(iii) The Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) issued a public notice vide Notification No. 17/1/2000-DGAD dated the 15^th March, 2000, initiating review of definitive Anti Dumping Duty recommended on imports of 3, 4, 5,Tri-Methoxy Benzaldehyde (here in referred to as TMBA) originating in or exported from People Republic of China vide Notification No. 38/1/97 dated 8^th March, 1999 and definitive Anti Dumping Duties imposed by the Central Government vide Notification No. 46/99-Customs dated the 24^th April, 1999.

(iv) The investigations concluded by the Authority vide Notification No. 9/10/94 dated 24^th July, 1995 have been referred to as "the original investigations."

(v) The investigation concluded by the Authority vide Notification No. 38/1/97-ADD dated the 8^th March, 1999 have been referred to as the "previous investigation."

(vi) The Authority issued a public notice dated 15^th March, 2000 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating review of anti dumping duty concerning imports of TMBA, classified under customs sub-heading 2912.4904 of Schedule I of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;

(vii) The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to all the known exporters and industry associations (whose details were made available by M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd., the petitioners in the original investigations) and gave them an opportunity to make their views known in writing in accordance with Rule 6(2);

(viii) The Authority forwarded a copy of the public notice to all the known importers and consumers of TMBA in India (whose details were made available by M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd., the petitioner in the original investigations) and advised them an opportunity to make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of the letter;

(ix) Request was made to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to arrange details of imports of TMBA in India during the past three years, including the period of review;

(x) The Authority sent questionnaire, to the following manufactures of TMBA in the Peoples Republic of China, in accordance with the rule 6(4). These companies, however, have not filed response to the questionnaire:-

(xi) The Embassy of Peoples Republic of China in New Delhi was informed about the initiation of the review in accordance with rule 6(2) with a request to advise the exporters/producers from their country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the exporters was also sent to the Embassy, alongwith a list of known exporters/producers. None of the exporter/producer, however, filed any response;

(xii) A questionnaire was sent to the following importers and/or consumers of TMBA in India calling for necessary information in accordance with rule 6(4):-

(xiii) A questionnaire was sent to M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd. the domestic industry, calling for necessary information M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd. filed its response.

(xiv) The Authority held a public hearing on 25.7.2000 to hear the views orally, which was attended by M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd., M/s. Inventaa Chemical Ltd., and M/s. Innotech Chemicals Ltd. In accordance with Rule 6(6), the parties attending the public hearing were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally. Written submission has been received from the Domestic Industry i.e. M/s. Alpha Drugs and other interested parties namely: M/s. Inventaa Chemicals Ltd. and M/s. Innotech Chemicals Ltd. The same has been considered by the Authority;

(xv) The Authority kept available non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested parties in the form of a public file maintained and kept open for inspection by any interested party;

(xvi) Investigation was carried out for the period starting from 1^st January, 1999 to 31^st December, 1999.

(xvii) **** in this notification represents information furnished by the petitioner on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.

(xviii) In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules supra, the essential facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed to all known interested parties and comments received, if any, on the same have also been duly considered in these findings.

B. VIEWS OF M/S. ALPHA DRUG INDIA LTD.

2. The Domestic Industry i.e. M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd. have made the following submission:

(a) 3, 4, 5Tri-Methoxy Benzaldehyde is largely consumed by the Producers for production of Tri Methoprim. Though the entire merchant demand of the 3, 4, 5,Tri-Methoxy Benzaldehyde in the country is quite limited, exports at significantly low prices would not only cause serious injury but also would give undue and unfair advantage to the consumer of imported products as it would be in a position to sell its end product cheaper in the Indian market. The imports of 3, 4, 5 Tri-Methoxy Benzaldehyde at low prices would thus cause injury not only in the 3, 4, 5Tri-Methoxy Benzaldehyde market but also in the Tri Methoprim market.

(b) The Exporters from China PR have intensified their dumping of the 3, 4, 5Tri- Methoxy Benzaldehyde. The Exports Price from China P.R. has declined very significantly from US$ 13.80 pr kg. in the past investigation to US$ 10.77 per kg. in the review investigation and to US$ 7.82 per kg. in the review period.

(c) Domestics Industry has also requested that the Anti Dumping Duty be recommended in US$ as benefit of the duty earlier recommended by the Authority has already eroded to a great extent by depreciation of India Rupee as compared to US$.

(d) The Domestic Industry has submitted that no handling charges in the name of ‘handling charges’ are payable by an importer for importing the goods. Since the non-injurious price is being considered at ex-factory level, the landed price should also be considered at export level. Accordingly two percent landing charges is not required to be considered for calculation of landed price of imports.

C. VIEWS OF EXPORTERS, IMPORTRER AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTES

3. Other interested parties namely: M/s. Inventaa Chemicals Limited, Hyderabad and M/s. Innotech Pharma Ltd., Mumbai, who attended the public hearing have in their written submissions endorsed the arguments raised by Domestic Industry and have requested that Anti Dumping Duty on 3, 4, 5Tri-Methoxy benzaldehyde be continued.

4. The submissions made by M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd., importers, consumers and other interested parties have been examined, considered and, wherever appropriate, dealt hereinafter with reference to the Rules.

E. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND LIKE ARTICLES

5. There is no argument raised by any interested party with regard to product under consideration and like article. The Final Findings notified in the previous investigations with regard to the product under consideration and like articles remains unchanged.

6. There are four producers of TMBA in India, Except M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd., no other producer has merchant sales of TMBA as all other producers captivity consumed TMBA produce by them for manufacture of Tri Methoprim. M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd., is the sole market producer of TMBA in India and satisfies the condition of standing and requirement of Domestic Industry under the Rules. Accordingly the Final Findings notified earlier with regard to the Domestic Industry remain unchanged.

G. DUMPING

NORMAL VALUE

7. The Authority sent questionnaire to the known exporter for the purpose of determination of normal value in accordance with Section 9A(1)c. However, none of the exporters responded to the Authority nor furnished any information. The Authority, therefore, holds that none of the exporters from the subject country have co-operated with the Authority as envisaged under the Rules. The Authority also holds that the primary responsibility to establish normal value of TMBA in Peoples Republic of China rests with the exporters/producers, who have failed to co-operate with the Authority.

8. The Authority notes that there were imports of TMBA in India originating in or exported from People Republic for China during the period of review. But the importers of TMBA during the period of review have not co-operated with the Authority and have not furnished any information.

9. The Designated Authority has, therefore reconstructed the normal value of TMBA based on the conditions prevailing during the period of investigation. For this purpose, the consumption of raw materials has been adopted based on the norms of consumption of raw materials of M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd. The raw material rates have been adopted as are prevalent in the domestic market after making appropriate adjustments towards the custom duties in the case of imported raw materials from subject country. For the purpose of constructed cost, the conversion cost of M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd., has been adopted as prevalent in China. Appropriate adjustments have been allowed for returns on investments to work out the normal value of TMBA during the period of investigation.

H. EXPORT PRICE

10. The export price of TMBA has been adopted on the basis of the information compiled by Directorate General of Commercial Intelligences & Statistics (DGCI&S), Calcutta. Since the information as per DGCI&S, Calcutta is the CIF prices in India, appropriate adjustments have been made for the ocean freight, insurance charges and the inland freight to arrive at the ex-works export prices of TMBA in China PR.

11. Since none of the exporters from the subject country and importers in India have responded to the Authority, the Authority has not determined dumping margins for individual exporters. The Authority took into account the information furnished by M/s. Alpha Drug India Ltd. as no other party has furnished any factual information with sufficient evidence, for the purpose of fair comparison between the normal value and the export price and has compare normal value with weighted average export price. The comparison has been considered as on ex-works basis. The comparison shows dumping margin of 90 percent of export price.

I. INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK

12. The Authority has found that the subject goods from subject country are entering the country at a Landed Value significantly lower than the Non-Injurious Price of the Domestic Industry. However, improvement, if any, in any one or all the economic parameters affecting the Domestic Industry could be a result of the existing Anti Dumping Duty in force against imports of subject goods from China PR. It is further concluded that injury to the Domestic Industry would recur in case the Anti Dumping Duty in force is removed.

However, the investigation conducted by Designated Authority has revealed injury suffered by the Domestic Industry caused by Dumping from China which is 221reflected in various parameters such as:-

.

13. The Authority concludes, after considering the foregoing, that: