Final Findings issued recommending continuation of anti-dumping duty on imports of Ammonium Nitrate from Iran and Russia (10.06.2022).

Product description – Ammonium nitrate whether prilled, granular or in other solid form, with or without additives or coating, and having bulk density in excess of 0.83 g/cc. The product under consideration excludes low density ammonium nitrate (density below 0.83 g/cc and ammonium nitrate in melt form.

HS Code – 3102 3000.

Uses – It is used for manufacturing slurry-based and emulsion-based explosives in India which are further used for mining and infrastructure purposes.

Country involved – Iran, Russia and Georgia.

Applicants – Smartchem Technologies Limited

Date of imposition of duty – 12th September 2017. The present duties are applicable till 11th September 2022.

Date of Initiation – 11th June 2021

Period of Investigation –1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020.

Injury Period – 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and the period of investigation.

Margins and proposed duty –

Country Producers Dumping Margin (Range) Injury Margin (Range) Duty (USD/SQM)
Iran Non-cooperative/ residual exporters 70-80 10-20 31.24
Russia Azot, JSC (Novomoskovsk) and JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot Nevinnomyssk Negative 0-10 Nil
Russia JSC Azot, Kemerovo Negative Negative Nil
Russia Non-cooperative/ residual exporters 10-20 0-10 16.91

Key Findings –

  1. Since the domestic industry is producing identical article being imported from the subject countries, it is not appropriate to consider similar article as like article.
  2. Since ammonium nitrate in melt form is not included within the scope of product under consideration, the production of producers of ammonium nitrate in melt form cannot be considered for determination of total production of like article.
  3. Russian Customs data and IHS Market Reports are third party information and thus, confidential in nature.
  4. The Authority has noted that sorted import data relied upon by the domestic industry can be shared in hard copy and the other interested parties can seek authorization from the Authority for seeking raw transactions by transactions data from DGCI&S.
  5. Since there is no injury due to the domestic industry and no likelihood of dumping and injury due to imports from Georgia, the investigation on imports from Georgia has been terminated.
  6. Individual dumping margin cannot be determined for PJSC Acron since it has not exported the product under consideration during the period of investigation.
  7. DGCI&S data does not capture the complete volume of imports into India and thus, the Authority has also checked the response of the cooperating exporters as well as Russian Customs data.
  8. In a sunset review investigation existence of current injury to the domestic industry is not relevant to examine whether duties are required to be continued.
  9. The likelihood of dumping and injury in the absence of duties on imports from Iran and Russia is evident from continued dumping despite duties in force, increase in imports despite decline in demand, dumping in third countries, significant surplus and idle capacities in the subject countries, export orientation of the producers in the subject countries, imposition of trade remedial measures by other jurisdictions on imports from Russia, price attractiveness of India and imports below cost of sales of the domestic industry.
  10. Public interest analysis is not limited to consumers but has to be done with respect to all stakeholders including domestic industry, other Indian producers, upstream industry, consumers and general public.
  11. There is no impact of continuation of anti-dumping duty on downstream industry as the explosive manufacturers pass on the price increase to the mining sector. The users have been able to maintain their profitability over the injury period.
  12. The maximum impact of continuation of anti-dumping duty on the mining sector will be only 0.84%.
  13. The weighted average component of the anti-dumping duty in the import price has reduced over the injury period. 63% imports to India were not subject to anti-dumping duty.
  14. Even if there is demand-supply gap in the market, it is essential that the product under consideration is available at fair prices.
  15. The producers in India are planning to expand capacities which will help to bridge the demand-supply gap in India. The imports exceed the demand-supply gap in India.
  16. The Authority was constrained from providing further time to the interested parties to file comments to Disclosure due to refusal of Central Government to provide extension of time to conclude the investigation.
  17. Since responding producers do not account for entirety of exports to India, negative dumping margin of the cooperative producers does not imply dumping margin for the whole country is negative.
  18. The performance of Coal India Limited and GOCL shows that both explosive manufacturers and users of explosives have seen significant increase in profits.
  19. Termination of investigation against producers found not to be dumping is not in accordance with the settled jurisprudence and practice of the Authority.