Cases of Anti Dumping

Investigations against Indian

Companies

Page | 1
Basics on Anti Dumping

Dumped
A product is to be considered as being dumped, i.e. introduced into the commerce of another
country at less than its normal value, if the export price of the product exported from one
country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the
like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country. 

Application of Anti dumping measures

Where it is demonstrated that the dumped imports are causing injury to the importing
country within the meaning of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-dumping Agreement"), pursuant to and
by investigation under that Agreement, the importing country can impose anti-dumping
measures to provide relief to domestic industries injured by imports.

Injury 
The WTO AD agreement states that the term injury should be taken to mean material injury
to a domestic industry, threat of material injury to a domestic industry or material retardation
of the establishment of such an industry. In determining whether there is injury, the following
factors must be examined: (a) the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the
dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products, and (b) the consequent
impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products. 

Listed below are few cases of Anti dumping investigations against Indian companies:
1) Dumping of Dihydromyrcenol by Neeru Enterprises, Rampur and Privi Organics Limited,
Mumbai in European Union
2) Dumping of warm water shrimp by Indian shrimp industry as a whole in United States
3) Dumping of 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1/1-Diphosphonic Acid by Aquapharm Chemicals
Private Limited in United States
4) Dumping of Sulfamethoxazole by Virchow Laboratories Limited and Andhra Organics
Limited in China

Page | 2
ANTI DUMPING CASE BY EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Country/Commission initiating the case
European Commission

Date of Complaint
29th September, 2006

Complainant
Destilaciones Bordas Chinchurreta S.A. and Sensient Fragances S.A. representing 25% of
the total community production of Dihydromyrcenol.

Indian Company Involved

The two Indian companies against which the case was filed were Neeru Enterprises, Rampur
and Privi Organics Limited, Mumbai.

Product Involved
Dihydromyrcenol of a purity by weight of 93 % or more, originating in India. The product
concerned is a colourless to pale yellow liquid with a powerful, fresh lime-like, citrusyfloral
and sweet odour with little or no terpenic undertones, soluble in paraffin oil and alcohol and
insoluble in water. It belongs to the family of acyclic terpenic alcohols. Its chemical name is
2,6- dimethyloct-7-en-2-ol.

Typical applications of the product concerned are in detergents, soap fragrances and as a
powerful supporting note in citrus and lime-type perfumes.

Allegation of Injury
Imports of the product concerned from India increased overall in absolute terms and in terms
of market share which had a negative impact on the market share held and the level of prices
charged by the Community industry, resulting in substantial adverse affects on the overall
performance and the financial situation of the Community industry.

Page | 3
Findings of the case

Following were the main findings on the basis of which final decision was taken:

1. The volume of dumped imports of the product concerned into the Community rose
dramatically in 2004, i.e. by more than 1 600 %. It further almost doubled in 2005.

2. The market share of dumped imports from India increased by almost 17 percentage points
during the period considered.

3. Sales of the Community industry own production in the free market in the Community
dropped suddenly by 7 % in 2004.

4. Given the increased consumption in 2005, the Community industry did not strengthen its
market position. Also, the average sales price dropped dramatically in 2004.

5. Profitability of the Community industry deteriorated dramatically over the period

considered.

6. The investigation revealed that dihydromyrcenol imported from India directly competes
with dihydromyrcenol produced and sold by the Community industry, since it is alike in
terms of its basic chemical characteristics, interchangeable and distributed via the same
distribution channels.

Final Result of the Case

In conclusion, it was confirmed that the material injury suffered by the Community industry,
which was characterized especially by a decline in unit sales prices leading to a significant
deterioration of the financial situation, was caused by the dumped imports from the country
concerned.

The significant increase in volume of the dumped imports from the country concerned
(almost 3 000 %) and in their share on the Community market (by almost 17 percentage
points) coincided with the deterioration of the financial situation of the Community industry.
The dumped imports undercut the prices of the Community industry by substantial margins
so it can be reasonably concluded that they were responsible for the price suppression which
led to the deterioration of the financial situation of the Community industry. Without
imposition of measures i.e. removing injurious dumping, the position of Community industry
would not be sustainable in the long run.

Hence, an anti dumping duty was charged on the two exporters from India.

Page | 4
ANTI DUMPING CASE-I BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Country/Commission initiating the case

An association of shrimp farmers in eight southern states of the United States

Date of Complaint
31 December 2003

Complainant
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (ASTAC)

Indian Company Involved

Indian shrimp industry as a whole was involved

Product Involved
Products involved were warm water shrimp, whether frozen or canned, wild caught (ocean
harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aqua-culture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled,
tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen
or canned form.

The case
On 31 December 2003, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (ASTAC), an
association of shrimp farmers in eight southern states of the United States, filed an anti-
dumping petition against six countries — India, Brazil, China, Ecuador, Thailand and
Vietnam. The petition alleged that these countries had dumped their shrimps in the US
market. Though the actual petition was made by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action
Committee, whose members are located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas, the Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA)
had been organizing the process of seeking redress.

Page | 5
Allegation of Injury
The main contentions of the petitioners were as follows:

 The six named countries accounted for 74% of shrimp imports in the US market. 

 Imports from the six countries increased from 466 million lb. in 2000 to 650 million lb in
2002.

 Import prices of the targeted countries had dropped by 28% in the previous three years.
The average unit value of the targeted countries in 2000 was $3.54; this had fallen to
$2.55 in 2002.

 The average dockside price for one count size of gulf shrimp dropped from $6.08 to $3.30
per pound from 2000 to 2002.

 The United States was the most open market in the world. High tariff rates in other large
importing countries provided a powerful incentive for exporters to increase shrimp
shipments to the United States. Likewise, the US market also served as the market of last
resort when shrimp shipments were denied entry to other markets such as the European
Union due to the discovery of unacceptable levels of contaminants.

Findings of the case

 It was found that India’s shrimp exports to the United States had been rising rapidly
during the previous three years, from $255.93 million during 2000-1 to $299.05 million
during 2002-3.

 India’s marine products industry has been one of the major export success stories. From
an export base of just Rs. 450 million in 1971-2, it increased to Rs. 68,810 million in
2002-3. Shrimp is the mainstay of India’s marine product exports.

 The Indian government has played an important role in the promotion of marine product
exports, including the development of shrimp farming. Assisted by the Marine Products
Export Development Authority (MPEDA), which is a government-sponsored body whose
mandate covers the development of the industry as a whole, shrimp culture has developed
as a major industry in several coastal states.

 The Seafoods Exporters Association of India (SEAI) is the nodal body of the exporters
community and is represented on the MPEDA governing council. There is, therefore,

Page | 6
 close co-ordination between these two bodies which are primarily responsible for
organizing the shrimp industry’s as well as the government’s response to the US anti-
dumping investigations.

 While fishing in the United States is a capital-intensive activity calling for major
investment, in India shrimp capture is carried out with a very low level of capital and
requiring hardly any investment. This makes the cost of production considerably lower in
India compared with that for shrimp sea-caught off the US coast. This led to a greater
export from India.

 S. N. Menon, special secretary in the Department of Commerce, observed that India had a
strong case as India was exporting mainly ‘tiger shrimps which are not found there and
that too, in unprocessed form’. Noting that 80% of shrimp consumption in the United
States is met through imports, Menon said that unprocessed Indian shrimps generated
about 1 million jobs in the US food processing industry, therefore, According to Sandu
Joseph, the secretary of the SEAI, a team of US DOC officials would visit Kerala, a
major shrimp producing state, in June or early July. ‘They will visit our shrimp farming
factories and verify our accounting practices. Our factories and accounts are open. We
want to prove that we are not producing and exporting cheap shrimp to the United States.

Result of the case

The investigation finally moved into the final determination stage. As part of the procedure,
DOC officials visited India in August-September 2004 for onsite verification of the
information and data submitted by the mandatory respondents during the preliminary phase
of the investigations. An antidumping duty was charged.

Page | 7
 ANTI DUMPING CASE-II BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Country that initiated the case

United States of America (USA-AD-1147)

Company Name
Compass Chemical International

Indian Company against which the case was filed

Aquapharm Chemicals Private Limited

Product involved
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1/1-Diphosphonic Acid

Brief of the case

On March 19, 2008, the Department received a petition concerning imports of

HEDP(Hydroxyethylidene and Diphosphonic Acid) from the India which are sold in the
United States at less than fair value filed in proper form by Compass Chemical International
LLC.

The Department initiated an antidumping duty investigation of HEDP from the India on April
8, 2008.

On April 9, 2008, the Department requested quantity and value information from the
Aquapharm Chemicals Private Limited which is identified in the Petition as potential
producers or exporters of HEDP.

On May 2, 2008, the International Trade Commission preliminarily determined that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of
imports of HEDP from the India (Investigation Nos. 731TA 1147 (Preliminary)).

Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated May 6, 2008. We subsequently issued the
antidumping questionnaire to Aquapharm on May 9, 2008.

Page | 8
On June 16, 2008, Aquapharm submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire (i.e.,
the section involving general information).

On July 15, 2008, Aquapharm responded to sections B and C of the questionnaire (i.e., the
sections involving sales to the home and U.S. markets, respectively).

U.S. Sales Type Designations:

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as `the price at which the subject merchandise is first
sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States .''

Section 772(b) defines CEP as `the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the
producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter .''
Aquapharm characterized its U.S. sales as EP sales. Aquapharm claims that because the
essential terms of sale are set by it in India on the date of ‘long-term prior to importation of
the subject merchandise into the United States, these sales should be classified as EP sales.
However, only after the merchandise enters the United States, is placed in an unaffiliated
warehouse and is released for delivery to Customer does Aquapharm issue the sales invoice
to Customer.

But the Department have preliminarily determined that the date of the sales invoice issued to
the U.S. customer is the appropriate basis for the U.S. date of sale, Aquapharm's EP sales
classification with respect to Customer A no longer holds because the invoice is issued to the
customer, and thus the sale is made, after the merchandise is imported into the United States.

Therefore, for the preliminary determination, Department treated all of Aquapharm's U.S.
sales to customers as CEP sales transactions, consistent with the definition of CEP under
section 772(b) of the Act, because the sales were made after importation of the subject
merchandise into the United States.

Page | 9
Final result of the case

Based the evidences, the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission,
the Department issued antidumping duty orders on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic
Acid (HEDP) from India.

On April 17, 2009, the Commission notified the Department of its affirmative determination
of threat of material injury to a U.S. industry. (Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1147 (Final),
USITC Publication 4072, April 2009).

On March 11, 2009, the Department published its affirmative final determinations of sales at
less-than-fair-value in the antidumping duty investigations of HEDP from India.

On April 17, 2009, the Commission notified the Department of its final determination that an
industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by the reason of less-than-fair-
value imports of HEDP from India and the PRC.

In accordance with the American acts, Department directed U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal
value of the merchandise exceeds the export price of the merchandise for all relevant entries
of HEDP from India and the PRC. The duties shall be assessed on subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of
the Commission's notice of final determination if that determination is based on the threat of
material injury.

In addition, the Department requires CBP to release any bond or other security, and refund
any cash deposit made of estimated antidumping duties posted since the Department's
preliminary antidumping duty determinations. The Department will also instruct CBP to
terminate the suspension of liquidation for entries of HEDP from India entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption prior to April 23, 2009, and refund any cash deposits made
and release any bonds posted between the publication of the Department's preliminary
determinations on October 18, 2008, and the publication of the Commission's final
determination on April 23, 2009.

Page | 10
 ANTI- DUMPING CASE BY CHINA

Country that initiated the case

China

Company Name
Appeal from Chinese domestic industry

Indian Company against which the case was filed

Virchow Laboratories Limited and Andhra Organics Limited

Product involved
Sulfamethoxazole

Brief of the case

Ministry of Commerce of China announced an anti-dumping investigation on imported

Sulfamethoxazole originating in India (hereinafter referred to as "investigated product ") on
June 16,2006. 

Sulfamethoxazole is a sulfonamide bacteriostatic antibiotic and also serves as an important

material in producing other sulfonamides. It is commonly used to treat urinary tract
infections. 

In respond to an appeal from domestic industry on April 21, 2006, Ministry of Commerce
examined related issues and evidence. Since the examination shows the appeal is in line with
Article 11, 13 and 17 and includes related contents and evidence of Article 14 and 15 of Anti-
dumping Regulations of the People's Republic of China, Ministry of Commerce decided to
start an anti-dumping investigation on the investigated product as of June 16, 2006. 

The period of dumping investigation is from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. The
period of industry injury investigation is from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2005. 

The investigated product is classified under Tariff No. 29350030 in Customs Tariff of Import
and Export of the People's Republic of China. 

Page | 11
Investigation measures can be conducted by questionnaire, sampling, hearing and
examination on the spot. 

Final result of the case

Ministry of Commerce carried out in investigation on dumping and dumping profit margin as
well as injury and injury extent on investigated commodities. In line with investigation result
and Article 24 of Anti-dumping Regulations of the People’s Republic of China, Ministry of
Commerce released preliminary arbitration on Feb1, 2007, confirming dumping of the
investigated commodity as well as the causality between dumping of the investigated
commodities and the injury of domestic industries. 

After issuance of the preliminary arbitration, Ministry of Commerce continued to carry out
investigation on dumping and dumping profit margin as well as injury and injury extent, and
issued the final arbitration (please refer to appendix) in line with investigation result and
Article 25 of the Anti-dumping Regulations of the People’s Republic of China. Related
matters are now announced as follows: 

I. Final Arbitration 

In line with investigation, Ministry of Commerce finally verdicts dumping of the investigated
commodities, injures the domestic industries of sulfamethoxazole, and the existence of
causality between dumping of the investigated commodities and the injury of domestic
industries. 
II. Imposing Anti-dumping Duties 

In accordance with Anti-dumping Regulations of the People’s Republic of China, Tariff

Committee of the State Council decides to impose anti-dumping duties on sulfamethoxazole
originated from India as from Jun 16, 2007.

In accordance with Article 28 and 29 of Anti-dumping Regulations of People's Republic of

China, Ministry of Commerce decided to take anti-dumping measures by deposit in security
as of February 1st , 2007. 

Rate of Anti-dumping Duties on Different Companies: 

1. Virchow Laboratories Limited and Andhra Organics Limited 10.1% 
2. All Others 37.7% 

Page | 12