China: Final Review Determination of AD Duty on Catechol from the US and Japan
Description
On 21 May 2012, the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOFCOM) released the Notice NO.20 (2012), announcing the final review determination of AD duty on Catechol from the US and Japan.
On 22 May 2006, the MOFCOM released the Notice NO.32 (2006) announcing to levy antidumping duty on Catechol from the US and Japan, the term was five years. During this AD period, the MOFCOM has adjusted this antidumping duty in accordance with Notice NO.52 (2009) in 2009. In accordance with Notice NO.32 (2006) and Notice NO.52 (2009), catechol from the US was levied with AD duty of 46.81%(among which AD duty applied to RHODIA INC, a US company, was 9.7% ); catechol from Japan was levied with AD duty of 42.86%.
Before the termination of this AD duty, on 21 March 2011, Lianyungang SanjiliChemical Co.,Ltd formally submitted an application to the MOFCOM on behalf of Chinese Catechol industry and applied for conducting the final review investigation on AD duty on Catechol from the US and Japan. On 25 May 2011, the MOFCOM released the Notice NO.23 (2011) announcing the initiation of final review of the AD duty on Catechol originating from the US and Japan.During the final review investigation period from 22 May 2011 to 21 May 2012, Catechol from the US and Japan was imposed with AD duty in accordance with the Notice NO.32 (2006) and Notice NO.52 (2009).
In accordance with this Notice NO.20 (2012), upon investigation of final review of the AD duty on Catechol originating from the US and Japan, the MOFCOM held that there exists a causal link between Chinese industry injury and dumping from companies in the US, Japan. In accordance with Chinese Regulations on Antidumping, catechol from the US was levied with AD duty of 46.81%(US company RHODIA INC was 9.7% ); catechol from Japan was levied with AD duty of 42.86%, which are the same with Notice NO.32 (2006) and Notice NO.52 (2009).
This Notice NO.20 (2012) measure shall come into effect since the date of 22 May 2012 and the duration term shall be five years.
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: 22 May 2012
GTA Evaluation: Red
Source:
Source from China Ministry of Commerce, Chinese Version Available:
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/b/c/201205/20120508136153.html
Government Response:
- 314 reads
