To be published in Part-I Section I of the Gazette of India Extraordinary GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-DUMPING & ALLIED DUTIES) NOTIFICATION Dated 19th December, 2014 Final Findings Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of USB Flash Drives, originating in or exported from China PR, Taiwan and Republic of Korea. F.No.14/22/2012-DGAD- Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time, (hereinafter also referred to as the Act), and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time, (hereinafter also referred to as the Rules) thereof; 2. WHEREAS, M/s Storage Media Products Manufacturers & Marketers Welfare Association (hereinafter also referred to as “the Association” or “the applicant”) filed an application on behalf of the domestic producers represented by M/s Moser Baer India Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the domestic industry), before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the Authority) in accordance with the Act and the Rules for initiation of anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of USB flash drives (hereinafter also referred to as the subject goods), originating in or exported from China PR, Taiwan and Korea, RP and requested for levy of anti-dumping duties on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the said countries. 3. AND WHEREAS, the Authority, on the basis of sufficient evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a public notice vide Notification No. 14/22/2012- DGAD dated 21st June, 2013, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating the subject investigations in accordance with the sub Rule 5(5) of the Rules, to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the said countries, and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry. 1 A. PROCEDURE 4. The procedure described herein below has been followed by the Authority with regard to the subject investigation: i. The Authority notified the Embassies/Representatives of China PR, Taiwan and Korea, RP in India about the receipt of the anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigations in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra. ii. In addition to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra, the Government of Korea RP was also informed through its Embassy in India about the receipt of the subject application as per provisions of Article 2.14 of Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between India and Korea RP. iii. The Embassies of China PR, Taiwan and Korea, RP in India were informed about the initiation of the investigation in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules with a request to advise the exporters/producers from their countries to respond to the questionnaire within prescribed time limit. A copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to the exporters was also sent to the concerned Embassies/Representatives along with the names and addresses of the known producers/exporters from their countries. iv. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification dated 21st June, 2013 to the Embassies of China PR, Taiwan and Korea, RP in India, known producers/exporters from China PR, Taiwan and Korea, RP, known importers/users and the domestic industry as per the addresses made available by the applicant and requested them to make their views known in writing within 40 days of the initiation notification. v. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known producers/exporters and to the Embassies of China PR, Taiwan and Korea RP in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules supra. vi. The Authority sent exporter’s questionnaires to elicit relevant information to the following known producers/exporters in China PR, Taiwan and Korea, RP in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules: a. Transcend Information, Taiwan. b. Kingmax Digital Inc., Taiwan. c. ADATA Technology Co., Ltd., Taiwan d. Hewlett-Packard Taiwan Ltd., Taiwan. 2 e. Panasonic Taiwan Co., Ltd. (PTW), Taiwan f. Toshiba Information, Industrial and Power Systems Taiwan Corporation, Taiwan g. Samsung Electronics Taiwan Co., Ltd., Taiwan h. PNY Technologies, Inc., Taiwan. i. Kingston Technology Far East Co., Taiwan j. Verbatim Taiwan International Trading Corporate Ltd., Taiwan k. Apacer Technology Inc., Taiwan. l. KobianPte Ltd, Taiwan. m. Samsung C&T Taiwan Corporation, Taiwan. n. Toshiba China Co., Ltd, China o. SanDisk Corporation, China p. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., China q. Transcend Information, Inc., China r. ADATA Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.China s. Apacer Electronic (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., China t. KobianPte Ltd, China. u. Panasonic Corporation of China, China v. Verbatim Shenzhen, China w. PNY Technologies, Inc., China x. SanDisk Semiconductor (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., China y. SanDisk Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., China z. ShenzenKaifa Micro Electronics Co. Ltd., China aa. Kingston Tech (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China bb. Sony (China) Co., Ltd, China vii. The following companies filed exporters questionnaire response: a. SanDisk Semiconductor (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China PR, SanDisk Trading (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China PR, SanDisk Manufacturing, Ireland, and SanDisk International Ltd, Ireland. b. PNY Technologies Asia Pacific, Taiwan and PNY Technologies Inc, Shenzhen Representative Office, China. c. ATP Electronics, Taiwan, Inc, Taiwan. d. Sony Supply Chain Solutions, Japan, Sony EMCS Corp, Japan, Sony Corporation, Japan, Sony Electronics Asia Pacific PTE Ltd, Singapore. e. ADATA Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd, China PR and ADATA Technology Corporation Limited, Taiwan. 3 f. Shenzhen Kaifa Micro Electronics Co Ltd, China (SKMEC), Kingston Technology Far East Corporation, Taiwan (KTFE),Kaifa Technology Hong Kong Ltd, Hong Kong and Kingston Digital International Ltd, Ireland (KDIL). g. Transcend Information (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China PR, Transcend Trading (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China PR and Transcend Information Inc, Taiwan. viii. Another EQ response filed by Silicon Power Computer & Communications Inc, Taiwan was not accepted by the Authority at the application stage itself being incomplete. The said company did not file complete response. ix. The following EQR responses were filed at a much belated stage claiming themselves as manufacturing service providers to SanDisk Semiconductor (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China PR: a. UTAC Hong Kong Ltd, Hong Kong b. UTAC Dongguan Ltd, China PR c. STATS ChipPAC Shanghai Co Ltd, Shanghai, China PR d. STATS ChipPAC (BVI), Ltd, British Verginia Island e. Flextronics Marketing (L) Ltd, Lubuan, Malaysia x. The following Chinese producers/exporters filed Market Economy Treatment (MET) questionnaire response and claimed market economy status: i. SanDisk Semiconductor (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China PR. ii. SanDisk Trading (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China PR. iii. UTAC Dongguan Ltd, China PR. iv. STATS ChipPAC Shanghai Co Ltd, Shanghai, China PR. v. Shenzhen Kaifa Micro Electronics Co Ltd, China PR. vi. Transcend Information (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China PR. vii. Transcend Trading (Shanghai) Co Ltd, China PR. xi. The Authority sent Importer’s Questionnaires to the following known importers/users of subject goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules: a. Rashi Peripherals Pvt Ltd b. Dynamic Overseas c. Jas International d. HanixOverseas e. Aditya Enterprises f. Veeline Media Ltd 4 g. Himalayan Times Pvt Ltd h. Allied Electronics & Magnetics Ltd i. RanaPripherralsPvt Ltd j. Beetel Teletech Limited k. Supertron Electronics Ltd l. Intra-Tech Computers Pvt. Ltd. m. MediamanInfotech n. Luminous Technologies o. Redington (India) Limited p. CompuageInfocom Limited q. Neoteric Informatiqovt Ltd r. HCL Infosystems Ltd s. Fastrack Communications t. Shree Sagarmatha Distributors Pvt. Ltd u. KBC Computech (P) Ltd. v. Shreepati Computers w. Inter Foto India Pvt. Ltd x. Fortune Marketing Pvt. Ltd. y. Ingram Micro India Ltd z. Balaji Solutions Ltd xii. Importer’s questionnaire responses in the prescribed format were received from the following importer/user of the subject goods in India: a. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi b. Compuage Infocom Ltd. c. Digi Life Distribution & Marketing Ltd. xiii. The petitioner had relied upon import data as per CYBEX (Secondary Source) in the petition. The Authority had relied upon the said data provided by the petitioner prima facie for the purpose of initiation of present investigation. Post initiation, request was made to the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) to provide transaction-wise details of imports of subject goods from China PR, Taiwan and Korea, RP for injury period, including the period of investigation. The Authority has analyzed the data from both the above stated sources and relied upon the data received from the DGCI&S in this finding as the volume and value of imports as per DGCI&S data is found to be higher than CYBEX. xiv. The petitioner had submitted petition alleging dumping of the subject goods from China PR, Taiwan and Republic of Korea relying upon the imports data from the secondary source. The Authority had relied upon the said data provided by the petitioner prima facie and initiated the present 5 investigation. However,