Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) There is surplus production capacity of about 36% in China and 64% in Indonesia based on the Hawkins Wright Report and Wood Mackenzie Red Book. As per questionnaire response, participating exporters from Indonesia have surplus capacity. In addition to the existing surplus capacity, these exporters have further plan for expansion of capacity;

(vi) As regards the responding exporter from China, Sateri (Fujian) Fibre Co. Ltd., one of its related company has significant surplus capacity; and

(xiii) Similarly, the exporting companies from Indonesia have admitted surplus capacity, in the range of (0%-10%) for PT Asia Pacific Rayon and (40% to 50%) for PT South Pacific Viscose. The designated authority failed to examine the availability of alternate markets, which is other than India, where the exporter could sell its goods. In the absence of any alternate markets for the surplus capacity, it follows that the surplus capacity is likely to be used for production of goods for export to the Indian market. The designated authority failed to consider that the surplus capacity was significant, having regard to the demand and consumption in India. Again the overwhelming bulk of the excess capacity will undoubtedly be dumped in India;

(vii) are not exhaustive as the expression „inter-alia‟ has been used which indicates that the list is not exhaustive and the injury will not be limited to the four factors only.

51. It is not possible to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, as the list contained in paragraph (vii) of Annexure II is not exhaustive. The Tribunal in SI Group also observed that third country dumping, surplus capacity, export attractiveness of the Indian market, and other parameters used internationally for a likelihood analysis are relevant for sunset reviews.

64. This apart, the level of future imports cannot be evaluated by taking into consideration only the surplus capacity of the producers who have exported goods during period of investigation or those who have participated in the investigations. There are a large number of producers of the subject goods in China, who may not be exporting the subject goods to India on account of the anti-dumping duty in force. These exporters may start exporting the subject goods to India due to idle capacities available with them. The surplus or idle capacity has to be examined for both China and Indonesia as a whole and information in regard to a small percentage of the total exporters and producers in China for the likelihood analysis would not be a correct method for determination. In fact, in the disclosure statement, the designated authority had examined the surplus capacity for these countries as a whole and found surplus capacity of 36% in China and 64% in Indonesia. It needs to be noted that on the basis of the information furnished by the Sateri Group in China, the disclosure statement recorded that there are significant surplus capacity available with the Sateri Group, but after the disclosure statement the designated authority concluded that there is no surplus capacity with the Sateri Group for the reason that the capacity utilisation of the Sateri Group was low since the production had started only in December 2019. It was incumbent on the AD/51490/2021 & ors designated authority to have examined the relevant factors, including ascertaining whether the production of the Sateri Group in the post period of investigation was exported to India and at what prices. The same error appears to have been committed by the designated authority in the case of PT Asia Pacific Rayon, Indonesia. The exporting companies from Indonesia also admitted surplus capacity in the range of 0-10 percent for PT Asia Pacific Rayon and 40-50 percent for PT South Pacific Viscose.