F.No. 36/1/98-DGAD.—M/S. Kores India Ltd.. Mumbai and M/s TCM Ltd., Kerala have filed a petition, on behalf of the domestic industry, in accordance with the customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995 and Customs Tariff ('Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping duty on dumped articles and for determination of duty) Rules, 1995 before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) alleging dumping of Barium Carbonate from China (herein referred to as subject countries) and have requested for Anti-dumping investigation and levy of anti-dumping duties.

2. Domestic industry standing : The petition has been filed by M/s Kores India Ltd. and M/s TCM Ltd. The petition is supported by M/s. Bi la spur Baryters & Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur, M/s Rayalseema Chemicals Cuddapah, M/s R.K. Industrial Chemicals, Hyderabad, M/s Victory Chemicals Pvl Ltd., Cuddalopore and M/s Baryles Chemie (India) Pvl Lid. There is an evidence that tlie petitioner jointly account for 31% of the total domestic production in 97-98 and with the support of other producers, there is primafacie an evidence that petitioner account for major proportion of the domestic industry. Therefore, the petitioner satisfies the standing to file the petition on behalf of the domestic industry.

3 Product involved: The product involved in the present investigation is Barium Carbonate (herein referred to as subject goods), originating in or exported from the subject country and classified under Customs Sub-heading 2836.60 and under ITC as 28366000 of the customs Tariff Act, 1975. The classification is however, indicative only find is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation.

4. Countries involved: The petitioner has alleged dumping or Barium Carbonate from China (herein referred to as subject country).

5. Like articles: The petitioner has claimed that the goods produced by them and as classified by Custom Tariff under head 2836.60 and under ITC as 28366000 have no substitute and, therefore, be treated as like articles to the goods imported from the subject countries within the meaning of the rules.

6. Normal Value: The petitioner has claimed normal value based on the export price of the subject Roods to Japan and also on (he basis of the constructed cost.

7. Export Price : The petitioner has claimed export price based on secondary sources, which provide information on export price of subject goods to India, and import price of subject goods in India.

8. Dumping margin: There is sufficient prima-fade evidence that the normal value of the subject goods in the subject countries and export price to other countries is significantly higher than the price at which it has been exported to India indicating prima-facie that the subject goods are being dumped by the exporters from the subject countries.

9. Injury: Various parameters relating to injury such as suppressed domestic prices, sales below the cost of production resulting in per unit losses, etc., prima-facie dumping indicate collectively and cumulatively that domestic industry has suffered material injury on account of dumping.

10. Initiation of anti-dumping investigation : The authority in view of the foregoing paragraphs initiates anti-dumping investigation into the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from subject countries.

11. Period of investigation : The period of investigation for the purpose of present investigation is 1-4-98 to 31-3-99.

12. Submission of information : The exporters in the said countries and importers in India known to be concerned are being addressed separately to submit relevant information in the form and manner prescribed and make their views known to

Mrs. Rat hi Vinay Jha, Designated Authority & Additional Secretary

Government of India

Ministry of Commerce,

Udyog Bhavan,

New Delhi-110011.

Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the prescribed form and manner within the time limit set out below

13. Time limit : Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent in writing so as to reach to the authority fit the address mentioned above not later than 40 days from the date of publication of this notification. The known exporters and importers who arc being addressed separately arc however, required to submit the information within 40 days from the date of letter addressed to them separately.

14. In terms of rule 6(7) any interested party may inspect the public file containing non-confidential versions of the evidence submitted by other interested parties after expiry of time limit set out.

15. In case where any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may records its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and make such recommendations lo the Central Governments as deemed fit.