Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I —Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 259] NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2023/ASVINA 11, 1945
CG-DL-E-06102023-249226
54031090, 54033100, 54033200, 54034110, 54034120, 54034130, 54034150, 54034170,
1 50 डेजियर तक मी.ट. 634 1,112 *** *** ***
डेजियर तक मी.ट. 18,626 25,239 *** *** ***
4 कुल आयात मी.ट. 19,280 26,397 *** *** ***
डेजियर तक % 97% 96% 80-90% 65-70% 20-25%
2 आरओसीई % 100 53 (7) (27)
2 आरओसीई % 100 93 43 71
2 आरओसीई % 100 113 94 119
*** *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
चीि से आयात मी.ट. 16,158 25,674 25,255 45,677
खपत % *** *** *** ***
1 PSY120OTUNDY 8,078 3,40,905 *** *** ***
2 PSY120DTUNDY 5,315 4,18,557 *** *** ***
3 PSY075OTUNDY 1,119 4,71,053 *** *** ***
4 PSY150OTUNDY 1,047 3,60,246 *** *** ***
5 PSY116OTUNDY 1,094 3,53,44 9 *** *** ***
6 PSY115OTUNDY 856 3,77,171 *** *** ***
7 PSY040OTUNDY 634 7,55,226 *** *** ***
8 PSY050OTUNDY 469 6,54,822 *** *** ***
9 PSY100OTUNDY 262 3,83,292 *** *** ***
10 PSY060OTUNDY 134 5,36,448 *** *** ***
11 PSY118OTUNDY 179 3,42,518 *** *** ***
12 PSY112OTUNDY 75 3,23,151 *** *** ***
13 PSY300OTUNDY 20 3,10,614 *** *** ***
14 CSY120UTUNDY 9,055 3,51,683 *** *** ***
15 CSY060UTUNDY 5,168 5,43,598 *** *** ***
16 CSY058UTUNDY 4,891 5,48,177 *** *** ***
17 CSY050UTUNDY 3,247 6,73,868 *** *** ***
18 CSY075UTUNDY 1,964 4,65,692 *** *** ***
19 CSY112UTUNDY 664 3,47,625 *** *** ***
20 CSY040UTUNDY 659 7,11,364 *** *** ***
21 CSY100UTUNDY 217 4,57,508 *** *** ***
22 CSY039UTUNDY 193 7,21,579 *** *** ***
23 CSY049UTUNDY 129 6,82,607 *** *** ***
24 CSY030UTUNDY 131 7,16,796 *** *** ***
25 CSY300UTUNDY 46 3,93,105 *** *** ***
26 CSY086UTUNDY 22 4,16,406 *** *** ***
27 CSY070UTUNDY 11 4,53,403 *** *** ***
28 कुल 45,677 4,50,363 *** *** ***
अन् य देि % *** *** *** ***
50 100
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
12.98
5.48
6.72
20.87
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce )
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
FINAL FINDING
New Delhi , 29th September , 2023
Case No. OI- (06/2022)
Subject : Anti -dumping in vestigation concerning imports of “Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn” originating in or
exported from China PR.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
F. No. 6/06/2022 -DGTR .—Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to
time (hereafter also referred to as “the Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of
Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) thereof.
1. The Designat ed Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) received an application (also referred to
as the “petition”) from Association of Man -Made Fiber Industry Limited (hereinafter referred to as “applicant
association”) and M/s Grasim Industries Limite d (hereinafter referred to as “domestic industry” or “applicant”
or “petitioner”) requesting initiation of an anti -dumping investigation under the Act and the Rules on the
imports of “Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn” also known as VFY (hereinafter referred as the “subject goods” or
“product under consideration” or “PUC”), originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as
the “subject country”). The applicant, namely M/s Grasim Industries Limited has provided the prescribed
information in the application.
2. The Authority, on the basis of prima -facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a public notice vide
Notification No. 6/06/2022 -DGTR dated 30th September, 2022, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating the subject i nvestigation in accordance with the Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5
of the Rules to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods
originating in or exported from the subject country and to recommend the amoun t of anti -dumping duty, which
if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic injury.
B. PROCEDURE
3. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
i. The Authority notified the Embassy of the subject c ountry in India about the receipt of the present anti -
dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with sub -rule (5) of
Rule 5.
ii. The Authority issued a Notification dated 30th September 2022, published in the Gazette of India
Extraordinary, initiating the anti -dumping investigation concerning the imports of the subject goods from
the subject country.
iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification dated 30th September 2022 to the Embassy of the
subject country i n India, the known producers and exporters from the subject country, known importers
and users in India, and the other interested parties, as per the addresses made available by the applicant.
The interested parties were advised to provide relevant informa tion in the form and manner prescribed
and make their submissions known in writing within the prescribed time -limit.
iv. The Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters and to the Embassy of th e subject country in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of
the Rules.
v. The Embassy of the subject country in India was also requested to advise the exporters/producers from
its country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A cop y of the letter and
questionnaire was sent along with the names and addresses of the known producers/exporters from the
subject country.
vi. The Authority sent exporter's questionnaire to the following known producers/ exporters in China PR in
accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
i. HMEI Thread Co. Ltd.
ii. Jilin Chemical Fibre Group Co. Ltd.
iii. Xinxiang Bailu Chemical Fibre Group Co. Ltd.
iv. Yibin Grace Co. Ltd.
v. Yibin Heist Fibre Co. Ltd
vii. The following producers/exporters from China PR have responded and filed expor ter’s questionnaire
response:
i. Baoding Hengjin Silk Thread Co. Ltd.
ii. Boading Hengjin Silk Thread Co. Ltd.
iii. Goaxian Changxin Thread LLC
iv. Grace (Hong Kong) International Trading Limited
v. Jilin Chemical Fibre Stock Co. Ltd.
vi. Jilin Enka Viscose Co., Ltd.
vii. Jilin To p Trading Co. Ltd.
viii. Pro-Mexx Industrial Development Co. Ltd.
ix. Sichuan Wellshow International Trade PTE Ltd.
x. Xingxiang Chemcial Fibre Co., Ltd.
xi. Yibin Changxin Thread Co., Ltd.
xii. Yibin Hiest Fibre Limited Corporation
viii. The Authority forwarded a copy of the initi ation notification and the questionnaire to the following
known importers/users in India in accordance with the Rule 6(4):
i. Agarwal Fabtex Pvt. Ltd.
ii. Amrit Rayon Ltd.
iii. AR Corporation
iv. Bell Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
v. Bittu Synthetics
vi. Chunnilal Kundanmall
vii. Doriwala Indu stries
viii. Hardik Fashions
ix. Krishan sale's Corporation
x. Liberty Trendz Pvt. Ltd.
xi. Manohar Capital Markets Ltd.
xii. Marwadi Brothers
xiii. Meenakshi Group Pvt. Ltd.
xiv. Meher International
xv. Rajmal Son’s and Group
xvi. Ramchandra Art Silk Yarn Trading Co. Ltd.
xvii. Shah Trading Co.
xviii. Shant i Textiles
xix. Shri Govindraj Trading Company
xx. Tejoday Dyeing & Printing Works
xxi. The Matrix Enterprise
xxii. Urjaa Exim Pvt. Ltd.
xxiii. Vyapar Com & Industries Ltd,
ix. The following importers/users in India have responded and filed importers/users questionnaire response:
i. A.R Corporation
ii. Anand Apparels
iii. Batsons Textiles
iv. Chinco Textiles
v. Dharmik Textile
vi. Eagle Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.
vii. Golden Synthetics
viii. Hanuman Weavetech
ix. I M Patel & Sons
x. Jalaram Textils
xi. Jash Rayon
xii. Maker Filaments
xiii. Meher Filament
xiv. Meher International
xv. Palak Tex
xvi. Prakash Tex tiles
xvii. R R Tex
xviii. Reaghan Fashion Pvt. Ltd.
xix. Ruhi Tex
xx. Satyam Sizing
xxi. Shree Bhuvneshwari Textiles
xxii. Shyamlal Goyal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.
xxiii. Silk Poly Fab.
xxiv. Tailor & Tailor Fab
xxv. Urjaa Exim Pvt Ltd
x. The Authority specified proposed Product Control Number (PCN) for fair comparison of the PUC in the
initiation notification dated 30th September 2022.
xi. The Authority invited comments from the interested parties on the proposed PCN and thereafter held a
meeting on 14th November 2022 to finalise the PCN methodology. All the pa rties who presented their
views in the oral hearing were requested to file written submissions in order to enable the opposing
interested parties to file rejoinders thereafter.
xii. After considering the arguments made by the interested parties in the oral hea ring and the submissions
filed thereafter, the Authority notified final PCN methodology on 29th November 2022.
xiii. The Authority, upon request made by the interested parties, granted extension of time to the interested
parties up to 27th December 2022 to file their questionnaire response.
xiv. The Authority also issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire (hereafter referred to as “EIQ”) to the
interested parties including Ministry of textiles dated 14th December, 2022 seeking inputs on the
economic impact of the prop osed duties. The information received from all the parties has been
considered for the purpose of present determination.
xv. The Authority made available the non -confidential version of the submissions made by the various
interested parties. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website along with the
request therein to all of them to email the non -confidential version of their submissions to all the other
interested parties.
xvi. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present i nvestigation is 1st April 2021 to 31st March
2022 (12 months). The injury analysis period covers 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019, 1st April 2019 to
31st March 2020, 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2021 and the period of investigation.
xvii. The transaction -wise i mport data for the period of investigation and the preceding three years was
procured from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) and DG,
Systems. The Authority has relied upon data of DGCI&S for calculating the volume a nd value of
imports of the subject goods in India.
xviii. The information/data submitted by the domestic industry has been verified to the extent deemed
necessary and relied upon for the purpose of these findings. The Authority has also conducted physical
verific ation at the premises of the domestic industry. The Authority has also verified the data of the
responding exporters from the subject country through desk verification.
xix. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity to th e interested parties
to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 16th June 2023 in hybrid mode. The parties
which presented their views in the oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of the views
expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. The parties shared their non -confidential
submissions with other interested parties and were advised to offer their rebuttals.
xx. The submissions made by the interested parties, arguments raised, and information provided by the
various interested parties during the course of the investigation, to the extent the same are supported with
evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by the
Authority in this final finding.
xxi. The Auth ority, during the course of the investigation, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the information
supplied by the interested parties, which forms the basis of this final finding, to the extent possible, and
verified the data/documents submitted by the applicant to the extent considered relevant.
xxii. Information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to the
sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality
claims wherever warranted and such information has been considered as confidential and not disclosed
to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on a confidential basis were
directed to provide sufficient non -confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.
xxiii. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation which have formed the basis of
the final findings was issued to the interested parties on 21st September 2023 and the inter ested parties
were allowed time up to 26th September 2023 to comment on the same. The comments to disclosure
statement received from the interested parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant, in this
final finding notification.
xxiv. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information
during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the
Authority has considered such parties as non -cooperative and reco rded the present final finding on the
basis of the facts available.
xxv. The non -injurious price (hereinafter referred to as “NIP”) has been determined based on the cost of
production and reasonable profits for the subject goods in India, having regard to the information
furnished by the domestic industry and in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules to ascertain whether anti -dumping duty lower than the dumping
margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
xxvi. '***’ in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on a confidential basis
and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xxvii. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$=Rs 75.37 .
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1 Submission of the other interested parties
4. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article:
a. It is not necessary that the domestically produced product is exactly the same as the dumped product.
Even if the dumped product and the product being produced by the domestic industry are not exactly the
same but ‘alike’ or similar to each other, they can be cover ed within the scope of an investigation. Black
Laws Dictionary defines the word ‘alike’ as similar to another. The term is not synonymous with
"identical," which means "exactly the same."
b. Weavers use VFY produced through PSY and SSY manufacturing process for manufacturing same type of
fabrics, without differentiating between fabrics manufactured using PSY or SSY yarn.
c. The prices of PSY and SSY technology yarn are almost in the same range. SSY is not a high price
product.
d. Irrespective of the manufacturing p rocess & technology, the yarns produced are alike in their essential
characteristics and can be used interchangeably.
e. Imports of superfine denier of PSY are more than the SSY sales in superfine deniers.
f. In the period of investigation and 2022 -23, the tota l imports of superfine deniers are more than double the
total domestic production of the applicant. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that SSY is sold in
the superfine deniers which are not imported is incorrect.
g. The Authority has included VFY pr oduced through SSY technology in the scope of PUC through its
notification dated 29th November 2022. This notification finalized the scope of the PUC and PCN
methodology and supersedes the initiation notification.
h. The applicant has for the first time at t he time of hearing contended that other types of rayon should be
included in the scope of the product under consideration. More than 9 months have passed since initiation
of the investigation and the domestic industry has not placed any evidence on record to show that
cuprammonium and bemberg yarn are viscose yarn.
i. Since cuprammonium and bemberg yarn products are neither imported from China nor produced in India,
inclusion of these products will have absolutely no bearing on the present investigation.
j. The definition of the viscose rayon and cuprammonium rayon as provided in Chapter 54 itself show that
these are different products.
k. The applicant must produce evidence that cuprammonium rayon, bemberg rayon and lyocell are
commercially and functionally inter changeable with Viscose.
l. Low glue dull yarn should be excluded from the scope of investigation as the applicant has not produced
this product.
m. The Authority should clarify whether 100% rayon embroidery thread raw white on cone 120D/2 and
100% rayon embro idery thread raw white on hank 120D/2 are excluded from the scope of the
investigation.
n. The Authority should clarify whether viscose filament yarn below 60 deniers is excluded from the scope
of the investigation.
o. The product under consideration imported us ing bamboo pulp and cotton pulp as raw material should be
excluded as the same are not being produced by the applicant.
p. The fineness of the yarn supplied by the domestic industry is not consistent which leads to yarn wastage.
q. The domestic industry supplie s cones of smaller and uneven sizes. Continuous stoppage of machines leads
to increase in cost of production of weavers.
r. Cones in smaller sizes leads to much higher production loss. Therefore, the users prefer to import the
product under consideration.
s. The embroidery thread exported by Yibin Hiest Fibre Limited Corporation is a downstream ready to use
product. This should be excluded in all forms including small bobbin or big cone.
t. Embroidery thread on cone or hank is normally transferred onto a small bobb in before use on an
embroidery machine but it is not a significant process. It continues to remain ‘ready to use’ as was before
it was transferred onto a bobbin.
u. 100% rayon embroidery thread raw white on cone 120D/2 or on hank 120D/2 based was also exclude d in
the previous investigations.
v. The products produced by the applicant cannot run on advance air jet machines where spinning reaches
900-1200 picks per minute.
w. Cones supplied by the applicant are in small sizes as compared to the cones supplied by the C hinese
exporters. Further, the cone supplied by the Indian industry are not in even sizes and have to undergo a
process of spinning first.
x. The domestic industry has failed to any provide evidence for likeness of PSY and CSY with regard to 7
parameters of c omparison, namely, input, process, technology, end weave, price point, product
specifications and consumer perception.
C.2. Submission of the domestic industry
5. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under consideration
and like article:
a. The product under consideration in the present investigation is viscose rayon filament yarn/thread
classified under 5403.
b. Neither the application nor the initiation notification has included yarn produced through SSY
techno logy within the scope of the product under consideration. Further, neither WTO agreement nor
Indian anti -dumping law provides any definition of the product under consideration.
c. The product cannot be considered as dumped unless the product is introduced in to the commerce of
another country. Since Chinese producers do not have the technology to produce the yarn using SSY
technology, it cannot be said to be dumped into the Indian market and cannot be included in the scope
of the product under consideration.
d. The law requires that an article identical or alike in all respects to the imported product must be
produced by the domestic industry to be considered as like article. Since the domestic industry produces
the identical article to the imported PSY and CSY y arn, there is no legal basis to include any other
product as a like article.
e. The usage of three different production processes is different in terms of market segment due to
specification of the product.
f. Due to the production process, PSY technology result s in yarn with lower dyeing consistency
compared to SSY technology.
g. PSY involves more production steps than SSY.
h. SSY yarn offers greater stretchability and dyeing consistency that PSY yarn cannot achieve.
i. The difference in technology enables SSY yarn to possess shrinkage ability and better dyeability and
consistency, which are not present in PSY yarn.
j. SSY yarn is finer and caters to different end applications.
k. PSY produced yarn is mass produced whereas SSY produced yarn is a niche category.
l. In previou s investigation of anti -subsidy investigation, the Authority found that VFY produced using
SSY technology is different from the yarn produced through PSY and CSY.
m. Separate plants and investments have been made for different technologies, which demonstrate the
importance of technology in the present industry. Different technologies lead to differences in the
eventual yarn and that is the reason for incurring higher investment in SSY plant.
n. SSY yarn is mainly used for super fine denier applications, while PSY yarn is commonly used in
coarser denier category.
o. PSY yarn sold by the domestic industry and imported from China is typically in the above 50 deniers to
150 deniers’ range.
p. The interested parties admit the existence of technology in PSY and CSY product. However, they have
contended that there is no difference between PSY and SSY technology. This is clearly contradictory.
q. The Authority has treated PSY and CSY differently in its PCN classification, thus showing admission
of the difference in product due t o technology in this product.
r. The share of imports in the domestic sales of yarn produced through different technologies shows
distinct patterns. Over 90% of PSY yarn imports are in the range of above 50 deniers to 150 deniers.
This is much different from the sales pattern of SSY yarn by the domestic industry.
s. Around 20% of SSY yarn sold by the domestic industry falls in the range of 50 deniers to 150 deniers,
where PSY yarn is mostly sold. This shows difference in PSY and SSY sold by the domestic industr y.
t. The goods produced through three different technologies cater to different market segments.
u. Imports of below 50 deniers in PSY and CSY technology have increased, but the performance of SSY
technology remains unaffected. This shows lack of competition between PSY/CSY yarn and SSY yarn.
The domestic industry's performance is impacted by the imports in the PSY/CSY technology but not in
SSY technology, indicating a difference in market acceptance and competition between the two
products.
v. If the Authority includes SSY as a like article to the product under consideration, then there are other
types of VFY produced through different technology and it would become important to add those yarns
as well in the present determination. This would be clearly inconsis tent.
w. Interested parties have stated that SSY is similar to the product under consideration due to the existence
of the same market segment for VFY produced using all three technologies, and fabric and garment
producers do not differentiate between them. However, the very fact that the products produced
through different technology fetch different market in itself establishes different end applications of the
yarns produced through different technologies. Evidently, the consumers find difference in the yar n
properties leading to payment of different prices based on technology.
x. If there was differentiation between the products, the import data wouldn't specify PSY/CSY, separate
plants wouldn't exist, the SSY plant would have suffered due to dumping of PSY, Grasim wouldn't
have invested in patented technology. The patent for SSY technology demonstrates its uniqueness
compared to PSY and CSY products.
y. The market segment of the product under consideration and SSY technology is different. The share of
products with up to 50 deniers is low, accounting for only 3% in total PSY and 18% in CSY. In
contrast, SSY holds a significant share of 79%.
z. The SSY technology is predominantly up to 50 deniers, whereas PSY is predominantly in 50 -150
deniers.
aa. Yarn produced using SSY technology is mainly for fine yarn (deniers of 50 or below). PSY technology
yarn is not primarily sold or imported in the fine denier category. PSY technology yarn sold by the
applicant and imported from China is mostly in the 50 to 150 denier range. SSY technology yarn is
intended for fine denier purposes, while PSY technology yarn is meant for coarse denier purposes.
bb. The product scope cannot be changed without amending the notice of initiation. The Authority has not
altered the scope or like article .
cc. The product scope can only be restricted during the investigation, not expanded after initiation without
amending the notice. The interested parties are seeking an unauthorized expansion of the product
scope.
dd. All three packing forms namely, hank, cone and bobbin are within the scope of product under
consideration. Further both dyed and undyed subject goods are within the scope of the product under
consideration.
ee. The product falling under custom classification 5401 is excluded from the scope of the prod uct under
consideration. Further, the product may be even or uneven yarn and may be of various grades. Viscose
filament yarn of all types/forms/type/composition, classifiable under customs classification 5403, is
within the scope of the product under consi deration.
ff. SSY technology was developed to produce super fine yarn with different dying consistency and distinct
look and feel compared to PSY technology.
gg. Different technologies have evolved to cater to the varying properties and desired look and feel of t he
garment. This is especially important for the product under consideration, which is predominantly used
by women who prioritize the overall appearance and texture over incremental costs.
hh. The product is a cellulosic filament yarn, widely used in the text ile industry to produce fabrics with a
distinct character compared to fabrics produced from yarns made using staple fibres. All the fibres are
continuous throughout any length of the yarn.
ii. Continuous filament yarns are produced from cellulose using the vi scose process or cuprammonium
hydroxide method. In the viscose process, cellulose is converted into cellulose xanthate, dissolved in a
sodium hydroxide solution, and extruded through a spinneret into an acid bath.
jj. Conversion from wood pulp to different ya rn can be undertaken through different technologies such as
cuprammonium technology, viscose spot spun yarn technology viscose continuous spun yarn
technology, Viscose pot spun yarn technology, lyocell technology, bemberg technology or modal
technology.
kk. Viscose, modal, and lyocell are all derived from plants and are considered variations of the same fiber
called viscose. They are scientifically classified as regenerated cellulosic fibers, composed of extracted
cellulose reformed into fibers. Although they share a common origin, the manufacturing processes and
treatments used for each fiber differ, resulting in variations in the look, feel, and end application of the
garments produced.
ll. Due to variations in treatment, additives, and production cycles, the fi nal products created using these
different technologies exhibit differences in softness, texture, and feel. These distinctions have an
impact on the perception of the end consumer.
mm. Yibin Hiest Fibre Limited Corporation and other related producers are see king the exclusion of "ready
to use embroidery thread" without further conditions. The domestic industry suspects that the motive
behind the exclusion request is malicious and aims to avoid higher customs duty and anti -dumping
duty.
nn. The product under cons ideration and yarn/thread for embroidery applications have separate
classifications under the Customs Tariff Act, making the demand for exclusion without tariff
classification unjustifiable.
oo. Ready to use yarn is excluded from the scope of present investig ation. But embroidery thread on cone
hank is not a ready to use yarn which is classified under heading 5401 is not excluded from the product
scope.
C.3. Examination by the Authority
6. In the notice of initiation, the product under consideration was defined as under:
“3. The product under consideration in the present investigation is viscose rayon filament yam/thread
classifiable under customs classification 5403, excluding yam produced through spool spun technology.
only ready to use embroidery thread on s mall bobbin that can be installed on embroidery machine, and
which is classifiable under customs classification 5401, is excluded from the scope of the present
investigation. Further, both dyed and undyed yam are within the scope of the product under
consi deration.
4 Viscose rayon filament yarn can be produced by three processes, namely, pot spun yarn (PSY),
continuous spun yam (CSY) and spool spun yarn (SSY). Yarn produced through each process finds
usage in different segment because of different specific ations. Scope of the product under consideration
in the present investigation is restricted to the viscose rayon filament yarn produced through PSY and
CSY technology. Viscose rayon filament yarn produced through SSY technology is outside the scope of
the product under consideration.
5 The applicant has stated that the product has been imported using a number of different descriptions
and has provided a non -exhaustive list of different description that have been used by the importers
while reporting import s. The scope of the product under consideration includes all possible descriptions
of the product. The list of descriptions used while importing the product is given below. These constitute
non exhaustive list of description of the product:”
5 The applican t has stated that the product has been imported using a number of different descriptions
and has provided a non -exhaustive list of different description that have been used by the importers
while reporting imports. The scope of the product under considerat ion includes all possible descriptions
of the product. The list of descriptions used while importing the product is given below. These constitute
non exhaustive list of description of the product: -
Bamboo Csp Even Continuous Even Bright High Glue (Undyed )
Bamboo Csp Even (Undyed) Cotton Csp
Bamboo Csp Uneven Cotton Csp Brt Cmc Undyed
Bamboo Csp Uneven (Undyed) Cotton Csp Brt Hg Undyed
Bamboo Csp Uneven Dull Cotton Even (Undyed)
Bamboo Pulp Brt Undyed Cotton Pulp On Cone
Bamboo Pulp Dull Undyed Cotton Pulp Undyed
Bright Dull White On Cone Dull Cotton Pulp (Undyed)
Bright On Cone Silver Ring Dull Wood Pulp
Bright Raw White On Cake Egret Brand Continuous Bright Grade Even (Undyed)
Bright Raw White On Cone Egret Brand Continuous Even Bright (Undye d)
Bright Rayon Twisted Yarn Egret Brand Continuous Even Cg Grade Bright (Undyed)
Brt Cotton Pulp (Undyed) Egret Brand Continuous Even Snow Cowrie Bright (Undyed)
Brt Csp Bamboo Even (Undyed) Raw White Bright On Cake
Brt Csp Bamboo Hg Even (Undyed) Raw White Bright On Cone Undyed
Brt Csp Bamboo Hg Uneven (Undyed) Raw White Dull On Cone Undyed
Brt Csp Bamboo Uneven (Undyed) Rayon Embroidery Thread Bright Dyed On Cone
Brt Csp Cotton Even (Undyed) Rayon Embroidery Thread Bright Raw White
Brt Csp Cotton Undyed Rayon Embroidery Thread Bright Raw White On Hank
Brt Csp Cotton Uneven(Undyed) Rayon Embroidery Thread Bright Raw White On Hank Undyed
Brt Wood Pulp Undyed Rayon Viscose Yam (100% Virgin) Undyed
Centrifugal Bright (Undyed) Rayon Viscose Yam (100 % Virgin) Undyed Raw White
Centrifugal Egret Brand Dull Viscose Rayon Embroidery Thread In Hank (Undyed)
Continuous Egret Brand Bright Viscose Rayon Embroidery Thread In Hank Raw White
Continuous Egret Bright Viscose Rayon Embroidery Thread Raw White Br ight On Hank
Undyed
Continuous Egret Snow Bright Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn, Various Deniers And Filaments
Wood Pulp On Cone Dull Viscose Rayon Yam (Raffia) Raw White 100% Dyeable Quality
6 The product is classified under the Chapter 54 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) under
subheadings of the tariff custom classification as 5403. The product is majorly imported under
54031000, 54031090, 54033100, 54033200, 54034110, 54034120,54034130, 54034150,
54034170,54034190. The customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on the scope of the
product under consideration”
7. Illustrative images of the product under consideration are given below.
8. Various submissions have been made by the interested parties on the scope of the product under consideration
and sought exclusions and clarifications on the scope of the product under consideration. The arguments of
interested parties have been examined by calling relevant information from the parties and undertaking on the
spot verification at the premises of the domestic industry.
Low glue dull yarn
9. It has been contended that low glue yarn should be removed from the scope of the product under consideration,
as it is not being produced by the domestic industry. The domestic industry has conte nded that it has produced
and sold in low glue dull yarn in commercial quantities and production does not require any special machinery.
Sample invoices have been provided by the domestic industry showing sales of low glue yarn by them.
Therefore, the cont ention for exclusion cannot be accepted. Low glue yarn is included within the scope of the
product under consideration.
Viscose filament yarn which is produced through bamboo, cotton and wood pulp.
10. As regards the request for exclusion of viscose filament y arn produced through bamboo and cotton pulp, it is
noted that there is no difference in the product produced using all three raw materials. In fact, it is noted that the
producers of the subject goods are concerned with cellulose which can be derived from all the three sources. It
is also noted that the product under consideration produced using bamboo, cotton or wood pulp was also
covered in the previous investigation. Further, no justifiable evidence has been brought forward to support the
contention of w hy these should be excluded.
100% rayon embroidery thread raw white on cone or on hank
11. It is noted that ready to use embroidery thread on small bobbin that can be installed on embroidery machine,
and which is classifiable under customs classification 5401 has already been excluded from the purview of the
PUC. It has however been contended that embroidery thread is a downstream product to the product under
consideration and therefore should be completely excluded without the restriction on the tariff classif ication. In
this regard, it is noted that embroidery thread in ready to use yarn is classifiable under 5401, whereas the
product under consideration is classifiable under 5403.
12. Therefore, the Authority concludes that embroidery thread classifiable under 5 401, which are ready to use, are
beyond the scope of the product under consideration. However, if 100% rayon embroidery thread raw white on
cone or on hank classifiable under 5403, the same is within the scope of the product under consideration of the
present investigation. The Authority has included all such import transactions for the purpose of the present
investigation and final determination.
Yarns suitable for air jet machines or cones of smaller and uneven sizes.
13. It has been contended that the yarn supplied by the domestic industry is not suitable to run on airjet machines.
The domestic industry has however provided invoices of sales made to spinners who have airjet machines. The
domestic industry has contended that it has sold a total of around *** MT to NDR yarns, Eagle Industries,
Hardik Fashions, SK Weavings and Baid Synthetics who use arijet machines and therefore the contention of the
interested parties is incorrect. Further, it has also been submitted by the domestic industry that the size of t he
cone does not have any material impact on the machines run by the users and the machines productivity will
suffer only when cones of different sizes are used at the same time. The Authority notes that while different
cone size deployed at the same time may have adverse impact on the productivity, the mere fact that the cone
size supplied by the domestic industry are of small weight as compared to the cone supplied by the foreign
producers per se does not justify both dumping and injurious exports in Ind ian market. Further, the interested
parties have not quantified the impact of use of different cone size on their productivity. Accordingly, the yarns
suitable for air jet machines or cones is within the scope of the product under consideration of the pres ent
investigation.
14. While it was contended by the interested parties that the domestic industry puts obligations on its customer to
buy substandard materials, no evidence has been provided in support of the argument.
Viscose Filament Yarn below 60 deniers .
15. The Authority notes that viscose filament yarn below 60 deniers has been imported from the subject country
and produced and sold by the domestic industry. In fact, the Authority has determined NIP and price
undercutting by considering production and sale s of the domestic industry for below 60 deniers yarn.
Therefore, the scope of the product under consideration includes viscose filament yarn below 60 deniers.
Cuprammonium and Bemberg yarn.
16. It is clarified that cuprammonium and bemberg yarn are not within the scope of the product under
consideration. Neither has the domestic industry requested their inclusion nor has the interested parties made
any submission in this regard.
Viscose Filament Yarn produced through SSY technology.
17. Various submissions have be en made by the interested parties and the domestic industry on the inclusion or
exclusion of the yarn produced through SSY technology in the scope of like article produced and sold by the
domestic industry. It has been contended by the interested parties t hat the technology does not play any role for
the user in its decision to buy the product under consideration. On the contrary, the domestic industry has stated
that yarn produced through SSY technology is a completely different product. The Authority has examined the
following factors in arriving at the decision whether SSY can be considered inside the scope of like article to
the product under consideration.
a. Scope of product under consideration
18. The Authority notes that scope of the product under considera tion as per initiation notification clearly excludes
SSY. The Authority has conducted physical verification at the premises of the domestic industry to examine if
the Viscose Filament Yarn produced through the three technologies are alike to each other. It has not been
contended by interested parties that yarn produced through SSY technology is imported into India and
therefore, it should be included. Further, the interested parties have contended that yarn produced through SSY
technology should be included as a like article to the yarn imported. The domestic industry contended that there
is no production of SSY in China PR, nor the Chinese producers have technical capability to produce SSY.
There is no export of SSY to India during the injury period. The Au thority therefore concludes that in so far as
scope of the product under consideration is concerned, the same very appropriately excludes SSY.
b. Scope of the like article
19. The authority examined whether the scope of the like article should be extended to in clude SSY. The Authority
has undertaken detailed investigations on this account and notes the following.
20. It is noted that the interested parties have specifically contended that SSY is like article to PSY. The interested
parties have not contended that SSY is a like article to CSY. Further, the interested parties have contended that
PSY and CSY have significant differences leading to significant difference in costs and prices that the
Authority should make separate PCN for the same. The domestic industry ha d also proposed technology as a
parameter of PCN and has divided product under consideration into CSY and PSY. Thus, the domestic industry
and interested parties contended that CSY and PSY should be treated as different PCNs because of the
difference in te chnology. The interested parties however contended that PSY and SSY should be treated as one
PCN despite difference in technology. This contention has also been examined.
21. It is noted that the product under consideration is produced and sold in a large num ber of different deniers.
Different deniers are required to meet requirement of different segments of the market. The costs and prices of
different deniers varies so significantly that denier has been treated as a parameter for PCN wise comparison.
Thus, d enierage of yarn is an important parameter to distinguish different types of VFY.
22. The Authority had earlier conducted investigations relating to the VFY. Further, while the domestic industry
was not producing and selling SSY technology product at the time of earlier investigations, the domestic
industry was producing and selling this yarn in the last investigations conducted by the Authority. The
Authority has considered the final findings notified in all the previous investigations also while making the
present determination.
23. The Authority notes that technology (CSY/PSY) and denierage have all been considered as important product
parameters, leading to different PCNs in all the past investigations. Even in the present investigations, there is
no dispute w ith regard to separate PCN for CSY & PSY, and for different deniers of the product.
i. Production technology
24. The Authority notes that there is no dispute that VFY is produced through three different technologies, i.e., post
spun yarn (PSY), continuous spun y arn (CSY) and spun spool yarn (SSY).
25. VFY was historically produced using pot spun technology. Continuous spun technology was introduced more
than two decades back. The Chinese and Indian producers are producing VFY using CSY and PSY technology
for the pas t several years and were found to be producing through these technologies since the first
investigation relating to this product.
26. It is noted that the production facilities based on SSY technology are available only in India and Europe. The
Chinese produc ers undisputedly do not produce VFY using this technology.
27. The information provided by the petitioner shows that there is significant difference in capital investment per
unit of capacity. The Authority notes that the very fact that different technologies are deployed by the producers
and the investment per MT of capacity in PSY is materially lower than investment per MT of capacity in case
of SSY establishes that technology play significant role. There would not have been investment in SSY, if PSY
would ha ve given a product with the same product properties. Evidently, the producers perceive some material
difference in eventual product properties thus leading to investments in SSY. The interested parties have not
established that there are no differences in the eventual product properties and specifications of the product
produced through SSY and PSY technology. The Authority also notes that the nature of the product is also
required to be considered in this regard. VFY is largely used for making products wh ere look and feel of the
garment is the biggest parameter for consumer preference and purchase decision. The domestic industry
contended that the look and feel of yarn introduced using SSY is very different from look and feel of yarn
produced by PSY techno logy.
28. The Authority considers that while difference in technology in normal circumstances might not be quite
relevant, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and where the Authority has been consistently
considering, and interested parties hav e been suggesting segregation of VFY into PSY and CSY, solely based
on technology difference, in itself implies that the product produced using different technologies are perceived
differently in the market place. Further, these carries significantly diffe rent cost and price.
ii. Manufacturing process
29. It is also noted that the manufacturing process for production of SSY is very different from PSY. The Authority
has considered the degree of the difference in the manufacturing process to consider if the yarn prod uced
through three technologies are different. The domestic industry earlier had only PSY and CSY technologies to
produce VFY. The domestic industry has set up a new plant to produce VFY using SSY technology.
iii. Capital investment
30. The difference in the net fixed asset per unit of the three yarns is given below: -
SN Technology Capital employed per unit Capital employed per unit
1 PSY *** Between 2 to 3 lakh per MT
2 CSY *** Between 6.5 to 7.5 lakh per MT
3 SSY *** Between 11.5 to 12.5 lakh per MT
31. It is noted that the per unit investment required is quite high in the case of yarn produced through SSY
technology.
iv. Raw material
32. It is also noted that while SSY technology requires soft wood pulp to produce product under consideration,
production in case of PSY and CSY technology can also be undertaken through hard wood pulp.
v. Degree of competition
33. The table below shows the imports and the domestic sales of viscose filament yarn of PSY, CSY and SSY
technologies in upto 50 deniers, above 50 and upto 150 de niers and above 150 deniers.
SN Particulars UOM Imports into India Grasim sale
PSY CSY PSY CSY SSY
A Import volumes
1 Upto 50 deniers MT 634 1,112 *** *** ***
2 Above 50 & upto 150
deniers MT 18,626 25,239 *** *** ***
3 Above 150 deniers MT 20 46 *** *** ***
4 Total imports MT 19,280 26,397 *** *** ***
B Share in total imports
5 Upto 50 deniers % 3% 4% Below
1% 25-30% 75-80%
6 Above 50 & upto 150
deniers % 97% 96% 80-90% 65-70% 20-25%
7 Above 150 deniers % 0% 0% 15-20% 0-5% Below 1%
34. It is noted that
a. VFY above 50 and upto 150 deniers forms majority of the product in case of PSY and CSY. By
contrast, VFY upto 50 deniers forms majority of the product in case of SSY.
b. Imported PSY upto 50 and domestic CSY upto 50 deniers commands next higher share in sales.
c. While 21% of SSY sales were between VFY above 50 and upto 150 deniers, it is noted that these were
largely of 50 and 60 deniers, whereas majority of sales in PSY above 50 and upto 150 deniers were of
120 deniers.
35. It is thus seen th at the yarns produced through SSY is meant for consumption in different market segment as
compared to yarn produced through PSY and CSY.
36. The table below shows the share in demand of yarns produced through different technologies in the three
segments.
Sl. No. Particulars PSY CSY SSY
1 Upto 50 deniers 2% 8% 79%
2 Above 50 & upto 150 deniers 88% 91% 21%
3 Above 150 deniers 10% 1% 0%
Total demand *** *** ***
37. It is seen that in gross Indian demand, more than 85% of the demand of yarn produced through PSY technology
is in market segment of above 50 and upto 150 deniers. On the other hand, in case of SSY technology, around
80% of the sales are in market below 50 deniers.
vi. Impact on the domestic industry
38. The Authority has additionally compared the performance of yarn produced through the three technologies
which are shown below.
SN Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
A PSY
1 Profit/(Loss) ₹/MT 28,074 17,747 -6,795 -9,902
2 ROCE % 15% 8% -1% -4%
B CSY
1 Profit/(Loss) ₹/MT 99,644 99,815 62,644 68,393
2 ROCE % 14% 13% 6% 10%
C SSY
1 Profit/(Loss) ₹/MT 2,72,540 2,63,507 2,72,679 2,44,121
2 ROCE % 16% 18% 15% 19%
Import volumes
D PSY MT 6,811 11,885 12,305 19,280
E CSY MT 9,347 13,789 12,950 26,397
39. It is noted from the i nformation placed on record that
a. the performance of the yarn produced through three technologies has varied very significantly over the injury
period.
b. the domestic industry recorded financial losses in PSY technology product. This is the product where im port
competition and increase in imports is high.
c. while the domestic industry has recorded profits in CSY, the same have declined over the injury period. This
is the product where imports are competing.
d. the profitability of the domestic industry has remai ned almost similar and significantly high in the case of
SSY technology.
40. The fact that the domestic industry’s performance in case of PSY deteriorated steeply to a situation of losses
(where imports competition is highest), and performance in CSY technolo gy was also impacted (where imports
are competing to a lower degree) and the performance is almost insulated in SSY, where there are no Chinese
imports of SSY. It is sufficient to hold that imported PSY is not competing with the domestic industry’s SSY,
whereas imported PSY is competing with the domestic industry’s PSY.
41. It is therefore seen that a yarn produced through SSY technology is not a like article to the imported product .
The Authority has therefore found it appropriate not to consider viscose fila ment yarn producing through SSY
as like article to the product under consideration for the purpose of the present determination.
Like article
42. It is seen from the information available on record that the product produced by the domestic industry, i.e.,
viscose filament yarn produced using PSY and CSY technology is like article to the product under
consideration imported from the subject country. The product produced by the domestic industry and imported
from the subject country are comparable in terms of ph ysical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process
& technology, functions and uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing, and tariff
classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consum ers have used
and are using the two interchangeably. The Authority, therefore, holds that the subject goods produced by the
domestic industry are the like article to the product imported from the subject country in terms of Rule 2(d) of
the AD Rules.
43. On th e basis of submission made by the domestic industry and other interested parties, the Authority concludes
the following with regard to scope of product under consideration as below: -
“The product under consideration is Viscose rayon filament yarn/thread classifiable under customs
classification 5403, excluding yarn produced through spool spun technology, and ready to use
embroidery thread which is classifiable under customs classification 5401. Further, both dyed and
undyed yarn are within the scope of th e product under consideration.”
PCN methodology
44. The Authority proposed a PCN methodology vide letter dated 9th November 2022 and invited comments on the
same from the interested parties. Based on the comments received, the Authority notified the following PCN
methodology for the purpose of the present investigation to the interested parties on 29th November 2022.
Parameters Proposed PCN Code Sign
Technology employed in production a. Continuous Spun Yarn a. CSY
b. Pot Spun Yarn/Spool Spun Yarn b. PSY/SSY
Denier of Yarn a. Actual Denier a. XXX
Number of times product has been twisted a. Untwisted a. UT
b. One time twisted b. OT
c. Double twisted c. DT
Dyed/Undyed a. Dyed a. DY
b. Undyed d. UNDY
45. However, having established that SSY yarn is neither part of product under consideration n or part of like
article, the Authority has considered following PCN for the purpose of present final finding and the present
determination:
Parameters Final PCN Code Sign
Technology employed in production a. Continuous Spun Yarn a. CSY
b. Pot Spun Yarn b. PSY
Denier of Yarn a. Actual Denier a. XXX
Number of times product has been twisted a. Untwisted a. UT
b. One time twisted b. OT
c. Double twisted c. DT
Dyed/Undyed a. Dyed a. DY
b. Undyed b. UNDY
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1 Submission made by the other interested parties
46. None of the other interested parties have made any submission with regards to the scope of domestic industry
and standing.
D.2. Submission made by the domestic industry
47. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regards to the scope of t he domestic industry and
standing:
a. The present application has been filed by Association of Man -Made Fibre Industry Limited and M/s Grasim
Industries Limited.
b. The association has provided all the relevant documents.
c. The Grasim Industries Limited has neith er imported the product under consideration nor is related to the
exporter from the subject country or any importer in India.
d. There were two other producers of the subject goods, namely Baroda Rayon Limited and NRC Limited, who
had shut down their plant du e to the presence of low -priced imports.
e. Cygnet industries limited was intermittently forced to suspend production.
D.3. Examination by the Authority
48. Rule 2(b) of the Anti -Dumping Rules defines domestic industry as under:
"(b) "domestic industry" means t he domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the
like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such
producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves
importers thereof in such case the term ‘domestic industry’ may be constructed as referring to the rest of
the producers”.
49. The application has b een filed by the Association of Man -Made Fibre Industry of India and Grasim Industries
Limited. Relevant information and documents have been provided by the association.
50. The Authority notes that M/s Grasim Industries Limited constitutes 96% of the total In dian production. Further,
the producer has certified that it is not related to any importer in India or exporter of the subject goods in the
subject country and has not imported the subject goods from the subject country.
51. The Authority concludes that M/s Grasim Industries limited constitutes domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of
the Rules and considers that the application satisfied the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1. Submission of the other interested parties
52. The other interested parties have submitted the following with regards confidentiality:
a. The domestic industry has reported different NIPs at different pages of the PCN wise data.
E.2. Submission of the domestic industry
53. The domestic industry has submitted the following with regards confidentiality:
a. As per the non -confidential response, producers have not provided any response to the basis for adjustments
claimed in the export price. The Authority is requested to kindly direct them to claim their basis for
adjustments.
b. Pro-Mexx Industrial, Jilin Top, Jilin Fiber Stock & Jilin Enka and Hengjin Silk has claimed excessive
confidentiality with regards to export sales adjustment and financial accounting system, which has
prevented the domestic industry from makin g meaningful comments.
c. The Chinese exporters have failed to comply with the requirements of Trade Notice 10/2018 as information
such as production process, raw material, related party information has been claimed completely
confidential.
d. Jilin Fiber Stock & Jilin Enka have claimed their organizational structure as confidential despite it being
available in public domain.
E.3. Examination by the Authority
54. The Authority made available non -confidential version of the information provided by various interest ed
parties to all interested parties as per Rule 6(7) and Trade Notice 10/2018 dated 7th September 2018 read with
Trade Notice 01/2020 (as extended by the Authority till further notice).
55. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of Anti -dumping Rules provides as follows:
"Confidential information: (l) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rules (2), (3) and O)of rule 6,
sub-rule(2) of rule I 2,sub -rule(4) of rule I 5 and sub -rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received
under sab -rule (l) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential
basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to
its confidentiality, be treated as such by il and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party
without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish
non-confidenti al summary thereof and f, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such
information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement
of reasons why summarization is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rule @, if the designated authority is satisfied that the
request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make
the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a gene ralized or summary form, it may disregard
such information. "
56. The submissions made by the domestic industry and the other interested parties with regard to confidentiality,
to the extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed acc ordingly. On being
satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information has
been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties
providing informati on on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non -confidential version of the
information filed on confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all the interested parties have claimed
their business -related sensitive information as conf idential.
F. MISCELLANEOUR SUBMISSIONS
F.1 Submission of the other interested parties
57. The miscellaneous submissions made by the other interested party are as follows:
a. Initiation of investigation is short of legal and factual basis as there is insufficient evidence. The Authority
did not carry out enough scrutiny before initiating the investigation.
b. The applicant is a habitual user of trade remedies as various products such as viscose staple fibre, viscose
filament yarn, caustic soda, epoxy, flax yarn and i nsulators have been subject to anti -dumping
investigations.
c. The applicant has not provided the updated data as per the PCN notification finally notified by the
Authority.
d. Competition Commission of India has penalized the applicant for unfair trade practic es with respect to
supply of a certain staple fibre to spinners.
e. Imports of viscose filament yarn have been subject to anti -dumping duty for 12 years. The continuous
reduction of duties discourages liberalization of international trade, offsets reduction in customs duty from
20% to 5%, and undermines commitments given to WTO.
f. PCN -wise data shared is not corresponding to the final PCN prescribed by Authority as the applicant has
considered the term “OCSY” and has given different NIPs at different pages.
F.2 Submission made by domestic industry
58. The miscellaneous submissions made by the domestic industry during the investigation proceedings are as
follows:
a. As regards the contention that the applicant did not contain sufficient evidence, the other intereste d parties
have not shown what proper evidence the applicants have not provided.
b. As regards the contention that the updated data has not been shared with all the parties, the applicants have
circulated the updated data as per PCN notification through mail dated 6th February 2022 to all interested
parties.
c. The CCI decision has been challenged by the domestic industry before NCLT. Further, the present
investigation is dumping of subject goods from China. The anti -competitive practice of the domestic
industry is beyond the purview of the present investigation. The same issue was rejected by the Authority
on the same ground as stated above in SSR investigation of VSF.
d. It is clarified that the term “OCSY” in the updated data pertains to “PSY” and “SSY”.
e. Barring a few exceptions, users have never raised concerns of significant lead time with the domestic
industry but they are raising it for the first time in front of the Authority.
F.3 Examination by the Authority
59. It has been contended that the initiation was b ad in law, as the application did not contain sufficient evidence of
dumping and injury. The Authority notes that Rule 5(2) requires the applicant to provide evidence to
substantiate existence of dumping, injury, and causal link. The application filed cont ains evidence to prima
facie establish all the three parameters. The Authority has examined the evidence provided by the applicant and
after finding that sufficient information required for initiation has been provided, the investigation was initiated.
60. As regards the penalty imposed by Competition Commission of India for unfair competition, the Authority
considers that (a) the decision of the Competition Commission of India pertains to non -product under
consideration, and (b) the issue falls under the doma in of the Competition Commission of India. The Authority
notes that the scope of the present investigation is with regards to allegation of dumping causing injury to the
domestic industry, and whether there is sufficient justification for imposition of ant i-dumping duty on imports
of product under consideration from China PR.
61. It has been contended that users face significant lead time in the orders placed with the domestic industry. The
Authority notes that during the physical verification conducted at the premises of the domestic industry, it was
shown that time required to produce the subject goods using PSY technology is 10 days, CSY technology 7
days and SSY technology 14 days. The domestic industry contended that an order placed with the Chinese
produc ers will require atleast the same number of days to produce and additional time for shipment. Further,
the domestic industry has also submitted that it has not faced any complaint regarding any exceptional lead
time barring a few exceptions. The Authority notes that the user industry has not provided any evidence in
support of their submission of significant lead time. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted.
G. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
G.1. Submission of the other int erested parties
62. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties on normal value, export price and
dumping margin during the course of the investigation:
a. China should be granted market economy treatment as China’s Accession Protoco l has expired in December
2016.
G.2. Submission of the domestic industry
63. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry on normal value, export price and
dumping margin during the course of the investigation:
a. The Authority in various pas t investigations has considered China as non -market economy. There is no
merit in the contention to treat China as market economy.
b. The responding producers were required to provide a basis of adjustments claimed in the export price.
However, no basis for a djustments has been provided.
c. Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. has a related producer namely Xinxiang Bailu Worsted Technology
Co., Ltd. which is also a producer of the subject goods. Bailu were required to file separate EQR. The
Authority must examine th e DGCI&S data to examine whether the produces have exported the subject
goods to India or not. If there are any exports, the response filed by Xinxiang must be rejected and the
Authority must determine dumping margin on the facts available.
G.3. Examinati on by the Authority
64. Under section 9A(1)(c), the normal value in relation to an article means:
i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when meant for consumption
in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -section
(6), or
ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the
exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or lo w volume of the
sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper
comparison, the normal value shall be either:
(a)comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting cou ntry or
territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub -
section (6); or
the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for
administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules
made under sub -section (6);
(b)Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and
where the article has been merely transshipped through the country of export or such article is not
produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal
value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.
65. The Authority notes that the following and exporters of the subject goods have filed exporter’s questionnaire
responses -
i. Boading Hengjin Silk Thread Co. Ltd.
ii. Jilin Chemical Fibre Stock Co. Ltd.
iii. Jilin Enka Viscose Co., Ltd.
iv. Jilin Top Trading Co. Ltd.
v. Pro-Mexx Industrial Development Co. Ltd.
vi. Goaxian Changxin Thread LLC
vii. Grace (Hong Kong) International Trading Limited
viii. Yibin Hiest Fibre Limited Corporation
ix. Sichuan Wellshow International Trade PTE Ltd.
x. Yibin Changxin Thread Co., Ltd.
xi. Xingxiang Chemcial Fibre Co., Ltd.
G.3.1. Normal Value and Export price for China PR
Normal value for China PR
Market Economy Status for Chinese Producers
66. Article 15 of China’s Accession Protocol in WTO provides as follows: "Article VI of the GATT 1994, the
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti -
Dumping Agreement") and the SCM Agreement shall apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin
into a WTO Member consistent with the following:
(a) In determining price comparability u nder Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under
investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in
China based on the following rules:
(i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the
industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product,
the imp orting WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in
determining price comparability;
(ii) The importing WO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with
domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market
economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture,
production and sale of that product.
(b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of th e SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies described in
Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if
there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO member may then use meth odologies
for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing
terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such
methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and
conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China.
(c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a) to
the Co mmittee on Anti -Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with
subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that i t is a market
economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member's
national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provision of
subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 1 5 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish,
pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO member, that market economy conditions prevail in a
particular industry or sector, the nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply
to that industry or sector."
67. It is noted that while the provision contained in Article 15 (a) (ii) have expired on 11.12.2016, the provision
under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO, read with obligation under 15 (a) (i) of the Accession Prot ocol require the
criterion stipulated in Para 8 of the Annexure I of the Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be
provided in the supplementary questionnaire on claiming the market economy status. It is noted that since the
responding produ cers/exporters from China PR have not submitted response to questionnaire in the form and
manner prescribed, the normal value computation is required to be done as per the provisions of Para 7 of
Annexure I of the Rules.
68. It is noted that while the provisio n contained in Article 15 (a) (ii) have expired on 11.12.2016, the provision
under Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Agreement on Anti -dumping read with the obligation under 15 (a) (i) of the
Accession Protocol require the criterion stipulated in para 8 of Annexu re I to the Rules to be satisfied through
the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire upon claiming the market economy
status
69. As none of the producers from China PR have claimed determination of normal value on the basis of their own
data/ information, the normal value have been determined in accordance with para 7 of Annexure I to the Rules
which read as under:
"7. In case of imports from non -market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis
of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country
to other countries, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the
price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary, to include a
reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated
authority in a reasonable manner [keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and
the product in question and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the
time of the selection. Account shall also be taken within time limits; where appropriate, of the investigation
if any made in similar matter in re spect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the
investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy
third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comment s.
8. (1) The term "non -market economy country" means any country which the designated authority
determines ds not operating on market principles of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchandise
in such country do not reflect the fair value of t he merchandise, in accordance with the criteria specified in
subparagraph (3).
(2) There shall be a presumption that any country that has been determined to be, or has been treated as, a
non-market economy country for purposes of an antidumping investigat ion by the designated authority or
by the competent authority of any WO member country during the three year period preceding the
investigation is a non -market economy country. Provided, however, that the non -market economy country
or the concerned firms f rom such country may rebut such d presumption by providing information and
evidence to the designated authority that establishes that such country is not a non -market economy
country on the basis of the criteria specified in sub -paragraph (3).
(3) The des ignated authority shall consider in each case the following criteria as to whether: (a) the
decisions of the concerned firms in such country regarding prices, costs and inputs, including raw
materials, cost of technology and labour, output, sales and inves tment, are made in response to market
signals reflecting supply and demand and without significant State interference in this regard, and whether
costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values; (b) the production costs and financial situation of
such firms are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non -market economy system,
in particular in relation to depreciation of assets, other write -offs, barter trade and payment vid
compensation of debts; (c) such firms are subject to bankruptcy and property laws which guarantee legal
certainty and stability for the operation of the firms, and (d) the exchange rate conversions are carried out
at the market rate. Provided, however, that where it is shown by sufficient evidence in wri ting on the basis
of the criteria specified in this paragraph that market conditions prevail for one or more such firms subject
to anti -dumping investigations, the designated authority may apply the principles set out in paragraphs I to
6 instead of the pr inciples set out in paragraph 7 and in this paragraph.
(4) Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub -paragraph (2), the designated authority may treat such
country as market economy country which, on the basis of the latest detailed evaluation of relevan t criteria,
which includes the criteria specified in sub paragraph (3), has been, by publication of such evaluation in a
public document, treated or determined to be treated as a market economy country for the purposes of anti -
dumping investigations, by a country which is a Member of the World Trade Organization. "
70. Para 7 lays down hierarchy for determination of normal value and provides that normal value shall be
determined on the basis of price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or th e price from such
a third country to any other country, including India, or where it is not possible, on any reasonable basis,
including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like article, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a
reasonable profit margin. Thus, the Authority notes that the normal value is required to be determined having
regard to the various sequential alternatives provided under Annexure -I.
71. The Authority also notes the existing jurisprudence on constructing the normal value in case of a non -market
economy contained in the Supreme Court judgement in Shenyang Mastsushita S. Battery Co. Ltd. vs. M/s
Exide Industries Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 617112003 dated 23/12/2005), Guwahati high Court in M/s Century
Plyboards (I) Ltd. & Anr. V. union of India & Anr. (W.P. No. 6568/2017 dated 4/10/2018) and CESTAT
Principal Bench, New Delhi in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Union of India (Appeal No. C1768,600,601,773,769/2005 -
AD dated 9/9/2005), Kuitun Jinjiang Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. v. Union of Ind ia (Appeal no. 52291 of 2019
dated 5th August 2020). These judgements provide directions regarding implementation of Para 7 of Annexure
I of the Rules with respect to the choice of an appropriate option, and associated obligations thereof.
72. The Authority notes that the prices or the constructed value of the product in an appropriate market economy
third country or the prices from such third country to other countries, including India, have neither been made
available by the applicant or an interested part y, nor are available with the Authority from any public source.
The Authority notes that the Authority is required to select an appropriate country on the basis of information
and evidence brought on record by the interested parties. It is also noted that neither the domestic industry nor
the interested parties have provided any verifiable information which could have been adopted by the
Authority. Further, it is noted that the product under consideration does not have a dedicated customs
classification. Co nsequently, the normal value cannot be determined based on exports from a market economy
third country to other country. Thus, the Authority is of the opinion that the only option available is to
determine the normal value considering the price actually pa id or payable in India for the like article. The
normal value has been determined considering the optimized cost of production in India after addition for the
selling, general & administrative expenses and the reasonable profits. The normal value so determ ined is given
below in the dumping margin table.
Export Price
Yibin Hiest Fibre Limited Corporation (“Hiest”), Gaoxian Changxin Thread LLC (“Gaoxian CX”),
Yibin Changxin Thread Co., Ltd. (“Yibin CX”), Grace (Hong Kong) International Trading Limited
(“Gra ce HK”) and Sichuan Wellshow International Trade Pte. Ltd. (“Sichuan Wellshow”) (Hereinafter
collectively referred to as “Hiest Group”)
73. Yibin Hiest Fibre Limited Corporation (“Hiest”), Gaoxian Changxin Thread LLC (“Gaoxian CX”) and Yibin
Changxin Thread Co ., Ltd. (“Yibin CX”) are related companies engaged in manufacturing of the subject goods
in China PR. Hiest has exported the subject goods directly to unrelated customers in India and also through
related trading companies, Grace (Hong Kong) International Trading Limited (“Grace HK”) and Sichuan
Wellshow International Trade Pte. Ltd. (“Sichuan Wellshow”) . Gaoxian CX and Yibin CX have exported the
subject goods to India through Hiest and Grace HK. Hiest Group has also exporte d minuscule quantities of
subject goods through unrelated traders to India. All the 5 related companies in Hiest group, namely, Hiest,
Yibin CX, Gaoxian CX, Grace HK and Sichuan Wellshow have provided the relevant information in the
prescribed exporters questionnaire format.
74. It is noted that during the POI, Hiest has produced and exported ***MT of subject goods directly to unrelated
customers in India, ***MT of subject goods has been exported to India through related exporters and *** MT
of subject goods has been exported to India through unrelated exporters. Gaoxian CX has produced and
exported *** MT of subject goods to India through Hiest & Grace HK and *** MT of subject goods through
unrelated exporters. Yibin CX has produced and exported *** MT of subject goods to India through Hiest &
Grace HK and *** MT of subject goods through unrelated exporters.
75. Hiest Group has provided PCN wise details of exports to India in the prescribed formats. Hiest Group has
claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation, port and other related
expenses, bank charges and credit cost. The Authority has accepted the response filed by Hiest Group and
allowed all the adjustments claimed by them. The Authority has also adjusted the loss incurred by trader from
the export price With respect to minuscule quantities of exports made through unrelated exporters, Authority
has determined the export price based on facts available. The weighted average PCN wise ex -factory export
price has been considered for determination of dumping ma rgin and is shown in the dumping margin table.
Jilin Enka Viscose Co., Ltd, (“Jilin Enka”); and
Jilin Chemical Fiber Stock Co., Ltd (“Jilin Chemical”)
76. During the POI, Jilin Chemical has produced and directly exported *** MT of PUC to India. Jilin Enka
produced and directly exported ***MT of PUC to India during the POI. Further, ***MT of PUC produced by
Jilin Enka was exported to India through Jilin Chemical. Post the POI, Jilin Enka has ceased its operations and
has merged with Jilin Chemical.
77. Both compa nies of Jilin Group provided the relevant information in the form and manner required and have
claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland transportation, bank charges, port
and other expenses, and credit cost. The Authority h as undertaken desk verification of the information
submitted by Jilin Group and examined its claims and accordingly, the adjustments in export price have been
allowed. Accordingly, the net export price at ex -factory level for both the companies i.e., Jilin Chemical and
Jilin Enka, along with Jilin Group has been determined after allowing the due adjustments and the same is
mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Baoding Hengjin Silk Thread Co., Ltd (“Baoding Hengjin”)
78. Questionnaire response was filed b y Baoding Hengjin Silk Thread Co., Ltd. It is seen that company has sourced
viscose filament yarn from several other Chinese producers, undertook further process (of twisting) based on
customer requirement and then resold it to unrelated traders who then s old the goods to another unrelated
trader, who then exported the goods to India. In other words, the company has bought one form of product
under consideration from other Chinese producers (and reported the same as its raw material), undertook
further proc ess of twisting and then sold it to unrelated traders. It is noted that the company has not produced
viscose filament yarn and has merely processed purchased viscose filament yarn. Since Baoding Hengjin Silk
Thread Co., Ltd. has merely converted one form o f product under consideration into another form of the
product under consideration, it is considered inappropriate to grant an individual dumping
margin to the company.
M/s Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co.Ltd.(Producer/Exporter) China PR and M/s C3 Multi Commod ities
Limited (Exporter/Trader) China PR
79. Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. is a company limited by shares incorporated in China under the Company
Law of China. There was no change in the structure of the Company in the last three years.
80. During the POI, Xi nxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. has exported ***MT of subject goods of invoice value
***US$ to India, out of which ***MT of invoice value ***US$ has been exported directly to India and rest
***MT of invoice value ***US$ has been exported to India indirectl y through an unrelated company namely,
C3 Multi Commodities Limited on CIF basis.
81. Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd., China PR has claimed adjustment on account ocean freight, insurance,
inland transportation, porta and other related expenses, credit cost, bank charges and the same have been
allowed by the Authority after desk verification. Accordingly, PCN -wise export price at ex -factory level for
Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd., China PR has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping
Margin Ta ble.
Determination of net export price
82. The net export price for non -cooperative producers/ exporters from China PR has been determined based on
facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The net export price so determined is mentioned in the
dumping margin table below.
Dumping Margin
83. It is noted that in the subject investigation many cooperating producers and exporters are related to each other
and form a group of related companies. It has been a consistent practice of the Authority to consider r elated
exporting producers and exporters as one single entity for the determination of a dumping margin and thus to
establish one single dumping margin for them. This is in particular because calculating individual dumping
margins might encourage circumven tion of antidumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling
related exporting producers to channel their exports to India through the company with the lowest individual
dumping margin. In accordance with the above, related producers and expo rters have been regarded as one
single entity and attributed one single dumping margin which was calculated on the basis of the weighted
average of the dumping margins of the cooperating related producers and exporters.
84. Considering the normal value and exp ort price, the dumping margin has been determined as below -
Dumping margin table
Producer CNV
(USD per
MT) NEP (USD
per MT) Dumping
margin (USD
per MT) Dumping
Margin % Dumping
margin %
range
Yibin Hiest Fibre Limited
Corporation *** *** *** *** 20-30
Gaoxian Changxin Thread LLC *** *** *** *** 10-20
Yibin Changxin Thread Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 10-20
Heist Group *** *** *** *** 20-30
Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd *** *** *** *** 0-10
Jilin Enka Viscose Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 0-10
Jilin Chemical Fibre Stock Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** 0-10
Jilin Group *** *** *** *** 0-10
*** *** *** ***
Other producers/ exporters *** *** *** *** 20-30
H. EXAMINAYION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
H.1. Submissions made by other interested partie s
85. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
a. Increase in imports is due to increasing demand which cannot be catered by the applicant as there is a
demand and supply gap.
b. The applicant’s machine s are obsolete and therefore, the users prefer to import the product.
c. The applicant is operating at ideal capacity and cannot suffer volume injury as its domestic sales and
production have been constant.
d. The decline in the production is due to the decline in the export sales volume.
e. In the anti -subsidy investigation, the Authority had concluded that the material injury caused to the
applicant was not due imports. Only 1 year has passed since the conclusion of that investigation and the
facts have remained same.
f. There is no adverse price impact. The price of the imported product is higher than the price of the
applicant.
g. There are discrepancies between the data provided in the application and the annual report of the
applicant.
h. As per annual report of the applicant, it was operating at reasonable profits. Further, even in the annual
reports and investor presentations, the applicant has admitted on decline in imports and increase in the
performance.
i. The Authority is requested to examine the reason for declin e in the capital employed but increase in
capacity.
j. As per the quarterly reports published by Grasim, the performance of VFY division has improved in the
year 2022 -23.
k. The cost of production of the Chinese producers is low as they run their machines for 24 hours. Level of
automation in China is significant ly higher as compared to India. The machines set up by the applicants
are obsolete technology and have been in existence since 1960.
l. The applicant has claimed that it has removed the impact of Covid -19 in the data of 2020 -21. The
Authority is requested to kindly disclose the methodology adopted.
m. Covid -19 shutdown in the year 2021 -22 would also have impacted the operations of the applicant. The
Authority is requested to kindly remove the impact of Covid from the period of investigation as well.
n. A benchmark rate of return of 22% on capital employed for NIP purpose should not be allowed.
o. There is no merit in the argument of the applicant that actual production and actual raw material cost
should be conside red for NIP purpose. The law mandates normation.
p. There are other factors which have caused injury to the domestic industry. The Authority is requested to
segregate the impact of these other factors.
q. The domestic industry is suffering from injury due to oth er factors such as capacity expansion, Covid 19
and change in demand in the domestic market from coarse denier to fine denier.
r. The imported product is higher priced than the product supplied by the domestic industry and therefore,
the import price cannot have any suppressing/depressing impact on the prices of the applicant.
s. If the performance of PSY, CSY and SSY technologies is clubbed, it would show that the domestic
industry is performing reasonably well.
t. Domestic consumption of the subject goods in Chin a has declined because fabrics are now being
manufactured in India and exported to other countries.
H.2. Submission made by the domestic industry .
86. The domestic industry party has made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link:
a. Import s from the subject country have shown an increase in both absolute and relative terms.
b. The applicant has undertaken unwarranted exports. While the applicant has not claimed volume injury,
the unwarranted exports highlight the detrimental effects of dumpin g.
c. Due to imports being inevitable, the domestic industry sets prices based on the offers of foreign
suppliers, disregarding their own costs.
d. The imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. The domestic industry has been unable
to incr ease its prices in the same proportion to increase in cost as its prices are suppressed.
e. The increase in capacity was only 3% since the base year through de -bottlenecking. The decline in
capacity utilization is not due to the increase in capacity.
f. As reg ards the argument of the interested parties that the domestic industry is suffering injury due to
other factors, no particular reason has been highlighted by the other interested parties to show injury only
in the period of investigation. It is incorrect t o assume that dumping should be the sole cause of injury to
the domestic industry.
g. The decline in the inventory of the domestic industry is due to price correction and exports to prevent
piling up of inventory.
h. As regards the argument that the domestic i ndustry has expanded its capacity, but capital employed has
declined, the increase in capacity is only of 5000 MT and the decline is due to the decline in the working
capital.
i. The performance of the domestic industry is adverse as compared to the previous investigation wherein
the Authority found that the domestic industry was suffering injury.
j. The Authority in the previous investigation held that the injury suffered was due to capacity expansion. 4
years has passed since the capacity expansion and any imp act of it can now be ignored.
H.3. Examination by the Authority
87. Rule 11 of the Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve examination of
factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, "... taking into accoun t all relevant facts, including the
volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent
effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles. . ." . In considering the effect of the dumped
imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting
by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such
imports is otherwise to depress pric es to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would
have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the
domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the ind ustry such as production, capacity
utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping,
etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the Rules.
88. The Authority has taken note of the v arious submissions made by the other interested parties and the domestic
industry and has analyzed the same considering the facts available on record and the applicable laws. The
injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder ipso facto addresses the vari ous submissions made by the
interested parties.
89. As regards the contention that the domestic industry also suffered due to Covid lockdown in the period of
investigation and its impact should be removed. The domestic industry has submitted that in the year 2 020-21,
the plant of the domestic industry was shut down from 1st April 2020 to 9th June, 2020 and it undertook no
production during the period. Further, the domestic sales during this period were also very low. However,
during the period of investigation, the plant of the domestic industry was under operation and there was no shut
down. Therefore, no such adjustment has been made in the cost of production claimed for the period of
investigation.
90. It has been contended that the Authority had just two years b ack found that injury suffered is due to the
capacity expansion undertaken by the domestic industry. The Authority notes that the capacity expansion by the
domestic industry was undertaken in 2019 -20 and two years have elapsed, and the operations of the do mestic
industry have stabilized. The year 2019 -20 is now the base year and therefore deterioration in performance of
the domestic industry vis -à-vis this period could not have been due to the capacity expansion. The fact that
profit before tax, cash profit s and the profit before interest have declined so steeply shows that the injury
suffered may not be due to excessive depreciation or any financial cost incurred due to capacity expansion. The
Authority examined the trends in depreciation and financial expe nses and found that these have in fact declined
in this period whereas profit before tax has significantly declined.
91. It has been contended that the domestic industry suffers from higher cost of production as compared to the
Chinese producers. The Authorit y notes that the comparison with the Chinese producers cannot be made as
they are operating under nonmarket economy. However, even if the submission is considered, it is also required
to be considered that the domestic industry was able to earn adequate pr ofits in the past. The profitability of the
domestic industry has taken a significant decline in the period of investigation alone. The decline in profits over
the injury period could not have been due to alleged higher costs in India. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that
the domestic industry inherently suffers from high cost.
92. The interested parties have contended that the domestic industry’s production and sales have increased because
it binds the consumers to buy poor as well as normal quality products together. The Authority notes that the
interested parties have not brought forward any evidence of such restrictions imposed by the domestic industry.
Therefore, the contention cannot be accepted. Further, it is not established how the domestic industry’s
performance would deteriorate because of its efforts to sell the entire production. In normal circumstances, this
should have led to curtailment of injury.
93. As regards the statements made in the annual report, the Authority notes that the VFY division of t he annual
report includes other products, such as NTCF. Furthermore, some of the statements made on the improvement
in performance are in relation to improvement as compared to 2020 -21, when it suffered due to Covid -19. It is
also noted that the annual re port includes performance relating to SSY, and the petitioner itself has contended
that its performance in SSY has not declined. The petitioner contended that the fact that performance declined
for PSY & CSY, while did not decline for SSY shows that the de cline in performance is due to Chiense
dumping. The Authority notes that the injury is required to be seen qua the product under consideration only. In
any case, the Authority has verified the data provided by the domestic industry from the books and accou nts
and recorded the present final findings based on the verified information.
H.3.1. Volume effect of dumped imports on domestic industry
a. Assessment of demand/apparent consumption
94. The Authority has taken into consideration, for the purpose of the present investigation, the demand/apparent
consumption of the product in India as the sum of the domestic sales of Indian producers and the imports from
all sources.
Demand/Consumption Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Sales of domestic industry MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 91 59 103
Sales of other producers MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 98 80 21
Imports from China MT 16,158 25,674 25,255 45,677
Trend Indexed 100 159 156 283
Imports from other countries MT 538 629 474 411
Trend Indexed 100 117 88 76
Total Indian Demand MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 112 91 143
95. It is seen that there is a significant increase in the demand for the product under consideration in the period of
investigation. The demand increased in 2019 -20 but dec lined in 2020 -21 due to the Covid outbreak. The
demand increased once again in the period of investigation.
b. Import volumes from subject country.
96. With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been
a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption
in India. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied on the transaction -wise import data
procured from DGCI&S. The factual position is as follows.
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Imports from China PR MT 16,158 25,674 25,255 45,677
Trend Indexed 100 159 156 283
Subject Country Imports in relation to
Total Imports % 97% 98% 98% 99%
Indian Production % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 162 256 336
Consumption % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 142 172 197
97. It is seen that:
a. The volume of imports from the subject country has increased consistently over the injury period and sharply
in the period of inves tigation.
b. The imports from the subject country in relation to Indian production and consumption has increased
throughout the injury period and in the period of investigation.
H.3.2. Price effect of the dumped imports
98. With regard to the effect of the dump ed imports on the prices, it is required to be analyzed whether there has
been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to the price of the like
products in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depr ess the prices or prevent the price
increase, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course. The impact on the prices of the domestic
industry on account of the dumped imports from the subject country has been examined with reference to the
price undercutting, the price suppression and price depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis, the cost
of production and the selling price of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed price of the
imports of the subject goods from th e subject country.
a. Price undercutting
99. Since large number of PCNs are involved, the Authority has considered PCN wise analysis of price
undercutting. The Authority has compared the import price of each PCN with the selling price of the domestic
industry for the PCN. It is seen that the price undercutting is positive (Rs *** pmt, or ***%). It is thus seen that
the landed price of the subject imports was below the selling price of the domestic industry. The subject
imports were undercutting the prices of the do mestic industry in the period of investigation. The table below
shows the PCN wise price undercutting.
SN PCN Imports Landed
Value NSR PU PU
MT Rs/MT Rs/MT Rs/MT %
1 PSY120OTUNDY 8,078 3,40,905 *** *** ***
2 PSY120DTUNDY 5,315 4,18,557 *** *** ***
3 PSY075OTUNDY 1,119 4,71,053 *** *** ***
4 PSY150OTUNDY 1,047 3,60,246 *** *** ***
5 PSY116OTUNDY 1,094 3,53,449 *** *** ***
6 PSY115OTUNDY 856 3,77,171 *** *** ***
7 PSY040OTUNDY 634 7,55,226 *** *** ***
8 PSY050OTUNDY 469 6,54,822 *** *** ***
9 PSY100OTUNDY 262 3,83,292 *** *** ***
10 PSY060OTUNDY 134 5,36,448 *** *** ***
11 PSY118OTUNDY 179 3,42,518 *** *** ***
12 PSY112OTUNDY 75 3,23,151 *** *** ***
13 PSY300OTUNDY 20 3,10,614 *** *** ***
14 CSY120UTUNDY 9,055 3,51,683 *** *** ***
15 CSY06 0UTUNDY 5,168 5,43,598 *** *** ***
16 CSY058UTUNDY 4,891 5,48,177 *** *** ***
17 CSY050UTUNDY 3,247 6,73,868 *** *** ***
18 CSY075UTUNDY 1,964 4,65,692 *** *** ***
19 CSY112UTUNDY 664 3,47,625 *** *** ***
20 CSY040UTUNDY 659 7,11,364 *** *** ***
21 CSY100UTUNDY 217 4,57,508 *** *** ***
22 CSY039UTUNDY 193 7,21,579 *** *** ***
23 CSY049UTUNDY 129 6,82,607 *** *** ***
24 CSY030UTUNDY 131 7,16,796 *** *** ***
25 CSY300UTUNDY 46 3,93,105 *** *** ***
26 CSY086UTUNDY 22 4,16,406 *** *** ***
27 CSY070U TUNDY 11 4,53,403 *** *** ***
28 Total 45,677 4,50,363 *** *** ***
b. Price suppression and depression
100. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing or suppressing the domestic prices and
whether the effect of such imports is to suppress t he prices to a significant degree or prevent the price increase
which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course, the changes in the costs and the prices over the
injury period have been examined.
Particulars UOM 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Cost of Sales ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 104 111 116
Selling Prices ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 101 100 105
Landed price ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 95 88 92
101. It is seen that both costs and prices increased over the period. However, the in crease in the price was lower than
the increase in costs. The Authority also notes that any comparison with import price on average basis may not
be appropriate because of the presence of large number of PCNs. It is thus seen that the imports were
undercut ting the prices of the domestic industry in the market, and the same has resulted in price suppression
suffered by the domestic industry. Dumped imports prevented the domestic industry from increasing its prices
in the market.
H.3.3 Economic parameters of domestic industry
102. Annexure II to the Rules provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic
industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all the relevant economic factors and indices
having a bearing on t he state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in the sales, profits, output,
market share, productivity, return on investment or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the
magnitude of the margin of the dumping; actu al and potential negative effects on the cash flow, inventories,
employment, wages, growth and the ability to raise the capital investment. The various injury parameters
relating to the domestic industry are discussed below:
103. The Authority has examined the injury parameters objectively, taking into account the various facts and
arguments made by the interested parties.
a. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and domestic and export sales
104. The information regarding the capacity, production, capacity utiliz ation, domestic and export sales of the
domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 101 103
Production MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 96 57 97
Capacity utilization % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 96 56 94
Domestic Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 91 59 103
Export sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 88 53 73
105. It is seen that:
a. The domestic industry has marginally expanded its capacity through the bottlenecking. The domestic
industry’s capacity is lower than the demand in the country.
b. The production declined in 2019 -20, further declined in 2020 -21 but has increased in the period of
investigation. The decline in the production in intervening period was due to Covid -19. The production
increased in the period of investigation. However, production in POI was still lower than production in
2019 -20, despite capacity addition. The production of the domestic i ndustry is also lower than the
production in the base year.
c. The capacity utilization of the domestic industry has declined over the injury period. While the decline in
the intervening period was due to Covid, the capacity utilization in the POI was lower t han the base year.
d. The domestic sales of the domestic industry declined till 2020 -21 but have increased thereafter.
e. The exports of the domestic industry have declined.
f. The domestic industry has submitted that it has undertaken exports in order to prevent pileup of
inventories.
b. Market share in demand
106. The information regarding the market share is given below: -
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Domestic Industry % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 82 65 72
Other Indian producer % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 87 88 14
Indian industry as a whole % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 83 70 60
Imports from China % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 142 172 197
Other Countries % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 104 97 53
107. It is see n that the market share of the subject imports has increased throughout the injury period. On the other
hand, the market share of the domestic industry declined till 2020 -21. Even though the market share marginally
improved in the POI, the same is still ma terially lower than 2019 -20 and 2020 -21.
108. The market share of the other producer has declined sharply in the period of investigation. While its market
share was declining over the injury period, the decline in the POI was very significant.
109. The market share of Indian industry as a whole has declined steeply over the injury period.
c. Inventories
110. The inventory position with the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below:
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Opening Stock MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 81 137 106
Closing Stock MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 170 132 75
Average Stock MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 121 135 92
111. It is seen that the average inventory of the domestic industry has declined as th e domestic industry’s domestic
sales increased.
d. Profitability, cash profits and return on capital employed.
112. Profitability, cash profits and return on investment of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in
the table below.
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Profit/(Loss) per unit ₹/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 80 15 10
Profit/Loss ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 73 9 10
Cash profit ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 80 32 43
PBIT ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 63 13 8
Return on Capital Employed % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 67 13 7
113. It is seen that -
i. The per unit profit of the domestic industry has declined by ***% over the injury period. The domestic
industry has seen a significant adverse impact of the low -priced imports.
ii. While the per unit profit declined consistently over the injury period, the decline was significant in 2020 -
21 and 2021 -22.
iii. The profitability of the applicant has consistently declined over the injury period.
iv. The profit before interest and tax in Rs Lacs has also declined from Rs *** lakhs in the base year to Rs
*** lacs in the period of investigation. Per unit profit before interest and tax has also declined by ***%
over the injury period.
v. Cash profit earned by the domestic industry declined in 2019 -20 and then further declined in 2020 -21. The
cash profit has increased thereafter in 2021 -22 due to the increase in domestic sales.
vi. The cash profit per unit earned by the domestic industry has declined from Rs ***per MT to ***per MT.
it is seen that there is a decline ***% decline in the cash profit per unit earned by the domestic industry.
vii. Return on the capital employed (ROCE) has declined significantly over the injury period from ***% to
***%. The ROCE in the POI was abnormally low.
e. Employment, wages and productivity
114. Employment, wages, and productivity of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table
below.
Particulars Unit 2018 -19 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
Wages ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 115 79 123
Employment Nos. *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 99 93 91
Productivity per day MT/days *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 96 57 97
Productivity per employee MT/Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 83 50 100
115. It is seen that:
i. The wag es paid by the domestic industry have increased in the period of investigation.
ii. The number of employees has declined throughout the injury period. This is despite the increase in
capacities.
iii. The productivity of the domestic industry has declined till 202 0-21 but increased in the period of
investigation as production increased.
iv. The domestic industry has submitted that these factors are not dependent on the performance of the
product under consideration and therefore, does not reflect the injury suffered.
f. Growth
116. The domestic industry has recorded a positive growth in the volume parameters such as domestic sales,
production, capacity utilization and market share. However, the price parameters such as per unit profitability,
cash profits and PBIT in Rs Lakhs and the return on capital employed have shown a negative growth.
Sl. No. Particulars UOM 2019 -20 2020 -21 POI
1 Production Y/Y -4% -41% 70%
2 Domestic Sales Y/Y -9% -35% 75%
3 Capacity Utilisation Y/Y -4% -42% 68%
4 Market Share Y/Y -18% -20% 10%
5 Profit/(Loss) per unit Y/Y -20% -81% -38%
6 PBIT - ₹ Lakhs Y/Y -37% -80% -34%
7 Cash Profit ₹ Lakhs Y/Y -20% -60% 38%
8 ROI Y/Y -33% -78% -38%
g. Ability to raise capital investment.
117. The domestic industry is earning abysmally low return on its capital emplo yed. The domestic industry has
submitted that to bridge the demand and supply gap, an investment to the tune of Rs 4,000 crores is required.
However, the Chinese dumping is preventing industry from making this kind of investment and the gap is
widening.
I. CAUSAL LINK
118. As per the Rules, the Authority, inter alia, is required to examine any known factors other than the dumped
imports which are injuring or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry, so that the injury caused by
these other factors may no t be attributed to the dumped imports. Factors which may be relevant in this respect
include, inter alia, the volume and prices of imports not sold at dumped prices, contraction in demand or
changes in the patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practic es of and competition between the foreign and
the domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and the productivity of the
domestic industry. It has been examined below whether the factors listed under the Rules could have
contributed to the injury suffered by the domestic industry.
a. Volume and prices of imports from third countries
119. The Authority notes that the imports from other countries are insignificant.
b. Contraction in demand and/or change in pattern of consumption.
120. It is se en that the demand for the subject goods has significantly increased in the period of investigation as
compared to the previous year.
c. Trade restrictive practices
121. No interested parties have produced any evidence relating to any known trade restrictive pra ctice.
d. Development in technology
122. The Authority notes that the technology for the production of the subject goods has not undergone any change.
e. Export performance
123. The Authority has considered the injury data for the domestic operations separately for the injury analysis.
f. Performance of other producers
124. The Authority has considered data relating to the performance of the subject goods only.
J. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
125. The Authority has determined the non -injurious price (NIP) for the domestic industry on the basis of the
principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The NIP of the PUC has been
determined by adopting the information/data relating to the cost of production provided by the domestic
industry and duly certified by the pr acticing accountant for the period of investigation. The NIP has been
considered for comparing the landed price from the subject country for calculating injury margin. For
determining the NIP, the best utilization of the raw materials and utilities has bee n considered over the injury
period. Best utilization of production capacity over the injury period has been considered. Extraordinary or
non-recurring expenses have been excluded from the cost of production. A reasonable return (pre -tax @ 22%)
on average capital employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the PUC was
allowed as pretax profit to arrive at the NIP as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules and being followed.
126. Based on the landed price and NIP determined as abo ve, the injury margin for the producers/ exporters as
determined by the Authority is provided in the table below:
Producer NIP (USD
per MT) Landed value
(USD per
MT) Injury
margin
(USD per
MT) Injury
margin % Injury
margin
%
range
Yibin Hiest Fibre Limite d Corporation *** *** *** *** 10-20
Gaoxian Changxin Thread LLC *** *** *** *** 0-10
Yibin Changxin Thread Co., Ltd. *** *** *** *** 0-10
Heist Group *** *** *** *** 10-20
Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd *** *** *** *** 10-20
Jilin Enka Viscose Co., L td. *** *** *** *** 0-10
Jilin Chemical Fibre Stock Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** 0-10
Jilin Group *** *** *** *** 0-10
Other producers/ exporters *** *** *** *** 10-20
127. It is seen that the injury margin in respect of the cooperating producer as well as all other producers is positive.
K. POST DISCLOSURE SUBMISSIONS
K.1. Submission made by other interested parties.
128. Post disclosure comments made by other interested parties are as follows:
i. Look and feel can never be a criterion to include or exclude a p roduct. Garment manufacturers buy
fabric without differentiating between technology used for the production of fabrics. Irrespective of
manufacturing process, VFY produced through the three technologies has alike characteristics.
ii. The Authority had not pro vided calculation of normal value and non -injurious price in the disclosure
statement.
iii. The quality of the subject goods from China PR is better than the Indian producers. The prices of the
VFY from China PR is much higher than the domestic yarn, yet the c ustomers in India choose the VFY
exported from China PR due to better quality.
iv. The anti -dumping duty should be recommended for a period of 2 to 3 years only.
v. The quality of the goods manufactured by the domestic industry is not upto the internation al standard.
vi. The downstream MSME industry engaged in power loom, weaving and knitting will be adversely
affected with the imposition of duty.
vii. Since the non -injurious price and the normal value have been claimed confidential, the exporters are
unable to c omment if the PCN wise comparison is appropriate.
viii. The Authority has not made adjustment in the economic parameters of the domestic industry for the
period of investigation on the ground that there was no plant shutdown. Even if there was no plant
shutdown, normal functioning of the business were impacted during this period due to Covid. This has
been admitted by the applicant in the annual report.
ix. The Authority has not disclosed the actual landed price of imports and PCN wise undercutting in the
disclosure statement.
x. When compared to the base year of the countervailing duty investigation, the cost of sales of the applicant
have increased by 40%. However, the prices of caustic soda and pulp has not increased at the same time.
xi. The Authority may recommend PCN w ise reference price form of anti -dumping duty as the downstream
industry is of MSME nature and there is a large demand and supply gap.
xii. Fixed duty may lead to stoppage of imports and may lead to shortage of supply and can adversely affect
the performance of downstream products and the entire value chain of textile products.
xiii. Baoding Henjing Silk Threads should be granted an individual form of duty. Scope of initiation clearly
includes both yarn and threads and there is no requirement in the initiation to manu facture right from the
yarn stage.
xiv. As per the panel report in case of Anti -Dumping Measures on Farmed Salmon from Norway, a
‘producer’ is any manufacturer which brings a product into existence.
xv. In the anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of Alumin um foil of <80 microns from China PR,
the Authority held that the manufacturers that imported thicker foil stock and downgraded it into the
product were valid domestic producers.
xvi. In the initiation notification finalizing the PCN methodology and including y arn produced through SSY
technology inside the scope of the investigation, the Authority had noted that no further modifications
would be entertained in that regard. Now, the Authority has changed its stand.
xvii. If the Authority has excluded yarn produced usin g SSY technology from the product scope because of
difference in raw materials, the Authority should apply the same standard and exclude yarns made from
bamboo pulp.
xviii. Total imports of superfine denier of the product under consideration have been more than t he total SSY
sales of domestic industry in superfine deniers.
xix. The domestic industry does not want to have its own products compete with each other in a particular
market segment and it is because of this reason that it chose not to produce the product und er
consideration of super fine deniers using PSY technology.
xx. If the Authority has excluded yarns produced using SSY technology from the product scope on the
ground that the domestic industry is profitable in this segment, then the Authority should also rem ove
superfine deniers from the scope of the product under consideration as that segment is profitable.
xxi. Low-glue dull yarns are imported in different deniers like 60, 75, and 120 and the domestic industry
only produces low glue dull yarn of 120 denier. Ther efore, for all those deniers for which it has failed to
provide evidence of commercial sales during the period of investigation, should be excluded.
xxii. Prices of the domestic producer and exporters have been provided. The prices of imports are in fact
higher.
K.2. Submission made by domestic industry.
129. Post disclosure comments made by domestic producers are as follows:
a. If 100% rayon embroidery thread raw white on cone or on hank is intended to be imported as ready to
use thread, the same is required to be clas sified under 5401 and without classifying the same as the
product under consideration of the present investigation.
b. Exclusion in the first investigation regarding embroidery was also given in respect of only embroidery
yarn that too on the ground that it w as not being produced by the domestic industry.
c. Only products falling under 5401 should be exempted from the scope of the product under
consideration and all other forms of VFY should be included within the scope of the product under
consideration.
d. One of the interested parties has contended that it can directly use the yarn in cone on embroidery
machines. The party concedes that this is a rare application of embroidery thread in - cone for use on
embroidery machine. However, this product is then classifiab le under 5401, and not under 5403.
e. The quantity and value reported by the responding exporters from the subject country is required to be
matched with the quantity and value reported in the transaction -wise import data.
f. The disclosure statement is incomple te as it does not contain facts found by the Authority with respect
to profitability, cash profits and the return on capital employed.
g. The Authority has allowed an unduly low return on capital employed while determining the non -
injurious price. The return on capital employed is as low as 40 -50%.
h. The impact of a 5% anti -dumping duty on the eventual end product organza and georgette is only 1%.
K.3. Examination by the Authority
130. The Authority has examined the post disclosure submissions made by the interested parties and notes that some
of the comments are reiterations which have already been examined suitably and addressed adequately in the
relevant paras of the final findings. The issues raised for the first time in the post -disclosure
comments/submissions b y the interested parties and considered relevant by the Authority are examined below.
131. It has been contended that the price of imports is higher. The Authority has examined the transaction wise
import data and compared the PCN wise import data. It is seen t hat the imports are infact priced lower than the
domestic industry prices. The Authority also notes that the interested parties have provided price lists for
domestic industry and exporters. However, the basis of these lists cannot be ascertained at such a belated stage
of investigation.
132. As regards the comments on form and duration of the anti -dumping duty, the same have been duly considered
by the Authority based on the facts of the case. A benchmark form of duty will not be appropriate considering
the lar ge number of PCNs involved. The Authority also notes that it is not established how the benchmark form
of duty shall allow imports and fixed form of duty shall not allow imports. The purpose of fixing benchmarks
form of duty is not to allow party to artifi cially realign the import price, but to allow parties to pay anti -
dumping duty to the extent of the difference between reference price and landed price of import.
133. It is clarified that Authority has not excluded SSY technology yarn on the grounds of profita bility in the
segment. The Authority has excluded the yarn on the grounds that the performance of SSY technology yarn has
remained more or less similar over the injury period whereas the performance of the product under
consideration has significantly decl ined over the injury period. Relative difference in the performance of SSY
and PSY has led to a conclusion (together with other facts) that the SSY sold by the domestic industry was not
competing with the imported PSY.
134. As regards request for exclusion of yarn made from bamboo, cotton and wood pulp, the Authority notes that it
has not been demonstrated that yarn made from bamboo, cotton and word pulp carries different characteristics,
costs and prices. The same was not identified as a relevant criterion to differentiate costs and prices of the
products. In fact, the Authority has considered yarn made from bamboo, cotton and word pulp as the same
product in the previous determination also.
135. As regards exclusion of low glue dull yarn of 60 & 75 deniers, the Au thority notes that the interested parties
have stated that the domestic industry has produced and supplied low glue dull yarn of 120 deniers. In a
situation where the domestic industry has produced and sold low glue yarn and has produced and sold yarn of
60, 70 and 125 deniers, the mere fact that the domestic industry has not produced and supplied a particular
form of the product does not in itself justify exclusion. The Authority notes that there are potentially several
PCNs involved. Several of these have not been imported during the POI while several of these have not been
supplied by the domestic industry. It would not be appropriate to look for individual PCN production by the
domestic industry. In fact, the Authority has prescribed a methodology for co mparison of import with the
domestic industry products where the domestic industry has not sold identical product.
136. As regards comparison of imports of super fine deniers with the sales volume of SSY made by domestic
industry, the Authority considers that t he volume of imports is lower than the volume of such sales made by the
domestic industry. Further, the comparison cannot be made in absolute terms. Whereas super fine deniers
constitute 4% of the total imports, super fine deniers constitute ***% of total SSY sales. It is also noted that
whereas market share of Chinese imports was about 59% in the POI, the market share of the domestic industry
was only ***%. The domestic industry sold *** MT, whereas the imports from China were 45,677 MT. Thus,
in any way, absolute volumes are incomparable. Further, the Authority notes that what has remained
unexplained is the fact found by the Authority that the performance of SSY has not been impacted while the
performance of PSY has been impacted.
137. As regards the content ion that look and feel can never be a criterion to include or exclude a product, garment
manufacturers buy fabric without differentiating between technology and irrespective of manufacturing
process, the Authority notes that the interested parties have the mselves suggested segregating CYS and PSY as
different product. These parties have themselves suggested segregation of CSY and PSY into two different
PCNs on the grounds that cost and price of the product produced out of CSY and PSY significantly differs. The
Authority notes that the product is classified into different PCNs on the basis of the criteria that the cost and
price of the product varies significantly. Thus, if the interested parties concede that CSY and PSY carry
significantly different costs an d prices, it follows that they are not interchangeable, even though they are from
two different technologies. Further, the interested parties have given no reason why the profitability of SSY
remained unaffected and the profitability of PSY got impacted du ring this period when dumping has intensified
in PSY. If PSY and SSY were interchangeable, the relative profitability of the two products would not have
remained so materially different.
138. It is clarified that the information with regard to the PCN wise nor mal value, import price, landed price, price
undercutting, NIP and injury margin all are in the nature of confidential business sensitive information.
Therefore, the PCN wise landed price, which is derived from DGCI&S transaction wise data cannot be
public ized. Any information placed either in the disclosure statement or in the final findings shall become
widely available for all times to come.
139. As regards the form of duty, the Authority notes that there are a large number of PCNs involved in the present
case. In fact, the Authority has determined the non -injurious price for *** PCNs and landed price of imports
for *** PCNs. Further, the list is non -exhaustive. There can be potentially a large number of other PCNs which
can be produced and supplied during th e duty period. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to fix reference
price form of duty. Such duty would lead to a large number of potential PCNs having no reference price or
attracting residual reference price.
140. As regards PCNs notified, it is clarifie d that the PCNs were notified to allow the interested parties to provide
the relevant information. Notification of PCNs does not mean determination. In fact, the Authority does not
make determination even at the stage of disclosure statement, leave aside n otifying PCN to the interested
parties.
141. Interested parties have contended that quality of Chinese product is superior. It has also been contended that the
import prices are higher than the selling price of the domestic industry (due to better quality). Ho wever, the
Authority notes that price undercutting by Chinese product is positive. In a situation where the imported
product is superior in quality, it remained unexplained why the same was being imported at a lower price.
142. As regards the impact of COVID on operations, the Authority notes that the same was relevant for the year
2020. The POI in the present case is however 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022. As far as the investigation
period is concerned, operations of the domestic industry were not affected by the COVID related long duration
lockdown. The domestic industry has continued production during the second wave of COVID.
Notwithstanding, the primary form of injury in the present case is adverse price effect, and not adverse volume
effect.
143. The Author ity note that the increase in costs over the present injury period is ***% as against which the selling
price increased by ***%. The Authority has not considered that cost of sales increased by ***%.
144. As regards determination of dumping margin for Baoding H enjing Silk Threads, the Authority considers that in
a situation where the input raw material and output finished product of a producer are nothing but different
forms of the product under consideration, the producer cannot claim dumping margin for the act ivity
undertaken. As regard the reference to WTO Report, the Authority notes that the relevant issue is not whether
the entity should be treated as a producer. The relevant issue is whether the company claiming individual
dumping margin has converted raw m aterial into finished product. The entity has converted merely one form of
the PUC to other form of PUC. It cannot therefore claim individual dumping margin. The reference to foil
stock on this issue is highly misplaced, as the input and output in that pro duct are vastly different and two
different products. The Authority had treated foil stock and foils as two different products (final findings no.
6/27/2020 dated 7th September 2021 for foil stock and Final finding no. 6/21/2020 – DGTR dated 18th June,
2021 for foil).
145. While one interested party has contended that the duty should be recommended for a period of 2 years, other
interested party has contended the duty should be recommended for a period of 3 years. However, no
justification has been given by eit her party why the duty should be restricted for a period of three years. The
Authority notes that the interested parties presume that the duty, once imposed, shall remain in force for a
period of five years. However, the Authority notes that any interested party is entitled to seek a review and
revocation of duty upon expiry of one year.
146. With regard to the submission made by the domestic industry for low return allowed on capital employed, the
Authority notes that NIP has been calculated in accordance with Annexure III of Anti -dumping Rules and
consistent practice of the Authority.
147. With regard to the submission made by interested parties concerning 22% return on capital employed for
calculating NIP, the authority notes that NIP has been calculated in accord ance with Annexure III of Anti -
dumping Rules and consistent practice of the Authority.
148. With regard to the submission made by the domestic industry that the disclosure statement is incomplete as it
does not contain facts found by the Authority with respect to profitability, cash profits and return on capital
employed. The authority notes that the same has been addressed in the present final findings.
L. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST AND OTHER ISSUES
L.1. Submission of the other interested parties
149. The following su bmission have been made by the other interested parties on public interest:
a. The product produced by the applicant cannot run on the speedy machines installed by the user
industry.
b. Users import the product because the quality supplied by the domestic indus try is not good.
c. The domestic industry cannot supply product under consideration with cones of 3.5 KG.
d. Most of the weavers are MSMEs and small -scale manufactures of fabrics and anti -dumping duty will
impact these spinners adversely.
e. In the cost of product ion of viscose chiffon fabric, the cost of product under consideration is 60 -70% of
the cost of the fabric. The impact in such products will be higher.
f. The Indian weavers have spent more than Rs 600 cr already and further Rs 400 cr are planned. The
imposi tion of anti -dumping duty will significantly impact the investments planned.
g. Users are forced to import because of the demand and supply gap.
h. The yarn supplied by the spinners cannot run on air -jet machines.
i. There is significant lead time in the orders pl aced with the domestic industry.
j. The imported product is higher priced as compared to the domestic industry and the users import
because of the quality.
k. The users were not issued economic interest questionnaire by the Authority.
l. The quantification of impa ct of anti -dumping duty presented by the domestic industry is grossly
incorrect. The Authority is requested to quantify the impact of anti -dumping from the response of the
spinners.
K.2. Submission of the domestic industry
150. The following submissions have be en made by the domestic industry on public interest:
a. VFY industry is providing employment to about 50000 families directly or indirectly.
b. Small -scale weavers in India will rely solely on imports if the domestic industry declines. The domestic
industry pro vides substantial support to weavers, unlike exporters.
c. The domestic industry is continuously supporting the small weavers for their upliftment.
d. The domestic industry is regularly selling the product who have air jet machine. The product produced
by the d omestic industry is able to run on advanced air jet machines.
e. None of the users have raised concerns regarding the size of the cone supplied by the domestic
industry. The interested parties have not provided any evidence to support their claims.
f. The dom estic industry has quantified the impact of anti -dumping duty on end product. The impact on
blended fabrics is 0.77% on a product price of Rs 5 USD/mtr and Rs 1.36 in case of an embroidery
thread of Rs 340 per piece.
g. None of the weavers have quantified th e impact, which is the requirement of the user’s questionnaire
response.
h. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry are the same as subject goods imported from the
subject country. They two are technically and commercially substitutable. Consumer s use the subject
goods interchangeably. The domestic industry is a reliable supplier ensuring continuity of supplies.
i. Chinese producers will operate with only sole objective of maximization of their revenue. If they don’t
find a buyer at their terms, th ey will switch to some other markets. Whereas the domestic industry has
established themselves keeping the interest of users in mind.
j. The consumer has to maintain a higher degree of inventory if they depend on imports. However, when
they procure from dome stic industry, the inventory holding could be kept lower. This will result in
lower amount of capital blockage as compared to procurement from China PR.
k. Consumer viability shouldn't rely on accessing raw materials at unfair prices. Fair market conditions
were considered while setting up of plant by users. Preventing dumping and restoring fair competition
shouldn't harm users’ operations.
l. Anti-dumping duty is a remedy against unfair price discrimination, promotes fair competition, and
protects the industry in India. It does not restrict imports but ensures fair priced availability to
consumers. The objective is to eliminate injury to the domestic industry and establish a level playing
field.
m. The purpose of imposition of anti -dumping duty has been recognize d by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority and the same is relevant in the present
case.
n. Imposing anti -dumping duty will not restrict imports but will ensure fair prices in the market.
o. The users did not r espond to the economic interest questionnaire, and they fail to show the impact of
anti-dumping duty on end consumers.
p. The demand supply gap does not justify dumping of the subject goods at unfair prices. If there is a gap
between demand and supply, the s ame can be fulfilled by foreign producers at a fair price. CESTAT
decision in the matter of GM Alloys Pvt Ltd. and others v. UOI, CESTAT has been relied on.
q. The purpose of anti -dumping duty is to maintain a level playing field and prevent dumping. The
purpose of custom duty reduction is however totally different and irrelevant to the present. VFY was
subjected to the same rate of customs duty over the present injury period. The deterioration in the
performance of the domestic industry is therefore not due to a decline in customs duty.
K.3. Examination of the Authority
151. The Authority recognizes that the imposition of the anti -dumping duties might affect the price levels of the
product in India. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be red uced by the imposition of the
anti-dumping measures. On the contrary, the imposition of the anti -dumping measures would remove the unfair
advantages gained by the dumping practices, prevent the decline of the domestic industry and help maintain the
availab ility of wider choice to the consumers of the subject goods. The Authority has found that the domestic
industry is suffering price injury in the present case. Therefore, the imposition of the anti -dumping duty will
prevent injury to the domestic industry.
152. The purpose of the antidumping duties, in general, is to eliminate injury caused to the domestic industry by the
unfair trade practices of dumping so as to re -establish a situation of open and fair competition in the Indian
market, which is in the general interest of the country. The imposition of the anti -dumping duties, therefore,
would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers. The Authority notes that the imposition of the
anti-dumping measures would not restrict the imports from the subject country in any way and, therefore,
would not affect the availability of the product to the consumers.
153. The Authority has considered whether the imposition of anti -dumping duty shall have any adverse impact on
the interest of the public. In order to determine such impact, the Authority weighed the impact of the
imposition of duties on the availability of goods in the Indian market, the impact on the users of the product as
well as the domestic industry and the impact on the general public at large. T his determination is based on the
submissions and evidence submitted over the course of the present investigation. The Authority notes that there
is no reason why the availability would reduce, particularly when the Chinese producers are operating with
surplus capacities.
154. The Authority had prescribed an Economic Interest Questionnaire which was sent to all interested parties to
this investigation. The domestic industry has provided information sought in the Economic Interest
Questionnaire. The Authority no tes that none of the users have quantified the impact of imposition of anti -
dumping duty on end users. The Authority has relied on the information provided by the domestic industry and
noted that the impact of imposition of anti -dumping duty on users would be insignificant. The Authority notes
that the domestic industry has in the application, quantified the impact of the anti -dumping duty on the
eventual end products. As per the information provided by the domestic industry, which was also available to
the other interested parties, the impact on blended fabrics priced at 5 USD/MTR (around Rs 400/MTR) is
0.77% and Rs 1.36 in case of an embroidery thread of Rs 340 per piece. The Authority has additionally
quantified the impact of the anti -dumping duty as per the response filed by the users. The Authority has
considered impact based on the share of the product under consideration in their cost and selling price of the
downstream product. It is seen that, the impact of the anti -dumping duties on their selling pr ice varies between
0.5% and 3% depending on the type of the product under consideration consumed and the eventual end product
produced. Therefore, if the user industry passes on increase in the cost to the downstream product, the impact
of anti -dumping dut y on the eventual end product is insignificant. Further, the impact of anti -dumping on the
public at large and on the eventual end product on, ie. fabrics will be even lower.
155. As regards the submission on the quality of the product under consideration, the Authority has already
addressed the submissions in the final finding above.
156. The Authority notes that the demand -supply gap in the country does not bar the domestic industry from seeking
redressal from dumped imports, nor it justify exports at dumping pric es. As held by the CESTAT in the matter
of DSM Idemitsu Limited vs. Designated Authority, the demand -supply gap does not justify dumping. The
foreign producers can always meet the Indian demand by selling the product at un -dumped prices. Even after
the imp osition of anti -dumping duty, the imports are not restricted in the country.
157. The Authority finally notes that imposition of anti -dumping duty is in the interest of the public at large and the
impact of anti -dumping duty on end consumers is insignificant.
M. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
158. After examining the submission made by the interested parties and issues raised therein and considering the
facts available on record, the Authority concludes that:
a. The product under consideration in the present investigatio n is Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn.
b. The scope of the product under consideration includes Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn produced either
through bamboo, cotton and wood pulp and of all deniers. Further, low glue dull yarn is included inside
the scope of th e product under consideration. Both dyed and undyed yarn are within the scope of the
product under consideration.
c. Embroidery thread classifiable under 5401, which is ready to use is excluded from the scope of the product
under consideration. Any produc t which is required to be classified under 5403 is included inside the
scope of the product under consideration.
d. The domestic industry has provided yarns in cones with similar sizes which are being imported. The
domestic industry has also provided invoi ces of sales made to spinners who use the product under
consideration to spinners on air jet machines.
e. Yarn produced from SSY technology is not produced in China. Such production technology is only
available in India and Europe. Since the product is no t being imported into India from China, it cannot be
included inside the scope of the product under consideration.
f. The Spool Spun Technology is different as compared to other technologies as it requires significantly
higher investment, there is differ ence in the manufacturing process and difference in raw material.
g. The fact that the performance of the SSY division has been unimpacted despite increase in imports shows
the absence of competition between them. Furthermore, the domestic industry has s old yarn produced
from SSY technology in market segment where sales of PSY and CSY based yarns are low.
h. The application was filed by Association of Man -Made Fibre Industry of India and Grasim Industries
Limited. The applicant is the major producer of t he subject goods in India and constitute as domestic
industry under Rule 2(b) of the Rules and satisfy the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the rules.
i. Three groups of producers of the product under consideration from China have participate d along with
their exporters. The Authority has not undertaken sampling and determined export price based on their
response.
j. Baoding Hengjin Silk Thread Co., Ltd. had filed a questionnaire response. It is however seen that the
company has simply conve rted one form of product under consideration to another form of the PUC. The
company has not undertaken production of PUC and therefore, its response has been rejected.
k. Considering the normal value and export price for the subject goods, the dumping ma rgin for the subject
goods from the subject country has been determined, and the margins are significantly positive. No reason
has been provided by the exporters for such a significant degree of dumping.
l. The examination of the imports of the subject go ods shows that the volume of dumped imports from China
has increased in the period of investigation. The imports have increased in both absolute terms and in
relation to production and consumption.
m. PCN wise analysis shows that the imports are priced below the selling price of the domestic industry. The
dumped imports are therefore undercutting the prices of the domestic industry.
n. While the cost of sales has increased, the landed price has not increased at the same rate. The imports are
priced bel ow the selling price of the domestic industry and have prevented an increase in the prices.
Therefore, it is seen that the dumped imports have suppressed the prices of the domestic industry.
o. The examination of the economic parameters of the domestic in dustry show marginal increase in the
installed capacity, production and sales are significantly lower as compared to the capacity and demand in
India.
p. The market share of the domestic industry has increased in the POI but it is lower than as compared to the
base year, the market share of the subject country is significantly increased in the POI as compared to the
base year.
q. The profitability, cash profits and ROCE of the domestic industry has significantly declined in the period
of investigation. T he profits of the domestic industry were at the lowest in the period of investigation.
r. The return on capital earned by the domestic industry is lower than the bank rate of returns.
s. The domestic industries ability to raise capital investment has bee n adversely affected.
t. The Authority has examined the submissions made by other parties on any other factors which could have
caused injury to the domestic industry. No other factor appears to have caused injury to the domestic
industry. The Authority c oncludes that the material injury suffered by the domestic industry has been
caused by the dumped imports from the subject country.
u. Imposition of anti -dumping duty would not affect the availability of the product to the customers.
v. The Authority ha d prescribed an Economic Interest Questionnaire which was sent to all interested parties
to this investigation. None of the interested except the domestic industry have responded to the Economic
Interest Questionnaire. No Economic Interest Questionnaire re sponse has been filed by any users as well.
The domestic industry has also provided a quantification of the potential impact of the duty.
w. The Authority has quantified the impact of anti -dumping duty on the users. It is seen that the impact of the
proposed measures will be between 1 -3% considering the nature of the PUC being consumed. The
Authority has additionally examined the impact on the eventual downstream product and it is seen that
even if the user industry passes on the cost of anti -dumping duty , the impact on the eventual end
consumers will be insignificant.
159. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate
opportunity was given to the domestic industry, exporters, importers, and other i nterested parties to provide
positive information on the aspect of dumping, injury, causal link, and impact of recommended measures.
Having initiated and conducted the investigation into dumping, injury, and causal link in terms of provisions
laid down und er the Anti -Dumping Rules and having quantified the impact of imposition of anti -dumping duty,
the Authority is in view that imposition of anti -dumping duty is required to offset the dumping and injury. The
Authority considers it necessary and recommends i mposition of an anti -dumping duty on imports of the subject
goods from the subject country.
160. Considering the nature of the product under consideration and the large number of PCNs involved, the
Authority considers that it would be appropriate to recommend a nti-dumping duty as a percentage of the CIF
value of the import price of the subject goods.
161. In view of the above, the Authority, in terms of provisions contained in Rule 17(1)(b) read with Rule 4(d) of
the Rules, recommend imposition of anti -dumping duty equal to the lesser of margin of dumping and the
margin of injury, so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry. The Authority accordingly recommends
imposition of anti -dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from China PR
for a period of five years from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, as
a percentage of the CIF price of the goods, as indicated in Col. 7 of the duty table given below.
Duty Table
Sl.
No. Sub Heading
or Tariff Item Description
of Goods Country
of origin Country of
Export Producer Duty as %
of CIF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5403 Viscose
rayon
filament China
PR Any
country
including Yibin Hiest Fibre Limited
Corpora tion 12.98
yarn/thread
produced
through PSY
or CSY China PR Gaoxian Changxin Thread LLC
Yibin Changxin Thread Co., Ltd
2 -do- -do- China
PR Any
country
including
China PR Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd 5.48
3 -do- -do- China
PR Any
country
including
China PR Jilin Enka Viscose Co., Ltd . 6.72
Jilin Chemical Fibre Stock Co.,
Ltd
4 -do- -do- China
PR Any
country
including
China PR Any, other than SN 1 to 3 20.87
5 -do- -do- Any
country
other
than
China
PR China PR Any 20.87
N. FURTHER PROCEDURE
162. An appeal against the determinatio n/review of the Designated Authority in this final finding shall lie before the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.
ANANT SWARUP, Designated Authority
Uploaded by Dte. of P rinting at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi -110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi -110054.
Login to read full text