Initiation of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Calcined Gypsum Powder
originating in or exported from Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE
No. 6/45/2020-DGTR.—M/s. Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as
the „Petitioner‟ or „Applicant‟) has filed an application seeking initiation of anti-dumping investigations
concerning imports of Calcined Gypsum Powder from Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE before the
Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the „Authority‟) in accordance with the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter 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 referred to as the „Rules‟).
2. The Applicant has alleged that material injury to the Domestic Industry is being caused due to dumped
imports from Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE, and has requested for imposition of anti- dumping
duty on the imports of the Calcined Gypsum Powder from these countries.
A. Product under consideration
3. The product under consideration in the present application is “Calcined Gypsum Powder or Gypsum
plaster” (hereinafter also referred to as “subject goods” or “product under consideration” or “PUC”).
The subject goods are also known as Plaster of Paris, Gypsum Stucco and Stucco Powder”. Gypsum
Rock is chemically called Calcium Sulphate Dihydrate (CaSO4. 2 H2O), which when heated in
controlled way it loses 1.5 water (H2O) from its crystal structure to become stucco or gypsum plaster
which is chemically known as Calcium Sulphate Hemihydrate. The subject goods are majorly used for
levelling Plaster in building applications, Decorative building elements like cornices & POP sheets,
etc.
4. The subject products are classified under Chapter Heading 25 “Mineral products: Salt; Sulphur; earths
and stone; plastering materials, lime and cement” of the Customs Tariff Act. The classification at the
8-digit level is 25202010. However, goods are coming under other heads of 25 also. It is also noted
that the custom classification is indicative only and in no way, it is binding upon the product scope and
the product description prevails in circumstances of conflict.
B. Like Article
5. The Applicant has claimed that there is no known difference between the subject goods exported from
the subject countries and that produced by the domestic industry. Subject goods produced by the
domestic industry and imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of essential
product characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process &
technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff
classification of the goods. Consumers use the two interchangeably. The Applicant has further claimed
that the two are technically and commercially substitutable and, hence, should be treated as like article
under the Rules. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced
by the Applicant in India are being treated as „Like Article‟ to the subject goods being imported from
the subject countries.
C. Domestic Industry & Standing
6. The application has been filed by M/s Saint Gobian India Pvt Ltd. (SGIPL), who is the major producer
(53%) of the Calcined Gypsum Powder or Gypsum plaster in India. M/s Saint Gobian India Pvt Ltd.
further submitted that in the present case producers of the subject goods are from fragmented industry consisting of a large number of small producers across the country. However, three companies
accounting 14% also supported the application filed by SGIPL. The Authority has also received letter
supporting the application from All Rajasthan Gypsum Plaster Industries Association. The Applicant
has further stated that, it is not practically possible to collect data relating to production from each
individual producer, due to nature and size of industry. It is further submitted that there are no
published records of the gross domestic production of the product in India and such information is also
not collated by any governmental or market research agency however, as per their information, they
account for major producers of the subject goods in India. The petitioner has also certified that there
are no imports of the product under consideration by the petitioner or any of its related party. Further,
they are also not related to any importer of the subject goods in India. Therefore, the Authority has
considered the Applicant as Domestic Industry within the meaning of the Rule 2(b) of the Rules, and
the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules supra.
D. Basis of alleged dumping
(a). Normal value
7. The Applicant has submitted that they have not been able to get any reliable information in relation to
the prices prevailing in the subject countries. Further, information about imports of the subject goods
into subject countries or exports to other countries was also not available in the public domain for the
POI. Therefore, applicant had submitted the normal value information, based on 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. The applicant has considered minimum export price of raw Gypsum
from Oman on the basis of the Administrative Decision No. 264/2016 dated 19.12.2016 published by
Public Mining Authority, Sultnate of Oman. Since Oman is part of the Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC), minimum export price of raw gypsum from Oman is considered as raw material price of raw
Gypsum for other subject countries also. It is further submitted that it is practically not feasible to
obtain any information for Iran as their information is not in public domain and the problem is getting
accentuated due to the sanctions against them. Considering these factors and the fact that Iran being in
the same geographical region (Middle East) as that of Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE, minimum export
price of raw gypsum from Oman will be the most appropriate and reasonable benchmark price of raw
gypsum for Iran also for the purpose of initiation of the investigations. Therefore, minimum export
price of raw gypsum from Oman was also considered for computing normal value for Iran. Interest
cost has been considered based on the prevailing interest cost in the subject countries. Other
conversion cost and administrative, selling and general costs is based on the experience of the
applicant. Accordingly, the constructed normal value for the subject goods in the subject countries has
been determined. There is sufficient prima facie evidence for the normal value claimed for the subject
goods from subject countries.
(b). Export Price
8. The Authority has computed the export prices for the subject countries based on Directorate General of
Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) transaction-wise import data. Adjustments have
been made for ocean freight, marine insurance, port expenses, bank charges, commission, credit cost
and handling charges.
(c). Dumping Margin
9. The normal value and the export price have been compared at ex-factory level, which prima facie
shows dumping margin is above the de-minimis level and is significant in respect of the PUC from
Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and UAE. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that the PUC from the
subject countries is being dumped into the Indian market by the exporters from the Iran, Oman, Saudi
Arabia and UAE.
E. Injury & Causal Link
10. Information furnished by the Applicant has been considered for assessment of injury to the domestic
industry. The Applicant has furnished prima facie evidence regarding the injury having taken place as
a result of the alleged dumping, resulting in increased volume of dumped imports in absolute terms
and in relation to production and consumption in India, price undercutting, and price suppressing
effect on the domestic industry. The Applicant has claimed that their performance has been adversely impacted in respect of market share, inventories and decline in profits, return on capital employed, and
cash flow, as a result of increase in imports of product under consideration at a price below selling
price and non-injurious price for the domestic industry. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of
material injury being caused to the domestic industry by dumped imports from subject countries to
justify initiation of anti-dumping investigation.
F. Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation
11. On the basis of the duly substantiated written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry, and
having satisfied itself, on the basis of the prima facie evidence submitted by the domestic industry,
substantiating dumping of the product under consideration originating in or exported from the subject
countries, injury to the domestic industry and causal link between such alleged dumping and injury,
and in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules, the Authority, hereby,
initiates an investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping in
respect of the product under consideration originating in or exported from the subject countries and to
recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury
to the domestic industry.
G. Subject countries
12. The present investigation is in respect of alleged dumping of the PUC from Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia
and UAE.
H. Period of Investigation
13. The period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020 (12
months). The injury period under investigation will, however, cover the periods April 2016 to March
2017, April 2017 to March-2018, April 2018 to March 2019, and the period of investigation (POI)
I. Procedure
14. Principles as given in Rule 6 of the Rules will be followed for the present investigation.
J. Submission of information
15. In view of the special circumstances arising out of COVID-19 pandemic, all communication should be
sent to the Designated Authority via email at email address adg13-dgtr@gov.in, adv12-dgtr@gov.in,
dir13-dgtr@gov.in and dd12-dgtr@gov.in. It should be ensured that the narrative part of the
submission is in searchable PDF/ MS Word format and data files are in MS Excel format.
16. The known producers/exporters in the subject countries, Government of the subject countries through
their Embassies in India, the importers and users in India known to be concerned with the subject
goods and the domestic industry are being informed separately to enable them to file all the relevant
information in the form and manner prescribed within the time-limit set out below.
17. Any other interested party may also make its submissions relevant to the investigation in the form and
manner prescribed within the time-limit set out below.
18. Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is required to make a nonconfidential version of the same available to the other parties.
19. Interested parties are further advised to keep a regular watch on the official website of the Designated
Authority http://www.dgtr.gov.in/ for any updated information with respect to this investigation.
K. Time Limit
20. Any information relating to the present investigation should be sent to the Designated Authority via
email at the email addresses adg13-dgtr@gov.in, adv12-dgtr@gov.in, dir13-dgtr@gov.in and dd12-
dgtr@gov.in within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice as per the Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
If no information is received within the prescribed time-limit or the information received is
incomplete, the Authority may record its findings on the basis of the facts available on record in
accordance with the Rules.
21. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of interest)
in the instant matter and file their questionnaire responses within the above time limit.
L. Submission of Information on Confidential basis
22. Any party making any confidential submission or providing information on confidential basis before
the Authority, is required to simultaneously submit a non-confidential version of the same in terms of
Rule 7(2) of the Rules. Failure to adhere to the above may lead to rejection of the response /
submissions.
23. The parties making any submission (including Appendices/Annexures attached thereto), before the
Authority including questionnaire response, are required to file Confidential and Non-Confidential
versions separately.
24. The “confidential” or “non-confidential” submissions must be clearly marked as “confidential” or
“non-confidential” at the top of each page. Any submission made without such marking shall be
treated as non-confidential by the Authority, and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow the other
interested parties to inspect such submissions.
25. The confidential version shall contain all information which is by nature confidential and/or other
information which the supplier of such information claims as confidential. For information which is
claimed to be confidential by nature or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of
other reasons, the supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with
the supplied information as to why such information cannot be disclosed.
26. The non-confidential version is required to be a replica of the confidential version with the
confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (in case indexation is not feasible) and
summarized depending upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed. The non-confidential
summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the
information furnished on confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, the party
submitting the confidential information may indicate that such information is not susceptible to
summary, and a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible must be provided to the
satisfaction of the Authority.
27. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the
information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted
or if the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize
its disclosure in generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.
28. Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or without good cause
statement on the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on record by the Authority.
29. The Authority on being satisfied and accepting the need for confidentiality of the information
provided, shall not disclose it to any party without specific authorization of the party providing such
information.
M. Inspection of Public File
30. In terms of Rule 6(7) of the Rules, any interested party may inspect the public file containing nonconfidential version of the evidence submitted by other interested parties. The modality of maintaining
public file in electronic mode is being worked out.
N. Non-cooperation
31. In case 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 declare such
interested party as non-cooperative and record its findings on the basis of the facts available to it and
make such recommendations to the Central Government as deemed fit.
B. B. SWAIN, Spl. Secy. & Designated Authority
