Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Tuesday, Jul 09, 2002
Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Tuesday, Jul 09, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
Industry & Economy
-
Anti-dumping Dumping duty mooted on acrylic yarn from Nepal K.R. Srivats
NEW DELHI, July 8 THE Designated Authority in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has recommended the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on all imports of acrylic yarn from Nepal. In its final findings on anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of acrylic yarn originating in or exported from Nepal, the Authority has recommended the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty of $0.14 per kg on acrylic yarn exported by Reliance Spinning Mills Ltd, Nepal. For all other exporters/producers of acrylic yarn from Nepal, the Authority has recommended a definitive anti-dumping duty of $0.35 per kg. The petition seeking anti-dumping investigations on imports of acrylic yarn from Nepal was filed by Punjab Fibres Ltd, Punjab; Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd, Ludhiana; Sportking India Ltd, Ludhiana and Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills, Ludhiana, on behalf of the domestic industry. While the total production of acrylic yarn of four petitioner companies stood at 22,594 tonnes during 2000-01 (period of investigation), the total production of the domestic industry in the year 2000-01 stood at 64,940 tonnes. The total volume of imports of acrylic yarn from Nepal during the same period stood at 9,572 tonnes. Industry sources said that the Authority had, in its final findings, rejected the contention of an exporter that an anti-dumping duty could not be levied on imports of acrylic yarn from Nepal in view of the renewed Indo-Nepal Trade treaty. The Authority held that the two sets of mechanisms for taking measures to protect the Indian industry from the adverse impact of exports from Nepal — one under the Anti-Dumping Rules and the other under the Indo-Nepal Treaty — did overlap or contradict each other. An exporter had claimed that Article IX of the Treaty provides the mechanism for consultation of the Joint Committee set up by the two Governments in the event that the imports under the Treaty cause or threaten to cause injury to the domestic industry. It was claimed that the definition of `injury' and `threat of injury' is similar to that under the anti-dumping provisions and therefore there was no requirement for any further action against the manufacturers in Nepal under the anti-dumping provision or under any other law for the time being in force. It was also stated that, under the Indo-Nepal Treaty, the total export of acrylic yarn had been restricted to 10,000 tonnes and that a special additional duty (SAD) had also become leviable on these exports from Nepal. The exporter contended that the quantum of exports was being restricted by mutual consent of the two Governments and therefore there could be no injury to the domestic industry. The Authority was of the view that the fact of `injury' or `threat of injury' can be established only after it completed the investigation and recorded the finding. The Designated Authority also decided to follow the consistent practice of recommending anti-dumping duty in terms of US dollar even though the Indo-Nepal trade in acrylic yarn was in rupee terms.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|