Page 67 - MANUAL OF SOP
P. 67

Manual of OP for Trade Remedy Investigations


               (i)   Do the goods have the same or similar end use? What is the extent to which
                     the two goods are capable of performing the same function? e.g. both a
                     shovel and an earth moving machine can move earth;

               (ii)   Do the goods have differential value? (Since quality claims are subjective,
                     objective evidence like official standards, or verifiable end-user surveys, hold
                     higher probative value); and
               (iii)   Is end-user preference likely to change in the future, based on end-user
                     trends and behaviour in other markets and countries?

               Production Likeness

               3.46.7. Different production processes may produce identical goods or may create
               different product characteristics. A comparison of the production process will not
               itself establish like goods but may highlight differences or provide support to the
               assessment of other considerations.

               (i)   To what extent are the goods constructed of the same or similar materials?

               (ii)   Have the goods undergone a similar manufacturing process? If different,
                     what is the impact of those differences?
               (iii)   Are the costs of manufacture similar? A similarity in the cost of manufacture
                     may be an indicator of likeness but is not determinative.

               (iv)   Are there any patented processes or inputs involved?
               3.47.  Production substitutability may also be examined. It would mean that
               producers/manufacturers can interchangeably  produce the products within the
               same facility then they should be considered like article, as was held in the case of
               aluminum radiators  wherein the product variants as such were nor substitutable
                                22
              by the end user/consumer but they were being produced by all  the producers
              interchangeably.


              3.48.  The quality of the PUC cannot be claimed to be a valid ground for claiming
              product differentiation as there could be a substantial element of subjectivity in such
              assessment. However, if the issue of quality is such that it can be demonstrated to
              lead to technical implications, it should be appropriately examined.

               22   Final Finding in Anti-dumping duty investigation concerning imports of Aluminium Radiators, Aluminium Radiator
              Sub- Assemblies and Aluminium Radiator Core, including in CKD or SKD conditions, for use in used/on road vehicles
              and generator sets, excluding aluminium radiators meant for use in new Automobiles originating in or exported from
              China PR, F No. 14/24/2015-DGAD, March 20, 2017.


                                                  44
   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72