Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-20032026-271101
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 63]
NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2026/PHALGUNA 27, 1947
1948 GI/2026
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department Of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
FINAL FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2026
Case No. ADD (OI) – 01/2025
Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Elastomeric Filament
Yarns" originating in or exported from China PR and Vietnam – reg.
F. No. 6/01/2025 -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 'AD Rules') thereof;
1. M/s Indorama India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant” or “domestic industry") has filed
an application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority"), in accordance with
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred 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 referred as the Rules) for
imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Elastomeric Filament Yarn (hereinafter referred as the "subject
goods" or "product under consideration”), originating in or exported from China PR and Vietnam (hereinafter
referred to as the "subject countries").
2. And whereas, in view of the duly substantiated application filed by the applicant, the Authority issued vide
Initiation Notification F. No. 6/01/2025-DGTR, dated 28th March 2025, published in the Gazette of India,
initiating anti -dumping investigation into imports of the product under consideration from the subject
countries, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Anti-Dumping Rules to determine the existence, degree and effect
of any alleged dumping of the subject goods and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if
levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry.
3. The Applicant alleged that dumped imports of the subject goods from subject countries is causing injury and
has requested the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods from the subject
countries.
A. PROCEDURE
4. The procedure described herein below has been followed by the Authority with regard to the subject
investigation:
4.1. Initiation
i. The Authority, under the above Rules, received a written application from the applicant on behalf of the
domestic industry, alleging dumping of Elastomeric Filament Yarn from the subject countries.
ii. The Authority notified the embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the anti-dumping
application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 5
supra.
iii. In accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules, the Authority issued a Notification No.6/01/2025-DGTRdated 28th
March, 2025, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating the anti-dumping investigation
concerning the imports of the product under consideration from the subject countries.
iv. In accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules, the Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the
embassy of the subject countries in India, the known producers, and exporters from the subject countries,
known importers and users in India, and the other interested parties, as per the email addresses made
available by the applicant.
4.2. Circulation of non-confidential version of the application
i. In accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules, the Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version
(NCV) of the application to the known producers/ exporters and to the Embassy of the subject countries in
India.
4.3. Participation by Exporters of Subject Country
i. In accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules, the Authority sent exporter's questionnaire to the known
producers/exporters in subject countries.
ii. The Authority sent questionnaires to the government of the subject countries through their embassy in India.
The Government of the subject countries was also requested to forward the Initiation Notification and the
questionnaires to the producers/exporters of the subject goods and advise them to respond to the
questionnaire within the prescribed time limit.
iii. The Authority sent exporter's questionnaire to the following known producers/exporters in the subject
countries in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
a. Hyosung Corporation
b. Yantai Tayho Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.
c. Invista
d. Huafon Chemical Co., Ltd.
e. Hangzhou Qingyun Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.
f. Hyosung Spandex (Jiaxing) Co., Ltd.
g. Taekwang Synthetic Fiber (Changshu) Co. Ltd.
h. Hyosung Vietnam Co.
iv. The following producers/exporters from the subject countries have filed exporter's questionnaire response:
a. Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd.
b. Zhuji Qingrong New Materials Co., Ltd. (China PR)
c. Hangzhou Qingyun Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. (China PR)
d. Fibre 2 Fashion L.L.C-FZ
e. Hyosung Dong Nai Co. Ltd. (Vietnam)
f. HS Hyosung Vietnam Company Limited (‘HS HSVN Co. Ltd.') (Vietnam)
4.4. Participation by Importers/Users
i. The Authority forwarded a copy of the Initiation Notification to the following known importers/users/user
associations, whose names and addresses were made available to the authority, of subject goods in India
and advised them to make their views known in writing within the time limit prescribed by the Authority in
accordance with the Rule 6(4):
a. Auro Spinning Mills
b. Aarvee Denims and Exports Ltd.
c. Alok Industries Ltd
d. BST Textile Mills Pvt Ltd
e. Blaumann Industries Pvt Ltd.
f. Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd.
g. Deepak Impex Pvt. Limited
h. Confederation of Indian Textile Industry (CITI)
i. Indian Spinners Association (ISA)
j. Indian Woollen Mills Federation
k. Federation of Indian Art Silk Weaving Industry
ii. The following importers or consumers of the product have filed the importer's questionnaire response in the
prescribed format:
a. Reaghan Fashions Pvt Ltd India
b. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited
c. Vardhman Textiles Limited
d. Sitaram Spinners Private Limited
e. Hyosung India Pvt. Ltd.
iii. Hyosung India, the other producer has filed its submissions during the course of the investigation and
supported the investigation for imposition of duties against China PR. In addition to aforesaid, legal
submissions have been filed on behalf of the following importers / users:
a. Denim Manufacturing Association
b. Sangam India Limited
c. RSWM Limited
d. LNJ Denim
e. Jindal Worldwide Limited
iv. Exporters, foreigner producers and other interested parties who have not responded to the Authority, or not
supplied complete information relevant to this investigation, are treated as non-cooperating interested
parties.
4.5. Period of Investigation and Injury Period
i. The period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation is 1st October 2023 to 30th September 2024 (12
months). The injury investigation period for the present investigation is April 2021 to March 2022, April
2022 to March 2023, April 2023to June 2024 and the POI.
4.6. Further procedures
i. Request was made to the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) and the
DG-Systems, to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of subject goods for the injury period. The
Authority received the data and has relied upon DGCI&S data for the necessary analysis after
dueexamination of the transactions.
ii. The Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire (EIQ) to assess public interest and the impact of
the duties on the wider economy. The EIQ was also shared with the concerned administrative
Ministry/Department. The relevant submissions made thereunder, has been appropriately examined in the
final findings.
iii. A list of all interested parties that registered themselves within the prescribed timeline was uploaded on the
DGTR website. All registered interested parties were directed to circulate the NCV of all their submissions
in the present proceedings with all other interested parties along with the Authority.
iv. Information provided by interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of
the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority proposes to accept the confidentiality claims
wherever warranted and such information has been considered as confidential and not disclosed to other
interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to
provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.
V. The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, to the extent supported
with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by
the Authority, in this final finding.
vi. Opportunity was provided to all the interested parties to file their comments on the scope of PUC and Product
Control Number (“PCN”) methodology within 15 days' time from the date of the circulation of the NCV of
the application. The Authority granted additional time up to 23.04.2025 for filing the comments on
PUC/PCN considering the extension request received from the interested parties. Comments were filed by
the interested parties regarding the scope of the PUC and PCN methodology. After examining the
comments/ submissions submitted by interested parties, the Authority has modified the text of the PCN
methodology to avoid any ambiguity. Thereafter, the final scope of PUC and PCN methodology was
notified vide letter dated 21.05.2025 and thereafter provided 30 days for filing the questionnaire response.
vii. In accordance with Rule 6(6), the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present their
views orally in a hearing held on 16th October 2025. Subsequently, due to a change in Designated
Authority, a second oral hearing was held on 26th December 2025. The parties presenting their views in the
oral hearing were directed to make written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder
submissions.
viii. In accordance with Rule 6(8) of the Rules wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise
not provided necessary information during the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the
investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the final findings
based on the facts available.
ix. In accordance with Rule 7, information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined
by the Authority with regard to the sufficiency of the confidentiality claimed. On being satisfied, the
Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information has been
considered as confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties
providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient NCV of the information
filed on confidential basis.
Χ. In accordance with Rule 8, the Authority conducted verification of the data provided by the domestic
industry to the extent considered necessary for the present proceedings. The Authority has considered the
verified data of the interested parties in its analysis in the present case.
xi. The Authority calculated the non-injurious price (NIP) for the product under consideration so as to ascertain
whether duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remedy the injury being suffered by
the domestic industry. The NIP has been calculated based on the optimum cost of production and cost to
produce and sell the domestic like article in India, based on the information furnished by the domestic
industry and having regard to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The NIP has been
determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Annexure III to the Anti-Dumping Rules.
xii. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation which have formed the basis of the
final findings was issued to the interested parties on 5th March, 2026 and the interested parties were allowed
time up to 12th March, 2026 to file comment on the same. The comments to disclosure statement received
from the interested parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant and nonrepetitive, in these
final findings
xiii. The Authority examined the issues raised, information provided, and submissions made by the domestic
industry and the other interested party during the course of the investigation, to the extent they were
supported by evidence and considered relevant to the present purposes, in making the final findings.
xiv. In this final findings, “***” represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis and
so considered by the Authority under the Rules.
XV. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is US$ 1 = 84.28.
B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION (PUC) AND LIKE ARTICLE
5. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration (PUC) was defined as under:
"3. The product under consideration in the present application is
"Elastomeric Filament Yarns of all deniers excluding the following:
a. Coloured Elastomeric Yarns except Black,
b. Elastomeric yarns on Beam,
C. Subject goods having brand name as "LYCRA®" and
d. Elastomeric Filament Yarn meant for diapers"
4. According to the Applicant, the subject goods having brand name as "LYCRA®” are excluded as the
same is a specialized and fine quality product manufactured under process control conditions, which
are patent protected. Even commercially, the price of Lycra is much higher as compared to the other
brands of elastomeric filament yarns available in the market.
5. In market parlance, the product is also known by various names, such as Spandex or Elastane. These are
described in technical terms as segmented polyurethane composed of "soft", or flexible, segments
bonded together with "hard", or rigid segments. This gives the fibre its built-in, lasting elasticity. It is an
elastomeric fibre used widely as the minor component in stretch garments to provide stretch with
recovery.
6. Spandex yarn is mainly used to make such garments that require great comfort and fit. As such, they find
applications in manufacturing of hosiery, swimsuits, aerobic or exercise wear, ski pants, golfjackets,
disposable diaper, waist bands, bra straps and bra side panels etc. They are even great for making shaped
garments like bra cups. Spandex fabrics are also used to make compression garments, such as surgical
hose, support hose, bicycle pants, foundation garments etc. Elastomeric Yarns are often blended with
other fabrics, such as cotton, nylon and polyester to give a garment an additional level of comfort.
Elastic properties of knitwear, namely stretch and recovery have a noticeable impact on comfort, adding
flexibility and freedom of movement. Only a very small percentage of elastomeric yarn is used in the
finished product, depending on its intended use. To improve elastic properties of cotton knitted fabrics,
usually elastomeric yarn is fed into the fabric.
7. The subject products are classified under Chapter Heading 54 "Man-made filaments; strips and the like
of man-made textile materials”. The classification at the 8-digit level is 54041100 even though the
same are being classified and imported under various sub-headings like 5402, 5403 and 5404 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is also submitted that the custom classification is indicative only and in no
way is binding upon the product scope of the present investigation.
6. The interested parties were granted time up to 23.04.2025 to file their comments on the scope of the PUC and
PCN methodology. Subsequently, the Authority has analyzed the issues raised and final PCNs were notified
vide letter dated 21.05.2025. Pursuant to the notification of PCNs, submissions were filed by the interested
parties, which are as follows:
B.1. Submissions made by producers/exporters/importers/other interested parties
7. The other interested parties have made following submission in relation to the product under consideration and
like article:
i. That the application filed by the domestic industry, there are certain PCNs with negative injury margins,
implies that those PCNs are not causing any injury to them. Therefore, inclusion of PCNs with negative
injury margins within the scope of the PUC would distort and inflate the overall injury assessment and
would result in the imposition of duties on product types that are imported at prices above fair value and
are not injurious.
ii. The Product Under Consideration (PUC) in the present investigation is Elastomeric Filament Yarn.
Hyosung India is a domestic manufacturer of the PUC and produces goods that are like articles to the
imported product within the meaning of Rule 2(d) of the Indian Anti-Dumping Rules.
iii. There is no dispute with respect to product comparability. The domestically manufactured product and
the imported product are comparable in terms of technical characteristics, manufacturing process,
functions, and end -use applications. Accordingly, Hyosung India qualifies as a producer of the like
article.
B.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry
8. The submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to the product under consideration and like article
and considered relevant by the Authority are as follows:
i. That, the domestic industry is producing complete range of the product under consideration. The product
under consideration in the present application is "Elastomeric Filament Yarn of all deniers". These
filament yarns are also commonly referred to as Spandex or Elastane. The subject goods are described in
terms of the deniers and are sold generally in the range of 10 to 1680 deniers. The domestic industry has
the capability to produce the entire range of these deniers.
ii. Following products, are excluded from the scope of the product under consideration:
a. Coloured Elastomeric Yarn except Black;
b. Elastomeric yarns on Beam;
c. Subject goods having brand name as "LYCRA®"
d. Elastomeric Filament Yarn meant for diapers
iii. According to the domestic industry, the subject goods having brand name as "LYCRA®" are excluded
as the same is a specialized and fine quality product, manufactured under process control conditions,
which are patent protected. Even commercially, the price of Lycra is much higher as compared to the
other brands of elastomeric filament yarns available in the market.
iv. In market parlance, the product is also known by various names, such as Spandex or Elastane. These are
described in technical terms as segmented polyurethane composed of "soft", or flexible, segments
bonded together with “hard”, or rigid segments. This gives the fibre its built-in, lasting elasticity. It is an
elastomeric fibre used widely as the minor component in stretch garments to provide stretch with
recovery.
V. Spandex yarn is mainly used to make such garments that require great comfort and fit. As such, they find
applications in manufacturing of hosiery, swimsuits, aerobic or exercise wear, ski pants, golf jackets,
disposable diaper, waist bands, bra straps and bra side panels etc. They are even great for making shaped
garments like bra cups. Spandex fabrics are also used to make compression garments, such as surgical
hose, support hose, bicycle pants, foundation garments etc. Elastomeric Yarns are often blended with
other fabrics, such as cotton, nylon and polyester to give a garment an additional level of comfort.
Elastic properties of knitwear, namely stretch and recovery have a noticeable impact on comfort, adding
flexibility and freedom of movement. Only a very small percentage of elastomeric yarn is used in the
finished product, depending on its intended use. To improve elastic properties of cotton knitted fabrics,
usually elastomeric yarn is fed into the fabric.
vi. The subject products are classified under Chapter Heading 54 "Man-made filaments; strips and the like
of man-made textile materials". The classification at the 8-digit level is 54024400 and 54041100. It is
also submitted that the customs classification is indicative only and in no way binding upon the product
scope.
vii. In relation to the issue of removal of PCNs having negative injury margins, domestic industry submitted
that excluding PCNs with negative injury margins would defeat the very purpose of the PCN
methodology, which is only a tool for ensuring fair price comparison by accounting for product
differences under Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Annexure I of the Rules, and not a
mechanism to alter or modify the scope of the PUC. Injury margins calculated at the PCN level do not
and cannot redefine the PUC, since it is well-settled jurisprudence that duties are imposed at the PUC
level as a whole. There is no legal provision requiring exclusion of PCNs with negative margins, on the
contrary, the available jurisprudence on the subject, including the Appellate Body ruling in the bed linen
dispute before the World Trade Organization, confirms that anti-dumping duties can only be levied on
the product as a whole. The request for selective exclusion of PCNs is therefore legally untenable and, in
substance, amounts to impermissible zeroing, and will lead to higher margins.
B.3. Examination by the Authority
9. Submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties with regard to product under
consideration, to the extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed accordingly.
10. The product under consideration in the present application is “Elastomeric Filament Yarn of all deniers". These
filament yarns are also commonly referred to as Spandex or Elastane. The subject goods are described in terms
of the deniers and are sold generally in the range of 10 to 1680 deniers. The domestic industry has the
capability to produce the entire range of these deniers. Following products are excluded from the scope of the
product under consideration:
a) Colored Elastomeric Yarns;
b) Elastomeric yarns on Beam;
c) Subject goods having brand name as "Lycra®
d) Elastomeric Filament Yarn meant for diapers.
11. In market parlance, the product is also known by various names, such as Spandex or Elastane. These are
described in technical terms as segmented polyurethane composed of "soft", or flexible, segments bonded
together with "hard", or rigid segments. This gives the fibre its built-in, lasting elasticity. It is an elastomeric
fibre used widely as the minor component in stretch garments to provide stretch with recovery.
12. Elastomeric Yarns are often blended with other fabrics, such as cotton, nylon and polyester to give a garment
an additional level of comfort. Elastic properties of knitwear, namely stretch and recovery have a noticeable
impact on comfort, adding flexibility and freedom of movement. Only a very small percentage of elastomeric
yarn is used in the finished product depending on the use. To improve elastic properties of cotton knitted
fabrics, usually elastomeric yarn is fed into the fabric.
13. The subject products are classified under Chapter Heading 54 “Man-made filaments; strips and the like of man-
made textile materials" of the Customs Tariff Act. The classification at the 8-digit level is 54041100 even
though the same are being classified and imported under various sub-headings like 5402, 5403 and 5404 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The custom classification is indicative only and in no way, it is binding upon the
product scope and the product description prevails in circumstances of conflict.
14. The Domestic Industry proposed PCNs in their petition. The Authority has provided time to all the interested
parties to provide comments on the same, so that PCNs can be finalized for the present investigation. The
Authority after examining the comments/ submissions submitted by interested parties, issued the following
PCNs on 21.5.2025. The Authority has used the same PCNs for the purpose of present investigation.
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| S. No.| Type | Value | PCN Code |
+=======+==========================+==========================+============+
| 1 | Cone | C | C |
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| 2 | Denier Range | Upto 15 Denier | C00000015 |
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| 3 | (Illustrations given) | Above 15 and upto 25 Denier | C00150025 |
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| 4 | | Above 25 and upto 35 Denier | C00250035 |
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| 5 | | Above 35 and upto 45 Denier | C00350045 |
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| 6 | | Above 45 and upto 55 Denier | C00450055 |
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| 7 | | Above 55 and upto 65 Denier | C00550065 |
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| 8 | | Above 65 and upto 75 Denier | C00650075 |
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
| 9 | | Above 75 and upto 85 Denier etc. | C00750085 |
+-------+--------------------------+--------------------------+------------+
15. In relation to exclusion of those PCNs which are having negative injury margins, it is noted that the request for
exclusion is neither supported by law or logic and therefore, cannot be accepted. It is further noted that the
interested parties have also failed to provide any legal basis to substantiated their claim of exclusion of those
PCNs which are having negative injury margin. In view thereof, the Authority does not find credence in
request and confirms that no exclusion is required in the present investigation.
16. Further, in terms of Rule 2 (d) of the Rules relating the Authority on the basis of information on record,
proposes to hold that there is no known difference in product under consideration exported from the subject
countries and the product produced by the Indian domestic industry. Product under consideration produced by
the Indian domestic industry is comparable to the imported subject product in terms of characteristics such as
physical & chemical characteristics, functions & uses, product specifications, distribution & marketing and
tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable. The consumers are
using the two interchangeably. Thus, the Authority proposes to hold that product produced by the domestic
industry is like article to the subject product under consideration imported from the subject countries in
accordance with the Rules
C. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING
17. C.1.Submissions made by other interested parties
The other interested parties have made the following submissions in relation to the scope of domestic industry
& standing.
i. Hyosung India is a domestic producer of the PUC and has formally extended its support to the
application filed by the domestic industry (DI), to the extent it concerns imports from China PR. A
support letter to this effect was submitted to the Hon'ble Designated Authority (DA).
ii. Hyosung India has invested in India for production of subject goods since incorporation in 2018 and
commencement of production in October 2019. Installed capacity increased by 82% during the POI
compared to the base year, while production and domestic sales increased by 54% and 50%
respectively. Accordingly, Hyosung India satisfies the requirements of a domestic producer under the
Rules and supports the presentinvestigation insofar as it pertains to imports from China PR.
C.2 Submissions made by the domestic industry
18. The submissions made by the domestic industry during the course of the investigation with regard to scope of
domestic industry & standing are as follows:
a. The application has been filed by M/s Indorama India Private Limited. The production by the applicant
constitutes a major proportion of total Indian production. The Applicants account for 100% of the total
eligible production. The only other Indian producer namely, Hyosung India Pvt. Ltd., has themselves
imported the subject goods and they are also related to exporters from the subject countries and therefore,
they are not eligible domestic industry in terms of Rule 2(b).
b. The applicant has neither imported the subject goods from subject countries nor they are related to any
exporter from the subject countries or importer of the subject goods in India during the entire injury
investigation period.
C.3. Examination by the Authority
19. Rule 2 (b) of the 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 activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a
major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the
exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term
'domestic industry' may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers”.
20. The application has been filed by M/s Indorama India Private Limited, who is the major producer of the
product under consideration in India, there is only one more producer of the subject goods in India namely
HYOSUNG India Private Limited (HIPL).
21. As per evidence available on record, the Authority notes that Applicant is neither related to importers in India
nor any exporters from the subject countries. The Authority further notes that Applicant has not imported the
subject goods during the period of investigation. It is seen from the information provided by the HIPL that the
related exporters from subject countries have exported subject goods (entirety of the exports from Vietnam are
by their related company). Therefore, the Authority has considered HIPL as a domestic producer, but not
domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b).
22. Considering the information on record, the Applicant accounts for a major proportion of the Indian production.
Accordingly, the Authority holds that the Applicant constitutes domestic industry within the meaning of Rule
2(b) of the Rules. Further, the Authority considers that the application satisfied the criteria of standing in terms
of Rule 5(3) of the Rule.
D. Confidentiality
D.1. Submissions of other interested parties
23. The other interested parties have made following submissions:
i. That the domestic industry has not provided the information strictly in terms of the applicable Trade Notice
10/2018 dated 7th September 2018 and Rule 7 of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
ii. It is further submitted that the principles of natural justice and transparency require that non-confidential
versions of the application should contain sufficient detail to enable a reasonable understanding of the
substance of the confidential information. However, in the present case, the non-confidential disclosures are
vague and generalized, lacking essential numerical details, thereby constraining the ability of other interested
parties to make effective comments or rebuttals.
D. 2 Submissions made by the domestic industry
24. Following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i. Response filed by participating producers fail to comply with requirements laid down by the Authority with
regard to confidentiality. Response to most of the questions in questionnaire have been claimed completely
confidential with no meaningful summary provided.
ii. Exporters have even not provided details of their producers or their legal form apart from other details which
cannot be allowed to keep confidential. The non-confidential version of their responses have seriously
restricted the ability of the domestic industry to assist the Authority or protect their legitimate interest.
iii. Respondents have failed to comply with the requirements of the Trade Notice 10/2018 dated 7th September
2018.
iv. All the economic parameters considered by Authority for the purpose of arriving at the determination of
injury have been provided in compliance with trade notice 10/2018 dated 7th September, 2018. Interested
parties should establish prejudice caused on non-disclosure of other parameters. Moreover, domestic industry
has provided justification for information claimed confidential.
V. The importers have not provided details of information which are inadequate for the purpose of investigation
and has made blatant statements.
D.3. Examination by the Authority
25. Submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties with regard to confidentiality, to the
extent considered relevant, were examined by the Authority and addressed accordingly. The Authority notes
that domestic industry and other interested parties have provided non-confidential version of all the information
that is relevant for the purpose of present investigation.
26. The Authority notes that the information provided by all the interested parties on confidential basis was
examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted
the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not
disclosed to other interested parties. All interested parties have claimed their business-related sensitive
information as confidential.
E. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSION
E.1.Submissions of other interested parties
27. Following miscellaneous submissions have been made by other interested parties:
i. That the Hyosung India, the supporter Industry has not provided the data pursuant to the Trade Notice No. 13
of 2018. Itis further apprehended that since the supporting industry is doing well and therefore, they have not
filed the data as per requirement.
ii. That the proposal of the domestic industry to exclude imports from South Korea from the scope of the subject
countries is not supported by any verifiable evidence on record. In the absence of such proof, exclusion of
South Korean imports would distort the analysis of total import volumes and artificially inflate the share of
subject country imports. It is further submitted that if South Korean imports are not excluded, imports from
Vietnam may fall below the de-minimis threshold of three per cent prescribed under Rule 14(b) of the Anti-
Dumping Rules.
iii. That the domestic industry is a regular user of trade remedy measures. The domestic industry has benefitted
from anti-dumping duties on POY, PSF, FDY and subject goods. The duties have been in-force since
decades.
iv. It is submitted by Hyosung Group that Hyosung Korea was awarded nil duty in the first investigation as well
in its sunset review investigation. It is further submitted that even duties from Vietnam were nominal which
were challenged by them. The said challenge became redundant upon withdrawal of duties. Hyosung group
also highlighted their long-term commitment to India through establishment and expansion of domestic
manufacturing operations since 2019. It is emphasized that Hyosung India has increased capacity, production
and domestic sales during the injury period, reflecting sustained investment under the Make in India
initiative, while imports from Vietnam have been limited, product-specific, and undertaken only as a
transitional measure during ramp-up and temporary technical disruptions.
V. Hyosung India has supported the Domestic Industry's claim of injury from China. However, they have
advocated that imports from Vietnam are non-dumped and non-injurious therefore, no duties should be
recommended from Vietnam. They have further submitted that they are also facing injury from imports from
China, being dumped and injurious.
E.2. Submissions of domestic industry
28. Following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i. Response of participating associations cannot be accepted as they have not filed the information as they have
failed to fulfil their obligation to be considered as interested parties in terms of Rule 2(c). It was further stated
that none of the participating associations have even bothered to submit complete lists of all their members so
as to enable the Hon'ble Authority to ascertain their status as an interested party. Since they have not
followed prescribed guidelines, domestic industry requested to reject their submissions.
ii. In relation to anti-dumping duties against PSF, POY and FDY is concerned, domestic industry has submitted
that since their inception, they are manufacturing only Elastomeric Filament Yarn and that they have never
produced PSF, POY and FDY. In any case, domestic industry has submitted that present proceedings are
required to be examined independently on the basis of verified data and prevailing market conditions, and
therefore reliance on past investigations has no bearing on the present investigation.
iii. In relation to the submissions that Hyosung India has not provided the supporters information in terms of the
applicable Trade Notices, it is submitted that they have supported to the extent it concerns imports from
China PR, therefore, they cannot be treated as supporter of complete investigation. Since they are ineligible
in terms of Rule 2(b), their support or oppose has no impact on the maintainability of the investigation.
iv. In relation to submission of Hyosung India about their operations in India, domestic industry has submitted
that presence of Hyosung India is a positive impact of anti-dumping duties earlier imposed. In relation to
their past duties, domestic industry has not made any comments as those are not subject of present
investigation.
V. In relation to incorrect exclusion of imports from South Korea, domestic industry has submitted that the
imports from South Korea were correctly excluded from the scope of the present investigation as dumping
margin from Hyosung Korea was negative and the only other producer in South Korea, apart from Hyosung,
has ceased operations, thereby eliminating any possibility of injurious dumped imports from Korea.
Domestic industry has further submitted that the attempt of the interested parties to attribute injury to imports
from South Korea, or to suggest that their exclusion vitiates the present investigation, is factually incorrect,
legally untenable, and contrary to the evidence on record.
E.3. Examination by the Authority
29. As regard the submission regarding history of antidumping duty, itis noted that the Authority has carried out
this investigation strictly in accordance with the anti-dumping Rules. The Authority is of the view that the
domestic industry has every right to seek protection under the law, if exporters from the subject countries are
proved to be dumping the subject goods causing material injury to the industry. It is also important to note that
no duties can be levied if specific exporters demonstrate that they had not dumped the subject goods during the
period of investigation. It is also noted that the domestic industry is not producing PSF, POY and FDY,
therefore, any measures applicable to those products have no bearing on the current investigation.
30. As regards the submissions of the domestic industry that the responses filed by certain user associations ought
to be rejected for non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements, the Authority has taken note of
the legal arguments advanced therein and has examined and addressed the same at the appropriate places in the
present findings.
31. In relation to incorrect exclusion of South Korea from the scope of the subject countries, it is noted that the
petition/application filed by the domestic industry did not contain any allegation of dumping of subject goods
from Korea RP. Further, it is also noted from the submissions of the domestic industry that producers from
Korea have stopped manufacturing the subject goods, and therefore, the domestic industry has excluded Korea
from the scope of the subject countries.
F. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE & DETERMINATION OF DUMPING MARGIN
32. As per section 9A(1)(c) of the Act, the 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 addition for
administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made
under sub-section (b):
Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where
the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the
country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be
determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.
Provisions relating to Non-Market Economy countries
33. Annexure-I to AD rules states as under:
7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis if the
price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other
countries, including India or where it is not possible, or on any other reasonable basis, including the price
actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary, to include a reasonable profit
margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated authority in a
reasonable manner, keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in
question, and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of selection.
Accounts shall be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation made in any similar matter
in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without
any unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a
reasonable period of time to offer their comments.
8. (1) The term “non-market economy country” means any country which the designated authority determines
as not operating on market principles of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchandise in such country
do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise, in accordance with the criteria specified in sub-paragraph (3)
(2) There shall be a presumption that any country that has been determined to be, or has been treated as, a
non-market economy country for purposes of an anti-dumping investigation by the designated authority or by
the competent authority of any WTO member 16country during the three year period preceding the
investigation is a nonmarket economy country
Provided, however, that the non-market economy country or the concerned firms from such country may rebut
such a presumption by providing information and evidence to the designated authority that establishes that
such country is not a non-market economy country on the basis of the criteria specified in sub-paragraph (3)
(3) The designated authority shall consider in each case the following criteria as to whether:
(a) the decisions of the concerned firms in such country regarding prices, costs and inputs, including raw
materials, cost of technology and labour, output, sales and investment, are made in response to market signals
reflecting supply and demand and without significant State interference in this regard, and whether costs of
major inputs substantially reflect market values;
(b) the production costs and financial situation of such firms are subject to significant distortions carried over
from the former non-market economy system, in particular in relation to depreciation of assets, other write-
offs, barter trade and payment via compensation of debts;
(c) such firms are subject to bankruptcy and property laws which guarantee legal certainty and stability for the
operation of the firms, and
(d) the exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate.
Provided, however, that where it is shown by sufficient evidence in writing on the basis of the criteria specified
in this paragraph that market conditions prevail for one or more such firms subject to anti-dumping
investigations, the designated authority may apply the principles set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 instead of the
principles set out in paragraph 7 and in this paragraph"
F.1. Submissions made by other interested parties
34. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regard to normal value, export price
or dumping margin.
i. That the adoption of a surrogate country methodology or cost-plus approach for determination of
normal value was legally impermissible, as the provisions enabling non-market economy treatment
under Section 15(d) of China's Accession Protocol had ceased to have effect upon their expiry on
11.12.2016.
ii. It is further submitted that as per India's obligations under the WTO framework and the findings of the
WTO Appellate Body, the Authority is required to determine normal value strictly in accordance with
Article 2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, based on the verified data of the responding Chinese
producers, and not on any alternative methodology.
iii. That producers have filed their complete information with the DGTR in relation to normal value and
dumping margin. Therefore, they have requested to use their verifiable information for the purpose of
dumping margin.
F.2. Submissions by the domestic industry
35. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
i. The domestic industry submitted that the arguments advanced by the interested parties in reliance upon
Section 15(a)(ii) of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China are misconceived,
incomplete, and legally untenable. It was further submitted that the interested parties have failed to address
how Annexures 7 and 8 of Annexure I to the Anti-Dumping Rules will not apply to them, which specifically
prescribe the methodology for determination of normal value and the treatment of non-market economy
situations under the Indian legal framework. In view of this, they have requested to rejected the selective
reliance on Article 15(a)(ii) which is also unsustainable in law.
ii. That none of the Chinese producers in the present investigation have claimed Market Economy Status and
therefore, in the absence of any such claim by the responding producers, the question of examining or
granting market economy treatment does not arise. According to the domestic industry, this clearly
demonstrates that reliance placed on Section 15(a)(ii) of China's Accession Protocol is misconceived,
inconsistent with the applicable legal framework, and unsupported by the record of the present investigation,
and therefore should not be considered for the present investigation.
iii. The domestic industry has provided sufficient evidence to support their claim of normal value and export
price in their application for the purpose of the initiation. It is further submitted that none of the Chinese
exporter have claimed market economy statues. Therefore, their normal value should be constructed in terms
of Rule 6(8) read with paragraph 7 of Annexure I of AD Rules.
iv. The normal value in China PR can thus be determined on the basis of (a) import price from third country into
India, (b) selling price in India, and (b) cost of production in India, duly adjusted, including selling, general
and administrative expenses and profit. It is also submitted that since these options for determination of
normal value are available, the Designated Authority may not kindly consider "any other basis" because this
is required to be applied only when other basis listed under the law cannot be applied.
v.That the Authority should thoroughly examine the data / information provided by all the participating
exporters before accepting their data.
F.3. Examination by the Authority
36. The Authority has analyzed the normal value and export price related issues in the following paragraphs:
37. As regards consideration of Korea as surrogate country, it is noted that none of the interested parties including
domestic industry has substantiated the request with data. Therefore, the Authority has constructed the normal
value for China PR in terms of guidance available in paragraph 7 of the Annexure I of the AD Rules for the
purpose of the present investigation.
38. As regards cessation of Section 15(d) of China's Accession Protocol, it is noted that the Authority has
constructed the normal value in terms of paragraph 7 of the Annexure I of the AD Rules.
39. The Authority sent questionnaires to the known producers/exporters from the subject countries, advising them
to provide information in the form and manner prescribed by the Authority. The following producers/exporters
from the subject countries have filed exporter's questionnaire response:
i. Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. (China PR)
ii. Zhuji Qingrong New Materials Co., Ltd. (China PR)
iii. Hangzhou Qingyun Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. (China PR)
iv. Fibre 2 Fashion L.L.C-FZ
V. Hyosung Dong Nai, Vietnam
vi. HS Hyosung Vietnam Company Limited
Normal Value for all Producers in China PR
40. None of the producers have claimed market economy treatment in the present case. Accordingly, the normal
value has been determined in accordance with paragraph 7 of Annexure I of the Rules which state as follows.
“In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis
of the price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from such a third
country to other countries, including India or where it is not possible, or on any other reasonable basis,
including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted, if necessary, to
include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by
the designated authority in a reasonable manner, keeping in view the level of development of the
country concerned and the product in question, and due account shall be taken of any reliable
information made available at the time of selection. Accounts shall be taken within time limits, where
appropriate, of the investigation made in any similar matter in respect of any other market economy
third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without any unreasonable delay the
aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time
to offer their comments.”
41. In the present case, there is no evidence of price or constructed value prevailing in a market economy third
country brought forward by any interested party. Further, the product does not have a dedicated tariff code, to
permit consideration of price of exports from a market economy third country to other countries, including India.
The Authority has therefore, determined normal value as per the price payable in India, based on cost of
production of the applicant, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profits.
The normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table.
Export price for producers/exporters of China PR
i. Export price of Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. (China PR)
42. Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd., is a company limited by shares incorporated in China under the Company
Law of China. During the period of investigation, Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT of
subject goods of invoice value *** US$ indirectly through an unrelated exporters/trader namely, *** (on CIF
basis). It is further noted that the subject goods sold to ***, have been resold to ***., an Indian importer. The
chain of exports to India is as follows:
***
|
***
|
***
43. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on accounts of Ocean freight, insurance, Inland transportation,
port and other related expense and bank charges which has been accepted after desk verification. Accordingly,
the weighted average of PCN-wise net export price at ex-factory level has been determined, and is shown in the
Dumping Margin Table below.
i. Export price of Hangzhou Qingyun Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. (Producer, China PR)
44. During the period of investigation, Hangzhou Qingyun Advanced Materials Co., Ltd., has sold *** MT of
subject goods of invoice value US$ ***. Out of which company has directly sold *** MT to unrelated buyers
in India and *** MT indirectly through a related exporter/trader namely, ***.
45. It is further noted that Hangzhou Qingyun Advanced Materials Co., Ltd., has also exported *** MT directly to
unrelated buyers in India which is produced by ***. The chain of exports to India is as follows:
Hangzhou Qingyun Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.
(Direct Export)
***
(Export to India)
46. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation,
port and other related expenses, commission, bank charges and credit cost, and the same has been allowed after
desk verification.
47. Accordingly, the weighted average of PCN-wise net export price at ex-factory level has been determined, and
is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.
ii. Export Price of ZhujiQingrong New Materials Co., Ltd. (China PR)
48. During the period of investigation, ***., has sold *** MT of subject goods of invoice value *** US$. Out of
which company has directly sold *** MT to unrelated buyers in India and *** MT indirectly through a related
exporter/trader namely, ***.
49. It is further noted that ZhujiQingrong New Materials Co., Ltd., has also exported *** MT directly to unrelated
buyers in India which is produced by ***. The chain of exports to India is as follows:
Zhuji Qingrong New Materials Co., Ltd.
|
(Direct Export to India)
|
***
|
(Export to India)
50. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on accounts of ocean freight, insurance, inland transportation,
port and other related expenses, commission, bank charges and credit cost, and the same has been accepted
after desk verification.
51. Accordingly, the weighted average of PCN-wise net export price at ex-factory level has been determined, and
is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.
For Non-cooperative Exporters from China PR
52. Export price in respect of any other exporters from China PR has been determined, as per facts available in
terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. For the purpose, the Authority has considered imports as reported in the
DGCI&S and the questionnaire response of the responding producer and exporters. The ex-factory export price
for non-cooperative producers/exporters from China PR has been determined, and is given in the dumping
margin table.
Normal value and export price determination for Vietnam
53. The Questionnaire response has been received from two producers in Vietnam covering the entirety of the
Vietnamese exports to India. These two producers of the subject goods belong to Hyosung group i.e., HS
Hyosung Vietnam Co. Ltd. and Hyosung Dong Nai Co. Ltd., both has exported the subject goods to India.
However, the two producers in Vietnam are part of one group and have asked to be treated as single entity for
analysis of dumping and injury. HS Hyosung Vietnam Co., Ltd. and Hyosung Dong Nai Co., Ltd. share
"common ownership structure; administrative departments; technical service, sales team; sales management
department; sales office; salary and human resource system etc". Also, both the companies are located in the
same geographical area and manufacture the same brand of subject merchandise (known as, “CREORA”).
There is no difference in the production process and the products manufactured by Hyosung Vietnam and
Hyosung DongNai. In view of the same, Hyosung Vietnam and Hyosung Dong Nai has requested that they
should be considered as a single entity and therefore, these two entities should be provided a single
dumping/injury margin.
54. The submissions from both the companies from Hyosung group Vietnam were considered and the Authority
has decided to give both the producer companies in Vietnam a single dumping margin as they are related
companies of the same group. Also, it has been the consistent practice of the Authority to consider related
exporting producers or exporting producers belonging to the same group as one single entity for the
determination of a dumping margin and thus to establish one single dumping margin for them.
Normal value and export price determination for HS Hyosung Vietnam Co. Ltd.
55. During the POI, Hyosung Vietnam has sold *** MT of the subject goods for *** US$ in the domestic market
to related and unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to
India. To determine the normal value, the Authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine
profit making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. The
Authority noted that if profit making transactions are more than 80%, all transactions in the domestic sales are
being considered for the determination of normal value and in cases profit making transactions are less than
80%, only profitable domestic sales are being taken into consideration for the determination of the normal
value. With regard to Hyosung Vietnam, since the profit-making sales are below 80%, the Authority has
considered only positive transactions in the domestic sales for the determination of normal value. Hyosung
Vietnam, has claimed adjustment on account of Inland Transportation, credit cost and packing charges. The
normal value determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export Price of Hyosung Vietnam.
56. Hyosung Vietnam during the period of investigation, has sold *** MT of subject goods of invoice value ***
US$ directly to related and unrelated Indian importers. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on
accounts of ocean freight, insurance, port and other related expenses, credit cost, bank charges, commission
and packing expenses and the same have been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, the ex-factory export
price has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.
Normal value and export price determination for Hyosung Dongnai Co.
57. During the POI, Hyosung Dongnai has sold *** MT of the subject goods for *** US$ in the domestic market to
related and unrelated parties. The domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit
making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of subject goods. The Authority
noted that if profit making transactions are more than 80%, all transactions in the domestic sales are being
considered for the determination of normal value and in cases profit making transactions are less than 80%, only
profitable domestic sales are being taken into consideration for the determination of the normal value. With
regard to Hyosung Dongnao, since the profit-making sales are below 80%, the Authority has considered only
positive transactions in the domestic sales for the determination of normal value. Hyosung Dongnai, has claimed
adjustment on account of Inland Transportation, credit cost and packing charges. The normal value determined
is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Export Price of Hyosung Dongnai.
58. Hyosung Dongnai during the period of investigation, has sold *** MT of subject goods of invoice value ***
US$ directly to related and unrelated Indian importers. The producer/exporter has claimed adjustments on
accounts of ocean freight, insurance, port and other related expenses, credit cost, bank charges, commission
and packing expenses and the same has been allowed by the authority. Accordingly, the ex-factory export
price has been determined and the same is shown in the Dumping Margin Table below.
Normal value and export price determination for other producers of Vietnam
59. The normal values and export price for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters of Vietnam is
determined as per facts available considering the data provided by cooperating producer and is same is
mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
Dumping Margin Table
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
| Country | Producer / Exporters | Qty | Normal | Export | Dumping | Dumping | Range |
| | | (MT) | value | Price | Margin | Margin (%) | |
| | | | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | | |
+===========+==========================+==========+================+===============+================+===================+==========+
| China | Xinxiang Chemical | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 60-70 |
| | Fibre Co., Ltd. | | | | | | |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
| | M/s Hangzhou | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
| | Qingyun Advanced | | | | | | |
| | Materials Co., Ltd. | | | | | | |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
| | M/s ZhujiQingrong | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
| | New Materials Co., Ltd | | | | | | |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
| | Hangzhou Group | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30 |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
| | Any producer | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 65-75 |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
| Vietnam | HS Hyosung Vietnam | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 5-15 |
| | Co. Ltd. | | | | | | |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
| | Hyosung Dongnai Co. | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
| | Hyosung Group | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 25-35 |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
| | Any other producer | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40 |
+-----------+--------------------------+----------+----------------+---------------+----------------+-------------------+----------+
Analysis on Injury
108. The examination of the imports of the subject product and the performance of the domestic industry clearly
shows that the volume of dumped imports from the subject countries has increased in both absolute and relative
terms. The imports from the subject countries are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. It is also
noted that the imports of subject goods from the subject countries are suppressing the prices of the domestic
industry. The performance of the Domestic Industry has been severely impacted due to dumped and injurious
imports.
I. ISSUES OF THE INDIAN INDUSTRY
I.1 Submissions made on behalf of the other interested parties.
109. The other interested parties have made following submissions with regard to the Indian industry's interest.
i. The downstream industries argue that higher costs could lead to reduced due to less competitive pricing in
domestic markets.
ii. That trade remedy measures can affect competitiveness, employment, and costs across both domestic and
downstream industries and therefore must be assessed from a broader public interest perspective.
iii. That the product under consideration is an essential input for stretch-based garments with limited substitutes,
and imposition of ADD would raise input costs and reduce competitiveness of downstream
manufacturers.
iv. That the textile and apparel sector is a major contributor to India's exports and employment, and higher input
costs could adversely affect production, exports, and jobs.
v. Concerns were raised that reduced access to imported material could affect product quality and performance,
thereby impacting consumer satisfaction and the reputation of Indian manufacturers.
I.2 Submissions made on behalf of the domestic industry
110. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the Indian industry's interest:
i. The domestic producers have the capacity to cater around 100% of the Indian demand.
ii. As regards submission that imposition of anti-dumping duty would be against public interest is not correct, as
the anti-dumping framework itself balances the interests of domestic industry, users, and consumers, and
duties are imposed only where dumping, injury, and causal link are established; in the present case, ADD
would merely restore fair competition rather than restrict supply or inflate prices.
iii. The Domestic Industry has provided calculations to show that the proposed duty would have less than 0.5%
impact on the final product price, which is economically negligible and will not put extra burden on
downstream users or consumers.
iv. Domestic Industry has further submitted that historical pricing evidence shows that due to presence of the
domestic industry, prices have significantly reduced from about USD 14/kg in 2010 to around USD 4/kg in
2023, thereby expanding consumption, improving affordability, and benefitting downstream industries,
which confirms that a healthy domestic industry contributes to, rather than undermines, public interest.
V. The establishment of manufacturing facilities in India by global producers such as Hyosung demonstrates
that a stable and fair trade-remedial regime encourages investment, strengthens domestic supply, generates
employment, and enhances supply security, all of which are consistent with broader public interest
considerations.
vi. If the current situation continues, the domestic industry will have no option but to permanently shut down its
operations and India will once again become import dependent.
vii. Domestic Industry has also submitted that these duties would significantly contribute towards creating a local
supply chain for a critical component and also to achieve the larger goal of “Atmanirbhar Bharat" in this
strategically important sector besides saving the foreign exchange outgo and create jobs. Therefore, the duties
are in interest of Indian users.
1.3 Examination by Authority
111. The Authority underscores that the primary objective of anti-dumping duties is to rectify the injury inflicted
upon the domestic industry by the unjust trade practices of dumping, thereby fostering an environment of open
and equitable competition in the Indian market. The imposition of anti-dumping measures is not designed to
curtail imports from the subject countries arbitrarily. Rather, it is based on a detailed analysis regarding
dumping, injury and the causal link between the two and is a mechanism to ensure a level playing. The
Authority acknowledges that the presence of anti-dumping duties may influence the price levels of the product
in India. However, it is crucial to note that the essence of fair competition in the Indian market will remain
unscathed by the imposition of these measures. Far from diminishing competition, the imposition of anti-
dumping measures serves to prevent the accrual of unfair advantages through dumping practices. It safeguards
the consumers' access to a broad selection of the subject goods. Thus, anti-dumping duties are not a hindrance
but a facilitator of fair-trade practices.
112. 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. An Economic Interest Questionnaire was also prescribed
to allow various stakeholders, including the domestic industry, producers/exporters and
importers/users/consumers to furnish pertinent information related to the ongoing investigation including the
possible effect of anti-dumping duty on their operations.
113. The Authority sought information on, inter-alia, interchange ability of the product supplied by various
suppliers from different countries. Ability of the domestic industry to switch sources, effect of anti-dumping
duty on the consumers, factors that are likely to accelerate or delay the adjustment to the new situation caused
by imposition of antidumping duty.
114. In relation to the high impact of the duties on users, it is noted that the users have not provided any evidence
how it will impact their financial performance or the impact of duties on the final consumer. No analysis / data
/ working was also provided to substantiate their claim. The Authority, however, notes that the domestic
industry has provided an estimate of the possible impact of the anti-dumping duties on the end consumers in
the following table:
+-----------------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| Details | Fabric Type used | Avg | Value of | Increase in cost | Impact |
| | | price/unit | Spandex | @20% duty | |
| | | INR | Contend | INR | % |
+=======================+==================+===============+=====================+=====================+==========+
| Pair of socks | Knitted | *** | *** | *** | 0.15% |
+-----------------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| Stretch denim (fabric)| Woven | *** | *** | *** | 0.25% |
+-----------------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| Suiting Fabric | Woven | *** | *** | *** | 0.08% |
+-----------------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| Ladies Brassiere | Woven/knits | *** | *** | *** | 0.10% |
+-----------------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| T-shirt | Knitted | *** | *** | *** | 0.14% |
+-----------------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| Jeans | Woven | *** | *** | *** | 0.07% |
+-----------------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
| Legging | Knitted | *** | *** | *** | 0.26% |
+-----------------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------+---------------------+----------+
Source: Application filed by domestic industry.
115. The Authority notes that the imposition of anti-dumping duty will not lead to scarcity of the subject goods in
India. It is noted that anti-dumping duty does not restrict imports but ensures that imports are available at fair
prices. The imposition of duty would, therefore, not affect the availability of the product.
116. The Authority recognizes that the aforementioned economic parameters are indicative of severe injury,
warranting the need of robust remedial measures.
J. POST-DISCLOSURE SUBMISSIONS
117. The post disclosure submissions have been received from the interested parties, and it is noted that the most of the
issues raised are reiterations and have already been raised earlier and also addressed appropriately. Additional
submissions have been analyzed as under:
J.1. Submission made by the Domestic Industry
118. The submissions made by the Domestic Industry are as under:
a. That the price effects analysis should be undertaken on the basis of verified data of the participating
exporters rather than aggregated DGCI&S import statistics, as the latter may not accurately reflect
product characteristics and price behaviour. It was also apprehended that certain exporters from China
PR may have mis-declared Product Control Numbers (PCNs) above 150 deniers to avoid scrutiny,
particularly since earlier investigations largely covered PCNs below 150 deniers where the majority of
demand exists. The Domestic Industry therefore requested the Authority to undertake a detailed PCN-
wise price comparison based on verified data of the exporters to determine the true price impact of
imports.
b. That in commercial reality, Domestic Industry is compelled to align its prices with the landed value of
imports in order to retain market share, which has resulted in price suppression and erosion of
profitability. It also highlighted that rising costs during the period of investigation have further strained
its financial position, creating dual pressure due to increasing input costs and continued price
suppression caused by low-priced imports.
c. That the Authority should revisit the price effects analysis based on verified exporter data and confirm
in the final findings the existence of dumping, injury to the domestic industry, and the causal link
between the two. It was also submitted that the impact of anti-dumping duties on user industries would
be minimal, while ensuring a stable domestic supply, and requested the Authority to share the non-
confidential version of comments submitted by other interested parties on the disclosure statement.
J.2. Submissions made by the other interested parties
119. The submissions made by the other interested parties are as under:
d. That the Disclosure Statement has been issued in violation of Rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules as
the Authority has not disclosed the essential facts forming the basis of its determination. It is further
contended that the methodology and detailed computations relating to normal value, cost of production
(COP), landed price and dumping margin have not been shared. It is further submitted that the DGTR
while determining COP, has made several adjustments to the reported cost data; however, the basis and
reasoning for such adjustments, along with the computation sheets, have not been provided, thereby
preventing the exporters from verifying the calculations and offering meaningful comments.
e. That the exporters are not able to appreciate the significant modifications made in the submitted data
that too when no deficiency or clarification letters were issued during the investigation. Since these
modifications directly impacts the margins and duties, their non-submission is contrary to the
principles of natural justice.
f. The exporters have raised concerns that regarding computations of dumping margin and injury margin
and requested re-examinations of the same as it also impacts their margin calculations
g. That Hyosung India Pvt. Ltd. has been excluded from the definition of domestic industry under Rule
2(b) due to its relationship with exporters from the subject country, which has created a significant gap
in the injury analysis. it is further submitted that HIPL is the only other Indian producer of the product
under consideration and has shown substantial growth during the POI. It was contended that if HIPL's
data had been included in the injury analysis, the combined performance of the domestic producers
would not have indicated injury
h. That the exclusion of imports of South Korea from total import statistics has distorted the assessment
of market share of subject imports and that inclusion of such imports would reduce the share of
Vietnamese imports to below the de minimis threshold. They also argued that imports from Vietnam
have shown a declining trend and therefore cannot be considered responsible for injury to the domestic
industry. In addition, it was submitted that price undercutting is negative, indicating that imports are
not suppressing domestic prices, and that the decline in domestic prices is attributable to competition
from Hyosung India rather than subject imports.
i. That the product under consideration is a critical input for downstream textile industries, and
imposition of duties would increase production costs, reduce export competitiveness of Indian textile
manufacturers and create supply constraints. They submitted that the domestic industry continues to
remain the primary supplier to major user industries, and imports are resorted to only when specific
denier specifications are unavailable domestically or when domestic supply is insufficient. Finally, it
was argued that imposition of duties may create a duopoly in the domestic market between Indorama
and HIPL, potentially affecting competition, pricing and supply conditions.
j. The exporters contended that the continued application of the non-market economy methodology to
China PR lacks legal basis after the expiry of Article 15(a)(ii) of China
Login to read full text