(96) The complainant claimed that producers of the product under investigation benefit from income tax deductions and exemptions resulting from several programs, including:
— Reduced income tax rate for newly established companies
— Income tax deductions of R&D costs
— Income tax deductions of profits resulting from large industrial projects (ITES)
— Income tax deductions of profits of special category enterprises
— Income tax deductions of investments into new plants and machineries.
(97) The two Indian exporting producers did not enjoy any income tax exemptions, deductions or reduced tax rates during the IP.
(98) As a consequence, the Commission did not need to further investigate this scheme.
–
The provision of iron ore for less than adequate remuneration
(99) The complainant claimed that the GOI has implemented a policy involving the setting of high export taxes on iron ore. The government thus ensured an increase in the domestic supply of these products and guaranteed that iron prices remain well below international levels. These export duties, together with other elements, amounted to the GOI entrusting or directing raw material producers to provide inputs to the Indian producers for less than adequate remuneration.
(100) However, none of the two Indian exporting producers is using iron ore in its production process. Therefore, the Commission did not need to further investigate this scheme.
–
Purchases of goods through Government procurement policies
(101) The complainant claimed that the GOI has supported the Indian cold-rolled stainless steel industry through government procurements. It was claimed that government agencies are obliged to use a minimum percentage of Indian steel and iron in its procurement (between 15 % and 50 %). Furthermore, when a foreign bidder offers the lowest price, they can only obtain up to half of the order quantity. The other part must be awarded to a local supplier that is able to price within a 20 % range above the foreign bidder's price. Only if not a single local supplier can price within 20 % of the lowest price (an unlikely event, given the broad margin), can the more efficient, foreign bidder obtain the rest of the contract.
(102) One of the Indian exporting producers was successfully bidding in the IP in the government procurement procedures.
(103) The Commission verified all the procurement procedures and tenders related to the Indian company in question in the IP. However, no elements of concrete subsidization were found.
(104) Tenders are published online, on the websites of the Indian respective administration units, institutions or public companies (for example Indian Railways) and the companies are free to send their offers. It is a standard practice that procurement volume is divided between two companies. The company, which offered the lowest price, is granted 60 % of the procurement and the company, which offered the second lowest price, is granted the remaining 40 % of the contract, under the condition that it will adjust its price to the level offered by the winner of the bid. This rule applies also if one or both companies in question are foreign bidders.
(105) Admittedly, some procurements are open only for domestic companies. However, if the procedure is open for the foreign bidders there is no price discrimination as alleged by the complainant. The price preference (20 %) for the domestic suppliers exists only in case of procurements related to capital goods (16).
Feedback