PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE (DUTIES) (Hansard, 24 January 1963)

§ The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green)
I beg to move, That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 3) Order 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 2631), dated 3rd December, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved. This Order imposes anti-dumping duties of £8 8s. 6d. a ton on phthalic anhydride originating in Austria, £9 18s. a ton on phthalic anhydride originating in the Federal Republic of Germany and £10 a ton on phthalic anhydride originating in Poland. The duties have been introduced as a result of an application submitted by the British industry under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, for action against dumped imports of phthalic anhydride.
Phthalic anhydride is a white flaked or powdered solid produced by the distillation of naphthalene or of orthoxylene. It is principally used in the production of alkyd resins which are included in a wide variety of paints and other surface coatings. It has a number 439 of other uses: in the manufacture of plasticisers, as a constituent of polyester resins used to laminate glass fibre and, to a small extent, in the production of dyestuffs and pharmaceuticals.
The application was submitted by five British producers—Howards of Ilford, I.C.I., Monsanto, South Western Tar Distilleries and the United Coke and Chemicals Company.
As the House knows, before duties can be imposed under this Act, the Board of Trade must be satisfied not only that dumping or subsidisation is taking place but both that this is causing or threatening material injury to a British industry and that action would be in the national interest. According to normal procedure, as soon as the Board of Trade was satisfied that there was prima facieevidence both of dumping and of consequent material injury, public announcements were made inviting representations from interested parties.
After a full investigation of the facts, and having taken into account the representations received, the Board reached the conclusion that imports into Britain of phthalic anhydride from Austria, West Germany and Poland were dumped; that this dumping had caused material injury to the British industry and threatened further injury, and that the imposition of duties would be in the national interest. It concluded that there was no case for action against imports of this material from Belgium, Denmark and South Africa.
The House, I know, will appreciate that I cannot give detailed reasons for our finding of material injury, since this was based on commercial and financial information which British producers gave to the Board in the strictest confidence, but I can, and most willingly do, assure the House that all the evidence was most carefully examined, and, as a result, the Board were satisfied that dumped imports have had a marked effect on the market with damaging consequences to the British industry.
The Board's announcement of the decision on 7th December included, as it should, a general warning that antidumping duties would be imposed on phthalic anhydride imported from any other countries if these imports were 440 found to be dumped. The Board has, indeed, completed investigations in regard to imports from two other countries —France and Switzerland—and antidumping duties were imposed on these yesterday. The warning still, of course, applies to any other countries producing phthalic anhydride which might be tempted to make sales at dumped prices in the future. I hope that the House will have no hesitation in approving the Order.

§ Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)
Could the Minister say in what form the dumping was taking place? Were the foreign firms which were sending this material to this country receiving assistance from their Governments to enable them to sell here at a dumped price? If not, were they losing money? In any case, is there a great difference between the home price of this commodity in, say, Austria and the price at which it was being offered here? The Minister has not said anything about that aspect. I imagine that that information is not secret and that he can divulge it.

§ Mr. Green
Perhaps not in full because some of the information was given to us in confidence. I cannot disclose all the details. The Board of Trade was quite satisfied that it was dumped in the sense that it was being sold in this country at a price substantially lower than that prevailing in the home market. The important thing is that the consequence of this dumping was, in a true sense, damaging to the British industry and, in the further sense, not only damaging the British industry but against the national interest.
In refraining from disclosing some confidential points—and I appreciate why the hon. Member asked the question—I ask him to accept from me that this was a true case of dumping in the general terms in which I have described them. If, in addition, the dumping was assisted by subsidisation, that only reinforces the argument and would do no more than reinforce it.

§ Mr. Holt
If the dumping was assisted by, say, the Government of Austria, would not the quickest way to put the matter right be for the British Government to make representations to the Austrian Government urging them to cease support for the goods which resulted in them being dumped here?

§ Mr. Green
That is a fair point for the hon. Member to have raised. In this case he will have gathered that dumping was taking place from a number of sources. In the ordinary course of events if the sources and the merchants here are not too numerous, the first thing the Board does is to make representations to get the practice stopped. However, where there are so many sources of dumping—I illustrated the number and we had other countries which we did not find in the event to be dumping—the process of seeking to secure agreement merely by representations would take so long that the damage which continues to be done—and we are satisfied is being done—would take much longer than it otherwise would to bring to an end, resulting in almost permanent damage.
Thus in this case we did not think it appropriate—if "appropriate" is the wrong word then "practical" may be better-—to adopt the procedure of mak- 442 ing representations, the sort of procedure adopted when one or two producers are involved, trying to get them to mend their ways without having to use this instrument.