China: Anti-dumping duty on Nonyl Phenol from India and Chinese Taipei
Description
On 28 March 2007, the MOFCOM released the Notice NO.11 (2007) to levy AD duty on NP from India and Chinese Taipei, with the AD rate ranging from 4.08% to 20.38%, and the effective period will be five years from March 28, 2007 to March 28, 2012. Details are listed as follows:
Indian Companies:
SI GROUP—INDIA LIMITED 12.22 %
All Others 20.38%
Chinese Taiwan Companies
Formosan Union Chemical Corporation 6.87 %
China Man-Made Fiber Corporation 4.08 %
All Others 20.38%
On December 30, 2011, Jiangsu Lingfei Technology Co.,Ltd. and Changzhou Dyestuff Chemical Factory Co.,Ltd. jointly submitted an application to the MOFCOM for conducting the final review on antidumping measures against NP from India and Chinese Taiwan, with holding that once AD duty terminated, dumping will occur and Chinese NP industry will be injured again. After evaluation conducted by the MOFCOM, and in accordance with Article 48, Chinese Regulations on Antidumping, the MOFCOM decided to initiate a final review on 28 March 2012.
The review period will be from March 29, 2012 to March 29, 2013, and during this period, antidumping duty on NP from India and Chinese Taipei will be effective.
On 28 March 2013,the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) of the People’s Republic of China issued the Notice No.15 (2013), announcing the final determination of AD duty on Nonyl Phenol(HS NO. 29071310), with AD duty rate varies from 4.08% to 20.38% on the said product originating from India and Chinese Taipei. This measure will come into effect on March 29, 2013, and will remain in effect for five years, until 29 March 2018.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | |
| Was such evidence identified? | |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: Yes
Date of inception: 29 Mar 2012
GTA Evaluation: Red
Source:
Source from China Ministry of Commerce, Chinese Version Available:
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/b/c/201203/20120308039715.html
Ministry of Commerce, the PRC, Chinese Version Available:
http://gpj.mofcom.gov.cn/article/cs/201303/20130300069832.shtml
Government Response:
- 516 reads
