Initiation of mid-term review of anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of “Aluminium Foil below 80 microns” originating in or exported from Thailand (29.03.2024)

Product description – The product under consideration is Aluminium Foil, whether or not printed or backed with paper, paper board, plastics or similar packing materials of a thickness of 80 micron and below (with permissible tolerances), excluding:

  1. Aluminium foil of thickness ranging from 5.5 micron to 80 micron originating in China
  2. Alu-Alu Laminate
  3. Ultra-Light Gauge Converted
  4. Aluminium Foil Composite
  5. Aluminium foil for capacitors width below 500 mm
  6. Etched or formed Aluminium Foils
  7. Aluminium composite panel
  8. Clad with compatible non clad Aluminium Foil
  9. Aluminium Foil for beer bottle
  10. Aluminium- Manganese- Silicon based and/or clad Aluminium
  11. Manganese-Silicon based alloys, whether clad or unclad
  12. Adhesive tapes
  13. Colour coated aluminium foil

HS Codes – The product is classified under Chapter- 76 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and imported under Heading 76071190, 76072090, 76072010, 76071110, 76071999, 76071991, 76071995, 76071910, 76071994, 76071993 and 76071992. The customs classification is only indicative and the same is not binding.

Countries involved – Thailand

Applicants – Hindalco Industries Ltd., Shyam Sel & Power Ltd., Shree Venkateshwara Electrocast Pvt. Ltd., Ravi Raj Foils Ltd., GSL Foils Product Pvt. Ltd., and LSKB Aluminium Foils Pvt. Ltd.

Period of Investigation – Oct. 2022 to Sept 2023 (12 months).

Injury period – April 2019 – March 2020, April 2020 – March 2021, April 2021 – September 2022 (annualised) and the period of investigation.

Facts of present case – The present investigation is a mid-term review, for re-evaluation of dumping margin and injury margin for exporters/ producers from Thailand. The claim is based on the following grounds:

  1. There is a significant shift in the product profile exported by the exporters between the previous investigation and the present period.
  2. That there is an increase in costs on account of raw materials which is not proportionately reflected in the increase in the export price.
  3. There is an increase in dumping margin due to change in normal value, as well as without proportionate change in the export price.
  4. The applicant also submitted that there is an increase in injury margin due to change in NIP, and landed value.