article Submissions made by the Domestic Industry 10. Following are the submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to product under consideration and like article: i.    The present investigation being a sunset review, the scope of the product under consideration must remain the same as that in the original investigation. Anti-dumping Duty has been imposed by the Central Government vide Customs Notification No.75/2008-Customs dated 10th June, 2008 under the Customs Head 29141100. However, customs classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the investigation. iii.    No  significant  development  has  taken  place  over  the  period  with  regard  to product under consideration. iv.    The goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the imported product in terms of parameters such as physical & technical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification. Submissions by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties 11. No   relevant   submission   has   been   made   by   the   producers/   exporters/ importers/other interested parties with regard to the scope of the product under consideration (PUC) and like article. Examination by the Authority 12. The product under consideration (PUC) in the original investigation as well as the present SSR investigation is Acetone. It is a basic organic chemical produced in single grade. It is a colour less liquid with an agreeable ether-like odour. It is used in numerous organic syntheses either as solvent or as an intermediate. It is used in manufacture of bulk pharmaceuticals, agro-chemicals, dyestuffs, certain explosives and downstream chemicals. Acetone is specifically used in manufacture of Isophorone, Diacetone, Alcohol, Methyl Methacrylate and Bisphenol A. Besides this, it is used in manufacture of certain rubber chemicals or Oxy Acetylene Cellulose Acetate. The applicants have claimed that the goods produced by the domestic industry are like article to the imported product in terms   of   physical   &   technical   characteristics,   manufacturing   process   & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing  and  tariff  classification.  The  present  investigation  being  a  sunset review, the product under consideration remains the same as in the original investigation. Acetone is classified under Chapter 29 of Custom Tariff Act under the sub-heading 29141100. However, Customs classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the investigation. 13. The present investigation being a sun set review investigation, the Authority notes that the scope of the product under consideration in the present investigation remains the same as that of the original investigation. Moreover, none of the interested parties have made any relevant submission requesting modification (including curtailment) in the scope of the review. D. Domestic Industry and Standing Submissions by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties 14. The  following  are  the  submissions  made  by  the  producers/exporters/other interested parties with regard to scope of the domestic industry and standing:

1.     The Acetone plant of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited (HOCL) has been shut for the past few months. In view of this, HOCL cannot be considered as domestic industry.
2.     SI Group merely supported the petition. SI Group should not at this late stage be permitted by the Authority to file a detailed domestic producer data response.
3.    SI Group has imported the subject goods from subject country and used for captive consumption.

Submissions by the Domestic Industry 15. The following are the submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to scope of the domestic industry and standing:

1. The scope of domestic industry and standing are not relevant in a sunset review. Nevertheless, the petitioners command major proportion share in Indian production in the POI and, therefore, constitute domestic industry.
2. During the 1st  oral hearing held on 18.02.2014, it had been contended by the interested parties that SI Group has not provided injury information and the same implies that the company has not suffered injury. Since then SI Group has submitted costing & injury information. However, it is now being argued that SI Group information cannot be considered and it should be merely treated as a ‘supporter’. There is no bar in incorporating information given post initiation by the  domestic  producers.  In  fact,  the  objective  of  seeking  information  post initiation is to enable the Authority to gather more and more information relevant to investigation. There have been instances in the past, where the Designated Authority had considered information provided by the domestic producers after initiation of the investigation and treated such producers as part of the “domestic industry”. Therefore SI Group should be considered as part of the domestic industry.
3. The Designated Authority is required to consider situation prevailing during the period of investigation only. HOCL suspended production because of intensified dumping of the product which has made its current operations totally unviable. HOCL has not completely gone out of business. It has merely suspended production. In fact, this fact further supports the contention of the domestic industry that dumping of the product in the country is required to be prevented in order to allow domestic industry a fair market situation.
4. As  regards  SI Group, the  company has  supported  the  petition. In  the  post hearing submissions, the information relating to injury to SI Group has already been provided, which clearly establishes that SI Group has also suffered significant deterioration in performance of the company.
5. In the Final Findings notified by the Authority in the matter of SBR, wherein the Authority was informed that the petitioner had completely gone out of production. The Designated Authority still recommended duties, holding this as a post period of investigation development. This was a situation when there was no other domestic  producer  in  the  country.  In  the  present  case,  admittedly,  there  is another producer in the country who has also supported the petition.

Examination by Authority 16. As regards the contention that the petition is only made by HOCL and supported by SI Group, the Authority notes that the application in the present SSR investigation has been filed by M/s Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd on behalf of the domestic industry. The application is further supported by M/s SI Group India Ltd who has subsequently filed relevant information. The information furnished by both the domestic producers has been verified by the Authority to the extent considered relevant. 17. The Authority notes that M/s SI Group India Ltd has imported the subject goods from the subject country during the period of investigation under duty exemption scheme. As clarified by SI Group, the duty free imports made under duty exemption are meant for manufacturing goods for export purpose and such duty free imports have not been traded in the domestic market. In view of this, the imports of the subject goods from the subject country have no bearing on the domestic  market  and  therefore  no  impact  on  the  standing  of  SI  Group  as domestic industry. 18. As regards the contention that HOCL cannot be considered as domestic industry as the Acetone Plant of the HOCL has been shut for the past few months, the Authority notes that Acetone plant of HOCL was operating during the POI. If, during the post POI, the plant has been shut down temporarily, it does not have any relevance for the present investigation. 19. As regards the contention that SI Group has filed information after initiation, and therefore cannot be taken into account for injury determination, the Authority notes that there is no bar in incorporating information given post initiation by the domestic producers. In fact, the objective of seeking information post initiation is to enable the Authority to gather more and more information relevant to the investigation. 20. The Authority further notes that there are  no  other known producers of the subject goods in the country. The Authority holds that M/s Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd and M/s SI Group India Ltd., account for total Indian production of the subject goods and constitute domestic industry within the meaning of the Rules. E. Confidentiality Submissions by the producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties 21. The opposite interested parties have alleged that the NCV summary furnished by the  domestic  industry  is  inadequate  and  does  not  meet  the  necessary requirement of disclosure and has constrained their submissions. Submissions by the Domestic Industry 22. The domestic industry has countered by stating that the non-confidential version of the information filed by them is consistent with the past practices and fully complies with the rules in this regard. Examination by the Authority 23. With  regard  to  confidentiality  of  information  Rule  7  of  Anti-dumping  Rules provides as follows:-

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (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 authorise its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.

24. The Authority examined the confidentiality claims of the interested parties and on being satisfied allowed the claim on confidentiality. The Authority made available to all interested parties the public file containing non-confidential version of evidences submitted by various interested parties for inspection, upon request as per Rule 6(7). F.  Miscellaneous Submissions Miscellaneous  submissions  made  by  the  producers/exporters/importers  and other interested parties 25. The  following  miscellaneous  submissions  have  been  made  by  producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties i. HOCL  has  been  frequently  mis-utilising  the  WTO  mechanism  to  its interest. It has sought protection from Government of India by filing petitions for imposition of anti-dumping duties and safeguards since the Government of India removed the quantitative restrictions. ii. The combined production capacity of Acetone by the domestic producer namely HOCL and SI Group could meet about one third of annual domestic  demand  and  far  less  with  HOCL  Plant  shut  down.  Hence, imports of the PUC is a necessity and unavoidable. Any restriction by way of imposition of Anti-dumping duty will be in violation of WTO Agreement especially when the petitioner company meets only 12% of the demand. iii. Combating inflation is stated to be the top priority of public policy in India at the moment. Imposition of anti-dumping duty contributes, in cascading fashion, to higher inflation rather than lower. iv. In  a  situation  when  70%  of  domestic  demand  is  met  by  imports, imposition of anti-dumping duty is unjustified. v. Prices of Acetone are determined on global demand and supply basis. Imposition of ADD would violate WTO Agreement. Miscellaneous submissions made by the domestic industry 26. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made  by the domestic industry: i.    The petitioners have not demanded ban on imports. The request is for fair market situation for the domestic industry, which is taken away by dumping practices. The demand supply gap is an established factual position in the present case. The Designated Authority has however recommended duties in the past on the grounds that demand supply gap is entirely immaterial to address dumping of the product causing injury to the domestic industry. ii.    With regard to inflation, it is without any basis that the present anti-dumping duty has contributed to inflation. On the contrary, as repeatedly held by the authority, imposition of anti-dumping measures would remove the unfair advantages gained by dumping practices, prevent the decline of the domestic industry and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of subject goods. Imposition of the anti-dumping measures would not restrict imports from the subject country in any way, and therefore, would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers. iii.    The purpose of anti-dumping duty is only to remove the unfair practice of dumping. It does not lead to violation of WTO Agreement. Indeed, all past imposition of anti-dumping duties on the product have been in accordance with Indian Rules and WTO Agreement. The WTO Agreement nowhere provides that the domestic industry is not entitled to protection, if it meets only 12% of Indian demand. Examination by the Authority 27. As regards the submission that imposition of anti-dumping duty contributes to inflation, the Authority notes that the imposition of anti-dumping duties might affect the price levels of the products manufactured using the subject goods and consequently might have some influence on relative competitiveness of these products. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by the anti-dumping duties, particularly if the levy of the anti-dumping duty is restricted to an amount necessary to redress the injury caused to the domestic industry. On the contrary, imposition of the anti-dumping duties would remove the unfair advantages gained by the dumping practices, would prevent the decline of the domestic industry and help maintain availability of wider choice to the users/consumers of the subject goods 28. As  regards  the  contention  that  any  restriction  by  way  of  imposition  of  Anti- dumping duty will be in violation of WTO Agreement when the petitioner company meets only 12% of the demand, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has met 29% of the demand in POI. Further, in terms of Rule 11 read with Annexure II of the Anti-dumping Rules, the Authority has determined the injury to the domestic industry caused by dumped imports. The applicants in the present investigation constitute domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the Anti-dumping Rules and the injury analysis has been done on the basis of the verified information pertaining to the domestic industry and therefore imposition of antidumping measures if any in the present case will not be in violation of WTO Agreement. 29. As regards the submission that domestic industry is not capable of meeting the entire demand in the country and import is inevitable, the Authority notes that it is not mandatory on the part of the domestic industry under the Anti-dumping Rules to fulfill the entire demand to be eligible for a fair price in the market. Moreover, the Authority notes that imposition of anti-dumping measures do not prevent the importers/users to import, but rather ensures multiple sources of supply at fair and competitive prices. 30. As regards the contention that domestic industry has sought protection under the anti-dumping law as well as safeguards law, the Authority notes that there is no legal bar on the domestic industry to seek protection under both the antidumping and safeguard laws. G. Normal Value, Export Price and Determination of Dumping Margin Submissions by the Domestic Industry 31. Following are the submissions made by the domestic industry: i.  The petitioners have been unable to get any information/evidence of price of subject goods in the domestic market of the subject country. Therefore, Normal value in the subject country has been determined on the basis of best estimates of cost of production, duly adjusted. Major raw material (Benzene) cost has been considered as per Platts report and other raw material costs are taken as petitioner’s cost, considering the same as the best estimates of conversion costs involved in production of the product. The consumption norms and utilities cost are taken as per petitioner. ii.  Export price has been  determined as weighted  average  import price of the product under consideration calculated at the CIF level. Export price has been adjusted for (a) Ocean Freight, (b) Marine Insurance, (c) Commission, (d) Port Expenses, (e) Inland Freight and (f) Bank Commission. iii.  In response to the argument that the landed value for Korea has been wrongly determined it is submitted that the petitioner strongly apprehends that the exporter has claimed higher export price than the prices reported to Indian Customs. The Designated Authority is requested to collate the data with the Indian Customs Data. iv. The interested parties have advocated the need for individual dumping/injury margin determinations for each of the co-operating unaffiliated producer/trader combination separately. However, there is no legal basis for this argument. For one producer, there should not be more than one dumping margin, merely because the goods have been sold through different traders. v.  There is continued dumping of the product under consideration from Korea RP. The dumping margin is not only beyond de-minimis limits but also substantial. Submissions by producers/importers/exporters and other interested parties: 32. Following are the submissions made by the producers/exporters/importers/ and other interested parties in this regard: i.    There has been no dumping of Kumho’s PUC in India during the Review POl or thereafter. The Export Price of the PUC from Korea to India has risen steadily throughout the past five years except for 2009. ii.  As per the Petition, the landed value from Korea is higher than countries on which there is neither any AD Duty nor any investigation. Further the verifiable landed value of Kumho’s PUC is higher than the weighted average landed value of the PUC from Korea and the weighted average landed value of the PUC from other countries attracting AD duty iii. There  should  be  individual  dumping/injury  margin  determinations  for  each cooperating unaffiliated producer/trader combination separately. iv. Due to wide fluctuation in crude prices impacting cost and price of Acetone, DGAD should adopt monthly cost and price to arrive at dumping and injury margin. v.  Prices of Acetone are determined on global demand and supply basis. vi. During the POI, the imports of subject goods from Korea is only 8500 MT, which is less than 5% of the total Indian demand. Such a small volume of imports could not have caused injury to the domestic industry. vii. There is limited capacity of production of the PUC in Korea during the POI with over 90% being consumed domestically. There has been no expansion and nor is there any schedule expansion of PUC by KPB post-POI and KPB has already maximized its capacity utilization. viii.There has been increased captive consumption of PUC by KPB in recent years due to setting up of BPA plant. ix. There have been only occasional and sporadic exports of PUC by KPB and that too through unaffiliated traders only. Thus India is not a target market for KPB. x.  India exports of KPB’s PUC were much lower in volume than the imports at lower price from countries having no ADD. xi. KPB has 2 production lines for the PUC which DI has wrongly interpreted as 2 plants. The capacity utilization of both lines is 100% and there is no surplus capacity as alleged by the DI. Examination by Authority 33. 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 subsection (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): Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transshipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of exporter there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin. 34. As regards the submission that there should be individual dumping/injury margin determinations for each co-operating unaffiliated producer/trader combination separately, the Authority notes that the dumping margin and injury margin determinations in the present investigation are consistent with the established practice of the DGAD and the Rules in this regard. 35. As regards the contention that a small volume of imports from Korea RP cannot injure the domestic industry, the Authority notes that it has made injury analysis separately elsewhere in this statement. 36. As  regards  the  submission  for  determination  of  dumping  margin  and  injury margin, on monthly basis, the Authority notes that the relevant data has been analysed on monthly basis in the present investigation Determination of Normal Value 37. The    following    producers/exporters    from    Korea    RP    have    filed    exporter’s questionnaire response:

1.    M/s LG Chem Ltd
2.    Kumho P&B Chemicals, Inc

M/s LG Chem Ltd, Korea RP 38. In the EQ response of LG Chem Ltd, it is stated that they have two plants in Korea involved in the production of the subject goods. It is stated that in the domestic market the Company sold directly to its customers through its own domestic sales and marketing organization during the POI. But in the Attachment B2 of the EQ response, it is stated that the Company has two sales channels in the domestic market i.e. sales to unaffiliated domestic customer (distributor or end user) and sales to affiliated domestic customer (end user). 39. As regards export sales to India during the POI, it is stated in the EQ response filed by LG Chem Ltd that there is only one channel of export to India and the Company has sold to the Indian Customers directly. But, in the attachment at B3 of the EQ response, the export sales channel to India during the POI has been explained as having taken place as (1) to the trader or end user in India directly and (2) through unaffiliated trading company to the trader or end user in India. 40. Subsequently, in response to the queries raised by the Authority, the Company informed that they have exported to India during the POI through three channels viz; (1) sales to unrelated traders/indenters in Dubai who made high sea sales to India  (2)  sales  contract  with  an  indenter  in  USA  with  instructions  from  the indenter to raise all documents including commercial invoice, bill of lading, etc in favour of the Indian buyer, and (3) sales to Indian buyer whereas all documents were raised in favour of the Indian importers. 41. From the details furnished in the EQ response and subsequent correspondences made by LG Chem Ltd, the Authority notes that during the POI the Company has exported totally *** MT of subject goods to India, out of which ***MT has been exported through trading companies namely ***, UAE and ***, USA, constituting about *** % of the total exports, who have not filed EQ response in the present investigation. 42. In view of the above stated position and due to absence of complete value chain of the exports, the Authority is not in a position to determine individual margins as representative of LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP and therefore has not granted individual  margins  to  the  Company.  Since,  under  the  above  stated circumstances, determination of normal value concerning LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP is not considered to be relevant, the Authority has not determined individual normal value for LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP. Kumho P&B Chemicals, Inc, Korea RP along with Ji San Chemical Co., Ltd, Korea RP, Humade Co., Ltd, Korea RP, Cowin Global Co., Ltd, Korea RP, M Corporation, Korea RP and OCI Corporation Ltd, Korea RP 43. In the EQ response, Kumho P&B Chemical Inc. (KPB”) has claimed that the Company has a plant at Yeosu in Korea RP involved in the production of Phenol, Acetone, etc. It is further stated that KPB made sale of a small quantity of the product concerned to its affiliates, ***. (a major shareholder of KPB), during the period of review. *** then uses this product concerned as sub-material for production of antioxidants. As regards sales in the domestic market of Korea, it is stated that during the period of review, KPB had only one channel of distribution i.e. direct sales to related and unrelated customers. KPB sold the product concerned to both end-users and distributors in Korean domestic market. 44. As regards exports to India, it is stated that during the POI, KPB sold the product concerned to India through one sales channel i.e. through distributors in Korea namely Ji San Chemical Co., Ltd, Humade Co., Ltd, Cowin Global Co., Ltd, M Corporation and OCI Corporation Ltd. All these trading companies in Korea RP have filed EQ response. Subsequently, in response to the queries raised by the Authority, the Company submitted that in only a limited number of transductions, the traders had involved further unaffiliated traders outside Korea RP who have not filed EQ response in the present investigation. As per the details furnished by the Company, during POI, KPB has exported to India ***MT of subject goods through M Corporation, Korea RP who in turn exported the said goods to India through ***, Singapore. Similarly, during the POI KPB has exported to India *** MT  of  subject  goods  through  OCI  Corporation  Ltd,  Korea  RP,  who  in  turn exported the said goods to India through ***, Singapore. Further, ***MT of subject goods have been exported by KPB to India through Humade Co Ltd, Korea RP who in turn have exported the said goods to India through ***, UAE. 45. Thus, from the subsequent information furnished by Kumho P&B Chemical Inc., the Authority notes that out of the total exports of ***MT of subject goods to India during the POI, ***MT, constituting about ***% of the total exports of subject goods made by KPB to India during the POI, has been exported through M Corporation, Korea RP, OCI Corporation Ltd, Korea RP and  Humade Co Ltd, Korea RP who in turn have exported the said goods through ***, Singapore, ***, Singapore and ***, UAE respectively. But, ***, Singapore, ***, Singapore and ***, UAE have not filed EQ response in the present investigation. 46. In view of the above stated position and due to absence of complete value chain of the exports, the Authority is not in a position to determine individual margins as representative of Kumho P&B Chemical Inc, Korea RP and the connected trading companies and therefore has not granted individual margins to the said companies.  Since,  under  the  above  stated  circumstances,  determination  of normal value concerning Kumho P&B Chemical Inc, Korea RP is not considered to  be  relevant,  the  Authority has  not  determined  individual  normal  value  for Kumho P&B Chemical Inc, Korea RP. Other Producers/Exporters from Korea 47. The  Authority  notes  that  no  other  exporter/producer  from  Korea  RP  has responded to the Authority in the present investigation. For all the non- cooperative exporters/producers in Korea RP, including the above stated companies, the Authority has determined the normal value on the basis of best available information. The Authority has determined the Normal Value as per facts  available  in  terms  of  Rule  6(8)  of  the  Rules  as  US$  ***  per  MT  by considering the cost of production of the most efficient domestic industry, duly adjusted  to  include  selling,  general  &  administrative  costs/expenses  and reasonable profits i.e. 5%. Export Price 48. The Authority notes that the following producers/exporters from Korea RP had filed exporter’s questionnaire response in the present investigation:

1.    M/s LG Chem Ltd
2.    Kumho P&B Chemicals, Inc

M/s LG Chem Ltd, Korea RP 49. As regards export sales to India during the POI, it is stated in the EQ response filed by LG Chem Ltd that there is only one channel of export to India and the Company has sold to the Indian Customers directly. But, in the attachment at B3 of the EQ response, the export sales channel to India during the POI has been explained as having taken place as (1) to trader or end user in India directly and (2) through unaffiliated trading company with final destination of India to trader or end user in India. 50. Subsequently, in response to the queries raised by the Authority, the Company informed that they have exported to India during the POI through three channels viz; (1) sales to unrelated traders/indenters in Dubai who made high sea sales to India  (2)  sales  contract  with  an  indenter  in  USA  with  instructions  from  the indenter to raise all documents including commercial invoice, bill of lading, etc in favour of the Indian buyer, and (3) sales to Indian buyer whereas all documents were raised in favour of the Indian importers. 51. From the details furnished in the EQ response and subsequent correspondences made by LG Chem Ltd, the Authority notes that during the POI the Company has exported totally ***MT of subject goods to India, out of which ***MT has been exported through trading companies namely ***, UAE and ***, USA, constituting about *** % of the total exports, who have not filed EQ response in the present investigation. 52. In view of the above stated position and due to absence of complete value chain of the exports due to non-filing of EQ response by the trading companies in UAE and USA, the complete value chain in respect of the claimed exports to India during the POI cannot be established. In view of the above position, the Authority does not determine individual export price and does not determine individual margins in respect of LG Chem Ltd, Korea RP in the present investigation. Kumho P&B Chemicals, Inc, Korea RP along with Ji San Chemical Co., Ltd, Korea RP, Humade Co., Ltd, Korea RP, Cowin Global Co., Ltd, Korea RP, M Corporation, Korea RP and OCI Corporation Ltd, Korea RP 53. In the EQ response filed by Kumho P&B Chemicals, Inc, Korea RP, it is stated that during the POI, the Company sold the product concerned to India through only one sales channel i.e. through distributors. The trading companies in Korea RP, through whom  Kumho stated to have exported the subject goods to India during the POI are Ji San Chemical Co., Ltd  Korea RP, Humade Co., Ltd, Korea RP, Cowin Global Co., Ltd, Korea RP, M Corporation, Korea RP and OCI Corporation  Ltd,  Korea  RP,  who  have  filed  EQ  response  in  the  present investigation. 54. Subsequently, in response to the queries raised by the Authority, it was explained by Kumho that in a limited number of transactions, the traders had involved further unaffiliated traders outside Korea RP who have not filed EQ response in the present investigation. The Authority notes that as per the details furnished by the Company, during POI KPB has exported to India *** MT of subject goods through M Corporation, Korea RP who in turn exported the said goods to India through ***, Singapore. Similarly, during the POI KPB has exported to India ***MT of subject goods through OCI Corporation Ltd, Korea RP, who in turn exported the said goods to India through ***, Singapore. Further, ***MT of subject goods have been exported by KPB to India through Humade Co Ltd, Korea RP who in turn have exported the said goods to India through ***, UAE. 55. Thus, from the subsequent information furnished by Kumho P&B Chemical Inc., the Authority notes that out of the total exports of ***MT of subject goods made by Kumho to India during the POI, ***MT, constituting ***% of the total exports of subject goods made by KPB to India during the POI, has been exported to India through certain trading companies who have not filed EQ response in the present investigation.  In  view  of  the  above  stated  position  and  due  to  absence  of complete value chain of the exports due to non-filing of EQ response by the trading companies in UAE and Singapore, the complete value chain in respect of the claimed exports to India during the POI cannot be established. In view of the above position, the Authority does not determine individual export price and does not determine individual margins in respect of Kumho P&B Chemical Inc, Korea RP and the connected trading companies namely Ji San Chemical Co., Ltd., Korea RP, Humade Co., Ltd, Korea RP, Cowin Global Co., Ltd, Korea RP, M Corporation, Korea RP and OCI Corporation Ltd, Korea RP, in the present investigation. Other Exporters from Korea 56. The  Authority  notes  that  no  other  exporter/producer  from  Korea  RP  has responded to the Authority in the present investigation. For all these exporters/producers in Korea RP, including the above stated companies, the Authority has determined the net export price as US$ ***per MT based on facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. Dumping Margin 57. Comparing the Constructed Normal Value and the Export price at ex-factory level determined as above, the Dumping Margin for the producers/exporters in the subject country is determined as follows: F. Methodology for Injury Determination and Examination of Injury and Causal Link Submissions by the domestic industry 58. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the injury and causal link: i.    Price  undercutting  is  significantly  positive  and  is  likely  to  increase  the demand for the product under consideration in the market in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duty. ii.    The Designated Authority is required to consider situation during the period of investigation only. HOCL suspended production because of intensified dumping  of  the  product  which  has  made  its  current  operations  totally unviable. HOCL has not completely gone out of business. It has merely suspended production. iii.    Performance  of  the  domestic  industry  in  terms  of  production,  capacity utilization, domestic sales, market share, profits, return on investments, cash flow has deteriorated in the current Period of Investigation. The information filed by SI Group clearly shows significant deterioration in its profits, cash flows and return on investment. While SI Group is a private enterprise, HOCL is a public sector organization. The financial losses being suffered by the company forced the company to reduce its production. iv.     The  interested  parties  have  made  incorrect  statements  about  capacity utilization, inventory position and price realization of both Indian producers. Capacity utilization of the petitioner has declined. Sales realization has been below cost of production in the period of investigation. The increase in sales realization is less than increase in cost. The increase in sales realization in isolation is misleading unless the trends in cost of sales are also considered. v.    The Designated Authority is concerned with HOCL’s performance with regard to product under consideration. HOCL’s performance improved significantly in 2010-11 and in fact considering the improvement in the performance of the HOCL, the Authority had earlier revoked duties on the subject goods. However, because of dumping of the global surplus of the product in the Indian market, HOCL could not improve its performance further and is once again suffering losses. vi.     It was contended that imports from Korea during the period of investigation is less than 5% of the total demand and hence cannot cause injury. This argument is baseless. Anti-dumping Rules recognizes countries having a share of 3% and above in total imports as having the potential to cause injury to the domestic industry. In this case the imports are significant and are also undercutting and suppressing the prices of the domestic industry causing injury to the domestic industry. Further, in the event of revocation of anti- dumping duty, it is likely that imports of the subject goods will surge and cause further injury to the domestic industry. vii.    The domestic industry is still suffering continued injury from the imports of dumped subject goods; viii.     The changes in import prices are required to be seen along with changes in input cost. Mere consideration of import prices would be totally fallacious. The cost of production has also increased significantly. In fact the Korean producers have not increased their prices in proportion to the increase in cost. ix.     The Authority must consider the cost structures which would show that even at best capacity utilization, HOCL would have suffered significant adverse price effect in the POI. x.    None of the factors such as exchange volatility, inflation, high interest rates, and volatile stock markets are responsible for claimed injury to the domestic industry. There has been no significant change on any of these factors and as far as domestic industry and the present product is concerned. The performance of the domestic industry has, however, significantly deteriorated which clearly establishes that such deterioration is not because of the factors identified by KPB. xi.     The profitability of HOCL over the injury period and production and sale of the company clearly establishes that the company had significant profits in the past, which have now declined to a situation where domestic industry is suffering financial losses. In fact, the Designated Authority held that the performance of the domestic industry improved to such an extent that the anti-dumping duty earlier imposed on Taiwan was withdrawn holding that there was no likelihood of injury to the domestic industry. Such being the case, arguments on up gradation or updating the technology are without any basis. With the present technology, the company was not suffering injury very recently and is now suffering injury. As regards employment, petitioner submits that with the same employment, the Designated Authority found that the domestic industry was profitable and was able to produce and sell the product to such an extent that it was not suffering injury. Such being the case and given that there is no significant increase in employment, there is no basis for the argument that the company is overstaffed and the same is leading to injury. xii.     The imports from Korea and other countries during the period of investigation clearly show that the imports from third countries are de-minimis. Since the volume itself is de-minimis, the price is immaterial. xiii.     Imports from Korea are not sporadic or occasional but are significant. In fact, imports have very significantly increased in the current year (2014-15) which clearly shows that the Korean producers are likely to cause significant injury to the domestic industry in case of cessation of anti-dumping duty. xiv.    HOCL has not adopted different methodology to allocate cost to Phenol and Acetone. HOCL has provided information in a consistent manner. xv.     Relevant parameters show that injury to the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports and thereby establish causal link. xvi.     The demand of the product under consideration has shown a positive growth throughout the injury period. Hence the contraction in demand is not a possible reason, which could have contributed to injury to the domestic industry. xvii.     Since  the  pattern  of  consumption  with  regard  to  the  product  under consideration has not undergone any change. Change in pattern of consumption is unlikely to contribute to the injury to the domestic industry. xviii.    There is no trade restrictive practice, which could have contributed to the injury to the domestic industry. xix.     Technology for production of the product has not undergone any change nor are there any likely changes in coming future. Developments in technology are therefore, not a factor of injury. xx.     The productivity of the domestic industry has decreased which is a result of decrease in the production. xxi.    The fact of dumping is established by the Authority in all past cases. The significant global surplus in Phenol and Acetone capacity is clearly the cause of dumping of the product in India. Such significant surpluses are likely to continue.   In   fact,   demand   for   Phenol   is   likely   to   increase   without proportionate increase in demand of Acetone, which will further create pressure on Acetone prices in the global market. Submissions by producers/exporters/importers other interested parties 59. The    producers/exporters/importers/other    interested    parties    have    made    the following submissions with regard to the injury and causal link: i.    The inventories position of SI Group was better than HOCL’s throughout the injury period considered and HOCL’s inventory position improved in the Review period. ii.    HOCL operated at a lower level of production, its per unit fixed cost was higher and consequently had a higher level of cost of sales than SI Group which had efficient capacity utilization. iii.    The NSR by both HOCL and SI Group has improved significantly in the injury period and especially in the Review POI, despite the fact that the domestic producer’s captive consumption transfer price was itself consistently lower than the market sales realization which could have been higher had the domestic producers transferred captive consumption at market price. iv.    The sales price realization by both HOCL and SI Group has improved significantly in the injury period and especially in the Review POI, despite the fact that the domestic producer’s captive consumption transfer price was itself consistently lower than the market sales realization which was could thus have been higher had domestic producers transferred captive consumption at market price . v.    There is no volume effect of the PUC from Korea since the share of Korea in overall imports of the PUC by India has declined sharply including from the year 2011 to the lifting of the AD duty in the year 2012 on imports of the PUC from Chinese Taipei. vi.     Kochi plant producing Acetone and Phenol made profits continuously for 10 years until and including Indian financial year 2011-12 despite prices of the PUC imported from Korea, etc., that were lower than in the Review POI. vii.     Director’s Report 2012-13 which indicates modifications of boilers to use LNG instead of LSFO and some debottlenecking of hydrogen peroxide by HOCL  at  Kochi  and  some  adjustment  to  capacity  utilization,  substituting LSFO by LNG is also expected to reduce HOCL’s costs substantially and may  be  adjusted  by  the  Authority  both  while  determining  injury  and calculating a NIP. viii.     The Kochi plant of HOCL produces both phenol and acetone. The data of both may be segregated while determining injury margin. ix.     Lower capacity utilization is would result in higher costs. Thus in case of HOCL, costs may be calculated for NIP purposes on the basis of 100% capacity utilization. x.    Exchange volatility, inflation, high interest rates, volatile stock markets are also factors that may be taken into account for injury analysis. xi.     The sales price realization of domestic producers has also risen substantially during the injury period including the POI. However, domestic producers are transferring PUC for captive consumption at below market sales realisation. xii.     The capacity utilization, inventory and price realization of both the domestic producers has improved in the POI and also in the injury period despite the increase in imports  and especially in the face of the alleged dumped imports from Taiwan. xiii.     Imports from Korea continuously declined with increase in CIF and resultant higher  landed  value.  The  landed  value  from  Korea  remained  to  be  the highest during the POI as well as in the post POI.  Hence imports from Korea have no injurious effect on the domestic producers. xiv.    Domestic industry did not suffer any price suppression due to imports from Korea. Even in the existence of imports at an average landed value of Rs. 58870/MT during the POI, the DI could sell the product at a price of Rs. 69432/MT during the POI and at a higher price during the post POI. xv.    The use of high cost LSFO as fuel for boilers, hot oil furnace and CPP in their Kochi plant of HOCL is the main reasons for cost inefficiency of HOCL. xvi.     Wrong calculation of landed value from Korea has resulted in inflated price undercutting. xvii.    22% ROCE claimed by DI is unreasonable. xviii.    Captive consumption of Acetone by HOCL needs to be adjusted while determining NIP by the Authority. xix.    When both HOCL and SI have similar capacities and production, SI’s non participation establishes that it is not adversely affected by imports. Thus HOCL’s claim of injury is unfounded. xx.     In every investigation, HOCL has adopted different methodology to allocate cost to Phenol and Acetone which are joint products. This needs to be addressed. xxi.     There can be no volume effect of imports from Korea since the share of Korean imports has declined sharply prior to lifting of ADD from Chinese Taipei. xxii.     There  is no  volume effect of  imports from  Korea  since there  is a  huge demand and supply gap and imports are inevitable. xxiii.    The obsolete technology adopted by HOCL is the main reason for their injury. Moreover, being over staffed is also a cause for higher cost of production and inefficiency. xxiv.     As admitted in the Director’s report of HOCL for 2012-13, high labor cost and high incidence of cost on closed plants at Rasayani Unit are the major concerns. xxv.     DI has claimed that 60% of acetone imports from countries not facing ADD are from Taiwan and Saudi Arabia at lower, dumped prices and for which along with allegedly dumped significant imports from Saudi Arabia there is an ongoing AD investigation. Thus the cause of any injury to the domestic industry lies elsewhere. xxvi.     One of the main reasons of poor performance of HOCL is the finance crunch being suffered by the company. Thus imports from Korea have no correlation with HOCL’s self-inflicted injury. xxvii.     Lower  level  of  production  by  HOCL  is  the  main  cause  of  injury  to  the company. Due to low level of production, the per unit cost is higher, resulting in higher cost of sales. As compared with SI Group, inefficiency of capacity utilization has resulted in higher cost of sales for HOCL. xxviii.     Performance of HOCL should be examined in detail since the time when there were quantitative restrictions and imports of Acetone were banned. HOCL has been consistently a sick unit despite Anti-dumping and other protections provided to it. HOCL has never updated and upgraded its technologies. The same is the main reason for its losses. xxix.     During the period of investigation one company is operating at 105% and the other is operating at 67% which shows that reason for losses to HOCL cannot be due to imports but other factors. xxx.     The  volume  of  Acetone  exports  from  Korea  to  India  has  considerably declined despite the closure for many months of HOCL’s plant. xxxi.    There is no price effect attributable to imports of the PUC exported by Korea. HOCL  has  made  continuous  profits  in  last ten  years.  No  price  effect  is attributable to imports of the PUC from Korea. xxxii.    HOCL’s Profits allegedly fell from 2012-13 when anti-dumping duty was removed on imports of the PUC from Chinese Taipei and led to substantially increased imports from Chinese Taipei while prices of the PUC exported by Korea rose sharply at this time. Thus there is no price effect attributable to imports from Korea. xxxiii.     HOCL’s Annual Report 2012-13 attributes its claimed loss in 2012-13 in part also withdrawal of certain AD duty on imports of phenol. Thus the claimed loss is clearly for Phenol in addition to Acetone. xxxiv.    AD Duty is in force for many years on imports of the PUC from various countries. Therefore, if DI continues to face injury it is apparent that the same may be attributed to causes other than imports. xxxv.     HOCL’s annual report for 2012-13 attributes the claimed loss is also due to withdrawal of ADD on phenol. xxxvi.    HOCL’s capacity utilization and inventory position during the POI showed improving trends. SI Group’s capacity utilization is more than 100% and a stable inventory position. These show that the domestic industry had no volume injury from the imports of subject goods from the subject country. Thus the claimed volume injury, if any, may be due to other factors and not due to imports of the subject goods from Korea. xxxvii.    If ADD is imposed on many countries on the imports of subject goods, then DI is facing injury on account of other factors other than imports. xxxviii.     The landed value of imports from Korea RP was the highest among different sources, while imports vis-à-vis market share of imports from Korea RP was the least. If any injurious price effect on the domestic industry was caused by imports that cannot be attributed to imports from Korea RP. Examination by the Authority 60. The Authority has taken note of various submissions of the interested parties on consequent injury to the domestic industry and has analyzed the same considering the facts available on record and applicable law. While most of the issues are concerning the facts and figures which are addressed ipso facto in the injury analysis, the specific submissions are examined and addressed below: i.    As regards the submission that Kochi plant of HOCL producing Acetone and Phenol made profits continuously for 10 years, the Authority notes that it is a matter of concern that the unit had posted losses in POI. ii.    As regards the contention that HOCL has switched over to LNG instead of LSFO as the fuel, during verification it was clarified by the Company that during the POI, LSFO was used in the production of the subject goods. iii.    As regards the submission that Kochi plant of HOCL produces both phenol and acetone and therefore the data of both may be segregated while determining injury margin, the Authority notes that NIP is determined in terms of Annexure III of the AD Rules taking in to account all relevant factors. iv.     As regards the submission that lower capacity utilization results in higher costs and thus in case of HOCL, costs may be calculated for NIP purposes on the basis of 100% capacity utilization, the Authority notes that NIP is determined in terms of Annexure III of the AD Rules taking in to account all relevant factors. v.    As regards the submission regarding the need for making adjustment in the NIP for the expected reduction in the cost of Acetone produced by HOCL and other issues raised by interested parties on computation of NIP, the Authority holds that the NIP has been determined in terms of the principles outlined in Annexure III to the Antidumping Rules based on the data for the POI. vi.     As  regards  the  contention  that  22%  Return  on  Capital  Employed  (ROCE) claimed by Domestic industry is unreasonable, the Authority notes that it is the consistent practice of DGAD to allow 22% ROCE. vii.     As regards the contention that SI Group’s non participation establishes that it is not adversely affected by imports, the Authority notes that SI Group supported the  application  and  post  initiation  submitted  required  information  and  was verified by the Authority as a part of the domestic industry along with HOCL. viii.     As regards the contention that obsolete technology adopted by HOCL, over staffing and usage of costlier fuel in boilers, CPP, etc.,  are the main reasons for their inefficiency contributing to their injury, the Authority notes that had it been so then HOCL would not have been making profits for ten long years. ix.     The Authority holds that considering the performance of HOCL and SI Group as a whole would not be appropriate as HOCL as well as SI Group are producing multi-products from different locations. Therefore, the Authority has considered the performance of HOCL and SI Group with regard to Acetone only for the purpose  of  injury  analysis  and  NIP.  Therefore,  the  contention  of  interested parties that the injury to HOCL is on account of it closed plant in Rasayani has no relevance in the present investigation. x.    As regards the contention that the main cause of injury to the domestic industry lies in the imports of the subject goods from Taiwan and Saudi Arabia and not imports, the Authority notes that dumping can take place from several sources simultaneously.  The  objective  of  anti-dumping  measures  is  to  identify  the sources of dumping and neutralize the effect of dumping to create a level playing field for the domestic industry. xi.     It is true that HOCL does suffer from financial crunch, but this cannot be the sole factor of injury. The financial crunch being faced by HOCL is mainly due to incessant dumping. xii.     As regards the contention that lower level of production by HOCL is the main cause of injury to the company, the Authority notes that it had considered optimum capacity utilization achieved by the company during the injury period for determining the NIP as per AD Rules. This adjustment addresses the injury if any suffered by HOCL on account of lower level of production. xiii.    As regards the contention that HOCL’s obsolete technology and over staffed position are the main reasons for its injury, the Authority notes that the performance of HOCL over the injury period and production and sale of the company establishes that the company had significant profits in the past, which have now declined to and is suffering financial losses with the present technology. This shows that HOCL was making profit when there was no dumping. xiv.    As regards the contention that during the period of investigation SI Group  is operating at 105% and HOCL is operating at 67% and therefore losses to HOCL cannot be due to imports but other factors, the Authority notes that the domestic industry (constituted by HOCL and SI Group) is suffering injury on account of dumping in the POI. Therefore, injury cannot be attributed to lower capacity utilization only. xv.     As regards the contention that  HOCL’s annual report for 2012-13 attributes the claimed loss also due to withdrawal of ADD on phenol, the Authority notes that the present investigation concerns Acetone as the product under consideration and the injury analysis has been carried out in respect of the said product vis–a- vis its dumping from the subject country. Nevertheless, injury can also happen to the domestic industry simultaneously by the dumping of more than one product exported from more than one source. 61. In consideration of the various submissions made by the domestic industry in this regard, the Authority proceeds to examine the current injury, if any, to the domestic  industry  before  proceeding  to  examine  the  likelihood  aspects  of dumping and injury on account of imports from the subject country. 62. Rule 11 of Antidumping Rules read with Annexure–II provides that an injury determination shall involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, “…. taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles….” In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. 63. For  the  examination  of  the  impact  of  the  dumped  imports  on  the  domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, stock, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the rules supra. 64. The present investigation is a sunset review of anti-dumping duties in force. Rule 23 provides that provisions of Rule 11 shall apply, mutatis mutandis in case of a review as well. The Authority has, therefore, determined injury to the domestic industry considering, mutatis mutandis, the provisions of Rule 11 read with Annexure II. Further, since anti- dumping duties are in force on imports of the product under consideration, the Authority considers whether the existing anti- dumping duties on the imports of subject goods from Korea RP are required to be considered while examining injury to the domestic industry. The Authority has examined whether the existing antidumping measure is sufficient or not to counteract the dumping which is causing injury. 65. According  to  Section  9(A)(5)  of  the  Customs  Tariff  Act,  anti-dumping  duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition, provided that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period of five years and such further period shall commence from the date of order of such extension. 66. For the purpose of current injury analysis, the Authority has examined the volume and  price  effects  of  dumped  imports  of  the  subject  goods  on  the  domestic industry and its effect on the prices and profitability to examine the existence of injury and causal links between the dumping and injury, if any. The Authority has examined injury to the domestic industry by considering information relating to M/s Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited M/s SI Group India Ltd, constituting domestic industry under the Rules. Accordingly ,the volume and price effect of dumped imports have been examined as follows: VOLUME EFFECT: Volume effect of dumped imports and impact on domestic industry Demand and Market Share 67. The  Authority  has determined demand or apparent consumption of the product in the Country as the sum of domestic sales of the Indian producers and imports from all sources. The demand so assessed can be seen in the table given below. The Authority notes that though demand for the product in the country during POI increased as compared to the base year, the market share of the domestic industry during the same period has declined. Import Volume & market share 68. With  regard  to  volume  of  the  dumped  imports,  the  Authority  is  required  to consider whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumptionin India. From the information given below, the Authority notes that the volume of imports from the subject country, though declined during the POI vis-à-vis the base year, it continues to be significant despite the antidumping duty in force.   PRICE EFFECT Price effect to dumped imports and impact on domestic industry 69. The impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account to imports of the subject goods from the subject country have been examined with reference to price undercutting, price underselling, price suppression and price depressio For the purpose of this analysis the cost of production, net sales realization (NSR) and the non-injurious price (NIP) of the domestic industry have been compared with landed value of imports from the subject country. A comparison for subject goods during the period of investigation was made between the landed value of the dumped imports and the domestic selling price in the domestic market. In determining the net sales realization of the domestic industry, taxes, rebates, discounts and commission incurred by the domestic industry have been adjusted. The price underselling is an important indicator of assessment of injury; thus, the Authority has worked out a non-injurious price and compared the same with the landed value to arrive at the extent of price underselling. The non-injurious price has been evaluated for the domestic industry in terms of the principles by appropriately considering the cost of production for the product under consideration during the POI. The position is as follows. Price Undercutting and Underselling 70. The Authority has made analysis of both price undercutting and underselling with and without antidumping duty as below: Price Undercutting 71. The Authority notes that it is required to consider whether there has been significant price undercutting by the dumped imports when compared with the price of 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. 72. The authority notes that the imports from subject country are undercutting the prices of the Domestic Industry in the Indian mark There exists price undercutting with and without anti-dumping duty during POI. Price Underselling 73.The Authority notes that price underselling effect of the dumped imports is positive both with and without anti-dumping duty. Price Suppression and Depression 74. To examine the price suppression and depression effects of the dumped imports on the domestic prices, the trend of net sales realization of the domestic industry has been compared with the cost of sales. The data given below shows that the domestic industry’s selling price has remained below its cost of sales during POI. Further the landed price from subject country is below the cost of sales of the domestic industry resulting in price depression. Examination of other economic parameters of the domestic industry 75.Annexure II to the Anti- dumping Rules requires that a determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of like product. The Rules further provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments .An examination of performance of the domestic industry reveals that the domestic industry has suffered material injury. The various injury parameters relating to the domestic industry are discussed below. Production, capacity and capacity utilization 76.The Authority notes from the table below that capacity for the product under consideration has increased marginally in the period of investigation. Whereas the actual production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry have declined during POI as compared to the base year as well as previous years. Sales of the Domestic Industry 77. From the information given below, the Authority notes that the domestic sales of the domestic industry have declined in the POI as compared to base year as well as previous years after reaching a peak level in 2010-11. Profit/loss, return on investment and cash flow 78.The return on investment, profit/loss before and after interest and cash profit are as shown in the table below: 79. The Authority notes that profits of the domestic industry declined significantly in the period of investigation. The increase in selling price is much below the increase in the level of costs. The profits before interest increased in 2010-11 and thereafter declined significantly with a steep fall during the period of investigation. It has been further noted that the cash profits showed the same trend as that of profits. The cash profits of the domestic industry declined significantly resulting in cash losses to the domestic industry in the POI. Further, the return on capital employed has deteriorated and has reached negative level in the POI. Inventories 80. The  data  given  in  the  table  below  shows  that  the  inventory  levels  with  the domestic industry have come down as compared to the base year. Employment and wages 81. From  the  table  given  below,  the  Authority  notes  that  both  the employment and  wages  of  the  domestic  industry  have  shown  improvement  in  the  injury period. However, it is also noted that given the fact that the domestic industry is a multi  product  company  and  performance  on  account  of  these  factors  are governed more by the law of the land, these parameters may not be reflective of the continued injury suffered by the domestic industry. Productivity 82. The  Authority  notes  from  the  table  below  that  productivity  of  the  domestic industry during POI has moved in tandem with the production over the injury period. Magnitude of Dumping Margin 83. The Authority notes that the dumping margin of the imports of the subject goods from the subject country is positive and substantial despite anti-dumping duty. Growth 84. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has shown positive growth till 2010-11 after which the growth has become negative and during the POI, the growth is significantly negative. Factors Affecting Domestic Prices 85. The  examination  of  the  import  prices  from  the  subject  country  and  other countries, change  in the  cost  structure,  competition  in  the  domestic  market, factors other than dumped imports that might be affecting the prices of the domestic industry in the domestic market, etc shows that with as well as without the antidumping duty the landed value of the subject goods imported from the subject country is below the selling price and the non-injurious price of the domestic industry, causing price undercutting as well as price under selling in the Indian  market.  It  is  also  noted  that  the  demand  for  the  subject  goods  was showing significant increase during the POI and therefore it could not have been a  factor  affecting  domestic  prices.  Thus,  the  principal  factor  affecting  the domestic prices is landed value of subject goods from subject countries. Ability to raise Capital Investment 86. The ability to raise capital investment by the domestic industry in the event of dumping is not relevant since the domestic industry is a multi-product company. H.    Causal Link 87. The Rules mandates the Authority to examine the causal links between the dumped imports and the injury caused to the domestic industry on account of the dumped  imports.  The  Authority  has  examined  whether  the  following  known factors could have caused injury to the domestic industry as follows: i.    Imports from Third Countries:-The Authority notes that dumped imports of the product under consideration from other countries causing injury to domestic industry are either attracting antidumping duty or under investigation for imposition of antidumping duty. The Authority further notes that though the landed value of imports from Korea is higher as compared   to   the   landed   value   of   imports   from   countries   under investigation and countries subjected to antidumping duty, the dumped imports from Korea are also causing injury to domestic industry in terms of price undercutting, price underselling and price depression. ii.    Contraction in Demand:- The Authority notes that there is no contraction in  demand  as  the  demand  of  the  subject  goods  in  the  country  has consistently grown throughout the injury period. iii.    Pattern of consumption:- It is noted that none of the interested parties has made any submission about the change in the pattern consumption of the subject goods causing injury to the domestic industry. iv.     Conditions of competition:-The Authority notes that the investigation has not shown that conditions of competition or trade restrictive practices are responsible for the claimed injury to the domestic industry. v.    Developments in technology:- The  Authority  notes  that  the investigation has not shown that there was any significant change in technology which could have caused injury to the domestic industry. vi.     Export performance of the domestic industry:- The export performance of the domestic industry is not relevant since the Authority has considered only  the  domestic  performance  of  the  Domestic  Industry  for  injury analysis. Conclusion on material injury and causal link 88. The  dumped  imports  of  the  subject  goods  from  the  subject  country  are undercutting the prices of domestic industry. The dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject country are also causing price underselling, price suppression and price depression effects on the domestic industry’s prices. Further, the financial health of the domestic industry has deteriorated in the face of continued dumping. In view of the above, the Authority holds that the domestic industry has suffered material injury on account of dumped imports from the subject country. I.    Likelihood of continuation/recurrence of dumping and injury Submissions by the domestic industry 89. Following are the submissions made by the domestic industry: i.    The current volume and price of imports from Korea in itself is sufficient to establish likelihood of injury in case of cessation of anti dumping duty. There is no reason to believe that the volume would decline with the cessation of anti dumping duty. ii.    Dumping of the product under consideration is continuing and is likely to intensify from the subject country should the current anti- dumping duty be revoked. industry. iv.    Volumes  of  imports  are  significant  despite  current  anti-dumping  duties  in force. v.    Cessation of anti-dumping duty is likely to have significant suppressing and depressing effect on the prices of the product under consideration in the market. vi.   It is seen that even if KPB has set up a BPA Plant and will be captively consuming 44% of the Product under Consideration, 56% of production by KPB shall still be available for sale in the market. Further, the other producer, LG Chem, is expanding its capacities, which would create significant surplus in Korean market. This would clearly result in intensified competition between Korean  producers  and  shall force  both  the  Korean  producers  to  look for market opportunities outside Korea. The impact of enhancement of capacity by LG shall not be limited to LG alone. It would certainly be felt by KPB as well. vii.   The fact of dumping is established by the Authority in all past cases. The significant global surplus in Phenol and Acetone capacity is clearly the cause of dumping of the product in India. Such significant surpluses are likely to continue. In fact, demand for Phenol is likely to increase without proportionate increase in demand of Acetone, which will further create pressure on Acetone prices in the global market. viii.    The global market scenario of the product concerned is not healthy. There exists  significant  surplus  in  the  global  market  which  is  further  likely  to increase. Therefore in such a situation, producers globally are looking for existing market and utilize the capacities available. ix.    The prices of subject goods are determined on global demand and supply basis. Now that the product is significantly surplus in the global market, the foreign producers are resorting to cut throat competition in export markets in order to optimize their own production. x.    Demand of Acetone globally is below the current capacities. Given commodity nature of the product, nature of production process, it follows that the global producers are fiercely competing with each other. Thus, the present global surplus in the product itself would provide significant opportunities to the Korean producers to intensify dumping in the event of cessation of anti- dumping duty. xi.    Producers in subject country maintain huge capacities. In case of revocation increase further, which is evident from the fact of continued imports in spite of imposition of duty. Known capacity with the producers in the subject country is as follows: a.    The capacity of the Kumho P&B Chemicals plant is 230,000 MT/year. It is also seen that the plants of Kumho P& B Chemicals are running at 70-80% capacity. The exporter still has excess capacity to be utilized. In the event of revocation of anti dumping duty, the producer is likely to operate at higher capacity and sell the goods to India. The company had argued that they have not enhanced their capacity; however, they have concealed the fact that one of their plants is remaining idle since 2009. b.    The combine capacity of the two operating plants of LG is 360,000 MT/year. Its plant at Yeosu has a capacity of 180000 Mt/year. It has recently  set  up  another  plant  in  Deasan  in  2013  for  acetone  and phenol. The plant has a nameplate capacity of 180000MT/year. The ICIS report shows that the new plant is operating at low levels because of prevailing weak market conditions. Thus, given the surplus capacity with the exporter, it is likely to export goods to India, which has a growing market for acetone. Extracts from reports in support of the above have been submitted earlier. xii.    During the POI the exports from subject country to the world were significant. The prices at which the subject goods were exported to third countries were lower  than  the  prices  at  which  the  goods  were  being  exported  to  India. Further, in the post POI period, the difference in the prices to third countries and to India has further intensified. Therefore, it may be seen that in the event of revocation of anti-dumping duty, the subject country will export goods to India at the same price at which it has exported globally leading to enhanced dumping and injury to the domestic industry. xiii.   The decline in the volume of exports from Korea could be because of the weakening of global demand as elaborated above. xiv.    The decline in imports post imposition of duty and positive dumping margin in such imports implies likelihood of dumping in the event of withdrawal of duty and in itself justifies extension of anti-dumping duty. xv.    The Designated Authority is not required to determine likelihood of injury from individual company. Likelihood of injury examination is country wise and not company specific. In case there is more than one company in the exporting country and one of them is unlikely to cause injury to the domestic industry, the same does not justify cessation of anti-dumping duty for that company. xvi.    The producers from subject country are already exporting the product under consideration to a number of countries at dumped prices. Therefore, in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duties, the producers from subject country are likely to divert their third country exports to Indian market, especially given the situation that India’s demand is rising. xvii.    In the event of significant increase in the imports, the domestic industry would have to either reduce its prices or loose sales. In either situation, the domestic industry would suffer injury. If the domestic industry reduces the prices, it would suffer significant financial losses, negative return on investment and negative cash flows. The domestic industry would lose further market share and consequently production, sales and capacity utilization. xviii.   The domestic industry is already suffering injury. Should the present anti- dumping duty be revoked, the injury to the domestic industry would aggravate. Submissions by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties 90. The following are the submissions made by the producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties with regard to likelihood of dumping and injury: i.    There is limited capacity of production of the PUC in Korea during the Review POI with over 90% being consumed domestically. ii.  There is no expansion or scheduled expansion by KPB post SSR POI and it may be noted that KPB has already maximized capacity utilization. iii.  There were sharply declining exports from Korea to India in the injury period considered and importantly from 2011 before the withdrawal of duty on Chinese Taipei’s PUC. iv. There has been increased captive consumption of PUC by KPB in recent years due to setting up by KPB of its own captive BPA Plant. v.  There have been only sporadic and occasional India deliveries of KPB’s PUC. vi. India Export volumes of KPB’s PUC in particular were much lower than imports at lower prices from countries on which there was no AD duty. vii. The fact that there have only been sporadic and occasional India deliveries of KPB’s PUC and through various unaffiliated traders rather than directly – further indicates India is not a target market. viii.The domestic industry’s argument that withdrawal of ADD on acetone from Korea  will  lead  to  resumption  of  dumping  in  the  same  way  as  it  has happened in case of imports from Taiwan is not true due to the reasons that Korea consumes 90% of its production of acetone and has little exportable surplus, Korea has a number of third country markets to cater, imports from Korea  did  not  substitute  imports  from  Chinese  Taipei  and  substantial increase in the export prices of Korea. Examination by the Authority 91. The present investigation is a sunset review of anti-dumping duties imposed on the imports of subject goods from Korea RP. Under the Rules, the Authority is required    to    determine whether continued imposition of anti-dumping duty is warranted. This also requires examination of whether the duty imposed is serving the   intended   purpose   of   eliminating   injurious   dumping.   In   the   present investigation, as there are continued dumped imports of the subject goods from the  subject  country  despite  imposition  of  the  anti-dumping  measures,  the Authority notes that it is not required to examine whether revocation of duty is likely to lead to continued dumping of the product concerned. However, considering the fact that the dumping margin in the original as well as the present investigation is significant and that there are favorable market conditions in the Indian market as far as demand and price for the subject goods are concerned, the Authority has reasons to believe that dumping may intensify if the duty is revoked. It is a matter of fact that despite the anti-dumping measures in force, the subject country is continuing dumping of the subject goods in the Indian market. The following analysis shows about the likelihood of intensified dumping and further injury to the domestic industry in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duties. (i) Level of current and past dumping margin 92. The level of dumping margin both in the original as well as present investigation is significant. Despite the domestic industry holding the capacity to meet substantial demand, the import of the subject goods from the subject country still continues to be at dumped prices. Given the level of price undercutting, underselling   without   the   anti-dumping   duty   and   price   suppression   and considering the capacity in Korea and demand in India, the volume of dumped import is likely to increase further in the event of revocation of anti-dumping duty. (ii) Price attractiveness of Indian market 93. The prices at which the subject goods are being imported are lower than the price at which the goods are being sold in the domestic market. Therefore, in case of expiry of duty, exporters would further channelize their output in the Indian market as they are already holding huge capacities. Further, as claimed by domestic industry, such circumstances would result in likelihood of injury to the Domestic industry. (iii) Export orientation of foreign producers 94. From the available information it is noted that the Korean producers/exporters are very much export oriented. Considering the high demand and favorable market conditions for the subject goods in India and the high production capacity and export orientation of the Korean producers, the Authority holds that if the existing anti dumping duty is withdrawn, there is every likely hood of substantial demand for  the  subject  goods  in  India  will  be  catered  to  by  the  Korean producers/exporters. 95. Following factors demonstrate that there exists a causal relationship between the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury: a)  Dumped imports from subject country have remained significant in POI in spite of antidumping duty is in force. b)  Imports from subject country are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. c)  Domestic  industry  is  suffering  injury  in  terms  of  deterioration  in  sales, production,    capacity    utilization,    profits    and    consequently    returns    on investment. J. Magnitude of Injury and injury margin 96. The non-injurious price of the subject goods produced by the domestic industry as determined by the Authority in terms of Annexure III to the AD Rules has been compared with the landed value of the exports from the subject country for determination of injury margin during the POI and the injury margin based on monthly analysis so worked out is as under: The Authority notes from the above data that the injury margin is not only positive but also significant in the POI. K. Indian industry’s interest and other issues 97. The Authority recognizes that the imposition of anti-dumping duties might affect the price levels of the product in India. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be reduced by the imposition of anti-dumping measures. On the contrary, imposition of anti-dumping measures would remove the unfair advantages gained by  dumping  practices,  prevent  the  decline  of  the  domestic  industry  and  help maintain  availability  of  wider  choice  to  the  consumers  of  subject  goods.  The Authority notes that the imposition of the anti-dumping measures would not restrict imports from the subject country in any way, and therefore, would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers. The purpose of imposing anti-dumping duties, in general, 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. L.Post-Disclosure Comments 98. The following are the post-disclosure comments/submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties and considered relevant by the Authority: Domestic Industry i.    The Authority has held rightly that due to non-filing of EQ response by trading companies in UAE and USA which constitute ***% of total exports and due to absence of complete value chain of the exports, the Authority is not in a position to determine individual margins as representatives of LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP. Authority has further rightly held that since under such circumstances, determination of normal value concerning LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP is not considered to be relevant, the Authority has not determined individual normal value for LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP. ii.    The Authority has rightly held in respect of KPB that since trading companies from Singapore and UAE have not filed EQ response in the present investigation and due to absence of complete value chain of the exports, the Authority is not in a position to determine individual margins as representatives of Kumho P&B Chemical Inc, Korea RP and the connected trading companies. Therefore, the Authority has rightly not granted individual margins to the said companies. The Authority has rightly provided in this regard that determination of normal value concerning Kumho P&B Chemical Inc, Korea RP is not considered to be relevant, therefore the Authority has not determined individual normal value for Kumho P&B Chemical Inc, Korea RP. iii.    The disclosures in the disclosure statement clearly establish that material facts have been suppressed by the interested parties from the domestic industry. Designated Authority should consider this act of the exporters as a malafide act to withhold vital information by misusing the confidentiality provisions under the law. iv.    The non injurious price determined is too low and grossly inadequate to protect legitimate interests of the domestic industry. v.    The anti dumping duty is required to be enhanced and continued as fixed quantum of anti dumping duty expressed in  terms of US$ and extended for a period of five years. LG Chem. Ltd., Korea RP i.    Conclusion of the Designated Authority that goods exported through trading companies in UAE and USA constitutes about ***% is incorrect. The direct export by LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP, constitutes ***% and through traders constitutes *** %. ii.    Both the trading companies namely ***, UAE. and ***. USA are not related companies to LG Chem. Due to the same, LG had no control over decisions of unrelated companies. iii.    The decision of the Designated Authority not to grant individual margins to LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP on the ground of absence of complete value chain of the exports is contrary to law and practice. iv.    LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP, has reported all sales transactions which were destined for exports to India. The same formed the basis of reporting export transactions in Appendix -2 of the Questionnaire Response.  The goods have been sold first to an independent buyer and the same should form basis of calculating Export Price to India. Goods have physically transported to India directly from Korea RP. Insistence of the Designated Authority for complete value chain is arbitrary and illegal. Kumho P & B Chemicals, Inc., M Corporation, OCI Corporation, Jisan Chemicals  Co.,  Ltd,  Humade  Corporation  and  Cowin  Global  Co.,  Ltd., Korea RP i.    KPB and the respective five supporting trader exporters had filed EQ Response. The traders who exported through further traders have furnished information regarding such transactions in their respective Appendix 2B. Thus, it is incorrect that the concerned trading companies have not provided required information to the Authority by filing EQ response. ii.    Disregarding domestic sales transaction in the determination of Normal value on the excuse that the Authority could not establish a complete value chain in respect of *** % of exports is not proper and is unacceptable. Examination by the Authority 99. The post-disclosure comments/submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties and considered relevant by the Authority are examined below: i.    As  regards  the  submission  made  by the domestic  industry that  the  non injurious price (NIP) determined is too low and grossly inadequate to protect legitimate interests of the domestic industry, the Authority notes that the NIP has been determined as per Annexure III of the Anti-dumping Rules. ii.  As  regards  the  post disclosure  comments received  from  LG  Chem  Ltd., Korea RP, the same are examined as below: a. As regards the contention that the goods exported through trading companies in UAE and USA constitutes *** % and not *** %, the Authority has examined the matter and notes that the exports made by LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP through the traders in UAE and USA, who have not filed exporters questionnaire response in the present investigation, constitutes *** %. Nevertheless, the Authority further notes, *** % is a significant quantum and without the same before the Authority, the value chain cannot be accepted as complete and export price claimed by LG Chem Ltd. cannot be considered as representative of the Company. b.  Further,  the  Authority  notes  that  LG  Chem  Ltd.,  Korea  RP  has claimed to have exported *** Mt directly to India during the POI. They have further claimed that they have exported *** MT in December, 2011, which arrived in India post-POI. However, while examining the above stated contentions with the Indian Customs data, the Authority notes that LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP is reported to have exported *** MT to India during the POI. Thus the difference of about *** MT has gone unreported in the data furnished by LG Chem Ltd., Korea RP. In view of  this position, the  information furnished by LG Chem  Ltd., Korea RP cannot be relied upon for grant of individual margins. c.  As regards the contention that both the trading companies, who have not filed exporters questionnaire response in the present investigation are not related companies to LG Chem, the Authority notes that absence  of  relationship  is  immaterial  when  significant  volume  of goods involved have been shipped to India directly by the producer and the trading companies concerned have not filed exporters questionnaire   response.   Such   kind   of   transactions   cannot   be accepted as complete value chain without the trading companies coming before the Authority with complete information. iii.  The post disclosure comments received from Kumho P & B Chemicals, Inc., Korea  RP  and  the  five  respondent  trading  companies  are  examined  as below: a. As regards the contention that the trading companies who have filed EQ response have provided information regarding the transactions made through further traders in their Appendix 2B and therefore filing of separate EQ response by such further traders is not necessary, the Authority notes that each party who are involved in an export transaction have to file EQ response, otherwise the value chain cannot be treated as complete and reliable. Moreover, the trading companies  like  Humade,  M  Corporation  and  OCI Corporation have declared in their respective EQ responses that goods have been purchased from Kumho and exported to unrelated customers in India directly. In the channel of sales to India declared in their EQ responses, the exports made through further trading companies in Singapore and UAE have not been declared. Nevertheless, it is an acknowledged position that *** % of the exports made by Kumho  P  &  B  Chemicals,  Inc.  to  India  during  the  POI through  certain  trading  companies  have  gone  un- responded. Such kind of transactions cannot be accepted as  complete  value  chain  without  the  trading  companies coming before the Authority with complete information. M.CONCLUSIONS b.  As regards the contention that disregarding domestic sales transaction in the determination of Normal value on the excuse that complete value chain could not be established in respect of *** % of exports is not proper and is unacceptable, the Authority notes that determination of normal value and export price in respect of a producer/exporter are required for determination of dumping margin.  In  a  situation   when   the   export  price  is  not determined and individual dumping margin is not granted due to absence of complete value chain as a consequence of non-filing of exporter’s questionnaire response by the involved trading companies, determination of individual normal vale for such producers/exporters is irrelevant. 100.    Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided and submissions made by the interested parties and facts available before the Authority as recorded in this finding and on the basis of the above analysis of the state of continuation of dumping  and  consequent  injury  and  likelihood  of  continuation/recurrence  of dumping and injury, the Authority concludes that: i.    There is continued dumping of the product concerned from Korea RP, causing injury to the domestic industry. ii.  Price undercutting and underselling effects are positive. iii.  The financial performance of the Domestic Industry has deteriorated. iv. Dumping of the product under consideration is likely to intensify from the subject country should the current anti-dumping duty be revoked. N. Recommendations 101.    Having concluded as above, the Authority is of the view that the antidumping measure is required to be extended as specified in the duty table below. 102.    Having  regard  to  the  lesser  duty  rule  followed  by  the  Authority,  the  Authority recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty equal to the lesser of the margin of dumping and the margin of injury, so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, the anti-dumping duty equal to the amount indicated in Col. 9 of the table below is recommended to be imposed by the Central Government on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country. Duty Table O. Further Procedures 103.    An appeal against this order, after its acceptance by the Central Government, shall lie before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.