Full Text
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 175] NEW DELHI, MON DAY, JULY 17, 2023/ASHADHA 26, 194 5
CG-DL-E-17072023-247383
ऄलावा कोइ ऄय *** *** *** *** *** 25-35
अयात % *** *** *** ***
अयात % *** *** *** ***
(%)
संबद्ध देि 3,455 1,424 *** *** 0-10
ऄ य *** *** *** *** 15-25
100 100 100 110
100 84 120 119
100 87 102 122
5 ऄ य देि % *** *** *** ***
6 कुल मांग % 100 100 100 100
7 अरओसीइ % *** *** *** ***
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1. 5306,
5306 1090,
5306 2010,
5306 2090,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 16th July , 2023
FINAL FINDINGS
(Case No. AD (SSR) – 02/2023)
Subject: Final Findings - Sunset review investigation of anti -dumpin g duty on the imports of ―flax yarn of
below 70 lea count‖ originating in or exported from China PR -reg.
F. No. 07/03/2023/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 ―Rules‖ or the ―AD Rules‖) thereof.
The Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the ―Authority‖) received an application filed by
M/s Grasim Industries Limited (Jaya Shree Textiles) and Sintex Industries Ltd (hereinafter also referred to as the
―Applicants‖ or ―domestic industry‖) in ac cordance with Act and Rules for sunset review investigation of anti -
dumping duty on imports of Flax Yarn of below 70 Lea Count (hereinafter also referred to as the ―subject goods‖ or
the ―PUC‖) originating in or exported from China PR (hereinafter referred to as the ―subject country‖).
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CA SE
1. The original anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of "flax yarn of below 70 lea count"
originating in or exported from China PR was initiated vide Notification no. F.No.6/3/2018 -DGAD dt
07.02.2 018. The Authority recommended anti -dumping duty on the imports of "flax yarn of below 70 lea
count" from China PR vide its final finding dated 18.09.2018. Based on the recommendations, the anti -
dumping duty was imposed vide Customs Notification No. 53/201 8-Customs (ADD) dated 18.10.2018.
The said duties were levied for a period of 5 years.
2. In terms of Section 9A(5) of the Act the anti -dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to
have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition. The Authority is required to
review whether the expiry of anti -dumping duty is likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury.
3. Further, Rule 23(1B) of the Rules provides as follows:
―any definitive anti -dumping duty lev ied under the Act shall be effective for a period not exceeding
five years from the date of its imposition, unless the designated authority comes to a conclusion, on a
review initiated before that period on its own initiative or upon a duly substantiated r equest made by
or on behalf of the domestic industry, within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of that
period, that the expiry of the said anti -dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury to the domestic industry ."
4. In accordance with the above, the Authority is required to review, on the basis of a duly substantiated
request made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, as to whether the expiry of anti -dumping duty is
likely to lead to the continuation o r recurrence of dumping and injury.
5. In view of the duly substantiated application by the domestic industry with sufficient evidence of the
likelihood of dumping and injury filed on behalf of the domestic industry and in accordance with Section
9A(5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Rules, the Authority initiated a sunset review investigation vide
Notification No. F. No. 07/03/2023 -DGTR dated March 31 2023, to review the need for the continued
imposition of the duties in force in respect of the subject g oods originating in or exported from the subject
country and to examine whether the expiry of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury to the domestic industry.
6. The scope of the present review covers all aspects of th e previous investigation concerning the subject
goods issued vide final finding No. 6/3/2018/DGAD, dated September 18, 2018, which were implemented
vide Notification No. 53/2018 -Customs (ADD) dated 18.10.2018.
B. PROCEDURE
7. The procedure described herein below has been followed with regard to the subject investigation:
i. The Authority notified the embassy of the subject country in India about the receipt of the anti -
dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation.
ii. The Authority issued a public notice dated March 31 2023, published in the Gazette of India
Extraordinary, initiating the sunset review anti -dumping investigation concerning the imports of the
subject goods from China.
iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification dated Mar ch 31 2023, to the Embassy of the
subject country in India, known producers/exporters from the subject country, known importers/users
in India, other Indian producers and other interested parties, as per the information made available by
the applicants.
iv. The Authority provided a copy of the non -confidential version of the application to the known
producers/exporters and to the embassy of the subject country in India in accordance with Rule 6(3)
of the Rules.
v. In the initiation notification, the Authority had called for comments on the proposed PCN
methodology from the interested parties in order to have a fair comparison. No comments were
received from the interested parties and thereafter, vide letter dated 29th May 2023, the interested
parties were requested to file their questionnaire response in accordance with the finalised PCN
methodology.
vi. The interested parties were requested to provide relevant information in the form and manner
prescribed and to make their views known in writing within the prescribed t ime, in accordance with
Rules 6(2) and 6(4) of the Rules.
vii. The embassy of the subject country in India was also requested to advise the producers/exporters from
its country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. A copy of the lett er and
questionnaire sent to the producers/exporters was also sent to the embassy along with the names and
addresses of the known producers/exporters from the subject country.
viii. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in the subject country,
in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
a. Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax Company Limited, China PR,
b. Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Company Limited, China PR,
c. Nanhai Textiles Import and Export Company Limited of Guangdon, China PR
d. Jiam usi Sanhe Linen Textiles Company Limited, China PR
e. Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Company Limited, China PR
f. Ningbo Win Way Company Limited, China PR
g. Huzhou A Xiang Import & Export Trading Company Limited, China PR,
h. Changzhou Meiyuan Flax Textile Company, China PR
i. Huzhou Goldrich Linen Textile Company Limited, China PR
j. Tongling Worldbest Linen and Ramie Company Limited, China PR,
k. Hangzhou Shanglu Silk Company Limited, China PR
l. Tung Ga Linen and Cotton (Changzhou) Company Limited, China PR
m. Yixing Sunshine Linen Texti le Company Limited, China PR
n. Heilongjiang Kingdom Enterprise Company Limited, China PR
o. Suzhou Xinshen Linen Imp Andexp Company Limited, China PR
p. Kunshan Dalixi Trading Company Limited, China PR
q. The Lurex Company Limited, China PR
r. Huaren Linen (Hk) Company Limited, China PR
s. Tongxiang Jieka Import And Export Company Limited, China PR
t. Great Eastern Textiles (Tongling) Company Limited, China PR
u. Zhejiang Axiang Flax Textile Company Limited, China PR
v. Zhejiang Golden Eagle Company Limited, China PR
w. Zhejiang Golde n Eagle Spun Silk Company Limited, China PR
x. Zhejiang Golden Eagle Yili Linen Textile Company Limited, China PR
y. Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax Company Limited, China PR
z. Zhejiang Kingdom Linen Company Limited, China PR
ix. In response, the following exporters/producers f rom the subject country filed exporter‘s questionnaire
response in the prescribed format:
a. Zhejiang Kingdom Linen Company Limited, China PR
b. Heilongjiang Kingdom Linen Company Limited, China PR
c. Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Company Limited, China PR
d. Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax Company Limited, China PR
e. Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Company Limited, China PR
f. Yixing Sunshine Linen Textile Company Limited, China PR
x. The Authority sent importer‘s questionnaires to the following known importers/users of the subject good s
in India, calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
a. Texventures LLP
b. Bombay Rayon Fashions Limited, Maharashtra,
c. Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, Maharashtra,
d. Raymond Luxury Cottons Limited, Maharashtra,
e. Shri Damodar Yarn Manufacturing Private Limited, Daman
f. Bharat Vijay Mills, Gujarat
xi. In response, the following importers/users have responded and filed importer's / user's questionnaire
responses:
a. Texventures LLP
xii. Further information was sought from the applicants and the other interested parties to the extent deemed
necessary.
xiii. Due to the ongoing global pandemic of COVID -I9, all interested parties were asked to share the non -
confidential versions of all their submissions with the other interested parties via email. Submissions
made by all the interested parties to the extent considered relevant have been taken into account in the
final findings' Notification.
xiv. The petition was filed based on the import data obtained from market intelligence and secondary source
for the period 2019 -20 to September 2022. A request was made by the Authority to the Directorate
General of Systems (DG System) to provide the transaction -wise details of imports of the subject goods
for the past three years and the period of investigation, which was received by the Authority. In this
investigation, it was brought to the notice of the Authority that substantial imports are being made in
SEZ units, therefore, the Authority has considered the data obtained from DG Systems and SEZ online
for the period April 2019 to September 2022 in the present investigation. The import data from DG
Systems have been duly corroborated with the SEZ import data and response filed by the responding
exporters.
xv. The domestic industry has submitted its financial data. The non -injurious price (NIP) has been
determined based on the optimum cost of production and the cost to make & sell the subject goods in
India as per the information furnished by the domestic industry and in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules. Such non - injurious price has
been considered to ascertain whether anti -dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be
sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry.
xvi. Physical inspection through on -spot verificatio n of the information provided by the applicants, to the
extent deemed necessary, was carried out by the Authority. Only such verified information with
necessary rectification, wherever applicable, has been relied upon for the purpose of the present final
findings.
xvii. The verification of the information provided by the producers/exporters to the extent deemed necessary,
was carried out by the Authority and such verified information has been relied upon for the purpose of
the present final findings.
xviii. The period o f investigation for the purpose of the present anti -dumping investigation is from October
2021 to September 2022 (12 Months). The injury investigation period has, however, been considered as
the period 2019 -20, 2020 -21, 2021 -22 and the POI. The overlap of six months between 2021 -22 and the
POI has been kept in consideration, while conducting the injury analysis.
xix. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority conducted an oral hearing on June 20 2023, to
provide an opportunity to the interested par ties to present the relevant information orally before the
Authority. All the parties attending the oral hearing were advised to file written submissions of the views
expressed orally. Non -confidential versions of the written submissions were circulated to the interested
parties by email, and an opportunity was given to them to submit rejoinder submissions, if any.
xx. The arguments made in the written submissions/rejoinders received from the interested parties have been
considered in the present final findings .
xxi. The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, wherever found
relevant, have been addressed by the Authority, in this final findings.
xxii. Information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was exam ined 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 confidential and not disclosed to
the other interested p arties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on a confidential basis
were directed to provide sufficient non -confidential version of the information filed on a confidential
basis.
xxiii. Wherever an interested party has refused access to, or has other wise 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 its final findings on the basis of
the facts av ailable.
xxiv. In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules Supra, the essential facts were disclosed by the Authority on 6th
July 2023 to the concerned interested parties. Comments were requested by 11th July 2023. Comments
received on the disclosure statement to th e extent considered relevant by the Authority have been
considered in this final findings.
xxv. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is US$1 = ₹77.48
xxvi. In this Notification, *** represents information furnished by an interested party on a confidential basis
and so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
8. Keeping in view that the present investigation is a sunset review, at the stage of initiation, the scope of the
product under co nsideration as defined in the original investigation was retained. The product under
consideration was accordingly defined as follows:
“7. The product under consideration for the purpose of present investigation is “flax yarn of below
70 lea count (equival ent to 42 Nm)”.
8. Flax Yarn is a natural cellulosic fiber having naturally antimicrobial, antifungal properties. The
Yarn is generally made out of the 100% flax fiber and is called Linen Yarn or flax yarn. The flax
fiber can also be blended with other fib ers for making flax yarn or linen yarn. The primary use of
flax yarn is in making flax fabric. Flax fabric is used for apparel and in home textiles.
9. All other natural cellulosic fibers such as cotton, hemp, jute and ramie are beyond the scope of
the pro duct under consideration for the purpose of present investigations. Flax yarn of 70 and above
lea is specifically excluded from the scope of the product under consideration."
C.1. Views of the other interested parties
9. None of the other interested parties h ave made any submissions in regard to the scope of the product under
consideration and like article.
C. 2. Views of the Domestic industry
10. The views of the domestic industry with regard to the product under consideration and like article are as
follows :
i. The product under consideration in the present petition is ―flax yarn of below 70 lea count (42 Nm)".
Flax yarn of 70 and above lea is specifically excluded from the scope of the product under
consideration.
ii. Flax yarn is a linen yarn. It is a natural cellulo sic fibre, highly moisture absorbent, has higher
conductivity and possesses naturally antimicrobial, antifungal properties. The yarn made out of the
flax fibre is called flax yarn/linen yarn. All other natural cellulosic fibres such as cotton, hemp, jute
and ramie are beyond the scope of product under consideration for the purpose of present petition. If
the product under consideration is described as linen/flax yarn, this is well understood in customs
and market parlance.
iii. The use of flax yarn is in making flax fabric. Flax fabric is used for apparel such as dresses, suits,
separates, skirts, jackets, pants, blouses, shirts, children‘s wear etc., and home textiles such as
curtains, draperies, upholstery, bedspreads, table linens, sheets, dish towels etc.
iv. There is no known difference in the PUC exported from China PR and that produced by the Indian
industry. In the present case, both the imported and the domestic product have comparable
characteristics in terms of parameters such as physical & chemical charact eristics, manufacturing
process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing
and tariff classification, etc. Consumers can use and are using the two interchangeably. The two are
technically and commercially subs titutable and thus, are like article.
v. The product under consideration is generally imported under HS code 5306 1090 and 5306 2090.
However, import can also take place under other HS codes, therefore, it is clarified that the HS codes
are only indicative, and the product description shall prevail in all circumstances.
vi. The Designated Authority adopted a PCN methodology after seeking comments from all interested
parties. The applicants have put on record all relevant information including PCN -wise cost of
production of the domestic industry.
C.3. Examination by the Authority
11. The present investigation is a sunset review and the scope of the product under consideration remains the
same as defined in the final findings of the original investigation.
“Flax Yarn of below 70 lea count (equivalent to 42 Nm)” . It was noted that in Para 9 of the original
final findings that the scope of PUC is “All other natural cellulosic fibers such as cotton, hemp, jute
and ramie are beyond the scope of the product under consideratio n for the purpose of present
investigations. Flax yarn of 70 and above lea is specifically excluded from the scope of the product
under consideration".
12. It is clarified that the scope of the PUC is limited to ―flax yarn of below 70 lea count (equivalent to 42
Nm)‖.
13. The product under consideration is generally classified under Chapter 53 of the Customs Tariff Act under
head 5306 and subheadings 53061010, 53061090, 53062010 and 53062090. The HS codes are considered
only indicative, and the product description is decisive for the purpose of the present investigation.
14. Flax yarn is a natural cellulosic fibre having naturally antimicrobial, antifungal properties. The y arn is
generally made out of 100% flax fibre and is called linen yarn or flax yarn. The flax fibr e can also be blended
with other fibres to make flax yarn or linen yarn. The primary use of flax yarn is in making flax fabric. Flax
fabric is used for apparel and in -home textiles.
15. The Authority notes that the subject goods are being imported in various L ea Counts. The applicants had
proposed product control numbers (PCN) in order to make PCN to PCN comparison. Considering the
parameters that impact the associated cost and prices of the product, the Authority invited comments on
the proposed PCN methodolog y vide the initiation notification. However, no comments were received by
the interested parties within stipulated time. The Authority notified a PCN methodology vide
communication no 7/3/2023 - DGTR, dated 29th May 2023. The PCN methodology adopted in the present
investigation is as follows:
SN Lea Category Nm Category PCN
1 Upto 5 lea Upto 3 Nm 01
2 Above 5 and upto 10 Above 3 and upto 6 02
3 Above 10 and upto 15 Above 6 and upto 9 03
4 Above 15 and upto 20 Above 9 and upto 12 04
5 Above 20 and upto 25 Above 12 and upto 15 05
6 Above 25 and upto 30 Above 15 and upto 18 06
7 Above 30 and upto 35 Above 18 and upto 21 07
8 Above 35 and upto 40 Above 21 and upto 24 08
9 Above 40 and upto 45 Above 24 and upto 27 09
10 Above 45 and upto 50 Above 27 and upto 30 10
11 Above 50 and upto 55 Above 30 and upto 33 11
12 Above 55 and upto 60 Above 33 and upto 36 12
13 Above 60 and upto 65 Above 36 and upto 39 13
14 Above 65 and Less than 70 Above 39 and Less than 42 14
16. The Authority notes that the product under consideration produced by the domestic industry and imported
from the subject country are comparable in terms of physical & chemical characteristics, functions & uses,
product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing, and tariff classificat ion of the goods. The goods
produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject country are like articles in terms of the
Rules. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The Authority holds that the subject goods
produced by the domestic industry are like article to the product under consideration imported from the
subject country within the scope and meaning of Rule 2(d) of anti -dumping Rules.
D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1. Views of the other interested parties
17. None of the other interested parties have made any submission regarding the standing and scope of
domestic industry.
D.2. Views of the Domestic industry
18. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to standing and scope of t he
domestic industry:
i. The application has been filed by M/s Jaya Shree Textiles Limited and M/s Sintex Industries. The
applicants account for a major proportion in total Indian production of the product concerned in India.
ii. The application was supported by M/s Linen Art Pvt. Ltd., M/s Golden Fibre LLP and M/s Raymond
Luxury Cottons Ltd. at the time of filing the application.
iii. The applicants are neither related to any producer/exporter of the product under consideration in
China PR, nor are they related to an y importer in India or exporter in the subject country. Further, the
applicants have not imported the product under consideration from China. Thus, the applicants should
be considered eligible to constitute domestic industry in terms of Rules.
iv. The applican ts are not related to any producer -exporter of the subject goods in China or importer in
India.
v. The applicants have sufficient standing and constitute domestic industry within the meaning of the
Rules, even though this is not a condition mandatory for a su nset review investigation.
D.3. Examination by the Authority
19. Rule 2(b) of the Anti -Dumping Rules defines domestic industry as under:
―(b) “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like
article and any a ctivity 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 arti cle or are themselves importers thereof in such case the
term „domestic industry‟ may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers ‖.
20. The present application is filed by M/s Grasim Industries Limited (Jaya Shree Textiles) and
Sintex Industries Ltd. M/s Raymond Luxury Cottons, M/s Linen Art Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Golden Fibre LLP
have also supported the petition and requested imposition of the duty. There are three more domestic
producers of the subject goods, namely, M/s Champdani Industries, M/s Kamarh ati Jute Mill and M/s
WFB Baird & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. It is seen that the number of domestic producers has increased from the
original investigation.
21. Further, the production by the applicants constitutes around ***% of the total Indian production and
constitutes a major proportion of Indian production. However, relevant information provided by the
supporters as made available has been nevertheless separately examined at relevant places in order to
ascertain whether its performance shows a materially differ ent position as compared to the applicants.
22. On examination of the material on record as above, and considering the legal provisions, the Authority
holds that the applicants constitute domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b) of the Anti -dumping Rules and
the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules.
E. ISSUES RELATED TO CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1. Views of the other interested parties
23. Following submissions have been made by other interested parties in regard to confidentia lity claimed by
them and the domestic industry :
i. The domestic industry has claimed confidentiality on information that is not confidential, such as
their financial statements and the statement of Indian production. This is preventing other interested
partie s from making their submissions, as they do not have access to this information.
ii. The imports by the petitioner and supporters should also be disclosed so that other interested parties
can objectively comment on the petitioner‘s eligibility to be treated as domestic industry under Rule
2(b) of the AD Rules.
iii. Information pertaining to raw material, utilities, other conversion cost and interest cost reported in
Format C1 are treated in confidence without being accompanied by a non - confidential summary.
iv. The petitioner has claimed excessive confidentiality and thus, the right of defence cannot be fully
exercised. The petition fails to meet the standards laid down in Rule -7 of the Rules and Trade Notice
No. 01/2013 dated December 09, 2013. Our right to defence is curtailed as significant data is not
properly indexed in NCV petition.
E.2. Views of the Domestic Industry
24. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry in regard to confidentiality:
i. The applicants have claimed only such information as confidential which is neither in public domain
not mandated by law to disclose. Further, the petitioner has provided reasons, at appropriate places,
for claiming confidentiality.
ii. The information related to production (own, supporters, other producers, tota l in India), export sales
volume, domestic sales volume (own, supporters, other producers), imports of the subject goods by
petitioner and supporters, market share, captive consumption, capacity utilisation, inventory and
employment of the petitioner are b usiness sensitive information, disclosure of which would seriously
jeopardise the commercial interests of petitioner.
iii. Costing information by nature is highly business sensitive and therefore claimed as confidential.
Petitioner has not prepared its injury i nformation on the basis of published information of the legal
entity. The applicants maintain separate financial records for divisions dealing in the subject goods,
which operates as a division or unit of the company. All information has been taken from th e
financial accounts of the applicants, which are separately audited. The financial information related
to applicants is not separately available in the public domain. The relevant information has been
provided to the Authority on a confidential basis as the disclosure of the same would jeopardise the
interest of the applicants.
iv. The applicants have estimated the allowances/deductions used for the calculation of net export price
and sales of other Indian producers. The exporters have not shown (in fact, not even claimed) that the
amounts adopted by the applicants are excessive. In any case, the Authority will consider the data
submitted by the exporters after due verification.
v. The details of imports made by the applicants and the supporters are business -sensi tive information
and, therefore cannot be disclosed. The information has been provided in the indexed form which is
justifiable as per the law.
vi. The information related to raw material, utilities, other conversion cost and interest cost reported in
Format C 1 is confidential in nature and disclosure of which would seriously jeopardise the interests
of the applicants.
vii. The respondents have claimed excessive confidentiality in the exporter questionnaire response and
the same curtails our right to comment as the responses do not provide a meaningful summary
without assigning any good cause for the same. The submissions of all the exporters and producers
from the subject country should be disregarded and deny them the individual treatment.
E. 3. Examination by t he Authority
25. Various submissions have been made by the applicants as well as the other interested parties during the
course of the investigation with regard to confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant by the
Authority , have been examined below.
26. With regard to the confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of the Anti -Dumping Rules provides as follows:
―Confidential information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6,
sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub -rule (4) of rul e 15 and subrule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received
under sub -rule (1) 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 it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without
specific authorisation of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated Authority may require th e parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish
non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such
information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated Authorit y a statement of
reasons why summarisation is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rule (2), 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 authorise its disclosure in a generalised or summary form, it may disregard such
information.‖
27. The Authority considers that any information which is by nature confidential (for example, because its
disclosure would be of significant competitive advantage to a competitor or because its disclosure would
have a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom
that person acquired the information), or which is provided on a confidential basis by the parties to an
investigation shall, upon good cause shown, should be treated as such by the Authority. Such information
cannot be disclosed without the specific permission of the party submitting it.
28. The Authority has consid ered the claims of confidentiality made by the applicants and the other interested
parties and on being satisfied about the same, the Authority has allowed the claims on confidentiality. The
Authority made available to all the interested parties the non -confidential version of evidence submitted
by various interested parties for inspection.
F. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMIS SION
F.1. VIEWS OF OTHER INTER ESTED PARTIES
29. FOLLOWING MISCELLANE OUS SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE OTH ER
INTERESTED PARTIES:
i. The petitioner has not brought any substantive evidence to provide the condition for initiation of AD
investigation while the investigating Authority has not carried out appropriate scrutiny of facts.
ii. Domestic supply of the PUC in the Indian market falls significantly as most of the Indian producers
of the PUC, including the DI, are more concerned towards fulfilling their own captive demand. They
increase their captive consumption of the PUC when the demand is high (peak season), to
manufacture and supply linen textile an d apparel to their own retail stores. DI itself imports from
Bangladesh to fulfil its captive demand. Its own production falls short. Downstream users are forced
to import from China and other countries to fulfil their demand by paying higher prices.
iii. The a pplicants have themselves imported from Bangladesh and have stated that the prices of
Bangladesh to India should not be considered for construction of normal value as these are dumped
imports. This should be considered as a self -admission of DI that they a re importing from
Bangladesh at dumped prices for themselves. They are self –inflicting injury.
iv. The applicants are seeking excess protection, which is not the purpose of ADD. ADD is supposed to
create a level playing field, which it has done already. There fore, there is no need for the
continuation.
v. The Authority to verify whether the applicants are manufacturing different products on the same
production line as the PUC and any inconsistencies in apportionment should be addressed.
vi. Paper book should be circu lated with all interested parties before the hearing.
vii. The petitioner, Grasim Industries, takes benefit of anti -dumping measures when it undergoes
negative circumstances, and enough protection has already been given in other products of the
petitioner. It i s a habitual user of anti -dumping measures.
viii. The Competition Commission of India has imposed a penalty of Rs. 302 crore on Grasim Industries
for adopting monopolistic practices and abusing its dominant position. In case the duty is
recommended, they may mis use the anti -dumping mechanism to lead to a monopolistic situation in
flax yarn also.
F.2. VIEWS OF THE DOMESTI C INDUSTRY
30. Following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i. The information provided in the petition clearly show th at the domestic industry has performed
better after the imposition of ADD. The Authority had initiated the present investigation on the basis
of sufficient evidence of likelihood of dumping of the subject goods from the subject country, and
injury to the d omestic industry and causal link between dumping and injury suffered by the domestic
industry.
ii. The captive demand of the Indian industry is below 15% of the total demand. A significant portion
of the capacity of Indian industry is still left underutilised, especially with other producers. The
captive demand cannot be the reason for increase in imports as there is still sufficient capacity to
meet the entire Indian demand.
iii. The performance of the domestic industry has improved after imposition of ADD. Howeve r, the
position of the domestic industry is still vulnerable as is evident with the post POI performance
which shows that the industry has started incurring losses.
iv. The domestic industry has not suffered injury due to imports from Bangladesh. The interest ed parties
have contended that a volume of 3,407 MT from China was not capable of causing injury and a
volume of *** MT imported by one of the applicants caused injury to the domestic industry.
v. Imports from Bangladesh were very low in volume in relation t o production and consumption in
India. Further, share of imports made by one of the domestic industry were quite insignificant
considering its production and Indian consumption.
vi. Even with a total of 8 producers in India with capacity to meet the entire In dian demand, the imports
from China have amounted to around 20% throughout the injury period instead of the base year,
despite duties in place. This signifies that the performance of Indian industry is of no substance to
the Chinese producers.
vii. The performa nce of the domestic industry has improved however is not as strong as has been
projected by the respondents.
viii. 3,407 MT of imports is still significant as these imports are taking place when there is no demand
supply gap, unlike the situation that was preva lent in OI where imports was a necessity. Imports
have maintained almost 20% share in the demand and the same cannot be considered as
insignificant.
ix. The applicants are helpless against unfair trade practices and dumped foreign imports causing injury.
The o nly remedy available against said practices in law is trade remedial measures. The industry
facing injury due to dumping can only seek remedy to the injury via an ADD investigation, and
therefore participation in unrelated ADD investigations is of no essen ce for the present investigation.
x. The paperbook contained information that was all available in the NCV of the application as shared
with the other interested parties. As there was no new information shared during the oral hearing, the
paperbook wasn‘t ci rculated beforehand as all the information had already been shared in the NCV.
xi. The CCI investigation is unrelated to the ongoing review investigation. The CCI action has no
impact on the ongoing investigation. Additionally, the present review investigatio n is for the entire
Indian industry and note merely for one company.
F.3. EXAMINATION BY THE A UTHORITY
31. Miscellaneous submissions by the interested parties have been examined as under:
i. With regards to the submissions made by the interested parties that the domestic industry has not
brought any substantive evidence to provide the condition for initiation of AD investigation and the
investigating Authority has not carried out appropriate scrutiny of facts, the Authority notes that the
applicants had provided sufficient information that meets the required conditions for initiation of the
present review investigation. The investigation was initiated after satisfying that sufficient evidence,
as required under Rules, was available justifying the initiation.
ii. As re gards the argument that the domestic supply of the PUC in the Indian market falls significantly
due to the Indian producers being more inclined towards fulfilling their captive demand. Captive
consumption of the Indian Industry as per the information provi ded by the domestic industry, is
under 15% of the total Indian demand. The Authority further notes that the Indian industry is left
with unutilised capacity, which surpasses the volume that is being consumed captively by the Indian
producers. This shows th at captive consumption is not the reason for imports made by the
downstream industry. The Authority notes that, the other interested parties have not provided any
evidence to establish their argument. In any, case, the Authority considers that a gap in dem and and
supply cannot be a reason for depriving the domestic industry of seeking redressal against the
likelihood of dumping and injury by the subject imports.
iii. Regarding the submission that the applicants have imported from Bangladesh and the industry is
causing self -inflicted injury, the Authority notes that imports made by the applicant company is
insignificant in relation to its production and Indian consumption. Further, total imports from
Bangladesh are low in relation to Indian consumption as against imports from China which remains
significant even with the imposition of duties. The DG Systems data considered shows that the price
from Bangladesh is higher than the price at which goods are being exported from China.‘
iv. As regards the contention that dome stic industry should circulate paperbook, the Authority has noted
that the domestic industry had shown figures and information already provided in the NCV of their
application. This NCV of the application was already circulated with other interested partie s by the
applicant. Further, the applicants circulated the paperbook following the oral hearing in order to
enable the interested parties to give comments in its written submissions.
v. As regards the contention that applicants are a frequent and habitual use r of anti -dumping measures,
the Authority notes that anti -dumping duties are remedial measures that can only be imposed after
extensive scrutiny and investigation. These measures are only imposed after establishing the
existence of dumping, injury and a ca usal link between the two. The Authority considers that the
applicant's participation in other AD investigations in other products has no effect on the present
review investigation.
vi. Regarding the submission that the Competition Commission of India has imp osed penalties on
Grasim for monopolistic practice, the Authority notes that the investigation by the CCI is unrelated
to the present review investigation. The CCI had investigated Grasim for practices in an unrelated
product. In addition to the above, the role of CCI and remedy under the AD rules are on a different
premise, and therefore to say that since there is a penalty imposed by the CCI on one of the
applicants constituting the domestic industry in the current investigation and therefore remedy under
AD Rules cannot be provided is untenable. The Authority notes that the scope of the present
investigation is with regard to examining the possibility of likelihood of continuation or recurrence
of dumping of the product under consideration, whether the s ame is likely to cause injury to the
domestic industry and whether anti -dumping duties are required to be extended.
G. DETERMINATION OF NOR MAL VALUE, EXPORT PR ICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
G.1. VIEWS OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
32. The submissions made by the other interested parties on determination of normal value, export price and
dumping margin are as follows:
i. Prices from Ethiopia should not be discarded merely because the investment in Ethiopia is from
Chinese manufacturers. Goods produced in Ethiopia are neithe r of Chinese origin nor are affected
by prices in China. The Ethiopian producer‘s relation with Kingdom Group, China is irrelevant.
Further, the applicants have not provided any evidence as to how the investments in Ethiopia affects
the price of the PUC fr om Ethiopia. Ethiopian prices are in fact higher than prices from Bangladesh
during the POI.
ii. Determination of normal value based on constructed cost in India with reasonable returns is illegal
and contrary to Para 7 of Annexure -I. Normal value is required to be determined having regard to
the various sequential alternatives provided under Para 7 of Annexure -I.
iii. The normal value must be determined in accordance with the hierarchy of methods prescribed in
Para 7 of Annexure -I of the AD Rules. The price of th e PUC from Bangladesh should be used as the
normal value in the second option under paragraph 7 of Annexure -I to the 1995 Rules.
iv. Export price of Kingdom Group should be determined based on their questionnaire responses.
Respondents filed both parts of ques tionnaires meant for SSR investigation along with the
transaction wise details of exports to third countries and identified PCNs.
v. Disregard PCNs with negative dumping margin and considering only PCNs with positive dumping
margin is called zeroing, which is illegal. There is no provision for zeroing under the Indian law.
Reference made to Appellate Body Report in European Communities –cotton -type Bed Linen from
India, and the Appellate Body Report in United States –Softwood Lumber, where it was held that
zeroing fails to fully and duly account for actual prices of export transaction that take place during a
POI and result in inflated dumping margin.
vi. The applicants have also not provided any evidence for claiming that there is targeted dumping in
the present r eview.
vii. The applicants have not provided any data to the other interested parties that performance of the
domestic industry has deteriorated post POI.
viii. As a result of the strong protection afforded to the domestic industry the subject imports declined
from 9,371 MT in the POI of the original investigation to 3,407 MT in the POI of the present
review. The import price from China has also almost doubled in the POI of the current review
compared to the POI in the original investigation.
ix. The domestic industry ha s not shown that the company is dumping the PUC into India, nor had it
showed that it has excess or surplus capacities. It has also not shown that there is price suppression
or depression in the market and also has not provided any other relevant evidence to support its
claim.
x. Provisions of Section 9A(6A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which states that the margin of
dumping for an exporter has to be determined based on the information provided by that exporter.
This provision applies both in original in vestigations as well as sunset reviews conducted pursuant
to Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
G.2. Views of the Domestic Industry
33. The following are the submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to determination of normal
value, e xport price and dumping margin are as follows:
i. The subject country has continued to dump into India despite the imposition of antidumping duty.
ii. The dumping margin for some of the PCNs where imports are higher is far more significant. This
implies ―targeted dumping‖.
iii. The Authority should determine why the dumping margin should be determined on the basis of all
imports when exporters have resorted to targeted dumping in the Indian market.
iv. PCNs with negative dumping margin should be disregarded and only PCNs w ith positive dumping
margins should be adopted.
v. Market economy status cannot be granted to the respondents unless the responding exporters satisfy
that none of their major shareholders is a state owned/controlled entity, that the prices of major
inputs sub stantially reflect market values; unless the responding Chinese exporters pass the test in
respect of each and every parameter laid down under the rules and that the responding company has
participated in the present investigation along with its related pa rties involved with the PUC.
vi. Market economy treatment cannot be given where Chinese exporters are unable to establish that
their books are consistent with International Accounting Standards (IAS).
vii. It is for the responding Chinese exporters and not for the Authority to establish that they are
operating under market economy conditions.
viii. The normal value for China in such a case can be determined only in accordance with the provisions
of para 7 of the Annexure I to Anti -dumping Rules in view of the aforemention ed facts and
circumstances.
ix. Normal value in China of the product under consideration could not be determined on the basis of
price or constructed value in a market economy third country for the reason that the relevant
information is not publicly available .
x. Normal value in China could not be determined on the basis of price from such third country to
other country, including India as the relevant information is not publicly available pertaining to
exports from market economy third countries to other countri es. Regarding imports into India, apart
from China, imports are from Ethiopia and Bangladesh. Imports from Ethiopia are from related
party of the Chinese producer and is in the same group exports (Kingdom group) and the import
price from Bangladesh is dump ed, therefore both these prices are not appropriate to be taken for
determination of normal value.
xi. The applicant has determined Normal Value in China on the basis of the cost of production,
considering consumption norms of the domestic industry for raw ma terial and utilities, taking the
price of all raw materials as per the domestic industry and duly adjusted with selling, general and
administrative expenses and considering the consumption norms of the applicants.
xii. The export price is constructed based on the information available from the import data after making
due adjustments based on the best available information with the industry to make it comparable with
normal value.
xiii. The dumping margin is positive and substantial.
xiv. The response of the respondents should not be accepted if the exporters have not filed transaction
wise details of exports to third countries and have not identified PCN therein, in any case, the
Authority should not accept the EQR.
xv. The very fact that the exporters have resorted to dumpin g gets established by their tacit admission in
not denying the existence of dumping.
xvi. None of the exporters have claimed market economy treatment. In fact, they have stated that they do
not request market economy treatment and that they accept the normal va lue determined by DGTR.
G.3. Examination by the Authority
34. Under section 9A (1) (c), normal value in relation to an article means:
(i) the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when destined 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 low 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
country or territory to an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the
rules made under sub -section (6); or
(b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with
reasonable additi on for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as
determined in accordance with the rules made under sub - section (6):
Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and
where the arti cle 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 countr y of origin.
35. Article 15 of the China‘s Accession Protocol with the 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 SC M Agreement shall apply in
proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the following:
"a) In determining price comparability under 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 clearl y show that my conditions prevail in the industry
producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product,
the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation
in determining price comparability;
ii. The importing WTO 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 the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies described
in Articles l4(a), l4(b), I4(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
methodologies 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 te rms and conditions
prevailing outside China.
c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a) to
the Committee 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 it 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
provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 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 non -market economy provisions of
subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector."
36. It is noted that while the provisions contained i n Article 15(a)(ii) have expired on 11.12.2016. However ,
the provisions under Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO read with obligation under 15 (a) (i) of the Accession
protocol require the criterion stipulated in para 8 of Annexure I of India's AD Rules to be sati sfied through
the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire for claiming the market economy
status.
37. At the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded as per the information given by the applicants. Upon
initiation, the Authority advised the producers/ exporters in China PR to respond to the notice of initiation
and provide information relevant to the determination of their market economy status. The Authority sent
copies of the supplementary questionnaire to all the known produce rs/ exporters for rebutting the
presumption of non - market economy in accordance with criteria laid down in Para 8(3) of Annexure -I to
the Rules and furnish relevant detailed information. The Authority also requested the Government of
China PR to advise th e producers/ exporters in China PR to provide the relevant information. The
following producers/exporters have co-operated in this investigation by filing the questionnaire response:
a. Zhejiang Kingdom Linen Company Limited, China PR
b. Heilongjiang Kingdom Lin en Company Limited, China PR
c. Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Company Limited, China PR
d. Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax Company Limited, China PR
e. Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Company Limited, China PR
f. Yixing Sunshine Linen Textile Company Limited, China PR
38. None of th e exporters/producers contested the NME status of China. Thus, in view of the above position
and in the absence of rebuttal of the non -market economy presumption by any Chinese exporting
company, the Authority, consider it appropriate to treat China PR as a non -market economy country in the
present investigation and proceeds with para 7 of Annexure -I to the Rules for determination of normal
value in case of China PR.
39. As regards the argument of targeted dumping margin should be determined in the present cas e, it is noted
that sufficient evidence has not been made available showing that the export price by the exporters varies
significantly depending on the purchaser, region or time period. Thus, the Authority has not determined
the targeted dumping margin.
G.4. NORMAL VALUE FOR CHINA PR
40. The Authority notes that no evidence has been provided by the domestic industry or other interested
parties on prices in market economy third countries. The global trade data also could not be used to
consider price from a market economy third country in view of the fact of various PCNs involved. Further,
as regards imports into India is concerned, it is seen that imports from Ethiopia and Bangladesh are
significant. The applicants have contended that the price of imports i nto India from Ethiopia is distorted
due to the exporter being an extension of a Chinese producer. The applicants have also reported the
existence of subsidies being granted to the Ethiopian producer. The countervailability of schemes
prevailing in Ethiopi a is not a subject concerning the present investigation. The Authority notes that the
imports from Ethiopia are only of 2 PCNs and imports from Bangladesh are only of 3 PCNs. These 2/3
PCNs cannot represent the 14 PCNs considered by the Authority for this investigation. Thus, the normal
value could not be determined on the basis of the price from such countries to India.
41. Therefore, the Authority has determined the normal value for the subject imports in China as per the
―price actually paid or payable in In dia‖ as stipulated in para 7 of Annexure – I to the AD Rules, 1995. It
has been computed based on the cost of production of the domestic industry, with reasonable addition for
selling, general and administrative expenses, and profits. The normal value was constructed PCN wise for
a fair comparison. The weighted average on the basis of quantities of various PCN by the respective
producer exporter is shown in the dumping margin table below.
G.5. EXPORT PRICE
A) Kingdom Group: M/s Zhejiang Kingdom Linen Co., Ltd., M/s Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax Co., Ltd., and M/s
Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Co., Ltd., M/s Heilongjiang Kingdom Linen Co., Ltd.
42. From the responses filed, it is noted that Kingdom Group comprises of the following four related entities
involved in the productio n and exports of the product concerned to India:
i. Zhejiang Kingdom Linen Company Limited, China PR -
ii. Heilongjiang Kingdom Linen Company Limited, China PR
iii. Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Company Limited, China PR
iv. Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax Company Limited, China PR
43. The abov e-mentioned four companies have filed separate responses to the Exporter‘s Questionnaire.
Zhejiang Kingdom Linen Co., Ltd. was not involved in direct exports of the subject goods during the POI,
it exported to India through Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Co., Ltd., during the
POI.
44. The volume of imports claimed by the exporters/producers in the EQR was compared with the DG
system‘s data. The Authority noted a difference between the data reported by the exporters when
compared with t he data from DG Systems. The Authority proposed to use exports made by these
exporters/producers as reported in DG Systems data for the purpose of determining export price. Upon
issuance of the Disclosure Statement, all the responding exporters/producers h ave contended that the
export price should be considered based on the response made by the exporters in their EQR. In the
submissions made by the responding exporters/producers, they have explained that the mismatch in data
may be on account of the fact th at (a) sales made to units located in SEZs may not have fully reflected in
DG Systems data (b) transfer of the subject goods to FTWZ may not have reflected in database and (c)
time differences between date of shipping and date of landing in India. The Auth ority has therefore
considered export price based on the response filed by the exporters. Adjustments claimed by the
exporters have been duly considered by the Authority.
45. The Authority while doing the analysis of the EQR data and cross -verifying with DG sy stem data had
found that the company ― Heilongjiang Kingdom Linen Company Limited ‖ had not exported any volume
during the POI contrary to what they reported in their EQR. The invoices presented by the exporter bear
the name of some other company. The export ers have thereafter clarified, based on the evidence already
on record of the investigation through business license, invoices, export documents that the Chinese name
of the entity is the same and the entity bears a unique Uniform Social Credit Code confir ming that the
entities are same. The Authority has considered ―Heilongjiang Kingdom Enterprises Co. Ltd‖ as reported
in the export documents in the duty table.
46. Accordingly, the NEP has been worked out PCN wise for comparison with the respective CNV and the n
weighted average has been calculated. The weighted average net export price determined for exports to
India is as shown in the dumping margin as per Table in the following paragraphs.
B) M/s Yixing Sunshine Linen Textile Co., Ltd. (Producer/Exporter)
47. M/s Yi xing Sunshine Linen Textile Co., Ltd has filed exporter questionnaire response. It is noted that M/s
Yixing Sunshine Linen Textile Co., Ltd., is a producer as well as exporter of the subject goods. During the
POI, M/s Yixing Sunshine Linen Textile Co., Ltd ., exported the subject goods to India directly.
48. As per the EQR submissions, the volume claimed by the exporters/producers was compared with the DG
system‘s data. The Authority noted that there exists a difference between the data reported by the exporter
when compared with the data from DG Systems. The Authority proposed to use exports made by these
producers as reported in DG Systems data for the purpose of determining export price. Upon issuance of
the disclosure statement, the responding exporters/prod ucers have contended that the export price should
be considered based on the response made by the exporters in their EQR including all export sales to SEZ.
It has been submitted that the authority considered export sales to SEZ in the past investigation. T he
Authority has verified the accuracy of data from DG Systems and SEZ data and therefore considered
export price based on the response by the exporters. Adjustments claimed by the exporters have been duly
considered by the Authority.
49. Adjustments as per t he claim of the responding producer/exporter except for ocean freight which was not
provided by the responding producer/exporter, has been considered by the Authority. For ocean freight,
the Authority has considered the information provided by the largest exporter of the subject country. It
was argued that commission has not been paid by the exporter, thus the adjustment made towards
commission paid has been corrected.
50. Accordingly, the NEP has been worked out PCN wise for comparison with the respective CN V and then
the weighted average has been calculated. The weighted average net export price determined for exports to
India is as shown in the dumping margin as per Table in the following paragraphs.
C) M/s Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Co. Ltd. (Pro ducer/Exporter)
51. M/s Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Co. Ltd. has filed exporter questionnaire response. It is noted
that it is a producer and exporter of the subject goods. During the POI, it has exported the subject goods
directly. Adjustments tow ards inland transportation and others, overseas freight, overseas insurance, bank
charges and credit have been claimed by the producer and exporters and the same have been allowed by
the Authority.
52. As per the EQR submissions, the volume claimed by the exp orters/producers was compared with the value
in DG system‘s data. The Authority noted that there exists a difference between the data reported by the
exporter when compared with the data from DG Systems. The Authority proposed to use exports made by
these producers as reported in DG Systems data for the purpose of determining export price. Upon
issuance of the Disclosure Statement, all the responding exporters/producers have contended that the
export price should be considered based on the response made by the exporters in their EQR including all
export sales to SEZ. It has been submitted that the authority considered export sales to SEZ in the past
investigation. The Authority has verified the accuracy of data from DG Systems and SEZ data and
therefore cons idered export price based on the response by the exporters. Adjustments claimed by the
exporters have been duly considered by the Authority.
53. Accordingly, the NEP has been worked out PCN wise for comparison with the respective CNV and then
the weighted ave rage has been calculated. The weighted average net export price determined for exports to
India is shown in the dumping margin as per the table in the following paragraphs.
H. DETERMINATION OF DUM PING MARGIN
54. The dumping margin determined for each co -operating producers/exporters based on PCN wise
constructed normal value and net export price, is determined as follows:
SN Producer/Exporter Quantity CNV NEP Dumping Margin
MT USD/Kg USD/Kg USD/Kg % % Range
1 Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Co.,
Ltd/ Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax
Co., Ltd./ Zhejiang Kingdom
Linen Co., Ltd/ Heilongjiang
Kingdom Enterprises Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** *** Negative
2 Yixing Sunshine Linen Textile
Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** *** Negative
3 Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia
Flax Textile Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** *** Negative
4 Any other than the producers
at
Sl. No. 1-3 *** *** *** *** *** 25-35
I. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
I.1. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
55. The following submissions have been made by the other interested part ies with regard to injury and causal
link:
i. Even the applicants did not claim injury due to the subject imports but stated improvement due to
ADD and that protection is required as the industry is in a fragile state. Conditions of Indian
industry improved t o the level where there is healthy competition between Indian manufacturers.
Based on market intelligence, respondents plotted average selling prices of the domestic industry
and other Indian producers, which the Authority can verify.
ii. The domestic industry is not vulnerable in terms of price sensitivity. There is a healthy competition
between the Indian producers. So much so that the other Indian manufacturers have been
undercutting the exporters as well as the applicants.
iii. Legally untenable submission that that even if one condition is satisfied, duty cannot be revoked, as
no one factor can be a decisive guidance for determination of likelihood of continuance of material
injury.
iv. The applicant‘s contention is false that none of the respondents argued against likelihood or threat of
injury. Respondent raised arguments against the likelihood or threat of injury during the oral hearing
dated 20th June 2023 and also in written submission.
v. The burden of proof is with the applicants to establish likelihood of injury . However, the applicants
have failed to provide any positive evidence. The applicants are merely alleging or remote
possibilities to contend likelihood of injury. It is contravention to WTO Panel Report in Pakistan -
Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Film f rom UAE and WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Oil
Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico.
vi. The Authority should use average cost of production of the applicants and not the cost of production
during the POI for construction of NIP. This is in direct contra vention of paras 3 and 4 of Annexure
III of the AD Rules. Actual data relating to cost of production for POI of domestic industry only
needs to be considered for determination of NIP.
vii. Domestic industry's own statement is that there is no price suppression or depression. They have not
shown how there could be price suppression/depression on account of imports in the event of expiry
of duties.
viii. The Authority to consider weighted average of NIP of individual domestic producers and take the
respective share of domestic production of the subject goods for computation of weighted average
NIP for domestic industry as a whole.
ix. Profitability of the applicants increased throughout injury period of present review. Thus, no relation
between imports from China PR and pro fitability. Market share also remained stable over the period.
Other producers managed to increase their share. Failure of the applicants to perform as well as their
competitors in the Indian market not due to imports. The domestic industry is oriented tow ards
exports and is growing its business in the export markets quite profitably. The focus of the Indian
industry is their own captive consumption and export market.
x. The market share of the domestic industry has remained stable throughout the injury period , and
imports from the subject country or other countries is too low to affect the market share of the
domestic country.
xi. In the present case, anti -dumping duty has been in force for five years. The economic situation of
the domestic industry and the India n producers has significantly improved since then. There are now
eight domestic producers of the subject goods in India, which is a substantial increase from four
domestic producers during the original investigation in the year 2018.
xii. The domestic industry 's cash profits have increased drastically throughout the injury period, but its
PBT has decreased due to high interest costs.
xiii. The landed value of the Chinese imports is similar to the average selling price of the domestic
industry. The broad range of 0 -10% price undercutting given in the table above is only to hide the
very low or nil price undercutting. Further, with such high landed prices from China that are
comparable with domestic industry‘s selling prices, price suppression or price depression is ou t of
the question. For Kingdom Group, the landed value of the imported goods is [higher and at
instances, at par with the selling price of the domestic industry and other Indian producers].
xiv. There is no volume effect and price effect. Economic Parameters h ave improved.
xv. Fresh calculation of dumping margin, injury margin and rate of duty should be done for
Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia as it did not export during the original investigation and only in the SSR.
In case, the Authority intends to recommend duty, it should consider the Rule 23(1), Rule 23(3),
Rule 4(d) and Rule 17(1) read with Annexure 3 and incorporate the same while calculating dumping
margin. List of investigations where anti -dumping duty was increased or decreased SSR
investigation and list of in vestigations where anti -dumping duty was withdrawn by the Authority are
provided on pages 7 and 8 in the rejoinder submission.
xvi. The domestic industry is importing products from Bangladesh, which it claims are dumped. This
suggests that the domestic industry may be contributing to its own injury.
xvii. The financial mismanagement of Sintex Industries Ltd., which was facing insolvency proceedings
and was acquired by Reliance Industries Limited this year, cannot be attributed to the exporters and
the importers of th e PUC.
xviii. Sintex Industries Limited, being an insolvent and bankrupt company has a very high interest cost.
Normalisation of interest costs has been a practice of the Designated Authority in previous
investigations as held in saturated fatty alcohol case.
xix. Injury allegedly suffered by domestic industry due to other factors than China PR.
xx. CCI imposing penalty on Grasim for adopting monopolistic practice and abusing dominant power
played a very important role in the deterioration of the performance of the domest ic industry, which
is attributed to alleged dumping of the subject goods and petitioners failed to provide this to the
authority.
xxi. They are inflicting self -injury. Further, they have not provided evidence as how the imports from
Bangladesh are dumped import s.
I.2. SUBMISSIONS OF THE D OMESTIC INDUSTRY
56. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to injury and causal link.
I. IMPORTS FROM CHINA P R DECLINED IN 2019 -20 AS COMPARED TO HI GH VOLUMES
DURING THE ORIGINAL CASE, I.E., 2014 – 2017. THE IMPORTS HA VE ONCE AGAIN
INCREASED FROM 2020 -21 ONWARDS INCLUDING IN THE POI.
II. CHINESE IMPORTS STIL L CONSTITUTE AROUND 82% OF TOTAL IMPORTS INTO INDIA.
III. KINGDOM GROUP IN CHI NA (THE LARGEST EXPO RTER OF THE SUBJECT GOODS),
HAS ESTABLISHED CAP ACITIES IN ETHIOPIA AND THUS IMPORTS FRO M ETHIOPIA
ARE PSEUDO -CHINESE IMPORTS, WIT H PRICE COMPARABLE T O CHINESE PRICE.
IV. IMPORTS FROM CHINA I N RELATION TO INDIAN PRODUCTION AND CONSU MPTION
HAS DECLINED DEEPLY AFTER IMPOSITION OF DUTY IN 2018. HOWEVE R, SAME
HAVE STARTED INCREAS ING THEREAFTER AND A RE NOW SIGNIFICANT.
V. IMPORTS DID NOT CAUS E SIGNIFICANT INJURY ONLY DUE TO THE EXIS TENCE OF
DUTIES IN PLACE.
VI. IMPORTS ARE UNDERCUT TING PRICES IN THE D OMESTIC MARKET, HOWE VER, THE
DUTIES IN PLACE HAVE PREVENTED THE IMP ORTS FROM CAUSING PR ICE
SUPPRESSION OR DEPRE SSION IN THE MARKET IN THE POI.
VII. LANDED PRICE OF IMPO RTS ARE BELOW THE NO N-INJURIOUS PRICE OF T HE
DOMESTIC INDUSTRY, H IGHER IN PCNS WITH H IGH IMPORT VOLUMES. ABSENCE OF
ADD WOULD HAVE HAD D EPRESSING EFFECT ON THE PRICES OF THE DOMEST IC
INDUSTRY IN THE MARK ET.
VIII. AFTER INCREASE IN CA PACITY OF THE DOMEST IC INDUSTRY FROM OI, THE INDIAN
INDUSTRY IS NOW SUFF ICIENT TO CATER TO T HE INDIAN DEMAND. DE SPITE THIS,
THE MARKET SHARE OF IMPORTS HAS HOWEVER INCREASED OVER THE P RESEN T
INJURY PERIOD.
IX. THE IMPORTS FROM THE SUBJECT COUNTRY FIRS T DECLINED, BUT THEN HAVE
BEEN INCREASING CONT INUALLY. FURTHER, VO LUME OF IMPORTS REMA INED
SIGNIFICANT IN THE P RESENT POI.
X. THE ROI OF THE INDUS TRY HAS IMPROVED. HO WEVER, THE SAME IS S TILL BELOW
THE REASONABLE LEVELS CO NSIDERED BY THE AUTH ORITY. THE DI SUFFER ED
LOSSES IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE PRE SENT INJURY PERIOD, THE DI HAS
NOW COME BACK TO THE PROFITS IN THE REGIO N OF PRE -DUMPING PERIOD I.E.
2014 -15. THE CASH PROFITS FOLLOW THE SAME TREN D.
XI. INVENTORIES HAVE INCRE ASED AGAIN IN THE PO I WITH INCREASE IN I MPORTS.
XII. IMPOSITION OF DUTIES LED TO A POSITIVE GR OWTH; HOWEVER THE DI IS STILL IN
A FRAGILE CONDITION, VULNERABLE TO INJURY .
XIII. DUMPING MARGIN IS ST ILL POSITIVE AND SIG NIFICANT.
XIV. IN CASE DUTY CEASES, IMPORTS FROM THE SUB JECT COUNTRY WOULD I NCREASE
FURTHER. CONSEQUENTL Y, THE DOMESTIC INDU STRY WOULD BE FORCED TO
REDUCE THE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT RESULTIN G IN ADVERSE PRICE E FFECT OF
DUMPING ON THE DOMES TIC INDUSTRY.
XV. SHOULD THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY BE FORCED T O REDUCE THE PRICES, ITS
NATURAL IMPACT WOULD BE ON THE PROFITABIL ITY OF THE DOMESTIC
INDUSTRY, AND CONSEQ UENTLY ROI AND CASH PROFITS.
XVI. SHOULD THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY CHOOSE TO M AINTAIN ITS CURRENT PRICE
LEVELS, IT WILL SUFF ER ADVERSE VOLUME EF FECT, CONSIDERI NG THE
SIGNIFICANT PRICE UN DERCUTTING.
XVII. SHOULD THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY PREFER TO L OSE SALES VOLUMES, I T WOULD
SPELL MUCH BIGGER IN JURY. DECLINE IN SAL ES VOLUME WOULD RESU LT IN
INCREASE IN INVENTOR IES LEVEL AND CONSEQ UENT DECLINE IN PROD UCTION,
CAPACITY UTILI ZATION, AND PRODUCTI VITY.
I.3. EXAMINATION BY THE A UTHORITY
57. The Authority has examined the evidence submitted by all the interested parties with regard to injury to
the domestic industry. The injury analysis made by the Authority hereunder address es the various
submissions made by the interested parties.
58. According to Section 9(A)(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, anti -dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked
earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition, p rovided that if
the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such
imposition for a further peri od of five years and such further period shall commence from the date of order
of such extension.
59. The Authority notes that this being a sunset review of anti -dumping duty already in force, the continuation
of material injury to the domestic industry, as we ll as the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
material injury, needs to be examined in the context of actual or likely imports of the subject goods from
the subject country. In the instant case, the Authority notes that imports have declined from t he original
investigation, however, imports have increased in the POI compared to the base year of the present injury
period.
60. In consideration of submissions received in this regard, the Authority has first examined the current injury,
if any, to the dome stic industry before examining the likelihood aspects of dumping and injury on account
of imports from the subject country.
Volume effect of dumped imports and impact on domestic industry
i. Assessment of Demand
61. The Authority has defined, for the purpose of the present investigation, demand, or apparent consumption
of the subject goods in India as the sum of domestic sales of the Indian producers and imports from all
sources. The demand for the product under consideration is given below:
SN Particulars Unit 2019-20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Sales of Domestic Industry including
Captive MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 64 107 118
2 Sales of Supporters including Captive MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 82 114 132
3 Sales of Other Producers MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 67 116 117
4 Imports from Subject Country MT 3,167 2,061 3,315 3,455
5 Import from Other Countries MT 186 110 557 830
6 Total demand including captive MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 68 111 123
7 Total demand excluding captive MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 69 108 120
62. It is seen that the demand of the PUC declined in 2020 -21 from the base year and increased thereafter till
the POI.
ii. Import volumes and share of the imports from the subject country
63. With regard to the volume of the subject imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has
been a significant increase in dumped imports either in absolute terms or relative to production or
consumption in India. The volume of imports of the subject goo ds from the subject country has been
analysed as under:
SN Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Subject Country Imports MT 3,167 2,061 3,315 3,455
2 Other Country imports MT 186 110 557 830
3 Total Imports MT 3,353 2,172 3,873 4,285
4 Subjec t Imports in Relation Indian
production % *** *** *** ***
5 Subject Imports in Relation Indian
consumption % *** *** *** ***
64. It is seen that:
a. The imports from the subject country have declined since the original investigation period. Imports
in the pres ent injury period declined in 2020 -21 and increased thereafter over the injury period.
b. Imports in relation to production and consumption have marginally declined, however, remain
significant.
65. Despite the industry enhancing capacity to meet the domestic de mand, imports still constitute a significant
share of domestic consumption.
iii. Price effect of the subject imports and impact on domestic industry
66. With regard to the effect of dumped imports on prices, the Authority has considered whether there has
been a si gnificant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like product
in India, or whether the effect of such dumped imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant
degree or prevent price increase, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.
iv. Price undercutting
67. Price undercutting has been worked out by comparing the landed price of the imports with the selling
price of the domestic industry for the investigation period. The price undercutting has been de termined
separately for each PCN produced by the domestic industry and thereafter for the product under
consideration as a whole. The weighted average undercutting computation is as under:
POI QTY
MT LV
Rs/ Kg NSR
Rs/Kg Price
Undercutting
(Rs/Kg) Price
Undercutting (%)
Range
Subject Country 3,455 1,424 *** *** 0-10
68. The Authority notes that the weighted average undercutting is positive during the POI.
v. Price underselling / Injury Margin
69. The Authority has worked out non -injurious prices of the subject g oods and compared the same with the
landed value of the imported goods to arrive at the extent of price underselling. The price underselling/
injury margin has been determined separately for each PCN and thereafter for the product under
consideration as a whole.
70. It is noted from the below table that the price underselling/ injury margin is positive, indicating that the
imports have entered the market at injurious prices. The injury margin for cooperative producers/exporters
is also evaluated as under:
Count ry Producer NIP Landed Price Injury
Margin Injury
Margin Injury
Margin
Wt. Avg. USD/Kg USD/Kg USD/Kg % Range
China PR Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Co.,
Ltd/ Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax
Co., Ltd./ Zhejiang
Kingdom Linen Co., Ltd/
Heilongjiang Kingdom
Enterprises Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** 0-10
Yixing Sunshine Linen
Textile Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** Negative
Heilongjang Yanshou Jijia
Flax textile Co., Ltd *** *** *** *** Negative
Others *** *** *** *** 15-25
China PR as a whole *** *** *** *** Negative
vi. Price supp ression and depression
71. In order to determine whether the effect of imports is to depress prices or prevent price increases which
otherwise would have occurred, the Authority has examined the changes in the landed price of imports,
and costs & prices of the domestic industry over the injury period.
SN Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Cost of sales Rs. /Kg *** *** *** ***
2 Trend Indexed 100 90 93 105
3 Selling price Rs./Kg *** *** *** ***
4 Trend Indexed 100 92 110 122
72. It is seen that the cost of sales of the domestic industry has declined initially but has increased more than
the base year in the POI, and the selling pri ce has increased constantly. Thus, the imports were not having
any suppressing or depressing effect on the prices of the domestic industry in the market. The weighted
average Landed Value for China PR in POI is 1,424 Rs/Kg which is below the level of weigh ted average
selling price resulting into positive undercutting.
Economic Parameters relating to the domestic industry
73. The Rules require that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of the
consequent impact of these imports on dom estic producers of such products. With regard to the
consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products, the Rules further provide that
the examination of the impact of the imports on the domestic industry should include an objective and
unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the
industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return
on investments or utilization of capac ity; factors affecting domestic prices, actual and potential negative
effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. The
Authority has, accordingly, herein under -examined the performance of the domestic industry over the
injury period.
i. Production, capacity, capacity utilization and sales
74. The position of the domestic industry over the injury period with regard to production, capacity, capacity
utilization, domestic sales and export is as under:
SN Particul ars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 100 100 100
2 Production - Total MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 61 115 125
3 Production - PUC MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 61 116 126
4 Capacity Ut ilization % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 61 115 125
5 Domestic Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 64 104 116
6 Export Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 42 137 168
75. The Authority notes that the capacity of the domestic industry has remained at the same level over the
injury period. The capacity utilization of the domestic industry decreased during 2020 -21 during the
COVID period but improved thereafter.
76. The information provided by the supporters on capacity, production and sale s is given below:
Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
Capacity MT *** *** *** ***
Trend
100 100 100 110
Production MT *** *** *** ***
Trend
100 84 120 119
Capacity Utilization % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 84 120 107
Domestic Sales MT *** *** *** ***
Trend
100 87 102 122
77. It is seen that the capacity with the supporters have shown increase. Production and sales by the supporters
have also shown increase.
ii. Market Share in demand
78. The market share of the domestic industry and domesti c producers over the injury period is as under :
SL.No. Market Share Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Sales of Domestic Industry % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 93 96 96
2 Sales of supporters % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 121 102 108
3 Sale of Other Producers % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 98 104 95
4 Subject Country % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 95 94 89
5 Other Countries % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 87 269 363
6 Total Demand % 100 100 100 100
79. Post-original in vestigation, several new producers established production capacities considering the
demand in India. It has been submitted that the capacity of the Indian industry is now sufficient to cater
the Indian demand and resultantly market share of Indian industr y increased from the original
investigation and that of China declined, however, the market share of the subject imports remains
significant, despite domestic industry now having capacity to cater to almost entire Indian demand. The
subject imports still h old ***% of the domestic demand when the capacities with the domestic industry is
not utilised at optimum level.
iii. Profit or loss, cash profits and return on capital employed
80. The position of the domestic industry in terms of profit or loss, cash profits an d return on investment is as
under:
SL.No. Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Cost of sales ₹/kg *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 90 93 105
2 Selling price ₹/kg *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 92 110 122
3 Profit/(Loss) ₹/kg *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed -100 -52 167 176
4 Profit/(Loss) ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed -100 -33 173 205
5 PBIT ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 13 319 425
6 Cash Profits ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 321 1,481 1,671
7 ROCE % *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 13 325 449
81. The Authority notes that:
a. The domestic industry suff ered losses in the initial two years of the injury period which the industry
attributed to COVID, as well as higher interest cost and corresponding lower selling price in one of
the petitioner companies.
b. The domestic industry however started making profit s from 2021 -22 onwards including in the POI.
c. Cash profits, PBIT and return on capital employed of the domestic industry have also followed the
similar trend and have shown increase in the injury period. The applicants have claimed that the ROI
despite bei ng the highest level in POI is below the reasonable level.
iv. Inventories
82. The data relating to inventories of the subject goods is as follows:
SL.No. Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Average Inventory MT *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 57 75 82
83. It is noted that the average inventories decreased in 2020 -21 and increased thereafter in the injury period.
v. Employment, wages and productivity
84. The situation of the domestic industry with regard to employment, wages and productivity during the
injury period is as under:
SL.No. Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Wages ₹ Lacs *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 91 120 127
2 Employment Nos *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 78 93 98
3 Productivity per day MT/Day *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 61 116 126
4 Productivity per employee Per No *** *** *** ***
Trend Indexed 100 79 125 129
85. It is seen that the wages and productivity has increased, but the number of employees has decreased over
the injury period.
vi. Growth
86. The trends of v olume and profit parameters of the domestic industry showed as under -
SL.No. Particulars Unit 2019 -20 2020 -21 2021 -22 POI
1 Production % - -39% 89% 9%
2 Domestic sales % - -36% 62% 12%
3 Profit per unit (Profit Before
Tax) % -
-48% -420% 5%
87. It is not ed that there is positive growth in production, sales and profit per unit of the domestic industry as
compared to previous year and base year.
CAUSAL LINK
88. As per Annexure II of the AD Rules, factors which are relevant in this respect include, inter alia, volume
and prices of imports not sold at dumped prices, contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of
consumption, trade restrictive practises and competition between the foreign and domestic producers,
developments in the technology and the export p erformance and productivity of the domestic industry.
The Authority examines whether the factors other than dumped imports could be a cause of injury to the
domestic industry.
a. Volume and prices of imports from third countries
89. The imports from other countr ies are either low or at higher price than China. Further, import price from
Bangladesh is low, however, the performance of the domestic industry has not shown injury in the POI
and thus third country imports are not causing injury.
b. Contraction of demand and changes in the pattern of consumption
90. The Authority notes that there is no contraction of demand. Further, there has been no change in the
consumption pattern.
c. Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practises
91. The Authority notes that the inves tigation has not shown any change in the conditions of competition or
any trade restrictive practises.
d. Developments in technology
92. None of the interested parties have furnished any evidence to demonstrate any change in the technology.
e. Export performance of the domestic industry
93. It is noted that injury analysis is based on domestic performance of the applicants. Further, the exports
made by the domestic industry is not significant in relation to its production.
f. Performance of other products being produced a nd sold by the domestic industry
94. The Authority has considered data related to the performance of the subject goods only. Therefore,
performance of other products produced and sold by the domestic industry are not a possible cause of the
injury to the dome stic industry.
J. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTIN UATION OR RECURRENCE OF DUMPING AND INJUR Y
J.1. Submissions by other interested parties
95. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regard to likelihood of
continuance or recurren ce of dumping and injury:
I. KINGDOM GROUP‘S PROD UCT COMMANDS PREMIUM VALUE. THEY HAVE NO
INTENTION OF LOWERIN G THEIR PRICE. THEY EXPORT TO INDIA AT H IGH PRICES
AND ARE NOT INTEREST ED IN LOWERING THE P RICES AS THE PRICE O F RAW
MATERIALS IS ALREADY VERY HIGH. KINGDOM‘S PRICE TO I NDIA IS MUCH HIGHER
THAN RAW MATERIAL PR ICE.
II. PARA 4 -10 OF DI‘S WS STATES HOW THEIR CONDITION HAS IMPROVED. THIS A ND
THE APPLICANT‘S STAT EMENT, ―THE IMPACT O F THE MEASURES IS RE FLECTED
NOT ONLY IN THE PERF ORMANCE PARAMETERS O F THE INDI AN INDUSTRY BUT
ALSO BY OTHER PARAME TERS‖, SHOWS THAT AD D HAS SERVED ITS PUR POSE.
III. THERE IS NO LIKELIHO OD AS THERE IS NO DU MPING, NO EXCESS AND SURPLUS
CAPACITIES (WHICH CA N BE VERIFIED FROM E QRS FILED). THE DEM AND FOR THE
PUC IN THE LOCAL MAR KET HAS INCR EASED DUE TO AN INCR EASE FOR FINISHED
GOODS. CONSIDERING T HE DEMAND IN THE LOC AL MARKET AND EXPORT
MARKET, THERE ARE NO EXCESS AND SURPLUS C APACITIES. FURTHER, THERE IS
NO PRICE SUPPRESSION /DEPRESSION AND THE APPLICANT HAVE NOT G IVEN ANY
INFORMATION ON INV ENTORY. THE APPLICAN TS HAVE INFLATED THE IR
CAPACITIES IN CHINA TO SUIT THEIR NEEDS.
IV. THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY CLA RITY ON WHAT EXPORTS TO
THIRD COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE AN ALYSIS IN THE TABLE PROVIDED
IN LIKELIHOOD SUBMIS SION.
V. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE SUB JECT GOODS ARE BEING IMPORTED AT A
PRICE LOWER THAN THE PRICE AT WHICH THE G OODS ARE BEING SOLD IN THE
DOMESTIC MARKET AND IN CASE OF EXPIRY OF DUTY, CHINESE EXPORT ERS
WOULD CHANNELIZE THE IR THIRD COUNTRIES‘ EXPORTS TO THE INDIA N MARKET .
THIS IS DENIED, AS I NDIA IS A SECONDARY MARKET FOR CHINESE E XPORTERS.
CHINESE PRODUCER EXP ORTS TO INDIA AT UN -DUMPED PRICES AND IS NOT
INTERESTED IN LOWERI NG PRICES OF THEIR G OODS. GOODS EXPORTED BY
KINGDOM GROUP COMMAN D PREMIUM VALUE.
VI. THE APPLICANTS IN PARAGRAPH 56 CLAIMED THAT KINGDOM GROUP P RODUCED
20,756 MT OF THE PUC DESPITE COVID -19. HOWEVER, THIS TO APPLIES TO THE
APPLICANTS AS WELL S INCE THEIR ECONOMIC PARAMETERS ALSO IMPR OVED
DESPITE ONSET OF COV ID-19.
VII. THE AUTHORITY TO DET ERMINE LIKELIHOOD BA SED ON RESPONSES AND
SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE CHINESE EXPORTER S. DATA WOULD SHOW T HAT
PRICES OF CHINESE EX PORTERS ARE HIGHER, AND THE EXPORT VOLUM E HAS
REDUCED AS INDIA IS A SECONDARY MARKET F OR COOPERATING EXPOR TERS.
VIII. THE FACTORS SUBMITTE D BY THE PETITIONERS ON LIKELIHOOD OF RECU RRENCE
OF INJURY ON WITHDRA WAL OF ADD ARE NOT S UPPORTED BY THE PRIC E
REALIZATIONS AND PRI CE TRENDS OF THE SUB JECT GOODS DURING TH E POI.
IX. DUE TO THE STRONG DO MESTIC INDUSTRY IN I NDIA AND HIGH INTER SE
INCREASING COMPETITI ON AMONG THEM, T HE INDIAN MARKET HAS BECOME A
MINOR MARKET FOR KIN GDOM GROUP.
X. THE DOMESTIC INDUSTR Y HAS NOT PROVIDED A NY EVIDENCE TO SUGGE ST THAT
KINGDOM GROUP HAS SI GNIFICANT UNUTILIZED CAPACITIES THAT WILL BE
DIVERTED TO INDIA IF THE ADD IS NOT CONTI NUED.
XI. POSSIBILITY OF CHINESE -OWNED ENTITIES IN ET HIOPIA STARTING TO D UMP THE
PUC INTO INDIA IN TH E FUTURE IS INCORREC T AS THE AS THE IMPO RTS FROM
ETHIOPIA IS LOW.
XII. THERE IS NO LIKELIHO OD OF CONTINUATION O R RECURRENCE OF INJU RY AS
THERE WAS NO DUMPING . WITH THE INCREASE IN D EMAND, THE IMPORTS A ND
SALES OF THE PETITIO NERS HAVE ALSO INCRE ASED. THE ECONOMIC P ARAMETERS
OF THE PETITIONERS H AVE ALSO INCREASED S IGNIFICANTLY AS PROV IDED IN
PARA 4 TO 10 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS.
XIII. THE CLAIM OF THE PET ITIONERS REGARDING FREELY DISPOSABLE CA PACITIES
WITH THE PRODUCERS I N THE SUBJECT COUNTR Y IS BASELESS AND
UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE CAPACITY UTILISATION IS AT 70% OUT OF WHI CH ONLY
5% IS EXPORTED TO IN DIA.
XIV. THE PETITIONER MUST PROVE THAT THERE IS A LIKELIHOOD OF DIVE RSION OF
SURP LUS CAPACITIES TO IN DIA. IN INDIAN SPINN ERS ASSOCIATION V. D ESIGNATED
AUTHORITY, 2004 (170 ) ELT 144, IT WAS HE LD THAT MERE EXISTEN CE OF SURPLUS
PRODUCTION CAPACITY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS P OSING A CLEARLY FORE SEEN AND
IMMINENT THREAT OF I NJURY TO THE DOMESTI C INDUSTRY.
XV. THE CLAIM OF THE PET ITIONERS THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT VOLUM E OF
MATERIAL WHICH WERE SOLD AT PRICES LOWER THAN THE NORMAL VALU E IS
BASELESS AS IF THE P RODUCTS WERE DUMPED IN THE THIRD COUNTRI ES, SUCH
COUNTRIES WOULD HAVE UNDERTAKEN THE INVES TIGATI ON AGAINST THEM,
HOWEVER, NO SUCH INV ESTIGATION HAS BEEN INITIATED.
J.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
96. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to likelihood of continuance
or recurrence of dumping and injur y:
i. Continuous dumped and injurious exports from China. After the imposition of duties the imports the
declined in 2019 -20. However, despite the duty being in place the imports in POI have reached 245% of
the imports in the base year.
ii. There is significant freely disposable capacity with China. Known capacity with the Chinese producers
is around 1 lac MT. Chinese producers have significant capacities exceeding Indian demand.
iii. China is highly export oriented, it is the largest global producer of the PUC and i s the largest exporter as
well.
iv. The subject country‘s export orientation along with their enormous capacity poses a significant threat to
the Indian industry. With around 28,000 MT exports of the subject goods globally.
v. Capacity with the exporters in the subject country is largely underutilised as it has been built far in
excess of the domestic demand. Thus, the producers in the subject country are always looking for
favourable markets to utilise their capacities.
vi. The European Confederation of Flax and He mp in their publication has stated that around 100,000
spindles are left unutilised with the Chinese producers, which converts to around 20,000 MT, which is
equivalent to the entire Indian demand. The same can be easily diverted towards India.
vii. Producers i n China are highly export oriented. In 2020, China exported $163M in flax yarn, largest
exporter in the world.
viii. In the POI the dumped exports to third countries by Chinese producers amounts to around 40% in
relation to the Indian demand
ix. In the POI the expor ts to third countries that were priced below the price to India. Around 118% of third
country exports are price attractive volume in relation to the Indian demand
x. In the POI the price of Chinese exports to third countries is compared with the NIP. Accordin gly, 14%
of the imports are injurious volume in relation to the Indian demand
xi. Indian market is highly price sensitive. Low -priced imports would cause an adverse impact on the
domestic industry.
xii. Despite COVID -19, significant volumes of imports came in from China PR.
xiii. The Indian market is still at a very nascent stage and therefore it is highly vulnerable to price sensitivity
of the product.
xiv. The performance of the domestic industry has improved after the imposition of ADD. However, the
position of the domest ic industry is still vulnerable as is evident with the post POI performance
submitted which shows that the industry has started incurring losses.
xv. China has maintained a share of around 20% through the injury period apart from the base year, which
in no wa y can be described as low. This is when there is no demand -supply gap in India and the Indian
Industry is capable to fulfilling the entire Indian demand.
xvi. Question of likelihood is a country -wide determination and not company specific.
xvii. Possibility of Chin ese owned entities in Ethiopia starting to dump the PUC into India in future.
xviii. Since this is a sunset review case, the causal link is not required to be examined and established again.
Causal link was already established in the original investigations. The causal link is not required to be
examined yet again in the present case, only likelihood needs to be examined.
xix. the Kingdom group has itself claimed that India is one of its biggest markets multiple times, as well as
the amount of imports to India had de clined due to the imposition of duty and no other reason.
xx. The Indian Bed & Bath Linen Market size is expected to grow from INR 487,566 million in 2023 to
INR 716,372 million by 2028, at a CAGR of 8.00% during the forecast period (2023 -2028). The lower
lea counts are the PCNs which have witnessed low import volumes from the subject country through the
current injury period. This would mean that the PCNs of lower lea counts which have small and
minimal imports from the subject country at the moment will have the market to start increasing. This
adds to the likelihood of increase in dumped imports from the subject country in future years.
J.3. Examination by the Authority
97. The present investigation is a sunset review investigation, and the purpose of this inve stigation is to
examine the continuation or recurrence of dumping and consequent injury if anti -dumping duty is allowed
to expire even if there is no current injury. This also requires a consideration of whether the duty imposed
is serving the intended pur pose of eliminating injurious dumping.
98. It is further noted that though the domestic industry has stated that there is no continuing injury, the same
is on the account of the existing anti -dumping duty which is preventing the same. The domestic industry
has further claimed that there is a likelihood of recurrence of injury if the anti -dumping duty is removed.
The domestic injury has been able to improve performance.
99. All factors brought to the notice of the Authority have been examined to determine whether th ere is a
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in the event of cessation of the duty. The
Authority has considered various information, as made available by the interested parties during the
course of the investigation, in order to evaluate the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping or
injury. The Authority has considered the invoice value at the level of trade reported by the Responding
producer/exporter.
100. There are no specific methodologies available to conduct such a likelihood analysis. However, Clause (vii)
of Annexure II of the Rules provides, inter alia for factors which are required to be taken into
consideration viz.:
I. A SIGNIFICANT RATE OF INCREASE OF DUMPED I MPORTS INTO INDIA IN DICATING
THE LIKELIHOOD OF SU BSTA NTIALLY INCREASED IM PORTS;
II. SUFFICIENT FREELY DI SPOSABLE, OR AN IMMI NENT, SUBSTANTIAL IN CREASE IN,
CAPACITY OF THE EXPO RTER INDICATING THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUBSTA NTIALLY
INCREASED DUMPED EXP ORTS TO INDIAN MARKE TS, TAKING INTO ACCO UNT THE
AVAILABILITY OF OTHE R EXPORT MARKETS TO AB SORB ANY ADDITIONAL
EXPORTS;
III. WHETHER IMPORTS ARE ENTERING AT PRICES T HAT WILL HAVE A SIGN IFICANT
DEPRESSING OR SUPPRE SSING EFFECT ON DOME STIC PRICES, AND WOU LD LIKELY
INCREASE DEMAND FOR FURTHER IMPORTS; AND
IV. INVENTORIES OF THE A RTICLE B EING INVESTIGATED.
101. Further, the Authority has also examined other relevant factors having a bearing on the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry. The examination of
the parameters of the likelih ood as follows:
a. Continued imports from the subject country
102. The imports of the subject goods from China PR declined from the original investigation and increased
thereafter. Imports have remained significant in absolute and relative terms despite domestic i ndustry
having sufficient capacity to meet the entire domestic demand. 17% of the domestic demand is still with
the subject country when the capacities with the Indian industry is not fully utilised.
b. Surplus capacities in the subject country
103. The respondin g interested parties have not provided capacity prevalent in the subject country in its SSR
questionnaire response part -II. The domestic industry has provided information on the capacity of various
producers along with evidence. Interested parties commente d that the one of the producers listed by the
applicants did not produce flax yarn which is found appropriate and has thus not been considered. The
capacity information for the producers made available during the course of the investigation is as follows:
Producer/Exporter Capacity (in tons)
Kingdom Group ***
Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Co. Ltd ***
Yixing Sunshine Linen Textile Co., Ltd ***
Jinjiang Xinglilai Yarns Co., Ltd 10,000
Yixing Yongye Linen Textile Co. Ltd 14,600
Great Eastern T extiles (Tongling) Co. Ltd, 2,000
Changzhou Meiyuan Flax Textile Co. Ltd 1,500
Henan Pingmian Textile Group Co., Ltd 7,200
Total capacity of known producers 69,834 MT
Range 60,000 -80,000MT
*Information by the responding exporters has been considered based on the response provided.
104. The information on capacity and production as provided by the exporters shows as follows:
SN Particulars POI
1 Capacity (MT)
a Yanshou Jijia ***
b Yixing Sunshine ***
c Zhejiang Kingdom ***
d Heilongjiang Kingdom ***
e Jiangsu Jinyuan ***
f Zhejiang jinyuan ***
Total 34,534
2 Production (PUC + NPUC) (MT)
a Yanshou Jijia ***
b Yixing Sunshine ***
c Zhejiang Kingdom ***
d Heilongjiang Kingdom ***
e Jiangsu Jinyuan ***
f Zhejiang jinyuan ***
Total 30,722
3 Capacity Utilisation (%)
a Yanshou Jijia ***
b Yixing Sunshine ***
c Zhejiang Kingdom ***
d Heilongjiang Kingdom ***
e Jiangsu Jinyuan ***
f Zhejiang jinyuan ***
Total 89%
105. It is seen that the excess capacity with the Kingdom group is * ** MT, for Yanshou Jijia is *** MT and
that with Yixing Sunshine is *** MT. The cumulative excess capacity with the responding exporters is
3812 MT.
106. The Authority notes that information on record indicates that China PR is the largest producer and
export er of the subject goods. Authority notes the evidence submitted by the domestic industry of excess
capacity in China as reported by CELC, i.e., the European Confederation of Flax and Hemp. The excess
capacity reported for 2022 is 1,00,000 spindles which is around 20,000 MT.
c. Third country dumping
107. The domestic industry has provided information with regard to exports from the subject country to show
that the producers in the subject country are exporting significant volume of the subject goods to third
countries at dumped prices. The data, however, is not at PCN level and can also include the NPUC as
well. The Authority has thus examined information provided by the responding exporters. The exports
made by the respondents have been compared with the norma l value determined for China with the export
price reported by the responding producers/exporters after due adjustments. Table below shows the factual
information.
Particulars POI
Dumped exports to third country (in MT) 6,653
Total exports to third co untry (in MT) 14,956
% of dumped exports 44%
Dumped exports in relation to Indian demand in % 30-40
Indian Demand (in MT) ***
108. The total exports reported by the responding exporters is 14,956MT. Of these, 44% of these exports have
been made at dumped p rice. This volume constitutes 32% of Indian demand. In the event of cessation of
existing anti -dumping duty, these third country dumped exports may likely to be diverted to India.
d. Injurious volume of exports
109. The domestic industry has provided informatio n regarding the exports from the subject country to show
that the producers in the subject country are exporting significant volume of the subject goods to third
countries at price injurious to India. However, this data is not at PCN level and thereby is l ikely to include
the NPUC as well. The Authority has thus examined information provided by the responding exporters.
The price of the exports to made by the respondents have been compared with the NIP determined for the
POI and the injury period. Table bel ow shows the factual information.
Particulars POI
Exports at injurious price (in MT) 6,138
Total exports to third country (MT) 14,956
% of exports at injurious price 41%
Injurious volume in relation to Indian demand (%) 25-35
Indian Demand (MT) ***
110. The total exports reported by the responding exporters is 14,956 MT. Of these. 41% of exports are at
injurious price which constitutes around 30% in relation to Indian demand. In the event of cessation of
existing anti -dumping duty, these third country ex ports may likely to be diverted to India. Which will
force the domestic industry to sell the PUC at injurious price in order to maintain its market share and
eventually suffer losses.
e. Price attractiveness of Indian market
111. The domestic industry has provide d information regarding the exports from the subject country to show
that the producers in the subject country are exporting significant volume of the subject goods to third
countries at a price below the level at which the subject goods are being exported to India. However, this
data is not at PCN level and thereby is likely to include the NPUC as well. The Authority has thus
examined information provided by the responding exporters. The exports made by the respondents have
been compared with the landed va lue determined for the subject goods imported into India from China
with the export price reported by the responding producers/exporters after due adjustments. Table below
shows the factual information.
Particulars POI
Exports at prices below the prices to India (MT) 9,598
Total exports to third country (MT) 14,956
% of Exports at prices below the prices to India 64%
Price attractive volume in relation to Indian demand (%) 40-50
Indian Demand (MT) ***
112. The total exports reported by the responding ex porters is 14,956 MT. Of these, 64% of these exports are
made at price below the level at which goods are being exported to India. This volume constitutes 40 -50%
in relation to total Indian demand.
113. As per the submission made by domestic industry it is no ted that the capacity reported by the responding
exporters is almost half of the capacity of the capacity with the known producers. The dumped, injurious
and price attractive volume that is likely to get into the Indian market will be much higher from Chin a.
Conclusion on likelihood of dumping and injury
114. There is likelihood of continuation and recurrence of injury to the domestic industry in the event of
cessation of existing anti -dumping duty due to the following:
i. As a result of anti -dumping duties in pl ace, the import volume from the subject country has declined
in 2021 and increased thereafter and remain significant in absolute and relative terms.
ii. The Authority in order to evaluate the likelihood of dumping and injury in the event of cessation of
anti-dumping duties considered idle capacity, dumped exports, injurious exports, export orientation
and price attractiveness. The Authority has been consistently looking at these factors while
evaluating the likelihood of dumping and injury in the event of cessa tion of antidumping duties as
per Rules. In the instant case, since the weighted average of capacity utilization of cooperative
exporters in China PR is 89%, the third country diversion of exports by the cooperative
producers/exporters to India is consider ed to be of immense importance. Notwithstanding the above,
the capacities of responding producers/exporters is half of the known capacity in China and even the
existing idle capacity is significant enough when compared with demand in India. The reported
evidence of excess capacity of 20,000 MT is sufficient to cater the entire merchant market demand
(excluding captive) in India.
iii. The likelihood analysis of imports of the subject goods from China PR reveals that about 44% of
exports of the subject goods by c ooperative producers/exporters from China PR to third countries
are at dumped price. These dumped exports to third countries are 30% - 40% of total Indian demand.
iv. In case of China PR, around 41% of exports of the subject goods by the cooperative
exporters /producers from China PR to third countries are at injurious volume. These exports at
injurious price to third countries are 25 -35% of Indian demand.
v. Further analysis of imports of the subject goods from China PR reveals that about 64% of exports of
the s ubject goods by cooperative producers/exporters from China PR to third countries are at price
below the level at which the subject goods are exported to India. This volume constitutes 40 -50% in
relation to total Indian demand.
vi. Besides, the idle capacity o f China constitutes a significant quantity compared to total Indian
demand.
vii. The cooperating producers/exporters are utilizing a significant share of their production for export
purposes, signifying the export orientation of the producers/exporters from the subject country.
K. POST DISCLOSURE COMMENTS
K.1. Submissions by other interested parties
115. Following are the post disclosure submissions made by other interested parties:
i. Heilongjiang Kingdom enterprise Co., Ltd‖ and ―Heilongjiang Kingdom Linen Co., Ltd.‖ pertains to
the same company, the English name is ―Heilongjiang Kingdom Linen Co. Ltd‖ but for export
activities the company uses ―Heilongjiang Kingdom Enterprise Co., Ltd‖. The name ―Linen Co.,
Ltd.‖ appears on business license and the same was sub mitted in the EQR.
ii. Each company in China has unique Uniform Social Credit Code. Since both are the names of the
same legal entity, the Uniform Social Credit Code of both is the same.
iii. The name ―Heilongjiang Kingdom Enterprise Co., Ltd.‖ is used for export activity by the company.
Exporters in China must obtain registration for foreign trade Operators from Chinese Authorities,
with Chinese and English name. A declaration by the Company certifying that both are in fact same
entity has been submitted to the A uthority.
iv. The name Heilongjiang Kingdom Enterprise Co., Ltd be included in duty table as it is reflected in
the export document to India
v. It is clarified that in Zhejiang Kingdom‘s case, DG Systems data would record names of
traders/exporters namely Zhejia ng Jinyuan Flax Co., Ltd and Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Co., Ltd. Even in
original investigation, Zhejiang Kingdom had only exported through related party.
vi. Merely because a Chinese company has made an investment in Ethiopia and that Ethiopian company
has exporte d the PUC to India does not mean that the export prices of the Ethiopian entity have
automatically become distorted
vii. There is no anti -dumping duty or even an anti -dumping investigation against exports of PUC from
Ethiopia by India or any other WTO member. Therefore, the Authority is required to establish in its
reasoning how mere investment by a third country in Ethiopia can distort the export prices from
Ethiopia to India
viii. Mere allegation of presence of a subsidy cannot automatically lead to a conclusion t hat export prices
from such a country are distorted.
ix. Even if the Applicant does not produce all PCNs that may be the subject to the investigation, the
Authority can extrapolate the normal value for such PCNs based on the export prices available for
closel y resembling PCNs. The same can also be done by the Authority in the present investigation
for exports from Bangladesh
x. As per Section 9A(6A), the Authority is legally obligated to determine the margin of dumping based
on the records of the exporter or prod ucer concerning normal value and export price. Since Kingdom
Group is not claiming market economy treatment, the export price of Kingdom Group ought to be
determined based on Kingdom Group‘s four exporter questionnaire responses, which were filed as
per it s records.
xi. The law mandates the application of ―facts available‖ standard only in a case where the exporter or
producer fails to provide records or information for calculation of export price
xii. Export transactions that were cleared in special economic zone s ought to be considered for
determining ex -factory export price, landed value, dumping margin, and injury margin for Kingdom
Group
xiii. Imports of the subject goods and domestically produced the subject goods are competing for sales to
the SEZ customers, and thus, are in direct competition. Therefore, the Authority‘s observation that
imports of the subject goods are not meant for domestic consumption is not correct
xiv. The subject goods, whether imported or sourced from DTA, are getting consumed in SEZs and it is
only the finished goods such as flax fabric that is not meant for domestic consumption and such
finished goods could be exported out of the SEZ. Therefore, the Authority ought to consider all
transactions reported by Kingdom Group in its exporter question naire responses whether cleared by
the Indian customers in DTA or in SEZ.
xv. Even in the original investigation, Kingdom Group had made exports to customers located in Indian
SEZs and the Authority had duly considered the same for determining ex - factory exp ort price,
landed value, dumping margin, and injury margin for Kingdom Group. There is no change in the
law since the original investigation
xvi. The DG Systems import data does not record the transactions of the subject goods fully, the
Authority may seek cla rification from DG Systems as to the reasons for any deficiency in their
import data
xvii. Exports made to an SEZ unit and clearances from such SEZ units to DTA are recorded in the ―SEZ
Online‖ portal. Delinking of records of these two data collection agencies of the Indian Government
may be a reason that imports in SEZs are not getting reflected in the DG Systems import data in the
present case.
xviii. The Authority‘s decision to only exclude SEZ sales for calculating export price is violative of the
principle of fai r comparison enshrined in Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement and Para 6(i) of
Annexure -I to the AD Rules.
xix. The Authority has determined the export price for the Respondent by removing the sales made by
the Respondent to the SEZ units. However, no such observa tion has been made by the Authority
while calculating the Normal Value and Non -injurious price of the Domestic Industry.
xx. The difference in the reported exports in the EQRs and the imports in the DG systems import data
could be arising because of the follow ing reasons:
xxi. Sales made by Kingdom Group to units located in SEZs may not be reflected in DG Systems import
data.
xxii. Transfer of the PUC to FTWZ may not be reflected in the DG Systems import data.
xxiii. There are timing differences between the date of shipping o f the PUC by Kingdom Group and the
date of landing of the PUC in India.
xxiv. In Zhejiang Kingdom‘s case, the DG Systems import data records the names of the traders/exporters
namely Zhejiang Jinyuan Flax Co. Ltd. and Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Co., Ltd. even in the original
investigation, Zhejiang Kingdom had not made any direct exports to India. It had exported to India
only through its related party. The Authority had awarded cooperative rate to Zhejiang Kingdom as
well
xxv. Heilongjiang Kingdom uses the name ‗Heilongj iang Kingdom Enterprise Co., Ltd.‘ for export
purposes and should be included in the duty table.
xxvi. Respondent claims that domestic industry is not suffering any material injury, data provided in the
petition, and by Respondent‘s analysis, it is clearly shown that there is no volume effect, price effect
or injury due to the subject imports.
xxvii. Submitted in the oral hearing that the domestic industry‘s counsel stated that DI is not suffering
material injury. Thereby, there is no need to examine material injury.
xxviii. DI has not shown how price suppression/depression will resume if ADD is allowed to cease.
Therefore, there is no price suppression/depression.
xxix. Analysis of relevant economic parameters show DI has shown marked improvement in all relevant
economic parameter s.
xxx. Failure of the applicants to perform as well as their competitors in Indian market cannot be
attributed to the subject country imports.
xxxi. Market share of imports of other countries has increased throughout injury period. Imports from the
subject country or other countries is too low to affect market share of the DI. Indian producers and
DI still hold significant market share.
xxxii. There is no futuristic trend of any injury to applicants based on applicant‘s data.
xxxiii. The Injury, if any, is self -inflicted by the D I, as DI is an importer of the PUC from Bangladesh.
xxxiv. The injury is due to inability of the DI to compete with other Indian producers.
xxxv. Conditions of Indian industry have improved to a level where there is healthy competition between
Indian manufacturers of the PUC.
xxxvi. There is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence. DI has miserably failed to provide positive
evidence to satisfy criteria laid in AD Rules and Agreement to provide likelihood.
xxxvii. Kingdom group is not dumping the PUC in India as can be verified from responses filed by
Kingdom.
xxxviii. Kingdom does not have excess and surplus capacities as can be verified from the EQR. Demand for
the PUC in local markets of the subject country has also increased due to increase in demand of the
finished goods (downstrea m).
xxxix. Domestic industry has not given other relevant evidence such as excess inventory etc.
xl. Most of the total production is targeted towards catering domestic demand in China and exporting to
third countries. Due to strong Domestic industry and increasing co mpetition in India, the Indian
market has become minor market to the group.
xli. Factors stated by Authority do not indicate existence of likelihood of injury. It is the duty of the
Authority not to determine likelihood based on mere possibility.
xlii. Factors anal ysed by the Authority only indicate that continuation or recurrence of injury is only
possible and not likely. This is in direct contravention with the principles laid down in WTO‘s panel
in Pakistan – AD Measures in Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Film f rom the UAE.
xliii. Authority‘s reliance on one report of the CELC as evidence for excess capacities is in just and does
not amount to either positive or sufficient factual basis to draw reasoned and adequate conclusions.
xliv. No clarity in the finding of the Author ity whether excess capacity of 1,00,000 is just for flax yarn or
flax and hemp yarn combined.
xlv. The Authority is requested to rely upon data submitted by exporters to determine whether exporters
in China have surplus capacities and not report submitted by t he DI.
xlvi. Excluding export to SEZ unjustified. Questionnaire response was filed considering that there are no
specific instructions by the Authority to report export to DTA only and that in the past Authority has
considered export to both SEZ and DTA.
xlvii. Author ity proposed PCN in initiation. Hence, participants filed PCN wise data including both DTA
& SEZ sales. Authority is requested to clarify if they have worked out PCN -wise export prices.
xlviii. Authority deducted 2% as commission to determine export price which s hould be rectified in
findings as no commission has been paid to any agent/ importer.
xlix. Authority found that contrary to their EQR, Heilongjiang Kingdom Linen Co Ltd has not exported
during POI. Exporter invoices bear some other company‘s name. Kingdom filed wrong information.
Their response shall be rejected. Authority is requested to grant them residual category duty.
Reference made to para 12.20 of the Manual.
l. It is submitted that Heilongjiang Kingdom ought to be awarded a cooperative rate in the present
review, its exporter questionnaire response ought to be considered, and its name ought to be
included in the dumping margin table, injury margin table, and the duty table in the Authority‘s in
the present review.
li. Authority has granted lower DM & IM to resid ual category than participating parties. Residual
category shall be granted highest rate of duty.
lii. All economic parameters of petitioners show improvement. There is no injury to DI and if any, it
cannot be attributed to imports.
liii. Yixing Sunshine Linen Text ile Co. Ltd. participated in OI & was granted separate duty rate.
Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Co. Ltd. did not participate in OI as it did not export then.
Both have fully cooperated at present. Authority needs to calculate DM/IM in SSR based o n present
circumstances and not continue duty recommended earlier, especially when new producer/exporter
is fully co -operative and providing all necessary information.
liv. In the current SSR, Authority is bound to levy duty according to DM calculated in curren t
Investigation and not continue earlier duty.
lv. There have been past cases SSR in last 2 years where DGTR worked out and recommended fresh
Duty based on export data of participating producers/exporters or recommended withdrawal of duty
given.
K.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
116. Post Disclosure comments made by the domestic industry are as follows:
i. DG Systems data should be considered instead of EQR filed by responding exporters for the
purpose of determining export price.
ii. The volumes reporte d by the responding exporters are higher than volumes reported in DG
Systems only when the data provided by DG System is incomplete, or the importers cleared the
product in some other classification.
iii. Either situation, the volume reported by the exporters indeed arrived in India and the exporter
was aware of the final destination of the goods. Therefore, the authority is required to consider
all the volumes that have been reported by the exporters.
iv. The authority is required to consider the import values re ported in Indian systems data in a
situation where the value of imports reported by the exporter is higher than the value of imports
reported in DG Systems data (for individual import transactions).
v. The possibility in the present situation could be that exports have been made by the exporter
and the same have been cleared in the Indian customs without payment of appropriate anti -
dumping duties. In a situation where import values reported for individual import transaction is
higher than the import value re ported in the corresponding import data in DG Systems, it clearly
points out to a situation where the value of the import transaction does not reconcile with DG
Systems data.
vi. The Authority is required to consider the export volumes reported by the exporte r after duly
corroborating with the DG Systems data for the import values and thereafter make a
determination.
vii. The authority may kindly consider the export volumes reported by the exporter after duly
corroborating for the import values reported in correspo nding import transactions.
viii. The Authority has rightly held that the scope is limited to "flax yarn of below 70 lea count
(equivalent to 42 Nm)". No interested party has contested the PCN methodology adopted by the
Authority or the scope of the product under consideration.
ix. The NIP determined by the Authority is very low leading to low level of injury margin.
Domestic industry submits that the raw materials utilization and utilities utilization should not
be considered at the best achieved levels in the past for the reason that the cause of increase in
the consumption is not inefficient utilization of such inputs.
x. It appears that the Authority has changed the method of apportionment between the PUC and
NPUC. However, no reasoning has been provided for disallo wing the apportionment
methodology adopted by the applicants.
xi. The actual cost of production should be considered for fixation of normal value, and not the
notional cost and that too lowest amongst different domestic producers. The average cost of
producti on of the domestic industry should be considered. Further, consideration of lowest NIP
is without legal basis. Rather, the Authority should adopt the highest cost of production found in
India.
xii. The Authority has found existence of excess capacity with the r esponding producers/exporters
from their responses and CELC. This additional capacity is around 23,000 MT. The known
capacity with the producers in China is in the region of 1 lac MT as against the entire Indian
demand of merely about 20,000 MT.
xiii. Even thoug h imports had declined post imposition of duty, the same have started increasing
after a decline in 2019 -20. The dumping margin and injury margin calculated is positive and
significant. Further, The Indian market is highly price sensitive.
xiv. The Chinese expo rts of the subject goods to third countries are at dumped price, injurious
volumes and at price less than the level at which they are exported to India. Further, the
producers in China are highly export oriented.
xv. As claimed by the Kingdom group in their an nual report, despite COVID -19 continued to affect
all nations, they adapted to changes and produced 20,756 tonnes (2020: 16,704 tonnes) of linen
yarn. Thus, they exported significant volumes despite COVID -19.
xvi. There is sufficient justification for extensio n of the existing ADD.
xvii. Duties have been beneficial and has made the industry atmanirbhar as the number of Indian
producers have increased from 4 to 8. The country is now self -sufficient to cater to the entire
demand in the country and thus, there exist no demand -supply gap.
xviii. The additional investments made by the industry needs to be protected from unfair trade as the
Indian industry is vulnerable and are earning low level of profits. Despite duties in place and
sufficient capacity, imports still hold signi ficant share of the Indian demand. The export sales
are neither very significant nor very profitable and the focus of the Indian industry is on the
domestic market.
xix. There are huge surplus capacities available with Chinese producers who is the largest prod ucer
of the subject goods. Further, India has remained a key destination of exports for China.
xx. Capacity of other producers in China over the ones considered in the Disclosure have been
provided.
Particulars of the Company Capacity (in MT)
Huaren linen ( HK) Company Limited 6,000
Changzhou Meiyuan Flax Textile Co Ltd 2,200
Huzhou Goldritch Linen Textile Co Ltd 1,178
Tongling Yinhua Linen & Ramie Textile Co. Ltd. 300
Tung Ga Linen And Cotton Changzhou Co Ltd 2,800
Heilongjiang Yuanbao Textile Co., Ltd 7,500
Zhejiang Haiyan Jinyi Textile Co. Ltd. 1,000
Muling Xinling Linen Textile Co.,Ltd 2,200
Total 23,178 MT
xxi. Present duties need to be extended and modification in the quantum is not warranted. The
sunset review therefore focuses on whether the cessat ion of the duty is likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, and not the quantum of injury. Similar view
has been taken by the Authority in previously concluded sunset review anti -dumping
investigations.
xxii. The PUC is a premium text ile fabric product and is not used by public at large. The use case is
not limited due to the cost of the product, rather it is the cost of regular maintenance being high
and recurring which is the primary reason for limiting the usage only by the elite se gment of the
society. Thus, the impact on the ADD on these segment will be too low.
xxiii. The anti -dumping duties is in the interest of the producer, consumer, and public at large. The
duties are essential to ensure a level playing field in the Indian market. It is also in the
consumers‘ interest to have a competitive domestic industry as if consumers become completely
import reliant, they will be forced to higher degree of inventory. Encouraging domestic
manufacturing activities is essential to make India the ma nufacturing powerhouse it aims to
become.
xxiv. The impact of the past measures has been negligible, to the tune of 0.73% to 2.8% on the end
product, signifying no adverse effect was there. Additionally, no user/downstream industry has
provided information prov ing the contrary.
xxv. Yarn constitutes a major cost of fabric production and any increase in the price of yarn is
directly passed on to the prices of fabric. Prices of yarn and fabric moves in tandem. The
producers have certified the same, evidence has been p rovided to Authority.
xxvi. The analysis of the downstream industry shows positive growth throughout the injury period.
Thus, there have been no adverse effects in any form or manner due to the imposition of past
measures and the impact of duty as calculated is merely negligible.
K.1. Examination by the Authority
117. The Authority has examined the post disclosure submissions made by the domestic industry and notes
that major comments are reiterations which have already been examined suitably and addressed
adequ ately in the relevant paras of the disclosure statement. New submissions have been examined as
under:
i. The Authority notes that there are 14 PCNs considered in the investigation whereas only 2 PCNs
have been imported from Ethiopia. The 2 PCNs cannot repres ent the 14 PCNs considered by the
Authority for this investigation. Thus, normal value could not be determined on the basis of the
price from Ethiopia to India.
ii. As regards the claim that import price from Bangladesh should be considered for the purpose of
determination of normal value and adjustments should be made for PCN which are not entering the
market based on the comparable PCN information available, the Authority notes that there are 14
PCNs considered in the investigation whereas only 3 PCNs has been imported from Bangladesh.
iii. Further, even when normal value is determined based on the response filed by the exporters (in a
market economy country) and there are no sales or profitable sales of a particular PCN then normal
value is constructed consid ering the cost of production and making due adjustments. Similarly, in
case of NIP for a PCN not produced by the domestic industry, the adjustment is made based on the
cost of production of such PCNs and its nearest comparable PCN. In this case, there is n o
information on the difference in cost and price for majority of the PCNs and thus, it would not be
appropriate to consider import price from Ethiopia and Bangladesh for the purpose of
determination of normal value.
iv. As regards the argument that the Auth ority has ignored the requirement to evaluate surplus or
freely disposable capacity available with the Chinese producer as it has utilized most of its
capacity, it is noted that the volume of third -country dumped exports, third -country injurious
exports an d volume of exports made by the exporter at a price below the level at which it has been
exported to India can also be considered as freely disposable capacity apart from the unutilized
capacity available with the producer which it can export to India. Lik elihood examination does not
just focus on freely disposable capacity; this determination extends to consideration of exports to
third countries, surplus capacities with foreign producers, and the prices at which different exports
took place to India and g lobally. This examination shows that the exporter is likely to intensify
dumping and cause injury to the domestic industry.
v. As regards the argument that the excess capacity information should be considered only based on
the response filed by the exporte rs, it is noted that despite the specific requirement of providing
information on capacity, and demand prevalent in the country, none of the exporters has made
available information and thus, Authority has to consider the best available information.
Furthe rmore, the responding exporters have not provided any evidence to contradict the evidence
submitted by the Authority.
vi. As regards the clarification sought by the interested parties on the report by CELC referred on
excess capacity prevalent in China, it is clarified that the reports has reported 1,00,000 spindles
excess capacity for flax yarn alone which is equivalent to 20,000MT.
vii. As regards the contention that exporters response should be considered for the purpose of
determination of export price, the Authority has now considered response by exporters including
exports made to SEZs.
viii. With regard to the claim of Heilongjiang Kingdom Enterprise Co., Ltd., for awarding a cooperative
rate in the present review, and its inclusion in the dumping margin table , injury margin table, and
the duty table in the present review. The Authority has examined the issue as detailed below;
a. As per the exporter questionnaire response filed by Heilongjiang Kingdom Enterprise Co.,
Ltd., the said Company was established as a li mited liability company in accordance with the
Company Law of the People's Republic of China on March 11, 2016. The said company has
made only one export transaction of *** MT to India during the POI.
b. The period of investigation of the original investigati on was from October 2016 to
September 2017. But the name of the company was not mentioned as a related company in
the EQR filed in April 2018 by the three participating companies (Zhejiang Kingdom Linen
Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax Co., Ltd., Zhejiang J inyuan Flax Co., Ltd.) of the Kingdom
Group in the original investigation.
c. The annual report of 2017 (As at 31 December 2017) shows that the Heilongjiang Kingdom
Enterprise Co., Ltd., was in production of the PUC in 2017. However same was not reported
in the EQR filed in the original investigation.
d. Moreover, in the current sunset review investigation, the Authority has examined the
likelihood aspect of all the participating producers/exporters and has observed that though
there is no current dumping and inj ury to the domestic industry due to the exports, however,
there is a strong likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury for recommending the
continuation of the existing anti -dumping duties.
e. Since M/s Heilongjiang Kingdom Enterprise Co., Ltd., the said producer/exporter was not
granted an individual rate of duty in the original investigation, the Authority, on an
examination of the likelihood of dumping and injury, recommends the continuation of the
existing residual rate of anti -dumping duty for the sa id producer/exporter.
f. In view of the above, the Authority has not considered the request of the ‗Heilongjiang
Kingdom Enterprise Co., Ltd.,‘ for awarding a cooperative anti -dumping duty rate in the
present SSR investigation and & inclusion of its name alon g with other companies of the
Kingdom group in the duty table.
ix. With regard to the claim of Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Company Limited for a new rate
of anti -dumping duty, the Authority has examined the issue as detailed below;
1) there are two as pects that need to be examined by the Authority in a Sunset Review
investigation:
a. Whether there is a continuation of dumping and injury.
b. In the absence of continuation of dumping or injury, whether upon revocation of the duty,
there is a likelihood of recu rrence of dumping and injury.
2) The absence of current dumping and injury to the domestic industry could be because of the
duties in place countering the phenomenon of dumping and injury. In such cases, the onus on
the Authority is to examine whether the rev ocation of the duty would lead to a likelihood of
recurrence of dumping and injury. The observations of the WTO Panel in EU – Cost Adjusted
Methodologies II (Russia)1, is in this regard:
1 Panel Report, European Unio n – Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain Anti -Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia
(Second Complaint), WT/DS494/R and Add.1, circulated to WTO Members 24 July 2020, appealed 28 August 2020.
In original anti -dumping investigations, investigating authorities must
determine whether the domestic industry of a Member is materially injured by dumped
imports. At this stage, the focus is on the existence of 'material injury' at the time of the
determination. That determination is made under Article 3, based on infor mation
concerning the necessary and relevant factors for some previous period. In contrast, in an
expiry review, an anti -dumping measure has been in place for some time, and investigating
authorities must, based on a fresh analysis, determine whether the e xpiry of that measure
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury.
3) In view of the above, the parameters pertaining to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence
of dumping and injury have been examined by the Authority in the case of M/s Heilongjiang
Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Co. Ltd., it is observed that:
a) M/s Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Co. Ltd has an idle capacity of ***% approx.
b) A total of *** MT quantities are being exported to third countries.
c) Out of these *** MT that are exported to third countries, *** MT is at an injurious price
d) Out of these *** MT that are being exported to third countries, *** MT is at dumped price
e) And out of these *** MT that is being exported to a third country, *** MT is exported at a
price bel ow the price of India, making India a price -attractive market in case the existing
anti-dumping duty is revoked.
4) The Authority further notes that M/s Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Co. Ltd., did not
participate in the original investigation and ha d a choice to file a New Shipper Review (NSR)
application, but the above -said producer/exporter chose to participate directly in the current
Sunset Review investigation.
5) In the current sunset review investigation, the Authority has examined the likelihood aspect of
all the participating producers/exporters and has observed that though there is no current
dumping and injury to the domestic industry due to the exports, however, there is a strong
likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury for recommending the continuation of the
existing anti -dumping duties.
6) Since M/s Heilongjiang Yanshou Jijia Flax Textile Co. Ltd., the said producer/exporter was not
granted an individual rate of duty in the original investigation and currently falling in the
residual cat egory, the Authority on an examination of the likelihood of dumping and injury
recommends the continuation of existing residual rate of anti -dumping duty for the said
producer/exporter.
x. The Authority has determined the non -injurious price (NIP) for the dom estic industry on the basis
of information furnished by the domestic industry, principles laid down in the Anti - Dumping
Rules read with Annexure III and the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
xi. As noted above the domestic industry‘s performan ce has improved over the injury period.
However, it remains vulnerable to recurrence of dumped imports from the subject country.
Therefore, the Authority has examined the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury to the
domestic industry. As is ev ident from the examination undertaken in the above paragraphs, in the
present investigation, there is likelihood of recurrence of injury to the domestic industry.
Therefore, the Authority has recommended the continuation of duties as determined in the orig inal
investigation.
L. INDIAN INDUSTRY’S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES
L.1. Submissions by other interested parties
118. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regard to public interest:
I. IMPOSITION OF ADD IS IN INTEREST OF ONL Y INDIAN PRODUCERS O F THE PUC.
HENCE, AN IMPACT ANA LYSIS ON LINEN APPAR EL IS INCORRECT. SUB MISSION
THAT PUC IS A PREMIU M PRODUCT, ONLY USED BY THE ELITE SEGMENT OF
SOCIETY, IS IMMATERI AL AND HAS NO BEARIN G ON THE SUBJECT. MO REOVER,
THE APPLICANTS HAVE STAT ED THAT CONSUMPTION OF LINEN APPAREL HAS
INCREASED WITH INCRE ASING LEVELS OF INCO ME.
II. INDIAN PRODUCERS ARE ALSO CAPTIVE CONSUME RS. MANY OF THEM PRO DUCE
LINEN TEXTILE/FABRIC AND SUBSEQUENTLY, LI NEN APPAREL, WHICH T HEY SELL
IN THEIR RETAIL STOR ES. THESE CAPT IVE CONSUMERS DO NOT REGULARLY
SUPPLY THE PUC TO OT HER FABRIC MANUFACTU RERS IN INDIAN MARKE T AND
THUS, SUPPRESS ANY C OMPETITION. THUS, CO NTINUATION OF ADD WI LL NOT
PROMOTE HEALTHY COMP ETITION AND WILL LEA VE THE CONSUMERS AT THE
MERCY OF CAPTIVE CON SUMERS.
III. IMPOSITION OF ADD HA S HAD ADVERSE EFFECT S ON ALL THE DOWNSTR EAM
USERS OF THE PUC AS DURING PEAK SEASON, INDIAN PRODUCERS, WH O ARE
ALSO CAPTIVE CONSUME RS, DO NOT SUPPLY TH E PUC TO OTHER PLAYE RS IN THE
MARKET, EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATING COMPETIT ION. THE APPLI CANT HAS BEEN
FINED BY THE COMPETI TION COMMISSION OF I NDIA BY IMPOSING PEN ALTY OF
₹302 CRORE ON GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., FOR ABUSING ITS DOMINANT POSITION
IN THE MARKET FOR SU PPLY OF VISCOSE STAP LE FIBRE (VSF). IF ADD IS
CONTINUED, A SIMILAR SITUATION MAY ARISE WITH RESPECT T O THE PUC.
INDIAN INDUSTRY HAS GROWN IN ALL ASPECTS AFTER THE IMPOSITION OF ADD,
HENCE CONTINUATION O F ADD IS NOT WARRANT ED.
IV. FURTHER, IMPACT OF A DD SHOULD BE ANALYSE D VIS - -VIS LINEN
FABRIC/TEXTILE AND N OT LINEN APPAREL.
V. THE APPLICA NTS HAVE PROTECTION OF ADD ON FLAX FABRI C AND ARE NOW
SEEKING EXCESS PROTE CTION ON THE RAW MAT ERIAL FLAX YARN. THE
DOWNSTREAM USERS IN INDIA ARE HAVING TO IMPORT FLAX YARN AND FLAX
FABRIC BOTH BY PAYIN G ADD IN PEAK SEASON S AS APPLICANTS AND OTHER
INDIAN PR ODUCERS ARE MORE FOC USED ON CATERING TO THEIR OWN CAPTIVE
DEMAND.
VI. AS A RESULT OF STRON G PROTECTION AFFORDE D TO DOMESTIC INDUST RY, THE
SUBJECT IMPORTS DECL INED FROM 9,371 MT I N POI OF ORIGINAL IN VESTIGATION
TO 3,407 MT IN POI O F PRESENT REVIEW. IM PORT PRIC E FROM CHINA ALSO
ALMOST DOUBLED IN TH E POI OF CURRENT REV IEW COMPARED TO ORIG INAL
INVESTIGATION.
VII. THE IMPACT ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE D OMESTIC INDUSTRY IS
INACCURATE BECAUSE I T IS BASED ON THE PR ICE OF LINEN APPAREL , RATHER
THAN THE PRICE OF LI NEN FABR IC/TEXTILE.
VIII. THE DOWNSTREAM USERS ARE HEAVILY IMPACTED BY THE NON -SUPPLY OF THE
PUC BY INDIAN PRODUC ERS DURING PEAK DEMA ND.
IX. THE ANTI -DUMPING DUTY IS NOT IN PUBLIC INTEREST. THERE ARE ONLY FEW
PRODUCERS IN THE DOM ESTIC MARKET, THERE IS A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT
THEY WILL DOMINATE T HE MARKET AND WOULD CREATE BARRIERS FOR
MARKET ENTRY.
X. DOMESTIC PRODUCERS S UCH AS JAYA SHREE TE XTILES, RAYMOND, LIN EN ART
AND WFB HAVE THEIR O WN FABRIC PRODUCTION UNITS AND ARE FOCUSE D ON
SUPPLYING THE PUC TO THEM DURING THE PEAK DEM AND PERIODS IN THE Y EAR.
THIS LEAVES THE USER INDUSTRY WITH VERY L IMITED SUPPLIES FROM THE
DOMESTIC MARKET WHO WILL IMPORT FROM CHI NA AS THE DOMESTIC
INDUSTRY IS IN NO PO SITION TO MEET 100% OF THE INDIAN USER I NDUSTRY'S
DEMAND DURING THE PE AK SEASON TIME.
L.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
119. The following submissions were made by the domestic industry with regard to public interest:
I. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ADVERSE IMPAC T ON THE CONSUMERS. NEITHER
HAVE THE CONSUMERS P ARTICIPATED IN THE I NVEST IGATION AND HAVE NOT
DEMONSTRATED ADVERSE IMPACT OF ADD.
II. THE PRICE INCREASE I N THE PUC WERE ABSOR BED BY THE MARKET WI THOUT ANY
ADVERSE EFFECTS.
III. DEMAND FOR THE PRODU CT INCREASED DESPITE INCREASING PRICES.
IV. THE PRICE OF CHINESE PRODUCERS ALSO INCRE ASED AND THE SAME WERE
ABSORBED BY THE MARK ET COLLECTIVELY AND CUMULATIVELY ESTABLI SH
THAT THERE WAS NO AD VERSE EFFECT OF ADD ON THE MARKET.
V. EVEN IF IT IS CONSID ERED THAT THE IMPACT IS REQUIRED TO BE CA LCULATED ON
FABRIC INTERESTED PA RTIES HAVE PROVIDED; NO QUANTI FICATIONS, NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE DO MESTIC INDUSTRY INDE ED INCREASED THE PRI CES BY THE
QUANTUM OF ADD.
VI. PRICE UNDERCUTTING W ITH ADD IS SIGNIFICA NTLY NEGATIVE ESTABL ISHING
THAT CONSUMERS DID N OT PAY HIGHER PRICES BECAUSE OF ADD.
VII. INDIAN INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE HAS CAPACITY SUFFICIENT TO CATER TO THE
ENTIRE INDIAN DEMAND INCLUDING CAPTIVE.
VIII. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE PART Y TO SHOW THAT THERE IS
SUPPLY CONSTRAINT BY THE INDIAN PRODUCERS , IT IS A WILD ALLEG ATION.
IX. THE ALLEGATIONS THAT SINCE ONE APPLICANT IS IN VOLVED IN A COMPETIT ION
COMMISSION OF INDIA‘ S (CCI‘S) INVESTIGAT ION AND WAS LIABLE T O PAY FINE, IS
NOT CONNECTED TO THE PRESENT REVIEW INVES TIGATION AT ALL. THE SAME IS A
DIFFERENT INVESTIGAT ION PERTAINING TO A SEPARATE PRODUCT ALT OGETHER.
X. IMPORTS FROM CH INA HAVE INCREASED S IGNIFICANTLY WHEN CO MPARED TO
THE BASE YEAR OF THE PRESENT INJURY PERIO D.
XI. TOTAL NUMBER OF INDI AN PRODUCERS MANUFAC TURING THE SUBJECT G OODS
HAVE INCREASED FROM 4 IN THE OI TO 8 IN THE PRESENT REVIEW I NVESTIGATION.
THE DUTIES BY PROVID ING A LEVEL PLAYING FI ELD AGAINST DUMPED A ND
INJURIOUS IMPORTS FR OM CHINA PR HAVE GIV EN THE INDIAN INDUST RY MORE
REASON AND CONFIDENC E, SO MUCH SO THAT T HE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE
INDIAN INDUSTRY HAVE INCREASED AROUND 15 TIMES AS COMPARED TO THE
INVESTMENT I N THE OI.
XII. AS A RESULT, THE CAP ACITY AND THE UTILIS ATION HAS IMPROVED D UE TO
EXISTENCE OF LEVEL P LAYING FIELD, IN -TURN INCREASING THE EMPLOYMENT,
THE PRODUCTION PROCE SS IS HIGH EMPLOYMEN T GENERATING.
XIII. THE SELF -RELIANCE OF THE INDU STRY HAS IMPROVED FR OM 1/3R D IN THE OI TO
COMPLETE IN THE POI IN TERMS OF CAPACITY TO CONSUMPTION RATIO .
XIV. THE EXTENSION OF THE ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES IS ES SENTIAL TO ENSURE A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD IN THE INDIAN MARKET, THE V IABILITY OF DOMESTIC
PRODUCTION OF THE LI KE ARTICLE, AND PREV ENT INDIA FROM BECOMING
SOLELY IMPORT RELIAN T ON THE PRODUCT.
XV. PRESENCE OF A VIBRAN T DOMESTIC INDUSTRY IS ESSENTIAL TO ENSU RE A FAIR
AND COMPETITIVE INDI AN MARKET, WHICH IN ITS ABSENCE WOULD BE
COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY CHINESE IMPORTS.
XVI. IT IS IN THE INTERES T OF THE PUBLIC AT LARG E TO HAVE A STRONG, COMPETITIVE
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF THE PRODUCT. ENCO URAGING DOMESTIC
MANUFACTURING ACTIVI TIES IS ESSENTIAL TO MAKE INDIA THE MANUF ACTURING
POWERHOUSE IT AIMS T O BECOME. ENCOURAGIN G DOMESTIC PRODUCTIO N WILL
BOOST EMPL OYMENT AND INCREASE THE GDP OF THE COUNT RY.
XVII. THE IMPACT IS VERY N EGLIGIBLE RANGING FR OM 0.7% TO 2.8% ONLY .
L.3. Examination by the Authority
120. The Authority notes that the purpose of imposition of anti -dumping duty, 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. Continuation of anti -dumping measures does not a im to restrict imports from the subject
country in any way. The Authority recognizes that the continuation of anti -dumping duties might affect
the price levels of the product in India. However, fair competition in the Indian market will not be
reduced by t he imposition of anti -dumping measures. On the contrary, continuation of anti -dumping
measures would ensure that no unfair advantages are gained by dumping practice, prevent decline of the
domestic industry and help maintain availability of wider choice to the consumers of the subject goods.
121. The Authority considered whether continuation of anti -dumping shall have any adverse impact on the
interest of the public. In order to determine such impact, the Authority weighed the impact of the
continuation of duti es on the availability of the 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. This determination
is based on the submissions and evidence submitted over the course of the present investigation.
122. The Authority issued initiation notification inviting views from all the interested parties, including
importers, consumers and others. The Authority also prescribed a questionnaire for the users/ consumers
to provide relevant information about the present investigation including any possible effects of anti -
dumping duty on their operations. The Authority issued gazette notification inviting views from all the
interested parties, including importers, consumers and other interested parties. Authority also prescribed
a questionnaire for the consumers to provide relevant information with regard to present investigations,
including effect of ADD on their operations. The Authority sought information on, inter -alia,
interchang eability of the product supplied by various suppliers from different countries, ability of the
domestic industry to switch sources, effect of ADD on the consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate
or delay the adjustment to the new situation caused by imposition of ADD, impact of repealing or
maintaining the present duty. The Authority notes that barring one importer, i.e., Texventures LLP, no
consumer and importer of the product under consideration filed the questionnaire response or attended
the oral hearing. Texventures LLP has also not filed user questionnaire response. The authority notes that
there is no evidence showing that imposition of ADD and its existence over last five years has had any
significant adverse effect either on the consumers or at public at large.
123. The submissions made by the other interested parties with respect to the impact of the duty have been
considered. The authority notes that the present investigation is a sunset review investigation, and
therefore before considering the impact of the proposed duties on consumers, the Authority should first
consider the impact of the duty that was imposed earlier. In a situation where the ADD has been in place
for last more than four years, the increase in the price of the product (after due adjustments for raw
material price movements) and the impact of the same is the best indicator of the likely impact of the
proposed duty on the consumers. This impact is required to be determined considering the increase in
price of the domestic and im ported product post imposition of duty. It is seen that there is no material
increase in the price of the product either by domestic industry or by Chinese producers, barring the
increase that is reported on account of an increase in raw material cost. Fur ther, the return on investment
of the domestic industry has improved since the base year, however, is still not very high. It can
therefore be concluded that neither the price of the domestic industry nor the price of import has
increased by the quantum of anti-dumping duty that was earlier imposed. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate to consider that the price of the product would increase in future by the quantum of anti -
dumping duty because of the continuation of duty.
124. The domestic industry has highli ghted that the number of producers has increased from about 4
producers in 2018 to 8 producers at present. The industry has installed capacity of more than 20,410 MT
from merely 6,378 MT. In order to achieve this growth, the Indian industry has invested mo re than Rs.
1,500 crores in the product. With the increase in capacities, the employment generated by the Indian
industry has increased and the industry is providing employment to about 5300 individuals directly and
is expected to increase by double in com ing years.
125. The domestic industry has been able to improve in last 5 years and have been able to expand capacities
considering the growth in the domestic market. New plants have been set up and new market players
have entered the market. Since, these compa nies have just started producing, they have not been able to
set a foothold in the Indian market and are thus vulnerable. Imports at low prices from China would
make it difficult for these nascent companies to survive. If the newly established production c apacity is
under - utilized and does not generate the required ROI, the company will incur losses. In such a case,
dumping of product under consideration is likely to adversely impact the performance of the Indian
industry.
126. The additional investments and i ncrease in capacity have had a positive impact on the employment
offered by the Indian industry. It is seen that there has been an increase of around 2.5 times in
employment as compared to the original investigation. The number of employees has more than d oubled
in the POI as compared to the original investigation. It has been claimed that the Indian industry of the
subject goods is the highest employment generator in both (a) textile fibre/yarn and (b) linen garment
industry.
127. In view of the foregoing, the Authority notes that the Indian industry has achieved growth as a result of
imposition of duty. However, since the industry continues to be vulnerable and there is likelihood of
recurrence of injury if the anti -dumping duty is removed, continuation of anti -dumping duty would be in
the interest of the industry.
128. The Authority has also examined the impact of the continuation of duty on the interests of the users. The
Authority notes that the imposition of duty does not restrict imports, but only ensure that t he goods are
available at fair prices. The Indian industry has enhanced their capacities and can cater to almost the
entirety of demand.
129. There are imports from other countries as well. Therefore, even if there are no imports from the subject
country, the domestic supply is more than sufficient to cater to the Indian demand. Imposition of anti -
dumping duty would not restrict imports from the subject country in any way, and, therefore, would not
affect the availability of the products to the consumers.
130. The Authority also notes that there are a number of producers in India, and the producers have capacities
exceeding the domestic demand. Therefore, there is significant price competition between the domestic
producers. This ensures that the users have ample av ailability of the products at competitive prices. No
undue advantage of the antidumping duty is possible in such a situation.
131. The opposing interested parties have not provided any information on how the ADD is adversely
impacting the downstream industry an d end customers. The domestic industry has provided calculations
on the impact of duty on the garments, which is almost negligible. It is also noted in this regard that the
subject goods are premium textile fabric product which is majorly used and worn by the high -income
group of society. Linen products are not used by the public at large. Thus, the impact of the ADD on
these segments will be too low. The interested parties have argued that the impact should be seen on the
fabric manufacturer, it is seen in this regard that the subject goods constitute a major part of the total cost
of fabric, and thus it is legitimate that the fabric manufacturer pass on any increase in cost to the end
customer. One of the applicants, M/s Grasim Industries Limited (Jaya Shr ee Textiles), is a producer of
both flax yarn and flax fabric. It has certified that the price of fabric is dependent on yarn and that the
price of fabric follows the movement of the price of yarn.
132. The Authority further notes that the definitive measures may have an impact on certain users but that
should be balanced against the risk of a discontinuation of the domestic industry activity. Not imposing
measures will lead to less reliable and unstable sources of supply, particularly when India and China are
known to be the major players in flax yarn. The Authority, therefore, concludes that the imposition of
duty would be in the larger public interest.
Justification for continuation of duties
i. The product is a premium textile product meant for high income grou p of the society due to high
maintenance cost.
133. The subject goods is a premium textile fabric product. It is noted that linen is a very premium textile
which is majorly used and worn by the elite section of the society. Linen products are not used by public
at large. It has been submitted by the applicants that the usage of linen is limited not due to the cost of
the product, rather high cost of regular maintenance is the primary reason for limiting the usage only by
the elite segment of the society. Thus, t his is not a product that goes into the fabric that is used by the
public at large.
ii. Duties have been beneficial to development and growth of the industry in the Country in the form of
capital investment, capacity creation, employment generation, and countr y becoming Atma -
Nirbhar .
134. The total number of Indian producers manufacturing the subject goods have increased, from four (4) in
the original investigation to eight (8) in the POI. Four new producers have set up around 14,032 MT
capacity since the original i nvestigation. The installed capacity in India stands at 20,410 MT as against
6,378 MT in the original investigation POI.
135. Investments made by the Indian industry increased around 15 times as compared to the investment in the
original investigation. The inv estment has increased from about Rs. 120 Crores at the time of original
investigation s to more than Rs. 1,500 Crores in the present POI.
136. The product is a heavily capital -intensive. While the average capital employed by the domestic industry
was around Rs. 1 lac per MT, the capital investment in the fresh capacities is around Rs.15 lacs per MT
of capacity.
137. The product is a heavily employment intensive. The average employment in the domestic industry is 3
persons per MT. Considering the capacities installed by the domestic industry and Indian industry, this
implies an employment of about 5,300 persons in yarn industry itself. The domestic industry contended
that the product under consideration involves highest employment (per MT of capacity) in the value
chain as compared to other textiles products such as viscose and polyester.
iii. Product provides highest employment per unit of production in all textile yarn
138. The production of flax yarn due to the process involved is high employment generating in nature. It
provides highest employment per unit of production in all textile yarns. It is seen that the requirement is
of 3 persons/MT for manufacturing.
139. The reason for the heavy employment in this industry is due to elaborate process involved in making flax
yarn (whic h is unlike any other yarn/fibre spinning). The employment generated by the flax yarn
industry is even higher than the employment generated by the downstream industries in fabric and
garmenting. While fabric industry generates 2/3rd employment as compared to yarn, the garment
industry generates a mere 1/5th of employment generated by yarn industry.
iv. Demand -supply gap bridged:
140. There was a significant demand -supply gap in the product at the time of original investigations. Where,
the demand in the original i nvestigation‘s POI was 15,080 MT, the installed capacities in India were only
6,438 MT. Whereas the demand has since increased to 20,688 MT by the time of the present POI, the
installed capacities have increased to 20,410 MT. The duties imposed have thus r esulted in increase in
capacities to meet the demand for the product in the country. Further, the demand -supply gap was
bridged by investments made by new domestic producers. Thus, the country is now self -sufficient in the
product.
v. The additional investme nts made by the industry needs to be protected from unfair trade
141. The Indian industry has made fresh investment in the region of Rs. 1,500 crores. The investment was
made by new producers. The profitability of the domestic industry was the best in the pres ent POI.
Considering the per unit profit before interest earned by the domestic industry in the present POI, it is
seen that the fresh investments would be able to earn a return of 22% should these investments earn
similar profit before interest as earned by the domestic industry. Any reduction in the profitability from
the POI levels would imply significantly adverse profitability of the new investment. The new
investment needs protection from dumped imports which are likely to resume at intensified volume s in
the event of cessation of duties.
vi. The Indian industry is vulnerable
142. The Indian industry is vulnerable to material injury, as is evident from the profitability of the domestic
industry and the fresh investments undertaken by the Indian industry. It is seen that the volume of
dumped, injurious and price -attractive sales by the responding Chinese producers alone is significant and
constitutes a significant share of Indian demand. The Authority has found that the installed capacities
with known producers in China are in the region of 70,000 MT, whereas the capacities installed by the
responding exporters alone are in the region of 34,500 MT. Thus, considering the volume of dumped,
injurious and price -attractive sales by the responding Chinese producers, th e Authority considers that the
volume of dumped, injurious and price -attractive sales by all Chinese producers is at least the double of
what has been found for the responding exporters. This would be significantly more than the entire
Indian demand. While the existing ADD has prevented the Chinese producers from increasing their
volumes beyond the present volumes, cessation of exiting ADD shall lead to a significant increase in
these volumes. The Indian industry is clearly vulnerable to injury in the event of cessation of ADD.
vii. China is the largest producer of the subject goods
143. Various articles and publications submitted by the domestic industry shows that China is the largest
manufacturer and exporter of flax yarn. Globally, at present, India and China are known to be the major
producers of the subject goods. Yet, the installed capacities in China have been quantified at 70,000 MT,
as against installed capacity of 20,410 MT in India. Further, whereas the demand -supply situation in
India is balanced, the Chi nese producers are faced with excess capacities .
viii. India is a key destination of exports for China
144. Analysis of questionnaire responses filed by the participating Chinese producers show that exports to
India ranks amongst top three in global export destinat ions for these companies. Further, demand for the
subject goods in India appears highest after Chinese domestic market, thus making India a lucrative
market. Kingdom group has time and gain publicly stated that India is a key market and exports of the
group have declined after imposition of ADD.
ix. No adverse impact on consumers
145. Anti-dumping duties were imposed on the product in 2017. No user has participated in the investigation
and filed requisite response. There is no evidence of any adverse effect of ADD earlier imposed on the
downstream product or ultimate consumer. The domestic industry has quantified impact of ADD in the
region of 0.73% to 2.8% and has contended that the cost of the product in anyway is not a major
deterrent for the consumers. The prima ry cost for the consumer is recurring maintenance cost rather than
one time purchase cost for the product.
146. The PUC is a premium textile fabric product. It is largely purchased by high income group of the society.
The information provided by the domestic i ndustry and the analysis thereof shows that while a garment
made out of flax could be available at a price band of the garments made of other fabric, yet garments
made of linen fabric are not preferred by public at large owing to high maintenance cost. The domestic
industry contended that the PUC is largely used by only the upper income group because of this high
maintenance cost.
147. The petitioners have contended, and the opposing parties have not refuted, that production of flax yarn
provides highest employ ment amongst all textile yarns, when measured in terms of per unit of
production.
148. It is noted that the investment by the domestic industry per unit of production is in the region of 15
lacs/MT and the same is much higher as compared to other yarns of poly ester, viscose, acrylic or other
man-made fibre. The domestic industry submitted that the high employment in the PUC is because of the
nature of production process as opposed to other manmade yarns.
M. CONCLUSION
149. Having regard to the contentions raised, submi ssions made, information provided and facts available
before the Authority as recorded above and on the basis of the above analysis of likelihood of
continuation/recurrence of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry, the Authority
concludes that:
I. BEING A REVIEW INVES TIGATION, THE SCOPE OF THE PRODUCT UNDER
CONSIDERATION HAS NO T BEEN ENHANCED AND HAS BEEN KEPT THE SA ME AS
THE ORIGINAL INVESTI GATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE PUC IS BEING DEF INED AS
―FLAX YARN OF BELOW 70 LEA COUNT‖.
II. DESPITE IMPOSITION OF ANTI -DUMPING DUTY, THE IM PORTS FROM THE SUBJE CT
COUNTRY HAVE DECLINE D SINCE THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION, BUT R EMAINED
SUBSTANTIAL IN ABSOL UTE TERMS AS WELL AS RELATIVE TO DI‘S PRO DUCTION
AND INDIAN DEMAND.
III. THE LANDED VALUE OF THE IMPORTS WITHOUT ADD IS U NDERCUTTING INDIAN
PRICES, THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY IS THEREFOR E ONLY COMPETING DUE TO THE
PRESENCE OF DUTIES.
IV. THE DOMESTIC INDUSTR Y REMAINS VULNERABLE DUE TO THE LIKELIHOO D OF
RECURRENCE OF DUMPIN G OF THE SUBJECT GOO DS FROM THE SUBJECT COUNTRY.
V. THE INFORMA TION ON RECORD SHOWS LIKELIHOOD OF
CONTINUATION/RECURRE NCE OF DUMPING AND I NJURY IN CASE THE AN TI-
DUMPING DUTY IN FORC E IS ALLOWED TO CEAS E AT THIS STAGE. THE LIKELIHOOD
ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT SIGNIFICANT EXPORTS OF THE SUBJECT GOODS FROM THE
SUBJECT COUNTRY TO THIRD COUNTRIES O THER THAN INDIA ARE AT DUMPED &
INJURIOUS PRICES. AN D THERE IS SIGNIFICA NT PRICE ATTRACTIVEN ESS TO MAKE
EXPORTS TO INDIA AS PRICE TO THIRD COUNT RIES ARE BELOW THE P RICE TO
INDIA. THESE FACTORS CUMULATIVELY INDICAT E STRONG LIKELIHOOD OF
DIVERSION OF EXPORTS OF THE SUBJECT GOODS FROM THE SUBJECT COU NTRY TO
INDIA IF THE EXISTIN G ANTI -DUMPING MEASURE CEAS ES TO EXIST.
VI. THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT THE IMPOSITION OF ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON TH E
PRODUCT UNDER CONSID ERATION HAS LED TO S IGNIFICANT INCRE ASE IN NUMBER
OF DOMESTIC PRODUCER S. DESPITE PROVIDING ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES TO USERS
TO QUANTIFY THE IMPA CT OF ADD AND ELABOR ATE ON HOW IMPOSITIO N OF ADD
WILL ADVERSELY IMPAC T THEM, NONE OF THE USERS HAVE PROVIDED RELEVANT
INFORMATION. THE OTH ER INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE NOT EST ABLISHED IMPACT
OF ADD ON THE USER I NDUSTRY WITH VERIFIA BLE INFORMATION.
VII. FROM THE INFORMATION ON RECORD, IT IS ALS O SEEN THAT THE IMPA CT OF ADD
ON THE CONSUMERS IS QUITE INSIGNIFICANT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON
TO BELIEVE THAT CON TINUATION OF PRESENT MEASURE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO
INCREASE IN THE PRIC ES OF THE PRODUCT UN DER CONSIDERATION IN THE
COUNTRY.
150. In view of the above the Authority finds that there is a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury in the event of cessation of the existing anti -dumping duties, and therefore,
recommends continuation of anti -dumping measures for a further period of five years.
N. RECOMMENDATIONS
151. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all the interes ted parties and
adequate opportunity was given to the domestic industry, the exporters, the importers, the users and the
other interested parties to provide information on the aspects of dumping, injury and the causal link and
also on likelihood of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.
152. Having concluded that there is positive evidence of likelihood of dumping and injury if the existing anti -
dumping duties are allowed to cease, the Authority is of the view that the anti -dumping duty in force on
the im ports of the product under consideration from the subject country is required to be continued
further. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as established hereinabove, the Designated
Authority considers it appropriate to recommend extension of the anti -dumping duties on the imports of
the subject goods from the subject country. Accordingly, the anti -dumping duties for producers from
China is recommended as per the duty table below.
153. Thus, in terms of provision contained in Rule 4(d) and Rule l7(l) (b) of the AD Rules, the Authority
recommends the continued imposition of the existing anti -dumping duties, so as to remove the likelihood
of dumping and injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, definitive anti -dumping duty equal to the
amount m entioned in column 7 of the duty table below is recommended for the imposition for five (5)
years from the date of the Notification to be issued by the Central Government, on all imports of the
subject goods originating in or exported from the subject coun try.
DUTY TABLE
S. No. Heading/
Subheading Description
of Goods Country
of Origin Country
of Export Producer/
exporter Duty Amount
(USD/KG)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1. 5306,
5306 1090,
5306 2010,
5306 2090,
5306 1010 Flax Yarn of
below 70 Lea
Count (or below
42 nm) China PR
Any including
China PR Jiangsu Jinyuan Flax
Co., Ltd./ Zhejiang
Jinyuan Flax Co.,
Ltd.,/ Zhejiang
Kingdom Linen Co.,
Ltd. 2.42
2. -do- -do- China PR Any including
China PR Yixing Sunshine
Linen Textile
Co., Ltd. 2.29
3.
-do-
-do- China PR Any country
including
China PR Any other than the
producers at
Sl. No. 1-2 4.83
*Note - Customs classification is only indicative, and the determination of anti -dumping duty shall be made
as per the descrip tion of the PUC
FURTHER PROCEDURE
154. An appeal against the order of the Central Government that may arise out of this recommendation 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 Printing 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