The US Department of Commerce (DoC) has reduced the anti-dumping duty on imports of Indian seafood items to 0.79% from 1.69% after the preliminary finding of the third administrative review. The rates will be applicable to 170 Indian companies engaged in export business with the US. The anti-dumping and customs bond rates are expected to come down further when the final findings are announced in July this year.
The DoC had initiated anti-dumping duty against countries such as India, China, Ecuador, Thailand and Vietnam in 2004 following a complaint lodged by the Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA), an American shrimp producers' body. SSA had argued that its business had been affected badly due to dumping of seafood items, especially shrimps, at very low prices by the foreign countries.
The anti-dumping duty, which was initially imposed at a steep level of 10.17%, had posed formidable challenges to Indian shrimp exports. Intense efforts by the Union Government, the Marine Product Export Development Authority (MPEDA) and Seafood Exporters Association of India (SEAI) had resulted in the first review bringing it down to 7.22%, the second review to 1.69% and the preliminary findings of the third review now bringing it further down to 0.79%.
Shrimp imports from Ecuador will attract antidumping duty of 2.09%, Thailand 4.51%, Vietnam 25.76% and China 112.81%, according to SEAI sources. Therefore, Indian exporters stand to gain compared with exports from some of the competing countries.
Though 170 Indian shrimp companies came up for review, the respondents were restricted to Devi Sea Foods Ltd and Falcon Marine Exports Ltd, the two companies who were initially banned from exports to the US. According to the preliminary third review, Devi Sea Foods would be attracting an anti-dumping duty of 0.39%, while Falcon Marine would be at 0.79%. A total of 334 Indian companies were selected for the review and 166 companies are expected to pay Actual Facts Available (AFA) duty at the rate of 110%. AFA duty is applicable to those companies which did not respond to the review process.
Source : www.fnbnews.com