|
|
|
|
The eBearing News
October 8, 2004
India Issues Final Dumping Ruling
on Ball Bearings
copyright © 2004 eBearing Inc.
India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Directorate General of Antidumping and Allied Duties (DGAD), has
made public its final ruling on a dumping (sales below fair market value) complaint filed
by the Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturers Association of India.
The original complaint, filed in 2002, argued that manufacturers and distributors in the Peoples Republic
of China, Poland, Russia and Romania were engaged in dumping ball bearings on the market in India.
Specifically, the complaint involved unmounted ball bearings, mounted ball bearings, and component
parts for ball bearings, 8mm through 50mm bore.
Although the manufacturers association complaint was for 8mm - 50mm ball bearings, it chose to
base the information in its complaint on only four -- 6201, 6202, 6203 and 6204.
The DGAD followed up on the complaint and performed a preliminary investigation, covering
the period January 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002. From that preliminary investigation, the DGAD
ruled there was sufficient evidence of dumping and initiated a formal investigation.
• 2002 article: India launches dumping investigation
In mid-2003, the DGAD reviewed the investigation results and found, in a provisional decision,
that dumping was taking place and damaging India's bearing market and manufacturers.
The DGAD issued a series of extremely high provisional duties. The provisional rates were put into
place, effective through December 31, 2003, and then subject to a second review.
Rates were punitively high; commodity high-volume ball bearings which normally sell for pennies were
hit with rates which essentially priced them out of the market. For example, a 6201 from China carried
anti-dumping duty of USD $0.442, while other Chinese ball bearings carried an "all other" rate as high
as $0.477. Affected ball bearings originating in or shipped from Russia carried a universal $0.522,
Poland $0.461, and Romania, $0.432.
The DGAD did not find dumping on components, so they were not included in the final results.
Significantly, the anti-dumping duties also apply to bearings which are shipped from those
particular countries, regardless of the bearings' country of origin. This attempt to deal with so-called
"pass-through" shipments answers a secondary problem often created by the imposition of
duties -- for example, U.S. producers long complained that exporters circumvented U.S. duties on
bearings from certain countries, simply by bringing them into the U.S. via Canada or Mexico.
In India, imports account for just over 29% of the Rs 2,300 crore bearing market.
• 2003 article: India institutes dumping duties -- includes table of duties
• the preliminary DGAD decision
The rates were put in place through December 31, 2003, or pending the results of a final determination
ordered by the DGAD.
The DGAD has now reversed itself, finding no injury to the Indian ball bearing industry.
In its final determination, the DGAD made a key distinction which affected the outcome of its
calculations. Rather than treat China as a non-market economy (NME) as the United States and the European
Union do in their antidumping calculations, the DGAD determined that the results of the information
supplied by the Chinese bearing manufacturers represented a true market-based economy.
The DGAD's final determination (see link below) is a must-read, if only for that segment determining the
market forces now at work in China (conclusion in paragraph 20), which states in part, China's HCH is,
"operating under market conditions and not to be treated as from non-market economy."
In addition, the DGAD and the Chinese, Polish, Russian and Romanian vendors all found the focus on
just four bearings -- 6201, 6202, 6203 and 6204 -- as somehow representative of the entire
spectrum of 8mm - 50mm bearings was not a fair representation of the myriad of 8mm - 50mm bearings
in all of their various configurations.
Finally, the DGAD found the Indian ball bearing industry had been performing rather well during
the period it claimed dumping, which fatally undermined the entire complaint.
In its final ruling, the DGAD found there had indeed been dumping, as defined by the statutes, from
China, Poland, Russia and Romania, but that there has been no injury to the Indian ball bearing industry
from that dumping.
The DGAD report states in its "Conclusions on Injury:"
-
The Authority concludes that though there is significant increase in the volume of the dumped imports
from subject countries in absolute terms and also in relation to the production and consumption in India,
the evidence of price undercutting has, however, been found only in respect of four models of the Ball
Bearings covered by the product under consideration. The price underselling has also been found only in
respect of four models of the product under consideration.
-
The Authority is of the view that the effect of the dumped imports on the domestic industry is to be
seen in terms of its performance as regards the product under consideration as a whole i.e. Ball Bearings
above 8mm to 50mm as per Para (iv) of Annexure II of the Anti Dumping Rules. The impact of the dumped
imports on the domestic industry cannot be seen with reference to a limited segment of the product under
consideration. The domestic industry has shown improved performance in respect of the higher production,
higher capacity utilization, improved sales performance, improved profitability, reduced inventory,
improved productivity with regard to the product as described for the purpose of this investigation. Price
undercutting and price underselling per-se in respect of some of the models of Ball Bearings covered by
the product under consideration may not signify overall injury suffered by the domestic industry in respect
of product under consideration. The decline in the market share of the domestic industry in demand of subject
goods is not considered a significant indicator of injury when the overall demand is growing. The authority
thus concludes that based on the available evidence, the domestic industry has not suffered material injury.
• the final DGAD decision
Accordingly, the DGAD rescinded the duty schedule and ordered that antidumping duties paid while the duties
were in effect must be refunded.
An appeal is expected.
|
|
|
printer-friendly version
|
|
- by Bruce A. Carr
from individual research,
tips and commercial sources.
Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.
|
|
eBearing.com ... for everything that moves™
Entire contents Copyright 1999-2008, eBearing Inc. All rights reserved.
eBearing.com and "... for everything that moves" are registered
trademarks of eBearing Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
eBearing.com ... for everything that moves™
Entire contents Copyright © 1999-2008, eBearing Inc. All rights reserved.
eBearing.com and "... for everything that moves" are registered trademarks of eBearing Inc.
|
|
|
