Final Finding Issued Recommending Imposition Of Countervailing Duty On Imports Of “Aluminum Wire/Wire Rod Above 7mm Dia” From Malaysia

Product description The product under consideration is “Aluminium Wire in coil form/Wire Rod in coil form having diameter ranging from 9mm to 13mm”. The PUC includes both alloyed and non-alloyed aluminium wire. The PUC is produced and obtained by casting primary aluminium hot metal obtained from smelting of alumina.

Aluminium wire can also be produced by melting of scrap.

HS Code 76011040, 76012040, 76041010, 76042920, 76051100, and 76052100

Country InvolvedMalaysia.

Date of Initiation- 30th June 2020.

Period of Investigation1st April 2019 – 31st December 2019 (9 months).

Injury Period- 1st April 2016 – 31st March 2017, 1st April 2017 – 31st March 2018, 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 and the Period of Investigation.

Final Findings 28th June, 2021.

Subsidy Margin, Injury margin and ad valorem duty:

Producer Subsidy Margin (Range) Injury Margin (Range) Duty Amount (as a % of CIF value)
Press Metal Bintulu Sdn. Bhd. 5-15% 10-20% 6.8669%
Press Metal Aluminium Rod Sdn. Bhd. 0-10% 10-20% 6.8669%
Other producers/ exporters from Malaysia 10-20% 10-20% 16.4874%

Key Findings-

  1. The PUC is “Aluminium Wire in coil form/Wire Rod in coil form having diameter ranging from 9mm to 13mm”.
  2. There is no requirement for all the domestic producers to participate as constituent domestic industry in an anti-subsidy investigation.
  3. Capital allowances are not countervailable since they provide normal deduction of depreciation on building and plant & machinery and does not result in revenue forgone that is otherwise due.
  4. The Authority found one of the responding producers/exporters i.e., PMBTU received preferential tariff, supplied by a state-owned supplier through a power purchase agreement, and waiver of premium on lease of state land.
  5. Expenditure made towards additional installation cost for last mile connection of electricity was deducted from the benefit for the quantification of subsidy margin as per Rule 12 r/w Annexure IV of the CVD Rules. The benchmark was also modified to take into account peak and off-peak hour rates.
  6. There is no need for external/out-of-country benchmarks when in-country benchmark is available.
  7. Tax rates prescribed by the Government on import or procurement of a product does not amount to subsidy since setting or change of generally applicable tax rates are not deemed subsidy under Article 2.2 of the ASCM.
  8. There cannot be a presumption of passthrough of subsidies.
  9. The injury margins are significant. The domestic industry has suffered material injury which has a causal link with the subsidised subject imports.
  10. The imposition of CVD will not affect fair competition in the Indian market but will remove unfair advantage of the companies under investigation gained by subsidisation. 
  11. The Authority recommended an ad valorem form of ADD.