While recommending withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on strontium carbonate imported from China, the commerce ministry has said India is not targeting Chinese products on levying anti-dumping duty.
The statement comes at a time when Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee is visiting China. Of the 155 anti-dumping investigations launched by the directorate-general of anti dumping and allied activities, 67 cases involve Chinese products.
"DGAD actions are never intended to single out China for anti-dumping measures. The actions have always been in accordance with the principles and procedures laid down in our national law. There are instances that substantiate that the decision taken by the DGAD was not targeted towards China or any other country," a commerce ministry official said.
Officials said India initiated cases on the basis of fully documented petitions submitted by the domestic industry containing sufficient evidence of dumping injury and establishing a causal link between the two.
They pointed out cases like toys, chloroquine phosphate and isobutyl benzene imported from China, which had been terminated.
In certain cases like magnesium and strontium carbonate, the designated authority had withdrawn the duties after a mid-term or sunset review.
In other cases like industrial sewing machine needles and trimethoprim, the provisional duties had been withdrawn after a case of dumping could not be concluded in the final analysis.
The DGAD is reviewing anti dumping duties in four cases -- fused magnesia, met coke, vitamin C and calcium carbide.
Officials said in the case of strontium carbonate, a chemical used by Videocon Narmada Glass, the anti-dumping duty was recommended for withdrawal following a mid-term review. A case regarding the imposition of the duty is also pending in Cegat.
Tamil Nadu-based Tanvacore Chemical and Manufacturing Co, the sole manufacturer of the product in India, has expressed its inability to produce the chemical in granular form.
While Chinese exporters did not respond to the questionnaire sent by India, the DGAD concluded that import of the product was not causing any injury to domestic producers during the investigation period from April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002, and the domestic industry did not suffer any material injury during the period.
© 2025