Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 241] NEW DELHI, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2025/BHADRA 17, 1947
CG-DL-E-11092025-266068
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2025
FINAL FINDINGS
Case No. AD (OI)-15/2024
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation into imports of “Glass Fibre" originating in or exported from Bahrain,
China PR and Thailand.
F. No. 6/17/2024-DGTR.—Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time
(hereinafter also referred to as the Act), and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-
Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time,
(hereinafter also referred to as the Anti-Dumping Rules or the Rules);
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Whereas, Owens Corning (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant” or the “domestic
industry”) filed an application, before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the “Authority”)
in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Anti-Dumping Rules for initiation of anti-dumping
investigation concerning imports of Glass Fibre (hereinafter also referred to as the “product under
consideration” or the “subject goods”) from Bahrain, China PR and Thailand (hereinafter also referred to as the
“subject countries”).
2. And whereas, in view of the duly substantiated application filed by the applicant, the Authority issued a public
notice vide Notification No. 6/17/2024-DGTR dated 29th June 2024, published in the Gazette of India,
initiating anti-dumping investigation into imports of the product under consideration from Bahrain, China PR
and Thailand in accordance with Rule 5 of the Anti- Dumping Rules to determine the existence, degree and
effect of any alleged dumping of the subject goods and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which
if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry.
3. Vide F. No. CBIC-190354/75/2025-TRU dated 20th June, 2025, the time period for completion of the subject
investigation has been extended by the TRU for three months beyond 28th June, 2025, i.e., up to 28th
September, 2025.
B. PROCEDURE
4. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
i. The Authority notified the Embassies of the subject countries 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 supra.
ii. The Authority issued a public notice dated 29th June 2024, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, initiating anti-dumping investigation concerning import of subject goods from the
subject countries.
iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the Governments of the subject countries,
through their Embassies in India, known producers and exporters from the subject countries, known
importers / users and the domestic industry as well as other interested parties, as per the addresses made
available by the applicant and requested them to make their views 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 Governments of the subject countries, through their Embassies in India,
in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. A copy of the non-confidential version of the
application was made available to other interested parties, wherever requested.
v. The Authority sent exporter’s questionnaire to the following known producers/exporters to elicit relevant
information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
1. Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co. Ltd.
2. Chongqing International Composite Material Company Limited
3. CPIC Abahsain Fiberglass W.L.L.
4. Jiangsu Changhai Composite Materials Company Limited
5. Jushi Group Company Limited
6. Shandong Fiberglass Group
7. Sichuan Zhicheng Changyuan Composite Material Company Limited
8. Taishan Fiberglass Zoucheng Company Limited
9. Wanda New Material (Thailand) Co. Ltd.
vi. The Embassies of the subject countries in India were requested to advise the exporters/producers from
their countries to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit.
vii. In response to the initiation of the subject investigation, the following producers/exporters from the
subject countries have responded by filing questionnaire response:
1. Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co. Ltd
2. Changzhou Tianma Group Co., Ltd.
3. China Jushi Co., Ltd
4. Chongqing Polycomp International Corporation
5. CPIC Abahsain Fibreglass W.L.L
6. Jiangsu Changhai Composite Materials Holdings Co., Ltd.
7. Jushi Group Chengdu Co., Ltd
8. Jushi Group Co., Ltd
9. Jushi Group Jiujiang Co., Ltd
10. Jushi Group, Hong Kong
11. Sichuan Sincere & Long-Term Complex Material Co., Ltd
12. Sichuan Xinghaoyu Composite Materials Co., Ltd
13. Taishan Fiberglass lnc
14. Taishan Fiberglass Zibo, Inc
15. Taishan Fiberglass Zoucheng Co., Ltd
16. Wanda New Material
17. Weiyuan Zehua New Materials Co., Ltd
18. Zhicheng Huatian Composites Material Co., Ltd.
viii. The Authority sent Importer’s and User’s Questionnaire to the known importers / users of the subject
goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules.
ix. In response to the initiation of the subject investigation notification, following importers/users have
responded by filing questionnaire response:
1. Aeron Composite Limited
2. Arvind PD Composites Private Limited
3. CIE Automotive India Limited
4. EPP Composites Private Limited
5. Jindal Advanced Materials Private Limited
6. Jushi India Fiberglass Private Limited
7. Montex Glass Fibre Industries Private Limited
8. O.K. Glass Fibre Private Limited
9. Resitex
10. Saertex India Private Limited
11. Tata Auto Comp Systems Limited
x.The Authority sent a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the following users’
associations.
1. Telangana and Andhra Composites Manufacturers Association.
2. FRP Institute
3. The All-India Glass Manufacturers
4. Composites Association
5. Indian Chemical Council
6. Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
7. Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India
8. Confederation of Indian Industry
xi. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested
parties. A list of all interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website, along with the request to all
of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties.
xii. Request was made to DG Systems to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of subject goods for
the injury period and also the period of investigation. The Authority has relied upon the DG Systems
data for computation of the volume of imports and required analysis after due examination of the
transactions.
xiii. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to the interested parties
to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 2nd April 2025. 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.
xiv. Due to the change in the Designated Authority, a second oral hearing was conducted on 26th May 2025,
which was attended by all the interested parties. The interested parties who presented their views in the
oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of their views expressed orally, followed by
rejoinder submissions.
xv. The non-injurious price (NIP) based on the optimum cost of production and cost to make & sell the
subject goods in India, based on the information furnished by the domestic industry and having regard
to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules, has been worked
out so as to ascertain whether anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to
remove injury to the domestic industry.
xvi. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is 1st April 2023 to 31st March
2024. The examination of trends in the context of injury analysis covered the periods 2020-21, 2021-22,
2022-23 and the period of investigation.
xvii. The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, to the extent
supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately
considered by the Authority, in this final findings.
xviii. Information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to
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
confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed
on confidential basis.
xix. 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 recorded the views/observations on the
basis of the facts available.
xx. The Authority, 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 the present final findings to the
extent possible and verified the data/documents submitted by all the interested parties to the extent
considered relevant, practicable and necessary
xxi. An opportunity was provided by the Authority to all interested parties to give their comments on the
scope of the product under consideration and PCN methodology.
xxii. 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 10th July 2025 and the interested parties were
allowed time up to 20th July 2025 to file comment on the same. The comments to statement received the
interested parties have considered, to the extent found relevant and non-repetitive, in this final finding.
xxiii. ‘***’ in this final findings represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis
and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
xxiv. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = ₹ 83.74
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1. Views of other interested parties
5. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties regarding the scope of the product
under consideration and like article.
i. Glass fibres veils (thin sheets), glass fibre tissue, glass scrim and fiber glass mesh are not produced by
the domestic industry. The Authority may clarify whether the said product is excluded from the scope
of the product under consideration.
ii. The Authority may use the complete name, Glass Fibre Tissue/ Glass Fibres Veils (thin Sheets) to
avoid any confusion or at the Indian Customs.
iii. The scope of product under consideration is broad and vague as it contains “articles thereof”. The
same should be removed from the definition of the product under consideration.
iv. The word “including” used in the product definition should be changed to “namely” as including
creates ambiguity in the product definition.
v. High Modulus Glass Fibre (H-Glass) should be excluded from the scope of the product under
consideration as the same is not sold by the domestic industry in the merchant market. Since the said
product has higher strength, higher performance and different technical specifications, ECR glass sold
by the domestic industry is not a like article to the said product.
vi. The domestic industry does not supply H-Glass in commercial volumes. It is either used captively or
exported to related parties of the applicant.
vii. As opposed to the submissions by the domestic industry, H-glass supplied in the merchant market by
the applicant is only to Kush Synthetics which is a contract manufacturer for production of glass fabric
to customers of the applicant. The Agreement between applicant and Kush Synthetics must be
examined and H-glass should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.
viii. H-Glass is manufactured in a separate furnace and has a different manufacturing process. It is not
commercially viable to produce H-glass in the same furnace as E-Glass. Mere purchase of E-CR and
H-Glass by the same customer does not show substitutability of the two as they might be used in
different applications.
ix. Since there are no imports of H-Glass from Bahrain, the same should be excluded from the scope of
the product under consideration. Since only E-Glass is being imported from Bahrain, only ECR glass
will be the like article being produced by the domestic industry.
x. The applicant has claimed that there is no known difference in the technology adopted by the applicant
and that adopted in by the foreign producers. However, there are differences in raw materials,
conditions and refractory materials used in production of H-glass as compared to E-Glass.
xi. Thermoplastic Chopped Strands have been excluded from the scope of the product under
consideration; however, thermoset chopped strands are included in the product scope. Since the two
are similar looking and there is no testing available in India, Thermoplastic Chopped Strands should
be defined properly in order to avoid confusion at customs.
xii. Thermoset chopped strands should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as
the petitioner does not produce it in ample quantities and India is dependent upon imports for the said
product.
xiii. The applicant does not manufacture chopped strands for thermoset applications as it does not have a
separate line due to its global exit from this business. The applicant is getting small quantities tolled
from outside by supplying direct roving to the toller.
xiv. Fiber Glass Stitched Mats and Fiber Glass Multi-Axle/Tri-Axle Fabrics should be defined properly in
the present investigation in order to avoid confusion at the customs.
xv. Emulsion Chopped Strand mats upto 200 GSM should be excluded from the scope of the product
under consideration as the same are not manufactured by the domestic industry.
xvi. Since glass wool has been excluded from the scope of the product under consideration, ‘glass wool
acoustical ceiling tiles’ and ‘glass wool base board - soundscapes shapes base board’, manufactured
from such products should also be excluded.
xvii. Powdered chopped stand mats are not manufactured by the domestic industry and hence, should be
excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.
xviii. Powdered chopped strand mats should be defined properly as the users are likely to face difficulty at
the customs for clearance of such product as it looks similar to emulsion chopped stand mats.
xix. S-glass and R-glass are not manufactured by the domestic industry and hence, should be excluded
from the scope of the product under consideration.
xx. Fibre glass single end rovings of 300, 600, 1200, 2400 and 4800 tex, Fibre glass Assembled rovings
(Multiple ends) of 2400 tex, chopped strand mat of 300, 450 gsm/m2 and surface tissue of 30 Gas/ M2
are not supplied by the domestic industry in sufficient quantities and the same should be excluded
from the scope of the product under consideration.
xxi. 400, 410, 660, 900 and 1700 tex products are not produced by the domestic industry and no like article
is offered by the domestic industry for these grades. Thus, the same should be excluded from the
scope of the product under consideration.
xxii. GSM is an important factor in trade of Chopped Strand Mats and the range of GSM may also be
considered as part of PCN methodology.
xxiii. Grade of CSM should be considered as a separate PCN as defective grades are sold at prices much less
than the prime or A grade of the said product. Defective grades are manufactured using substandard
material; thus, the cost of production is lower.
xxiv. Emulsion binder chopped strand mats and powder binder chopped strand mats should be considered as
separate PCNs due to complexity in manufacturing process of powder binder chopped strand mats.
xxv. H-Glass should be made a separate PCN as the cost and price of the said product is higher than normal
glass fibre. The product also differs in end use, technical properties and raw material consumption.
xxvi. ECR and E-Glass should be considered as different PCNs. Linear density (tex) should be considered
as a parameter for PCN due to price and cost variation between different tex for direct rovings.
xxvii. Glass composition or family of glass fibre should be considered as a parameter for PCN since all such
compositions have different chemical compositions leading different cost. E-Glass, C-Glass, S-Glass,
ECR Glass and R-Glass should be considered as different PCNs.
xxviii. Separate PCN should be made for different applications of assembled rovings such as sheet moulding
compound, panel, chopped roving mats and spray-up due to difference in raw material used.
xxix. Thickness in terms of chopped strands should be considered as a parameter for PCN. The cost and
price of the said grade varies according to the thickness of the grade supplied.
xxx. Since a number of products excluded from the scope of the product under consideration are not
distinguishable from the product covered under the investigation, the Authority may mention “as per
technical data sheet/certificate of analysis issued by the supplier” in the product exclusion in order to
avoid confusion at customs. This may specifically be done for chopped strand for thermoplastic
application and emulsion and powdered chopped strand.
C.2. Views of the domestic industry
6. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the product under
consideration and like article:
i. The product scope considered by the Authority in the initiation notification may be considered for the
scope of the present investigation.
ii. The PCN may be based on the type of the product under consideration which includes direct rovings,
assembled rovings, chopped strands and chopped strand mats.
iii. In addition to the products already excluded from the scope of the product under consideration, glass
wool acoustical ceiling tiles, glass wool base board – soundscapes shapes board, fiber glass stitched
mats, fibre glass multi-axle/tri-axle fabrics, powdered chopped strand mats, surface tissue of 30
Gas/M2 and stitched mats and combination mats, may also be excluded from the scope of the product
under consideration.
iv. The Authority may remove the words “articles thereof” from the definition of the product under
consideration.
v. The domestic industry has supplied either identical or closely resembling article to the products
imported into India in the merchant market.
vi. H-glass has been supplied by the domestic industry in the merchant market during the period of
investigation and hence, should not be excluded. In fact, the domestic industry has catered to 70-80%
of the H-glass demand in the merchant market.
vii. As opposed to the submissions by the other interested parties, H-glass has been produced and sold in
the merchant market to consumers other than Kush Synthetics.
viii. Since scope of product under consideration is not determined separately for each subject country, no
imports of H-Glass from Bahrain is irrelevant. Further, since separate PCN has been made for H-
Glass, there is no adverse impact of inclusion of H-Glass on producer from Bahrain.
ix. Exclusion request for thermoset chopped strands is unwarranted as the same has been supplied by the
domestic industry in the merchant market during the period of investigation.
x. Chopped stand mats of 300 and 450 GSM have been produced and sold by the domestic industry in
the merchant market during the period of investigation and hence, should not be excluded.
xi. The domestic industry has produced chopped strand mats of 180 GSM during the period of
investigation. Further, chopped strand mats of less than 180 GSM can be produced on the same plant
by changing machine settings. The domestic industry has produced CSM of 150 GSM post period of
investigation.
xii. The domestic industry does not have the capacity to produce CSM of 100 GSM and the same may be
excluded from the scope of the product under consideration
xiii. As opposed to the submissions by the other interested parties, use of the terms “as per the technical
datasheet of the manufacturer” may lead to circumvention of anti-dumping duty.
xiv. The domestic industry has supplied direct rovings between 200 to 9600 tex in the merchant market
during the period of investigation. In order to produce different tex, only the machine settings are
required to be changed and no additional equipment or machinery is required. Thus, no exclusion may
be granted in this regard.
xv. Assembled rovings of 2400 tex has been produced and sold by the domestic industry in the merchant
market during the period of investigation and hence, should not be excluded.
xvi. As per the practice of the Authority and CESTAT judgment, a product type can be excluded only if it
is imported into India but a like article is not offered by the domestic industry. Since there are no
imports of R-glass and S-glass in India, there is no requirement for providing exemption in this regard.
xvii. With regard to the submission that thermoplastic chopped strands should be defined properly, the
other interested parties may propose a definition in this regard.
xviii. The submissions made by the other interested parties with regard to PCN are the same as that in the
previous investigations. The Authority had examined the said submissions and considered PCN based
only on product type, that is, direct rovings, assembled rovings, chopped strands and chopped strand
mats.
xix. With regard to the proposal of PCN based on types of direct rovings, there are no imports of R-glass
and S-glass and hence there is no requirement for PCN for these grades.
xx. There is no need for a separate PCN for E-glass, C-glass and ECR glass as E-glass and C-glass are old
products which have been developed into ECR glass by producers globally. Further, none of the
interested parties have provided evidence regarding change in cost between the said products to
warrant a separate PCN. There are negligible imports of the said grades.
xxi. The difference between the cost of production of H-Glass and ECR glass is less than ***% and hence,
there is no requirement for a separate PCN.
xxii. The difference in the selling price of H-Glass and ECR glass is not dependent upon the cost of
production but is a function of market. Since both the products are sold in different market segments,
the pricing of the products is different.
xxiii. The cost of production does not vary substantially based on tex of direct rovings and GSM for
Chopped strand mats as noted in the previous investigation. Hence, there is no requirement for a
separate PCN.
xxiv. Since the domestic industry has already agreed on exclusion of powder chopped strands, there is no
requirement for a separate PCN.
xxv. Application cannot be considered as the basis of PCN as the same product is used for different
applications and thus, holds no cost difference. The producers are not even aware of the application
while manufacturing the product.
xxvi. Quality or grade of the product cannot be considered as a separate PCN as no manufacture
intentionally produces defective product. Defective product is a result of the production process and
thus, there is no separate cost for the same.
C.3. Examination by the Authority
7. At the time of initiation of the present investigation, the Authority considered the following as the scope of
product under consideration.
“3. The product under consideration for the subject investigation is ‘Glass Fibre and articles thereof’,
including glass roving, both assembled rovings (AR) and direct rovings (DR), glass chopped strands (CS)
and glass chopped strands mats (CSM). The product under consideration, hereinafter, is also referred to as
the ‘PUC’ or the ‘subject goods’ or ‘glass fibre’.
4. The product under consideration is manufactured using key raw materials such as limestone, clay and
magnesium. The manufacturing process includes batching or mixing of certain minerals, melting of the
minerals in a furnace at a high temperature, fiberization, sizing, curing and finally, fabrication.
5. The following products are excluded from the scope of the PUC:
a. glass wool,
b. fibre glass wool,
c. fibre glass insulation in wool form,
d. glass yarn,
e. glass woven fabrics,
f. glass fibre fabric,
g. glass woven rovings,
h. chopped strands meant for thermoplastic applications,
i. micro glass fibre with fibre diameter in the range of 0.3 to 2.5 microns,
j. glass fibre surface mat,
k. glass fibre surface veil,
l. glass fibre surface tissue,
m. glass scrim,
n. glass fibre mesh,
o. wet chopped strands,
p. cemfil (alkali resistant glass fibre for concrete reinforcement)”
8. The interested parties were directed to provide comments or suggestions, if any, on the scope of the product
under consideration and PCN methodology within 15 days from the date of circulation of non-confidential
version of the petition. Thereafter, comments were received by the Authority from various interested parties. A
meeting was held on 1st October 2024 to finalise the scope of the product under consideration and the PCN
methodology.
9. The Authority notes that post PUC-PCN meeting, the domestic industry agreed for exclusion of the following
products from the scope of the product under consideration in addition to the products already excluded from
the scope of the product under consideration.
i. Glass wool acoustical ceiling tiles
ii. Glass wool base board - soundscapes shapes board
iii. Fiber Glass Stitched Mats
iv. Fibre Glass Multi-Axle/Tri-Axle Fabrics
v. Powdered Chopped Stranded Mats
vi. Surface tissue of 30 Gas/ M2
vii. Stitched mats and combination mats
10. The other interested parties have submitted that the words “articles thereof” should be removed from the
definition of the product under consideration as the same leads to ambiguity. The domestic industry agreed to
such a change in the definition of the product under consideration. Accordingly, the words “articles thereof”
have been removed.
11. With regard to the submissions that the word “including” should be changed to “namely” in order to remove
ambiguity from the scope of the product under consideration, the Authority notes that the use of word
“including” may lead to confusion as to the list of products included in the scope of product under
consideration. Use of word “including” signifies that the list of products provided may not be exhaustive. Thus,
in order to remove ambiguity from the scope of the product under consideration, the word “including” is
changed to “namely”.
12. With regard to other exclusions requested by the other interested parties, the domestic industry has provided
evidence that it has manufactured and sold the following identical product in the merchant market. Since the
domestic industry has supplied like article to the following products, the Authority notes that there is no need
for exclusion of the same from the scope of the product under consideration.
i. High Modulus Glass Fibre (H-Glass)
ii. Thermoset chopped strands
iii. Fibre glass single end rovings of 300 tex
iv. Fibre glass single end rovings of 600 tex
v. Fibre glass single end rovings of 1200 tex
vi. Fibre glass single end rovings of 2400 tex
vii. Fibre glass single end rovings of 4800 tex
viii. Fibre glass Assembled rovings (Multiple ends) of 2400 tex
ix. Chopped strand mat of 300 gsm/m2
x. Chopped strand mat of 450 gsm/m2
13. With regard to the submissions that the domestic industry does not manufacture thermoset chopped strands and
the same is being supplied only through toll agreement, the Authority notes that as per the evidence on record,
only a minor part of production process, that is, cutting and drying, for thermoset chopped strands (DUCS) is
outsourced. The Authority has verified the tolling agreement and notes that the production process is majorly
undertaken by the applicant. The major value addition in the product under consideration is made by the
applicant and tolling charges constitute only a minor cost. Further, the toller exclusively provides services to
the applicant only. The subject goods do not change ownership on transfer to the toller for cutting and drying.
Hence, the Authority concludes that such production and sales are of the applicant. Thus, there is no need for
exclusion of thermoset chopped strands from the scope of the product under consideration.
14. The other interested parties have stated that the domestic industry has supplied only miniscule volume of H-
glass in the merchant market and majorly used the same captively. The Authority notes that as per data on
record, the domestic industry has supplied H-glass in the merchant market. As shown in the table below, during
the period of investigation, the domestic industry has catered to substantial demand of H-Glass in the merchant
market. Thus, there is no need for exclusion of H-glass from the scope of the product under consideration.
Particulars Volume (MT) Share (%)
Merchant sales of H-glass by domestic industry *** 73%
Imports of H-Glass in India *** 27%
Demand for H-Glass *** 100%
15. With regard to the submissions that H-glass by the applicant has been sold to only one contract manufacturer
by the domestic industry which in turn sells the downstream product to applicant’s customer, the Authority
notes that the domestic industry has submitted evidence in form of invoices for sale of H-Glass. Such sales are
to more than one customer in the merchant market. Hence, there is no need for exclusion of H-glass from the
scope of the product under consideration.
16. The other interested parties have submitted that the applicant has incorrectly stated that there is no difference
between the technology adopted by the applicant and foreign producers. There is difference in technology for
production of H-glass and E-CR glass. The Authority notes that both E-CR glass and H-glass are imported
from the subject countries as well as produced and sold by the domestic industry. Accordingly, even if there is
difference between the technologies, the domestic industry is producing and selling the product. Hence, it
would not be appropriate to exclude the same.
17. With regard to the request for exclusion of direct rovings having tex not supplied by the domestic industry, it is
noted that the law does not require the domestic industry to supply the exact same product type. The domestic
industry has sold direct rovings with tex, between 200 to 9600. Further, the applicant has submitted that in
order to change tex only machine settings are required to be tweaked and there is no additional machinery or
equipment required to produce different tex. The Authority notes that when the domestic industry has sold
direct rovings with tex between 200 to 9600, it is without basis that the domestic industry cannot supply any
tex between these range and the tex specified by the interested parties. In a product like the present, where the
PUC is sold in a large number of different varieties, it is quite likely that the domestic industry would have not
produced and sold some form or type of the product owing to absence of orders from the consumers. Under the
provisions of Rule 2(d), like article has been defined to include both identical article, as well as article, which
may not be alike in all respects, but has closely resembling characteristics to the product under consideration.
The Authority notes that there is no justification to exclude direct rovings having different tex from the scope
of the product under consideration.
18. With regard to the submissions that Thermoplastic Chopped Strands, Fiber Glass Stitched Mats and Fiber
Glass Multi-Axle/Tri-Axle Fabrics, which are excluded from the scope of the product under consideration,
should be defined properly in order to avoid confusion at customs, the Authority notes that no definition has
been proposed by the other interested parties. The authority has however described these products based on
information on record.
19. With regard to exclusion of S-Glass and R-Glass from the scope of the product under consideration, the
Authority notes that both S-Glass and R-Glass are a type of direct rovings. The domestic industry has supplied
direct rovings in the merchant market during the period of investigation in significant volumes. Thus, the
domestic industry offers like article in the merchant market. Further, since there are no imports of S-Glass and
R-Glass and the domestic industry has sold like article in the domestic market, it would not be appropriate to
exclude these or make a separate PCN for the said products. It is also noted that it is the settled practice of the
Authority to exclude the product type which is actually imported into India and like article to which has not
offered by the domestic industry. This is for the reason that absence of like article by the domestic industry
cannot be established unless the product has been exported to India during the relevant period but a like article is not supplied by the domestic industry.
20. With regard to the submissions that emulsion binder chopped strand mats with GSM below 200 should be
excluded, the domestic industry has provided evidence that it has manufactured emulsion binder chopped
strand mats with 180 GSM during the period of investigation. Further, the applicant has submitted that in order
to manufacture a lower GSM, only machine settings are required to be changed and no new plant or equipment
is required. During the verification, the domestic industry has established that it has in fact produced emulsion
binder chopped strand mats with 150 GSM post the period of investigation, on the same plant and equipment.
Accordingly, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has supplied like article to emulsion binder
chopped strand mats of GSM below 200 being imported into India and there is no justification for exclusion of
the same. However, the Authority further notes that the domestic industry has stated that it does not have the
capability to manufacture emulsion binder chopped strand mats of 100 GSM and the product produced by the
domestic industry cannot be interchangeably used by the consumers using 100 GSM chopped strand mats.
Since the domestic industry has not supplied like article to such product, emulsion binder chopped strand mats
of 100 GSM is excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.
21. Considering the challenges which may be faced in identifying PUC from the NPUC due to similar appearance,
the Authority deems it appropriate that supplier declaration along with technical data sheet with certification as
acceptable to Custom Authorities may be relied upon.
22. Based on the examination made hereinabove, the Authority has considered the following as the product under
consideration for the purpose of the present investigation.
“Glass fibre, namely, assembled rovings (AR), direct rovings (DR), glass chopped strands (CS), glass
chopped strands mat (CSM) of all kinds. Specifically excluded from the scope of product under
consideration are:
a. glass wool,
b. fibre glass wool,
c. fibre glass insulation in wool form,
d. glass yarn,
e. glass woven fabrics,
f. glass fibre fabric,
g. glass woven rovings,
h. chopped strands meant for thermoplastic applications,
i. micro glass fibre with fibre diameter in the range of 0.3 to 2.5 microns,
j. glass fibre surface mat,
k. glass fibre surface veil,
l. glass fibre surface tissue,
m. glass scrim,
n. glass fibre mesh,
o. wet chopped strands,
p. cemfil (alkali resistant glass fibre for concrete reinforcement),
q. glass wool acoustical ceiling tiles,
r. glass wool base board – soundscapes shapes board,
s. glass fibre stitched mats,
t. glass fibre multi-axle/tri-axle fabrics,
u. surface tissues,
v. powdered chopped stranded mats,
w. stitched mats,
x. combination mats
y. emulsion binder chopped strand mats of 100 GSM and below”
23. With regard to the submissions on PCN methodology, the Authority notes that there have been multiple
investigations on the product under consideration in the past. The Authority in the past findings had noted that
there is no requirement to devise PCN based on parameters such as weight, diameter and GSM of product type
as the cost of the product type does not vary substantially due to change in such parameters.
24. With regard to consideration of GSM as PCN parameter, there is no evidence on record that such parameter
leads to material change in cost of production for the subject goods. The Authority notes that 300 GSM and
600 GSM products have been sold at the same time to the same consumer at similar prices. Hence, the same
have not been considered as separate parameter.
25. With respect to consideration of defective product and “A” grade product as different PCNs, the Authority
notes that defective product cannot be considered as a separate PCN as no conclusive evidence with regard to
existence of such a distinct category with clear cost and price difference has been submitted.
26. The Authority notes that since powder binder chopped strand mats has been excluded, there is no need for
considering the same as a separate PCN.
27. With regard to consideration of H-glass as a separate PCN, the Authority notes that as per the data on record,
there is a difference in cost of production of H-Glass and E-Glass. Accordingly, H-Glass has been considered
as a separate PCN for the purpose of the present investigation.
28. The other interested parties have submitted that PCN should be based on glass composition or family of direct
rovings. The Authority notes that R-Glass and S-Glass are merely variants of direct rovings. The interested
parties have not shown with verifiable evidence that there are significant cost differences warranting separate
PCN. In fact, the said variants of direct rovings have not been imported into India and on this account as well,
there is no need for formation of a separate PCNs for the same. A PCN is required only when a product type
having significantly different cost has been exported to India and the Authority is required to determine
dumping margin and injury margin for the same.
29. With regard to consideration of separate PCN for E-Glass, C-Glass and ECR Glass, the domestic industry has
submitted that E-Glass and C-Glass are old product types which have been developed into ECR glass by
producers globally. There are negligible imports of E-Glass and C-Glass product in India. Further, there is no
evidence on record to show that there is a material difference in the cost of production of such grades. Thus, no
PCN has been formulated in this regard.
30. The other interested parties have submitted that PCN should be devised based on application of the product.
The Authority has considered only such parameters as having material impact on the cost of production for
framing separate PCN. It is noted that different application of the same product cannot lead to different cost. It
would therefore not be appropriate to use application as a parameter for PCN. Thus, the Authority has not
considered parameter for framing PCN.
31. With regard to consideration of PCN based on Linear Density or Tex, the Authority notes that as per the
information on record, there is a difference in cost of production for different linear density of direct rovings
and assembled rovings. Thus, linear density has been considered as a PCN parameter for the purpose of the
present investigation.
32. The Authority has considered the following PCN for the purpose of the present investigation.
SN | PCN Criteria | Code Description | Code Sign
---|---|---|---
1. | Form of glass fibre | Direct rovings – high modulus glass fibre | DR(HM)
| | Direct rovings – other than high modulus glass fibre | DR(OM)
| | Assembled rovings | MER
| | Chopped strands | DUCS
| | Chopped strand mats | CSM
2. | Linear density (only for direct and assembled rovings) | 0-300 tex | 3
| | 301-600 tex | 6
| | Above 600 tex | 9
33. The Authority notes that the product produced by the domestic industry is like article to the goods exported
from the subject countries. The product produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject
countries are comparable in terms of physical & chemical properties, functions & uses, product specifications,
pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The subject goods imported from the
subject countries and produced by the domestic industry are technically and commercially substitutable and
used by the consumers interchangeably. In view of the same, the product manufactured by the domestic
industry is considered as like article to the product imported into India.
34. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 70 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the
subheading 7019. The customs classification is only indicative and not binding on the scope of the product
under consideration in the present investigation.
D. SCOPE OF THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
D.1. Views of other interested parties
35. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the scope of domestic
industry and standing.
i. The applicant has imported the product under consideration into India during the injury period. Thus, the
applicant is not an eligible domestic producer to constitute domestic industry.
ii. The Authority should check quantum of imports in relation to demand, subject imports, total imports,
total production, reason for imports and if the domestic producer has benefitted from such dumping, in
order to assess the eligibility of the applicant to constitute domestic industry.
iii. The applicant should not be considered eligible to constitute domestic industry as it is related to
producers and exporters of the product under consideration in the subject countries. The Authority
should check the quantum of exports by the related entities to the applicant and third parties before
considering the applicant eligible.
iv. Since there is a change in ownership, the Authority may check whether the applicant is eligible
domestic industry under Rule 2(b) at the time of issuance of the final findings.
v. The applicant has submitted that its furnaces were shut down due to COVID. Thus, the applicant went
out of production in 2020 and 2021 and ceased to exist as a producer of subject goods, thus, it cannot be
considered as a domestic industry.
vi. The applicant does not qualify as domestic industry as it is selling its business to another entity. The
Authority may include Praana Group as part or domestic industry, seek its support or terminate the
investigation as the applicant is no longer a producer involved in manufacture of like article. As per the
WTO jurisprudence, an investigating Authority must not rely on outdated or irrelevant data about
producers that no longer represent the domestic industry at the time of determination.
vii. Since the new applicant entity will be Goa Glass Fibre, the Authority may check the nature of business
of Goa Glass Fibre, whether it has imported the subject goods from the subject countries and if it is
related to an exporter of the subject goods during the period of investigation.
viii. The reliance placed by the domestic industry on STPP investigation is not correct as in the original
investigation, no submissions or evidence was placed on record regarding discontinuation of domestic
industry. The DGTR discontinued the anti-dumping duty in the mid-term review which establishes that
DGTR follows the principle that duties are not imposed in case of change in the ownership of the
company or production facilities of the domestic industry. Further, SBR investigation cannot be relied
upon as the same was material retardation case and not material injury.
ix. As opposed to the submissions by the domestic industry, absence of opposition by the other domestic
producer cannot be considered as an indirect support to the application. Since Goa Glass Fibre is now a
related party, its support and injury data are essential to establish credibility of the application.
x. In case, the Authority continues the investigation, a mid-term review will be immediately filed post
imposition of anti-dumping duty, as the transaction between the applicant and Praana group will be
completed as soon as Ministry of Finance imposes the anti-dumping duty. Article 11 of the Regulation
(EU) 2016/1036 of the European Union allows for the review of anti-dumping duty after a transfer of
business if there is a change in the structure or ownership of the company involved. Similarly, Section
353.25 of US laws provide that, a change in ownership or structure of the company may lead to a
reassessment of anti-dumping duties.
D.2. Views of the domestic industry
36. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the scope of domestic
industry and standing:
i. Apart from the applicant, there is one other domestic producer of the subject goods in India, namely,
Goa Glass Fibre. The other domestic producer has neither supported nor opposed the application.
ii. The applicant has imported the subject goods from non-subject countries during the period of
investigation. The standing of the applicant is not impacted as it has not imported “dumped” product
into India.
iii. The applicant is related to certain producers of the product under consideration in the subject countries.
However, the exports by such producers to India are insignificant.
iv. The applicant accounts for major proportion of total domestic production in India and should be
considered eligible to constitute domestic industry in the present investigation.
v. Owens Corning has signed an agreement with Praana Group for sales of global glass reinforcement
business and the acquisition is likely to conclude in 6-9 months. Post completion of acquisition Goa
Glass Fibre and the applicant will become related parties.
vi. The profitability position shared by Owens Corning with Praana Group is the same as that reflected in
books of accounts. The same information forms the basis of the data given in the present investigation
vii. The applicant does not have any control over Goa Glass Fibre and cannot be held liable for providing
data for operations of Goa Glass.
viii. The locus standi of the applicant is not impacted due to future change in ownership. The other interested
parties have not pointed out any legal provision or jurisprudence which require the Authority to re-
consider standing for situations arising post period of investigation.
ix. As opposed to the submissions by other interested parties, there is no need for injury analysis post-
acquisition as there is no shut down of operations and change in ownership does not hamper operations
or the data of the applicant. The injury analysis is based on historical data, for the injury period.
x. As opposed to the submissions by the other interested parties, in STPP the domestic production of the
product under consideration ceased due to which a mid-term review was conducted and anti-dumping
duty was revoked. In the present case, there is no plans of cessation of production of subject goods in
India.
xi. Contrary to the submissions of the other interested parties, there is no legal provision which requires the
Authority to analyse business or data of Goa Glass Fibre.
xii. As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, the profits / losses, as per Profit and Loss
account, are completely unaffected by the change in ownership. Only the accumulated losses which are
not