Product description: Continuous cast copper wire of a maximum diameter exceeding 6mm (referred to in business parlance as ‘rod’) as well as those with a maximum diameter of 6mm or below (referred to in business parlance as ‘wire’). The following were excluded from the product scope:

i. Rods made of copper-zinc base alloys (brass) or bronze (and similar alloys);

ii. Copper weld wires;

iii. Wires made of copper- zinc based alloys (brass) or copper- nickel base alloys (cupro-nickel) or coppernickel-zinc base alloys (nickel silver) or bronze (and similar alloys);

iv. Silver plated copper wires;

v. Tinsel wires;

vi. Enameled copper wires;

vii. Metal coated copper wires;

viii. Insulated copper wires cables.

HS Code: 7408

Subject countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam

Applicant: Indian Primary Copper Producers’ Association (IPCPA), on behalf of its members Hindalco Industries Limited and Vedanta Limited, with Kutch Copper Limited supporting the application.

Period of investigation: 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023

Injury period: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and POI

Past investigations concerning the product:

Countervailing duties concerning imports of the subject goods were recommended vide Notification F. No. 6/17/2018-DGAD dated 5 November 2019. The duties were imposed by the Ministry of Finance vide Notification No. 1/2020 (Customs) – CVD dated 8 January 2020.

Major legal developments:

1. DGTR affirms that a form or grade may be included in the scope of the product under consideration even if such form or grade has not been imported from the subject countries in the period of investigation, provided such forms or grades are in commercial competition with the domestic like article and if imported, could cause injury to the domestic industry.
2. DGTR affirms that exporters given de minimis margins in the original investigation remain subject to sunset reviews and duties may be imposed on them pursuant to the margins determined in such reviews.
3. DGTR affirms that subsidy programmes not investigated in the original investigation (‘new subsidies’) may be examined in a sunset review, regardless of whether the schemes were in existence at the time of the original investigation.
4. DGTR affirms that duties may be enhanced in a sunset review, even if such review is initiated on grounds of likelihood and not current injury.
5. DGTR holds that in a sunset review, countervailability of schemes examined in the original investigation will not be re-examined unless interested parties can show a material change in the nature of the programme or law.

Key findings:

1. Imports of the subject goods from Indonesia and Vietnam ceased upon imposition of duties, while imports have continued from Malaysia and Thailand.
2. Level of subsidisation (subsidy margin) for two producers, Metrod Group (Malaysia) and SEI Thai Electric Company (Thailand) is below de minimis levels.
3. The position of the domestic industry was fragile and vulnerable to injury during the period of investigation.
4. There is likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury in the subject countries. Therefore, continuation of the existing duties has been recommended.
5. In the original investigation, DGTR had recommended duties of 2.47% for Metrod Group, which were duly imposed. However, pursuant to the decision of CESTAT in Metrod v Designated Authority (2021), the subsidy margin fell below de minimis. An appeal against the decision of the CESTAT is pending before Supreme Court. Therefore, in the present sunset review, DGTR has not presently recommended duties on Metrod Group.